Jump to content

Talk:Pedophilia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 104: Line 104:
Hi, folks. Should anyone be interested in expanding the "causes" section of the mainpage, the following provides a very complete and very readable summary of the current findings.
Hi, folks. Should anyone be interested in expanding the "causes" section of the mainpage, the following provides a very complete and very readable summary of the current findings.
http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-way-sympathy-and-science-for-those-who--want-to-have-sex-with-children [[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-way-sympathy-and-science-for-those-who--want-to-have-sex-with-children [[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

:Self-promotion yet again and not "very complete." As one of many examples, gay men are much more likely to be non-right-handed, but that was omitted from the list of groups. That's because the self-promoter cited is an "activist minority in the mental health field" whose findings tend to put some convenient distance between the two phenomena. We should probably avoid blogs on such a volatile topic. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 17:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:22, 7 September 2012

Confusion of Pedophilia and Child Molestation

The Section "Psychopathology and personality traits" describes mainly Child Molesters in the research. The majority of research is solely on Child Sex Offenders, which are discussed in the section "Prevalence and child molestation" as often not meeting the diagnosis of Pedophilia or having a true sexual attraction to children, which is the intention of the article. In addition, Given the study review cited questioning the findings of any personality connections and questions of methodology, I wonder if it is needed for the page as the findings are mainly in reference to Child Molesters, and I feel would be more appropriate in the article on Child Sexual Abuse. I understand it's difficult with current research, but the page feels muddled between the attraction (Pedophilia) and the offense (Child Sexual Abuse). 143.229.183.32 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a section in both articles discussing the problems of inferring knowledge about one from the other and vice versa? __meco (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have state what I stated above in the #Sharp increase in number of sexually abused children section: Not only is not much known about the prevalence of pedophilia, and therefore a section on it would be very small, unless, like some sources say, the majority of child molesters are pedophiles (which could tell us the prevalence of pedophilia), the [Prevalence and child molestation section] is discussing the link between pedophilia and child molestation, and how one may be independent of the other. It's not confusing the two; it's noting the confusion between the two and how there is sometimes a link and a lack of one other times. This is best covered in one section.
It seems that the Psychopathology and personality traits section is going on the fact that a lot of pedophiles do sexually abuse children and that a lot of child sexual abusers are pedophiles, which makes that section relevant to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

Is there an article on the History of Pedophilia? Portillo (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean historical information on it. Either way, the answer is no. And I don't see how there could be an article on that. The history of pedophilia is in this article (the Disease models section, with regard to what you're referring to) and there isn't much more to state on it than what we've included. What you are probably thinking of is the history of child sexual abuse. But as the article makes clear, pedophilia and child sexual abuse do not always equate to the same thing. One is the mental disorder. The other is the act, which may or may not encompass the mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. What I was refering to by History, was pedophilia throughout ancient and modern civilisations. How did ancient civilisations treat pedophilia and was there ever a civilisation where it wasnt considered immoral? Portillo (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with studying that area is not only was the term coined in the late 19th century, but that was also when the very concept of mental illness was first starting to get going. Before a certain time everyone "knew" epilepsy was caused by demons. Pedophilia is certain to have existed, but it wouldn't have been cataloged properly, and just like today, it is often very hard to detect.
