Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

History

I was surprised that this article contains no real history section. The history section it contains is not really history at all, more just about the term itself. This article treats the subject primarily as a modern medical disorder. Is there perhaps another page I'm looking for? I would have expected something like the history section of Homosexuality. Surely not all cultures have treated this subject in the same manner over time? Dsav (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, "pedophilia" refers to the attraction rather than the act (child sexual abuse) but people seem to screw that up a lot. Whereas homosexuality is a much broader term that can in context refer to an attraction, a personal identity, and an act.

Just speaking off the top of my head, I don't think there were any cultures where actual biological prepubescents were every socially or legally acceptable sex partners (rape during warfare doesn't really count). A lot of people mention the Greeks but those were technically young teens which falls outside this definition. Nobody clobber me over this, I'm not much of a history buff.Legitimus (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be quite fascinating in itself if pedophilia were really so broadly rejected throughout history and cultures. Of course, it's not something you would likely learn about in history anyway since the subject is so taboo. I feel slightly uncomfortable just commenting on this talk page. I was indeed thinking of ancient Greece and Rome, since there are many veiled references to both homosexuality and the 'pleasure of young men' in literature from those times. Dsav (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is if it were legal and socially acceptable in an ancient culture, evidence would be obvious. Let me just make one clarification though and this is a big issue with understanding this article: pedophilia is the attraction to little children who have not reached puberty, like 12 and under. When the subject is in the midst of puberty (if one insists on hard numbers, about 13-15) it's technically called hebophilia and when they are late adolescent (again just eyeballing, 15-19) it is referred to as ephebophilia. These later two are not considered mental illness per se, but can be socially taboo and/or illegal.

If you look at classical works from the Greeks and Romans, yes there are depiction of grown men with "boys" in art like pottery paintings. But if you look at these paintings, you will notice that that "boy" is the same height as his older partner and simply lacks a beard, or at least stands at about chest height. This seems more consistent with that of a mid to late teenager than a young child, especially since males grow later in life than females.Legitimus (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor point: I think Legitimus meant "hebephilia", not "hebophilia" (which appears to redirect to ephebophilia).— James Cantor (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Another point, not too minor: Pedophilia is typically about the sexual preference, not simply sexual attraction. A person may have sexually abused a prepubescent child, for whatever reason, with some level of sexual attraction having been involved, but not be a pedophile. Yes, that can be confusing. Legitimus already knows this, but it is generally okay to also call pedophilia merely an attraction. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Child molestation section

The section on child molestation really needs work. It makes it sound like every pedophile is a predator deviously using threats and coersion. There is plenty of research that shows there are different types of pedophiles: those who simply befriend children because they like to be around them (think teachers and scout leaders), others who push for sex play or other sexual acts (think priests and nice guy neighbors), and then the aggressive/psychopathic ones who kidnap, rape, and even kill. Just like in the regular world, where men try to impress women and get their attention (and a little sex), and the other (less common) men who stalk, raps, and murder. One thing I haven't been able to find is the reason for the aggression, whether it is purely psychopathic or simply trying to cover their tracks. It may be worthwhile to mention that sometimes the punishment for murder can be less than the punishment for certain sexual acts. I just want an honest article and not one that promotes unwarranted fear and paranoia. Thanks. Ikzing (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The types of child molester/offender are dealt with in child sexual abuse. The reason for this is not all child molesters are pedophiles. Understandably, this probably sounds peculiar to most laypersons. But there is good science that supports this. Anyhow, in that article is a specific section that deals with with different types you describe. The most prominent typologies are used by the FBI and are based on Holmes and Holmes (2002). For example, the "Mysoped" offender is the violent, serial-killer-type that targets strangers, where as the "Naive/Inadequate" offender is often mentally handicapped and finds children to be easier to be around socially, yet still has the sexual urges/needs of a grown person.

That specific section you are referring to this article is drawing it's information from the DSM-IV-TR. For the sake of communicating openly, I will type the exact quotation from the source here:

“ Individuals may limit their activities to their own children, stepchildren, or relatives or may victimize children outside their families. Some individuals with Pedophilia threaten the child to prevent disclosure. Others, particularly those who frequently victimize children, develop complicated techniques for obtaining access to children, which may include winning the trust of a child's mother, marrying a woman with an attractive child, trading children with other individuals with Pedophilia, or, in rare instances, taking in foster children from nonindustrialized countries or abducting children from strangers. Except in cases in which the disorder is associated with Sexual Sadism, the person may be attentive to the child's needs in order to gain the child's affection, interest, and loyalty and to prevent the child from reporting the sexual activity. The disorder usually begins in adolescence, although some individuals with Pedophilia report that they did not become aroused by children until middle age. The frequency of pedophilic behavior often fluctuates with psychosocial stress. The course is usually chronic, especially in those attracted to males. The recidivism rate for individuals with Pedophilia involving a preference for males is roughly twice that for those who prefer females. ”

Legitimus (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for such a detailed explanation. I compared the section with the quote above and it somehow reads differently. One part is "...attentive to the child's needs in order to gain the child's affection, interest, and loyalty AND to prevent... ". This extra word means that they are not necessarily being affectionate just to keep them from reporting it. Perhaps also because the section reads that some threaten, some kill, some abduct, but it doesn't make it clear that some don't do any of those things. And this statement, from Child sexual abuse, "...however, not all child sexual offenders are pedophiles and not all pedophiles engage in sexual abuse of children. Law enforcement and legal professionals have begun to use the term predatory pedophile..." should also be included on the Pedophilia page for completeness. Lastly, the introduction says this, "In forensic psychology and law enforcement, there have been a variety of typologies suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations," but it is not explained in the article, or at least referenced/crosslinked. I hope this all makes sense. I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture of pedophiles, but would like the article to be a little more NPOV by making it a little more clear that pedophilia is not necessarily violent and deadly. Thanks. -- Ikzing (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition to treatment section

I think the following should be added to the treatment section:

SSRI drugs such as fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and paroxetine have also been used with considerable success in treating pedophilia, with fewer side effects than anti-androgens.

• Meg S Kaplan PhD, Richard B Krueger MD (January 2002). "Behavioral and psychopharmacological treatment of paraphilic and hypersexual disorders". Journal of Psychiatric Practice. 8 (1): 21–32.

213.163.66.192 (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the source provided and this looks like a good piece to use. Also, this source mentions the use of newer gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GNRH) agonists which also appear promising. Mind, the article is on treating paraphilias in general, but there are a few explicit mentions of pedophilia.Legitimus (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues about use of the term

This edit added a new paragraph to the article lead about defamation/libel/slander concerns regarding "referring to a non-pedophile as a pedophile ".

I first moved it out of the lead since it is at best completely tangential to this topic, but then after checking the footnotes, I deleted it, because I found that not even one of the sources mentioned the terms "pedophilia" or "pedophile". All of the references that were in that text were only definitions of general legal terms like libel, slander, etc, and some links to statutes about those legal topics, again, with no connection to this topic at all.

It's possible that there have been some situations where defamation resulted from accusations of pedophilia or child sexual abuse, but we can't use that info without sources that directly support the text. Also, even if there are examples like that, the connection of those social/legal issues of defamation, libel or slander fit better in an article about law, or about social taboos, than in this science article about a DSM-listed condition. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the text is interesting, and that's why I think it should be there in the article. The paragraph is relevant and pertinent. The text is well-written, concise and clear.

It follows the rules of Wikipedia (see "Neutral point of view", Section "Bias" [1] ) – all assertions are facts:

• (1) that the terms “pedophile” or “pedophilia”are highly offensive and highly pejorative, this is a fact, it's not disputable. If you want a scientific source to this fact, see this article here [2] (PDF) (see page 84, second line, which reads: "the pedophile is the successor of the ogre") (see HTML version here [3])

• (2) that pejorative terms in general (which includes "pedophile") may be subject of defamation lawsuits, this is also a fact – please read the definition of "defamation" and other legal terms (libel, slander, etc.) in the provided sources.

• (3) all legal texts (see sources provided) deal with the concept and legal definition of defamation (or related offenses) in each country, and this applies to any pejorative term that can harm the reputation of someone, including "pedophile" which is a pejorative term (see source above in item 1).

• (4) the source [4] from DancingwithLawyers.com, in an article about slander, directly mentions the pejorative terms "racist" and "child molester" (although this wouldn't be necessary, see items above).

So, there is evidence enough for reverting your removal, and returning the paragraph to the article, maybe adding the source above (although it’s redundant because the fact that "pedophile" is pejorative is indisputable).

The position of the text - I think it was not placed in the lead by chance. Realize that it was placed right after the paragraph on the "legal definition" and the "common usage" definition, following a logical sequence. I mean, everything that is legally defined as sexual abuse falls into the "legal definition", and conversely what is legal or not defined as sexually abusive can be construed as defamation. Depending on the country, it's a tort or a crime, and the public should be aware of the consequences of the misuse of this word, especially where it's a crime.

For these reasons, I think it should be kept in the lead (by the way, the text it’s concise and small), but I would't be disappointed if a majority of users conclude that it should be moved to the bottom.

The range of the article – You said that the scope of the article is about a DSM-disease, and obviously the article is not only about a ICD-listed or DSM-listed disease, it covers also other aspects such as the legal definition and the common usage definition.

My conclusion is that the paragraph should return to the text of the article, with this one additional source if you prefer. AleBZ (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AleBZ, don't forget the Wikipedia's rules on WP:SYNTHESIS; you can't combine existing material in such a manner as to imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in the source. Having read Malon 2009 (the source you quoted in point 1, which most people cannot access mind you), Malon was stating that the overall concept or, dare I say, archtype of a child sexual offender is seen as evil now. The source does not say the word "pedophile" is innately pejorative.

I also must draw attention to the fact that the lead does not contain a "legal definition" of pedophilia, because there isn't one. Indeed, the non-medical portion of the lead is intended to give brief mention of what are frankly incorrect usages of the word "pedophile;" that is, interchangeable with "child molester." Just because law enforcement or popular press uses it this way does not make it a legal term, nor does it make it correct usage. But we have to make note of it in the lead so as to point that this usage is wrong, or it would go without notice to the reader who calls up this article not knowing any better. I see this as much like how tryptophan has to devote a section to the myth that Turkey makes you tired due to it's chemical contents (which is a widely held myth), but there is no need to mention that teaching this misconception in schools could get you fired. It's unnecessary and tangential.Legitimus (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Teaching this misconception in schools could get you fire" ? Come on, Legitimus, this may be true for a History class. Now we're talking about defamation, which is a crime in many countries, and a tort in others !! This is a serious topic. There's no way a crime can become "popular", or can be justified because "everybody does". A crime is a crime, period. And a tort is a tort as well, it's not "nothing". People should be responsible about their words and konw the possible consequences of saying them. KathyD93 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that obviously this is pejorative, and I agree that this info deserves to be in the article. If this assertion (that the term “pedophile” is pejorative) is indisputable, it doesn't need a source, although User AleBZ provided one (see page 84 of aforementioned PDF file, line 2). All the rest are legal sources saying that anything pejorative can be brought to court, or defining each offense (a tort or a crime) according to the laws.

This is definitely relevant info and I think people should be informed on this. For example, my younger sister is 16, her boyfriend is an adult in his twenties, and their relationship is legal. The guy is nice, intelligent and loving, and it wouldn't be fair or honest or ethical to call him what he's not, because he respects the law and he does not have a “mental disorder”. This would be stressful and would be an offense – not only defamation, but if it happens in public probably also incitement to hatred [5] or incitement to violence [6].

I'm in favor of keeping the info in the article. Maybe it should be moved to the bottom with just a small reference in the lead. KathyD93 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

KathyD93, welcome to Wikipedia. You've chosen a difficult page for your second topic ever edited. Why are you discussing your 16-year old sister and her adult boyfriend when neither of them is a child and the term pedophilia does not apply in any way? Aside from that, as Legitimus mentioned, legal issues about the word are off-topic - this article is about the psychological disorder pedophilia, not libel law. There are many topics where use of a term could be defamatory and has nothing to do with the topic of the articles, therefore that idea is not mentioned, and rightly so - such as murder or nazi. Do you want to add to those articles that it could be defamatory to call someone a murderer or a nazi? Of course not. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, links to google search strings are not valid or helpful sources, and completely irrelevant. I'm not convinced any of these new users have read the article in it's entirety or fully understand the subject matter (that is, compared to the separate topics of crime and sexual abuse).Legitimus (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

KathyD93 surely brought up her 16-year-old sister and her 16-year-old sister's 20-something boyfriend because of the fact that the term pedophilia would often be applied to her sister's 20-something boyfriend by the general American public, like with Miley Cyrus's 20-something boyfriend (especially when she was 16 while he was 20), but I agree with Jack-A-Roe and Legitimus on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this is not only about a mental disorder. The lead contains legal aspects and the usage of the word in connection with this legal aspect, as well as in “common usage”. If the article is only about Psychology, then all other aspects should be removed. By the way, likewise User “Kathy93”, I’m also a newcomer, but this can’t undermine the strength of our arguments…

What really twists my mind is the idea that someone who strictly follows the laws needs to be humiliated, bullied or belittled by pejorative labels in order to be happy. This is totally absurd. I’m not entering this “hot button” between the biological definition (puberty) and the legal definition (sexual abuse), this in-between period where a sex offender can actually be not a pedophile, but is often referred this way.

My concern is about legal relationships between adults and adolescents older than the local age of consent, being compared to pedophilia. That’s really awkward and shameful. This is serious and should be informed in the article. Defamation and related offenses are a crime in many places (usually in countries under Civil Law), and a tort in other places (usually in countries under the Common law).

I'm a Law student. One popular saying among Law teachers and students is (in Latin): Dura lex sed lex [7] which means literally “The law is harsh but it’s the law”, or more freely translated: “The law is the law, and should be enforced to its fullest extent”. This is valid for both sides – for sexual abuse but also for defamation.

So if in some place the age of consent is 16, and an adult gets involved with a 15 years and 11 months adolescent, he/she will be a sex offender and should be prosecuted to the fullest. But on the other hand if the minor is 16 years and one day of age, then it won’t be a sex offense, and in contrast it will be clearly an offense of defamation if we call this adult a “pedophile”. I agree with users “Leb Lilo”, “AleBZ” and “KathyD93” that this issue should be in the article. Maybe the text can be rewritten and placed in a separate section at the bottom or in the middle. But I also agree with user “Legitimus” that sex offenders should be excluded from the text. We should concentrate this issue of defamation on relationships that are totally legal because, yes, this can actually lead to a strong defamation lawsuit. FranMo23 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are other additional links associating the labels “pedophile” or “pedophilia” with defamation:

• [8] (Legal page listing typical examples of defamation – two of the examples mention specifically the word “pedophile”)

• [9] (Australian defamation case, $ 110,000 in damages because of label 'pedophile')

• [10] (Legal page – Answer from an attorney to a customer doubt – “If she stated you were a pedophile, this would probably be actionable defamation because it is stating a false fact and not an opinion”.

• [11] (Legal page – See item # 4 , “Avoid Defamation of Character Suits # 4 : Examples of Defamatory Statements” – it mentions specifically the word “pedophile”)

• [12] (Legal page – Definition of Libel, cites specifically the label “pedophile” as a strong example of libel – See Definition of Libel 10, 3rd paragraph, which reads: “For example, if you were to write and publish an article accusing someone without a criminal record or any other proof of being a "disgusting pedophile" this statement would be very libelous”.

• [13] – Example of news about it – “Five high school students in Charlotte face punishment for creating an online message board that falsely accused a teacher of being a pedophile”.

