Talk:Jailbait

"Sourced Content"

RE: "Sourced content is not relevant (and unsupported intra-Wikipedia - "forbidden fruit" is not a synonym of "jailbait") and it's refIMPROVE, for the other statements, not UNreferenced..." in my edit summary and responding to "why would you remove source content, simultaneously tagging with expand and refimprove?"...

It's sourced, sure, but irrelevant. "Forbidden fruit" is not the same as "jailbait", and the Wikipedia forbidden fruit article has no bearing on this one. While the sentence is referenced (and that's a good thing), it is irrelevant.

I tagged Refimprove for sentences that are not referenced, such as the one I specifically tagged as {{fact}}. That's refIMPROVE, and not UNreferenced.

Lastly, I probably shouldn't have tagged it with {{Expand}} - I should tag it with {{PROD}}. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Next, we'll have full-blown articles on Chill pill just like we have them on dibs, fuzzy dice (for real?), [tar baby]], and cooties.

Hence the removal and tagging and tweaking. • VigilancePrime • • • 05:57 (UTC) 1 Apr '08

I propose removing reference two, namely the reference to the definition of jailbait provided by American Heritage Dictionary. The entry in AHD says: "n. Slang A person below the age of consent with whom sexual intercourse can constitute statutory rape". This bears no resemblance to the sentence to which this reference has been appended, and therefore the AHD entry does not serve to bolster the definition offered in this Wikipedia entry. Consequently the reference is either deceptive (in the sense that a definition is provided and a reference offered that does not actually back it up) or out-of-date. 08:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Gloriousgee08:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Jailbait

Hey what the hell is going on here? As if anybody gives a shit about the dissambiguations here presented. Why are you reverting the changes when somebody actually TELLS THE TRUTH!! Jailbait = underage girl who I'm willing to fuck, even if I get in jail. COME ON! IT'S JAIL-BAIT!! And it MUST be added, as it's the most common way the word is used as. Stop blindfolding yourselves, I just saw the article history and who's the one reverting? A like-70 years old man? WTF DUDE! This is an encyclopedia, the truth must be written in here, not just what YOU want to! There's a freaking article of pedophilia, there are even categories about pornstars! Search 'jailbait' in Google and sincerely WHAT ARE THE MOST RELEVANT RESULTS!? Stay true, Wikipedia, no more bullshit! (Don't you DARE to delete my comment here, because it's true and YOU KNOW IT!) --200.106.69.159 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As one of the reverters, I'll point you to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a policy page for this encyclopedia which strives for best practice. The place for the slang definition you added (which has been added in the past several times) is on Wiktionary, where you'll currently find it listed under 'jailbait'. I hope that clears things up. --McMillin24 _contribs^talk 05:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So no jailbait, but hard candy does says it's a candy? Can't find the difference. --200.106.69.159 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree, that that definition is more accurate. Most people refer to Jailbait as a girl who is under the legal Age of Consent, but you would like to have sex with. ALL of the internet views the definition that way. I don't know why an incorrect definition is on this page... LaughinSkull (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology "jail bait" should definitely be made explicit. A bait, if you get caught, you go to jail. Why so ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.85.173.114 (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal

"The term is highly nuanced due to its criminal law connotations, and therefore the specific sort of person the term can refer to varies by jurisdiction and often by the person who uses the term."

I just added a citeneeded to this sentence, and now I believe I'm going to turn around and remove it. I didn't entirely understand what the sentence was supposed to mean, but now I think I get it. It's not the clearest writing, and if I don't re-write it, I think someone else should take a crack at it. --Ben Culture (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I did re-write the sentence and removed the citeneeded. --Ben Culture (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the term "jailbait" appears in legal statutes so I decided to take the sentence out. Even though I'm supposed to be staying out of this topic I think this change was an ok one. --RJR3333 (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Jailbait is slang. It is not a legal term. To the extent that there is any legal relevance, the definition is wrong. It is not limited to an underage girl "with the implication that a person above the age of consent might find them sexually attractive". They could be sexually attractive to another underage person.101.98.169.98 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jailbait is defined in relation to the law, despite not being an actual legal term. It is not about underage people (as in non-adults) finding each other sexually attractive. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jailbait is American slang, as is statutory rape. These terms should not be used outside the USA.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No. There is a UK subcategory under "Statutory Rape": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#United_Kingdom 2.31.164.15 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Definition

