Talk:Hebephilia

Hebephilia versus Ephebophilia

H: "sexual preference for pubescent children" E: "erotic interest in children in mid- to late adolescence"

The introduction to this article summarizes the two categories like this, which I think is worded a bit ambiguously. The first (Hebephilia) uses "sexual preference" and the second (Ephebophilia) uses "erotic interest". Are these meant to signify different kinds of attractions, or are they meant to be synonymous? Even though being fancy using alternative vocabulary is nice, in this case I think it's a better idea to use the same terms if they are meant to be equivilent.

The second point of confusion is pubescent and adolescence. Currently if one looks up pubescent, it redirects to the article on puberty and the word is not even used in the article. The point of confusion is on what the word implies specifically. Currently there is prepubescent, pubescent, and post-pubescent. So I take it to mean it means someone who has initiated puberty but not completed it. However, in this way, it seems synonymous to adolescence. The only difference here is the inclusion of "mid to late" which isn't really that specific at all.

Even with this in mind, going by the way they are defined in this article, ephebophilia would be a subsect of hebephilia, rather than something separate. The article on ephebophilia is more specific, stating an age range of '15-19'. I'm going to go check to see how accurate this is though, because adolescence does not necessarily end at 19 in all cases (though perhaps 'late in' is prior to 'end of'?) and a word like 'mid', which one can only assume means 'halfway through' is going to vary depending upon when adolescence begins for a person. Tyciol (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct on all counts. There is little scientific literature on either one. No one (that I know of) has ever declared that hebephilia is entirely distinct from ephebobilia, except that hebephilia is usually used to refer to the interest (or preference) in 11-13ish and ephebophilia to persons a bit older. I have no opposition to rewording sexual preference and erotic interest to match.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the lead of the article from "erotic interest" to "sexual preference." I also do not understand this topic being treated as too distinct from ephebophilia, other than it being more about a sexual preference for individuals early in puberty (in which case I do not understand it being too different pedophilia either, considering how much early pubescent boys in particular look prepubescent). And to ask it, how would one know that someone is early in puberty, unless the individual is at the age where it has presumably already started or is somehow showing? Although...I cannot imagine too many 11-year-old boys looking as though they are going through puberty. And, as we know, early adolescents are also pubescent and not all or even most mid (mid...as in 15-year-old) adolescents are postpubescent. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I envisage an important psychological cutoff, is the transition between prepubescent ('hairless' etc) and pubescent ('budding'), and that of 'budding' to 'fully formed'. This is not an issue of age, except in the grossest sense.

I speak only of attraction to morphological characteristics, of course.

Nigel

---

some problems

The article says, "Hebephilic men are midway between pedophilic men and teleiophilic men on average IQ" etc. The term "midway" doesn't have much meaning unless we know which of the other two are greater. Are we just supposed to assume that pedophiles are inherently less intelligent than teleiophiles?

I also removed the word "sometimes" from the sentence "there are also clinical and correctional samples of sexual offenders in which hebephilic men sometimes outnumber the pedophilic men" because the phrase "there are" implies that hebephiles do not outnumbers pedophiles in all the samples.

Also how reliable are the anonymous surveys supposed to be? Can we expect people to answer truthfully on a survey asking people if they are attracted to children?

For An Angel (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. I believe it is up to readers of the page to decide for themselves whether they believe what the researchers reported; as editors, our "job" is merely to bring to the attention of readers what it is that the researchers said.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced a sentence removed by the author of the studies cited; s/he seems to be attempting to spin his/her studies into something they are not. 24.70.131.33 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Mendori

Specifically stating that pedophiles scored lowest after every test makes the section read very much like a Coat Rack, completely regardless of whether the statements are cited (or even true). This article isn't about pedophilia. Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. That sentence was originally written simply as a list of the characteristics on which hebephilia has been studied. For An Angel in the above argued that the specific direction of the differences needed to be noted, which led to the current phrasing which you believe resembles a coat rack. Personally, I am indifferent, so long as the content is clear and accurate. Suggestions for improvement?

— James Cantor (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove the comparisons, and leave a link to the study. I've got no problem leaving the information accessible, but the article can't be used to explain how hebephilia is 'better' than pedophilia. Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. The difference of opinion is between you and For An Angel (As I said, I am indifferent.) I meant only to give the brief history of the issue.— James Cantor (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hebe

I don't understand what the problem is with add this to the disambiguation page for its abbreviation. For An Angel (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't either.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the diff. Summary says "Neither this page, nor the target page cite the validity of the alleged abbreviation." This appears to be true. I often delete what I call non-disambig items when there is no support on the target page for the abbreviation or initialism. If you state in the article that it's sometimes abbreviated "heme", and source it, then the problem goes away. Quite simple, really. Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be required because of how obvious it is. There is nothing in December to indicate that it is sometimes abbreviated as Dec. Yet it is still listed at Dec as a common abbreviation. For An Angel (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Clinical samples" vs. 'studies faulted by non-representativeness'

It is my opinion that to characterize those studies as faulted due to non-representativeness is non-encylopedic and boilerplate, used for contesting a view that one dislikes. Although "non-representativeness" is tauted in most undergrad courses on research design, there are many ways around the problem, which all the cited studies correctly employed. A study using clinical and forensic samples permits appropriate generalization to other clinical and forensic samples, which is the predominant use of such information.

