Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Frances blog

I reverted this edit because the source was a blog (low quality under WP:MEDRS) and because the text exaggerated its certainty (Frances only says it's his "understanding"). The ICD-11 might drop the "early pubertal" wording, but we should wait until that's finalized or reported in a more reliable source. KateWishing (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. As you know, I've also reverted the IP. And tried to get communicate with the IP on his talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for Category:Hebephilia and Category:Films about hebephilia

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#NEW NOMINATIONS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Connected contributor

Hi, folks. I have made some changes to the mainpage. Because some of this cites me, I have added the "connected contributor" template above. The specific edits in which I am in COI and should be checked are:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebephilia&diff=next&oldid=773800269
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebephilia&type=revision&diff=773804330&oldid=773803973

— James Cantor (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the edits you made here, here, here, here, here, here and here, I made this, this, this, this and this and this edit as a result. I know that you probably don't like the DSM-5 heading, but just about all of the material in that section concerns the DSM-5, which makes the DSM-5 heading more accurate. Also, the vast majority of sources on this topic pertain to the DSM-5 because this topic got most of its publicity during the "Will it go into DSM-5?" talk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions! I don't dislike the heading, I just thought the relevant issue was official medical status, which spans both manuals. Also, in my head, I was already planning on adding material pertinent to the ICD-10 (and upcoming -11). But I have no issue with DSM being the section header.— James Cantor (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's been mentioned before, but, given your COI regarding Karen Franklin, it's best that you avoid editing material pertaining to her. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do prefer to avoid material pertaining to her, but sometimes find it unavoidable, so fall back on the alternative of clearly labelling and disclosing it, and calling attention to it. None of your above tweaks pertain to any text involving her, so I take your advice to mean 'in theory' rather than any specific problem with any actual edit. I nonetheless take your suggestion as a productive one, and will continue to avoid text that mentions Franklin, short of a complete self-ban.— James Cantor (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: I think you were the one who added the following sentence (though it was tweaked by me and/or another afterward): "While individuals with a sexual preference for adults may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals, researchers and clinical diagnoses have proposed that hebephilia is characterized by a sexual preference for pubescent rather than adult partners." I'm not sure why you removed it. It does help people better understand what hebephilia is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

lol It is indeed quite possible I help write it! I just thought it was (or became) redundant with what was appearing in the preceding sentences of the lede. I have no issue if you'd like to re-add it.— James Cantor (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: Hebephilia, is a primary attraction to pubescent males or females, or both. ICD-10 only covers early pubertal age, which is roughly age 11-12. ICD-10 does not cover mid pubescent, roughly age 12-13, nor late pubescence, roughly age 13-14, in its definition of paedophilia. Therefore, it is misleading and false to state the concept of hebephilia is contained within the ICD-10, it is not. So this should be deleted in my view. It seems James Cantor is, confusing adolescence with pubescence in his academic papers, and is then importing this mistake into this Wikipedia article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Cantor has argued that the ICD-10 includes hebephilia because it includes "early pubertal" age. He's not stating that the ICD-10 covers the age range of 11-14, but rather that it does include hebephilia to a degree. Given that pubertal development varies, and that one cannot, for example, validly tell a 14-year-old apart from a 15-year-old, the cut-off points can be arbitrary. That's why the overlap aspect is mentioned in the lead with a source. With this edit (follow up edit here and here), I re-added material (which Cantor removed) lower in the article about the overlap. I didn't re-add all of it, though, and I tweaked it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where the article currently states that the ICD-10 includes hebephilia, unless you are pointing to some argument by Cantor that I overlooked in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, going by the edit you are pointing to, you are talking about an argument that Cantor made. Cantor's arguments are allowed, just like the others' arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe WP:NPA's like Literaturegeek's are helpful or necessary. And in this case, they don't make much sense either:

• That the ICD language covers "roughly age 11-12" (and what counts as early/mid/late) is Literaturegeek's own WP:OR. It is not what the RS's say, and Literaturegeek cites no RS of their own.
• That hebephilia is an ICD diagnosis is contained in very many RS's (my own as well as others'). Literaturegeek cites no RS of otherwise.
• That I am widely acknowledged as one of the top authorities in the world on this topic does not put me beyond error. But for Literaturegeek to claim that I (and a dozen peer reviewed pubs in the top journals on the topic) are all wrong, whereas Literaturegeek is correct (on the basis of no evidence at all) speaks for itself.
• I didn't change the age range given on the mainpage; I maintained what's already long been there. Whatever issue LIteraturegeek has with that age, it long precedes these edits (making the NPA's in response to my edits all the more irrational).

— James Cantor (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi James Cantor, There was no personal attack. Pointing out what appeared to be a mistake is not a personal attack. I did not attack you personally or as a person... I said you made a mistake, you said I make no sense, just opinions between two editors. You seem quite annoyed, I apologise if I could have worded my thoughts better. I was not intentionally engaging in WP:NOR, I was actually working under the definition given in this article that pubescent children, is defined as children roughly ages 11-14, so I assumed pubescence is complete by about age 15 in typical adolescents. James Cantor, I have little knowledge of this subject matter or the publications. It does seem likely that I have made a misinterpretation of the definition of puberty when reading the introduction of this article and apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Flyer, I think the ICD is very justified to describe a sexual preference for early pubertal aged children as paedophilia. Still not convinced ICD-10 fully covers hebephilia, in that 14 year olds are beyond early pubertal age, or maybe I am wrong... I understand now better where James Cantor is coming from. I think my mistake has been I formed an incorrect opinion about the definition of puberty, and I got it into my head that James Cantor was POV pushing, when he is not, and I was perhaps a little cheeky in my interaction with James Cantor, for which I apologise. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. (There is indeed room for debate over what the boundaries of puberty should be, but what I found unnecessary and objectionable was to assert "James Cantor is, confusing adolescence with pubescence in his academic papers, and is then importing this mistake...". I take it from your striking-through and then reinstating it, that that sentence stuck out to you too.) — James Cantor (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Puberty being roughly ages 11 to 15 is kind of what the article is stating on the pubertal range. The article notes, with a source, that "on average, girls begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 11 or 12." By age 15 or 16, most people are close to post-pubescent or are post-pubescent, depending on how puberty is defined. More is in the Puberty article, of course. Precocious puberty and delayed puberty also exist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: WP:NOR notes that the policy does not apply to talk pages. As long as OR is not in the article, OR on the talk page is not a big deal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Cantor's latest edits (the ones after my "01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)" post above), I see that he hadn't removed the overlap material from the article; he'd simply moved it lower. After my edit that added the material back to the "Etymology, definitions and history" section, this, however, made the material redundant. Cantor has cut the redundancy by rewording the initial paragraph of the Overview section in the DSM-5 debate section. So all is okay on that front.

