Jump to content

Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

definition/s per DSM-IV-TR

"Diagnostic criteria for 3.2.2 Pedophilia [¶] A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). [¶] B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. [¶] C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. [¶] Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old." P. 572 (boldfacing of 1st paragraph & punctuated word "Note:" omitted). "The paraphilic focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account. . . . It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges, or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia. Individuals who have a pedophilic arousal pattern and act on these fantasies or urges with a child qualify for the diagnosis of Pedophilia." P. 571. "The Paraphilias are characterized by recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The Paraphilias include . . . Pedophilia. . . ." P. 535 (boldfacing of 2d word omitted). "The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months (Criterion A). . . . For Pedophilia, . . . the diagnosis is made if the person has acted on these urges or the urges or sexual fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." P. 566. "The Paraphilias described here . . . . include . . . Pedophilia (focus on prepubescent children) . . . ." Pp. 566–567 (page break in last ellipsis). "It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as . . . Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes medical disease, mental disorder, or mental disability." P. xxxvii (Cautionary Statement) ("non-"/"medical" across line break in original). Subclassificatory and empirical statements are omitted. These are all from DSM-IV-TR, i.e., Task Force on DSM-IV and other committees & work groups of Am. Psychiatric Ass'n, prep., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Washington, D.C.: Am. Psychiatric Ass'n, 4th ed., Text Revision, pbk., 5th printing Dec. 2003, © 2000 (ISBN 0-89042-025-4)) (DSM-IV-TR).

As a nonexpert in this field with some background in drafting of precise legal language, I can see how this text could be seen as providing conflicting definitions, but I'm not clear that the differences are really critical, since I assume the criteria that are labeled as A, B, and C and a Note are controlling, insofar as anything is, and the rest is secondary. As secondary, it tries to clarify, leave unaffected, or obfuscate but doesn't coexist or replace as a definition, and, if the rest is secondary, there's only one definition that matters. But perhaps I misinterpret. Could anyone who finds multiple definitions and an important difference please explain what problem is present?

This partly responds to the recent definitions order talk topic, specifically a post by Jokestress, but this is open to anyone. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of state law is that a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist is not bound to the DSM in defining either mental illness generally or pedophilia specifically, although the DSM is persuasive.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) (Clarified secondariness and, minor, corrected the bibliographic description to add a comma: 03:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)) (Fixed line/paragraph break that appeared during the intervening edit: 04:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

Nick, I think you might have an issue with definitions versus diagnoses. The DSM IV provide diagnostic criteria, it does not provide a definition. The ICD 10 is different, because it first provides a definition and only in the explanation sets the criteria. Diagnostic criteria are based on a specific operationalization of the definition of pedophilia. The DSM IV is one of them, phallometric measurements and SSPI are two other methods, of which the first one is relative often used, alone or in combination with the DSM IV criteria. Curiously, the DSM IV criteria are rarely used in research, but far more important in legal context. Unfortunately, the various different methods only poorly correlate with each other, with no unification of diagnostic methods in side. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay; and I haven't looked at the ICD. But if in the DSM only the criteria are available, then isn't the definition implicit in the criteria? A separate, perhaps broader or narrower, definition can be crafted explicitly, but if one isn't then it is implied in the action of applying specified criteria. It may be done differently in psy and is done differently in various sciences (e.g., defining a new chemical element), but in general English authoritative dictionary editors derive definitions from usage. Thus, while ICD has a definition that is separate from criteria, DSM doesn't explicitly, but that only means that DSM's definition is implicit. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The DSM is vastly over-represented in this article per WP:UNDUE. Their diagnostic criteria are relatively new (30 years old) and have shifted with each revision. Robert Spitzer later criticized his own 1980 work on DSM-III in a 2007 interview with Adam Curtis on The Trap, saying it led to the medicalization of 20-30% of the human population who may not have had any serious mental problems. It's important that this article discuss the DSM's role as a repressive tool used to other those who annoy or offend mainstream society, with "pedophiles" being the bête noire for entire decades. I think we should also include information on the stooges who are complicit in this oppression, and the vast sums they rake in via their complicity. Jokestress (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what the 20-30% refers to is totally unclear due to the heavy editing of that video. It was parroted by an anti-psychiatry editor in Spitzer's bio to try to prove Spitzer disavowed the DSM. Not buying that one. The same amazing biography of Spitzer here listed all his works as "incomplete" except for a preface he wrote to the book of another. I'm starting to think there's some truth to this rant. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That puts you in the right company. Jokestress (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Jokestress, I agree with your assertion of undue for the DSM IV. However, I think there are better sources for the over-inclusiveness of the DSM IV, as well as the more general discussion about when something should be regarded a disorder and a problem, especially in the light of the rather (and to me shockingly) high prevalence of pedophile fantasies among the general population. (Oh, keep your fangs in, it is not helping) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Nick, the DSM IV has been criticized heavily (see Blanchard 2009, Green, Studer, O'donahue, Struder, etc.) for the problems writh the diagnostic criteria. Most people define pedophilia as a sexual preference for children. This is at least what most dictionaries give, with or without the qualifier pre-pubescent. This definition makes a clear separation between pedophiles (who have a preference, without regard if they act on it) and child molesters (characterized by the act, whether or not they have a preference for children). The problems with the DSM IV start because the criteria include people generally not considered pedophiles (child molesters), and exclude others that are generally considered pedophiles (contented pedophiles). So, here, the diagnostic criteria and the definition are a mismatch. Your suggestion is that it might be implicit in the criteria, but when I read the literature, something rather similar to the definitoon I gave is used in context with the DSM IV usage.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that the DSM does not provide a definition. Kim, people generally not considered pedophiles are not usually included in the DSM definition. James can also clear this up. Remember that it says "intense" and "enduring"... In fact, those two elements are what researchers look for most in identifying pedophiles. And of course I disagree with Jokestress about WP:UNDUE regarding the DSM in this article. Look over the course of this article and see the different research it presents. I know it needs more work, but that is what we are all working on. Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No, recurrent behavior is enough. That fits all child molesters, and yes, it is used that way. See here, here and here. As providing a definition, tell, what is the definition according to the DSM IV? As for undue, yes, the complete lack of other diagnostic tools by itself is already a obvious case of undue, and to promote ONE specific diagnostic tool, that is not much used in research as the main tool for the second sentence of the lead is an obvious case of undue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"Recurrent" does not fit all child molesters. There are various reasons a person may sexually molest a prepubescent child, as well as types -- surrogate (sexual substitute), curious, teenagers who molest younger children, hypersexual adults who opportunistically target prepubescent or pubertal children, impulsive people who have no erotic interest in children, people under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Not all of those involve repeat offenders. But, yes, "recurrent" is one of the main features of a pedophile. Most are not diagnosed simply because of "recurrent," however, because, as you state, "recurrent" can also fit "non-pedophilic" offenders. My point is that I don't believe that the DSM usually includes non-pedophilic offenders. Why? Because generally -- even in the medical field -- people who have "recurrent" sexual interest in prepubertal children are often deemed pedophiles. There is usually more added to "recurrent," sure, but the actuality is...a large proportion of people who have a recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children are pedophiles; they also have "intense" sexual feelings for prepubescent children, which this article touches on. And the DSM definition? Plenty of sources refer to it as "the DSM definition," not just as the DSM diagnosis -- a paraphilia characterized by persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I addressed the lead part above; you are right that more than one should be in the lead. Also, as I stated above, this source[1] goes over all the issues we have most recently addressed, and a lot of it definitely needs to be in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you wanted to convey, as I was speaking about "recurrent behavior", which includes pretty much all child molesters who end up in contact with the justice system. And I know you do not believe the DSM IV diagnosis includes non-pedophiles, but people dealing with law enforcement know differently, because in order to lock someone up in a mental asylum once they have finished their sentence, you need a diagnosis of a disorder before the judge will grant you that, and since behavior was added in the DSM IV-TR (the original DSM IV did not have that aspect), it is used accordingly. Adding hebephilia to the mix will do the same, although most of those are now diagnosed with paraphilia NOS. Finally, I expected you now be able to provide me with the definition that the DSM IV uses, because it is missing. The criticism on the DSM IV pedophilia entry is because of the mismatch between the general used definition that is not in the DSM IV and the operalization of that definition as reflected by the diagnostic criteria. The operalization does not capture adequately the diagnosis of pedophilia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
We usually don't get what the other wanted to convey in their reply, but at least we are being civil to each other and are trying to work together now. Whether recurrent feelings or actions, "recurrent" does not fit all child molesters is my point. There are one-time offenders, and the other such offenders I mentioned as well. They have all been titled "child molesters." I didn't say that the DSM IV diagnosis does not include non-pedophiles; I said I don't believe it usually does...because a large proportion of people who have a recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children are pedophiles. That includes child molesters as well. Sources are conflicted on whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles; some sources say they are; some sources say they are not. But research shows that a person who sexually abuses prepubescent children more than once (as in not only focusing on one prepubescent child) often turns out to be a pedophile. I was saying I believe that the DSM IV gets it right more than they get it wrong when diagnosing pedophiles. As for the DSM IV definition of pedophilia, as I stated above, plenty of sources refer its diagnostic criteria as "the DSM definition" of a pedophile, which is a paraphilia characterized by persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children. One can say that they stray away from the "sexual preference" definition that is generally used by most experts, but people with a persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children are usually indeed pedophiles. "Intense," "recurrent," "persistent," "preference" are the keywords when diagnosing pedophiles. Diagnosing on actions alone is not how it should be done, but someone who persistently acts on it with more than one child will more than likely be determined a pedophile if diagnosed properly. I understand the criticism toward the DSM IV and have no problem with it, but it is not as hated among experts as you think. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I take it the DSM-IV-TR is not seen as itself having two or more definitions of pedophilia that conflict.
Multiple definitions including from outside of DSM are reportable even if they occur in the same profession, although WP being limited mainly to secondary sources and NOR eliminates analyzing, e.g., refereed literature for unstated implied definitions even if widespread. But if, say, someone has done that analysis and published it, that's probably citable.
Definitions being used in lit that differ from that inferrable from DSM doesn't mean a lack of a definition implied in the DSM. Most lit not using the DSM as a definer still leaves the DSM as a definer in the lit that uses it that way, so several definitions may be available, including the DSM's.
Citable critiques of an official definition are also permissible. If lit using other definitions criticizes the DSM's implied definition or stated criteria and the lit is citable otherwise, it's probably citable for this kind of critique, too.
Thirty-year-old criteria do not strike me as too new for the weight to be given. For psy, that's at least a full generation of people being born or commencing professional or academic careers. Changes in criteria or definition aren't too often, either, for this field; DSM-IV-TR is already about a decade old and DSM-IV is a few years older.
On the other hand, the DSM and psy are about much more than pedophilia. Therefore, criticisms of DSM that go across conditions in addition to pedophilia should be in an article on DSM; likewise, criticisms of psychology and psychiatry should be in the respective articles. Only criticisms that are particular to pedophilia (or its definition, its diagnostic criteria, its treatment attempts, and so on) should be in this article. Criticisms of people in the field should be in the relevant biographies, subject to the limits on contentious information, limits that would apply even if the people were only mentioned briefly in a nonbiographical article.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A number of conservatives concerned about the changes between III and IV pointed out the dual usage problem. Their concern is the one often echoed here, that the change between III and IV parallels depathologization of homosexuality. Columnist Linda Bowles did a 1999 piece in which Charles Socarides called the changes absurd, flawed, and causing confusion. She also cites a 1995 Joseph Nicolosi piece titled "Pedophilia not always a disorder?" which outlines how the terminology can assert that not all pedophilia is pedophilia. A number of experts use "adult sexual interest in children" to reduce confusion and to include all related phenomena outside the restricted mental disorder definition, but we can't have an article on the inclusive phenomenon on Wikipedia because some editors believe it somehow "promotes pedophilia." Jokestress (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't simply say "adult sexual interest in children" because most experts agree that not all adult sexual interest in children is pedophilia. We do, however, tackle "adult sexual interest in children" in this article. It's the majority of experts who say that not all of it is pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Nick, yes, the DSM is one of the diagnostic tools, and should be included. The undue weight has nothing to do with the age of it, but the frequency by which it is used. And yes, everything is citable. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Development

Here's the full text of that section from the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law, ISBN 9781412951890 p. 549:


The (possibly crank according to the vote here) Fred Berlin also says:


So, given that another encyclopedia thought this type of information relevant, I've added it to the article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Is an example of "common usage"? Seems like a medical text; granted it might be a poor-quality one. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But, really, using any dictionary is usually contradictory in this case, since they usually define a child as between birth and puberty (prepubescent). I was still going for how "children" is used without any qualifier and pedophilia in reference to child sexual abuse as well as attraction, when it comes to common use. Feel free to replace it, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Legality