It is correct that such findings should be considered carefully before generalizing them to non-clinical and non-forensic samples. It is incorrect to refer to this to a fault of the studies: For example, there is no plausible reason to assert that correlates (such as handedness) would systematically differ between clinical and non-clinical samples. Moreover, the control groups used in those studies were also clinical and forensic samples, thus removing from the results generic effects due to having been apprehended and convicted. These results have been out for several years now, and no RS has contested them. (If one has, feel free to cite it.) Otherwise, your claim is OR.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 07:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe YOUR claims are original research. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the first researcher noted in the studies' authors? Also, forgive me, but I've been unable to find a full copy of your research. 24.70.131.33 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Mendori

Yes, my research team and I have been responsible for a large proportion of the peer-reviewed articles on this topic. An overview of our projects can be found on my University website, http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor, and complete list of pubs can be found through scholar.google.com.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 11:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Dr Cantor,

"It is correct that such findings should be considered carefully before generalizing them to non-clinical and non-forensic samples."

Indeed, for example, ask Hernandez and the FBI about that.

Since you did not have the decency to reply to my emails, when you published your recent work, perhaps you will here.

Firstly,

"there is no plausible reason to assert that correlates (such as handedness) would systematically differ between clinical and non-clinical samples"

Why is there no 'plausible reason'? Please summarise, for readers, what your 'plausible reason' is.

Secondly,

"Moreover, the control groups used in those studies were also clinical and forensic samples, thus removing from the results generic effects due to having been apprehended and convicted.

How does this remove the 'generic effects due to having been apprehended and convicted'?

Finally, for now, please confirm, that your conclusions arise from inferential statistics - is this correct?

Yours.

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

• I apologize if I have failed to respond to earlier off-wiki communication from you; it is my habit to respond to all emails I receive, both from the public as well as colleagues. Any oversight on my part would have been inadvertant.
• Regarding 'plausible reason', I do not understand your question. That is, it makes no sense to ask me what my plausible reason is after I wrote that there existed no plausible reason.
• Next, one cannot attribute group differences to a characteristic when that characteristic is shared by both groups. For example, although one can say that physical height is related to the ability to play basketball well, one cannot (meaningfully) say that Basketball Team A defeated Basketball Team B because of height when both teams were of the same height. That is, one cannot attribute the detected brain differences to (for example) being willing to break the law when both groups had histories of breaking the law.
• My conclusions arise from the application of multiple standard research techniques, including both descriptive and inferential statistics. It would be an error, however, to make any assertion (positive or negative) about any research project that considers any individual technique in isolation. In designing studies, techniques are selected so as be to mutually reinforcing, with one aspect of a research design providing strengths that other aspects lack.
  

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 11:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Dr Cantor,

"I apologize if I have failed to respond to earlier off-wiki communication from you; it is my habit to respond to all emails I receive, both from the public as well as colleagues. Any oversight on my part would have been inadvertant."

Noted, thank you.

"Regarding 'plausible reason', I do not understand your question."

The question is; why is it implausible "to assert that correlates (such as handedness) would systematically differ between clinical and non-clinical samples"? Your use of the word [not] plausible suggests, that these two samples could have no other external variables acting upon them. Is that your belief?

Secondly, what is your plausible reason, for the observed differences? What are your thoughts on the variables acting upon them which are etiological?

"That is, it makes no sense to ask me what my plausible reason is after I wrote that there existed no plausible reason."

I trust I have clarified this.

"Next, one cannot attribute group differences to a characteristic when that characteristic is shared by both groups."

Indeed, one should not, if the characteristic is actually shared.

"For example, although one can say that physical height is related to the ability to play basketball well, one cannot (meaningfully) say that Basketball Team A defeated Basketball Team B because of height when both teams were of the same height."

Indeed, one should not, if the characteristic is actually shared.

"That is, one cannot attribute the detected brain differences to (for example) being willing to break the law when both groups had histories of breaking the law."

I see. Thus, your hypothesis, is, that sex offenders break the law, for the same reasons as non-sex offenders? Is that your claim?

Please remind me where the “detected brain differences” have been confirmed, in these works.

"My conclusions arise from the application of multiple standard research techniques, including both descriptive and inferential statistics."

Predominantly inferential, no? I am not sure descriptive statistics have much worth, here, other than for academic interest and the inferential uses of those data.

"It would be an error, however, to make any assertion (positive or negative) about any research project that considers any individual technique in isolation."

