Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

This page in Dutch

On nl.wikipedia.org there is a page on pedophilia that this page links to and vice versa. (nl:Pedofilie). What's interesting is that while en.wikipedia.org gives neutral information on pedophilia, the page in Dutch can be read as propaganda for pedophilia. It contains the butterfly symbol of a pedophiliac society, there's hardly any criticism, and there's a lot of information for pedophiles.

There is a page on this society on nl.wikipedia, which presents "four guidelines for responsible sex with children" as published by this society. The article does not contain one word of criticism on these guidelines. The aim of such guidelines is clear: pedophiles relieve their conscience and comfort themselves by telling each other that what they do is ok. Publishing guidelines is part of that strategy. The pedophilia page in Dutch links to the society article and vice versa.

I have tried to remove the articles, but with no luck. I made the mistake of wondering why some people are so eager to have pedophilia propaganda on wikipedia, after which I was blocked from wikipedia for some time. I saw that other users who changed those articles have been blocked also.

I recommend to check out the Dutch equivalent of this article, if you don't read Dutch run it through Google translation, and remove the link to that page from here. I'm willing to translate this page into Dutch as a substitute.

I am a co-founder and board member of Meldpunt, the Dutch equivalent of Cybertipline.

X10 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for the Verenining MARTIJN to contain any criticism, as the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to disseminate pro- or anti- pedophile propaganda, but to provide encyclopedic articles. Furthermore, the article does provide information on the controversial nature of the organization. As you're new to Wikipedia, please take some time to look over WP:NOT and WP:NPOV; I'm sure they have a dutch equivalent. Please note also that this is not the correct place to discuss the dutch article, as this page is for discussing changes to the English version. You can find the respective talk pages at nl:Overleg:Vereniging_MARTIJN and nl:Overleg:Pedofilie. --CA387 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read NPOV then as all notable views should eb considered in an article and in this case that most definitely means criticism. I know what pro pedophile propaganda is but anti-pedophile propaganda? SqueakBox 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda is anything that attempts to influence the reader in one way or another, regardless of the truthfulness of its content. If we added "Hitler was a very bad person" to the Hitler article, chances are 99% of readers would agree with the statement, but it would be considered anti-Hitler propaganda as it attempts to influence the reader with stating of opinion, rather than presentation of facts. Anti-pedophile propaganda would be anything parallel to that.

From what I gather from X10's case, she's looking for stuff in the article's writing that criticizes the organization, rather than showing whatever notable criticism exists from outside sources—which the dutch article already does. --CA387 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have two points. One, the guidelines for safe sex with children are presented in the article on the martijn group as being "objective". One can read the article as stating that these are actually such guidelines. The reason for this martijn group to have these guidelines is that it reassures pedophiles that it's ok to abuse children. Thus, the article contributes to abuse of children.

Second, reading the article on pedophilia in English, it is exactly what I'd expect an article in wikipedia to be. It informs the reader on aspects of pedophilia. If you read the article in Dutch, it reads like it has been written by a pedophile. It does not provide fair information on pedophilia. The same is true for the article on this Martijn group.

So far, I have not seen any argument that goes against my case. Also, I have not been able to change one bit in one of the articles. I thought wikipedia was a joint effort, but apparently that's not the case. The reason I mention all this here is that I think the link from the english article on pedophilia to the Dutch article is questionable. If the maintainers of the english article are aware of the content of the dutch article, then it's up to them.

X10 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, you say the article on this group already contains criticism. It doesn't. What it says is that there has been a neo nazi group claiming to criticize the group. I can only gues why of all criticisms, only the neo nazi one is mentioned.

The article doesn't need to criticize the group. But it shouldn't encourage child abuse either. X10 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather from reading the article, it certainly needs work—especially in the field of in-line citations. However, as I said before, that's something you should take up with the Dutch Wikipedia, as I'm sure if any of us were to edit the article, it would probably come out worse! The link to the Dutch version on this page is merely to show that a sister-language version of this article exists, not to imply that it's necessarily a superlative one. --CA387 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CA387, it's good you mention NPOV. It's true that I'm new here, I only first created my wikipedia account in 2005. But I have read the NPOV article both in English and in Dutch, and I couldn't agree more with both (they're different). It says that if there's conflicting views, both should be presented fairly. I agree. But conflicting views is not the issue here. I'm arguing that the current text is potentially harmful to children and I have seen no argument against that. I would be very happy if the article in Dutch would be an objective article similar to the one in English. Currently, it is certainly not an objective article. X10 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked for calling some information propaganda seems extreme to me. Any suggestions I have for arguments are useless if they will block you. They may have already labeled you, but if you make your arguements based on editorial principles you should be able to get support from others. Purhaps you could translate some of the reasons given on the talk pages for some of our edits. Does the Dutch WP have any kind of arbitration system? --Gbleem 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you base your argument then on NPOV, rather than your opinion of it being "harmful to children". Wikipedia is not censored, so if you want to change the article you should do it with the rationale of conforming to Wikipedia guidelines. Hope this helps. --CA387 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming that X10 is being truthful (I don't read Dutch), therefore I have removed the link to the Dutch page. Per WP:NOT EVIL and per Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to guide -- especially not for child abuse. Herostratus 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Dutch article, or at least put it into a translator, before jumping to conclusions. Also, an essay is a page that is not actionable, so please do not use them for reasoning behind edits. --CA387 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked for calling some information propaganda seems extreme to me.

From what I can tell from the Dutch Wikipedia, X10 wasn't blocked for calling information propaganda, but for suggesting that those who disagree with her must therefor be pedophiles themselves. As she herself says above: "I made the mistake of wondering why some people are so eager to have pedophilia propaganda on wikipedia".--82.92.181.129 11:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend all out war using vandalizing, new version writes and retaliatory reverts, and hacking. Pedophilia is evil, NPOV is a silly myth. We know what is wrong and what is a crime, let's work to destroy it.Alexander 10:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad

Why cannot I add "Mohammad" as a bullet to the "See Also" section? Mohammad married Aisha when Aisha was 5 or 6 years old. This is, by all definitions, pedophilia. Is there some kind of silent consensus here that Mohammad's pedophilia cannot even be mentioned? I see that PC is at work, as always. Tauphon 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your text to the bottom where it should go. I'm guessing no one noticed it because we usually look at the bottom for new stuff. Here is why we can't add "Mohammad" to this article. First, the medical determination requires an examination by a professional. This is not possible. Sometimes modern people try to make a guess about a historical person using available data, but there is little usable data in this case and in cases where data is available the accuracy such retrospective analysis is questionable. Using the colloquial definition we run into the same issues of available data. For example this could have been a ceremonial marriage or the ages could be the result of a misinterpretation. --Gbleem 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Aisha. Muhammad clearly doesn't belong on this page Nil Einne 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you would need impeccable sourcing for us to even consider adding him, so do bring sources here, SqueakBox 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition is modern, but if we wanted to apply it retroactively, a large percentage of the ancient world might have been considered pedophiles. The Bible doesn't mention anyone's age at marriage, but the Talmud clarifies things by specifying, for example, that wives who are less than 12 years old should use birth control, since pregnancy might kill them. If a male's brother died, he was expected to marry (and have children with) his brother's widow, and there is discussion of this obligation still holding in a case where the bridegroom-to-be is 9. And these views were hardly unique to the Middle East. Listing people from the fairly distant past would be as meaningless as adding thousands of names to a list of slaveowners. Context is everything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Poindexter Propellerhead (talk • contribs) 04:22, May 20, 2007 added by DPeterson^talk 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually think its quite a big thing - for the world ssecond largetst religion to be following what is in actual fact a paedophile is quite a big thing non? I even thought that it was an antiquated hing but ALL of m muslims frinds so far in discussion are defending the deflowering of a 9 year old child. Again this isjustst me but i find that quite shocking... so i think it deserves something becasue it is educating an entire section o f the world taht its ok. anyway my views.

It is a mental illness in accordance with the DSM-IV definition.

It is not clear what the pronoun "it" is referring to. If "it" refers to pedophilia defined medically as a disease then the statement might belong in the first paragraph where the medical definition is presented. However, the first paragraph is not the place for comparing and contrasting the different medical definitions, and if it were I would not pick only one. --Gbleem 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some looking and the paraphilia article and maybe we do need to be more explicit that the first paragraph of this article refers to the medical definition. --Gbleem 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"It" would be the subject of the article. The intro seems like a good spot to give a basic medical definition. We already mention the contrast between the "generally accepted medical definition" and colloquial usage. What other medical definitions do we want to compare and contrast definitions? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is medically defined pedophilia but your sentence with the word "it" was in a paragraph about the colloquial use of the term. --Gbleem 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved Will Beback's line up to the first paragraph and changed Pedophilia to "it". Here "it" refers to the medical definition.

