Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

Quotes and length

I am disturbed to find some of the sources include very strong views about the movement, but these are ignored. The Moran quote, which I just fixed, is a classic case of pov quoting out of context. I am going to keep adding npov content to these as I find them. But for length reasons, it may be better to simply delete some of these so-called references altogether. --216.131.220.133 16:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have clearly shown yourself to be incapable of NPOV edits. You have haphazardly removed entire paragraphs because they did not suit your own personal viewpoints without any justification whatsoever. In particular, you can not speak on behalf of the entire medical community. And pointing out that there are no pro-pedophilia studies in today's political climate is like pointing out that there is no pro-slave studies in the south during slavery. There is no way an objective study concerning pedophilia could be performed in the United States today. You are proof of that.--24.200.34.178 18:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There have been many objective studies, which are (now) cited in the article. The data in the studies contradict your view, but they are objective. If you don't think they are objective, please read them and explain why. I will repeat the most comprehensive review cite next to the paragraph you removed to make it clearer.
Wikipedia editors speak for the entire medical community all the time. As an encyclopedia, that's the whole point: summarizing the current state of our knowledge. If you think that the medical community has accepted an actual study of non-negative psychological outcomes of 'childlove', please cite it.
I have deleted very little. (Although I have condensed some.) The only paragraph I deleted was an off-topic paragraph about a study that focused on virginity pledges, which just added bulk muddied the discussion since the analogy was not fully explained. I explained the edit clearly on the talk page and when making it. I don't believe this was haphazard. I was looking for an edit that deleted bulk without losing any substantive coverage. I am still satisfied with the change.
Lastly, I will try not to be deeply offended by your analogy to the actual [slavery|enslavement] of African-Americans. I will point out that 1) There were many studies showing the problems of slavery, written by both Southerners and Northerners, and 2) I can not go onto eBay, buy two pedophiles, whip them, breed them, then sell their children on eBay.
Obviously the two situations are different, but the level of oppression, hatred, anger, ignorance, wrongfull imprionment, and violence is similar. There are also similarities to the underground railroad, as thousands of American pedophiles flee to less oppressive countries.--24.200.34.178 00:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Level of oppression"? I still maintain that, until I can legally buy you, tie you to a post and whip you, and sell your children for a profit, you are experiencing a lower "level of oppression" than did American slaves. 216.131.220.140 23:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Clearly you have deep feelings about this topic. Perhaps you should take a moment to ask yourself if you will ever be happy with the way wikipedia will portray the movement. As described above, the wiki page will be no prettier than the general consensus in society. If you really feel that the entire medical community is as biased as the worst slaveowners were, then I think you are not going to like this page. Perhaps there's a better forum for your passion that beating your head against this brick wall. Thanks. 216.131.222.95 19:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe the entire medical community is biased. Your assertion that the entire medical community has reached a consensus on this issue however is entirely laughable, as there are many psychologists who do not buy into commonly held beliefs regarding pedophilia. As I said before, you cannot speak on behalf of the entire medical community when the medical community itself remains divided on the specifics of this issue.--24.200.34.178 00:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Summarizing the scientific literature on harm of adult-child sexual contact

The following statements deal only with the allegation that adult-child sexual contact causes harm in a very high percentage of cases. They do not have anything to do the classification of pedophilia, whether all pedophiles act on their desires, etc.

I have highlighted the disputed terms in bold.

Current medical literature consistently documents a high incidence of profound and grievous psychological harm caused by sexual contact. . . To date, the medical community remains unconvinced of the movement’s claims that adult-child sexual contact is not harmful in a high percentage of cases; no peer-reviewed study of actual psychological outcomes supporting the movement's view has withstood scientific scrutiny.

200. has changed 1) "consistently documents" to "often documents"; and 2) "the medical community" to "some in the medical community".

Justifying these edits first requires us to be able to cite a "peer-reviewed study of actual psychological outcomes supporting the movement's view" that "adult-child sexual contact is not harmful in a high percentage of cases." And that "that has withstood scientific scrutiny."

