Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

People can we cite, please

This was just added by another editor and I removed it because it had no citation:

"The issues of whether pedophilia is, or is not pathological, treatable, a sound predictor of social malocclusion or dangerous behaviour have made the individual and overall medical dilemma over whether it should be treated, a controversial and disputed question."

Not saying it's not true, but in fraught areas like this we want to be extra good about citing, I think. Herostratus 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The section simply aimed to point out that some people think that there is nothing to treat. We know this, so why cite it? If this article is to be judged properly neutral, words of warning such as mine (aiming not to primarily depict pedophilia as a condition requiring treatment) need to be placed before the main arguments, not after. Edit: 'Subjectivity' section added. --Jim Burton 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Non Medical Therapies

I have a problem with this whole section, it seems entirely pointless to have an entire section which is made up two very short paragraph's, neither of which has a citation. I will say that it seems like this section could be of use if it gave some references and had a bit more information but as it is it seems to add little or nothing.--Colin 8 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Misdefinition

The section on 'Pederasty', under 'Related terms' implies that homosexuality is a practise three times, and implies the same of pedophilia, once. Why was my edit [1] reverted to the faulty language?

We must all know that 'homosexual male pedophilia' by it's very definition can only be an attraction. No? Someone post a good reason, because in 48 hours, it will go back. --Jim Burton 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it implies that.

We don't necessarily all agree, no. Words have various shades of meaning. But you do have a point. Also, what does "or similar intergenerational relationships as adults" mean, and how does it relate to pederasty. Herostratus 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty is the practise of a relationship between two differently aged males, usually referring to a relationship involving an adolescent boy. By saying that Pederasty has been used to refer to Homosexuality three times and Homosexual Pedophilia once, the edit revert clearly does one of two things: 1. Misdefines Pederasty as an attraction 2. Implies that the common use of the word throughout history refers to attraction (obviously false).

The primary definition is man - boy sodomy (Oxford), but as we know, it encompasses a lot more. But to define it, or it's common use as Homosexuality or Pedophilia is equivalent to labelling Vili Fualaau as a partner in 'Age structured heterosexuality'. You see. What your revert does is genitalises homosexuality, and such a thing should not be allowed to leak through in an encyclopedia. --Jim Burton 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus - Pederasty has historically been used to refer to homosexual age - gap relationships which may include a pedagogic function. The 'adolescent boy' or younger partner can be an adult, or over the regional age of consent, since adolescence spans beyond adulthood. The presence of an age gap, or the pedagogical nurturing of a younger partner is independent of the local distinction between the adolescent boy and adult male. --Jim Burton 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The main point of the pederasty paragraph is that the word has historically been used in many different ways. In fact it leaves one out -- in Italian pederasty just means anal sex, gender and age (and, er, "pedagogy") aside. DanB†DanD 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the text with more accurate language, again. Note that it is not a revert. My reasoning is zero opposition to the points that I laid out. --Jim Burton 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your points. Let me see if I have this right: "Pederasty" is strictly an activity; "pedophilia" is strictly an attraction (or paraphilia or mental state or whatever); "homosexuality" may be either. If that's what you're saying, I tend to agree, and edits to that effect may be warranted, in general. Given that, we have to walk a fine line between scholarly language and common usage. But, granted, with the emphasis on scholarly or medical correctness. Re pederasty, you might have a useful conversation with User:Haiduc, who has done much research to the point that pederasty has, all through human history, been a pillar of homosexuality and homosexual culture (naturally, the GLBT folks consider him anathema, but that's a political question).

And, although pederasty may in one sense only refer to activity, on the other hand, consider: if I knew an adult male who frequently and publicly professed an avid desire for romantic and sexual relations with 15-year-old boys, would I be so very off-base to consider that person a pederast, notwithstanding his virginity in this area?

Moving along... as far as I know, a relationship between (say) a 25-year-old and 55-year-old male is not pederasty, by any definition or usage I have seen. This I would consider a new and improper definition, absent cites. User:Haiduc might have such cites, if anyone does. (Cites for ancient usage would be suspect, in my view; as a rule, material relating to long-ago cultures is probably better in separate articles covering those cultures, I think.) The reference to a "pedogogic function" simiarly I am somewhat dubious of. Certainly this isn't an intended meaning of any current usage I know of except by pederasts and their apologists; and again, what might or might not have been the practices of (let us say) the 17th-century Trobriand Islanders and what might or might not be the terms applied to these practices is surely of scholarly interest -- but probably not for this article.