"Jailbait is slang for a minor who is younger than the legal age of consent for sexual activity, but physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult." This is not an accurate definition. The term 'jailbait' does not refer to minors who are physically mature enough to be mistaken for adults. Quite the contrary, it refers to persons (usually girls) who are physically mature enough to fall within the compass of 'normal', teleiophilic sexual attraction whilst still being below the age of consent. The application of the term 'jailbait' serves as an acknowledgement that the object of one's attraction cannot be mistaken for an adult and yet has sufficient appeal to provoke sexual desire. I would caution against maintaining the aforementioned inaccurate definition in what is surely an effort to chasten the term so as to accord with culturally relativistic mores; what we need is an accurate definition, not puritanism. Gloriousgee (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how the current definition truly differs from yours, except for the "usually girls" in parentheses and the wordiness of your definition. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And the term jailbait refers to those who can be mistaken for an adult, such as a 17-year-old (which is an age that is usually under the age of majority and sometimes under the age of consent), just as much, if not more so, as it refers to underage people who are not physically mature enough to truly be mistaken for an adult. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The two defining characteristics that qualify an individual as 'jailbait' are: 1) sexually appealing; and 2) below the age of consent. The trouble with the current definition is that it throws in the 'physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult' as though it is a necessary defining characteristic, but it isn't. Some examples of jailbait may be convincingly adult in appearance, but certainly not all. This is illustrated by the fact that here in the UK one would have to be 15 or younger to qualify as under the age of consent, and girls as young as 12 or 13 can be talked of as 'jailbait', yet they (and some of the 15-year-olds too) are very unlikely to be mistaken for adults. Compare with this formal fallacy (I forget its name):

Some swans are black

This is a swan

Therefore it is black

Some 'jailbait' girls can be mistaken for an adult

This is a 'jailbait' girl

Therefore she can be mistaken for an adult

It would be much more accurate to replace 'physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult' with something as simple as 'physically mature enough to be sexually desirable'. If one preferred a tighter definition, one might expand 'physically mature enough' to refer to the development of secondary sexual characteristics being in evidence, though from personal experience I have seen flat-chested girls in their early teens being referred to as jailbait. The bottom line is that though some jailbait may be mistakeable for adults, it is not a defining characteristic and therefore does not belong in a definition.

Gloriousgee (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe I follow your meaning now, Gloriousgee. Though I have not personally observed the term being used in this manner (where it is is relatively apparent the subject is not an adult yet is still found to be sexually appealing). At least here in the US, where the term originates according to the sources, using the term this way would draw strange looks from others. The reason being if the subject is obviously not an adult, it is posited a teleiophilic person should not find them attractive, and therefore must be a sexually deviant individual. Though let me quickly follow that by saying this is not necessarily true all the time, as the interest from the elder person may be for a variety of reasons, though many of them are not necessarily a sign of a well-adjusted individual.

But here is the most important part: The opinion of us editors doesn't really matter. We are just a few people with no special authority to mandate the meaning of words. Our job is to go out and find reliable sources to support the information in the article. If you want to alter it in the manner you want, you should fine some kind of authoritative source backing it up.Legitimus (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If my proposed change involved the addition of information, then my task would be to find reliable sources that include the information to be added. As my proposed change involves removing information (specifically the '...to be mistaken for an adult'), my task is presumably to find authoritative sources that do not include that information. The Oxford English Dictionary definition, the Collins English dictionary definition and the definition provided by Dictionary.com do not rely on the '...to be mistaken for an adult' criterion. If this seems unsatisfying, I would contend that if one is to include such a criterion (beyond the two obvious criteria of under the age of consent and sexually desirable), one should have to find some kind of authoritative source to back that up. Surely the finding of reliable sources is an imperative for the [i]inclusion[/i] of information, not its removal?

As an aside, hebephilia has been roundly rejected as a psychological disorder, on the grounds that attraction to pubescent individuals is biologically valid. When you say 'it is posited a teleiophilic person should not find them attractive', I would contend that the 'should' refers to culturally relativistic norms rather than biological ones. Incidentally, this aside is not without relevance; the term 'jailbait' plays on the unease evoked by the disjunction between cultural norms, legal norms and biological norms. It is precisely because of incomplete development that girls can be labelled as 'jailbait' in the first place. Possibly it is cultural relativism that is at the root of the controversy here. In the United States the age of consent in many states is 18. This allows for 17-year-olds (who surely do resemble adult women) to be classifiable as jailbait, whereas here in Europe ages of consent vary between 13 and 16, so all 'jailbait' will necessarily be significantly less developed. 22:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Gloriousgee22:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Where in Europe is the age of consent 13?2.31.164.15 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The age of consent in Spain was 13 at the time at which the comment you are responding to was made. It was raised from 13 to 16 later that year. See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent.