According to my own research, there has never been a culture in history that openly and fully sanctioned sex with prepubescents. Some cultures like the Greeks were accepting of activity with adolescents, but not really little children. It is worth noting that some tribal cultures were reported to have been accepting of this in the 18th and 19th century, but this was later discredited as proganda intended to paint certain tribal cultures as "Godless heathens" who needed to be converted to "save the children."Legitimus (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stated something similar in this link, Legitimus. I did mention Semen#Cultural practices. But like I stated, "[I]t's not about sexual activity with the children in those cultures, but rather about the supposed power of semen." Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo, there is of course an expansive academic literature on the history of pedophilia, more than enough for a standalone article, but the editors who control this article/topic actively censor any information that does not conform to their worldview. Ning de Coninck-Smith has a good overview in the Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. Michel Foucault is the most expansive in terms of contextualizing the eugenic ideology and moral panics reflected in the current article - see History of Sexuality. Steven Angelides wrote a nice piece on the discourse of child sexuality in the Journal of Homosexuality about 10 years ago, also nicely summarizing the "child-saving" movement. I'd also recommend Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern About Child-Victims by Joel Best and Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America by Philip Jenkins, which are more about contemporary Western history. You won't find any of that here, though. The handful of people camped out here won't allow anything but their narrowly-construed disease model materials. Unless you are a highly experienced editor, I would not try to insert any of that, either. You will be suspected or even accused of having utterly outrageous motivations, and they will try to have you sanctioned. You'll have a better sense of what's going on here after you read those books. Jokestress (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt responses everyone. Portillo (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Portillo. There are no editors controlling this article and you would be wise not to listen to Jokestress, per my and Legitimus's comments above, especially about confusing every instance of child sexual abuse with pedophilia. When we become suspicious of editors editing this article "or even [accuse them] of having utterly outrageous motivations," it is almost always because they have very clearly demonstrated pro-pedophilia and/or pro-child sexual abuse attitudes, which is why most of the blocks on such people are carried out by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, not usually because any editor has confused pedophilia with child sexual abuse (the confusion part was only a big issue when certain editors wanted to make it seem as though defining pedophilia as a sexual attraction to/preference for people who clearly are not prepubescent is a valid definition of pedophilia and should be given as much weight as the clinical definition). Just remember what I stated about the distinction between the mental disorder and the act, and also read what this article states about that distinction. Also see the In law and forensic psychology section, which doesn't just go by the mental disorder/disease model. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, you are still fixated on the wrong issue after all these years. The problem is not age range definitions. It's that not all sexual interest in children meets the definition of pedophilia, something buried in this article almost as an afterthought. You have made over 25% of all edits here in the last 2.5 years, mostly removing any information that does not conform to your idea of what this article should encompass, and you guys lobbied to censor ancillary materials that would outline this issue so the article reflects the full range of adult sexual interest in children. That is a great disservice to our readers. This article is woefully inadequate in covering non-pedophilic interest, to the point of WP:UNDUE. Any mentions of the history of these interests outside of the clinical model are negligible. We don't cover the full range of activities people with those interests engage in, or links between pedophilia and sexualization of children in the media or its historical manifestations in sex work, child labor, and violent crime (like well-documented sex offenses against children in Victorian London). The article does little to explain how awareness was raised about this sexual interest and its connection to reforms in child labor and other shifts in attitudes about the concept of childhood. You are winning the war of attrition and have effectively shut down improvements to the article and topic for years, all from a misguided belief that anyone who has something to add outside your worldview must be "pro-pedophilia." Even accusing any editor of that, even by implication, should be an instantly bannable offense, in my opinion. Jokestress (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fixated on the wrong issue after all these years. You are. And once again, you have it all backwards. You stated that "[t]he problem is not age range definitions," but then go on to state "you guys lobbied to