Do you mean, in regards to the generalisability and validity (internal and external) of its discussed outcomes?

"In designing studies, techniques are selected so as be to mutually reinforcing, with one aspect of a research design providing strengths that other aspects lack."

Mutually reinforcing? I see. Do you not agree, that each of the tests, which have been applied (some which have dubious reality, in any case e.g. IQ), include a systematic error? Do you agree, that these individual errors may be cumulative and may result in the p values and CIs (some boarding on insignificant, in these works) may reduce them to insignificance?

I am sure you will appreciate the Occam's Razor dimension of my suggestion.

Finally, for now,

(1) I presume CAMH applies the APA definition of 'paedophile' (etc) in its studies. Is this correct?

(2) How does CAMH define ‘acted upon their urges’ or words to that effect?

(3) Do you, or any of your colleagues, have any thoughts on what proportion of the population are not paedophiles, but are exclusive MAAs (non-acting, non-egodystonic people, who are predominantly/totally sexually attracted to minors?).

(4) Do you, or any of your colleagues, have any thoughts on what proportion of the population are not paedophiles, but are non-exclusive MAAs (non-acting, non-egodystonic people, who are sexually attracted to minors, to some lesser degree?).

(5) What are your thoughts on the term MAA? How would you describe these MAAs, within your present psychoconstructual terminology?

for:

(a) Nepiophiles, (b) Paedophiles, (c) Hebephiles, (d) Ephebophiles, (e) Teleiophiles.

Yours,

Nigel.

These are all topics that I find interesting, and each of your questions merits response. I am also mindful, however, that talkpages are for discussions about improving WP articles, not for discussing the actual topic of the WP article, and I suspect this thread is moving from one to the other. As a compromise between these two situations, I will keep my responses brief, but further conversation should probably be restricted to the purpose of this talkpage:

• Regarding plausibility, your paraphrase of my assertion is inaccurate. I do not refer to the plausibility of clinical and non-clinical samples differing; rather, I refer to the plausibility of subgroup differences existing between two clinical samples (clinical hebephiles and clinical teleiophiles) but not existing between their two non-clinical counterparts (non-clinical hebephiles and non-clinical teleiophiles). Statistically, these situations are analogous to detecting a main effect versus an interaction effect. I have no reason to reject ideas about there being main effects; it is the interaction effects that are implausible (to my mind).
• It is rather premature for anyone (including me) to assert any strong hypothesis for what causes the effects observed. There are some obvious possibilities, however, which I discuss in my articles on the topic.
• No, I do not claim that sexual offenders engage in their behavior with the same motivation as do nonsexual offenders. (Sexual offenders are highly heterogeneous as a group, however, and there appears to exist a subgroup of sexual offenders who do have the same motivation as nonsexual offenders; such people typically have both sexual and nonsexual offenses on their records.)
• Regarding replication, there have only been three MRI-based studies reported thus far (including my own), all of them within the past year. We used overlapping, but non-identical methods, so it is difficult to compare the results directly. I have recently received funding to replicate and expand the finding in a way that would do so, however. I do not know if other groups are planning anything similar.
• I do not understand why you would write “I am not sure descriptive statistics have much worth, here, other than for academic interest.” First, as a scientist, my very purpose in pursuing this line or any other line of research is for academic interest. Moreover, descriptive statistics are needed precisely for the reasons alluded to earlier: One can only rule out height as an important effect in the basketball example when the researcher provides the relevant descriptive statistics on height, for example.
• Regarding your question “Do you mean, in regards to the generalisability and validity (internal and external) of its discussed outcomes?”: No. My point is also easier to see by example: If one reported a correlation between two variables, a critic could (correctly) point out that correlations do not imply causation and (incorrectly) fault the study for coming to any conclusions about causality. For example, if one of the variables necessarily preceded the other in time (childhood head injuries and age at marriage, for example), then one would be able to rule out marriage as a cause of childhood head injuries. Thus, my response is the caution that one cannot (meaningfully) use the presence of inferential statistics in a study outside the context of other factors in the research design as a basis of assessing the quality of a research project or its conclusions.
• Regarding your question “Do you not agree, that each of the tests…”: It is not clear to me which of the tests your are referring to. A test that is highly appropriate in one situation can be less appropriate in another, and vice versa.
• There is no ‘CAMH application’ of the term paedophile (or pedophile). There are only specific researchers, including myself, housed at CAMH; each of us is responsible for our own research. Our views do not necessarily reflect those of the institution, nor vice versa. Regarding the APA definition of pedophilia: The operational definitions for research purposes differ from those that appear in the DSM. I provide the precise operational definitions in each of my publications.
• I cannot speak for my colleagues, but my own opinion on the proportion of the population who are (primarily) attracted to minors, but who are not pedophiles is, “There is no way to know.” (It's not the kind of information that people are likely to answer truthfully on a survey.) I would happily predict, however, that the proportion will vary enormously with one's definition of “minors.”
• Regarding the term "MAA" (which I take to be "minor-attracted adults"): My primary criteria for a useful term is that it is precise, unambiguous, and invariant across contexts. Neither the word “minor,” “attracted,” nor even “adult” possesses those characteristics. (I am not saying that the alternative terms fly past my criteria either, but I have little motivation to replace well-known but imperfect terms with unknown terms that fair no better.)
• I do not know what a “psychoconstructual terminology” is.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Relocated research question

Question posed to User:James Cantor by User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield moved to James Cantor's talkpage.

