Talk:Pedophilia/September 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Writing style

  • "It is a chronophilia, i.e. a paraphilia in which the paraphile's sexuoerotic age

is discordant with his or her actual chronological age and is concordant with the age of the partner."

This seems to be psychobabble. Chronophilia is defined in its own entry as a "rarely-used term" and paraphilia is defined in its own entry as "recently used," so neither of these is really accepted psych language, right? Worse, it appears to be defining its term but is really only categorizing it; that's not very helpful. And what the hell is sexuoerotic age? I think this whole bit should be reduced to "...sometimes categorized as a type of chronophilia or paraphilia."

Also, I came here looking for information on pedophile pathology (frequency and pervasiveness of molestation) and found a whole lot of cultural norms crap. Pedophilia is unwanted sexual contact between adults and preadolescents; no culture tolerates that, so how is this section relevant? It should be moved to a page on teenage sexuality.

Also, I spellchecked this discussion, because, jeez.... --Tysto 20:58, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

``Pedophilia is unwanted sexual contact between adults and preadolescents``, which is your own POV, without research or basis. If only one child has enjoyed a sexual encounter with an adult in the history of time, then the above statement is untrue. --LuxOfTKGL 14:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


'If only one child....' Wow. talk about POV. So if 1 child enjoyed it and 10 million didn't it's all sunshine and fun?

More like, If only one child found it to be pleasurable, then it is not an objective evil like some claim it to be. If there is capcity for it to be harmless, then that should be mentioned also. --LuxOfTKGL 07:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Your logic doesn't fly. One child finding an act pleasurable does not make it harmless
Neither does it make it inherently harmful - which is my whole intent. --LuxOfTKGL 16:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

'Pedophilia is unwanted sexual contact between adults and preadolescents'

No. Pedophile is not a verb, it's a noun. To be a pedophile is to have the paraphillia of attraction to adolescents. Child molestation or child rape is the unwanted sexual contact betwixt adults and children. Pedophilia is the attraction. Most molesters are not paedoerotic in orientation. 149.169.123.127 21:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)LV

I heard there are ways of treating and assessing Pedophilia, could you please update to the article as well?

[edit] Definion is unclear

I think that the definion of Pedophilia is rather unclear. Taking the following sentence in concern:

It is a chronophilia, i.e. a paraphilia in which the paraphile's sexuoerotic
age is discordant with his or her actual chronological age and is concordant
with the age of the partner.

The sentence is rather incorrect. Pedophiles could not possibly sexually identify with the age of their partners, since boys and girls under the age of 13 are not sexually active, while, on the other hand, pedophiles are. I'd suggest that we remove the sentence above from the article.

The following definion is quite clear and more correct, and should make the article more clear if left alone, by removing the above sentence:

Pedophilia is the condition of people whose primary sexual attraction is
toward prepubescent children.

If you disagree, please reply with suggestions. If there are no arguments, I will be updating the article page by removing the chronophilia reference and only leaving the pedophilia definion. Thanks. --dionyziz 23:19, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC).

I thought I had edited out the incorrect Chronophilia reference. I think I may have just done that in the Chronophilia article however. So, do as suggested, I have already done it (quite a few days ago) for the Chronophilia reference.

[edit] Too many different articles?

Nearly all pedophiles are childlovers. Should we really have different articles for them? The discussion is split up and there are many redundancies. There is also the danger that one article becomes the anti-article of the other, although Wikipedia should in the first place contain certain knowledge rather than the POVs of two sides.

Check out [[1]]. We have articles for fag, gay, homosexuality, queer, faggot (slang), etc. Childlover and pedophile are sufficiently different concepts to warrant separate articles. Of course, some content may need to be moved, duplicated, reedited, removed, branched into yet more articles, etc., but these are technical issues. Paranoid 20:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nearly all people would say that the term "childlover" for pedophiles is an offense to every mother or father who loves his or her child without being sexually attracted to it. Make it a redirect to pedophilia. Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fact that some childlovers are ephebophilies is only a minor problem, because ephebophilia is less controversial, most problems are already covered by pedophilia.

I am also not sure whether we need an extra article Rind et al.. First child sexual abuse should cover the results of sexology about pedophilia and the place of Rind et al. within it. --Moonlight shadow 20:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has been already discussed at Talk:Rind et al., AFAIR. A separate article is needed because the story of the research and the ensuing controversy is interesting enough by itself, not just the findings related to child abuse. Paranoid 20:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The fact that there already was discussion does not mean it has to end. There is still discussion, also note that now the article itself shows that the title is inappropriate since there is a second study Rind et al. mentioned. As nearly all the comments here show, there are disagreements about articles, which should not be made "conflict about user conduct". Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do think that there are probably too many articles here. In my opinion, there should be one page for pedophilia and this one page should have brief information about ephebophilia, nepiophilia, teleiophilia and so on. All of these other pages should be redirects.

The childlover page should probably be renamed either Childlove or Childlove Movement and used to discuss the movement itself, rather than the sexual orientation, which is discussed on Pedophilia.

The Rind, et al. page seems to have a lot of support, and it does probably merit its own page. After all, it is not very often that a research report causes such an uproar that the United States Congress decided to pass a resolution about it.