I think it might be useful to mention that sexual relations between legal adults and children is presently illegal in most countries in the world and among the hardest punished crimes in many. It might also be useful to have a section on the historical development of a legal framework around pedophilia on a global scale.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article. I think you may be looking for child sexual abuse and Laws regarding child sexual abuse.Legitimus (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is the wrong article to mention this no. That is why I suggested it here. Presently there is not link between this article and the two articles that you mention even though there is a direct and fairly obvious connection between them. The article definition itself mentions that there are special definitions of pedophilia within law enforcement - these definitions ad their motivations are as relevant to the general topic as the psychiatric definitions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Maunus, the historical development of a legal framework around pedophilia on a global scale could fit in the In forensic psychology and law enforcement section. You want to start filling that section in? And there is a link between this article and Child sexual abuse. We have a whole section on it, and also speak of it in the General views section.
There are various "definitions" of pedophilia, but experts are clear that any definition outside of the medical definition is inaccurate. This is why we start out with the medical definition first, because not all adult sexual interest in children is pedophilia. Currently, most editors are for the medical definition coming first, and we have been over it time and time again. Here are the reasons given:
  1. Myself (for what I just stated)
  2. Stevertigo[2][3]
  3. Legitimus[4]
  4. James Cantor/James Cantor[5]
  5. Jack-A-Roe[6]
  6. SqueakBox[7]
  7. Herostratus[8]
  8. Nick Levinson[9]
There is no need to say, "Pedophilia describes adult sexual interest in children" for the lead-in, since we specify the different uses of the term immediately. The current lead-in is neutral, as to not start out with the common use or medical definition first. We list the range first, then go into the medical definition and then the others. "Adult sexual interest in children" also neglects 16 and 17-year-old adolescents (no matter that they are biological adults, and technically count as adults).
As for "sexual relations between legal adults and children," do you mean 18/19-year-olds and people below the age of consent? If so, how is it not clear that an 18/19-year-old cannot engage in sex with a 12-year-old unless the age of consent is set that low? Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Maunus, you have forced me to once again redesign the lead, while keeping the medical definition first. The typical medical definition of pedophilia comes first (sexual preference for prepubescent children), the DSM is tackled by itself in the second paragraph, and "common use" in the third, while origins, causes, and forensic psychology and law enforcement come last. But if anyone objects to these changes, the previous lead may be reinstated. Try to remember that stuff like leads and things have already been discussed extensively at articles such as these. Heated debates have been had here, compromises have been made and will continue to be made. Even the smallest change at this article can result in a big discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, you do not have to redesign the lead again, other editors are very capable of doing so themselves. The fact that you take it up to yourself that you have to redisgn it is just another example of ownership that is asserted on the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with ownership. Do you have to start this up again, really? It has to do with being familiar with past discussions and redesigning the lead accordingly to those discussions. For example, Maunus was clearly not aware of the fact that most editors are for the medical definition coming first. If I am at the article, I am going to tweak the lead according to what consensus and past concerns were/are, which is exactly what I did (including your concern about "early pubescent" being as high in the lead as possible, without overtaking the general "prepubescent" medical definition), as the edit history shows. If you wanted to tweak Maunus's edits, you could have done so. But Maunus's edits did need tweaking. If it was about ownership with me, I would not be willing to listen to or work with anyone but Legitimus and the other usual editors here (neglecting you and Jokestress). Your constant sniping at me when I am only acting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines is exactly what Legitimus was talking about regarding you and civility. Maunus wanted an exact definition first, and I left it that way...but in respect to what we have all been over time and time again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Maunus' lede was an improvement, yet it was unilaterally reverted by the current owner of this article. Jokestress (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
My reasons for reverting Maunus are above. And, anyway, the current lead is partially Manus's doing as well, including the lead-in. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the revert of Maunus' version of the lede. I don't doubt that edit was a good faith effort to improve the article, but it introduced as the main definition an unsourced generalization of the term as "adult sexual interest in children" that has been rejected by consensus more than a few times.
  • There are other less precise uses of the term - they are explained in the article, as they should be, with due weight for alternate uses. Even the law enforcement uses of the term are known to be imprecise, as stated in the law enforcement sources, having developed as a sort of colloquial shorthand. In statues and court cases, the term is generally not used, as those documents focus on actions and not feelings.
  • There is no problem with ownership on this article. These issues have been discussed many times in various forums, with participation of many editors. The article has developed based on consensus in those multiple discussions and the extensive talk page archives. The article presents the topic as a medical condition because that is the mainstream academic use of the term. There is no broad discussion among scholars of the existence of a form of adult sexual interest in prepubescent children that could be somehow healthy and not requiring a diagnosis as a disorder. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
RE Legal use of the term and laws about it: I am not aware of any statutory laws of any nation that use the word "pedophilia." It's possible I've just not heard of any, so let me know of there is. I also am not aware of any statutory laws that govern an attraction/preference or what have you. All laws surrounding this subject are about child sexual abuse, the act itself, or about child pornography. Law enforcement is separate from law itself, and as Jack-A-Roe pointed it, it's more of a shorthand among investigators, not a precise term. Note in the law enforcement section, I listed several illegal actions as a sort of "translation" for what such organizations actually mean when they say "pedophilia."Legitimus (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic: Rind in here and child sexual abuse

I also feel this section is off-topic because it is specifically about CSA, which needs to remain as distinct as possible. There's too much overlap and I want to avoid muddling the two topics any worse that society is already doing through linguistic laziness. Plus this article is already very long. Perhaps we can instead incorporate wikilink references to the CSA and Laws Regarding CSA articles.Legitimus (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That diff is a bit iffy. We do want some material in here that justifies pedophilia as a mental disorder due to harm to others (rather than just "authorities say so"). So, something needs to be said about why CSA is harm (besides the self-evident language). On the other hand, the discussion of Rind et al and what came of that is WP:UNDUE in this article. Just put a simple summary along the lines: "the scientific consensus is that CSA causes harm because besides the physical harm the abused children have such-and-such problems with higher likelihood", ergo pedophilia is a disorder. Actually, you may even be able to use the "crank" Berlin source from the next section for the latter part of the argument. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's off-topic. It may go on a little long about child sexual abuse, but that (child sexual abuse) is in relation to the harm pedophilia can cause. The lead-in starts off saying "pedophilia and child sexual abuse," as to distinguish, and right below that, we clear up in another section the misuses of the term. I'm okay with it being shortened, just not as short as Jack trimmed it (to that one sentence). After all, that section is about society's views on pedophilia. It should report on why society fears/hates pedophilia -- child sexual abuse is the main reason for that. There needs to be something there about it and why society feels children cannot consent to sex. I know the caution of having Rind in this article, but it's only a criticism of his work. If it's felt that he is better left out, I am fine with that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok I can go with some mention about CSA for that reason (that is, why it is so reviled). But I agree with Tijfo, let's leave Rind out because it will confuse the issue in such a short paragraph.Legitimus (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go ahead and remove Rind. Tijfo098 will probably further tweak that section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright. I left Rind in only as a source to controversy surrounding researchers who concluded that child sexual abuse may not cause harm, but I left specific mention of Rind out. Is this okay? Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good tweak, Legitimus. We'll see what Jack has to say about the current, revised text -- whether he feels more about pedophilia should be said or what. But, really, it is the child sexual abuse that the public largely comments on. Researchers usually comment on both -- the disorder and the act. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Rind et al does not belong in this article for many reasons: that paper is specifically about CSA, not pedophilia; it is known to be a flawed paper based on flawed methodology; it presents a fringe theory of non-harmful CSA that has been repeatedly rejected by academia and society and it's mention provides undue weight for those fringe ideas.
Equally fringe and inappropriate for this article is Levine's book. It's about teens, not children, and not about adults being sexually involved with children. The book addresses Levine's ideas about young teens access to sexual activity in general (mainly with each other, or with older teens). It's not about pedophilia and does not belong in this article.
Kinsey's abhorrent reports of abusive sexual experiments on young children also doesn't belong here. His report did not address what was going on in the mind or feelings of the person who committed those crimes, it simply described in detail a series of acts of child abuse. Again, this one is also not about pedophilia and does not belong in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Good points. Regarding Kinsey in particular, his conclusions were based entirely on the diary and self-report of a single pedophile who had molested hundreds of children over several decades (Kinsey lied in his actual report about where he got his data). Kinsey relied on this one person no only to draw conclusions about pedophiles, but also for his far-fetched assertions about harmfulness to children. It is of course is not surprising that a pedophile is going to say his victims enjoyed it and were not harmed.Legitimus (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Jack and Legitimus, good points. I know all of that. But what of the reasons people hate pedophiles? How else to demonstrate society's general view of pedophilia if we don't report on child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia? Underage teens are still considered children, and people often consider an adult engaging in sex with one as child sexual abuse as well (other times as statutory rape). As stated above, it is the child sexual abuse that the public largely comments on. In Legitimus's words "that is, why it is so reviled." Child sexual abuse has everything to do with pedophilia when it comes to prepubescent children, disregarding the fact that not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. My point is, "What is the point of the General views section if we don't report on the reasons people hate pedophilia -- which is child sexual abuse, the suggestion that a child could consent to sex, etc. etc.?" Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I know Jack removed the "General views" title. But I still feel that the Societal views section is lacking without more information on how the general public feels about pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Flyer, I don't disagree with the idea of including a section about the views of society about pedophilia. But it has to be mainstream views, not those fringe views that were listed there previously. It would require finding reliable academic sources that explain and provide context for society's views about pedophilia. The main way society expresses its unambiguous disapproval on this topic in very clear and direct terms by making the actions of child sexual abuse illegal. But that's about actions and not feelings or mental conditions. Also it's not needed in this section because there are already other sections about laws and child moestation, and in the linked child sexual abuse article and the article on laws prohibiting child sexual abuse. In order to include a section on the general views of society about pedophilia, we need reliable sources that discuss that issue specifically (and not from a fringe view), and so far, we don't have those. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What about sources such as these, which is still in the section I attempted to create? It "criticises the justifications that are given by paedophiles for having sex with children. Part of this criticism is a brief analysis of 'sexual desire' and 'erotic'. Next, the question is raised whether paedophile activities can ever be morally permissible. Using the principles of mutual consent and non-exploitation as touchstone, the question is answered in the negative."... It discusses child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia...and morality. As for the fringe views, that was to demonstrate society's outrage about things relating to pedophilia or what they perceive as related to pedophilia. For example, with Levine's book, people felt she was dismissive of child sexual abuse...as that TIME link shows. I made a point to acknowledge that the book was "to promote teenagers' sexual health." The point is...some of the public didn't take it that way. Rind's and Kinsey's views were to show how society will never tolerate sexual acts on prepubescent children; my text was criticism of their views. But I understand why you feel Rind and Kinsey shouldn't be in this article (Rind has been removed from this article time and time again, I know that), and I am okay with that. My main point was that pedophilia, and society's hatred of pedophilia, cannot be discussed without discussing child sexual abuse. Sure, we already have a section on Child sexual abuse in this article, but that's about the research on it in relation to pedophilia, not the general public's views on any of it (other than assuming that all child sexual abusers are pedophiles). And I'm not saying we should have a big section on this topic, since it would no doubt mostly be about the act.
Again, would sources like the one I offered above suffice to explain society's general views of pedophilia? Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

SVP civil commitment laws

I've added a section on that. What country do you guys live in? Do you ever watch the news? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes

I'm not sure how it would be put in, but under the "psychopathology" section I strongly think it should be noted that most studies like that use child abusers as "paedophiles" because most won't come out normally. Therefore if you are interviewing a bunch of rapists of COURSE you are going to find higher levels of sociopathy etc. and that the data is going to be naturally skewed. I understand if it's not that encyclopedic exactly, but as I say I strongly feel that it should be noted, or mentioned in some capacity.--Person012345 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It does say that. The fourth paragraph of that section says exactly what you are talking about.Legitimus (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I completely missed it somehow.--Person012345 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

edits explained

Child sexual abuse is different matter (related perhaps in see also, but not the same content). Sine the subject is different adn reflected as such in a seperate article it certainly cant lead into this one where the lead reflects the content of this article. A wikilink in the article or see also is certainly more appropriate than bolding it.

As the definition in the article itself suggests (and the lead reflects the article) the word means someone else. Sure its come to evolve into the current definition and that is the focus of the lead, but to exclude cited fact from the article is pov and undue weight on other factors as if representating simply 1 side. It clearly by definition is not only about sex, even if todays usage is as such. this is an encyclopaedia and hence covers everythign not just novel usages. (that would be a dictionary)Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia as "child friendship" in the lead, original research, etc.