The question was not about hebephilia, so I have moved it to my talkpage.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Dr Cantor,

The question is directly related to paraphilias, and specifically to hebephilia/ephebophilia, in the work of Schiffer at al, but I respect the move.

Nigel.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't contest that your question is relevant to hebephilia; I contest only its relevance to the hebephilia talkpage (which is for the article, not the topic). Nonetheless, I have reponded to your question at User talk:James Cantor.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent portions of thread also relocated to User talk:James Cantor.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 12:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxymoron

By definition, a child has not reached puberty. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no universal definition of "child." The literature on this specific topic almost universally refers to "pubescent children" and "prepubescent children." Although I personally prefer "children" here, "youths" is not incorrect (albeit unusual, perhaps).

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Depending on jurisdiction and context a "child" could be defined as a person under 18 years of age. While they might be inclined to protest at being branded "Children" most 17 year olds would tend to have undergone puberty! 213.40.223.203 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. In writing about pedophilia, hebephilia, and other "age orientations," one should be more precise than to use the word "child" without any qualifiers.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases

The article should probably mention the controversy surrounding Catholic sex abuse cases, due to the fact that the USCCB's John Jay Report asserted that the pedophile priest problem was actually an ephebophile priest problem, and that many of the priests in question were gay. This perspective was re-affirmed recently by the Church's official delegate at the United Nations. [1] ADM (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If they were ephebophilic, that is a paraphilic disorder, so I'm unclear where being gay comes into it. Being gay is not a paraphilia, but a sexual identity. Were they attracted to adult men as well as adolescent boys? That would mean they were homosexual and ephebophilic. Being attracted to adolescent boys is not being gay. Mish (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mish, ephebophilia is not classified as a paraphilic disorder...well, not generally. The age/look of the boy matters when classifying what it is or may be. If it is a 14-year-old boy who clearly has no type of adult resonance to his face or one who could pass for a 12-year-old, then I am more inclined to think of an adult male being sexually attracted to that as having a mental or some type of paraphilic disorder. Although...ephebophilia stresses the point of 15 to 19 for its age range. But, if, for example, it is a man constantly going after 17-year-old boys, it is difficult to say that is exactly distinct from if he had been constantly going after legal adult 18-year-old males. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are mixed cases, perhaps some ephebophilic clergy are homosexual while some are not. In any case, many in the press and in the general public tend to conflate the concepts of gay identity and same-sex relations, which is why this was brought up publicly in the first place. Conservative bishops in the Catholic hierarchy have obviously taken advantage of this confusion and have made new rules against the ordination of seminarians with deeply-rooted attachments to the gay culture. ADM (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because the public conflate these things (supposedly), that does not mean we have to, especially when it is not accurate - he doesn't talk about 'mixed-cases' in the report, he talks about priests who are predominantly ephebophilic. It may be that homosexual priests have been punished because of the activities of these ephebophilic priests - although it may just be that in working on getting their house in order, JP2 & Ratzo realised that there were a lot of 'gay' priests (and monks and lesbian nuns) around that didn't really fit in with what people thought priests, monks and nuns were supposed to be doing, and started kicking them out.

• "The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males. Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

