Talk:Pedophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Pedophilia as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archived discussion:

Contents

[edit] Consistency

When I corrected, in the opening section, that the term "pedophilia" is mistakenly used when what is meant is "ephebophilia," (I'd changed "used" to "misused") it was reverted because some dictionary has included it that way. Then when I tried to put what is the most comprehensive and authoritative examination of the subject on the article page, Rind et al.'s Meta-Analysis, it was removed because it uses the term "child sexual abuse" in its title (and by implication belongs in that section). Well, this is also mistaken. In fact, a conclusion of the meta-analysis was that the terminology ought to change to be more reflective of the reality of some of these encounters.

Why is it OK to have a misdefinition in the opening section but then not OK for article links? Bacasper 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rind never mentions pedophilia in his article, so it isn't relevant. -Will Beback 22:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Because definitions are relative, so saying it's a misuse violates NPOV. Think Humpty Dumpty in Alice.. JayW 20:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages

  • Use of the term pedophile to describe all child sexual offenders is seen as problematic by some people[7][8][9], especially when viewed from a medical standpoint, as the majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by situational offenders rather than people sexually attracted to prepubertal children.

What is our source for the assertion that the majority if sex crimes are committed by situational offenders? Later in the article we list studies which say that over 30% of men have pedophilic tendencies, so it seems remarkable that those would not be the people committing most of the acts. -Will Beback 22:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Daddy's a breeder." JayW 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The Occurence in Child Sex Offenders section covers this assertion in more detail and provides several sources. Also, "pedophilic tendencies" does not equal "pedophile." Just like many men who consider themselves heterosexual may have an occasional homosexual fantasy or attraction (see Kinsey scale), men who consider themselves normal heterosexuals attracted to adult women may also have some attraction to younger children i.e. "pedophilic tendencies", but since these men are not pedophiles, an act of child sexual abuse by such a man (drugs and alchohol play a huge factor here, I'm sure) would be considered a situational offense. Not to mention that a good deal of child sexual abuse is father-daughter, and rare is the biological father who is an exclusive pedophile, after all, who's the mother? socalifornia 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble tracking down the assertion. Can someone provide me with a specific citation? Thanks, -Will Beback 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Joint submission from the Northern Territory Government and Police, 9 March 1995, page 4."
Fagan, P.J.; Wise, T.N.; Schmidt, C.W.; and Berlin, F.S. (2002). "Pedophilia," Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(19), 2458–2465. JayW 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I see the problem with the statement you quoted now, and why it doesn't make sense to you. It reads, "situational offenders rather than people sexually attracted to prepubertal children." Situational offenders can be sexually attracted to prepubertal children. They just can't be primarily attracted to prepubertal children. I see the wording has already been changed to "people sexually preferring prepubertal children", so it should make more sense now. It's pretty easy to assume every individual is either attracted only to adults or only to children. Somehow I doubt that's really true. I find it more likely that each person has a different "age range" that they are attracted to, with the middle of that range being their "primary" attraction. For many men -- especially those in their late teens and early twenties -- who may be considered "normal" heterosexuals this age range may extend down as far as nine or ten, but hardly focused on it. Does that make sense? socalifornia 04:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It makes sense, but I'd like to see the scientific proof even so. Thanks to you for the explanation, and to JayW for tracking down the precise reports which substantiate the assertion. I'm hoping to have a chance to check them out soon. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, according to some studies, although most extrafamilial child sex offenders report having had fantasies about children prior to their offense, only a minority shows sexual arousal to children. This suggests that they get off on the power trip of controlling children, whereas pedophiles find the absense of secondary sexual characteristics appealing. JayW 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the disputation of percentages is the number of pedophilic incidents that never get reported to authorities or ever go on record. Nobody's sure what percentage this is, because if we knew then it wouldn't be unrecorded, of course, but most experts agree that it's probably pretty high (just as many rapes of women of ANY age go unreported). And without that information, it's really not safe to dispute "percentages" on this page at all. --Sylocat 00:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Sylocat

[edit] child abuse

This is on a fairly minor issue. User:Haham hanuka believes that the sentence:

In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote people who are sexually attracted to adolescents[1], as well as people who have engaged in sexual abuse of a child.

is POV, I think because linking to the article on child sex abuse inherently expresses the opinion that every sexual activity with a child is abuse. How about replacing that last clause with "and is strongly associated with child sex abuse". It certainly is true that in the US, the term pedophilia has strong connotations of child abuse. As a reference: "When most people think of child molesters, they are thinking of pedophiles" from The Psychology of Sexual Predation & Pedophilia, O'Connor, Dr. Tom. North Carolina Wesleyan College, October 13, 2005. I won't update the article until Haham and others have a chance to respond. Deepak 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Still problematic, but I believe we should write about the legal status of child sex on intro.--Haham hanuka 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, yes we should. Immediately after the sentence on france and brazil? What would you like to say? I suggest something like 'Most countries define an age of consent, below which it is illegal for adults to engage in sex with a child of that age. Typically this varies from 14 to 16 years,but can be as high as 21 or as low as 12.' Could you explain why you find the previous sentence problematic? All it seems to imply is that to most people in the US and other countries, pedophilia has a connotation of child abuse. Deepak 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Which sexual activities between adults and children would not be considered child sexual abuse? -Will Beback 19:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
In the US context, none. But if we agree that the definition of pedophilia includes 'strong sexual attraction to adolescents' then that is not per se sexual abuse if the person does not act upon it. However the term pedophilia does carry strong connotations of child abuse, as the citation shows. Deepak 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't it said that pedophiles are guilty of child sexual abuse, but rather that when they do engage in sexual activity with children is it child sexual abuse. -Will Beback 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean. The sentence says that pedophilia denotes sexual abuse of a child, which is not necessarily true. But in the US, the term is associated with child abuse. Deepak 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

<--Omitting a footnote, the old text was:

  • In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote people who are sexually attracted to adolescents, as well as people who have engaged in sexual activity with a child.

The new text is:

  • In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote people who are sexually attracted to adolescents, as well as people who have engaged in sexual activity with a child.

So this dispute appears to be over whether to link "sexual activity with a child" to child sexual abuse. I don't see any reason why we should not. -Will Beback 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    • I completely agree we should link to child sexual abuse (this is what I was trying to point out to haham), but I think we should use the right title and indicate that the connection is by association, not necessarily by definition. Deepak 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I could think of a few cases where sexual activity with a child isn't considered "child sexual abuse". For one, it says "people who have engaged..." not adults, and sex play between near-aged children isn't typically considered sexual abuse (and yeah, children are people). Not to mention "child" can mean minors, teenagers, adolescents, etc. We'll probably accept that while in the US having "consensual" (I use this loosely) sex with a 15-year-old is considered statutory rape, I really doubt anyone would label it as child sexual abuse. How about this:

In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents[1], as well as those who have sexually abused a child.

I think this better covers all the cases and doesn't inadvertently include children who play sexually with other children or younger adults and adolescents attracted to other adolescents. The "pedophiles" who are older men who have sex with young but pubescent teenagers (not child sexual abuse?) I think we can agree would probably be covered by the other category (significantly older men attracted to adolescents). socalifornia 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Deepak 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Made the change socalifornia 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [Citation needed] sentence

Harmful to Minors may or may not say this, I can't remember. If anyone has a copy of the book, please check. Thanks, JayW 23:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mistakenly"

The word "mistakenly," which Haham hanuka is adding to the introduction, is POV. Whether or not that usage is mistaken or lame is opinion, since there is no authority for the English language. A word can be used to mean whatever its speaker wants, and, though they might be an idiot for muddling English, we can not neutrally say they are "wrong" to use it in that fashion. See also: Chapter VI of Through the Looking Glass. JayW 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as pedophilia is a technical term or a term of art in psychology, there is justification in calling its popular usage 'mistaken'. However I would agree that pedophilia is now a fairly common layman's term overshadowing its usage in pyschology, hence its definition is dictated by convention. So yeah, I think 'mistakenly' is wrong but perhaps this distinction could be emphasized more. Deepak 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
fact not pov, "Pedophilia, paedophilia, or pædophilia (see spelling differences), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children." - which means they are attracted to children but not to teenagers. --Haham hanuka 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. You apparently don't understand language. A word is, unfortunately, defined by its usage. So, if people use "pedophilia" to mean "ephebophilia," while we can bitch and give our opinion about their flawed usage, we can't neutrally say that they're using it "wrong." The word pedophilia has multiple definitions - among them are "sexual interest in anyone under the AoC" and "child sexual abuse." They are, technically, not using the word "mistakenly," but - in my opinion - problematically and illogically. JayW 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Your argument is non sequitur. JayW 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JayW. There are severla definitions of the term, the scientific definitions given by various references (which don't agree entirely) and the common usage given by dictionaries. None of those definitions is "wrong". We;'re here to describe, not proscribe. -Will Beback 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a useful way to think of it: if you combine both the medical and common definitions, you cover quite a broad range of conditions and activities. Consider that "pedophile" and "pedophilia" may refer to:

  • A psychological state, with no accompanying actions (e.g., a person attracted to young people who never acts on or reveals his fantasies)
  • An action(s), with no accompanying psycholical state (e.g., two males go out and pick up two females; one female is 18 and one, a day younger, is 17. It cannot be reasonably said that the two males have significantly differing psycholical states, that one has a mental disease or character flaw and the other does not, or whatever.)
  • Rape of a 4-year-old by a 47-year-old.
  • Consensual sex between an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old.
  • Mutally agreed-upon sex betwen a 20-year-old and a 15-year-old.
  • Mutally agreed-upon sex between two 15-year-olds.
  • Looking with lust at a 17-year-old.
  • Looking with lust at a six-year-old.
  • Risque internet chatting between a 53-year-old and a 14-year-old.
  • Risque internet chatting between two 53-year-olds, one of whom is pretending to be a 14-year-old.
  • Looking at cheesecake photos of a 15-year-old.
  • A person who in general desires and has satisfying sex with mature women but will take anything tight, warm, and wet that he can get ahold of, and his live-in girlfriend has a 14-year-old daughter, you do the math.
  • Ditto as above, but the stepdaughters is eight.
  • Serially raping several females, with victims aged 26, 31, 34, 17, 24, and 29.
  • A person who is high as a kite/drunk as a lord/whatever and picks up an underage female and is horrified when he wakes up in the morning.
  • Etc etc etc.

OK, fine. Let's say that the terms "pedophile" or "pedophilia" cover all these cases, and many others besides, going by the rule of descriptive not prescriptive definition, which is a good rule (although not an iron-clad one).

In that case, the terms "pedophile" and "pedophila" alone are almost useless for encyclopedic use and must always be accompanied by a modifier. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying it must surely be so.

Consider the case of the term "criminal", also a broad term. It can refer to a serial murderer and a litterbug. Therefore is not used without proximate information about what crime you are describing, except maybe in a few special cases. For instance, you would never say in an encyclopedic context "Congressman Joe Smith (R-KS) was arrested for a crime in 1987". You would say "Congressman Joe Smith (R-KS) was arrested for accepting bribes in 1987" or "Congressman Joe Smith (R-KS) was arrested for perjury in 1987" or whatever.

Wrong: "Pedophiles are often..." Better: "Pedophiles who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children are often..." Best: "People who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children are often..."

Wrong: "Joe Smith, prominant golfer and notorious pedophile, was..." Better: "Joe Smith, a prominant golfer who was convicted of the unlawful carnal knowlege of several girls aged between four and eight, was...

In other words, just don't use the term at all, basically. Let the readers decide for themselves if the guy is a pedophile by their lights or not.

(I, personally, don't think that all this is necessary. I think that an encyclopia is a scholarly work and as such is entitled to put forth a scholarly definition of terms when required. A monograph in The Journal of Extremely Technical Pyschiatric Research, For Doctors entitled "Brain Color Differences Between Pedophiles And The Rest Of Us" or whatever may be assumed not to be including they guy next door who chats up the high school girls coming home from school or whatever. OK Wikipedia is not as scholary as the the JETPRFD, but it's not Daily Mail either. But since y'all are all "terms must be descriptive not proscriptive" I guess I'm a person who apparently don't understand language, so whatever.)Herostratus 13:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As a comment on your joke, I'd say that Wikipedia is more scholarly then JETPRFD, considering they misspelled "psychiatric". --Snake712 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Pedophilia

The article correctly defines pedophilia. However, the news media and the American legal system are calling any adult who has any sexual interest in anyone under 18 years old a pedophile. Nineteen year-old males are being charged with statutory rape and labled sex offenders for life for having consensual sex with seventeen year old females. Older males are getting long prison sentences that in the past were reserved for murderers for trying to have consensual sex with thirteen or fourteen year-olds. Twenty years ago, such prosecutions would be rare. Most Americans would say it is a good thing, that we are locking away all these "pedophiles" for life. That all these people are monsters. Charlie Chaplin might be serving a life sentence today. So might Elvis Presley. And so would Roman Polanski. One in every hundred US citizens are in jail. In some US states, the rate of incarceration is even higher. Only N. Korea, Russia, and S. Africa have a higher incarceration rate than the United States. Most Americans think this is a good thing. I think there is hysteria regarding this issue. I think the pendulum has swung from one extreme to another. When someone thinks of a thirteen or fourteen year-olds having sex, they may think of themselves when they were that age or their daughter or sister. I lived in a low rent rooming house in the 1980s. In this rooming house, there lived many female runaways (and some throwaways) who ran away from home or from institutions because they were sexually, physically and emotionally abused where they had been living. They feared being caught by the state, because the state would put them back in loveless, abusive institutions, or loveless, abusive foster homes. Many poor people would run foster homes not because they wanted to help children, but because they would get money from the state for doing so. Most of these children had been neglected, unloved, and abused their entire lives. The US government and US states did very little for them. Pimps would often lure these teenagers into drugs and prostitution. Many of these teenagers had been having sex with many partners on a regular basis for many years. This was of course not good. There was a middle-aged guy who owned a parasailing consession. One of these ruanways moved in with him. She married the guy when she turned 18. Whenever I saw them together they always seemed happy. I, myself, had not had a single sexual encounter till that point in my life. Prior to the age of 18, I had never had a date. From the age of 18 to 24 I lived in a monestary. These runaways seemed in every way more mature and knowledgeable about the world than I. I could have turned them in. I could have turned in thier boyfriends most of whom were over eighteen. But I don't think I would have been doing them any favor. And I really didn't see their boyfriends as criminals. Today, of course, their boyfriends would all receive long prison sentences.