Adolescence spans beyond adulthood -- maybe, by a quite small amount, and depending on the individual, the definition of adulthood, and the person making the definition. You are conflating, I think, the developmental term "adolescence" with the legal term adult; if one is using the developmental term in both cases, by definition one cannot be in both states, unless once is holding that one shades into the other (in which case, the use of the term pederasty becomes quite slippery). There is (as far as I know) no legal meaning to the term "adolescent", at least not one that commonly holds. Herostratus 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say - Adolescence > 21 (some say 25) and Adulthood > 18. Therefore, we have room for adults who are adolescent boys. The use of pederasty is vague, often substituting for homosexual sex itself, and therefore any kind of intergenerational homosexual sex could easily be described as such.

Pedagogic Function as you say has been observed in accounts - I must add that these are numerous among man - boy couples. Sandfortis a good starting point on this. --Jim Burton 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, again: you are conflating a developmental and a legal definition. Apples and oranges. People much over 20 have usually entered early-stage adult development and are no longer adolescents, although it depends on the individual. Your link is to IPCE, which is an advocacy group. Generally, links to advocacy groups may go in the Exernal links section but may not be used a citations for statements of fact (or alleged fact) in the body of an article, unless the statement is about the positions etc. of the advocacy group itself. Herostratus 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

added paragraph: "Subjectivity"

The new paragraph is unsourced POV in itself, but it also has nothing to do with your new section title, "Subjectivity." DanB†DanD 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you need to explain why this section is POV, and what needs to be sourced about a section that simply denotes that there is a subjective difference of opinion over a matter that will primarily be taken for granted (that pedophilia is a subject for treatment - until 'criticisms of treatment'). I maintain that we should strive to explain how one's subjective opinion influences a secondary concern, who's mere acknowledgement before criticism would otherwise make the article POV. Note how the Homosexuality article denotes the POV of behaviour modification advocates before going into the description:

Some therapists, institutions, and groups contend they are able to assist homosexuals to overcome their homosexual tendencies. Most of these are conservative Christian organizations which interpret the Bible as holding homosexuality to be unnatural or sinful, and which consider homosexuality to be an undesired orientation

And all that after much explanation of positive attitudes on the orientation. Edit: recommended citation for this section. Gieles sees treating the orientation as a complete last resort. Thoughts please. --Jim Burton 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section as it was unreferenced and making a rather contentious claim. The reference above is not enough to support a large claim about what "most experts" believe. shotwell 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

'Most experts?' No, the whole thing is about showing that there are some people like Gieles who believe that this orientation should not be treated. We know beyond doubt that most psychologists would advocate treatment of pedophilic sex offenders, if it were proven to be effective. --Jim Burton 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph has been removed, but I'll respond that the leap from "disagreement" to "subjective difference of opinion" is a pretty huge one--in many disagreements, one party is simply mistaken. Also, it's been said many times on this page that overview paragraphs are to reflect academic consensus, not to present fringe ideas as if they were one equal side in a hotly debated controversy. DanB†DanD 03:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly was I trying to present a fringe idea as if it was equally prominent? The whole problem with the treatment section is that it goes straight into discussing people's disagreement over how pedophilia should be treated or whether treatment is possible. This is intrinsically POV! Since we have devoted a very large article to the pedophile activism movement, and the subject that we are discussing is a sexual orientation of debatable pathology, it would only be fair to present the fringe opinion in it's denouncement of what is the will of others to eliminate what they see as the major facet of one's humanity. --Jim Burton 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia Defintion

Why is it that Wikipedia refuses to point out out the un-informedness of someone refering to someone who likes someone under the age of consent as a "pedophile"? Just because a lot of people use it wrongly does not mean you can't point out its the wrong definition. THE definition of pedophilia is pre-pubescent individuals, if you are going to say people are using the term "pedophile" for people having sex with adolescents and not point out they are mistaken you might as well erase the Ephebephila page. This is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of the fact of the definition of pedophilia. Refusing to point out that someone is factually wrong when refering to being attracted to post-pubescents as pedophiles IS opinion-based.

