Talk:Pedophilia

"Is pedophilia a mental disorder?"

Should Richard Green (sexologist)'s article and resulting controversy advocating removal pedophilia from DSM be added to the article? Lionel (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no controversy about the inclusion of pedophilia in the DSM. It's unlikely there are any reliable sources that state otherwise, but if you have those, please post them here for review. Regarding the controversy about Green's advocacy of removing it from the DSM, that suggestion was a fringe theory that did not generate a debate in the scientific community and is not sufficiently notable to be included in this article. The Richard Green bio article states only that there was a debate within one journal, and that comment is sourced only to an article in that same journal, by Green himself. Unless there are independent sources showing that the debate moved beyond that one publication, it would be undue weight to mention it in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Jack-A-Roe's statements on it being fringe theory and it did not really gain any traction as far as I know. I would add, having read the full text of Green's article, that this may be because some of this sources he used were later (or previously) discredited. For example his mention of pacific island cultures where sex with children was allegedly commonplace was proved false by anthropologists in the early 20th century (the original accounts cited by Green were essentially religious propaganda to justify converting islanders to Christianity). Furthermore, there are much more recent (as in, the last 6 months) articles from people such as Blanchard and O'Donohue that show no evidence of any such debate, but rather merely debate what criteria should be used in the upcoming DSM-V.Legitimus (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Include. It seems that several of the people camped out here are not familiar with what's actually going on with the DSM-V. Removal of all paraphilias from the DSM, including pedophilia, is not a "fringe theory," but a proposal under serious consideration. Many have noted that the current status of paraphilia in the DSM is analogous to the status of homosexuality in the 1970s. See

• Dan Karasic and Jack Drescher, Sexual and gender diagnoses of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM): a reevaluation, p. 137.
• Peggy Kleinplatz, New directions in sex therapy: innovations and alternatives, p. 105
• Charles Moser, Are the paraphilias mental disorders? (DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias)
• Charles Silverstein The Ethical and Moral Implications of Sexual Classification: A Commentary

One editor here, User:James Cantor, is a single purpose account with a horse in the game, and thus a conflict of interest. He is here to promote the new sexual classifications he and his friends came up with, like hebephilia. See Karen Franklin's Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality. Please note that Cantor has altered the Wikipedia bios of almost everyone above (including Franklin's) because they disagree with his POV. He has also puffed up the Wikipedia bios of his coworkers who are working to push through these new classifications, thus expanding paraphilia instead of removing it. Allen Frances, of the DSM-IV task force, has had choice words about the whole sordid process, and the pub date on the document got pushed back to 2013 because of all these problems.

I understand that this topic is going to draw editors who have very strong opinions about it, but there is clearly a lot of WP:OWN going on here. Not all people consider paraphilias, including pedophilia, to be mental disorders, and there is plenty of reliably-sourced material to back that up. The historical parallels to homosexuality have been observed by many experts. In matters involving nonconsensual sex, consent is a legal issue, not a mental issue. Richard Green is certainly a reliable source for this specific POV, per Lionel's suggestion. Jokestress (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The people you have listed is not "many." And unless you show me a reliable source backing up such a claim, I will not believe that "Many have noted that the current status of paraphilia in the DSM is analogous to the status of homosexuality in the 1970s," unless, of course, we are talking about pedophiles always comparing the two (as they usually do). You are quick to assume we do not know what is going on with the DSM-V. Do not assume such. But disregarding that for a moment, why only focus on the DSM-V? What about all other highly reliable sources stating pedophilia as a mental disorder? Are you saying that pedophilia has a good chance of not being considered a mental disorder, and all because of the DSM-V? If so, I will (try to) believe it when I read it.

"Own" going on at this article? More like a team of editors working brilliantly together as they continue to strive for complete accuracy.

As for James Cantor, disagree with your statements about him. Not much more to say about that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@Flyer22, the topic of this section is the DSM, hence the focus on that. Your interest in writing a bio for Cantor speaks volumes about your POV already. There are people who see his place in history as akin to the "experts" who sought to prosecute or "cure" homosexuals in the mid-20th century. What I see at this article is a small group of entrenched editors who have rejected most suggestions, like the very reasonable one that started this section. It's just a microcosm of the larger debate, where experts asking a reasonable academic question that challenges the status quo are set upon by defenders of conventional wisdom. It's the definition of WP:OWN. You asked for some sourcing:

• "Behaviours such as "homosexuality" and "paedophilia" are functional among apes, and probably among humans as well. When such behaviours occur among humans they may violate moral norms, but not biological laws. ... There is no theoretical reason for not including homosexuality among the paraphilias; there is only the pragmatic reason that the gay organizations are politically strong. " Fog (1992), Paraphilias and Therapy 236
• Moser and Kleinplatz concluded that "the situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM." via Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center. Source: "The situation of the Paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM." Source: DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias (2006).
• "The relationship of paraphilia to homosexuality has been neglected in gay politics and scholarship in general." John Money (1990. Gay, straight, and in-between: The sexology of erotic orientation.

The Green article is a significant aspect of this debate, and it led to a LOT of discussion when published. We should also cover the Rind controversy, as well as the taxonomy of homosexual and non-homosexual pedophiles, which is what Cantor etc. are trying to codify as non-existent. Jokestress (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, we don't WP:OWN, we're who's left. That's not the same thing. If an editor(s) making pro-pedophile arguments ends up getting tracked down by the FBI because he's a wanted child molester, it doesn't count as being "entrenched."

