Talk:Pedophilia

Richard von Krafft-Ebing

I have a suspicion that the interpretation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's work is a bit inaccurate. Some important criteria are omitted, some are garbled. Please use more accurately refferences: pages, exact quotes etc. I have read parts of Ebing's works and I didn't take it that Ebing calls the surrogate or sadistic behavior as an "attraction" - just contrariwise, an attraction (strictly speaking, das Reizen) he considered as specific for pedophilia. Etc. --ŠJů (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The section in question predates my time editing this article, so I will look into the matter. I can get a copy of this book in English, so if possible, do you have page references you have read yourself? It is over 600 pages long.Legitimus (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two editions on Google Books in English, with full view PDF & plain text options. The source is useful for historical interest, but as to the science, it's obsolete and has been superseded by modern scholarship. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The full text of German 14-th edition from 1912 (from the newer faksimile) is available in Commons:Category:Krafft-Ebing Psychopathia Sexualis. I advice to use the German (or German-Latin) edition. German scholarly terms and thoughts can be hardly correctly translated to (American) English, many words have no suitable equivalent in English.

The relevant chapter VI (Das krankhafte Sexualleben vor dem Kriminalforum) starts at the page 372, the section 6 (Unzucht mit Individuen unter 14 Jahren. Schändung (Oesterr.)) starts at the page 413, Psychopatologische Fälle at the top of the page 416. The new term of paedophilia erotica is firstly mentioned at the bottom of the page 416 and at the top of the 417, most relevant summary about paedophilia erotica is at the page 417. Next pages contain mainly casuistics, but also occasionally some generalized conslusions. Btw, there is quite relevant the fact that Ebing considered a contrary-sexual (homosexual, by today's language) pedophilia as very rare. However, I didn't read some older edition: the book was changed and developed all the time.

Btw., it's remarkable that Sigmund Freud in his Three treatises about theory of sexuality in 1905 quite ignored this Ebing's new term and substantiating experiences and Freud's paragraphs about sex with children contain no references, in contrary to homosexuality which is richly referenced by many sources. However, in other themes is Ebing several times cited by Freud. Would it mean that Freud disappreciated Ebing's new term and theory of paedophilia erotica? --ŠJů (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While I can understand the sentiment of wanting to use the original German, it is impractical to use it. I do not read German and neither does most of the readership of this article. This is English Wikipedia after all. Further, it is only your opinion that it does not translate; clearly respected scholars and publishers have done just that. Actually I'm a bit confused why you'd suggest using German since you yourself are a Czech speaker and your userpage says your understanding of German is is only basic (Level 1) and it is even lower than your English (Level 2).

Along similar lines, I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph correctly (seems to be a language issue). From the part I do get, it seems as though it should be tabled for another time and another article.

I will look into the sections of Kraft-Ebing and see if the section of this article can be corrected.Legitimus (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear it does need to be corrected. So far there is nothing egregiously incorrect, but it does need a rewrite. Kraft-Ebing has some rather bizarre ideas in this work, by today's standards at least. For example, that men who masturbate too much may become seek child partners because they have "desensitized" themselves.Legitimus (talk)

Rewrite is now complete, along with some more history of how the disorder was classified and studied after Krafft-Ebing, like Forel and the early DSM. I don't do a lot of "primary writing" and am prone to typographical and grammatical errors (I sometimes accidentally omit words or use the wrong verb tense), so any corrections or questions (if anything is not clear) are welcome.Legitimus (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

As I can see, censorship does work very heavily in this article while nonsenses and barbaric garbled formulas, false references and a fatal unbalance remain. Relevant information and references was and are abandoned while more than half of the article handles anything else but pedophilia. This article is in very poor condition and I can see causes of such worsening already. Regrettably, it's a destiny of Wikipedia to be a domain of simple ideologic censors rather than summary of the whole relevant published knowledge. --ŠJů (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a sporting thing to say. You can't just throw massive changes into an established article without warning or discussion in an article with such a tumultuous history of conflict and disputes. You should know that at one time actual pedophiles were trying to alter this article in order to force their views, basically using all manner of circuitous arguments in an attempt to claim raping small children is perfectly natural. Eventually they were all permanently blocked from editing. Nevertheless, this article remains an extremely sensitive topic.

Also be warned that when someone reverts your edits, you DO NOT just revert them back. This is edit-warring and is prohibited, and also almost never accomplishes anything useful. When your edit is reverted, you either leave it be or you go to discussion. Priority goes to the previous version until some consensus is reached.

Legitimus (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not in very poor condition whatsoever. But I already noted this to ŠJů on the Ephebophilia talk page, as well as the fact that this article used to be plagued by pedophiles.

