Thanks for having this up here so we can keep track of what they’re up to. They just get sicker every day.

She then links to that “Report on ‘The Gay Report’” (NARTH article), which was shredded by Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin ages ago. I think that’s one of the first articles I read when he first started up.

In addition to nearly half of the survey participants having come from readers of a gay porno mag, he also states that:

Other venues where the questionnaire was distributed include therapy centers, sex shops, adult bookstores, private sex clubs, and porn consumer bulletins. One friend of the author even distrubited questionnaires to men cruising a rest stop outside Holyoke, Mass.

And concludes:

So in the end, this survey suffers from three very serious flaws:

-As an informal survey, the respondents were self-selecting, which encourages those who are more sexually adventurous to participate. A miniscule response rate of little more than 1% exposes the work to the heavy influence of participation bias.

-The respondents who perceived a bias on the part of the authors based on the questionnaires may have participated — or declined to participate — based on whether they believed their answers were what the authors were looking for.

-The respondents who perceive a bias on the part of the authors may have inflated, exaggerated, or otherwise altered their responses in accordance with those perceived biases.

-By relying on readers of a gay porn magazine for a significant bulk of the responses, the authors have virtually guaranteed an exceptionally heavy biased towards the opinions and experiences of those who are much more sexually adventurous. These are hardly your Redbook readers, or even your typical Advocate readers.

Any one of these flaws would cause serious inaccuracies in the survey. Together, these flaws make it statistically worthless.

It’s an easy read, yet comprehensive enough to get a feel for what questions to ask when you hear a statistic. It opened my eyes.

It would seem that Candice Watters is either an intentionally dishonest FOTF hack, or is incapable of operating a search engine (or both).