The only other page that is probably necessary is the List of Self-Identified Pederasts and Pedophiles. I would be in favour of incorporating this into the Childlover page, but that page is already getting quite long, so perhaps it is better to keep them separate. --Zanthalon 00:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If really want to keep that many articles, then I will suggest that we make clear to the reader, what belongs to each article and where he will find a NPOV representation of a controversial topics. I think the conflict with Get-back-world-respect (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Get-back-world-respect) escalated, mainly because each controversy spread to more than one article. We certainly should not put the same external links in every article, but rather make sure that readers find the article and information that they are looking for. --Moonlight shadow 11:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The list also needs a brief comment about self-identification - why they do it, why is it a big deal, etc. This might be done as a part of childlover page easier. As for the navigation, we can either add a template block with the links to other articles about child sexuality, or we can just link pretty much everything to pedophilia and child sexuality with these articles linking back to every other articles. Of course, additional links between articles are still welcome.

[edit] France and Brazil

It is not that the word does not have a negative connotation in those countries, today it has a negative connotation almost everywhere in the world. You have to read the whole paragraph to understand the meaning. Just before your quotation it said: "...it is sometimes used informally to describe people attracted to adolescents." That is what it meant, that in Brazil and France the word paedophilia is not used to refer informally to a relation of an adult with an adolescent. In the US it is very common that somebody would say that somebody is a pedophile because s/he was seducing a 16 yo. boy/girl. This is not a common use of the term in other countries. I have not been to Brazil, but at least in France it is very, very common to see adolescents going out on dates with adults with nobody frowning about it.

the article says: "In cultures or countries where love relationships or dates between adults and adolescents are socially or legally accepted (at least with parental consent) or are viewed with tolerance - such as France or Brazil, the word pedophilia is almost not used in this sense, either formally or informally."
I'm Brazilian and I can testify that this is widely inaccurate, and that the words "pedofilia" and "pedófilo" carry as much of a negative connotation as their English equivalents do.
Do you have a source to support the france claim? -- BMIComp (talk) 8 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

[edit] Child sexual abuse

Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of Wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German Wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about Wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his English version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the German articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph on condemnation of underage sex

I removed this paragraph:

Some western cultures today, in particular the United States, strongly condemn underage sex and regard it as a very serious crime, based on the idea that children are not sufficiently mature to be able to provide informed consent to sex and that sex with children is therefore statutory rape. In other countries, however, sexual relations with children are criminalised only when violence and coercion are involved.

The paragraph does not distinguish between pedophilia (the subject of this article) and ephebophilia, which it seems to refer to. The term "informed consent" is inappropriate, the issue in sexual matters is ability to give consent, period. The paragraph says "some western cultures" and singles out the US, and doesn't specify the "other" countries where underage sex is not criminal, nor the ages of those covered. And there is no citation whatever. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophile Liberation Front (Advocacy Links)

I wonder if there should be a notation that the Pedophile Liberation Front (Archive) is a dead site that has not been maintained in five years or so. I would think that a section on such links should only include current sites, therefore removing the PLF and including something in its place like MARTIJN or IPCE. --Zanthalon 18:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does Underage sex redirect here and why nothing is written on the topic of sexual relations between children. In my opinion the term underage sex applies more to sex between children and adolescents than adults and children. Paranoid 10:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NAWGLA

Somebody added a reference to a NAWGLA (North American Woman/Girl Love Association). As far as I know, no such group exists. I do know that a number of columnists have referred to Butterfly Kisses, a now-defunct website for women attracted to girls as a "NAMBLA auxiliary" or "something like a NAWGLA", but no such organization has ever actually been formed. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon , ]] 23:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Butterfly Kisses is no longer defunct. It can be reached at bk-girls.org --LuxOfTKGL 14:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boylover or Girllover vs Those Attracted

Boylover and Girllover is a term that describes an individual who accepts one's belonging to a group with the certain sexuality... Clayboy has changed those two terms for ´those attached to boys´ and ´girls´ respectively if this is to stay than in the article on homosexuality homosexuals must be referred to as ´those attached to the individuals of the same sex´. Why use the definition of the word when the word already exists.

Beta_m

The problem is that the term "boylover" is not neutral. Some consider it to be a euphemism, some think it glorifies a mental condition. The term is largely a product of a world-wide online movement that wants control back of the terms used to refer to themselves (and rightly so, IMO), since "pedophile" sounds intensely dirty and criminal. "Boylover", in general, is not a socially accepted term to describe a pedophile attracted to boys, or even a well-known term for it. I myself, as a boylover, would very much like it to be an accepted term (in the hope that people would hear "boylover" and think "someone who is attracted to boys and has love for them, so he would never hurt them" instead of hearing "pedophile" and thinking "someone who eats little boys for breakfast"), but I cannot allow myself to work through Wikipedia to reach this goal. The best solution is to avoid specific terms altogether, and just describe those pedophiles who are attracted to boys as "those [pedophiles] who are attracted to boys". The boylove and girllove terms are, after all, documented in the Childlove movement article. I am not going to start a revert war, but I hope others will read this (even those who aren't prone to bias in the matter such as myself), and can reach a decision. Clayboy 22:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, now thinking about that i have to say that i see your point. However, I still don't accept seeing ´boylover´ or ´girllover´ to be a euphemism, and I don't want to see a definition (even if the one that is not commonly used) to be substituted in the place of the actual word. Question is how to reach a compromise that everyone can live with? Beta_M
Whether or not you see the terms as euphemistic or not is not really relevant. For the record, I don't either, but many do, or would. "Those attracted to boys" is not a definition of boylovers. I don't believe a definition exists. For example, many boylovers (including myself) would not count as boylover someone who repeatedly abuses boys sexually, which is what the sentence we're discussing talks about. Others may (and will) disagree, arguing about what "abuse" means. (Replace every "boy" with "girl" if you want, I mean both) But, ultimately, the point is that "boylover" and "girllover" are sociolinguistic terms meant to create a social identity and change public perceptions. They seem out of place in the section, and really feels like an undercover POV attempt :-) Clayboy 21:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK... I actually am willing to admit that I was incorrect... I'm changing the sentence to what you wanted it to say... Beta_M