• [14] – Another Legal Page – Comments by an attorney - portrays the word “pedophile” as a typical example of potential defamation. FranMo23 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, 4th new user account who wants to add this same off-topic content to this article. Not one of the links you listed is a reliable source as defined in Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the one that is indirectly sourced to the Australia News Sunday Times. But that one is not about pedophilia, it is about a case of internet stalking. Besides, this is not a law article, it's a science article. I suggest that you check out the law articles about defamation and other related concepts. You might find a place for your concerns in those articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a "new" user, I'm a wikipedian since 2007. Does this change anything? What if I'm a judge or a Law professor? It's more productive that we concentrate on arguments...Leb Lilo (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to include this information, it should not be another paragraph in the lead. The lead should be kept to four paragraphs at the most. Furthermore, I am not sure how much weight calling or labeling a non-pedophile a pedophile would hold defamation-wise. Mark Foley and Roman Polanski are excellent examples of that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

With the big difference that they were accused of illegal relationships. Now, when it comes to legal relationships above the age of consent, that's the real problem. If this is an article about Psychology or Science, then all legal info on sexual abuse and other legal aspects should be removed. If we can provide legal info on sexual abuse, then we should provide legal info on defamation, even if it's at the end of the article and covering only legal relationships (these ones are supported by the sources). I'm finding out that defamation is a crime in most European countries, Canada, 17 US states, and 2 US territories. This is a serious issue and people should be informed on that. Many of the sources I provided above are from legal offices and legal pages, of course they're good enough for adding legal info to other pages, why shouldn't they count on this case too? I’m going to rewrite the paragraph using these new sources provided above and then we're gonna see if it's good. FranMo23 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My point, for example, was that Foley was conversing (shamefully, I might add) with older adolescent males over the Internet; these boys were ages 16 and 17, and the age of consent in Washington, D.C. is 16. Despite this, he was called a pedophile...left and right. It being illegal to converse with underage teenagers over the Internet in the way that he did does not mean his being called a pedophile is justified. If he is not one, then how is that not defamation on the part of the media labeling him one? You are saying that he could not and had no right to fight being called a pedophile, because of the circumstances surrounding his scandal...but he could have successfully fought being called one if he had been without those circumstances? Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Mark Foley case, there were several boys and one of them was 14. In the Roman Polanski case the girl was 13. That's under the age of consent. The e-mails sent by Mark Foley were illegal anyway.Leb Lilo (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember there being anything about Mark Foley sending sexually explicit emails to anyone as young as 14. The most reliable reports state that the young males were 16 and 17-year-olds and that Foley would "court" these young males until they turned 18 or older. The age of consent in Washington, D.C. is 16 and yet Foley seems to have been waiting for them to turn 18 before acting on anything sexual with them. Yes, it is clear that there were several boys. Your point? My point, again, is that Foley is not a pedophile and yet he was slandered as one throughout the media; he could not really do anything to legally combat it. And while I feel that Roman Polanski deserves to be called a pedophile, he is not one either; judging by pictures of the girl at the time, she was not prepubescent. But then again, pedophilia is about the preference. He seems to prefer older females anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think nobody “deserves” to be called a pedophile if he/she is not one. That's a mental disease. Nothing justifies the crime of defamation. I was born in Catalunya, Spain, where age of consent is 13 (like in Japan) and where defamation is a crime. Adolescents are not prepubescent. This article should have a worldwide perspective, and not only Anglophone, because today English is the lingua franca of the world.AleBZ (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion that no one deserves to be defamed. Polanski knew that his rape of a 13-year-old girl was wrong and illegal. It is not just statutory rape in his case, but simply rape. He deserves to be called such in my view; that is my opinion. Despite that opinion, I have corrected people when they have called him a pedophile; most of those people do not care, and still view him as a pedophile when I correct them, due to how young the girl was. And as for adolescents not being prepubescent, that depends, since 11-year-olds are sometimes classified as adolescent and plenty of 11-year-old boys are still prepubescent. This article does have a world-wide view; pedophilia is defined the same way in all countries, where the word is known. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the borderline between pedophilia and ephebophilia is sometimes inaccurate and confusing, because there are girls (or boys) who mature earlier (or much earlier) than the average, but these are exceptions. With respect to these issue, I found out that the standard pedophilia definition from the World Health Organization foresees this exception, defining pedophilia as a sexual preference for children "of prepubertal or early pubertal age", which comprises the phenomenon of early puberty. Therefore I'm changing slightly the lead of the article to improve the main definition, be a little more accurate and close this loophole.AleBZ (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no borderline between ephebophilia and pedophilia, unless in cases where a 14 or 15-year-old boy still looks 12. You must mean hebephilia and pedophilia. As for changing the lead to state "early puberty," I already brought that up before. That discussion can be seen at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 12#Should we include the wording "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead?. I was the one who wanted to include it. The reasons for not including it are very valid, and now I agree that it is too complicated to address in the lead. You, as someone who wanted to make it clear that an adult possibly engaging in sex with a pubescent 13-year-old girl is not pedophilia, should understand this. People could categorize "early puberty" in different ways. We would at least need to point out at what points on the Tanner scale "early puberty" people are in, to specify for readers. Plus, pedophilia is defined by most authoritative sources as the sexual preference for prepubescent children. The "early pubescent stage" stuff is already mentioned in the Diagnosis section. But if we were to include that information in the lead, we should state "early pubertal age," like the World Health Organization (WHO) does and clarify better, as to not confuse people. By "early pubertal stage," WHO means young people who still look prepubescent but are really pubescent and the pedophile does not care (that their target is actually pubescent). A pubescent 13-year-old boy, for example, may still look prepubescent; a pedophile is not going to pass on that. If the boy has pubic hair, the pedophile could insist that the boy shave; "problem" solved. Key word is "preference" here. A pedophile going after someone who is pubescent but looks prepubescent still has a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

Also, you should discuss likely to be contested changes to this article here on this talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to include in this article information about legal sexual relationships above the age of consent that don't involve children because that's completely unrelated to the topic of pedophilia. You've now added information to the article on defamation, but you used different sources than the ones you listed here, and you did not mention use of the word "pedophilia" in that article. Good, we'll see if the editors on that article agree with your additions and use of sources. Maybe they will, and that will be a positive result. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All this is very simple - the law is the law, and it's the same law for everybody. Nobody is above the law, even journalists, politicians, child defense groups, police officers or celebrities. If you break the law, you can be sued, it doesn't matter who you are. That's the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, of the French Revolution, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other fundamental milestones of our civilization. Whether the law is or is not enforced in this or that jurisdiction, that's another issue. This legal info on defamation laws should be informed to the public, because it's a crime in most of the world and a tort in the rest. There are already cases of suicide greatly influenced by defamatory labels like this one. This is serious. If you say niger or jiggaboo on TV, this may end up in a lawsuit. If you say "pedophile" referring to a non-pedophile this is much worse (it's a mental disease after all). But anyways I agree about limiting the text to legal relationships (once they'are directly supported by the sources).Leb Lilo (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I make your words mine.AleBZ (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

New text

I'm adding the text below to the article, per our discussion above. All sources have been reproduced here in a format more appropriate for a talk page. Suggestions and improvements are welcome. FranMo23 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) (FranMo23)

Section Title - “Wrong terminology: legal and social implications”

New text - While recognizing the term “pedophile” as pejorative, vague and hackneyed, researchers suggest its replacement with less value-laden and pejorative terms (Article 1) (abstract) (Article 2). In legal practice, the word “pedophile” is considered pejorative and is often associated with defamation (Legal source 1 (see Ex. #10)) (Legal source 2) (Legal source 3) (Legal source 4) (Legal source 5 (see Suits #4 – Examples)) or with defamation cases (Legal case 1) (Legal case 2).

Given its classification as a mental disorder and a highly pejorative connotation, referring to a non-pedophile as a pedophile may be construed as defamation (Legal Dictionary - Defamation) or a related offense, like libel (Legal Encyclopedia - Libel), slander (Legal source - Slander), injury (Legal Dictionary – Injury) (Legal source (French)) or calumny (Dictionary – Calumny) (Legal source (Spanish)), in the case of legal relationships involving adults or adolescents above the age of consent. Depending on the jurisdiction, these offenses may be a tort (Legal source, US) (Legal source, UK) (Legal source, Australia) or a crime (Legal source, Italy (Italian)) (Legal source, Spain (Spanish)) (Legal source, Belgium (French)) (Legal source, Germany (German)) (English version), and in some cases also a hate crime on the grounds of age (Legal source, Canada 1) (Canada 2) (Legal source, Belgium (French)). FranMo23 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That section heading should be changed. This article discusses the wrong terminology and legal and social implications in other places; having that section titled that makes it seem as though that is the only section such topics take place in. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record. User Legitimus removed the whole paragraph without further discussions, alleging "violation of WP:Synthesis". I reverted his/her removal, because there are two reliable and scientific sources implying a connection between A and B, that is, between (A) the consideration of the term "pedophile" as pejorative, vague and hackneyed and (B) a call for its replacement with "less value-laden and pejorative terms". I also added info to the reference section of the source, showing the clear connection between A and B in the text of the scientific article cited as source. AleBZ (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also another related angle in this issue, which is journalism ethics. If a journalist misuses the word, this is professional malpractice. For professional journalists, this is a violation of their Code of Ethics, which typically preach accuracy and the pursuit of truth (or truthfulness) as fundamental principles of Journalism. This should also be informed in the article. I would add a small sentence on this to the section, then changing its title to “Wrong terminology: legal, social and ethical implications”. This issue is vital as it deals with people’s lives, including those who are willing to follow and respect all laws.

Nobody in good faith can defend the right of someone to practice a crime (or a tort) in order to humiliate, depreciate or belittle others who follow the law. This is the equivalent of Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib for journalists. You cannot commit a crime (or a tort) in order to defame people who follow the law. Personally, I think journalists that do this intentionally should be fired and banned from Journalism, if not prosecuted for defamation. The law is the same for everybody, and this includes journalists.Giancarlo32 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with user “AleBZ” about English being the “lingua franca” of the world. This article (and this section) should have a more worldwide view, presenting also foreign language sources, especially unique sources that don’t have equivalent in English. I have an additional reliable source in Portuguese to add to this section, that directly links the notions of defamation and pedophilia, the role of journalists, their code of ethics and the Penal Code.Giancarlo32 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Legitimus, you simply can't use WP:Synthesis as an excuse to remove whatever you want, just because you don't want the info to be in the article. This is your twisted interpretation of the rule. It will look like you're defending that lies should prevail or defending as legitimate the crime or tort of defamation against people that follow the law, and if this is true (I hope it's not), frankly, what a shame!! Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, 5th new user account that wants to add this same off-topic content to this article. None of what you are writing about is remotely related to the topic of this article, which is about a psychological disorder, not laws related to use of words. You might have grounds for adding that into to the articles on defamation laws or libel, but none of that has anything to do with this topic.

Legitimus is correct in removing the paragraph and his edit summary is correct. He's also not the only editor who has removed the paragraph, at least two others have removed it as well. It's original research, it's off-topic, and there is no consensus to include it, so it cannot be used. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, 4th user account that wants to remove this info from the article. I'm not a "new" user, my account has six months old.Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I also point out to Giancarlo32 that Legitimus is for pedophilia being correctly defined; he has consistently been that way. His removal of the text has nothing to do with wanting non-pedophiles to be called pedophiles. The lead (intro) of this article makes quite clear what a true pedophile is, and Legitimus is partly responsible for that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, not ONE source is offered that I have seen that is an actual situation where the term "pedophile" lead to a legal action of defamation. Not vague statutes or examples, but a real life court record where a person was successfully sued or convicted in criminal court for calling someone a pedophile. It's not bloody rocket science.Legitimus (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the two sources (news stories) about defamation cases in connection with the label of pedophile. These sources were provided. Check them below in "Splitting the text", part (3).Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Giancarlo32, though you may not be a new user in the sense that Jack meant, you are largely considered a new user due to your small contributions combined with your 6-month account. There are surely a lot of things you are not familiar with when it comes to Wikipedia rules and guidelines; in that respect, you are considered a "newbie" by most experienced Wikipedian editors. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I still do not see a source pointing to a real life case that happened. Is there a language barrier here? Am I not making it clear what I am asking? I am asking for a reputable source (preferable a court record) where an specific individual or group was taken to trial and either convicted or made to pay damages to a party because they referred to a person as a "pedophile" when in fact they were not. I do not see such a source anywhere. Further, please refrain from using Malon or Rind as a source, as neither are considered reputable or even particularly useful, at least in the United States. Rind has been discredited by numerous sources and the entire US Congress.Legitimus (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response below (items 1, 2 and 3). Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the text

Although I didn't participate in the discussion above, I think a conclusion was reached (because no one said anything for a week after Leb Lilo's last argument), and I also agree that this paragraph should be in the text. This is not a violation of WP:Synthesis and this is not the “advancement” of a position.

Removing it is just the opposite – a violation of WP:BURO (please read also WP:Avoid instruction creep), because the article is incomplete without this information. Most (or many) people don't know the correct meaning of pedophilia because of confusion or disinformation. Some news use correct terminology, but some others don't – it's a complete mess. The misuse of terminology should be informed in the article with the appropriate sources, because it's an important issue about pedophilia. It’s not off-topic, either, because that's the name of the article – “pedophilia”.Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Part 1

This sounds ridiculous and kafkian to me, but just for the sake of argumentation, I took the time to split the text in four parts:

(1) While recognizing the term “pedophile” as pejorative, vague and hackneyed, researchers suggest its replacement with less value-laden and pejorative terms. [15] (see page 11, 2) [16]

This particular part does not violates WP:Synthesis, it's not “advancing” a position and it's not off-topic. All sources of this part were provided and are scientific and reliable. This is not disputable;Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia policy about reliable sources (see WP:SOURCES) : "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science."

The article written by Agustin Malón [17]

is a reliable source – because the article is a university-level textbook and is available in the website of a university in Spain (University of Zaragoza, [18]; and because the article was published by a peer-reviewed journal, “Sexuality and Culture” [19]. This is very explicit in the section “Description” of the journal's website, which reads: “This interdisciplinary journal publishes peer-reviewed theoretical articles based on logical argumentation and literature review and empirical articles describing the results of experiments and surveys on the ethical, cultural, psychological, social, or political implications of sexual behavior” (source here - [20]. The journal has an Editorial Board whose members are identified here – [21]. They come from all over the world, including many researchers from USA and others from Germany, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, Hong Kong, Mexico, Austria, France, Australia and Croatia. Therefore this article follows the guidelines of Wikipedia about reliable sources. Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the explanation above is enough for me. This article (Malón) is well-referenced according to Wikipedia's rules and policies about "reliable sources" (WP:SOURCES). AleBZ (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

(2) Sometimes journalists have also used wrong terminology regarding pedophilia. To Journalism professor Felipe Pena, “there is no longer place to messianic definitions used in a manicheistic way to satisfy conceptual simplifications”, and there is no way journalism ethics can contradict the Criminal Code [22] [23]

This part is a new one that I'm introducing now. Sources are in Portuguese but I'm sure it's not against the rules to use sources in foreign languages. The general meaning can be verified through a machine translator. Sources of this part are also reliable, and the info here is not “advancing a position” or violating WP:Synthesis; this is also scientific research, now in the area of Journalism. This is not off-topic either, it's about pedophilia in relation to Journalism ethics.Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The article written by Felipe Pena [24] also follows the rules and policies of Wikipedia. According to WP:NONENG, “sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available”. This means this source is acceptable; WP:NONENG also says that “where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article”. Therefore, this sentence needs to be slightly improved quoting the Portuguese original text in a footnote.Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCES, this is also a reliable source. The article is available at the website of Intercom – the “Brazilian Association of Interdisciplinary Studies in Communication”, which gathers 800 researchers in the fields of Journalism and Social Communications (see Intercom's presentation text in English here : [25]). Its board of directors – which approves the articles – has members from universities throughout Brazil. Therefore the article is a university-level textbook.Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Its author (Felipe Pena) is a Professor of Journalism, author of eight books on Journalism, PhD in Sorbonne III (France), researcher registered at Brazil's CNPQ, Coordinator of university courses, author of 12 articles published by academic magazines, and is an active participant of Congresses and Conferences of Communication and Journalism in Brazil. He also attended Conferences and presented academic texts in France, Spain, Bolivia and USA. His curriculum vitae is available here : [26] (in Portuguese). Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

While I cannot read Portuguese and understand 100% of it, I speak Spanish which is very close. This article (Pena) is well-referenced and also complies with the requirements of WP:NONENG and of WP:SOURCES. It deserves to be mentioned. AleBZ (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Part 3

(3) In legal practice, the word “pedophile” is considered pejorative and is often associated with defamation [27] [28] [29] or with defamation cases [30] [31].