We already have a section on how the DSM and ICD classify pedophilia. I think we can summarize it by saying in the intro:

Pedophilia is described as a mental disorder by standard diagnosis manuals, including the DSM IV and ICD-10.

That gives a NPOV rendition of the material already in the "Diagnosis" section. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The DSM and ICD are the most widely used definitions of mental illness. Pedophilia is a mental illness, by definition. Therefore, the line belongs in the introduction and is also NPOV and has verifiable sources to support the stmt. DPeterson^talk 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So what, exactly is the relevance of "...and child sexual abuse is also illegal." in a section on the definition of pedophilia? Also, the sentence is a vague since it doesn't define child, abuse or the nation in which it is illegal. Additionally, the first part of the sentence should start with "According to the DSM" instead of how it does now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) June 3 18:11

To note that the condition is both a mental illness and illegal...both are NPOV, factual statements, which are verifiable. "In accordance with the DSM..."is also acceptable English. However, we can see what other editors think.
What is your objection (point to a policy that supports it's exclusion). DPeterson^talk 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have NPOV concerns with both the phrasing and the appropriateness of the statement in the context of the larger section. There's no reason to be talking about the illegality of child sexual abuse in that section. It's not relevant. We could have a sentence about how it's illegal to kill a child after a sexual assault, too. That would be factually correct, but it would be NPOV to have it here.Chunky Rice 21:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
regarding the first part of the sentence, my concern is not about whether or not it is grammatically correct, but rather where the emphasis is placed.Chunky Rice 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is relevent that a behavior is illegal! Let's see what others think. DPeterson^talk 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the text to read:

Child sexual abuse, whether perpetrated by a clinically diagnosed pedophile or a situational offender, is illegal in most jurisdictions.

And moved it up a paragraph so that it is part of the discussion of clinical versus common usage. The point that I think is important is that the medical diagnosis does not matter to the law. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, I support your recent edits and am comfortble with those improvements. DPeterson^talk 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.Chunky Rice 00:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletion of "incidence" sections

I agree, all that material was largely based on one college student sample and represented Undue influence regarding the ciation. Nice job deleting that section. DPeterson^talk 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rem criticism of treatment section

This section was a tautology, in a sense. To say that the "only" problem evident among pedophiles and Pedophilia is their attraction to children, and so there really is no problem or mental illness is absurd. The "only" problem with many murderers is that they killed one person. The "only" problem with a child with ADHD is are problems with attention. Listen, if other editors disagree with me here, pls say so and if that is the consensus, then the section will have to go back, despite my objection. DPeterson^talk 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have my agreement, and your rationale makes a lot of sense. -Jmh123 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, I don't want to equate pedophilia to homosexuality, but isn't that criticism very similar to the one used when they removed homosexuality from the DSM? My feeling is that unless we're going to take the position that pedophilia is bad (which I think is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy), the argument is sound. -Chunky Rice 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is written with a pretty clear POV in mind--that being that there is no real illness associated with pedophilia. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that some pedophiles are led to commit crimes because of their attractions. While homosexual acts have been considered criminal, and still are, unfortunately, in some states, these are victimless crimes, and rarely prosecuted these days. Not so with child sexual abuse. Perhaps you can think of a way to rewrite the section so that it is NPOV? -Jmh123 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all criticism sections inherently POV? I mean, they exist to present the counter-pov to the main article. I'm not sure how you would write one that wasn't. However, including a section doesn't make the article POV, and excluding valid criticisms does. -Chunky Rice 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point. The section on "treatment" seems to indicate that there isn't really any effective treatment for this condition...so what is to criticize, except that, maybe, more resources ($$$) should go to developing effective treatments? DPeterson^talk 02:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There was just a news piece on some new treatment claimed to be effective. I'll dig it up. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the section indicates that argument is that pedophilia in of itself is not a pathology and therefore, any treatment is inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While pedophilia may not be regarded a pathology in some circles, it is currently treated as one by legal establishments, notably in both the U.S. and U.K. The use of sex offender registries, and more recently of extended incarceration after completion of prison terms, have become widespread. They are predicated on the belief that some sex offenders, and some child sex offenders in particular, have a high incidence of repeat violations and are a threat to society. There are currently many people who are locked up basically because the legal and medical systems have determined them to be pedophiles. In some cases their only hope of freedom is treatment of some kind. We should have a section or at least a full paragrpoh on that issue.

Furthermore, we have the example of the efforts by the Catholic Church to provide treatment to its priests who had exhibited pedophilic tendencies. Their level of succes should be summarized; I'm sure there must be some sources on the topic. It'd be worth a short paragraph at least. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To start with, I've put the section back, as it should be before consensus is reached. If a consensus against keeping it is reached, then maybe we should move the text to an easily accesible location, so that it can be combed through. Nevertheless, I oppose the removal of this section. The secton seems to adequately explain all of the doubts that have been raised over the treatment of pedophiles. Its size owes to the fact that much of the literature reflects doubtfully on the ability to treat. (f a b i a n) 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By definition it is a mental illness per DSM. Most editors want the section out, so until there is consensus, it should remain out. DPeterson^talk 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1)I'm not sure what your point is re: the DSM. 2) I really don't see the consensus that you claim exists. -Chunky Rice 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A point was raised about Pedophilia not being a mental illness or that being disputed...By defintion it is per the DSM. I think more editors want the section out is what I meant. DPeterson^talk 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your argument to be pretty weak. It seems like you're saying that no critism of the DSM is valid. Can't the DSM be wrong? It has been before. The mere fact that the DSM says something doesn't make it immune from criticism. Looking at this dicussion, it looks to me that there are 3 editors in favor or removal and 2 in favor of keeping. That's not consensus. -Chunky Rice 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it again. It appeared to me to give excess attention to a fringe viewpoint. We should try to cover the material is a less didactic manner. Much of this article appears intended to justify pedophilia, rather than to simply describe it. We shouldn't seek to attack or defend it, but just to summarize neutrally what reliable sources have written. It is possible to skew NPOV by devoting excessive space to minority viewpoints. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will's comments. In addition, the DSM is a current reliable and veriafialbe and reputable source. An individual, such as Chunky Rice, may wish it wrong or think is can be, but that would constitute OR. DPeterson^talk 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? You have no idea what my personal opinion is. I have only argued for the inclusion of the published criticism of others. I really don't understand why you think the DSM is immune from criticism. It is not original research to cite someone elses research. I really don't understand your position. It doesn't seem to be based on Wikipedia policy. -Chunky Rice 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely reflecting your comment, "Can't the DSM be wrong? It has been before. The mere fact that the DSM says something doesn't make it immune from criticism." I meant no harm or personal attack and am sorry if you misinterpreted my comments. If you have specific reputable and verifiable citations and sources that refute the 'specific' lines and quotes from the DSM in this article, by all means, bring them on for us to take a look at. DPeterson^talk 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't really understand what was wrong with the cited criticism that were deleted. Isn't that what they did? -Chunky Rice 01:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I want to make it clear that I have no agenda to push in this article. I just have it on my watchlist because it's a frequent vandalism target. I just feel like the changes you have made have been detrimental to the quality of the article. -Chunky Rice 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think that the section on treatment needs to reflect a certain anmount of objective criticism. For example, it needs to point out that it is mostly active sex offenders that need treatment, rather than people who are merely attracted to children. The criticism should also include a notion (citation?) that such treatment may be deemed unethical in cases of documented willing/harmless relationships, and in the cases of "celibate peodophiles". Can someone propose a revised text for the restoration of the criticism section? 193.217.55.223 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

crime and motivation

"However, regardless of motivation, child sexual abuse is a crime, and pedophilia is a mental illness." I added a comma to this sentence, but it still looks funny to me. Does the phrase "regardless of motivation" apply to "child sexual abuse is a crime" only or to both phrases?