Cantor, I'm not sure how I feel about you again moving the "Use in American civil commitment proceedings" section out of the DSM-5 debate section since that topic does concern the DSM-5 debate, but your cuts to it (which mainly consisted of moving the material) have made it less about that debate, and the "Responses" and "Variation of normal" sections take care of the legal aspects (the "diagnosing sex offenders" aspects) regarding the debate anyway. And the following sentence leads nicely into the section about the debate: "In a 2015 essay, historian and philosopher of science Patrick Singy locates the hebephilia debate and Sexually Violent Predator laws in the broader context of modern liberal thought." Yes, the "Use in American civil commitment proceedings" section doesn't begin with the DSM-5 debate, but I simply considered that part to be context for the what the rest of the section stated before your cuts to it.

As for this bit you removed, with the explanation that "adolescence is not the pertinent issue; puberty is", I don't really see the inclusion of that text as a problem since the start of adolescence is usually based on the beginning of puberty, and since adolescence covers the pubescents in addition to the post-pubescents. I don't think that readers would have thought that Ewing was talking about post-pubescents; we do make it clear in the article what hebephilia is, after all. Ewing stating that the proposed diagnosis was rejected in one United States federal court in 2009 for being a label, not a "generally accepted mental disorder" and because a mere attraction to adolescents is not indicative of a mental disorder seems like something that should be mentioned, unless he's wrong. We can easily remove the "because a mere attraction to adolescents is not indicative of [a] mental disorder" part if it's truly problematic. But if it's what the court stated, it should be included, no matter if they were not completely accurate in their view of hebephilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, regarding this, I don't think it was an "unnecessary claim that pubescent children are under the age of consent in the U.S." Rather, it was stating that "Zander noted that the diagnosis would incorporate age ranges in which sexual activities were legal under age of consent laws within the United States." In other words, it was stating that the age of consent in the United States varies and is not always age 18. That stated, your removal was probably for the best since the age of consent in the United States is usually ages 16-18, and those ages fall under the post-pubescent range more than they do the pubescent range. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I re-added this bit about the court in 2009, per above. This is not something we should leave out. As seen with that edit summary, I noted that the source clarifies with "pubescent adolescents," not just "adolescents." The source is clear that the court was made aware of the fact that the focus of the diagnosis is on pubescents. I also added a bit more from the source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here), I noted, per the source, some courts have accepted the hebephilia diagnosis while others have not.

On a side note: I know that parts of the article currently link an article more than once, which is at conflict with WP:Overlinking (unless the first instance of the link occurs in the lead). But WP:Overlinking makes clear that this is a general rule, not an absolute rule. These terms are important and it serves the reader to make sure that they see them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

age of girls in the Tanner-stages

Obvious troll not interested in serious discussion, using a non-existant meta-analysis, to push pro-paedophilia agenda