This part illustrates and reinforces the two parts above. It's about the association of the label “pedophile” with “defamation”. The sources provided are legal experts or news stories and are enough to me; these sources can be changed by others, but honestly it seems not necessary. This is not off-topic (it's about the label of pedophile). This does not violate WP:Synthesis or advance a position. This association between “pedophile” as a pejorative term and “defamation” is not new. The last two sources show legal cases involving defamation in connection with pedophilia.Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This source here [32] is a university website from AUT University in New Zealand containing the catalogation and transcription of a news story called “Cyber Victim Seeks Payout”, published by the Australian paper “Sunday Times” on 27 July 2007. “Sunday Times” is a mainstream newspaper in Australia and according to WP:SOURCES it can be used as a reliable source. In addition, the article mentions specifically that “The Supreme Court [of Australia] already has ruled that Dr Cullen has been defamed”.Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The other source cited as an example of defamation cases is [33] which is a news story written by the Associated Press and published on the website of ABC.com. Both are from the mainstream media, and therefore are reliable sources according to WP:SOURCES.Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies were not made to satisfy the needs of individual users, but of the community as a whole. All users must accept the rules, and try not to create new ones of his own. That's why all these sources need to be accepted as valid and reliable – because they clearly follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Giancarlo, note also that according to the record of contributions for example of users "Legitimus" [34] or "Jack-A-Roe" [35], it looks like a great proportion of their contributions is in articles about pedophilia, child sexual abuse, child sexuality, incest, greek love, age of consent and other related issues. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but if someone spends so much time with this, it's likely that it will become an obsession, and they become emotionally attached to the activity, which is now part of their life. Unless they have jobs in this area of research (which is even possible), it's very difficult to believe in their neutrality to edit such articles. Research brings knowledge, but obsession can bring bias. Merry Christmas to all! AleBZ (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Part 4

(4) Legally, referring to a non-pedophile as a pedophile may be construed as defamation or a related offense, like libel [36], slander [37], injury [38] or calumny [39], in the case of legal relationships involving adults or adolescents above the age of consent. Depending on the jurisdiction, these offenses may be a tort (like in the US [40] or in the UK [41]) or a crime (like in most of continental Europe [42] [43] [44]), and in some cases also a hate crime on the grounds of age (like in Belgium [45] or Canada [46])

Now, this part is the one that probably caused this controversy. I think it should remain in the paragraph because it's illustrative to the previous parts and corresponds to what was discussed above in the Talk Page. All sources are correct, some are legal dictionaries others are legal texts. User Legitimus argued that it's not possible to use legal texts, but he didn't show any rule that forbids this (I looked for a rule saying this, but I didn't find anyone forbidding the use of legal texts in the reference section). Please provide the rule.Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed this fourth part for further discussions for the time being.Giancarlo32 (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile ring

Perhaps there should be a specific entry on the concept of pedophile ring, since the term often comes up in police investigations about pedophile organizations. [47][48][49][50] ADM (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable to me and can be treated in this article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Borderline between pedophilia and ephebophilia

I agree with user Flyer22 (see post above, section "Legal issues") that the borderline between pedophilia and ephebophilia is sometimes inaccurate and confusing, because there are girls (or boys) who mature earlier (or much earlier) than the average, but these are exceptions. With respect to these issue, I found out that the standard pedophilia definition from the World Health Organization foresees this exception, defining pedophilia as a sexual preference for children "of prepubertal or early pubertal age", which comprises the phenomenon of early puberty. Therefore I'm changing slightly the lead of the article to improve the main definition, be a little more accurate and close this loophole.AleBZ (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above: There is no borderline between ephebophilia and pedophilia, unless in cases where a 14 or 15-year-old boy still looks 12. You must mean hebephilia and pedophilia. As for changing the lead to state "early puberty," I already brought that up before. That discussion can be seen at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 12#Should we include the wording "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead?. I was the one who wanted to include it. The reasons for not including it are very valid, and now I agree that it is too complicated to address in the lead. You, as someone who wanted to make it clear that an adult possibly engaging in sex with a pubescent 13-year-old girl is not pedophilia, should understand this. People could categorize "early puberty" in different ways. We would at least need to point out at what points on the Tanner scale "early puberty" people are in, to specify for readers. Plus, pedophilia is defined by most authoritative sources as the sexual preference for prepubescent children. The "early pubescent stage" stuff is already mentioned in the Diagnosis section. But if we were to include that information in the lead, we should state "early pubertal age," like the World Health Organization (WHO) does and clarify better, as to not confuse people. By "early pubertal stage," WHO means young people who still look prepubescent but are really pubescent and the pedophile does not care (that their target is actually pubescent). A pubescent 13-year-old boy, for example, may still look prepubescent; a pedophile is not going to pass on that. If the boy has pubic hair, the pedophile could insist that the boy shave; "problem" solved. Key word is "preference" here. A pedophile going after someone who is pubescent but looks prepubescent still has a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

Also, you should discuss likely to be contested changes to this article here on this talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the distinction needs to be made between concentual heterosexual contact where one (or for that matter both) of the parties is under 16 (or 13) but can be regarded as sexually mature (particular likely if a girl), and the situation where the adult is a man and the child a boy. This is not normal sexual contact, Although the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin has said that man-boy "love" is not harmful.JohnC (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

homosexuality and pedophilia - a false link

I have never edited Wikipedia before, so I hope somebody who knows the correct editing methods will fix this serious error please.

Paragraph 3 at the top of the Wikipedia article on Pedophilia wrongly states "Most pedophiles are homosexual men"

That is not the generally accepted view among professional case workers in the field, nor in the professional literature. For example on this web page: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link

"They [pedophiles] usually don't identify as homosexual - the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender They are sexually aroused by youth, not by gender. [...] Indeed, research supports that a child molester isn't any more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual."

This is a socially harmful error, as the myth that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles or child molesters is perpetuated by homophobes, leading to persecution of gays.

Another concern:

The last paragraph in the "Diagnosis" section says: "Has there been any research into any link between homosexuality and pedaphilia? This should have been investigated, since anecdotal reports suggest that the majority of male pedophiles favour boys, and would therefore have to be classified as homosexual.JohnC (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)"

Anecdotal reports without any citation are not useful. Also, this issue is addressed in the same article I linked to, which says:

"In fact, some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses. This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children. In these situations, an adult male is trusted by those around him, including children and their families. Males are often given access to boys to mentor, teach, coach and advise. Therefore, a male pedophile may have easier access to a male child. In trying to make sense of an adult male's sexually abusing a male child, many of us mislabel it as an act of homosexuality, which it isn't."

AlanMartin3 (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear you read that part of the article mere moments after it was added by editor JohnC and before any other editors found it. I have removed it because besides being not supported by research, it's a question inserted into the article which is improper.Legitimus (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a follow-up that supports your comments and is primarily addressed to user JohnC: The purported link between homosexuality and child molestation was discredited as far back as 1978 in the famous paper by Groth and Birnbaum. These researchers even found that many same-sex abusers where married to women and had sex with them too. Research coming out of this work has generally indicated that pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely separate issues. For this reason it is preferred to call a man who abuses a boy a "same-sex" offender, and not a homosexual offender. Furthermore it is worth noting that the vast majority of offenses are men with girls, not boys. Same-sex offenses simply get much greater press coverage and public outrage due to society largely still having some homophobic feelings. Yes, when you add proportions up man-boy offenses are disproportionate, but it is as AlanMartion3 quoted a matter of accessibility and not a gender preference.

Likewise one should be wary of confounding pedophilia (the drive and preference) with child sexual abuse (the act), as not all offenders are pedophiles.Legitimus (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to state that I am glad the usual editors of this article still watch it. I could not imagine having to fight off incorrectness by myself, and can only imagine how horrid this article would be without you and the other usual editors, Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

About the paedophilia moral panic

The fact that the Western society's reaction to paedophilia in the last two decades is a cock should be added to the article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See moral panic. I think this article should discuss the Western society's reaction to paedophilia in the last two decades and why it is a moral panic. By the way, I think that the age of consent should be 12, since psychiatrist and psychologists all agree that persons under the age of 12 do not have ability to consent in sex (adolescents have this ability, however, some countries and states, including present Japan, set the age of consent higher than 13). --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Age of consent should most definitely not be 12, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are using the term incorrectly. "Pedophilia" is the term for the preference, the aspect in the mind, not the physical act. And further, it is a preference for prepubescent children. As in, children under 12. So you comments do not fit with this article.Legitimus (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But Yvonne Jewkes' scholarly book, Media and Crime, does consider Western society's reation to paedophiles a moral panic.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now done some reading on this. There have been some moral panics based on misuse of the term, some of that can be included if it's done carefully to make sure it's clear that it's not about the science of this topic. I'll make an initial edit on this and see how it fits. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Think the linguistically challenged attack on the Welsh paediatrician is worth mentioning? This one is almost legendary and was blown way out of proportion, but it still holds a lot of interest. The true story is Dr. Yvette Cloete of Newport came home one day to find "paedo" spray-painted on her house, because some dolt couldn't tell the two words apart. The hyperbolic retelling of this tale distorted things to the point where the gender of the doctor was reversed and claimed an angry torch-wielding mob chased him down the street.Legitimus (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-pedophile activism section should stay. If it needs to be reworded and sources that directly relate to anti-pedophile activism, as Jack feels that it does, then that can be done...especially since we have an article on it. Some of the information can be taken from there. But if we are going to continue to have a section about pedophile activism, the opposite of that should also remain. I am not for leaving only the Moral panic and vigilantism section when it comes to anti-pedophile feelings, as if people against pedophiles all have moral panics and are vigilantes. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

References that do not support the text

User:RekishiEJ, at 7:47, 6 January 2010, you made the following revert [51] that re-added several references that do not support the text. (The move of the WHO named footnote at the top of the article is not relevant to this comment, this is only about the footnotes you re-added in the same edit).

What was the purpose of that revert? Did you read the sources? When I removed those footnotes, I provided specific edit summaries for each of them, indicating the reasons the sources did not apply. Did you read those edit summaries?

Please explain your reasoning on how each of the sources you re-added support the text. Thanks --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminology and Defamation revisited

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The section created on the matter of misusing terminology has turned out better than expected. However a core issue for me now is that some parts of simply don't make sense. In particular:

"In countries with a lower age of consent, this misuse happens in relation to relationships with persons below this legal age or to those that are defined as sexually abusive. Researchers argue that a rethoric of trauma and horror involving wrong terminology is not supported by empirical evidence and may be harmful to children and their families"

and

"Felipe Pena has condemned the use of messianic or manicheistic definitions as a form of simplification"

I'm not sure I follow what these statements are meant to convey. Both of these attributed (at least originally) non-English sources, and I suspect some of the prior disputes over this material may be the result of a language barrier.Legitimus (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, we truly need to recruit more Wikipedians who are both proficient at at least a non-English language and English, such as French language teachers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the first part of that, because it did not read well to me either. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't entirely follow what it's trying to say. Isn't it just restating the same point as the first sentence of the paragraph? Regarding the second about rhetoric (which is spelled wrong, btw) I'm not clear if is the correct usage of the term.Legitimus (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I am all for you removing it, or at least tweaking it better. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it before and AleBZ put it back. I was hoping for an explanation.Legitimus (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I removed these parts. AleBZ should explain why this is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That article from Malón is actually in English, not in Spanish (although he is from Spain) [52]. The part previously removed by Legitimus referred to Paragraph 2 of page 11 of Malón's article (which cited the controversial "Rind and Bauserman" as source). But AleBZ didn't add this same part again. He reformulated the text and used other sources (this time reliable sources) mentioned in the same page 11 of Malón's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FranMo23 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to sign (I run out of time in a cyber café). Other sources referred in page 11 of Malón's article [53] are Seligman and Malón himself (in paragraph 1) and Durrant & White, Goodyear-Smith and Renshaw, in the first paragraph after number 4. These other sources have similar ideas albeit slightly different. I think that's why the text was rewritten, and honestly if they meet Wikipedia's criteria this information should be in the article (with whatever text that refer to these other sources).FranMo23 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; I was saying the line here in Wikipedia attributed to Malón appears to simply repeat the same point made by the first sentence. My point is the text in our article (quoted above) is of unclear meaning. Your most recent edit here also may be a misunderstanding of what the sentence is trying to say. It is meant to explain an erroneous manner in which members of the public use the term. Several examples were already offered elsewhere on this Talk page of people being called "pedophiles" when not only were their partners post-pubescent (which is outside the medical meaning of the word) but they were of legally consenting age and the disparaging usage was entirely one of social disapproval. This usage is blatantly WRONG as I'm sure you will agree, but I feel that it made that clear already with the title of the section in the first place.Legitimus (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that probably most of our disagreement is due not only to a language barrier but also to different culture backgrounds. I think a French teacher could be helpful, but maybe also bilingual Canadians or Europeans who speak English. In many countries of Europe, it is not usual - let alone "notable" - to see the press refer to legal relationships above the age of consent as being "pedophilia", as this would implicate the journalist not only in a breach of their Code of Ethics but also in a criminal offense (defamation, libel etc.). Some misuse or abuse of language have occurred in relation to cases involving criminal offenses, but not to normal dates. This would be pejorative and offensive to those who follow the law and could end up in civil and criminal lawsuits against the media organizations and their journalists.AleBZ (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a word used in Spain, France, or Portugal for example that has the same meaning as the English word "pedophile" or carries the same emotional reaction. Also remember that Wikipedia has multiple language sites for a reason. The English site for Wikipedia is not obligated to try and address every nation in the world beyond the realm of practicality. It is arguably more unfair to try to apply European values/language to an English language article, which is what you are trying to do. It seems far more logical to go the language version site for that nation and edit that one instead: [54],[55],[56]

I am beginning to have doubts about your claim that this usage is never used in Europe and that it is illegal. In this article [57] the writer refers to a priest as a pedophile. This took place in Sens, France, and the boy is 16 years old. France's age of consent is 15. Not only is he referring to a situation with a clearly post-pubescent boy, but one above legal age of consent.

You also did not answer the question I asked about about the other two sentences unrelated to this one.Legitimus (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AleBZ, I would say that you have clearly frustrated Legitimus, for Legitimus to refer a 16-year-old as a child on this talk page, something we usually refrain from doing in regards to people in late pubescence or those who are post-pubescent. Explain what you mean as clearly as you can. I also am not getting what you mean on this particular matter. Being honest is the best route to go, as I am sure you know. And if the language barrier is really keeping you from explaining what you mean clearly to us, perhaps there is an editor here at Wikipedia who can relay what you mean in this case better than you can? If you do not explain to where we can understand or at least get someone else to, then I am not seeing how Legitimus would be in the wrong to revise or remove the wording you added to the discussed section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to continue this discussion here, this section will be archived shortly. The various accounts that have argued for the use of the far-fringe and completely uncited Malon source have been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts (AleBZ, FranMo23, Leb Lilo, Giancarlo32). If anyone wants to discuss these issues, please begin a new talk page section where we can address the points without disruption by sockpuppets. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverts

As I can see, censorship does work very heavily in this article while nonsenses and barbaric garbled formulas, false references and a fatal unbalance remain. Relevant information and references was and are abandoned while more than half of the article handles anything else but pedophilia. This article is in very poor condition and I can see causes of such worsening already. Regrettably, it's a destiny of Wikipedia to be a domain of simple ideologic censors rather than summary of the whole relevant published knowledge. --ŠJů (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a sporting thing to say. You can't just throw massive changes into an established article without warning or discussion in an article with such a tumultuous history of conflict and disputes. You should know that at one time actual pedophiles were trying to alter this article in order to force their views, basically using all manner of circuitous arguments in an attempt to claim raping small children is perfectly natural. Eventually they were all permanently blocked from editing. Nevertheless, this article remains an extremely sensitive topic.

Also be warned that when someone reverts your edits, you DO NOT just revert them back. This is edit-warring and is prohibited, and also almost never accomplishes anything useful. When your edit is reverted, you either leave it be or you go to discussion. Priority goes to the previous version until some consensus is reached.

Legitimus (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not in very poor condition whatsoever. But I already noted this to ŠJů on the Ephebophilia talk page, as well as the fact that this article used to be plagued by pedophiles.

ŠJů, I do not see at all how your changing of the lead to "...is defined by main nosological manuals as a mental disorder in which a person experiences a sexual preference or attraction for prepubescent children" is more accurate than "...is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children."