You are incorrect. "The medical community" is more than simply a compilation of peer reviewed studies. "The medical community" consists of millions of doctors around the world. And since I know for a fact that many of those doctors do not agree with accepted "peer reviewed findings", you cannot accurately say that the entire medical community remains unconvinced. It is misleading, and inaccurate.--24.200.34.178 16:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In order to prove that the entire medical community holds a certain viewpoint, you need to poll every last member of the medical community. But in order to disprove that statement, you need only find a single member of the medical community who disagrees. It's elementary boolean algebra. My edit was simply to correct an indisputable syntax error. I will make the correction again, but will try to use langauge that appears sufficiently anti-pedophile, since that aparently has more to do with whether edits survive than its truthfulness.--24.200.34.178 16:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the original term was not "the entire" community, which would fall into the logic you describe. Rather it was a generalization commonly used for the general consensus of the vast majority of the community. I'm fine with 'greater' if it will keep the peace. Chris vLS 18:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I respect your argument. You are the first person to point out that the original quote was not "the entire", and the first person to make a valid case that "the community" does not always refer to "the entire community". I still think that a qualifier like "the greater medical community" or "the majority of the medical community" brings an important technical clarity to a heated debate such as this one. Feel free to change it to "the vast majority of the medical community", but I think "the greater medical community" sounds more encyclopedic.--24.200.34.178 20:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And even if a single study could be produced, and evidence of its acceptance found, it would be one study against literally hundreds.

Certainly one compromise would be to say “virtually the entire medical community” but even that overstates the movement’s progress. It would be like saying “virtually the entire physics community doesn’t believe in cold fusion.” Until there is a citation that has stood up to community scrutiny, I think its fair to treat the hypothesis as unproven and the community as unconvinced. If someone can document a significant segment of the medical community that believes that there is data showing that adult-child sexual contact is not harmful is the vast majority of cases, then lets change it to "the greater medical community". Without such evidence, let's revert. (As a compromise, I just deleted 'often' and left it as plain 'documents' not 'consistently documents').