Has anyone managed to find a reliable source that includes mention of the '...to be mistaken for an adult' criterion, and therefore justifies its inclusion in the Wikipedia definition? 08:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Gloriousgee08:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable source that includes the requirement that the teenager being referred to as jailbait be physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult so I've removed it. If someone feels it belongs in the article then find a reliable source to support it's inclusion. However, even if it does deserve to be mentioned, we need to be clear not everyone defines as only applying to teens who are physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult. I do agree that some defines it that way just not everyone, including several dictionaries I looked it up in. Cab88 (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If the dictionary source at the end of that line supports what you removed, it should be added back. Per comments other than yours above, you removed a key aspect of what jailbait means. The whole point of the term, which I've seen in enough sources, is that the underage person looks physically mature enough that an adult might approach the person sexually without knowing that the person is underage and therefore risk jail time or the adult may be tempted to intentionally risk jail time because the underage person looks so physically mature. As for the term also referring to non-teenagers, unless the non-teenagers look sexually mature (which is highly unlikely in the case of boys due to their pubertal timing coming later than the pubertal timing of girls and their secondary sexual characteristics not being readily noticeable, like breasts are in girls), then, otherwise, like Legitimus, I have not observed the term being used to refer to those who are quite clearly under the age of majority/under the age of consent (except maybe for pedophile or hebephile groups when examining with others or by myself how they discuss their sexual attractions). For most adults, those underage people are not bait because there's either no physical maturity or not enough physical maturity with regard to those underage people to bait them. Flyer22 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

“The whole point of the term, which I've seen in enough sources, is that the underage person looks physically mature enough that an adult might approach the person sexually without knowing that the person is underage and therefore risk jail time...” If you’re aware of reliable sources that include this aspect in their definition, then Cab88’s deletion may be reversed and these sources cited.

“As for the term also referring to non-teenagers...” I don’t believe anyone is suggesting the term is applied to preteens (i.e. 12 and under).

“I have not observed the term being used to refer to those who are quite clearly under the age of majority/under the age of consent...” Surely by definition all jailbait must be under the age of consent?

“For most adults, those underage people are not bait because there's either no physical maturity or not enough physical maturity with regard to those underage people to bait them.” Perhaps in the US, where the age of consent is 18 in many states, but over here in the UK, where the term is used widely as well, the age of consent is 16 and consequently all jailbait must be at most 15. 15-year-old girls and boys are obviously not as developed as (ergo do not resemble adults as much as) 17-year-olds.

As I alluded to above, I believe the differences in age of consent mean that the term may be used differently by speakers of the same language due to said legal differences and the cultural attitudes they reflect/engender.

Still, the bottom line should be that reliable sources be found for inclusion of something in a definition, not for its deletion.Gloriousgee (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, Cab88 should be reverted if the dictionary source at the end of that line supports what he removed. If Cab88 does not know if the cited source supports the material, he should not have removed the text.

Regarding pre-teens, Cab88 clearly stated above, "However, even if it does deserve to be mentioned, we need to be clear not everyone defines as only applying to teens who are physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult." On first read, I took that to mean pre-teens, but I see that Cab88 probably meant young teens who are not physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult.

I'm not sure why you are questioning this line: "I have not observed the term being used to refer to those who are quite clearly under the age of majority/under the age of consent..." It has nothing to do with questioning the fact that all jalibait is under the age of consent. I was quite clearly referring to the fact that "The whole point of the term, which I've seen in enough sources, is that the underage person looks physically mature enough that an adult might approach the person sexually without knowing that the person is underage and therefore risk jail time or the adult may be tempted to intentionally risk jail time because the underage person looks so physically mature."

I also stand by my comment that "For most adults, those underage people are not bait because there's either no physical maturity or not enough physical maturity with regard to those underage people to bait them." For example, notice that I also stated "no physical maturity." I was referring to underage people who are prepubertal, the ones who are early pubertal, and the ones who still look physically immature despite being midway through, or completely through with, puberty. The age of consent being set lower in a state or country does not change the fact of pubertal development. Yes, pubertal development varies, but its timing is generally the same or close to the same across societies. And, sure, what is referred to as jailbait is subject to lower ages than 17 in some parts of the world, including the United States (U.S.), but a lower age of consent does not dictate whether or not people will generally find that age group and the age groups below it sexually attractive and likely seek out a sexual encounter with someone from those age groups. And for the record, the age of consent is 16 in most U.S. states. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

“As stated above, Cab88 should be reverted if the dictionary source at the end of that line supports what he removed.” It doesn’t, so he was right to remove it. My opinion is that the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition is quite unsatisfactory: “A person below the age of consent with whom sexual intercourse can constitute statutory rape.” Not only is there no reference to physical development (the AHD’s definition could equally apply to a four-year-old as a fourteen-year-old), but neither is there reference to the criterion of sexual appeal, which is surely an essential criterion.