Pedophilia is a mental illness except when the term is used in the colloquial sense to refer to criminals. I'm not sure the sentence makes things clearer.--Gbleem 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of motivation refers to sexual abuse. Maybe the "," after "crime" is not needed? DPeterson^talk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My question was rhetorical. We can all only guess what the sentence means. Regardless of what the author intended, the sentence as it stands is unclear. --Gbleem 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think the whole thing should be removed as irrelevant. We already have two mentions in the article that child sexual abuse is a crime. Further, the "mental illness" part needs the "according to the DSM" qualifier, or should be removed altogether. We don't need to re-emphasize these points at the end of every single paragraph. It feels like POV pushing to me. What is the purpose, other than to say "It doesn't matter why they do it, it's still bad."?-Chunky Rice 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should decide on whether to keep the sentence until it has been fixed. --Gbleem 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at it again and I don't see anyway to rewrite the sentence so that it clarifies the point of the paragraph. --Gbleem 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...Maybe the best thing would be to poll the other editors and see if there is a consensus. DPeterson^talk 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on your position with more than "I disagree?" I've tried to explain my reasoning. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points I've raised.. -Chunky Rice 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've explained mine above in other sections, I won't repeat myself, except to say that the facts are that it is a mental illness and illegal and that is notable. DPeterson^talk 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable enough for inclusion in the article? Sure. But why do we need three separate mentions of it in three separate sections? Excessive. Further, I find your pushing of the DSM as some sort of gospel to be questionable. -Chunky Rice 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above re the DSM. It's inclusion belongs in each section and is relevant and related the the preceeding material it follows. Now, if you suggest removing the material preceeding the DSM references, then the DSM references would probably also need to be edited. DPeterson^talk 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs fixing, but just chopping out that sentence isn't the solution. No time to analyze it thoroughly, but it needs more work than that. I agree that the writing and presentation could be improved. -Jmh123 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I revised a bit, keeping the focus on pedophilia, rather than going into depth about the nature of child sexual offenders in general, since that is not the topic here. The point that not all sexual offenders are pedophiles is clearly made. The statement about percentages was referenced only in-line, without specific citations to support the data that was cited. Wogan's studies, while interesting, are not contextualized in a thorough review of research in this area, and pertain to the nature of sex offenders rather than pedophiles. I also removed the sentence that was an attempt to balance the POV, which hopefully I have done. -Jmh123 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, here's a link to an opposing view, by Charles Moser, Ph.D., M.D., wich suggest that pedophilia, along with other paraphilias, is not a valid "mental disorder" and that it clearly fails to meet psychiatric criteria of a psychopathology: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/MoserKleinplatz.htm The study concludes that "the Paraphilia section is so severely flawed that its removal from the DSM is advocated.". I think that it needs to be incorporated into the article, ie. by pointing out that there is disagreement within the academic and psychiatric community on this issue. 193.217.55.223 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it is a mental illness as defined in the DSM and ICD-9. DPeterson^talk 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, "mental disorder" (or in the case of ICD-9, "nonpsychotic mental disorder").[1] Someone with ADD or fear of heights also has a mental disorder, but few people would call them "mentally ill;" ICD-9's category for pedophilia even excludes the classically "mentally ill." DSM-IV and ICD-9's statement on the subject is ambiguous in that way, you don't know quite what to make of it. Which makes me think that Moser may have overreacted, but I'm willing to entertain arguments that his is an important minority position. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mixing clinical and general descriptions. The DSM defines mental illnesses, ADHD may not be seen as a "mental illness" by the general public, but it is a mental illness per the DSM, which defines mental illnesses. DPeterson^talk 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The DSM is the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," and "disorder" is the terminology it favors. It defines a "mental disorder" as "a clinically important collection of symptoms (these can be behavioral or psychological) that causes an individual distress, disability, or the increased risk of suffering pain, disability, death, or the loss of freedom." I found no definition of "mental illness" in it, or even any use of the term. If you have found the term "mental illness" used by either DSM-IV or ICD-9 to refer to paraphilias (or for that matter, anything else!), I'd appreciate a cite, as I'm currently trying to get this sorted out over at List of mental illnesses (or List of mental disorders, depending on who did the last redirect revert). Poindexter Propellerhead 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Moser's et al. assessment is definitely an important minority position, and certainly relevant for this article. I also suggest that we touch briefly on the article by Richard Green, M.D., J.D., wich basically argues the same but with the sole focus on pedophilia:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm#6

Green's position is that the currently listed DSM criteria for pedophilia is "logically incoherent", and that "The DSM should not provide psychiatry with jurisdiction over an act any more than it should provide the law with jurisdiction over a thought.".

Opposing statements contrary to the prevailing APA dogma (by insiders, not just by the "psychiatry abolitionists") have been outlined in other Wikipedia articles. For example, in the schizophrenia article, there is a section on "alternative approaches", wich describes the opposing view (mainly by "anti-psychiatrists", however, such as Szasz, Breggin, etc.) that schizoophrenia is not neccessarily a disorder, but that it could be a normal variation in the human psyche and that the classification of it as an "illness" may be rather due to social/religious stigma, prevailing cultural norms/expectations, etc. I am not suggesting that we should include the "anti-psychiatry" position, even though some of the APA critics were former psychiatrists themselves (since it excludes almost all of the DSM definitions as "pathological", anyway), only to point out that there are a number of practicing psychiatrists who are convinced that pedophilia does not meet the DSM criteria, and that it therefore should not be considered as a valid psychiatric diagnosis. 193.217.55.223 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Question on treatment citation

The line

A hospital in Berlin, Germany reported success using role-play therapy and medicine. The pedophiles were better able to control their urges once they understood the child's view.[52][53]

is sourced with a news story and not an empirical journal. Do other editors think that is noteworthy enough to warrant it's inclusion? Consider this an informal within article RfC. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that. I think it's verifiable that the clinic has made this claim, and that it was the result of an actual study. Whether a claim of an effective treatment is worth mentioning is another matter. I'm not sure why we'd require it to have been published in an empirical journal. (Though I presume they'll publish in one eventually). ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's a link to the institute conducting the study: [2] They are part of Charité, called "the largest university hospital in Europe". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's essentially a detailed press release about the study, in English. "Prevention of Child Molestation in the Dunkelfeld" ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

this project should definitely be included. it is the most public campaign to prevent child sexual abuse before it occurs that i am aware of. (billboards, commercials, etc.) here is the official website of the project with more information. ~[[kinda]] 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium: Nonexclusive pedophiles

Citizendium now also has a live article on pedophilia at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pedophilia. What strikes me after reading it is our first sentence now. We define pedophilia as exclusively or primarily attracted to children. Both Norbert de Jonge and Marthijn Uittenbogaard stated on TV that they are luckily also attracted to adults. Need we rephrase our definition to "strongly or even exclusively" to reflect the lower occurence of 7% of exclusives?

Interesting point. DSM-III required that the attraction to pre-pubescents be "repeatedly preferred or exclusive;" DSM-IV lets the diagnostician specify whether it's exclusive or non-exclusive. I'm thinking that our first sentence is based, at least in part, on the older definition. Does anyone know of a reason (based in the current, standardized definitions) why exclusivity should be retained as a criterion? Poindexter Propellerhead 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The DSM-IV is the criteria to use. DPeterson^talk 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"peripubescent" -> "early pubescent"

I'm inclined to change "peripubescent" to "early pubescent" in the lead, because I don't think anybody knows what "peripubescent" means. Dybryd 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is ok with me. DPeterson^talk 12:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Combined article

This looks just terrific. Great work all. The article now captures the full gamut of issues and material in one place. DPeterson^talk 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I immediately noticed how pro pedophilia the anti pedophile section is. Strange but fixeable, SqueakBox 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, me too. But at least all the material is in one place so that it can all be edited within context. I've made a few minor changes...more to follow. DPeterson^talk 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I seem to have been mistakenly under the impression that it was still under debate as to whether or not this material should be merged into the "Pedophilia" article (based on the discussion taking place at "Pro-Pedophile Activisim"). Could someone here please explain ... Welland R 12:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well keep debating, nobody is short circuiting that, and my actionw as absolutely not intended to stifle debate, SqueakBox 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That was evident to me. DPeterson^talk 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything, and you are not mistaken. I've expressed my disapproval of this out-of-process action, but it falls on deaf ears. -Jmh123 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus to merge.--Flamgirlant 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? Clearly there isn't a consensus if folks are unhappy. On the other hand, the way things were before wasn't entirely acceptable either. Now that the material from outside articles has been merged, why don't we look for an appropriate way to redivide the article, perhaps along fresh lines? But first, having the material all in one place gives us a chance to balance it out. The advocacy stuff, which is the actions of only a few hundred people (pro and con), had become too long compared to the treatment of the overall topic of pedophilia, a topic which affects millions. Let's put things into perspective and then see how the remaining material can be best divided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, what a wonderful idea. This is a sort of split the difference thought that, while maybe not making everyone happy, may move us along to getting a better article or articles. I support this approach 100%. Thanks for the cool head here. DPeterson^talk 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, good call. Dybryd 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you guys want activism information to be in this article, too, then whatever, but I was under the impression that the stated excuse was to eliminate duplication. Regardless, the pro and anti activism articles should clearly stay as they were before, as the vote to merge failed. Mike D78 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Things on Wikipedia never "stay as they were before". Let's focus instead on how we want things to be in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, as long as that "future" doesn't involve the implementation of an idea that clearly failed in a vote. Mike D78 05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So "combined article" means this article has largely become about pro-paedophilia activism? I've just read it, and that's certainly how it comes across. Exploding Boy 05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

a procedural but important note: there aren't any "votes" - a divided vote is a failure to reach consensus, not a close horse race. Dybryd 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's how it comes across to anyone who looks at this without an agenda. Even after the unexplained deletion of the history sections, the amount of information related to activism now crammed into this article clearly warrants separate entries.

