Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

A diatribe

I must perhaps be the one to add reality and truth into this long line of brain washed garbage. Pedophile and Child Molestation/Rape are two very different things. First the true definition of a pedophile is a Chile Lover. Emphasis on LOVER, One who loves. Does one rape his/her spouse? Does one cause any harm, knowingly and willingly to one they love? Na. Love does not harm, it pleases.

For centuries, powerful kingdoms and empires reigned with pedophiles in positions from the head of nation to the street cleaners. Now pedophiles are spurned and shunned, as they are wrong fulled mixed up with child molesters. Yes a pedophile may have sexual desire toward the one(s) they love, But does a man not desire a woman or man he loves sexually? who first said a child is incapable of love? of sexual desire? I'm glad that person is long dead. SJM 1/29/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.141.55 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 31 January 2009
Class, I offer the above as example of the egosyntonic pedophile thought process. Let's just roll with this logic, shall we? If we take it at face value, this user describes a person who goes their entire lifetime, from adolescence to their deathbed, without ever being with the demographic they desire most or ever looking at child pornography. A real pedophile, after all, prefers children over adults. The difference between pedophilia and child molestation has already been established. But they are are never fully divorced from one another. To act on pedophilia's preference is to commit an act of abuse. Legitimus (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What a wanna-be martyr. See, there's this wonderful thing about technology: It advances and we find out about things that years ago we had no way of knowing. Along with this, we actually see now what happens to children who are molested and we now consider that 'wrong' in the way it is wrong to hurt anyone, and we now know enough that pedophilia is a mental disorder. Bitch and moan all you want. We as a population will not let you rape our kids.--Mattbrown04 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

In a way in this article still is missing a summary table, indicating in which contexts, situations and/or ways child abuse mostly takes place and in what frequency. For instance so called child sex tourism to third world countries like Thailand and Brasil, in (nursery and other) schools, in day nurseries, in churches or elsewhere by priests, in brothels, that kind of things. VKing (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's veering off the subject a bit. Such matters are covered in child sexual abuse, Child sex tourism, and others (go to child sexual abuse and check the "See Also" section).Legitimus (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a really paucity of research with respect to causes? WHY IS IT SO?

From my own experience, the person who eludes to not evolving one's natural attraction to children of the same age, is very much on the money!

Which is to say, it's strongly correlated with a lack of emotional development. Which is strongly correlated with 'insecure attachment'.

Insecure attachment is associated with a great many psychological morbidities; pedophilia among them.

Primary sexual preference may be of abstract interest, but in practical terms is irrelevant to the victim.

Those offenders for whom pedophilia is not a primary attraction may just be opportunistic; as many rapists are. That is, they are simply choosing to exploit those most vulnerable and least likely to complain. That is the only rationale; human exploitation. The same reason people kept slaves, essentially. The same motivation, in fact, as those who target the elderly and disabled.

There's something EXTREMELY DARK ANED SINISTER about a so-called profession that seemingly doesn't want to know what the causes are.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.127.180 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy... Sioraf (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

IP, if you are saying that a child being attracted to a child is the same thing as a late teenager or an adult being attracted to a child, it is already explained above that that is not the same.
Where you say, "Those offenders for whom pedophilia is not a primary attraction may just be opportunistic; as many rapists are," I say, yes, that is noted in this article.
Other than that, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia per country

Why not write a series about pedophilia per country ? I don't think it is the same everywhere, since there are varying levels of social and political acceptance for this controversial and illegal phenomenon. For instance, an article about pedophilia in the Netherlands might be different than an article on pedophilia in other countries, such as pedophilia in the United States, pedophilia in the United Kingdom, pedophilia in Ireland, pedophilia in Canada, etc. ADM (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you are confusing pedophilia (the sexual interest in children) with child molestation (the sexual abuse of minors). Although there are regional differences in how sexual offenses (as well as other crimes) are treated, there is no evidence that pedophilia per se differs regionally. — James Cantor (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When I think of minors in regards to age, I usually think of teenagers, but maybe ADM is confusing pedophilia with child sexual abuse (although pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not completely divorced of each other and often overlap). Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor typo: "act interested"

There is a sentence with what I regard as a typo that I suggest amending. It is in the final paragraph of the section "Psychopathology and personality traits", and states "paedophiles may act interested" or similar. Having read this sentence a few times it seems to me that saying anything "acts interested" is poor English, and would read better if it was changed to something like "paedophiles may act as if they are interested". A minor point. Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Obviously I can't make the edit myself. -Unsigned

Actually, the fix you offered would move it into [passive voice], which is bad. It is perfectly acceptable and preferred to have verbs doing things. (also, i fixed the section below this one, as it was not in a new section yet) -- 71.157.132.174 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pederasty in the lead

In addition to pederasty being about an adult male with an adolescent male, is it really also about an adult male with a preadolescent male? I mean, considering that preadolescence is often tied into prepubescence, how can we without a doubt say that that pederasty should not be confused with pedophilia in that case? I see no reference in the lead of the Pederasty article about it also meaning a homosexual relationship with preadolescent males. I feel that mentioning pederasty in the lead in that way will only confuse people.