censor ancillary materials that would outline this issue so the article reflects the full range of adult sexual interest in children," which just shows that the problem is exactly about your belief in these "range of definitions." You even go on to state that "[t]his article is woefully inadequate in covering non-pedophilic interest," despite the fact that this article is titled Pedophilia and should mostly be about pedophilic interest, not non-pedophilic interest. This article would be woefully WP:UNDUE (read what that means) if it was mostly or even half covered in these "range of definitions" that do not conform to the authoritative definition of pedophilia. And, yes, there is one -- the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. You know that, but refuse to accept it. Even if the definition is changed to include early pubescents, it would still mostly be about the sexual interest in prepubescent children, especially since so many early pubescents (boys in particular) look prepubescent. Experts in this field generally distinguish between pedophilia (the mental disorder) and the act of child sexual abuse, clearly stating that one does not necessarily encompass the other, as shown by various high-quality sources in this article. But you have never seemed to understand that, wanting this article that is supposed to be about pedophilia, and the authoritative/medical definition of it first and foremost, per WP:MEDRS, to be about all sexual interest in people under the age of eighteen. One cannot forget when you tried to make an article about that, neglecting that we already have other articles for that, and, when you didn't get your way, tried to have the Pedophilia article be about that. If this article were formatted the way you wanted, the definition of pedophilia would be so muddled that people would walk away from it not knowing what pedophilia actually is; they would walk away believing the same popular culture definition of it, thinking that even a 21-year-old with a sexual interest in a 17-year-old is pedophilia. And that is ridiculous. This isn't about "winning the war of attrition"; it's about accuracy and due weight. And the editors we have shut down at this article, as in making sure they don't edit it, including in the last 2.5 years, have been pro-pedophilia and/or pro-child sexual abuse. And there have been times that instead of clearly recognizing what those editors were, or rather not giving a damn, you have encouraged them to edit this and other child sexual abuse articles, as seen in this edit, all because of not having gotten your way. That is what should be an instantly bannable offense. Cataconia was/is quite clearly pro-pedophilia/child sexual abuse, but you acted as though it was a simple case of the big, bad bullies trying to shut down neutrality. All you do with regard to this article is stalk out its talk page and take the time to violate WP:TALK to complain about the editors you disagree with, especially if you see a chance to criticize James Cantor, any time you see fit, all while trying to make your complaints relevant to whatever topic you are responding to; in my opinion, you should have been banned from this talk page a long time ago or should have banned yourself from it. Your posts here are unproductive and continuously combative. But Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your taunting, combative rants and/or spiels do not belong here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I have never lobbied for this article to be about age ranges. You are the one fixated on age ranges. I strongly believe there should be an umbrella article, with this one mentioning the distinction from adult sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, with a mention or two of non-adult sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. This article would then link to that one. I am interested in seeing this article fully discuss the range of definitions, which it does not. The issues of non-adult pedophilia, adult non-pedophilia, and non-adult non-pedophilia do not get appropriate coverage on Wikipedia. You are the reason for that. Not anyone else. You won't allow it here, and you lobbied to stop a separate article because you seem to think pedophilia would lose its very meaning if we cover this topic in this manner. Will you allow this article to be edited to reflect all the published work on these issues, since the consensus last time we tried this is that any separate article is a POV fork? Jokestress (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if she will, I won't. Herostratus (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reason for not wanting to make these issues more clear? If a separate article is a "POV fork," then it stands to reason this is where we should cover those topics. Jokestress (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jokestress, you state that you "have never lobbied for this article to be about age ranges," but you have because you have wanted, and still want, to give it just as much weight to the sexual interest in all people termed children as it does to the sexual interest in prepubescent children. Not to mention, the act of child sexual abuse as well. You've been clear about that. Even your last heavy posting regarding this topic was to try and get the lead of this article to first relay the popular culture definition of pedophilia. And I've already been over why this article should not fully, as in equally, discuss "the range of definitions" of pedophilia. WP:UNDUE is clear about