[edit] Child sexuality

I'm not sure where mr world respect gets his info, but he needs to read Child sexuality (w/o rewriting it, that is ;) Sam [Spade] 01:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophiles avoiding sex

If you insist on writing that "Most pedophiles avoid sex with children" you need to show that it is known how many pedophiles there are and how many of them avoid sex with children. As there is no compulsory registering for sexual preferences and as child sexual abuse is among the crimes with the highest rate of unrevealed offenses I doubt that you can provide the information. Get-back-world-respect 21:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could perhaps get away with using the Kent State University Study 1995 (LORI L. OLIVER, GORDON C NAGAYAMA, RICHARD HIRSCHMAN)..

A survey by Kent State University 1995 (LORI L. OLIVER, GORDON C NAGAYAMA, RICHARD HIRSCHMAN) was conducted on a sample of 80 normal male volunteers using the "penile plethysmograph". The team carried out hundreds of tests exposing them to nude female adult and child (<12 years) images.

Over 1/4 (32.5% in fact) of the subjects exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. 95% exhibited arousal to the female adult images (4 exhibited no arousal) 88.7% exhibited arousal to the female child images. (9 exhibited no arousal) 76.3% exhibited arousal to the contrasting images (Ten subjects exhibited no sexual arousal ) 3.7% of the subjects admitted to actual pedophilic masturbation and were removed from the sample results. ``

And from this compare the amount of known "sex offenders" who have a primary sexual attraction attraction to children against the 32.5% figure for a valid ratio.--LuxOfTKGL 14:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is a pedophile who avoids sex, isn't he? → JarlaxleArtemis 02:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Ephebophilia

Most of the content was shared between the two articles; the references and see-also sections needed merging; and ephebophilia only deserves its own article inasmuch as it is associated with pedophilia. Merged talk included below. +sj+ 15:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well I feel that ephebophilia is important and deserves its own article. If, however, there is much redundancy between the articles then I would support the decision to merge them. In general however I think that they should be separate. 64.26.167.34 20:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not merge Lesbian and Gay then? Ephebophilia is different and is a sufficiently broad topic to deserve its own article. When there is some shared content, parts of it can be moved into one article, parts of it can be modified to better reflect the specific article, etc. Paranoid 21:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The pages are not merged, but their Talk pages still were, with a redirect of Talk:Ephebophilia to this page. I'm undoing that. JAQ 23:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Talk:List of self-identified pedophiles

Hello. List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles was deleted per vfd discussion. I deleted the redirect List of self-identified pedophiles. Since there was a long talk page, Talk:List of self-identified pedophiles, instead of deleting it, I moved it to Talk:Pedophilia/List of self-identified pedophiles. I hereby announce that it's someone else's problem now. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it

Am I the only one who finds "Abuse is mainly a phenomenon of heterosexual and homosexual orientation" to be completely worthless? It would seem that someone originally made a jab at homosexuals, but someone later added the hetero part in. (Yes, I'm too lazy to look at the history). It's like saying that breathing is a phenomenon of males and females. -- PseudonympH 19:55, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

In the context in which this definition is used, it would seem to be implying "adult orientation", as opposed to the base meaning of "hetero" (different) and "homo" (same) sex orientation. And would seem to be indirectly referencing quotes from various researched journals, and interviews, by various people, such as Kenneth Lanning (retired, FBI). If it is required, these can be dug up, but I'd rather not be the one to spend my time searching. --LuxOfTKGL 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

I have to contend the use of the word "condition" in the first sentence, though it is pedantically a "condition of a person". The word "condition" almost sounds as if it a psychiatric disorder! Of course, it is not. Secondly, I am not sure someone has to be primarily attracted to prepubescents to be called a paedophile, surely anyone who has a significant attraction (not necessarily primary) may be described as such? Later, the "Cultural Norms" section appears to deal with adolescent attraction - not paedophilia. An example in the first paragraph is the discussion of the acceptance of the attraction to those of "high school age" in Japanese culture, this age is over 13, right? --Oldak Quill 17:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My comment to the article about the 15-year-old porn star:

There should be strict distinctions between pedophilia (sexual attraction towards a child, meaning below 12 year old, which is the definition of a child) and sexual attraction towards a teenager (meaning 12-18 or 21 years old) Sexual attraction towards a person above 12/13 years of age is NOT pedophilia. 18 or 21 is the limit of mental maturity meaning you are eligible to vote, you are responsible for your crimes ... etc, NOT sexual maturity. Almost every person sexually matures at a much earlier age (about 12-15), so those two borders need to be separated. EVERYONE is sexually attracted or aroused by a sexually mature person of their preferred sex. It is in human nature, therefore it cannot be condemned. The only thing wrong with engaging in a sex with a teenager (sexually mature person meaning above at least 13 but below 18 or 21 years of age) is this persons MENTAL immaturity. This can be exploited and the younger person can be abused. Besides many teenage girls who consciously have sex with an adult person regret this later early loss of virginity in life. THAT is the only reason why sex with a teenager may be wrong, not this persons body which is mature with almost everyone by the age of 13-15. Remember the movie 13 Going on 30 with Jennifer Garner and ask yourself this question: What would be more wrong: To have sex with a 30-y-o woman in a body of a 13-year-old girl, or with a 13 yo girl in a body of a 30-y-o woman? Of course the answer is the latter.