Interesting that this is not referred to as a sexual disorder, but as a 'sexual orientation minority'. Is it worth noting that 20% were alcoholics? But definitely no connection with being gay, rather 'a homosexual attraction to adolescent boys'. (odd phrasing, as a male sexual attraction to males is a homosexual attraction - I guess this is an example of why the APA recommends religious people stick to what they know rather than get involved in psychology). So, the context is that very few priests are ephebophiles in the Catholic church, and many of those that are are also alcoholics, and lots of religions have this problem, including Protestantism and Judaism. So, how would you propose phrasing this to accurately reflect the source? I see no justification for inserting anything about these priests being gay, as that is not in the source, and no point saying they were homosexual, as the way they are described (having a sexual orientation towards adolescent males) is already covered within the article's description, and there is nothing to suggest they had a homosexual sexual orientation towards adult males (i.e. were homosexual) as well as being ephebophiles, but simply towards adolescent boys in most cases. Mish (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement in that source is partly wrong anyway; ephebophilia is certainly not about the sexual attraction or preference for boys as young as 11. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to quote directly from the Guardian source, but rather I think a good thing to do would be to look back at the John Jay Report of 2004, where it seems that the term ephebophilia was first used in such a context. [2] Public commentators have interpreted the John Jay Report in a variety of ways, some liberal and some conservative, and one of these conservative interpretations was to claim that priest abuse scandal was related to the clergy's gay problem. [3] ADM (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds a bit like WP:OR. You cite the Guardian, but don't want to quote it, yet the distinction is explicit therein. I don't have access to the Routledge paper myself, but again, the abstract is clear this is about ephebophilia rather than paedophilia or homosexuality, and within the article you wikilink to or Catholic sex abuse cases there is no mention of any gay or homosexual connection. That leaves this rather bizarre website you cite, which I doubt could be taken as a WP:RS. It would seem that the best that could be said about the Catholic priest business in the context of this article is that most of the Catholic priests involved in this scandal were ephebophilic, and that certainly should be in there, but I don't see how it justifies the inclusion of Anti-gay propaganda. However, if you do find some reliable sources on this, I'd be more than happy to include it in that article instead. Mish (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was initially not quite sure what to do with this. I can tell you that the comments in the Guardian are so distorted as to almost be offensive. As has been pointed out, ephebophilia is not a gender-specific term and has nothing to do with seeking same-sex or opposite sex partners. That kind of angered me when I read that line. In addition, psychological science established as far back as the 1970s that the gender of the victim is completely unrelated to the adult's sexual identity and past sexual behavior with adults.(Groth and Birnbaum, 1978; Holmes 2002) There are straight, married men who molest boys.

I also have serious doubts about the statistics on the gender of the victims. In the general population, sexual abuse of minors is overwhelmingly adult male with female minor. But media basically ignores this, and it is more easily hidden or denied. Media loves to zero in on same-sex abuse cases because, well, let's face it: the US is still pretty homophobic and popular consciousness finds this all the more horrific.

Also, remember that ephebophilia, like pedophilia, is a preference for that age range, not a description of their actions. While it is a more accurate term for the Catholic abuse cases than pedophilia, no evidence has been offered that this was a ingrained preference and not a crime of opportunity. For example the John Jay Report claims that 59% were accused of only a single allegation.Legitimus (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Legitimus. As I stated above, they have the definition of ephebophilia somewhat wrong; it certainly is not about a sexual attraction or preference for boys as young as 11. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflating terms