this. We are supposed to give some weight to the other definitions, and we do, not equal weight to them. Furthermore, "non-adult pedophilia" only covers 16 and 17-year-olds being diagnosed with pedophilia; child-on-child sexual abuse is usually not pedophilia. And "adult non-pedophilia" and "non-adult non-pedophilia" are not very relevant to this article; I don't even know what you are trying to convey with those "terms." If it's not pedophilia, or doesn't largely make up pedophilia (that is the sexual interest in or sexual abuse of prepubescents, especially the primary or exclusive sexual interest in them), it shouldn't be given much weight in this article (or any in some cases). And I clearly am not the only reason that this article has not turned into your desired format. It's not about me allowing anything. It's about following WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's not clear, but I am saying the non-pedophilic sexual interest in prepubescents is poorly covered here and sitewide. I am not talking about sexual abuse or other acts. I am talking about a larger phenomenon and a term for part of that phenomenon (preferential interest/orientation). This is a big problem, because a lot of people are reading this article, and I believe many are not getting correct information because of how this is covered. Some older teen or adult who gets tingly thinking about prepubescent children or in response to actual children or media depicting children is not necessarily a pedophile and is not necessarily classifiable as mentally ill. That's not clear at all from this article. We need to make all that very clear for lay readers. The question about history is also important, as historical aspects of this phenomenon have been systematically censored here. For instance, one significant historical view is that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality. The question about history got me thinking maybe it's time to revisit this and try to rectify the problem. Jokestress (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am clear on what you have been stating; I just disagree with it. For example, that "[so]me older teen or adult who gets tingly thinking about prepubescent children or in response to actual children or media depicting children [may not necessarily be] a pedophile [or necessarily] classifiable as mentally ill" is explicitly clear in this article. It is clear under what circumstances a late adolescent who is a minor, and under what circumstances a legal adult, may be diagnosed as a pedophile. There is the Etymology and definitions section, which includes the Debate regarding the DSM criteria about this very thing, and the Prevalence and child molestation section. The "historical view" that pedophilia "is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality" is extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. That is what I am trying to get across to you about some of the things you want incorporated into this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And when sexual interest in prepubescents is classified as non-pedophilic, it is when referring to those who do not have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescents (i.e. when distinguishing some child sexual abusers from pedophiles). Again, this article should mostly be about pedophilic sexual interest in prepubescents. Even a little sexual interest in prepubescents, for whatever reason, is classified as pedophilic by some scholars, which this article does cover. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information about ancillary phenomena in the lede should be reflected in the article itself proportionally. It is not. And the view that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality is not some fringe belief but the view held by Havelock Ellis, who isn't even mentioned in the article despite being one of the most famous authors on the topic in history. One of many examples of how this article is being held hostage by a small group who feel they must protect this article from "pro-pedophilia" forces trying to expand our coverage of these phenomena. Will you allow me to add information about Havelock Ellis' work on this topic, as part of a larger section titled History? Jokestress (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead summarizes everything that it should, per WP:LEAD. And the view "that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality" is fringe. And it's certainly WP:UNDUE to devote a whole section to it. It does not matter that it is a view held by Ellis. That does not make it any less fringe or undue. Again, keeping such views out of, or limited, in this article has nothing to do with this article "being held hostage by a small group who feel they must protect this article from 'pro-pedophilia' forces," not unless it is pro-pedophilia. And you would do well to stop attacking us; as I stated, that is unproductive/doesn't help your case at all. If text is pro-pedophilia, yes, we will keep it out of this article. If it's more fringe than it is pro-pedophilia, or simply undue, we will either not include it or we will give it limited space, as should be done. That's called following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you can find a good place for the Ellis material in this article, without giving it undue weight, and the other editors agree, I will not object. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be clear on what fringe is, WP FRINGE partly states: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."