ŠJů, I do not see at all how your changing of the lead to "...is defined by main nosological manuals as a mental disorder in which a person experiences a sexual preference or attraction for prepubescent children" is more accurate than "...is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children."

Are we really going to use "person" as a substitute for "adult or older adolescent"? Are we really going to exclude, from the first sentence, the fact that older adolescents who have not yet reached legal adulthood can also be considered pedophiles? And are we really going to say that people who may have experienced minor sexual attraction to a prepubescent child for whatever reason are pedophiles as well? If so, I would have to say no to that version of the lead. Regarding that last bit, while most people are quick to refer to all child molesters (of prepubescent children) as pedophiles (I often do the same), the fact is...not all of them are pedophiles. Pedophilia cannot be cured; experts strive just to get pedophiles' sexual preference situated on adults. A man who sexually abused a prepubescent child (let's say the man is a one-time offender), due to minor sexual attraction to the child, but prefers adults sexually...needs no cure to fixate his sexual preference on adults; I doubt he needs a cure to de-fixate his sexual preference on prepubescent children. Really, he is not fixated on prepubescent children sexually. Yes, people like that are still referred to as pedophiles, but they really could care less about being with a prepubescent child sexually. For them, it was/is all about opportunity; they are essentially open to using a child's body as a sexual subsitute for an adult's body...no matter the contrast. But there is no constant fantasizing about prepubescent children on their part...not unless they are true-to-form pedophiles.

I also want to state that the usual editors of this article and talk page are fair. We are just very careful and strict when it comes to these Wikipedia subjects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is paedophilia a disease?

I think it would be prudent to qualify the beginning of the article to state that most people consider paedophilia to be a disease. As far as I am aware, paedophilia is medically just an age-selective paraphilia, and paraphilia are generally not treated as diseases or even considered as psychological issues unless they are giving the subject discomfort or causing the subject difficulty in coexisting with normal society. While this is clearly the case for some paedophiles, it is not the case for all. A similar, if somewhat controversial, parallel could be drawn to homosexuality in the mid-20th century: just because doctors were treating homosexuals to mitigate their "symptoms" does not mean that homosexuality was actually legitimately a disease any more than attraction to redheads. SilenceSoLoud (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had many prior discussions of this matter, and it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I think you misunderstand the diagnostic criteria; the ICD does not require distress or actions, only the preference. And the DSM doesn't say they must have distress or trouble coexisting, it says if they have distress or have acted on these urges, and acting doesn't just mean performing a sex act on a child. It can include exposing oneself, lewd touching, voyeurism on children, and using child pornography. A person with no distress and no actions arguably may not even be a attracted to children at all but have some kind of thought disturbance instead. It is also quite hard to imagine a person not getting distressed if they are preferentially sexually driven toward a particular behavior yet never do anything about it.

The homosexuality-pedophilia angle is commonly misunderstood area in particular, and here is why: Homosexuality was not always considered a mental disease and no one even called it such formally until the late 19th century, and was never considered a disease at all in some cultures. The DSM didn't even exist before 1952 and there are some arguments that homosexuality would never have been added in the first place were it not for political pressure. Almost immediately this was subjected scientific scrutiny (and some might say exercising of critical thinking) which led it its removal.

Pedophilia on the other hand can make no such claim. There is not a single culture anywhere in the world that I am aware of that has ever openly and unanimously allowed and accepted sex with children who have not yet reached puberty. Before anyone pulls the Ancient Greeks card, note that the Greeks did not either; those were clearly teenagers or even early 20s if you examine the texts and artwork. Separate issue. Likewise, unlike homosexuality, pedophilia involves partners that are non-consenting or cognitively incapable of rending consent (which , and easily demonstrable damage is quite clear.