The problem seems to be the conflating of ephebophilia and hebephila. I've been through the sources I can access and tried to clarify this. The problem is that there is not firm source for what this is, as it is only a proposed diagnostic category, so the definition can vary according to who is describing it - and the maximum age also relates to age of consent. So, for girls, the upper limit is 16 years old, but for boys, in the case of same-sex, it is limited by the legal age of consent for males - which means that in the UK it would be the same as for girls (16), and an attraction for adolescent males over the age of consent is no more paraphilic than for girls - unless the adult involved is in a position of trust and/or authority (teacher, relative, priest, etc.) and the adolescent is under 18. It needs to be clear that this is not a formal diagnosis. Mish (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of any chronophilia term being defined by matters of law. It was my impression that it was matter of physical (and some might say mental) maturity. But you would be right in that is a poorly defined term all around because it is not standardized by any sort of governing body, such as the DSM or ICD.Legitimus (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it is between consenting adults it is between consenting adults - otherwise it makes no sense to have different definitions for male attraction to adolescent girls (14-16) and to adolescent boys (14-19). The whole thing is poorly defined, and different sources seem to define it slightly differently. I'm just trying to reflect the sources, and the one I cited on ethics seemed to pin it to the age of consent, which is a legal definition rather than medically defined. The whole thing gets bizarre - is a 21-year-old male's attraction for a fully-mature 19-year-old ephebophilia? What about a 17-year-old for a 15-year-old girlf who's got a baby from a previous boyfriend? How about a 20-year-old fully developed male for a 30-year-old undervirilised male who still looks like he's 18? Some of these fit the definition, but appear odd, while others don't but probably are more relevant. It is poorly defined because it is based on certain political attitudes about age, sex and gender. Mish (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Mish, I understand your concerns, and I have expressed similar concerns higher about this on this talk page. But you changed the lead to say that ephebophilia is the sexual preference for underage mid to late adolescents; that is not completely true. If you talk to sex researcher James Cantor, who has studied this more than any of us here and whose source we use in this article, he will tell you this. And of all the research I have done on pedophilia, what is in between, and this, I can also tell you that it is not about the age of consent, which is why I took that out of the lead. For example, in the way you give an example, I give the example of a 17 and 18-year-old. If we say the ephebophilia is the sexual preference for underage mid-to-late adolescents, are we saying that 17-year-olds typically look physically different age-wise than 18 and 19-year-olds and that a ephebophile will typically not go after them sexually? I can certainly say that 17-year-olds generally cannot be told apart from 18 and 19-year-olds (especially regarding females). And the thing about a 21-year-old male's attraction for a fully-mature 19-year-old being ephebophilia, I brought up something similar to that before (higher on this talk page). But we have to remember that we are talking about the preference, not the attraction. A man being sexually attracted to a 19-year-old is, of course, not ephebophilia. And we are, of course, not talking about a 17-year-old being sexually attracted to a 15-year-old girl. We can specify ephebophilia as being an adult attraction, as we do for the Pedophilia article, although a 16-year-old with a sexual preference for prepubescent children can be classified as a pedophile. But classifying ephebophilia as being about the age of consent is doing more harm than good, in the same way that some people believe that any older adult (20 or older) who is sexual with someone even a year under the age of consent is a pedophile. Pedophilia is not based on the age of consent and neither is ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, we should always go with medical sources first on something like this, and the medical source that James Cantor provides says 15-19, which is also sourced lower in the article. If we are going to put some of how the law defines it, if they do define it, then that should go after what the medical sources say...like is done with the Pedophilia article. I also do not feel that we should specify ephebophilia as being about post-pubescents; there are plenty of 15-year-old boys and girls who are still pubescent, which is why, in truth, hebephilia and ephebophilia cross each other enough, though ephebophilia is distinct enough from it. And, yes, referring to epbebophilia as pedophilia is colloquial use...because it is a widespread improper use of the word. And as for ephebophilia rarely being considered a mental disorder, unless it affects the ephebophile's life in a destructive way, that is basically sourced lower in the article as well; this also makes it clear that ephebophilia is not a formal diagnosis. And by "rarely," we mean that it is not listed as a paraphilia or mental disorder in those two authorative medical sources...except for in a certain case with one of them. Though we could specify that in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I specified the lead to mention that it is an adult sexual preference, and to stress that it is about the sexual preference, not simply the attraction (though I worded it better than that, LOL). This should stop confusion right off the bat for people who would otherwise overlook the "preference" part and feel that a 30-year-old man sexually involved with a 19-year-old woman, for example, is an ephebophile. How do you feel about the lead now? Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to make clear that it is as an exclusive compulsion that makes it a paraphilia, and not applicable in individual cases. I need to take your word on the Blanchard and Cantor article - I can't access the ASB article in full (all I can access discusses hebephilia) which is why I have cited another source, which gives 14-19 for boys and 14-16 for girls. Colloquial is not the right word - because professionals, religious groups, politicians, and the media appear to use it this way - popular seems better, especially as there is no coded substance for ephebophilia, only a catch-all code that has allowed abusers to be treated, but not as paedophiles. Mish (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, it is not typically regarded as a paraphilia. The lead also makes it clear that it is an exclusive compulsion by stating it as a sexual preference. As I also stated before, chronophilias are not about the law/age of consent in actual definition and are rather more about the physical than anything else. You specify 14 to 16 for girls, when, really, 16-year-old girls look no physically different age-wise than 17 or 18-year-old girls, for example. And medical sources, such as ones provided by James Cantor, say that hebephilia typically covers 14-year-olds. But I left your addition/source about that and boys ages 14-19 in after the medical source (which specifies it as 15 to 19), and I specified it as "sexual ethics." I am also not seeing how colloquial is the wrong word to use; I am not seeing any experts (who know what they are talking about) refer to ephebophilia as pedophilia. The fact that it is referred to as pedophilia in widespread use, despite being the wrong word to use, is exactly what colloquial covers. But I obliged you and left the word colloquially out. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Youths?

"Hebephilia refers to an adult's sexual preference for pubescent youths". According to my copy of Fowler, the word "youths" refers exclusively to males, and that is also the way I would use the word in everyday conversation (British English speaker). Just my opinion, but I think the word is confusing here. 91.107.190.1 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record of this talk page, James Cantor went ahead and changed it to "children" on the same day this section was started. As touched on above, the word "children" was something we were trying to avoid in the lead due to pubescents no longer being biological children (at least not in the strictest sense) and hebephilia sometimes overlapping with ephebophilia. For example, ephebophilia's general age range is 15-19. But what about age 14? Does 14 really look all that differently than 15? And what about 13-year-olds, particularly girls, who look about 15?

But now that I think about it, using the word "children" is probably better...to give a picture of hebephilia; it probably helps people to see the difference between it and ephebophilia, as they likely envision hebephilia to be about the sexual preference for young people who have just started going through puberty (9 to 12-year-olds). The tricky thing is...is that hebephilia can be seen to overlap with pedophilia as well, because a lot of pubescents (particularly boys) may still look prepubescent and plenty of 9 to 12-year-olds have still not hit puberty).

Either way, we already use the word "children" in the lower body of this article in relation to hebephilia. The Ephebophilia article's lead was changed some time back to relate "children" to hebephilia as well. Thus, it is no big deal that it be in the lead of this article also.