As I stated to Lihaas on his or her talk page, "'Child sexual abuse' is in the distinguish tag because that is the act, while pedophilia is about the mental (what goes on in the mind) in relation to the act. Child sexual abuse is a common aspect of pedophilia, and is largely what pedophilia is about, yes, but they are not the same thing. Some child sexual abusers are not even pedophiles, as the article makes clear.
Also, describing pedophilia as 'child friendship' in the lead is highly controversial, as many pedophiles actually describe the relationship that way and believe it to only be about friendship and that they are not hurting the child. This is why I reverted you.
As for your OR and synthesis concerns, I did not mean to revert that, and it would be best that you bring that up (what you meant by that) on the talk page." Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You just stated you did not mean to remove the tags and yet you removed it AGAIN. Is that not a doublestandard taht you admitted to? My explanation is given on the page in the hidden tags and was right in the beginning "synthesis here, need to quote the relevant passage" I dont believe the content was written in a manner that comes from the source and would like to read it, hence the tag of possible OR
Your reverts also changed the subheading without explanation related to that where you mention the lead and revert EVERYTHING.
read my content above about the alternate to bolding the term child sexual abuse. Its better than a blanet revert.
Your comment that "child friendship" is controversial because they refer it to themselves is frankly not relevant to this position. This is an encyclopaeida not taking EITHER sides. What they believe is irrelevant, as i explained the phrase is VERBATIM taken from the passage that defines what it means and the lead must reflect the article.
About about child sexual abuse being part of the act is a POV concern of the editors, that is not what the phrase is about. As i already said it is fair game to refer to the sexual content that it has not come to mean, but that is again not the inherent form of the phrase. "paedo" means child as in paediatrician, "phile" mean to like as in bibliophile, anglophile, indophile, etc. Is that definitional controversial? it is cited on this page itself.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You could have added your tags back without readding everything else. I reverted you again, because you again added everything back. Your tags are back now, without everything else.
What is wrong with the subheading having "disease models" in it? That section is about the disease models, more than it is about simply history of pedophilia.
"Child friendship" is not a common meaning of pedophilia, no matter its origin. And given its use by pedophiles as the definition of pedophilia, it certainly should not be in the lead as the de facto meaning. We have an Etymology section for that. If you want it in the lead, you will need to gain WP:Consensus, but I doubt it will come first in the lead even if you do manage to gain favor.
What I said about child sexual abuse is not simply about our POV. We have distinguish tags for a reason on Wikipedia; nothing wrong with distinguishing here.
And you still have not explained your OR tags well. Hebephilia, for example, is viewed by those researchers as overlapping with pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thats fine in the interim.
Nothing wrong with the disease models, but its not a subsection of etymelogy. I then removed it as a nother section instead of subsection, im fine with adding it back just not as a subsection but section on its own
its not a de facto meaning but a de jure meaning as has been cited on the talk page and mentioned here. Maybe not the first sentence but somewhere in the elad to reflect the article that does in fact state the words meaning verbatim.
Youre not distinguishing your opening in the lead, distinguish tags are above the article which you may find some wordign for either there, see also, or merged in the article as not bold, bold is not used to distinguish but clarify the meaning of which article is being read, that article is not a redirect to this page and hance not an equivalent term. if Dr. X and Y have correltated paedophilia to abuse then that is the opinion of the doctor which is fair game to cited in the article, not to lead a definition in the first setnence.
well id like like to see the text being referenced here because it seems dubious synthesis to me the way its written. Sourced should leave no doubt as to what is said.Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You have a point about the Etymology section. It used to be called Etymology and definitions. The Etymology section by itself is way too short, so it could be combined with the history part as Etymology and history of disease models. Would that work for you? If so, I have no problem with your changing it to that.
I meant to change my de facto mention above, but it's too late now. Anyway, the point is...I cannot see any reason that "child friendship" should be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most significant parts of the topic. "Child friendship" is not what this article significantly or even mostly talks about. If you want it in the lead, you will need consensus for it...since the current lead has already been thoroughly worked out.
We are distinguishing the opening in the lead. The lead talks about child sexual abuse. All we do is point the reader to the bigger/main article on child sexual abuse, and so that they can somewhat grasp the point that pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I dont thin etymelogy goes with history one such reason is that having "ands" in the subject forces to much content into it, although i do agree its too short. Lets' hold on this then because we near to a conclusion. If somemore can be found on etymelogy (and i will look tomorrow) then would 2 section be okay?
I think it is significant precisely for the fact that it includes a less narrow scope and is not attributable to recent changes per the {{recentism}} tag. Im fine with moving it away from the first sentence, but somewhere towards the end perhaps of a large lead is appropriate to reflect already cited content.
Well, the lead should not talk about the content of another article, certainly not that it gives the impress this article is abotu the content of that (which is the point of the bold text), if it is then the 2 articles should be merged. Again paedophilia is much more of a broad term than the limited constraints of sexual abuse. As said, i have no problem with having it in the lead but it shouldnt get undue weight, especially when a seperate article exists.
ive also added a tag to the article to get more debate here.Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Etymology goes with history in plenty of Wikipedia articles. But if you can find more to add to the Etymology section, no, I do not object to it being its own section.
I've already given my reasons for "child friendship" not being in the lead, and have nothing more to say about it at the moment.
The lead should not talk about content of another article? Pedophilia has a lot to do with child sexual abuse. And WP:LEAD agrees that it should be talked about. The lead is not talking about the content of that article; it is talking about child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia. Pedophilia is a broad term? All it covers is the mental disorder, child sexual abuse, and popular reference to any sexual interest in minors. That is as broad as it gets, and is why the lead covers all that.
You've added the wrong type of tag. This article is not slanted toward recent events in any way.
I ask that you stop reverting my heading for this discussion. Specific headings are useful for knowing what a discussion is about, and very helpful when looking for that discussion in the archives. As long as I am focusing on the content, and not the editor, there is nothing wrong with my heading. I hope you were not trying to bait me into WP:3RR. If you were, it should be noted that I was following WP:TALK, reverting your changes to a part of my comment (seeing as the title counts as part of my comment), and did not actually revert you more than three times after creating the title for my comment (as separate from yours). Your reverting it is also making me extremely upset, to the point that I don't want to discuss anything with you. It's best to agree to leave our headings alone; you won't touch mine, and I won't touch yours. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, looks like you have run into the owner of the page, who indeed tries to control every aspect of what can be changed, including talk page headers. As for the lead, it is very definitively biased towards one specific meaning, namely the medical operalization of the term. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Really, you are going to use your reply for that, for your usual insults and assertions after much, much discussion, instead of focusing on the matter at hand? Instead of commenting on whether or not pedophilia should be defined as "child friendship" in the lead? Can't say I'm surprised. Lihaas, however, was altering a part of my comment. I had every right to revert. And if Lihaas also reads the archives or looks over the article's edit history, Lihaas will know that I most certainly am not the only one who is responsible for the current lead, which presents BOTH medical and common use meaning of the term. People who have a problem with following or respecting WP:Consensus, as Kim does, will not find peace at Wikipedia.
In any case, I am actually working with Lihaas here, and shall continue to for as long as it takes to get this straight. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I wasn't talking to you. But now that you butted in, I will address you. Your whole sale reversion of everything including undisputed things is not acceptable and is a clear sign of ownership. Only after you were called on it, you reverted yourself on it. The edit warring about the title at this page is a another example of ownership. If it is not Flyer22's way. You invoke WP:TALK to justify your actions, but obviously fail to read the following: "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Well, it was changed back, so it was obviously controversial. But no, you kept edit warring on your own version. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
No, first of all, with the bad blood between us, you already know you shouldn't send me a 3RR warning yourself, as it cannot help but be biased. Second of all, you were talking about me with the intention of provoking me.
Only after I was called on it, I reverted myself on it, you say? Uh...no...I pointed out on Lihaas's talk page and above that I did not mean to remove the OR tags, which is why I reinserted them. "Obviously controversial" is your POV. I see nothing controversial about the heading I decided to use for my reply. Nor do I see anything 3RR about reverting changes to something that is a part of my reply. Lihaas didn't like it as his or her heading; I made it my own.
What you should be focusing on is Lihaas's concern about an OR addition you made, the one about pedophilia overlapping hebephilia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you prefer I go to the noticeboard next time? Just let me know. As for my intentions, no, I had no interest in getting to you. I just warned another editor of your ownership behavior, which you even admit to in your reply above (I made it my own.). Which you also displayed nicely with the current edit war. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If you had no interest in "getting into it" with me, you would have refrained from insulting me yet again on this very talk page, as you always do (instead of focusing on the article's content, which is something you are supposed to do, especially as an administrator; I could go to the noticeboard about that). As if you did not know I would reply to your slander. If it was more about warning Lihaas of villainous Flyer22, you could have done so on his or her talk page.
Anyway, Lihaas, as I stated on your talk page, let's continue. Hopefully, editors who are interested in weighing in on the article's content regarding this matter will comment soon. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I made my point towards Lihaas, and that you choose to respond was your choice. If you want to infer intent from that, I just explained it was not there.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
And no one familiar with our history is buying that. So, yes, go right back to editing your "Flyer22 owns the Pedophilia article" project page, which is nothing but slanting of what really happens here anyway. Lihaas and I will work this out on our own, or with editors interested more in improving the article than throwing out insults and holding grudges. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you want to say with "Lihaas and I will work this out on our own" that I am not allowed to contribute? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Kim, you already just addressed Lihaas's concern over the Etymology and hebephilia parts with your recent edits. By not addressing it on the talk page, I of course figured you were not interested in tackling the raised issues. You have, and good. I care not if you continue to weigh in here on the talk page, as long as your comments are not insults directed at me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Good. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it may be time to go to a noticeboard about Flyer22's WP:OWN issues on this article. This is just the latest of many, many examples that demonstrate Flyer22's behavior won't change unless this ongoing matter is escalated. Jokestress (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no WP:OWN issues. If I do, then so do the editors who formed consensus with me against you and Kim each time. All I have done is follow WP:Consensus each and every damn time while you have complained about it each and every damn time and tried to game the system. My reverting Lihaas's edits to the lead is in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Lihaas didn't even tag the article right when trying to bring wider discussion here. There are no WP:OWN issues to report about me. But whatever. I have my rebuttal case ready too if you want to go that route. You two will always focus on me first and foremost before focusing on what you should be focusing on -- the article content. You will not be banning me from this article, as you did Dr. James Cantor. But you can try. *Wink* Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no problem of ownership with Flyer22's edits on this article. She's participated collaboratively with many editors on this page over a long period and its content is the product of consensus both past and present. As can be seen above, in a situation that appeared tense at first, Flyer22 is yet again collaborating in a productive manner to work out the differences and improve the article. That said, this discussion has veered far off-topic, so, returning to the article content, I will enter a comment on the issue addressed in this section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To the questions brought up at the top of this section: I support the inclusion of the hatnote distinguishing the topic from Child sexual abuse, because the terms are different yet closely related. That is one of the primary uses of that type of hatnote. Regarding including "child friendship" in the lead as a definition of pedophilia, that is not at all appropriate. That can be included in the etymology section, if there are sources supporting it, but it is not a correct definition of the term as it is used in present day. The start of an article is where the most important central theme of the topic is presented. Supporting material such as how a term evolved into present day use is properly presented in later sections where it will not distract or confuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