Mentioning hebephilia in the lead may also be confusing as well. I am not sure that most experts would say, "No, it is not pedophilia" if a man has an intense sexual attraction to a 9-year-old girl who has just hit puberty but does not look like she has hit puberty. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I never had the intention to add that part originally, but because another user inserted it, I felt at least compelled to present it in a more logical fashion.
The first sentence of Pederasty says "between an pre-adolescent boy and an adult man or..." I took it at face value because that's not a concept I know much about. If that's wrong, it should be changed in both places.
Hebe- and ephebophila have this very irritating habit of being used interchangeably even by reputable scientists to describe attraction to teens (the whole range). Realistically, hebephilia was meant to be ages 12-16 as a general rule. This is further confounded by the fact that onset of puberty in humans has moved back even since the time those terms were first coined. The thing is, earlier puberty has no effect on the fact that the child is still mentally 9 years old. Diagnosis requires a great deal of judgement these days due to all of these problems.
In the interest of avoid confusing, I am not opposed to just removing that part if others suggest it.Legitimus (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had looked at the edits, Legitimus, and I know why you added that. But for the reasons I and you expressed about this, I feel that it should be removed. I do not feel that ephebophilia even needs to be mentioned in the lead. I mean, we already specify in the lead that sexual attraction to teenagers is sometimes confused with pedophilia and that the term pedophilia is sometimes even used by law enforcement to refer to sex offenders who have sexually gone after teenagers, but that researchers are against that type of confusion and mixup.
As I said about pederasty, though, if it also means "between a preadolescent boy and an adult male," then I do not see how it is entirely distinct from pedophilia. As I noted above, preadolescence is often tied into prepubescence. A lot of preadolescent children are prepubescent, no matter the fact that they will soon hit puberty. And does hitting puberty, suddenly mean that child no longer looks like a child? Of course not. It is part of the reason that I have a slight problem with pedophilia simply defined as "a sexual preference to prepubescent children" these days. It being defined as a sexual preference to preadolescent children" would be more accurate in range. But then again, if you have a 12-year-old girl with well-developed breasts and most everything else that a woman physically has, though she looks younger than a fully adult woman, it would not be entirely correct to call an intense attraction to her pedophilia. It seems to me that pedophiles these days sometimes "get their way" in claiming that they are not pedophiles by its technical definition of it being a preference to prepubescent children, such as going after a pubescent 9-year-old girl sexually, for example, who still very much looks 9 years old. In the past, a girl hitting puberty at 9 was abnormal, and thus saying "prepubescent" typically meant not yet 12 or 13. These days, however, it is common for a girl to hit puberty at age 9. Boys have also started hitting puberty younger than they have in the past, as you know. If puberty keeps starting at earlier and earlier ages with each generation, it seems to me that the term pedophilia will need to be redefined (if not already the case).
Hebephilia? Well, I can understand reputed researchers confusing that with ephebophilia. The two terms do cross into each other. If we say that ephebophilia is typically the sexual preference for 15 to 19-year-olds, we must also acknowledge that some 15 and 16-year-olds are still pubescent (particularly boys). Then you have, as you say, the fact that hebephilia was meant to be ages 12-16 as a general rule. Well, that is 15 and 16 crossing over into ephebophilia. Though by our articles on these topics here at Wikipedia, it seems that hebephilia is supposed to now mean the sexual preference for 14 and under. Either way, a pubescent person cannot be told apart from a postpubescent person in some cases.
In closing, I am for removing all three of those terms from the lead. If pederasty, as including an preadolescent boy, and hebephilia are confusing me as I talk about them right now, then I am certain they will confuse people less familiar with these topics. If they are going to be confused, it is best that we let them click on these links in the See also section and then be confused, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflating sex offenders with pedophiles

Much of the material in the "Biological associations" part of the article makes claims about pedophiles (low self-esteem, poor social skills, lower IQ, etc on average) but most of the references go to studies specifically related to sex offenders. Considering that most pedophiles are surely aware engaging in sexual behavior with pre-pubescent kids is frowned upon in society and is harmful to the children, most pedophile sex offenders likely differ than a representative sample of pedophiles in that they obviously lack self-control, as evidenced by their engaging in socially unacceptable and harmful behavior. I am aware that there is research linking poor self-control to lower IQ[1] and I wouldn't be surprised if there were also links with self-control, self-esteem and social skills as well.--XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009

Why has the IP from my previous comment been tacked on here? (I posted with IP 86.42.82.29, but did not add the 'Conflating sex offenders with pedophiles' section) You can see it in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APedophilia&diff=294096055&oldid=294057186. 86.42.82.29 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it was inserted by that user accidentally between the characters of your signature. By the way, please remember to "sign" posts you make by typing four tildes (~~~~) at end. It will turn into a signature one you hit "save page," rather than making the system auto-sign it.
Now, regarding this thread's issue at hand, we have unfortunately been over this topic with a backhoe in the past. Basically, there are studies using non-sex offender pedophiles, and the evidence seems to point to pedophilia having impulse control problems as a major feature. Examples of this can be seen in non-offenders who voluntarily dose themselves with pharmaceutical drugs to suppress their sex drive (chemical castration). They do this to themselves of their own free will in order to avoid offending.Legitimus (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Some of the references certainly do seem to be about pedophiles in general ([30], [32], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc.) but there are also references to articles such as:
[27]Marshall, W. L. (1997). The relationship between self-esteem and deviant sexual arousal in nonfamilial child molesters. Behavior Modification, 21, 86–96.
[28]Marshall, W., L., Cripps, E., Anderson, D., & Cortoni, F. A. (1999). Self-esteem and coping strategies in child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 955–962.
[29]Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Sahlstein, E., Laskowski, K., Falato, W. L., et al. (2004). A meta-analysis of the relationship between social skills and sexual offenders. Communication Reports, 17, 1–10.
[31]Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Robichaud, L. K., & Christensen, B. K. (2005). Quantitative reanalysis of aggregate data on IQ in sexual offenders. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 555–568.
[33]Bogaert, A. F. (2001). Handedness, criminality, and sexual offending. Neuropsychologia, 39, 465–469.
[34]Cantor, J. M., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Grade failure and special education placement in sexual offenders’ educational histories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 743–751.
[40]Schiltz, K., Witzel, J., Northoff, G., Zierhut, K., Gubka, U., Fellman, H., Kaufmann, J., Tempelmann, C., Wiebking, C., & Bogerts, B. (2007). Brain pathology in pedophilic offenders: Evidence of volume reduction in the right amygdala and related diencephalic structures. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 737–746.
All these appear to specifically about pedophiles who have engaged in sex crimes, so none of them should be used as references for generalized claims about pedophiles.--XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's more complicated than that. I agree with you entirely that one needs to be careful to generalize only to the appropriate population. (In the articles from my own group, we are very careful to do so in the discussion sections.) However, there is more than one way to rule out the effects of, for example, willingness to break the law. One such method is to compare pedophilic men who have been arrested for molesting a child with nonpedophilic men who have been arrested for sexually assaulting an adult. Because having committed a crime and having been convicted is a characteristic of both groups, it becomes much less likely that criminality was the driving variable (and, therefore, more likely that pedophilia was the key variable). In science, we don't exactly "prove" anything, so much as we rule out all but one alternate.
So, although I agree with your main point about taking care with claims of generalizeability, you ought not conclude that a study is not generalizeable solely because it uses a comparison group other than the one you were expecting. There are other ways of attaining generalizeability. — James Cantor (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I still disagree with how the article is presented compared to what the cited scientific articles say. Reading through your paper on "Quantitative reanalysis of aggregate data on IQ in sexual offenders", I see you compare the IQs of those who have sexually offended against adults with those who have done so against children, which shows that sex-offenders who prefer adults score significantly higher on the IQ tests on average. Although it is a plausible inference to suggest that the same difference would apply when comparing law-abiding pedophiles to law-abiding teleiophiles, it is still not established in any direct manner that it actually does. Ultimately, I would not have a problem with the article if it was directly stated that this is an inference, rather than something that has been directly established.--XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of paraphilia's (inc. Pedophilia) in ICD-11 and possibly DSM-V