AgentScully 06:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're treating a particular point of view within psychiatry as if it were objective fact. Ephebophilia is a fairly recent neologism and not universally accepted -- unlike pedophilia, it's not in DSM-IV. And practically speaking the meanings of the words overlap, so treating them as two separate categories is just confusing. DanB†DanD 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The medical definition of pedophilia specifies that the child must be prepubescent. And the crossover with ephebophilia that Dan ^ refers to could be just as much a crossover with normative preferential attraction to full adults. Therefore, treating ephebophilia and attraction to adults as separate should also be confusing! In reality, we have a continuum of philia along the age spectrum, as well as the apparent gender spectrum.

However, the article points out that the alternative use of the word is colloquial. I would still suggest adding that this casual use is in conflict with the accepted dictionary definition, too, though. --Jim Burton 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It is not a dictionary nor is it a medical manual. Terminology which is useful for research may be referenced or included as is appropriate for the encyclopedia. What the editors of the Oxford English dictionary have to say is of interest, but not the ending point for the Wikipedia. What the American Psychological Association has to say is of interest, but not the ending point for the Wikipedia. (Incidentally the Amer. Psych. Assoc. does not specify "prepubescent" at all; its criteria is simply "13 or under".) The fact is that there is no single definition of this term that we can nail down, rub our hands together, and consider the job done. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Terminology and its associated talk page for archives of various discussions around this term. Herostratus 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does specifiy pre-pubescent. The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":[27]

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

I was just saying that there is a medical definition, and the consensus is pre-pubescent and the casual use simply contradicts the medical meaning and that should be noted. AgentScully

Ah, I stand corrected, then. I lost my copy in the Spork Wars and was working from memory. Herostratus 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article does say, "In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition". Why is that not good enough? --Gbleem 13:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the problem I have is it just makes it sound like either one could be the "right" definition or that you could lump both definitions together. AgentScully

The intent of the statement was to show that there are two generally used definitions and the words "in contrast" clearly state that they are not lumped together. --Gbleem 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Known" Paedophile

Is it really appropriate for an encyclopaedia to display pictures of "known" or known paedophiles? He may not be, it may just be some kind of smear campaign. I say delete it. Excalibur2211 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was rank trollery and has been deleted. Herostratus 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition is overreaching

"Pedophilia (...) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children."

A 12 years old boy being attracted mainly to 12 years old girls is a pedophile? We were probably all pedophiles by this definition, at some point.

See this news story [denverpost.com] where a boy & girl were declared both sex offender and victim. Should we not explicitly include that the perpetrator has to be an adult? - 192.129.3.116

The clinical defintion in the article already says that the person must be at least 16 years of age. I agree that story is ridiculous. AgentScully

The inappropriateness of 'Paraphilia' and 'Sexual Orientation'

Paraphilia - article quote: 'Clinical literature discusses eight major paraphilias individually. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the activity must be the sole means of sexual gratification for a period of six (6) months, and cause "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty" to be considered such'.

Not allowable as definitive of the condition: Many pedophiles claim to experience no resultant distress or interpersonal difficulty in their lives. When they do, they often claim that it is essential to the culture they live in, not their condition (although this is debatably part of what makes a paraphilia). So although pedophilia is a clinically recognised paraphilia, for the individual pedophile, this depends on how it impacts upon it's beholder.

Sexual Orientation

Allowable: As it fits the basic dictionary term, and describes the core feature of the condition. However, sexual elitists will always try to change it back, so don't bother using it. --Jim Burton 09:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting at? I am confused. Are you suggesting a change in the article, and if so, what? Herostratus 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim has changed the first paragraph from "Pedohilia is a paraphilia" to "Pedophilia is a mental state" and he wants to further change it to "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation."

I've reverted his edits because I think we should discuss such major definitional changes before making them. It would be nice to get really unambiguous definitions of paraphilia and sexual orientation to be going on with -- sadly those articles don't provide them! I do think using "sexual orientation" would be confusing, since the phrase (a fairly recent neologism, but whose? Wikipedia doesn't say.) is normally used to refer only to the desired sex. DanB†DanD 20:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty shocked that anyone but the person who made the original edit would defend the position that pedophilia can be essentially defined as a paraphilia. But if someone wants to have the debate, lets keep the longstanding edit for now.

