Talk:Pedophilia

Sources removal

This edit made large changes without dicussion. Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to use anything other than a diagnostic manual (DSM, ICD-10) for medical diagnoses. Some of that literature may be useful in other parts of the article, but not for defining a mental disorder. Jenever Spirit (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still better to discuss such things here than go about removing. Someone may have another point. Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Jenever Spirit (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is better to use the DSM as the main definition or not has been discussed at length above, and was obviously a consensus decision to have the lead as it was (without the DSM as the main definition). The DSM is not the only medical diagnosis for this disorder just because it is supposedly the "top dog" out of all of them. It is not just "literature" references we had first defining pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children (as it is); those references were also from psychologists who either defined the term (and thus know more about it, as far as I'm concerned) or psychologists who were revolutionary in this field.

That said, I'm not that against your change. I still feel that it should be defined first and foremost as a sexual preference due to the confusion out there about pedophilia, even if we do not attribute those references to a medical diagnosis. I will tweak the lead a bit, adding back the sources you removed, but I'm going to leave it in the order you have put it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, Jack has already reverted your entire change to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to make a big deal of it, it just seemed like a major change to a section we've discussed a lot. Jenever, as Flyer mentioned, please review the talk page archives for discussions about the lead section. If there are some useful changes, I'm open to improvements; it's just that there has been so much controversy about this I thought it better to take some time and discuss major changes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Flyer kind of nailed it but just to sum up, diagnostic manuals are guidelines and not necessarily the absolute definition based on their criteria (note "clinical judgement" is mentioned in the DSM). And after all, there are multiple standards and methods of diagnosis. The overall subject in its medical context still has a pretty basic definition (that is, the sexual preference for young children) and there is a section on the diagnostic aspect that covers this is greater detail.Legitimus (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will state, like I've always stated, that I feel that the DSM is clear in showcasing pedophilia as a sexual preference in its definition in the way that it describes it; it is just that it does not outright state pedophilia as a sexual preference. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And to be fair, we are using the World Health Organization's definition of pedophilia first (which is definitely a medical diagnosis, as it compiles the widely-followed ICD-10 that you mentioned above, Jenever). Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern about the current revision is that inappropiate sources are being used to define the diagnostic criteria, resulting in an incorrect definition of pedophilia in the article. I understand that pedophilia has many meanings outside of the medical community (especially in Netherlands), but in a psychological and medical article we should be clear we're discussing a paraphilia and we should be clear about what that paraphilia is. I feel the terminology used in the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV should be used exclusively when discussing the medical definition.

Pedophilia isn't only a preference for pre-pubescent children, that is one part of the diagnosis. A patient can also not be diagnosed with pedophilia if they 'only' have the preference and may engage in child sexual abuse, because anyone may do anything.

To be diagnosed with pedophilia, a patient must have already acted on his or her preference for prepubscent children, or the preference must cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

I suggest a compromise, using the sources supported by Jack while maintaining the accurate DSM/ICD definition. Is there a way to submit a suggested introduction, without changing the article? Jenever Spirit (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page here is how to suggest a new introduction. Just post your proposal in block quotes (use indentation to set it apart somehow)

But to address your concern, the ICD does not mention action or distress at all. As a matter of fact, diagnosis in professions using the DSM does not always require action or distress either, as these criteria (as previously stated) are just guidelines. Ah, if only diagnosis were so easy that we only needed checklists! Adhering too strictly to such guidelines creates an accidental "loophole" patient population, an "egosyntonic non-offending pedophile," that is, a person who is sexually attracted to children, feels no remorse or distress at this attraction, and has not sexually assaulted a child. Such a person is not very likely to have contact with the mental health system because they are not distressed nor do they have legal action forcing them to go, but can still be medically classified as a pedophile nonetheless based on careful clinical judgement made case-by-case. Diagnosis can also indicate they are "high risk" for committing offenses.