Mike D78 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your user edit history and join date certainly do not suggest that you are looking at this without an agenda. Don't act like you are without one. XavierVE 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to not have my own opinions, but I do attempt to leave them at the door as much as possible and edit in the interests of fairness, accuracy, and common sense. Any user who took a look at the "combined article" without the agenda of supporting this proposal (Exploding Boy, for instance) could see that the result was clearly unsatisfactory.

Mike D78 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's even stranger given that a lengthy article on paedophile activism already exists. Exploding Boy 06:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they keep trying to redirect that article to this one. The idea is that, by cramming outside material into this article, they can target and delete passages they don't like in the name of removing off-topic info. Thier merge proposal failed in a previous vote, however, and I have reported their actions on the admin noticeboard. Hopefully someone can put a stop to this unnecessary revert war they've insisted on starting.

Mike D78 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith. The purpose of the redirect is to combine three very related articles with overlapping material into one article that covers the domain completely. For the general reader this is a preferable approach. DPeterson^talk 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, I'm afraid I cannot assume good faith on frequent reverts that were made against the wishes of a majority of users. It just doesn't work that way.

Mike D78 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessary at all on Wikipedia. The main article on a subject should give all the relevant information about the subject iteself. Other aspects, such as activism on the subject, particularly when there is a lot of information about it, can be briefly mentioned in the main article but should be fully discussed in separate articles. That's why we have main article tags. There was far, far too much pro-pedophile activism information in the pedophilia article, and it was making it unbalanced. In fact, the only reason there was "overlapping material" is because somebody duplicated it all. Exploding Boy 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend, if you want to experiment with this further, DPeterson and SqueakBox, that you create a temporary page with all three articles combined, edit it as you like, invite comments and participation in the process, and then propose the change. Exploding Boy is entirely right that there was way too much material about pro-pedophile activism after the merger; that was a huge article, and it should have been edited down first, had the merger been approved. -Jmh123 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version looks okay if we redirect the pro pedophile article, whioch appears to have been reverted by the sock of a banned user (and we are all empowered to revert all such edits, SqueakBox 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am getting tired of people who don't seem to like my presence here simply dismissing me as a sockpuppet.

Mike D78 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am basing this on your user page! its not my assumption, SqueakBox 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, the tag on my userpage was placed by a user who was no less engaged in unwarranted speculation than you are. Mike D78 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt may have been engaging in speculation. I am not doing so, SqueakBox 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So then stop referring to me as a sock! Mike D78 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What was it redirected from, please? I will make the necessary changes. Exploding Boy 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile activism, SqueakBox 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. Which article(s) was/were direct where? Exploding Boy 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I redirected 2 articles, Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism to here. Mike unredirected the pro article and left the anti article as a redirect. We have, IMO, 2 choices. We re-redirect the pro article here or we merge the pro and anti articles into a pedophile activism article and I think we should do the first, hence my intention to afd the pro article, SqueakBox 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the proposal currently under discussion. Your redirect of those two articles to this one appears controversial, and there is a current request for renaming for the Pedophile activism article underway. There is also no reason to list that article for deletion. This page has now been protected due to edit warring. Exploding Boy 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to discussion of the article on this talk page. Take other discussion to user talk pages. Thank you. Exploding Boy 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Occurrence in child sex offenders

I restored this section to a previous version; a lot of sourced information seemed to have been excised without any reason given. It is important to state the research that shows that not all pedophiles are molesters, and not all molesters are pedophiles, and someone had deleted several claims that emphasized this. I would remind editors that, especially in the case of controversial articles, it is appropriate to discuss the elimination of info beforehand, particularly when it is extensively sourced.

I can perhaps find more sources to cite for the claims in this section, if that is the issue, although I think these claims already are sourced well enough to be included.

For now, I also deleted the curious sentence "However, regardless of "cause," it is a mental illness in accordance with the DSM-IV definition." What exactly does "it" refer to: sex offenses? Sex offenses certainly do not in and of themselves indicate mental illnesses in accordance with the DSM, and if "it" was referring to pedophilia, then a section on sex offenders seems like an odd place to include this sentence. Mike D78 05:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected due to edit warring. Exploding Boy 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For how long? SqueakBox 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be tagged as such at the top of the page, then? Dybryd 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For three days, to start. Forgot to add the tag: done now. Exploding Boy 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be tagged, not the talk page? DPeterson^talk 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

3 days sounds okay to me, gives us all time to think through what we want to do next with this whole series of articles, SqueakBox 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Added back large section deleted

I don't understand why a large section of the article was deleted. I restored it. If that was an error on my part, pls explain. I just did not see any reason stated for the deletion, hence my restoration. DPeterson^talk 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who deleted it, but it's pretty obvious why. SqueakBox's merge was undone, so now we have a Pro-pedophile activism article, an Anti-pedophile activism article, and you have once again restored the content of both articles into Pedophilia as well. I think you know all this, but since you asked....-Jmh123 17:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd not seen that. I see your point now. While there are two sep articles, the material is to remain separate. DPeterson^talk 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps you will once again remove the duplicated material until the matter is settled? -Jmh123 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No? Alright, I did it. I see no need to duplicate the material, and it is entirely excessive in its present form in this article. -Jmh123 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Colloquially"

It's a small thing, but the use of the word "colloquial" in this article has been irritating me for months. It's inaccurate. Editors of the article may prefer an exclusively medical definition of pedophilia, but this article itself goes on to say that a behavioral definition is also used, not just "colloquially" but in much published research on the topic.

Look at wiki's article on Colloquialism. This article misuses the word. Dybryd 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest as an alternative? DPeterson^talk 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. There's no need for any modifier, the word can simply be cut. Dybryd 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. That's fine with me. I deleted one instance I saw, but if there are others, be my guest. ThanksDPeterson^talk 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic that I'm not extensively familiar with, so forgive my ignorance, but can anyone point to some examples of published research which say you're a pedophile if you sleep with a 17 year old in Pennsylvania or California? Poindexter Propellerhead 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Read through the article, it discusses the question. Dybryd 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read through the article, but the only reference for that was on page 176 of Barbaree's Pedophilia: Assessment and Treatment. He gives the usual (Webster's, DSM, etc) sort of definition, then adds "Unfortunately the terms 'pedophile' and 'child molester' are sometimes used interchangably in the popular and scientific literature, creating unnecessary confusion." I find it rather an odd use of citations to take an author's statement that a word is confusingly misused to justify our propagation of that same confusing misuse. Particularly when the cited paper is not available online, so readers cannot see that for themselves. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Luckily you had page 176 of that reference work to hand yourself. A little surprising given that you are "not extensively familiar" with this topic, but all to the good.

Do you think that a writer's opionion that the common use of two different definitions in scientific literature is confusing can be taken as evidence that such usage is "colloquial"? DanB†DanD 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a very quick researcher who has a bad habit of abruptly appearing in the middle of things. It gets me mistaken for a puppet or troll at times, but I get over it.

Anyway, I agree that when the term is used to mean something other than its formal definition, "colloquial" is not the ideal description. On the other hand, leaving out all trace of the author's statement that such use is unfortunate and confusing seems even less desirable. "Inaccurate" would seem to reflect the author's opinion, but comes across as a little heavy handed; would something along the lines of "imprecise" be acceptable to all concerned? Poindexter Propellerhead 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because there is no reason to take Barbaree's judgment over that of the colleagues he refers to, who presumably don't find their own usage of the word incorrect or imprecise.

However, your description of Barbaree's position is totally at odds with the way it's described in the article now, where we say he has "endorsed the use of actions as a sole criterion for the diagnosis of pedophilia" -- the reverse of objecting to a behavioral definition by others! Would you like to rewrite that passage based on what he actually says? DanB†DanD 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at it, although Barbree's position is not opposed to using actions as a diagnostic criterion, he's mostly just critical of one particular diagnostic screening method. He says, "Phallometric assessment is unacceptable as a 'screening' test because of its level of sensitivity (Freund and Blanchard, 1989; Freund and Watson, 1991). Some men who appear nondeviant in their responding have actually committed sexual assault against a child." Anyway, I'll be happy to bring the article more into line with the citation. I still want to see some reference to the fact that the "pedophile=child molester" definition was mentioned as criticism rather than an endorsement, however. If some of Barbaree's colleagues did feel that using the term that way was entirely correct, then we still have two opposing viewpoints, and none of us have presented any evidence that either one is such an overwhelming majority as to warrant omitting all mention of contrary opinions. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

with the word gone, it's a moot point. The DSM is the basic criteria that should be used and referenced. DPeterson^talk 00:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia, mootness is only guaranteed until the next edit.