Are we really going to use "person" as a substitute for "adult or older adolescent"? Are we really going to exclude, from the first sentence, the fact that older adolescents who have not yet reached legal adulthood can also be considered pedophiles? And are we really going to say that people who may have experienced minor sexual attraction to a prepubescent child for whatever reason are pedophiles as well? If so, I would have to say no to that version of the lead. Regarding that last bit, while most people are quick to refer to all child molesters (of prepubescent children) as pedophiles (I often do the same), the fact is...not all of them are pedophiles. Pedophilia cannot be cured; experts strive just to get pedophiles' sexual preference situated on adults. A man who sexually abused a prepubescent child (let's say the man is a one-time offender), due to minor sexual attraction to the child, but prefers adults sexually...needs no cure to fixate his sexual preference on adults; I doubt he needs a cure to de-fixate his sexual preference on prepubescent children. Really, he is not fixated on prepubescent children sexually. Yes, people like that are still referred to as pedophiles, but they really could care less about being with a prepubescent child sexually. For them, it was/is all about opportunity; they are essentially open to using a child's body as a sexual subsitute for an adult's body...no matter the contrast. But there is no constant fantasizing about prepubescent children on their part...not unless they are true-to-form pedophiles.

I also want to state that the usual editors of this article and talk page are fair. We are just very careful and strict when it comes to these Wikipedia subjects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Causes section

I removed this section and brought it here for consideration:

Causes

The cause or causes of pedophilia are not known.[footnote A] The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be a strong risk factor, but research does not show a causal relationship, as the vast majority of sexually abused children do not grow up to be adult offenders, nor do the majority of adult offenders report childhood sexual abuse. The US Government Accountability Office concluded, "the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established." Until 1996, there was greater belief in the theory of a "cycle of violence," because most of the research done was retrospective—abusers were asked if they had experienced past abuse. Even the majority of studies found that most adult sex offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood, but studies varied in terms of their estimates of the percentage of such offenders who had been abused, from 0 to 79 percent. More recent prospective longitudinal research — studying children with documented cases of sexual abuse over time to determine what percentage become adult offenders — has demonstrated that the cycle of violence theory is not an adequate explanation for why people molest children.[footnote B]

footnote A: Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary entry

footnote B: E L Rezmovic ; D Sloane ; D Alexander ; B Seltser ; T Jessor (1996). "Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child Victims Become Adult Abusers" (PDF). US Government Accountability Office General Government Division United States. Retrieved 2009-11-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The first sentence is duplicated in the article lead, with the same source. The rest of the paragraph does not mention anything about the disorder of pedophilia, and it makes several wide interpretations of one source that do not appear to match the conclusions of the source. The conclusion in the source is quite complex and if it is to be used, the text would have to be rewritten to follow the concepts as presented in that source. If someone wants to do that, and relate it to the topic of this article, that might be useful, but as it is now it does not appear to fit in the article or illuminate the topic so it should not be used in its present form. To be clear, I am not saying the above summary is incorrect, just that it only partially reflects the conclusion of the source, and that it's not directly connected to this topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The GAO article is a literature review and while I have not read through it entirely yet, it would appear from skimming through that we yet again face the problem of child sex offender vs. pedophile. The text in the above section appears to fall prey to this same. I recall this was added some years ago and I feel that the the addition was of noble intent (i.e. to strongly emphasize that victims are not child molesters waiting to happen) it is a bit over-stated and may not be appropriate. The good news is that the article contains some promising references that may be more useful. Example: Greenberg, DM.; Bradford, JM.; Curry, S. (1993). "A comparison of sexual victimization in the childhoods of pedophiles and hebephiles". J Forensic Sci. 38 (2): 432–6. PMID 8455000. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)Legitimus (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard von Krafft-Ebing

I have a suspicion that the interpretation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's work is a bit inaccurate. Some important criteria are omitted, some are garbled. Please use more accurately refferences: pages, exact quotes etc. I have read parts of Ebing's works and I didn't take it that Ebing calls the surrogate or sadistic behavior as an "attraction" - just contrariwise, an attraction (strictly speaking, das Reizen) he considered as specific for pedophilia. Etc. --ŠJů (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The section in question predates my time editing this article, so I will look into the matter. I can get a copy of this book in English, so if possible, do you have page references you have read yourself? It is over 600 pages long.Legitimus (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two editions on Google Books in English, with full view PDF & plain text options. The source is useful for historical interest, but as to the science, it's obsolete and has been superseded by modern scholarship. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The full text of German 14-th edition from 1912 (from the newer faksimile) is available in Commons:Category:Krafft-Ebing Psychopathia Sexualis. I advice to use the German (or German-Latin) edition. German scholarly terms and thoughts can be hardly correctly translated to (American) English, many words have no suitable equivalent in English.

The relevant chapter VI (Das krankhafte Sexualleben vor dem Kriminalforum) starts at the page 372, the section 6 (Unzucht mit Individuen unter 14 Jahren. Schändung (Oesterr.)) starts at the page 413, Psychopatologische Fälle at the top of the page 416. The new term of paedophilia erotica is firstly mentioned at the bottom of the page 416 and at the top of the 417, most relevant summary about paedophilia erotica is at the page 417. Next pages contain mainly casuistics, but also occasionally some generalized conslusions. Btw, there is quite relevant the fact that Ebing considered a contrary-sexual (homosexual, by today's language) pedophilia as very rare. However, I didn't read some older edition: the book was changed and developed all the time.

Btw., it's remarkable that Sigmund Freud in his Three treatises about theory of sexuality in 1905 quite ignored this Ebing's new term and substantiating experiences and Freud's paragraphs about sex with children contain no references, in contrary to homosexuality which is richly referenced by many sources. However, in other themes is Ebing several times cited by Freud. Would it mean that Freud disappreciated Ebing's new term and theory of paedophilia erotica? --ŠJů (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While I can understand the sentiment of wanting to use the original German, it is impractical to use it. I do not read German and neither does most of the readership of this article. This is English Wikipedia after all. Further, it is only your opinion that it does not translate; clearly respected scholars and publishers have done just that. Actually I'm a bit confused why you'd suggest using German since you yourself are a Czech speaker and your userpage says your understanding of German is is only basic (Level 1) and it is even lower than your English (Level 2).

Along similar lines, I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph correctly (seems to be a language issue). From the part I do get, it seems as though it should be tabled for another time and another article.

I will look into the sections of Kraft-Ebing and see if the section of this article can be corrected.Legitimus (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear it does need to be corrected. So far there is nothing egregiously incorrect, but it does need a rewrite. Kraft-Ebing has some rather bizarre ideas in this work, by today's standards at least. For example, that men who masturbate too much may become seek child partners because they have "desensitized" themselves.Legitimus (talk)

Rewrite is now complete, along with some more history of how the disorder was classified and studied after Krafft-Ebing, like Forel and the early DSM. I don't do a lot of "primary writing" and am prone to typographical and grammatical errors (I sometimes accidentally omit words or use the wrong verb tense), so any corrections or questions (if anything is not clear) are welcome.Legitimus (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is paedophilia a disease?

I think it would be prudent to qualify the beginning of the article to state that most people consider paedophilia to be a disease. As far as I am aware, paedophilia is medically just an age-selective paraphilia, and paraphilia are generally not treated as diseases or even considered as psychological issues unless they are giving the subject discomfort or causing the subject difficulty in coexisting with normal society. While this is clearly the case for some paedophiles, it is not the case for all. A similar, if somewhat controversial, parallel could be drawn to homosexuality in the mid-20th century: just because doctors were treating homosexuals to mitigate their "symptoms" does not mean that homosexuality was actually legitimately a disease any more than attraction to redheads. SilenceSoLoud (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had many prior discussions of this matter, and it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I don't know how anybody could not consider pedophilia a disease -- I mean these people are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, this is grossly abnormal, virtually always (if not always) associated with some sort of psychological or personality disorder, and is psychologically harmful to the child, often resulting in life-long damage AVKent882 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the diagnostic criteria; the ICD does not require distress or actions, only the preference. And the DSM doesn't say they must have distress or trouble coexisting, it says if they have distress or have acted on these urges, and acting doesn't just mean performing a sex act on a child. It can include exposing oneself, lewd touching, voyeurism on children, and using child pornography. A person with no distress and no actions arguably may not even be a attracted to children at all but have some kind of thought disturbance instead. It is also quite hard to imagine a person not getting distressed if they are preferentially sexually driven toward a particular behavior yet never do anything about it.

The homosexuality-pedophilia angle is commonly misunderstood area in particular, and here is why: Homosexuality was not always considered a mental disease and no one even called it such formally until the late 19th century, and was never considered a disease at all in some cultures. The DSM didn't even exist before 1952 and there are some arguments that homosexuality would never have been added in the first place were it not for political pressure. Almost immediately this was subjected scientific scrutiny (and some might say exercising of critical thinking) which led it its removal.

Pedophilia on the other hand can make no such claim. There is not a single culture anywhere in the world that I am aware of that has ever openly and unanimously allowed and accepted sex with children who have not yet reached puberty. Before anyone pulls the Ancient Greeks card, note that the Greeks did not either; those were clearly teenagers or even early 20s if you examine the texts and artwork. Separate issue. Likewise, unlike homosexuality, pedophilia involves partners that are non-consenting or cognitively incapable of rending consent (which , and easily demonstrable damage is quite clear.

I realize that was quite lengthy and I had no intention of lecturing, so pardon if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.Legitimus (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Legitimus. Bravo, Bravo!! Not lengthy at all. And if considered so, it was needed. I personally think of diseases as things such as AIDS, cancer, etc., and things such as alcoholism, pedophilia, etc. as disorders. (Notice I did not call alcoholism a mental disorder, simply a disorder; I do consider pedophilia to be a mental disorder, however.) As the Disease article notes, though, the term "disease" is often used more broadly than the way I typically use it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not well said at all, try examining actual facts as opposed to whims and interpretations and you will find that Legitimus is in fact, non-legitimate at all. Homosexuality was also listed in the DSM as a paraphilia to be diagnosed and treated until version 3 in the late 70's. Furthermore, what many users fail to realize as Legitimus has clearly done so, is that pedophilia is strictly an attraction, with any "acts" on "partners" delegated to either molestation or child sexuality as mandated by your local laws. What can be said, like homosexuality, is that as viewed by academic authorities of the time, Pedophilia may be considered a paraphilia to be treated. However, again like homosexuality, this is rapidly changing and no longer valid (DSM V has been petitioned by many doctors to not include many of the paraphilias in DSM IV, including Pedophilia, BDSM, and others because they acknowledge that the diagnosis itself is a major factor in introducing 'distress'). Ultimately, in answer of the original question, Wikipedia despite claiming an open environment and being NPOV is very much manifested by bigots, so one cannot expect neutrality (either way) in an article on Pedophilia. 76.64.143.200 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I just said? Did actually you read the criteria I was very obviously referring to? I never said when homosexuality was removed, only that it was. And you don't get to pull a definition out of thin air for pedophilia. There are clear definitions on what this term means by both national and international medical standards. You did not supply a single source for anything you just said.Legitimus (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Legitimus in that it is clear that the ICD document here classifies paedophilia as a disorder. However, it also classifies sexual fetishism as a disorder. Within the scope of modern gender studies, it is very clearly established that sexual fetishism is not a disorder, but instead a feature of sexual orientation, just as predilection to redheads would be a feature of sexual orientation. This is primarily because individuals who identify as Fetishists do not view themselves as having a disorder. The first line of the wikipedia article on Sexual fetishism reflects this: "Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal brought on by any object, situation or body part not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature. Sexual fetishism may be regarded, e.g. in psychiatric medicine, as a disorder of sexual preference or as an enhancing element to a relationship causing a better sexual bond between the partners". The sections of the article which back up the non-disorder view of fetishism are full of citation needed tags. However, the significant point that some population does not consider fetishism as a disorder is left alone, and even clearly implied from the very beginning of the article.

Further, there is even some academic resistance to the classification of pedophilia as a disorder. [58] [59]. While the opinion held by the majority of psychologists is that pedophilia is a psychosexual dysfunction, the fact that there have been papers in refereed academic journals arguing the opposite shows directly that the medical community is by no means unanimous on this issue.

Additionally, the point should be made that the ICD-10 is evasive about a specific definition of the word "disorder", their general classification of disorder is restricted to "...cases with distress and with interference with personal functions." [60]. It should also be noted that the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, as listed here also require that the patient has acted on the attraction in an inappropriate way or that the patient experiences "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty". Legitimus claims that this implies that all sexual attraction to children is a disorder because "It is also quite hard to imagine a person not getting distressed if they are preferentially sexually driven toward a particular behavior yet never do anything about it." Quite frankly, this is a poor subjective judgement that only indicates Legitimus' lack of imagination. If anyone can find a published, scientific source that shows that non-distress is impossible without the fulfillment of all sexual fantasies, I would be happy to yield on this small point; however, without a published study of some kind this judgement is simply original research and cannot in good faith be used to justify that significant of a decision on article wording and content.

Similarly, the statement that Legitimus makes that "There is not a single culture anywhere in the world that I am aware of that has ever openly and unanimously allowed and accepted sex with children who have not yet reached puberty," is a subjective judgement based on personal experience, and would not be valid for determination of encyclopedic content even if it were true. And, in fact, this is not true: a quick read through the papers linked above will highlight several cultures in which publicly accepted sexual relations between adults and prepubescent children were not only extant, but were in fact common.

I also counter the point Legitimus made against the pedophilia-homosexuality argument by pointing out that articles about similarly non-consensual and socially unacceptable paraphilia, such as Zoophilia and Necrophilia, start out merely stating that these tendencies are paraphilia, and refrain from using the word disorder. In fact, no discussion of zoophilia as a disorder occurs until the section "Perspectives on Zoophilia", and the discussion of Necrophilia as a mental disorder is left out of the article entirely, despite being rated as a disorder by the ICD-10. Similarly, articles on arguably destructive paraphilia such as Erotic asphyxiation barely mention that some psychologists regard such paraphilia as a disorder.

Given the treatment of these other paraphilia, including some like Necrophilia which are arguably equivalent with pedophilia in terms of social and medical concern, it seems like it would be consistent with all other paraphilia articles on wikipedia to leave the classification as a disorder to a specific section about medical treatment or medical perspectives, or at the very least word the beginning so that it leaves room for interpretation of pedophilia as both a disorder and as a non-dysfunctional sexual preference. No other wikipedia article on a specific paraphilia defines the paraphilia as a psychological disorder; excepting this article, all those that discuss disease/disorder status use the wording "...is classified as a disorder by the DSM" or something similar.

To summarize, the conclusion that pedophilia is a psychological dysfunction is not unanimously supported by the medical community, and classification of all pedophilia as a disorder by deferring to the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV is an inconsistent and easily disputable approach. Additionally, in comparison to wikipedia articles on all other paraphilia, even those of similarly condemned social stature, this article on Pedophilia comes across as remarkably one-sided and uniquely rigid in its classification of pedophilia strictly as a disorder. In other words, the wording of this article leaves no room for interpretation of pedophilia as a nondysfunctional sexual orientation, unlike every other article on specific paraphilia. SilenceSoLoud (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to keep you all in the loop, I just reworded some parts in the introduction. I believe that all the things I stuck to are non-debatable points that are fully supported by the hyperlink citations I added where necessary. I will propose and discuss further changes to the introduction and the rest of the article once these changes have gone through smoothly and others have had a chance to comment on them. I realize this is a very sensitive issue, and many people will undoubtedly have a lot to say on these changes, as well as future revisions I'd like to introduce. Thanks in advance for your responsible, constructive input. SilenceSoLoud (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll play ball. Keep the tone civil and I will do so in return. So far, at the time of this writing it sounds alright. Frankly having been monitoring this for so long in the wake of some very serious disputes, it is hard to trust and I was expecting something much more drastic. I have provided formatted citations for the sources since they are journal articles. It should be noted that having read the full text of Kingston, it doesn't say it should not be a disorder. Rather it is more of a critique of current diagnostic methods. Kingston freely admits limitations of his findings; much of his data is old; he used DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Nevertheless, there are some valid points about the rendering of a diagnosis.Legitimus (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Apropos the edit regarding pedophiles who do not act upon their urges, there is relevant information in a Dan Savage column that might make a relevant external link. Because I am cited liberally in that column, the decision about whether to add it should be made by others.— James Cantor (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I read that article shortly after it was posted. Seems ok to me at this time. May also have relevance in the treatment section.Legitimus (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes to the intro. Substantive change like that requires consensus. There is no significant academic dissent about defining pedophilia as a disorder. New user account SilenceSoLoud recommended in the long post above to "leave the classification as a disorder to a specific section about medical treatment or medical perspectives, or at the very least word the beginning so that it leaves room for interpretation of pedophilia as both a disorder and as a non-dysfunctional sexual preference." No, that's not how it works. The idea that pedophilia could simply be a sexual preference is a far-fringe theory with no mainstream academic support whatsoever. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Yeah there are some opinions here and there, but they're uncommon and also, they are just opinions. Speaking of which, I took some time to read through Green, 2002, and it is just that, largely editorial. Of particular note is that some sources used by Green are dubious, especially those of pre-19th century explorers about tribal island cultures which not only have no corroboration, but have been very seriously questioned by modern anthropologists like Willowdean Handy. The motive? It is has been argued quite a bit that explorers often misinterpret, exaggerate, or outright fabricate the practices of "primitives" as a way of demonizing them as "ignorant, godless heathens" that must be conquered/converted so as to improve them and turn them away from their "evil ways." This has happened throughout history, you can probably think of some examples off the top of your head. Green's argument is also rather weak, but that is just my opinion on his opinion.