That is exactly what we've been doing with this article. The mainstream definition among experts on pedophilia is that it is a mental disorder characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Not "an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the thread, but I think that when there is an article about the History of homosexuality, there should also be an article about the history of pedophilia. There's no need to ask Flyer22 for permission, however engaged she may be in editing this article. It's up to admins to decide whether it's appropriate to have such article on Wikipedia or not. --Xumbar (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xumbar, if you'd like to start it, I'll do what I can, but dealing with the [[WP:OWN]ers of this subject area is best done by people who have extensive editing experience. It's a dispiriting grind and a war of attrition to try to cover this topic accurately, and you may want to get more editing under your belt before making an attempt. Let me know if you'd like some help. Jokestress (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me alone or the administrators. It's up to the guidelines and policies mentioned above and WP:Consensus. And give the "owners" and "accuracy" spiel (your "accuracy" is far from accuracy and you know it) a rest, Jokestress. Seriously. I'm sure that you know by now that that's one reason "the owners" don't want to work with you. But continue with the jabs; never fails to make you look bad every time. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, please let me know what I have posted in article space that is inaccurate. I'm also curious what you believe my point of view and motivations are. You seem to be suggesting my edits are biased or not within consensus. What exactly do you think my goals are regarding this topic? Jokestress (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already let you know, Jokestress, including plenty of times in the past, and am not interested in discussing all of that again at the moment. As for your point of view and motivations, I'd rather not discuss that either. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Eysenck

RJR3333 has included Hans Eysenck in the lead. It states, "Hans Eysenck, in The Causes and Cure of Criminality, says that the popular definition of pedophilia is 'any sexual act' performed against a child under the age of 16."

In my view, the way that one scholar defines pedophilia or what one scholar says is the popular definition of pedophilia should not be in the lead. For one, I'm quite sure that the most popular definition is sexual attraction to/a sexual act performed against a minor under 18; this is something that RJR3333 has also stated. And guideline-wise, the line does not comply with WP:LEAD; this way of defining pedophilia is not covered lower in the article. And as those who are familiar with/understand WP:LEAD know, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important aspects of the article. What is not covered lower in the article should typically not be in the lead. While the popular/non-medical definitions are covered lower in the article, including sexual attraction to/sexual abuse of pubescents and post-pubescents, specifically defining pedophilia as "any sexual act performed against a child under the age of 16" is not.

I and others (others he has personally gone to for advice) have advised RJR3333 to suggest changes, changes that are likely to be contested or significant changes, on the talk page first because pedophilia is a contentious topic. I have also informed him that the lead was formatted after extensive debate, each and every part (such as using "As a medical diagnosis" as a neutral compromise wording with regard to the non-medical definitions of pedophilia), and that changes to the lead usually need to be discussed first as well. But he continues to ignore that, choosing to continue to debate things with me instead of posting here to get wider input. And since he decided not to bring the Eysenck material to the talk page for discussion before adding it either, I have obviously decided to bring it to the talk page for discussion for him/myself/others. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the popular definition of pedophilia was attraction to someone under 18 recently. I said most people would consider a person having sex with someone under 16 was the popular definition when I explained why I thought the new definition of pedophilia was going to include all adults being attracted to minors under 15 as pedophiles was moving closer to the normal definition. And like you said before, the age of consent in most of the United States is sixteen, and outside of the United States it tends to be fifteen or lower, if the popular definition were sex with anyone under 18, then the age of consent would probably be 18 in most places. I just looked up what I said what I wrote was "most people would consider an adult 21 or older having sex with anyone under the age of 16 a pedophile". So I did not say what she said I stated. Hans Eysenck is a legitimate authority/reliable source to quote on the popular definition. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eysenck is one of many scholars whose views should be cited in the article but are not. His views are certainly reflected in it already. He was a major figure in the eugenics movement, so he wrote a number of pieces discussing pedophilia from the POV reflected in the article as it stands. Jokestress (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RJR3333, so you are going to sit here and state that you never stated that most people would define pedophiles to be 18 or older and therefore a sexual attraction to anyone under 18 to be pedophilia? Okay, deny all you want. Don't ask me to provide a diff for it either. And, yes, the most popular definition of pedophilia is sexual attraction to anyone under 18. It's certainly been made clear at this talk page enough. That is the most popular definition because age 18 is the age of majority in most places, and the general public therefore includes the legal definition of child in their definition of pedophilia. This is why Mark Foley was called a pedophile, no matter the fact that the boys he went after were generally 16. And Hans Eysenck is not an authoritative source on either the medical or popular culture definition of pedophilia. There's no such thing as one scholar being an authoritative source on it anyway. He mostly doesn't belong in the lead because of the reasons I gave about following the WP:LEAD guideline. But I'm not about to sit here and extensively debate this with you, like I have extensively debated other things with you lately. And despite what Jokestress states, many scholars' views on pedophilia should not be in this article, per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS; the WP:UNDUE policy and those two guidelines are clear about that. But whether his view should be in this article or not, it should not be in the lead if not covered lower. And it isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that a long time ago that most people would consider sex with anyone under 18 a pedophile. But what I stated most recently was that they would consider sex with someone under 16 a pedophile when I was talking about the "normal" definition. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And its obviously not true that everyone considers sex with someone under 18 a pedophile, because if that were true then most places would have an age of consent of 18 or higher, and the vast majority of countries outside the United States have an age of consent below 18. Also whether or not a pedophile has to be at least 18 and sex with someone under 18 is pedophilia are two separate issues. I did recently say most people would say pedophiles have to be 18 or older but I didn't say then that they would consider sex with someone under 18 a pedophile, I said under 16. I said the thing about sex with anyone under 18 being pedophilia a long time ago, but not recently. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally Hans Eysenck is THE most quoted scholar in the history of psychiatry, and the second most quoted scholar in neurology and psychology falling behind only Sigmund Freud, so he's not just some random scholar. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated, claim what you want. But I did not state that "everyone considers sex with someone under 18 a pedophile." I stated "[sexual attraction to anyone under 18 is] the most popular definition because age 18 is the age of majority in most places, and the general public therefore includes the legal definition of child in their definition of pedophilia." And that statement has shown itself to be true. The Mark Foley case proved it more than any other case, in American history at least. So your age-of-consent logic is faulty, seeing as most people do not care if the age consent is 16. It's 18 in the majority of the public's mind because most people under 18 are still legally defined as children.
But stop trying to deflect what this discussion is about at its core. It's about Eysenck not belonging in the lead at all. You can continue to ignore the WP:LEAD guideline all you want, but it does not agree with you. And if you were to take this matter to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, or, better yet, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, they'd tell you the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the age of consent is 16 then 16 year olds are not legally defined as children, what you said does not make sense. They cannot vote, but that isn't the same thing as them being children. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Eysenck's views on pedophilia are very relevant because he advocated using eugenics to eliminate pedophiles from the population and said people inherited the trait, ie were born pedophiles. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? What you are stating is what does not make sense. Do you not know that Mark Foley was defined as a pedophile, despite Foley going after 16-year-olds (grooming them at 16 and waiting until they are 18 to have sex with them), and the age of consent being 16 in Washington, D.C.? He was defined as a pedophile because most 16-year-olds are legally children, and therefore the general public includes sexual attraction to 16-year-olds in their definition of pedophilia. This is covered in some other sources in the article. And as much as you have pointed out that 14-16 year olds are still children, even using the word "children" unless realizing that it's better to use "minors," your stating that I am not making any sense is quite ironic/ridiculous. Age of consent does not make one a legal adult. You know that. The 16-year-old is still legally a child.