Girls are typically with 9 to 12 years in the Tanner-stages 2 and 3 and typically with 12 to 14 years in Tanner-stage 4. Some girls are earlier and some girls are later in these Tanner-stages, but these are the typical values. This is contrary to what scientists like Blanchard, Seto and Cantor write, but it is nevertheless the truth. Girls are with 9 to 12 years in Tanner-stages 2 and 3 of breast-development and with 10 to 12 years in Tanner-stages 2 and 3 of pubic-hair-development but there is a consensus in science that the breast-development is seen as the start of puberty. So girls start puberty typically with 9 years. Puberty is a multidimensional process and breast-development starts before pubic-hair-development. Let´s have a look at the study from Susman et al. (2010): Longitudinal Development of Secondary Sexual Characteristics in Girls and Boys Between Ages 9½ and 15½ Years. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164 (2) 166-173. In this study from the USA the values for reaching the Breast-stages are B2 9,8 years, B3 11,3, B4 12,7 and B5 14,2. The girls of this study were born about 27 years ago and puberty starts earlier and earlier. If you subtract about 0,3 years of the values just given you probably (but this is speculation) have the values of the girls who enter puberty now. Seto wrote that adolescents in Tanner-stage 4 are typically 15 to 17 years old (see Seto (2016): The Puzzle of Male Chronophilias). This is fake science, to my knowledge there is not one study published since 1990 or later for just one developed country were girls enter Tanner-stage 4 with 15 years or later. I am writing that to show that it is not possible to rely on scientists like Blanchard, Seto and Cantor in this issue because they don´t handle this topic scientifically. The sentence written here "On average, girls begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11" is wrong. It is important to look at rather new studies (not studies from the 1970is or so) and it is important to ignore studies who give the mean/median values of the girls in the specific Tanner-stages because girls reach the beginning of the specific Tanner-stages much earlier because Tanner-stages lasts about 1,5 years. In most studies published since 2000 girls reach the beginning of Tanner-stage 2 of breast development with 9 years. In some studies with 8 years, in some studies with 10 years, but with big advance in most studies with 9 years. I am only aware of one rather new study from Kazakhstan were girls reach this stage with 11 years. In the last months I did it seems the first meta-analysis about the ages of girls and boys in the Tanner-stages. Don´t know when the 63-pages will be translated into English and published but all those Tanner-studies are already published in peer-reviewed magazines and these studies have the result that girls typically enter Tanner-stage 2 of breast-development with 9 years. So girls are typically with 9 to 12 years and not typically with 11 to 14 years in Tanner-stages 2 and 3 and this should be corrected here. Limitations: What I just described is based on Tanner-studies in English language. It can not be ruled out that studies in other languages have different results. And since Tanner-studies are not done in all countries the results of the existing Tanner-studies may not be representative for the whole world. But these limitations are no reasons to give wrong values here.FilipGermany (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I was very tempted to not reply to you, as others have not replied thus far. But I will go ahead and state that we go by what WP:Reliable sources report, with WP:Due weight. "Due weight" in this case means that we do not give most of our weight to what the minority of sources state. "Early pubescent" is a type of pubescent. Hebephilia is mainly focused on those who look pubescent, not people who have just begun puberty and still look prepubescent. And girls who are clearly pubescent at age 8 are still viewed as girls who have begun puberty early. I have had an issue with Cantor adding the Tanner stages to the lead (Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 2#Going by the Tanner scale for the definition). But he recently added it again, and, as seen above, I changed it to "especially." I will likely remove it again at some point. Either way, the hebephilia age range, as defined by most sources, is 11-14. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC) What is the full reference to the (non-English) meta-analysis?— James Cantor (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I take it that you are asking FilipGermany? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, that's right. — James Cantor (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC) The truth is the truth. The truth is that the big majority of the current Tanner-studies published in peer-reviewed magazines like the famous Tanner-study by Herman-Giddens et al. (1997) "Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young girls seen in office practice: a study from the pediatric research in office settings network" have the result that girls enter Tanner-stage 2 of breast development with 9 years. And there is a consensus in science that Tanner-stage 2 of breast development is the beginning of puberty. So to give the readers here the impression that girls are from 11 to 14 in Tanner-stages 2 and 3 and that girls start puberty with 10 or 11 is a mistake that has to be corrected and sooner or later this mistake will be corrected.FilipGermany (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Years ago, Cantor made a case for going by the Tanner stages and by the pubertal time frame that his camp goes by: Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 1#"Boys begin puberty generally at ages 12-13". As noted above, I will still likely be removing mention of the Tanner stages. But in that linked discussion, Cantor provided sources, and those sources are not from the 70s. Sure, most are from the 90s, but sources today still state that, on average, girls begin begin puberty at age 10. They might be going by old data. But, in comparison, not enough state age 8. Some list age 9. But I repeat that the hebephilia age range that Cantor's group has given, and therefore most sources on the hebephilia age range have given, is 11-14. And hebephilia is not focused as much on peripubescents as it is on those who actually look pubescent. All of that is the truth. Furthermore, the onset of puberty varies across the world. This is clear in the Menarche article, for example (although it's also clear in that article that age 12 is the usual age for menarche). Most of the puberty sources we use are based on western girls and boys. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Once again: The big majority of the current Tanner-studies published in peer-reviewed magazines who look for the age when girls ENTER Tanner-stage 2 of breast development have the result that girls enter this stage with 9 years. The Tanner-study cited by James Cantor from Roche et al. (1995) did not report when girls ENTER this stage. Roche et al. write on page 12: "These ages are, on average, three months later than the true timing of the onset of stages.". By the way the value for B2 given in that study is based on just 8 "white" girls from Ohio. Much better and famous is the Tanner-study by Herman-Giddens et al. (1997) "Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young girls seen in office practice: a study from the pediatric research in office settings network" which had 17.077 participants from all parts of the USA. In that study girls enter Tanner-stage 2 of breast development with 9 years. It is the result of my metaanaylsis that of those Tanner-studies published in peer-reviewed magazines who look for the age when girls ENTER Tanner-stage 2 of breast development with girls born 1990 or later 21 studies have the result 9 years, 3 studies 8 years, 8 studies 10 years and 1 study 11 years. No matter how one computes mean or median values for the studies or the countries: girls enter Tanner-stage 2 of breast development typically with 9 years. And there is a consensus in science that girls in Tanner-stage 2 of breast development are seen as pubescent. Pubic hair development for example starts typically one year later. "Sure, most are from the 90s, but sources today still state that, on average, girls begin begin puberty at age 10." Often in science it needs some time until the current research finds it´s way into big books like the once cited here in a footnote Kail et al. (2010): Human Development: A Lifespan View. This book describes on page 296 the results of Tanner-stages using a source from 1991. This source from 1991 is missing in the reference list, but the girls studies for this source were born in the 1970is or earlier, probably in the 1960is. "But I repeat that the hebephilia age range that Cantor's group has given, and therefore most sources on the hebephilia age range have given, is 11-14." Cantors group gives this age range 11-14 years for the Tanner-stages 2 and 3 all the time, yes. But I can only repeat that this age range for the Tanner-stages 2 and 3 is not scientifically developed and wrong. "And hebephilia is not focused as much on prepubescent's as it is on those who actually look pubescent." It is your point of view that "hebephilia" is about minors who look pubescent (in cloths). Lots of scientists like Allen Frances or James Cantor have a different point of view. I was surprised when I read this opinion from you. Most articles I read see "hebephilia" as a preference for minors in the Tanner-stages 2 and 3. Most articles I knew write that "hebephilia" is a preference for persons at the BEGINNING of puberty and not for persons who look pubertal. You may have a different point of view but a) keep in mind that lots of sexual scientists have a different point of view and b) be careful to see your point of view as the truth. There is no objective truth