Also, I am well aware of your differences (dare I say, feud) with Blanchard, Cantor and their associates. This is not the place to start that up again. An WP:RS is an WP:RS, regardless of whether the author is a user too. Though also I must state, I do prefer O'Donohue's DSM-V proposal over that of Blanchard's. But that is a matter of opinion really, and not something that needs incorporating into the article.Legitimus (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jokestress’ various allegations and insinuations about me personally, this is certainly not the first talkpage where she’s asserted them. I believe it would only further spread her feud with me if I went point-by-point through her allegations, but I would be happy to respond to any questions about any of them (here or on my talkpage). The interested editor can also ascertain Jokestress balance of truth and spin-doctoring by just checking what she says. (For example, by going to the five aforementioned pages, one can see that I have actually edited two: On Drescher, I added two publications and a category, and on Kleinplatz, I improved some grammar.

The interested editor might also want to refer to Jokestress’ boingboing blog about my WP editing.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jokestress, I'm biased as far as James is concerned? You can hardly talk, as your bias against James seems to seep from your every word. I am not interested in your accusations against James. I said... "Unless you show me a reliable source backing up [the claim] that 'Many have noted that the current status of paraphilia in the DSM is analogous to the status of homosexuality in the 1970s,'" I will not believe you, "unless, of course, we are talking about pedophiles always comparing the two (as they usually do)." You still have not provided a source that says "many." Thus, I am not at all convinced to remove "mental disorder" from the lead simply based on your arguments. As for the proposed section, that is more understandable. We'll see how that goes. But eliminating "mental disorder" from the lead is not likely to happen. If you want it changed back to "psychological disorder" or "psychiatric disorder," I am all for that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons I have already gone over. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Jesus Haploid Christ. The DSM aside, the chance that pedophilia is not going to be consider a mental disorder can be calculated with precision: it is zero. What, are people going to suddenly stop loving and protecting their children? Is that what is going to happen? Are people goig to be like "Yeah, my next-door neighbor is a pedophile but, you know, 'behaviors such pedophilia are functional, probably, among humans', so he's babysitting Saturday night!" (In fact, now that I think of it, regarding the the Fog quote, since we're not privy to the ideation of apes, according to you he's perforce advocating pedophilic behavior, otherwise known as child sexual abuse or rape, which is a serious crime in all jurisdictions. In my opinion this passage should be removed and oversighted, in fact this entire thread should be removed. Herostratus (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Include: I do not see a problem in an appropriate mentioning of Green’s article. I think it an error, however, to refer to a single academic discussion in a single journal as a controversy or as any kind of a consensus among experts. Academics are supposed to push the envelopes of ideas, and, in describing the range of opinions in a field, one would want to name the extremes. Green’s article anchors one extreme on pedophilia. Moser and Kleinplatz anchor one extreme regarding which paraphilias ought to be in the DSM system. (They believe no paraphilia should be…aligning their philosophy with Green’s, in a way.) O’Donohue anchors one extreme regarding the age range to which pedophilia should refer. (He believes in the broadest range: up to age 16). Karen Franklin anchors the other extreme regarding the age range for pedophilia; she wants altogether to exclude hebephilia, which is repeatedly defined in the relevant literature and DSM proposals to be ages 11–14. It is an error, however, to treat the extreme views as the mainstream one, the majority one, or even a significant minority one.— James Cantor (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, folks. Flyer22 asked on my talkpage if I would wiegh in here, which I am happy to do. (I have been away and offline for a few days.)
I believe my comments would be more easily understood inserted into the above; if that obfuscates rather than clarifies, then I will relocate my comments to down here.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL@"jesus haploid christ"— James Cantor (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

— unregistered(talk) saying pedophilia is a mental disorder is like saying having a fetish or something is a mental disorder. and calling it a mental disorder just uplifts the blame on the person. its has nothing to do with genetics or anything it is not a mental disorders, but rather conflicts between an individual and society. just like a perso[...] — unregistered(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.68.75 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll just say I disagree with what you have stated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Paedophilia not a 'psychological disorder'. Case studies have shown that first, the psychological disorder defence is not generally accepted by juries or judges. Second: even when it is, convicted paedophiles do not then display the symptoms of psychological disorder: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3345983 The psychological definition is disputed in sovereign courts, in both the US and the UK. The psychological definition is therefore controversial, and a minority opinion and the lead should reflect that. (Cacadores (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)).

The psychological disorder definition is not in any way controversial or a minority opinion. There's a good reason the psychological disorder defense would be thrown out. Just because one is a pedophile...it does not mean that they have to act on those sexual urges. Pedophiles usually know right from wrong (they are completely aware of their sexual actions being criminal, which is why they usually try to avoid getting caught or hide their dirty little secret); it's just that most tend to ignore it (right from wrong), and give into those intense, sexual urges. I don't believe those intense, sexual urges are enough to override good sense. These people are sick, not insane. I would throw the defense out as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Disorder" and 19th century social construction

