Box Turtle Bulletin

Steady and sure, to the finish...
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:

Point By Point: A Look At Paul Cameron’s Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do

Part 5: “Urine Sex”

Disgusted Yet? There’s More

Jim Burroway

January 31, 2006

Dr. Cameron’s journey into the world of the absurd isn’t finished yet. Since he opened the topic of bodily wastes in the section about “fecal sex”, Dr. Cameron continues the theme with something he calls “urine sex”.

About 10% of Kinsey's gays reported having engaged in "golden showers" [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted,13 23% admitted to urine-sex. In the largest random survey of gays,6 29% reported urine-sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays,14 only 24% claimed to have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5% drank urine, 7% practiced "fisting," 33% ingested feces via anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum during the previous month.

6. Cameron Paul; Proctor, Kay; Coburn, William, Jr.; Forde, Nels. “Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease.” Nebraska Medical Journal 70, no. 8 (August 1985): 292-99;

Cameron, Paul; Cameron, Kirk; Proctor, Kay. “Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order.” Psychological Reports 64, no. 3 (June 1989): 1167-1179.

13. Jay, Karla; Young, Allen. The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit, 1977).

14. McKusick, Leon; Horstman, William; Coates, Thomas J. “AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in San Francisco.” American Journal of Public Health 75, no. 5 (May 1985): 493-496.

In addition, Dr. Cameron mentions the Kinsey data (Reference #16) in the text of the pamphlet:

16. Gebhard, Paul; Johnson, Allen. The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of he 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research (New York: Saunders, 1979).

Again, Dr. Cameron is only talking about gay men in this section. Lesbians are excluded. We’ve already talked about most of these studies, but let’s go over each one again in light of these particular statistics:

The details of the Gebhard & Johnson study were first discussed here.

“10% of Kinsey’s gays reported having engaged in “golden showers” [drinking or being splashed with urine]. Gebhard & Johnson (#16) mentions urination, but not drinking urine. The authors are clear that the data, which compares delinquent and non-delinquent responses, cannot be generalized to the larger gay population.

The details of Jay & Young were first discussed here. You can learn more about it in our review of The Gay Report.

“23% admitted to urine-sex” Jay & Young (#13) is based upon a 16-page informal survey that suffers from an exceptionally low response rate, leading to questions as to the motivations of those who responded. These authors are also clear: “we do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men.” They reiterate this point on page 555, where this statistic is presented, saying, “Whether or not these statistics accurately reflect the frequency of these preferences in the overall gay male population is something we cannot know for sure.”

The details of Paul Cameron’s survey were discussed here.

“29% reported urine-sex.” Both Cameron, et al. (#6) papers are based on the widely discredited ISIS survey. As we saw in the ISIS Survey discussion, these results in no way represent the homosexual — or even the heterosexual — population.

“…only 24% claim to have been monogamous…” McKusick, et al. (#14) was another pioneering study conducted among 655 gay men in San Francisco in November 1983, before the cause of AIDS was isolated. The study was intended to compare changes in sexual behavior in light of then-recent information on AIDS.

Four study groups of comparable sizes were created, with one group of 181 men serving in the fourth monogamous control group. In other words, the study was designed so that only one of the four groups was monogamous — about 24%! No wonder “only 24%” of that study claimed to be monogamous — the study was specifically designed that way!

But in case that wasn’t clear, the authors were very explicit that “the sample is not random and the response rate from those who were given the questionnaire is low.” The monogamous group’s response rate was only 36%.

Furthermore, this study does not mention “drinking” urine or “ingesting feces”. The study does mention “water sports” and “oral-anal” contact, but neither is synonymous with “drinking” or “ingesting”.

More of the Same

As in the “Fecal Sex” section, Dr. Cameron continues to misrepresent legitimate research, employing outrageous descriptions and misleading terminology that simply isn’t described in the sources he cites. This results in an ongoing litany of slander against large numbers of gay men and women who would be just as disgusted at these practices as Dr. Cameron professes to be.

Please continue with:

Part 6: “Other Sex Practices” Where Dr. Cameron’s footnotes reveal an interesting last-minute switch.