“I also stand by my comment that "For most adults, those underage people are not bait because there's either no physical maturity or not enough physical maturity with regard to those underage people to bait them." For example, notice that I also stated "no physical maturity." I was referring to underage people who are prepubertal, the ones who are early pubertal, and the ones who still look physically immature despite being midway through, or completely through with, puberty.” Yes, I think we’re agreed that to qualify as jailbait girls (or, indeed, boys) would need to be sufficiently developed to be attractive, but there is a difference between ‘sufficiently developed to be attractive’ and ‘sufficiently developed to be mistaken for an adult’. The issue at hand is whether a reliable source can be found to back up the latter.

“Yes, pubertal development varies, but its timing is generally the same or close to the same across societies. And, sure, what is referred to as jailbait is subject to lower ages than 17 in some parts of the world, including the United States (U.S.), but a lower age of consent does not dictate whether or not people will generally find that age group and the age groups below it sexually attractive and likely seek out a sexual encounter with someone from those age groups.” Sexual appeal is determined by physical development, and as you rightly say this is not dependent upon age of consent laws (which is precisely how a term such as ‘jailbait’ can arise). I suspect that the issue here is whether complete physical development is a requirement for sexual appeal. I believe it is not, not by a long way. The nonsense term ‘hebephilia’, which was coined and more recently revived by some to make a name for themselves, has been roundly rejected by the psychiatric establishment on the grounds that ‘hebephilic’ attraction is biologically valid. The psychiatric establishment do not consider it abnormal. The fact that it was debated at all is due to the culturally relativistic nature of our views on what constitutes ‘normal’ attraction (the term ‘normal’ always invokes a set of norms, which themselves are culturally relativistic), and elements within the scientific community feeling pressured by current attitudes in society to ‘chasten’ and pathologise this attraction. Ultimately common sense prevailed, but I suspect that the inclusion of ‘physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult’ was a similar concession to current attitudes in society, an attempt to chasten the term ‘jailbait’ by denying the possibility of attraction to minors who are evidently not yet fully developed. Current ages of consent that are as high as 16 and 18 are a relatively recent phenomenon; what we nowadays would consider to be children were being courted, married off and having babies in their early teens for centuries, often by/to/with men in their late teens, twenties and thirties, and it is unlikely those men elected to marry girls of such an age without a strong degree of attraction to girls of this age. And bear in mind that there is evidence to suggest that the average age of menarche in the West has fallen over the past century or so (it is hypothesised that this is due to seismic shifts in Western diet), down from 14 to 12.8. Consequently a man marrying a 14-year-old girl in the mid 19th century (common practice) would likely have been marrying one just into puberty. Gloriousgee (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

After I made this revert to this talk page earlier this hour, I decided to finally read Gloriousgee's latest reply to me, and, nope, I still largely disagree with Gloriousgee; I will not be elaborating on why, considering that I have already made myself clear on this topic and this talk page is for improving the Jailbait article (per WP:TALK). But I will state this: No, the issue here, judging by the previous definition and the one Gloriousgee argued for (the current one), is not "whether complete physical development is a requirement for sexual appeal." And stating that "[t]he psychiatric establishment do[es] not consider [hebephilia] abnormal" is a broad-brush statement that is somewhat inaccurate. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The previous definition included the criterion ‘physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult’; the current definition does not. The removal of this criterion was what was being debated and considered, ergo the issue at hand was as stated. As for my asserting that the psychiatric establishment does not consider hebephilia to be abnormal, if this does seem ‘broad-brush’ that is due to the necessity for brevity here. Hebephilic attraction is widely regarded within the scientific community as biologically valid attraction, and its inclusion in DSM-V was roundly rejected. This is well documented, as was the tremendous backlash generated in the scientific community when it was proposed for inclusion. See, for example, http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/apa-rejects-hebephilia-last-of-three.html. Gloriousgee (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2014 (GMT)

