Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Old stuff (archive later)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that hebephilia is the name for an adult sexually attracted to people early pubescent children (like age 10-14 or so, I guess). Anybody ever heard of that? Tokerboy 06:40 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)

I think your are thinking of ephebephilia (spelling?), which derives from ancient Greek ephebe, for youth (an ephebe was a male aged roughly 12-20 in ancient Greek socierty)...

"Someone Else" has introduced serious confusion into the prior version of the article:

  • sexual attraction or acts with post-pubsecents under the age of consent is not pedophilia, irregardless of those acts illegality -- pedophilia only refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children
  • they mutilated the family dynamics explanation for incest -- the withdrawal of the mother is not according to that theory not merely sexual, but more importantly emotional, psychological and social
  • they deleted the primary and original definition of the term, which is the medical one -- popular usages of the term pedophilia are secondary, just like popular uses of the term "quantum physics"
  • they mistakenly think pedophilia is a legal term -- it is not

Someone Else disagrees with you. Call this disagreement confusion if you like. The definition of pedophilia is Sexual attraction felt by an adult toward a child or children. Nothing medical about it. The 'medical' prism is but one through which the phenomenon can be viewed. I understand perfectly that you want to emphasize that desire is not illegal and I would point out that I haven't said otherwise. But it's also clear that there are laws designed to deal with crimes motivated by pedophilia, and that such crimes are treated differently (in terms of punishment, probation, and requirements for reporting) than are others. The 'medical diagnosis' of pedophilia is rarely made outside of a legal context. Someone else


The word 'pedophilia' was invented by the medical profession, and hence that is the definitive meaning, whatever its vague and contradictory adoption by the wider community. Pedophilia (irregardless of incorrect popular usage) only refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not pubescent children (if they are to be called 'children' at all, and not, as would be more correct, adolescents). Furthermore, pedophilia implies long term sexual attraction to children--just as heterosexuality implies long term attraction to members of the opposite sex. Momentary feelings of sexual attraction to a child are not pedophilia, any more than a momentary attraction to a member of the opposite sex by someone who has been homosexual their whole life makes them heterosexual. The DSM-IV definition accurately describes these aspects -- your attempts do not....

And pedophilia is not a legal concept -- there are no laws relating to pedophilia. There are laws relating to sexual offences against children, but not all pedophiles sexually molest children, and not all people who sexually molest children are pedophiles. (Even under the DSM-IV definition -- for example, there have been cases of individuals who have molested children under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs -- assuming that they have not in the past had sexual feelings towards children, which is admittedly impossible to prove one way or the other, these people are not pedophiles, but they are still sex offenders.) Hence, as I said, pedophilia is not a legal concept -- sexual offences are. The two concepts may overlap, but they are quite distinct.


The word 'pedophilia' was first used in 1906, but the condition it describes existed before the word. And though it was used by medical practitioners, there's nothing particularly 'medical' about it. In any case, the medical definition is but ONE definition, and it is not the preferred definition in either dictionary I have readily to hand. In short, the meaning of words change, and their definitions are determined by how people understand them and not by their etymology. You can also stop knocking down the straw-man that I think pedophilia is a legal term. I don't. But I do recognize that many laws are explicitly meant to deal with child sexual abuse, specifically the repeated child sexual abuse which can be inspired by pedophilia.

You, apparently, have one point of view, and the general population has another, of what pedophilia means. Both these views should be attributed and explained in the article without preferring one as 'right'. Someone else


Of course the condition existed before the word -- 'atoms' have been around since the beginning of the universe, although they were not called that until Democritus. But so what? The word pedophilia was invented by the medical profession, as part of medical jargon--and hence the primary meaning attributed to it should be that given it by the psychiatric profession.

Now it is true that words do change their meanings. But where technical jargon is accepted into popular usage, it is clear which meaning is the most correct -- the original technical jargon. This is especially since the popular usage is not a coherent usage by its own, but a broad collection of copies of the technical usage, some more correct than others. The medical profession has a more or less precise meaning for 'pedophilia' -- people at large don't. There is no clear, coherent, popular meaning of pedophilia -- rather there are a multitude of different usages, depending on how well people understand the technical term. But there can be no doubt that the technical usage is the correct one, and that popular usages are caused by people's lack of knowledge of psychiatry.