about the age range of "hebephilia". "Hebephilia" is a mental construct that like Easter bunny does not exist in reality. "Furthermore, the onset of puberty varies across the world." Of course, nobody wrote anything else. But in the USA and internationally girls enter Tanner-stage 2 of breast development typically with 9 years. So several sentences in this "hebephilia"-article here are wrong and have to be corrected and will be corrected - sooner or later.FilipGermany (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC) I ask again: What is the full citation to this (non-English) meta-analysis? — James Cantor (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC) FilipGermany, I stated that "hebephilia is not focused as much on peripubescents as it is on those who actually look pubescent" because it would hardly be any different than pedophilia. Notice that I stated "peripubescent," not "prepubescent." I have discussed the pubertal matter with Cantor multiple times. Cantor's group is perhaps mainly focused on early pubescents. But if hebephilia were only concerned with early pubescents, the age range would not be 11-14. Furthermore, we would state "in the early years of puberty" in the lead, like we used to do before it was changed after significant discussion. If hebephilia was only about pubescents that look prepubescent, there would not be as much debate about hebephilia as there is. There would not be a "variation of normal" argument. There would be no "sexually mature pubescents" argument in that section. Age 13 or 14 is not early puberty for most girls in today's world. And for many boys, age 13 or 14 is not early puberty. Rather, for both girls and boys, it is mid puberty or close to the end of puberty. The Tanner scale article states that Tanner III means that the "breast begins to become more elevated, and extends beyond the borders of the areola, which continues to widen but remains in contour with surrounding breast (11.5–13)." So that age range is 11-13, which is not much different than the 11-14 age range. And the lead currently states "especially those showing Tanner stages 2-3 of development." Hebephilia includes early pubescent children, but also mid-pubescents. The hebephiles are sexually attracted to those who look pubescent, whether in cloths or with no cloths on, which is why the attraction is different from pedophilia. Whether or not hebephilia is a completely distinct category is up for debate; so your "hebephilia is a mental construct that like Easter bunny does not exist in reality" argument is not a new one (well, except for the Easter bunny comparison), but it is identified as a strong sexual interest in pubescents, and it's known that some pubescents look more prepubescent and others look more post-pubsecent. You mentioned "lots of scientists"; well, Richard Green stated, "A cornerstone of the argument for bundling hebephilia with pedophilia is the overlap between interest in prepubertals and pubertals. What of the overlap between hebephiles and teleiophiles (adultophiles)? What of the 50 percent hebephile/50 percent teleiophile?" (Ref. 10, p 586). The source goes on to state, "Indeed, one of the earlier studies found precisely that. Barbaree and Marshall17 examined phallometric responses to pictures of nude females ranging in age from 3 to 24 in 61 child molesters (21 of whom were incest offenders) and a matched group of 22 nonoffenders. Barbaree and Marshall found five distinct phallometric profiles, none of which reflected a unique and distinct preference for adolescents. One of the profiles was characterized by responses to both adolescent and adult stimuli." This is despite the fact that the source also notes that "Hebephilia would now include children in Tanner Stages 2 and 3 (e.g., early development of pubic hair and breasts)." The source also states, "The average age of menarche for American Caucasian females is 13, and other indices of puberty (e.g., pubic hair) emerge earlier, at age 11 for both girls and boys." So this source is stating that age 11 is a common "early puberty" age. It does not at all indicate that age 13 and 14 are "early puberty." Sources like this is why I think it's best to not include the Tanner scale mention in the lead sentence, or maybe not in the lead at all. Pedophilia, as you know, is about those who look prepubescent. Many peripubescent and early pubertal children look prepubescent. As I've told Cantor before, this is no doubt why the ICD-10 includes "early pubertal age" in its definition of pedophilia. We mention the overlap in this Hebephilia article. I'd be interested in seeing a literature report that a pedophile will stop being sexually attracted to a boy at the first sign of pubic hair. I state this because, from what I know of pedophilia, if the boy otherwise looks prepubescent, he is very likely still appealing to the pedophile. There have been cases of pedophiles having early pubertal children shave to maintain their prepubertal appearance. You mentioned hebephilia sources using the words "early pubescent," or focusing on that aspect, but a lot of sources in this article don't. It's also best that you answer Cantor on the citation issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn "Cantor's group is perhaps mainly focused on early pubescents." Cantor`s group defines "hebephilia" as a preference for minors in the Tanner-stages 2 and 3 and this view is the current mainstream view in (western English-speaking) sexual science. I could give you 100 scientific articles that define "ephebophilia" as a preference for minors in Tanner-stage 4 or in the Tanner-stages 4 and 5 but I am not aware of just one article that puts Tanner-stage 4 (as you do) to "hebephilia". Of course you can have every opinion you want but to make this opinion the basis of the wikipedia-"hebephilia"-article is from my point of view undemocratic and against the rules of wikipedia. In current science "pedophilia" is a preference for minors in Tanner-stage 1 and "hebephilia" a preference for minors in Tanner-stages 2 and 3. "Age 13 or 14 is not early puberty for most girls in today's world. And for many boys, age 13 or 14 is not early puberty. Rather, for both girls and boys, it is mid puberty or close to the end of puberty." Current girls are from 12 to 14 years in Tanner-stage 4 of breast development which is the last stage of puberty and with 14 years girls are in Tanner-stage 5 of breast development which means postpuberty. "The Tanner scale article states that Tanner III means that the "breast begins to become more elevated, and extends beyond the borders of the areola, which continues to widen but remains in contour with surrounding breast (11.5–13)." So that age range is 11-13, which is not much different than the 11-14 age range." This is a loss of reality. Do you really believe that this age range is 11-13 just because the "The Tanner scale article states that"? I clicked on the link to look for the source but got the response "page not found". It is strange that you believe a link that does not exist and not listen to someone who did a metaanalysis exactly about that specific question. Girls are (typically) from 11 to 12 in Tanner-stage 3 of breast development. "It's also best that you answer Cantor on the citation issue." I described that James M. Cantor and Michael C. Seto give "ephebophilia"/Tanner-stage 4 in lots of articles the age range 15 to 16/17 years which is fake science. As I wrote it seems there is not just one Tanner-study for just one developed country where girls enter Tanner-stage 4 of breast development with 15 years or later. The truth is that girls enter Tanner-stage 4 of breast development with 12 years. I wonder why James Cantor did not discuss this topic when he wrote after reading my text. I wonder why he does not write that he withdraws this fake age range 15 to 16/17 years. I wonder why he does not admit that his age range 11 to 14 years for Tanner-stage 2 and 3 is not scientifically developed and wrong. If he would have asked me friendly and respectfully I would have answered his question right away like the question from everybody else. FilipGermany (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC) None of what you stated really counters what I argued. You stated that you "could give [me] 100 scientific articles that define 'ephebophilia' as a preference for minors in Tanner-stage 4 or in the Tanner-stages 4 and 5." No, you can't. But you are free to try. You asked, "Do [I] really believe that this age range is 11-13 just because the 'The Tanner scale article states that'"? I don't simply go by what Wikipedia articles state. Wikipedia articles are not WP:Reliable sources. We should look for reliable sources in Wikipedia articles. When it comes to the Tanner scale, I am very familiar with it by now. Ages 11-13 for breast development with regard to stage 3 is supported by numerous reliable sources. For example, this 2005 "Primary Care Tools for Clinicians: A Compendium of Forms, Questionnaires, and Rating Scales for Everyday Practice" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 231, states that stage 3 is "continued enlargement (age 11–13)." It seems I would be wasting time by continuing to discuss this matter with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC) One last time: What is the full citation to this meta-analysis? You have referred to it in multiple posts and make central to your argument, but have not responded to any request to provide the actual citation. — James Cantor (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hebephilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221061358/http://psych.imng.com/fileadmin/content_pdf/cpn/archive_pdf/vol37iss12/70438_main.pdf to http://psych.imng.com/fileadmin/content_pdf/cpn/archive_pdf/vol37iss12/70438_main.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://opd.state.wi.us/htm/ATPracGuides/Training/ProgMaterials/Ch980/Heb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Evolutionary Adaptiveness Of Hebephilia

