Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

original research on prevalence

The following section is all original research and does not belong in the article:

Speculated prevalence of sexual attraction to children in general population In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21 percent acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; nine percent reported sexual fantasies involving children; five percent admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and seven percent conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment. The authors also noted that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, [one could] hypothesize that the actual rates ... were even higher." An NHK investigation in Japan surveyed 3600 subjects aged 16 to 69 about having sex with a partner under 13. Among males that answered "I would like to" were 6% of respondents under 20, 5% of respondents in their 20s, 4% of respondents in their 30s, 1% of respondents in their 40s, 8% of respondents in their 50s, and 0% of respondents in their 60s. For females the rate was near 0% in all demographics, except the under 20 group, in which 2% answered positively. Comparatively little research is available regarding pedophilia's occurrence in females. In a 1996 study of a university sample, 2.6 percent of surveyed females self-reported at least some sexual interest in children. Some studies have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with pre-pubescent youths.

Tests of sexual arousal as an indicator of prevalence of pedophilia is original research, unless a particular source specifically states that conclusion. Only one of the sources even mentions the word "pedophilia"; even in that one, it describes the tests as predicting potential indicies - there is no conclusion drawn about prevalence of pedophilia in society. Sexual arousal is a physical response, not a mental not a diagnostic criteria for pedophilia; people can have physical arousal responses to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with their desires or thoughts. Those tests are a research tool; some studies using that tool may report conclusions that specifically mention pedophilia, in which case we can summarize their conclusions. Otherwise it's original research to use that information in this article. In the case of the section above, there are no conclusions in those studies regarding prevalence of pedophilia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think this does not belong in the article, and is full of OR extrapolations. (Especially as the diagnostic criteria is not mere attraction). -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the data is not original research, as the section does not make the assertion that a sexual attraction to children is always pedophilic. The extremely loose defintion of pedophilia in this article merits the inclusion of such data regardless. Gary P88 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect--by placement within the article the section implies that it is about "pedophilia," but it is not, it is about research studies on sexual resonse to children. Jumping from sexual response to children to pedophilia is OR. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The clinical definition of pedophilia is blatantly ignored in the section about biological findings and psychopathology, where it is implied that criminal behavior is a form of pedophilia. You're happy to accept a jump from criminal behavior to pedophilia, but you won't accept an alleged jump from sexual response to pedophilia. Why?

The editing of this article by you and your meatpuppets is inconsistent, biased and POV. If the definition is used loosely in one section, it should be used loosely throughout the article, not just the areas where a loose definition suits your POV.

Furthermore, it is not implied that a sexual response to children indicates pedophilia, because the real definition is provided above. Gary P88 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything you say that is grossly incivil and contains personal attacks will be ignored, so consider the entirety of your last comment ignored. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A perusal of your edit history shows that you have responded to similar comments, so it seems strange that you have chosen to ignore my comment. Can you explain why it is apparently okay to assume that criminal behavior is automatically pedophilia, yet a sexual attraction to children is not automatically pedophilia? Do you not consider such assumptions to be inconsistent? Gary P88 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on. It's not exactly how I would put it, but he is entitled to an opinion. The observations about not being able to make one leap whilst making others automatically - is valid. forestPIG 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[in]. Further to my above comment, I also believe that there is no problem with the section. Could someone please state where it claims perfect applicability to pedophilia, the general population et cetera? forestPIG 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig, all psychological research attempts to make generalizations about the rest of the population. It doesn't need to be said, it's assumed. I've done psychological research, for years. You need another argument than the POV angle, as it's clearly not working. The MeatPuppet comment is not only insulting to PetraSchlem, it's insulting to me. I'm no one's meet puppet. I just happen to agree with her, and disagree with you. ForesticPig, you may not realize this, but we have met each other, on two occasions, if my memory serves me correctly. You should know by now that I think for no one but me. Now, will you please stick with the issues we've raised, instead of using ad hominems? Googie man (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[in] all psychological research attempts to make generalizations about the rest of the population.

No, sorry - it does not. If you have practised, you will realise this automatically.

Now, will you please stick with the issues we've raised, instead of using ad hominems?

I would value it if you could point to an ad-hominem in my arguments. That is not the kind of thing that I would intend to do. forestPIG 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the study of psychology is the understanding of human behavior, and the mind.So, after I don't know how many years of college and professional experience, maybe you can enlighten me on what I've missed. Why would we care about a study on 80 people from rural Ohio if it's not supposed to have broader implications? If it didn't have broader implications, the only meaning of the study would be is that rural Ohio has a little issue with pedophilia, but who would care about that? Now, I must tell you, that if I edit Wikipedia anymore today, I'm going to lose my job, so don't mistake not hearing from me for lack of interest, or backing down.The ad hominems? Well, it's pretty clear to me anyway, that you don't trust PetraSchlem's motivations. Just stop with telling us what you think of PetraSchlem - we all know. Just issues...please. Now, I'm outta here for a while. Best, Googie man (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"If it didn't have broader implications, the only meaning of the study would be is that rural Ohio has a little issue with pedophilia"

Didn't you just support the argument that sexual arousal does not equate to pedophilia? Gary P88 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you please, PLEASE allow me liven up the prose just a bit by not being so literal, allowing that perhaps I was tyring to inject a humor! Sheesh, Wikipedia drives me insane. To go with assume good faith, assume some brains! You think by my making a joke, that you've somehow shown me up, or that I don't know what I'm talking about. Always thinking you're smarter than someone else. OK, I'm done with this discussion for a while, as this is all I can handle for a few days.Lesson - you take things way too seriously. And literally. Live up.Googie man (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exclusive versus non-exclusive

That section needs some tweaking, which I'll most likely do. Otherwise, it's confusing people again. For this article to point out that not all child molesters are pedophiles...and then to basically have that section saying just the opposite, that they all are. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I made tiny tweaks to it. Petra, that section also seems like a great place to add a subsection about FBI typologies on pedophiles/situational offenders that you showcased in earlier discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Holmes typographies. I'll just set the citation here for a moment while I find the book. Holmes, Ronald M. (March 12, 2002). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN 9780761925934. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I think we can add stuff about the FBI typologies, but the way the section was changed is inaccurate--it os not meedical/disgnostic opinion, and citing Okami and Blanchard as medical opinion is incorrect--they are dissenters to the standard authoritative source, which is the DSM., so that will have to be changed. Also, the ICD-10 does not have an independent defintion--it relies on the DSM. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, the way I changed that section is not inaccurate, but is rather how Pedophilia is defined by many sex experts, still today, as has been mentioned many times above. The start-off in that section only mimics Jack's lead of this article, which also shouldn't be changed. But, as a compromise, I did change the start-off of that section to "some experts" instead.

Right now, we have the problem of minor inconsistencies. For example, in the Types of pedophiles section, it says that a study indicates that most child molesters are non-exclusive pedophiles. If so, that would mean they do not meet the typical medical definition of Pedophilia, and are not "true pedophiles". But in the Prevalence of pedophilia section, we have the FBI stating that most child molesters are pedophiles, as in preferential offenders, meaning they are the "true pedophile" type -- the exclusive type.

What this article needs is more unison. We shouldn't give the impression that all child molesters are indeed pedophiles in one section, which isn't correct, while the rest of the article makes clear the opposite. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're a bit off-track. For one, there is some difference in terminology that I think are meant to mean the same thing. Exclusive and Non-exclusive strike me as over simplified choice of words even if Mayo used them. There was the older "fixated vs. regressed" but this has modernized into "situational vs. preferential." Holmes (2002) actually evolved slightly from that FBI source (which was Holmes 1996). It has "situational vs. preferential." and breaks the former into Regressed, Morally Indiscriminate, and Naive/Inadequate. Preferential is broken into Mysoped (aka sadist), and Fixated.Legitimus (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a consistent percentage, about 5-7 percent, of exclusively-attracted-to-children pedophiles. But nonexclusive pedophiles--who attracted both to children and adults--are diagnosed as pedophiles also. (From there, different typologies break it down further). -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, so two separate methods of classification. Do we want one sub-section of Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive, and the other "situational vs. preferential" broken down? I just realized, one is psychological, the other is more of a law enforcement model with psychological features (refers mainly to offenders).Legitimus (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Groth=fixated/regressed; Park Dietz (FBI)=preferential/situational. I think this is the section actually where we could explain those two typological systems in a subsection following the main distinction between exclusive/non-exclusive. (But what is meant by exclusive/non-exclusive shouldn't be muddied by the dispute about whether one is a pedophile and the other is not); that's irrelevant). -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm thinking maybe Groth and FBI belong under child sexual abuse instead, though we could link the sections I suppose.Legitimus (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how this fits into the formal typologies, but there are also exclusively-attracted-to-children pedophiles who marry and/or have sex with adult women for various reasons, even though that's not their preference. Some do so with single mothers in order to be close to their children - for example, see this INTERPOL Sexual Abuse page and this Guardian article: Single mothers to be offered paedophile check on partners. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Jack. In the same way that pedophiles being able to have sex with adults does not make them any less pedophiles, situational offenders who molest children are no less situational offenders. Pedophiles would rather have children sexually and it's like denying their "true nature" to be with adults that way instead. The same goes for situational offenders, as I am speaking of those who have used children as sexual substitutes due to lack of adult partners, not due to a true sexual interest in children. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, can you specify what you mean when you say "situational offender," and to which source you are referring when you use the term? (There is more than one definition, not a singular codified one). -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean what I've stated above. Jack brought up a fact, and I stated one in response to it, which is the same fact that I've been stating all along -- not all child molesters are pedophiles. The FBI makes this clear as well, when it says that most child molesters are pedophiles instead of saying that all child molesters are pedophiles. Yes, the World Health Organization relies on the DSM, which it obviously interprets as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. I find it silly to state that all child molesters are pedophiles in the same way that I find it silly to state that a pedophile who has sex with an adult is truly sexually attracted to adults. After all, we have wars in places such as Africa where prepubescent children are raped by soldiers. Does that make all of those men pedophiles as well? The rapes were more than likely about power, hurt and control than a true sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I was simply elaborating on my points to Jack. I mean, Petra, we obviously disagree on whether or not to call all child molesters pedophiles, so I'd rather leave it at that, and work with you to better this article, though our thoughts on deeming all child molesters pedophiles obviously differ. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• No. And it would be nice to work it out once and for all. According to the DSM, not all child molesters are pedophiles. However, the ones who are exlcuded are not "situational" in the regressed sense of that term, they are "situational" in the FBI's sense of the term--the indiscriminate one-time offender. What I'd like to see is you acknowledge that there are two types of offenders who have been called "situational." I do not appreciate having my opinion mistated (esp. as it is not my opinion, it's the DSM--you don't actually know what my opinion is, as I have never shared it.) So, Flyer, how many types of situational offenders are there according to the literature in general, and which kind does the DSM exclude? -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're tripping over the terminology. If I could try and map this out (not preaching, just charting my thoughts): there is the clinical psychology take and the criminal psychology take. The DSM refers to the clinical approach, a disease to be treated. There is a potential for any child sex offender to be diagnosed a pedophile (even "situational"), but it's going to come down to interviewing and some tricky individual judgment. That's why, despite three "easy" criteria, only somebody with a PhD and license can legally make that call. If the patient is not a pedophile, there's inevitably going to be another diagnosis (major depression, mental retardation, anti-social personality disorder). Now the criminal psychology approach is that of study, classification and/or detection of criminals. The idea being to break down psychological motives to discover a perpetrator, or discover (or even prevent) causes of the crime. This field may (many might say erroneously) refer to all child sex offenders as pedophiles. But this is the field that tends to make the distinctions between "situational" vs. "preferential." And (according to Holmes) the former has three subtypes, and the later two.Legitimus (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about actual practice, not the sources to which we have to refer in the article. (In actual practce, having a PhD is not necessary, but typically more than one person would make a diagnosis; it would be confirmed by an M.D. psychiatrist/medicating doctor. Also, the DSM is a set of guidelines in actual practice; no one would say, hmm, you say you've only been having these urges for 5 months and three weeks? Well, then we can't dignose you," just as the time cut-offs for MDD are equally fluid. And almost everyone is diagnosed with dysthymia and GAD anyway to avoid stigma, no matter whta they are treated for...) But I do want Flyer to answer the question (or stop bringing it up once and for all) regarding what the literature says about "situational" offenders. Namely, that it refers to two types, not one, so that when she says "situational" she needs to specify which type she's talking about. Also, that the DSM does not say "all child molesters are pedophiles." -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes I know about the diagnostic process; I was just making the point that it takes some expertise and (as you pointed out)the criteria are not a mathematical formula. But yeah, after Jack's comment I admit I'm having a hard time following this conversation. It's making me dizzy. I'll wait for Flyer then.Legitimus (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, by saying "no" above do you mean, "No, you will not work with me"? or "No, let's settle this once and for all"? First, I will say that I'm not the one who keeps bringing this topic up. It keeps being implied here that we should basically call all child molesters pedophiles and that, "Oh, if he sexually molested a child, yep, definite pedophile"... Well, every time that is stated, I simply state my disagreement with it. I do not even believe whatsoever that most child molesters are pedophiles. There have been too many valid sources that state otherwise, and this article even seems divided on that subject with conflicting statements. Pedophilia is not really about the act but rather about what goes on in the head of the offender. I have not mistated your opinion (and you don't have to state your opinion for it to be clear what it is, though). Will I state that there is more than one type of situational offender? I will state that the section Types has a link that showcases more than one type. That's all you will get from me on that subject, seeing as most articles on pedophilia do not specify "different types of situational offenders"...instead they just say "pedophiles and situational offenders". Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the idea of 'exclusive' even a legitimate one to include to begin with? Exclusive, meaning 100%, can easily describe things like behaviour, or who someone consciously chooses to entertain ideas about being with, but if we are talking about instinctive attractions, including those affecting the subconscious, I don't think it's scientific at all to label something as 100%. The same concept applies to heterosexual and homosexual, someone heterosexual/homosexual is not ONLY attracted to the opposite/same sex, they are just predominantly attracted to them, the ones who are most predominantly sway in that direction adopt the monosexual label and those who least prodominantly sway in that direction adopt the bisexual label. This is entirely the idea behind pedophilia here. Those adults who are attracted moreso to people their own age (teleiophilia) are the homo equivilent in this case, and those who are attracted to dramatically different ages, the pedophiles/gerontophile extremes, would be the hetero. This comparison actually doesn't work too well since gender/sexuality is more about a span between male/female and age is kind of up/down from a point someone is at, making it more like 3 things... actually a better analogy might be Gynephilia_and_androphilia#Age since then you could have the old/young dichotomy comparison match up with male/female rather since the same/different dichotomy of homo/hetero seems to have problems with the comparison... k I lost track but hopefully that expresses what I mean about exclusivity there. Tyciol (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I get what you're saying about "exclusive" not being a very good descriptor, but it's what the source says. That's why I added the link under it. It's a link rather than text because detailed categorization is more common for "child sex offenders" and than "pedophiles."Legitimus (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Add section on phallometric tests?

