Updates Contents

Some good updates to this chapter.

Section 4.2: Homosexuality and Crime

Normally, I will refrain from citing the research of Paul Cameron. However, Cameron has released some data that I can refer to without making myself look bad as a result of guilt by association. Cameron has presented the criminality data from a large, random, population-based American survey that shows elevated criminality among nonheterosexuals. The reason why this study is interesting is because Cameron did not carry it out; it was conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cameron talks about the problems obtaining the data here. Cameron also summarizes relevant data here.

Some of the data that Cameron summarizes are from classic studies carried out by homosexuals or homophiles, and I am reproducing them below since I did not mention them in my book.

Alfred Kinsey et al. extensively recruited men from prisons and some of their finds are interesting.(1, 2) They found that the majority of men having sex with men in prisons had experienced homosexual contact before they were incarcerated. They compared 888 prisoners with 477 hospital patients (controls): 39.1% of the prisoners vs. 14.9% of the controls had experienced more than incidental homosexual contact, 13.3% of the prisoners vs. 3.4% of the controls had engaged in homosexual sex with over 21 partners, and 5.5% of the prisoners vs. 2.1% of the controls had had 76 or more homosexual partners outside hospital/prison settings. They also classified what proportion of their larger non-delinquent samples (no felony or misdemeanor convictions other than traffic violations) had the primary occupation of a criminal: 0.04% of 5,631 nonhomosexual males, 0.05% of 5,599 nonhomosexual females, 2.4% of 1,040 male homosexuals, and 4.6% of 304 female homosexuals.

I have addressed some of the sexuality data from the classic studies on homosexuality by Bell and Weinberg as well as Saghir and Robins in the updates to Chapter 2. The data on antisocial behaviors are presented below.

From Saghir and Robins; Homosexual vs. Heterosexual comparisons:(3)

  • Arrests for reasons other than homosexual activity (men): 24% vs. 20%
    • Reasons for arrests (men):
      • Fighting/disturbing peace: 4% vs. 56%
      • Petty larceny, forgery, or burglary: 18% vs. 11%
      • Being drunk/violating drinking code for minors: 37% vs. 33%
  • Arrests for reasons other than homosexual activity (women): 14% vs. 7% (homosexual women’s offenses were more likely to involve violence).

From Bell and Weinberg;(4, 5) the majority of arrests among men were not for homosexual activity:

  • Booked for a crime at least once: 37.8% of homosexual men, 25.6% of heterosexual men, 14.1% of homosexual women, and 5.8% of heterosexual women.
  • Ever convicted of a crime: 23.6% of homosexual men, 14.0% of heterosexual men, 10.7% of homosexual women, and 2.9% of heterosexual women.

Consider also the following data on delinquent behaviors in a large, representative sample of 20,745 U.S. adolescents in grades 7 through 12.(6) The partner status of boys was as follows:no partners, 3123; opposite-sex partners only, 5951; same-sex partners only, 57; both-sex partners, 87. The partner status of girls was as follows:no partners, 3167; opposite-sex partners only, 6191; same-sex partners only, 100; both-sex partners, 123.

It can be seen from Table I that compared to exclusively heterosexually behaving boys, bisexually behaving boys were twice as likely to be in the 90th percentile of delinquency (based on a 15-item offense scale), even though the bisexually behaving boys were less likely to have been involved in fighting and were not more likely to have been physically attacked. Compared to exclusively heterosexually behaving boys, there was a trend for exclusively homosexually behaving boys to be less likely to have experienced physical attack or to have been involved in fighting, yet they manifested similar delinquency.

Table 1 from: Udry, J. R., & Chantala, K. (2002). Risk assessment of adolescents with same-sex relationships.

It can be seen from Table 2 that compared to exclusively heterosexually behaving girls, bisexually behaving girls were twice as likely to be in the 90th percentile of delinquency, whereas they were not different with respect to having been involved in fighting but were more likely to have been physically attacked. Exclusively heterosexually behaving girls were similar to exclusively homosexually behaving girls with respect to fighting, delinquency, and likelihood of having been physically attacked.

Table 2 from: Udry, J. R., & Chantala, K. (2002). Risk assessment of adolescents with same-sex relationships.


  1. P. Gebhard, J. Gagnon, W. Pomeroy, C. Christenson, Sex offenders: an analysis of types. (Harper & Row, New York, 1965).
  2. P. H. Gebhard, A. B. Johnson, A. C. Kinsey, Institute for Sex Research., The Kinsey data: marginal tabulations of the 1938-1963 interviews conducted by the Institute for Sex Research (Saunders, Philadelphia, 1979), pp. v, 642 p.
  3. M. T. Saghir, E. Robins, Male and female homosexuality: a comprehensive investigation (Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1973), pp. ix, 341 p.
  4. A. Bell, M. Weinberg, Homosexualities: a study of diversities among men and women. (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978).
  5. A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual preference: its development in men and women. (Indiana Univ Press, Bloomington, 1981).
  6. J. R. Udry, K. Chantala, J Adolesc Health 31, 84 (Jul, 2002).