Nope, I'm sticking by what I stated above. There also isn't a thing you can state to me about the hebephilia topic that I'm not aware of; notice that I've been involved in editing the Hebephilia article (so has Legitimus) and that Karen Franklin's commentaries on that topic have been highly debated there. Your characterization of the scientific community's view on that topic is, like I stated, "somewhat inaccurate." Trying to continue this discussion with me is fruitless. Flyer22 (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable evidence needs to be provided for the inclusion of that criterion, not its exclusion. My characterization of the scientific community's views is not 'somewhat inaccurate', and I have provided some evidence to back up my claim (much more readily available online). You have provided nothing to the contrary, only hot air in ad hominem territory, and neither have you provided any reliable evidence for the inclusion of the criterion being discussed. I politely suggest you do so or cease contributing to the discussion, as per (per WP:TALK). Gloriousgee (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2014 (GMT)

Do you want the last word? Okay, you can have it. But first: I'm not sure what is not clear about my "13:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)" post. Once again, I stand by my posts above, including my assertion that your characterization of the scientific community's views on the topic of hebephilia is somewhat inaccurate. But if you want to keep going on about how you are correct and want to keep trying to teach a (very) experienced Wikipedia editor about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, you can have at it. Disagreeing with you in the way that I have above is not "ad hominem territory," but your "14:09, 7 January 2014 (GMT)" post is. If I wanted to engage in "ad hominem territory" with you, I would stress that editors who move from Wikipedia article to Wikipedia article delivering similar text that you have delivered are usually indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Now again, "Trying to continue this discussion with me is fruitless." That means that your discussion with me on this topic is over. Continue on if you must, however. Oh, and this type of editing (showing your fondness for the term ad hominem) is unacceptable; thus removed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated, if you can provide reliable evidence for inclusion of that criterion, then you should do so. Merely reiterating that you are sticking to your position adds nothing constructive to the discussion without evidence. Reverting a valid edit on another page purely out of spite is childish and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Gloriousgee (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2014 (GMT)

Wrong on all accounts. For example, that revert was not out of spite; I reverted you because I looked at your contributions again and saw an inappropriate edit you made to another article (that article). Must have slipped my mind to revert you before. If you keep adding that material back, despite it quite clearly being against the way things are done at this site (a WP:Verifiability and WP:Editorializing violation) and therefore being invalid, I will take the matter to the appropriate venue and you will get yet another lesson on the way things are done at Wikipedia. Further comments about this particular matter should take place there at that talk page instead of at this one. Now I truly am done with you at this article, unless of course you make an edit to it that needs reverting. Flyer22 (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The definition is still incorrect, in my view. It is certainly slang, relates to a person who is younger than the legal age of consent for sexual activity. However I would question the last part. "the implication that a person above the age of consent might find them sexually attractive". Why limit it to persons above a age of consent? Anyone who sexually desires someone who is too young to consent to sexual activity is desiring "jail bait". It matters not whether the person is or is not themselves old enough to consent.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), of course age matters in this case. A 16-year-old sexually desiring another 16-year-old, and both of them being under the age of consent, is not a jailbait matter. Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems an appropriate place to add a criticism of the current inclusion of the criterion 'usually appears older'. The source cited (Dictionary.com) doesn't justify its inclusion, currently defining jailbait as 'a girl with whom sexual intercourse is punishable as statutory rape because she is under the legal age of consent'. And though reliable (it's a dictionary site), the source is vague and offers only two criteria: female, under the age of consent. Meaning that there's not even a criterion of attractiveness. The Dictionary.com entry is a loose imitation of the Merriam-Webster entry. The Oxford English Dictionary defines jailbait as 'a young woman, or young women collectively, considered in sexual terms but under the age of consent'. The 'considered in sexual terms' is an interesting formulation, because it sidesteps a criterion of attractiveness (thereby allowing the OED to avoid acknowledging the possibility of underage attractiveness) whilst stressing the perspective of the user(s) of the term. Although I would consider the OED's definition better for this reason, its weakness lies in its use of 'young woman'/'young women', because by definition any female under an age of consent will (at least in English-speaking jurisdictions) be under the age of majority as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.5.138 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