As for Barbaree, know that I'm trying to find a good resolution, but it's proven a lot more problematic than I'd anticipated.

Barbaree isn't a writer on pedophilia per se. Right after the sentence where he calls it "unfortunate" and "confusing" that people sometimes use "child molester" and "pedophile" interchangeably, he says "In this chapter, a child molester is any individual who has committed a sexual offense against a child victim, and is therefore identified according to legal definitions of 'sexual offense' and 'child victim.'" From that point forward, all discussion is WRT people who have committed criminal offenses, who may or may not be pedophiles. Most of his other publications are also on predicting recidivism among legally-defined child molesters. At this point I'm wondering about whether the citation under discussion has an appropriate place in this article. It seems like it would fit much better into Child_sexual_abuse. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The word peadophile is used to purely mean child sex offender in common language but i couldn't find anything that said that. It was as if it didn't exist I am off to look for child sex ofender page to see if there is anything that says anything about not clinical definitions or phycopaths/sociopaths. I have read that a lot of peadophiles are phycopaths did not find that here either Delighted eyes 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the dictionary definitions of pedophile and colloquial I am certain that colloquially is the correct word. Note that a colloquial usage is not necessarily a colloquialism. Also, if someone uses the child sexual abuser definition then they are using the colloquial definition even if that person is a mental health professional, researcher, or other professional, or the usage is used in a scholarly journal or book. --Gbleem 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the Danish Pedophile Association: who cares?

We give a prominent place in the article to a quote from the spokesperson of the Danish Pedophile Association. The article on the group states that in 1996 it had eighty members and has since been disbanded. It does not appear to have any academic standing, or to have played a prominent cultural role in any event, even in the obscure one of pedophile activism.

I'm thinking that the group is just a random bunch of cranks, and that it's silly to quote them alongside actual authorities as if they were important. Okay if I snip 'em? Dybryd 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't belong, simply for the fact that statements referenced in a medical article generally need to have "academic standing," as you mentioned.

I'm actually aware of a few other pieces of medical literature that refer to pedophilia as an "orientation." I'll see if I can find them, and we'll insert them as replacements. In the meantime, delete away. Mike D78 07:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Fred Berlin is the most prominent authority who says this, and we've kept him. DanB†DanD 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have. Look at my comments under 'New Quote from Fred Berlin'.Alexander 10:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Added new link

I have added a link to a site wich tries to cover the debate within the psychiatric community on the issue whether or not pedophilia should be considered a mental disorder. It offers comments made by 21 prominent sexologists/APA professionals. It covers the views of, among others, Green, Rind, Moser, Spitzer and Berlin. What do you all think? Equilibrist 08:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The link is fine. We just need to understand that this is an opinion piece. It is not published in a professional peer-reviewed journal. At this point in time Pedophilia is a mental illness, by definition, per ICD-9 and DSM. DPeterson^talk 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was indeed published in a professional peer-reviewed journal: it appeared in the December 2002 edition of Archives of Sexual Behavior and was written by a noted psychologist and sexologist. Psychology is a "soft science," and the official APA line on pedophilia could be seen as simply an "opinion piece" as well, albeit one subscribed to by a larger number of people at this point. I agree with another editor's suggestion that this article needs a brief "alternative views" section to concisely note the opinions of academics like Green. Mike D78 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's alright, though, I may change the link to a mirror of the article itself, as the current link merely points to a summary of it. Mike D78 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mike, go ahead. I agree that we need to include a link to the original article by Green as well, somehow. Equilibrist 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New quote from Fred Berlin

I've added a quote to the article which I think illustrates Berlin's position on pedophilia pretty well. I also deleted the sentence about his view not being consistent with the DSM criteria, as he actually does still consider pedophilia to be a disorder despite viewing the term "orientation" as an accurate way to describe it. Mike D78 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Berlin's theory is in part based on the logical fallacy that we are 'born with a sexual orientation', which is in fact, not true, as it actual is slowly built up and finally formalized and completed at puberty, or soon thereafter. Yet he contradicts himself by stating that it would be unlikely for someone to willingly develop such an orientation, thus suggesting it ispossible to choose sexual orientation. This makes his argument untrustworthy due to lack of consistency and logic. He also considers pedophilia to be a disorder for what are, at the least, noteworthy and radically different reasons.Alexander 10:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DSM and homosexuality

This removed content is important for people to take their own conclusions about the subject of the article. I believe people reading this will find it really important that the manual that says that pedophilia is a paraphilia also used to say that homosexuality is a paraphilia until 30 years ago. This information will allow them to relativize the importance of that source. Someone researching the subject could, of course, just go to the article about the DSM and find this out for themself. I think the question is really how relevant this is. Since there are only two' manuals in the introduction, and thus the DSM stands for half the manuals, I find this is important enough to be in the introduction. A.Z. 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The place to question the DSM is in the article on the DSM. Wikipedia does not exist to lobby for a specific POV and it should not serve as a tool for propaganda; rather it exists to explain the world as it is. Someone researching the subject will see the facts, and that is as it should be. The APA has made it very clear that there is no plan to change the diagnosis or endorse pedophilia. [3] -Jmh123 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this issue has already been covered in "external links", which leads to a full version of Green's discussion paper "Is pedophilia a mental disorder?". Among other things, Green refers to his opposition against listing homosexuality as a disorder as an argument against the vagueness of the DSM criteria right at the beginning of his article. Nevertheless, I think that the statement could be included in the "alternative views" section, if someone could create\propose it. 80.165.17.67 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The removed material does not belong. This is an article about Pedophila, which is a mental disorder per the DSM and ICD-9. I agree with Jmh123 that the place to raise the historical issue of homosexuality having once been included belongs in the DSM article, just as material about how once radical masts were the norm for breast cancer treatment...or bleeding was once a treatment, etc. DPeterson^talk 22:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering a revert

I am considering reverting the introduction back to the 30.07 version, which states: "Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the condition of being sexually attracted to prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children. Pedophilia is described as a paraphilia by standard diagnosis manuals, including the ICD-10 and DSM IV. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.[1]"

While it is true that it is described as a so-called "mental disorder" in the DSM (or rather, a sexually-related disorder or a paraphilia), the DSM clearly states that it is to be considered a disorder only if it causes significant distress to the pedophile, or if the pedophile acts on his/her urges (which is one of the three required criteria for making the diagnosis). Furthermore, the DSM clearly states elsewhere that "Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above", in it's "cautionary" statement on the paraphilias. Therefore, it is highly misleading to define all pedophilia as a disorder per DSM when, in fact, it is only considered a disorder if all of the three requirements are met in the diagnosis. To quote Green: "If a person does not act on the fantasies or urges of pedophilia, he is not a pedophile. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder. But a person who is not distressed over them and has sexual contact with a child does have a mental disorder." Thus, it is both inaccurate and highly POV to describe all sexual attractions to children as a "psychiatric disorder" in the intro, as pedophilic impulses/attractions obviously are much more than a mere "diagnosis" (considering the historical context and the relatively large prevalence of "pedophilic responses" within the male population at large, as documented in some studies), and neither alone are required to make such a diagnosis in the first place, as per the DSM. Equilibrist 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about my new edit: "Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the condition of being sexually attracted to prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.[1] Pedophilia is currently described as a paraphilia and a mental disorder if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, by standard diagnosis manuals, including the ICD-10 and DSM IV."

I feel that "a person with this attraction" is more in place right after the first sentence. In the last sentence, the DSM view of pedophilia is presented. Equilibrist 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an improvement. Samantha Pignez 09:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "is the attraction of an adult towards prepubescent children." First of all prepubescent and preadolescent both mean the same thing. Adolescence is the period of life from puberty to adulthood. So "prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children" is just redundant. Second, I changed "condition" to "attraction". Heterosexuality isn't defined as the "condition of being attracted to the opposite sex," it's just "the attraction to people of the opposite sex." The same is true for Homosexuality. Ospinad 22:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You were right to add the words "preferencial" & "exclusive" (not sure why you had to put them in quotes though) I wanted to say something like that but wasn't sure how to word it. Also, you said, "Nothing outside the medical definition states that adulthood is required." Surely something about the age of the person with the attraction has to be mentioned because a child who's attracted to other children their own age wouldn't be considered a pedophile. Ospinad 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ospinad. I would like to say that I agree with your changes, down to the one last point. I see no reason to mention a requirement for adulthood. Whilst an ad populum model would most certainly use such a classification, is there any scientific evidence that one's age of attraction increases with age? I personally, have seen none, nor any requirement for adulthood in major dictionaries. It may in fact be the case that simply being around others of similar ages and being under pressure to deny and express the "appropriate" emotions, leads to the common perception of an increasing AoA. We may only be excluding children from the "pedophile" category, because pedophilia itself is seen as extremely rare and a permanent mental illness, also often being confused with psychopathy. Such assumptions do not fit well with the misinformed idea that children are preferentially attracted to other children, as opposed to simply being allowed to date them!