Another major issue with how this is presented is the undue weight we give to the term as co-opted by psychology etc. to describe a disease/disorder. Saying "pedophilia is a disorder" is merely reification of the concept and a violation of WP:NPOV. The term paidophilia existed for centuries before being appropriated by Krafft-Ebing to describe a psychopathology. It's only since the moral panics of the 1970s that a whole cottage industry of catching and "curing" this population emerged. The term pedophile came to be widely used by the public around that time. Like many words that have a specific meaning in a certain field, "pedophilia" has a shifting and varying definition both inside and outside of fields that study it. That's why I agree with Wikiposter123 that the word "disorder" in the first sentence is not accurate, and I support that proposed rewrite. What we usually do on terms of art like this is to specify. An example would be moron (psychology), another piece of jargon that emerged from eugenic psychology. It had a precise meaning to "experts," as well as a lay/non-technical meaning. It seems that this article should make the same distinction, and we should not be using the word "is" in such an authoritative manner. Jokestress (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to give source to review or just soapbox like this repeatedly? I'd be interested to read discourse using this term that predates Krafft-Ebing if what you say is true.Legitimus (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears in a number of Greek sources, almost always to describe homosexual pedophilia between a man and a beardless youth, to use the usual epithet. The copies I have on hand of it used as a verb are Theognis, Elegies, line 1318, in: Harrison E. (1902). Studies in Theognis: together with a text of the poems. Cambridge University Press. Also, Callimachus 107, line 2. Appears in Schneider O (1873), Callimachea: Fragmenta a Bentleio collecta et explicata, ab aliis aucta. B.G. Teubneri. I seem to recall Solon had some things to say about it too, again in the context of man-boy love. I can find that if you want, too. None of them considered it a "disorder," and in fact, they were either acknowledging their own feelings or generally extolling the virtues of the relationships. Plutarch wrote that the Spartans shamed those who eyed children with bad intentions (Instituta Laconica, 7), so it could be considered "illegal" by some back then, but the metaphor of the phenomenon as a disease is a relatively recent development. I'd point to Strangers in our midst: sexual deviancy in postwar Ontario by Elise Rose Chenier (ISBN 9780802094537) for a discussion of recent psychology-driven eugenics carried out against sexual minorities (e.g. the "fruit machine", penile plethysmography, fMRI, etc.). Anything else you'd like me to source above? Jokestress (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The "beardless youth" in those sources refers to pubescent and post-pubescent adolescents, not prepubescent children. That's why that info doesn't belong in this article. The issues you listed are covered in the articles on Pederasty and Pederasty in Ancient Greece. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's subject to interpretation, but if you're right, you make my point. The term has not always meant sexual preference for prepubescent children, nor has it always meant mental disorder. The article should explain that in the field of mental health, the term currently has a certain meaning. Some "experts" include pubescent and post-pubescent people in their definitions, where other "experts" do not. We can certainly say that in the DSM and other ritual documents, "pedophilia" is currently considered a mental disorder, then give those documents' current and past definitions. But the lede as it stands is inaccurate and violates NPOV. Wikiposter's suggestion is the best I have seen to date here. Jokestress (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct scientific usage in modern English needs to be distinct and prominent. There is no Ancient Greece anymore. I don't want to get into this debate too heavily, but I have specific issue with dredging up and overemphasizing out-dated meanings and concepts that were "once acceptable" and using this as justification to make them acceptable again. It was also once acceptable, legal and widespread to burn people alive for having different ideas, keep other people as property, bury people alive for having sex, cut of a boy's genitals so he'd sing better,crush people to death slowly for not taking a plea,torture confessions from people, or alternatively, force people to convert or die, and settle petty verbal arguments by the sword, lance, or pistol. I could go on. Just because it used to be allowed does not mean it was right or harmless.Legitimus (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) Wrong reasoning I am afraid. The correct scientific usage in modern English should not be the distinct and prominent usage here, because today paedophlia is primarialy a social problem, not an exclusively psychiatric one. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, it is meant to reflect accurate usage of the term in the social and public sphere, where the public sphere is the main place where this term is encountered. People will read this Wikipedia entry in order to understand the term, not primariliy because they want to know how one minority (psychiatrists) happen to define it when they are talking amonst themselves in specialist groups. The lead section has strayed into irrelevancy.

Further, the point about Ancient Greece and indeed any other era or location when paedophilia is or was acceptable, is that when paedophilia becomes socially acceptable, then it is compatable with harmonious adult life. Unfortunately. Therefore, it is non-sence to call it a psychiatric disorder (out of context) when clearly, adults can and do function in normal life effectively even if they are paedophiles. It is clear to anyone who can think, that paedolphilia is 'wrong' at the moment because current public thinking in the West views it as abhorrent, immoral, indulgent and damaging to children. Ipso facto, paedophilia's primary definition should be the definition by which it is popularly known, that is, as a social or moral problem. The so-called psychiatric definition, outside of a sub-set of the psychiatric community, is therefore totally misleading in an article aimed at the general reader. The attempt to find a cod-objective definition, for behaviour which is (rightly) judged by real people subjectively, makes the lead section highly misleading. (217.77.165.54 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)).

The social problem you speak of is most people calling any child sexual abuser a pedophile, when not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. The lead is accurate, and is not straying into irrelevancy. It is not irrelevent to mention that pedophilia is considered a mental disorder. The definition by which it is popularly known? It is popularly known as a mental disorder, not just be experts in this field. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Age ranges in the lead

Now that KimvdLinde has changed the lead to state "generally 13 years or younger" for prepubescent children, I am worried about confusion being had with all these age ranges.

The distinguish tag says "For the primary sexual interest in pubescent (generally 11-14 year old) children, see hebephilia." Then the lead says pedophilia is "...characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger)."