Legitimus (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jenever, I only slightly understand your problem with the lead, because I only see a slight issue. You say that your concern is that the current revision is using inappropriate sources to define the diagnostic criteria, resulting in an incorrect definition of pedophilia in this article. But I must say that nothing is incorrect about the definition of pedophilia in this article. Plus, as stated, we are using the ICD-10 first, along with sources from prominent psychologists in the pedophilia field who I do not find at all inappropriate for defining pedophilia in the lead. We first define it as a sexual preference, which it is. However, I get your concern about the part of that sentence that says and has engaged or may engage in child sexual abuse, since we are not using the DSM or ICD-10 for that part at all. But the thing is, we can attribute the DSM reference to that part, considering that the DSM includes acting on intense sexual urges towards children. Even though I do not feel that child sexual abuse needs to be mentioned in the first part of the lead, anyway, considering that pedophilia is more about what goes on in the mind of the offender than the action of child sexual abuse and we mention child sexual abuse later in the lead, we were careful with how we worded the child sexual abuse part. We put the word and instead or because stating or has engaged in child sexual abuse can lead people to think that a person is simply diagnosed with pedophilia due to having sexually abused a child or that that can be thought of as true pedophilia. We put and has engaged or may engage in child sexual abuse so that people do not quickly assume that the person must have the sexual preference and has acted on that sexual preference, when, really, they can only have the sexual preference but not have acted on it and still be a pedophile. The rest of the lead, we then state that some child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia, which they do not. We then go into the DSM definition. We then go into the non-medical/non-diagnosis definitions after that. This is hardly any different than what you did, minus tiny changes and except that the DSM is not used first. Yes, pedophilia is not only a sexual preference; that is one part of the diagnosis, which is why we go into a little more of the diagnosis by using the DSM right after that.

Again, I'm not that against your version of the lead, where you use the DSM definition first; I just wanted to make a few tweaks to the rest of the lead you changed.

In addition to my reasons, Legitimus gave good reasons for keeping the lead as we currently have it. But Legitimus is also right that you should post any proposed revision of the lead you have here on the talk page first. I am definitely open to seeing any revision you propose for this lead, even your first revision (as I've already stated).

That's pretty much how I feel about this matter regarding the current lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to attempt to merge the definitions in the DSM-IV and ICD-10, but I made that mistake too. I still think it is inappropiate to use non-diagnostic sources, but if they fit with the diagnostic manuals I suppose they are okay. Here is my suggested introduction.

The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular.

There is no agreed definition within the medical or psychological communitiy. According to the DSM-IV-TR, pedophilia is a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences intense, recurring, sexually arousing fantasies or urges involving prepubescent children and has acted on the urges or experiences marked distress or interpersonal difficulty as a result of the fantasies or urges. According to the ICD-10, p(a)edophilia is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age. Some offenders do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. In strictly behavioral contexts, the term can be applied to the act of child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".

In law enforcement...Jenever Spirit (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the line "There is no agreed definition..." come across as misleading. It makes it sound like there is a bitter debate about what pedophilia is in the broadest sense, when it's generally agree that it's a sexual preference for children. The DSM is simply more specific. I feel that the points you are trying to make may better served further down. By the way, there's no need to keep inserting the DSM cite again; it already exists and can be inserted using this code:

However, I also ponder the lead now and it does read a bit awkwardly. Here's my suggestion:

The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular.

As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for children. According to the DSM, pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse; however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia. In strictly behavioral contexts, the term can be applied to the act of child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".

Legitimus (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your introduction is good. It appears to cover everyone's concerns. Jenever Spirit (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new lead as well. But why the removal of the fourth (which was actually the the second) reference beside pedophilia being a sexual preference? Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added that reference back. It's now the third reference beside pedophilia being a sexual preference. If a good reason for not using it is given, even though we are using the others that are not from a diagnostic manual, I'd be okay with removing it, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean Okami. Eh, I never liked that source. Okami has, well, a bit a reputation shall we say. And certain people really like that particular article [1]. On a positive note, we do have many other good sources supporting that assertion though. If we nix it, I can try and find a better replacement.Legitimus (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Okay, thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Okami from the article based on this discussion. It appears it was added on May 7 by a user who has since been blocked for questionable pedophilia-related editing. In addition to NAMBLA, that Okami paper is cited by a variety of pedophile websites, as can be seen from a quick Google search of the paper title. The removal of that footnote does not diminish this article or change any of the content significantly. If anyone considers that the Okami source should be kept in the article, it should only be added if there is a particular page number and quote showing what part of it is supporting the text. It should not be added as simply a "general" source. Most people don't have access to the content of the paper, therefore if it's used, the person adding it should provide some context to verify the relevance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info as well, Jack. Definitely not opposed to it being removed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I extracted a quote and added it back in one place, where I feel it has merit. I find the argument that some orgs that we don't like have quoted him invalid. Anomalous external factors do not discredit the source. forestPIG^(grunt) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that particular narrowly-specified use of the source. But it is a controversial source that does not have wide acceptance, so it should not be used to support the larger defining concepts in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the word prepubescent was missing from the first part of the new lead in this article defining pedophilia. I just added it back in. We all know (or at least we all should know) how important that part is, considering that a lot of people see teenagers as children as well and that some people (though I don't know how) confuse pedophilia with even an adult having a sexual attraction to a 17-year-old (I vehemently hate this confusion), as if there is any real physical difference age-wise between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old. It's just one of my pet peves (something that irks me greatly), and has been been since I was 14 and first started studing psychology, etc. Yes, I would think that when most people think of children, they think of actual children, like 8-year-olds, but, as I stated, some people include teenagers (all teenagers under 18) in the definition of children. The law especially does, and thus we must be clear in the lead of this article at all times that pedophilia is the sexual preference to prepubescent children (even though I'd still call an adult being sexually interested in a child who has recently undergone precocious puberty a pedophile). Flyer22 (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Biological correlations