There exists a page for "penile plethysmograph," but it has no shortage of problems and would seem to be very relevant here. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

May it be good for the disputed Hall reference? forestPIG 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hall et al is a possible inclusion for the prevalence section. Some people thought it implied too much (despite the cautious wording). Maybe a PP section would be a good place to include it. forestPIG 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Phallometric tests measure physical arousal only and do not measure "pedophilia". Making a connection to pedophilia in the article based on studies showing arousal in which the researchers did not make that connection in their papers would be an inappropriate synthesis. On the other hand, if the researchers clearly stated a connection to pedophilia in their papers, that could be appropriate for use depending on the particular situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You only need to look as far as the title for that connection in Hall: "pedophilic arousal." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment was about the general use of phallometric studies as in the title of this talk section, because in the past studies were used that did not mention pedophilia. I was not addressing that particular article - I haven't looked at it yet and have no comment one way or the other about its content at this time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Men (Flyer22 Reply)

You state that there are many sources that state that most pedophiles are men. It depends on your point of view. There are a few questionnaires that find pedophilic feelings (read: not pedophilia per se) are admitted more often by men, and we also know that more child sex offenders are male. But to what extent is female pedophilia legitimised? To what extent is it given credible outlets. To what extent does the stereotype lead to disproportionate reporting of men as "pedophiles"?

I am unsure, so would leave the point either uncovered or offloaded onto popular belief. forestPIG 17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Most pedophiles are men; the condition is extremely rare in women." is a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, a reliable source as footnoted. Are there any reliable sources stating the contrary? If so, let's find out what they say. If not, there is no basis to discount Britannica. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Added a couple more footnotes supporting that text, including "Review of General Psychiatry, 4th ed." by Howard H. Goldman, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the supposition attributed to that encyclopedia. But to state as fact, we would need conclusive evidence. forestPIG 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There are three references to that fact: Encyclopedia Britannica, the Mayo Clinic Proceedings (a peer-reviewed journal), and Review of General Psychiatry, 4th ed., a widely respected text by Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D.:

Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Author or co-author of about 250 publications in the professional literature. Editor of Psychiatric Services, a mental health services research and policy journal published monthly by the American Psychiatric Association. Serves on the editorial boards of several other journals, including the American Journal of Psychiatry' and the Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. Former Senior Scientific Editor of the Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health from 1997-1999 for which he was awarded the Surgeon General’s Medallion.

Is it your contention that the above is not a reliable source for what it states clearly as a fact, and not a belief? Do you have any supporting sources at all that indicate doubt that most pedophiles are men? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no conclusive evidence, and we cannot therefore make the conclusion. forestPIG 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow me on the logic of this: There are 3 possible answers to the gender distribution of pedophilia.

1. Most pedophiles are men.
2. Most pedophiles are women.
3. Pedophilia occurs with absolute equal frequency in men and women.

#1 is supported by all available evidence, and #2 and #3 are not supported. Therefore, #1 is the logical choice. You're asking for absolute, unequivocal truth, which is not scientific and does not exist. Unless you can produce a source that supports conclusions #2 and #3, it should stand as #1.Legitimus (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. You are endorsing an edit of "unequivocal truth". I am erring on the side of caution. I would rather that empirically unfounded beliefs be attributed to their sources, however likely they are to be correct. forestPIG 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What would you have us do? Will you next go to pancreatic cancer and change it to "it is believed by most/studies show it might be fatal within 5 years." Like magically we somehow missed 30,000 people who were clinically diagnosed and then survived. You have been asked to provide sources for assertions #2 and #3, and you have provided nothing more than simple unfounded skepticism. And you must be mindful that solipsism too is a POV in and of itself.

Look, I empathize with the view that men are subject to unfair scrutiny compared to women when it comes to sexual offenses, but this simple statement is not going to have any effect on that. It is simply a statement of empirically supported fact.Legitimus (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate, with empirical data, how you know that most pedophiles are men. forestPIG 12:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cohen LJ, Galynker II. Clinical features of pedophilia and implications for treatment. Journal Psychiatric Practice. 2002;8:276-289

That's not to mention a variety of teaching texts (already mentioned by Jack) that corroborate it. I have no further comment for you. If you have good sources to add here or to the article, go ahead. Otherwise, leave it be.Legitimus (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me how these texts demonstrate the point in such a way as it can be stated as fact. What samples do the sources use? What do they define pedophilia as? How do they determine pedophilic preferences? forestPIG 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[in]I just looked at the abstract, and it confirmed my suspicion. The study uses a criminal sample. A criminal sample cannot be generalised to "most pedophiles", even if researchers have plucked the 20% or so pedophiles from that sample. forestPIG 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I come here thinking that I'm going to have to reply to Petra, but it is you, ForesticPig. There is no way that you can convince me that pedophilia occurs equally in men and women. That is like saying that serial killer tendencies occur equally in men and women. Should the Serial killer article state that it is believed that most serial killers are men, instead of flat-out stating that most serial killers are men? Men are attributed to the most atrocious crimes against mankind. That is a fact. You probably look at that as my saying "most men are evil"... I'm not saying that (at all), but I am saying that when it comes to the worst crimes, men are greatly responsible. Most pedophiles are men, most rapists are men (which likely has a lot to do with strength; the opportunity to do so more easily than a woman raping a man), most serial killers are men. Notice how that is not saying that most men are pedophiles, most men are rapists, or that most men are serial killers?

If you believe that pedophilia occurs equally or greater in women, then why are not more women caught or diagnosed? Simply because they are more clever than male pedophiles? They are so much more embarrassed to admit that they have sexually molested children? I mean, more men are even caught going after teenagers (not the legal kind either)...such as on To Catch a Predator (where, in fact, only men show up). And if you believe that most people would not report that they have been sexually molested by a woman, I must state that that is ridiculous. Some boys do not report it, sure, because they feel that it is a right into manhood and they feel that they are less of a man telling what happened to them. But are we saying that most boys do not tell? But even so, what about the girls? Surely, most girls would tell that they have been sexually molested by a woman...unless we are saying that they (the heterosexual girls) are so embarrassed to reveal that a woman has "been with" them sexually. But would not that go for heterosexual boys who feel embarrassed when they reveal that they were sexually abused by men? So, really, there would be just as many reports of female pedophiles/child molesters if there were as equal a number of them as men, or more. Also, what is interesting is that some female child molesters can really get caught up in viewing the child as an adult, like Mary Kay Letourneau. Most experts will tell you that she is not a pedophile, as she has shown a great interest in being with her former child victim as he is an adult. They are together and have a family. All of this and all I have studied on the issue of pedophilia tells me that most pedophiles are men, not women. Not a stereotype. Not simple popular belief. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and as a male I take no offense to your statements. In addition, may it please the court: Cohen and Galynker (2002), which I possess in print, used the psychiatric DSM-IV-TR definition of pedophile, and even discussed the DSM guidelines in detail. And it did not use a criminal population. The gender distribution is discussed on page 3.Legitimus (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Flier, the problem with your argument here is it ignores the greater occurance of heterosexuality in the population. There are more heterosexually-inclined men than there are homosexually-inclined women (lesbians). Basically, comparisons you make between male and female reporting would only apply to cases of homosexual interactions. It is a possibility that a reason for boys reporting male abusers more than girls reporting female abusers is that boys may report abuse more, or that the acts that tend to occur happen to disgust them more strongly and feel less emotionally protective of abusers compared to lesbian cases. All sorts of trends could influence reporting rates, so it's best to just state what is reported and not assume this reflects the actual proportion of what is occuring unreported. Tyciol (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, you could accurately say most DIAGNOSED pedophiles are men if the reported statistics indicate that, but in regards to any psychological statistics, what is diagnosed does not necessarily match what exists in the population undiagnosed. That said, while it could vary in one direction away from the diagnosed trends, it could also vary in the other. Just as men might make up a less predominant %, they could easily make up a more predominant %. This depends upon the theories people have on why the numbers would be different and how strongly people believe such possibilities would alter the composition. Tyciol (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tyciol, I was not ignoring the greater occurance of heterosexuality. Not at all. Simply giving points, which you even state as good. The same could go for how come not as many male victims report child sexual abuse by women? I brought up the point that some boys (the heterosexual ones) do not report it because they feel that it is a right into manhood and they feel that they are less of a man telling what happened to them. But I ask again, are we saying that most boys do not report female sexual abusers? Besides that, a heterosexual boy getting sexually molested is often not about him being heterosexual. Plenty of heterosexual boys get sexually molested by men. Just as some homosexual boys may get sexually molested by women. I absolutely was not ignoring heterosexuality. What's worse for the heterosexual boy? Reporting that he was sexually abused by a woman? Or reporting that he was sexually abused by a man? Both could be equally as bad to the boy, for the reasons I've stated above. One could argue, though, that reporting having been sexually abused by a man is worse for a heterosexual boy, and yet we have more reports of males sexually abusing boys than women sexually abusing boys. Add that to homosexual boys reporting sexual abuse by men. What we have left is female sexual abusers. We are either going to have boys or girls reporting them. So far, the reports on both ends is very low for women. Those were my main points. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets clarify

I am not attempting to convince anyone that pedophilia is equally distributed between the sexes. But we cannot state as fact that most men are pedophiles, as there is no conclusive evidence. There are better ways of doing this, e.g. attributing the position to authors or popular consensus, or using Tyciol's diagnosis specifier. Someone will have to provide conclusive, non-criminal, well sampled evidence. And so far, I have not seen it. forestPIG 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear that you are doing so, but you are making an impossible demand. You are hypothesizing that there exists a large number of pedophilic women who have been invisible to all prior researchers, and you are asking people to prove that such women do not exist. That is what scientists call "proving the null hypothesis," and it is a basic tenet of science that one cannot do so. In science, one assumes the null hypothesis until someone provides evidence that requires one to reject it. That is, the onus of proof belongs to the person asserting that the hypothetical is true; not vice versa.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am making no such hypothesis (only at one point asking whether it may be reasonable). The null hypothesis has not been rejected. That is why I am pressuring the editors not to adopt as fact the idea that most pedophiles are men. It can be stated in ways, e.g. numbers pertaining to diagnosis or the beliefs of certain authors. Those would be reasonable ways of expressing the trend, as we can be sure of them. forestPIG 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Serial Killer article stating that most serial killers are men. The rape article states the percentage findings of studies in addition to its apparent conclusion. I propose that we either drop the "Most pedophiles are men" part OR do like we have in the Rape article, wherein we quote the statistics in addition to the arbitrary statement, or if the statistics are inconclusive (e.g. one study says 95%, another study says 65%), then state such. Also, when it comes to taking the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reputable source, I would be far more interested in what studies it has to back itself, although I could not find any of its references. Let's not take it on faith in encyclopedias... Thank you for finding another reference, although I may like to see another. IsmAvatar (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a compelling and reliable source that states there are an equal number of women to men who are pedophiles, then vive la difference. Otherwise, lets just focus on what we know. Oh, it may also be worthwhile looking for information on the equal distribution of male pedophiles to high IQ level pedophiles, or even Protestant Republican pedophiles. Any possible others? Feel free to explore. Phdarts (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with MarionTheLibrarian, of course, who has made awesome points on this subject. As for there not being anything in the Serial Killer article stating that most serial killers are men, there should be. It is fact that most serial killers are men. A fact that can be attributed to valid references. Are we honestly saying that just as many women have been serial killing all this time but are clever enough to have not been caught? It is a fact that most pedophiles are men, despite there being "no conclusive evidence"... If someone really wants to argue that it is not true that most serial killers are men, then go ahead and argue the silly, but, in the case of this article, given that the evidence on pedophilia shows that most pedophiles are men, that is what this article should state. IsmAvatar has made a resonable point about stating the statistics, like the Rape article does. I do point out, however, that the Rape article still states that most rapists are men. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Phdarts - you, like others assume that not outright endorsing the opinion that most pedophiles are men means that we must have evidence of equal prevalence in women. Not quite true. See my recent edit for the alternative that I am happy to work with. forestPIG 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is an argument in search of a purpose. There are several reliable sources that state most pedophiles are men. Some editors - for reasons I don't understand - are questioning that, however, they have not provided even one sources to indicate that there is any question about that in scientific literature.