reducing to redirect

All the content in this was a coatrack for other subjects. Write those articles if you like but don't pad this out with them. Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mangoe, well that takes care of problems I've experienced with the article (meaning before what you consider a WP:COATRACK was created). For example, my debate with Gloriousgee (blocked by ArbCom for obvious reasons) in the #Definition section above. Thanks. I'll keep the page on my WP:Watchlist, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I must say I'm quite surprised about the redirect, this having been a referenced stand alone stub for over two years before I decided to expand it. I get that my expansion relied heavily on the Reddit controversy, obviously I was trying to hit 5x expansion for DYK, but i'm not convinced it falls under COATRACK as the information did not promote a particular bias for or against the subject, it just documented an event that got a lot of media attention. I admit I was half expecting someone to suggest trimming that part back, in which case I would have attempted to expand the information about legality and influence re pop culture. I believe the information I added specifically regarding the legality of the images was very notable and relevant, and added to the article. Removing an example image is understandable, trimming back the Reddit controversy to a couple of lines with link to the main article is also understandable. But i'm not convinced throwing the baby out with the bath water and getting rid of the entire article is the right course of action here. I don't like arguing or upsetting people; I saw an opportunity for what i thought would be an awesome DYK so I took it. I'll wait to see if anyone agrees that some of the information I added was of relevance to the article and if not i'll let it go. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Freikorp, you have a very valid point about your expansion. If Wikipedia can cover this topic without the coverage simply being a WP:Dictionary entry, it should. Your version of the article was certainly better than all of the other versions of it. You can always take this matter to WP:Redirects for discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to put all that material in a separate article or two, if it be notable enough in its own right. But the bulk of what was there constitutes two separate subjects distinct from the core idea of underage girls. Mangoe (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mangoe, I'm looking at the version of the article just before you redirected it. What I see of the sources there is discussion of underage girls, those girls being referred to as jailbait, and other uses of the term jailbait. In that case, it makes sense that Freikorp added that material to the Jailbait article, though, like he stated, he went overboard with the Reddit controversy. But there is no valid reason that a bit of the Reddit controversy, if discussing how the matter was a jailbait matter, could not be added to the Jailbait article. The inclusion of that material would be a cultural aspect of the jailbait topic. If there were a Reddit controversy article, most of the material would go there, with a bit of it in the Jailbait article, per WP:Summary style; again, a little of that material could only be added to the Jailbait article if the sources connect the Reddit controversy to the jailbait topic. The other option would be a see also link in the See also section pointing to the Reddit controversy article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I forgot that there is a Reddit controversy article: Controversial Reddit communities. Freikorp's version of the Jailbait article points there. But, yeah, there is no Reddit controversy article that is specifically about the jailbait matter. Doesn't seem that there is a need for one; it's sufficiently covered at the Controversial Reddit communities article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

...which leaves the other part. The thing about the pictures is that if we're going to talk about it, the subject needs to be able to support an article in its own right, with its own name. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mangoe, oh ok i'm following you now (sometimes i'm a bit clueless and need things explained very simply to me). So you're ok with me creating an article titled, for example Jailbait (images) specifically about the images (assuming of course that the page meets notability guidelines on its own), and that the main problem with my version of this article was that it was entitled "Jailbait" but focused more on the jailbait images than jailbait itself? Ok, I think i'll look into doing that then. While i've got everyone's attention, if I did create an article entitled "Jailbait (images)" (and would that be the most appropriate title do you think?), would relying on the Reddit controversy be such a big deal, since the controversy was 100% about the images? I do plan to make the Reddit section a little shorter than I had it here, and make the other sections a little larger, but most of the reliable sources on the issue seem to stem from the Reddit controversy, so information on images would be at least reasonably similar to what I had in the images section here. Freikorp (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with Mangoe that "the subject needs to be able to support an article in its own right, with its own name." That's not how Wikipedia works. There are many things covered in Wikipedia articles that are not WP:Notable for an article of their own. That's part of the reason that WP:Spinout exists. If a topic is WP:Notable for an article of its own, it will often times get a WP:Spinout article. Another reason that WP:Spinout exists is that there often times is no need for a separate article. For example, something can be WP:Notable without much to state about it; in that case, it's usually best that what would otherwise be a WP:Stub article be covered in the general article until, or if, it can be split off from it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Naturally I agree with you or I wouldn't have made the expansion in the first place, but I don't want to put a lot of effort in again if we don't have a consensus on what's going to happen to my edits. I'll wait to see what Mangoe has to say in reply to this, and if it's still contested i'll consider taking it to WP:Redirects for discussion or at least dropping a note at Project sexuality requesting for comment. Freikorp (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality is very inactive. You may get help from there, but there's a much more likely chance that you won't get help from there. I watch that page, and I know. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved all the new content to age of consent, which is where it belongs. The issues, after all, are legal. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You moved most of the new content, this article still make reference to jailbait images, but now no longer gives any further information regarding them, it just mentions that they exist. It doesn't even provide a link for more information regarding them. Flyer22, your opinions on this? Whilst i'm not opposed to moving the information on images to their own stand alone article, I don't think age of consent is the right place for all of this information. Let's have a look at the section this information got added to: first topic is child marriage. There's no definition of child marriage in the sub-section as there is a link to the main article. There's no definition of child pornography in the next sub-section, as there is a link to the main article. However the jailbait subsection needs to explain what jailbait is, which in my opinion goes off topic to what should be at age of consent. There is also no reason to mention the Reddit controversy at the article age of consent, it has nothing to do with age of consent. I think having that information there is nothing short of stupid and pointless. Legality is just one aspect of jailbait images; this is not just a legal issue. I'm not opposed to a mention of jailbait legality at age of consent, in the same manner that child pornography is mentioned there. But I strongly do not think the entire section should permanently belong there. Mangoe, have you ever, I don't know, considered consulting other users before making bold edits that you know will probably be contested? Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Freikorp, I was in the process of replying before you replied. Once you replied and pinged me via WP:Echo (pinging me is unneeded in this case since I have this article WP:Watchlisted), I focused on something else, and have now come back to this section. This is what I was going to state: The topic of jailbait as a whole is a legal issue, so singling out the images as a legal issue is odd. Not to mention that the text is clear about the dubiousness as to whether the images are illegal. Per what I stated above about it being perfectly acceptable to have a jailbait images section in a Jailbait article, I don't agree with the move to the Age of consent article, especially since the images topic is more so about age of majority (whether someone is a legal adult) than it is about age of consent. But at least, given the talk of age of consent in the text and of child pornography in the Age of consent article, it's not completely out of place there.