According to the section about biological correlations, Blanchard and Cantor used men who met "the medical definition of preference, not the behavioral definition used by other sources". The sexologists actually used men who had been convicted of child sexual abuse, so they were using the behavioralist definition of pedophilia, not the medical definition. I will correct the article. Jenever Spirit (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct; not everyone in the studies had been convicted of child sexual abuse. Because we are talking about the results of my own research, I will not edit that section, but I would caution you to read our studies before making what you believe to be a correction. If you do not have access to the orignal studies, I would be happy to copies to you. — James Cantor (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It does sound weird that their findings linked pedophilia, as in the behavioralist definition, with brain structure and function. The only way that is not weird is if those men had/have a genuine sexual interest in prepubescent children. If James Cantor is right that not everyone in those studies had been convicted of child sexual abuse, then it should specify that both the sexual preference and behavioralist definition were linked to brain structure and function. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have access to it. And James is right. Criminal conviction was not a specific criteria and indeed the diagnosis was established through multiple sources and means (that's quite normal for this type of study). I am of the opinion that neither parenthetical specifier is necessary, as the insertion is awkward and seems like it's trying to make excuses. Legitimus (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have access to abstracts and some full articles. I originally used a news article as my source for the edit, which was stupid considering my views on using only a small number of specialist sources for medical articles. I should have looked at the abstracts of your research before making the edit. The abstracts show that you used phallometric testing, interviews with test subjects and admissions or records of child sexual abuse as indicators of pedophilia. Were you using the DSM-IV-TR definition? Jenever Spirit (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all; the media often have trouble getting these kinds of things right. You might find the summaries on my website helpful. To answer your question: No, we rarely if ever use the DSM definition of pedophilia in our research; the DSM definition is extremely poor. The definition proposed by Kurt Freund produces far more reliable research findings, so is probably the superior description of the construct. — James Cantor (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I bristled initially at the DSM comment, but you know, you're right. The DSM misses the mark for research purposes (see my remarks above about the "loophole" problem). However, I wouldn't say it's poor or useless overall, merely its scope and purpose are different. I think it was primarily aimed at a clinical setting, wherein distress and harm are the focus.Legitimus (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to diagnoses made for forensic or insurance purposes, clinicians can sometimes be bound by DSM criteria. That's not true for researchers, however; scietists could ever develop improved criteria if they were limited to the existing ones. The DSM must always follow from science, never the other way aroud. — James Cantor (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What could be added to this article and other thoughts

I believe that the diagnosis isn't stressed enough in this article. I once learned that any disorder has to somehow cause significant enough problems in the life of the person with the disorder, or to someone else, to be classified as such. Is there anything on this website that discusses research of people who have attraction to adolescences but do not act on these feelings? I'm curious about this. If not, is this article balanced? Perhaps there simply isn't enough research done on this subject? Is the case that so many people are afraid to talk that researchers can't find enough information to go on? I think it could be the same thing with females who are attracted to adolescences. I also once read studies showing men are more likely to rape or assault others, and given that this article claims most research is done on criminals we must know a very small fraction of information on this subject as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.15.66 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added the last unsigned topic. Sorry if what I mentioned was already gone over. I've looked around the talk page and I can't find anything specific. So I'm just basing my opinions on the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.15.66 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. This article is about pedophilia -- the sexual preference of adults or older adolescents to prepubescent children. This article is not about the sexual attraction to adolescents; it rather just notes in the lead (intro) that sometimes people basically, well, disregard the correct use of the term or confuse the term to also mean a sexual attraction to adolescents.