Therefore the notion that the majority of population who would enjoyed watching porn videos of this 15-17-y-o girl are pedophiles or can even be condemned is twicely wrong and very stupid. First of all this is not a case of pedophilia but teenage pornography since the girl is not a child anymore and is sexually mature. And second thing is age distinction. There days young girls become sexually mature very early, so how are people able to distinct a 15-y-o girl if she looks like 19?

I would like to say that whomever wrote the above is a f*ing tool / closet case. Here is how you would know the difference. Imagine how you would feel if I came over to your house with your 19-year-old sister for dinner with the 'rents. And we f*ed. A lot. You would probably feel a little odd, but, hey, she's 19, I'm 21, it's all good.

Now, imagine how you would feel if I went up to you and said "I just f*ed your 15-year-old peach sister, and it was good."

Now, contrast the emotions you feel between the first paragraph and the second paragraph, and you have got an answer about how we are able to distinguish.

My two (informed) cents: half the sh*t that is being discussed is bullsh*t. Bullsh*t distinctions, bullsh*t bifurcations of clearly similar cases, bullsh*t semi-veiled justifications, etc.

Now how's that for a nuanced view? eh?

(edited for f*ing civility by 20:58, 2005 May 6 (UTC))
While I agree with the 'thinly veiled justifications' part of your comment, I think you missed the point of what he was trying to say. The reason you or I would get angry about our 15 y/o sister being violated is due to her mental and emotional immaturity - she lacks the emotional and/or mental maturity to make an informed decision as to whether or not she consents to the act - thus she can be 'taken advantage of'. The point he was trying to make is that there is nothing abnormal about a heterosexual male finding a sexually mature teenaged female attractive. You could stand a 15 year old and a 19 year old next to one another and have a hard time telling their age apart - that's why bars require ID.

Not really.. just shows you have no issues with 19yos doing something that 15yos are legally able to do in a few countries.--LuxOfTKGL 14:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] section "Cultural norms"

is more related to "Ephebophilia", I think we should move it from her to the right place. --Haham hanuka 14:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, what is written on French & francophone countries is only based on a few movies/songs. Art does not always reflect reality. Adult/child relationships are not approved of in France, and adult/teenager relationships are usually frowned upon. Films are not reality.

[edit] Japanese paedo situation is not so funny!

Forget about anime with high pink-factor miniskirt schoolgirls of 4 foot legs. Japanese paedo is bloody serious.

The 36-year-old newspaper delivery man Kobajasi Kauru asked to be executed while tried for the Nov. 2004 murder-rape of a seven-year-old girl. He took mobile camera phone pictures of her cadaver and sent them to his mother with a message he will kill her sister. The guy said he was proud to have gained national fame and he has achieved his life's aim and has no reason to live any more. Previously he was imprisoned for attempted murder of a 5 year-old-girl in 1991 and several counts of child molestation.

Also don't forget the kindergarten massacres in Japan! The Wiki article should make it clear that paedos are murderous animals and deserve no mercy. We must eliminate them from the human gene pool.

Just so you know, this is murder case you've described... we can worry about the violations of sexual moralities and other obsessions of westerners at a later time. Sweetfreek 21:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Sweetfreek, the moron who started this section comes from a hysterical country, most likely the UK, where hateful violent people just like him tried to burn a family to death, including three young children, because they "love paedos."

http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/204/204194_lucky_to_be_alive_after_arson_attack_.html 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blatent disregard for sense

"Also don't forget the kindergarten massacres in Japan! The Wiki article should make it clear that paedos are murderous animals and deserve no mercy. We must eliminate them from the human gene pool."

Yet we can bring up more than a hundred fold times the amount of murders, rapes, physical, mental, sexual abuse perpetraited by non-pedophiles against children (for instance: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/girls_dead). --LuxOfTKGL 19:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolgirl Image

Does anyone else find the image of the schoolgirl and the caption, "Pedophiles are sexually attracted to images like these" just a tad not neutral, not to mention really strange? Flillibridge 05:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is weird, not to mention even technically incorrect - pedophiles are attracted to girls, not images. And it doesn't add anything useful to the article. Paranoid 06:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I thought it was a tad funny. It seems to be taken as more of a tongue-in-cheek "Brass Eye" style joke (infact I think BrassEye did something similar in their "fakeumentary"). --LuxOfTKGL 13:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Should be "typically aroused by images such as this" or "attracted to youngsters such as this girl", I suppose. How old is that girl anyway? I notice that the image title is "Pedo_test.jpg". Is it really supposed to be a test? Chameleon 16:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This particular image is poor indicator what pedophiles are attracted to. The image features an exposed part of legs close to crotch. This is sufficient to arouse most heterosexual males. So I suggest it removed. Japanese pedophile pornography abounds in images without any hints of sexual provocation. Mikkalai 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. This picture has no relevance and seems more like a joke than anything. I don't think an article on pedophilia necessarily needs an image (certainly not this one), unless someone can find something relevant and accurate. Flillibridge 22:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy of Pedophilia

Is there any criteria for a site to be listed in the Advocacy of Pedophilia section?