Does anyone else see this as a problem? We initially had all these ages ranges out of the lead for a reason -- puberty varies...and most people have hit puberty by or during age 12. But because of the 13 addition, I felt the need to make it clear in the lead that someone as young as 16 would not be considered a pedophile unless the child is five years younger than them. As the usual editors know, we removed that as not being needed before. But I would say it is definitely needed now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead uses as a reference the DSM IV, which indicates 13 year and younger. If there would be consensus that the DSM VI is not a good reference for this, and another reference should be preferred, lets discuss it. If not, than the distinguish tag needs to be rewritten. First go to the most authoritative source, and work down from there. Hebephilia looks like a relative novel term. How wide is it used? Is it generally appecated? Is the term even known beyond a few scholars? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re citations about hebephilia, I have on my website a list of peer-reviewed articles on it: http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/page19.html. I also have a list of ~100 books employing the term. I haven't put the list on my website, but I am happy to email it.— James Cantor (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there are a lot of references to it (29, of which 16 are from your own 'group' (Cantor, Blanchard and Freund), but what is the percentage that uses pedophilia <11 heberphilia 11-14 versus those that use pedophilia <=13. What would be the rational to reject the DSM VI in favor of other sources? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the distinguish tag so it ois obvious that these terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is a unfortunate aspect of changes in terminology that apparently is going on. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And oh, the age was put back in because other editors, in line with the new age ranges had added 10 years as the cutoff age, while that was obviously incorrect with eth DSM, and how this is generally perceived in the population. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree. And sorry for the brief misunderstanding between us. Just know that if I were not very familiar with this topic, I would not be at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I am not that familiar with the topic, and that is why I actually checked the DSM VI after the brouhaha about the 10 year reference. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Oxford textbook I mentioned above, there are four "Erotic Age Preferences" (pedophilia, hebephilia, teleiophilia, and gerontophilia). Unfortunately, it gives no numbers for hebephilia, only mentioned as a "strong or preferential interest in pubescents." It then mentions teleiophilia as being 17-45, so by implication, hebephilia would cover from puberty to age 16 (ephebophilia is not mentioned in this book and is presumably lumped together with hebephilia). Several other fairly recent textbooks have similar definitions (puberty to 16 or 18). I think the 11-14 comes from the CAMH group that Blanchard et al are from. In their defense, they are something of an authority on the subject of sexual disorders. But their definition may not have found as much mainstream acceptance as of yet.

Maybe we should remove the numerical age range for hebephilia at least for that hat-note?Legitimus (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The James Cantor/CAMH definitions by age are a form of self-promotion (using Wikipedia to popularize his ideas). Sexual attraction based on age is usually done based on the object of desire's level of sexual development, with rough age correlates. As others note, pubertal onset varies by sex, race, and a number of other variables, so hard numbers confuse matters. As another matter of discussion, we should talk about criticism of the concepts of hebephilia and ephebopohilia, which some see as an attempt to normalize sexual attraction to minors. Example:

• "The separation of ephebophiles from other sex offenders, especially pedophiles, in concert with a focus on age-of-sexual- consent laws, is used to normalize and defend the ephebophile behavior, often with a goal to change the law and public sentiment." Ex JN (2003). Outpatient Treatment of the Sexually Compulsive Ephebophile, Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, Volume 10, Issue 1 2003 , pages 23 - 51.

See also works like Karen Franklin's "Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality" and "The Public Policy Implications of “Hebephilia”: A Response to Blanchard et al. (2008)." James Cantor has been trying to discredit her on- and off-wiki because she disagrees with his views on these two new diseases his friends want to see codified. He says she's not an "expert" on this. Jokestress (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you dial back the mud-slinging just a bit? Yes, Cantor has suggested material based on his group's work. Here's the thing: It doesn't count as original research if the work is published in an accredited peer-reviewed journal, and his sources have not been without scrutiny from other non-affiliated editors such as myself. Cantor and the other CAMH people are scientists with a significant amount of respect in the industry. Cantor's name alone when typed into Scopus reveals 32 published peer-reviewed works, cited by 273 other authors in their own papers. Yours, I get nothing. With all the 13-17 year old dummies who do things like insisting that animated skeleton warriors were involved in the Peloponnesian War on here, we could use more experts like James. For the record I do not necessarily agree with all their work, for instance Blanchard's suggested DSM-V criteria I heavily dislike, but this does not make me want to denigrate him; I merely disagree.

Now back to the matter at hand, hebephilia is already established in the lexicon of psychology as demonstrated by its use in several academic textbooks from multiple nations (which technically trumps Franklin's alarmist honking). I even heard it used correctly on the CBS show Criminal Minds. Its numerical age range however is not agreed upon other than it referring to pubescents. Therefore I suggest we remove the actual numbers. Legitimus (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Franklin's alarmist honking? I'm not aware of your work cited anywhere, so maybe we should focus on verifiability, not truth. Jokestress (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I like KimvdLinde's tweaking to the tag, I am still a little worried about the "generally 13 years or younger" part. I mean, while it does not exactly read this way, aren't we sending the message that 13-year-old individuals are generally still prepubescent? While this used to be the case, particularly for boys (seeing as girls were just hitting puberty at age 13), it certainly is not the case now. We all know puberty varies, but these days most girls have hit puberty by age 10; boys by age 12. And though that may be a little outdated, "13 years or younger" definitely is. However... I think about 13-year-old boys when seeing that. A lot of them really do still look prepubescent. And 16-year-old Justin Bieber is often thought of as still looking prepubescent (a simple Google search will show that). I just don't know what to make of keeping "13 years or younger" in the lead. But now I am thinking that if it stays, the hebephilia age range should stay in the distinguish tag to remind people that puberty often happens before age 13. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "generally 13 years or younger" part is straight from the DSM IV. As for an article that is so one sided clinical, I think it makes perfect sense. Or are you suggesting that we throw away the most authoritative source on this? I just did a search on hebephilia in pubmed (16 hits, only 5 not related to the DSM V discussion or the Blanchard group) and other places, and the term is really obscure. I also read through the commentaries on the article from Blanchard and it is obvious that there is no consensus yet. If the DSM V adopts the news criteria, I think it is early enough to change the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever suggest removing the entire DSM IV from the lead. But that single age range line? Yes. I'm just saying the DSM IV is a little outdated in defining prepubescents as 13 years or younger...if that is what the DSM IV means. As I said, I just don't want to give the impression that "13" typically falls into the prepubescent category. While some people still haven't hit puberty by age 13, most have (especially girls). I suppose the DSM IV lists "13" because pedophiles may also find people in early puberty who still look prepubescent sexually attractive as well (of course they would). For example (and I mentioned this before when discussing whether we should add in "early pubertal" to the lead as well), there have been pedophiles who have gone after 13-year-old boys and had them shave their pubic hair...because other than that (the pubic hair)...the boys still looked prepubescent. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Outdenting There is, obviously, little chance of my convincing Jokestress of much, and I have no difficulty whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with anything I've think, said, or wrote. However, to be meaningful, one should be disagreeing with what I actually said or wrote rather than with Jokestress' descriptions of what I’ve said. (Her inaccuracies/omissions in relating my views are quite numerous.)