In primitive foraging societies it's common practice for men to marry and have sex with pubescent girls. It's often claimed that although men in these societies marry young girls these marriages aren't consummated until the girls have completed puberty and they're about 16 or something but this is mostly just PC crap. The most common age girls are married in these societies is about 14 and it's common for men to have sex with girls as young as 12.

Napoleon Chagnon who studied the Yanomamo tribe reported that when girls get to about 12 and have grown breasts all the men in the tribe notice and the girls have to be guarded by their dads or husbands to prevent them getting raped or abducted by raiders. If a girl of this age hasn't got any male protectors she'll be continually sexually harassed and raped by the men and teenage boys. The anthropologist Kenneth Good had similar experiences with the Yanomamo. Good married a prepubertal girl and when she got to about 12 and was displaying breasts he had to guard her from the other men. On one occasion he angrily warned all the men to not touch her while he was away for a few months. They weren't going to wait until she was 16 or 18, she'd come up to puberty and had a pair of boobs so she was good to go in their eyes.

Blanchard actually spoke about this guarding of pubescent girls in one of his papers and tried to use it as evidence that hebephilic preferences are abnormal which makes no sense. The fact pubescent girls in these societies have to be closely guarded just demonstrates how sought after they are by the men and is actually evidence for the normality of hebephilic preferences.

This is nothing unique to the Yanomamo, the same thing happens in other Amazonian tribes such as the Aché, Pumé, Zoé, Kalapalo, and more. It was also observed in the Australian aborginal and Native American tribes before they were destroyed.

We may not approve of these practices in modern societies but they are simply part of the natural human mating system. Girls come up to puberty, sprout breasts to signal that they're approaching reproductive age and ready to start mating, the men then find them attractive, want to have sex with them, and fight each other to win possession of them. Once the girls start reproducing and start using up their reproductive capacity (usually by the late teens) the men start losing interest in them. The girls most sought after by the men are those that have come up to puberty and are ready to start mating but haven't yet started reproducing, which is generally girls about 12-16. Hebephilic and ephebophilic preferences are very natural for men and should not be considered abnormal. The reason they often are is I think a combination of modern taboos over sex with minors and a simple lack of understanding of how the natural human mating system works.PhilAdley (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

PhilAdley, this article is about a primary sexual attraction. It is not about merely some level of sexual attraction to a pubescent, which a man without a preference for pubescents might have at some point in his life. It is not about sexual behavior (although sexual behavior is an aspect). Do keep your opinions that "once the girls start reproducing and start using up their reproductive capacity (usually by the late teens) the men start losing interest in them" and "the girls most sought after by the men are those that have come up to puberty and are ready to start mating but haven't yet started reproducing, which is generally girls about 12-16" off Wikipedia. You have no proof whatsoever for that, and they are ridiculous claims. Going by your logic, all men are hebephiles. There is something to men commonly wanting a woman who has not given birth, but this does not equate to "commonly or usually wanting a 12-year-old or a teenager (a barely there teenager or otherwise)." Furthermore, this article clearly is not just about sexual attraction to pubescent girls. And the "evolutionary adaptiveness" debate is already addressed in the article. With the statements you have made above, you would do well to keep our WP:Child protection policy in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous claims? Really? Please learn some anthropology.PhilAdley (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The evolutionary adaptiveness debate is already addressed in the article.

"Blanchard cited recent research he had conducted regarding the alleged reproductive success of hebephiles, pedophiles and teleiophiles (individuals attracted primarily or exclusively to adults). The results indicated that teleiophiles had more children, and thus more adaptive success than hebephiles, while hebephiles had more success than pedophiles. From this, Blanchard concluded that "there is no empirical basis for the hypothesis that hebephilia was associated with increased reproductive success in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. That speculative adaptationist argument against the inclusion of hebephilia in the DSM cannot be sustained."

Oh, this is laughable. I don't think any serious person expects hebephilic preferences to be adaptive in modern societies. The issue is whether they were adaptive during our recent evolutionary history when we lived in small bands and teen pregnancy was the norm. The answer to that is a clear yes. Girls were typically claimed around puberty so men who didn't find pubescent girls highly attractive and weren't motivated to pursue and compete for them would have lost out to men who did. PhilAdley (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Copy-pasted on behalf of Phil b y ∯WBG^converse at 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

PhilAdley, anthropology has nothing to do with what you are spouting. Not in the way you are spouting it. You are still equating hebephlia with sexual practices and sexual norms, I see. Sighs. Just know that you've been warned. Here at WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, and above on this talk page. Take on this line editing if you want to; do not be surprised when you are WP:Blocked. Wikipedia does not care for your personal views and our talk pages are not forums. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're too emotional over this subject to be objective and aren't suitable to moderate here. PhilAdley (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, everything you posted is your personal opinion until proven otherwise. You need reliable sources. No source, no edit.Legitimus (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, "too emotional" has nothing to do with it. Tired of dealing with POV-pushers with poor logic, on the other hand? Yep. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the points you made PhilAdley are addressed in the article and are subject to academic debate. However, I must say that the claim you made above that most men significantly lose interest in females when they reach their late teens (because you claim their reproductive capacity is less) is utter nonsense. In fact, women, for various reasons, are in their reproductive prime between their late teens and early thirties and are massively attractive to the vast majority of men. And in fact, the large majority of men prefer women in their late teens to thirties.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency between lead sentence definitions

The lead sentence gives three variations of a definition: attraction to pubescents, or to ages 11-14, or to Tanner stages 2-3. The linked Tanner stage article, however, indicates that the age range of 11-14 in boys corresponds instead to Tanner stages 3-4. The two ranges don't align neatly for girls, but ages 11-14 could be between stages 2-4 (going by the Tanner article). — Ruyter (talk • edits) 18:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the Tanner scale has posed problems before. This is why I've stated that it's best removed. Either that, or it should be mentioned lower in the article with regard to one of the researchers commenting on it. Most of the sources on hebephilia give the age range of 11-14. That is what we should primarily follow, while also mentioning the overlap aspect. The lead states "especially those showing Tanner stages 2-3 of development." We know that the hebephile research is focused on men. If most of the men studied thus far are oriented solely toward girls or mostly toward girls, this likely explains the Tanner scale aspect you brought up.

As seen at Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 3#age of girls in the Tanner-stages, I stated the following:

My most recent previous commentary on the Tanner scale in relation to hebephilia, slightly edited.

