Replies

Of course, they don't think to take account that the majority of male molesters of boys have far more victims than molesters of girls (the stats for the former showed the latter as well, though I didn't see any speculation or reasoning as to why molesters of boys have more victims).

Thank You for helping me bolster my argument. The (heterosexual) men who molest girls have fewer victims. In fact, they usually molest their own children. As dispicable as that is, policing that harshly would involve giving more power to the Bureau of Child Services. The (homosexual) men who molest boys have no children and therefore seek out others. There is a greater risk of capture involved in molesting someone you can't control 24-7. Therefore, they have to seek out new targets, in public. This is easier to police, as one can do background checks for homosexuality for careers in professions that involve children, such as teachers or clergy.

Like I said, I didn't see reasoning or even speculation for the numbers. The numbers for girl molesters was in the 30s while boy molesters had it over 100. There could be any number of explanations for it, including that girl molesters are likely to have children of their own. There's also the possibility that molesters of girls get caught sooner (through suspicion of others or the girls themselves being more willing to talk) or that it might not be as easy to get into a position where one could have easy access to young girls as there are with young boys.

In any case, that molesters of boys tend to have more victims should be taken into account when consdering the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual molesters -- many times people point to the number of victims, but with skewed victim ratios you get skewed results. If it isn't the case that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, then where is the inherent danger to be considered in hiring them?