Sticking to the above, Jokestress said I said Franklin is not an expert on this topic. However, what I actually said was: When I removed the reference to Karen Franklin from the lede, it was because her opinion was not (in my opinion) an expert one....In the few weeks since that time, however, Franklin had an article accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, Behavioral Science and the Law.[[1]]
That is, I said Franklin's SPS did not (at first) merit the "expert's exception" for being an RS, but when Franklin published a peer-reviewed article, her status as an expert (WP definition) changed, and I stepped aside to let other editors decide.

Also in the above, Jokestress indicates/insinuates that my team and I are promoting "definitions by age" whereas the field "is usually done based on the object of desire's level of sexual development." In actuality, I have long been explicit in defining the erotic age preferences in terms of physical development, not age:

Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., & Barbaree, H. E. (2009). Sexual disorders. In P. H. Blaney & T. Millon (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (2nd ed.) (pp. 527–548). New York: Oxford University Press. Erotic Age Preferences. At least four categories of erotic age preference can be usefully distinguished, according to the physical maturity of the most arousing sexual object. Strong or preferential sexual interest in children is called pedophilia (Krafft-Ebing, 188611965), strong or preferential interest in pubescents is called hebephilia (Glueck, 1955), the (normal) preference for persons between the ages of physical maturity and physical decline (roughly, 17-45) is called teleiophilia (Blanchard et aI., 2000), and strong or preferential interest in the elderly is called gerontophilia (Hirschfeld, 1938). All of these preferences except for teleiophilia may be considered paraphilias.

Cantor, J. M., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., Christensen, B. K., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Williams, N. S., & Blanchard, R. (2005). Handedness in pedophilia and hebephilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 447–459. The term pedophilia may be defined as the erotic orientation of persons whose sexual attraction to prepubescent children exceeds their sexual attraction to pubescent or physically mature persons (Freund 1981). Similarly, the term hebephilia (Glueck 1955) refers to persons who are most attracted to pubescent children, and the term teleiophilia (Blanchard et al. 2000), to persons who are most attracted to physically mature adults.

Cantor, J. M., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Physical height in pedophilia and hebephilia. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 395–407. The present investigation involves three erotic age-preferences: Pedophilia refers to erotic interest in prepubescent children (von Krafft-Ebing 1965), hebephilia refers to erotic interest in pubescent children (Glueck 1955), and teleiophilia refers to erotic interest in adults (Blanchard et al. 2000).

Cantor, J. M., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Grade failure and special education placement in sexual offenders’ educational histories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 743–751. Comprising the categories were men sexually interested in prepubescent children (pedophiles; n = 114), men sexually interested in pubescent children (hebephiles; n = 377), men sexually interested in adults and who had committed a sexual offense against an adult (teleiophilic offenders; n = 139), and men sexually interested in adults and who had no known history of any sexual offenses (teleiophilic nonoffenders; n = 71).

Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Christensen, B. K., Dickey, R., Klassen, P. E., Beckstead, A. L., Blak, T., & Kuban, M. E. (2004). Intelligence, memory, and handedness in pedophilia. Neuropsychology, 18, 3–14. Individuals with pedophilia are people, predominantly men, who demonstrate “intense” erotic interest in children (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Because there is no objective definition of intense, the present investigation used the operational definition that people with pedophilia are individuals whose interest in prepubescent children exceeds their interest in adult sexual partners (Freund, 1981). In contrast, people with teleiophilia possess a primary erotic interest in adult sexual partners (Blanchard et al., 2000). An intermediate group has also been described; people with an erotic interest in pubescent children (as opposed to prepubescent children) have been referred to as having hebephilia (Glueck, 1955).

Of course, victims of offenders are rarely if ever available to clinicians or researchers for assessing their physical development; so, we often provide rough age ranges (repeatedly calling them rough) as guidelines. And we have also provided rather specific accounts of exactly how puberty onset occurs:

The average age of menarche for American Caucasian females is 12.9 years (Herman-Giddens et al., 1997). There are various other indicators of pubertal onset, however, which usually appear before menarche. In females, the first stage of pubic hair development (sparse growth along the labia) appears at an average age of 11.0 years, and the first stage of breast development (breast buds) at 11.2 years (Roche,Wellens,Attie,&Siervogel, 1995). In males, the first stage of pubic hair development (sparse growth at the base of the penis) appears at 11.2 years, and the first pubertal changes to the penis and testes (e.g., changes in texture and coloration of the scrotal skin) also at 11.2 years (Roche et al., 1995). In females, adult-pattern pubic hair (inverse triangle spreading to the thighs) appears at 13.1–15.2 years, according to different studies, and adult-type breasts (projection of the papillae only, after recession of the areolae) develop at 14.0–15.6 years (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Table 31-2). In males, adult-pattern pubic hair (inverse triangle spreading to the thighs) appears at 14.3–16.1 years, and the genitalia attain adult size and shape at 14.3–16.3 years (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Table 31-4). The pubertal growth spurt in height begins around age 10 in females and age 12 in males; it ends around age 15 in females and age 17 in males (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Fig. 31-11). In summary, pubescent children are generally those from age 11 or 12 years to about 14 or 15; prepubescent children are those who are younger.