I should go on record as saying that making the argument that homosexuality was once a mental illness and now isn't and is more socially accepted, and therefore pedophilia should go the same way in both psychology and social matters, is the party line of many pedophile organizations, and in some cases, convicted child molesters. This is why calling it a "sexual orientation" is such a loaded statement, because of it's unspoken implications. Likewise calling it "not a disorder" is similarly loaded.

I do think at least some mention of non-offending pedophiles is probably worth it. Their awareness and self-control is admirable and commendable, but they still have a stressful condition and very little they can do about it. I don't hate anyone because they have a disorder or preference, it only irritates me when they insist there's nothing wrong with them and try to go around trying to convince everyone what they want to do is perfectly acceptable.Legitimus (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur entirely with Legitimus's very cogent post. Some things are a slippery slope, and some are not; sometimes instead of a slippery slope there is a bright line. And that is the case here, the bright line being the phrase "consenting adults". We do not heed the argument "Homosexuality was considered evil/sick/twisted, and now is not; raping people is considered evil/sick/twisted now, but like homosexuality that can and might (and perhaps should) change." As thinking persons, an important part of our cognitive toolbox is discerning the difference between slippery-slope and bright-line situations. On this topic, I think that such discernment is a slam dunk. Herostratus (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---Homosexuality (and in that form Heterosexuality as well) are not considered diseases, neither should pedophilia/pedosexuality. By rooting it as a "disease," you are on a track to a genocide which would hang over the heads of the world for centuries, if not millenniums.K Comp0 (talk)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of terminology section

Should we really remove this section, given the issue of the term pedophilia being misused as widely as it is? I recall that there were only a few problematic lines in that section, and that those lines were taken care of.

Legitimus, any thoughts on this? Weren't you for this section, but not for a few of its lines? I do not feel strongly about it one way or the other, but it seems helpful to keep it. We do address the misuse problem in the lead and in a few other parts of the article, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am given to agree with Flyer. An acknowledgement of the misuse of the term would likely be of great help to many readers.— James Cantor (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be workable, provided it's toned down a tad and no longer beats the defamation angle to death, like the now-blocked sockpuppet team feverishly seemed to be pursuing (I still don't know what that was all about). If we put it back, let's leave Malon and Pena out since on review, they're kind of irrelevant.Legitimus (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A well-sourced section on that issue could be useful. But let's start from scratch, not try to adapt the mess that was there. I think Legitimus modified some of it - those parts could be salvaged. But the defamation angle, as Legitimus said, is not the point - Any false accusation can be defamation, that has nothing to do with the term "Pedophilia" - we should leave that out completely, along with the non-reliable fringe sources that he mentioned. But a description of ways in which the term is misused could be written. The key is to find good sources that address that directly. I think there is a Department of Justice article by Lanning that gets into those issues pretty well, and I recall an article by Finkelhor about definitions that could be used. I'm not sure where I saw those, if I can locate them, I'll post the links. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And Legitimus did a good job on readding that section with changes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On that note, shouldn't we keep the "16 and 17-year-old adolescents qualify if they have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for prepubescent children at least five years younger than them" part in the lead? We kept this in the lead to further stress the point of what pedophilia actually is. Not to mention...some people read the lead of articles only, and then move on right after that.

Basically, from what I have researched on this disorder, the urges commonly start around these ages. A person does not suddenly become a pedophile later in their adult life. By late adolescence/early adulthood, they certainly are or are not one. Thus, for the lead, it seems important to stress how young someone can be considered a pedophile by the medical community...especially given the confusion about sexual attraction to this age group being pedophilia. I am not too against it being left out (since that is the way our lead was for a long time). But I do want to add that I do not see its original wording as a copyright issue. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually moved it down to diagnosis. I also reworded it because "16 and 17" seemed like an odd way word it. Actually age 16+ is a diagnostic criteria for both DSM and ICD. Though, DSM contains this interesting note: "Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old." There is some element of clinical judgement needed with late adolescents. But I can see what you mean. I think some mention in the lead could be helpful, though stated differently than before. Also, the second sentence of the lead, referencing the DSM, I think needs to be reworded. It comes across as indicating action alone is diagnostic. Just a recap, one needs: 1. Fantasies/Urges 2. Action OR Distress/Impairment 3. Age 16+.Legitimus (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, I had already noticed you moved it to the Diagnosis section. But I was wondering about it being left out of the lead. I guess the person who added "16 and 17" added it because 18 and up are considered adults anyway, and it was important to stress that people who are not legal adults can be pedophiles as well. And, yeah, I was already aware of the "Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old." part. Whatever else you feel needs tweaking, I will usually be for. You have done a great job at tweaking the other stuff in light of copyright issues. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that User:Flordelcorazón is clearly a sockpuppet. And, nope, I don't care that I am accusing someone, because the evidence speaks volumes. Very new account putting in the same rejected material only a few days after signing up? Suspicious indeed. I would have removed his additions myself, if I didn't feel that he would be blocked soon enough. I was certainly not interested in getting into a revert war at that time of day (where I was extremely busy with other matters). Instead, I opted to add a tiny tweak to his addition, hopefully popping the article up higher on one of your watchlists...so it would then be dealt with accordingly. Next time, I will simply make the initial revert, busy or not. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does "rock spider" redirect to this page?

Just wondering. I was going through looking at various arachnids and found that "rock spider" redirects to pedophilia. What the hell? Is this a mistake on somebody's part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.53.213 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. From a little googling I did, apparently "rock spider" an Australian prison slang term for a child sex offender inmate. The etymology is so crass I will not repeat it (look it up on Urban Dictionary). Far as I know, there is no species called a rock spider, but rather it is merely meant to refer to any arachnid that lives in rocky terrain.

Unfortunately, this seems to repeat a very common problem of confounding "pedophile" (a descriptor of a person's mind) with "child sex offender" (a descriptor of a person's actions). It also is a tad obscure and I cannot think of a properly weight method to integrate it logically into a Wikipedia article, since it is a slang term and this is an encyclopedia. Therefore, I will alter the redirect to the dictionary entry.Legitimus (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pratovermiglione, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Pratovermiglione (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) To write so: "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is considered as psychological desorder" instead of: "is a psychological desorder". Tanks.--Pratovermiglione (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that any paraphilia can be a disorder is a dividing issue, using the term "considered" conveys this [61] [62]. Anthiety (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The second source does not discuss whether paedophilia is a disorder or not, the first only includes mention of paedophilia as a paraphilia in dicussion about whether paraphilias should be a disorder. To use these as suggesting a relevant source suggests it be removed as a disorder is synthetic. I don't know who is divided about it being a disorder - I am sure there will be somebody who thinks it shouldn't be a disorder (apart from some paedophiles, I guess) - but it would not justify comment or the rephrasing suggested, unless an authority on this was arguing that. I know of nobody. It would be better to say "is categorised as a psychological disorder in diagnostic manuals", as that is the situation I believe, and is unlikely to change. Mish (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.91.213.77, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} vigilatism should be replaced with vigilantism because it is the correct spelling

88.91.213.77 (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at this, and the text didn't read very well, so I tidied it up a bit. Was vigilantism was 'directed'? The way it reads comes across as if the NoW directed vigilantes to do this. They didn't. They published the details, then vigilantes got together to target those exposed this way. Mish (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(I cancelled the {{editsemiprotected}} - seems done - use another if req'd  Chzz  ►  22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Comparing zoophilia and pedophili

"People who identify as zoophiles may feel their love for animals is romantic rather than purely sexual, and say this makes them different from those committing entirely sexually motivated acts of bestiality. They may not act on their sexual attraction to animals."

Change "zoophiles" for "pedophiles" and "animals" for "children" and "bestiality" for "pederasty" and is exactly the same. Should we note in this article that people that identify themselves as "true pedophiles" may feel that their love for children is more romantic than purely sexual?. I've read a lot of pedos saying that. I see no reason for not mentioning that some pedophiles feel their attraction to be more romantic than purely sexual. Of course, the fact that many pedos do not act on their sexual attraction is kind of mentioned in this article, but there's nothing about romantic love. You can read the pharagraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Non-sexual_zoophilia 201.254.230.38 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot take a quote about bestiality/zoophilia and replace those words with pedophile and make it apply to pedophilia and insert this in the article. That is called WP:SYNTHESIS and runs contrary to policy/guidelines. By inserting such a statement without any WP:RS would be WP:OR, and so could be removed without the need for discussion. However, if you find a WP:RS that says this, you can refer to that. Mish (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"When asked about the nature of their pedophile relationships, subjects described most of them as non-sexual. Respondents most commonly gave the following kinds of descriptions:

affectionate and gentle—29% non-sexual, platonic friendships—25% sexual—23%"

http://www.mhamic.org/sources/wilson&cox.htm

Wilson, G. & Cox, D., The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society, London: Peter Owen Publishers, 1983.

This research was not done to child molesters but to true pedophiles, so it should be more reliable regarding pedophilia than those studies done to child molesters. 201.254.248.122 (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This statistic shows that in a group of pedophiles, less than 1/4 of their responses were to do with the sexual component. Not surprising. If I were to talk about my relationships with men or women, less than 1/4 would feature the sexual aspects of those relationships (and most of my relationhips with men and women have not been sexual a all). So, not sure what this is supposed to show. The definition of pedophilia is that this is a sexual disorder - if the sexual component is absent, then that is not pedophilia. If pedophiles only talk about the sexual aspects 25% of the time, how is that significant? I am sure many pedophiles do think their relationships are benevolent, and consensual; delusion can accompany parapahilias. That should not be excluded, but I wouldn't give that delusion credibility beyond helping explain their view; it does not mean we can downplay the sexual component. Mish (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your own personal opinion. It should be included and let the reader decide. Not all people think like you and certainly not all pedophiles are delusional. Your accusations of "delusions" is rather false in this case, since the study found that

"Their results were also "consistent with previous findings in failing to discover any obvious links between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational." (p. 122)"

This is to show that a significant portion of pedophiles do not want sexual relationship to children, but rather friendships and love. There is not a single word in the article about how pedophiles feel about their relationship with children, so it should be included. Zoophilia is also a paraphilia, but the opinion of zoophiles is included like relevant. Why should it be any different with pedophiles? 201.254.248.81 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the article says. The proportions are not about 25% of pedophiles report enjoying fiddling with kids, while 25% report enjoying platonic friendships with kids. They are about how out of a given set of pedophiles, their responses are broken down in a way that 25% of the information talks about platonic friendships, and 25% about fiddling with kids, (etc.) To argue that this means 75% of pedophiles have no sexual interest in children is WP:SYNTH, because that is not what the article found. 100% would have expressed some sexual interest in kids - as that is what places them in the category 'pedophile'. If they weren't pedophiles, they wouldn't feature in the research. Mish (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said, MishMich. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all pedophiles have low IQs

There's a thread on anontalk, and some pedophiles have IQs. Just because a study found some pedophiles to have a low IQ doesn't mean that all of them do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Biological_associations 71.112.56.63 (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Experience of preference

The lede currently reads:

"Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children."

The language "[one whom] experiences a [..] preference" stands out as inaccurate, as a preference is not itself an experience, but rather a kind of choice. The sentence appears to be trying to talk about two things in the same breath, 1) the preferential aspects of pathological individuals' attraction [toward children], and 2) the sexualistic experience(s) that such individuals have [as it relates to children].

Both "preference" and "experience" are topically relevant, and not to mention linked, but they are different dimensions of the pathology, and need to be treated differently. The issue of "preference" is relevant because, by definition, pedophiles (or any paraphilic) have a history of sex-related choices during which the pathological preference has been built-up. The "experience" refers rather to what the paraphilic perceives as sexualistic gratification. Note also that the term here is not "sexual" (attraction/gratification/preference/experience), ie. the concept, when dealt with as a pathology, is not itself sexuality (which has virtues), but sexualistic (based in vices).

To suggest a better wording, possibly something like:

"Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological and sociological disorder in which sexually mature persons (13-over) actively promote a sexualistic attraction toward children (12-under)."

"Promote" is the active concept here, replacing "experience." The issue of sexual response is of course relevant, but is a result of the pathology, which is itself based in reinforcement and other factors —for example the paraphilic's own personal histories of sexual abuse are causally more relevant than the resulting sexual response aspect. "Sociological" is relevant both objectively and subjectively. "Children" in spite of its linguistic ambiguities (adult children, child [objects], etc.), is, in context of sexuality, sufficiently well defined to make "pre-pubescent" unncessary, and to make "pre-pubescent children" rather redundant. The notes (12/13/over/under) are suggested for clarity. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur that "experiences" does not sound right. However there are couple of issues with your proposal that need some working out. First, "promote." Maybe it's just my American English ears, but "promote" conjurs a mental image of Earl Bradley wearing a NAMBLA t-shirt and handing out pamphlets on the street. It just doesn't quite seem to get the right idea across (though I'll grant you, pedophiles sure love to pontificate). Second, a great deal of the phrasing is based on the two medical definitions of pedophilia. The "pre-pubescent " is specifically derived from those (it literally used the phrase "pre-pubescent children" in the DSM), as the fixation is not so much on a chronological age as it is about the physical lack of pubertal traits. The other part from the medical definitions are the disorder is not generally diagnosed in persons under 16, as the dynamic and implications are different if both sides of the equation are very young.

I do think the mention of sociological is good, though if you have a reliable source about that specific component, it would be helpful.Legitimus (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Promote" does sound a bit strange here doesn't it? :-) From a certain point of view the term "experience" simply refers to "sexual response" so maybe using the latter term would be clearer. The issue of using the word "experience" however is essential, as there are several "experiential" dimensions to the problem such as experience of sexual abuse (causal), experience of sexual fantasy (causal, sensory), experience of seduction (sensory), experience of sexualistic contact (sensory). So, you can see my point about using a word like "promote" for the self-reinforcing aspects of this or any particular "philia" as being choices and therefore active reinforcements for a paraphilic and socially pathological "preference" (or "instinct"). The little paradox that a concept can be entirely pathological and yet based in natural "preferences" is problematic, which is why I think "promotion" and "reinforcement" are the essential element here. Anyway, thanks. I'll take some time see what I can come up with. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: Note the pathology article appears to hold a definition that does not accomodate psychological or colloquial usage. This article says "pedophilia is a [..] disorder," and is defined as such within a scientific context (pseudo-scientific according to Feynman ;-)), and as such the term "pathology" seems to be quite accurate. Child molestation is certainly a sociological disease, perhaps its substantive to describe child attraction as similar. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nature vs. self-reinforced

Hello again, Stevertigo. With the wording "sexual preference," we use that because that is how this disorder is generally defined. There are various reliable sources defining it as a mental disorder, and something that is not a choice as well. No one chooses to be a pedophile. Why would they? Child molestation is a choice, sure (though most would also ask, "Why would they choose that?"), but not pedophilia. People often use the term "sexual preference" to refer to their sexuality, and I doubt most of those people see it as a choice. Research indicates that pedophilia is sort of like a sexual orientation, though that does not mean that people are born pedophiles...seeing as biological and environmental factors usually make up sexuality. I'm just saying I am not quite understanding your objection to the current wording. I understand you not wanting to use the word "experiences," but not when it comes to the wording "sexual preference." We could trade out the word "experiences" for "has," so that it reads "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent has a sexual preference for prepubescent children." As for changing it to "pathological disorder" instead of "psychological disorder," I'll let Legitimus comment on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Child molestation is a choice, sure (though most would also ask, "Why would they choose that?"), but not pedophilia. People often use the term "sexual preference" to refer to their sexuality, and I doubt most of those people see it as a choice. Research indicates that pedophilia is sort of like a sexual orientation, though that does not mean that people are born pedophiles...seeing as biological and environmental factors usually make up sexuality. I'm just saying I am not quite understanding your objection to the current wording. I understand you not wanting to use the word "experiences," but not when it comes to the wording "sexual preference." We could trade out the word "experiences" for "has," so that it reads "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent has a sexual preference for prepubescent children." As for changing it to "pathological disorder" instead of "psychological disorder," I'll let Legitimus comment on that. Flyer22 ([[User

Hello again, Flyer. You wrote: "With the wording "sexual preference," we use that because that is how this disorder is generally defined. There are various reliable sources defining it as a mental disorder, and something that is not a choice as well. No one chooses to be a pedophile. Why would they?" - Keep in mind that there are a couple of assumptions at work here, 1) that "pedophilia" is a pathological concept (a psycho/social disease, disorder, paraphilia), and 2) that this disorder has some kind of origin, be it natural or chosen. Number one is accepted. But that means that the second point presents a contradiction: If it's pathological, how can it be natural? If its natural, how can it be a pathological?