In response to the above:
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep it here. Etymology goes with the history of the term, not actions. As for an etymelogy/term expansion in the section mention of the word "paedophile" as differentiated from "paedophilia" could go there.
Per the above comment, "child friendship" is in the article adn sourced. See the EXACT definition of the term, i dont mind moving it from the first sentence, but it is valid enough to put somewhere in the lead. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or weblog or police force to be limited to how it is "used in the present day" Wikipedia is an encylopaedia that then deals with the term as a whole, and the meaning is thus of crucial importance.
Read my comment about child sexual abuse. Its okay to have it in the lead, but it is not what the article is about. The article is about paedophilia, not child sexual abuse which has its own, it is not even an alternate meaning/redirect requiring bold text. To say paedophilia is blanketly abuse is POV. age of consent laws around the world would qualify as paedophilia in one country and not the other where people are then not abused but voluntarily accede to it. To state again: paedophilia is a psychological/sociological phenemenom (? for lack of a better tem), not a criminal law.
Well, put another tag on as you see fit.
You were also refactoring my comments on the page, which started this discussion.Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I am confused by your latter statement. You made a distinction between paedophilia and child sexual abuse, and yet you then used it like as though the two terms were synonymous ("would qualify as paedophilia in one country"), then stated it was a psychological phenomenon and not a criminal law. Just to be clear, "pedophilia" is the attraction, not an action. Would you concur with this? This confounding of these two concepts is a major problem and results in a ton of confusion during discourse and study of the subject.
Also let me also point out this issue before it comes up again: No age of consent law in any nation today allows a true pedophile (as defined by the DSM and ICD) to act on their impulses legally. For example, there is a widespread myth that Thailand has no age of consent and that it is a haven for pedophiles. Not true; the age of consent is 16 there. Enforcement simply isn't all that great. In Japan and Spain, the age is 12 and 13 respectively. This is at or above the statistical average age of puberty (also mentioned in the DSM) and therefore does not qualify as the target age for a true pedophile. Furthermore, the individual prefectures within these nations set the AOC at 16-18.Legitimus (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, I was not citing other stuff exists. To me, Etymology and History go together nicely. And while we're on the subject of other stuff exists, many other other people seem to think so too...and this isn't a case where I would call it simple ignorance and incorrect formatting. The history of the disease models section, for example, is more about the history of the term than the actions of child sexual abuse. And I am not sure in what way you are distinguishing pedophilia from a pedophile. Pedophilia is the disorder, and a pedophile is a result of the disorder; that is why those things belong in the lead. As I said before, I see no reason, and no valid reason, that "child friendship" needs to go in the lead. I would also like to see reliable sources, as Jack brought up above, most definitely calling it "child friendship."
As for the other part of this most recent comment from you, Legitimus just tackled that.
And as for changing your comments -- your title -- I did that once on purpose and once accidentally (by accident after one of your reverts). After I did it on purpose, and saw you object, I made the heading my own (yes, I am not afraid to say "my own," as it is a part of MY comment). You, however, kept reverting my title, citing weird reasons for why a discussion title should not be specified to what it is about. But we are both over that now, and there is no reason to dwell on it further (for more than one apparent reason). Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if i wasnt clear, that is what i meant. I thought Japan was 14 though, this is more surprising. But i meant what is legal in japan would be contrued as paedophilia somewhere else, and by the logic of some even abuse, thats preciesly why the clarification of difference is needed. ie- since it is the attraction and not the action then abuse wouldnt be as abuse is the action.
For the etymelogy and history part im not saying its inherently off but history of disease diagnosis models (where calling it a disease is also pov but thats another matter im not concerned about) is not "history" of the term as in the etymelogy. Perhaps remove the "of disease models" and just label it history and then merge the two? or have "disease models" as a subsection of history?
Not distinguishing the two at all, just adding the grammatical phrase of the term and the person. (forget the word for it, like someone from say England is English)
As for child friendship ill just cite this page itself: "The word comes from the Greek: παιδοφιλία (paidophilía): Greek: παῖς (paîs), "child" and Greek: φιλία (philía), "friendship". Paidophilia was coined by Greek poets either as a substitute for "paiderastia" (pederasty).[28]" where the definition is as such. its already pov to be accusatory, an encyclopaedia isnt an advocacy or criminal/legal body.
So to see where se stand now: only the bolding of "child sexual abuse" and the definition is in question? We can go ahead and go ahead and corect the history part? Im making a WP:Bold change on that, see if it works for you?Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Pardon, but you did it again. "what is legal in japan would be contrued as paedophilia somewhere else" is not a correct use of this term. Technically it's "what is legal in japan would be contrued as statutory rape somewhere else." It many interest many who read this talk page to know that Japan uses the DSM as their standard just like the US does. And per the DSM, it is only diagnosed as pedophilia if the patient is attracted to children who have not attained puberty (generally 12 and under). Diagnosis is not culturally relative when using this text. Law is relative (e.g. statutory rape and child sexual abuse). Social acceptance is relative (e.g. "robbing the cradle" "pervert" etc.). But the label of pedophilia is a standardized medical diagnosis, and it is the same across the board, in the US or Japan.
Also, I should point out that φιλία (philía) would probably be more accurately translated as "affinity" or "attraction" (either in a scientific manner like microaerophilia, or an emotional manner.) "Friendship" is a misleading way to phrase it, since microaerophile are not friends with low oxygen environments.Legitimus (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas I changed the title Definition to Etymology and definitions, since you have combined the two sections. Are you okay with this? If you would rather it go back to just being titled Definition, then I feel it should be plural (as in Definitions), since that section is dealing with more than one definition. As for the title "Disease models," that is not due to POV; that is due to the models actually being disease models. You already know I like specific titles or titles that describe sections as accurately as possible. "History" by itself does not work, because that section is not covering all the history of pedophilia; it is rather covering the history of that term. But then again, now that I think about it, the main title does now specify that these sections are more about the term. Thus...naming that subsection History is not too off the mark. "History of the term" works better for me than "History," though. "Disease models" was only recently added anyway. A constant inner battle I keep having is whether or not the Diagnostic criteria section should be a subsection of the section dealing with the term's history of disease models.
Regarding the "child friendship" part, I'm asking for reliable citations (one would do) that word it exactly as "child friendship," not us (the editors) putting those words together in that way. And as you can see from the article, someone has already asked that the text be verified. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Legitimus so you are in agreement that is not abuse then and we can at least de-bold from the lead if not take it out altogether. Also for the term i used freindship only as a direct quote from the article, if you feel the other is better then im fine with that. the main issue was to have the definition in the lead as it is not only a legal matter. (which, as the age of consent mentions, in some countries pre-puberscent wedding do happen and i can only imagine that they would be consummated.
for the rest: its a bit awkward to have "and" in the title, but it seems okay now, not point arguing on and on. I wouldnt mind it being plural either way. i agree with what you say about the history part, and wouldnt mind the diagnostic being a subsection, though wed have to make sure the whole article then isnt virtually a subsection.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, I think mentioning what pedophilia actually means, provided by good sources, is definitely something to be in the lead and would make it a bit less biased towards the medical operalization. I checked the age of consent laws and there are indeed a series of countries where the age of consent is 13 or younger, bringing them into the range of pedophilia that according to the DSM-IV is defined as 13 years and younger. (Lets not bring in the ICD-10 or the DSM-V proposals that have a higher age (14)). I think that is definitely something that will improve the articles lack of world-wide view on this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so weve got some consent on that. We just need to figure where to merge in the lead and perahps use the other suggestiong of the definition above.
Now i think the issue is of over emphasising the "abuse" part. (which is more focused on the requisite article)
seems like a missed flyer22 last comment. The cite request was made by myself if i remember properly, but someone above suggested a better alternative. that could do. This says "child loving" which we can break up to show "paedo" = child and "philia" = loving?Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, I'd say "sort of" to that. Yes, the word "pedophilia" does not mean "abuse" and a person acting within the national laws of Japan would neither be perpetrating abuse nor would meet the criteria of having pedophilia. However, a person in Japan desiring to have sex with children age 6-8 is still a pedophile, and if they act on it, they have committed abuse. The concepts are connected, because pedophilia is a drive to carry out an act that is medically harmful and illegal in all but the most lawless and backwards of nations (which I would like to hear the names of, if anyone knows).
Look, abuse has to stay in the hatnote for no other reason that so many people are morons who think the two terms are synonymous. The very purpose of putting in there is to divide these two topics and reduce how they are confounded.
Regarding "philia," again it would do it a disservice to translate it as "love." The Greeks had many words for "love," all with different implications, so I think my aforementioned suggestion still stands, since it is based on the source (a classic Greek Lexicon) that was already there.Legitimus (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, I think leaving the hatnote on abuse is a right thing to do. As for the other aspects, yes, lets see where we can add that properly.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think precisely because "readers are morons" and think its synanomous the distinction has to made. What we said above it that paedophilia is not the action, hence not abuse by itself only when pursued to such measures. Otherwise on its own its just a psychological aspect, and its not inherently about sex. As is other words "paedo-" or "-philia" would imply sex. Again im not saying to remove it altogether from the lead, it is now the main aspect and clearly warrants space even in the top of the lead, but not the first sentence with bold emphasis.
For the definition it seems weve got a new section below ill answer.(Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)).
Lihaas, I'm going to, like I always say, Legitimus is right about what pedophilia is. Pedophilia is not based on the age of consent or pubescents and post-pubescents. If it were, then what is a pedophile in one state would not be a pedophile in another sate, which is just silly. For example, one would be a pedophile for taking up with a 17-year-old in one state, but not a pedophile for taking up with a 17-year-old in another state. And the DSM-V proposals are for merging pedophilia with hebephilia to cover the overlap; it doesn't suddenly make hebephilia the same thing as pedophilia. Pedophilia by itself would still be used to diagnose people (according to Dr. James Cantor, who is a researcher behind the new proposals, and has also helped out with editing this article). Legitimus is absolutely correct that a pedophile (a true pedophile) has no true (notice I said "true") interest in adult-like bodies. And a pubescent 14-year-old girl, with breasts and everything else that resembles a woman, is not something that would tempt a true pedophile. Some 14-year-old girls are even done with puberty (post-pubescent). Most are damn near close to done. When it comes to hebephilia in relation to pedophilia, I feel that it always applies more to boys, considering so many 11 to 14-year-old boys still look prepubescent, which is no doubt why Karen Franklin mentioned girls more than she did boys when objecting to hebephilia being categorized as a disorder. As for the general view of pedophilia -- any sexual interest in children or adolescent minors -- that has been gone over time and time again (recently especially), and is already mentioned in the lead. It just doesn't come first in the lead after much, much debate. But then again, you are not arguing for that coming first in the lead or having more representation in the lead than it already does, are you? Your issues here have been the child sexual abuse part of the hatnote, the "child friendship" wording and the Etymology section, and I must say that it has been nice working with you...despite our initial, minor problems with each other. The child sexual abuse hatnote issue seems to have new WP:Consensus for being there, but I am still open to hearing your arguments for its removal. And, oh...the "verification needed" tag for the "Child" and "friendship" part was already there before your edits. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thought wed already clarified the term being 13-in usage. Which we also did not saying disavows the term "paedophile" being used even in that range, but it disallows the term abuse being used which is the crux of confusion over emphasising both. again, as said below im not against using the term abuse in the lead even (let alone the article which is not in doubt that it should be there somewhere), but the emphasis on abuse (as mentioned below) obfuscates the fact that in some parts of the world it may still be "paedophilia" by any stretch of the imagination but is "not" abuse by legal method or otherwise. that gives the article slant towards certain euro-centirc perceptions. (although the FLDS would stil argue otherwise that it is volutnary) There was also some community on a French Polynesian Island that it was volutnary and only become anissue when 20th century french missions started there.
okay, my bad ;)(Lihaas (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).
LOL, by speaking of the age of consent part, I wasn't speaking of the child sexual abuse part...unless you count the people feeling that an adult engaging in sex with someone under the age of consent is child sexual abuse. But, yes, all has been worked out between us now; glad we could do so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a few changes made, which i dont think are controversial as its just grammatical. I also asked ont he page if a term should be italicised for emphasis (but didnt do it yet)
Also this "Nepiophilia" was tagged as dubious. Really somethign like that needs an authoritative source. (who invented it? the term and/or the "action." i cant believe that exists. its not even theoretically possible?!)(Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).
Taking out mention of the inappropriateness of "child love" goes against the WP:Consensus reached below... So, yes, it is a controversial edit, more so due to what Legitimus, Jack and myself mentioned. That is why I will be reverting you on that. I already reverted you on the "common use" part of the lead, because mentioning that pedophilia is commonly applied to any sexual interest in children is a part of recent consensus, as well as long-standing consensus. And I am not seeing why you put the law tag on this talk page. We have already gone over that pedophilia is not based on the law. The law takes care of child sexual abusers who may be pedophiles, and people who have committed statutory rape. People are not sent to jail/prison for being a pedophile. The only way I see the law tag as being relevant is in relation to how law enforcement sometimes use the term pedophile, or how a pedophile may be sent to jail for the act of child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Common usage seems to have the added caveat, although that is still editoralising that it is "common usage." Id like to see the cite on that. Someone else has added the fact tag to the "inappropriate" part which is editoralising too.
Law tag is because the article deals with the legal aspect (although i wouldnt oppose removing the content to the requisite abuse page with the tag). See "In law and forensic psychology"
also, there was some legal case that reached the SC some tiem ago about fabricated child porn (ie- computer/drawing and no actual people). That should be mentioned in the section as such. I forget the ruling, i think the appeals court of the SC said that was legal.(Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).
There is no editorializing when it comes to the "common use" part. It is backed up by several sources showing that the way the term is used in the medical sense (sexual preference for prepubescent children) is not the way the term is generally used. It is often used to refer to child molesters (who may or may not be pedophiles) and statutory rapists. See the source for the "Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided" line. Also see the sources in the Child sexual abuse section which talk about how the term pedophilia is commonly confused with child molestation. And see the Fred Berlin source which specifically says that the term pedophilia generally applies to sexual activity/interest with/in minors (minor means any person under the age of majority, not just teenagers). We wouldn't have a Misuse of medical terminology section if the term was not commonly misused. As for the law tag on the talk page, I already stated that is likely the reason you added it. And I will take care of the "inappropriate" part, which was editorializing; it will be much easier to find reliable sources simply saying that "child love" is often only used by pedophiles these days. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
On a side note, per Wikipedia formatting, not everything in the lead needs to be sourced...as long as the same topic is sourced/covered elsewhere in the article. I ask that you look over the layout of Wikipedia articles more closely due to this fact, as well as due to the fact that not every line is going to have its source attributed immediately after it; the source may be a little ways over, as to not over-source. Also, plenty of sources, such as book sources without urls, are not going to be readily verifiable; this doesn't mean that the source is likely OR, a lie, or needs verification. It means that it is up to the reader to verify the source for themselves, since the source is provided to them after all. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
okay cool. although having now thoroughly read that paragraph i feel it doesnt flow (only grammar wise, not content) as in "The current DSM-" jumps out of nowhere. Also to move that para below the "Pedophilia was first formally recognized " para. (and then moved the 2nd para "According to the " between the 2). It would also help the flow to mention either before or after the "common usage" part (although i suppose the first para covers that). One can also remove the "in the US" part for giving an over-emphasis to one part of the world, leave it in the article i think/
this should also be at least a GA. nom time?(Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).
"The current DSM" part was added by Tijfo098, and it flows to me because it is right after the DSM definition of pedophilia. It's also there to tackle early pubescents being a part of the pedophilia definition, which is something that has been recently heavily debated here. It gives more neutrality to the wider definition of pedophilia, even though such a definition is technically incorrect if applying to clearly pubescent individuals. The "in the US" part is likely there because we only know that to be true for the US. I'm not sure the common use paragraph should come last; As I stated before, most of the lead has been heavily debated. The current format is a result of those debates. The common use part comes as early as we can address it (though it used to come second, and second could/would work too) without giving undue weight to what are essentially incorrect uses of the term, according to experts in those fields anyway. We also didn't put it last, because common use is so prominent and there are editors here who wanted common use represented more thoroughly in the article, besides what is stated in the Child molestation section.
I wouldn't say the article is ready for GA; with the exception of the current citation needed tag, and maybe the verification needed tag, it seems to be. But I feel it needs a little more polish first. A polish in what? Just all over; nothing too specific in my mind right now, except taking care of the tags and an expansion of the section on law enforcement. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
(to clear the indent) well ill be willing to expand and clean it if you do. i think youre more the expert but here and there i can help
fine ont he lead then, except the us thing because if we do get others (and at least w. europe is plausible) would we be listing it all? specifics are not really needed for a lead to summarise/paraphrase.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with you expanding this article. And it's the community's/public's article anyway, so I wouldn't be able to stop you regardless, LOL...unless the article was considered too huge and expanding it was seen as not wise due to WP:Consensus or if what you wanted to add was not relevant to this article, or has been banned before (through past discussions). So your expanding things would certainly be great. I'm just worried about the lead, due to what I stated above. The GA bit? It's something I would rather the regular editors be here for, such as Jack-A-Roe and Legitimus. Or even SqueakBox. Jack is fairly busy these days, and so am I (though not as busy as Jack). And the GA nomination process usually requires a lot of editing -- tweaking and changing things at the suggestion of the the GA reviewer; some of things suggested may be things that are the way they are through year after year of consensus. I'm just not up for the GA process right now. And I want to be fully available for that when the time comes. If you're okay with checking back in two months or maybe three in regards to nominating this article for GA, I'll be up for that (hopefully, I'll be a little freer).
Oh, and you kill me. Changing "common usage" to "popular usage." What do you have against the wording "common usage," LOL? It even goes with the followup "This common use application..." ...Oh well. I'm not too against it. I only ask that you don't change the followup to "This popular use application..." That part definitely sounds better without "popular" in it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool
i think im more free not than in 3 months, but id be willing to help on an expansion not being an expert on the subject (origin apart)(Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).

Edit request from BigStripyKitty, 4 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} replace"This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15-19), see Ephebophilia." at top of article with

This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in prepubescents, see Pedophilia. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15-19), see Ephebophilia.

BigStripyKitty (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Your proposed edit doesn't make sense, as it is self-referential, linking to itself in its hatnote. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology and random matters

The root of philia is φίλος, phílos, which means friendly love, affection or friendship. Not attraction or affinity. (the claim that the source says this is incorrect). It is different from romantic love, which has as a root amor, like in amorous. Scientific animal names are build often from the same words, like the term "Drosophila", meaning "dew-loving". Or Anglophile, which means English Loving. Phil, which has the same root, in general in English words means loving. So, I suggest we are going to follow that general usage, which is also how it is generally explained by other sources, such as http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pedophilia:

  • 1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos "loving." First attested in Havelock Ellis.