This looks like it might be worth mentioning somewhere? (perhaps on the main paraphilia page as well, if there is one) https://extranet.who.int/icdrevision/PropD.aspx?prop=1510 (you need to register and login there; it's free access though) 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.99.55 (talk)

Just an addition to this, the documents linked there DO mention pedophilia (I only just noticed a discussion up above about paraphilias relating to BDSM being removed):
"THE SPECIAL CASE OF PEDOPHILIA
The politics and moral outage surrounding the diagnosis of pedo-philia are so pervasive that specific comments about this sexual interest must be explicit. Pedophiles occupy a particularly odious position in our society and suggestions that these individuals do not suffer from a mental disorder may be interpreted as support for their activities. We wish to clarify that our suggestion to remove the paraphilias, which in-cludes pedophilia, from the DSM does not mean that sexual acts with children are not crimes.We would argue that the removal of pedophilia from the DSM would focus attention on the criminal aspect of these acts, and not allow the perpetrators to claim mental illness as a defense or use it to mitigate responsibility for their crimes. Individuals con- victed of these crimes should be punished as provided by the laws in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. Any interpretation of our work as supporting adult-child sexual interactions is misguided and wrong."
That's from the 'An argument for removal' document in the link.86.42.99.55 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, that would explain where certain people are getting this "removal from the DSM" idea even if they were way off. But I gotta say, that's line of reasoning just seems, well...stupid. We should not manipulate a medical practice to further political goals in the criminal justice system. That's absurd. It's like trying to take substance abuse disorders out so that the justice system doesn't have to provide AA programs in jails. Removing it would create tons of problems in studying this disorder and preventing such crimes in the first place.Legitimus (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are some arguments put forward in the attached documents there which address some of what you mention (i.e. that it may not hinder prevention of crime or research). It's something which is all very debatable though of course, but many of the arguments presented in that link are quite interesting 86.42.99.55 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think at this juncture this is a little too experimental for inclusion in this article just yet, though still interesting. Have you considered registering for a login rather than posting with your IP address? While anyone can edit wikipedia, building a reputation around a registered username has many benefits. If you had questions about this or other topics related to this article, you can leave them on my talk page.Legitimus (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Legitimus that removing pedophilia from the DSM and the future ICD-11 would be ridiculous for various reasons. For one, it is considered a mental disorder by the vast number of medical experts, researchers and society. This is not a case of "Oh, maybe we are wrong, just like we were wrong about homosexuality," even though pedophiles would like people to believe that, which leads me to (#2) the fact that removing it from the DSM would only be used by pedophiles to further claim that pedophilia is not a mental disorder and that it is perfectly normal for a human being far during or after puberty to be sexually attracted to/sexually prefer prepubesecent children. All it will do is further give pedophiles a "weapon" in saying, "See? The DSM was wrong about homosexuality. Now pedophilia. What else are they wrong about? We told you that this is not a mental disorder and that we are being discriminated against."
I mean, seriously, I do not see how removal of pedophilia from the DSM or the future ICD-11 would help child sexual abuse cases. For one, they are two different things, though often related. Why? Because not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles (I am mostly speaking of one-time or situational offenders in this case, who have a clear sexual preference for the adult form but sexually molested a child due to some stupid reason). Further, a person who sexually molests a child does not suddenly say, "Oh, wait. I could not help it. I am a pedophile, and am thus suffering from a mental disorder." But even if a person were to say that, the law and society does not feel about this mental disorder in the way that they feel about Tourette's syndrome, for example. No one says, "Oh, the pedophile is really a good person who simply could not help himself due to his 'disease of the mind' and therefore he should not be held completely responsible for his actions." The "term" child sexual abuse also includes underage teenagers in regards to having been sexually abused/raped. And, lastly, the term pedophilia not being on DSM would most likely decrease study of it as a serious illness, which, yes, I know would please some people. But keep in mind that plenty of pedophiles are sure that pedophilia is a serious illness, and not just because society "taught them to feel that way."
If the source above does feel that pedophilia is a mental disorder...but that it should be removed from the DSM and the future ICD-11 so that pedophiles "will not have an excuse" for sexually abusing a child, I must say that that is simply absurd. There is no excuse, so long as urges from the disorder can be resisted. If there are really pedophiles out there who have not sexually molested children or can stop themselves from sexually molesting children, that shows right there that there is no legitimate excuse for a pedophile sexually molesting a child. There is certainly very much no excuse for a non-pedophile to sexually molest a child as a sexual substitute, which I admit they piss me off more. (I mean, why not just masturbate and leave the child alone? That goes for both.) Either way, I see neither as being more rationale than the other.
As for inclusion of the feelings of those people above in this section, I am not super against including those thoughts in this article...as long as it is presented suitably. What is suitably in this case? Well, presented accurately and not as some legitimate claim that pedophilia is not a mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Legitimus: Yes I think I created an account years ago, but have since forgotten the user/pass; I've created another now.
Flyer22: I think a lot of the argument surrounds the lack of empirical evidence that it's a mental disorder; while it being removed may cause pro-pedophilia activists to (incorrectly) promote their arguments, that isn't a good reason to keep it in, and that politicizes the ICD/DSM manuals to some extent. The ICD/DSM manuals aren't there to promote research either, though I do think that research could continue anyway. Another part of the argument is that pedophilia being a mental disorder also fuels stigmatization/discrimination against those who are attracted to children, but who would never act on those attractions.
I want to make clear though, that I don't know yet whether or not I agree with the arguments in the link I posted; I haven't gone through it all yet, so I'm mostly undecided and am still forming a proper opinion on it. Arfed (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I get your points, Arfed (though I am content with enough of the evidence researchers have found regarding the minds of pedophiles), but I still stand by mine. I mean, whether pedophilia is on the DSM/ICD or not, stigmatization/discrimination against late teenagers and adults who are sexually attracted to/sexually prefer children but would never act on those attractions will still be the case. Our concern should not be keeping pedophilia from being classified as a mental disorder due to worry of what it will do to pedophiles who have never acted on the disorder. Besides that, I would not say that most or even a lot of pedophiles who have never acted on the disorder would admit to being pedophiles. Thus, I do not see how they would be stigmatized/discriminated against. Nor do I believe that pedophiles who have never acted on the disorder are any where close to the majority of the pedophile community. Really, whether a pedophile has acted on the disorder or not, that does not change pedophilia's classification as a disorder.
If one does not want to call pedophilia a mental disorder, it would still be argued as some type of disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Child molesters and pedophiles are not the same thing