A sexual attraction to adolescents is not a mental disorder, unless, for example, we are talking about a 13-year-old who has not or has barely hit puberty (as in the puberty is not noticeable because it has just begun). 18-year-olds are adolescents, for example, but are also considered adults. Regarding age, how could one possibly distinguish the physical difference between a 16-year-old and a 18-year-old, other than knowing their ages? This is why a sexual attraction to teenagers is generally not considered a mental disorder by the medical community. Also remember that if it truly were a mental disorder, there would not be any age of consent laws in the United States that allow legal adults to engage in sex with any teenager under 18; that would basically be allowing child sexual abuse and pedophilia...if teenagers were truly considered children and a sexual attraction to teenagers was truly considered a mental disorder.

We do have the article Ephebophilia; that is more of what you are looking for. But that article is not about the random sexual attraction to adolescents; it is about the sexual preference for adolescents. I hope that helps (though the Ephebophilia article needs a lot of work). Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The sexual preference for young adolescents (persons ages 11-14 or so) is hebephilia. Comments might be made on that page. As a general note, it is often useful to ignore what is (and is not) legal and what is (and is not) officially categorized as a mental disorder when writing these pages. That is, it is easier to write NPOV articles on pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, and teleiophilia by treat them as purely as descriptions; discussions about what should be illegal and what should be considered a mental illness are necessarily value judgments. — James Cantor (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, James. I only bring up the legal aspects in this case because that is what causes people to confuse ephebophilia with pedophilia. The fact that individuals are not classified as adults until they turn 18. As I've brought up before, Mark Foley was branded a pedophile by the media and by people unfamiliar with what pedophilia truly is (which also includes some of that media). Had all the teenagers he was sexually soliciting been 18, I highly doubt that he would have been branded a pedophile. I bring up legal aspects and what is considered a mental disorder because it is relevant to these topics and gets my point across quite well. Flyer22 (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

EL added on MRI research

I have added an external link to a non-technical article on MRI research on pedophilia. Because I am the author of that article, I thought it appropriate to note that here, so that other editors could check it for relevance. — James Cantor (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I give thumbs up on this, as it's just science (not politics) and is presented well with proper sourcing. It was also easier to read, and therefore I think it is beneficial to this article. Only problem I noted was with formatting: It would not load in Firefox, only in Internet Explorer.Legitimus (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I also give thumbs up to this. Though the problem Legitimus pointed out is, well, a problem, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look into the compatability problem. I've replaced the link with a more universally compatable one. Thanks again. — James Cantor (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned that the sampling techniques (criminal behavior, self-report) did not properly represent the definition of pedophile in the lead of the article. forestPIG^(grunt) 11:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I was thinking of an old revision that now appears to have gone. But still, the sample cannot be deemed properly representative of the population of people qualifying for the diagnosis of pedophilia. Behavioral aspects in sampling cast serious doubts on that. forestPIG^(grunt) 19:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article should be divorced from the criminal behavior material.

I've noticed a inconsistency in how these articles on sexual orientation are written, homophilia and heterophilia do not have large sections on the behavior and characteristics of sexual offenders and persons with psychological problems. In the pedophilia article, there is however almost only material on this. The displays what I believe is a cultural bias which is very improper and gives a very misleading picture of reality. The fact is that we do not know very much about pedophiles who are non-offenders or outside of legal and therapy settings. To maintain balance, the reader should be aware of this fact and I believe this is achieved most efficiently by moving the material to a new or existing article on sexual offenders towards children. The material on pedophiles with mental problems can instead be moved to articles on the particular problems that they experience. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that unlike your two cited examples, pedophilia is medically considered to be a mental illness.Legitimus (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not in itself. Only forms which causes distress. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to voice your opinion BEFORE I make major changes to the entire article. It will be easier if we agree from the start. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All material relating to criminal, behavioral, clinical, self-report samples, etc should be treated with great care. All such materials are highly speculative when used as a commentary on pedophilia in general, with much of it being highly doubtful, even for diagnostic pedophilia. forestPIG^(grunt) 19:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, how do you think this material should be dealt with? I suggest moving it to other more relevant articles and maintaining a much shorter article instead. I think this would better reflect the state of knowledge on this topic (which is very weak). Glenn Stokowski (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of information, distress is not required for it to be a mental illness. Acting on those impulses is also diagnostic, and with some professionals this includes the use of child pornography. In most industrialized nations, such actions are criminal acts.