I often render help to the homeless. Six months ago, I came across a homeless, white, 14-year-old, crack-addicted runaway. She had a pimp. She wanted to stop selling herself, she wanted to stop using drugs, and she wanted to stop being beaten for not bringing back enough money for her pimps' drug addiction. She didn't want to go into a drug program. She had tried that before. She was the only white girl in the program, and the black girls would gang-up on her. And she didn't want to be placed in another highly restrictive foster home where she would be unloved, treated like a prisoner, beaten and verbally abused, if not also sexually abused. She begged me to allow her to stay with me so she could get off the streets. No homeless shelter would take her because she was underage. And she found the county program for underage children too restrictive. It is hard to expect a child who has lived on the streets for many years to go into a loveless, highly restrictive environment, with limited tasteless food, and little opportunity for recreation or sensory stimulation. It is also somewhat unrealistic to expect EVERY teenager who has been having sex on a regular basis for years to stop having sex. Once teenagers have sex, it is very hard to get them to stop. I had to tell this homeless teenager that there was nothing I could do to help her, because if I tried to help her, I could be charged with all kinds of criminal offenses. I went to the police and told them there was a 14 year-old girl working as a prostitute. I told them I could take them to her pimp. They were not interested. So basically what you have is a considerable number of poor, female teenagers whose parents threw them out or abused them. No one seems to care much about them. There is very little help available to them. They can't legally work. If anyone tries to help them, they can be charged with all kinds of crimes, even if they never lay a hand on them. The thing society cares about most is making sure they don't have any kind of sex. A seventeen year old female was tried, charged and convicted as an adult for child pornography for posting nude pictures of herself on the Internet. The definition of pedophilia is sliding. It still means what this article says it means. But if the media, the courts and people continue using the word to mean attraction to anyone under 18, eventually the word will need to be defined differently. Lexigraphers look to actual word useage when they revise dictionaries. Once a word is used often enough to mean something new, it eventually takes on that new meaning. I observe very few people using the word "pedophilia" in its true, correct, sense. Only trained professionals seem to know its real meaning. I find this scary. --Grass

I had to tell this homeless teenager that there was nothing I could do to help her, because if I tried to help her, I could be charged with all kinds of criminal offenses.
"... One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -MLK Jr.[1] JayW 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There is just one problem when it concerns pedophiles and unjust laws. Few will disobey as most don't realize some of those laws are unjust. I've heard Americans say they'd gladly lose some liberties to be more free (ok, that was over terrorism, but things are merging anyay). Well, if this goes on soon people will have no liberties at all. --LeBonhomme 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =======================================

Hi there,

Thanks. I agree. But I am incapable of putting myself in a position that could lead to jail time. I have severe claustrobia and ADD, and couldn't survive in jail a week without literially losing my mind. I live in constant fear of being arrested by mistake. I don't understand how people survive time locked behind bars.

I was once arrested for driving with a suspended license because I missed a traffic court date through no fault of my own (the whole wheel, not just the tire, separated from my car on the way to court). I was in the process of getting the case reset when I was stopped again for a cracked tail light. The light worked, it was just slightly cracked.

I was able to bond out in six hours. That was over ten years ago. I haven't been able to sleep a night since without having panic attacks from thinking about what I went through those six hours. I told the guards I was claustrophic. Because I told them that, they put me in a completely enclosed elevator-sized cell by myself. That is what they do with any inmate who claims any mental condition. I was able to keep calm for forty-five minutes, then I just couldn't take it anymore, and collapsed on the floor in a fetal position shaking back and forth. I tried to sleep, but the guards were watching TV just outside my cell door. The TV was super loud, but I couldn't make out a single word through the thick metal cell door. The sound just came through the door as a loud muffled noise. The cell was freezing. And the floor was covered with urine. But the main thing is I just can't stand being caged, especially in a tiny space. When I was finally able to leave the cell six hours later, my nerves were shot. My original case was reset and dismissed. Attorneys told me I had no legal recourse as far as my treatment was concerned. Not twelve hours go by that I don't get a flashback from that one episode long ago. I constantly think about Johnathan Pollard spending all this time in solitary confinement while I am free living my life. I could easily have been Johnathan Pollard. I saw a documentry on how prisoners in super max prisons are kept. It's medieval. They would be much better off dead. Those six hours changed me from a person who was always happy, to a sad person who lives in a constant state of fear. --Grass


  • Maybe once the neocons are finally ridden out of town on a rail, we'll finally have a police force that actually cares about these girls, but I wouldn't bet on it. What I want to know is, where is a list of nonprofit groups who actually do the kind of thing that we all wish we had been given a chance to do? Wikipedia lists a few nonprofits for the prevention of child molestation by people who know the victims, but those nonprofits only help children who realize that they need help, not kids who need to be taken off the streets. "Relevant" is a dirty word to nonprofits like those. --Sylocat 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphilias

This really has nothing to do with this article, though someone earlier claimed the word "paraphilia" does not have a negative connotation. The response that it does is correct. Psychology and psychiatry consider all the paraphilias to be mental disorders. Remember, it was not long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. If you have a sex fetish, you can lose your children, as all sex fetishes are considered mental disorders. That means "bdsm," "D/s," "S&M" are all classified as mental disorders. If you suggest the use valvet handcuffs that can be cause for some judge to take your children away from you. It can also be used against you in a criminal trial to prove you are morally depraved, and have a "dark side" that could incline you to commit murder. If you are a teacher, you can lose your job and your teacher's license. --Grass

  • You're right. Check out the article Moral panic. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't parpaphilias that are either painful to the bearer and/or harmful to others if acted upon. Herostratus 13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are paraphilias that are painful to the bearer. Then again the same came be said for pornography, even missionary sex. There are all kinds of sex addicts, that taken to some extrme can be detrimental to one's health. We can presume that is how some basketball star got AIDS. There are all kinds of paraphilias, and different degrees to which they are a problem to different people.

> "and/or harmful to others if acted upon."

I suppose this could be true for some paraphilias, though I suspect this is generally not the case. The thing is the professional mental health community normally only sees cases where someone has broken the law, and there is court-ordered treatment. This skews their perception. There really has never been a scientific study done to determine prevelance of paraphillias among members of the general populice.

I think most things are a matter of degree and balance. According to modern psychiatry ALL those into bdsm, S&M, and D/s suffer from some kind of mental disorder. This sounds ever so slightly overstated. Between two extremes there is usually some middle ground. --Grass

[edit] To further complicate the terminology issue...

[image removed, not public domain] Hot or not? If you turned around at a party and saw her looking at you like that, would you chat her up, maybe ask her for a date? Answer here.

What does this have to do with editing the article? -Will Beback 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just bears on the terminology issue, which is constantly discussed. If you use a broad interpretation -- pedopphile=people who think that that picture is sexy -- you'd have to say that the great majority of men are pedophiles. Just another reason why the term "pedophile" is basically usesless when not accompanied by modifiers, IMO. Herostratus 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not the person who put the above picture here and link here. But I understand why the person put it here. Because a lot of normal men would be attracted to the girl in the picture. Many in our society would call all those men pedophiles, and throw them all in jail because of the girl's age. Like I wrote earlier, you have men being sentenced to long jail terms for having relations with girls who are just shy of 18. You can say technically that has nothing to do with pedophilia, but the media is fanning the flames calling all such men pedophiles. Likewise the court system and lawmakers are responding to public hysteria. More and more, guys who find any female under 18 attractive are being labled pedophiles. Does this have any relevance to this article? You bet!

Brook Shields starred in a few PG movies that I don't think could be made anymore. Today those movies could easily fall into the category of "kiddie porn." The name of one was Blue Lagoon. I forget the name of the other.

Although she was about 16 at the time of filming, Brooke Shields had a body double in Blue Lagoon if that's what you're referring to. [2] --MMX 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Just saw this thread and wanted to say: I think there would be controversy today over filming the nude scenes of the much younger girl who appears earlier in the movie. Joey Q. McCartney 07:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More rather than less.

I think an article about Neo-Nazis should have links to major neo-Nazi web sites, and to Simon Weisenthal's web site. An article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should have links to advocates with each point of view. I personally believe pedophilia is horribly destructive, but I think this article ought to provide links to web sites that support pedophilia, as well as those that oppose it. I think an article about terrorists ought to have links to terrorist web sites and to anti-terrorist web sites. I think providing links to Neo-Nazi and terrorist web sites does more good than harm. An article on Holocaust revisionism ought to have links to major web sites of holocaust revisionists. Sunlight is the enemy of darkness. I wish Wikipedia would do a better job of presenting all sides. I would rather Wikipeida articles contain more information than less. I am a very critical reader. I want to hear all points of view. An article on Moonies, Seventh Day Aventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientolgists, Mormons ought to give all points of view. An article which gives no point of view does readers a disservice. It is imporantant to understand the mindset of your enemy. "Censoring" a viewpoint does not help the cause of truth and justice. --Grass

We not only have links supporting pedophilia, we have a whole article about the movement. See Pedophile activism. -Will Beback 05:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I really have no interest in that article. I think most articles would benefit from having more links, not less. I think the links in question should be included in this article. I would support any link related to the topic of this article. I don't know who would think to look up: "Pedophile activism." Never in my life, have I ever heard this term or expression. I think that article should be merged with this one. I think all articles about pedophilia and pedophiles should be combined into one article. This article should include everything having to do with pedophilia. Your category "Pedophile activism" should be a subheading. --Grass

Can't have articles that are too big, see Wikipedia:Article size. Pedophile activism has a section in the main article. In fact, pedophile activism is significantly larger than this article. Skinnyweed 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This one deserves a sadomasochism award

I thought this may be of some use here:

Pedophile party starts in Netherlands AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, May 30 (UPI) -- A new political party in the Netherlands is dedicated to legalizing sex between adults and children. Ad van den Berg, founder of the NVD Party, told the newspaper AD that the party plans to lobby first to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and then to phase it out completely. He said that pedophilia used to be something that people in the country were willing to discuss but, because of Belgian killer Marc Dutroux, they are all "being put in the same box." "Forbidding makes children all the more curious," Van den Berg said. "Rearing is also about introducing children to sex." He said that the party advocates only consensual sex. The party plans its official launch Wednesday. Its full name is Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, or Love, Freedom and Diversity.

Haiduc 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"This one deserves a sadomasochism award" – what? Skinnyweed 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, just my way of saying that this is a good way to ensure discomfort to others and suffering to onself. I can respect a pedophile - many have been remarkable people - but you have to be unbalanced to suggest lowering the Dutch age of consent, or permitting child pornography. Sorry, this is toxic stuff. Are you going to use this here or what? It seems to be made to order for the article. Haiduc 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Although the NVD's AoC position does not match up with mine, I admire the founders' courage. As of yet, the emotional problems usually following CSA have not been precisely and certainly sourced. (Despite most people believing their guess if impenetrable fact.) Theories concerning informed consent, power imbalances, and stigma are all unproven conjectures; that CSA tends to cause harm is not. So - we need to research, and in the interim, at least, statutory 'rape' laws are necessary.
..Ah, well.. at least it's an interesting turn from the endless stream of whispered conspiracy and incognito 'slacktivism.'
Anyway, this article focuses on the medical side, so I don't think inclusion of that would be fly. JayW 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"Although the NVD's AoC position does not match up with mine" - which is...? Skinnyweed 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing discomforting about sadomasochism. Skinnyweed 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh.