Lets keep the current version, and see how the discussion develops. ●Farenhorst 04:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, you have some interesting ideas, Farenhorst. I never thought that the requirement of the person with the attraction of being an adult, to be considered a pedophile was a big deal. Most dictionaries say that a pedophile is an adult although they don't explicitly say that a child can't be a pedophile, or that a child with feelings for other children their age belong in a completely different catagory than the adult pedophile.... AoA's? "Is there any scientific evidence that one's AoA increases with age?" Obviously that's not true for everyone but the point is that for those where it doesn't, they usually end up becoming pedophiles. Or, like you said, the child starts out being attracted to adults normally but because adults are not allowed to date them they have to "resort" to dating other kids their age. But I think that the reason why we normally wouldn't classify a child that shows romantic interests in other children their own age as pedophiles is the same reason why we wouldn't classify a child who shows interest in other children of the same sex as homosexuals. Because they are still young and we don't know if it's just due to curiosity and if they'll grow out of it when they grow up. If they grow up to become adults and they still have those feelings then it's more likely that they have them because "that's part of who they are." I'm not even sure if I'm making sense, lol :-/. Ospinad 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The adult bit should clearly stay, SqueakBox 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for adding to the discussion, SqueakBox! Boy, you sure destroyed his argument! LOL Ospinad 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its entirely unnecessary as its a silly argument that holds no water and we dont have to take that kind of thing on board at all, SqueakBox 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole age question of pedophilia reminds me of bedwetting.

from the wikipedia article on bedwetting:

Bedwetting (or nocturnal enuresis or sleepwetting) is involuntary urination while asleep after the age at which bladder control would normally be anticipated.

Most children (85-90%) will consistently stay dry by age 6. By age 10, 95% of children are dry at night. Studies place adult bedwetting rates at between 0.5% to 2.3%.

Although it would be proper to say a two year old wets the bed the more scientific name, nocturnal enuresis, is only used for older children.

I do not know if this is scientific but I would say that in common usage a child of 14 that is attracted to a child of 14 would not be called a pedophile, but a child of 14 attracted to infants would be. Has anyone come across anything that states what the general consensus of the scientific community is regarding if a pedophile must be an adult or not. the problem with terms in this article is there seems to be a difference between the technical or scientific meaning of a term and its common usage among laymen. Jmm6f488 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assumptions and a source would be great. A 14 year old is not an adult but if they attack an infant for sexual gratification they would be considered a pedophile, SqueakBox 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that the intro has been greatly improved in the last couple of weeks. I agree that sexual attraction is not a "mental state", and the addition of "preferential" part is important because many men have the ability to feel sexually aroused by children but they are mostly attracted to adults, and thus not considered pedophiles (considering the fact that the AOC laws were as low as 8-10 in most places before the 19th century, as well as several recent studies on penile responsivity in non-pedophile populations which show that as many as 30% of the male population can respond sexually to children at least as strongly as they do to adults) Equilibrist 06:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction vandalized

Introuction of article has been vandalized, suggesting the cure to pedophilia is 'lyncing and beating people up'. Now well in certain specific cases I do not disagree 100%, lynching was misspelled, so it should be fixed. What, if anything, it should be replaced with, I have no idea, so I leave the edit to someone else.Alexander 10:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for this in the introduction. Besides, it's inherently POV, and we already have a whole section on "treatment" where all of the currently mainstream approaches have been covered in sufficient detail (beating people up is NOT one of them, BTW!) Equilibrist 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You can usually tell from the history if the vandalism was an addition or a replacement. If you aren't sure then you should delete the vandalism. It is better to have missing data than vandalism. Other people can add the good information in if the vandal deleted something important. --Gbleem 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Extent of Occurrence and Article in General

Under Extent of Occurrence section, some sort of statistics or mention needs to be made of women, as it does not just affect men.Alexander 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the entire article is remiss is mentioning that there are female pedophiles.Alexander 11:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we could mention that there is also a significant minority of women who are sexually attracted to children. For starters, here's an article that might be of interest: http://yani.glgarden.org/Archive/07-2003/Article01.html Equilibrist 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

spelling

I think the spelling paragraph in the definition section is interesting, but it is very POV and may not belong in the definition section. --Gbleem 12:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Question for people who have a DSM handy.

This is from the article:

Standard medical diagnosis manuals, including the ICD-10 and DSM IV, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

I know this to be a correct medical definition of pedophilia. My question is that if pedophilia does not causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning does this still make one a pedophile? For example: say a person does not believe sexual contact between children and adults is wrong (there by having no clinically significant distress. Say further more this same person's mental disorder is undetected by his peers (social) or work colleagues (occupational). Is this person still a pedophilia or is it only a matter of stress felt upon the person in question? Jmm6f488 18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If your preferential sexual attraction is directed toward children, per definition, you are a pedophile. However, the DSM states that if you are at least 16 years of age and do not fit the "distress" criteria, you don't have a disorder, unless you also have sex with a child below the age of 12 (at least according to Dr. Green's interpretation, ref. my post above). This is because the DSM states elsewhere that a sexual attraction itself (no matter how deviant) can never be a disorder; it has to either cause some sort of disability (distress) or severe impairment in social function (transgression, imprisonment) in order to be classified as such. There seems to be a great deal of dispute in the psychiatric community regarding the exact interpretation of the diagnostic criteria for paraphilias, it's wording, as well as the very inclusion of "deviant" sexual behaviors as disorders in the first place.

BTW, a recent DSM revision has changed the wording of criteria B from "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" to "the person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty". Equilibrist 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical definition

The lead paragraph seems to imply that there is a scientific definition of paedophilia that references puberty, and that an understanding of paedophila as being more generally an attraction to children is "colloquial" (ie technincally incorrect). However, no supporting evidence is given for this assertion. In fact, the link to the Merck site provided does not support the definition.

I don't have a medical background, but wouldn't paedophilia be considered a psychological condition? Assuming this is the case, then what would be relvant would be a concept of "child", which would be variable (for example, culturally). And wouldn't an attempt to give it a rigid definition be considered scientism? --88.111.32.112 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The definition of pedophilia is the sexual attraction of people 16+ years of age to prepubescent kids, if that attraction is acted upon, or if it messes up the life of the adult concerned. A lot of legally defined "child molesters" do not fit this description, and many DSM-defined pedophiles never touch a child, which is confusing enough. But the colloquial use discussed goes beyond that. Many jurisdictions have distinct offenses for molesting children under age 11 or so, and a "statutory rape" offense which deals with teenagers, hence statutory rapists in those places would be neither child molesters or pedophiles. Add in the fact that the age of consent varies by jurisdiction from 0 (several African and Asian countries) to 12 (Mexico, others) to 21 (Madagasgar) to infinite-unless-you're-married (several Islamic countries), and it becomes clear how worthless the colloquial term becomes when applied as a universal. In short, I think the colloquial "definition" is utter rubbish, and doesn't belong in the article. (Do we give the colloquial definition of "retard" on the Down's Syndrome page?)

But you're free to call DSM's definition "scientism" if you like. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You make a compelling point in favor of removing the "colloquial" definition. I would support it's removal, though I am also willing to consider some re-wording so that it specifically points to a particular culture where such a colloquial term is generally applied. Sadly, there seems to be a priori assumption among certain Wikipedians that prevalent US beliefs are somehow empirically relevant for the rest of the world. Equilibrist 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

According to my dictionary (OED), the definition of "paedophilia" is "sexual attraction felt by adults towards children". It doesn't used the word "pre-pubescent" or the word "youth" and the definition isn't marked "colloq.". Now, I'm not claiming that dictionaries (any more than medical textbooks) are divine. But if the dictionary definition is to be rejected or downgraded for the purposes of Wikipedia, then grounds for this ought to be referenced in the article.

From looking at the article, it is not clear that there exists a singular and (more or less) incontrovertible medical definition of paedophilia. Maybe there idoes. But, for most people, I think, paedophilia is seen as being primarily about a subject-object relationship, and only secondarily about the age or biological condition of the parties (this is why, for example, attraction between children is not normally classed as "paedophilia"). In other words, its a bit woolly, as are the categories "child" and "adult". There doesn't seem to be an obvious (or, more to the point, cited) reason why doctors should take a different view.

However, let's say there is a singular medical definition, which almost no specialist would dispute. What is still not clear is why this defintion should be considered superior to any other. To say "there is a general defintion and a medical defintion" is not the same as to say "there is a medical definition and a colloquial definition".