I'm sure this has already been addressed, and I'm sure the usual WP civil war has been fought and won on this issue, but does this article not unreasonably equate pedophilia with child molestation? Not all pedophiles are child abusers. Grouping pedophiles with criminal child molesters seems unacademic and partisan to me. I like turtles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.73.30 (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has come up many times. The thing is, while some pedophiles may not have offended against a child, it is technically an prominent feature of the disorder, as a great deal of research has determined pedophilia to be altogether something more than a simple sexual preference (long story). For example some people with traumatic head injuries develop pedophilia. How wild is that? You don't exactly hear about a gay person falling on their head and suddenly becoming straight.
For now, we have a section of the child sexual abuse article devoted to this subject; that is, of offenders regardless of whether they have pedophilia. Legitimus (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Pedophilia is not a disorder, only classified as such, just as homosexuality once was. One person cured homosexuality with the use of exorcism, how wild is that? Can you even show a single study on pedophiles which doesn't deal with a clinical population which supports your agenda? I highly doubt it. Oidesu (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do people (pedophiles in particular) equate pedophilia with homosexuality? Oh, I know why, but it is silly nevertheless. Just because homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder and then not considered one...it does not mean that pedophilia is not one. Experts are not going to suddenly realize that pedophilia is not a mental disorder. They all consider it one, with very valid reasons as to why they do...and that is not going to change any time soon (if ever). We have an agenda? Yeah, sure (sarcasm). Because reporting what experts say and wanting to keep children safe from pedophiles and other child molesters is an agenda (whatever; it's a damn good one, if classified as such). Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"We", Flyer? Who exactly do you count yourself "in" with? In two years or so of edting this article, have you still not learned that a very large number of "experts" are in favour of eliminating paraphilias from the DSM altogether? The motivations behind this are not necessarily advocative, but often parrallel your own sexual purification concerns, see for example Thomas Szasz, who would argue that pathologisation legitimises CSA. The medicalisation of pedophilia in societies that render behaviours it may cause, universally "wrong" and punishable via a unitary, unchallengable abuse narrative is hypocritical at best.
  • "Just because homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder and then not considered one...it does not mean that pedophilia is not one."
This is an imaginary argument, a straw-man. Oidesu's point is that pedophilia does not suddenly become a disorder because the diagnostic manual of an established American membership organisation lists a "disorder" of the same name. If the inverse is your argument, its absurdity does indeed parralel that which (you thought) you were answering to. Yaccinthe Zubizaretta (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you are saying, with your weird blend of wordplay. Whatever "point" Oidesu was making, he was/is wrong. And so are you. If you two are the same person, oh well. By "we," what do I mean? The main ones editing this article, of course.
A very large number of experts are in favor of eliminating paraphilias from the DSM altogether, you say? So what? That does not mean that pedophilia will be removed from it, or that pedophilia is any where close to not being a mental disorder. Paraphilias are one thing; mental disorders are another. Not all paraphilias are mental disorders. Bondage (BDSM) getting removed from the DSM may very well happen, and I would not care one bit in that case. Pedophilia getting removed, however? Do not hold your breath. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
In reading more specifically, I notice that YZ has already addressed the straw man problem. That said, reading your reply here, it is incredibly rude, evasive, and accusatory. If you have trouble understanding what someone writes, to call it "weird wordplay" really lacks humility and respect for the other writer. If you just say "he is wrong and so are you" without explaining why people are wrong, then the statement is worthless for academic discussion here. This is not a shouting match. Accusing people of sockpuppeting is also off-topic: if you think someone is doing that then contact a moderator, it's not relevant information for this talk page. I found it easy enough to read, so I'll attempt to reword it as I believe him to mean, if you will specify which phrases you are unsure of. I believe he's clarifying that there are different organizations with different classifications (names, criteria, etc.) for different things, and that it would be important to differentiate between an APA-classified disorder versus the concept of 'disorder' as it exists in general psychology/psychiatry around the world, where they may be some variation, as part of not being overly American-biased in the article. Tyciol (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Fly, that 'pedos in particular' parenthesis was unnecessary, to me it looks like a veiled personal attack against Oidesu, please do not stoop to that. It is very likely that the majority of people you have heard these comparisons from are not proven to be pedophiles (how many diagnosed pedophiles have compared it with homosexuality? Is it a relevant number compared to the total number of people doing it?). You also do not 'know why', because people's reasons for making comparisons can always vary on an individual basis. So you're not a telepath (as anyone who 'knows' the reasons why people say things must be) nor can you correctly generalize on the basis of a statement like that.
You are also arguing a straw man, Oidesu did not state that pedophilia is not one because homosexuality was declassified. Bringing up homosexuality seemed unnecessary to me, so I do see where you can gather he was implying something related to this, but you're abbreviating his statement incorrectly. It would be more correct to assert that he is calling the finality of disorder classification into question by giving an example of where it has changed with new research. Then he asked for some research.
You also stated 'experts are not going to suddenly realize'. This is a ridiculous argument, as you seem to be combining telepathy with clairvoyance of what people will think in the future. You then state 'they all consider it one'. That is not necessarily true. Experts on subjects frequently disagree about classifications, to suggest that experts ALL agree about nearly anything would be a ridiculous assumption, especially things being continually amended and based on multiple criteria with subtle beginnings and ends.
In regards to 'agenda', it's obvious to me that Oidesu was describing the agenda of classifying pedophilia as a disorder. What you are describing are personal motivations which, while admirable, are not actually an agenda so much as values which motivate people to choose an agenda which they think will help best realize their values. It's unnecessary to call this person out on that, as it seems to imply that he's opposed to reporting what experts say (he has not expressed a desire to censor experts) or opposition to protecting children (same). You seem to be responding to what was interpreted as a personal attack. I do not know if Oidesu meant 'agenda' to be malicious, while possible it also seems possible that could be a misinterpretation. It would be good to peacefully work this out amongst yourselves in regards to discussing your personal motivations (and suppositions about each others), as they are not appropriate to discuss here as they destract from addressing the topic. Tyciol (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Leg, I haven't personally heard of a person with head injuries becoming either, but neither would surprise me. It's hard to believe there isn't someone out there who's claimed to be turned homo/hetero by a head blow, considering the large amounts who claim to be converted by religion and stuff like that. Basically, that's sort of an anecdotal observation right? Tyciol (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll just say this....there is a reason the is NO P in LGBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That's completely irrelevant to this thread. LG are basically the same thing (H would suffice), B is basically halfway and doesn't really need any individual distinction. T is a completely different area of psychology from sexuality, since it deals with gender identity. Tyciol (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I know someone who could.Talk to Magibon 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Just an interjection here: Oidesu and Yaccinthe Zubizaretta (same person actually) were both blocked some time ago for single-purpose account, pedophile agenda-driven editing. Neither will reply to this thread.Legitimus (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol, I do not mean to sound rude this time, but I do not care that my replies were "incredibly rude, evasive, and accusatory" in your opinion regarding my discussion to the "two people" above. Frankly, I know what I am talking about and have seen this type of editor time and time again here. Could I be wrong once in my life about an editor who seems to be a pedophile-pusher? It is possible. But I have been right every time in regards to Wikipedia administrators agreeing with me by blocking them. I do not see how my responses were evasive at all, and do see Oidesu as having stated that homosexuality being taken off the DSM gives great weight to pedophilia being taken off it as well. How many pedophiles state something similar to that? Many. In addition, no, my saying that "experts are not going to suddenly realize..." was not a ridiculous argument, whether combining telepathy with clairvoyance of what people will think in the future or not. My point is that I doubt that the world will think of pedophilia as normal any time soon; it could be removed from the DSM, and I guarantee that most professionals and people would still view it as a sickness. While I am aware of how society has evolved over time regarding "adult-child sexual relationships," no one is going to think that it is perfectly natural for a 30-something man to be sexually lusting after their 7-year-old...except for pedophiles (even if 7 becomes the normal age for the beginning of puberty).