At least, could a person who "revises" the section by removing links, at least provide a reason on the discussion page.

--LuxOfTKGL 20:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


Why are there no sites condemning Paedophilia? Are we allowed to add other government and psychology research that question the rigid definition in this page, or if they are contradicting the pro-padeophile slant of this entry, will they be removed? And why is noone challenging the false idea that paedophiles do not molest children??


Why is this site in here? http://www.p-loog.info/English/behaviour_therapy.htm

This is not backed up scientifically - one study with 90 men. No information on the proper sources/controls. If you look at the homepage this site is a paedophile campaigning site and should not be included to illustrate *scientific facts*

[edit] Literature

  • Added a literature link to the IPT-Forensics article [Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases], however, I am unsure whether or not this would be more appropriate elsewheres (for instance in any Sexual Abuse sections instead). --LuxOfTKGL 20:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Sexual acts between adults and prepubescent children are both a taboo and a crime in many cultures because, among other reasons:

1. prejudice against childlovers;

This seems like POV to me, but before deleting it I thought I should ask for other opinions. Ketsuban (is 1337) 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chronophilia rubbish

Where did that Chronophilia rubbish come from, and how did it remain in the Pedophilia article for so long? Pedophilia has nothing to do with Chronophilia, other than it being classed as a paraphilia. --LuxOfTKGL 21:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pædophilia

I propose that the term "pædophilia" is invalid, and does not exist.

Therefore it should not be part of the article as such a word does not exist. --LuxOfTKGL 17:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? You'll have to be more specific. Are you saying that the ligature is always incorrect, incorrect in this particular case for some reason, no longer current English.... or what? — Chameleon 19:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the use of æ for ae (a digraph) is simply a pretentious typographical convention; first recorded in the 16th century, it has now fallen out of use: there is no justification for this. Neither Webster's Third New International Dictionary nor the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary use it. --LuxOfTKGL 20:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it wasn't just pretention. It was introduced into mediæval (heh-heh) Latin with the helpful role of distinguishing between the diphthongs æ and œ in words like pædophilia and subpœna and the separate vowels in words like poeta. It still has that helpful role in English. It is true that the ancient Romans didn't use it (they wrote SVBPOENA) and that people these days usually don't use it (not many people have a keyboard like mine that allows them to be typed straight in). However, the ligature in English is not entirely dead and buried, and deserves a brief mention. — Chameleon 21:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
and you still call yourself Chameleon?

[edit] Medical Treatment?

This article needs a section on the history of the treatment of pedophiles, and current available treatment options. -- MSTCrow 22:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Does it? Is there treatment? Last I heard, paedophilia not a disease. It may be seen as reprehensible, but that does not make it a disease, and does not mean that 'treatment options' exist.
Feel free to make more specific suggestions though. -- Ec5618 22:52, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Although it isn't a disease, many people think of it being so (as they used to with homosexuality) and therefore there are treatments. We should get some info on this. — Chameleon 23:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Treatment or Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Chemical Castration and the like. --LuxOfTKGL 00:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh hello, homosexuality is not classified as a disease and frankly is not destructive. Pedophilia is incurable and mostly destructive and frankly something society can do without. The huge power gap between a child and the adult in the relationship is simply unacceptable. A boy or a girl in such a relationship will grow up mentally and emotionally damaged and can only recover if they were fortunately to be borne with the strength to do so. The child who continues a relationship with the molester will simply grow up to be half human/half vegetable.

The standard punishment for the sexual molestation of anyone before they hit puberty should be at the minimum lifelong incarceration because such sexual desires can not be cured just as Jeffrey Dahmer could not be cured of his desire for eating dead young men due probably to his obsession with roadkill when he was in puberty.

Uh hello, shame you never signed your name - "Pedophilia is incurable and mostly destructive"... this statement is fallacious. "frankly something society can do without" - society can do without a lot of things, like TV, Internet, Radio, your point? "The huge power gap between a child and the adult in the relationship is simply unacceptable" - agreed, Parents should be banned from being around children... "A boy or a girl in such a relationship will grow up mentally and emotionally damaged" - another fallacious statement. Surely you can come out with some reasoning - --LuxOfTKGL 5 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

[edit] Publicized Case

Why is this being removed?:

"One highly publicized case of pedophilia is that of Michael Jackson."

His case is highly publicized. But admins keep calling it "vandalism," which doesn't make any sense. Perhaps they are just Michael Jackson fans that completely ignore fact. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you can interpret that sentence in two ways; one case where pedophilia happened, or one case where there was an accusation of pedophilia. The most direct interpretation seems to be the first. If you fudge the sentence a bit so the second interpretation becomes explicit, the problem with it will probably go away. --cesarb 02:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The case is of child molestation, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a crime. 24.224.153.40 16:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic church paragraph

I took out the paragraph about the Catholic church's teachings on discrimination. For one, the entirety of the paragraph was non-neutral--it was purportedly about the effect of religion on cultural norms but then only treated upon one single religion, and treated on it very favorably I might add. For two, the paragraph was about various societal norms regarding pedophilia and ephebophilia, not about discrimination--the author only put in a short parenthetical blurb about societal norms to barely tie it in.

I'd have no problem if this were rewritten to reflect the actual discussion at hand, that being the Catholic church's views on pedophilia, ephebophilia, and pederasty. In fact, it'd probably be best for several major religions to be represented, and for this to be its own section, not lumped into a section that deals mostly with cultural norms seperated by geography and nationality.

