Jump to content

Talk:Pedophilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cataconia (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 15 January 2012 (→To the editors trying to get pro-pedophilia material into this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"The errors of Karen Franklin's Pretextuality" article now available.

Hi, folks. People interested in Karen Franklin's various claims about hebephilia currently mentioned on the mainpage might be interested in this new publication that catalogs some of her factual errors on the topic. Because I am the author of that document, I am posting it here, rather than integrating it into the mainpage myself.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duh!

In the section ICD-10 and DSM there's a sentence which I find quite redundant and rather a "duh moment": "On the other hand, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges can also qualify for the diagnosis." I'll remove this sentence unless some people actually find it useful. __meco (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's obvious. Generally (I suppose, not really knowing) that if you go to a shrink and say "I have strong desire to sleep covered in pancakes, and do, and this makes me happy and causes me no distress or other problems" he'll say "So why are you here?". Masturbating to child porn is an exception, I gather, and it's worthwhile to point this out. Herostratus (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth keeping. Besides WP:OBVIOUS, this clarification was put there because the ADA got all bent out of shape about the actual text of the DSM criteria being included in the article (claiming copyright) so we had to describe it as best we can.Legitimus (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the point of that line is to stress the "yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges" part; it's pointing out that the act of child sexual abuse can meet diagnosis even without that psychological factor. Yes, the general public already assumes that the act of child sexual abuse alone makes someone a pedophile, but most experts disagree with that. So it seems that line is showing the difference in the DSM criteria. I, however, question whether the DSM would only rely on behavior (as stated in the debate section). From what I have read in more than one source about the DSM over the years, "intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children" would seem to be needed before making the diagnosis ("significant stress" included, but still...). Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change in the DSM for "at least 18 years and at least five years older"

MsBatfish was of course right to revert this edit by RJR3333. Even if RJR3333 had added the correct link, I wouldn't think it should be there in that part of the lead, making the line messy and awkward, and muddying the definition of pedophilia even further. This is a proposed change to the DSM; it does not belong in the lead at all, in my opinion. And if someone wants to bring up the fact that the proposed change to merge hebephilia with pedophilia to create "pedohebephilic disorder" is in the lead, well, I'll say that I don't feel that should be in the lead either. And, looking at the source I just linked to (updated as recently as November 18, 2011), it could simply be called "Pedophilic Disorder" if the merge is officially accepted by the DSM. But "pedohebephilic disorder" is mentioned in a subsection of the Etymology and definitions section (in this case, the Debate regarding the DSM criteria subsection), and I feel that any DSM proposal that we feel warrants inclusion in this article belongs somewhere in the Etymology and definitions section as well (most suitably in the ICD-10 and DSM subsection or the Debate regarding the DSM criteria subsection).

If RJR3333's edit is to be included in the lead, it should be in the second paragraph, right behind mention of proposed change "pedohebephilic disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed criteria definitely do not belong in the lead. A mention is ok later in the article, but the lead should be as straight forward as possible to avoid confusing readers.Legitimus (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Re: revert by User:WLU of revision 465534144 by User:Edifyingdiscourse

Good catch WLU. The image with the following caption:

Under modern diagnostic criteria Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl called Aisha when she was 6.

totally does not belong in the article. ([diff]). I just wanted to additionally point out the relevant Wikipedia guidelines regarding its removal. It's not just because it is potentially (as WLU put it) "horribly unnecessarily negative and pejorative", but it is WP:Original research, and even if it were sourced it would be WP:SYNTH. Just thought I'd mention it here in case Edifyingdiscourse is looking for why their edit was removed or anyone else was thinking of re-adding it. MsBatfish (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And from what I read in a few sources, Muhammad is said to have not engaged in sexual intercourse with this girl until she was able to bear children, aka pubescent, which would technically make him not a pedophile...if he was not significantly sexually attracted to this girl at the time their marriage was initiated. Remember, pedophilia is about the sexual preference for prepubescent children or those who look prepubescent (which is why researchers are thinking of merging hebephilia with pedophilia to create the new category of "pedohebephilic disorder"). So even if Muhammad had been sexually attracted to this girl while she was prepubescent, he would have needed to have a significant sexual attraction to prepubescent girls in order to technically fit the definition of a pedophile. Legitimus and myself actually discussed something along these lines at Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Is indecent exposure child sexual abuse?, a discussion which evolved into the topic of child marriage. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. In addition, regardless of what any editor personally thinks about the subject, it is original research to say that Muhammad was a pedophile unless a reliable source specifically stated that. And even then we would have to say "_____ speculates such and such". One can't say that just because one source says that Muhammed may have had a child wife (who he may or may not have had sex with before she reached puberty) that therefore he was a pedophile. MsBatfish (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And pedophilia certainly isn't based on marriage. Saying that he "would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl" is just a no. Flyer22 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that this specific matter is more political than scientific. The story of Aisha is a major talking point among American "Muslim bashers," as a way to denigrate the religion as a whole. Now what I am about to say is also original research I suppose, but I feel it is worth bringing up as a look from the other side: Aisha was 18, not 6. The way my Persian Muslim colleague explained it to me is the the Quran doesn't say anywhere she was 6. That comes from a third-party source, and was intended a sort of artistic metaphor for Aisha's "purity" and virginity (the numbers 6 and 9 have some kind of symbolic meaning). My colleague then pointed to several sources indicating the year of her death and age at that time, as well as the year of the marriage, from which it could be calculated that she was approximately 17 or 18. It is worth noting that he said he was offended this angle of the matter is so heavily downplayed in English Wikipedia, given how wildly accepted it is among educated Muslims, but surmises it is because the sources are all in Arabic or Farsi.Legitimus (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting and enlightening, Legitimus. Thanks for that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people think X was a pedophile" is a pretty terrible inclusion on pretty much any page, not to mention we could pick from hundreds of historical figures who married, had sex with or raped someone who we would consider age inappropriate. Really, I think this is a WP:UCS deletion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Legitimus, i disagree with your assertion that Aisha was 18. The "third party soure" you speak about are actually Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim which are considred essential and the most authentic book after the Quran by Sunni muslims as well as other denominations. In fact, if you disbelieve in these books, you are no longer considered Muslim by the Orthodox Muslims. Pass a Method talk 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source on bio- aspects, for those interested.