Anyway, if you read the party platform, they are also in favor of letting people ride the trollies for free. Now, that's just crazy talk. Of course they're not gonna garner any suppport with a platform like that. Herostratus 01:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed-category

Why is pedophilia listed under [Category:Pejorative terms for people]? Prove it. Skinnyweed 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD added it, probably because "pedophile" is oft-derogatory. JayW 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Common sense. Q.E.D. -- Drini 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. So why isn't Homosexuality under that category? And that is used plenty. Skinnyweed 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Vs. Anti Pedophilia

The pedophilia article is splintered into a Pro Pedophilia Article and an Anti Pedophilia Article. For the benefit of the readers, they should be made aware of this fact at the beginning of the article, so that they can freely choose to read and learn about pedophilia from either the Pro or Anti article. 69.137.223.3 00:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe this page is anti-pedophilia, please give your reasons so that we can fix it. If you feel the need to inform readers of the situation, we have template messages such as {{NPOV}} that can be used, although of course others may remove them if they strongly feel the article is in fact neutral. The same applies to Pedophile activism. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this could be described as having an "anti" POV at all. If you see something POV, please fix it.
In fact, "ShadowM" wrote this in his introduction (on a girllove forum): "Alas, it did not help. I roamed from messageboard to messageboard, but they were not kind to...people like us [pedophiles]. Years later, I found Wikipedia. I typed IT in and realized that...that there's nothing wrong with me at all! It's the "antis" that make us look bad! I don't understand! Why is it that they hate us so?!" JayW 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual pedophile

There is currently a discussion underway at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising regarding this term. Exploding Boy 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etiology?

In the External links section, I see there's that Freund paper linked which intends giving an etiological perspective, however all I can draw from said paper (based upon a small amount of cases as compared to, for instance, studies by Brongersma, Baurmann, Lautmann, Bernard, maybe Kinsey?) is a phenomenological study conducted upon institutionalized offenders partly along with control volunteers, with a conjectural conclusion that "some cases" of paedophilia as a mental state might be based upon physiological conditions, maybe even genetical determination.

I think as for an etiological approach, a paper entitled "The Paedophile Impulse: Toward the Development of an Aetiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint" by Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg might be more appropriate and applicable for linking to, for example due to her incorporation of much more material, cases, and research studies covering fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, zoology, history, and combining all that in conclusions based upon more material than Freund's paper, thus seemingly even more applicable and valid. One thing though, to understand her definition of what according to her constitutes paedophilia and what does not, I suppose one must be aware that, among her other source material and conclusions drawn from it, she is most likely basing this definition on distinguishing situational offenders (aka pseudo-paedophiles which is the term commonly used in German instead) from structured paedophiles, even though not exactly naming those two terms.

As for Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's qualifications, she has advanced degrees in psychology, sociology, ethnology, Indo-Germanic languages, comparative religion, and philosophy. Identifying herself as a married heterosexual exclusively interested in adult males (as she wrote in the preface to her Opus magnum "Tabu Homosexualität - Die Geschichte eines Vorurteils", in English The taboo of homosexuality: History of a prejudice where she traces back the origins and genesis of homophobia utilizing works by scholars and scientists such as Mircea Eliade, Marija Gimbutas, and Michel Foucault among an extensive list of others, a WP entry based upon a chapter of this textbook can be found at Níð), she has authored herself and contributed to a number of textbooks and scientific journals in these fields, focusing upon homophobia, misogyny, child and youth sexuality, ephebophilia, and paedophilia. Unfortunately, most of her works remain unavailable in English as of now as they are published mostly in German.

Her conclusions might be unusual, however I don't see why linking to her paper should be that unusual since this article also links to IPCE and (to put it mildly) the quite sympathizingly approaching address of http://childlove.0catch.com/ --TlatoSMD 08:37, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

Okay, since there have been no objections during the last two days, I've added it. --TlatoSMD 04:04, 25 June 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Photo: No Informational Content, Legally Questionable

Is the legality of the new photograph likely to be questionable in America? Of course, it's prurient to consider photographs of naked children pornographic in themselves. However, this photo is obviously being presented in a context that sexualizes it.

Also, the photograph adds no information to the article and really serves no encyclopedic purpose. Since it has no informational content and is legally questionable, my own impulse is to remove it.

[edit] Aisha

There are very different traditions about the age of Aisha at her marriage. She may have been anywhere from nine to nineteen. Even if she really was a child at her wedding, the idea that the Prophet's relation to her was pedophiliac is by no means a given, as consummation of the marriage may have been delayed for many years.

A discussion of pedophilia in the Islamic world should include the fact that her story is used by some scholars to justify pedophilia and marriages to children, but that other scholars vehemently disagree. It's extremely misleading to simply call her marriage "a pedophiliac relationship."

I've never heard anyone assert that Aisha was a teenager, let alone, one who was almost twenty years-old, when Mohammed forced her into concubinage.
I've read variants of her age that range from nine to twelve, but most scholars-both oriental and occidental-seem to agree that she was what would be considered today a pre-pubescent girl before being betrothed to Mohammed.
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the Aisha wiki article. And if you can't trust wiki, what can you trust?
Actually, that article needs fact tags. I'm'a put 'em in there.
DanB DanD 21:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be an entire article about that subject, which I wasn't aware of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha%27s_age_at_marriage
The countervailing claims seem to have been flagged for missing (unreliable?) sources.
I honestly don't think the issue of Aisha herself merits inclusion in a generic article dealing with pedophilia, but the marriage customs of pre-Islamic and Islamic tribes might be worth exploring, in terms of comparative cultures, and their views of what constitutes a child.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pedophilia: criminal?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/5221750.stm Paul Ellis, of Denbigh, never sexually touched the children, who were all aged under 13, but his motives were sexual. Ellis was banned from working with children for the rest of his life, and must remain on the sex offenders' register for the next 10 years. JayW 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that not abusive behavior? An adult man who did the same thing to adult women would rightly be considered guilty of harrassment.
How is what not abusive behavior? JayW 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Not what now?
Another example of moral panic

[edit] Anthropology and zoology?

Does the research into paedophilia as an (allegedly consensual, peaceful, natural, and necessary) social impulse and into its correspondant social behaviour in anthropology and within the animal kingdom (including primates) such as in those studies of Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1988 and Feierman 1990 happen to have enough significance to justify an own section within the article? --TlatoSMD 23:50, 6 August 2006 (CEST)

If it's peer-reviewed research on pedophilia, it's on topic. But the application of zoology to human pedophilia is extremely tenuous (not at all clear that immaturity in apes is comparable to "childhood" in human terms, or what "consent" could mean in such a context), and I would expect the discussion to include criticism of the research as well as its findings.
By the way, isn't calling behavior by animals "natural" kind of begging the question?
DanB DanD 22:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Feierman 1990 is already listed at least three times as a source in the article, so I suppose it must be peer-reviewed. I don't know about Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1988, it was published twice, once in German and once in English, plus Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg holds 6 doctorates of advanced degree (psychology, sociology, ethnology, comparative theology, comparative Indo-Germanic linguistics, and philosophy), she authored the esteemed standard work of German research into homophobia, misogyny, patriarchy, and chastity in the Western world employing all of her disciplines (Tabu Homosexualität - Die Geschichte eines Vorurteils, "The taboo of homosexuality - History of a prejudice"), and uses only peer-reviewed sources in her 1988 study beside her own data drawn from her own ethnological, sociological, and psychological research.
As for your questions on applicability for humans and what "childhood" actually means in the animal kingdom (she traces the line of evidence from primates to humans in Western societies via ethnological studies of primitive tribes, including her own, and historiographical accounts of Western civilization plus using psychology, sociology, and anthropology to bring it all into perspective), see Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's 1988 study linked at the bottom of the article at External links. --TlatoSMD 00:45, 7 August 2006 (CEST)
What is "Der Monat - neue Folge"? Is it an academic journal? The wiki link at the moment is not to an academic archive but to a pedophile-interest site called "Butterfly Kisses."DanB DanD 02:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: a brief Google suggests that the first (English?) publication was in Paidika, also a pedophile-advocacy magazine rather than an academic journal.DanB DanD 02:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Having now read through Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's article, I don't think it can be called research--it's pure polemic, or, at most, cultural criticism. She offers statements such as "What actually offends society about paedophilia, however...." without the slightest indication of how she has divined "society's" true feelings, or even who "society" is. If what you're thinking of adding is more of the same, I don't know how it could possibly be made NPOV. It's fine as an external link. DanB DanD 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Going by her former publications, "society" means the stereotypical values of Western Indo-European culture on lecherousness and fornication since the beginning of the Iron Age that remained pivotal throughout Christianization as well as during and after the Enlightenment. Other scholars and scientists working in the same fields in similar manners were Eliade, Gimbutas, and Foucault. As for an example of her fundamental research The paedophile impulse builds upon, see Níð, that WP entry is based upon one chapter of her magnum opus utilizing those sources given there.
As for the ethnological data she mentions in her article, it's based upon her original as well as secondary research that can be found in her 1980 book Mannbarkeitsriten - Zur institutionellen Päderastie bei Papuas und Melanesiern ("Rites of masculinity: On Papuan and Melanasian paederasty") pivotally yet not exclusively dealing with South-East Asian/Oceanian tribes that was published by the esteemed Ullstein Materialien publishing company specialized on original scientific research, as well as in her 1984 book Der Weibmann - Kultischer Geschlechtswechsel im Schamanismus, eine Studie zur Transvestition und Transsexualität bei Naturvölkern ("Emasculate men: Cultic sex change of Shamanism, a study upon transvestition and transsexuality among primitives") published in the official science section/edition of the Fischer Verlag publishing company.
As for her zoological, anthropological, psychological, and sociological data she presents in her article based upon internationally known authorities of science, I fail to see how that exclusively falls into the category of cultural criticism (do Jane Goodall, Dr. Edward Brongersma, Dr. Sandfort, or Karl Popper exclusively provide "cultural criticism"?), though I can see how one might assess the bare article itself if not knowing about the rest of her work that The paedophile impulse is based upon and that gave her enough authority to be made chairperson of the German parliament's "select committee of AIDS research" (Enquetekommission AIDS) in 1988 after The paedophile impulse had been published twice.
I'm currently investigating the exact nature of Liebe, Sexualität und soziale Mythen ("Love, sexuality, and social myths") that contained the original publication of The paedophile impulse. It seems to be a book that was published by the publishing company Beltz Verlag in a sociological "book collection" or "edition" (German Reihe or Folge, while neue means "new") called Der Monat.
Still, while we're debating Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's authority, significance, and validity, what about Feierman 1990? --TlatoSMD 21:31, 7 August 2006 (CEST)
You're talking around the point. I'm sure Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg is very highly educated, and has lots of cultural authority in German social-service agencies. She may even have done some substantive research in this field; feel free to direct me to it. None of that speaks to the content of this article, which is just a series of unsupported subjective judgments that she makes no attempt to link to any kind of hard data.
Foucault, famous as he is, would be out of place in the article for the same reasons: he was a critic and philosopher, not a researcher, making no pretense at objectivity. (Eliade straddled the line, in my opinion dishonestly, but that's neither here nor there.)
I haven't looked at the Feierman.
DanB DanD 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A number of excerpts of Feierman 1990 can be found here, plus a rewiew of Feierman by Kathryn J. Dolan, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine here.
Excerpts of the only other work by Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg I found online in English are here. Queering Anthropology (originally published in Theo Sandfort et al. (eds) Lesbian and Gay Studies, London/NY, Routledge, 2000) as well as Current Anthropology 1983 mention some of Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's work(s). According to Google preview, the Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists Newsletter, October 1991, Vol. 13, No. 3: pp. 43-75 stresses the importance and international significance of Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's work up to 1991, however must be bought before download. I'm afraid that's all I can find on Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg available online in English for now, though I can offer you the German WP article on Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg so you could read it by the means of Bablefish.
So now that we've been over Foucault and Eliade as data sources, what about Gimbutas, Brongersma, Sandfort, Popper, or also Grzimek and (not mentioned directly in The Paedophile Impulse itself) Georges Devereux (I'm sorry, all I found on Devereux in English was that partly biographical PDF, all other information about him on the net seems to be in French), founder of ethno-psychology? --TlatoSMD 05:40, 8 August 2006 (CEST)
Of course Foucault and Eliade are major figures. They're just not NPoV, and any facts drawn from their work would have to be very carefully disentangled from ideology. To the extent that their views have widespread cultural influence, those views can be presented in a historical context (in fact Foucault did advocate against age-of-consent laws, which may be significant enough to go on his bio page). But Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg just uses them as a springboard for her own polemic.
Thanks, I'll have a look at all these new links.
DanB DanD 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a note, as intriguing as Foucault's 1978 prophecies via radio statements might be in retrospect from today's POV, we seem to be misunderstanding each other as on which of his works actually influenced Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's works. From all that I can see, she appears to be influenced particularly by Madness and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic, (maybe) The Archaeology of Knowledge, Discipline and Punish, and The History of Sexuality. --TlatoSMD 07:30, 8 August 2006 (CEST)
Oh wait, you meant Michel Foucault? I was thinking of Clyde.
DanB DanD 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Is that sarcasm? I thought you were referring explicitly to the 1978 radio transscript published as Sexual Morality and the Law as it's on Foucault's WP page while I don't see obvious influence from that particular radio debate in Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's work (as in, she never made predictions about the future like that). In fact if she would have been influenced by it, I'd be pretty certain she would have included these predictions within her portrayals of changing justification paradigms of traditional Western chastity (i. e. numinous fear and hate of sexuality) throughout millenia by labelling them accordingly as another change of chaste paradigm after the Age of Enlightenment. There might be minuscule beginnings indicating that direction at the end of The paedophile impulse (see last footnote about "a shocking resurrection" of the concept of moral madness), however those were only in accordance with the contemporary minuscule beginnings of the societal as well as socio-psychological change as seen from a European perspective (lagging behind at least a decade behind the US) and no detailed predictions about the future as in Sexual Morality and the Law. --TlatoSMD 09:54, 8 August 2006 (CEST)
I was just mentioning Foucault's specific statements on pedophilia and the law (which I didn't realize were already so extensively wiki'd) as an example of something that would be on-topic for a reference, as opposed to his more general thoeretical framework, which I agree is clearly what influenced B-E.
DanB DanD 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, no opinion about Feierman 1990? Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's other philosophical influences beside Foucault? Her zoological, anthropological, ethnological, and historiographical sources? Her understanding of those fields involved as demonstrated by her acknowledged scientific bibliography? Her scientific sources on paedophilia? The English WP entry Níð based upon her work? Or on what might be readable of her German WP entry via Bablefish? --TlatoSMD 21:45, 8 August 2006 (CEST)
Still haven't read everything. The Níð article is pretty cool, though--I wish it had been online a few months ago when I was feverishly googling "Seidhr" and finding only scattered sources.DanB DanD 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found out about the exact nature of Der Monat and Liebe, Sexualität und soziale Mythen which contained the original edition of The paedophile impulse. Der Monat was an "International Quarterly for political sciences and sociology" founded in 1948, and edited by Melvin J. Lasky and Helga Hegewisch. Its issue #294 dating 1985 had the theme Liebe, Sexualität und soziale Mythen ("Love, sexuality, and social myths"), while its provisional working title had been Sexuelle Identität und Seele ("Sexual identity and the mind"). This working title was sent to a number of social scientists, psychologists, and politicians so they could send in papers and articles for that theme. Among those works accepted for issue #294 were such by Midge Decter, Chairperson of the Committee for the Free World (Wer profitiert von der Befreiung der Frauen?, "Who does benefit of women's lib for real?" on support of male irresponsibility), British psychoanalyst Juliet Mitchell (Romantische Liebe, "Romantic love" on narcicissm inherent in the social construct of "romantic love"), feminist Gloria Steinem (Die Macht der Geschlechterrollen, "The power of gender roles" on socially demanded sex changes on grounds of a learned identity), and psychoanalyst Charlotte Wolff (Interview: Alles ist Biographie, "Socially constructed identity" on basic bisexuality in humans), and, of course, Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's The paedophile impulse. --TlatoSMD 21:19, 11 August 2006 (CEST)