'Pedophilia' is like 'quantum physics', or 'operating system', or 'trigonometry', or 'habeas corpus' -- they are all technical jargon of different disciplines, of which the general public is more or less aware. And in all cases it is clear that the jargon meaning must be primary, especially in an encyclopedia, and the many public understandings (or more accurately misunderstandings) of these terms should take second place.


You err when you assert that a word has one 'most correct' meaning. A dictionary doesn't stop with one meaning, and an encyclopedia CERTAINLY shouldn't. And while a proscriptive dictionary might label one meaning as more correct than another, the Wikipedia is not proscriptive: it's neutral. It should describe the multiplicity of uses, not arbitrate among them. Inclusion in the DSM IV is pretty much irrelevant except when billing insurance companies for treatment...and the DSM IV certainly contains no explanation of how the condition might be considered to be 'medical'. The article is not about the word 'pedophilia' but rather about the condition the word describes. An article on the atom would hardly confine itself to Democritus's understanding thereof. The fact that a 1906 systematization of paraphilias based on a now discarded psychiatric theory which was based more on philosophy than science happend to contain the word pedophilia really has little bearing on a description of "sexual attraction felt by an adult toward a child or children" which is what one should expect in an article titled Pedophilia. -- Someone else


You err when you consider that an encyclopedia shouldn't label one meaning as more correct than another. All encyclopedias must make stylistic and editorial decisions, and such decisions are inherently prescriptive. Your insistence that they should not is just a cover for your prescription that populist uses should be given precedence. Following prescriptions is inevitable, so we better choose the right one -- the formal one. A bigger question is whether Wikipedia aims to be scholarly or merely popular. Although I make no claims to scholarship, scholarship must be our eventual aim. Giving preference to the medical (and other academic) meanings of terms furthers that aim.


An encyclopedia should label one meaning as more correct than another ONLY when it IS more correct. Most words don't have a single meaning that is more correct, and there is no reason to prefer the improbably precise medical definition over the usual dictionary definition here. It is clear that YOU prefer it, but it is not the most common definition. When the jargon definition you prefer differs from the usual definition, both should be explained, and without the judgemental notion that one is the 'understanding' and the other is the 'misunderstanding'. They are in this case just two ways of talking about the phenomenon in question. In any case, if the question is whether the Wikipedia is to be proscriptive or descriptive, my understanding is that that question has been decided, and it's descriptive - or aspires to be. It doesn't tell you how you SHOULD think, it tells you how people HAVE thought -- Someone else


They are not two ways of talking about the phenomena in question -- they are talking about different phenomena. The jargon term is a rather precisely defined idea, while the popular concept incorporates all sorts of other phenomena which don't belong to the jargon definition. A lot of things that are in the popular meaning of 'pedophilia' are not pedophilia in the technical sense, but rather belong under the headings of 'ephebophilia' or 'sexual offences' or 'sex offenders' or 'age of consent' or 'statutory rape' -- all of which, although they have greater or lesser degrees of connection to the phenomena of pedophilia or pedophiles (under the jargon definition), are separate phenomena.


The same word is used to describe very closely related phenomenon. That the one is more restricted and the other more inclusive does not make the former more correct. Both should be explained - even if explaining the broad concept 'confuses' the artificial precision of the narrow one. --- Someone else


But to discuss the broader phenomena in a page entitled 'pedophilia' is to endorse the broader popular meaning over the technical meaning -- so rather than being prescriptively neutral, you are implicitly prescribing the popular usage, by following it in the article.

Basically, the old version of the article was pretty good -- it discussed the original, technical usage, but also mentioned that popular usage can be broader -- can be, not is, because popular usage is very varied and diverse, while the technical usage is pretty uniform.


Basically, the current version of the article is one-sided. The earliest version I saw equated pederasty and homosexuality and was repulsive. The current article is better than that. But it would be better yet if it could encompass the idea that the DSM IV's definition of pedophilia is not the only 'correct' one. And, no, discussing the broader phenomena is NOT to endorse them - it is merely being complete rather than dogmatic. Someone else


When I said the earlier version, I was not referring to the one you mention (with its amateur equations of pederasty and homosexuality) -- I was referring to the one before that, which was quite accurate...