As I said, one can disagree with anyone my team and I said, but the James Cantor of Jokestress’ description is easily shown to be a fiction.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is nice, but why then propose those age limits for the DSM V, of which the paraphilia commission is chaired by Blanchard? See also: http://www.springerlink.com/content/7j127536573h5q8t/fulltext.pdf where you, as one of the co-authors, make the same push. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That question appears to conflate several issues. The first is whether I define these terms by age or by developmental stage, and it is very clear from my pubs above that my definitions are according to developmental stage and not according to age, as Jokestress erroneously claims.

Second, regarding the specific article Kim linked, we again made no "push" for a definition based on age ranges. Our exact words were:

The present study showed that hebephilia exists and—incidentally—that it is relatively common compared with other forms of erotic interest in children. This has two direct implications for the DSM, which also apply to clinical research. First, the DSM-V should expand the definition of Pedophilia so that it includes erotic attraction to pubescent and prepubescent children or, alternatively, add a separate diagnosis of Hebephilia. If the latter option were chosen, patients attracted to both prepubescent and pubescent children more than to adults could be given both diagnoses (Pedophilia and Hebephilia). That would cover those individuals referred to by Freund, Seeley, Marshall, and Glinfort (1972) as ‘‘pedohebephiles.’’ Another possibility would be to completely replace the diagnosis of Pedophilia with Pedohebephilia and allow the clinician to specify one of three subtypes: Sexually Attracted to Children Younger than 11 (Pedophilic Type), Sexually Attracted to Children Age 11–14 (Hebephilic Type), or Sexually Attracted to Both (Pedohebephilic Type). [emphasis added]

As one can see, we explicated all the possible ways; we started out referring (once again) to developmental stage (not age), but included age as a possiblity in a specifier.

Regarding the actual DSM-5 proposal, the diagnostic criteria (pasted below for reference) also pertain to developmental stage, and no age limits are provided. Rather, they provide a guideline: "'generally younger than 11" etc.

Pedohebephilic Disorder

A. Over a period of at least six months, one or both of the following, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors:

(1) recurrent and intense sexual arousal from prepubescent or pubescent children [5]

(2) equal or greater arousal from such children than from physically mature individuals [6]

B. One or more of the following signs or symptoms:

(1) the person is distressed or impaired by sexual attraction to children

(2) the person has sought sexual stimulation, on separate occasions, from either of the following:

(a) two or more different children, if both are prepubescent

(b) three or more different children, if one or more are pubescent [7]

(3) use of pornography depicting prepubescent or pubescent children in preference to other pornography, for a period of six months or longer [8]

C. The person is at least age 18 years and at least five years older than the children in Criterion A or Criterion B.

Specify type:

Pedophilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Prepubescent Children (Generally Younger than 11)

Hebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Pubescent Children (Generally Age 11 through 14)

Pedohebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify type:

Sexually Attracted to Males

Sexually Attracted to Females

Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

In Remission (During the Past Six Months, No Signs or Symptoms of the Disorder Were Present) In a Controlled Environment

Finally, to repeat something I wrote at the AfD: Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia should not be mistaken for an actual definition of pedophilia. Diagnostic criteria are merely an approximation we use to help us draw the line between pedophilia and not-.[[2]]

Clinicians discuss age ranges (guidelines!) because, in the real world of making these decisions, the ages of victims are usually available from police records, but their developmental states are not.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Like James said, they're just rough numbers. The DSM-V has proposals, but is not yet finalized by a long shot. I wonder perhaps if we are getting too technical for the sort of reader that we would expect to seek out this article.Legitimus (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. James Cantor writes, "Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia should not be mistaken for an actual definition of pedophilia." I believe this article should be about the actual definition. As it's written, it is about the diagnostic definition adopted by a trade group. There is a phenomenon generally defined as "adult sexual interest in children" and there is a diagnostic definition. The article should be about the phenomenon. I have provided lots of sources that use the term "adult sexual interest in children" to describe the phenomenon. Now that the AfD is closed, we should start to incorporate that. When James Cantor or others can provide equivalent sources for this "actual definition" we keep hearing about, we should use that, too. Jokestress (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this time and time again, the actual definition of pedophilia is not "adult sexual interest in children," and for good reason, seeing as "adult sexual interest in children" covers more than pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "actual definition" of pedophilia

Since the editors here were instrumental in stopping a "POV fork" that discussed the conceptualizations of this phenomenon which have been systematically excluded from this article, let's start discussing the "actual definition" mentioned in the thread above (as opposed to the narrow mental disorder on which the article is based now). Since many of you voted against Wikiposter's excellent proposed summary, I am going to quote at length from a terminological summary in the published literature:

Research in the field of sexual abuse is so underdeveloped that disagreement exists even over what to call the phenomenon itself. Although much of the research on victims has called the phenomenon sexual abuse, the research on offenders has tended to call it child molesting or pedophilia. The term pedophilia has some utility because it suggests an internal predisposition that is independent of an actual offense. But, unfortunately, even the meaning of pedophilia itself is a matter of some controversy, with different theorists and investigators defining it in different ways. Some have used it in what might be called an "inclusive" fashion, considering pedophilia as any sexual contact with or interest in a child, however transitory this behavior (see, for example, Mohr, Turner, & Jerry, 1964; Friedman 1959). Others (for example, American Psychiatric Association, 1980) have reserved the term to mean only the condition of persons having an enduring and exclusive sexual interest in children (called "fixated" offenders by Groth, 1979, or "sexual preference mediated" offenders by Howells, 1981).