The idea of natural attractions toward children (parents and teachers for example) is separate from the concept of a paraphilia dealing with sexualistic attractions toward children. "Sexualistic" is the proper term here, to distinguish from "sexual". So on the one hand (there is no psychological term for it, but) there is a universal innate concept wherein people have non-sexualized attractions toward other people, including small people. On the other hand there is a lonely, un-natural, delusion-reinforced attraction towards children that confuses the above innate concept with intimate and sexualized fantasy. There are steps in-between, of course, which are perceptual andor culturalistic. For example a term like "successful child marriage" might either sound 'perfectly normal' or 'inherently contradicted,' depending on one's cultural lens.

So no, "preference" in this context cannot mean something natural, if by "natural" we mean "normal," "acceptable," or "God-given." It has to be unnatural and reinforced by bad choices - that's implicit in the meaning of its definition as a paraphilia. Otherwise, we would have to take a step back from Western-U.S. psychology and wipe away the "paraphila" distinction altogether. After all, who is Western psychology to argue with nature? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't say pedophilia is natural or normal, but I definitely believe that, in some cases, there is some biological play at work there. By this, I mean some sort of biological predisposition to being a pedophile (we need an article about biological predisposition specifically). I don't believe that anyone is born a pedophile, but I don't believe that it's a choice either. The action of sexually abusing a child is a choice, but the mental condition is not. There are some pedophiles who reportedly fight their sexual attraction to children. We also use "sexual preference," in the case of pedophiles, Stevertigo, to distinguish them from child molesters who are not pedophiles. As this article notes, not all child molesters are pedophiles. But then again, it depends on how you define "pedophile." If you define pedophiles to be people with having had any sort of sexual attraction to a prepubescent child, for whatever reason, then they are all pedophiles. But if you define it by its generally accepted definition among experts in this field, only the ones who sexually prefer prepubescent children over post-pubescent individuals are pedophiles. If we do not use "sexual preference," what do you suggest we use in place of that...that will still define this disorder as accurately as possible. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Flyer wrote: 1) " Hmm. I wouldn't say pedophilia is natural or normal, but I definitely believe that, in some cases, there is some biological play at work there. 2): I don't believe that anyone is born a pedophile, but I don't believe that it's a choice either. 3) The action of sexually abusing a child is a choice, but the mental condition is not."

1. "[Something] biological" - The "biological [aspect] at work there" is called either "femininity" or "masculinity." All but the smallest children have these to some degree, and adults are responsible for discerning the difference between what are considered healthy and unhealthy attractions. So while its "biological" to have some "predisposition" along typically gender-opposite lines, this topic deals with the overstimulation of such attractions along a direction that is considered pathological. "Pathological" because such impulses target the immature, fragile, and vulnerable. The protection of children is the actual underlying social concept here.
2. "[Not a] choice" - The problem with the "not a choice" argument is that its quite similiar to the "its nature that is responsible [ie. not the person]" argument. There is substantial evidence supporting the cycle of abuse theory, but that doesn't negate one bit the fact that by definition adults are held responsibile --not just for what they do, but what they are. A murderer, for example, can blame his upbringing all he wants to, but it (generally) won't matter much to polite society. The concept of "free will" is at a society's core. It negates any attempt to put the responsibility on anything other than the adult. The child is, by definition, not responsible. Nature is, by definition, not responsible. Every social concept from "free will" to the death penalty holds that adults are responsible for what they do, and what they are. When authorities talk about abusers, it doesn't really matter what their "sexual preferences" are. The subtle subtext of whether abuse or other factors have been contributing factors, is left to God - if for no other reason than he has all the facts and knows what to do with them.
3. "Mental condition" - There is an argument that we are who we are in large part because of what happens to us, rather than what we do. But that argument assumes that the person does not in fact "nurture" their "mental condition" through self-reinforced behaviour - for example through masturbation and sexualized fantasy. It also negates the idea that people who simply abstain from such self-reinforced behaviour can actually be healed: Man says to doctor, "it hurts when I do this." Doctor says "don't do that. Last but not least, this view again contradicts the very notions of free will and adult responsibility.

Flyer wrote: "If we do not use "sexual preference," what do you suggest we use in place of that...that will still define this disorder as accurately as possible." - Again, the term is not "sexual", its "sexualistic." "Sexualistic preference" might work, but the latter term isn't really "preference" either, its "predilection." So, if a term of the form "sexual preference" is required, something like "sexualistic predilection" may work here. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing cause and consequence. One can write about cause without keeping one eye on consequence, discuss neuro-biological, psycho-social origins and pathology without considering the consequences for retribution - which come later. This is true of a great deal of criminal behaviour, about which it is debated whether there is some genetic factor at play. Paedophilia need not be described as "sexual preference", but can be described as "libidinous impulse", or "direction of the libido"; while this is derived from a Freudian concept, it works quite well for paraphilias, which are not so much a sexual preference (in the sense of orientation) but where the libido becomes mis-directed. Freud himself saw there as being biological as well as social factors at play in the direction of the libido in this way - as have most people working on paraphilia as well as sexual orientation. The consequences are attributed to the person who behaves, regardless of the generation of the behaviour. This is where it becomes important to distinguish between the act and the motivation. Paedophilia is the pathology, child sexual abuse is the crime. Those who abuse children sexual will be driven by their paedophilic libidinous drive - but not all peadophiles will sexually abuse children, because they resist that drive. It is important not to confuse the two, because having a paedophilic drive does not excuse acting upon it, but having that drive does not entail the social sanction that is expressed against those who act upon it. So person who is paedophilic and who takes measures to suppress their misdirected libido is taking responsibility for their paraphilia and dealing with it in a way that is potentially less harmful to himself or the vulnerable, while a person who fails to seek some way of curbing or neutralising those impulses is not dealing with their paraphilia in a responsible way - the consequence of which is that if he acts upon those impulses and comes to the attention of legal authority, he will be punished as a criminal and be expected to take full responsibility for his actions. Having a pathology is not a cop-out. If a drunk attacks somebody and causes GBH, he may appeal that the drink had made him senseless, so he was not responsible for his actions while drunk - the judge may agree with him, but will then point out that he was responsible for getting so drunk he behaved so irresponsibly he caused harm to another. So, if a paedophile who acts upon his libidinous drive were to claim that he was not responsible because he has a pathology rooted in nature and upbringing, a judge could turn around and dismiss this on the basis that knowing he had this drive, he failed to seek help in curtailing it, thereby being responsible for being in a position where he might act upon it, and only he is responsible for allowing himself to be in that position. The cause of that drive is irrelevant to the attribution of responsibility when the impulse is acted upon by adults. Mish (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mish wrote: "I think you are confusing cause and consequence. One can write about cause without keeping one eye on consequence [..] it is debated whether there is some genetic factor at play." - I understood when I wrote the above that this discussion was going to go in the direction of the points you raise, but I am not confusing the two. I think rather I was clarifying the distinction, by referencing how sociology counterbalances the exclusively psychological approach - which if it goes so far as to assert biological causality, the negation of adult responsibility, and the contradiction of free will, in other words to contradict "consequence," then that's where sociology and law come in. While we tend to let psychology run amok with is explanations, society tends to stop psychology from entering the domain of justifications. It can be argued that "pedophilia" is more a sociological concept. Sociology is concerned with both "causes" and "consequences," but has to limit its concern for "causes" in order to employ social actions toward defeating certain kinds of threat - deterrents for example. In this context, the greater concern of society was to institute the designation of "pedophilia" as a stigmatization, for sake of being a social deterrent. The concept of legal consequences is entirely reserved for actual actions (exhibitionism, porn, molestation, rape). Keep in mind that even in advanced Western societies, the protection of children is actually a novelty, and its not going to recede back to its, for example, Victorian-era norms, though mileage may vary. The question of whether the stigmatization is overbroad is a valid one, but "nature" and "biology"-based arguments from psychology can be overreaching as well. While "having a pathology" may not itself be "a cop-out," attributing one's actions to a pathology is the actual working-group definition of a "cop-out." You raised some very good points, for example, you noted that "libidinous impulse", or "direction of the libido"; while this is derived from a Freudian concept, [..] works quite well for paraphilias. I agree that it works much better than "sexual preference." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 14:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between explanation and justification, and psychology seeks to form explanation. Paedophilia is a medical pathology, and is a diagnostic category - that is where the concept originates, and that is how it is defined, and that is what it is. If somebody seeks to blame their actions on their illness, that has nothing to say about it being a diagnosable pathology. It is only human to try and find 'reasons' for personal behaviour that is problematic, and for some that understanding may make them feel they have an excuse - but that says more about them than the diagnosis. Mish (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking Wikipedia is probably not the right forum this type of discussion. Just think of the article text like you're a young naive reader who has no idea what the subject is about.Legitimus (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, we have discussed the cycle of abuse theory for pedophilia here on this talk page.[63][64] That theory was also noted in this article, but removed due to what was cited in that second link. Something about it should be readded to this article, but with better wording.

I still feel that "sexual preference" is the best wording to use, per what I stated above. But I suppose I wouldn't be too opposed to the wording similar to this: "Pedophilia [is a] psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or actual act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification."[65] I'm just worried about accuracy, in how this disorder is generally defined. As you can see, that alternate definition/source still keeps some type of sexual preference wording in it. I would not be for using that source, though. Its wording is similar enough to the current definition...that I feel we could get away with using it without using its source. That said, I am also still for classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder right off the bat. We should generally report what reliable sources in this field state.

And, Mish, you did a good job of explaining too. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DSM defines it as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)" No mention of preference, simply direction of libido. It does not talk about this being an exclusive direction, and given how so many are married with families, it probably features as one predeliction amongst several in such situations (thus rather than sexual orientation or preference, is better described as 'sexual appetite'. DSM tends to define by what is observable, rather than going into explanations - as it is about diagnosis. Explanations in psychology are unnecessary in diagnosing people. If we aren't going to go with (mis)directed libido, perhaps we could use 'sexual appetite' rather than 'sexual preference'? Mish (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I'm not sure what else to say about the "sexual preference" wording, except to say that it is the most accurate definition. A "true pedophile" may be sexually involved with an adult at one point, but they have no true desire to be with an adult sexually. The main reason pedophilia is seen as something so difficult to treat/cure is because pedophiles (the "true ones") cannot change their sexual preference to focus on post-pubescent individuals. These people are different than people who have sexually abused a child but are not pedophiles. Some of the reasons some people may have sexually abused children even without being pedophiles is in this article. Because of the distinction between these two types of offenders or would-be offenders, I feel that "sexual preference" accurately describes pedophilia. Jack touched on the rest below. Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "preference" came from the World Health Organization's definition (as cited in the article) [66] [67]:

ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders- Diagnostic criteria for research

F65.4 Paedophilia
A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.
B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.

I see no problem with the definition that is in the article as it is at the current time stamp.[68] The phrase "experiences a preference" doesn't seem to imply any experience other than that of a preference (which is an internal feeling), but if some find that word to be an issue, it could simply be swapped for the word "has", ie "has a preference for...". Either way, the sentence does a good job of summarizing clearly the definitions in both the DSM & the ICD, the mainstream definitions used by researchers and clinicians. That's the most appropriate approach for the article lead. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with this as being 'has a sexual preference' than it being a sexual preference. If you look at the cited statement, what ICD refers back to is a definition of what constitutes such a preference:

F65 DISORDERS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE G1. Recurrent intense sexual urges and fantasies involving unusual objects or activities. G2. Acts on the urges or is markedly distressed by them. G3. The preference has been present for at least six months.

Which takes me back to what I already said, it is about the sex drive. There is nothing there about it being exclusive, but the preferred sexual activity. That is how sexual preference is defined in this context. This is why we try not to rely on primary sources like DSM & ICD, but on secondary sources commenting on the primary source. So, DSM and ICD agree, but ICD takes a step back by calling it a preference, and describing this as a drive for all paraphilias - rather than for each one. So, I'd be happy for preference to be used, providing we make it clear that this itself is defined as a sexual drive. Mish (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

prefs.

I'm okay with it being "has a sexual preference." I was the one who first suggested it above, as a compromise. But that is not much different than "experiences a sexual preference." As for your point, do you take "sexual preference" to mean "exclusive"? The word "preference," of course, does not necessarily mean "exclusive." It can mean you just prefer something over the other. In this case, the preference is sexual...for prepubescent children. In using "preference" for this disorder, we are not saying pedophilia is a sexual orientation (though many experts believe it is very similar to one and often compare it to such). Pedophilia is also not always just about the sex drive; a few pedophiles actually have what they describe as more so "romantic fantasies" about prepubescent children, without the sex aspect being a heavy part of it. I'm not sure whether to believe them or not, but there are researchers who do. In the same way that some are convinced that not all pedophiles act on their sexual urges. If you would prefer I ask James Cantor, a sex researcher who helped format the lead and stated that pedophilia should be defined as a sexual preference, I will. I will also take care of your concerns about the recent edit I made. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mish, how do you suggest we reword the lead to include the specific mention of "sex drive" you propose? Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just catching up a bit here. Flyer, the idea of using "preference" here is difficult, and I think that's something that you and Mish both can agree with. The concept of a "preference" is associated with the concept of a "selection" or a "choice," and functions only within a "spectrum" of "selections" or "choices." So given a particular "selection," or "spectrum of choices" one may "prefer" or "have a preference for" a particular object or range of objects within said spectrum. The sexual spectrum is generally understood to range from puberty to some advanced age, below which is considered a paraphilia and above which is considered unpleasant. Referring to the impulsive sexual attraction to under 9-year-olds (or over 90-year-olds) as a "preference" defies the very definition of a "paraphilia," not to mention a "pathology." By definition, one cannot have a "preference" for "children." Note also that the very idea of sexual "preferentiality" comes from an objectified view of people that sorts them in accord with stereotypes like size, shape, color, gender, and age, rather than by their actual human qualities. Just an example of where "sexology" can be quite irrelevant to sexuality. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I see no difficulty in using "preference" for pedophilia at all; in addition to being about prepubescent children, that is what this disorder is. It is a sexual preference. In short, pedophiles prefer to have sexual/romantic interaction with prepubescent children. This definition is used by the majority of experts in this field in order to accurately describe pedophilia. It is even evident throughout this article. While the word "preference" can relate to choice, it is not always or mostly about choice. And the Preference article should make that clear. If it does not already, I will tweak it to do so. For example, my favorite color is red. Some would call that a preference. But I do not remember ever choosing to have red as my favorite color. No one ever remembers choosing their favorite color. Still, I would not say that people are born with a favorite color. I believe that most things we prefer can be traced back to early childhood. More importantly, sexual preference is also used to refer to sexual orientation (as the sexual preference link currently shows, though we do not link that in this article because we do not want people thinking that we are calling pedophilia a sexual orientation). Most people do not think of "choice" when they think of the term "sexual preference," except for people who believe homosexuality is a choice. Furthermore, it seemed you were more for documenting pedophilia as some type of choice at first, but are now saying we cannot use "sexual preference" because that signifies "choice." Thus, I am confused by that.