Last but not least, 200. has changed "The movement has few disputed scientific papers to cite" to "The movement has several disputed scientific papers to cite." I think that this blurs the original point of "few" that the number of papers on one side is a one or two orders of magnitude more than on the other. I think we should re-visit this later. 216.131.220.140 19:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But virtually the entire medical community does not accept peer-reviewed junk science put out by the sex abuse agenda. Many important researchers -- some who are the leaders of the field like John Money -- take less strident views on intergenerational sexual contact. They understand that as with all sexual relationships, sometimes it causes harm and sometimes it does not -- except with intergenerational relationships, the social stigma and condemnation attached to the "deviant" sexual acts are by far the leading source of trauma.
Rind, et. al. is a very important piece of research for a number of reasons. First, it uses quantiative analysis to avoid the interjection of morality-loaden language into the research, which is a serious problem with qualitative research on this hot-button issue. Second, it utilizes "meta-analysis," meaning that it synthesizes the data of a sizable number of quantitative studies. This methodology lends incredible insight by pulling data from a wide variety of samples from different times, locations, and researches. Third, its focus on college samples, while not representative of the general population, is far more representative than clinical or legal samples (which involve the worst cases) and disproves the claim that intergenerational sex causes pervasive harm by showing that most college students report little or no harm at all (and even that some consider their experiences positive).
Even if you choose to ignore RBT's research, or to insert criticisms of it without including RBT's responses to those criticisms, your understanding of Wikipedia needs significant modification. NPOV does not mean that the content of the article reflects the sentiments of the majority of the population. Since different cultures in the world have different opinions on youth sexuality, such a criterion for neutrality is not only non-sensical, it is also impossible. What neutrality really means is balance, and that each side of argument in a controversial article has a voice. Whether one side enjoys the support of 98% of the population or 48% is irrelevant; the argument still has a right to inclusion.
(Unsigned by User:Corax
On my understanding of NPOV: Please, let’s stay cool. I think you misrepresent my interest in measuring the ‘vast majority’ issue. I am not interested in suppressing the view of a tiny minority. (If I were, I would have VfD’d this page, not spent hours of my time gathering the citations for this page.) I am interested in describing how many neutral experts agree with the scientific claims of the movement. This is a NPOV aim. In fact, as stated in Wikipedia:No original research that this is the npov way of handling disputed topics such as this one. In the words of No Original Research: "state the known and popular ideas and identify general 'consensus', making clear which is which".
On the college sample issue: Your own discussion shows the problem with Rind. You say that clinical samples under-represent healthy outcomes. Similarly, the critics of Rind say that college samples under-represent unhealthy outcomes. Neither is representative. Many secondary sources, however, quote the Rind percentages without qualification. (Also, your claim that all clinical samples are worst-case is an overgeneralization. Some ‘clinical’ samples are called clinical simply because a GP’s office is used as the sampling site, even though the prospective participants are just in for a physical, common cold, etc. These can actually under-represent the worse-off end of the population, as they exclude patients totally out of the normal pattern of medical care. See for example King Coxell Mezey 2002 [1]). Also, I have found many published, peer-reviewed articles by several different scientists taking Rind apart. Are there any that defend Rind, epsecially by people other than Rind?
On meta-analysis: Meta-analysis can lend statistical power, but by its very ‘synthetic’ nature, it is also extremely susceptible to methodological influence. Indeed, Dallam’s categorization of the flaws of Rind is a good introduction to some of the most common problems. (Except, of course, for Dallam’s evidence that Rind actually miscoded data, and that all these miscodings favored the direction of the Rind hypothesis. That’s just totally out of bounds –- and has nothing to do with meta-analysis.)
Thanks -- 216.131.220.140 20:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe the editing has heated up at all. And if my participation on Wikipedia ever became intense, I'm certain this article would not be the cause. The idea of a ”childlove movement" is an illusion concocted by people with an agenda. The "movement" is nothing more than a disparate collection of individuals loosely linked by the fact that they have a sexual attraction to legally designated "minors." Even the attraction itself is different from person to person: some are attracted to young teenagers, others to four-year-olds; some are gay, some straight. Much of the content of this article is more appropriate for other articles, like Rind and NAMBLA and pederasty, rather than an article of its own. The only material that does not fit in those others articles is so vague (because of the aforementioned differences within the "movement") that it is worthless. So please do not mistake my objection to the content of your critiques on Rind with an abiding interest in this article.
The issue of adult-child sex is so taboo in Western society, particularly America, that good research on the topic is rare. As you correctly state, the vast majority of studies have produced results that indicate the harmfulness of age-discrepant sex. However, as my second grade teacher taught our class, quantity is no substitute for quality. A single study that uses proper sampling techniques is far more valuable than a collection of two hundred studies that inappropriately use legal or medical sampling. When research on a hot-button issue challenges conventional views by refusing to presuppose "assumed properties" of a controversial phenomenon, a vocal opposition usually arises to suppress it. Reactions to RBT's research give an all-too-real demonstration of this tendency. The moment the report was released, denunciations came in swift succession, not surprisingly from the very same people who rely on the concept of CSA to earn a living, but also from social conservatives who believed the study was symbolic of the moral relativism of secular humanist, science-based values plaguing modern society. Rind and his research team ignored the latter group's unscientific disagreements, but fortunately for science, they responded point-by-point to methodological criticisms. Judging from your one-sided treatment of Rind's research, you have not read their responses.
One thing that I find particularly disturbing is that you seem not to understand the main purpose of the study. It was laid out clearly in the very beginning as being to test the scientific validity of the clinical concept of "child sexual abuse." In order to do this, they compared the findings of a number of quantitative studies against the four commonly accepted characteristics of child sexual abuse: that it causes (1)harm that is (2)pervasive, (3)usually intense, and (4)equivalent for both sexes. If these four principles are true, one should be able to take a sample of any subset of the population and come away with confirmatory data. The alleged pervasiveness of harm caused by CSA means that one should be able to survey a group of blacks, whites, poor people, rich people, females, and males and end up with data that indicates that intergenerational sexual relationships were viewed as harmful by the vast majority of the respondents. Rind, et al. did just that, by analyzing the quantitative data produced by a host of experiments, and concluded that at least two of these principles are incorrect. First, perceived negativity of age-discrepant sex is not pervasive in the college subset of the general population, contrary to what the current understanding of CSA implies; second, males and females had noticeably different reactions to their earlier sexual experiences with older individuals, contradictory to the equivalency principle.
At no point did the authors intend to pass a moral judgment on adult-child sex, adult-teenager sex, homosexuality, or any other practice. At no point did the authors assert that pedophilia is always harmless, nor did they advocate legal reform. Rather, they did what all good scientists do. They collected data, analyzed that data objectively, and then formed inductive conclusions based strictly on the data.
One of the issues with which they dealt is the concern that you raised about how drawing a sample from college students leaves out the worst and most representative cases of CSA. Their response, which is available in its entirety here, mentioned what I already explained above about "pervasiveness." In addition, they reiterate the problems of confirmation bias. Dr. Rind notes that many of the same sexual practices we now consider perfectly normal and healthy like masturbation were once dubbed disorders by mental health professionals who relied on research involving clinical and legal samples to form their opinions. Past researchers, like modern researchers, had a predisposition to blame their subjects' problems on any personal behavior that deviated from the culturally accepted norm.
The truth is that the use of clinical or legal samples for studying CSA is unscientific. It invites confirmation bias by studying only people who have psychological problems, and presupposes a harmful nature to adult-youth sex (that one must go to a hospital to study it because it invariably causes intense damage and numerous psychological problems). In reality, only the age-discrepant sexual relationships that have caused enough harm to come to the attention of medical or legal professionals are included in traditional CSA studies. And that sampling of harmful cases is exaggerated by people who have been beaten, starved, and abandoned by their parents, but have all of their psychological problems attributed to youthful sexual activity with adults, even if the youth invited and enjoyed the contact as an escape from the parental abuse. Focusing on only the absolute worst outcomes of adult-child sexual contact, which is what legal and clinical samples do, paints a misleading picture of the general population. The fact that hundreds of studies have used clinical samples does mean that using clinical samples is scientifically valid.
Rind also notes that college samples would be far more representative of the population than medical or legal samples because, first, half of the United States has had some college education. Second, he demonstrates a strong statistical similarity between national and college samples in terms of severity, prevalence, and correlates. And lastly, he beats his critics at their own game by entirely setting aside college samples and using a samples of junior high and high school students to arrive at the very same conclusions.
Also in the article is an effective response to each of Dallam's criticisms on methodology, in case you ever have a passing interest in reading a point of view that disagrees with your own. Corax 03:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rind et al. (1998) vs. Childlove movement