Hi, folks. I recently delivered a keynote address summarizing the recent neurological research on pedophilia and related phenomena (in English). That talk just became avaiable online, so I thought I would post it here for anyone who might be interested in the biological section of the mainpage but is missing plain-language descriptions of the research.
The recording is avail at http://vimeo.com/33793616 .
— James Cantor (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion RFC

An editor asked me to seek consensus for this edit which he removed before i was finished providing more references. Do you support or oppose the edit? Pass a Method talk 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why jump right into an RFC rather than discuss the edit on the talk page? It's a little premature. Noformation Talk 11:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]
PassaMethod, you didn't necessarily need an RfC, but I can see why you added one since I stated that including your text would not go over well here at the talk page.
Like I stated in my edit summary, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia. There is also the fact that your sources don't call it pedophilia by name, I don't think. But even if you find sources that do, there's still the matter of what I stated about the diagnosis of pedophilia. Besides only being diagnosed in humans, it is based on sexual preference...not the act of sexual abuse. And "sexual abuse" is another term that is usually not applied to non-human animals.
Still, maybe you can make a good case for including this material in the article...if you find reliable sources calling it pedophilia. The article does mention how the term pedophilia is misused. So maybe it could go in that section, to say that some scholars apply the term to non-human animals? Or as a subsection of that section? Hmm, we'll see what others think. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i did not discuss is bcause Flyer did not discuss. If he removes without really explaining, what am i suppose to say/discuss? He asked me to seek consensus, so i did. Also, you seemed quite rigid in your reply, so i thought a 3rd opinion was inevitable. Pass a Method talk 11:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PassaMethod, I'm female and I explained why I reverted you in the edit summary; that type of edit was/is more of a revert and then discuss matter, per WP:BRD. I then suggested that you bring the matter to the talk page. Noformation is saying that starting an RfC discussion this soon is premature. Such a discussion is typically only used either after WP:Consensus has failed to be achieved or because an undesirable consensus has been achieved and outside views are wanted. Flyer22 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguous response you gave me meant that there was nothing to discuss. It was mostly a opinion based reply. Also you made the removal so YOU should have started a discussion, not me. Pass a Method talk 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing ambiguous about "PassaMethod, a section like this needs discussion on the talk page first. Not only should a section like this not be placed so high, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia." And the only part of that reply that is opinionated is where I felt the section should be placed. The rest is based on fact/policy, as shown above. How do you get around the fact that pedophilia is only diagnosed in humans, is not based on sexual acts (as defined by most of the psychological/medical community anyway), and is not used as a term in your sources? If we are to include your text, it will need to specifically use the word "pedophilia" and will need to be placed in a section allowing for the term to be used this way. Just like we have an In law and forensic psychology section about how the term is often not used in the medical sense in that regard. Those are my points. All valid. I do not at all understand when you call my edit summaries vague or ambiguous; they are pretty straight-forward and there is only so much that can be stated in edit summaries. And, no, I didn't have to start the discussion because I removed the material. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. Flyer22 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant your response on my talk page was ambiguous + opinionated. Pass a Method talk 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I made that comment, there wasn't much more to say after what I'd already stated in my edit summary. And just when I'd had an additional response ready, I saw that you had already started a discussion here...as I'd suggested. So I then replied here with most of what I was going to state on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there was a bit of confusion involved today. Next time i recommend stating what you said in your edit summary on the talk page too. I dont really pay much attention to edit summaries if someone made a talk page comment. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Pass a Method talk[reply]