JarlaxleArtemis, could you give a clarification as to why you reverted my change? I think I've laid out some pretty good points here about why that particular paragraph doesn't belong until it's rewritten. It is referring to the Catholic Church's views on discrimination; other paragraphs in that section are referring to the views of various worldwide cultures on pedophilia. It has absolutely nothing to do with the article it's part of. --Kuronekoyama 03:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Condition

Though I can not come up with anything better, it would be appreciated if someone could change the word "condition" in the opening sentence to something more unsubjective (if I can use that word); "condition", in my mind, implies a disease or a disorder of some kind which pedophilia certainly is not. 24.224.153.40 28 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)

How about "state"? --Neural 29 June 2005 01:52 (UTC)

[edit] Support TAFKAPS

sorry... but please support this person now.

UK law has lost its sense of morality, and justice and are prosecuting people for doing nothing.

See Here.

Just so were clear on this, his case is not only common but standard fare. Guilty until proven innocent is the law for those who are accused of immoral things... mortals have no hope against government almighty.
Actually, that is NOT this case. That was his Previous case, for which he did time. He is now off the SO register (since april), this is an entirely different case to that.

[edit] Foreign language usage

Don't French and Brazillian folks usually use words in French and Portugeuse, not English words? The note on how this word is used in those countries seems out of place. Perhaps this is supposed to refer to an obvious cognate in these languages? -- Beland 07:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment!!!

There are ways of treating and assessing Pedophilia, could you please update them as well! Also I feel that this article seem focusing on the overall 'movement' of Pedophilia rather then the mental issue. I guess It is important to let people focus on the issue that Pedophilia is a mental illness and there are treatments or assessments for people with Pedophilia!

The APA is still not really sure whether it is an illness or not, and would, if not for Public pressure (which should have no impact on what it puts - sadly it does as even they have to be funded) have removed it from the DSM IV. There aren't treatments to pedophilia, that assertion is ludicrous.

NOT REALLY SURE??? And what manner of pressures that the APA got from? Speaking collectively that people with sexuality disorder(including homosexuality) are mentally ill in some way. It just more and more of these abnormal people complaining about the human right thing (which is pushing their boader further and further) I guess that more and more people giving in to what those abnormal people think and beliefs

I would suggest to also add treatment section to eating, sleeping, national liberation, and Atheism articles. In fact i think that if somebody is doing something that at the same time are doing less than 50% of the population of the Earth they should be treated... Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

[edit] Mentall illness or preferance

In reading some of the articles I noticed how some view (right or wrong) the tendency as a mental illness. I also know that homosexuality was seen as an illness (right or wrong) up until recently. Some studies show that some have a natural tendency towards a certain age group, for instance it is found that an unusual number of pedophiles are left handed or more active in certain parts of the brain, and that unlike popular belief, having been abused as child is not a prerequisite for pedophilia. In light of this, I am wondering of you belief this is a question of society not being ready for this as opposed to pedophilia being wrong. Does a society that legalizes sodomy and gay marriage pass judgment on what is morally right or wrong? Aren't these views subjective? Can definition of "adulthood" change just as definition of marriage did?

Society is very confused about this. For instance, if you sleep with a fifteen year old on the night before his/her sixteenth birthday, he/she is a "child" and you are considered a pedophile. If you wait a few seconds for the clock to tick into place at midnight, he/she is now no longer considered a child and you are no longer a pedophile.
What has changed in those few seconds or days to the fifteen year old that he is "suddenly" mature enough to partake of sexual affection?
The whole thing is just daft. I know thirteen year olds who, in terms of their mentaility/intellect/groudedness are far more mature than some 40 year olds. This is more related to society trying to promote the myth of the asexual child, I believe. Please see the child sexuality article.
Pedophiles are merely the last remaining acceptable scapegoats in our "politically correct" western societies. Pedophiles now fill the role that homosexuals used to fill, as victims for "the mob."
And may Big Brother strike me down if I'm wrong about this. (lol *tempts fate*)
Be careful with that Big Brother thing. At one time i have started a discussion forum online about this particular issue. I wasn't advocating any pov, in fact i've provided more resources that showed how dangerous it can be to have sex with the child (note: having sex with adolescents is actually not pedophilia). And when asked about my opinion i have given a lengthy one saying that coersion to have sex is in fact rape, and that i believed that the child has to be protected at all costs. However, simply because i have allowed the discussion some neo-fascists have decided to start collecting the data about me with the idea to send it to cops for "propper investigation".
I don't remember but somebody once said that "homosexuals are niggers of the 20th century", well i think that in 21st century childlovers will become niggers, in some places to be called a pedophile is already more insulting than the "n-word". Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

Maybe it is these neo-fascists who should be "investigated" for inciting hatred and violence against anyone with an opinion that differs from theirs. If these closet Hitler-worshippers are the kind of people who prop up the populist anti-sex hysteria in our culture, perhaps that says something about its true nature.

Far from sex being harmful, all the scientific evidence appears to suggest that it is sexual repression in childhood that leads to many mental illnesses, including the production of sexual murderers (and perhaps neo-fascists (hehe)).

It seems that the psychological harm inflicted on kids who have sex is from the shame poured upon them by a sick society that still equates sex to "sin" and "evil".

My view, btw, is not informed by being a pedophile but by having positive sexual experiences with adults when I was a child.