Seriously... Should I take this matter -- the "What should go in the lead?" matter -- to one of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages I listed above, or start a WP:RfC about it, since it is clear that this is one of many Wikipedia guidelines you do not understand and will just keep deflecting by trying to engage me in some silly debate? Or should we just wait for other editors to weigh in before I do any of that? Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if 16 year olds are legally able to have sex with 30 year olds, then in that respect they are not even legally children/minors, they are in other respects, but those respects are not relevant here. Are you flip flopping and now saying the age of consent is 18 in most of the USA. And there are some places where the voting age, drinking age, employment age, etc. are below 18. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to take this opportunity to clear a few things up. Flyer22 has held a grudge against me because one time I said I hated her because I was frustrated with how much she had kept correcting me even though I already apologized for it, and she falsely accused me of making a death threat against her without providing any evidence for her claim, and she also has accused me of stalking her, claiming that I keep trying to talk about her to other editors and on her talk page, I should not have done this but she keeps nitpicking at my edits and it wounded my pride so I felt the need to react to her, which was immature and foolish. She also has accused me falsely of having a bias that the age of consent should be 18, which I don't, my view is it should be 15 or 16, and I've actually been criticized by at least two editors for showing that bias constantly in my edits and it was only recently that I managed to keep that bias out of my editing. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I do believe that your ability to digest material properly is way off, since you cannot understand anything that I stated above. Bottomline is that you are wrong regarding the most common definition of pedophilia and regarding Eysenck being in the lead. And bringing up the "16 year olds are legally able to have sex with 30 year olds" aspect makes no sense on your part either since you are always talking about/injecting the "close in age" factor that hangs over some of these age of consent laws. Most importantly, this talk page is not the place to try and continue your dispute with me. You state that you are not obsessed, but, since you cannot continue the dispute with me at my talk page, you continuously try to continue it elsewhere. This talk page is simply your latest stop. The only one who has held a grudge has been you and I have not made one false claim against you. Not to mention, I stated that you wished I was dead, not that you made a death threat against me. Yes, they are two different things, something else you can't seem to grasp. And since you refuse to use the talk page responsibly and follow Wikipedia guidelines, I am going to wait at least two days before bringing the Wikipedia community in on this lead issue. You are wrong, and WP:CONSENSUS will show it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never brought up any "close in age" factor in any discussion recently, so I don't know what you're talking about. I actually criticized Malke for bringing that factor up when he was debating me. Anyway you have not provided any evidence for your claim that I wished you were dead, and I'm not forcing you to comment on my work on these talk pages, you are choosing to. If you make these claims against me I'm going to respond. I don't even know who you are, I have no obsession with you at all? And I don't have any of the biases you claimed I have. I've said repeatedly I think the age of consent should be 16 across the board without there being a close in age factor, and that the age of majority should be also, if there was any problem with bias in my edits, it was in favor of the age of consent being 16 instead of 17 or 18. I apologize for being rude to you, but I am not obsessed with you, and in fact just to prove that you're wrong, I'm just going to leave wikipedia, because I'm tired of you having a leg to stand on in calling me a stalker of you, acting like I'm just another Richard Farley, another article I edited. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claim what you want. Your edits prove otherwise. I've already commented on the other stuff enough, such as you not needing to know me personally to be obsessed with me, so you are not about to pull me into that debate again. Apparently, the example I gave about WP:WIKIHOUNDING is another thing you did not properly digest. Editors are obsessed with other editors all the time without personally knowing who they are. I can name various cases. No, I don't believe that you Wikihounded me. I would have reported you if you had. But you are forcing me to comment on your work when your work is something that needs correcting and/or discussion. You are continuously trying to force me into debate with you about our disputes any time you take the same issue to a talk page and use that talk page inappropriately, as you have now done once again. And as for leaving Wikipedia, like I stated, you always state that. Why do you state it over and over again when you have no intention of leaving? You left once before for a few months, but still... Stop stating it unless you are going to do it. At least put the "Considering retirement" tag on your talk page and leave it at that until you finally do leave for good, or at least until you leave for longer than a few months, unless you change your mind. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A non-technical research summary.

Hi, folks. Should anyone be interested in expanding the "causes" section of the mainpage, the following provides a very complete and very readable summary of the current findings. http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-way-sympathy-and-science-for-those-who--want-to-have-sex-with-children — James Cantor (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion yet again and not "very complete." As one of many examples, gay men are much more likely to be non-right-handed, but that was omitted from the list of groups. That's because the self-promoter cited is an "activist minority in the mental health field" whose findings tend to put some convenient distance between the two phenomena. We should probably avoid blogs on such a volatile topic. Jokestress (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&oldid=511250301"