Anyway DanB DanD, I beg your pardon. I see no sign of "pure polemic" or "unsupported subjective judgments that she makes no attempt to link to any kind of hard data". Did you even read her study past the "Causes of the Negative Evaluation of Child Sexuality..." section at the beginning at all?
Among other referenced sources, her zoological, anthropological, ethological, and ethnological data for this meta-analysis were taken from Ford & Beach 1951, Fowler 1964, Schaller 1965, Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1971, Dröscher 1971, Goodall 1971, Jolly 1972, Overhage 1972, Bourne & Cohen 1975, Goodall 1975, Kurth & Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1975, Prescott 1975, Meyer 1976, Brewer 1978, Baumgärtel 1979, Grzimek 1979, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1980, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1984, her data upon paedophilia and child sexuality from Brongersma 1970, Giese & Gebsattel 1972, Bernard 1980, Brongersma 1980a, Brongersma 1980b, Hohmann 1980 (ed.), Constantine & Martinson 1981, Bernard 1982a, Sandfort 1982, Baurmann 1983, Sandfort 1987, her socio-psychological data upon common socio-psychological and ethnocentrical attitudes and distorted perception upon paedosexuality in modern industrialized nations from Rutschky 1977, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1978, Bernard 1979, Brongersma 1980, Weitbrecht 1983.
If this is no scientific study based on "hard data", then Rind et al. 1998 was none either. --TlatoSMD 19:11, 16 August 2006 (CEST)
Hi. No, my opinion hasn't changed, and yes, I read the article carefully.
A long list of references do not make an analysis, meta- or otherwise. I can but a long list of references at the bottom of a persuasive essay, but it's still just a persuasive essay.
Analysis makes a meta-analysis, and she...just doesn't do that. She uses subjective language like "hatred" without defining it or measuring it. She doesn't define or measure anything.
She's also wrong or grossly over-simplistic on every point where I have any knowledge of the subject matter. There is language that's hostile to the body in the Gospels: "If your hand causes you to sin, chop it off." That's Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Paul, on the other hand, uses eroticism as a metaphor for spirituality often. Nor will it fly to reduce all of Greek philosophy to straightforward anti-materialism. So...she's bad at science, and she's bad at art. Sorry. DanB DanD 05:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Any anthropology, zoology or other evidence would be appropriate for arguing with the major medical bodies that are the keepers of the definition of pedophilia. They should not be included in this article until such evidence is considered by these bodies or there are some notable protests or other event. If 400 people picket the WHO to get them to consider zoological evidence then I might consider that for a mention in this article but only a mention. --Gbleem 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
a.) On the language, we've been over that before in the article on Níð Dan. "Hostility of the body" is how Dr. Hubert Kennedy chose to translate the German term Leibfeindlichkeit, while I tried it by "chastity" in the article on Níð. All the same, the German term comes down to fear and hate of anything sexual, so that quote by Jesus is right out.
b.) Paul wrote the most "chaste" of all four Gospels, quoteth Wikipedia: "Paul condemned sexual immorality, saying, 'Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body' (1 Cor 6:18)". "Paul advocated celibacy or abstinence for the 'believer' [...]. Paul also deemed homosexual acts to be sinful (1 Cor 6:9-10)." And let's not forget about Romans 1:20, 1:27, 1:30, Cor 6:9, and Timothy 1.10! They're all part of the Pauline corpus. Furthermore, he was the single one disciple most emphasizing Original Sin of man within the New Testament, which is lecherousness and inclination for fornication (defined as any remotely sexual act beside chaste procreation within Christian wedlock).
c.) Her referral to the Greek philosophers is but an over-simplification in order to keep her work in focus. Notice her footnote: "A more extensive presentation of this connection is in Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, Tabu Homosexualität - Die Geschichte eines Vorurteils (Frankfurt/M., 1978)"? It's her widely acknowledged work upon the genesis of homophobia and Leibfeindlichkeit (equally present in all Indo-European societies) since the last glacial epoch where she merges the conflicting views of Gimbutas and Renfrew, naming as the most immediate trigger for "chastity" and homophobia the ethnic conflict inherent in the Kurgan hypothesis. The Greeks were but one of all Indo-European peoples resulting from the Kurgan invasion, however their philosophies are the furthest you can go back to in history without over-complicating things for the work at hand.
d.) Art? What art?
e.) She does expound upon common standards and consensus in a variety of discplines on a variety of topics, while also criticizing some of it (such as the projection of the traditional Indo-European belligerant role model upon animals as obvious in the zoological term of a "threatening gesture"). Is it her fault that nobody else beside her and Feierman 1990 ever combined all these studies on a multi-disciplinarian level for the topic of paedophilia? For other stuff like homosexuality or most other ethological fields, it's common practice. However, most scientists (such as psychologists and forensics) working on the topic of child molestation don't even say that zoological, anthropological, ethnological, or ethological studies would be "not valid", they simply ignore them and are unaware they exist as it's not within their radar and no part of their particular fields.
f.) Gbleem, did 400 people picket the WHO to listen to Feierman 1990? I doubt it, and still he's mentioned several times in our WP article here. --TlatoSMD 22:22, 20 August 2006

[edit] early pubertal ... and more!

The WHO definition includes early pubertal. Should that be included in the first paragraph? --Gbleem 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes--WHO and Kraft-Ebing, both quoted on the page, include pubescent children, so JayW's reversion of my change returns the page to a state of inconsistency.
Stats quoted elsewhere on wiki put puberty as typically occurring between the ages of ten and twelve for girls in the USA (younger than the global average because of good nutrition).
I think attraction to girls between ten and twelve very plainly meets the common-usage definition of pedophilia, as well as conforming to the two academic definitions which, as I say, are still right there in the body of the article.
DanB DanD 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As no one has replied to my or Gbleem's comments, I'm going to go ahead and revert the revert. If you want to re-re-revert, please respond here first. In particular, if you want to exclude pubescent children, what should be done about Kraft-Ebing and the WHO?
DanB DanD 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, about Gbleem's change--if the difference in usage is regional, we should say it's regional. We don't want to make ourselves more parochial than we already are.
I know that Europe on the whole is more permissive about teen sex, but is it true that they don't call it "pedophilia"? They may call it pedophilia while approving of it, like that new political party.
and what about languages that don't use the Greek term? Does anybody know what the equivalent words are in any Asian languages (other than Western-derived slang like "Lolicon")? Are they equivalent, or do they set up different age/status categories?
Last, re Haham adding the POV tag. What exactly is your concern? I reverted your earlier change not to contradict you, but because the edit didn't seem to directly address the point you made in your edit summary.
DanB DanD 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking for continental Europe, legislators might be more tolerant here (for now), however even the Dutch with the lowest (inofficial but legal) AoC of 12 struggle to publically avoid the term paedophilia or being associated with it. The paradox in that is that during the time this legal tolerance was created, paedophilia was not abhorred (mainly 1970s and early 1980s) and even in the public and scientific discourse as potentially tolerable before more American attitudes were adopted.
As far as I know, Japan has traditionally set its AoC as 13 (12 by Western counting) for same-sex activities at least since the 19th century (which was before 20th century biological acceleration). Shota as the genuine particle of widely known shotacon simply means "(prepubescent) boy", however it's not clear to me whether the Japanese themselves actually speak of a "complex" or what genuine native concept that might refer to in case con actually does stand for "complex" and is native instead of based upon an adoption of Western attitudes.--TlatoSMD 20:30, 8 August (CEST)
the Shotacon page says the name comes from an anime character called "Shotaro"--I think the generic usage came later, much as with "Lolita&quot; and at around the same time.
I was thinking more in terms of language than age of consent. Japanese (to keep using that example) has very narrow words for age categories.
DanB DanD 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
When searching for "shota" in Google image search, mostly photos and images of "boys" pop up that would generally not be associated with Western attitudes about paedophilia nor with that specific anime, so I'd suppose that Shotaro character was given a name that could be translated as "boysomething". --TlatoSMD 21:50, 8 August (CEST)
I'm not sure if this is helpfull to you but as far as i know, Shota is a popular japanesse name for boys.
A long time ago I temporarily elected myself ruler of the universe and decided that the solution to the problems in the pedophilia article was to make it primarily an article about the medical definition. Legal and social information should only be included for comparison and refer to other articles. Looking back I think it was the right decision. I find the discussion about the variations in the age of consent and attitudes towards child and teen sex interesting but they should be in some other article.
Yes, I agree about the legal side--I'm not certain how you would separate out "social" aspects from psych aspects, though. I had mulled over proposing deleting the "U.S. Law" section myself--of course preserving info in other articles (age of consent or child sexual abuse) as appropriate. What made me hesitate is the new Blanchard Law [note: what is wrong with my brain? I meant the Adam Walsh law]--in that case, the law prescribes involuntary commitment for a psychiatric diagnosis of incorrigible active pedophilia. Should that be kept, and if so, where?
DanB DanD 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As previous editors have thrashed out, "pedophilia" is a medical condition. The act, which is what laws taarget, is child sexual abuse. Legal issues would be best covered in that article. Age of consent matters are best handled in that and related articles.
Well, why did previous editors leave the "US Law" section in there , then? Out it comes!
DanB DanD 01:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americocentric POV?

Why, for example, is there a section on US law, but nothing on the law in Russia, Japan, France, Tunisia, India and so on? I'd also be interested in seeing modern age of marriage stats for other parts of the world.

Also, I think this article would benefit from having bottom-of-article subject links to Neoteny, manga, and Age of consent. I'm not interested in advocating by either side, but I think it might de-POV the article a bit if we open the article up to a whole-earth view and show how the topic gets blurred once you leave the USA and consider the human species as a whole.71.19.38.228 01:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the article could include more global perspectives. However, there are extensive age of consent articles already--and pedophilia is primarily a term of psychology, not law.
The neoteny article conceivably could, but at the moment does not, contain anything relevant. Calling all manga inherently pedophilia-related is quite a slam on the genre: it aint all porn! We do have links to shotacon and lolicon under Related Terms--and I think that, if anything, Japan is after the USA the most disporportionately represented culture on the page--perhaps because that's where Americans get their hentai.
I think a section on pedophilia in the Islamic world, with a link to controversial figure of the prophet's child-bride Aisha, would be one good addition.
There's of quite a lot of southeast Asian material on pedophilia online such as this, but it's mostly aimed at child prostitution, which again is peripheral to the subject and perhaps doesn't bring the neutrality you're looking for!
DanB DanD 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia is NOT bad!