I'm vaguely with someone else here: like homophobia, the origins of a word do not dictate its current usage, and like the article on homophobia, this article shouldn't focus excessively on the original "technical" usage. One solution might be to disambiguate between underage sex and paedophilia (psychology), or similar. -Martin
No, the article paedophilia should discuss both scientific and popular usage of the term. It is inappropriate to omit either. --Eloquence
I agree that it is inappropriate to simply not have any information on underage sex. However, I don't see why information on underage sex has to be dealt with here at pedophilia. It's a seperate (though linked) subject, so I think it should be dealt with in a seperate article. Martin
The term pedophilia is used as a general label for child/adult sexual contact. This common usage means that we have to discuss child/adult sexual contact and social reaction towards "pedophiles", real or not, in this article. Groups like NAMBLA as well as child protection groups should be discussed here, because that's where people expect to find such a discussion. However, should this article hit the 32K size, we can certainly split it up. --Eloquence 23:28 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
I think I've cracked it. This article is now essentially two articles - one on clinical pedophilia, and one on underage sex. When it gets biggers, we can split it and disambiguate, but at this size I think you're right, Eloquence. Martin 23:02 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding clinical paedophilia - only symptoms/diagnosis and legal aspects are addressed here. I think it would be important to add information here about current theories of how paedophilia arises. For example, many people believe that paedophiles were sexually abused as children themselves - is there any evidence for this? Can a person 'become' a paedophile as a result of watching child pornography? Another very important aspect is whether paedophilia can be treated/managed, or whether a paedophile will remain a life-long danger to children.

pir 19:30 18. September, 2003

Current discussion

I edited the short part of the article referring to infantophilia. The article previously read "infantophilia (also called infantilism or nepiophilia)" Infantilism is not a synonym for nepiophilia though, and instead refers to wholly different sexual practices than infantophilia. I hope no one has any objections to removing infantilism as a synonym in this article. AspiringActivist 12:48, 26 July 2004 (UTC)


A question that relates to 'more information on pedophilia' in general, and by the way the reason I was searching Wikipedia on this subject, is: are there actually recorded cases of female pedophilia - meaning the adult is female, the object of desire male and 13 years of age or younger?

Try Mary Kay Letourneau for a start. The answer is, "yes, of course", but it is far less widespread than male pedophilia. Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have translated the section on the definition of terms from the German article, because it looked more mature to me. Feel free to correct my stile and wording, as I am not a native English speaker. (For instance I am not sure, whether the term "structured pedophile" is really used in English.)

IMHO it does not make much sense to write much about the common usage of the term pedophilia as it is not very useful and the subject is already covered by child sexual abuse. I would like to move the section on under age sex there (or remove it entirely).

The section "Clinical pedophilia" is now mostly redundant. I consider the definition from the German article better, because it is not so complex and has the addtional condition that the sexual interest in children must be the primary one. --Moon light shadow 21:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


User:Elde: (Reversion to replace unwarranted deletions and changes)

Just saying that the changes were "unwarranted" is not enough reason for simply reverting them. My first change I have already made a week ago and I have received no comments to what I have written here on the discussion page. --Moon light shadow 10:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Here is what is wrong with the old definition:

"In medicine, pedophilia ... is sexual attraction of an adult to prepubescent children."

Why is the definition restricted to adults? A adolescent may notice that he is only attracted to children and not people of his age. He can reasonably consider himself a pedophile. The medical view is only one specific approach to pedophilia, and it is even questionable, if pedophilia should be considered a disorder.

The second definition is not useful for an encyclopedia at all:

"In common usage, pedophilia or under-age sex is sexual attraction and sexual acts towards children generally, including adolescents who are far beyond a prepubescent level of physical and psychological development. This article will discuss these two concepts separately."

Sexual attraction toward adolescents should be dealt with in the article on Ephebophilia. Sexual acts and the section "underage sex" go to child sexual abuse.