For documentation on this talk page: Seen here and here, JHunterJ got into a revert matter with Mangoe over Mangoe redirecting this article to Jailbait (disambiguation), which is why there is a move request section below. So the Jailbait article was restored and Freikorp went to work on improving it, including significantly reducing the Reddit controversy material. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and for the info regarding pinging, and for documenting what has been happening on the talk page :). Well i'm glad you also don't agree with the move. And I agree, a mention of jailbait at age of consent can work, but it shouldn't just single out the images as a legal issue, and I don't support the information being cut from here, nor the detail it has to go into over there since there is no main article to link back to. Unfortunately it's been established that just the two of us disagreeing with Mangoe is unlikely to have any effect. So i've requested comment regarding the move at the age of consent talk page, as well as at the reactivated DYK, and hopefully JHunterJ will give his opinions as well and we can come to a consensus over this. Freikorp (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

My "opinion" is that WP:MALPLACED still represents the consensus on arranging disambiguation pages: Jailbait should not redirect to Jailbait (disambiguation). Either the base name is an article, the base name redirects to an article, or the disambiguation page is moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I added a link to the Jailbait article in the jailbait section of the Age of consent article. If it were not for WP:MOSBOLD (what its Other uses section states), I would have de-bolded the "term" jailbait images and simply linked "jailbait." I didn't link "jailbait" with the bolding, and that's because that type of linking is discouraged (doesn't look nice to me either). Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am reverting Mangoe's bold removal of content for five reasons:

• Mangoe knew the edit would be contested, but did not discuss his intentions on the talk page first
• Mangoe has still not joined in the conversation about objections to his bold edit
• The removal on content is causing editors at the move request discussion to think the article has always been as short as it is now, leading to greater support for its deletion
• I can't improve/expand the article in the hopes of convincing others the subject is notable when the sections I was working on have been removed
• If the move request is granted, it won't matter what the article looked like before it was moved anyway. Freikorp (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has any intention of expanding an article on the actual subject of the article name. The persistent problem is that this not an article on the subject of the reality that adult men having sex with underage women is illegal; it has been co-opted by an article on jailbait images. Having stupidly created the latter as a redirect I cannot readily move the article to its proper location, but that's where the substantial content of this article should be. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Freikorp, as the move discussion shows, deletion is not likely to result from Mangoe's disambiguation proposal.

Mangoe, I addressed above, in my "15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)" post, the topic of WP:Spinout articles. I stand by my statement there that the topic of jailbait images should of course be in the Jailbait article. I am of this opinion because jailbait images are an aspect of the jailbait topic, and because we should not create WP:Spinout articles unless needed; I don't see a need for a WP:Spinout article in this case. At the same time, you have a point about the images aspect dominating the article. For example, the lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to summarize the article. But right now, the lead of the article is all about the definition while the rest of the article is all about images and their impact. When an aspect dominates an article, that is one reason for splitting that aspect off into its own article (like WP:Spinout notes). However, there are times that an aspect dominates an article because of WP:Due weight -- the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources giving more weight to that aspect over all other aspects. Either way, I don't think we should be hasty in this case. The article can be expanded beyond the images aspect, perhaps significantly beyond it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, you make a very good point about WP:LEAD. I did not consider that. I will attempt to address this issue later today. Just for the record, i'd rather keep the article together as per Flyer22 reasoning, but i'm not overly opposed to splitting the article into a separate article entitled something along the lines of "jailbait images". Mangoe, could you please reply to Flyer 22's points made at "15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)", and if you still believe splitting the article is the right thing to do, I will try and get some neutral editors involved so we can reach a consensus. Freikorp (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, you may have made that argument, but I do not agree with it! Either sexualized pictures of (mostly) girls below the age of consent are a topic unto themselves, or they are subsumed in the general topic of the age of consent and its ramifications. "Jailbait" is simply a shared name element within that and is not germane to whether a separate article is in order. If they were called "cutie pie pictures" instead, the subject would be the same, but it would implausible to argue that they needed to be included under "jailbait". Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've already disagreed with your rationale, as clearly shown above and below. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