While stating to me that I was out of line to an obvious pedophile-pusher, I happen to feel that you are being condescending to me in the above replies. I am no child, and do not need to be put back (in my place) in line. I had no trouble understanding what that person wrote in regards to words; my "trouble" with the wording need not be expanded upon by me now. Do not try to guess my reason for calling it weird wordplay. Stating that "they all consider it one" was not to say all experts in this field...but rather most. That is true, no matter that "experts on subjects frequently disagree about classifications."

I am glad that the person I was "incredibly rude, evasive, and accusatory" to above was blocked both times. I will say that your wanting to keep things more professional here is admirable, however. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sex in the Talmud

Apart from sex about the Bible, another topic that is arguably controversial is sex in the Talmud. There are all sorts of allegations that the Talmud promotes sexual immorality such as pedophilia and it would be good thing if we could clear up those charges. [http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/judaism-israel/31979-pedophilia-talmuds-dirty-secret.html] [http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html] ADM (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a mental disorder and refers to the attraction. Aren't you technically referring to the act itself, child sexual abuse? Furthermore, I smell anti-Semite all over this issue. Watch it. Legitimus (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Pedophilia is not a mental disorder, it is classified as such in the DSM, being classified as a disorder and being a disorder are two completely different things. One is cultural and the other is ontological. Heterosexuality meets the criteria for being classified as a mental disorder and paraphilia in the DSM, but that doesn't mean it IS a mental disorder. Oidesu (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do people (pedophiles in particular) equate pedophilia with homosexuality? Oh, I know why, but it is silly nevertheless. Just because homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder and then not considered one...it does not mean that pedophilia is not one. Experts are not going to suddenly realize that pedophilia is not a mental disorder. They all consider it one, with very valid reasons as to why they do...and that is not going to change any time soon (if ever). Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I notice you've decided to repost an exact copy of this text in two threads, is this just an attempt to be inflammatory towards Oidesu? This is not acceptable conduct. You are not even responding to his question, he didn't even mention homosexuality in this post. It's a stretch, but should I assume good faith and that you accidentally copied this over what you meant to reply with here, Flyer? You posted this 6 minutes earlier, then it shows up in the above thread, so maybe you forgot to delete it and write a response addressing this 8:53 post rather than the 9:03 post? Tyciol (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you also notice that Oidesu decided to repost almost an exact copy of his text in two sections? I noticed that and stated something about it in my edit summary the day I replied to him both times; it were as if he were trying to significantly stress his point. I simply did what Oidesu did in that regard. Why not accuse him of being inflammatory? I almost always do this when I see the same comment posted twice on a talk page. Why? Because one might have missed it in one section, especially if a talk page is full of sections, and because I want to reply to it both times. My conduct is perfectly acceptable, and is not dependent upon your opinion. And I most certainly did respond to his question. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some vague similarities, but his posts were definitely different posts (I would not call it almost a copy at all, much less an exact one). My point is, you mention homosexuality: it has not been mentioned in this subtopic, so how's that a response? Tyciol (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I admit that his trying to stress his point above that he does not see pedophilia as a mental disorder and bringing up the usual "homosexuality used to be on the DSM" line made me focus on that more than respond to him too differently in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Many ancient religious texts describe child sexual abuse as acceptable; it reflects the cultures and eras in which the books were written. Is there any article that contains information about this? Never mind; I just realized what sort of person I was talking to. No thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
'Sort of person'? What would that be? What sort of person are you implyimg ADM to be? If you want to withdraw a previous reply then just politely cross it out as you did and leave it at that, we don't need a dramatic spiel about why you felt the need to do it. Tyciol (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no 'sex in the Talmud' article, I don't even see a record of it being deleted, why link to something non-existant? Tyciol (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of criteria and quote

This part of the article seems to be inaccurate: "Neither the ICD nor the APA diagnostic criteria require actual sexual activity with a prepubescent youth. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges alone, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria. "For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used" (p. 527 DSM).[24]"

I don't know about the ICD criteria, but I've read the relevant parts of the DSM-IV documentation (which is what the APA criteria is, right?), and it doesn't make any mention of diagnosis with presence of fantasies/sexual-urges alone. This seems to be a fairly important distinction? I think the article should be updated.