I object on two bases. Firstly, according to the medical definition of a paraphilia, the pedophilia must cause disturbances to the individual. That pedophilia is a medically listed paraphilia is therefore not to define all of its instances as paraphillic, but simply to point out that they often are (unless some quack out there sees fit to put thoughts into literally every pedophile's head). Secondly, to definitively label pedophilia as a paraphilia is medically centric, however well my previous point stands up. We should be outlining the timeless core features of phenomena, i.e. pedo - child, philia - sexual attraction, not picking and choosing from the specialist opinions of our tiny little postage stamp of time within this phenomenon's existence. Such elaboration is not fit for the first line of an encyclopedia. --Jim Burton 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definitions are to be derived from present expert consensus, not from a single organization or from "timeless" truth. The APA is only one source, though an important one. DanB†DanD 00:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise some good points, Jim Burton. "Pedophila" is a slippery word to pin down exactly and we've mooted it around quite a bit. I personally like "Paedophilia is the attraction to children which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's inner sexual or romantic life" (which is a variation of a definition by a Dutch precursor to IPCE). However, that's just me. While I do agree that we don't have to accept the medical definition as our be-all and end-all, I do think that the medical definition is definitely a good starting place, at the very least. Not least because medicine is, after all, a science.

OK... the medical definition speaks of "distress", and from Paraphilia, I get the definition "sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity", which sure sounds like the position you're going to be in if you require children for your sexual gratification.

I am pretty comfortable with the notion that if one is attracted to children but not greatly bothered by this, then one is almost certainly not really a pedophile. One may be a variety of pansexual - attracted to children but also to other entities. That's a horse of a different color altogether. Pedophilia is not a hobby, it is a soul-searing affliction and this should not be minimized.

I'm confident that morality is not lesser among pedophiles than among the general population. The great majority of pedophiles, being moral persons, understand that they cannot ever satisfy their sexual longing. Of the remainder, a brief cogitation on their likely experience if caught is likely to put a considerable damper on their sexually gratifying activities (or else, their actual experience if and when they are caught will certainly cause distress).

Hence, the number of people who have "...attraction to children which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's inner sexual or romantic life" and aren't distressed by this is almost entirely composed of the unique (and probably small) subpopulation who don't desire physical gratification beyond masturbation. I don't mean people who have "settled" for fantasy and masturbation for their sex life, but people who wouldn't want to go beyond that even if it was on offer, which would (I guess) indicate a very poorly developed sexuality, which in turn may be the cause of their attraction to children, hence they are not necessarily normal pedophiles... but I go beyond my depth here.

Now, there is a regular Oort cloud of persons who are not pedophiles but who have an interest in or opinion on subjects related to pedophila. You've got your pansexuals, hypersexuals, and the like, you've got your people who think it's sporty to stand up against the dominant sexual paradigm, you've got your right Libertarians who believe it's the natural right of the strong to prey on the weak, you've got your kids still working out their sexual personae, you've got your people who have just plain lost their moral compass, and on and on. None of this has much of anything to do with actual pedophila, though.

Also, the term "pedosexual" has been proposed to indicate that pedophilia is one of the Grand Divisions (so to speak) of sexual orientation, alongside homosexuality and heterosexuality. Whether this is true or not is beside the point; what is to the point is that this term and this concept have not been accepted generally at this time.

Anyway, this is all just a rather long way of saying that for my part I like it fine the way it is... Herostratus 04:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should keep it the way it is. Pedophilia is a medical term. The two major medical organizations that set the definitions for this sort of thing, the AMA and the WHO, have similar definitions and the first paragraph represents those definitions. The term is also used in a colloquial fashion which is mentioned in the second paragraph. The first two sections after the introduction further explain the medical definitions. If you don't like the medical definition then lobby the AMA and the WHO. --Gbleem 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The classification in this very encyclopedia is clear:

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the activity must be the sole means of sexual gratification for a period of six (6) months, and either cause "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" or involve a violation of consent to be diagnosed as a paraphilia

Hence the inclusion of pedophilia in the list of paraphilias simply indicates that it can be a paraphilia, as the etymology of the word does not automatically qualify the criteria for paraphilia.

Also, if I have a doctorate, I am officially a doctor, but I may also be a father and primarily a man. If pedophilia has paraphilia status, it is officially a paraphilia, but it may also be a state of mind or sexual orientation.

But the vote is clearly in, so I may try a different line. --Jim Burton 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To present a worlwide view, and to avoid confusing etymology with the current medical and colloquial definitions, I suggest that this is how we open the article:

Pedophilia, paedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the mental state of being preferentially or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent or peripubescent children. A person who expresses this attraction is called a pedophile.