Again, I ask you what wording could be used as a substitute for "sexual preference" that would still accurately describe this disorder? I assure you that, as someone who has extensively studied this subject, "sexual preference" is the preferred and most accurate way of describing it. You say, "By definition, one cannot have a 'preference' for 'children.'" But that is the very definition of pedophilia. I cannot understand why you are arguing against it. With the way the DSM describes this disorder, I would say they are describing a sexual preference as well. No one has intense, recurring sexual fantasies about prepubescent children...unless they actually prefer prepubescent children sexually. Describing this disorder in any other way does not distinguish these people from child molesters who are not pedophiles. And, really, that is where people make their mistake. They think that they only have to look out for the ones who are actively seeking prepubescent children, when in fact...they should also be looking at the quiet uncle or cousin. Some people are opportunistic. For example, there have been late teenage males who have sexually abused prepubescent children "simply" because they were horny (pardon my language), when they actually sexually prefer post-pubescent individuals. They used the prepubescent children as sexual substitutes. So are we going to call these males true pedophiles? The answer is no. The "true ones" would barely be able to get sexually aroused by clearly pubescent or post-pubescent individuals, if at all. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Etymology and history section, I do see one good alternative, though. We could use "primary sexual attaction"...if most others working on/looking after this article agree. Although...that still wouldn't stop the fact that the rest of the article is using "sexual preference" at times, due to the sources. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting)
Hi, folks. Flyer22 asked me on my talk page if I had any input to provide to this discussion, which I am happy to do.

If I am reading the thread properly, the main point is whether the word “preference” is the most accurate way to describe pedophilia, with Stevertigo suggesting instead “Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological and sociological disorder in which sexually mature persons (13-over) actively promote a sexualistic attraction toward children (12-under).”

My first reaction to reading the thread is that it contains a thoughtful analysis of the language; however, it is mostly original research rather than a summary of what is contained in reliable sources on the topic. So, although I am personally sympathetic to some of the points (and published experts are not unanimous), I agree with Legitimus’ observation that “I'm thinking Wikipedia is probably not the right forum this type of discussion.”

Regarding Stevertigo’s specific proposal, I believe that several of the terms are unclear; that is, they have no widely acknowledged definition and (therefore) don’t provide a very clear description of pedophilia (as pedophilia is used in the main RS’s). For examples: I am not aware of any experts referring to pedophilia as a sociological disorder (and I must confess that I do not know what a sociological disorder might be). I am not clear about what “sexualistic” means, or what information that it might convey to the average reader of the mainpage. The word “promote,” to me, is problematic: There are, of course, groups like NAMBLA who literally promote certain aspects of pedophilia/hebephilia (or promote certain political views about ages of legal consent), so I believe that the term would be extremely misleading in the lede. Finally, I not aware of any RS’s that refer to 13-year-olds as “sexually mature.” Age 13 is very rarely used as an age of legal consent, and (of course) there is an enormous literature in developmental endocrinology that restrict the term “mature” to much later in development. Age 13 is usually associated with Tanner-stages 2 or 3 (rather than stage 5), and the sexual preference for persons around 13 would generally be better called hebephilia.

So, although I certainly recognize the problems often perceived in the word “preference,” it is the term used predominantly in the relevant RS’s; the alternative thus far proposed (imo) adds rather than reduces the problems and (to the best of my knowledge) is idiosyncratic to this discussion rather than being a distillation of what appears in the literature. That is not to say that some other option cannot be developed, but I am not yet seeing one here.

I hope that is a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

James, you do have a way of going into detail about these things that is often superior to my approach. I am not sure if it is just the difference in our personalities, the fact that your level of expertise on these subjects is above mine, or both, but I thank you.

You said, "That is not to say that some other option cannot be developed, but I am not yet seeing one here." Does that mean you are against the alternative "primary sexual attraction"? Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I spoke too soon. Yes, I think "primary sexual attraction" is accurate and does indeed appear frequently in RS's. (I probably have used it myself.) The related phrases would also work: "sexual interest primarily in prepubescent children," etc.

And thank you, Flyer, for your kind words. I've been talking/writing about these issues full-time for many years now. Any advantage I have is mostly that I have had time to make all the possible mistakes.— James Cantor (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, James. I understand. As I noted before elswhere, I first started studying these topics at age 16 (mostly pedophilia). But, given your level of expertise, it is above mine. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Und preference for "preference"

It seems that James is in favor of using the terminology used by the "RS'es," even though he "certainly recognize[s] the problems [..] [with] the word "preference." Flyer seems to agree, and states that ""sexual preference" is the preferred and most accurate way of describing it," where "it" apparently refers to the "paraphilia/pathology/preference"[sic] in question. Flyer wrote: "I see no difficulty in using "preference" for pedophilia at all." Keep in mind that we are talking about a paraphilia with pathological dimensions, and not just a "preference." Just to clarify the problems with "preference," I'll give some examples which should make it clear:

Pathological examples

Jake has a preference for women under 40. John likes underage women. Rick has a preference for pre-pubescent girls. Ron has a preference for 5-year old boys. Brad prefers girls of fertile age, while Eli prefers girls under 90, and Dave prefers women over 2. Dan prefers 6-year olds to 5-year-olds, whom he considers immature. Rick, who prefers 9-year-olds, thinks Ron, who prefers 5-year-olds, is immoral. Larry prefers women he can have conversations with, but always fails in such relationships, and consequently developed a preference for 18-year olds.

As you can see from these examples, exaggerated though they be, the idea of using "preference" in this context has a basic meaningful inaccuracy —one that makes it at best either an example of "idiosyncratic" (borrowing James' term) language, a type of human objectification that "sexology" is based in, or perhaps even an example of the cargo cult science analogy that Feynman first put to psychology and its subfields.

With that out of the way, it would be interesting to know, though "preference" may be the word found in "the literature," if "preference" is the actual concept that can be "distilled from" "the literature," or is it just colloquial shorthand for what in strict terms is best called a "paraphilia" or "pathological attraction?" ("Pathological preference?") -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably more relevant to say that Wikipedia is in favor of using the terminology used by the RSs. In writing professional pieces, I adjust my language according to the context of the publication. For WP, however, we're working by different rules. Regardless, sticking to the language of the RSs would be the most straightforward way of following WP:NPOV. As noted above, however, "preference" is not the only term used in RSs. "Primary sexual interest" is also used widely. I have no objection to the argument/examples of who prefers what, but the argument itself is about what we think of the word "preference." The mainpage (just to return to my main point) should contain was is in RSs.— James Cantor (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As Feynman noted, psychology is not an actual science, and its possible that such sources, as they appear to present us with such an obviously falsifiable definition, are not actually "reliable" to begin with. So a rote citation of Wikipedia policy would claim that the prevailing pseudoscience publications can use any plainly inaccurate language they like and, as you note, we would be bound to mimic that language. But using other methods at our disposal, we can see fairly clearly that "preference" leads to conclusions that the sources don't really want to make, and as such we can state conclusively that "preference" is simply jargon, clinical or otherwise, that we can ignore in favor of better terminology "distilled" from what the sources are actually saying. Is that hard to agree with? Othewise we are left with a term that associates child rape with human sexuality rather than violence, and regards the impulses behind such violence as just another "sexual preference." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reasons better now, Stevertigo, particularly in regard to not wanting this disorder seen as something a part of normal human sexual behavior. But again, "sexual preference" is how this disorder is usually defined, by people who are experts in this field. They know what they are talking about in regards to this subject. And the lead was clear that we were/are not calling pedophilia just another sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the lede was not "clear" as the distinction you insisted upon of the form "preference [sexual context]" →!← "sexual preference" →!← "sexual orientation" was confused.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It was clear, because we were clearly defining it (pedophilia) as a mental disorder, and still are. Sexual orientations are not considered mental disorders, and the term sexual preference does not always mean "sexual orientation." The very fact that pedophilia is usually defined as a sexual preference, as still evident throughout the rest of the article, demonstrates that more than anything. Flyer22 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus required for substantive change to the definition

Stevertigo, with respect, I had to revert the major changes you made to the definition in the lead today [69]. In this very long discussion, so far no other editor has supported your argument to change the terminology away from the term "preference" as used in the sources, on the contrary, of the 5 other editors who have commented, all of them have agreed to the terminology in effect preceding your changes. One of those 5 editors suggested some other alternatives but still, also agreed to the same version.

That part of the discussion did gain consensus for a change from "experiences a preference" to "has a preference", and that change has been made. You had mentioned a concern about the use of the term "experiences" when you started this section on the talk page, so that part of your initial comment has been directly addressed. Of course, there may be a more precise or more clear way to phrase the definition in the lead that can be supported by consensus, but that has not happened yet.

Your change also modified "psychological disorder" to "psycho-social disorder". I don't recall the term "psycho-social" mentioned in any of the sources - unless that can be shown to be verifiable, that term should not be substituted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief. I understand the idea of consensus, and I waited a day after discussion subsided to make the mentioned changes. Note that the central participants were I and Flyer, while James commented twice and you only once. So, in a certain way your revert overstates your own place within this discussion, and thus overturns what may actually be the current consensus.

Secondly, the idea of using the terms that reliable sources use does not always suffice. Sometimes "reliable sources" use what is called "jargon." That is the case here, and you can read our policy on the usage of WP:JARGON.

Third, there are idiosyncratic usages of the term "preference" within the presented sources themselves, which indicate that the term is not only jargon, but non-standard. To offer a possible solution, would you agree that "preference" should at least be linked to its article? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I only commented once, to add the ICD info and mention the use of the term "preference" in the sources, I read every entry as they were posted and added a comment when it seemed to be needed. I found the edit today surprising, since there had been no agreement to change the terminology. By the way, in your summary of editors here, you omitted one more who supported the use of the term "preference" as used in the sources, User:Legitimus.

That said, I'm not going to revert your revert, let's see what the others think of the changes.

Regarding WP:JARGON, that's an essay, not policy, and is marked as historical. Even so, I don't see how the word "preference" in this context qualifies as jargon or idiosyncratic, it makes sense in the definition as an ordinary and undertstandable use of that term.

Regarding linking the term preference to its article, as an initial impression of that article I think the link would be OK. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Preference" qualifies as jargon. 1) "jargon" may refer to either technical language from a particular context, or to language used carelessly in particular contexts without attention paid to its actual common meaning or usage. 2) While "preference" was used here to refer almost directly to the concept of "sexual preference", its usage is not precise to the definition of "sexual preference. Note that I was asking to link to sexual preference, not preference. Unfortunately for your argument, the "sexual preference" article does not actually exist. Its title just redirects to sexual orientation. What this means is that after all of this windy discussion about the term "sexual preference," the target "orientation" article itself does not deal at all much with "preferentiality." It certainly does not mention the idea of children as sexual objects, or that attraction to them was an orientation. So, for future reference, for problematic jargon of this type I will simply ask others to link it to the actual article, and in this case the "sexual orientation" article would need to address both the concept of "preference" as well as pedophilia as a "sexual orientation." So given the impossibility of the above task, I understand that consensus has finally been achieved and now you and others have come around to my point of view. I greatly appreciate it, as you and others have done here, when opponents explicitly and civilly concede a lost argument. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, Jack is right that you should have waited until consensus was clear before your substantial changes. The only thing that seemed to have achieved consensus was changing "sexual preference" to "primary sexual attraction." But even then, along with your other non-consensus edits, you changed it to "attraction" at first, which is the most inaccurate definition of pedophilia and what we have been trying to avoid in this article for a long time now. I explained above that there are child molesters who did/do have sort of a sexual attraction to children but are not pedophiles. "Sexual preference" is not jargon at all. As I stated above, the reason that "sexual preference" redirects to "sexual orientation" is because the two are usually interchangeable. So that article already discusses the idea of "sexual preference." But, yes, we need an article on sexual preference specifically, because it does not always mean "sexual orientation," as is the case for pedophilia. I have more to say below, in the Comment section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

comment

Apologies, I've been away camping without access to web, and I see a lot has happened since a question was asked of me. I prefer "primary sexual attraction" to "sexual preference", although would prefer "primary sexual direction", or something which incorporates drive - but whatever the sources say has to be correct. I still stand by my last comment - ICD talks about preference, but describes this in the context of drive, and does not include 'attraction'. "Psychological" vs. "psycho-social" disorder? Neither - it is in ISD & DSM, which provide psychiatric diagnostic categories, so it is a "psychiatric" disorder (or mental health issue in PC terms). Mish (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. What's wrong with "attraction?" -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sounds odd, we talk about people being sexually attracted to one another, not because they are sexually attracted to men or to women in a general way, but because they find a particular person sexually attractive - but we don't tend to talk about people with a paraphilia being sexually attracted to the object of their paraphilia, do we? Like people into bestiality are sexually attracted to horses? People with a shoe fetish are sexually attracted to women's shoes? People who like rubbing themselves against strangers on a train are sexually attracted to strangers on crowded trains? Or fetishistic tranvestites are sexually attracted to themselves dressed in women's clothing? Maybe psychologists do? Correct me if I am wrong. How about something along the lines that states that children are the "primary sexual object" - that is a term that will be in sources, and would avoid any misleading impressions. People who have 'normal' sexual attractions have adult men or women as their primary sexual object, shoe fetishists have shoes as their sexual object, fetishistic transvestites have themselves as their sexual object, others have dogs or horses, and so on. Mish (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are vastly overgeneralizing. But at least we agree that "preference" isn't any better. Note that "attraction" as I use it was not linked to the sexual attraction article (which deals rather with sex appeal), but to sexual response (now sex object). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary sexual object choice (and cognates) does indeed appear in the relevant literature. It was much more common in the earlier literature, especially in Europe. I have no objection to it, except that I recognize that many people will see it as jargon or will dislike language that would (essentially) refer to women as the "object" choice of most men; that is, it would seem to some to support objectification.— James Cantor (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "object" may be an issue in common parlance, but I am not sure that "sexual response" was helpful - as that implies a response to somebody, when clearly children are not seen as eliciting the sexual response of a pedophile; we ordinarily talk of responding to someone's words or actions, but that is not appropriate in this case. We have to balance out using the correct technical terms, as well as what will help people who are non-technical who read this for information. This is why it needs to be clear that the issue is to do with sexual drive, which situates between psychiatric disorder and criminal behaviour, and words like 'choice', 'preference', or 'attraction' are also liable to lead to confusion for many readers, I'd have thought. Mish (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree: Despite being non-perfect, "primary sexual object" is much more accurate (and sourceable) than "sexual response."— James Cantor (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus. Its clear that this topic isn't about preference or orientation anyway, as children by most legal definitions can't consent to sexual relations and their part in this concept belongs within the domain of sexual objectifications. Finally, though "attractions" could be used well to refer to general sexual arousal, I'll let that one go. I end now my participation in this topic for a while. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But this topic is about preference, Stevertigo. I don't think that the new wording is the best, especially with "object" in there (seeing as I feel it should have simply been changed to "primary sexual attraction" and left at that, if we were going to change it at all), but I suppose I am not too against it. I prefer the other wording (sexual preference) for the reasons I stated above, though it could also be because it has been the long-standing lead of this article. I still do not understand why it needed to be changed from "preference." That word still appears prominently throughout this article, due to reliable sources. No matter how this lead is worded, that still will not stop that being the main way to define pedophilia. Considering it is throughout this article, what is so different about it being in the lead? Are we supposed to change the rest of the article to correspond with it? And what about the Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles? Anyway, I guess this is our new lead for now. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As for psychological disorder vs. psychiatric disorder, both redirect to Mental disorder, and that article starts out saying A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture., so it being called a psychological disorder was not exactly inaccurate. But "psychiatric disorder" works just as well. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added "or exclusive" to "primary," because just like "sexual preference" can be seen as problematic to some, "primary" suggests that there is some other type of individual in which pedophiles can get "turned on" by. While this is the case for some pedophiles, it does not cover the ones who can only get "turned on" by thoughts of sexual interactions with prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "sexual preference" is that it is misleading to readers, as the way Wikipedia is set up the wikilink to sexual preference links to "sexual orientation", and the discussion of sexual preference is in those terms. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in a way sexual orientation is not, so linking something that is not a sexual orientation to an article about sexual orientation is problematic. The way to sort that out would be to revise the page for sexual preference to ensure that the psychiatric meaning is spelled out, and by having a brief section on sexual orientation that links to that article. Both are to do with "sexual object choice", in the case of sexual orientation in terms of "attraction" and in the case of psychiatric "preference" the misdirection of the libido towards non-appropriate sexual objects. Unfortunately, Wikipedia also lacks an article that describes "sexual object choice", however, we do link to "paraphilia", and that does give a pretty clear explanation of this in terms that are fully appropriate. Paedophilia Paraphilia talks about "sexual arousal" rather than "preference" or "attraction"; in this case, that would be "sexual arousal towards children". Mish (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The distinctions you made between sexual orientation and the way we use "sexual preference" for this disorder is exactly why "sexual preference" was not linked in this article (though it was for some time in the past). I also brought this up higher. And as I also stated above, removing it from the lead still does not take away from it being used throughout the article (which is something we most definitely should not try to change; it cannot be helped that this is the primary way this disorder is described). I like your idea for the Sexual preference article. That will have to be done when (and I do believe there will be a "when) that article is made an article again. But do we really call sexual orientation a "sexual object choice"? Not really/usually. The same with pedophilia. I'm glad that you did not strongly go for that wording. Pedophilia does talks about "preference" and "attraction." Those are the two main things it talks about. "Sexual arousal" just happens to be a part of that. If it was only or mostly about "sexual arousal towards children," then all child molesters would be considered pedophiles by the experts (including ones who have had sexual interaction with clearly pubescent or post-pubescent individuals, if we were to keep "prepubescent" out of the wording). Either way, the current lead is okay enough. Flyer22 (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology - I meant 'paraphilia', but wrote 'paedophilia', in my previous comment - I have struck that out and replaced it with what I meant to write, which affects the significance of your last sentence, but unfortunately was necessary. Mish (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, are you going to write us an actual article on the topic of sexual preference? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Mish. That makes more sense. It was sort of necessary to better understand you.