Incidentally, I do not think the existence of various laws around the world relating to consent and sexual offences make the general definition of "paedophilia" in any sense "worthless", because they are nothing to do with it. It is an error to think that paedophilia is commonly legally definied, in any case, since what is outlawed is usually behaviour. What I am not proposing is that there should be an alternative arbitrary cut-off point (between when someone may be considered the object of paedophilia and when they may not) in the primary definition. I am proposing that there should be no such cut off point, and the terms "adult" and "child" will do just fine, with more specific medical, legal etc definitions, such as there may be, to follow in the article.

The possibility does occur to me that the medical term "paedophilia" as defined currently at the top of the article may be part of a schema of different categories within what is more generally termed "paedophilia". If this is the case, then the definition currently in the article may be correct, but would be very much subordinate to the general defnition (in the same way that the medical term "schizophrenia" would subordinate to the general term "mad" in an article about madness - the complication that here we have two uses of the same word does not change this picture).

Cheers. --Jamesleg 12:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The term 'paedophilia' comes from Greek, meaning love of child. Any medical definition has to take into account that the term 'child' is culturally and historically relativistic. If, as is suggested by one commentator above, the term 'child' is taken to mean any pre-pubescent individual, then we must also accept that the medical and legal definitions of 'paedophiles' will diverge, as an individual may be no longer pre-pubescent at 10 years of age or may be pre-pubescent still at 17. (No doubt the legal age for consensual sexual intercourse is based upon an average age at which most individuals are considered to no longer need legal protection.) Discussion of a medical definition should be kept distinct from discussion of a legal definition. Furthermore, the same commentator makes a very common error in conflating 'paedophilia' with 'child molestation'. I read a study (regrettably, the exact source escapes me at the present time) in which it was suggested that as many as one in four adult males has a pronounced attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Even if this is exaggerated, it needs only a small step of the imagination to realise that paedophilia is a common phenomenon, and should be contrasted with child abuse, which is a criminal matter rather than a psychological phenomenon.

My three main comments, then, are: 1) discussion of a medical definition should take into consideration that definitional terms (such as 'child' or 'children') can be highly relativistic; 2) discussion of a medical definition should seek to avoid entering legal territory; 3) discussion of a medical definition should avoid conflating the term 'paedophilia' with specific acts (the definition of these acts themselves entering legal territory). This last point is particularly crucial, as there is more than a trace of moral panic in present discussion. To draw a parallel, the term 'homosexual male' is in no way synonymous with the term 'male rapist'. It was only a few generations ago, however, that moral panic about homosexuality resulted in very similar patterns of discussion on that subject. --[User:L.]

A "pedophile" is one who's sexually aroused by feet or the act fo walking, whereas a paedophile is one interested, sexually, in children. - English speaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.149.249 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Child Vs. pre-pubescent

Any concerns over removing the word child and replacing it with pre-pubescent should be adressed to me. In the states a child is anyone that is below 18 (by the way I think this to be correct so you might accuse me of Yankism but never pedophilia), but in many countries the def of a child is below this age. In think pre-pubescent is a term that is multi-national and more scientifically exact. Jmm6f488 06:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already addressed to you as much as to anyone else, please see above.

This isn't an arctile primarly about US law, and so US law should not be relevant to the framing of the definition. "Child" is also not primarly a legal term (ie the wikipedia entry "child" does not start with a legal definition), and is perfectly multi-national term. There does not seem to me to be any need, in forming a primary defintion here, for scientific exactness.--Jamesleg 12:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Preferential Or Exclusive Sexual Attraction

According to this article, pedophilia is a preferential or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. What if it's not preferential or exclusive (if an adult is sexually attracted to prepubescent youths as well as adults but more to adults)? Would that person still be classified as a pedophile? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBone (talk • contribs) 02:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure about scientifically but yes I would say they are a pedophile. Sort of like a Bi-sexual is still considered gay. Jmm6f488 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a relatively modern term invented by psychologists at the end of the 19th century. At the time they defined it as an almost exclusive, recurring sexual interest in youths that does not extend to any noticeable signs of pubertal development (which would exclude those who fit WikiBone's description). Until then, for all practical purposes, there was really no such thing as "pedophilia". It is hardly surprising that the term causes confusion. Judging by the available historical records, it seems that most adults had a relatively arbitrary attraction span, often descending slightly below the pre-pubertal age, and typically ranging from ca. 8 years to adulthood (adolescent above the ages 8-10 were usually refferred to as "young men/women" instead of "children", a term that was reserved for toddlers). So generally, I would say no. A pedophile, as understood by the psychological criteria, is someone who is "fixated" on children, ie. that most, if not all, of their sexual attention is directed exclusively toward pre-pubescents. The other group is defined as expressing a so-called "situational pedophilia", which is characterized by the ability (as opposed to preference) to respond to children. Just as we would not normally define prison male-male contact (heterosexual men engaging in sodomy due to sexual frustration) as "homosexuals", most situational pedophiles would not normally be described as pedophiles in strictly clnical terms (otherwise, we would have to define at least 30% of all adult populaton as pedophiles!). Equilibrist 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, Jmm6f488. Bisexuals are considered bisexual and homosexuals are considered homosexuals, that's why they are called that. And EVERYBODY has at least some level of attraction towards everyone else. For example, it wouldn't be right for someone who is 100 times more attracted to adults than they are to children (in other words, 1% attracted to children and 99% to adults) to be called a pedophile. Just like you wouldn't call someone who is 100 times more attracted to the opposite sex than they are to the same sex, a homosexual. That's why we say "preferencial or exclusive." Ospinad 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

An editor reverted without a proper explanation this section added by me. He claimed that the theory that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia is WP:Fringe. "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject."

However, "Archives of Sexual Behavior" is a peer-reviewed journal and the authors are respected academics.

Some scientific studies indicate that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. According to Blanchard et. al. "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.^[1]

The abstract: Whether homosexual pedophiles have more older brothers (a higher fraternal birth order) than do heterosexual pedophiles was investigated. Subjects were 260 sex offenders (against children age 14 or younger) and 260 matched volunteer controls. The subject's relative attraction to male and female children was assessed by phallometric testing in one analysis, and by his offense history in another. Both methods showed that fraternal birth order correlates with homosexuality in pedophiles, just as it does in men attracted to physically mature partners. Results suggest that fraternal birth order (or the underlying variable it represents) may prove the first identified universal factor in homosexual development. Results also argue against a previous explanation of the high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles (25% in this study), namely, that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. An alternative explanation in terms of canalization of development is suggested. http://www.springerlink.com/content/hh300395g834h386/ MoritzB 20:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's more than enough for wikipedia standards. Happy Camper II 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not without consensus it isnt, we dont allow POV pushing here merely because it can be sourced, and this is anti-gay POV pushing. Edit warring this against a number of editors isnt going to bring its inclusion a reality, ie edit warring doesnt work, SqueakBox 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. Again POV pushing rampage. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an undeniable link between peodophilia and homosexuality, and I think it should be mentioned, so long as it makes clear that it does not mean that homosexuals are pedophiles. This is not POV pushing. Stop tiptoeing around gay people! We don;t like it. --Floydiac 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

However, according to Bogaert there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia and that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults.

Er, well, I'm kind of dubious for the following reason: 2-4% to 25-40% is not 620 times, but rather TEN times. Moreover, homosexual behavior =! homosexual; the percentage of men who have engaged in homosexual behavior is much greater than 4%, up to 10%. Even more so, you have to consider the very large problem of sampling bias; a lot of people who admit to being attracted towards children are gay males because of organizations like NAMBLA, as well as because a lot of these people most likely prey on boys because they don't have access to male adults. Even more interesting would be to ask what gender of adult they were more attracted to (if any).

The link may well exist, or it may simply be a result of society's marginalization of homosexuals as well as sampling bias. However, if it is a solid, peer-reviewed article published in a reputable magazine, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Titanium Dragon 06:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2–4% of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al., 1993; Fay et al., 1989; Johnson et al., 1992); in contrast, around 25–40% of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al., 1999; Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6–20 times higher among pedophiles."MoritzB 07:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not POV-pushing. Advocates of pedophilia are obviously trying to censor information.MoritzB 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you clearly havent looked at my contribs but I can assure you I have a reputation of being one of the most militantly anti pedophilia editors on the project as many would confirm. Your comment is both ridiculous and a personal attack, albeit a bizarre one. Indeed when you have a record like mine of fighting pro-pedophilia activism on the site you can start to criticise, otherwise desist from juvenile personal attacks, SqueakBox 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

However, besides the already known hypothesis that gender preference might be less resolved in pedophiliacs than non-pedophiliacs, I don't see that the results quoted in the article suggest any causal relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, or vice-versa for that matter. Also, if someone can explain how comparing an incidence of 2-4% with an incidence of 25-40% gives a rate that is 620 times higher; straight math gives me a 10-fold higher rate, no 620-fold.--Ramdrake 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, just because something has been published or been advocated by academics does not protect it from falling under the purview of WP:FRINGE. Nazi eugenics got plenty of academic support in their day, and we certainly don't give white supremacists equal weight with the scientific consensus on racial issues. Second, by your quote there, they are obviously flawed studies. They are both begging the question and confusing correlation with causation. Hardly good science. Frankly, creating a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is a pet project of the conservative christian lobby one would find on Conservapedia. One peer journal article out of multitudes that oppose the idea is not the mainstream. According to the contemporary scientific consensus is a patently fringe concept. Not to mention being completely bigoted. But most importantly, the reason your addition is unacceptable is that it takes statistics from a reliable source and then draws its own conclusions. That's original research. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The best scientific studies available indicate that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Your analogy to Nazi eugenics is flawed because these studies were not done in the 1930s.