In addition to the above etymology, most medical definitions also class pedophilia as a paraphilia, for example the American Psychiatric Association, in it's DSM.

As well as an attraction to children, the term 'pedophile' is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are in any way sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,^[1] as well as those who are sexually active with, or have sexually abused a significantly younger minor.

--Jim Burton 06:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still not following you. How can one have the mental state of being preferentially or exclusively attracted to children and not have this interfere with one's normal enjoyment of one's sexual nature, unless you're David Koresh? Herostratus 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DSM criteria for "paraphilia" diagnosis

I ran across a web page that discusses the criteria for paraphilias, specifically in the context of pedophilia, and how those criteria changed in DSM-IV but were changed back in DSM-IV-TR. It seems relevant to some of what was discussed here recently. The text, from a letter to the American Journal of Psychiatry:

In DSM-IV (p. 523), criterion B for all paraphilias was, "The behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." The editors of DSM-IV-TR apparently recognized the unintended and clinically absurd consequence of the change in DSM-IV from DSM-III-R criterion B.

According to DSM-IV, the diagnosis of pedophilia cannot be made if the individual acts on pedophilic urges but is not distressed by the urges and is not socially or occupationally impaired. In DSM-III-R, however, acting on the urges alone meets criterion B, as is the case again in DSM-IV-TR for pedophilia and all of the other paraphilias that involve a nonconsenting person.

Here's the link: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/159/7/1249

DanB†DanD 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I think that the APA's criteria is, well... crap. I know that we're not here to say that, but the fact remains that using the DSM, you can be a pedophile for simply having sexual relations with a child, but not a pedophile for having an intense sexual preference for children, as long as you are happy with your sexuality. Thus, a child rapist is a pedophile, whilst Lindsay Ashford is probably not. --Jim Burton 06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Puberty

it says adolescence is defined by the WHO as 10-19 but is commonly defined as 13-18. I thought puberty didnt end until the early 20's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AgentScully (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Ah, puberty or adolescence? They are two different things. Both begin and end at different times for different individuals, all age ranges are approximations used to try to impose some order on a very complicated process. Even the definitions of each is unclear, but I always though of puberty as a physical process that ends when on reaches a certain level of development (some Tanner Stage, not necessarily full and complete adult development) while adolescence is more of a mental/psychological development stage that begins and ends later than puberty... and yes, depending on the individual, adolescence may (or may not) extend in the 20's, I guess... Herostratus 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia as an attraction and a condition

The articles on homosexuality and heterosexuality open as follows:

?sexuality refers to sexual and/or romantic attraction between individuals of the ? sex

As pedo = child and philia = attraction (in this case sexual), surely pedophilia is the attraction of any human to any human child, be they a pedophile (preferential child lover) or not. As well as being the underlying attraction (not particularly preferential), pedophilia can also be used to describe the condition of being a pedophile.

If this does not hold, what exactly do we call the attraction of a non pedophile to a child? Pedophilic attraction? --Jim Burton 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit beside the point to argue in this way -- the article contains what we can source to notable authorities, not what you can convince us is logical. DanB†DanD 07:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be, if the OED and other dictionaries didn't define pedophilia as a simple sexual attraction towards children. It makes sense, too, since the etymology of the word 'pedophilia' suggests no preference, just as 'heterosexuality' refers to any opposite - sex sexuality. The meanings of pedophilia and heterosexuality are of differing origins, but it would be best to have them put inline. The point is also worth raising because of the issue that I raised at the bottom of my last message: what does an encyclopedia do, when it has no article to describe a very large phenomenon? --Jim Burton 08:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to re-read the original question about 5 times! But I think what it comes down to is that half or your question relates to Paedophilia as a sexual diagnosis and half relates to Paedophilia as a criminal offence. By that, I mean that that as far as my understanding goes it is not possible to be a non-Paedophile attracted to a child unless it is in the legal sense and the person has not been convincted. Thus, in the eyes of the law, you are attracted to children but legally not a Paedophile. However scientifically it doesn't matter if you're convicted or not. You are attracted to children ergo you are a Paedophile. You don't get to say Aye or Nay. It's what you are. There is another aspect, mentioned briefly in the article, where there is a physical relationship between an adult and child which is situational and may not be attractional. This makes them legally a Paedophile but not necessarily psychologically a Paedophile. The attraction is key here, although there is debate about that as described in the definition section.