[Hour-long, anonymous rant deleted by user TlatoSMD, especially since it was a mere copy&paste of http://www.lege.cz/archiv/pedo5.htm where the text can be read]]

[That is, TlatoSMD removed it, he didn't copy&paste it]

[edit] Definition

I want to complain that the word "exclusively attracted to" be removed from the definition. The definition that a pedophile "is someone exclusively attracted to children" is wrong because many pedophiles are attracted to people of all ages. I think there should be a distinction between people who experience pedophilic attractions but yet do not act on them and have normal intimate relationships with someone of around their own age and sexual preditors which really are harmful to society.

Here's dictionary.com's definition of a pedophile, which is short, concise, and (in my opinion)correct:

ped·o·phile Audio pronunciation of "pedophile" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-fl, pd-) n. An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

Here is what the article defines pedophilia to be:

Pedophilia, paedophilia, or pædophilia (see spelling differences), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent or pubescent children.

I believe this should be changed to have the words "primarily or exclusively" omitted.

-- Adam H August 13, 2006

As you mention the phrase is "primarily or exclusively". The wording is intended to dispell beliefs from both sides of the isle. Some people think the definition is "primarily" and some people think the definition is "exclusively". Use of the conjunction lets us state explicitly that it can be either. --Gbleem 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
After a thought I think maybe you were seeing the phrase "primarily or exclusively" as representing one end of the scale instead of two distinct concepts. This is why I really hate the use of the word "or" to be used to mean "also known as". People start to think the word "or" represents an equivalency. --Gbleem 22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law section. (see early pubertal ... and more! above)

One reason we left in the law section is to provide a contrast to the medical definition. At the time many contributors were confusing the legal definition of child sexual abuse with the medical definition of pedophilia. I still think that is a good reason to have the law section.

Another reason is to show how the medical diagnosis relates to being charged with a sex crime although this seems to be covered in the "Occurrence in child sex offenders" section.

We could probably use a small section on law that links to child sexual abuse. Does the diagnosis of pedophile help the prosecution or defense?

--Gbleem 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do have a link to CSA in the first paragraph. But you're right, there were things I was a bit sorry to lose when I cut that section (why I hesitated until others supported it). What says wiki? DanB DanD 19:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] child sexual abuse

"In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is used in some countries to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent[1], as well as those who have sexually abused a child."

Should "in some countries" be changed to something else? Is pedophile a legal term in some countries? How about "Outside of psychiatry"?? suggestions??

--Gbleem 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] The Truth

Have you ever thought about what a Pedophile looks like? Eighty nine percent think that their old gieser from fourty to sixty that work at school as teacher or priest. Have you ever seen these guys? They couldn't get laid if they tried! In real life 5% of all pedofiles are like this! Have you ever heard a young girl say she think (insert movie star)is Hot? Now what makes you think that if she was ask to sleep with him, what makes you think she wouldn't? Now put yourself in her position your twelve, now think of the hottest star you can. Would you sleep with Him/her? It is not just movie star young girls/guys find attractive, it also reguler people, adults. Take the teenager that turned in his teacher for sleeping with him, after he couldn't get lade. I would banged her even if was hanged up side Down and gagged with spoon. This kid must ben one of the dumbbest guys alive. Hey hot teacher im going turn you in becuase im feelin guilty and im stupid dumb (bleeped out sorry). Now the real thing people never ask them selves: why would any one just wake up one day, and say i want be pedofile and have rest of the world hate me, ridiculed me and proscute me? People just don't decide these thing? Would you? Would you just wake up one day and and decide to go murder some one, and have the cops chase you down and then die in shoot out with the cops? It is the same thing! All people are born with it, it just take certain emotions to awaken it. Have any of you heard about people married when their three or four? This is a gift and should be treated as such. Pedofilla isn't rape and rape is rape. Rape = Evil and when Pedophilia becomes rape it becomes rape and doesn't stay Pedophilia.

--Dontai 24:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true, but nobody cares enough to really consider arguments like this as true. Then again this is centered to ephebophilic couples. Teens normally lust after attractive celebrities rather than children. On the other hand most people think of teens as children so WHATEVER~ ): --74.139.38.43 21:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


because to them if someone is hot they dont have sex with them. They jus date and hold hands, only like 2 percent of all 12-13 yr olds had sex according to some msn study done recently and almsot all of them date. On top of it, I talked to girls this age and whether online or off and most are repulsed by sex and think they are too young to engage in it. Heck most adult women dont have sex with the gu they meet in the bar the first time, they wait usually awhile before they do. Sex for females is really completly different and not very important when it comes to a relationship, and most young females arent interested in doing it. heck if you try talking to them in a chatroom about it msot likely they will block you right away when you mention it. And regarding that kid turning in his teacher, it wasnt just him. Many many cases like this exist where those teachers were turned in when the kid realized he was abused, just google teacher student sex cases or scandals on google.

[edit] Puberty again ... see, we're confusing people!

i was researching on pedophilia because i recently became interested in the benet ramsey case. the first few sentances it says pedophilia is attraction to pubescenmt people, but then it says ephebophilia is the attraction to pubescenmt people...so which is it?? thanks

As you'll see if you track edits on Wiki, that's a slightly contentious question. "Ephebophilia" is a recently-invented term, not universally accepted as constituting a "paraphilia" as such. Some will argue that attraction to any little girl who has had her first period is NOT pedophilia, but should be classed together with attraction to girls in their late teens. But this category seems to include pedophilia at one end, and normal sexual response at the other, so it's not very useful.
In the pedophilia article, we quote two authoritative sources, the WHO (World Health Organization) and pioneering sexologist Krafft-Ebing, saying that pedophilia is attraction to prepubertal or early pubertal children. Now, neither of them has the absolute power to define words, but they represent a consensus in the medical field field that stretches over many decades, so I think their version can be taken as the dominant understanding of the word.
I hope this helps, and sorry that Wikipedia failed to give you a consistent answer. It's not perfect yet!
DanB DanD 19:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, Dan. Your response here doesn't jibe with your inclusion of "pubescent" under pedophila in your last edit, "early pubertal" being different from just "pubertal", I think. (BTW do you have a definition for "peripubescent"? Haven't found one.) Anyway, FWIW the Amer. Psych. Assoc. uses a definite marker: through age 13.

Anyway, having tried, I haven't been able to get people to agree on the meaining of the word "child" (which is a rather vague word, when you get down to it), let alone anything else.

I've gotten a lot of "Well, people use 'pedophila' to mean [any number of things] so we have to go with usage, not make our own definitions". I personally don't buy that -- lots of people call dolphins "fish" but our article Dolphin doesn't start out "The dolphin is a kind of fish..." (er, at least I hope not; I haven't checked.)

Obviously, the whole thing operates in a continuum, but I personally would prefer a strict definition. Anyway, rather than what you have in the intro sentence ("...prepubescent or pubescent children."), I would prefer "prepubescent or early pubescent children". I think "peripubescent" might be just the word to use here, but I'm not sure what it exactly means... Herostratus 06:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't find a definition either, but this scientific-looking page contains the sentence "The sample consists of family dyads with peripubescent youth aged 8-14 years." The word seems fine (the range almost exactly matches Humbert Humbert's stated age-of-attraction), but I think if we use it we have to put a link to a new section in puberty and give a definition.
"Early pubertal" is also okay with me, since like I've been saying, that's the definition the article twice quotes as it stands.
Actually the APA doesn't give a hard limit of 13, it says "generally age 13" - sorry!
The APA does say only "prepubescent," but that's really confusing when placed next to their own standard of "generally age thirteen or younger" because according to the puberty article (sourced to this guy, creator of this) pubescence begins around age 10 and ends around age 11-13. So...somebody generally age thirteen would be generally postpubescent. Generally.
Maybe the APA is using "prepubescent" to mean "preadolescent"?
DanB DanD 07:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan, just a reminder, I've been waiting for your answer for four days up in the Anthropology and zoology? section while you seem to be all active down here. --TlatoSMD 07:01, 20 August 2006 (CEST)

"Ephebophilia" is from the fucking fourties, DanB. Not "recent." JayW 19:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? What's the ref? I thought it was part of John Money's whole "chronophilia" cluster.
DanB†DanD 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake; I should've said "hebephilia" and "fifties." It's used in Bernard Glueck's 1955 "Research project for the study and treatment of persons convicted of crimes involving sexual aberrations." And I'm not sure, but ephebophilia is at least two decades old - before I was even born. That doesn't seem recent. JayW 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Seems pretty recent to me. Funny how age changes your perceptions of age! DanB†DanD 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
But wait! Jay, it looks like you may be right. The word may not really have originated with John Money (as I read in a couple places - he did give it visibility and incorporate it into his "lovemaps" scheme) but with oldster Magnus Hirschfeld. Maybe. Awaiting confirmation. DanB†DanD 08:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hirschfeld stole his theory of biological intermediate stages between males and females from Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs who coined the common phrase of "a female mind trapped in a male body" during the 1850s. Even though Ulrichs didn't use our modern terms, he definitely referred to what we'd call paedophilia and ephebophilia today. Ulrichs's theory as nicked by Hirschfeld said that homosexuals (which he referred to as "Urnings" derived from Greek Venus Urania of man-manly love) are those individuals with 100% constitutional biological traits (except actual sex) of their opposite sex, and all other mixture rates between 100% male and 100% female would be a continuum based upon age preference. 20% share of maleness in females would result in sexual interest in male youths/adolescents, 40% maleness in sexual interest in male children, at 60% maleness all desire would be oriented toward female children, at 80% maleness toward female youths/adolescents, and 100% maleness toward adult females. All stages correspondently applicable to males, of course. So basically, even though Ulrichs didn't explicitly use the term ephebophilia, he definitely operated with the concept itself. --TlatoSMD 01:29, 22 August 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Spelling

Why was pædophilia removed? --Gbleem 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's archaic. JayW 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's still an accepted spelling, so I'll add it.Cameron Nedland 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feierman and other cites

As TlatoSMD remarks above, we cite Feierman a couple of times. One of the times we cite him is to say that he "predicted that 7-10% of men are sexually attracted to prepubescent boys." This is a startling claim, given that most researchers now believe much less than 7% of men are attracted to males of any age to any significant degree. So, who is this guy? What does "predicted" mean?

I googled him, and found a summary of the book we cite at MHAMIC, which is one of the two big American pedophile advocacy websites dressed up in academic clothing. Now, just because he's quoted there doesn't mean that he himself is not a reputable academic. But, the fact that he makes a claim wildly out of line with academic consensus and is featured on a fringe polemical website does raise questions.

This is something that I've been concerned about with the article in general. The folks at MHAMIC and IPCE are kind of like the Family Research Institute's other half: they publish and have a hand in producing research that sounds and appears scientific and NPOV but in fact is geared to served a particular ideology. On the other hand, it's important to avoid judging legitimacy by association, so I don't want to just cut stuff out of hand simply because it's hosted on one of those sites. I think going through this and separating the wheat from the chaff will take a bit of work and attention. And ... I want someone else to do it.

Thanks

DanB†DanD 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Feierman was "a psychiatric consultant at the Servants of the Paraclete Hospital in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico, the largest church-owned facility for treating pedophilic priests" through the eighties until it was closed in 1995. [3] (I've never seen Zoominfo before. Are all these automated ways of collating information going to make wikipedia obsolete before we even get it off the ground?)
DanB†DanD 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
From the summary you found:
  • Based on an estimate that 5% of men are attracted to other men, this theory predicts that 7-10% of men would be attracted to boys, which puts the number in the United States well into the millions. This contrasts with the 0.5% prevalence calculated on the basis of prison studies.[4]
Apparently the 7% value is just an estimate based only on a model, not on any actual research. -Will Beback 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Jay R. Feierman is a New Mexico MD and psychiatrist. As a psychiatrist, he also appears to be doing work for New Mexican Impaired Physician Committees (IPCs) (PDF) dealing with professionals having problems with substance abuse.

Googling for Feierman and his 1990 book, what comes up is an obvious tie with the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (publishing professional journals such as The Journal of Sex Research and Sexual Science, their original website is here). Quoting that site: "In 1990 about two dozen of us contributed to a book on pedophilia edited by Jay Feierman (Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, 1990, Springer-Verlag: New York.)"

Going by the excerpts of Feierman 1990 found here, this "us" that contributed to Feierman 1990 seems to include, among others:

Dr. John Money. Dr. Paul Okami, UCL psychologist and Ph.D., Consulting Editor of The Journal of Sex Research. Dr. Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, acclaimed Austrian professor of zoology and human ethology, former President of the International Society for Human Ethology, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, received not less than 23 scientific and public awards between 1971 and 2005, and up to his 1996 retirement he was the head of the Human Ethology Research Center at the world-famous Max Planck Society.

As for the percentage claim, I remember Feierman basing it on some hormonological studies.