I have discussed the pubertal matter with Cantor multiple times. Cantor's group is perhaps mainly focused on early pubescents. But if hebephilia were only concerned with early pubescents, the age range would not be 11-14. Furthermore, we would state "in the early years of puberty" in the lead, like we used to do before it was changed after significant discussion. If hebephilia was only about pubescents that look prepubescent, there would not be as much debate about hebephilia as there is. There would not be a "variation of normal variation of normal" argument. There would be no "sexually mature pubescents" argument in that section. Age 13 or 14 is not early puberty for most girls in today's world. And for many boys, age 13 or 14 is not early puberty. Rather, for both girls and boys, it is mid puberty or close to the end of puberty. The Tanner scale article states that Tanner III means that the "breast begins to become more elevated, and extends beyond the borders of the areola, which continues to widen but remains in contour with surrounding breast (11.5–13)." So that age range is 11-13, which is not much different than the 11-14 age range. And the lead currently states "especially those showing Tanner stages 2-3 of development." Hebephilia includes early pubescent children, but also mid-pubescents. The hebephiles are sexually attracted to those who look pubescent, whether in cloths or with no cloths on, which is why the attraction is different from pedophilia. [...] Hebepilia is identified as a strong sexual interest in pubescents, and it's known that some pubescents look more prepubescent and others look more post-pubsecent. Richard Green stated, "A cornerstone of the argument for bundling hebephilia with pedophilia is the overlap between interest in prepubertals and pubertals. What of the overlap between hebephiles and teleiophiles (adultophiles)? What of the 50 percent hebephile/50 percent teleiophile?" (Ref. 10, p 586). The source goes on to state, "Indeed, one of the earlier studies found precisely that. Barbaree and Marshall17 examined phallometric responses to pictures of nude females ranging in age from 3 to 24 in 61 child molesters (21 of whom were incest offenders) and a matched group of 22 nonoffenders. Barbaree and Marshall found five distinct phallometric profiles, none of which reflected a unique and distinct preference for adolescents. One of the profiles was characterized by responses to both adolescent and adult stimuli." This is despite the fact that the source also notes that "Hebephilia would now include children in Tanner Stages 2 and 3 (e.g., early development of pubic hair and breasts)." The source also states, "The average age of menarche for American Caucasian females is 13, and other indices of puberty (e.g., pubic hair) emerge earlier, at age 11 for both girls and boys." So this source is stating that age 11 is a common "early puberty" age. It does not at all indicate that age 13 and 14 are "early puberty." Sources like this is why I think it's best to not include the Tanner scale mention in the lead sentence, or maybe not in the lead at all. Many peripubescent and early pubertal children look prepubescent. As I've told Cantor before, this is no doubt why the ICD-10 includes "early pubertal age" in its definition of pedophilia. We mention the overlap in this Hebephilia article. I'd be interested in seeing a literature report that a pedophile will stop being sexually attracted to a boy at the first sign of pubic hair. I state this because, from what I know of pedophilia, if the boy otherwise looks prepubescent, he is very likely still appealing to the pedophile. There have been cases of pedophiles having early pubertal children shave to maintain their prepubertal appearance." In that discussion, I also stated, "Ages 11-13 for breast development with regard to stage 3 is supported by numerous reliable sources. For example, this 2005 'Primary Care Tools for Clinicians: A Compendium of Forms, Questionnaires, and Rating Scales for Everyday Practice' source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 231, states that stage 3 is 'continued enlargement (age 11–13).'"

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Cause section details

The Cause section, which would appear to be more aptly named Correlates, mentions various correlates but doesn't give any detail of how they are correlated: whether they are positive or negative, or their magnitude. If appropriate, this seems like it should be added. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 18:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Prevalence estimation

The sentence "the prevalence of hebephilia within the general population is unknown" has been in this article since 2013, but in 2015 a Finnish study was published which claims to be "the first [study] to give a population-based estimate of the incidence of sexual interest in children among adult men".

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273145922_Men's_Sexual_Interest_in_Children_One-Year_Incidence_and_Correlates_in_a_Population-Based_Sample_of_Finnish_Male_Twins

The study's definitions don't align perfectly with the hebephilia definition (strong persistent attraction to 11-14 year olds). It uses "sexual interest" in children aged 15 or under, and it doesn't discuss (from what I can see from the abstract) "strength" or "persistence", and it's self-reported. However, describing the study in this article might be better than nothing, if it's limitations are described alongside it. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 18:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Sexual interest" is obviously not the same thing as "strong, persistent sexual interest" or "sexual preference." Like the lead currently states, "While individuals with a sexual preference for adults may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals, researchers and clinical diagnoses have proposed that hebephilia is characterized by a sexual preference for pubescent rather than adult partners." And "Psychologist Bruce Rind and sociologist Richard Yuill published criticism of the classification of hebephilia as a mental disorder, though their view is that Blanchard et al. successfully established hebephilia as a 'genuine sexual preference.'" The "strong, persistent sexual interest" or "sexual preference" aspect is key to what hebephilia is. Otherwise, men with even a bit of sexual interest in a 14 or 15-year-old (ages in which it is possible for the minors to look older than they are, especially if they are girls) would be considered hebephiles by the researchers. Also, age 15 is an overlap with ephebophilia. And researchers are clear about how common it is for men to be able to be sexually attracted to a person around that age (although many people, including a number of the men themselves, find such an attraction disturbing because the teenagers are under the age of consent and/or age of majority and because of the maturity vs. immaturity and power dynamics).

The source is not about hebephilia. It should not be used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of any studies suggesting that preferential attraction to fully adult individuals is more common than preferential attraction to adolescents? Liesbet Koreveld (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead -- courts and the ICD-10

Crossroads1, regarding this, this, this and this, I agree that there is no need to include Rind and Yuill's paper in the lead. But as for including "In court cases where the term hebephilia is used, it is placed within the DSM category of paraphilia, not otherwise specified" in the lead? And using this to indicate that hebephilia is abnormal? Courts can use whatever categorization they want, but they are not medical authorities. We don't know if the hebephilia claim has actually worked in court cases. We do have this source in the "Use in American civil commitment proceedings" section, stating, "Some courts have accepted the hebephilia diagnosis while others have not." That isn't the same thing as stating that the diagnosis has been successfully used in court cases. And the source also notes that "hebephilia is not, however, a recognized diagnosis." Using that source, we also relay the following in the "Use in American civil commitment proceedings" section, "The diagnosis of hebephilia was rejected in one United States federal court in 2009 for being a label, not a 'generally accepted mental disorder' and because a mere attraction to pubescent adolescents is not indicative of a mental disorder. Although the court rejected the government's claim that hebephilia is a mental disorder, the government argued that hebephilia may at times fall within a DSM-IV category of 'Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified' (NOS). The court was also unconvinced by this." As for adding "According to Michael C. Seto, the 'ICD-10 incorporates hebephilia in its definition of pedophilia: 'A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.'"? This is undue because it's how Seto/Blanchard's team has interpreted the ICD-10. But, generally, no medical authorities state that hebephilia is actually in the ICD-10. It's certainly not in the ICD-10 by name. And while the ICD-10 says "early pubertal," the hebephilia age range does not only cover early pubescents. The age range extends to age 14, which is generally not early puberty these days, especially for girls.