The difference does raise a good point, however. The article offers virtually no information about the criminal definition (in various localities) and makes no clear comparison between the two. The subject is brought up, but it's rather scattered. --User:TygerTyger 11:42, 7 January 2007 (GMT)

The article doesn't have information about the criminal definition of pedophilia because there is none. You won't find the term "p(a)edophile" in any law or in any conviction. The article you are looking for is Child sexual abuse. Clayboy 12:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. One would assume from the media that 'pedophilia' is a word in the legal terminology, but thats because of its use in place of rape or unlawful sexual intercourse. Even the CPIU turns out to be a rather feeble pressure group, despite it's name and logo suggesting state origin. --Jim Burton 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a article?

Pedophilia is linked with all manner of unnatural acts. This article makes no effort to scientifically link such acts with homosexuality. Nor does this article link such people with current events.~~Look at this~~ case.[2] --Margrave1206 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean this. [3].

If you know of citeable sources documenting links between homosexuality and "unnatural acts" involving children, please do improve this article (and Homosexuality) accordingly. If you don't know any, you might come off slightly on the provocative side. Also, the case you refer to has no documented link to pedophilia, at least not yet. And Wikipedia articles are not lists of current events anyway. Clayboy 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles besides being bias, are list for you information, they are also updated and cover more than you know. Besides this article needs more work, when shall homosexuality and pedophilia be addressed as one in the same?? :--Margrave1206 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you can cite sources which demonstrate that they are one and the same. Nobdoy is stopping you. Clayboy 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be very interested in adding some information about the link between pedophilia, ephebophilia and homosexuality. One of the major reasons why so many more pedophiles are bisexual or homosexual is because children are more androgynous, meaning that even superficial, sociocultural differences between the sexes can tip ones sexuality. I believe that this has been supported by clinical evidence, but I will see how the idea goes down before searching for it. --Jim Burton 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No sources are needed for assertions on talk pages, certainly. If you do go looking for support, you'll find plenty among both pedophiles and religious bigots--this is a perspective that NAMBLA and NARTH share. DanB†DanD 04:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dan - the most common sexual activity recorded between adults and minors is indeed heterosexual - between men and little girls. But the proportion of homosexual activity with minors, homosexual pedophile activists and 'out' pedophiles is dramatically higher. Far from making the right - wing argument that 'pedophilia is intrinsic to homosexuality', the androgyny hypothesis is simply a logical way of explaining how a lot more pedophiles and ephebophiles turn out bi (or gay, in the sense that a lot more bis will identify as gay). In fact, from this hypothesis, it logically follows that hardcore gays are among the least likely to be pedophiles, since they are attracted to a very well defined gender, which prety much excludes kids. --Jim Burton 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to add this material to the article? DanB†DanD 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the CSA article would be better, as the data involves offenders as opposed to pedophiles per se. For example:

Amongst the heterosexuals, the commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies were soft and smooth. note

From the article in which this was quoted: This explains the apparent contradiction of straight men abusing young boys. They really are straight – they’re responding to the feminine qualities of pre-pubescent boys, qualities that gay men didn’t find appealing. After all, gay men are, by definition, attracted to men; the feminine characteristics of young boys were a turn-off to them.

Other studies have indicated a lack of sexual differentiation in pedophiles 1, 2. --Jim Burton 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Box Turtle Bulletin appears to be a self-published one-man advocacy site, so I don't think it's an appropriate source. His own sources, like the Behaviour Research and Therapy article, may be more reliable, but I'm leery of quoting a good source via a bad one since judging context is difficult. Can you dig up the original?

The two Kurt Freund articles seem worth a mention, though (it seems we presently quote only much older articles by him). DanB†DanD 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are only three groups of people on the planet that compare pedophilia to homosexuality with sincerity. Only three groups that believe a different yet extremely common myth that crosses all national borders. Those three groups are as follows...

1. Drunk Rednecks. - They're ignorant and they're hateful. What can you expect?

2. The Hardcore Religious. - Some religious people hate homosexuals so they compare them to anything that will "demonize" them further to believers and non-believers alike. No perspective, no scientific analysis, nothing.

3. Pedophiles Themselves. - Pedophiles will compare themselves to homosexuals in order to accomplish two things, to get the homosexual community "on their side" through this invalid comparison and to try to build residual sympathy based off societies view towards homosexuals.

Those are the three groups. There are no others on this planet that will compare homosexuals to pedophiles outside of these three groups. They are the only three. If someone compares homosexuality to pedophilia, it's usually not hard to figure out which group they belong to. It's one of the most repugnant things someone can do verbally or in print. It is a terrible, noxious offense. But why? Why is it so wrong, and how is it a completely wrong statement to make?

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It means that one is oriented to a specific same-sex, one's own gender. It means nothing outside of this. You are romantically, physically and sexually attracted to your own gender. Just the flip side of the coin from heterosexuality, the attraction to the opposite gender. Now, as subsections of these orientations, you have what is known as fetishes. A fetish is a specific attraction to a specific sex act or a specific aspect of a person or thing that has nothing to do with their personality or gender. We all know people with fetishes. They range from dangerous to harmless.

Some common examples of fetishes are oh, people who are attracted to feet, or people that get off due to say, urination during sex. These things typically are harmless (yet usually disturbing to the average person) acts between consenting adults. However, some fetishes are quite harmful. Those attracted to having sex with animals, Beastials, are an example of a harmful and quite sick fetish. As well, those individuals who are pedophiles are much the same as Beastials. Two groups of fetishists that are attracted to having power of an "innocent" creature with harmful intentions and results. They're attracted not to personality, but to that specific aspect. To claim a pedophile is akin to a homosexual is to claim that a Beastial is akin to a heterosexual. Or that a necrophile, one who lusts after dead people, is the same as heterosexuality!

To claim, whether you are redneck, religious or a pedophile that pedophilia is an orientation is to claim that every fetish on the planet is an orientation. Suddenly they're no longer "foot fetishists" on the planet... they're Podiasexuals. No more necrophiles... they're Deceasosexuals. Ani-sexuals? Each and every mere fetish would become a full-blown orientation. Feces-sexual, Urine-sexual, Furrysexual, the list would never end. Hell, we'd even have to take the Beastials and subdefine them out due to the specific animal they've sexualized.

Link: http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=17 (Original quote)

Non Medical Therapies

As it stands the very short description of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in this article is grossly inaccurate and describes something very different from the cognitive-behavioral treatment approach. To be scholarly rigorous, there needs to be sufficient support to suggest that the treatment modalities mentioned are commonly used in Tx for pedophillia. --Jdcounselling 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Crimes

While the STATE of being a pedophile is theoretically not a crime in and of itself, pedophilic acts are widely criminalized, often with severe penalties, and there is international cooperation in putting possessors of pedophilic paraphernalia and child molestors behind bars. Thus, I have left its inclusion in Category:Crimes. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. That is not going to fly. The state of suffering from pedophelia is not just "theoretically" not a crime, it is actually not a crime; we do not have the concept of Thought Crime in the English-speaking world. If we had a Thought Crime category then maybe it could go there. Sheesh. Herostratus 02:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What are these r's in this sentence?

Boylove(r), Girllove(r) and Childlove(r) are used by people such as pedophile activists, who disagree with various stigmas and medical concepts attached to pedophilia.

In the above sentence, why are there r's in words such as Boylove(r)? --Acepectif 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They're used to indicate both the abstract noun and the person who is practising it.--Orthologist 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Infantophilia redirection outdated

The infantophilia redirection to paedophilia is outdated since the particular article nepiophilia has been re-created, this time backed up with sources. Please correct. --TlatoSMD 03:44, 17 March 2007 (CEST)

Needs more pictures

I added template.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough already, Kirb ol' pal. No, the pictures are not going in here, they are not going in Child Pornography, and so forth, OK? Sheesh. Herostratus 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just surfed on over to the French Wikipedia, and not only is the pedophilie article not featured, but it's got a couple of please-improve-this-article flags. 69.3.238.216 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why is this template{{FAOL|French|fr:Pédophilie}} at the top of this page?--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The template at the top of the article says "Cet article manque de sources." Are we looking at different wikis?