And I didn't hear before that MHAMIC or IPCE would produce anything themselves of what they publish. As far as I know, they simply collect. I suppose the only immediate blame you can put on them would be potential copyright infringement. The comparison to the Family Research Institute is probably pretty moot as the FRI is probably bathing in millions while IPCE and MHAMIC are mere spare time and voluntary efforts with not a single cent involved. And as far as I can tell especially IPCE indifferently collects all kinds of material remotely related, whether the particular item's approach is positive or negative. --TlatoSMD 18:05, 21 August 2006 (CEST)

The battle cry on many articles is "cite sources" however we can't cite all the sources out there. As an encyclopedia we must first note the established sources and then only mention the most significant challenges to the established sources. --Gbleem 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. The less-qualified sources must be emphasized, and those more qualified must be removed, even if those latter sources are internationally honoured authorities? --TlatoSMD 23:28, 21 August 2006 (CEST)
I removed the Feierman quote because it was not data but a projection based on a theoretical model. I didn't remove Feierman himself from the reference list - he is clearly an academic source. DanB†DanD 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Misconceptions: IPCE is an advocacy website that aims to collect a variety of information. MHAMic is a research website, founded to combat a lack of information (they explain as much in their pages). Neither are invalid, as the original research articles are included. Opinions in both are also valid comment, and the inferences expressed in MHAMic are not rare at all within the academic community - a lot of researchers would support them, telling from the comments made in their conclusions. Nor is IPCE American. It arose from a now defunct British Pedophile advocacy group Paedophile Information Exchange, as a 'scholarly forum'.
Please do your research, like the academics listed on MHAMic --Jim Burton 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krafft-Ebing

Why do we have three Krafft-Ebing lists? Am I misreading something? Has this article improved to the point that it is now over my head? --Gbleem 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The first listing is to explain his basic definition of paedophilia. The second is to explain his three-type molester model that is still regarded valid today. Much confusion has been caused in the research literature by different researchers giving different names to these three types (giving rise to the notion that a running rampage sexuology would distinguish thousands of alleged molester types, a notion which only supported the opposite view that molesters merely defined by actions must all be the same), so the third listing is to explain the more recent re-namings that nonetheless are still based upon Krafft-Ebing's original model, and in the following examples of the wide and recent acception of this model are documented. --TlatoSMD 23:23, 21 August 2006 (CEST)
It's not clear in the article and I still don't understand what you are trying to say or why. --Gbleem 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
One problem is we now describe the classification of offenders three separate times: twice in this article (once under "definitions" and once under "occurrence in child sex offenders," where only two of the three types are listed) and once in Child_sexual_abuse#Offenders. The concept really only needs to be described in detail once, with a mention plus section link on the other page. Not sure which of the three places would be the best place to keep it.
DanB†DanD 04:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone please explain this sentence fragment to me. "Individually referring to v. Krafft-Ebing's three types as" I can't find the subject. What does the v. stand for? --Gbleem 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's his first initial. --DanielCD 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physical therapies

If no successes are observed after each single surgery, surgeons generally regard that the therapy will be more successful if brain mass is removed.

In the physical treatment section, these statements are confusing. I think I fixed the wording to make it say something coherent, but I'm not sure I got it right. I hope the person who wrote it can return and clean up the sentences a bit because It needs more explaination. Simply removing tissue from the cerebrum seems quite medieval. --DanielCD 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies in "Brain Surgery" section

I'm concerned about the factual accuracy of the new "brain surgery" section.

I'm by no means an expert on neurology or even a very well-informed medical amateur. However, a brief google on the terms that were added to the page this week reveals at least one major inaccuracy: We say "lobotomies were renamed thalamotomies" but in fact, the two operations are very different procedures, as this summary of developments in brain surgery shows.

Unfortunately, because I don't really know the topic, I can't correct this paragraph with any confidence myself. What to do? We have info that is at least partly false. Does anybody know enough to fix it?

DanB†DanD 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it a little closer. --DanielCD 23:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This "Andy 1970" reference doesn't seem to exist anywhere in the references. Am I missing it? --DanielCD 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
A couple of the new references don't. I'm sure TlatoSMD has the info and the present cites are just stubs, but since there are questions about the new material, it would be great if we could get the sources' full info as soon as possible.
I also see that the reference list is numbered halfway down, but then switches to bullets. What's up with that?DanB†DanD 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Unfortunately, with the deletion of "thalamotomy," we now give the misleading impression that lobotomies continue to be widely performed on pedophiles (and on patients in general) to this day. I haven't yet found anything that directly mentions pedophilia, but the Wiki psychosurgery and lobotomy articles say that in the fifties and sixties, lobotomies were widely and inappropriately performed for just about everything under the sun. However, that stopped with the invention of more effective drug therapies (and because of widespread ethical concerns). The use of lobotomies is now strictly regulated.

So, hopefully when we get those completed references, we can confirm that pedophiles were among the many groups who were lobotomized, and get some reliable numbers other than "thousands." However, it seems a little unbalanced that the longest part of the treatment section is now focused on a form of therapy that isn't used anymore. We have a couple sentences on cognitive-behavioral therapy, now the most frequent treatment, a brief mention of Depo-Provera, the most promising drug treatment...and two paragraphs on something that hasn't been done for decades. DanB†DanD 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this article needs someone to really roll up their sleeves and find some good references. That's what I wanted the references for, the material didn't sound right, but the thalamotomy didn't sound right either. The only other thing would have been to move the whole section to talk pending the finding of the proper references.
As for the refs, some are specific and some are general. The specific ones linked inthe text should be in a "notes" section and the general refs should go in a "reference" section. --DanielCD 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry about this delay. According to Sigusch 2001, none of these brain surgeries have ever been standardized in practice, even though they mostly seemed so and still do in theory. According to Sigusch (who's the head of the German Institute of Sexuology at the Frankfurt Clinical University), this abitrariness in practice as well as in terminology and willingness to even document most of these cases (while there are several medical journals dealing with neurosurgery in offenders, see sources) leads to the observed fact that surgeons think this therapy is more succesful the more brain mass is removed, especially since single operations don't yield the desired results and more operations on the same individuals ensue. Even though its boasting advertizement is epidemical, this treatmemt strategy never got out of its experimental stage whereas no desired results are ever observed which is why many doctors practicing it don't document their cases. Sigusch emphasizes that many of his national and international colleagues are unable to make any personal or ethical difference between alleged reperative "treatment" and actual enraged "vengeance and punishment" in this. --TlatoSMD 07:02, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Thousands of neurosurgeries?

Here's an abstract [5] of a study from 1981. It is by Schorsch & Schmidt, two of the same authors TlatoSMD cited in his paragraph claiming that thousands of neurosurgeries had been performed on pedophiles, and were increasingly performed from the 1980s on.

From 1962 to 1979, 74 men and one woman considered sexually abnormal have received surgical hypothalamotomies in the Federal Republic of Germany. This paper reviews the neurophysiological assumptions behind the surgery, the criteria for surgery, and the effects and side effects of surgery as far as has been documented by medical, psychiatric, psychological, sexual, and social data. The neurophysiological bases for hypothalamotomies on humans with deviant sexual behavior appear dubious, the indications make use of questionable scientific and clinical categories and assumptions, few reliable data have been submitted for side effects, and follow-up studies are based on poor methodology. Restrictive regulations against this type of "experimental therapy" are suggested.

Huh.
DanB†DanD 23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another relevant abstract: [6]

I'm quoting the "medico-therapeutical standard work" Sigusch 2001, pp. 525-526 on these figures that are not limited to the Federal Republic of Germany but are supposed to represent the situation in the Western industrialized nations as a whole, plus the sources Sigusch 2001 mentions as well as Sigusch 1977, 1979b, 1984 (with another nicks of this neurochirurgy such as topectomy, orbital undercutting, and transorbital leucotomy). Definite figures for single doctors: Dieckmann: 57 (1964-1975, counting children only), Balasubramaniam: 150 (reported in 1970, immediate fatality 8 percent), Fritz Mundinger: more than 5,000 (reported in 1974).
And BTW Dan, this time I've been waiting since August 20th for your reply in the Anthropology and zoology? thread. --TlatoSMD, 02:15, 9. September 2006 (CEST)
Five thousand pedophiles lobotomized by one doctor? Where on earth did he find five thousand pedophiles? Is it possible that this number refers not specifically to surgeries for pedophilia, but to psychosurgeries in general? If so, then the number's not really relevant - everyone agrees that lobotomies were greatly overused in the middle of the last century.
I answered you about the other article a long time ago, and my answer hasn't changed. DanB†DanD 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A problem ref

  • Edwards, Douglas J. (2004). Mental Health's Cold Shoulder Treatment of Pedophilia in Behavioral Health Management, May-June.

This is ref #22 and it doesn't seem to be a working link. I mention it here as it is needed to ref the article and I was hoping someone could double check the syntax to make sure that isn't the problem. Otherwise, I hope someone could find another link, as I'd like to read this article. --DanielCD 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

http://archives.behavioral.net/Past_Issues.htm?ID=3253 JayW 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Treatment

Someone put a POV tag on treatment. I would guess that there is a great variety of opinions on treatment in and outside the medical community. I haven't read any of the references but on the surface it seems well cited. What are the POV issues. --Gbleem 14:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a revert. Reason given during edit was lame. ip address on editor. --Gbleem 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Extent of occurrence, women==

I doubt the study included women also but can someone who has read the study say for sure? Mr. User:Skinnyweed says he doesn't think so. --Gbleem 14:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Online versions of both studies are linked in their references. DanB†DanD 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Pedophilia is believed to be as common in women as it is in men. However, women are arrested for sexual abuse much less than men. Why is this(besides the fact that most child sexual abuse is situational, and unrelated to pedophilia)? Primarily because people just don't suspect that a woman may be a pedophile. A woman has more access to children, and because of this is less likely to be suspicious in their company. A woman isn't as likely to be turned in if the relationship is discovered, as alot of people consider it a good thing for their sons to have sex early, but a bad thing for their daughters. Finally, women can "play off" sexual encounters as something else, and get away with it. For example, a woman may reach inside of a child's diaper, and tell herself and anyone witnessing it that she was checking if it was wet, when in reality, she's "copping a feel". If a man tried this, he would be arrested on the spot, but women can get away with it. 216.229.65.148 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBT or aversion?

"More favoured is cognitive-behavioral therapy, in which the subject is taught to associate "pedophilic behavior" with various unpleasantries." Is this CBT or aversion? Is aversion part of CBT? --Gbleem 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cut and altered some bits of this definition. But what it really needs is expansion - we say it is the most favored form of therapy for pedophilia, but it is given only a very brief description, while rarer treatments are discussed at much more length. Please add what you can, everyone.
DanB†DanD 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a paragraph from a New York Daily News article about pedophilia that I googled up. Obviously, such an article is not a very good WP source, but I do notice that it's very different from the definition of CBT that we have:
"In cognitive-behavioral therapy - the most common treatment approach, sometimes in combination with medication - perpetrators are taught social skills, assertiveness and sex education aimed to increase appropriate social behavior. Therapy involves correcting false beliefs that children enjoy it, that the assault "just happened," that the experience is good for the child, or that the child wanted it."[7]
Okay, here is a longer article. It presents aversion therapy (typically using mental images rather than electric shock or smells) as being one of many tools in the cognitive therapist's arsenal. DanB†DanD 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I read in Wikipedia cognitive behavior therapy articlal I'm guessing aversion therapy is not part of CBT. I'm skeptical of news articles. This is the sort of thing they would get wrong. --Gbleem 19:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, I was frustrated not to find something more academic. DanB†DanD 19:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more truth

I'm know most people look down on people who agree with pedophilia, but after you study human history as long as i have, you wouldn't see pedophilia as abnormal, infact just opposite. You would see it has normal, but has some one once said in the past, human don't care about the truth, they care about what they think is right which may not be right at all. Look what human life expectancy was back 5000-8000 years. Nature doesnt change it's rules, just because we change nor does it change becuase we say it morally wrong. I have to agree with pedofile on this one and so long as child ins't raped (Wrong) and parents (Who are ignorant ignoramus)Agree with the action then i see no proplem with it. Have to say logic win over human flawed morality on this topic. I don't under stand why human body continues to like Girl or boys (boy is emotional disorder) of younger age as they get older (Body doesn't conside it self getting older) or when their 12 (Just entering breeding age), nature does very human intrest from person to person, But it not some mental disorder. Mental disorder are brought on by humans environment (War ect) and chemical imbalance in brain. pedophilia Happens over much greater range of perfectly normal people and their no "psyco" treatment to make you "stop". To prove this theory you have but to look at 30 year old guys interested in teenagers. Look this up your self, if you so wish. Now jsut Look at age difference in this alone, i see no reason instead of having interest in someone 10-15 year younger, to have it in some one 15-20. I have no understanding why some people like kid under 12, but nature is flawed at best. I got go with logic. Sorry ect.

--Dontai24:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK.
Yea, otay. --DanielCD 20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
.........um yeah 'sure' ok...?! Don't see the "logic" in it but hey, it was only a rant.

--Dontai20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How dont you see the logic? The Logic is why do 30 year old guys like 18-19 year old teenagers and why do People around same age (you call pedophiles) like even younger. Fact is this recurring in nature. Second way back when 2000 bc oldest a man got was 20, and breeding age was 12 so you can shoot me if you dont see logic in this since i do, but hey were not all good with number and facts.


murder was also accepted most of human history and is a natural animal act.

[edit] CBT

I'm guessing that practitioners of CBT probably debate whether the CBT used to treat pedophiles is CBT. Maybe we should say some practitioners use a variation of CBT or treatments based on CBT and then let the reader research CBT or read the Wikipedia CBT article. --Gbleem 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 ???
Why do you think it might not be CBT? DanB†DanD 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I said it was just a guess but my point is that it might be best to leave the definition of CBT in the CBT article. --Gbleem 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting "Paedophile Impulse" article.