-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I confused a passage from another source. I would suggest friendly love to avoid confusion with romantic, which to English readers has strong tendency to be implied by the word "love" alone. The unsourced remark about poets coming up with the term as an alternate, I had nothing to do with. But, I found a great number of contradictory sources about it. Flaciere seemed to imply that "paidophilia," with the implication of "philia," was a completely platonic relationship in Ancient Greece, used for purposes of education (i.e. mentoring). Whereas others seemed to imply terms were interchangeable and that a sexual component was sometimes (but not always) involved. If anybody has a good source on this from a linguistic point of view, please post.Legitimus (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind pointing me to that source? I can agree with "friendly love" as avoiding the connotation with romantic love in this case seems to be valid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Legitimus this is exactly what i was trying to say above. the sexual aspect maybe predominantly in use, expecially today, but it is not always the component.
Anyway, so "child" and love" will be at least 2 of the words to post on the article and lead. The question if im right now is which adjective to add to love? We have 2 sources right now and can await another and/or work these at least in the temp.(Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)).
Hey, Lihaas, I replied again in the Response section above. I still don't feel that it should go in the lead, but if WP:Consensus is for it, I won't try to object. My only objection would be it coming first in the lead. If you have to place it anywhere, I would say it should go in the lead's final paragraph, which talks about the term's origin already. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel "child" and "love" (or "friendship") do not belong in the lead (that is, they should stay just in the history/etymology section) because it is far to literal and the meaning is now far removed from these ancient Greek roots. Think about the likes of hypochondriasis; the word in Greek literally means "relating to the upper abdomen" or "beneath the breast bone cartilage." We wouldn't put that in the lead because it's rather unimportant compared when you're trying to sum up the article text, and is somewhat irrelevant to how one would describe the condition right now in the times we live in.
One thing I should point out is that the term "child love" is a talking point of pedophile propaganda movements and pedophilic individuals a way to euphemize and obfuscate their intentions and behavior. Using such a line in such a prominent location risks being interpreted the wrong way.Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead should become far more nuanced and less focused on the medical operalization of this term. As such, I think the development of the term should be briefly mentioned in the lead.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Legitimus, the pedophile propaganda part is the main reason (likely the only reason) I objected (and still object) to "child friendship" (or "child love") being in the lead (especially as the lead-in definition), as noted above. You and I have been through pedophiles trying to inject such language into the lead before, not that I'm suggesting Lihaas is a pedophile. But since control over this article keeps being addressed, as well as perceived paranoia on our parts, I'm not even going to argue this request much this time. Leaving it up to WP:Consensus without much argument from me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You make a good point. The long hard road may have made Flyer and myself a little cautious. Perhaps sentence 2 of the lead? If it where similar to, for example, the lead of Coprolalia.Legitimus (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I like that idea, anf I think in this case, we could immediately add a sentence that many nowadays consider that inappropriate proving a direct inroad to changes over time with regard to this topic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course I would still rather it not be in the lead, but the suggestion sounds good. A good compromise indeed. And I was definitely thinking about a line regarding its inappropriateness these days. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with flyer that we can take the info out of the first sentence but put it somewhere in the lead.
Again, Wikipedia's intentions is not as some new-age dictionary, but precisely to incorporate various meanings, and thus if the article were to only encompass the modern context then it would be {{recentism}}, if it were to be controlled on the basis of "paedophilia advocacy" which i havent heard of anywhere outside the west (As weve discussed above) then it would be {{globalize}}
And im also fine with somethign along what KimvdLinde suggested to incorporate the evolution of the term and then mentions something abotu abuse (perhaps as it already is, we dont need to change anything) in the lead itself just without undue emphasis.
just took out the "this literal meaning" as the phrase already deals with the root word and the next sentence deals with what its come to mean.(Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).
Still, your removal of the inappropriateness of "child love" goes against the agreement formed here. It's there for a very valid reason, already gone over just a little above. This was/is our compromise with you. Flyer22 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I didnt remove "child love" anyhoo, see above.(Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).
I didn't say you removed "child love." Of course you wouldn't; you're the one who wants it there; the main one anyway. I said you removed the line about the inappropriateness of child love. And as I stated above, I will take care of it, because it is no secret to people who have studied every aspect of pedophilia (including relations to it, such as pedophile chat rooms) and organizations such as Perverted Justice that pedophiles generally use that wording. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I read an interesting (though quite amateur) study about the "first stage" and the legal aspect of starting with scantily-clad (which would not technically be illegal) and then moving on. Could probably mention something here in the diagnosis part but i dont the source.
also, if you are from the us, have you hard about that case in which fabricated child porn (ie- comp. generated images/drawings) were ruled upon by the court? although thats probably for said article instead.Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that animation showcasing child porn is a no-no as well. Some people have a huge problem with lolicon. I'm not sure on the specifics of anime or drawings featuring child porn, but it is child porn imagery all the same, which some pedophiles can become sexually aroused by. Might be worth a mention in the Diagnosis section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
last i heard at least one of the courts said it was okay because (to paraphrase) there werent actual children harmed, but we expected it to be appealed anyways ;)
Japan recently (and i mean this month or last month) cracked down on that too. should we put it here on the child pron article?Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You mean lolicon? If so, lolicon is dealing with pubescents and post-pubescents, not prepubescents, but then again...child porn can include pubescents and post-pubescents as well (so long as they are underage). Not to mention, lolicon deals with dressing girls up to look younger than they are -- to look prepubescent. I would ask the people who normally edit the Child porn article first. In other words, it should be brought up on the talk page there before any edits are made on that front, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There's already an article about this -- Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors -- found at the top of the Controversy section of the Lolicon article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Eureka! Found it, apparently Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition partially answered the query i sought.(Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).
Lihaas, what are you doing with edits like this? What you cited as POV is not POV at all. It is a fact, as attributed to pedophiles. The general public doesn't do this, doesn't sport these "brands," doesn't say "child love" or "child lover." Furthermore, the sentences made no sense after your edits. This is why Legitimus reverted you on that. And as for this line:

The term has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.

All of that is already sourced. We go over all these definitions with sources already; therefore, that line needs no source. I don't understand your edits sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
the OR tag you removed was from awhile back, the ref came in and the tag was left. no issues on that, just spotted in the mellee ;)
yeah, okay, i understand the "by paedophiles" part now.
the definitions are there, but the legal definition is not clarified in the lead in that it gives only reference to the us case (we cant list every country)
also, dont see why the lower section has to go, theres no hard-and-fast rule against [pop culture, it can even be exapanded.(Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).
It doesn't matter that we can't list every country. The point is that pedophilia has "a law enforcement definition." Therefore, it is not OR to say that it does. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff

Legitimus removed the In popular culture section for a valid reason. Such sections are generally discouraged. From what I have seen, there is a hard-and-fast-rule against them -- they generally should not be included because they are trivial and can go on forever. Unless they are a key to a subject's notability, such as in the case of James Dean, they are removed by most editors. Either that, or they are included in some other way -- without the In popular culture title. In the case of this article (Pedophilia), I am not even sure that the first instance you added has to do with a pedophile (and I do mean a pedophile in the medical, true sense). 12-year-old girls are not generally prepubescent. That is more so pervert or hebephilia territory, typically anyway. I am worried about that section being too trivial and including any "underage person incident" as pedophilia. Just because the person is underage...it does not make it pedophilia. This article is clear about that. The only reason I didn't remove the In popular culture section some minutes ago is because you made a case for it here on the talk page this time and other editors may agree with you. But just to make another point, pedophilia in the media articles -- such as Pedophilia in literature (boys) -- have been deleted or redirected over and over again.
As for the Child pornography section? That makes more sense where I recently put it -- after the Prevalence and child molestation section, not all the way down, after everything else, right before the Societal views section. And, yes, I feel that the Prevalence and child molestation section should stay right where it is -- after the information concerning how/when pedophilia develops, the biological associations and personality traits.
As for overlinking in the case of FBI, see WP:REPEATLINK. I was going for this exception: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no strong opinions about the ordering of the sections at the moment (I don't currently have time to read it through to get a feel). However, regarding popular culture, there are two things: First, the WP manual of style does indeed have rules discouraging or at least limiting the use of popular culture sections. A pop culture section in an article like this is extremely risky because the subject is not only inflammatory, but highly misused. Even reputable public figures and respected journalists make fools of themselves by throwing the term around. And there is the ever-present problem if distinguishing the act from the attraction. The two examples offered are also off the mark, I feel. Lolita technically involves a peri-pubscent girl, and the protagonist seems to retain interest in her even after she completes puberty. Humbert is a predator (due to his behavior) and likely a hebophile, but not really a pedophile. The Virgin Killer album, I have not seen in many years, but if I recall correctly the subject is teenaged, not prepubescent. Further, that is child pornography, not pedophilia.Legitimus (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The Virgin Killer killer article states the girl as prepubescent in the lead, and, looking at the cover, the girl looks prepubescent to me (but even if she isn't, she looks it and I would say she would still be a target of true pedophiles because of this), which is why I changed it to "prepubescent" in this article. Perhaps she was one of those rare, prepubescent teenage girls? An instance of delayed puberty? If not, then I was definitely wrong to change it from "underage" to "prepubescent" and the Virgin Killer article needs to be corrected on the prepubescent issue as well. I did wonder how they had legally pulled off having a prepubescent girl pose for the cover. But a part of me also wondered if it was a drawing. Flyer22 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. The Cover art section, which is sourced, says she was age 10. She looks like a budding pubescent, having looked at the picture a few more times, but I suppose there is no way to identify whether or not she was truly prepubescent at the time. I believe the whole point is that she looked prepubescent and was only 10, even though the average age for girls to hit puberty these days is 9 or 10. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok. (I am not permitted to load that page or the image where I am right now) But still, it's child pornography, not relevant to pedophilia directly unless the person who made the album cover was a known pedophile. I'm worried about such a section rapidly degenerating, like if people started putting Michael Jackson or Mark Foley in there.Legitimus (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The cover of Virgin killer is not child pornography; the girl is not being abused or in a sexual pose. It's been determined not to be classified by pornography by several courts internationally from what I've heard; hence why we have the image on wikipedia without having legal / ethical problems with it. That makes it all the less relevant to the pedophilia article though; not quite sure why this is being discussed here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Giftiger wunsch. Thank you for continuing to weigh in. The Virgin Killer instance is being discussed here because, as stated above, we are not sure if it should really be an "in popular culture instance" of pedophilia (the same most definitely goes for the Lolita example), or that we should have an In popular culture section at all. For example, I'm pretty sure that all the "In the media" articles about pedophilia were redirected to Wikipedia:Child protection due to being seen as promoting pedophilia in a way -- showing pedophiles where to look to find material involving prepubescent (and sometimes peripubescent, as in "about to be" or "very early pubertal") children. Because of this, that's another reason I wonder how valid it is to have an In popular culture section in this article. But from what The Virgin Killer article states, it has related to pedophilia in some ways. So perhaps it should stay? Do you even feel we should have an In popular culture section in this article? Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see; I hadn't read the whole thread so I had missed the relevance, sorry about that. In general, "in popular culture" sections tend to be an excuse to collect trivia in a disjointed way. That seems to be the case here; anything deemed to be relevant would be better integrated elsewhere and in a more appropriate place. In particular, the relevance of Virgin killer to the article isn't actually explained in the article either. In what way was the virgin killer cover related to paeodphilia though? Was the album meant to be some sort of statement against paedophilia, or is the link a matter of previous controversy over whether or not the album cover should be considered child pornography? If the former, can we reliably source it? And is it significant enough to warrant mention in this article? If the latter, it would seem to have much greater relevance to Child pornography. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. LOL, I definitely didn't expect you read this whole section. Only the part relating to the In popular culture issue. But that's okay. You have offered really good and sound advice on this. And the latter part of your reply is surely a way to make the In popular culture section better if we keep it. Things relating to pedophilia in culture and media would better serve in the General aspect of the Societal views section, in my opinion. Not every instance, of course, just a summary of some of the most prominent ones. But I guess we'll see how this develops. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

this article is full of Misuse of medical terminology. The words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" to refer to sexual child abuse, preferat for prepubecnt sexual partners. and for violation of statutory rape laws 

Already have [[[sexual Child abuse]], Pedophilia (psychiatry), Paedophilia (sexology)
Read the recent archived discussions for why this article is "full of misuse of medical terminology." It only includes the misuse issue in a few parts, and for valid reasons gone over ad nauseam. The quick answer is that some people define the word differently, in the same way that some people define sexual intercourse, virginity, and other terms differently. This doesn't mean there should be articles to cover each alternate definition of a term. Or even one alternate definition of a term. We generally cover the alternate definitions in one article, unless the alternate definition is significant, distinct enough to have its own article. In the case of pedophilia anyway, the different definitions, such as the one applying to child sexual abuse, are considered incorrect...by experts and some members of law enforcement (such as the FBI). Pedophilia (psychiatry)/Paedophilia (sexology) are pretty much the same thing. There is no significant distinction between the two. And having a different article on the same subject just to address the British spelling is not how things are done at Wikipedia either; that is why you were reverted by editors on that front. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Splitting the article has been discussed previously, but most editors prefer to keep it compact in one singhle article, which because of that will cover the full breath of the topic. This is not a problem as far as I can tell. Limiting the article to a single aspect would indeed require to have multiple articles, but I doubt that you can find a consensus here to just do that.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It could probably benefit from a little tweaking and copyediting, but largely I agree. --Errant (chat!) 15:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.223.172.244, 4 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Article is redundant. Continents should be merged with

and this page should be a redirect to Pedophilia_(disambiguation) 66.223.172.244 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous definitions of the cut-off age

It should be noted that previous definitions of pedophilia actually gave the cutoff year around 13, As such, the DSM V would move the goalposts by one year if hebephilia is defined as a preference for 11-14 year olds, and included in pedophilia. I propose adding this information to the main article.

Sources:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Pedophilia?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Pedophilia&sa=Search#922

I'm not sure what you mean. First, the article already says "(generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary)" and has a link to the Hebephilia article, as well as names the age range for it. Second, hebephilia does not suddenly become pedophilia if the proposal for pedohebephilic disorder is accepted. Third, that second source is an old copy of this Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, pedohebephilic disorder is already mentioned...both in the lead and in the lower body of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct, but where the cutoff age for pedophilia was originally states as "generally 13 or under" it changed to be defines as fully 13 & 14 are included in pedophilia, according to my reading. That would mean where Ephebophilia was previously defined as "generally 13 and above" it has been upped to a firm 15 and above, according to what I'm seeing.
Either way, it seems as if you would want to point this out, because it is correct information. Previously 13 was kind of a borderline point that could go either way. Under the proposed changes, 13 & 14 would be included in pedophilia by virtue of moving the cutoff year and renaming it "pedophillic hebophillia." Previously pedophillia wasn't even attached to 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequel Duke (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You're probably only speaking of the age ranges, but I want to again point out that hebephilia would not become pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Look at the pedohebephilic disorder proposal. It clearly still distinguishes between pedophiles and hebephiles. What pedohebephilic disorder does is encompass both, as well as people who can go for either prepubescents or early pubescents -- which is why it is called "pedohebephilic" and not "pedophilia." I'm not sure where you concluded that ephebophilia was previously defined as "generally 13 and above," but the lead and lower part of the article makes clear the pedohebephilic disorder information you are speaking of. The lead, for example, says The current DSM-5 draft proposes to add hebephilia to the diagnostic criteria, and consequently to rename it to pedohebephilic disorder. So, surely, people can conclude what age ranges will be included, since hebephilia is linked at the top in the distinguish tags (where its age range is also clarified) and elsewhere. True, pedohebephilic disorder would include age 14. But even before this proposal, a 14-year-old boy who is prepubescent (though most people are not still prepubescent at age 14) could be tempting prey to a pedophile as well. Or one who looks prepubescent.
On a side note, remember to sign your posts by using four tildes (those squiggly lines I've noticed you using in your edit summaries). Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Webster's link you provided is nothing more than a cut and paste from an older version of this very article on wikipedia. I hate it when that happens. Anyway, I think you are getting too caught up in hard numbers. When a psychiatrist is diagnosing this as a disorder, it's an overall assessment of the types of people the patient is attracted to. It is more a factor of their physical development, not their numerical age. Much of this argument over numbers is just politics (for example because laws must often use ages, not assessments of development).Legitimus (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I also pointed out the Wikipedia copying above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right on the dsm5.org link you provided:

Under "Proposed Revision":

"The work group is recommending this disorder be renamed from Pedophilia to Pedohebephilic Disorder."

Under "Rationale":

[5] "We propose that the diagnosis of pedophilia (the erotic preference for children in Tanner stage 1) be revised to include hebephilia (the erotic preference for children in Tanner stages 2–3) and that the revised entity be named Pedohebephilic Disorder."

"There is another important point to be noted. A change from Pedophilia to Pedohebephilic Disorder in DSM-V would primarily affect the precision of diagnosis, not the number of people being diagnosed. In DSM-IV-TR, the definition of “child,” as an erotic object, is someone “generally age 13 years or younger.” In the definition proposed for DSM-V, this guideline would be moved only one year, to age 14 years or younger."