I would not advocate penetrative sex with anyone below about 9-10, and I happen to think that some legal protection is useful. However, the hysteria surrounding this subject is the true culprit, I believe, in creating the various psychological casualties we read about.

Child rapists are the worst type of monster there is, imo. However, consensual sexual contact between an adult and a child hurts nobody until society gets involved and begins brainwashing everyone involved into seeing this as the most shameful act possible. The peddlers of shame are the real "evil-doers" in this situation.

Neo-fascists you are more than welcome if you want to "get me investigated". I have done nothing illegal, except hold this opinion. Perhaps if Orwellian "though crimes" become illegal, you'll have me. But until then...

'I don't remember but somebody once said that "homosexuals are niggers of the 20th century", well i think that in 21st century childlovers will become niggers, in some places to be called a pedophile is already more insulting than the "n-word". '
I've lost count of the number of times I've read the term "convicted pedophile" in the newspapers in the past few months. The common perception seems to be that having an attraction to children is itself a crime. Any attitude that stigmatises people for what they are, rather than what they have done, is extremely dangerous.
There is a very distinct "witch-hunt" mentality in our society that is frighteningly legitimized by law and government, and I am scared to think what will happen to those unfortunate enough to have an exclusive sexual attraction to children.
I have heard pedophilies described a "subhuman scum" in right-wing newspapers, and the language is terrifyingly similar to that dreamed up by the Nazis in their propaganda war against jews.
Little is mentioned of the fact that the majority of pedophiles are celibate, "in the closet" out of neccessity, and are loving/caring people who gladly abstain from sex rather than cause even indirect (socially created) harm to any child. --Neural 13:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

In reading the American Psychiatric Association web site I found out that the APA is recommending decriminalization of all sexual tendencies which are forbidden either for cultural or religios reasons, such as voyeorism, pedophilia, s&m, etc. as they feel there is no scientific evidence for these tendencies to be considered criminal, and a similar paper 30 years ago or so paved the way for current gay liberation. So my question is should the subject of pedophilia be treated as a legal question or a moral question. If it's legal, then I can certaily see it becoming decriminalized in the next 10 years along side polygamy. If it is a moral issue we should take a step back and look at many "legal" and conventional practices in our current society as well.

Okay, I assume you are refering to consensual sexual contact. Sex obtained by coercion or force should always be considered both illegal and immoral.
Now, if we are to view pedophilia as a moral issue, for me it entirely hinges on what science has to say about "harm". Is the harm to children caused by sexual intimacy with adults or by the hysteria evoked in everryone surrounding the child, telling the child that the act is shameful, wicked, unnatural, etc? What actually causes the psychological damage we hear about?
If it can be objectively shown that harm is caused directly by the sexual contact (this is doubtful unless we are talking about full penetration with someone much younger), then I would view the act as immoral.
If it is shown that society and its extremly negative view of pedophilia causes the psychological harm to the child, then the consensual act is not truly immoral, but the anti-sex hysteria is immoral.
Only objective research can answer these questions with any degree of finality. At the moment, I am undecided, but swinging in favour of decriminalisation where full consent is present and as long as all involved are happy.

http://logicalreality.com/openbb/read.php?TID=80

So I see in the discussion above references to the fact that if there is attraction to a young girl as long as ther is no penetration is OK? So what is acceptable? Isn't that a technicality I mean if it's wrong to do that then isn't wrong to do anything at all?

Once again, the moral question comes down to harm. For my reasoning, see above. If it is directly harmful, it is wrong. If not, it is not. So in answer to your question: not neccesarily.