Sexual acts are only on topic with respect to pedophiles: How high is their percentage amoung all child sexual abusers, how high is the percentage amoung pedophiles committing child sexual abuse, what is different in sexual acts as opposed to all abusers and so on. --Moon light shadow 18:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you simply incorporated your first point, I'd not keep reverting. The essential problem is that you have a taken a reasonably well organized article and thrown it into a blender. As to the 'second definition', since when is comparing and contrasting common usage (in English speaking countries) with legal and medical usage not encyclopedic? Rather than replacing, try incorporating.

Elde 00:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is incorporated at the end of the section "Definitions" (Actually it was already present in the German version). The common usage of the word in German is not so different. Some pressure groups try to replace the word "pedophile" by "pedo criminal" (pädokriminell). And the media does not point out, when reporting about cases in foreign countries (like R. Kelly), that most acts would not be a crime in Germany at all. I prefer to keep the definition at the top of the article plain and simple (also as apposed to the definition in "Clinical pedophilia"). Maybe the reference to child sexual abuse should be given earlier in the following paragraph, so that the reader finds faster what he was really looking for. --Moon light shadow 13:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revertion of edits of 63.153.37.111 about ephebophilia

Labeling a sexual behaviour "normal" deals with sexual morality. The fact that American Psychiatric Association decided that pedophilia is a mental disorders is not based on scientific reasons at all. Not so long ago homosexuality was considered a disorder as well.

"Such sexual attraction to adolescents is a normal part of sexuality for most adult heterosexuals and homosexuals, and is not considered pathological by informed opinion."

Please do not write in terms of "normal" or "pathological", but about how common ephebophile desires are among adults. Moon light shadow 21:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


DJac75 added: "(It can be argued that these categories (ephebophilia or hebephilia) are artificial, as these conditions are not pathological, and typically overlap the sexual desires of psychologically healthy heterosexuals and homosexuals.)"

It depends on the current moral consent what is called "pathological". At least a quarter of all male heterosexuals and homosexuals can be aroused by children, too. So both ephebophilia and paedophilia overlap with healthy heterosexuality and homosexuality. I would call a person ephebophilie, if his primary interest is toward adolescents (Not only physical attraction but also falling in love).
If you just want so say that an age of consent of 18 is insane, then I agree. However I do not know, how to state it conforming to NPOV :-) -- Moon light shadow 16:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last paragraph is problematic

"Pederasty is underage sex between male adults and male adolescents or children. The North American Man-Boy Love Association advocates legalization of pederasty."

The definition of Pederasty is an attraction to boys in the age of about 12 to 20. So Pederasty is a special case of ephebophilia. Should I move the paragraph to ephebophilia, or did the North American Man-Boy Love Association actually advocate the legalization of man-boy relationships of any age? --Moon light shadow 16:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's worse than you assume, they are particularly inclined towards children, and are not even appropriately refered to as pederasts, as they quite often are inclined towards younger boys. Its a fantastically unpopular organization as you might assume, and I for one am not inclined to research more in depth on the subject than I already have accidentilly by viewing news reports. In any case I think it would be innapropriate to move reference of them as youy have suggested. Sam Spade 22:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article mentions two definitions of pedophilia, but it doesn't touch on the fact that the two are very different. Isn't that a problem?

Kraft-Ebing/ICD-10: Primary sexual attraction
DSM-IV: Distress or acting on fantasies

wildt 16:56, 21. Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not consider the diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV: Distress or acting on fantasies) a definition of pedophilia. It helps a therapist when making a decision whether a person needs treatment. Distress is a requirement, because you can not reasonably treat a person against his will. Acting on fantasies is an exception, because it is a crime. I once tried to remove the DSM-IV criteria, but the change was reverted. However now I think that it can be left in without confusion, when all references to it use the term clinical pedophilia. Currently there are no references to it, and keeping the section "Clinical pedophilia" only makes sence, if somebody writes more about therapy. --Moon light shadow 09:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence: "250,000-500,000 pedophiles reside in the United States. - Source: U.S. Department of Justice" What definition of pedophilia do they use? --Moon light shadow 19:27, 24 May 2004 (UTC)



The subject of this article, whereas taboo in much of society, is increasingly becoming more acceptable. To some this is considered disturbing, and to others, this is welcomed as an enlightenment that society has long needed to do - to consider a 7 year old's informed, involved and clearly enunciated request for the attentions of a 42 year old man equal to that of her 19 year old cousin, effectively leading to a less agist society. More acceptable in the sense that not only do the media outlets which have reported the findings of a recent study on same - basically stating that it's acceptable for adult-child sex to take place (whereas the study didn't make those conclusions) - to put forth an enlightened point of view to some, and a terrible step backwards to others, but also more acceptable in the sense that there's changes in the language and changes in what's considered appropriate and what isn't.