This has also been discussed before at this talk page. See, for example, Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 2#Overlap with paedophilia. In that discussion, with my "21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)" post, I relayed, "for me, it's as simple as stating that hebephilia overlaps with pedophilia because hebephilia covers the 11-14 age range; like I stated above, that age range includes prepubescents because some people are still prepubescent at those ages. It is more unlikely that a person is going to be prepubescent at age 13 or 14, especially in the case of girls because girls typically begin puberty before boys, but it does happen. We've already been over this discussion, though [...] we discussed a lot of this in this discussion. And in this one, Cantor stated that the ICD-10 (partly) covers hebephilia because it includes 'early pubertal age.' I stated why I don't consider the ICD-10 to truly cover hebephilia...since early pubescents, especially boys, look more prepubescent than they do pubescent. [...] 'overlap' doesn't mean 'the same thing as,' of course; otherwise, pedophilia and hebephilia wouldn't be distinguished by experts in these fields at all." Also, we do include the "ICD-10 includes early pubertal age in its definition of pedophilia" aspect in the lead, but don't state that it's the ICD-10 including hebephilia.

At the Pedophilia talk page, I questioned if we should add "or early pubertal" to the lead sentence, but we ultimately decided not to because pedophilia is overwhelmingly defined by medical authorities/medical sources as being a sexual preference, or primary or exclusive sexual attraction, to/for prepubescent children. We didn't want to give undue weight to "early pubertal" and confuse readers. And the overlap aspect was also discussed. And, now, after all this time, the ICD-11, which replaces the ICD-10, does not include "early pubertal" at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. You've convinced me; I think the change you made is good. The main issue anyway was having Rind and Yuill in the lead, and I am glad you are agreed it is not needed. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Added the following source: Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management

As seen here, here and here, I added this 2015 "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source, from Springer, to the Ephebophilia article and to this article. From pages 29-41, it extensively reviews the hebephilia research and debate, and can help replace some or most of the primary sourced material in this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

But then again, we don't want to overly rely on a single source. We should look for more secondary and tertiary sources to replace the primary sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. I think this source will be helpful in determining whether some of the play-by-play of the DSM debate is undue and should be cut. I think the "Variation of normal" subsection is too long. I also note that some things covered there are also covered in the preceding section, like the argument that 'hebephilia is not abnormal because the sexualization of pubescent girls is normative'. I don't think we need duplicate coverage of arguments. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The source pretty much covers everything that is in the Hebephilia article, except that it has a lot more material on the research, which can obviously help to fill out the currently small "Research" section. It shows that all of the main points in the DSM-5 debate section are due. It's just a matter trimming fat, such as letter to the editor responses (unless it's a response we definitely should cover because it's noted in the source or other sources as relevant) and unnecessary redundancy. Definitely agree that we don't need blow-by-blow material. And avoiding unnecessary redundancy is why I moved the "In court cases where the term hebephilia is used" piece from the "Overview" section to the "Use in American civil commitment proceedings" section, and the "According to Michael C. Seto, the 'ICD-10 incorporates hebephilia in its definition of pedophilia'" piece from the "Overview" section to the "Responses" section and tweaked that (adding that Skye Stephens agrees as well). I don't see that the "psychologists Robert Prentky and Howard Barbaree stated that examples of highly sexualized young girls appear frequently in advertising, fashion shows, television programs, and films, making it questionable whether sexual attraction to pubescents is abnormal" aspect (that type of argument) in the "Variation of normal" section is repeated in the "Responses" section...unless you mean the "participants questioned whether sexual attraction to pubescent children can be considered abnormal in a context where their sexualization is to a certain extent normative" part. Do you mean that part? If so, it seems valid to report on the panel's thoughts outside of the "variation of normal" debate. I wouldn't categorize that as redundancy, at least not as unnecessary redundancy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished reading the chapter. Again, thanks for finding the source and starting on the changes.

That said, I think the article as written suffers from undue weight. This is evident to me when I compare the article to the new source. I put the section sizes template above. This article goes into great detail and length describing the hand-wringing over civil commitment and various arguments that hebephilia is a variation of normal, even needlessly repeating some as I mentioned, and thus is misleading. Most reliable sources about human sexuality do not treat hebephilia as "normal", and certainly not as innate, nor give any room to that idea; but this article may lead the reader to think that viewpoint holds more weight than it does (which is almost none). I don't think anyone is to blame for this, but somehow the article drifted into narrating the arguments at the time of the DSM proposal in great detail (which I called a play-by-play).

I think the Stephens and Seto source sets a tone we should follow. So, some suggestions: The civil commitment stuff is really part of the DSM debate and should be part of that section. I also strongly oppose having a heading called "variation of normal". Any duplicate mentions of the same argument should be cut. Next, we can follow more closely the new source by setting out the negative reactions by the three types mentioned (which includes the civil commitment concerns). Then, lastly, would be what the new source calls "rejoinders". The DSM-5 section could perhaps have the subsections "Proposal", "Criticisms", and "Responses".

Some of the above are more suggestions than anything, and I know big changes can be a pain. I do however feel strongly about shortening the weight given to the "is normal" arguments, removing that section title, and increasing the weight given to the rejoinders. As an example of the latter, we should add this source by Ryniker, cited in Stephens and Seto but ignored in the current article. From that same paragraph, we should add the point that typical men are attracted to cues of sexual maturity, while hebephiles are not.

As you can see, I already made some cuts and additions. Looking forward to your thoughts. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You stated, "Most reliable sources about human sexuality do not treat hebephilia as 'normal', and certainly not as innate, nor give any room to that idea; but this article may lead the reader to think that viewpoint holds more weight than it does (which is almost none)." But the vast majority of sources that address hebephilia, including primary sources in the article, address the debate surrounding it (which significantly concerns whether it can be validly considered a paraphilia or mental disorder). And, as mentioned, that includes the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source. And the vast majority of academic sources on hebephilia are primary sources, with few non-primary sources...except for when considering the ones that cover it via passing or brief mentions, inaccurately define it, or are using older definitions of the term. On page 31 of the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source, it states, "Writers have been deeply divided on whether hebephilia should be included in [the] DSM-5 [...] [There are those] who have argued that a sexual interest in pubescent girls is normal. [...] It is readily apparent when reading arguments against hebephilia that many authors have focused on a critique of the idea that a sexual interest or behavior involving adolescents in the age range mentioned in early DSM-5 documents (ages 11-14 and sometimes expanded to include adolescents as a whole) is maladaptive or abnormal. This occurs even though hebephilia refers specifically to pubescent children as defined by maturation status."

More academic book sources about hebephilia, including the debate (of course).