There is scientific literature that recognizes that female pedophiles are under-reported; however, even those sources do not suggest that the under-reporting goes so far as to approach anything that would cast doubt upon the simple statement that most pedophiles are men.

Note that this is not an issue of misinterpreting statistical error, it's a large effect size. The ratio of male to female pedophiles is substantial, not marginal. The term "most" is vague, but it's more than "more than half" and it's less than "all". The statement is in the intro of the article, to offer an overall perspective.

Editors are welcome to locate and add information to the prevalence section with various studies and percentages of pedophiles that are male or female, that would be of value; and, in that context it can be mentioned (with proper sourcing) that the percentages for female pedophiles are under-reported.

But - what is the purpose of arguing about a simple statement that most pedophiles are men? It's clearly an accurate statement, it's supported by multiple mainstream reliable sources; it's not a controversial statement, and it introduces the topic effectively. So, why dilute it with weasel words that specifically have no support at all in any reference (or at least, in any reference that editors have so far been able to find)?

There's plenty of actual controversy to discuss related to this topic. What's the point of expending energy to debate something that's not controversial anywhere outside of Wikipedia? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I would personally want to debate the matter if I were interested in making it an issue. I'm not particularly interested in that though. It doesn't seem to be an issue in the literature relating to pedophilia from an academic context. However, it does seem to be a possible issue in the NAMBLA related literature though. I would be happy to help out with clarifying such material in this article if it were to be sufficiently illuminating. We will have to watch out for the proper representation of fringe views though. I would recommend input from reasonably uninvolved editors also if we were to trundle down this particular avenue of scrutiny. Phdarts (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's not an issue in the literature, that's why it should not be an issue in the article and that's why I suggested the conversation was getting stuck. As far as NAMBLA or other similar organizations, it's unlikely any question of this particular issue would even be found in their statements - the members of all those pedophile organizations are 100% male (most of the groups are historical and not active now anyway, but when they existed they were all male). Also, the fringe views put forth by those organizations don't belong in this article, because they are not simply minority views, they are in the extreme minority, on the extreme fringe. Those ideas are addressed specificlly in the article on Pro-pedophile activism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack is on-point yet again. And I do not even see how stating that "most pedophiles are men" is an opinion. Again, that is like saying that stating "most serial killers are men" is simple opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

From a writing and reader standpoint, we also need to be mindful of how the wording ForesticPig proposes sounds. When you qualify statements of fact that way, it makes the fact sound contentious, like it's being debated amongst scientists as we speak. That would be misleading, as this is plainly not the case. In indeed, over-qualifying facts is an ongoing problem on many articles, and has been used in the past as a subtle way of undermining those facts. I'm not saying your doing that, but think about how it reads.Legitimus (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Jack, I agree. I don't see any such issue in the NAMBLA related literature on the web. Just as an aside, I think this article has been handled well as regards to imagery and images. Is there any particular Wikipedia recommendation about the inclusion or exclusion of images here? Phdarts (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error

In section "Etiology" under the sub-heading "Biological findings," the word "unconsciousness" is misspelled as "conconsciousness." BecauseWhy? (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- fixed, thanks. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No treatment?

"There is no known treatment or cure for pedophilia" Does this statement even make sense? Of course you can't cure it as it's not a 'disease' in the strict sense, rather it's a cultural deviance. You wouldn't put a statement like this in gerontophilia or even homosexuality even though the latter was once considered a disease and criminalized. --AnY FOUR! (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the DSM and ICD diagnostic standards, technically it is a disease/disorder. It's arguable if any sexual preference is "curable," but that is a debate for another time. Regardless of you opinions, efforts are made at present within the mental health profession worldwide to assist people with this disorder so that they a) their impulses no longer cause them distress or b) that they do not act on their impulses, which would both involves harm to others and criminal activity. I do not know how effective such treatment is as I don't work with this population. But so far, is seems there are treatments that may work, but often they do not.Legitimus (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a very different issue, and while certainly still criminalised in various places it is obvious to civilised people that no cure is needed whereas to find a cure for the scourge of pedophilia would be a tremendous breakthrough. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While I would not call pedophilia a disease, I would certainly and do certainly call it a disorder. More than just a cultural deviance. As for homosexuality, scientists have found that they can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies. If human sexual orientation can one day be changed, then I do believe that that can work for curing pedophilia. The thing, though, is that there will surely be parents deciding that their children should not be homosexual and changing those children's sexual orientation to heterosexual, as scientists have mentioned. And in that case, would it be right? I mean, a downside is that it would overpopulate the world further, considering that the rate for heterosexuals breeding is higher than for homosexuals. The main good thing I see out of this is a possible cure for pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any information about treatment of non-offending pedophiles? Convicted offenders tend to be the ones that receive treatment to reduce recidivism. But surely there are people to go to a therapist complaining of impulses or pornographic habits they have yet to act on.Legitimus (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said yesterday, if you people are so civilized and open to other opinions that you understand homosexuality to be an alternate lifestyle, why not paedophilia? Thirty years ago homosexuality was treated the same way paedophilia is now. Rather than go through three decades of persecuting paedophiles, can't we skip to the part where we open our eyes and realize there as absolutely nothing more wrong with paedophilia other than that you've been taught to believe it's immortal? Thirty years ago, we were taught that homosexuality was immoral too.

To the person who mentioned paedophilia being a classified disorder using the ICD system - I haven't read about this and don't want to, so please explain why paedophilia is a "disorder" and every other alternative sexual practice, such as homosexuality or chronophilia, isn't. If in fact these practices ARE disorders but are just more widely accepted, please explain why you're now aware that the sexual practices of gay men are nothing to be ashamed of, but you're still so damn set on insisting that paedophilia is "wrong".88.110.215.195 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but this is not a discussion forum, it's an encyclopedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. As to ICD, if anybody else wants to know: ICD-9-CM Diagnosis 302.2. And last time I checked, we're not obligated to justify worldwide medical practice to random IP addresses on the internet.Legitimus (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate when pedophiles try and condone pedophilia or suggest that it should be thought of as normal just because homosexuality is now thought of as normal or at least not as being a mental disorder. IP, homosexuality was thought of as a mental disorder simply because it perplexed and still perplexes people extremely that nature would have two people of the same sex be sexually attracted to each other when it does not bear life, when it takes a male and female to sexually reproduce (at least, leaving out scientific tampering, it does). Scientists now believe that sexual orientation involves a combination of things, not solely nature. I, just to throw out my thoughts, do not believe that anyone is born heterosexual or homosexual. Sexual orientation of human beings is a lot more complicated than that of fruit flies. I'm not saying it's about nurture either. Likewise, I do not believe that anyone is born a pedophile. I'm not even sure I believe that a person has a predisposition to becoming a pedophile. But what is the biggest difference between pedophilia and actual classified sexual orientations? They are not at the expense of hurting children! In heterosexuality, it is two consenting adults, unless it is a pedophile with a child. In homosexuality, it is two consenting adults, unless it is a pedophile with a child. In pedophilia, it is always an adult and a child. In the other sexual orientations, their sexual attraction hinges heavily on the fact that these individuals have secondary sex characteristics. Not only is it difficult to understand someone who wants a sexual partner who does not have that, adult sexual interaction with children is harmful to the children involved (this has been proven by many valid sources). And by "children", I do not mean a 17-year-old who is one year away from turning 18. Anyone who feels that a 5-year-old child can truly consent to sex is an idiot and truly disgusting! I know what 5-year-olds are like (and older children, considering that I am an eldest sibling of five and grew up in such an environment, though five of the two are still kids). Children say "yes" to a lot of things; that does not mean that they want all of those things or even the majority of them. Surely, you and others remember what it was like being 5. How naive and clueless you were about a lot of things. 5-year-olds and little kids around that age often want to please adults. A child saying "yes" to sexual abuse (that's what it is -- sexual abuse)...hardly means anything, except that that child is going to regret and most likely blame themselves for what happened when they are old enough to understand the injustice that was done to them. I'd be damned if the world allowed my child, if I had one, to be sexually abused by a stranger or anyone and act as though they can consent to it, like a mid teenager is given the right to do is some states. And I'm not the only one.

Human beings aren't simply trained to not be sexually attracted to children. I never rememember being trained or taught to be sexally attracted to people who do not look like children. That's just how it is. When I was 12, I certainly was not having sexual fantasies of being with 6-year-olds. If anything, it is perfectly natural for human beings to be sexually attracted to adults. I cannot say the same for adults being sexually attracted to people whose bodies are not even sexually mature -- in other words, children. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Flyer, your point about paedophilia being unnatural in that it's not usual for an animal to be attracted to a sexually immature member of the opposite gender is a good one. However, by that logic, homosexuality is as bad as paedophilia in that members of the same sex mating can't possibly produce anything. Something being unnatural does not mean that something is bad. Humans, as sentient beings, are not limited by instinct and don't need to mate with members of the opposite sex capable of bearing young.

Your earlier comments however stink of indoctrination and common but irrational values. A five year old can consent to sex, just like he or she can consent to be given a piece of candy that might not taste very good. They also might enjoy sex - personally, I don't really care one way or the other about paedophilia, but I despise this prejudice against what is, quite simply, yet another thing that society has been brought around to believe is wrong and will eventually get over, just like homosexuality, male superiority, white superiority and Aryan superiority. Whatever rationalization you people give, treating paedophiles like scum is just yet more irrational prejudice.88.110.215.195 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks, anonymous IP. I feel almost the exact same way about pædophilia as you do, yet on the rare occasions when I present my view, I refrain from descending to commenting about (for example) "indoctrination and common but irrational values." Now don't misunderstand me: I agree with most of your post(s), but please don't word them in an offensive way or in a way that could be offensive, or make personal attacks. Personal attacks might not certainly do not taste very good, and nobody consents to them. ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:18 9 July, 2008 (UTC)

Whereas, anon, I think your views are completely wrong, how anyone can despise those who wish to protect children from sexual predators is, to me, completely baffling. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm treating you like a child, also, but allow me to point out that I frequently disagree with SqueakBox, but I have never (to my knowledge, and he is here to correct me) made a personal attack against him—I have probably gotten sarcastic, but I do that with everybody, given time. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:06 10 July, 2008 (UTC)

Are't there better places out there on the web to have this discussion? Right now, we have to stick with the science, because this is an encyclopedia, not a political debate.Legitimus (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

IP, your reasoning about pedophilia is completely illogical. In fact, that is the way a lot of pedophiles talk. You keep trying to compare pedophilia to homosexuality. Sorry (no, actually I'm not), but it cannot be done. Homosexuality, minus a homosexual pedophile, is still being sexually attracted to someone who is sexually mature (more specifically, physically-wise). Some may call homosexuality unnatural, but it is perfectly normal. How you can reason that being sexually attracted to someone who is not sexually mature is perfectly normal is beyond me. And I do not believe that you feel one way or the other about pedophilia/child sexual abuse. It is not predjudice to say that a child cannot consent to sex with an adult. How in the world does a child saying "yes" to something mean that they truly understand everything that are saying "yes" to and are ready for it? Their bodies are not even ready for sex. I remember what it was like to be 5, and despite my precocious nature, I was fooled quite easily, though I never believed in Santa Claus (I look back on being fooled like that with anger, at how damn naive I was). I also see it with other 5-year-olds and children around that age. They are extremely gullible human beings who have a natural need to please adults. You can ask a child do they want to drive a car, and, of course they are going to say "yes". Why? Because they think that it's cool and see adults doing it. It does not mean that they are ready to drive. In the same way that a 5-year-old is not mature enough to drive, a 5-year-old is not mature enough to "have sex with an adult". They are little innocents, who only become "bad kids" due to screwed up parents (the majority of the time, anyway). I know the pain that sexually abused children go through. These people, as adults, will tell you that they are extremely angry about what happened to them as children. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, why would they detest what happened to them so much now? And don't sell me that "because society taught them it's wrong" crap. Adults being sexually intimate with children causes significant pain; I've been around pain such as that enough times before. It causes pain such as suicide, sexuality problems, child-on-child sexual abuse, etc.

Pedophilia/Child sexual abuse is not simply "yet another thing that society has been brought around to believe is wrong"... I told you before, even when I was twelve, I did not find children sexually attractive (not unless those children were twelve or higher). I wasn't taught to be that way. I simply was/am not sexually attracted to children...because their bodies do not appeal me. And if you seriously believe that the world will one day allow adults to have sex with 5-year-olds, you are either delusional or the world is going to be one fucked up place... More than it already is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Flyer, what I said was that the belief that it's wrong to have sex with children is society-taught. Your natural inclination toward disinterest in the sexuality of children is instinct, but your disgust toward people who disagree is learned.

There is no inherent sanctity in sex. As sentient beings, we have sex because we enjoy it. Not to breed, and this is the similarity between paedophilia and homosexuality. There is no purpose in either but pleasure. I fail to see why paedophilia is wrong when any other "uncommon" practices are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.84.221 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

yes there is a critical difference between homosexuality and pedophilia: homosexuality doesnt hurt other people! We dislike people who beat people up or murder people (because the want money or drugs or whatever), it's not a stretch or "taught behavior" to dislike people who hurt other people in pursuing pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.76.226.12 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the comparison is not between homosexuality and pedophilia but between raope and pedophilia. We do not tolerate rape merely because the rapist enjoys it, we concern ourselves with the victim, and this is the same with pedophilia, just because the pedophile enjoys himself at the expense of a child does not make it alright. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The other IP and SqueakBox summed it up. And, IP, my detest for pedophiles was not learned, I assure you. Just like my detest for other horrible people was not learned. I must also note that if one is a pedophile, but has never acted on those pedophilic feelings, I do not detest that person, unless I have another reason to detest that individual. After all, one does not choose to suffer from pedophilia, but one does choose to engage in pedophilic behavior, including non-pedophiles at times, which pisses me off all the more.

I know what you said, and I said that the "belief" that "having sex with children" is wrong is not merely society-taught. Human beings have a natural sense not to hurt other human beings, but some people lack that sense or simply do not care for it, the thing called a conscience. Human beings saw and still see that adults "being sexually intimate with children" is harmful to children. Thus, human beings set to out to stop this harm, which is why society is the way it is today, in most parts of the world, in stopping adults from sexually abusing children. Human beings do not have sex solely for pleasure; they have sex for a social connection, comfort, depression, boredom, to bear children, etc. Part of human beings having sex is the fact of knowing that it will not mentally/physically harm the person they are having sex with, now or in the long run. You say that "there is no purpose in [homosexuality and pedophilia] but pleasure". Wrong. Homosexual adults who engage in sex with other homosexual adults look for companionship, can have an actual romantic relationship with that person. An adult cannot possibly have a true romantic relationship with a child, for all the reasons I explained above. Damn it, a child does not even understand driving a car. And you're saying that they can fully comprehend all of the emotions and complications that come with having sex? Or, what, that an adult can simply explain it all to that child and that child will be okay? Sure. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next a child asks me to drive a car. I'll simply explain it to them and put them behind the wheel of a car, let them speed off, and that's it. No harm. No foul (rolls eyes).

Incest has been frowned upon, thought of as "not normal" and forbidden in most cases for hundreds of years. And that has not changed yet. Acting as though an adult sexually abusing a child will one day be thought of as normal is as likely as incest one day being mostly thought of as normal.

Adults sexually abusing children will be thought of as abnormal for as long as human beings are smart enough to see the harm in allowing it. Teaching human beings that "adults having sex with children" is wrong is only secondary. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a disorder just like homosexuality is a disorder. Obviously there is a difference in the harm of resulting actions, but the disorders themselves are equally abnormal.

I think squeakbox is a blind hate-monger, and I think that other ip guy is a pedophile who is trying justify himself. I have no experience on the issue, but I am inclined to believe the common belief that all child sexual interactions are harmful. I have yet to find a study, though, that even attempts to find the harm resulting from "consentual" adult-child sexual interaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.113.130 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call homosexuality a disorder or abnormal. And I love SqueakBox's detest for adults so-called "being sexually intimate with children". Though he does feel that every child molester is a pedophile, and I disagree with that, any child molester is equally hated in my eyes. And while I agree with you about child sexual abuse, the thing is, though, the "consentual" adult-child sex you speak of is exactly what is called child sexual abuse and has been found to be harmful to children. You make it sound as though pedophiles physically force the child to engage in sexual activity. Some do, but most simply play mind tricks on the child or tell the child to do it...and the child does it. I already briefly explained above why the child does it. Children (and I'm not speaking of teenagers, though a few may fall into this category) easily do what adults ask without question. Children have to be taught not to get into a car with a stranger. Why? Because they will otherwise, simply because that stranger is an adult. And even when you teach children not get into a car with a stranger, a lot of them still will. This is where they do what one adult wants over the other. They think, "This person is an adult, it seems okay. Mommy and daddy were maybe wrong."

The point? A child saying "yes" to something does not mean that it is not harmful to that child. I already gave the driving example. Most children who were sexually abused listened to the adult, which is what you might call "consentual", but, as adults (and even as children, for the ones that understood the creepiness), they hate the sexual abuse that happened to them and very much consider what happened to them to be child sexual abuse. It is not the child's fault that they so-called "consented" to something that they thought was normal behavior on the part of the adult and trusted the adult to be doing "something that adults just do" and had no idea the mental anguish it would cause them (these children) later in life. These children, as adults, who so-called "consented" were/are emotionally harmed and that past haunts them. Indeed studies do show the harm resulting from "consentual" adult-child sexual interaction; most child sex abuse cases are ones where the child "participated" in the abuse. That "participation" does not make it any less abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind him, Flyer. He's just surly because billy goats have been in short supply.Legitimus (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a disorder because it nullifies the evolutionary purpose of the sex drive. Any trait that removes itself from the gene pool is a disorder. That is why pedophilia is a disorder, because children can't get pregnant. If children could have babies you would be attracted to children as well.

And if billy goats could carry your human child clone, you would probably be attracted to them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.113.130 (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you have a bridge to hide under?Legitimus (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, homosexuality is not a mental disorder, IP. It's as simple as that. You can call it unnatural, based on reproductive purposes, but it is certainly not abnormal. There are too many reasons why homosexuality is not a mental disorder, reasons I really do not feel like explaining.

And children can get pregnant. Ever heard of precocious puberty? A person is still mentally screwed up if they find a pubescent 6-year-old sexually attractive, considering that 6-year-olds still look 6 even then...of course. Just imagine a 6-year-old stuffing her braw; she would still look like a child. It's the same for a pubescent 6-year-old.

Anyway, this discussion has just about covered everything concerning this topic. But, really, Wikipedia talk pages are not for lengthy discussions about what we do and do not consider mental disorders, unless we are discussing sources.

Hopefully, no other IPs will drop by this section to add their "two cents". Of course, I could always ignore them, but I have this "uncontrollable" urge to respond. Blaim it on my obsessive-compulsive disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific peer review?

{{oldscipeerreview}} is transcluded at the top of this page, but looking at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Pedophilia, it seems that a peer review never took place. Am I correct in this? If not, where is the review? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it for now. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked around and was not able to find a peer-review either, so I concur with removing the template. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Requesting that an admin change one instance of the phrase "reparative therapy" to "conversion therapy", per the article title. 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, PeterSymonds. 12:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.20.71 (talk)

WP:REDFLAG

"virtually all pedophiles are child molesters, not all child molesters are pedophiles"

This claim is exceptional. Its source is decidedly non-exceptional, being a webpage with no known author aimed at lay-people that contains numerous other errors ("Pedophiles are men") and doesn't even provide a source for the claim that "virtually all" paedophiles molest. As it contradicts more reliable source that an unknown or significant portion of paedophiles do not molest, it should removed. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no way to justify such a statement. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is unscientific. How do we define a word such as "virtually" for example? forestPIG 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hat notes

Regards this and this edit, see in aggregate - I think there's a need for a hatnote of some sort. Perhaps {{distinguish}} rather than {{otheruses}} 1-4? Podophilia is 'meh' as foot fetishism is far more common but Ephebophilia does seem to be a candidate - it should be distinguished somewhere in the article and right now it appears only in the see also. Perhaps better discussed in ephebophilia, so I'll spam this over there too. WLU (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've entered a comment on this at Talk:Ephebophilia#style, not content. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems in 'dissenting options' section

Although it is perfectly appropriate to note dissenting options, the existing section in my opinion has some timeline problems. The arguments appear primarily based on 25-year-old statements that there were no markers of pathology; whereas the markers noted in the prior section were reported after those criticism were made. Dissention for purely theoretical reasons would be more "timeless," but dissenting opinions that are time-dependent should be noted as such. As an analogy, it would be peculiar if one noted criticisms of modern biology that were made before the discovery of DNA.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Is that better? I removed Green, Ng, and Howells. I feel their opinions should be moved to a more appropriate section, one that can include Charles Moser and others that don't rely on Wilson & Cox's study. (I also think it oversimplifies to state that as Green's sole reason.) Vogt was very dubious as used, so it's gone, too. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on Vogt. Glad that's not in conflict.Legitimus (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement, IMO —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Me as well (the source of the original passage was not myself, but a previous version that was deleted in error). forestPIG 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The references did support that; it was taken from the lead." I added them to the lead, and they do not support the assertion that anyone believes 'paedophilia' should be limited to exclusive attraction. Advocating it be limited to preference has nothing to do with the exclusive-nonexclusive typology. Also, I don't think we should reword the criteria of the DSM, as you did. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked if the DSM included that. I did not remember seeing it split into two categories. That section has even gone a long time without having that add-on. And oddly enough, Petra never pointed out in our debates that the DSM splits into two categories (I think, let me check above), but rather brought in FBI typologies. In fact, before the changing-of-the-lead debate that recently took place, I was for stating that pedophilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I am even the one who wrote that part back somewhere in 2007. Do I believe that a person can be equally sexually attracted to adults and children? No. After all, a preference does not mean equal. And I do not believe that the DSM is saying that a person can be equally sexually attracted to children and adults either. If they could, I do not believe that those people would be deemed "incurable"...when they could easily get just as much sexual satisfication from being with adults and therefore not really "need" children sexually to be sexually happy. In any case, it was not my intention to actually reword the DSM. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:Also, isn't Groth in the lead? He is one source that defines pedophilia as an exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and my saying that "the references did support that" was my speaking of it being a sexual preference. I was not at all thinkig about the "exclusive" part, which could have easily been removed either way, until I re-examined why you may have removed that sentence. It did not take but a second after I made that comment in my edit summary to realize your reason for the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since someone asked, I'll transcribe. The DSM does say the following: "Some individuals with Pedophilia are sexually attracted only to children (Exclusive Type), whereas others are sometimes attracted to adults (Nonexclusive type)." The "Specify If" parts are word-for-word, but missing some parts. They are as follows in the book:

Specify If:

Sexually Attracted to Males

Sexually Attracted to Females

Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify If:

Limited to Incest

Specify Type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)

Nonexclusive Type

commentary: sex of children attracted to is not related to adult sexual attractions (Groth and Birnbaum (1978))

Legitimus (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the way Legitmus went about tweaking the part I worded and how that fits right after the main parts of what the DSM says is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible POV pushing

This edit removed two respected studies, labelling them as "dubious" and "requir[ing] further vetting". The editor has failed to explain why she considers them "dubious", apparently removing them because they contradict the studies which she has added. I am unable to edit this article; could an administrator possibly undo this seemingly POV edit? Gary P88 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of POV pushing is uncivil and does not belong here. You are welcome to disagree with edits, but your ideas of what's going on in the minds of other editors are irrelevant.

The text was removed because the statement that pedophiles constitute a minority of incarcerated child sex offenders is misleading and does not properly represent what the studies reported. People who engage in sexual activity with children are pedophiles, by definition and according to the DSM. If the studies specifically report that incarcerated abusers of pre-pubescent children are mostly not pedophiles, that's a contradiction of the definition of pedophilia, and simply does not make sense.

One of the studies, "Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of aetiology," in Cook, M. & Howells, K., appears to be misquoted. The study is not available online, but it is summarized by MHAMic and the idea that most convicted sex offenders are not pedophiles is not mentioned. What is mentioned is that the study itself points out that convicted offenders are not typical populations and therefore those observations can't be generalized to the wider population. So that reference does not support the text it footnoted.

The Okami study addresses "Sex offenders against minors", not sexual offenders against pre-pubescent children. That includes offenders against adolescents. In that context, the observation that a majority of convicted offenders are not pedophiles makes sense, but it's not relevant to this article, since this article is about pedophilia, not sexual abuse of young adolescents. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you were offended by my comments; I refrained from making a reference to your username in an attempt to communicate my point in a civil manner. Having said that, I do believe that you edit from a very one-sided perspective, which is not a value-neutral method of editing.

The Mayo Clinic study which you strongly support also refers to all children, not just pre-pubescent children. The fact of the matter is that we can't record data which focuses specifically on the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children without forcing victims of child sexual abuse to disclose their stage of development, which would be highly unethical. If we only accept studies which specifically address offences against pre-pubescent children (no such studies exist), we cannot have a section discussing the prevalence of pedophilia among child sex offenders. Gary P88 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"a very one-sided perspective, which is not a value-neutral method of editing." -- There is no requirement for editing to be "value neutral"; the requirement is that articles present WP:NPOV; showing all side of an issue, without undue weight for fringe theories.

"The Mayo Clinic study which you strongly support also refers to all children, not just pre-pubescent children." -- that is incorrect. That paper specifically addresses those differences in detail; those differences are its main focus.

The idea that offenders convicted of abusing pre-pubescent children are not mostly pedophiles is a fringe theory and will not be able to stay in the article. It is simply incorrect, as is shown by a large preponderance of mainstream sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jack that Gary is confusing NPOV with fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The studies which I added are mainstream and are not fringe theories. You may consider their conclusions to be "incorrect", however that is your POV and it is not supported by consensus among researchers; indeed, their is no consensus about the prevalence of pedophilia in child sex offenders. Gary P88 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

POV? I do not have a POV on this subject, merely an interest in NPOVing it, which certainly includes ensuring fringe theories are not given undue weight. Your opinion that your refs are mainstream is unverified, and your fellow editors here clearly disagree with you. Mainstream is that pedophiles are child sex offenders and child sex offenders are pedophiles and I am confused why you would claim otherwise. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus/mainstream of experts is relevant, not the consensus/mainstream of tabloid readers. Gary P88 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I realise you are a new user, Gary, with no experience of wikipedia, but your claim is wrong. I urge to familiarise yourself with our policies and refrain from edit warring until you have substantially more exoperience than is the case cuirrently. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you and Jack are incorrect:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

Gary P88 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We are indeed following the policy and not asserting any view as true. But you are inserting fringe viewpoints and then claiming they are mainstream and fringe viewpoints must not be treated with equal weight, see WP:Fringe, indeed you appear top be pushing a fringe viewpoint and then attacking those who actually want to have NPOV by accusing them of POV pushing. Not a very clever strategy. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that they are fringe views is highly manipulative. Until you or Jack (etc) can find evidence which supports a contrary viewpoint - which clearly outnumbers the evidence showing that most child sex offenders are not pedophiles - you have no right to assert that I am inserting fringe studies. Gary P88 (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Agree with Jack-A-Roe above. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to merge some material and arrange the order if information in such a manner that proper weight is is given. Gary P88, I have kept your Okami reference, but it has been moved further down the section as has the FBI reference that counters it. The section is not perfect, indeed I feel it is much too large and cumbersome, but we'll work on that eventually. Also, keep in mind that the term "contact offender" is not a correct or clinical term, and is prejudicial, so must not be used in the article in the context it was used.Legitimus (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, Jack-A-Roe, AT, et al. - Your POV well-poisoning is tiresome, and your vacuous yesman antics are becoming quite excessive as of late. You have made no attempt to prove Gary's references are fringe. I suggest you do so if you are genuine in your concern. In the meantime, perhaps WP:OWNERSHIP would be of interest, as you are practically quoted there. Thanks. Headcreeps (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clearing that up. Now that you've created a brand new account to protect Wikipedia, we can all relax. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the removal was improper. Jack's implication that using a general CSA population is misleading - does not work, as we have no proof that the opposing studies do not use similar samples. One, for example uses a book that one would have to buy to see and an expired link to a fact sheet. Commonly, any offending against someone below the age of consent is defined as CSA. If we do not use this definition, it should be made absolutely clear as not to cast hebophilic and ephebophilic offenders in the same light.

Whilst most of the contributions to this article are fine from a technical view, I am becoming concerned about the growing "civil" POV push here. forestPIG 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

5-33% of adult males?

Moved to talk page for discussion:

Some authors cite phallometric recordings of sexual response to children and self-reports of attraction to children as indicators. "The results of these studies are varied, with tests indicating that preferential sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children is present in between 5-33% of adult males."

The statement that as many as 33% of adult males are pedophiles is an extreme claim and needs to be vetted. The footnotes don't include URLs, so if anyone has access to these documents, please provide the info.

Also, phallometric tests show arousal, but the don't define pedophilia (an internal process, not a physiological response), therefore that needs to be clarified with direct quotes or close paraphrases from the sources, and the sources need confirmation of reliability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm connected to the library at the moment, so here goes:

Bromberg et al. (2001) - Primarily deals with studying and working with children in the role of a school psychologist, and is more of an essay than a study. It talks about past studies in which aberrant impulses are detected, but did not actually conduct these tests, nor does it make any claim supporting the assertion by the text listed above. Interestingly, while it talks about phallometric measurements, it also quickly pointed out that they are not true indicators and that there are multiple mechanisms that counter these impulses in normal adults (it's implied that phallometrics bypass this). On a positive note, this is a good and useful article on the general subject matter, but it's content would be better put to use elsewhere.

Green (2002) - Another literature review, not an actual study. Mentions Hall et al. and Fedora et al. (both of which were found to be of limited generalizability and usefulness), but does not offer new data. Highest estimate is 25%, but again this is only a quote from Hall et al. with it's pitiful 80-person loafer sample.

Freel (2003) - Survey written by a British social worker. Focus was on male vs. female self-reported (Not Phallometric) interest. Sample was restricted to 183 child-care workers (could represent a tainted sample), and it's highests estimate was 15%.

Seto (2004) - Another review. Provides no information supporting the asserted claim of such a high percentage in the general population.

One more thing. Part of the text above is it quotes, but this quote does not appear in ANY of the sources.Legitimus (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The 33% is an important observation, but needs putting in the right context. 33% of the men were more aroused by the prepubescent stimuli, but were not particularly pedophiles. That is clear from the study. forestPIG 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which study says 33%?Legitimus (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority of incarcerated?

Regarding this revert, the restored text is not supported by the two footnotes, that's why I changed it.

The statement that pedophiles constitute a minority of incarcerated child sex offenders is misleading and does not properly represent what the papers reported. People who engage in sexual activity with children are pedophiles, by definition and according to the DSM. The papers do not contradict the DSM; though one of the questions the way definitions are applied in research. "Incarcerated sex offenders against minors" includes offenders against adolescents, that's why pedophiles are in the minority - not because convicted offenders against prepubescent children are not diagnosed with pedophilia, and that is the implication from the misleading text as restored by the revert:

In papers by Paul Okami and Amy Goldberg (1992), and Kevin Howells (1981), the authors stated that most data they had reviewed suggests that pedophiles make up a minority of incarcerated child sex offenders.<<Okami, P. & Goldberg, A. (1992) "Personality correlates of pedophilia: Are they reliable indicators?," Journal of Sex Research, 29, 297-328. "This is a particularly important point because most data suggest that only a relatively small portion of the population of incarcerated sexual offenders against minors consists of persons for whom minors (particularly children) represent the exclusive or even primary object of sexual interest or source of arousal.">><<Howells, K. (1981). "Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of aetiology," in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), Adult sexual interest in children, 55-94.>>

The rewritten version that has since been removed by the revert:

In their 1992 review of existing literature on personality correlates of pedophilia, Paul Okami and Amy Goldberg (1992) stated that because most convicted sex offenders against minors had victimized adolescents rather than prepubescent children, research about pedophilia based on convicted offenders is not accurate.<<Okami,P. & Goldberg, A. (1992) "Personality correlates of pedophilia: Are they reliable indicators?," Journal of Sex Research, 29,297-328..>>

One of the papers, "Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of aetiology," in Cook, M. & Howells, K., appears to be misquoted. The study is not available online, but it is summarized by MHAMic and the idea that most convicted sex offenders are not pedophiles is not even mentioned. What the paper mentions about convicted offenders is that they are not typical populations and therefore those observations can't be generalized to the wider population. So that reference does not support the text. If anyone has the full text of this source, please check it out and confirm my comment or provide relevant quotes if this is incorrect. Without some sort of verification, this reference should not be used.

The Okami study full text is available online. It specifically discusses "Sex offenders against minors", not sexual offenders against pre-pubescent children. That includes offenders against adolescents. In that context, the observation that a majority of convicted offenders are not pedophiles makes sense, but it's not relevant to this article, since this article is about pedophilia, not sexual abuse of young adolescents.

The misleading text should not be used without modification. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions about Okami. It lumps several populations together in making its assertion. Okami is a known critic of "pedophile" being misused in popular parlance (which it is), but he kind of shoots himself in the foot with that study. Cook & Howells (1981) is a book rather than a study, hence why it cannot be found online. It's also out of print as far as I can tell. It' so old in fact that I cannot find a hard copy in any library. My concern is it is not clear from anything I can find if it had information on the prevalence of diagnotic pedophilia among sex offenders, much less what the population they worked with was.Legitimus (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of persons with pedophilia

A great deal of work is done with child sexual offenders, usually as a result of a court-ordered referrals. However, is there information on treatment of non-offending pedophiles, particularly egodystonic cases? I was hoping someone with knowledge in this area could contribute. Thanks. Legitimus (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The prevalence among convicted criminals (whatever you want to call them)

We need to straighten something out right now. There is confusion about how prevalent the diagnosis of pedophilia is among those who are caught and convicted of sexual crimes against children. In the interest of disclosure, I do not know the answer to this anymore than most scientists, though Kinston et al. (2006) indicates that the distinction psychologically between pedophile and non-pedophile offenders is arbitrary and something of a technicality. It also must be clearly stated ("let the record show" as it were) that the argument that most child molesters are not pedophiles is frequently an argument pushed by pro-pedophile groups because it implies that the impulse to have sex with children is somehow "normal" and not indicative any mental illness (which Kingston, obviously refutes). That is not directed at anyone, it is merely being stated as a fact, regardless of whether said argument holds merit or not.Legitimus (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument that most CSA offenders are not pedophiles seems very counter-intuitive and is the exact opposite of the common usage of the term pedophile, and yes we recognise that some people who self identify as pedophile and engage in pro pedophile activism want to promote the belief that pedophile are not sexual abusers and sexual abusers are not pedophiles but if we can source that as a fringe arguem,nt it needs to go tot he PPA article and in no way be mentioned here. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I recognize your concerns, Legitimus. I am no pedophile, but am one who does not believe that most child molesters are pedophiles. I'm not sure that I believe that most aren't either anymore. My feelings on the matter also, of course, have nothing to do with feeling that most child molesters are not pedophiles normalizes pedophilia. I feel that it is off for pedophiles to use that "logic". Why? Because I don't believe that most of these child molesters have a true sexual preference for children or true urge to have sex with children. Whatever the reason non-pedophiles sexually molest children varies somewhat. But, clearly, if these non-pedophiles would rather be with adults sexually, but for whatever pathetic reason sexually abuse a child, it cannot be all that normal, just as actual pedophiles sexually abusing children is not normal, despite it being their sexual preference. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that this is a mainstream view, not just personally held beliefs, and the reality is that the common use meaning of the word pedophile, certainly in the UK, includes any child sexual offender. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, which also may include teenagers, which only confuses matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes butt he fact that that is sometimes a confusing boundary is something that should indeed be discussed amply in the article though I think that mainstream belief also thinks that pedophiles molest pre-pubescent and pubescent children and not more mature teenagers regardless of what AoC laws are in place wherever. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Squeak, but with the way that the mainstream media was calling Mark Foley a pedophile, I'm not so sure that the mainstream belief is that pedophiles molest prepubescent and pubescent children only. The mainstream f-ed up in confusing people by not clarifying that Foley is not a pedophile, but rather a ephebophile. He has to be; I cannot imagine any adult going after teenagers that much sexually unless that person is indeed a ephebophile. And the media often did not even bother to clarify that a 16-year-old consenting to sex with a legal adult in Washington, DC, where Foley was "preying" on these 16-year-olds, is completely legal.

Anyway, I'm not against Legitmus or your objections to including the above of what Legitmus stated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just one thing: I think you are referring to the linguistic definition of pedophile (i.e. a preference and/or attraction, and/or exclusive attraction, however is appropriate to word it). But there is also the diagnostic definition used by the APA and other medical systems, which only require the presence of a significant attraction, regardless of whether that person prefers adult partners. Kingston was indicating that not meeting the diagnostic criteria doesn't mean an offender is not screwed up mentally in some way. This study also used offenders with a mean age of 35 who had offended against children under 16. My point being, each source requires a certain amount of scrutiny to determine which definition they used.Legitimus (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I was just stating how I do not see how an individual can have a significant sexual attraction to children if he (hell, or she) prefers adults sexually. I mean, using sexual orientation as an example, I know plenty of individuals who used to identify as "bisexual". But they were/are not equally sexually attracted to both sexes and were/are intensely sexually attracted to one sex over the other -- that sex being of the same sex. Thus, they eventually identified as gay and lesbian because there is no significant sexual attraction on their part for the opposite sex, and they really have no interest in pursuing a romantic/sexual relationship of that nature. I basically see some situational offenders sort of like that; they are not truly sexually attracted to children, and a lot of them only sexually offend one child; typically a family member (not that offending one child excuses their horrid behavior, especially if it's a relative). But, yeah, I was touching on a little of that train of thought when saying I do not believe that most child molesters are pedophiles. And, as I said before, I'm not sure that most child molesters are not pedophiles either. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Legitimus - you rather uncivilly reverted my sourced edit and then mentioned a movement that no one here has a thing to do with. It's uncalled for to say the least. If you would like to reasonably discuss the harmful and misleading myth that child sexual abuse is mainly committed by pedophiles, then go for it. forestPIG 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly misleading and you need to get consensus for yop\ur edits, FP, which right now you certainly do not have. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is precisely why I reverted it. Your changes are contested, therefore discussion is in order. As stated before, I have no opinion on this matter. The trouble is about your sources: Jack-A-Roe has indicated that your Okami (1992) does not support the assertion made in the text. If you feel it is untrue, your welcome to provide a link to the full text, or at least transcribe a quote that shows your point. Second, the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive is not a reliable source as far as I can tell, merely an internet based group of some sort created by Erwin Haeberle, who is neither a phycian nor psychologist nor socioligist. It also offers no proof for it's assertion, merely a statement. Third, please explain why this is a harmful myth. I'd never heard it put that way before.Legitimus (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition of pedophile both in the USA and in the UK is a person who is sexually attracted to children. The definition says nothing about abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.113.130 (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Request comment on text regarding typologies

The following text was in the "history of the term" section of the article, but it does not appear to be about that, it's about typology:

Other researchers used their own terms for the Krafft-Ebing categories: a.) preferential/structured/fixed (i. e. pedophile) type, b.) situational/opportunistic/regressed/incest (i. e. surrogate) type c.) sadistic (no change) This three-type model as well as the fundamental mental and behavioural differences of the three types were [[empirical evidence|empirically evidenced]], among others, by Kinsey; Howells 1981;<ref name=howells1981>Howells, K. (1981). Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of etiology. In M. Cook & K. Howells (Eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'' (pp. 55–94). London: Academic Press.</ref> Abel, Mittleman & Becker 1985;<ref name="abeletal1985">Abel, G. G., Mittleman, M. S., & Becker, J. V. (1985). "Sex offenders: Results of assessment and recommendations for treatment." In M. H. Ben-Aron, S. J. Hucker, & C. D. Webster (Eds.), ''Clinical criminology: The assessment and treatment of criminal behavior (pp. 207-220). Toronto, Canada: M & M Graphics''.</ref> Knight ''et al.'' 1985;<ref name="knightetal1985">Knight, R.; Rosenberg, R.; Schneider, B. (1985). "Classification of sex offenders: Perspectives, methods, and validation" In A. W. Burgess (Ed.) ''Rape and sexual assault: A research handbook'' (pp. 222-293). New York: Garland.</ref> McConaghy 1993;<ref name="mcconaghy1993">McConaghy, Nathaniel (1993). "Sexual Behaviour: Problems and Management", 312, New York: Plenum</ref> Ward ''et al.'' 1995;<ref name="wardetal1995">Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., Marshall, W. L., & Siegert, R. J. (1995). "Attachment style and intimacy deficits in sexual offenders: A theoretical framework." In ''Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment'', 7, 317-334.</ref> Hoffmann 1996;<ref name="hoffmann1996">Hoffmann, R. (1996). "Die Lebenswelt des Pädophilen: Rahmen, Rituale und Dramaturgie der pädophilen Begegnung" (''Paedophile conduct: Context, rituals, and choreography of paedophile contacts''). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag {{de icon}}</ref> Seikowski 1999.<ref name="seikowski1999">Seikowski, K. (1999). "Pädophilie: Definition, Abgrenzung und Entwicklungsbedingungen" ("Paedophilia: Definition, distinguishing features, and aetiology") In ''Sexualmedizin'' 21, pp. 327-332 {{de icon}}</ref>

Should the above text be used? If so, where would be the best place for it in the article? Not the history section - does it need a new section? Perhaps with a link to the related text in the child sexual abuse page? Also, if anyone has information about reliability of the sources in the above text, please comment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a valuable set of info, but it does seem more about types of offenders, rather than the mental illness/sexual preoccupation. Krafft-Ebing work seems to straddle the two subjects, but these later types I think were intended to be forensic rather than clinical. I think it may be better suited to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_Aspects

Legitimus (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it still seemed to be about the term to me, but Jack is always improving this article and I see no harm in his wanting that part of the article removed from where it was. I feel that it could be worked into this article some other way, but maybe Legitimus has the best suggestion for this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's in the references

These edits modify the definition so that it does not match the references:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

The above change incorrectly weakens the definition even further, by stating that "other definitions may include child sexual abuse as a primary aspect of pedophilia" The above change contradicts the 6 references supporting that sentence as it was before the change. The references do not say "may include", they simply state the defintion. Content of the text must match the references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's not an opinion, Jack, then why do many experts state that pedophilia is not merely the act? We know that not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. This was discussed above, with even Marion weighing in and adding to consensus for this article not to allow that inaccuracy in the lead of this article. As I have stated several times on this talk page, this article itself within the body makes clear that not all child molesters are pedophiles. The lead of this article should not be saying the opposite. It is fact that definitions may (or may not) include child sexual abuse as meaning pedophilia, and that is how I have now formatted the lead of this article, leaving out "other". Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That part of the lead now states: As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children;[1][2][3][4] definitions may include child sexual abuse as a primary criterion for the diagnosis of pedophilia, often termed "pedophilic behavior".

Which is a true and accurate way of presenting that information. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, that's an incorrect paraphrase of the DSM and the other five references at the end of that sentence. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And, oh, the "may include" part is, of course, not included in those references; it's not about those references stating "may include"...it's about the fact that some of those references/definitions include the act and others do not.

Stating flat-out that pedophilia is when a person commits child sexual abuse, as if it is fact when that it is sometimes contested (for example, when an individual goes under diagnosis and is found not to be a pedophile, even though that person committed child sexual abuse), is misleading. It is misleading unless we make it clear that child sexual abuse may or may not be an indicator that the person is a pedophile. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Where are all the references describing examples of people who abused a child and who then went "under diagnosis and is found not to be a pedophile"? There aren't any. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's an opinion because you have no references for your belief. The six references that you ignored define pedophilia clearly and without ambiguity, “The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.” - that one is from The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary -a completely mainstream source; the other five are just as direct. Since pedophilia is defined by acts of child sexual abuse, there is no way that someone can abuse a child and not be a pedophile. It's simply not possible. The studies that show some child molesters are not pedophiles do not show that some adults who abuse pre-pubescent children are not pedophiles - what they show is that some of the abusers are too young to be diagnosed with pedophilia, and that some abusers are abusing older children who no longer fit the prepubescent requirement of the diagnosis. When a 13 year-old abuses a 6-year old, that's not pedophilia. (According to the Mayo Clinic, most but not all of those young abusers, statistically, will later be diagnosed with pedophilia when they are adults).

Whatever any editor believes is irrelevant. The definition must be based on references, and all mainstream sources define pedophilia by acts of child sexual abuse in addition to fantasies or desires. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not at all correct. The more reliable the source, the more the definition relies on underlying sexual attraction. As time goes on, evidence accumulates for the preference-definition and only the preference-definition. Having a history of committing child molestation is used by scientists only as a proxy from which an underlying preference is infered (because few pedophiles admit to it). —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not simply a matter of my opinion. Jack, you say that "since pedophilia is defined by acts of child sexual abuse, there is no way that someone can abuse a child and not be a pedophile"... What the heck? We have very valid sources in this article that state otherwise, that speak of "true pedophiles" and situtational offenders, that state other reasons for an adult sexually abusing a child other than truly being sexually attracted to that child. Wars, such as in Africa, often have men raping children; they do it in order to cause pain and hurt, not because most of them are pedophiles. If a lowlife were to rape a child in front of his enemy, does that necessarily mean that that lowlife is a pedophile? Of course not. It means he knew it would hurt his enemy like nothing else. Mainstream sources? The fact is...pedophilia is not defined as the sexual act in all sources. The mainstream also does not always specify to prepubescent children for the word "children". Does that mean that we should take out the word prepubescent from the lead? After all, not all definitions of a "child" specify between birth and puberty. And, really, if a 6-year-old goes through precocious puberty, is that 6-year-old no longer a child? Of course the 6-year-old is still a child, certainly still looks like one. Pedophilia is not about merely the act; it is about what is going on in the offender's head. How do you think researchers came to the conclusion that some men who have sexually abused children are not pedophiles? Because these men were studied, which is what I meant by "under diagnosis"... I am not talking about children abusing children here (though I would say that a 13-year-old who sexually abuses a 6-year-old has some serious problems). I am talking about adults, as this article points out that not all child molesters are pedophiles. To state that all child molesters are pedophiles is as silly as stating that all homosexual men who have had sex with women are heterosexual. But, of course, child sexual abusers have not merely "had sex with a child"...they have abused that child. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no perfect solution for this debate. As I stated before, I have no strong feelings either way. But I feel this debate is part of a growing amount of cause for a fork: An article specifically dedicated to adults who commit acts of child sexual abuse (for example Child Sex Offenders). The "offender" section in CSA is getting a bit cumbersome as well, and I feel there is a lot of valuable information that may be better applied in it's own article. In that way, this article can retain it's clinical meaning, and the other can cover the forensic aspect.Legitimus (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, Legitimus. But the definition of pedophilia is defined both ways. I just feel that the lead should be clear in not generalizing all offenders of child sexual abuse as pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, the definition of child sexual abuse does not solely include prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea of separating pedophilia proper from child molestation seems reasonable to me. In fact, Seto's recent book put both terms in the title to make explicit that these were separable phenomena and that he would be including information on each in the book. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

After some reflection, that might be a bigger can of worms. I took some time reading other websites on the matter, and found that very few if any make any commentary about the prevalence among sex offenders. This may be the same reason I have no opinion: It's simply not that important; they end up in relatively the same place clinically (even if not pedophiles, something is wrong mentally) and legally. Perhaps it is better, since it is not well understood, to dispense with arguing either direction in the article and just be brief.Legitimus (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and brief is exactly what the lead does, without generalizing all child molesters as pedophiles (though, yes, my initial thought-process of any late teenager or "official adult" who sexually abuses a child is to call that person a pedophile). Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate, but it's off-track. There are six mainstream references that clearly and directly state that pedophilia is defined by an adult's fantasy/urge of sexual interaction with a child, or the adult engaging in such action. This is simple, not complex. If the definition according to those sources is not included with a clear quote or paraphrase, or if the definition according to the sources is modified to make it something different, that is original research. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, considering that not all sources define pedophilia as the act of child sexual abuse, and considering experts on pedophilia also state that not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Clearly, since it is fact, not opinion, that not all child sexual molesters are pedophiles, we should not have the lead of this article state that they are. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the lead makes clear that pedophilia may be defined by the act. The main point is that pedophilia is not always defined by the act, and certainly not defined by the act by most experts on this subject. Giving the impression that pedophilia is the act of child sexual abuse, when that is not always the case, is simply misleading and inaccurate. The Child sexual abuse article doesn't even try to state that all child sexual abusers are pedophiles, though it does state most are (which, I'm not sure I entirely agree with, but still...). This is the point of how the lead of this article is, which is completely truthful in how it is worded. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jack-A-Roe above. If "six mainstream references...clearly and directly state that pedophilia is defined by an adult's fantasy/urge of sexual interaction with a child, or the adult engaging in such action" then the article and article vocabulary needs to represent this. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it should. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm convinced. It should stand as Jack had edited, because it is referenced and I don't get a misleading impression when I read it.Legitimus (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article presented that "pedophilia is defined by an adult's fantasy/urge of sexual interaction with a child, or the adult engaging in such action" the way I had it. There was nothing unclear about the way I had it, except that it was more accuate, as the text within this article points out, the Child sexual abuse article points out, and many experts on pedophilia point out. The point is not that pedophilia is defined by the sexual act by some sources (mainstream ones that often don't understand the topic of pedophilia). The point is that pedophilia is not defined as the sexual act by all sources, or most experts on this topic, and the fact is that not all child molesters are pedophiles. Fact. Basically leading a reader to believe that all child molesters are pedophiles is blatantly misleading and false. Thus, I have again altered the lead. This article should not basically state that all child molesters are pedophiles, unless we have a valid source specifically stating such. And even then, it shouldn't go into this article...because it is false. I cannot believe any person who has studied pedophilia or is extremely versed in this topic would want this article to allow such an inaccuracy, especially when we have valid sources within the body of this article directly and clearly contradicting that falsehood.