First off, let's consider the changes that have been made in language. Language is very powerful, it's viral in nature - which is why the politically correct have fought so hard to change it. Grimoire (a book of magic and spells) derives directly from grammar. Chaos magicians actually strive to eliminate the verb "to be" in their lives, because of the subtle but powerful mental changes that occur as a result.

So, let's have a look at what changes you have in the language used in the media.

When was the last time you heard the term "statutory rape"? It had negative connotations that we, in an enlightened, equalitarian society have ceased to use. In an attempt to lighten the stigma on people stigmatised for their lifestyle choices and pursuit of individual freedom they'll choose some less ugly term like "sexual interference with a minor". Some people may find this offensive, but it's a step forward to treating the subject with an equal, objective view.

What else has changed? It isn't molestation anymore, but fondling, for the same reason. "Michael Jackson charged with fondling" is the modern way to say "Michael Jackson charged with drugging and molesting a small child."

While there are many interesting ideas in your comments, User:Summer 2.0, the fact checking lives much to be desired. Googling for news on Michael shows that there are 5 articles that mention "fondling" and 1500+ that mention "molestation". Ditto for "sexual interference with a minor" (13 hits, most are actually related to things like government interference) and "statutory rape" (300+ hits). Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some take exception to the term "child prostitution". Prostitution is the exchange of money for sexual favours, which is an important step forward in recognising that instead of being something dirty and with stigma, a regressive byproduct of our Puritanical heritage, that it is a commodity like any other. And though I'm not involved in it in any way the child never sees a dime. Some refer to this as slavery and exploitation, and even campaigned against it, but this has to be taken in the proper context, and we must be cautious of ethnocentrism.

This sounds too much like trolling... Even though I personally disagree with the majority's view on child prostitution (it's fate better than starvation), I don't think your comments make much sense. Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some neologisms that the intergenerational crowd are trying to make stick haven't quite managed to stick, yet - but progress is being made towards social justice. Ever wondered what "intergenerational sex" is? It could technically describe a 21 year old and a 42 year old. What it does refer to, however, is an often misunderstoodsexual bond between children and adults. They've certainly made the term "pedophilia" stick. "Love of children" is what it literally means. That sounds better than pederast, child rapist, or short-eyed creep, doesn't it? Some decry this as terrible, nasty language.

I am not sure anyone tried to make "pedophilia" stick. It's a medical term and the presence of "philia" doesn't make it a nicer word. Just like with "necrophilia". :) Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So now that we've started using far less threatening terms and nicer words for frankly, what amount to crimes, let's take a look at the other side of the coin - media images.

When did the sexualisation of children start? But I'll tell you, little girls weren't encouraged to dress up like mini-Britney Spears until recently. Abercrombie and Fitch using nudity and graphic sexual depiction to market to children is just a symptom of a larger movement, one of tolerance and free speech. Remember the furore over thong panties for little girls at Baby Gap? This was coordinated by the religious right. Ordinary people weren't offended.

Once upon a time, if you suggested in a movie or television show sexual contact with a child, of any age, you'd be set on fire. Apparently the latest Nicole Kidman vehicle, Birth, has as its plot this woman getting the idea that a 10 year old boy is the reincarnation of her dead husband. So she makes out with him, nude, in a bathtub. Imagine if the scene took place with a man thinking a 10 year old girl is the reincarnation of his dead wife. People wouldn't be saying "oh, let's wait and see the film before judging, this could be much ado about nothing, the producers are only angry to hype the film," etc. We as a society are moving towards true equality in this regard, namely that it will be just as acceptable to do so with a small girl as a small boy.