[edit] NPOV does not mean condoning

Paedophilia and pederasty cannot just be condoned, and NPOV does not mean we should justify those who "love" children because Greeks did. No one must be lead to understand that paedophilia is good for one culture and bad for another. Is killing good for your culture cand bad for mine? No, but we are heading in thios direction. A child who is abused he/she will live this ordeal for the rest of his/her life. Humans are not bonobos, and the accounts of the parents, children, clergymen, psychologists who actually deal with that might be quoted in this article. Let us all put links on this page to associations and law enforcement agencies that put pederasts behind bars. Please spare victims the photos. Killing childhood is not a matter of opinion. --Wikipedius 20:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Killing childhood is not a matter of opinion" - but stating that all pedophiles do is kill childhood is. It would actually help if you bothered to read the article you criticise.--LuxOfTKGL 20:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Neither does it mean condemning and/or sermonising. Who are we to say it is bad? Please read the murder article, nowhere does it suggest killing is bad, though its illegality is mentioned. -- Ec5618 20:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Not judging anyone, don't get me wrong. I did not mean it. But some issues as child molestation (as abuse) are not a matter of opinion. Paedophilia is not a crime, and is by no means pederasty, far from me to say that! But i don't think it should be indulged in. I know you agree with me on this. If i am wrong about the article not being impartial, so much the better for wiki. But it still needs a few good links. --Wikipedius 22:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but providing too many links to negative pages goes against NPOV, is not our job (WP:NOT), and is a very bad idea, just as providing an abundance of links to sites and organisations that aim to 'cure' homosexuals is a bad idea in the article on homosexuality. Regardless of whether we feel it should be indulged in (should homosexuality be indulged in? Should breaking wind?) we should neither condone nor condemn it. And if, by failing to condemn paedophilia we appear to be condoning it, then so be it.
We make mention of the fact that in most modern cultures child-adult sexual activity is considered harmful to the child, and is illegal. But nowhere should we appear to be condemning anything, even child molestation. Remember, we take no sides, ever. And in some cases, one man's abuse is another's loving commited relationship.
Nevertheless, if you feel the page needs a link to a clearly anti-paedophile site, please try to provide it. It's true, the article doesn't contain links to negative sites, though it does to positive and academic sites. Though try to find one that does not rely solely on emotional rhetoric (save our children!) or miscategorisation (padeophilia refers solely to an attraction of an adult to a prebubescent child). Try to find one worthy of representing the sane and calm opponents of child-adult sexual activities. -- Ec5618 22:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
"Try to find one worthy of representing the sane and calm opponents of child-adult sexual activities."
I have noticed that anti-pedophile groups are rarely ever either sane or calm - this is probably why nobody can find a worthy anti-pedophile link to put up. Anti-molestation is one thing. Anti-pedophilia is quite another. Btw, on the previous discussion about legal issue vs moral issue, I advocate a serious rethink of the legal AOC for consensual sex. I find it absurd that someone 15 years, 11 months, 29 days, and 59 seconds cannot legally (or morally, according to some) have sex without his/her older partner theoretically going to jail, but one second later the legal and moral issues suddenly dissapear. The legal age is an arbitrary number dreamed up by old fuddy-duddies who thought sex was some great doom. Sexual activity, when all parties are willing and happy, hurts nobody. Anti-sex hysteria, misguided taboos and repression hurt many.--195.93.21.101 02:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not think condemning pederasty is hysteria, if you meant pederasts by "anti-pedophiles". There may be much sanity in being aware that this is important. 1 in 5 children on the internet is sexually molested (abuse may also be verbal). That is why parents are so emotional about the issue when you talk about it. The question is not whether one should come up with all the links against child abuse all of a sudden, but why those who are well-read on the subject did not in the first place. It is in the interest of the article itself (and wiki), and no one here can ever think of providing more than a couple of links. Of course, these are only my opinions, i am biased. But who isn't? --Wikipedius 23:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; it is an extremely emotive issue, and most people will have an opinion one way or the other. Mine is based on having positive sexual experiences when I was quite a bit below the legal age. I wasn't "groomed", coerced or manipulated into sex. I went into a relationship with a wonderful, sweet, and sensitive man with my eyes wide open. He, in fact, was the reluctant one because of my age. With my cherished memories, I could never be anti-pedophile. However, I am of course totally anti-rape, anti-molestation, and basically aginst any related thing that is non-consensual. I still think the legal AOC needs a major rethink, and the taboos about child sexuality are harmful rather than helpful. And I do think there is a pedophile-witch-hunt mentality that says all pedophiles are rapists that need to be hunted down. This is the dangerous hysteria I speak of. Pedophiles seem to be the last remaining acceptable scapegoat for all of societies ills - in this case, persecution is actively encouraged by our culture. -Kate --195.93.21.101 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact you mention is interesting. From what i underststand you were an adult at that age. I remember hearing this on tv not long ago: a 40-year-old teacher in Rome fell in love with his student, a 19-year-old girl and she returned his feelings. They exchanged lots of love letters. But when he told his wife he wanted to leave her, there was a fight and he shot her. At this point, the whole thing was widely hinted at as pedophilia. Here we are speaking of grown-ups though. But, probably a consensual adult may be one who displays fully-developed sexual traits? Some people at 15 are children but others may well ahead of their age. My mom says that when she was at high school a mature teacher fell in love with his teen student (15-17, could not say). Their relationship was kept secret until she reached 21 and they got married. They were a happy couple. Since he was well-off and a bachelor however, nobody complained. --Wikipedius 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
From what i underststand you were an adult at that age. - at what age? She gives no age. --LuxOfTKGL 11:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the point of your question? We don't need to shout here, i hope you will be civil enough to do that. We've been talking of hysteria and witch-hunting, and i see a lot of it on the internet against Christians these days. I hope we are allowed our point of view, just like anybody else. End of the story. --Wikipedius 18:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Lux's point is very clear: you mistakenly say Kate was an adult after she clearly stated being well below legal age, and thus NOT an adult, a point crucial to Kate's post. His 'shouting' is not to silence you but his angst at a grievous error. It is not a harmless error, either, since people with destructive agendas seize upon precisely this type of grievous errors to further their goals of destruction. 12:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so calmly. Often, the mere mention of the P-word can get everyone in a fenzy of negative emotion - which I see as part of the problem. As to ages, etc, I'm afraid that I'm reluctant to even go into it with any details. My IP is already listed here, and I know how fanatical people can be. I don't want to add any more info that could help pinpoint anyone involved. I'm not worried for myself, being the younger partner, but I cannot risk the man I mentioned getting some kind of backlash because I discussed it on a website. Although we rarely even see each other now, I still have a lot of love for him. I would never testify against him in a court - in fact I would testify for the defense if anything like that happened - but I am worried about vigilantes. All I will say is that I was not "legally" an adult and therefore legally underage when we had sexual intimacy. Thanks everyone. --Kate--195.93.21.101 03:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture norms

Misleading text in this section was moved to Ephebophilia. Don't put it back here. --Haham hanuka 12:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the text, I agree - the sections you've moved do belong in Ephebophilia, not here. Good call.--Neural 21:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't. Attraction to 13 year olds can still be considered pedophilia (pubescence does not happen at any specific age), and lolicon often depicts prepubescent girls. How is this misleading? 24ip | lolol 17:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/d/Talk%7EPedophilia_September_2005_64cb.html"