"The Paedophile Impulse: Toward the Development of an Aetiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint"

The "Paedophile Impulse" article starts by defining paedophile in a way that is very different than the medical definition that this Wikipedia article is about. While the Wikipedia article does include a popular definition related to child sex abuse this was done only to demonstrate that the Wikipedia article is not about that popular definition. There is no reason for including the third definition from the "Paedophile Impulse" article for it is not popular enough to need differentiation.

--Gbleem 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that was a pretty bad link. The title sounds like something that one would find in a respected peer-reviewed scholarly journal -- but it's not, in a subpage of Butterfly Kisses, a site "about and for women who are attracted to pre-teen and adolescent girls". So it's kind of disengenuous to include a link to a page that ain't what it appears to be. Herostratus 05:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide view

What are the worldwide view issues? The WHO definition is discussed. I think all definitions are either WHO or APA aren't they? --Gbleem 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, you're right. A lot of pages relating to sexuality get slapped with the Worldwide View tag on that basis that they don't address the ABC Islanders or whatever, who have XYZ customs. There's a point to that, but there's also a limit. For one thing, it can probably be assumed in most cases in any article like this to be talking about the West or the developed world unless otherwise specified. For another, there often just isn't much data available about other cultures' sexuality. Who the heck knows if the Chinese keep data on pedophilia or, if they do, how easy it is to get that info, and in English. For another, if we're talking about primitive cultures, that material should probably go into the articles on those cultures. Anyway, I removed the tag, if anyone wants to restore it we can talk. Herostratus 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to take a small issue with a couple of your points here. Your assertion that we can we can just assume in most cases that an article like this will be discussing the west or the developed world is problematic. First what is an "article like this", is it articles on sexuality or articles with disputed a disputed NPOV or articles that are controversial or what?. As well the assertion itself seems to go against the hope of a worldwide point of view. Also you mention our lack of information on china as a reason for not maintaining a worldwide POV, china is a communist country and information is spotty in such regimes but china is not a good example of a non-western country in this context as it is one of the few totalitarian communist regimes left in existence. Also I mean no offense as I'm sure you didn't, but your terming china, and by omission all non western countries ie: "if we're talking about primitive cultures, that material should probably go into the article on those cultures" this seems on one level biased. Stating china, as well as others, is a primitive culture is just not accurate, we are talking about a major industrialized nation here, the only nation to theoretically appose the United States as a superpower left. And your further assertion that we should leave references on Chinese pedophiles in articles on China rather than in the article on pedophilia seems just silly. --Colin 8 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No, no, you mistake me. There are non-Western developed societies such as China, or if you object to China as you do, then India, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, or what have you. Then, there non-developed societes -- you may call them Traditional Societies, Materially Primitive Societies, Tribal Societies, whatever - I don't know the proper nomenclature but you know what we mean. Material on non-Western developed societies would be welcome in this article - probably with seperate sections for each major divide (West, Far East, etc.), but not necessarily. Provided, that is, that it can be found. I'd rather see someone actually find and add the material, though, then just slap a tag on the article and move on for someone else to do the work. Material on non-developed societies is more problematical. For one thing, data on these societies is generally gathered by anthropologists who have different training and methods than sexologists. For another, in anything from music to warfare to sex to diet etc etc you can probably find hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that don't include any material on the 17th Century Trobriand Islanders, but that is not a sufficient reason to slap tags on them. I'm sorry, but the music, warfare, sexual customs, dress, diet, and what have you of the Trobriand Islanders - especially if historical - probably belongs in the Trobriand Islands article, and to the extent that any material on the Trobriand Islands relates to pedophilia, a link in the "See also" section should suffice. Even this is arguable, since the definition, diagnosis, and medical, psychological, sociological, and political literature on pedophilia exists in a context that is hard to connect to traditional Trobriand society. (If the Trobriand Islanders historically believed that the sun was ten miles away, we don't provide a link to that in the Astronomy article, let alone include it in the body of the article, nor slap a tag on Astronomy if it's not included...) Herostratus 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophile does not mean Child molester / rapist

The article seems to confuse these two concepts. A pedophile feels sexual attractions to minors. While this holds true, it does not make them a child molester or a dangerous member of society.

Pedophilia has existed for a long time and it will continue to exist as long as there are humans alive. It is a part of human nature. Yet not all pedophiles become child molesters, just as every 'normal' person does not becomes a rapist. It can even be argued that sex with an adult can turn a benefitial experience for a child (Harmful To Minors, by Judith Levine. ISBN: 0-8166-4006-8).

While rapists and abusers are in need of 'treatment', I do not believe this holds true for pedophiles, as they are not any 'sicker' that persons from other paraphilias. I would like to see this article split into two. A child molester / rapist article, as the criminal act, and another one of pedophilia, describing the paraphilia itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.211.203.80 (talk • contribs) .

There is a separate article for Child sexual abuse, and in the past couple of months a bunch of material on laws and crime has been moved from this article to that one. Which sections of Pedophilia do you feel should be moved? DanB†DanD 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the part of 'treatment' seems a bit off. It is like affirming pedophilia is a 'disease' that needs to be 'cured'. In my opinion, it is not any more 'deviant' than other paraphilias, such as Zoophilia or Yiff, and thus, does not need treatment. Now, when it crosses the line, becoming the criminal act of rape (or molestation), then treatment may (should?) be applied. So probably that section would be better off in the Child sexual abuse article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.211.203.80 (talk • contribs) .
In the future please sign your posts even if the system only displays your ip address then at least we know without digging through the history. This article is not about your personal opinions. I suggest you lobby the APA and the WHO. If they change their minds then the article will be changed to reflect that. --Gbleem 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lolicon"

Just during a very brief read-through (looking for bits of information) I suddenly spotted the following:

"Lolita syndrome is sometimes used to refer to attraction to adolescent females. The related word Lolicon refers to manga-style pornography depicting neotenous female children. " "Shotacon" is manga-style pornography depicting neotenous male children."

I deleted everything but "Lolita syndrome is sometimes used to refer to attraction to adolescent females." I know this might not be completely suitable, but I leave the work to those who are interested and better English.

The word "Lolicon" originated from a Japanese-coined English term, "Lolita complex", which is vitually the same as "Lolita syndrome"

In general, Lolicon refers to people that are, at least more strongly than normal, attracted to pre-adolescent females. Moreover, it is a popular usage only among people on which Japanese casual culture has great influence, and is never formal.

When the two terms are used in places mentioning to pornography context, I think at least it should be something like "Lolicon porn" "Shotacon porn", which imply the type of porn provided belongs to a genre in favor of Lolicon's and Shotacon's. This is rather analogous, although not exactly, to the usage of "gay porn", which are pornography for male homosexuals.

Everesti 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This line was added 14:31, 18 July 2006 (not by me). Now suddenly someone removes it and at the same time another user suggests to make a similar change in lolicon article. Just a coincidence? Zorndyke 10:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be a coincidence... or that my comment reminded somebody to bring up the same discussion on that similar article. I also have to disagree with your changes, since I really don't think "Lolicon" itself "depicts" a kind of pornography - it is just something similar to the term "lolita syndrome".Everesti 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, not all lolicon art is pornographic, sometimes it's even hard to tell where the cute art ends and the lewd begins. Depending on the dictionary pornography may be defined as obscene material with no or little artistic merit, or at least "material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal" (according to dictionary.reference.com). The current lolicon definition in this article is a bit too narrow. However I found the part "neotonous female characters" strikingly spot on. I even quoted it in some forum a month ago. So I was quite disappointed to see it disappearing. We could try to reword this definition. Also I apologize that I assumed a connection between your edit and the edit of the lolicon article. Zorndyke 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many/most studies use a behavioral definition of pedophilia?

TlatoSMD writes: "many, if not most studies diagnose pedophilia merely on the grounds of offenses instead of going through the effort of distinguishing the three categories of offenders via psychological examination and analysis."

Is this true?

If it is, then a behavioral or legal definition of pedophilia is common in an academic context, and should be given much greater prominence in the article, rather than being called "colloquial" as it is at present.

DanB†DanD 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell without reading the article but it seems that he is saying some researchers just have bad methodology. I don't see him saying that there is a significant effort to redefine pedophilia. Even if there was a significant effort the definition in the article should not change until such an effort is successful. I would go for reporting the status of such an effort in a section somewhere. --Gbleem 04:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that academics can use colloquial terms. I think any use that does not use the psychiatric definition is a colloquial use even if it is in an academic paper unless there is an established definition for another field. For instance if there was an accepted definition among anthropologists that significantly differed from the one used in medicine then we could compare the two definitions or create two articles. --Gbleem 04:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure. It's obvious that Vogt wants to say the other researchers' methodology is wrong. But if in fact a great big chunk of his field is consistently using a different methodology, then I'm not sure we're justified in choosing one over the other.
And of course academics may use colloquial language while speaking colloquially, but if they use it in a defining way in their academic work, then it's not colloquial anymore -- that's professional, academic usage.
I'm concerned that rather than reflecting a true academic consensus, this article may have "chosen a side" in an academic disagreement. We can't have that!
DanB†DanD 08:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hypothetically lets say someone working on their masters in criminology refers to sexual abusers of children as pedophiles. This would still be a colloquial usage even though it was in an accademic paper. I'm sure it's safe to say there is currently only one accademic definition. I doubt there will ever be a second accademic definition. The WHO and the APA could drop it as a disease. At that point it becomes a historical definition and is frozen in time. Other accademic diciplines will come up with alternative terms like "sexual abuser of children" or "pedophilic offender". If I am wrong about my predictions then we still have to wait for things to change before we can change the definition in the article. --Gbleem 11:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a hypothetical when we have a factual statement that "many or even most" authors of academic studies use this definition as the basis of their work. DanB†DanD 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that Vogt or his ideas were hypothetical if that is what you meant by the pronoun "It's". I created my own hypothetical example from scratch. What do you think about the hypothetical example I presented? Let's consider an extreme hypothetical. A civil engineering professor is writing a paper about a sewer system and he mentions in his paper that in the sewer was found the body of a local pedophile using the offender definition. Would it then become the new accademic definition? My answer would be that it would only be the new definition within the field of civil engineering and only then if there were lots of Civil Engineering papers that mentioned pedophiles and a major civil engineering group published a definition for their feild in a reference work. In the case of the Vogt statement I don't think he was trying to establish a new definition nor imply that the researchers he looked at were trying to create a new defintion but instead simply using poor methodology. It is safe to assume that if there was a major change in the accidemic field that the APA and the WHO would be considering changing their publications and there would be some big articles in the major press. --Gbleem 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big fact tag Vogt 2006

I'm starting to get confused. Why is there a tag on a paraphrase of a citation? Vogt 2006. If this guy is a legitimate researcher and he actually has the opinion represented by the paraphrase then I see no need to require any further citation. For example if Bowling Expert says in an article printed in "Bowling America" that he thinks pink bowling balls will be the fashion next year and he lists in his article some sources for statistics on bowling ball sales and interviews with executives with major bowling ball manufacturers then we only need to cite his article in "Bowling America".

It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact that either is or isn't correct -- and it contradicts our article's current presentation of the academic consensus on what pedophilia is.
If "many or even most researchers" define pedophilia on the basis of behavior, then it's not the place of Wikipedia to define pedophilia as an attraction, and we have to totally change the article. Which would be a giant pain!
DanB†DanD 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your issue is. Someone put in the article something some author named Vogt wrote. It's cited as Vogt 2006. Why did you put a citation tag on it? --Gbleem 08:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Because either it's wrong or the basic approach of the entire article is wrong. As it stands we are contradicting ourselves. If a majority or even many qualified medical researchers define pedophilia as a behavior, then we can't say that the medical definition of pedophilia is an attraction. DanB†DanD 08:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you are confusing what we as wikipedia article editors are saying with what the Vogt guy is saying. Vogt expressed a concept, someone mentioned it in the article and it is cited so I will remove the citation tag. The citation tag is for things that are not cited not for concepts you disagree with or issues about the structure of the article.--Gbleem 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut and pasted another tag to make the citation clearer. --Gbleem 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree or disagree - I have no idea. But it contradicts our opening definitional paragraph. If it's right, then the rest of the article is wrong. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you? DanB†DanD 17:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems you are confusing the issue of source citation with article structure. I think the citation issue is resolved. Let's keep the definition issue under the other topic so it will be easier to follow. --Gbleem 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] child sex offenders category

  • Category:Convicted child sex offenders

I thought we agreed we would take this out? I think it should be removed. --Gbleem 04:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitional changes

Well, what do you propose? We can't keep both Vogt and the attraction-only definition. DanB†DanD 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose we do nothing until there is an issue with the WHO or the APA. From the small paraphrase by Vogt added to the article I see no reason to believe there is a new accedemic definition nor an adoption of the colloquial definition by a substantial number of researchers in psychiatry. --Gbleem 03:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
WHO and the APA are authoritative sources, but neither "owns" the definition of pedophilia. Academic consensus defines academic terms. If, in fact, the APA gives a definition that "many or even most" psychological researchers do not follow, then there is no consensus, and the article needs to reflect that.
Three things are possible:
1. The paraphrase of Vogt is a bad one. He did not really say "many or even most" researchers use a behavioral definition of pedophilia.
2. Vogt did say it, but it isn't true.
3. He said it and it's true. The APA definition does not reflect a real consensus among psychologists.
None of these three possibilities means that the article can remain in its present state. I am open to suggestions other than doing nothing. I am not open to the suggestion of doing nothing. I hope very much that TlatoSMD, originator of the paraphrase, will weigh in.
DanB†DanD 04:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Then there is possibility 4 which is the Vogt paraphrase represents what Vogt said and you are misunderstanding its significance. --Gbleem 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] story line

"the latter version of the story might be more likely." Is there a better way to say this? --Gbleem 02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerontophilia

"Gerophilia is being especially fond of or sexually attracted to older people." I'm not sure why my eyes skipped over the word "folks". Is it being fond of or sexually attracted? --Gbleem 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the term to the only one I could find in the dictionary, renamed the other article and changed the redirect. --Gbleem 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] paradox ISBN

"("The paradox of man-manly love"), p. 6. Reprinted as a complete facsimile in Hohmann, Joachim S. (1977). Der unterdrückte Sexus ("Historical oppression of sexuality"). ISBN 3879587124 3-87958-712 (in German)." I found an ISBN number on Amazon.com but that could have been put up by anyone. Books with buyers and sellers are more likely to be accurate. --Gbleem 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Extremely unpopular"

I beg to differ. While antiAOC organizations like NAMBLA are indeed unpopular, pushing for acceptance of paedosexuality as a sexual orientation, and not for the legalization of child abuse, is very easy and tends to be quite successful. Jillium 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Really now. Not on my planet. Do you have any proof? Herostratus 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

None I can give to you, but you're welcome to either try it yourself or wait a decade. (And your edit makes a claim, not my reversion; you have the burden of proof.)