In this review, in which we will be using all three terms—sexual abuse, child molesting, and pedophilia—we will use the term pedophilia in its broader "inclusive" definition, taking into account the behavior of any individual who has had sexual contact with children, including incest offenders. We favor this definition of the term because the other definition reflects a particular theory about pedophilia, one that has some empirical support, but is far from being fully substantiated. Moreover, the other restrictive definition makes pedophilia a complex psychological condition to deduce, requiring detailed analysis of an individual’s history and motivation. We favor being able to define the category by some more readily ascertainable behavioral criteria, which is easier to do with the broader definition.

The concepts of sexual abuse and child molesting are not entirely equivalent to pedophilia, even in its broader definition. Although sexual abuse and child molesting are actual behaviors, pedophilia is essentially a state in which an individual is predisposed to use children for his or her sexual gratification. Sexual abuse and child molesting are evidence of the existence of that state.

Specifically, we define pedophilia as occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children. We infer that sexual interest from one of two behaviors: (1) the adult has had some sexual contact with a child (meaning that he or she touched the child or had the child touch him or her with the purpose of becoming sexually aroused), or (2) the adult has masturbated to sexual fantasies involving children.

Source: Araji S, Finkelhor D (1993). Abusers: A review of the research. In A sourcebook on child sexual abuse, pp. 89-90. SAGE, ISBN 9780803927490

Emphasis mine. I propose we use this as a basis of the "actual definition" of pedophilia (sexual interest in children) if editors are going to prohibit a separate umbrella article to discuss the phenomenon, which we usually do here. The APA/ICD consensus definitions are all well and good, but we are supposed to cover all significant POVs on how to conceptualize adult sexual interest in children. The overemphasis on two trade groups (especially calling their competitors' definitions "misuse") is a violation of WP:NPOV. Oh, and before someone claims this person is not an "expert," the author is David Finkelhor, a noted sociologist who studies adult sexual interest in children and sex crimes against children. Jokestress (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, "We've been over this time and time again, the actual definition of pedophilia is not 'adult sexual interest in children,' and for good reason, seeing as 'adult sexual interest in children' covers more than pedophilia." We all went over this in the Afd for Adult sexual interest in children, which even had its title changed because of the fact that "adult sexual interest in children" does not always or necessarily equate to pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Copying and pasting replies isn't going to make the problem go away. Right now the lede says pedophilia is a mental/psychiatric disorder, but you're also claiming we need to cover the entire phenomenon of sexual interest in children here, rather than in a separate article. You can't have it both ways. Either we cover all definitions here without favoring a specific POV, or we limit this article to defining the mental disorder. The above definition is not "misuse of terminology." Our policy is verifiability, not truth. Where do you propose we put the well-sourced definition above (which is much closer to the way almost everyone describes the phenomenon)? Since we have nowhere to discuss the phenomenon but here now, we need to include all definitions without favoring one with WP:UNDUE weight. Jokestress (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Constantly repeating what has already been extensively addressed is not going to make us suddenly agree with your view. We cover enough of the phenomenon of sexual interest in children here. This article is not for an in-depth analysis of all that. It is for pedophilia, and not all sexual interest in children (children often covering 17 and under) is pedophilia, no matter how much you try to say that it is. This was covered in the AfD, and everyone was clear, except for you, about what pedophilia truly is. Everyone else was simply trying to decide if we should have an article covering pedophilia and the sexual interest in children outside of pedophilia. Society often calling any sexual interest in someone under 18 "pedophilia" does not make it pedophilia. Miley Cyrus's boyfriend is not a pedophile. It is misuse of terminology if not referring to prepubescent children and the sexual preference for them. There is no problem here. This article notes how "almost everyone" (in America, that is) usually uses the term. Making clear that such use is inaccurate is not POV; it is accuracy. Just because it is not Wikipedia's job to report the truth, it does not mean we should lie or stray away from the truth. It's just like most people thinking that someone who eats fish is a vegetarian; because of this, we should note such misuse in the lead and point out what vegetarianism truly is. We do that.

I have stated pretty much all I can state on this matter. Maybe some other usual editor of this article would be willing to keep debating this with you. I'm not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think you are understanding what I'm getting at. You keep bringing up some vague personal definition you think I am trying to include, something involving teenagers. I am talking about reliably sourced definitions used in various disciplines. We'll do them one at a time, starting with the easy ones. Where should we place the definition above: "We define pedophilia as occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children." This is not a "misuse" of terms. It is one of many definitions currently in use. Where do you think it should be included in this article, since you refuse to have an article on the general phenomenon? Once we figure that out, we'll do the next dozen or so "actual" definitions. Jokestress (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at; you have brought it up countless times. You believe that all sexual interest in prepubescent children should be referred to as pedophilia. I am simply saying that your definition -- sexual interest in children -- is vague, as it does not specify what type of children. "Children" refers to more than prepubescent children! That's why I keep bringing up pubescents and post-pubescents (I thought you understood that part of my argument by now). Pedophilia is not simply defined as the sexual interest in children because "children" covers more than prepubescent and the most accurate definition of pedophilia is the preference...or else all child molesters would be diagnosed as pedophiles. How many times do I have to "say" it? The line "We define pedophilia as occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children." is already addressed in the lead. We call it a "misuse" because it is clear that not all people who have thought about a prepubescent child in a sexual way or child molesters are pedophiles. This is why pedophilia, in the medical field, is generally defined by the preference; it is defined that way for good reason. I am not for your definition being called pedophilia in this article at all. But, look, it already is; the Diagnosis section clearly goes over "exclusive" and "non-exclusive" pedophiles. And I was actually for an article on the "general phenomenon"...as long as it did not call all sexual interest in children "pedophilia." Yes, when I hear of a man having sexually abused a prepubescent child, I, like a lot of other people, are quick to call him a pedophile. But I, unlike most of those other people, also know there is a chance that he is not one.