In addition to the following three academic book sources that take the time to significantly discuss hebephilia, there is this 2011 "Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy" source, from Oxford University Press, starting on page 28, which is already used in the article. This 2014 "Pathways to Sexual Aggression" source, from Routledge, page 181, which presents a short literature review of hebephilia, states, "While the present chapter does not aim to resolve the debate about the validity of hebephilia as a mental disorder, it does aim to provide empirical data on sexual aggressors against adolescents. First, a short literature review of the available knowledge on hebephilia/sexual aggressors against adolescents will be presented. Second, our data on the offending process of sexual aggressors against adolescents will be presented, hopefully advancing the debate about hebephilia." It goes on to state things like "If the arguments against hebephilia as a mental disorder diagnosis seem compelling, so are the rebuttals by the DSM-5 workgroup." This 2015 "The DSM-5 in Perspective: Philosophical Reflections on the Psychiatric Babel" source, from Springer, page 113, states, "The diagnostic category of 'hebephilia' (the erotic preference for pubescent children) was suggested in 2008 for inclusion in the DSM-5. Immediately, a violent debate took place about whether this condition should be considered a disease or not, and the proposal to include hebephilia in the DSM-5 was rejected in 2012." But then again, this source is critical of the DSM as a whole. Either way, the source significantly dives into the hebephilia debate and gives its take on it. This 2016 "The Wiley Handbook on the Psychology of Violence" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 484, states, "Prior to the release of the DSM‐5 in 2013, there was a great deal of debate about including hebephilia as a paraphilia. While some researchers and clinicians argued that hebephilia is a valid erotic age preference and therefore should be included (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2009), others argued that this sexual interest was not a mental disorder (e.g., DeClue, 2009; Frances & First, 2011)." It cites Michael C. Seto for its statement that hebephilia would meet biologically informed criteria for a mental disorder, and for other statements.

The writers and authors that the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source mentions are mainly academics, such as Michael First and Allen Frances. Like First's Wikipedia article relays, he is "an American psychiatrist who focuses on diagnostic criteria for mental disorders.[...] First was one of the editors of DSM-IV-TR, the Editor of Text and Criteria for the DSM-IV, and the editor of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. He also served as consultant to the World Health Organization for the revision of ICD-11." Like Frances's Wikipedia article notes, he "chaired the task force that produced the fourth revision of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and became critical of the current version, DSM-5." Skye Stephens and Michael C. Seto, who authored the hebephilia text in the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source, are on the other side of the hebephilia debate. This is another reason to not only go by what they state. The side that opposes the hebephilia diagnosis is not considered a fringe side. Stephens and Seto are clear that the concept/diagnosis of hebephilia is not widely accepted. So as far as the tone goes, I don't see that the article is far off from the weight that discussion of the debate in the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source and other sources is given. Stephens and Seto take time to significantly address the debate. And like I mentioned above, "It shows that all of the main points in the DSM-5 debate section are due. It's just a matter trimming fat, such as letter to the editor responses (unless it's a response we definitely should cover because it's noted in the source or other sources as relevant) and unnecessary redundancy." I'm fine with you having cut this and this.

I agree that "The civil commitment stuff is really part of the DSM debate and should be part of that section." I argued this before. It was a subsection of that section before.

As for having a section called "Variation of normal"? Well, that is part of the debate. And I think it's best to have a clear section heading about it, rather than have it buried with other material. That various academics have indicated, or outright put forward the notion, that hebephilia is some form of normal obviously doesn't mean we are endorsing that view. And obscuring it with other information by not letting it be its own section won't make it any less something that is being noted. The main heading for the debate section is titled "DSM-5 debate," which lets readers know that the "variation of normal" viewpoint is debated. That stated, we could rename the section "Disputes about normal attraction" or something like that. Right now, that section is only five paragraphs long. And it goes over important points in the debate. So we shouldn't cut anything that is due. I am all for including material such as "typical men are attracted to cues of sexual maturity, while hebephiles are not." Given that hebephilia is a proposed diagnosis, though, it might be best to use in-text attribution (like the article often does) when stating even that. I mean, that "typical men are attracted to cues of sexual maturity" is something I feel is fine stating in Wikipedia's voice. But stating "while hebephiles are not" is speaking on a highly debated sexual categorization/proposed diagnosis.

Not sure what you are proposing by "Rejoinders." Laypeople generally won't know what is meant by that title. And I'm not seeing that we can copy all or most of the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source's section on rejoinders unless significantly putting the material in our own words.

I think we should work on recrafting the article in a sandbox. I've copied the article to here. This is so that we can get an easier understanding of what we have in mind and work together with little editing conflict. We don't usually have editing conflict, but you know what I mean. We could also work on an outline here on the talk page, without creating a whole nother version of the article here on the talk page. But I think that the sandbox route will be easier. And we're agreed on looking at what the other non-primary academic sources state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources and the sandbox. To be clear, I knew we always had to cover the arguments against hebephilia as a diagnosis since we have to cover the debate. We're agreed on trimming the fat. I wasn't proposing copying the source exactly, either. Other than that, it makes sense to test some changes in the sandbox and discuss from there. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't suggesting that you felt we shouldn't relay the debate. I was simply stating that so much of the content is about the debate and that the "not a paraphilia"/"not a mental disorder" argument, which exists in part because of viewpoints about normality, is very much a part of the topic. There's been significant rejection of "it's abnormal." And I think this is mainly because the researchers acted like Blanchard et al. were speaking of sexual attraction to pubescents and adolescents in general, when Blanchard et al. were focused on early pubescents or more so on early pubesecents. Their 11-14 age range and often simply stating "pubescents" in text really muddled things for people, as seen by past talk page discussions of the age range/Tanner scale. The "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source states, "In the clinical literature, hebephilia has often been (imprecisely and thus confusingly) equated to sexual preference in adolescents, which is typically defined as the developmental period between the ages of 12 and 18. This wide age range is problematic as it would include pubescent children along with sexually mature teenagers who could be easily confused with young adults." And, again, it also states, "It is readily apparent when reading arguments against hebephilia that many authors have focused on a critique of the idea that a sexual interest or behavior involving adolescents in the age range mentioned in early DSM-5 documents (ages 11-14 and sometimes expanded to include adolescents as a whole) is maladaptive or abnormal. This occurs even though hebephilia refers specifically to pubescent children as defined by maturation status." There's also the fact that, as noted in the article, the sexual preference aspect with regard to pubescents was at times being neglected. Like we relay in the article, "Blanchard argued that critics of his proposal were performing a 'rhetorical sleight-of-hand' that conflated sexual attraction with sexual preference, arguing that while normal men may show some degree of attraction to pubescents, they overwhelmingly prefer physically mature adults. In contrast, hebephiles have an equal or greater sexual preference for pubescents compared to physically mature adults."

I know that you weren't proposing that we copy the "Rejoinders" content exactly. I was wondering exactly what you had in mind for that and how much we would transfer here to Wikipedia.

I'll head on over to the sandbox. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)