Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
The claims and interests of those engaging in samesex sex (SS) roil Western civilization. Effective, clearheaded public policy requires sound empirical information about this behavior, including the psychology and demographics of those who practice SS, medical and public health aspects of SS, social and cultural ramifications of SS, etc. Though there are scientific journals that publish some empirical studies and reviews about human SS, no journal is solely dedicated to its empirical study. The Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior (EJSSB) aims to fill this void.
EJSSB was conceptualized by Dr. Paul Cameron and Dr. George Rekers in late 2006. Both felt that a pall of censorship had descended upon academia, and an unbiased peer-reviewed journal — editorially, neither dedicated to, nor in opposition to, gay rights — was needed. A clear illustration of this censorship occurred in the on-line version of Pediatrics. When Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron first submitted ‘Problems With Pawelski, et al’s Article on the Well-Being of Children of Homosexuals’ to Pediatrics (aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/118/1/349, 2006), it was published immediately and remained on the website for a couple of months. A member of the American Academy of Pediatrics submitted another critique and it too was published — briefly. Both then disappeared. After multiple attempts to get these articles reinstated — as per the claimed policy of Pediatrics — it became clear that inclusion of facts not in accord with the pro-gay rights stance of the journal (indeed, generally better facts) would not be permitted. This kind of censorship is diametrically opposed to what science and free inquiry are all about. Further, in this instance, professionals dealing with children were exposed to a one-sided, prohomosexual set of poor research. Not telling the ‘whole truth’ has consequences for any society.
Being empirical rather than theoretical, studies published in EJSSB will generally use descriptive rather than diagnostic or political language. We agree with Ludwig von Mises that: “...as long as we do not know how external facts — physical and physiological — produce in a human mind definite thoughts and volitions resulting in concrete acts, we have to face an insurmountable methodological dualism.… “Reason and experience show us two separate realms: the external world of physical, chemical, and physiological phenomena and the internal world of thought, feeling, valuation, and purposeful action.... “Identical external events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why.… “Human action is one of the agencies bringing about change. It is an element of cosmic activity and becoming. Therefore it is a legitimate object of scientific investigation. As — at least under present conditions — it cannot be traced back to its causes, it must be considered as an ultimate given and must be studied as such.” (Human Action, 1949)
With the understanding that persons who engage in same-sex sexual behavior are often called ‘homosexuals,’ ‘gays,’ ‘lesbians,’ and the like, it is preferred that the terms MSM (males who have sex with males), FSF (females who have sex with females) be used throughout the manuscript. In this we follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in its HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports. Beginning in 1982, diagnostic terms such as “homosexual males,” “bisexual males,” and “bisexual females” were employed. From 1983–1987, a slight change was made to the diagnostic term “homosexual or bisexual.” Then in 1988 the CDC switched to “male homosexual/bisexual contact,” followed by “men who have sex with men” in 1999 (which precludes man-boy contact). Since 2002, the CDC has employed “male-tomale sexual contact,” a completely descriptive and nondiagnostic terminology that does not limit homosexual contacts to those between adults and thus accommodates the known sexual transmission of HIV from men to boys. While authors are strongly encouraged to follow this convention in EJSSB, as long as the author indicates toward the beginning of the manuscript that what he means by ‘homosexual’ is someone who engages in same-sex sexual behavior, ‘homosexual’ and like abbreviations can be used. However, if the individuals in question have same-sex desires, but have not acted upon them, they have ‘same-sex sexual desires’ and not ‘same-sex sexual behavior.’ In that case, the term ‘homosexual’ (which would then be diagnostic rather than descriptive) should be avoided. Instead use an abbreviation such as SSD, or for attractions SSA, etc.
Why EJSSB is Different
Many journals — such as those of the American Psychological and Sociological Associations — take an advocacy role regarding SS, refusing to publish papers that might be construed as ‘injuring’ the progress of the ‘gay movement.’ Others, such as Pediatrics, publish reviews of parenting by those who engage in SS, but present one side of the issue while deliberately ignoring counter-research. As a purely scholarly publication devoted to scientific investigations, the Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior will not take any editorial stance or advocacy position for or against ‘gay rights,’ the age of consent, the criminalization of SS, whether those who practice SS should be induced to change, etc. because these are all matters of public policy, law, politics, moral judgment, and/or opinion. Empirical phenomena constitute the sole academic focus of this journal. A number of our editors and reviewers are anonymous because they fear for their careers. This indicates the degree to which ‘being in scientific fashion regarding gay rights’ has become a requirement for publication. Even opening the possibility that one is not in favor of ‘gay rights’ can be a career killer. EJSSB exists to permit free, unfettered inquiry. No editorial stance regarding gay rights — pro or con — is taken in the hope that, in the long run, ‘truth will out.’