Also, I can't find the quote from the last sentence on p. 527 of the latest DSM-IV documentation (or in the cited link), so it seems out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.106.112 (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In the book itself, there is a longer paragraphed section below the criteria. After all, rendering a diagnosis is a complex procedure rather than a simple recipe. The text says "Because of the ::ego-syntonic nature of Pedophilia, many individuals with pedophilic fantasies, urges, or behaviors do not experience significant distress. It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges, or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia"
This effectively makes diagnosis on the basis of urges/fantasies alone possible, provided the age criteria are met.
The link provide is probably one of many sum up websites that have just the criteria. The DSM is a copyrighted work and so likely the entire text cannot be legally posted online. I have a copy though so I can provide quotations on request.Legitimus (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The bit you quoted though, also has an important bit after it, which makes it somewhat ambiguous, here are the two together: "Because of the ego-syntonic nature of Pedophilia, many individuals with pedophilic fantasies, urges, or behaviors do not experience significant distress. It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges, or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia. Individuals who have a pedophilic arousal pattern and act on these fantasies or urges with a child qualify for the diagnosis of Pedophilia"
So, it's a bit hard to know which way that is meant to be interpreted (i.e. whether or not my added quote is meant to be an addendum, or extra condition, to the previous sentences; though I think it is because it continues on the same line as the previous sentence).
If it really is as ambiguous as it seems, is there any objective way of clearing that up, in a way that doesn't involve subjective interpretation? I can't immediately see another part of the text which might help clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.115.165 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Any update on this? Should the article be changed to reflect the ambiguity here, or maybe there is a way of resolving the ambiguity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.115.165 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What the sentence meant to indicate was the a person can be diagnosed with pedophilia even if they never act on their urges and even if they do not experience distress. Perhaps "Urges alone" is the wrong way to word it, as this is contradictory to "provided the subject meets the remaining criteria."Legitimus (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok cool, thanks; that makes the article a bit more specific, but it may still be slightly unclear. It still seems to conflict a bit with criteria B "The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty". Just to be clear, the bit you added just lists exceptions to that part of the criteria? Or does it just give a psychologist more leeway to make a diagnosis? If it's just specific exceptions, it may be a good idea to explicitly state that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.115.165 (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've heard different interpretations, but it has been my impression that these are exceptions. In psychiatric practice, the criteria are not necessarily strict and absolute. For example, while 6 months is specified in criteria A, diagnosis and therapeutic action are possible if it's been less time. If the patient is very overt about his intention to go out and rape his 8 year old niece and feels no distress whatsoever, we don't send him on his merry way as not having had this desire long enough. Indeed many ignore Criteria B altogether, and it's not even part of the ICD.Legitimus (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah okey, I'll have a look at the ICD stuff then to see what that says. N.B. The main interest here for me, with regards to the accuracy here, is that I've been using this article as reference in a pretty lengthy forum debate on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.82.29

The criterion B of the DSM-IV is:
The person has acted on these sexual urges (1), or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty (2).

Further DSM-IV states:
It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges, or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia. Individuals who have a pedophilic arousal pattern and act on these fantasies or urges with a child qualify for the diagnosis of Pedophilia.

On the other hand, the wiki article currently states:
Neither the ICD nor the DSM diagnostic criteria require actual sexual activity with a prepubescent youth. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges even if they have never been acted upon. Likewise, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges still qualifies for the diagnosis. Acting on sexual urges is not limited to overt sex acts for purposes of this diagnosis, and can include indecent exposure, voyeuristic or frotteuristic behaviors, or masturbating to child pornography.[4]

The statement above is ambiguous and can easily leads to the misinterpretation that masturbating to child pornography would satisfy the criterion B. I checked all relevant parts of DSM-IV and I see no evidence that "acting upon" should be interpreted so broadly. It makes even less sense if you consider that the definition of child pornography changes quite often. See COPA -> Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002) -> PROTECT Act (2003) -> Handley's trial (2007, parts of PROTECT Act were deemed unconstitutional). It would be ridiculous if the medical/psychological definition's interpretation would change with every new law and every new law interpretation by the courts.