Looks to me like it confirms everything I just said. Sequel Duke (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Pedohebephilic Disorder would not include 14-year-olds, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean, unless you feel that the proposal is saying that pedophilia includes pubescents. I stated that the proposal is not simply about pedophilia alone; it's not saying hebephilia is pedophilia; it's saying "let's create a category that includes pedophilia and hebephilia." It's not "pedophilia" anymore. It's "pedohebephilic." If the proposal were saying that the two are the same thing, then there would be no need to distinguish. And they do distinguish:
Specify type:
Pedophilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Prepubescent Children (Generally Younger than 11)
Hebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Pubescent Children (Generally Age 11 through 14)
Pedohebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Both
If they were saying that pedophilia and hebephilia are the same thing, "pedophilic type" would be used to describe both. The diagnosis also would not need to be renamed to "Pedohebephilic Disorder"; it would remain "pedophilia." The word "pedohebephilic" is clearly a combination of the two -- meaning pedophiles and hebephiles. In fact, that should probably be stressed in this article, that the proposed diagnosis would still acknowledge a difference between pedophilia and hebephilia.
Again, I was not disputing your statements that Pedohebephilic Disorder includes 14-year-olds. I was only saying that the proposal is not claiming pedophilia and hebephilia are the same thing, and that the age range inclusion is clear from the lead and the lower article. What you want made clear is already clear. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"unless you feel that the proposal is saying that pedophilia includes pubescents"

That, in a nutshell is what I'm seeing it does. Sequel Duke (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And that is, in a nutshell, what I'm seeing it doesn't, per my statements above. The proposal still clearly distinguishes between pedophilic individuals and hebephilic individuals, which should signal to you that they are not saying the two are the same thing (overlap aside). I also point out that one of the researchers of the proposal, James Cantor, is a Wikipedia editor here (see User:James Cantor), and that he still distinguishes between pedophiles and hebephiles, as recently on the Lolicon article, and has made clear that the proposal is not saying pedophilia and hebephilia are the same thing. The proposal is simply combining pedophilia and hebephilia into a new category called Pedohebephilic Disorder. But you are free to ask Dr. Cantor about this himself if you want. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally paedophilia is an interest in prepubescent children. The statement that the "child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles" may be part of a legal definition somewhere, but isn't logically correct. That would mean a 14 year old interested in a 9 year old would be a paedophile, but if he or she was 10 it would not be paedophilia. A teenager or adult interested sexually in a 9 or 10 year old child is a paedophile, whatever the age difference.

JohnC, people can only be diagnosed as pedophiles if they are age 16 or older. The lead currently says "in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary)" before it says "The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles." (I should go ahead and make this clearer in the lead by adding "16 or older" to "adolescent pedophiles.") But, further, pedophilia is accurately defined by the preference. A 16-year-old having a sexual "interest" in an 11-year-old may or may not be a pedophile, as long as the child is prepubescent or looks it; but a 16-year-old who sexually "prefers" prepubescent 11-year-olds and children younger than that is most definitely a pedophile. Also note that it is stressed in the ICD-10 and DSM section that ongoing sexual relationships between a 12-13 year old and a late adolescent are advised to be excluded. On a side note: I also wish that more people would remember that this disorder starts in adolescence. People don't suddenly become a pedophile in adulthood (a child molester? Yes. Sometimes, as sexual abuse has to do with actions and is not always about pedophilia. But becoming a pedophile in adulthood? No. Not unless we're speaking of biological adulthood -- i.e. adolescents).
That said, JohnC, remember to sign your name when you post. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A slight issue in wording

A common problem in this article is that it confuses -being a disorder- with -being classified as a disorder-, the latter makes a much weaker claim. The stronger claim would require far more than the DSM and ICD can offer in terms of evidence, which means that when you use that form in the article, you are doing original research that goes far beyond what science can tell us today. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Pedophilia is termed a disorder, and is classified as a disorder. There is no original research going on here. In fact, the medical consensus is that it "is a disorder." Further, I'm not seeing how you are distinguishing "being a disorder" from "being classified as a disorder." Being "classified as a disorder" is what determines whether something is a disorder or not. Otherwise, it would just be an opinion made by the general public. And please do not bring homosexuality into this, as many who make this argument do. Yes, homosexuality was a disorder to many people at one point too, which is why it was classified as one. It is no longer classified as one, not by medical consensus at least. Pedophilia is, and I don't see that changing, except for those wanting to separate the paraphilia from the paraphilic disorder. If you are suggesting that the lead, for example, state "As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically classified as a psychiatric disorder," or that we use the word "classified" for any instance that calls it a disorder, I don't see why we should. We are going by reliable sources. And the lead already says, "As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children..." It says "typically defined," which is not that different than saying "typically classified." But the only reason we even included "typically" is because of a few sources not going by "the preference" part of the definition in regards to prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. I see you've been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing at other articles. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Early childhood experiences section

I cleaned up the edits made by Ephert.[10][11] But I am worried about the following line in the Early childhood experiences section: "In support, he cites instances in societies where sex between boys and men is "very common" and notes that the boys grow up to like adult women and produce children of their own."

Is the source talking about grown men and prepubescent boys, or grown men and pubescent/post-pubescents boys? Because there is usually a difference between pedophilia and pederastry. Pederastry is about men with adolescent/teenage boys. And I am certainly not aware of any society where sex between grown men and prepubescents boys is acceptable. It may be common, and "very common," as the source says, and as pedophilia/child sexual abuse is common all over the world, but that is another matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I myself has some minor concerns about all the material that was added, in that it is all based on a single source. I have a full text copy of Quinsey now, and am reviewing it in comparison to the assertions added.
The paper does contain language to the effect, in fact it's almost exact "In societies where sex between boys and men is very common, the boys take wives and have children as adults (Herdt, 1984)"
The source being used by Quinsey for this assertion, Herdt, is a book called "Ritualized homosexuality in Melanesia." It is a 409 page book, but my skimming seems to indicate that "boys" are used to mean "late adolescent." This would make sense as, to my knowledge, there was never a culture were prepubertal children were openly acceptable sex partners.
Quinsey's point, I think, was intended to be that (let's call it what it is) sexually abused males rarely grow up to be pedophiles. He even says as much in later sections.
Now all that said, I'm a little concerned about two things. First, Quinsey himself may not be a great primary source to use in such an extensive manner, because this paper is largely an editorial (though peer-review) and he at one point mentions he thinks female pedophiles are "non-existent." The second issue I have is the use of the term "sexual orientation." This term tends to be a covertly or unintentionally loaded phrase, in that modern layperson culture (this article's target demographic) equates this term almost exclusively with homosexuality and heterosexuality only. There have been deliberate efforts in the past by pedophiles to push for the use of this term in regards to pedophilia in an effort to piggyback on the growing acceptance of homosexuality. Ironically, similar efforts have been seen by conservatives to tag a negative association to homosexuality.
Btw, anyone wanting a pdf copy of Quinsey, send me an e-mail.Legitimus (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ephert was recently accused of WP:Synthesis at Talk:Physical attractiveness by another editor (and Physical attractiveness is yet another article I work on). I don't won't to accuse him of such here as well, but I don't see what "sexually abused" late adolescent males rarely growing up to be pedophiles truly has to do with pedophilia. Late adolescent males choosing to engage in sex with older men is not the same thing as little boys being sexually abused at all. Age of consent varies, and adolescent males are permitted to have sex with older men all the time. If it were truly seen as damaging for late adolescent males to have sex with older men, the age of consent would not be ages 16 to 18 in so many states/countries. It is always considered abuse if the male is prepubescent. The text there now makes it seem as though little boys who are sexually abused generally grow up to be well-adjusted individuals who don't repeat the cycle of abuse. While most may not repeat the cycle of abuse, they certainly usually suffer from mental/emotional issues. And the source, as you pointed out, is not even talking about little boys. It should therefore either be edited to show this or removed completely. And as for your concerns, Legitimus, they are mine as well. If you proceed to remedy this through editing, know that you already have the go-ahead from me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I changed it to this. It says "adolescent boys" instead of "late adolescent boys," though, since the latter makes it seem even more irrelevant. I consider late adolescence to mean 16-19. And if the source is speaking of those age ranges, some of these boys are considered fully grown already. Either way, I consider the information irrelevant. It's a pretty weak argument to say that 16 to 19-year-olds with older men proves that sexually abused boys don't become pedophiles. And judging by Ephert's retracted comment, we have his go ahead to remove the material as well (if his feelings on that still stand). But even if we don't remove the whole section, the mention of adolescent boys and older men should go. I'll leave it there for others to decide, however. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


I know this has been brought up many times before, but this artical shows extreme bias.

Pedophilia is the only paraphilia I've seen on wikipedia to be described as a 'a psychiatric disorder'. Look at stigmatic-eligibilic paraphilia, these are often consided 'wrong' in one way or another but are they listed as 'a psychiatic disorder'? What makes gerontophilia and necrophilia different to pedophilia?

It IS a sexual attraction, that is obvious, and sexual attractions are normal.

It is clear that this artical is just following stigmatized opinion, it is a discrace to Wikipedia, please remove this opinionated 'information'. Robo37 (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to argue a matter of politics on the subject-matter itself. That is not what wikipedia is for. This article is written based on the reliable sources that exist on the subject, and reflects that information. The sources say it is a psychiatric disorder, so that is what the article says. Unless you have a reliable source of value equal to or greater than the established international medical standards this article is based on that provides a counter claim, there is nothing to discuss.Legitimus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Legitimus is right. Further, plenty of sexual attractions are NOT considered normal by the medical community (or general community, for that matter), and pedophilia (which is more about the preference anyway) certainly isn't. I'm not seeing any disgrace here. People steadily trying to get this article to simply classify pedophilia as a sexual preference/sexual orientation is what could be argued as a disgrace. After we call it a psychiatric disorder, it is clear that it is considered one from just looking at the rest of the article anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
As a pedophile, I say telling me I have a mental disorder after every other kick down the gutter is a disgrace :( To me it's a way of "affirming" that a pedophile is less of a person than somebody with a "proper" sexuality. Even having said that, I agree that Legitimus is right. Wikipedia is a place to record accepted medical definitions, not change them. However much one might like to do so. 86.132.223.127 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
'As a pedophile', WTF? Wikipedos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.228.249 (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Child Pornography Collecting

While I understand that the paragraph concerning the collection of child pornography is notated and has a source, there is no opposing viewpoint that suggests other reasons for a person to have a collection. There doesn't appear to be any single firm consensus amongst the psychiatric and forensics communities about the reasons that those prosecuted have large collections of child images. The following section states the opinion of an FBI agent, who is not a qualified medical doctor, but someone who is trained to find and prosecute those committing this crime:

Viewers of child pornography who are paedophiles are particularly obsessive about collecting, organising, categorising, and labeling their child pornography collection according to age, gender, sex act and fantasy.[46][47] According to FBI agent Ken Lanning, "collecting" pornography does not mean that they merely view pornography, but that they save it, and "it comes to define, fuel, and validate their most cherished sexual fantasies." An extensive collection indicates a strong sexual preference for children, and if a collector of child pornography is also a paedophile, the owned collection is the single best indicator of what he or she wants to do.[47]

There are a large number of persons who have been convicted of child pornography who have been found to have thousands of images on discs and on their pc. The article states that all of these images are not necessarily viewed, only downloaded. From what I have personally read, following convictions and laws, one can yield a very large amount of images in one download click when they have accessed a site, either paid or free. There is no deliberate choosing of images to keep, everything is mass downloaded on access. The end user has no idea what is included in the download. Despite the fact they are choosing to download potentially illegal images, they almost have no idea as to the types of images, ages of the victims, or the severity of the scenario photographed. The law does not take this into consideration when prosecuting. This is not a moot point. These are heavily biased sources, as both the agent and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have an agenda that requires them to protect the public from those who harm children. The article does not discuss other motivation for the crime of possession, such as those who are sexually indiscriminate in their quest for sexual stimulation.[1]

The internet and availability of child pornography also becomes an issue. With pornography so readily available at the click of the mouse, and with sites that are less than reputable, combined with the world wide reach the web has, it's necessary to consider the new means of media when discussing possession. Technology has played a big part in the perceived abundance of presumed 'pedophiles". Curiosity, combined with availability, grays the line between normal sexual urges and the 'abnormal'.

Because there isn't a consensus in the scientific community about the reasons why those prosecuted and/or convicted have such a large collection of images, opposing viewpoints should be presented.