From a strictly structural point of view, could you please try to consolidate the information on the Rind study in a single article? Currently it's split across two. I suggest focusing on the arguments for / against the study in Rind et al. (1998). I also note that the current presentation gives a lot of space to their critics, but none to any rebuttals - have they written any?--Eloquence* 02:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

About the "Medical community reaction" - NPOV

The section "Medical community reaction to the movement’s scientific claims" begins by saying:

Current medical literature documents a high incidence of profound and grievous psychological harm caused by sexual contact with children.

As far as I'm aware (I'm not overly involved, but I've read about them), their argument to this is that the "incidents" that the "medical literature documents" are by necessity only those sexual relationships that are found out about; they believe that the "profound and grievous psychological harm" is never caused by the sexual contact itself, but society's shocked reaction to it. Society will separate the two, which supposedly the child may perceive as the forceful removal of a friend they trust. Often the child is also said to be involved in police interrogations and perhaps court trials against the perpetrator, where they are forced to tell the truth even though they know it will cause grief to (and their prolonged separation from) the person they have come to trust.65.75.139.150 00:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A good point, but the debate is a bit wider. The studies -- on both sides -- include surveys of 'undsicovered' relationships and whether these relationships are associated with subsequent harm. 216.131.222.186 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

meaning of the "CLogo"

Under 'Ethics proposed by the movement' there is mention of "subsequent discussions" of guidelines which have produced four "new" guidelines which have now been adopted by MARTIJN and form the basis of the ethos of the Human Face of Pedophilia. This is all true. However, under 'Symbols', the "CLogo" is presented as a logo that is being used by child lovers to represent their aspirations. This is incorrect. The CLogo is being used by child lovers to show their solidarity with these four "new" guidelines! The "new" guidelines were also first mentioned in the CLogo's Pedophilia brochure. The brochure which is mentioned on the Childlove movement Wiki-page.

The Spanish version of this article has been erased

I am pasting here the same post where I am "ratting out" what happened:

Sorry my friends, I failed.

Finally, after a somewhat slow and bizarre battle, the war is over: the Spanish version of the Childlove Movement was destroyed and erased from the Spanish version of the Wikipedia.

Since the beginning things started to get a little nasty. The crusade against it was moral, not intellectual or academic.

Many times they insisted that the article and the subject itself were not encyclopaedic, even though it is still considered as that in the English version of the Wikipedia.

Other times, they said that there was not such thing as a movement of childlove: it did not matter how many probes and documents I showed.

One answer was great: “I do not even want to read those documents or go to that forum (Boychat) since they are disgusting”. Pretty encyclopaedic, eh?

Other one said that, and this episode was memorable, that there is not such thing as meta-analysis. “That is a trendy word for something that is just an analysis”. The amazing thing was not the ignorance of the twit, but that nobody else complained. They were red blinded, so everything was accepted for the destruction of the article.

Actually, the only two guys who showed a more centred opinion were made to change their minds by the rest.

So it was finally erased because the abovementioned crowd voted against it.

I was the only one in the fight to save the article. Nobody else joined me there, maybe because most of our members do not read or write fluently in Spanish, but it would not make a difference. The herd of illiterates were already into a moral crusade, covered up with a façade of encyclopaedism, so they would not be deterred by arguments, logic or science.

Nevertheless, it was an interesting experience. It proved (to me and to some friends) the sterility and futility of the project known as the Spanish version of the Wikipedia. The Spanish version of the Wikipedia is not the Greek Academia but The Lord of the Flies. It looks more like an exercise on propaganda rather than an encyclopaedic work, framing some knowledge as acceptable while condemning other to obscurity. Of course, to defend their decision, they have come with emotional garbage mixed with big words, in an unsuccessful attempt to hide their prejudices with fake academese.