You are also pointing out a somewhat paradoxical model: A person with a given sexual attraction is inherently driven to act on that attraction. Sex is, after all, one of the most primal of drives along with eating and sleeping. A person lacking a drive to act on such an attraction is arguable not attracted at all, and thereby, not a pedophile.Legitimus (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't in any way say what is and what is not a mental illness. It only says what is diagnosed as mental illness, which is quite a different thing. Besides, DSM does have little or no scientific validity today, it should be regarded as perhaps little more than a cultural curiosity, at any rate, there is no scientific support behind the idea that pedophilia is a mental illness. Given this current state of knowledge, this fact should be reflected in the wiki-articles by making sure that the material is balanced. At this point, the article is very unbalanced and gives impressions about pedophilia in general which is based on a very problematic minority of pedophiles (mostly criminal and/or psychological unhealthy ones). Glenn Stokowski (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's patently absurd. DSM means Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and is one of the backbones of clinical practice, and is a standard of guidelines by which mental illness is defined in diagnosis and treatment. You have revealed a massive and misguided bias by calling it scientifically invalid. You have offered no sources nor basis for such a charge. And you conveniently failed to address the paradox you appear to be trumpeting.Legitimus (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is scientifically valid if it meets the standard of science. It might seem meaningless to point this out, but in this case it bears significance. For example, the definintion of pedophilia is so bad that it is almost useless in actual scientific practice. Second, a diagnosis should only exist if it has some practical importance (this is one of their own criteria), when it comes to pedophilia, this is not the case. Diagnosis someone with pedophilia gives no useful information as far as treatment goes, it turns no wheels, it does practically nothing. All treatments today are dealing with other issues, for example bad impulse control, depression, lowering general sex-drive etc. There is little or no scientific evidence behind it aswell, this has been pointed out many times in the scientific literature. (see Moser, Charles and Peggy J. Kleinplatz, "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal," paper presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual conference, San Francisco, California, May 19, 2003.) Then we can add various circumstantial support to the uncientific nature of the DSM, the removal of homosexuality is the usual example, which where done for political purposes according the Spitzer himself. At any rate, claiming that the DSM is scientifically valid today is a very strong claim with very weak scientific support. It should not be regarded as more than a cultural courioisty in regards to pedophilia. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We could argue the DSM til we're blue in the face, you're missing the point. Pedophilia has multiple definitions in this article. It is, at its most base definition, a sexual preference for prepubescent children. By its very nature, it is a disorder no matter how you want to analyze it. It is a deep, primal drive towards actions that are both illegal and dangerous. Again I must point out the paradox: No drive, no pedophilia. A person who is 40 years old, married with children, and has never once sexually assaulted a child or ever used child pornography in their entire lifetime is going to be a hard sell to be classified as a pedophile.Legitimus (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your only point is that the mass of people have a certain view and even if it is wrong, this is what Wikipedia should say. Your view is however inconsistent with actual practice here on Wikipedia. Reading the article on God, it is not assumed that God exist despite that this being the most popular view in the world today. So tell me, should we write the majority opinion or the scientifically informed one instead? Your example shows one the problems with DSM, if he is attracted towards children, most researchers would classify him as a pedophile while DSM would not.Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Stokowski, your description of pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" (in your first edit at 10:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)), and your analogy comparing pedophilia to homosexuality in your DSM comment (17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)), are well outside the mainstream and have been rejected by the scientific community. Pedophilia-as-sexual-orientation has been confirmed by wide consensus among Wikipedia editors as a fringe theory. It is a claim routinely found in literature promoted by pro-pedophile activists and as such is discussed in that article, not this one.