The part "masturbating to child pornography" must be removed from the "Diagnosis" chapter because it's not supported by any valid sources. Zorndyke (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about how the child pornography laws have been really hard to interpret along with other problems, but this isn't about what the law calls child porn. While not enumerated in so many words in the DSM, it is frequently used in a practical sense in psychiatric practice. It is one thing to be caught having certain photos, it is another to pleasure oneself using them. Further, a study by Seto, Cantor and Blanchard in 2006 found that child pornography offending was potentially a stronger diagnostic indicator than actual contact offenses. Note that 21% of this sample was non-criminal, but rather referred through physicians.
Seto MC, Cantor JM, Blanchard R (2006). "Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia". J Abnorm Psychol. 115 (3): 610–5. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.610. PMID 16866601. The results suggest child pornography offending is a stronger diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against child victims {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The problems with this research paper start with its definition of pedophilia:
"A particularly germane question in these clinical assessments is whether the child pornography offender is a pedophile, given the intuitive link between possession of child pornography and pedophilia, defined as a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)."
What the researchers try to prove is that child pornography offender are (much) more often sexually aroused by children. Even if we cast aside the question whether people who are aroused by images of children are also aroused by real children, being aroused alone does not suffice to diagnose pedophilia disorder. If it would suffice, why would the criterion B be necessary at all? This research paper does nothing except linking (or trying to link) collecting of child pornography to criterion A. It appears that the authors of this research simply ignore the full DSM-IV definition of pedophilia and substitute it with their own interpretation of the short definition. While the researchers belong to APA, they can't speak for the whole association and adjust the APA definition.
You need to ask yourself about the true meaning of the criterion B, why is it in the DSM definition at all. We're talking about pedophilia as disorder. There must be a direct link to damage, sufferance or at least great inconvenience/annoyance it causes, either for the patient or for other people. DSM-IV does say "act on these fantasies or urges with a child", not just "act on these fantasies or urges" in the sentence I quoted above. I assume that it's the true/exact meaning of the second part of the criterion B.
Now, I'm not defending collectors of real child pornography, but considering that (1) in Canada (where all three authors of this paper live) even fantasy images of minors in sexual context constitute child pornography and (2) that even in case of real child pornography the collector may have never affected even a single person, don't you think that "masturbating to child pornography" alone would not satisfy criterion B of the DSM-IV definition of pedophilia? Do you really think that merely "pleasuring oneself" was meant to satisfy it? Please give me a direct answer yes or no. And if it doesn't satisfy B, shouldn't this part of the article be worded differently? Zorndyke (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
"The person has acted on these sexual urges (1), or ..." -- masturbation is action; if an adult has sexual urges towards children, and masturbates while looking at child pornography, that person has acted on their urges. In addition, since child pornography is illegal and carries serious penalties, someone who uses it puts themselves at risk to satisfy their urges. And to masturbate to child pornography, the person must first locate and obtain the child pornography, another risky activity in itself. To take those kind of risks for a bit of masturbation is not casual and is an indicator of distress. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition to Jack-A-Roe's reply, I want the emphasize a critical mistake: Criteria B does not say "with a child" when referring to action, and I feel this was deliberate. It is my hypothesis that Criteria B was added to as certain as possible about the diagnosis. Criteria A exists entirely inside the subject's mind and is utterly reliant on self-report.
I cannot emphasize this enough: The DSM are guidelines, not absolute law. Diagnosis is a complex task.Legitimus (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Downloading music and films illegally is risky too, but would you say that everyone who does it is in such a distress that would satisfy criterion B? Also it's up to person's IT, internet knowledge and pure luck whether he/she needs much effort to locate it. Engaging in illegal activities does not necessary lead to "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty". Also, the way I understand "the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty", these "urges or phantasies" must directly cause "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty" (but it doesn't even matter because "masturbating to child pornography" does not necessary lead to "marked distress" even indirectly.)
It doesn't count as "acting on these sexual urges" either. You need to read all relevant parts of DSM-IV to see the three criteria used in the definition in proper context. As I mentioned twice already, DSM-IV states: "Individuals who have a pedophilic arousal pattern and act on these fantasies or urges with a child qualify for the diagnosis of Pedophilia." This more exact/detailed wording on page 571 precedes "acted on these sexual urges" in the the A-B-C criteria list on next page.
To understand this definition you need recall that it defines pedophilia as a paraphilia.
Page 566, Paraphilias - Diagnostic Features:
"The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occurs over a period of at least 6 months (Criterion A). (...)
For Pedophilia, Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, and Frotteurism, the diagnosis is made if the person has acted on these urges or the urges or sexual fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. For Sexual Sadism, the diagnosis is made if the person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person or the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.(...)
Paraphilic imagery may be acted out with a nonconsenting partner in a way that may be injurious to the partner (as in Sexual Sadism or Pedophilia).
Page 568, Differential Diagnosis:
"A Paraphilia must be distinguished from the nonpathological use of sexual fantasies, behaviors, or objects as a stimulus for sexual excitement in individuals without a Paraphilia. Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g., are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of nonconsenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)."
Now, you could argue that "lead to legal complications" fits "masturbating to child pornography". But what's about these who masturbate to drawings of child-like characters in sexual context? It's illegal to possess these drawings only if (a) they're deemed obscene by the jury and (b) they were imported or transported between states (see Handley's trial, the PDF document I linked above). It's also quite possible that obscenity laws will be amended in the future to exclude cases where there's no unwilling participant (no public exposal). Would such a change of the law mean that masturbating to such "obscene" comics suddenly doesn't satisfy the criterion B? What's about non-obscene comics that may count as child pornography in Canada but not in the USA? And what's about masturbating to legal images of children? Even a nude photo of a child isn't necessary illegal (see § 2256 US Code for example).
In my opinion it's clear that "masturbating to child pornography" does not satisfy the criterion B as defined in DSM-IV. It's OK to mention "child pornography" in the pedophilia wiki article, but it must be separated from the DSM definition. It could be worded as "Some researchers suggest to use child pornography offenses as a diagnostic indicator of pedophilia." with a reference to Seto/Cantor/Blanchard's paper.Zorndyke (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, your arguments are logical, but your arguing a point as though this wikipedia article is being used by clinicians. We're not passing law here. Diagnosis is rendered both by these and the much more important clinical judgment.
Would it be acceptable to word it in a less absolute fashion? How about: "or in some cases, masturbating to child pornography."
Legitimus (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Assigned to Category:Child abuse?

Why is this part of this category? It's not like pedophiles always molest children. This would fit under child abuse just as much as homosexuality (remember they claimed you could infect children with being gay?) Joepie91 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is assigned to the child abuse category because it is very closely related to child sexual abuse. Pedophiles may not always sexually molest children, but that does not make the fact that many (believed to be most) of them do sexually molest children any less a reality. This topic is much more closely related to child abuse than homosexuality is. In fact, I do not see how homosexuality is related to child abuse...other than a pedophile who sexually molests children being gay. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Coming back to say that I do not see exactly how this article is assigned to the Child abuse category. It is assigned to the Sexual abuse category via a tag at the bottom of the article, yes, but not exactly the child abuse category. Either way, however, the abuse tag is valid for the reasons I explained above in this section. Others would disagree for a few minor reasons, but that has been debated before. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this article is in Category:Pedophilia which is a subcategory of Category:Child sexual abuse, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Child abuse & Category:Sexual abuse. Flyer is correct in that it is related to it (though I'm not sure I would say 'closely'). To be honest, the categories I find confusing right now are why the Pedophilia category is under Category:Childhood and Category:Rites of passage. Can anyone explain that to me? I sort of think we should those, I don't see how it would be intrinsically related to these, albeit my understanding of this paraphilia is not professional. Is it because of the focus on childhood and not having went through the rite of passage of sexually preferring physically grown and sexually developed people? Tyciol (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to homosexuality, situational offenders could be homosexual (not just pedophiles) but I do see your point, there is less of an obvious relation. The one relation that some perceive to be there is that both are deviances from sexual normality and some theorize that it is a conditioned response to acts perpetrated early in life. I don't know any good literature to support that though, seems like some kinda religious myth, but even so, that perception itself, even if flawed, may be notable? I'm not sure. Tyciol (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended text

Legimitus I noticed your edits which attempt to clarify what the 'act upon urges' statement specifies. The rest of your interpretation I can't see any fault with, however I attempted to consult the reference linked to here. It seems you need a subscription to read this. Would it be possible to post a brief snippet of the portion of the extended text (or to clarify which portion of page 943 you are referencing?) so we can understand how this passage clarifies examples of what 'acting upon' means? I am wondering if these could be grouped? Voyeurism and frotteurism seem psychology-related (as well as crimes), whereas indecent exposure and viewing child pornography are purely crimes.

It would be appropriate to mention exhibitionism (perhaps in place or alongside IE) since it is related to psychology. In regards to masturbating to child pornography, masturbation itself is not considered something unhealthy or something that is illegal. Relative to the situation it could be considered unhealthy for someone suffering from pedophilia though since it could potentially reinforce a prepubescent bias, but wouldn't it be appropriate to include any illegal acts under the 'acted upon' criteria if they can be related to it? I guess what I mean to say is, this raises a lot of questions and it would be very informative to have access to this extended text for everyone if it's going to be used as a reference. Tyciol (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't add the psychiatryonline.com ref, but merely was trying to reuse an existing ref again. That is, I thought I was just pointing to the print version of the DSM-IV TR. I did not notice it said p.943 in the original ref.
So, I can retype some of the relevant text from the hardback I have:
Emphasis added. As you can see, it makes reference to a version of frotteurism and voyeurism, and indecent exposure. The other parts mentioned are technically overt sex acts, which should be obvious indicators based on previously mentioned text. Masturbation to child pornography is frequently of significance in the therapeutic environment. You can understand that it's not a great sign, right? Further, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, Seto, Canter and Blanchard found that child porn was actually a better diagnostic indicator than contact offenses.
Here's my theory on that: While it is conceivable for a person to commit a contact offense using a convenient child as a surrogate (and other reasons non-pedophiles offend this way), obtaining child porn is extremely risky and takes a highly deliberate effort to get, despite there being uncountable ways to get perfectly legal adult pornography. Pedophiles even take magazine ads and paste bits of them together or use photoshop to make provocative images. The shear amount of effort expended is nothing to take lightly. Legitimus (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to voyeurism, it mentions 'undressing the child and looking'. So that seems more like active coercion to voyeurism, since voyeurism can simply refer to people who peep but don't actually go up to people and undress them. Similarly, in regards to 'masturbating in the presence' that is within a specific context, presumably doing it where they can see it which is of course inappropriate, and more potentially upsetting than those who do so in private. While I can understand it's not a great sign, and as stated previously I do agree it is significant in a clinical environment, it does not seem to be listed in this paragraph on its own. It would be interesting to read SCB's research (not sure I could find it though...) and see if their findings are accurate. I am not sure if it would always be true that it would take a deliberate effort to get it, because it is possible that people could disguise it as another file and that people could obtain it by accident. It would be more so those who seek it out repetitively (or who hold onto it) that would be intentionally putting them self at risk. Something like that or acquiring images like you say do bely an amount of effort, so perhaps more of a fixation. I wonder, is there a difference between being inherently focused on it, and those who are focused due to the restriction? Furthermore, in regards to the risk to children, wouldn't a non-pedophile with such a lack of control as to take one as a surrogate be more of an unstable risk to society than someone who deliberately chooses alternatives to becoming close to children, such as cutting magazines and stuff? Tyciol (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Really, and I have to keep emphasizing this (as I did in another thread): diagnosis takes a fair amount of clinical judgement. These behaviors aren't absolutely "if you do this you are a pedophile." They can be diagnostic, but not 100% of the time. The patient's situation needs to be considered in context. Would it be beneficial to make this more overt in the article's text? Legitimus (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes that sounds like a good idea. Arfed (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia in prison

It would be interesting if we had valid documentation on the phenomenon of pedophilia within the prison system. There is a widespread cultural stereotype that the sexual abuse of juveniles is more likely to occur within urban detention centers and jails. ADM (talk)

If the juveniles are mid to late teenagers, it is not pedophilia (unless the teenager is far behind on puberty). Remember that pedophilia is about a sexual attraction/preference for child-like bodies (prepubescent children or children who look prepubescent). Most 17-year-old "boys" and "girls" I have seen, for example, look no physically different age-wise than 20-year-olds.
I cannot imagine any young child being in an adult prison near pedophiles. Nor can I imagine any young child being sentenced to an adult prison in general. (How often does that happen?) It is no secret that a significant number of prisoners passionately hate pedophiles (they consider pedophiles and child molesters in general the lowest of the low). Thus, I cannot imagine it being easy in that case either for pedophiles to sexually molest prepubescent or very young teenage children (such as 13-year-olds). Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If ADM meant juvenile inmates being abused by the guards/staff, that technically would be child sexual abuse (the actual act, rather than the underlying motivation). And in line with Flyer22's point, most such inmates are teens, not prepubescents. I vaguely recall there being special "camps" or programs for younger children who have serious behavior problems that result in criminal prosecution, and theoretically they could be abused at such camps, but again I think CSA is a more appropriate article.Legitimus (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If there were going to be an article about that there'd need to be a more specific term than 'camp' (since that could reference a lot of other issues, ie Boy Scouts, etc. Anyway yeah, you'd call it sexual abuse in prison or whatever equivilent. I think at most it would be a subtopic of such an article. Tyciol (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
i believe we already have an article called prison rape Smith Jones (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Necropedophilia

The term necropedophilia has been used to describe those deplorable situations that involve both necrophilia and pedophilia. It could perhaps be added to the article if more relevant sources can be found. [2] ADM (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a little obscure, wouldn't you say? Legitimus (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In such situations, most sexologists would diagnose both pedophilia and necrophilia (or Paraphilia NOS, if they are using DSM-language), rather than the more idiosyncratic term.— James Cantor (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never heard of them combining diagnostic terms into a portmanteau or anything (although a kleptonymphomaniac would be interesting). That'd get pretty complicated, like how do you decide which goes first? Plus like, especially as decomposition occurs, the relevance of biological maturity would decrease (like I doubt such sickos would be able to tell apart a midget's skeleton). Tyciol (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Only apparent uses of the term are in urbandictionary and as the name of a band. Urbandictionary isn't an especially reliable source, so we're not left with anything verifiable to support including the term in the article. Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd expect the likes of UD, but I'm surprised that there's a band. I wonder if they sound anything like Wombstretcha? Tyciol (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_11&oldid=390231482"