And by the by... mainstream media does not reflect private opinion. Your conception of earthlings might just not match up with reality. Jillium 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh, sorry, that's not how it works. You have to come up with the cites. As to the mainstream media, there's probably some validity to that (depending on the issue), but its easy to overstate that, too. They are in business to make money, after all; that isn't helped by espousing ideologies that their readers/viewers/listeners don't share. Anyway we do have a source for measuring private opinion: polls. Herostratus 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People can we cite, please

This was just added by another editor and I removed it because it had no citation:

"The issues of whether pedophilia is, or is not pathological, treatable, a sound predictor of social malocclusion or dangerous behaviour have made the individual and overall medical dilemma over whether it should be treated, a controversial and disputed question."

Not saying it's not true, but in fraught areas like this we want to be extra good about citing, I think. Herostratus 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The section simply aimed to point out that some people think that there is nothing to treat. We know this, so why cite it? If this article is to be judged properly neutral, words of warning such as mine (aiming not to primarily depict pedophilia as a condition requiring treatment) need to be placed before the main arguments, not after. Edit: 'Subjectivity' section added. --Jim Burton 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non Medical Therapies

I have a problem with this whole section, it seems entirely pointless to have an entire section which is made up two very short paragraph's, neither of which has a citation. I will say that it seems like this section could be of use if it gave some references and had a bit more information but as it is it seems to add little or nothing.--Colin 8 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misdefinition

The section on 'Pederasty', under 'Related terms' implies that homosexuality is a practise three times, and implies the same of pedophilia, once. Why was my edit [8] reverted to the faulty language?

We must all know that 'homosexual male pedophilia' by it's very definition can only be an attraction. No? Someone post a good reason, because in 48 hours, it will go back. --Jim Burton 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it implies that.
We don't necessarily all agree, no. Words have various shades of meaning. But you do have a point. Also, what does "or similar intergenerational relationships as adults" mean, and how does it relate to pederasty. Herostratus 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pederasty is the practise of a relationship between two differently aged males, usually referring to a relationship involving an adolescent boy. By saying that Pederasty has been used to refer to Homosexuality three times and Homosexual Pedophilia once, the edit revert clearly does one of two things: 1. Misdefines Pederasty as an attraction 2. Implies that the common use of the word throughout history refers to attraction (obviously false).
The primary definition is man - boy sodomy (Oxford), but as we know, it encompasses a lot more. But to define it, or it's common use as Homosexuality or Pedophilia is equivalent to labelling Vili Fualaau as a partner in 'Age structured heterosexuality'. You see. What your revert does is genitalises homosexuality, and such a thing should not be allowed to leak through in an encyclopedia. --Jim Burton 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Herostratus - Pederasty has historically been used to refer to homosexual age - gap relationships which may include a pedagogic function. The 'adolescent boy' or younger partner can be an adult, or over the regional age of consent, since adolescence spans beyond adulthood. The presence of an age gap, or the pedagogical nurturing of a younger partner is independent of the local distinction between the adolescent boy and adult male. --Jim Burton 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The main point of the pederasty paragraph is that the word has historically been used in many different ways. In fact it leaves one out -- in Italian pederasty just means anal sex, gender and age (and, er, "pedagogy") aside. DanB†DanD 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the text with more accurate language, again. Note that it is not a revert. My reasoning is zero opposition to the points that I laid out. --Jim Burton 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your points. Let me see if I have this right: "Pederasty" is strictly an activity; "pedophilia" is strictly an attraction (or paraphilia or mental state or whatever); "homosexuality" may be either. If that's what you're saying, I tend to agree, and edits to that effect may be warranted, in general. Given that, we have to walk a fine line between scholarly language and common usage. But, granted, with the emphasis on scholarly or medical correctness. Re pederasty, you might have a useful conversation with User:Haiduc, who has done much research to the point that pederasty has, all through human history, been a pillar of homosexuality and homosexual culture (naturally, the GLBT folks consider him anathema, but that's a political question).
And, although pederasty may in one sense only refer to activity, on the other hand, consider: if I knew an adult male who frequently and publicly professed an avid desire for romantic and sexual relations with 15-year-old boys, would I be so very off-base to consider that person a pederast, notwithstanding his virginity in this area?
Moving along... as far as I know, a relationship between (say) a 25-year-old and 55-year-old male is not pederasty, by any definition or usage I have seen. This I would consider a new and improper definition, absent cites. User:Haiduc might have such cites, if anyone does. (Cites for ancient usage would be suspect, in my view; as a rule, material relating to long-ago cultures is probably better in separate articles covering those cultures, I think.) The reference to a "pedogogic function" simiarly I am somewhat dubious of. Certainly this isn't an intended meaning of any current usage I know of except by pederasts and their apologists; and again, what might or might not have been the practices of (let us say) the 17th-century Trobriand Islanders and what might or might not be the terms applied to these practices is surely of scholarly interest -- but probably not for this article.
Adolescence spans beyond adulthood -- maybe, by a quite small amount, and depending on the individual, the definition of adulthood, and the person making the definition. You are conflating, I think, the developmental term "adolescence" with the legal term adult; if one is using the developmental term in both cases, by definition one cannot be in both states, unless once is holding that one shades into the other (in which case, the use of the term pederasty becomes quite slippery). There is (as far as I know) no legal meaning to the term "adolescent", at least not one that commonly holds. Herostratus 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would say - Adolescence > 21 (some say 25) and Adulthood > 18. Therefore, we have room for adults who are adolescent boys. The use of pederasty is vague, often substituting for homosexual sex itself, and therefore any kind of intergenerational homosexual sex could easily be described as such.
Pedagogic Function as you say has been observed in accounts - I must add that these are numerous among man - boy couples. Sandfortis a good starting point on this. --Jim Burton 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Er, again: you are conflating a developmental and a legal definition. Apples and oranges. People much over 20 have usually entered early-stage adult development and are no longer adolescents, although it depends on the individual. Your link is to IPCE, which is an advocacy group. Generally, links to advocacy groups may go in the Exernal links section but may not be used a citations for statements of fact (or alleged fact) in the body of an article, unless the statement is about the positions etc. of the advocacy group itself. Herostratus 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added paragraph: "Subjectivity"

The new paragraph is unsourced POV in itself, but it also has nothing to do with your new section title, "Subjectivity." DanB†DanD 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you need to explain why this section is POV, and what needs to be sourced about a section that simply denotes that there is a subjective difference of opinion over a matter that will primarily be taken for granted (that pedophilia is a subject for treatment - until 'criticisms of treatment'). I maintain that we should strive to explain how one's subjective opinion influences a secondary concern, who's mere acknowledgement before criticism would otherwise make the article POV. Note how the Homosexuality article denotes the POV of behaviour modification advocates before going into the description:
Some therapists, institutions, and groups contend they are able to assist homosexuals to overcome their homosexual tendencies. Most of these are conservative Christian organizations which interpret the Bible as holding homosexuality to be unnatural or sinful, and which consider homosexuality to be an undesired orientation
And all that after much explanation of positive attitudes on the orientation. Edit: recommended citation for this section. Gieles sees treating the orientation as a complete last resort. Thoughts please. --Jim Burton 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section as it was unreferenced and making a rather contentious claim. The reference above is not enough to support a large claim about what "most experts" believe. shotwell 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
'Most experts?' No, the whole thing is about showing that there are some people like Gieles who believe that this orientation should not be treated. We know beyond doubt that most psychologists would advocate treatment of pedophilic sex offenders, if it were proven to be effective. --Jim Burton 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph has been removed, but I'll respond that the leap from "disagreement" to "subjective difference of opinion" is a pretty huge one--in many disagreements, one party is simply mistaken. Also, it's been said many times on this page that overview paragraphs are to reflect academic consensus, not to present fringe ideas as if they were one equal side in a hotly debated controversy. DanB†DanD 03:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly was I trying to present a fringe idea as if it was equally prominent? The whole problem with the treatment section is that it goes straight into discussing people's disagreement over how pedophilia should be treated or whether treatment is possible. This is intrinsically POV! Since we have devoted a very large article to the pedophile activism movement, and the subject that we are discussing is a sexual orientation of debatable pathology, it would only be fair to present the fringe opinion in it's denouncement of what is the will of others to eliminate what they see as the major facet of one's humanity. --Jim Burton 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia Defintion

Why is it that Wikipedia refuses to point out out the un-informedness of someone refering to someone who likes someone under the age of consent as a "pedophile"? Just because a lot of people use it wrongly does not mean you can't point out its the wrong definition. THE definition of pedophilia is pre-pubescent individuals, if you are going to say people are using the term "pedophile" for people having sex with adolescents and not point out they are mistaken you might as well erase the Ephebephila page. This is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of the fact of the definition of pedophilia. Refusing to point out that someone is factually wrong when refering to being attracted to post-pubescents as pedophiles IS opinion-based.

AgentScully 06:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're treating a particular point of view within psychiatry as if it were objective fact. Ephebophilia is a fairly recent neologism and not universally accepted -- unlike pedophilia, it's not in DSM-IV. And practically speaking the meanings of the words overlap, so treating them as two separate categories is just confusing. DanB†DanD 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The medical definition of pedophilia specifies that the child must be prepubescent. And the crossover with ephebophilia that Dan ^ refers to could be just as much a crossover with normative preferential attraction to full adults. Therefore, treating ephebophilia and attraction to adults as separate should also be confusing! In reality, we have a continuum of philia along the age spectrum, as well as the apparent gender spectrum.
However, the article points out that the alternative use of the word is colloquial. I would still suggest adding that this casual use is in conflict with the accepted dictionary definition, too, though. --Jim Burton 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. It is not a dictionary nor is it a medical manual. Terminology which is useful for research may be referenced or included as is appropriate for the encyclopedia. What the editors of the Oxford English dictionary have to say is of interest, but not the ending point for the Wikipedia. What the American Psychological Association has to say is of interest, but not the ending point for the Wikipedia. (Incidentally the Amer. Psych. Assoc. does not specify "prepubescent" at all; its criteria is simply "13 or under".) The fact is that there is no single definition of this term that we can nail down, rub our hands together, and consider the job done. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Terminology and its associated talk page for archives of various discussions around this term. Herostratus 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does specifiy pre-pubescent. The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":[27]
Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
I was just saying that there is a medical definition, and the consensus is pre-pubescent and the casual use simply contradicts the medical meaning and that should be noted. AgentScully
Ah, I stand corrected, then. I lost my copy in the Spork Wars and was working from memory. Herostratus 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The article does say, "In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition". Why is that not good enough? --Gbleem 13:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the problem I have is it just makes it sound like either one could be the "right" definition or that you could lump both definitions together. AgentScully

[edit] "Known" Paedophile

Is it really appropriate for an encyclopaedia to display pictures of "known" or known paedophiles? He may not be, it may just be some kind of smear campaign. I say delete it. Excalibur2211 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was rank trollery and has been deleted. Herostratus 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition is overreaching

"Pedophilia (...) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children."

A 12 years old boy being attracted mainly to 12 years old girls is a pedophile? We were probably all pedophiles by this definition, at some point.

See this news story [denverpost.com] where a boy & girl were declared both sex offender and victim. Should we not explicitly include that the perpetrator has to be an adult?


The clinical defintion in the article already says that the person must be at least 16 years of age. I agree that story is ridiculous. AgentScully

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/d/Talk%7EPedophilia_467f.html"