On top of that, the definition of child sexual abuse does not only include prepubescent children. The lead should probably specify that we mean prepubescent for that part as well. But, really, would a man sexually abusing a 6-year-old who has just hit puberty make that person any less a pedophile? Not as far as I can see. I'm beginning to think that the child sexual abuse part should not even be in that first sentence of this article, as Legitimus first pointed out and Marion agreed with. This article is mostly about the mental disorder. It should not mostly be about the action, which the Child sexual abuse article already covers. And the lead already points out that the DSM includes the action of sexually abusing a child. Though its looks like the DSM is more so pointing out the action of acting on intense sexual feelings for a child, not the action of some situational offender who is not even truly sexually interested in children. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Legitimus, your tweak is a little better. Though I still feel that we should point out that some child sexual abusers do not meet the diagnosis of pedophilia, just like the prevalence section does. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, on second thought...I really like that tweak as it is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now wait a minute here. It says that a pedophile "has engaged in or may engage in child sexual abuse." That statement seems biased to me, in that it only leaves room for two scenarios: a pedophile MAY or WILL abuse a child. What about the pedophile who NEVER abuses a child, because said pedophile has control over those inappropriate attractions? If you are going to link pedophilia with child sexual abuse, you should at least be accurate about it and cover all possibilities. In its current form, the definition of the term can easily mislead the reader to think that "all pedophiles will eventually sexually abuse a child." Please refine your statements; I will not do so immediately because this is such a contested issue, but if no action is taken in a sufficiently long time frame, I'll go ahead and take the initiative myself. Daivox (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I made that edit during a very heated debate in an attempt to satisfy everyone. It was only later the core reason behind the conflict among sources dawned on me. Pedophilia not only has multiple meanings on the whole, but it has multiple meanings in medical contexts: It it used to refer to the mental disorder, and it refers to the behavior itself ("Pedophilic Behavior"). This later usage is generally avoided due to confusing the two, and the sentence at the end of the first paragraph was meant to cover that.

Daivox, if the "has or may engage" part is taken out of the lead and replaced with "or has committed", it leaves some readers with the false impression that anyone who engages in child sexual abuse is a pedophile. I really don't see the problem with the "may" part or how it is biased, since it is simpy saying that a pedophile may engage in child sexual abuse. Which, in other words, leaves open the possibility that some pedophiles may not engage in child sexual abuse. In any case, I believe my alteration of the lead above, before the "has engaged or may engage" alteration started up again, was/is the best option, since it was/is most accurate, anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter. I changed the lead again, which should not be a problem, since I put back in the "or"...but did so while adding on a sourced fact that not all child molesters are pedophiles, or, more specifically, that not all child molesters meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why I hate these kinds of complicated and sensitive topics. Thanks for taking all this time to refine this stuff, though! Daivox (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IQ

The article mentions that pedophiles have lower IQ's, but remember that these tests were performed on men who screwed up and got caught, thus, the research from reference 32 is inherently biased. The smart ones are not in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.204.22 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. In reference 33, for example, offenders against children who were apprehended and convicted were compared with men who were apprehended and convicted of committing nonsexual crimes. The pedophiles still (repeatedly) showed lower mean IQs. (A fuller discussion is in reference 32; I can email you a copy if you do not have access to a library with it.) — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also point out that even "smart" pedophiles can be and are caught. After all, serial killers with very high IQs, higher than the average person, have been caught. Having a lower IQ than others also does not necessarily make a person dumb. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly true that group differences are ascertained by mean scores and should not be taken as a statement that is equally true of all members of the group in question. I would have no objection to someone changing the relevant text from "lower IQs" to "lower mean IQs" etc.; reasonable people can disagree over how to balance brevity and completeness. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

JC, do these tests distinguish that not all offenders against children are diagnosed with pedophilia? Your phrasing implies interchangability. They're not synonyms. Tyciol (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"Today the American (among others) pronunciation has changed into the more germanic English form using the "ped" as in "pediatrician," not as in "pedestrian" despite the fact the original Greek spelling contained an ai, which is pronounced as in "eye".[22] "

This is just not true. To pronounce the "ped" as "pediatrician" you would end up with "peedophile", whereas in America, we pronounce "ped" to rhyme with "dead".

I don't know enough about how to source linguistic stuff like this, but some specialist in the field ought to look into it and make the necessary changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.234.46 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I get what you mean, as I understand it it is pronounced more like 'pedestrian', we are talking about the difference between a short or long vowel here. I guess long shows up in some regions too. Tyciol (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Source from anonymous author

"Der unterdrückte Sexus" is a very old publication to which there is no known author. Granted, its use as a source is limited to the etymological roots of the word "pedophile," however it's purpose and contribution to that area seems confusing and potentially unneeded. Anonymous publication are inherently unreliable, and the source's point is not apparent.Legitimus (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is an unreliable source; not only that, the long paraphrase of its content that's presented in the footnote is not actual etymology, it's expressing the personal feelings of the unknown author about why some other person used one form of the word instead of another. It's not likely that more detail on the etymology of the word is needed in this article, but if it is, Eymology is a modern-day science so, far better sources can easily be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about diagnosis

Why is a person not considered to be a pedophile if they may have a weak and/or temporary attraction to children? Also, about a study that showed men's physiological responses to pedophilic stimili, it was said that 28% of the men who were not pedophiles were shown to have been aroused. If they are not pedophiles, then how did the arousals happen? What are those men? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.102 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In human males, sexual responses are not all-or-nothing. Males respond most to the stimuli they find most attractive, but will still show some arousal to "the next best thing," then less arousal still to the next best thing, and so on, until you get to stimuli that are so different from thei primary interest that the men do not respond at all. A man who responds a little bit to minors, but still mostly to adults, would not be pedophilic. I hope that is a help. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To the IP, in addition to what James Cantor (MarionTheLibrarian) has just stated, just read as much of the above on this page (or when it goes into the archives) as you can. The differences sure have been debated and explained enough here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't currently a term I know of for such men. A lot of people tend to call them pedophiles anyway however I think that's mistaken as it conflicts with the diagnosis. As Flyer said there's problems regarding different uses of the term causing confusion. Tyciol (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

September 10th 2008: The diagonisis has already been discussed and critized by scientist. The following article by Richard Green discusses and argues that pedophilia should be removed from the DSM-IV in Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2002, pp. 467–471 (online here: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm) by the same argument as homosexuality should be removed as a mental disorder. Also this article says that 20-25% of test persons (admitted and non-admitted pedophiles) responded to pictures of children. The DSM has also been under crituqe by Lea H. Studer in Medical Hypotheses (2006) 67, 774–781 and by Anita Carlstedt in Nord J Psychiatry 2005;59:534�/537. Oslo. ISSN 0803-9488. Please look these articles up on www.pubmed.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janovitz (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia and the brain structure (I recommend adding a science-section)

I think it is important to add the following scientic results on sexuality and brain structure: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7006628.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8453850

These are very crucial results. Sexuality (and pedophilia) is to be understood by means of brain structure. The scientific articles can be found on pubmed.com by searching Doctors names. It is also mentioned that pedophilia could be treated by anti-psychotic drugs. Personally I doubt it, since a scientist has never been able to change a persons sexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janovitz (talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Be bold. Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia under Islamic law

I hope the section for pedophilia in countries with different versions of sharia can be expanded. The article needs more sources like this.--71.108.16.233 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel this may be off topic. Pedophilia is the name of a mental disorder, whereas the subject you speak of mainly revolves around some unusually culture practices that are not necessarily motivated the same way. This information is probably better suited to age of consent or child sexual abuse.Legitimus (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple other articles that might benefit from that information: Laws regarding child sexual abuse, and Child marriage --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I put it in Laws regarding child sexual abuse.--71.108.16.233 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't then islam be mentioned in "pro-paedophilia activism" ? After all some people say that islam IS sharia (sharia is not "muslim law" but translates as "the way of a (pious) muslim", in other words sharia is to muslims what the story of Christ is to Christians, what the deeds of Krishna is to Hindus.

Furthermore shouldn't it also be mentioned that marrying very young is something just about all non-muslim communities in muslim lands have in common ? It's the only way to survive for various groups beginnen with the Jews of Jemen and the Hindus of Pakistan. Several zoroaster and even Christian groups in Iran and Egypt. They don't do this by choice, but because of muslims : it is because sharia accepts kidnapping and forced "conversion" of non-muslims if they're not married, even at extremely young ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.212.212 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for your flagrant POV version of events? Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sexism

Wtf with the sentence saying "OOO LULLZZZ AL PEADOFIELS R MEN!11"? It may be cited but it's intentions are obviously sexist. 24.184.206.83 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A portion of the "contributors" seem to harbor these views. --Animeronin (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, well. someone should take the liberty to add in verifiable info about female pedophiles. Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Biological correlations

According to the section about biological correlations, Blanchard and Cantor used men who met "the medical definition of preference, not the behavioral definition used by other sources". The sexologists actually used men who had been convicted of child sexual abuse, so they were using the behavioralist definition of pedophilia, not the medical definition. I will correct the article. Jenever Spirit (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct; not everyone in the studies had been convicted of child sexual abuse. Because we are talking about the results of my own research, I will not edit that section, but I would caution you to read our studies before making what you believe to be a correction. If you do not have access to the orignal studies, I would be happy to copies to you. — James Cantor (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It does sound weird that their findings linked pedophilia, as in the behavioralist definition, with brain structure and function. The only way that is not weird is if those men had/have a genuine sexual interest in prepubescent children. If James Cantor is right that not everyone in those studies had been convicted of child sexual abuse, then it should specify that both the sexual preference and behavioralist definition were linked to brain structure and function. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have access to it. And James is right. Criminal conviction was not a specific criteria and indeed the diagnosis was established through multiple sources and means (that's quite normal for this type of study). I am of the opinion that neither parenthetical specifier is necessary, as the insertion is awkward and seems like it's trying to make excuses. Legitimus (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have access to abstracts and some full articles. I originally used a news article as my source for the edit, which was stupid considering my views on using only a small number of specialist sources for medical articles. I should have looked at the abstracts of your research before making the edit. The abstracts show that you used phallometric testing, interviews with test subjects and admissions or records of child sexual abuse as indicators of pedophilia. Were you using the DSM-IV-TR definition? Jenever Spirit (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all; the media often have trouble getting these kinds of things right. You might find the summaries on my website helpful. To answer your question: No, we rarely if ever use the DSM definition of pedophilia in our research; the DSM definition is extremely poor. The definition proposed by Kurt Freund produces far more reliable research findings, so is probably the superior description of the construct. — James Cantor (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I bristled initially at the DSM comment, but you know, you're right. The DSM misses the mark for research purposes (see my remarks above about the "loophole" problem). However, I wouldn't say it's poor or useless overall, merely its scope and purpose are different. I think it was primarily aimed at a clinical setting, wherein distress and harm are the focus.Legitimus (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to diagnoses made for forensic or insurance purposes, clinicians can sometimes be bound by DSM criteria. That's not true for researchers, however; scietists could ever develop improved criteria if they were limited to the existing ones. The DSM must always follow from science, never the other way aroud. — James Cantor (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What could be added to this article and other thoughts

I believe that the diagnosis isn't stressed enough in this article. I once learned that any disorder has to somehow cause significant enough problems in the life of the person with the disorder, or to someone else, to be classified as such. Is there anything on this website that discusses research of people who have attraction to adolescences but do not act on these feelings? I'm curious about this. If not, is this article balanced? Perhaps there simply isn't enough research done on this subject? Is the case that so many people are afraid to talk that researchers can't find enough information to go on? I think it could be the same thing with females who are attracted to adolescences. I also once read studies showing men are more likely to rape or assault others, and given that this article claims most research is done on criminals we must know a very small fraction of information on this subject as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.15.66 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added the last unsigned topic. Sorry if what I mentioned was already gone over. I've looked around the talk page and I can't find anything specific. So I'm just basing my opinions on the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.15.66 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. This article is about pedophilia -- the sexual preference of adults or older adolescents to prepubescent children. This article is not about the sexual attraction to adolescents; it rather just notes in the lead (intro) that sometimes people basically, well, disregard the correct use of the term or confuse the term to also mean a sexual attraction to adolescents.

