Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 7 comments on Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals at Increased Risk for Sexual Assault

  1. I am questioning if this has a large sampling bias. The gay sample size is way smaller, and when you actually look at the scientific paper it states 2/3 gay subjects came from non-probability samples (often gay bars, etc)…and of course people who frequent bars are more likely to report this. According to the article “With some exceptions, studies using non-probability samples reported higher sexual assault prevalence rates than did population-based or census sample studies. ” And it’s not shocking that gay men would be 15 times more likely to report, given homophobia in society. Nonetheless, sexual abuse in the gay community is something we should be very concerned with even if it ended up being at a closer rate to heterosexual sexual abuse.

  2. It is great that this study brings an increased LGB awareness to the Boston public.

    I am curious to know if the study also looked at the causal vs correlation relationship of sexual assault and the LGB population, i.e. whether LGB populations are at an increased risk for sexual assault BECAUSE they identify themselves as LGB, or that due to a past history/event of sexual assault they identify themselves more strongly as being LGB. It would be interesting to explore this possibility by examining the temporal relationship between sexual assault events and the moment of LGB self-identification. Perhaps this has already been addressed in other studies, however.

    Regardless, patients as a whole can benefit from more trauma based care, and this study pushes us a step in the right direction for reaching that. Thanks BUSPH!

  3. I am very disappointed in Ms. Chedekel for downplaying the Transgender community in this article. The Trans community is all too often ghettoized in the LGBTQ community and for the most part rendered invisible in the larger community. BUT TRANS & NON-GENDER CONFORMING INDIVIDUALS ARE FREQUENTLY TARGETS OF VIOLENCE AND WHEN TARGETS OF VIOLENCE, BOTH PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL, THE ACTS PERPETUATED AGAINST THEM ARE BEYOND BRUTAL–TORTUROUS EVEN. Such crimes are often under-reported and mis-reported by the police and the media.

    I urge readers to check out the following sources (AND THERE’S PLENTY MORE) for more information:

  4. This article suggests poor research and confuses data with other assumptions.

    For example, it says that queers are at “increased risk” of sexual assault, when the data really just says that queers are more likely to be ADMIT to being sexually assaulted than non-queers.

    “Increased risk” suggests either that there has been an upward change in sexual assaults (which the study does not investigate), or that there has been an upward change in the future RISK of sexual assaults (a likely invalid prediction of the future). Either of these conclusions are inappropriate here.

    Further, this study does not define sexual assault or differentiate between different kinds of sexual assault. In fact this study does not even know what definitions of sexual assault were used in various studies that it draws from. There’s a big difference between being hollered at and being forcibly raped.

    Another problem is that heterosexual men are most likely the least willing demographic to admit to being sexually assaulted and is also likely to not define certain experiences as sexual assault that other demographics might readily define as sexual assault.

    The previous commenter also make some good points.

    In conclusion, this article and likely the research it references are misleading and poorly thought out and contain no useful or valid information and is a disservice to queers and victims of sexual assault. I hope that BU will not be approving this thesis, as it is really quite embarrassing.

  5. I share the feeling that this article left me with more questions than answers. For instance, sometimes reference is made to LBG people being the ‘victims of assault’ and sometimes the reference is to ‘assault among LGB people.’ There’s a big difference here: violence done to members of a community from the outside (think gay men getting raped for being queer, lesbians being raped to ‘turn them straight’) versus violence happening within a community (one gay man forcing another to have sex, or the same with lesbians). There’s also the question of incidence vs. reporting.

    More clarification is needed!

  6. This article suggests poor journalism, but not poor research. The previous poster has criticized the authors on a number of methodological points, all of which are clearly and adequately addressed in the authors’ original paper. It will benefit readers to seek out the original article (link above), so that they are not misled by the very poorly constructed title of this BU Today article.

  7. This study should be read by as many people as possible. The hatred directed against GLBT persons is staggering.

    Regarding the criticism one commenter had that transgendered folks were “downplayed” in this article, I have several comments. First, it’s true that of all the persons in the GLBT acronym, the T folks are more likely to be victims of violence and rendered invisible by not only GLB folks, but by the larger communities. Second, Ms. Chedekel wrote an article about a published study that looked at other published studies. It’s not so much that she (or Dr. Rothman) “downplayed” T folks, it’s that many of the researchers of the original studies didn’t bother to include transgendered people in their research. The social science scholars rendered transgendered people invisible, in other words.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *