Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

This page in Dutch

On nl.wikipedia.org there is a page on pedophilia that this page links to and vice versa. (nl:Pedofilie). What's interesting is that while en.wikipedia.org gives neutral information on pedophilia, the page in Dutch can be read as propaganda for pedophilia. It contains the butterfly symbol of a pedophiliac society, there's hardly any criticism, and there's a lot of information for pedophiles.

There is a page on this society on nl.wikipedia, which presents "four guidelines for responsible sex with children" as published by this society. The article does not contain one word of criticism on these guidelines. The aim of such guidelines is clear: pedophiles relieve their conscience and comfort themselves by telling each other that what they do is ok. Publishing guidelines is part of that strategy. The pedophilia page in Dutch links to the society article and vice versa.

I have tried to remove the articles, but with no luck. I made the mistake of wondering why some people are so eager to have pedophilia propaganda on wikipedia, after which I was blocked from wikipedia for some time. I saw that other users who changed those articles have been blocked also.

I recommend to check out the Dutch equivalent of this article, if you don't read Dutch run it through Google translation, and remove the link to that page from here. I'm willing to translate this page into Dutch as a substitute.

I am a co-founder and board member of Meldpunt, the Dutch equivalent of Cybertipline.

X10 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for the Verenining MARTIJN to contain any criticism, as the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to disseminate pro- or anti- pedophile propaganda, but to provide encyclopedic articles. Furthermore, the article does provide information on the controversial nature of the organization. As you're new to Wikipedia, please take some time to look over WP:NOT and WP:NPOV; I'm sure they have a dutch equivalent. Please note also that this is not the correct place to discuss the dutch article, as this page is for discussing changes to the English version. You can find the respective talk pages at nl:Overleg:Vereniging_MARTIJN and nl:Overleg:Pedofilie. --CA387 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read NPOV then as all notable views should eb considered in an article and in this case that most definitely means criticism. I know what pro pedophile propaganda is but anti-pedophile propaganda? SqueakBox 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Propaganda is anything that attempts to influence the reader in one way or another, regardless of the truthfulness of its content. If we added "Hitler was a very bad person" to the Hitler article, chances are 99% of readers would agree with the statement, but it would be considered anti-Hitler propaganda as it attempts to influence the reader with stating of opinion, rather than presentation of facts. Anti-pedophile propaganda would be anything parallel to that.
From what I gather from X10's case, she's looking for stuff in the article's writing that criticizes the organization, rather than showing whatever notable criticism exists from outside sources—which the dutch article already does. --CA387 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two points. One, the guidelines for safe sex with children are presented in the article on the martijn group as being "objective". One can read the article as stating that these are actually such guidelines. The reason for this martijn group to have these guidelines is that it reassures pedophiles that it's ok to abuse children. Thus, the article contributes to abuse of children.
Second, reading the article on pedophilia in English, it is exactly what I'd expect an article in wikipedia to be. It informs the reader on aspects of pedophilia. If you read the article in Dutch, it reads like it has been written by a pedophile. It does not provide fair information on pedophilia. The same is true for the article on this Martijn group.
So far, I have not seen any argument that goes against my case. Also, I have not been able to change one bit in one of the articles. I thought wikipedia was a joint effort, but apparently that's not the case. The reason I mention all this here is that I think the link from the english article on pedophilia to the Dutch article is questionable. If the maintainers of the english article are aware of the content of the dutch article, then it's up to them.
X10 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Btw, you say the article on this group already contains criticism. It doesn't. What it says is that there has been a neo nazi group claiming to criticize the group. I can only gues why of all criticisms, only the neo nazi one is mentioned.
The article doesn't need to criticize the group. But it shouldn't encourage child abuse either. X10 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I can gather from reading the article, it certainly needs work—especially in the field of in-line citations. However, as I said before, that's something you should take up with the Dutch Wikipedia, as I'm sure if any of us were to edit the article, it would probably come out worse! The link to the Dutch version on this page is merely to show that a sister-language version of this article exists, not to imply that it's necessarily a superlative one. --CA387 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
CA387, it's good you mention NPOV. It's true that I'm new here, I only first created my wikipedia account in 2005. But I have read the NPOV article both in English and in Dutch, and I couldn't agree more with both (they're different). It says that if there's conflicting views, both should be presented fairly. I agree. But conflicting views is not the issue here. I'm arguing that the current text is potentially harmful to children and I have seen no argument against that. I would be very happy if the article in Dutch would be an objective article similar to the one in English. Currently, it is certainly not an objective article. X10 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Being blocked for calling some information propaganda seems extreme to me. Any suggestions I have for arguments are useless if they will block you. They may have already labeled you, but if you make your arguements based on editorial principles you should be able to get support from others. Purhaps you could translate some of the reasons given on the talk pages for some of our edits. Does the Dutch WP have any kind of arbitration system? --Gbleem 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you base your argument then on NPOV, rather than your opinion of it being "harmful to children". Wikipedia is not censored, so if you want to change the article you should do it with the rationale of conforming to Wikipedia guidelines. Hope this helps. --CA387 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming that X10 is being truthful (I don't read Dutch), therefore I have removed the link to the Dutch page. Per WP:NOT EVIL and per Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to guide -- especially not for child abuse. Herostratus 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Dutch article, or at least put it into a translator, before jumping to conclusions. Also, an essay is a page that is not actionable, so please do not use them for reasoning behind edits. --CA387 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked for calling some information propaganda seems extreme to me.

From what I can tell from the Dutch Wikipedia, X10 wasn't blocked for calling information propaganda, but for suggesting that those who disagree with her must therefor be pedophiles themselves. As she herself says above: "I made the mistake of wondering why some people are so eager to have pedophilia propaganda on wikipedia".--82.92.181.129 11:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend all out war using vandalizing, new version writes and retaliatory reverts, and hacking. Pedophilia is evil, NPOV is a silly myth. We know what is wrong and what is a crime, let's work to destroy it.Alexander 10:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad

Why cannot I add "Mohammad" as a bullet to the "See Also" section? Mohammad married Aisha when Aisha was 5 or 6 years old. This is, by all definitions, pedophilia. Is there some kind of silent consensus here that Mohammad's pedophilia cannot even be mentioned? I see that PC is at work, as always. Tauphon 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your text to the bottom where it should go. I'm guessing no one noticed it because we usually look at the bottom for new stuff. Here is why we can't add "Mohammad" to this article. First, the medical determination requires an examination by a professional. This is not possible. Sometimes modern people try to make a guess about a historical person using available data, but there is little usable data in this case and in cases where data is available the accuracy such retrospective analysis is questionable. Using the colloquial definition we run into the same issues of available data. For example this could have been a ceremonial marriage or the ages could be the result of a misinterpretation. --Gbleem 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Aisha. Muhammad clearly doesn't belong on this page Nil Einne 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Well you would need impeccable sourcing for us to even consider adding him, so do bring sources here, SqueakBox 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The definition is modern, but if we wanted to apply it retroactively, a large percentage of the ancient world might have been considered pedophiles. The Bible doesn't mention anyone's age at marriage, but the Talmud clarifies things by specifying, for example, that wives who are less than 12 years old should use birth control, since pregnancy might kill them. If a male's brother died, he was expected to marry (and have children with) his brother's widow, and there is discussion of this obligation still holding in a case where the bridegroom-to-be is 9. And these views were hardly unique to the Middle East. Listing people from the fairly distant past would be as meaningless as adding thousands of names to a list of slaveowners. Context is everything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Poindexter Propellerhead (talk • contribs) 04:22, May 20, 2007 added by DPetersontalk 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually think its quite a big thing - for the world ssecond largetst religion to be following what is in actual fact a paedophile is quite a big thing non? I even thought that it was an antiquated hing but ALL of m muslims frinds so far in discussion are defending the deflowering of a 9 year old child. Again this isjustst me but i find that quite shocking... so i think it deserves something becasue it is educating an entire section o f the world taht its ok. anyway my views.

It is a mental illness in accordance with the DSM-IV definition.

It is not clear what the pronoun "it" is referring to. If "it" refers to pedophilia defined medically as a disease then the statement might belong in the first paragraph where the medical definition is presented. However, the first paragraph is not the place for comparing and contrasting the different medical definitions, and if it were I would not pick only one. --Gbleem 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some looking and the paraphilia article and maybe we do need to be more explicit that the first paragraph of this article refers to the medical definition. --Gbleem 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"It" would be the subject of the article. The intro seems like a good spot to give a basic medical definition. We already mention the contrast between the "generally accepted medical definition" and colloquial usage. What other medical definitions do we want to compare and contrast definitions? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the article is medically defined pedophilia but your sentence with the word "it" was in a paragraph about the colloquial use of the term. --Gbleem 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I moved Will Beback's line up to the first paragraph and changed Pedophilia to "it". Here "it" refers to the medical definition.
We already have a section on how the DSM and ICD classify pedophilia. I think we can summarize it by saying in the intro:
That gives a NPOV rendition of the material already in the "Diagnosis" section. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The DSM and ICD are the most widely used definitions of mental illness. Pedophilia is a mental illness, by definition. Therefore, the line belongs in the introduction and is also NPOV and has verifiable sources to support the stmt. DPetersontalk 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So what, exactly is the relevance of "...and child sexual abuse is also illegal." in a section on the definition of pedophilia? Also, the sentence is a vague since it doesn't define child, abuse or the nation in which it is illegal. Additionally, the first part of the sentence should start with "According to the DSM" instead of how it does now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) June 3 18:11
  • To note that the condition is both a mental illness and illegal...both are NPOV, factual statements, which are verifiable. "In accordance with the DSM..."is also acceptable English. However, we can see what other editors think.
  • What is your objection (point to a policy that supports it's exclusion). DPetersontalk 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have NPOV concerns with both the phrasing and the appropriateness of the statement in the context of the larger section. There's no reason to be talking about the illegality of child sexual abuse in that section. It's not relevant. We could have a sentence about how it's illegal to kill a child after a sexual assault, too. That would be factually correct, but it would be NPOV to have it here.Chunky Rice 21:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • regarding the first part of the sentence, my concern is not about whether or not it is grammatically correct, but rather where the emphasis is placed.Chunky Rice 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course it is relevent that a behavior is illegal! Let's see what others think. DPetersontalk 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the text to read:
  • Child sexual abuse, whether perpetrated by a clinically diagnosed pedophile or a situational offender, is illegal in most jurisdictions.
And moved it up a paragraph so that it is part of the discussion of clinical versus common usage. The point that I think is important is that the medical diagnosis does not matter to the law. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Will, I support your recent edits and am comfortble with those improvements. DPetersontalk 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me, SqueakBox 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Works for me.Chunky Rice 00:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletion of "incidence" sections

I agree, all that material was largely based on one college student sample and represented Undue influence regarding the ciation. Nice job deleting that section. DPetersontalk 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rem criticism of treatment section

This section was a tautology, in a sense. To say that the "only" problem evident among pedophiles and Pedophilia is their attraction to children, and so there really is no problem or mental illness is absurd. The "only" problem with many murderers is that they killed one person. The "only" problem with a child with ADHD is are problems with attention. Listen, if other editors disagree with me here, pls say so and if that is the consensus, then the section will have to go back, despite my objection. DPetersontalk 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have my agreement, and your rationale makes a lot of sense. -Jmh123 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, I don't want to equate pedophilia to homosexuality, but isn't that criticism very similar to the one used when they removed homosexuality from the DSM? My feeling is that unless we're going to take the position that pedophilia is bad (which I think is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy), the argument is sound. -Chunky Rice 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the section is written with a pretty clear POV in mind--that being that there is no real illness associated with pedophilia. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that some pedophiles are led to commit crimes because of their attractions. While homosexual acts have been considered criminal, and still are, unfortunately, in some states, these are victimless crimes, and rarely prosecuted these days. Not so with child sexual abuse. Perhaps you can think of a way to rewrite the section so that it is NPOV? -Jmh123 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't all criticism sections inherently POV? I mean, they exist to present the counter-pov to the main article. I'm not sure how you would write one that wasn't. However, including a section doesn't make the article POV, and excluding valid criticisms does. -Chunky Rice 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point. The section on "treatment" seems to indicate that there isn't really any effective treatment for this condition...so what is to criticize, except that, maybe, more resources ($$$) should go to developing effective treatments? DPetersontalk 02:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There was just a news piece on some new treatment claimed to be effective. I'll dig it up. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My reading of the section indicates that argument is that pedophilia in of itself is not a pathology and therefore, any treatment is inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
While pedophilia may not be regarded a pathology in some circles, it is currently treated as one by legal establishments, notably in both the U.S. and U.K. The use of sex offender registries, and more recently of extended incarceration after completion of prison terms, have become widespread. They are predicated on the belief that some sex offenders, and some child sex offenders in particular, have a high incidence of repeat violations and are a threat to society. There are currently many people who are locked up basically because the legal and medical systems have determined them to be pedophiles. In some cases their only hope of freedom is treatment of some kind. We should have a section or at least a full paragrpoh on that issue.
Furthermore, we have the example of the efforts by the Catholic Church to provide treatment to its priests who had exhibited pedophilic tendencies. Their level of succes should be summarized; I'm sure there must be some sources on the topic. It'd be worth a short paragraph at least. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
To start with, I've put the section back, as it should be before consensus is reached. If a consensus against keeping it is reached, then maybe we should move the text to an easily accesible location, so that it can be combed through. Nevertheless, I oppose the removal of this section. The secton seems to adequately explain all of the doubts that have been raised over the treatment of pedophiles. Its size owes to the fact that much of the literature reflects doubtfully on the ability to treat. (f a b i a n) 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
By definition it is a mental illness per DSM. Most editors want the section out, so until there is consensus, it should remain out. DPetersontalk 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
1)I'm not sure what your point is re: the DSM. 2) I really don't see the consensus that you claim exists. -Chunky Rice 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A point was raised about Pedophilia not being a mental illness or that being disputed...By defintion it is per the DSM. I think more editors want the section out is what I meant. DPetersontalk 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I find your argument to be pretty weak. It seems like you're saying that no critism of the DSM is valid. Can't the DSM be wrong? It has been before. The mere fact that the DSM says something doesn't make it immune from criticism. Looking at this dicussion, it looks to me that there are 3 editors in favor or removal and 2 in favor of keeping. That's not consensus. -Chunky Rice 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed it again. It appeared to me to give excess attention to a fringe viewpoint. We should try to cover the material is a less didactic manner. Much of this article appears intended to justify pedophilia, rather than to simply describe it. We shouldn't seek to attack or defend it, but just to summarize neutrally what reliable sources have written. It is possible to skew NPOV by devoting excessive space to minority viewpoints. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Will's comments. In addition, the DSM is a current reliable and veriafialbe and reputable source. An individual, such as Chunky Rice, may wish it wrong or think is can be, but that would constitute OR. DPetersontalk 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are you making this personal? You have no idea what my personal opinion is. I have only argued for the inclusion of the published criticism of others. I really don't understand why you think the DSM is immune from criticism. It is not original research to cite someone elses research. I really don't understand your position. It doesn't seem to be based on Wikipedia policy. -Chunky Rice 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I was merely reflecting your comment, "Can't the DSM be wrong? It has been before. The mere fact that the DSM says something doesn't make it immune from criticism." I meant no harm or personal attack and am sorry if you misinterpreted my comments. If you have specific reputable and verifiable citations and sources that refute the 'specific' lines and quotes from the DSM in this article, by all means, bring them on for us to take a look at. DPetersontalk 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't really understand what was wrong with the cited criticism that were deleted. Isn't that what they did? -Chunky Rice 01:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I want to make it clear that I have no agenda to push in this article. I just have it on my watchlist because it's a frequent vandalism target. I just feel like the changes you have made have been detrimental to the quality of the article. -Chunky Rice 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I think that the section on treatment needs to reflect a certain anmount of objective criticism. For example, it needs to point out that it is mostly active sex offenders that need treatment, rather than people who are merely attracted to children. The criticism should also include a notion (citation?) that such treatment may be deemed unethical in cases of documented willing/harmless relationships, and in the cases of "celibate peodophiles". Can someone propose a revised text for the restoration of the criticism section? 193.217.55.223 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

crime and motivation

"However, regardless of motivation, child sexual abuse is a crime, and pedophilia is a mental illness." I added a comma to this sentence, but it still looks funny to me. Does the phrase "regardless of motivation" apply to "child sexual abuse is a crime" only or to both phrases?

Pedophilia is a mental illness except when the term is used in the colloquial sense to refer to criminals. I'm not sure the sentence makes things clearer.--Gbleem 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of motivation refers to sexual abuse. Maybe the "," after "crime" is not needed? DPetersontalk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My question was rhetorical. We can all only guess what the sentence means. Regardless of what the author intended, the sentence as it stands is unclear. --Gbleem 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I still think the whole thing should be removed as irrelevant. We already have two mentions in the article that child sexual abuse is a crime. Further, the "mental illness" part needs the "according to the DSM" qualifier, or should be removed altogether. We don't need to re-emphasize these points at the end of every single paragraph. It feels like POV pushing to me. What is the purpose, other than to say "It doesn't matter why they do it, it's still bad."?-Chunky Rice 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should decide on whether to keep the sentence until it has been fixed. --Gbleem 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at it again and I don't see anyway to rewrite the sentence so that it clarifies the point of the paragraph. --Gbleem 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree...Maybe the best thing would be to poll the other editors and see if there is a consensus. DPetersontalk 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on your position with more than "I disagree?" I've tried to explain my reasoning. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points I've raised.. -Chunky Rice 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've explained mine above in other sections, I won't repeat myself, except to say that the facts are that it is a mental illness and illegal and that is notable. DPetersontalk 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Notable enough for inclusion in the article? Sure. But why do we need three separate mentions of it in three separate sections? Excessive. Further, I find your pushing of the DSM as some sort of gospel to be questionable. -Chunky Rice 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
See my comments above re the DSM. It's inclusion belongs in each section and is relevant and related the the preceeding material it follows. Now, if you suggest removing the material preceeding the DSM references, then the DSM references would probably also need to be edited. DPetersontalk 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it needs fixing, but just chopping out that sentence isn't the solution. No time to analyze it thoroughly, but it needs more work than that. I agree that the writing and presentation could be improved. -Jmh123 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I revised a bit, keeping the focus on pedophilia, rather than going into depth about the nature of child sexual offenders in general, since that is not the topic here. The point that not all sexual offenders are pedophiles is clearly made. The statement about percentages was referenced only in-line, without specific citations to support the data that was cited. Wogan's studies, while interesting, are not contextualized in a thorough review of research in this area, and pertain to the nature of sex offenders rather than pedophiles. I also removed the sentence that was an attempt to balance the POV, which hopefully I have done. -Jmh123 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, here's a link to an opposing view, by Charles Moser, Ph.D., M.D., wich suggest that pedophilia, along with other paraphilias, is not a valid "mental disorder" and that it clearly fails to meet psychiatric criteria of a psychopathology: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/MoserKleinplatz.htm The study concludes that "the Paraphilia section is so severely flawed that its removal from the DSM is advocated.". I think that it needs to be incorporated into the article, ie. by pointing out that there is disagreement within the academic and psychiatric community on this issue. 193.217.55.223 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it is a mental illness as defined in the DSM and ICD-9. DPetersontalk 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, "mental disorder" (or in the case of ICD-9, "nonpsychotic mental disorder").[1] Someone with ADD or fear of heights also has a mental disorder, but few people would call them "mentally ill;" ICD-9's category for pedophilia even excludes the classically "mentally ill." DSM-IV and ICD-9's statement on the subject is ambiguous in that way, you don't know quite what to make of it. Which makes me think that Moser may have overreacted, but I'm willing to entertain arguments that his is an important minority position. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are mixing clinical and general descriptions. The DSM defines mental illnesses, ADHD may not be seen as a "mental illness" by the general public, but it is a mental illness per the DSM, which defines mental illnesses. DPetersontalk 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The DSM is the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," and "disorder" is the terminology it favors. It defines a "mental disorder" as "a clinically important collection of symptoms (these can be behavioral or psychological) that causes an individual distress, disability, or the increased risk of suffering pain, disability, death, or the loss of freedom." I found no definition of "mental illness" in it, or even any use of the term. If you have found the term "mental illness" used by either DSM-IV or ICD-9 to refer to paraphilias (or for that matter, anything else!), I'd appreciate a cite, as I'm currently trying to get this sorted out over at List of mental illnesses (or List of mental disorders, depending on who did the last redirect revert). Poindexter Propellerhead 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Moser's et al. assessment is definitely an important minority position, and certainly relevant for this article. I also suggest that we touch briefly on the article by Richard Green, M.D., J.D., wich basically argues the same but with the sole focus on pedophilia:
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm#6
Green's position is that the currently listed DSM criteria for pedophilia is "logically incoherent", and that "The DSM should not provide psychiatry with jurisdiction over an act any more than it should provide the law with jurisdiction over a thought.".
Opposing statements contrary to the prevailing APA dogma (by insiders, not just by the "psychiatry abolitionists") have been outlined in other Wikipedia articles. For example, in the schizophrenia article, there is a section on "alternative approaches", wich describes the opposing view (mainly by "anti-psychiatrists", however, such as Szasz, Breggin, etc.) that schizoophrenia is not neccessarily a disorder, but that it could be a normal variation in the human psyche and that the classification of it as an "illness" may be rather due to social/religious stigma, prevailing cultural norms/expectations, etc. I am not suggesting that we should include the "anti-psychiatry" position, even though some of the APA critics were former psychiatrists themselves (since it excludes almost all of the DSM definitions as "pathological", anyway), only to point out that there are a number of practicing psychiatrists who are convinced that pedophilia does not meet the DSM criteria, and that it therefore should not be considered as a valid psychiatric diagnosis. 193.217.55.223 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Question on treatment citation

The line

A hospital in Berlin, Germany reported success using role-play therapy and medicine. The pedophiles were better able to control their urges once they understood the child's view.[52][53]

is sourced with a news story and not an empirical journal. Do other editors think that is noteworthy enough to warrant it's inclusion? Consider this an informal within article RfC. DPetersontalk 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that. I think it's verifiable that the clinic has made this claim, and that it was the result of an actual study. Whether a claim of an effective treatment is worth mentioning is another matter. I'm not sure why we'd require it to have been published in an empirical journal. (Though I presume they'll publish in one eventually). ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, here's a link to the institute conducting the study: [2] They are part of Charité, called "the largest university hospital in Europe". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's essentially a detailed press release about the study, in English. "Prevention of Child Molestation in the Dunkelfeld" ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

this project should definitely be included. it is the most public campaign to prevent child sexual abuse before it occurs that i am aware of. (billboards, commercials, etc.) here is the official website of the project with more information. ~[[kinda]] 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium: Nonexclusive pedophiles

Citizendium now also has a live article on pedophilia at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pedophilia. What strikes me after reading it is our first sentence now. We define pedophilia as exclusively or primarily attracted to children. Both Norbert de Jonge and Marthijn Uittenbogaard stated on TV that they are luckily also attracted to adults. Need we rephrase our definition to "strongly or even exclusively" to reflect the lower occurence of 7% of exclusives?

Interesting point. DSM-III required that the attraction to pre-pubescents be "repeatedly preferred or exclusive;" DSM-IV lets the diagnostician specify whether it's exclusive or non-exclusive. I'm thinking that our first sentence is based, at least in part, on the older definition. Does anyone know of a reason (based in the current, standardized definitions) why exclusivity should be retained as a criterion? Poindexter Propellerhead 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The DSM-IV is the criteria to use. DPetersontalk 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"peripubescent" -> "early pubescent"

I'm inclined to change "peripubescent" to "early pubescent" in the lead, because I don't think anybody knows what "peripubescent" means. Dybryd 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is ok with me. DPetersontalk 12:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Combined article

This looks just terrific. Great work all. The article now captures the full gamut of issues and material in one place. DPetersontalk 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I immediately noticed how pro pedophilia the anti pedophile section is. Strange but fixeable, SqueakBox 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, me too. But at least all the material is in one place so that it can all be edited within context. I've made a few minor changes...more to follow. DPetersontalk 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Did I miss something? I seem to have been mistakenly under the impression that it was still under debate as to whether or not this material should be merged into the "Pedophilia" article (based on the discussion taking place at "Pro-Pedophile Activisim"). Could someone here please explain ... Welland R 12:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well keep debating, nobody is short circuiting that, and my actionw as absolutely not intended to stifle debate, SqueakBox 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That was evident to me. DPetersontalk 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You didn't miss anything, and you are not mistaken. I've expressed my disapproval of this out-of-process action, but it falls on deaf ears. -Jmh123 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus to merge.--Flamgirlant 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? Clearly there isn't a consensus if folks are unhappy. On the other hand, the way things were before wasn't entirely acceptable either. Now that the material from outside articles has been merged, why don't we look for an appropriate way to redivide the article, perhaps along fresh lines? But first, having the material all in one place gives us a chance to balance it out. The advocacy stuff, which is the actions of only a few hundred people (pro and con), had become too long compared to the treatment of the overall topic of pedophilia, a topic which affects millions. Let's put things into perspective and then see how the remaining material can be best divided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, what a wonderful idea. This is a sort of split the difference thought that, while maybe not making everyone happy, may move us along to getting a better article or articles. I support this approach 100%. Thanks for the cool head here. DPetersontalk 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, good call. Dybryd 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you guys want activism information to be in this article, too, then whatever, but I was under the impression that the stated excuse was to eliminate duplication. Regardless, the pro and anti activism articles should clearly stay as they were before, as the vote to merge failed. Mike D78 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Things on Wikipedia never "stay as they were before". Let's focus instead on how we want things to be in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me, as long as that "future" doesn't involve the implementation of an idea that clearly failed in a vote. Mike D78 05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So "combined article" means this article has largely become about pro-paedophilia activism? I've just read it, and that's certainly how it comes across. Exploding Boy 05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
a procedural but important note: there aren't any "votes" - a divided vote is a failure to reach consensus, not a close horse race. Dybryd 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that's how it comes across to anyone who looks at this without an agenda. Even after the unexplained deletion of the history sections, the amount of information related to activism now crammed into this article clearly warrants separate entries.
Mike D78 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your user edit history and join date certainly do not suggest that you are looking at this without an agenda. Don't act like you are without one. XavierVE 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't claim to not have my own opinions, but I do attempt to leave them at the door as much as possible and edit in the interests of fairness, accuracy, and common sense. Any user who took a look at the "combined article" without the agenda of supporting this proposal (Exploding Boy, for instance) could see that the result was clearly unsatisfactory.
Mike D78 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And it's even stranger given that a lengthy article on paedophile activism already exists. Exploding Boy 06:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, they keep trying to redirect that article to this one. The idea is that, by cramming outside material into this article, they can target and delete passages they don't like in the name of removing off-topic info. Thier merge proposal failed in a previous vote, however, and I have reported their actions on the admin noticeboard. Hopefully someone can put a stop to this unnecessary revert war they've insisted on starting.
Mike D78 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please Assume good faith. The purpose of the redirect is to combine three very related articles with overlapping material into one article that covers the domain completely. For the general reader this is a preferable approach. DPetersontalk 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
DPeterson, I'm afraid I cannot assume good faith on frequent reverts that were made against the wishes of a majority of users. It just doesn't work that way.
Mike D78 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not necessary at all on Wikipedia. The main article on a subject should give all the relevant information about the subject iteself. Other aspects, such as activism on the subject, particularly when there is a lot of information about it, can be briefly mentioned in the main article but should be fully discussed in separate articles. That's why we have main article tags. There was far, far too much pro-pedophile activism information in the pedophilia article, and it was making it unbalanced. In fact, the only reason there was "overlapping material" is because somebody duplicated it all. Exploding Boy 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend, if you want to experiment with this further, DPeterson and SqueakBox, that you create a temporary page with all three articles combined, edit it as you like, invite comments and participation in the process, and then propose the change. Exploding Boy is entirely right that there was way too much material about pro-pedophile activism after the merger; that was a huge article, and it should have been edited down first, had the merger been approved. -Jmh123 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the current version looks okay if we redirect the pro pedophile article, whioch appears to have been reverted by the sock of a banned user (and we are all empowered to revert all such edits, SqueakBox 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am getting tired of people who don't seem to like my presence here simply dismissing me as a sockpuppet.
Mike D78 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am basing this on your user page! its not my assumption, SqueakBox 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, the tag on my userpage was placed by a user who was no less engaged in unwarranted speculation than you are. Mike D78 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt may have been engaging in speculation. I am not doing so, SqueakBox 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So then stop referring to me as a sock! Mike D78 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What was it redirected from, please? I will make the necessary changes. Exploding Boy 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile activism, SqueakBox 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. Which article(s) was/were direct where? Exploding Boy 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I redirected 2 articles, Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism to here. Mike unredirected the pro article and left the anti article as a redirect. We have, IMO, 2 choices. We re-redirect the pro article here or we merge the pro and anti articles into a pedophile activism article and I think we should do the first, hence my intention to afd the pro article, SqueakBox 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the proposal currently under discussion. Your redirect of those two articles to this one appears controversial, and there is a current request for renaming for the Pedophile activism article underway. There is also no reason to list that article for deletion. This page has now been protected due to edit warring. Exploding Boy 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to discussion of the article on this talk page. Take other discussion to user talk pages. Thank you. Exploding Boy 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Occurrence in child sex offenders

I restored this section to a previous version; a lot of sourced information seemed to have been excised without any reason given. It is important to state the research that shows that not all pedophiles are molesters, and not all molesters are pedophiles, and someone had deleted several claims that emphasized this. I would remind editors that, especially in the case of controversial articles, it is appropriate to discuss the elimination of info beforehand, particularly when it is extensively sourced.

I can perhaps find more sources to cite for the claims in this section, if that is the issue, although I think these claims already are sourced well enough to be included.

For now, I also deleted the curious sentence "However, regardless of "cause," it is a mental illness in accordance with the DSM-IV definition." What exactly does "it" refer to: sex offenses? Sex offenses certainly do not in and of themselves indicate mental illnesses in accordance with the DSM, and if "it" was referring to pedophilia, then a section on sex offenders seems like an odd place to include this sentence. Mike D78 05:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected due to edit warring. Exploding Boy 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For how long? SqueakBox 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be tagged as such at the top of the page, then? Dybryd 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
For three days, to start. Forgot to add the tag: done now. Exploding Boy 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should be tagged, not the talk page? DPetersontalk 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3 days sounds okay to me, gives us all time to think through what we want to do next with this whole series of articles, SqueakBox 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Added back large section deleted

I don't understand why a large section of the article was deleted. I restored it. If that was an error on my part, pls explain. I just did not see any reason stated for the deletion, hence my restoration. DPetersontalk 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who deleted it, but it's pretty obvious why. SqueakBox's merge was undone, so now we have a Pro-pedophile activism article, an Anti-pedophile activism article, and you have once again restored the content of both articles into Pedophilia as well. I think you know all this, but since you asked....-Jmh123 17:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd not seen that. I see your point now. While there are two sep articles, the material is to remain separate. DPetersontalk 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps you will once again remove the duplicated material until the matter is settled? -Jmh123 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No? Alright, I did it. I see no need to duplicate the material, and it is entirely excessive in its present form in this article. -Jmh123 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Colloquially"

It's a small thing, but the use of the word "colloquial" in this article has been irritating me for months. It's inaccurate. Editors of the article may prefer an exclusively medical definition of pedophilia, but this article itself goes on to say that a behavioral definition is also used, not just "colloquially" but in much published research on the topic.

Look at wiki's article on Colloquialism. This article misuses the word. Dybryd 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest as an alternative? DPetersontalk 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing. There's no need for any modifier, the word can simply be cut. Dybryd 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. That's fine with me. I deleted one instance I saw, but if there are others, be my guest. ThanksDPetersontalk 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a topic that I'm not extensively familiar with, so forgive my ignorance, but can anyone point to some examples of published research which say you're a pedophile if you sleep with a 17 year old in Pennsylvania or California? Poindexter Propellerhead 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Read through the article, it discusses the question. Dybryd 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I read through the article, but the only reference for that was on page 176 of Barbaree's Pedophilia: Assessment and Treatment. He gives the usual (Webster's, DSM, etc) sort of definition, then adds "Unfortunately the terms 'pedophile' and 'child molester' are sometimes used interchangably in the popular and scientific literature, creating unnecessary confusion." I find it rather an odd use of citations to take an author's statement that a word is confusingly misused to justify our propagation of that same confusing misuse. Particularly when the cited paper is not available online, so readers cannot see that for themselves. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Luckily you had page 176 of that reference work to hand yourself. A little surprising given that you are "not extensively familiar" with this topic, but all to the good.
Do you think that a writer's opionion that the common use of two different definitions in scientific literature is confusing can be taken as evidence that such usage is "colloquial"? DanB†DanD 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just a very quick researcher who has a bad habit of abruptly appearing in the middle of things. It gets me mistaken for a puppet or troll at times, but I get over it.
Anyway, I agree that when the term is used to mean something other than its formal definition, "colloquial" is not the ideal description. On the other hand, leaving out all trace of the author's statement that such use is unfortunate and confusing seems even less desirable. "Inaccurate" would seem to reflect the author's opinion, but comes across as a little heavy handed; would something along the lines of "imprecise" be acceptable to all concerned? Poindexter Propellerhead 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because there is no reason to take Barbaree's judgment over that of the colleagues he refers to, who presumably don't find their own usage of the word incorrect or imprecise.
However, your description of Barbaree's position is totally at odds with the way it's described in the article now, where we say he has "endorsed the use of actions as a sole criterion for the diagnosis of pedophilia" -- the reverse of objecting to a behavioral definition by others! Would you like to rewrite that passage based on what he actually says? DanB†DanD 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a go at it, although Barbree's position is not opposed to using actions as a diagnostic criterion, he's mostly just critical of one particular diagnostic screening method. He says, "Phallometric assessment is unacceptable as a 'screening' test because of its level of sensitivity (Freund and Blanchard, 1989; Freund and Watson, 1991). Some men who appear nondeviant in their responding have actually committed sexual assault against a child." Anyway, I'll be happy to bring the article more into line with the citation. I still want to see some reference to the fact that the "pedophile=child molester" definition was mentioned as criticism rather than an endorsement, however. If some of Barbaree's colleagues did feel that using the term that way was entirely correct, then we still have two opposing viewpoints, and none of us have presented any evidence that either one is such an overwhelming majority as to warrant omitting all mention of contrary opinions. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

with the word gone, it's a moot point. The DSM is the basic criteria that should be used and referenced. DPetersontalk 00:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia, mootness is only guaranteed until the next edit.
As for Barbaree, know that I'm trying to find a good resolution, but it's proven a lot more problematic than I'd anticipated.
Barbaree isn't a writer on pedophilia per se. Right after the sentence where he calls it "unfortunate" and "confusing" that people sometimes use "child molester" and "pedophile" interchangeably, he says "In this chapter, a child molester is any individual who has committed a sexual offense against a child victim, and is therefore identified according to legal definitions of 'sexual offense' and 'child victim.'" From that point forward, all discussion is WRT people who have committed criminal offenses, who may or may not be pedophiles. Most of his other publications are also on predicting recidivism among legally-defined child molesters. At this point I'm wondering about whether the citation under discussion has an appropriate place in this article. It seems like it would fit much better into Child_sexual_abuse. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The word peadophile is used to purely mean child sex offender in common language but i couldn't find anything that said that. It was as if it didn't exist I am off to look for child sex ofender page to see if there is anything that says anything about not clinical definitions or phycopaths/sociopaths. I have read that a lot of peadophiles are phycopaths did not find that here either Delighted eyes 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the dictionary definitions of pedophile and colloquial I am certain that colloquially is the correct word. Note that a colloquial usage is not necessarily a colloquialism. Also, if someone uses the child sexual abuser definition then they are using the colloquial definition even if that person is a mental health professional, researcher, or other professional, or the usage is used in a scholarly journal or book. --Gbleem 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the Danish Pedophile Association: who cares?

We give a prominent place in the article to a quote from the spokesperson of the Danish Pedophile Association. The article on the group states that in 1996 it had eighty members and has since been disbanded. It does not appear to have any academic standing, or to have played a prominent cultural role in any event, even in the obscure one of pedophile activism.

I'm thinking that the group is just a random bunch of cranks, and that it's silly to quote them alongside actual authorities as if they were important. Okay if I snip 'em? Dybryd 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't belong, simply for the fact that statements referenced in a medical article generally need to have "academic standing," as you mentioned.
I'm actually aware of a few other pieces of medical literature that refer to pedophilia as an "orientation." I'll see if I can find them, and we'll insert them as replacements. In the meantime, delete away. Mike D78 07:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Fred Berlin is the most prominent authority who says this, and we've kept him. DanB†DanD 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have. Look at my comments under 'New Quote from Fred Berlin'.Alexander 10:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Added new link

I have added a link to a site wich tries to cover the debate within the psychiatric community on the issue whether or not pedophilia should be considered a mental disorder. It offers comments made by 21 prominent sexologists/APA professionals. It covers the views of, among others, Green, Rind, Moser, Spitzer and Berlin. What do you all think? Equilibrist 08:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The link is fine. We just need to understand that this is an opinion piece. It is not published in a professional peer-reviewed journal. At this point in time Pedophilia is a mental illness, by definition, per ICD-9 and DSM. DPetersontalk 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The article was indeed published in a professional peer-reviewed journal: it appeared in the December 2002 edition of Archives of Sexual Behavior and was written by a noted psychologist and sexologist. Psychology is a "soft science," and the official APA line on pedophilia could be seen as simply an "opinion piece" as well, albeit one subscribed to by a larger number of people at this point. I agree with another editor's suggestion that this article needs a brief "alternative views" section to concisely note the opinions of academics like Green. Mike D78 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's alright, though, I may change the link to a mirror of the article itself, as the current link merely points to a summary of it. Mike D78 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Mike, go ahead. I agree that we need to include a link to the original article by Green as well, somehow. Equilibrist 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New quote from Fred Berlin

I've added a quote to the article which I think illustrates Berlin's position on pedophilia pretty well. I also deleted the sentence about his view not being consistent with the DSM criteria, as he actually does still consider pedophilia to be a disorder despite viewing the term "orientation" as an accurate way to describe it. Mike D78 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Berlin's theory is in part based on the logical fallacy that we are 'born with a sexual orientation', which is in fact, not true, as it actual is slowly built up and finally formalized and completed at puberty, or soon thereafter. Yet he contradicts himself by stating that it would be unlikely for someone to willingly develop such an orientation, thus suggesting it ispossible to choose sexual orientation. This makes his argument untrustworthy due to lack of consistency and logic. He also considers pedophilia to be a disorder for what are, at the least, noteworthy and radically different reasons.Alexander 10:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DSM and homosexuality

This removed content is important for people to take their own conclusions about the subject of the article. I believe people reading this will find it really important that the manual that says that pedophilia is a paraphilia also used to say that homosexuality is a paraphilia until 30 years ago. This information will allow them to relativize the importance of that source. Someone researching the subject could, of course, just go to the article about the DSM and find this out for themself. I think the question is really how relevant this is. Since there are only two' manuals in the introduction, and thus the DSM stands for half the manuals, I find this is important enough to be in the introduction. A.Z. 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The place to question the DSM is in the article on the DSM. Wikipedia does not exist to lobby for a specific POV and it should not serve as a tool for propaganda; rather it exists to explain the world as it is. Someone researching the subject will see the facts, and that is as it should be. The APA has made it very clear that there is no plan to change the diagnosis or endorse pedophilia. [3] -Jmh123 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that this issue has already been covered in "external links", which leads to a full version of Green's discussion paper "Is pedophilia a mental disorder?". Among other things, Green refers to his opposition against listing homosexuality as a disorder as an argument against the vagueness of the DSM criteria right at the beginning of his article. Nevertheless, I think that the statement could be included in the "alternative views" section, if someone could create\propose it. 80.165.17.67 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The removed material does not belong. This is an article about Pedophila, which is a mental disorder per the DSM and ICD-9. I agree with Jmh123 that the place to raise the historical issue of homosexuality having once been included belongs in the DSM article, just as material about how once radical masts were the norm for breast cancer treatment...or bleeding was once a treatment, etc. DPetersontalk 22:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering a revert

I am considering reverting the introduction back to the 30.07 version, which states: "Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the condition of being sexually attracted to prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children. Pedophilia is described as a paraphilia by standard diagnosis manuals, including the ICD-10 and DSM IV. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.[1]"

While it is true that it is described as a so-called "mental disorder" in the DSM (or rather, a sexually-related disorder or a paraphilia), the DSM clearly states that it is to be considered a disorder only if it causes significant distress to the pedophile, or if the pedophile acts on his/her urges (which is one of the three required criteria for making the diagnosis). Furthermore, the DSM clearly states elsewhere that "Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above", in it's "cautionary" statement on the paraphilias. Therefore, it is highly misleading to define all pedophilia as a disorder per DSM when, in fact, it is only considered a disorder if all of the three requirements are met in the diagnosis. To quote Green: "If a person does not act on the fantasies or urges of pedophilia, he is not a pedophile. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder. But a person who is not distressed over them and has sexual contact with a child does have a mental disorder." Thus, it is both inaccurate and highly POV to describe all sexual attractions to children as a "psychiatric disorder" in the intro, as pedophilic impulses/attractions obviously are much more than a mere "diagnosis" (considering the historical context and the relatively large prevalence of "pedophilic responses" within the male population at large, as documented in some studies), and neither alone are required to make such a diagnosis in the first place, as per the DSM. Equilibrist 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about my new edit: "Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the condition of being sexually attracted to prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.[1] Pedophilia is currently described as a paraphilia and a mental disorder if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, by standard diagnosis manuals, including the ICD-10 and DSM IV."

I feel that "a person with this attraction" is more in place right after the first sentence. In the last sentence, the DSM view of pedophilia is presented. Equilibrist 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an improvement. Samantha Pignez 09:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to "is the attraction of an adult towards prepubescent children." First of all prepubescent and preadolescent both mean the same thing. Adolescence is the period of life from puberty to adulthood. So "prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children" is just redundant. Second, I changed "condition" to "attraction". Heterosexuality isn't defined as the "condition of being attracted to the opposite sex," it's just "the attraction to people of the opposite sex." The same is true for Homosexuality. Ospinad 22:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You were right to add the words "preferencial" & "exclusive" (not sure why you had to put them in quotes though) I wanted to say something like that but wasn't sure how to word it. Also, you said, "Nothing outside the medical definition states that adulthood is required." Surely something about the age of the person with the attraction has to be mentioned because a child who's attracted to other children their own age wouldn't be considered a pedophile. Ospinad 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Ospinad. I would like to say that I agree with your changes, down to the one last point. I see no reason to mention a requirement for adulthood. Whilst an ad populum model would most certainly use such a classification, is there any scientific evidence that one's age of attraction increases with age? I personally, have seen none, nor any requirement for adulthood in major dictionaries. It may in fact be the case that simply being around others of similar ages and being under pressure to deny and express the "appropriate" emotions, leads to the common perception of an increasing AoA. We may only be excluding children from the "pedophile" category, because pedophilia itself is seen as extremely rare and a permanent mental illness, also often being confused with psychopathy. Such assumptions do not fit well with the misinformed idea that children are preferentially attracted to other children, as opposed to simply being allowed to date them!
Lets keep the current version, and see how the discussion develops. ●Farenhorst 04:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
lol, you have some interesting ideas, Farenhorst. I never thought that the requirement of the person with the attraction of being an adult, to be considered a pedophile was a big deal. Most dictionaries say that a pedophile is an adult although they don't explicitly say that a child can't be a pedophile, or that a child with feelings for other children their age belong in a completely different catagory than the adult pedophile.... AoA's? "Is there any scientific evidence that one's AoA increases with age?" Obviously that's not true for everyone but the point is that for those where it doesn't, they usually end up becoming pedophiles. Or, like you said, the child starts out being attracted to adults normally but because adults are not allowed to date them they have to "resort" to dating other kids their age. But I think that the reason why we normally wouldn't classify a child that shows romantic interests in other children their own age as pedophiles is the same reason why we wouldn't classify a child who shows interest in other children of the same sex as homosexuals. Because they are still young and we don't know if it's just due to curiosity and if they'll grow out of it when they grow up. If they grow up to become adults and they still have those feelings then it's more likely that they have them because "that's part of who they are." I'm not even sure if I'm making sense, lol :-/. Ospinad 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The adult bit should clearly stay, SqueakBox 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for adding to the discussion, SqueakBox! Boy, you sure destroyed his argument! LOL Ospinad 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well its entirely unnecessary as its a silly argument that holds no water and we dont have to take that kind of thing on board at all, SqueakBox 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The whole age question of pedophilia reminds me of bedwetting.

from the wikipedia article on bedwetting:

Bedwetting (or nocturnal enuresis or sleepwetting) is involuntary urination while asleep after the age at which bladder control would normally be anticipated.

Most children (85-90%) will consistently stay dry by age 6. By age 10, 95% of children are dry at night. Studies place adult bedwetting rates at between 0.5% to 2.3%.

Although it would be proper to say a two year old wets the bed the more scientific name, nocturnal enuresis, is only used for older children.

I do not know if this is scientific but I would say that in common usage a child of 14 that is attracted to a child of 14 would not be called a pedophile, but a child of 14 attracted to infants would be. Has anyone come across anything that states what the general consensus of the scientific community is regarding if a pedophile must be an adult or not. the problem with terms in this article is there seems to be a difference between the technical or scientific meaning of a term and its common usage among laymen. Jmm6f488 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assumptions and a source would be great. A 14 year old is not an adult but if they attack an infant for sexual gratification they would be considered a pedophile, SqueakBox 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say that the intro has been greatly improved in the last couple of weeks. I agree that sexual attraction is not a "mental state", and the addition of "preferential" part is important because many men have the ability to feel sexually aroused by children but they are mostly attracted to adults, and thus not considered pedophiles (considering the fact that the AOC laws were as low as 8-10 in most places before the 19th century, as well as several recent studies on penile responsivity in non-pedophile populations which show that as many as 30% of the male population can respond sexually to children at least as strongly as they do to adults) Equilibrist 06:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction vandalized

Introuction of article has been vandalized, suggesting the cure to pedophilia is 'lyncing and beating people up'. Now well in certain specific cases I do not disagree 100%, lynching was misspelled, so it should be fixed. What, if anything, it should be replaced with, I have no idea, so I leave the edit to someone else.Alexander 10:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for this in the introduction. Besides, it's inherently POV, and we already have a whole section on "treatment" where all of the currently mainstream approaches have been covered in sufficient detail (beating people up is NOT one of them, BTW!) Equilibrist 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You can usually tell from the history if the vandalism was an addition or a replacement. If you aren't sure then you should delete the vandalism. It is better to have missing data than vandalism. Other people can add the good information in if the vandal deleted something important. --Gbleem 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Extent of Occurrence and Article in General

Under Extent of Occurrence section, some sort of statistics or mention needs to be made of women, as it does not just affect men.Alexander 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the entire article is remiss is mentioning that there are female pedophiles.Alexander 11:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we could mention that there is also a significant minority of women who are sexually attracted to children. For starters, here's an article that might be of interest: http://yani.glgarden.org/Archive/07-2003/Article01.html Equilibrist 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

spelling

I think the spelling paragraph in the definition section is interesting, but it is very POV and may not belong in the definition section. --Gbleem 12:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Question for people who have a DSM handy.

This is from the article:

Standard medical diagnosis manuals, including the ICD-10 and DSM IV, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

I know this to be a correct medical definition of pedophilia. My question is that if pedophilia does not causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning does this still make one a pedophile? For example: say a person does not believe sexual contact between children and adults is wrong (there by having no clinically significant distress. Say further more this same person's mental disorder is undetected by his peers (social) or work colleagues (occupational). Is this person still a pedophilia or is it only a matter of stress felt upon the person in question? Jmm6f488 18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If your preferential sexual attraction is directed toward children, per definition, you are a pedophile. However, the DSM states that if you are at least 16 years of age and do not fit the "distress" criteria, you don't have a disorder, unless you also have sex with a child below the age of 12 (at least according to Dr. Green's interpretation, ref. my post above). This is because the DSM states elsewhere that a sexual attraction itself (no matter how deviant) can never be a disorder; it has to either cause some sort of disability (distress) or severe impairment in social function (transgression, imprisonment) in order to be classified as such. There seems to be a great deal of dispute in the psychiatric community regarding the exact interpretation of the diagnostic criteria for paraphilias, it's wording, as well as the very inclusion of "deviant" sexual behaviors as disorders in the first place.
BTW, a recent DSM revision has changed the wording of criteria B from "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" to "the person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty". Equilibrist 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)