I realize that was quite lengthy and I had no intention of lecturing, so pardon if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.Legitimus (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Legitimus. Bravo, Bravo!! Not lengthy at all. And if considered so, it was needed. I personally think of diseases as things such as AIDS, cancer, etc., and things such as alcoholism, pedophilia, etc. as disorders. (Notice I did not call alcoholism a mental disorder, simply a disorder; I do consider pedophilia to be a mental disorder, however.) As the Disease article notes, though, the term "disease" is often used more broadly than the way I typically use it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not well said at all, try examining actual facts as opposed to whims and interpretations and you will find that Legitimus is in fact, non-legitimate at all. Homosexuality was also listed in the DSM as a paraphilia to be diagnosed and treated until version 3 in the late 70's. Furthermore, what many users fail to realize as Legitimus has clearly done so, is that pedophilia is strictly an attraction, with any "acts" on "partners" delegated to either molestation or child sexuality as mandated by your local laws. What can be said, like homosexuality, is that as viewed by academic authorities of the time, Pedophilia may be considered a paraphilia to be treated. However, again like homosexuality, this is rapidly changing and no longer valid (DSM V has been petitioned by many doctors to not include many of the paraphilias in DSM IV, including Pedophilia, BDSM, and others because they acknowledge that the diagnosis itself is a major factor in introducing 'distress'). Ultimately, in answer of the original question, Wikipedia despite claiming an open environment and being NPOV is very much manifested by bigots, so one cannot expect neutrality (either way) in an article on Pedophilia. 76.64.143.200 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I just said? Did actually you read the criteria I was very obviously referring to? I never said when homosexuality was removed, only that it was. And you don't get to pull a definition out of thin air for pedophilia. There are clear definitions on what this term means by both national and international medical standards. You did not supply a single source for anything you just said.Legitimus (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Legitimus in that it is clear that the ICD document here classifies paedophilia as a disorder. However, it also classifies sexual fetishism as a disorder. Within the scope of modern gender studies, it is very clearly established that sexual fetishism is not a disorder, but instead a feature of sexual orientation, just as predilection to redheads would be a feature of sexual orientation. This is primarily because individuals who identify as Fetishists do not view themselves as having a disorder. The first line of the wikipedia article on Sexual fetishism reflects this: "Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal brought on by any object, situation or body part not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature. Sexual fetishism may be regarded, e.g. in psychiatric medicine, as a disorder of sexual preference or as an enhancing element to a relationship causing a better sexual bond between the partners". The sections of the article which back up the non-disorder view of fetishism are full of citation needed tags. However, the significant point that some population does not consider fetishism as a disorder is left alone, and even clearly implied from the very beginning of the article.

Further, there is even some academic resistance to the classification of pedophilia as a disorder. [1] [2]. While the opinion held by the majority of psychologists is that pedophilia is a psychosexual dysfunction, the fact that there have been papers in refereed academic journals arguing the opposite shows directly that the medical community is by no means unanimous on this issue.

Additionally, the point should be made that the ICD-10 is evasive about a specific definition of the word "disorder", their general classification of disorder is restricted to "...cases with distress and with interference with personal functions." [3]. It should also be noted that the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, as listed here also require that the patient has acted on the attraction in an inappropriate way or that the patient experiences "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty". Legitimus claims that this implies that all sexual attraction to children is a disorder because "It is also quite hard to imagine a person not getting distressed if they are preferentially sexually driven toward a particular behavior yet never do anything about it." Quite frankly, this is a poor subjective judgement that only indicates Legitimus' lack of imagination. If anyone can find a published, scientific source that shows that non-distress is impossible without the fulfillment of all sexual fantasies, I would be happy to yield on this small point; however, without a published study of some kind this judgement is simply original research and cannot in good faith be used to justify that significant of a decision on article wording and content.

Similarly, the statement that Legitimus makes that "There is not a single culture anywhere in the world that I am aware of that has ever openly and unanimously allowed and accepted sex with children who have not yet reached puberty," is a subjective judgement based on personal experience, and would not be valid for determination of encyclopedic content even if it were true. And, in fact, this is not true: a quick read through the papers linked above will highlight several cultures in which publicly accepted sexual relations between adults and prepubescent children were not only extant, but were in fact common.

I also counter the point Legitimus made against the pedophilia-homosexuality argument by pointing out that articles about similarly non-consensual and socially unacceptable paraphilia, such as Zoophilia and Necrophilia, start out merely stating that these tendencies are paraphilia, and refrain from using the word disorder. In fact, no discussion of zoophilia as a disorder occurs until the section "Perspectives on Zoophilia", and the discussion of Necrophilia as a mental disorder is left out of the article entirely, despite being rated as a disorder by the ICD-10. Similarly, articles on arguably destructive paraphilia such as Erotic asphyxiation barely mention that some psychologists regard such paraphilia as a disorder.

Given the treatment of these other paraphilia, including some like Necrophilia which are arguably equivalent with pedophilia in terms of social and medical concern, it seems like it would be consistent with all other paraphilia articles on wikipedia to leave the classification as a disorder to a specific section about medical treatment or medical perspectives, or at the very least word the beginning so that it leaves room for interpretation of pedophilia as both a disorder and as a non-dysfunctional sexual preference. No other wikipedia article on a specific paraphilia defines the paraphilia as a psychological disorder; excepting this article, all those that discuss disease/disorder status use the wording "...is classified as a disorder by the DSM" or something similar.