By the way, describing the very-mainstream DSM as a "cultural courioisty" [sic] (17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)) and stating that the DSM has "little or no scientific validity" (10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)) does not serve you well; those statements are so far afield that they marginalize and undermine whatever points you are trying to make. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So your point is that I'm wrong because you think I'm wrong. If DSM has scientific validity, then please show this. Most researchers would disagree with you on that point so I'm curious what kind of evidence you have to support your claim. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[Reply to Legitimus, Glenn, Jack-A-Roe]

Legitimus - I was not fully aware of who you were replying to. Whilst distress is most certainly not required to satisfy the DSM definition of pedophilia, there must be that specific, long lasting urge. Said urge is not necessary for one to partake in sexual activities with a prepubescent child. Sampling concerns therefore remain, regardless of what prejudice is in popular circulation. Also, to state that "a person with a given sexual attraction is inherently driven to act on that attraction" is a patently incorrect and slightly disturbing take on human sexuality. It fails to separate desire from behaviour, and the desire/fantasy itself may be unrelated to physical contact. Beyond the level of inherent drives, there may also be moral inhibitors.

Jack - whilst it was certainly a bad decision on the part of Glenn Stokowski to make his first edit on this article, the association you draw is inappropriate. The editor does appear to be unaware of how perceptions are likely to develop here, not wanting them to be aired with immediate effect. And whilst the claim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is a fringe theory, it is simply so because it cannot be compared to hetero - homo - sexuality. Pedophilia is primarily a Chronophilia, which is described by various "qualified" individuals as an "orientation", "mental disorder", "aberrance", etc. --forestPIG^(grunt) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig, I am well aware of the difference between pedophilia and child sexual abuse, and that the former is not required for the latter to occur (for example see Holmes 2004) and of the ideosyncratic nature of anylyzing associated criminal behaviors. However, the reseach findings and definitions stands as established by the medical community. Bitch at me all you want, this is what the journals and textbooks and manuals say. Our duty is to report the findings and definitions set forth, not make our own based on personal philosophizing.Legitimus (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the journals and research, you will find a almost universal rejection of the DSM definition, not only by researchers but also by people working with pedophiles in various settings. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Heterophilia and homophilia? LOL! I hardly ever hear/see heterosexuality and homosexuality referred to by those names. In the same way I hardly ever hear/see pedophilia referred to as pedosexuality, though I am sure that is because I do not hang with pedophiles (not knowingly, anyway). Yes, I look at pedophilia as a sexual orientation, because that really is how it seems and is described by experts, in that these pedophiles cannot change their sexual preference for children, in the same way that heterosexual people cannot change their sexual preference for the opposite sex and homosexual people cannot change their sexual preference for the same sex. But pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder, not as a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined as sexually preferring men or women, being sexually attracted to both, or neither. Not as sexually preferring men or women, being sexually attracted to both, or neither, or children.

I also do not believe that anyone is born a pedophile. I do not believe that anyone is born heterosexual or homosexual either. I believe that sexual orientation is a combination of things, and that biology only plays a small part in it.

I do not see a valid reason for not including material on pedophiles with mental problems in this article. Or why, meaning that we would need to create these articles, it should instead be moved to articles on the particular problems that they experience. Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder, despite it being like a sexual orientation. It is only natural that we include material on pedophiles with mental problems in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

These are just cultural expressions, there is no way to prove if it is a orientation or not. Same goes for homosexuality or any other sexual variation. The whole article is written as if it is a disorder, which is a view that has basically no scientific support at all. It's similar to write an article on quantum physics based on the popular view of physics rather than informed scientific opinion. The entire article rests on false assumptions. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple actually. If there is scientific evidence showing that pedophilia is a disorder, then someone should be able to show this evidence. If it is not possible, then either it is a false claim, or a claim which cannot be settled with a scientific approach. In either case, the article should be rewritten. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And, what, you want this article rewritten to act as though pedophilia is not a mental disorder, even though it is defined that way by the medical community? You can talk "scientific" all you want. But this topic is in the medical community's hands. Just as rockets are left to the scientists. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And, oh, the scientific community is pretty much in agreement that sexual orientation exists, just as they do not believe that pedophilia is something simply made up in fairy tale land. Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Legitimus, Jack and Flyer. Pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder by the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organisation, so claims that pedophilia is a sexual orientation do not belong in a medical article. I do agree that some of the statements which refer to sex offenders but not pedophiles are inappropriate for this article because not all perpetrators meet the diagnostic criteria for the disorder which is explained here, but those facts are appropriate for the child sexual abuse article so a new article is not needed. Glenn: please remember that according to most medical experts, all pedophiles have mental health problems because pedophilia is a mental disorder. The article must reflect the views of the medical community. Jenever Spirit (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)