I do not think this section needs to be included because in short it is apples to oranges. Like most psychological principles, the study and classification of this disorder is based on the human mind and human physiology. These animals have different physiological processes involved (physical growth and sexual maturity), and there are parts of there psychology we will never truly understand until some person invents a mind-reading technology that works on animals. It just falls too far outside the subject. Not to mention that animal behavior is a popular talking point for people attempting to further an agenda. There is a possible home for this information though in Animal sexual behaviour.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I would tend not to think it's a good passage. We don't know the inner lives of animals, so we with animals we can only described so-called "pedophilic behavior", which is really a misnomer and which I think the article tries to clear this up although there is some discussion of "child molestation". Whether any animal behavior can be described as "child molestation" I don't know, but animal behaviors are not generally described as "burglary" or "assault and battery" or "wire fraud" I don't think, so maybe not. Anyway it is getting a bit far afield and I would be skeptical that we can extrapolate much useful information from animal behavior, particularly insect behavior. And unless it's show that we can, I don't see why it belongs in the article. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jours apres lunes

I suppose the fashion industry is becoming more lenient as time passes. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/french-company-sells-lingerie-year-olds/story?id=14324742#.TvHnl1ZLPE8 Gravitoweak (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is tangentially related to this article's subject matter at best. Even if there was hard evidence that the designer of the clothing or the editors in charge of approving designs are attracted to children under 12, this would not be of any note in regards to this subject. There are several other articles that may apply, but again this is a news item, not a study.Legitimus (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

This article is written from a victimologist perspectice. It is not written with a Neutral Point of View. Can anything be done given that the article is essentially controlled by a very small number of individuals who ban anyone who opposes them? Cataconia (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is demonstrated through the presentation of reliable sources. It is not asserted. If you have reliable sources that verify a relevant point, present them. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we all know, it doesn't work like that anymore in this article. The source will need to be approved by a few self appointed censors who, if they like it, will allow the edit to remain. If they do not, they will remove it regardless of how reliable and relevant it is. We all know this to be the case, why pretend any longer? Cataconia (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, neutrality requires more than reliable sources. If you handpick the sources to fit a certain view, the article will be biased but with reliable resources. This article is a perfect example of that. Cataconia (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until you demonstrate an understanding of WP:UNDUE, there's no point continuing this conversation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why debate when you can just ban any opposition. Does anyone of you actually understand the science well enough to make a UNDUE judgment. Nope. Cataconia (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have specific changes you'd like to make to the article based on what WP considers reliable sources? If not then there's nothing to discuss, WP is not a forum for general discussion of the topic or for editors to WP:SOAPBOX. Noformation Talk 23:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I had, would they be allowed? No. It's not that people haven't tried adding reliable sources that doesn't completely conform to a very specific world-view that has the grips of this article. Where are they now? The sources are gone and the users are banned for made up reasons. The system has collapsed. Cataconia (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, unless you have specific changes to the article based on reliable sources you are wasting your time and the time of other editors. You're welcome to your opinions but wikipedia is not the place to express them, maybe consider WP:Alternative outlets. Noformation Talk 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would they be allowed? Cataconia (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can I possibly evaluate a source if I don't know what it is? Noformation Talk 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those who did what you said, where are they now? Banned. I'm looking for options. Cataconia (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So obviously you know that those sources are not allowed here because they likely advocate pedophilia; there's your answer. Closing this thread, feel free to start a new one if you're willing to abide by WP:TALK. Noformation Talk 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Advocate pedophilia? Have you gone mad? We are talking about mainstream research published in mainstream journals, Cataconia (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what are you saying that these mainstream sources will say? That pedophilia is normal, a sexual orientation, that child sexual abuse is not abuse and is not harmful? This article is written the way it is because no mainstream psychological/medical sources present pedophilia in the way I just described. And what I just described is the only "neutrality" you could be talking about, since it is the exact opposite of what this article says (with the exception that pedophilia may be considered similar to a sexual orientation). You know exactly what we mean when we say "advocate pedophilia." You are obviously aware of what goes on at this article and talk page, so don't play clueless here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, post the sources here. If they are truly mainstream scholarly sources then no problem. If they advocate pedophilia I'll send a message to arbcom and you know the next step. Noformation Talk 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you guys hold the view that any mainstream schorarly article that does not conform to your view is indeed promoting pedophilia or is used to promote pedophilia. The main problem with this is that there have been a schorarly debate for many decades where normal mainstream scientists have argued with each other on many of the finer points in this area, and this wiki-article does nothing to reflect this. It simply assumes that one side has won and that the other side should not be presented here. This is original research for starters, but I guess you won't be banning yourselfs anytime soon for that crime. Anyways, your fear of what media will say has completely destroyed the quality of these articles and has corrupted wikipedia to the point where it reads like pure propaganda. Cataconia (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what you mean, any source that does not conform to your point of view is "advocating pedophilia" and should be removed and the user who posted them should be banned. This is a complete corruption of what wikipedia stands for, This is might is right perspective, whoever has the banning powers decides what the article should look like. If I had the banning powers, I could say that your sources are promoting X and ban you, and you could do nothing about it. Today, you can be banned for posting a relevant mainstream scientific source into the article. Is this the wikipedia way? Cataconia (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so convinced that you cannot do anything and cannot even name a source, why bother posting? If you post a link to an article in PubMed or APA PsycNET, nobody here is going to ban you.Legitimus (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is locked for some reason. Will take a few days. Cataconia (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article semi-protected, which means that non-registered users (aka IP editors) and newly registered users cannot edit it, only post on the talk page. But that is actually for a completely different reason: This article is a giant magnet for joke/prank vandalism. It was protected for a year once, and less 24 hours after the protection wore off, random teenage boys were posting their friends and teachers names. So now it is permanent.Legitimus (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I meant post a link to PubMed or PsycNET here on the talk page, so we can see what you are talking about.Legitimus (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're serious about adding to the page, then post here, on the talk page, the source you want to use and the change you want to make. It's very easy to debate abstracts - without any specifics you're just wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, I will add them in the article in due time. They will be in line with wikipedia policies. Cataconia (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your contribution history, I would suggest posting your suggestions here first or they'll probably be reverted as soon as someone else notices them. In addition, other editors can suggest changes, better sources, or state why the policies and guidelines prohibit the source or change. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could do that, but I fail to see the point. I doubt anyone here knows more about the subject than me anyways, and you guys do not appear to have a history of going through that process before you post. Cataconia (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Cataconia: You are absolutely correct that this article is owned and controlled by about 6 editors. Mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts are dismissed as "fringe" or as "promoting" pedophilia. It's an intractable problem specific to this topic. Most editors give up on dealing with these six people, which is of course what they hope to achieve. I wish you the best in dealing with them. Jokestress (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the editors trying to get pro-pedophilia material into this article