I cannot say that I have ever heard of the word "youths" being restricted solely to young males, though. It is often used to refer to young people in general here in America. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "individuals"?— James Cantor (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That would do, James. I do not mind either way on this matter. But would you apply that throughout the article, or just the lead? If you do either, I will change the Ephebophilia article's lead to state "individuals" in reference to hebephilia as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. At least, I'm pretty sure I got them all. I left standing, however, occurrances of "pubescent children," as that phrase doesn't seem to be objectionable to anyone (and overuse of the word "individuals" made for poor reading).— James Cantor (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. On a side note, you may want to weigh in on this: User talk:Dbachmann#Ephebophilia article. I do not know what to make of this editor's thoughts, but your expertise would help. No pressure, though, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tone Problem

This article really reads like it was written by a bunch of pedophile apologists. There can be no NPOV when we are discussing a grotesque criminal act and a mental aberrance. Slagathor (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to whatever option you want, of course. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy does not mean treat the topic as if the topic were neutral; it means not to add our own spins when summarizing the content of reliable sources. If the text you added to the page came from a WP:Reliable source, integrate it into the page, citing the where that information came from. If the information did not directly attributable to an RS, then it ought not be on the page.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Slagathor clearly took a great deal of this from the Pedophilia article lead (it's just that Slagathor's version was altered a little and unsourced), but (either way) I do not see how it makes this article seem more neutral. Slagathor, you feel that this article is written by pedophile apologists simply because it distinguishes between pedophiles and hebephiles? Um, I point out that we should present the truth. We cannot and should not present hebephilia as pedophilia, if it is not. Your adds even distinguished the two. Sure, pedophilia and hebephilia significantly cross each other, especially in the cases of boys, but they are not the same thing. And true hebephile apologists would not note in the lead that hebephilia is being debated as a psychological disorder; they would keep the fact that it is being considered a psychological disorder from the lead altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

But Hebephiles *are* Pedophiles if the object of attraction is under the legal age of consent. It's not a matter of debate. It's simply a legal reality. The failure to document this is ridiculous and represents a failure of NPOV.Slagathor (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hebephilia and pedophilia are medical terms, not legal terms, and you are confusing "pedophile" with "child molester." You are entitled to your opinion, but WP may contain only what is said in RS's. I know the existing RS's on this topic quite well, and they do not contain the claim you are making. (You are treating pedophilia and the other terms as synonyms, which experts do not.) If I am wrong, all you need to demonstrate so is to produce an RS that says what you think...If, after looking, you do not find any, you might consider the obvious conclusion: The correct use of the terms are a little different from what you are accustomed to. Arguing here will not get far; I recommend doing some good, old-fashioned library work.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel the need to echo JC's point here. These articles are about medical, not legal phenomena. The terms exist seperately to describe seperate conditions. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's absurd and incorrect. First, these articles are about *all* facets of the condition, both medical and legal. Or are you attempting to arbitrarily limit the scope of an encyclopedic article in order to control its content. Second, and as you are probably aware, the state of being a pedophile does indeed result in a life-long legal sanction if an offense has been committed in the past. That is, the medical condition itself is criminalized (and rightly so). And Hebephiles *are* Pedophiles. Hebephilia is a subset of Pedophilia if the object of desire is below the legal age of consent. Argue it any way you want, but you're still both wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Slagathor, you say that "Hebephiles *are* Pedophiles if the object of attraction is under the legal age of consent"? Well, I say that is absurd and ridiculous. If we go by your logic, then a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl is also a pedophile. Considering that age 17 looks no physically different than age 18 (unless one of the two looks drastically older than the other), how exactly can one be a pedophile for being sexually attracted to or sexually intimate with a 17-year-old but not an 18-year-old? Pedophilia is not based on age of consent. There is no such thing as a legal pedophile. People are not charged with being a pedophile; they are charged with child sexual abuse or some other legal term relating to it. Pedophilia is about the mental (what goes on in the mind), and child sexual abuse is about the act. Pedophilia is about the sexual preference for prepubescent children. If it was about age of consent, then that would make a lot of normal people out there pedophiles as well. Plenty of normal men have found 17-year-old girls, as in girls below the legal age of consent, sexually attractive...but they are not pedophiles. And let us not forget that the age of consent varies; it is different in certain states and countries. By your logic, a person would be a pedophile in one state, but not in another state where the age of consent is just one age lower. To not be a pedophile, the person could just change states. That is absurd. Pedophilia is not something that one can just get rid of. You either are one, or you aren't; there currently is no cure for being one, and changing states certainly is not a cure. What if the age of consent was age 21 across the board? Would that mean that anyone who has sex with someone under age 21 is a pedophile? Of course not!! That is why basing pedophilia on the age of consent is beyond silly. You might want to better read the Pedophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can talk your way out of this one.Slagathor (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not have to talk my way out of anything regarding this matter. But you obviously cannot argue against my very valid points. Your logic is extremely flawed. And since you clearly go against the actual definition of pedophilia, you have no valid reason to be editing any pedophilia topic or ones close to it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In my own view, Flyer22 was actually engaging the topic very productively. I would caution Slagathor that personal attacks are not permitted on WP, and that discussion should pertain to the matters at hand. Attempted feats of rhetorical display don't win people over; in my experience, they are typically interpreted as a lack of actual evidence supporting the opinion.— James Cantor (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll echo that, and add the following: Slagathor, you're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to have that opinion be adopted by Wikipedia. Part of the reason that we do not give great treatment to the legal aspects of hebephilia is because the legal aspects vary greatly. You can be labelled a pedophile for sleeping with a 20 year old in Madagascar, but you can marry and have sex with a 9 year old in Yemen. Wikipedia is not a store of American knowledge, it's a store of knowledge in general. I'm sorry you feel that hebephiles are pedophiles. Maybe in your particular jurisdiction, that holds true in a legal sense. It doesn't in a general or medical sense, and that's what this article is about. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I just saw the AN/I thread where Slag was indeffed, so... Problem solved. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure and edit to mainpage.