A general note on your push for pictures. WP:GRAPE recommends illustrating an article about grapefruit with a picture of a grapefruit. It does not recommend illustrating an article about grapefruit with a portrait of some random person who may or may not have ever seen a grapefruit in her life. Why not illustrate "pedophilia" with some pictures of pedophiles? 69.3.238.216 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. The discussion page says, "Cet article a été reconnu article de qualité le 24 mars 2005 mais a été contesté et retiré le 12 octobre 2006." Somehow you must be looking at a version from last autumn. 69.3.238.216 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this article is about pedophilia, not pedophiles. It should have pictures of pedophilia.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is a picture of a child an illustration of pedophilia? 67.101.40.33 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the context in which it is being used. MetsFan76 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so Kirbytime is now requesting pictures relating to Pedophilia, after requesting pictures of Lynnie england having sex with Granner and previously requesting pictures of child porn. He has also denied the holocuast saying that it is "alleged" to have happened. I think all this is trolling behavior. He is simply stiring up mud for pleasure, nothing else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt57 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry but this is sickening. Why on earth would anyone want to put pictures of pedophilia on here? Not only is that disgusting, but to even have pictures like that is probably illegal!!! MetsFan76 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well actually it would be impossible to have a picture of pedophilia itself here, since pedophilia is just an idea or a nature. But if you look through the page's history at my futile attempt to add a picture by a French painter I couldn't spell or pronounce the name of to save my life, you will see that it seems to fit well. — $PЯINGrαgђ 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what pedophilia is and this article does not require a picture. I do not agree that it is an idea or a nature. What person in their right mind would have an "idea" like that??? And it is in no rational person's "nature" to act on impulses such as those. Gimme a break. MetsFan76 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the whole reason we have neutral point of view. Because I also think "Who in their right mind would kill another person?" but do you read that in the article about murder? — $PЯING[[User talk:|rαgђ ]] 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok..so then how is having a picture of pedophilia, or the idea of it or its nature or whatever, maintaining a NPOV?????? Why do you find the need to see it so bad in the article? MetsFan76 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Metsfan, it's for the same reason why pederasty has pictures. Are you going to remove all the pictures from that article too?--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could. MetsFan76 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

<r> Kirbytime, please note that if you make one more request for inappropriate pictures, you may be blocked. --Matt57 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather invalid criticism of the user, there. The first example you cited was questioning whether pictures should be included (possibly a joke), and the second was discusiong the use of sanitised/legal child pornography in the CP article (a good idea). --Jim Burton 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I don't see anything funny here. Possibly a joke? No, I don't think so. And what the hell is legal child pornography????!!!! MetsFan76 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although Wiki should strive to stay legal within as many possible jurisdictions (but primarily its own), I can easily see us using a few nonude child modelling pictures, for example Cute Katia or something from the youth talent galleries, to emphasize the kind of material that could sometimes be seen as softcore CP (or soon be legislated into being so). --Jim Burton 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I don't see how that is necessary. MetsFan76 11:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Could sometimes be seen"? Sounds like weasel words to me. Unless you can demonstrate a clear link between the need for a picture, whether it's a banana or a three-year-old getting gang-raped by gorillas, then I don't see a reason for it having space in an article. Keep in mind Springeragh's point: "it would be impossible to have a picture of pedophilia itself here, since pedophilia is just an idea or a nature". A picture of a child model or a nude child could be seen as anything depending on the point of view of the reader, and I can't think of any merits in showing children engaged in sexual acts. Pictures, if any, should demonstrate the concept: say, a man with his pregnant thirteen-year-old wife. Otherwise, you aren't really adding anything to the article. --CA387 12:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be perfect if someone could upload it. No sexual element, perfectly legal (they are married), at least I don't see any problems with it. — $PЯINGrαgђ 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a mug shot of some convicted paedophile would be appropriate. I dont think anything else would be, SqueakBox 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean someone convicted of Child sexual abuse? This article deals with paraphalia.--CA387 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Krafft-Ebing

"Adults sexually attracted to children were placed into three categories by Krafft-Ebing" This was recently changed. What did Krafft-Ebing study? --Gbleem 07:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Satyricon

Maybe we should move the block quote to the Satyricon article and simply say that the novel depicts sex between a young girl, an old man and his slave. --Gbleem 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -Will Beback · † · 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What's more : Sarah Ruben seems to have misunderstood the text, translating "filiam speciosissimam" by "very attractive little girl". The age of the puellam isn't given, and nothing leads to think she is "11-12". Pannychis, The "puella satis bella et quae non plus quam septem annos habere videbatur" from the XXVth chapter, who "ne tristis expaverat nuptiarum nomen" would have been more approriate to illustrate her views. Glotz 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)