To summarize, the conclusion that pedophilia is a psychological dysfunction is not unanimously supported by the medical community, and classification of all pedophilia as a disorder by deferring to the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV is an inconsistent and easily disputable approach. Additionally, in comparison to wikipedia articles on all other paraphilia, even those of similarly condemned social stature, this article on Pedophilia comes across as remarkably one-sided and uniquely rigid in its classification of pedophilia strictly as a disorder. In other words, the wording of this article leaves no room for interpretation of pedophilia as a nondysfunctional sexual orientation, unlike every other article on specific paraphilia. SilenceSoLoud (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do people bash pedophiles and say its a disease it is nothing but perversion trust me there are far worst perverts out there

Causes section

I removed this section and brought it here for consideration:

Causes

The cause or causes of pedophilia are not known.[footnote A] The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be a strong risk factor, but research does not show a causal relationship, as the vast majority of sexually abused children do not grow up to be adult offenders, nor do the majority of adult offenders report childhood sexual abuse. The US Government Accountability Office concluded, "the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established." Until 1996, there was greater belief in the theory of a "cycle of violence," because most of the research done was retrospective—abusers were asked if they had experienced past abuse. Even the majority of studies found that most adult sex offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood, but studies varied in terms of their estimates of the percentage of such offenders who had been abused, from 0 to 79 percent. More recent prospective longitudinal research — studying children with documented cases of sexual abuse over time to determine what percentage become adult offenders — has demonstrated that the cycle of violence theory is not an adequate explanation for why people molest children.[footnote B]

footnote A: Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary entry

footnote B: E L Rezmovic ; D Sloane ; D Alexander ; B Seltser ; T Jessor (1996). "Cycle of Sexual Abuse: Research Inconclusive About Whether Child Victims Become Adult Abusers" (PDF). US Government Accountability Office General Government Division United States. Retrieved 2009-11-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The first sentence is duplicated in the article lead, with the same source. The rest of the paragraph does not mention anything about the disorder of pedophilia, and it makes several wide interpretations of one source that do not appear to match the conclusions of the source. The conclusion in the source is quite complex and if it is to be used, the text would have to be rewritten to follow the concepts as presented in that source. If someone wants to do that, and relate it to the topic of this article, that might be useful, but as it is now it does not appear to fit in the article or illuminate the topic so it should not be used in its present form. To be clear, I am not saying the above summary is incorrect, just that it only partially reflects the conclusion of the source, and that it's not directly connected to this topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The GAO article is a literature review and while I have not read through it entirely yet, it would appear from skimming through that we yet again face the problem of child sex offender vs. pedophile. The text in the above section appears to fall prey to this same. I recall this was added some years ago and I feel that the the addition was of noble intent (i.e. to strongly emphasize that victims are not child molesters waiting to happen) it is a bit over-stated and may not be appropriate. The good news is that the article contains some promising references that may be more useful. Example: Greenberg, DM.; Bradford, JM.; Curry, S. (1993). "A comparison of sexual victimization in the childhoods of pedophiles and hebephiles". J Forensic Sci. 38 (2): 432–6. PMID 8455000. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)Legitimus (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of terminology section

Should we really remove this section, given the issue of the term pedophilia being misused as widely as it is? I recall that there were only a few problematic lines in that section, and that those lines were taken care of.

Legitimus, any thoughts on this? Weren't you for this section, but not for a few of its lines? I do not feel strongly about it one way or the other, but it seems helpful to keep it. We do address the misuse problem in the lead and in a few other parts of the article, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am given to agree with Flyer. An acknowledgement of the misuse of the term would likely be of great help to many readers.— James Cantor (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be workable, provided it's toned down a tad and no longer beats the defamation angle to death, like the now-blocked sockpuppet team feverishly seemed to be pursuing (I still don't know what that was all about). If we put it back, let's leave Malon and Pena out since on review, they're kind of irrelevant.Legitimus (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A well-sourced section on that issue could be useful. But let's start from scratch, not try to adapt the mess that was there. I think Legitimus modified some of it - those parts could be salvaged. But the defamation angle, as Legitimus said, is not the point - Any false accusation can be defamation, that has nothing to do with the term "Pedophilia" - we should leave that out completely, along with the non-reliable fringe sources that he mentioned. But a description of ways in which the term is misused could be written. The key is to find good sources that address that directly. I think there is a Department of Justice article by Lanning that gets into those issues pretty well, and I recall an article by Finkelhor about definitions that could be used. I'm not sure where I saw those, if I can locate them, I'll post the links. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And Legitimus did a good job on readding that section with changes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)