I have removed from the mainpage a non-RS'd statement. Because I am a co-author on an RS that is still cited in the remaining part of that sentance, I thought it best to indicate so here for other interested editors to verify.— James Cantor (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added an external link to an relevant essay. Because I am the author of that essay, I am indicating it here so that other editors can review/retain/remove the link as appropriate.— James Cantor (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added an external link to a complete list of all the peer-reviewed research on hebephilia. Because that list is on my faculty website, I am indicating so here for others to review.— James Cantor (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Karen Franklin

When I removed the reference to Karen Franklin from the lede, it was because her opinion was not (in my opinion) an expert one: She has never done any research in the area (her research being in homophobia), and she had no RS's published on the topic (although she had written on the topic in her blog and in letters-to-editors). Rather, she is a psychologist in private practice, paid to provide testimony in court. (On her website, she includes testimonials only from defence lawyers who hired her for her testimony, but I do no know if all of her work is for the defence side.) So, although she can express whatever opinion she wants, I did not feel that her opinion was notable as 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. The journal is peer-reviewed, but the article does not contain any research; it consists of her arguments regarding hebephilia. Included in that article, however, are some very harsh things that Franklin says about me personally. This isn't the place for me to show the err of her arguments, but it certainly makes COI issues pretty unavoidable. Although I do believe that I am quite capable of describing the situation perfectly neutrally from both her and my points of view, I certainly do not expect other editors to take my word for it. This is a very controversial area after all, and there are editors with strong feelings about this already.

So, I thank Flyer22 very sincerely in her faith in my good faith editing, but it would probably be appropriate for me to let the decision to be made by others. Franklin's article is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123388688/abstract.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm female, but you're welcome, James. I'll see what Legitimus and Jack-A-Roe have to say about this. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, goodness; I very much apologize. I am usually in the habit to watch my language better than that. I am both sorry and embarrassed.— James Cantor (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. It happens to me all the time here at Wikipedia, and most of us have done the same to others at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I took some time to read the full article (Please note I edited James's link so that it is now functional). My impression is that regardless of its approval for publication, it is, at its core an editorial. There is no primary research or even meta-analysis. I understand Franklin's concerns about the term being used in a unethical and unscientific manner in the legal system, but I feel this is not valid grounds to start manipulating scientific terminology and research. For example, I recall another article claiming pedophilia should be removed from the DSM so that sex offenders will no longer have an "excuse" in court and can be punished more harshly. This follows similar logic, and at least I feel, is equally foolish. Scientists should not try to "fix" problems with the legal system (as well as media reporting) by altering the course of their own research. Furthermore, I personally feel that she fails miserably at making the case that the term was concocted strictly for legal and political reasons.

Now that said, I cannot entirely toss this one in the dustbin. I think some brief mention might be worth it, provided that such mention is small in proportion to the size of the overall article itself so as to avoid unintentional coat racking.Legitimus (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points, Legitimus. Regarding mention of Franklin in this article, are you saying we let mention of her stay in the lead as "and Karen Franklin arguing that its consideration as a mental condition is driven by legal, not medical considerations" (since it is brief)...or move it lower in the article (and probably with some different type of wording?). Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Got my answer, LOL, and thank you again, Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the edit removed a letter to the editor. Its publication is subject to editorial oversight, but not peer review. But that distinction does not violate WP:RS in anyway I can think of in this case. You can argue that it's WP:UNDUE and what not, which is a matter of opinion in this case, because she's not contesting some statics, but whether the statistics justify adding it to the DSM despite what evolutionary psychology has to say about this. Completely removing the statement from the article, instead of (say) moving it to a criticism section is contrary to good faith NPOV editing in my view. I will add more criticism shortly to balance the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Concern over overuse of primary studies

The entire "etiology" section is based on the work of the same group at CAMH. Is there some review paper not written by them? I realize there's little literature in this area, so WP:MEDRS may be hard to follow in that respect, but it's worth asking the question of whether independent review papers exist. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)