While I think I understand what you are getting at, you will need sources for those opposing viewpoints, just as the sections you are are concerned about already have.
Another thing is that the psychiatric community has studied the relationship between collecting child pornography and being a a true pedophile. In Seto et al. 2006, Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia, the research team performing psychiatric testing on hundreds of criminals over a 9 year period. They found that child porn offenses were actually a better indicator of being a pedophile than actually molesting a child.
That probably comes as a shock to most people. Most people think child molester = pedophile without exception, but that isn't true. Holmes (2009) Profiling Violent Crime (one of several manuals used by the FBI) explains that there are several types of child molester, including the Sexually Indescriminate Type (a person with severe sexual addiction or general antisocial personality who just doesn't care who they hurt) and the Naive/Inadequate (often mentally retarded and don't know what they are doing). Neither one is a pedophile.
Now, the forensic process where a person's computer is examined in a child porn case is not a simple "is porn on the drive?" It's much more in-depth. The information on the drive is carefully analyzed to figure out how it got there. In all child porn cases where I have been observing at trial, the computer tech always explains how the defendant had the material intentially placed in a specific storage folder (not the browser cache), had then organized it in some way, and that the file tags indicate they were added gradually over time, not all in one chunk. This makes it pretty clear it was not accidental.Legitimus (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
[Edit: apologies, I had not noticed the Wikipedia policy on self-identification as a pedophile. I thought this would be constructive.] What I am about to say is to an extent "original research", however I hope it might be a prompt to find published research confirming this. I believe it is important to be careful in this regard given a certain "social censorship" on scientific material suggesting pedophiles to be sexually normal (apart from the object of attraction).
As a pedophile myself I have spoken to many other pedophiles as an equal, to a certain extent eliminating barriers that might be present in a legal situation. Some of these have have admitted to using child pornography, more of whom claim not to use it at all. A very small number have admitted to having large collections of child pornography. There is evidence that such self reporting has been accurate, considering the results of a recent string of indiscriminate police investigations. As far as I am concerned, there is no mystery to this. It is primarily a means of sexual release. The tendency towards particularly large collections and sharing communities is something that I believe arises due to the lack of sexual expression in general, resulting in a sense of social and sexual inadequacy. Additionally, some people have an intense need to fulfil sexual desires, others do not. Some people live in communities whereby sexuality and relationships have great social importance, others not so much.
It comes as no surprise to me that collections of child pornography are stronger indications of pedophilia than child molestation. 1. If one wishes to molest a child without a specific sexual attraction, then clearly there is something about the physical situation (such as a power trip etc), that is causing that behaviour, that will not be fulfilled with images. 2. If one merely has a sexual attraction to children, and is otherwise a reasonable person, that does not make the individual insensitive to abuse. I would argue that numbers of downloads small in comparison to the global rate of trading (i.e. basically anything one could ever individually achieve) does not measurably contribute to victimisation. Downloading of child pornography is, therefore, a far smaller mental hurdle to overcome in this regard. It believe there is certainly consensus that "child molestor" does not necessarily imply "pedophile", and likewise "pedophile" does not necessarily imply "child molestor". 86.132.223.127 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you're the first pedophile user I've encountered that is (so far) trying to talk sense instead of spout off fallacious propaganda arguments (such people are the very reason we had to put that policy in place). Indeed some of the things you mentioned are supported by the formal research. Others, well, they probably haven't found a reliable way to study them yet.
It could be argued that some of the pedophiles you mentioned are not really pedophiles. From certain schools of thought in psychiatry, in order to have a sexual preference, you have to have some kind of action directed towards achieving it. In fact with the DSM criteria, it actually requires the person to act on it (molestation, exhibitionism, pornography directed at sexual gratification) or suffer from distress. So the people you spoke with might refer to themselves as pedophiles, yet they would fall outside the medical criteria and therefor would not be considered pedophiles. There are other pathologies that might make someone identify as one, yet not really be one, but that's a complex explanation and would be determined person by person.
Know at least that to some of us editors (especially those of use who are professionals), being a pedophile is no more stigmatized than high cholesterol is to a cardiologist. Running with that analogy, if you start insisting your LDL is well within normal limits (despite the lab results) and you should eat bacon cheeseburgers ever day, then we might get kinda pissed off.
In interpreting the above, what really matters is how 86.132.223.127 defines "paedophile". I would imagine that is "somebody with a sexual attraction to children". I think there is a simple explanation why many would identify as "paedophiles", even if technically they don't have to: people like to pigeon hole themselves, particularly in a society that increasingly encourages complete freedom to self-identify. For the lack of any other word, "paedophile" will be used. Of course, terms such as "Boylover", "Girllover" or "paedosexual" exist. But since these tend to be interpreted as some sort of slipperiness, it's a choice between mentally ill or underhand - a bit of a lose-lose. Personally, I find the medical definitions and the direction they are heading ludicrous, not to mention socially destructive. But, this is not a debate to be had here ;p Gnathan87 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't be a pedophile and be less than 18

This article says pedophiles have to be 16 and older that's not true they have to be 18 and over. It also says that its an attraction to only a child 13 or younger. I think a 30 year old having sex with a 16 year old would be pedophilia though so shouldn't it also include that any adult 24 or older being attracted sexually to anyone 17 or younger would be pedophilia. --99.172.129.166 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly the same IP who went against WP:Reliable sources/laws at the Talk:Ages of consent in North America page, insisting that you were correct because other people had told you so: [12][13] And as seen in those two links, your sections were removed twice by Legitimus. The same will happen here if you continue to insist that you are right in the face of reliable sources/facts. Even so, I will explain to you once in detail:
People 16 and older can be diagnosed as pedophiles because they are no longer biological children and are generally post-pubescent; this means they have adult bodies and largely adult minds. A 16-year-old human male wanting to have sex with little children, a 6-year-old girl, for example, is not normal. That is essentially a man being sexually attracted to a little girl. The "16 or older" bit is backed up by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). And because people 16 and older generally have adult bodies, people 18 and older being sexually attracted to them is not pedophilia. True pedophiles sexually prefer child-like bodies. More accurately, they want prepubescent bodies. Meaning people who have not hit puberty or at least do not look as though they have hit puberty. If we go by your definition of pedophilia, that a sexual attraction to anything under 18 is pedophilia, then how would you categorize an 18-year-old boy with a 17-year-old girlfriend? Idiotic to call him a pedophile, isn't it? And for that very same reason, it is not pedophilia for a 30-year-old man to be sexually attracted to/have sex with a 16 or 17-year-old girlfriend. There is no substantial difference between 16 and 18-year-olds. To say that a person has a mental disorder for being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old but not for being sexually attracted to an 18-year-old is absurd. Really, can you actually tell the difference between 17 and 18-year-olds? How is an attraction to one pedophilia but not the other, when both are biological adults and look to be the same age? That is my point. And that is why pedophilia is not based on age of consent or age of majority. If you don't understand that, cannot grasp that and continue to insist that you are right, then I don't know what to tell you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think most people would agree with you. I presented this scenario to my friend and she said "I think it would be way more creepy for a 30 year old to be with a 16 year old than for a 16 year old to be with an 8 year old" I'm not neccesarily saying I agree with her but most people would agree with her and regard a 30 year/16 year old sexual relationship as pedophilia and would say a pedophile has to be 18 or over. And language is determined by how its commonly used so it would be apropriate to call it pedophilia if most people call it that. --99.162.58.46 (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Common use is covered in the lead. But defining terms is first and foremost about defining them accurately, not about defining them in the way most people would. Otherwise, the first line of the Vegetarianism article would define vegetarianism as including the consumption of seafood (instead of excluding it). This is especially true in the cases of medical topics, such as pedophilia. As I stated, we address the common use definition in the lead (intro). We even have the Pedophilia#Misuse of medical terminology section to address this. But the medical definition (which is what pedophilia actually is) is also in the lead, because it is not appropriate to define pedophilia only by its common use meaning when there is a medical definition and experts say that the medical definition is the correct one. If you read the article, you will see that experts also distinguish between child molesters and pedophiles. While most people would call any child molester (18 and up) a pedophile (and I have often done so), experts state that not all child molesters are pedophiles.
The bottom line is that you are wrong that pedophiles under 18 cannot exist, because biology and reliable sources say you are wrong. You can believe what you want, and you will, but the reliable/authoritative sources on this disagree with you and the general public.
As for your friend and others, you need to tell her and them to use common sense. You need to propose to them the same questions I proposed to you: Would they call an 18-year-old boy with a 16 or 17-year-old girlfriend a pedophile (as such relationships often take place in high school)? How can a person have a mental disorder for being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old but not for being sexually attracted to an 18-year-old, when both are biological adults and look to be the same age? Common sense, my friend.
Like I stated before, if you continue to press that people under 18 cannot be pedophiles, this section will likely be removed. Because you are wrong. Accept it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
My money's still on troll, because there is stupidity, and then there is active anti-intelligence. It's like Celebrity Jeopardy where it transcends dumb to the point where they are smart enough to be dumb on purpose. This poster has been making similar off-the-wall posts in other talk pages too.Legitimus (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that I thought about it I think I was wrong and what I originally thought was more correct and regret making this post. I'd like to delete it by mutual agreement. My sister and me had argued about this and she convinced me of what I said now but I see I was wrong. Let's delete this section by mutual agreement. --99.162.50.219 (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I want the section to remain for archive. If anyone else comes to this talk page saying things similar to what you stated, we can point that person to this discussion. And, generally, I like all discussions being archived, instead of removed as though they never existed. The exceptions are the offensive or "BLP violation" discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You said yourself this section would likely be removed if I continued adding to it and now even I think I was wrong. I only believed this because of what my sister told me she'd been taught at her school. I see I was wrong now. I'd rather just delete the section honestly I see it was stupid to add it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.50.219 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I said it would be removed if you continued to insist that you are right. You haven't. I've explained why it should stay. Once its archived, it will be off this talk page. I could go ahead and archive it now, but I'm thinking that would disrupt the archive bot, I'm not sure. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Disorder?

I do not see why Pedophilia is labeled as a disorder. This seems incredibly silly. A sexual preference should not be considered a disorder as long as an individual does not act on it and is cognizant of the differences of thinking and doing. I play video games where I kill people and i would never think of acting on it.

108.32.12.207 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an extremely fallacious argument. For one, the medical diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, if you actually bothered to read this article, require that the person have recurrent fantasies or urges to have sex with children, combined with either distress or actually acting on it. Another matter is that a lot of the neurological evidence suggests that pedophiles, in addition to these sexual preferences, have impulse control problems and/or cognitive delusions.
Furthermore and more important, this is an an encyclopedia that simply reports the facts as they are. It is moronic to try to argue this point here because we as editors do not have the broad authority to change medical and psychiatric practice. You want to bitch about it being a disorder? Write the APA or WHO.Legitimus (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Paedophile vs Pedophile.

It's been pointed out countless times on the internet by nonAmericans, but the actual definition for Pedophile is "foot fetish." Pedo means foot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk • contribs)

No, foot fetishism is podophilia. Your American correspondent, Mr. Credible (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr Credible is correct. This confusion results from mixing up the Greek and Latin word roots. The word pedophilia is rooted entirely in Greek, not Latin. "Ped-" in Greek is "child" (Pediatrician) but in Latin it means "foot" (Pedestrian). "Pod-" is the correct Greek root meaning foot (arthropod, podiatrist).Legitimus (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I request a move, the ommision of the A in Paedophile has led to bricks being thrown at Pedologists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.111.16 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That's an urban legend. All such jokes/anecdotes stem from a single incident in the UK where a female pediatrician came home to find "paedo" spray-painted on her front door by some schmuck teenager.[14]
Also, in case you're a similar schmuck trying to be funny, you do know this site logs your IP address right? And that your location can be determined from it? Be warned, Jay and Silent Bob might come visit.Legitimus (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor wording and clearly incorrect facts

The following post was blocked by an edit filter. As this was clearly a false positive, I am posting it on behalf of the user who tried to post it and was prevented.

I want to take issue with this: SECTION: Neurohormonal explanation Psychologist Vernon Quinsey believes pedophilia is caused by the "neurohormonal explanation".....<<Text>>..... Quinsey hypothesizes that the "perturbation" that causes an abnormal age preference for pre-pubescents must be a variation on the perturbation that causes an abnormal gender preference for men in the male brain.[53] I question why "gender preference for men in the male brain" is stated to be abnormal. In the same sense, left-handedness is not considered to be abnormal. Is this something that Quinsey considers to be true, or is it an opinion that the editor failed to contain? Moveover, science is at odds with this idea when it comes to paedophilia: Quinsey believes male sexual preference for gender and age are independent of each other. Paedophiles are statistically less likely to be gay men and women: Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). (From http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:16, 7 June 2011 (talk • contribs) 86.0.41.189

The Quinsey material was recently added. Issues with some more Quinsey material were also expressed in the above section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Any opinion on this, Legitimus? Judging by the above section and this one, Quinsey is not a good source on these subjects. To me, he doesn't sound educated on these matters at all. Perhaps we should remove him altogether? Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say pull it. It was already under scrutiny anyway as a poor source.Legitimus (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. In that link, I also removed his information from the Development and sexual orientation section. It seemed best to remove all, as suggested. But if it's felt that what was stated there is something of value and accurate, it can be added back. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes: Etymology in the lead, picture, etc.

I reverted Ewawer with this edit, because his changes added a picture (when I feel that pictures are not needed for this topic), and because they removed material out of the lead, breaking it up into five paragraphs (when the lead should be no more than four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD). That, combined with the picture pushing the Infobox disease box lower, made the lead look very messy in my view. I also reverted because having the etymology information in the lead is the result of an extensive discussion and compromise with Lihaas.

All that said, the entire design of the lead is a compromise due to extensive discussion, and seeing as the compromise with Lihaas was a minor addition, maybe it is not that much of an issue to exclude the etymology from the lead? Lihaas, you got anything to state on that? Because that's the only thing I'd be willing to compromise on in regards to this matter. I don't feel that an image is needed or significantly enhances the reader's understanding of this subject, as pictures on Wikipedia are supposed to do. More than anything, I feel it detracts from the article. And, obviously, more than four paragraphs is a no-no. Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There are two things which were reverted. One was a pic and the other was a tidy up of the etymology. I think that the changes on etymology should have been left, as it improves the flow. As to the picture, I agree that the article is very important. To be honest I was a bit uncomfortable including the pic. However, I felt that it was relevant because it displays the context, which words alone sometimes fail to do. It is unfortunate that other watchers did not get a chance to see it in context before it was pulled. How can others really comment on the appropriateness of the pic without seeing it? Ewawer (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary for your above comment says "objection to pic being dumped," but your statements right now don't sound like you are that sure the picture is needed. I disagree with the picture being included because I don't feel that it is needed for readers to understand this topic, which is what Wikipedia images are supposed to do (significantly enhance readers understanding of a topic), and that it detracts from the article. Further, this article is not simply about child sexual abuse. The picture is more suitable for the Child sexual abuse article in displaying the context. But it was removed from that article once before as well. You ask "How can others really comment on the appropriateness of the pic without seeing it?" Well, by looking at a version in the edit history.
As for your other edits, while I agree that removing the etymology information out of the lead improves the flow of the lead, it was put there as a compromise with another editor (Lihaas) and you removed the material in a way that violates Wikipedia style guidelines (by creating five paragraphs). All you had to do was remove it from the lead and tweak the section that also mentions it. Or, when removing it from the lead, combine the ICD-10 definition with the paragraph that discusses the DSM criteria. Not break the lead up into five paragraphs. That's my point there. But even so, I understand that not everyone is familiar with WP:LEAD, and I don't fault you too much for that. I am all for removing the etymology information out of the lead, but consensus versions of an article generally should not be changed without discussion. If the lead had not been extensively discussed and worked out already, I wouldn't see a problem with your removal (other than the style issue). But as it stands, that addition was/is a compromise with Lihaas after extensive discussion. So we need to talk it out in order to form new consensus, before overriding it. Lihaas is around (just edited the article not that long ago); he can be contacted about this if he's not still watching the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I can offer little about the lead, but the picture I feel does not belong. As a person who was seeing the picture for the very first time when it was added to this article, it made no sense to me. It just looks like a man tutoring a little girl. Regardless of the historical significance of this painting, I don't think it offers anything useful to this subject to a lay-person reader. And I frankly cannot think of any sort of picture that could be added that wasn't either illegal, appalling, or far to esoteric to be a useful illustration.Legitimus (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Biased, social stratification

I just want to ad a comment on this article about pedophilia. I´m a swedish user, but read english pretty well, but don´t write it so good so you have to eccuse me.