The Spanish version of the Wikipedia… a place for people with plenty of free time and plenty of prejudices.

Santi

Obviously, the Spanish wikipedists could tell otherwise. Santi's insults ("herd of illiterates", "emotional garbage", comparing Wikipedia with "The Lord of the Flies"...) don't make his tale more accurate --and his behaviour wasn't better at the Spanish version. His total lack of respect for the people and rules of Wikipedia say more about his failure in spamming the Spanish Wikipedia than his rants. (by 80.58.42.107)
Well, Spanish people are within all their rights to translate both "childlover" and "pedophile" sickos into one and the same word... what would it be in Spanish? mikka (t) 08:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
That is like saying that they can translate anti-racist movement and black to mean the same word... I'm sorry, it doesn't matter what opinion you hold on child-love movement, personally i haven't yet made mine up... still researching, but i do realise that not every person attracted to minors is a part of childlove movement, just like not every black person actively fighting racism. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
Bot do you realise that some have reasons to think that all childlove-movers are pedophiles and hardly deserve a huge separate article? mikka (t) 16:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not childlovers are pedophiles, or all pedophiles are child-lovers is not an issue. One may, with this argument alone, remove any reference to nationality or such, as we are "all human". The term pedophile, and its associated word "Pedophilia" is a psychological term used to define the mindset of someone and class their sexual orientation. The term "childlover" (which merely redirects to Childlove Movement - personally I feel this to not be satisfactory), and its "childlove movement" (which again is incorrect as there is not one united child love movement, therefore I believe the word childlover would be more correct), are used to define a particular subset of people, and their own characteristics, descriptions, history, reasons, background, and other such information that would not be appropriate elsewhere. I realise some people have reasons to think that, how ever I also realise some people would rather see "*name* is a pedophile" plastered all over the the Pedophile wikipage. --LuxOfTKGL 16:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Childlovers and children should have the right to enter into consenting, mutually respectful relationships, if they choose to do so. American and western society tolerates consenting adult sexual relationships, yet it does not tolerate an adult raping another adult. The same protocol should go for adult/child relationships. We should accept mutually consenting relationships between childlovers and children, but we should not tolerate child molestation, which is child-rape. I personally think that if and adult and a child consent, whether they be a man and a boy, a man and a girl, and woman and a boy or a woman and a girl, to a romantic/sexual/loving relationship, I think that that should be made legal. I am a 19 year old male, with a 21 year old boyfriend, and I am in college. But even though I am currently in a legal, socially accepted, adult relationship, I should have the choice and the legal right to pursue a sexual relationship with a consenting child, whether they be male or female.

The article is an abomination, it promotes paedophila, it is not neutral. Allowing the article to stay as it is advanves the desires of the sick people who wrote it.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not here to right society's wrongs, whatever they may be. We're just trying to write an encyclopedia of verifiable information summarized in an Wikipedia:NPOV manner. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

"The article is an abomination, it promotes paedophila, it is not neutral. Allowing the article to stay as it is advanves the desires of the sick people who wrote it."

Personal attacks on people who take their own time out in a vain attempt to present unbiased information to educate the ignorant/socially indoctrinated mobs who call for blood... that's the abomination.

This is a great site, btw. Shame about the Spanish version, if that kind of thing is allowed to happen.

The "neutrality disputed" sign has been up forever, and the discussion appears to have died off. I'm removing the sign for this reason. If anyone wants to reawaken the debate, feel free to put it back...--195.93.21.33 00:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


French version created

For you information, I created the french version of the article as a nearly-exact translation of this one. It is a kind of test, to see if wikipedia french community is able to accept such article on such subject. As the article is yet very complete and is a traduction of this one for which a lot of work have been done by en: community, there is no reason to delete the french version except for morality purpose. So, let's see...

If you are able to read french, the link is here: Mouvement Childlove

.: Guil :. chat 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A small victory for tolerance if the article is allowed to remain. My French is poor, otherwise I woud get involved. Good luck, and I hope you find objective collaborators to maintain the article against the "morality police" attacking it with POV edits.


Links

As somebody already said:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not here to right society's wrongs, whatever they may be. We're just trying to write an encyclopedia of verifiable information summarized in an NPOV manner. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

So link not to important info should be removed. No proselitism. --pippo2001 22:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Source of the new information given

On August 23th the user LuxOfTKGL deleted some information I added (see the addition) because I didn't attached the source. OK. The source is the Note 4 that I have read here. I have now submitted the original words from the Note 4 and corrected some broken links.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.