And if I have the time, I certainly will, Stevertigo. And I know that I could/would do it well. I just don't want to promise anything because I have promised or just about promised to fix up or create several articles before and still have not yet done it (such as the Anti-pedophile activism article, the Serial rape article, the Shōnen-ai article, etc., though I have tweaked those topics a bit). If I do create the Sexual preference article, you all will be the first I notify. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, do let us know.Mish (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

More intensity

The language "has intense sexual urges towards children" is interesting, as it contains a qualifier of "intense," to apparently differentiate from "sexual urges toward children" which aren't "intense." Language and jargon are not always precise, though, and the implication here is that less "intense" urges are not within the scope of the topic. Gradients and distinctions of this type need qualification and explanation. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to go with what the sources say, Stevertigo. It is not for us to qualify anything in this case or to argue against the DSM's accuracy when reporting what they are saying. Yes, they add "intense" to distinguish; they add it for a reaason. As I have stated more than once now, not all child molesters are pedophiles. This is why they distinguish. Flyer22 (talk)

We are not parrots such that must emulate the jargon found in sources or mimic the usage of meaningful concepts without explanation.

In this case, the term "intense sexual urges" is problematic, because its either 1) jargon for something relevant to the topic ("intensity" in the context of sex has distinct conceptualizations ranging from impotence to hypersexuality), or 2) jargon for an arbitrary line upon which all judgments of this pathology are based. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not jargon, Stevertigo. But I don't know what else to say on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the meaning of "intense" as fairly clear. It is qualitative rather than quantitative, and Steve acknowledges this, but then goes on to treat it as if it were being used as a quantitative marker on a scale. It isn't, and as he points out, there are other terms for that. Anyway, this is not an issue if that is what is said in the sources. And no, we are not parrots, and yet we are bound to stick to the sources - as that is the best way to avoid internal bias within the encyclopedia (and why we even have to report noteworthy biased sources accurately). Mish (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Attitudes

This article has no information about normal people's (non-clinical) views on the subject. Or about their place in society. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the section at the bottom Legal and social issues covers such matters fairly well. Part of the reason they are at the bottom is that popular ("normal people's") views or understandings of scientific/clinical subjects are less important, and also can be completely wrong. One of the reasons I like Wikipedia so much (despite it's share of problems) is the shear number of random subjects I have had my "popular" misconception of dispelled, and found the truth of the matter. Like that there is no more tryptophan in turkey than any other meat, that Napoleon was 5'7", that "Ich bin ein Berliner" does not mean "I am a jelly donut", and Lemmings are not suicidal (indeed, Disney murdered them).Legitimus (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean people's attitudes towards paedophilia itself, not what they think it is. Or is this not important? Christopher Connor (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't feel it's all that important to mention unless someone can offer a compelling reason.Legitimus (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Christopher, how does the Legal and social issues section not cover people's attitudes toward pedophilia? Yes, it includes people's misuse/misunderstanding of the term, but it also shows how people generally act to the idea of pedophilia (no matter if they think it extends to teenagers). Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is notable, verifiable, accurate and in a reliable source, I don't have a problem with it. So, a national broadsheet or quality broadcaster, academic paper dealing with such attitudes, etc. Mish (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'm just wondering exactly what Christopher feels the Legal and social issues section is missing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say that people hate paedophiles and think they're disgusting. It just says that people 'misunderstand' the term. For example, there is a whole article on this for homosexuality: Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find 'misunderstand' used in the article - where does it say this? Is Anti-pedophile activism no good? If it is well sourced, I'd be OK with some coverage of people's hatred towards paedophiles.Mish (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It says misuse, presumably from a misunderstanding. The activism is not quite the same thing. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I follow you, but I think Mish's point still stands: that in order to add information about society thinking they're disgusting, we need a reasonably objective reliable source to draw from. For this article in particular, sources need meet a high standard for reliability, so generally this means some kind of journal article or government report. Then we figure out what to add.Legitimus (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Found one, but I need to look into it:

McCartan, K. (2004). "'Here There Be Monsters': the public's perception of paedophiles with particular reference to Belfast and Leicester". Med Sci Law. 44 (4): 327–42. PMID 15573972. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Legitimus (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, people tend to refer to child molesters (etc.) as paedophiles, that is what the misunderstanding is.Mish (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Christopher, I'm still not seeing how the Legal and social issues section does not make it clear that people in general hate pedophiles and think they're disgusting. The Anti-pedophile activism and Moral panic and vigilantism subsections sure are not saying people love or feel indifferent to pedophiles. But I agree that there is room for improvement regarding that section. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see that there is any reason to take the article as saying that there is any misunderstanding about child molestation as being problematic; clearly it is problematic and is regarded as a crime because of that; paedophilia itself is also problematic, and so can be diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder. The problem with terms like 'disgust' and 'hatred' is that these are emotive words, and if they are used in the encyclopedia, we cannot use them ourselves, we have to source and attribute them. So, we need such sources in order to include this. I have come across papers that deal with this, although did not take note of them as this is not my area of interest - however, my recollection was that these were more concerned with highlighting the misunderstandings involved, rather than actual hatred or disgust, per se. Mish (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FoxNews, Wikipedia, and this page

FoxNews has apparently taken an interest in the editing of this and related pages. (Although my saying so is not strictly about the page content, it nonetheless seemed relevant to indicate the develpment here.) http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/
— James Cantor (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The report seems to bear no relationship to this article - from what I can see - 99% of the content is related to academic and clinical WP:RS. I don't know what we can do about people's discussions in forums. Do you see any basis in what they are describing? Mish (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd be right Mish. This article seems fine now. Now, yes a few years ago this was a real problem, with many pedophile users trying to distort this and other articles. They are part of the reason I put this and several others in my watchlist and why I hang around them: To fight off that kind of thing. But it's been quiet for a long time now since we blocked most of those users. On occasion we have a user pop up who will try to pull something, but they are usually blocked very quickly. And this article is long-term semi-protected too, though pedophile propaganda plays a small part of that; mostly it's because of prank edits.

That fox news article just seems stupid. I mean, is that an archived story from 3 years ago? It might have been relevant back then, but today it's rather pointless.Legitimus (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess one could point this out to them, but they'd either ignore it, or find another story - Wikipedia cleans up content following Fox News expose... (even though it was done long before their piece, from what you say). Mish (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Legitimus. I was not going to say anything because I did not know what to make of this report, but Jack, SqueakBox (unrelated to the SqueakBox they cite, I'm sure), Legitimus, and myself fought against those types of editors for some time. James came in around the time it was quieting down but also helped. It was like a war zone back then, but all is better (much better) now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I was new at the time, I knew only that there had been some history (making the FoxNews piece seem relevant here, to me).— James Cantor (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Computer "expert" Kim Kommando just did a segment this week claiming Wikipedia's articles on pedophilia were attempting to "recruit" people to the lifestyle and also had become a "haven" for fans of pornography. She cited the Faux...um, I mean Fox News story of course. What a twit. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I Googled and there is a new article on Fox News. Someone might want to check it out http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/

24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the exact same article we noted above. Did you paste the wrong one?Legitimus (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I had only glanced at this part and only saw the stuff about 3 year old articles. I am seeing similar stuff on other sites, but all cribbed from Fox's stories. Sorry for not reading the talk article better. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sex drive or libido mention or not? And further specification.

I know Jack's reasoning for removing it, but the new version of the definition seems lacking without it. Pedophilia is a paraphilia, and paraphilia is about sexual arousal; thus, is it exactly original research to add sex drive or libido? Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We already have 'urges' in the lead. I cannot see this is a problem. Mish (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Mish. Since you objected to the removal of specifying this at first, but now seem okay with the removal of either wording, I suppose it is no big deal. It just currently reads strangely to me. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't communicate well. I see no problem with libido being there - not its removal - but I am sick of fighting stuff like this. Yeah, I agree, it does read like crap now - but I guess this is all part of some whittling. Mish (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've often found it useful to refer to "sexual interests." Some of the problem may be that, as written, the definition in the lede is based on the DSM-IV definition, which (I think) has problems. It might be helpful to base the definition on other sources.— James Cantor (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I too feel it reads oddly. While the DSM and ICD are highly regarded as sources, their definitions seem a little overly complex for purposes of an opening sentence. May I suggest: "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children."

The emphasis on "persistent" has been present in literature on pedophilia since Krafft-Ebing and Forel's work. And an emphasis on a "primary" or "exclusive" attraction I feel is unnecssary, at least in part because neither the ICD nor the DSM require the attraction to be primary, just that it is recurrent/persistent.Legitimus (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me.Mish (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I support the definition proposed by Legitimus and with regard to the note from James about the term "sexual interests". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The current lead is partly based on the DSM-IV definition, but also the ICD-10 (with mention of persons 16 and older). One of my preferences would be that (with the removal of "sexual" from "object") we tack on "of their sexual interests" to the current lead-in definition, because "primary or exclusive" or "preference" are the more accurate definitions of this disorder, as also stated by James. The ICD-10 does mention "preference" after all, but we discarded that for reasons already gone over above. "Primary or exclusive" seem to be the next best thing. We could state: "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." But Legitimus's suggestion of "persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children" is not too bad. If a person has "persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children," that is some type of preference in my eyes. I just want the lead to be as accurate as possible, to the general public, and the DSM-IV already covers "persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children," unless part of the proposal is to remove the DSM-IV definition from the lead. Given that they are thought of as an authoritative source, I would say we should keep them in, but in the same spot we have always kept them at -- the followup definition. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.— James Cantor (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which proposal do you prefer, James? Do you mean Legitimus's? Mine? Either? Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. I think both are as good as anything in the professional literature. My personal preference is to include "primary" (and the best research uses it), but it is not unanimous among authors. (I do not think that "exclusive" is accurate, however, although there still exist some authors who do.)— James Cantor (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How would exclusive be inaccurate, James, given pedophiles who can only become sexually aroused by thoughts of prepubescent children and the ones who never focus on adults sexually? Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22; I'm sorry for missing your question earlier. The distinction between "exclusive" and "non-exclusive" pedophiles is, in my opinion, a misnomer. There are, of course, sex offenders who have offended both against children and against adults, but such exclusivity refers to child molestation, not to pedophilia. When referring to primary sexual interest/urge/preference, it doesn't make sense to say that someone is primarily interested in children and primarily interested in adults.

I hope that's a help.— James Cantor (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that, James. Maybe I got your explanation confused. I don't think you are saying that pedophilia should not be defined as a sexual preference (as a primary sexual interest). That goes against your arguments for it being defined as a sexual preference. You have often made the distinction between it (a preference) and child molestation (the act). So are you saying that a person cannot be primarily sexualy interested in adults and prepubescent children? If so, this article is not saying that either. Or are you saying that the "exclusive" part is not needed, because "primary" takes care of it? My thing with "primary" taking care of it is that it makes it sound as though pedophiles may very well have some other sexual object choice (pubescents or post-pubescents), when this is not the case too often. I don't always relate the "non-exclusive" offender to a "primary" offender (neither does this article, as mentioned in it), though it can also mean that. I take "primary" to mean a pedophile who often sexually focuses on prepubescent children and can get a little sexually aroused by pubescents or post-pubescents. I take "exclusive" to mean pedophiles who have no chance whatsoever of being able to sexually focus on/and or become sexually aroused by pubescents or post-pubescents. But you feel that this distinction is not important or needed? Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added my proposal, which is in part Legitimus's proposal. I retained "primary or exclusive" for the reasons debated above about "preference" and what I stated in this discussion about the DSM-IV already tackling "persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children." If anyone objects, of course let me know. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Further specification

(outdenting) Looks good. The only addition I might make would be to follow the first sentence with a reference (or parenthetical reference) to hebephilia. That is, after reading (correctly) that pedophilia is specific to prepubescent children, a reader might (incorrectly) conclude that interest in 12-year-olds would not be a disorder (12 years old almost always being pubescent rather than prepubescent).— James Cantor (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a "hatnote" to the article for this, and also included the distinction about the act vs. the interest because even just recently I heard several different adults using "pedophilia" to mean abuse and it really irritated me.Legitimus (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as we know, pedophilia can include 12-year-olds (as this article makes clear in its lower body), usually in the case of boys (and, really, even pubescent 12-year-old boys often still look prepubescent), but I am okay with the hatnote. It's just that I figured that was already adequately covered in the Misuse of terminology section. Then again, people often only read the lead and then leave. So the hatnote is probably for the best. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm worried about the opposite of what James was worried about -- people thinking that pedophilia does not relate to 11 through 13-year-olds. It is part of the reason we have had such difficulty with addressing hebephilia in this article at times, especially given the ICD-10 categorizing pedophilia as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." I would say maybe it is best we do not specify ages in the hatnote, but then I remember that we specify ages in the actual articles. I just hope that the general public is smarter than we give them credit for on this particular aspect of the subject. Everyone should know that puberty varies, especially these days. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It says 'usually' - so would an interest in children who undergo precocious puberty be classified as paedophilia? This can happen before 11. I doubt it wouldn't be. Similarly, somebody who has a delayed puberty (or never fully develops through adolescence), which can occur in so-called 'DSDs', and means they don't develop until late into their teens (if at all)? Would an interest in underdeveloped 18 years be paedophilia by this standard? Just seems that an age gives a better focus for the article than something that can be fairly hard to establish theoretically. Mish (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My experience with people who try to push the definition broader or narrower is that they do so on an ideological rather than a scientific basis. For example, defense experts hired by people with a primary interest in 12-year-olds will emphasize that their clients are not pedophiles...skirting around that their clients are not teleiophiles either. Defense-oriented folks analogously accuse prosecution and victim-advocates of broadening definitions so as to include more people. I think that a reference to hebephilia would (correctly) identify the middle ground (interested in pubescent rather than prepubescent or postpubescent persons).— James Cantor (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I've also pondered the precocious puberty topic, and have worked on the Precocious puberty article. Weeks ago, I added that it is unrelated to pedophilia, but given how child-like individuals who are experiencing precocious puberty look, it is difficult to say it is unrelated to pedophilia. One certainty, though, is that precocious puberty generally happens to girls. It is a lot easier to tell when a girl has hit puberty than when a boy has, and I would say "true pedophiles" are not going to be interested in a 9-year-old girl with breasts and sprouting pubic hair. As for delayed puberty, it is very rare that someone would not hit puberty until age 18. If they do, there is a serious problem there. Most girls should be done with puberty by ages 15-17, and most boys should be done with puberty by ages 17-18. The thing about pedophiles is that they will go after someone who looks prepubescent; it is not always about that person definitely being prepubescent. Some pedophiles have been known to abduct pubescent 12-year-old boys, and have them shave their pubic hair (the main indication that they are pubescent). This is where I feel the ICD-10's definition of "or early pubertal age" comes in. My problem with specifying age, at least in this article, is that puberty varies (as you've pointed out). But James also makes a point about "puberty in general." It's just that I feel that even that isn't definitive these days, with girls now commonly hitting puberty at age 9. The general thing we see is "10 for girls" and "12 for boys" (though this may now be outdated). Hebephilia says 11-14, and I just don't want people thinking of these age ranges in such strict terms. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)