I don't see the evidence for that move to equality. It was always more tolerated for women to have sex (kiss, whatever) with boys, just like it was OK for men to fool around. Perhaphs related to different sexual and social roles of the genders. Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An actress makes out with a ten year old, nude, in a bathtub. This doesn't appear to be a crime, anymore, but instead, art, in order to make a movie tenderly justifying this kind of action. That's the crack in the armor we as a society need to start advancing other ideas..... maybe Lolita isn't so bad. Let's make the explicit version. While we're at it, age of consent in Canada is 14, shouldn't we become as enlightened, etc. and scrap our antiquated laws?

Maybe we're heading in that direction already. R. Kelly's defence, when shown a video of himself with a little girl, basically boiled down to "that isn't me. And anyway, her parents, who say she's 18, says that that girl ain't her." Then the guy goes on to play the race card, saying this is an issue cause whitey be tryin to keep a brother down. No offence, but back in the day Fatty Arbuckle's career was DESTROYED by the mere ALLEGATION of this kind of behaviour. Nowadays we have documented video proof, and the artist in question has actually seen an increase in sales and income.

I'm not advocating a return to 1950s prudery - I'm merely suggesting you make up your own mind as to whether or not things are acceptable to you, your own viewpoint. Seeing as how there is no right and wrong, and that nobody has any right to inflict any views on another, this crap has been rewritten to address the insensitivities in the previous one.

What crap are you referring to, exactly?

External links

As discussed at Talk:Child_sexual_abuse#Links_in_articles_related_to_child_sexual_abuse I think that articles related to sexual abuse should link to organizations that can help just as alcoholism links to Alcoholics Anonymous. Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse and pedophilia are not the same thing. Those links have no place here.

--Zanthalon

Pedohilia is a paraphilia that needs to be treated, therefore the link. Pedophiles often abuse abuse children, therefore the other link. Get-back-world-respect 02:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is not even total agreement in the APA anymore whether pedophilia should be classified. DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal. Furthermore, your links relate to child sexual abuse, not pedophilia. Therefore, they really do not have a place here. Zanthalon

"Not even total agreement any more". Therefore we should rely on the minority, granted. And one link is explicitly for pedophiles searching for help, the other for children that were victims of pedophiles, so both are highly relevant. Get-back-world-respect 03:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV

This article is pretty biased towards the point of view of society at large. The point of view of the pedophiles themselves is not represented; some of it is outlined in childlover. Someone should fix this :)

May I ask you if you think that the article about child abuse should be written from the point of view of abusers? Get-back-world-respect 22:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article is about pedophilia and not CSA. Anyways both views should be represented. --Moon light shadow 09:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since society represents a better consensus than a webpage the main focus should be on the majority's view. Get-back-world-respect 01:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Difference Between Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Links that relate to abuse recovery and the sexual victimisation of children do not belong on this page. Pedophilia by itself does not imply any action on the sexual attraction at all. Whether it is a paraphilia or not, pedophilia is not an action in and of itself; therefore it does not have any victims. I am removing once again the links that are already appropriately placed on the child sexual abuse page. Zanthalon 23:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The links do not only relate to abuse recovery and sexual victimisation of children. Just read. One focusses on helping pedophiles - about which this article is - to deal with their paraphilia, so this is exactly the right article to have it. Also note that many who were once "loved" by a "childlover" have severe problems with that experience later, so the other link is equally appropriate. Get-back-world-respect 23:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The links should be listed only once in the most suitable article. Only links that deal specifically with the therapy of pedophiles are appropriate here. The therapy of victims does not depend on whether the offender was a pedophile or not but on what happend and on the victims' problems. --Moon light shadow 09:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The links should be listed where they are helpful. One focusses on helping pedophiles - about which this article is - to deal with their paraphilia, so this is exactly the right article to have it. Get-back-world-respect 01:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Bullshit. These articles are not intended to help pedophiles, they are intended to make a good encyclopedia. If you want to help pedophiles, join some community organisation that does it, don't waste your time vandalising Wikipedia articles. Paranoid 16:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks, your language is unacceptable. Articles generally have external links helpful in understanding the topic comprehensively. The offer of therapeutical treatment to pedophiles who agree they are in danger to harm themselves as well as others meets that criteria a lot more than links to "childlovers". Get-back-world-respect 17:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have copied this debate in from RFC/Get-back-world-respect. It seems more relevant to have this debate here.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5