move requested

I'm requesting that the disambiguation page be moved over this one; see Talk:Jailbait (disambiguation). Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Creation of the Jailbait images article

Mangoe, I'm with Freikorp that you really need to start discussing matters and gaining WP:Consensus for them before acting in a manner regarding them that you know is likely to be contested. This is especially the case when there is an ongoing WP:Move and/or WP:AfD discussion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jailbait (3rd nomination)). Being WP:Bold is not always the answer. You had no WP:Consensus to split off the jailbait images aspect from this article, as you did here, and I opposed such a split for very valid reasons, reasons made clear above on this talk page and in the WP:Move discussion, reasons that you did not attempt to counter. So I'll go ahead and state this now: If the Jailbait article is ever significantly expanded, I will be merging the Jailbait images article into this one. That is, if that article is not merged into this one by someone else. Like I stated in the aforementioned WP:Move discussion: I highly doubt that the Jailbait images topic can be expanded much beyond a stub and is truly encyclopedic. I am certain that the Jailbait images article will eventually either be nominated for WP:Deletion or proposed for a WP:Merge with the Jailbait article (if that still exists at the time) or with the Age of consent article (though that article currently covers this topic). Right now, in my opinion, we have an unnecessary split, a Jailbait images article without better context as to what jailbait is. And I cannot at all make sense of why you are so determined to keep discussion of jailbait images out of the Jailbait article, no matter how many times you state your opposition. And again, per WP:Summary style, a summary of the jailbait images aspect should be in the Jailbait article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

US bias?

"sexual activity with someone who is under the age of consent is classified as statutory rape" How it's classified will depend on the jurisdiction, won't it? 109.148.210.43 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Age of Consent - Global.svg

User:Jytdog removed this image from multiple articles with the rather strange edit comment "thanks but this is unsourced". I think it's best to centralize discussion about this move, so please go here: File talk:Age of Consent - Global.svg#Sourced(?)

Thx CapnZapp (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:CapnZapp in your edit note here you referred to a "a clear KEEP deletion result". I take it you are referring to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg. However, that was a discussion at the Commons which has different policies and guidelines than Wikipedia does. The problems with WP:V discussed at File_talk:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg#Sourced(?) remain and there is no consensus there that the image complies with V. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Graph is present at multiple wikipedia articles, including English Wikipedia. The 2017 discussions has ended. I noticed it wasn't restored on this particular page, and rectified the issue. If you have a reason why it can't be a part of this page, you need to say so. If you merely object to my edit summary, the first order of business is to undo your revert, and we can then talk. CapnZapp (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So it is violating policy in a bunch of places. The discussion at the image page got cut off by the person nominating it for deletion on the commons. That is where the discussion should resume. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

the Age of Consent graph

User:Ebyabe What it is you want to talk about? CapnZapp (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've collapsed this into the section above. Please see my comment directly above yours. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the indentation level of this comment but left it untouched otherwise. CapnZapp (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

After talking with Jytdog on my talk page, we have agreed to not edit each other's comments, and I am now un-collapsing this into a section of its own, as I intended. As I said to Mr Jytdog, he's welcome to join in as long as he respects my wish to not rekindle old 2017 discussions. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no need for that graph at this very small article. I don't see how it helps this article at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We didn't agree to that. In any case the image fails V as I noted above. Not Ok in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You think so, Jytdog. The consensus over at Age of Consent apparently differs. CapnZapp (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

US centric stub with only one sentence mentioning the UK

And I doubt that the term is even used as such in the UK ... Then again, the whole concept of jailbait is probably primarily US-American. Sex with a consenting minor doesn't necessarily land you in jail in Europe or the rest of the world, depending on the circumstances. This should be clarified in various segments for each country. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Remove sentence stating that underage persons are a temptation for statuatory rape if they appear older 2600:1008:B138:1F83:0:19:EFA9:AC01 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)