A sexual attraction to adolescents is not a mental disorder, unless, for example, we are talking about a 13-year-old who has not or has barely hit puberty (as in the puberty is not noticeable because it has just begun). 18-year-olds are adolescents, for example, but are also considered adults. Regarding age, how could one possibly distinguish the physical difference between a 16-year-old and a 18-year-old, other than knowing their ages? This is why a sexual attraction to teenagers is generally not considered a mental disorder by the medical community. Also remember that if it truly were a mental disorder, there would not be any age of consent laws in the United States that allow legal adults to engage in sex with any teenager under 18; that would basically be allowing child sexual abuse and pedophilia...if teenagers were truly considered children and a sexual attraction to teenagers was truly considered a mental disorder.

We do have the article Ephebophilia; that is more of what you are looking for. But that article is not about the random sexual attraction to adolescents; it is about the sexual preference for adolescents. I hope that helps (though the Ephebophilia article needs a lot of work). Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The sexual preference for young adolescents (persons ages 11-14 or so) is hebephilia. Comments might be made on that page. As a general note, it is often useful to ignore what is (and is not) legal and what is (and is not) officially categorized as a mental disorder when writing these pages. That is, it is easier to write NPOV articles on pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, and teleiophilia by treat them as purely as descriptions; discussions about what should be illegal and what should be considered a mental illness are necessarily value judgments. — James Cantor (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, James. I only bring up the legal aspects in this case because that is what causes people to confuse ephebophilia with pedophilia. The fact that individuals are not classified as adults until they turn 18. As I've brought up before, Mark Foley was branded a pedophile by the media and by people unfamiliar with what pedophilia truly is (which also includes some of that media). Had all the teenagers he was sexually soliciting been 18, I highly doubt that he would have been branded a pedophile. I bring up legal aspects and what is considered a mental disorder because it is relevant to these topics and gets my point across quite well. Flyer22 (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources removal

This edit made large changes without dicussion. Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to use anything other than a diagnostic manual (DSM, ICD-10) for medical diagnoses. Some of that literature may be useful in other parts of the article, but not for defining a mental disorder. Jenever Spirit (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still better to discuss such things here than go about removing. Someone may have another point. Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Jenever Spirit (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is better to use the DSM as the main definition or not has been discussed at length above, and was obviously a consensus decision to have the lead as it was (without the DSM as the main definition). The DSM is not the only medical diagnosis for this disorder just because it is supposedly the "top dog" out of all of them. It is not just "literature" references we had first defining pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children (as it is); those references were also from psychologists who either defined the term (and thus know more about it, as far as I'm concerned) or psychologists who were revolutionary in this field.

That said, I'm not that against your change. I still feel that it should be defined first and foremost as a sexual preference due to the confusion out there about pedophilia, even if we do not attribute those references to a medical diagnosis. I will tweak the lead a bit, adding back the sources you removed, but I'm going to leave it in the order you have put it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, Jack has already reverted your entire change to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to make a big deal of it, it just seemed like a major change to a section we've discussed a lot. Jenever, as Flyer mentioned, please review the talk page archives for discussions about the lead section. If there are some useful changes, I'm open to improvements; it's just that there has been so much controversy about this I thought it better to take some time and discuss major changes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer kind of nailed it but just to sum up, diagnostic manuals are guidelines and not necessarily the absolute definition based on their criteria (note "clinical judgement" is mentioned in the DSM). And after all, there are multiple standards and methods of diagnosis. The overall subject in its medical context still has a pretty basic definition (that is, the sexual preference for young children) and there is a section on the diagnostic aspect that covers this is greater detail.Legitimus (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will state, like I've always stated, that I feel that the DSM is clear in showcasing pedophilia as a sexual preference in its definition in the way that it describes it; it is just that it does not outright state pedophilia as a sexual preference. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And to be fair, we are using the World Health Organization's definition of pedophilia first (which is definitely a medical diagnosis, as it compiles the widely-followed ICD-10 that you mentioned above, Jenever). Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern about the current revision is that inappropiate sources are being used to define the diagnostic criteria, resulting in an incorrect definition of pedophilia in the article. I understand that pedophilia has many meanings outside of the medical community (especially in Netherlands), but in a psychological and medical article we should be clear we're discussing a paraphilia and we should be clear about what that paraphilia is. I feel the terminology used in the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV should be used exclusively when discussing the medical definition.

Pedophilia isn't only a preference for pre-pubescent children, that is one part of the diagnosis. A patient can also not be diagnosed with pedophilia if they 'only' have the preference and may engage in child sexual abuse, because anyone may do anything.

To be diagnosed with pedophilia, a patient must have already acted on his or her preference for prepubscent children, or the preference must cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

I suggest a compromise, using the sources supported by Jack while maintaining the accurate DSM/ICD definition. Is there a way to submit a suggested introduction, without changing the article? Jenever Spirit (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page here is how to suggest a new introduction. Just post your proposal in block quotes (use indentation to set it apart somehow)

But to address your concern, the ICD does not mention action or distress at all. As a matter of fact, diagnosis in professions using the DSM does not always require action or distress either, as these criteria (as previously stated) are just guidelines. Ah, if only diagnosis were so easy that we only needed checklists! Adhering too strictly to such guidelines creates an accidental "loophole" patient population, an "egosyntonic non-offending pedophile," that is, a person who is sexually attracted to children, feels no remorse or distress at this attraction, and has not sexually assaulted a child. Such a person is not very likely to have contact with the mental health system because they are not distressed nor do they have legal action forcing them to go, but can still be medically classified as a pedophile nonetheless based on careful clinical judgement made case-by-case. Diagnosis can also indicate they are "high risk" for committing offenses.

Legitimus (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jenever, I only slightly understand your problem with the lead, because I only see a slight issue. You say that your concern is that the current revision is using inappropriate sources to define the diagnostic criteria, resulting in an incorrect definition of pedophilia in this article. But I must say that nothing is incorrect about the definition of pedophilia in this article. Plus, as stated, we are using the ICD-10 first, along with sources from prominent psychologists in the pedophilia field who I do not find at all inappropriate for defining pedophilia in the lead. We first define it as a sexual preference, which it is. However, I get your concern about the part of that sentence that says and has engaged or may engage in child sexual abuse, since we are not using the DSM or ICD-10 for that part at all. But the thing is, we can attribute the DSM reference to that part, considering that the DSM includes acting on intense sexual urges towards children. Even though I do not feel that child sexual abuse needs to be mentioned in the first part of the lead, anyway, considering that pedophilia is more about what goes on in the mind of the offender than the action of child sexual abuse and we mention child sexual abuse later in the lead, we were careful with how we worded the child sexual abuse part. We put the word and instead or because stating or has engaged in child sexual abuse can lead people to think that a person is simply diagnosed with pedophilia due to having sexually abused a child or that that can be thought of as true pedophilia. We put and has engaged or may engage in child sexual abuse so that people do not quickly assume that the person must have the sexual preference and has acted on that sexual preference, when, really, they can only have the sexual preference but not have acted on it and still be a pedophile. The rest of the lead, we then state that some child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia, which they do not. We then go into the DSM definition. We then go into the non-medical/non-diagnosis definitions after that. This is hardly any different than what you did, minus tiny changes and except that the DSM is not used first. Yes, pedophilia is not only a sexual preference; that is one part of the diagnosis, which is why we go into a little more of the diagnosis by using the DSM right after that.

Again, I'm not that against your version of the lead, where you use the DSM definition first; I just wanted to make a few tweaks to the rest of the lead you changed.

In addition to my reasons, Legitimus gave good reasons for keeping the lead as we currently have it. But Legitimus is also right that you should post any proposed revision of the lead you have here on the talk page first. I am definitely open to seeing any revision you propose for this lead, even your first revision (as I've already stated).

That's pretty much how I feel about this matter regarding the current lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to attempt to merge the definitions in the DSM-IV and ICD-10, but I made that mistake too. I still think it is inappropiate to use non-diagnostic sources, but if they fit with the diagnostic manuals I suppose they are okay. Here is my suggested introduction.

The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular.

There is no agreed definition within the medical or psychological communitiy. According to the DSM-IV-TR, pedophilia is a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences intense, recurring, sexually arousing fantasies or urges involving prepubescent children and has acted on the urges or experiences marked distress or interpersonal difficulty as a result of the fantasies or urges. According to the ICD-10, p(a)edophilia is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age. Some offenders do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. In strictly behavioral contexts, the term can be applied to the act of child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".

In law enforcement...Jenever Spirit (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the line "There is no agreed definition..." come across as misleading. It makes it sound like there is a bitter debate about what pedophilia is in the broadest sense, when it's generally agree that it's a sexual preference for children. The DSM is simply more specific. I feel that the points you are trying to make may better served further down. By the way, there's no need to keep inserting the DSM cite again; it already exists and can be inserted using this code:

However, I also ponder the lead now and it does read a bit awkwardly. Here's my suggestion:

The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular.

As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for children. According to the DSM, pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse; however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia. In strictly behavioral contexts, the term can be applied to the act of child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".

Legitimus (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your introduction is good. It appears to cover everyone's concerns. Jenever Spirit (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new lead as well. But why the removal of the fourth (which was actually the the second) reference beside pedophilia being a sexual preference? Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added that reference back. It's now the third reference beside pedophilia being a sexual preference. If a good reason for not using it is given, even though we are using the others that are not from a diagnostic manual, I'd be okay with removing it, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean Okami. Eh, I never liked that source. Okami has, well, a bit a reputation shall we say. And certain people really like that particular article [4]. On a positive note, we do have many other good sources supporting that assertion though. If we nix it, I can try and find a better replacement.Legitimus (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Okay, thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Okami from the article based on this discussion. It appears it was added on May 7 by a user who has since been blocked for questionable pedophilia-related editing. In addition to NAMBLA, that Okami paper is cited by a variety of pedophile websites, as can be seen from a quick Google search of the paper title. The removal of that footnote does not diminish this article or change any of the content significantly. If anyone considers that the Okami source should be kept in the article, it should only be added if there is a particular page number and quote showing what part of it is supporting the text. It should not be added as simply a "general" source. Most people don't have access to the content of the paper, therefore if it's used, the person adding it should provide some context to verify the relevance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info as well, Jack. Definitely not opposed to it being removed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I extracted a quote and added it back in one place, where I feel it has merit. I find the argument that some orgs that we don't like have quoted him invalid. Anomalous external factors do not discredit the source. forestPIG^(grunt) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that particular narrowly-specified use of the source. But it is a controversial source that does not have wide acceptance, so it should not be used to support the larger defining concepts in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the word prepubescent was missing from the first part of the new lead in this article defining pedophilia. I just added it back in. We all know (or at least we all should know) how important that part is, considering that a lot of people see teenagers as children as well and that some people (though I don't know how) confuse pedophilia with even an adult having a sexual attraction to a 17-year-old (I vehemently hate this confusion), as if there is any real physical difference age-wise between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old. It's just one of my pet peves (something that irks me greatly), and has been been since I was 14 and first started studing psychology, etc. Yes, I would think that when most people think of children, they think of actual children, like 8-year-olds, but, as I stated, some people include teenagers (all teenagers under 18) in the definition of children. The law especially does, and thus we must be clear in the lead of this article at all times that pedophilia is the sexual preference to prepubescent children (even though I'd still call an adult being sexually interested in a child who has recently undergone precocious puberty a pedophile). Flyer22 (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the common usage definition given in the article: "In common usage, the term refers to any adult who is sexually attracted to children or who sexually abuses a child." I can improve this line by changing this to, "In common usage, the term refers to any adult who is sexually attracted to children or who sexually abuses a child, especially pre-pubescent." The common usage term overwhelmingly refers to young children, this should be reflected in the article. The article might also mention that a seperate word exists to address those who deal with post-pubescent children -- "[pederast]". 24.161.150.151 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, IP, I'm not sure. From what I have seen/experienced, it seems that the common usage for the term pedophilia is used more so to refer to an adult who is sexually attracted to or has sexually abused a minor, no matter if that minor is prepubescent or not, than it is used to refer to sexual attraction/preference for prepubescent children only. Just look at the media, for example, at how they referred to Mark Foley as a pedophile, which contributed to more people calling Foley a pedophile. And before that, look at how the Catholic priests in the Catholic sex abuse cases are all mostly referred to as pedophiles even though a lot of them were actually sexual with post-pubescent minors. It does not seem as though most people are that familiar with what pedophilia actually means. Not to mention...the words ephebophilia and pederasty are not in use as much as the word pedophilia is. The fact that the word pedophilia is more common than those other words also contributes to people using the word pedophilia more than the proper words to refer to sexual attraction/preference for post-pubescent minors. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)