Maybe this type of comments are not what the discussion are about so maybe it will be erased.

But the “facts” that are presented are extremly biased. These “facts” are made from research on incarcerated people. I make a citation from the article:

“ Pedophilic (andhebephilic) men have lower IQs,[75][76][77] poorer scores on memory tests,[76] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[75][76][78][79] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[80] lesser physical height,[81] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[63][82] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[83][84][85] ”

This characterisations are true about all incarcerated people, undepending of what crime they have commited (I work as a low skilled guard/”skötare” in these kind of facilitations).

The swedish authorities know from experience that pedophilia and childpornography cuts through all stratifications of society. Psychiatrys picture of paraphilias and sexual deviant people are drawn from people that come in contact with social security systems, psychiatry and justice system. However, most people in sexual minoritys groups never end up in these systems.

There is known that many pedophiles are hihgly skilled people, very competent in IT, working in high places in public offices and private sector (and probably is right-handed). They retire early and buy estates in Kambodja and Thailand, adopting or take cares of childs education there.

The “facts” in the article seems to me as a swedish citizcen as very american. Stigmatizing people from lower layer of the populations.

Thank you for speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew0101 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really about proof. Those clinical studies cited in the section you quoted say what they say. We can't judge their merits, only report what has been researched. And those sources have been vetted by peer-review, some internationally (I should also point out many are Canadian, not American, and that a few are drawn from the population, not from prisons). The counter-argument is: how do we know what you say is true? You claim that most pedophiles never end up in "the system." Can you show a source that substantiates that? If you can, we can integrate it and "balance" the content. But if your statements are just rumor and/or conjecture, there is nothing to add.Legitimus (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There is quite a comprehensive discussion on this in chapter 1 of Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children. The basic idea is to estimate the number of paedophiles in the population, and compare it to the number of convictions. Goode concludes that "Given the conviction rates in England and Wales ... it seems fairly plausible that most men sexually attracted to children ... are not in prison but out in the community"
  • Paul Okami is reported to consider that up to 50% of people may have some degree of sexual attraction to children, and for 1% of people, their "primary erotic focus is prepubescent children".
  • Considering a number of penile response studies, Goode concludes that "The clinical studies therefore indicate that somewhere between 17 and 58 per cent of a normal sample of men (who do not describe themselves as 'paedophile') seem to be capable of being sexually aroused by young children, under the age of 12 years old".
  • Freund and Costell, 1970, The Structre of Erotic Preference in the Non-deviant Male, Behaviour Research and Therapy 8: 15-20.
  • Quinsey et al., 1975, Penile Circumference, Skin Conductance and Ranking Responses of Child Molestors and "Normals" to Sexual and Nonsexual Visual Stimuli, Behaviour Therapy 6:213-19.
  • Freund and Watson, 1991, Assessment of the Sensitivity and Specificity of a Phallometric Test: An Update of Phallometric Diagnosis of Pedophilia, Psychological Assessment 3: 254-60.
  • Fedora et al., 1992, Sadism and other Paraphilias in Normal Controls and Aggressive and Nonaggressive Sex Offenders, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 21: 1-15.
  • Nagayama Hall et al., 1995, Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men Behaviour Therapy, 26: 681-94.
  • Three anonymous surveys suggest the following: "(Briere and Runtz 1989) looked at a sample of nearly 200 university males, in which 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% describe sexual fantasies involving children and 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught. This study was followed up a few years later (Smiljanich and Briere 1996), with a questionnaire study on 279 undergraduates which included 99 men and 188 women. This found 22 per cent of the male sample 9and 3 per cent of the female sample) admitted 'some attraction to children', with 14 per cent of the men using child porngoraphy, 4 per cent masturbating to sexual fantasies involving children and 3 per cent admitting to the 'possibility of sex with a child if undetected' (figures for the female sample were respectively 4 per cent, 0 per cent and 0 per cent).Both these studies made the point that any self-report of socially unacceptable phenomena is likely to underestimate it, so these figures may be conservative. ... (Becker-Blease et al. 2006) in a self completion questionnaire study of 531 undergraduate men ... found only 7 per cent admitted sexual attraction to 'little children', but 18 per cent had sexual fantasies of children, with 8 per cent masturbating to those fantasies, and 4 per cent admitting that they would have sex with a child 'if no one found out'.
  • Briere and Runtz, 1989, University Males' Sexual Interest in Children: Predicting Potential Indices of Paedophilia in a Non-Forensic Sample, Child Abuse and Neglect, 13: 65-75
  • Smiljanich and Briere, 1996, Self reported sexual interest in children: Sex differences and psychological correlates in a university sample, Violence and Victims 11 (1): 39-50
  • Becker-Blease et al., 2006, Child Sex Abuse Perpetrators Among Male University Students, poster presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Hollywood, California, 4-7 November 2006. Abstract available online, http://hdl.handle.net/1794/4318, poster available at http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/istss06issd06/bbffISTSS06.pdf
Gnathan87 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Mathew0101 talking again:

I´m a swede and only read english Wikipedia, I have never before contributed. I´ve now oriented myself and checked Legitimus in english Wikipedia and he is obviously very smart. Me my self lack any kind of education, but have what we in Sweden call "work-experience" from hell of a lot sectors. And add to that life-experience. Legitimus write above: "The counter-argument is: how do we know what you say is true? You claim that most pedophiles never end up in "the system." Can you show a source that substantiates that? If you can, we can integrate it and "balance" the content. But if your statements are just rumor and/or conjecture, there is nothing to add." Sweden is a small country and all kind of people from every aspects and levels of justice system and "rättspsykiatri" (judicial psychiatry)and social workers sectors bump in to each other in the same night clubs and share information. It´s in Europe obvious from anonymized screenings that at least 1 % of all males are pedophiles in the sense that WHO:s ICD-10 puts it (in Sweden we don´t use DSM). Don´t tell me that you in US have 1,5 million child molesters in jail! If you have 1,5 million child molesters in jail (actually I wouldn´t be surprised from the media picture of US crazy country in Europe) I give you right. If you don´t have 1,5 million child molesters in jail your "facts" about for example "non-right-handedness" and pedophiles is probably biased. And the problem of weahlty pedophiles infecting third world countrys is not rumors. Every Skandinavian aid worker and diplomat knows this for facts. Legitimus also talk about "proof". I think Karl Popper said that nothing ever can be scientifically proved, only counter-proved.

Matthew: "proof" is a strange animal. At the end of the day, people believe, quite simply, what they believe. You want to change somebody's intuition? You've also got to use a method they believe in. And generally, that's science. I don't think Legitimus is trying to discredit your experience, just trying to do the best for Wikipedia. The reason anecdotal evidence does not get so far is because notwithstanding the best will in the world, it's always prone to uncontrolled factors and subjective biases. I'm not saying science is perfect either. (Goodness knows, one of the reasons I'm attracted to this topic is due to grave concerns about some of the science that comes out of it!) But at the very least, it's our best attempt at overcoming human limitations. Somewhere in the iteration between science and intuition we seem to converge on the facts. And by the way, see my comment above ;) Gnathan87 (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mathew0101 answering Gnathan and making a long speach explaining himself: I read your refrences to research above and think it supports my ideas. And of course you are right. Middle aged I finally (slowly) come to insights about science from pop-science magazines like Scientific American and New Scientist. My point is: The Wikipedia article on pedophiles of course must have references to this kind of research under “Causes and biological associations”. I just wanted to point out that this kind of research is totally worthless if you are trying to “catch” the nature of “The Pedophile”. Because scientists don’t have access to the group of general pedophiles. Individuals from lower “strata” of society are over-represented in the material. And in these strata the biological traits mentioned under “C.a.b.a.” are very common. At least in Skandinavia. And about anecdotal I also advise you to read this Wikipedia article: Prostitution_of_children, it got footnotes/references. There are also an article about "child sex tourism" in enlish Wikipedia that I strongly suggest that people working with this article should check out. This is a gigantic market and I guarantee you that this is not “anecdotal”. The kind of people that western psychiatry draws it conclusions on about pedophilia don’t have access to these markets because they often don’t have money to buy the flight-tickets. Very often they even don’t have cognitive functions enough to manage to buy a flight-ticket. I admit that there in the non-english-speaking western societies are a common opinion (anecdotal) that most child sex tourists are not suffering from pedophilic disorder but are tourists also in the sexual meaning, not only in the geographical so to say. And most child molesters in Skandinavian jails are find to not being pedophiles in the medical meaning (in swedish: “pedofil störning” = pedophilic disorder), just drunks and drug users that flipped out during stressful life experiences (acting out sexual on children = pedofili/pedophlia). What I found interesting was the differences in text between the english and swedish versions of Wikipedia under the word “pedofili/pedophilia”. And it also seems as if you got money in US or if you can make money for friends and colleagues in your branch, you get away with almost everything (OJ Simpson and Victor Salva– anecdotal). But you are in risk if you are european (Roman Polanski – anecdotal). It’s also obvious from a Skandinavian point of view that US-citizens are extremely afraid of “being a victim” or being sued. Therefore especially men don’t witness about sexual relations they had as kids with prominent profiles in society. This is not the case in Skandinavia and therefore the public picture (which can be or can not be extremely biased) of pedophilia are very different.

Here is some highly anecdotal (but very well checked by journalists) reading. Not because it contributes to Wikipedia, but to explain why I was reacting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/patrik-sjoberg-coach-molested-him_n_854911.html Also check out the articles about Göran Lindberg and Daniel Carleton Gajdusek in english wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Lindberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Carleton_Gajdusek

Mathew0101 I get what you are saying, and it is an interesting discussion. Since you are new, I just wanted to point out that I was merely talking about wikipedia's rules for sources. When information is added to this article, it needs some kind of published source to back it up with. The reliability of sources is a continuous scale, with some obviously considered better than others. This article in particular has very high standards for sources due to previous problems many years back, where falsified, discredited or biased sources were used. For example, at one point in this article's long history, actual pedophiles would edit it and use their own personal websites (which contained propaganda and false information) as sources.
Generally favored are sources published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Obviously, no source is perfect and none answers all the questions about this disorder, but each can be used to built a small piece of the knowledge base. One other clarification about anecdotal evidence. There are two kinds: Published reports/articles of isolated cases or opinions, and personal experience. Individual users (such as you and me) should not add information that is based only on our own personal experiences or observations, because it has to be independently verifiable to readers of the article. Suffice it to say I am a professional in mental health, but I do not put my own patient observations or even my own publications into this article. In fact, I choose not to outright claim any kind of degree, license or authority for personal and professional reasons (I am bound by certain rules due to my job). You would have no reason to believe such a claim from me anyway.
That said, many of the sources offered by Gnathan87 are good. My only concern is that many of them are merely speculative (even if that speculation is being offered by experts), and one or two I think were discredited due to confounding variables. For example they seem to defined pedophilia using variable definitions, or at the very least confused the presence of any attraction to prepubescents as equal to primary or exclusive pedophilic sexuality. This very issue may be the exact reason for the disparity between the English and Swedish articles: That they define pedophile differently.Legitimus (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mathew0101 making one last saying: Yes I understand that and I´m glad we had this discussion. Maybe it was wrong of me to make this entry because I must admit I really don´t had any material to offer (and maybe I was not very diplomatic, which is very un-swedish). I will now move on reading other articles about sociology, economy and philosophy of mind (!) wich is my main interest (I really have some interesting articles in these fields that I can make references to). Maybe during the autumn and winter I make some contributions to discussion in those subjects, with references in a proper way and more work put into my english. Thank you and maybe we will bump in to each other some other time. :)

"The errors of Karen Franklin's Pretextuality" article now available.

Hi, folks. People interested in Karen Franklin's various claims about hebephilia currently mentioned on the mainpage might be interested in this new publication that catalogs some of her factual errors on the topic. Because I am the author of that document, I am posting it here, rather than integrating it into the mainpage myself.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Duh!

In the section ICD-10 and DSM there's a sentence which I find quite redundant and rather a "duh moment": "On the other hand, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges can also qualify for the diagnosis." I'll remove this sentence unless some people actually find it useful. __meco (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's obvious. Generally (I suppose, not really knowing) that if you go to a shrink and say "I have strong desire to sleep covered in pancakes, and do, and this makes me happy and causes me no distress or other problems" he'll say "So why are you here?". Masturbating to child porn is an exception, I gather, and it's worthwhile to point this out. Herostratus (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is worth keeping. Besides WP:OBVIOUS, this clarification was put there because the ADA got all bent out of shape about the actual text of the DSM criteria being included in the article (claiming copyright) so we had to describe it as best we can.Legitimus (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say that the point of that line is to stress the "yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges" part; it's pointing out that the act of child sexual abuse can meet diagnosis even without that psychological factor. Yes, the general public already assumes that the act of child sexual abuse alone makes someone a pedophile, but most experts disagree with that. So it seems that line is showing the difference in the DSM criteria. I, however, question whether the DSM would only rely on behavior (as stated in the debate section). From what I have read in more than one source about the DSM over the years, "intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children" would seem to be needed before making the diagnosis ("significant stress" included, but still...). Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change in the DSM for "at least 18 years and at least five years older"

MsBatfish was of course right to revert this edit by RJR3333. Even if RJR3333 had added the correct link, I wouldn't think it should be there in that part of the lead, making the line messy and awkward, and muddying the definition of pedophilia even further. This is a proposed change to the DSM; it does not belong in the lead at all, in my opinion. And if someone wants to bring up the fact that the proposed change to merge hebephilia with pedophilia to create "pedohebephilic disorder" is in the lead, well, I'll say that I don't feel that should be in the lead either. And, looking at the source I just linked to (updated as recently as November 18, 2011), it could simply be called "Pedophilic Disorder" if the merge is officially accepted by the DSM. But "pedohebephilic disorder" is mentioned in a subsection of the Etymology and definitions section (in this case, the Debate regarding the DSM criteria subsection), and I feel that any DSM proposal that we feel warrants inclusion in this article belongs somewhere in the Etymology and definitions section as well (most suitably in the ICD-10 and DSM subsection or the Debate regarding the DSM criteria subsection).

If RJR3333's edit is to be included in the lead, it should be in the second paragraph, right behind mention of proposed change "pedohebephilic disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed criteria definitely do not belong in the lead. A mention is ok later in the article, but the lead should be as straight forward as possible to avoid confusing readers.Legitimus (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias

  1. ^ http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC144.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_16&oldid=1151039353"