Your initial problem with this article was us calling pedophilia a mental disorder. Let me remind you that we are only calling the preference a mental disorder. Sexual interest in prepubescent children outside of pedophilia is not being called a mental disorder, though still not relayed as normal either; thus, you have nothing to worry about there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If it will help move things forward, let me state my views for the record: I consider "pedophilia" an iatrogenic artifact, the medicalization of a social problem. I don't feel anything should be referred to as "pedophilia," as it mis-frames the concept within the problematic taxonomy of "paraphilia," which is a holdover from eugenic ideology about "degeneracy." Further, I consider the concept of mental illness/disorder to be the same thing: a metaphorical disease model used to medicalize behavior that annoys or offends others. That said, the term "pedophilia" should absolutely be covered on this project, just as we cover hystero-epilepsy, the vapours, and other psychological fads.

Now that we have that out of the way, my opinion is irrelevant as far as article content. The problem here (which is relevant) is the sloppy way in which we cover the reliable sources which discuss this topic. There is a phenomenon, and there are a number of ways to describe that phenomenon. One of those is the term "pedophilia." The term "pedophilia" has many definitions, one of which describes a mental disorder. The other uses are not a "misuse of terminology," they are competing definitions proposed/used by other experts, other fields, and the lay public. The reason we should distinguish the phenomenon from the term is because this semantic problem is discussed at length in reliable sources. The phenomenon exists. That is different than saying "pedophilia exists," which is reification. That is why we have extensive precedent on this project for separate articles for phenomena and the terms which describe them. Finkelhor's definition is not a "misuse." It is a use. Just because one editor here works with a bunch of guys who are pushing a specific definition for the therm "pedophilia" does not mean they have a monopoly on how to define "pedophilia." Just because you agree with their definition does not make it the only one. We need to include ALL definitions, giving appropriate weight for each. We need to specify who uses it how and who uses it where. This is standard practice on this project. An example is intelligence, another vaguely defined concept with a lot of definitions in use. The only reason this specific topic gets special treatment is because everyone is so paranoid that anyone pointing out how sloppy this article is must be here to "promote pedophilia." It's the cudgel you all wield to shut down any changes to the article you WP:OWN.

Now, where shall we include Finkelhor so his definition is not characterized as "misuse"? Jokestress (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already said most of all I have to say on the matter. Do not feel like repeating myself, as it seems you just don't get it. I'll leave you to the others...if they even care to comment anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging sections on definitions

I propose we merge the sections "Etymology and history" and "Misuse of terminology" under the heading "Etymology and definitions" at the start of the article. This will allow us to cover the many ways the term is used right at the onset without undue weight on one trade group's consensus definition. Per Flyer22's example, this is what we do on Vegetarianism, and per my example, this is what we do on Intelligence. This will give us a place to discuss all operating definitions used in reliable sources, such as the Finkelhor above. Jokestress (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say earlier that I would kind of be okay with you putting Finkelhor's definition in the Diagnosis section, since the non-typical way pedophilia is defined by experts is also there. You need to make certain that Finkelhor truly defines pedophilia that way, though. There are plenty of experts who may say pedophilia is the "sexual interest in [prepubescent] children" as a quick explanation without specifying "preference"...even though they believe it should only be defined by the preference. There have been times when I simply said "interest"...but I have usually hit myself on the head afterwards (in response to not having been specific enough). With putting Finkelhor in the Diagnosis section, I am also worried about us just putting random definitions/opinions in that section...when they are not authoritative.

As for defining pedophilia as a sexual preference first and foremost, as we do in the lead, that is not undo weight. It is the way the term originated/was first defined in the medical/psychological field, thanks to Richard von Krafft-Ebing, and it is the way the ICD-10 and DSM define the term as well. Now before you say the DSM does not say "preference," I point out that what the DSM is describing is a preference; they are not describing an "occasional" or "sometimes" feeling. And I actually would be okay with merging the sections "Etymology and history" and "Misuse of terminology" under the heading "Etymology and definitions"...as long as the subheadings stay intact (after all, some of the things in the misuse section are without a doubt misuses)...and if weren't for the fact that the Diagnosis section also covers definitions, or the fact that I feel that the "Misuse of terminology" section is something that belongs in the "Legal and social issues" part of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since no one else has objected or commented in the past few days, I am going to implement this now. Jokestress (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note on identifying as paedophile

We need a note at the top of this page saying that anyone who identifies as a paedophile or who engages in paedophile advocacy will be indeathed per Wikipedia:Child protection. There was an incident in which one editor asked another if he was a paedophile, presumably knowing that if he answered yes, he would be banned. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Killing them seems a bit extreme! :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just added a warning at the top. Jokestress (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, if a person identifies themselves as a paedophile, they will be banned, even if they specifically state they know it is wrong to act on their attractions, and would never do so? Even considering how emotive/sensitive a subject this is, that's still wrong and it's a slippery slope, as you can apply any arguments in support of that against a very very wide range of things. (I agree with the policy regarding advocation of paedophilia though; obviously that warrants a ban) There's a fuckload of very good arguments against this on the policy talk page, which I won't go into here, just link: Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection - Arfed (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree this policy (based on a 35-year-old moral panic) is a slippery slope, but as we saw in the recent AfD, this is not a topic where most people can be objective or unemotional. I feel under the circumstances that it's best to warn any contributor that any deviation from consensus is generally proscribed and subject to a special set of rules that apply only to this topic. Any reliably-sourced POV that varies from mainstream opinion gets branded as "promoting pedophilia," and any editor pointing this out by citing reliable sources can count on the same accusations against them personally. Those interested in getting this policy reviewed should do so at Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection and should make no mention of their reasons for involving themselves in this topic, particularly if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject. Jokestress (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)