It never ceases to surprise me how backwards the minds of pedophiles and those who support positive pedophilia/child rape arguments work. You are the ones supporting this material, continuously trying to get it into this article, and the six editors who block you every time are the corrupt ones? The higher-ups who ban you are the corrupt ones? Laughing my ass off. How is it not promoting pedophilia to say that pedophilia is as okay as heterosexuality and homosexuality and that adults engaging in sex acts with prepubescent children can result in as many positive effects as it can negative effects? And do enlighten us by telling us what "mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts" say that pedophilia is a normal mental process and that sexually abusing children isn't so bad? Even Rind et al. weren't mainstream and got their asses handed to them by the majority of psychologists and medical experts. What you are supporting are fringe views, per Wikipedia:Fringe. The majority of experts call pedophilia a mental disorder. The majority of experts deem adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubecent children, even pubescent ones, to be bad. This article is not being selective in its sources. It just so happens that the view that "pedophilia and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents equals bad" is the majority view. I don't even believe that there is a significant minority of researchers claiming otherwise. Or else sources of that nature would have been produced on this talk page by now. I don't know where you think being all secretive about these sources of yours is going to get you, when, if added to the article, we'll see them regardless, and when you're very likely to be reverted. So your criticism about this article, its protectors, and how this makes Wikipedia corrupt is laughable at best. Deeply disturbing at worst. Jokestress, how disgusting that you would support such garbage from a likely pedophile. If you're going to identify as a woman, you should at least think like one. In my interaction with pedophiles and child molesters, I haven't come across one woman supporting such garbage. Until now. Cataconia isn't even new, as evidenced by his knowledge of the inner workings here. Thank god we don't have you and those like you editing this article, for it would say that pedophilia is a normal variation of human sexuality and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents isn't something to be concerned about. I applaud the six "owners" of this article. And FYI: They aren't the only ones making sure that editors like you don't push your sickening POV here.

Sincerely, one of the birdies from Perverted-Justice. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse ethical questions with factual ones. No one is claiming sex with children is good, nor that such ethical questions should even be mentioned in this article. You (and I assume most others here) seem to completely have misunderstood what the core-problem with the article is. What we are dealing with is not a fringe theory but a alternate theory which is completely OK by wikipedias standards:
"4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics."
The alternate theories that ought to be in the article belong to a significant minority and should be Wikipedias own standard be presented in the article. So far, all criticism from you guys have completely failed to understand the scientific issues involved and have been attacking straw-men. Cataconia (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&oldid=471482967"