How does the decade in which research took place in and of itself invalidate an analogy? It does not. VanTucky is correct in pointing out the correlation/causality conflict is one of the most important reasons why this study isn't of great interest. Additionally, there is some ambiguous language. "Preferring" boys over girls does not label the men as homosexual or bisexual, and until that is cleared up it would seem that even a correlation can not be drawn. Also undefined is the percentage of homosexuals themselves which are attracted to children in the first place. And going even further, it is the case that often-times, an adult man may be attracted to adult females exclusively in terms of that age group, but paradoxically be attracted exclusively to males of a younger age group. Also missing is the percentage of all men who are attracted to children. I think the absence of an address of this information by itself makes those numbers quite confusing, but perhaps I am just not assuming all the right things. In any case, I would argue that given the diverse possible causes of homosexuality and the fact that there are simply so many fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, the issues of pedophilia and homosexuality should be considered separate.

Kst447 (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

“approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.”

“Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1." Freund, K., Watson, R. & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, p. 107

According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." John M. W. Bradford, et al., “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia,” Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988): 225. Elsewhere the study notes: “Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations,” p. 218.

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation. Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581. MoritzB 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue about handedness :

Lalumiere, M. L., R. Blanchard, et al. (2000). Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: a metaanalysis. Psychol Bull 126(4): 57592. Lalumiere 2000

Cantor, J, M. & P. E. Klassen, R. Dickey, B. K. Christensen, M. E. Kuban, T. Blak, N. S. Williams, and R. Blanchard. (2005). Handedness in pedophilia and hebephilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 4, Aug. 2005, 44759.

VanTucky and others are free to provide criticism that has high enough quality to be published in a journal if needed. If you think the studies are flawed, that's the level you need to reach. Happy Camper II 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoever keeps removing the material has some serious explaining to do. Lets hear it. Happy Camper II 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

what is going on here? MoritzB quotes perfectly academic references, and they are removed on no other grounds than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If this is "one peer journal article out of multitudes that oppose the idea", let's see the multitude. The only WP:SYN I can find in the disputed paragraph is the title "Occurrence in homosexuals": this suggests the flawed implication that "first" there is a population of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, and "then", there is a certain incidence of pedophilia. Also, the fact that such studies are abused by conservative anti-gay propaganda is irrelevant to their validity. The part "Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles" is of course a typo (almost too blatant to be intentional?), the proper reading is "Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6–20 times higher among pedophiles". dab (𒁳) 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article fully protected

The article has now been fully protected as there's a full-on edit war over that Ray Blanchard study. Folks - please work out your differences here on the talk page or come to some consensus over the paragraph. When you're ready, just get back to me or file a request for unprotect at WP:RPP. Thanks - Alison ☺ 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A compromise wording?

An extended version of this debate is at Talk:Homosexuality. By and large it involves the same people so there's no need to revise it here (except for Happy Camper II who is a new editor and has not contributed over there. Welcome to Wikipedia).

My view, for what it is worth:

User:MoritzB has added some content to this article, and provided sources to support it. Thanks to him/her for that.
However, the various talk page discussions have made clear there is no consensus for this material, as there is a substantial body of evidence opposing the studies MoritzB refers to and including this minority view gives it undue weight.
As a compromse, we could perhaps adopt the middle-of-the-road wording from Homosexuality:

Gay men are also often alleged as having pedophiliac tendencies and more likely to commit child sexual abuse than the heterosexual male population, a view rejected by mainstream psychiatric groups and contradicted by research (add a couple of links here).

The above would seem to address both views in proper context. As always, any other ideas or suggestions welcome. Euryalus 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion and its clear that there has been a missunderstanding, sexual abuse against children and development factors among pedophiles and homosexuals are two separate issues, one cannot be used to settle the other. User:MoritzB's material should be added unless someone has a serious criticism against them. Happy Camper II 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My view:

There is (scientific) evidence that Blanchard's paper is a minority view. Five different studies confirm the association between homosexuality and pedophilia. Some of them propose causality, others only correlation.
The opposing studies are old compared to the recent studies I provided. (Jones) and (Blanchard et. al.)
As the link between pedophilia and homosexuality is certainly notable there should be a separate section about this. See also: WP:PAPER

A compromise proposal:

Some scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. According to Blanchard et. al. "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles." The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. According to W.H. James there seem likely to be causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia. However, according to earlier studies the correlation is less significant. An empirical study found that homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population.

+ all other studies we may find. MoritzB 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Happy Camper, the serious arguments against it include:

It contains elements of synthesis (that is, it draws conclusions from data rather than simply noting the findings). This is against a Wikipedia policy titled WP:SYN.
While the quoted studies exist, they represent a minority view when compared to the volume of material rejecting the view that homosexuals are more likely to be pediophiles. Detailed coverage of these studies might give undue weight to the minority view and distort the overall presentation.
There is also a minor problem of quoting from sources that require payment or registration to be viewed. Sources such as these are discouraged as the backup they provide to statements in the article may not be accessible to most editors. Compared to the above this is a fairly minor issue, but would need to be addressed if the studies were to be referenced.

MoritzB, I welcome your suggestion of a compromise but it still presents only one view, and that is a distinct minority. That seems to me to be give it undue weight, again. Adding this much text woudlr equire serious mountains of opposing studies to balance it, which as you indicate would be too long for this article and distort the overall presentation.Euryalus 06:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, why do you say that Blanchard's view is in the minority? What (scientific) evidence is there? Five different studies state the association between homosexuality and pedophilia. MoritzB 06:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the case, but even if it was, its a small problem that is easy to fix. It doesn't warrant the deletion of all material.
You have offered no proof for this.
This does not warrant the deletion of the material. Happy Camper II 07:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any problems with adding the bit on the alledged homosexuality link, as long as it can be backed up by reputable sources. Some counter-arguments could also be offered. If we consider "minority" opinions from the likes of H.E. Barbaree (who believes that all child molesters should be labeled as pedophiles), Richard Green (arguing tha pedophilia is not a mental disorder) or Fred Berlin (suggesting that peodophilia is a valid sexual orientation) as significant enough to include in the article, I frankly don't see how quoting a little from Blanchard et al. is so much different in this regard. Of course, another matter is whether such information is at all relevant to the pedophilia article. If a consensus is reached, I suppose that it can be incorporated in the "extent of occurence" section. Equilibrist 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A summary of sorts

It would help if we had this conversation in one place, instead of both here and the Talk:Homosexuality page.

Happy Camper - we will have to agree to disagree on synthesis. I think it is a major problem as it moves articles away from their factual base into original research. This does not suggest the original research or the synthsized conclusion is right or wrong, but synthesis converts Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a collection of essays. On the second point, a sample of the contrary views can be found in footnotes 29 and 30 of the Homosexuality article, the papers listed by User:Tim Vickers on that talk page, and the commetns by User:Becksguy regarding the Blanchard study. I don't think MoritzB is suggesting that the Blanchard study represents a majority view - only that it and similar deserve a mention.

In summary -

I proposed words to the effect of this:

Gay men are also often alleged as having pedophiliac tendencies and more likely to commit child sexual abuse than the heterosexual male population, a view rejected by mainstream psychiatric groups and contradicted by research (add a couple of links here).

MoritzB proposed this:

Some scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. According to Blanchard et. al. "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. According to W.H. James there seem likely to be causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia. However, according to earlier studies the correlation is less significant. An empirical study found that homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population.

Happy Camper supports MoritzB's alternative. I think it gives too much weight to one side and overstates the reliability of the Blanchard study.

Does anyone else have an opinion? Euryalus 07:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to support Happy Camper's compromise, though I am of the opinion that it needs to be shortened somewhat and incorporated in the "extent of occurence" section, rather than having it's own sub-section. I think that the short line as proposed on the talk:homosexuality is too POV as it seems to imply that there is no "research" but merely "allegations" on the other side of the debate. Equilibrist 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, there are two different questions here:

What developmental factors are behind pedophilia and homosexuality, is there a link?
Does homosexuals commit a disproportional amount of child sexual abuse?

Your proposal takes a rather one sided view on the second question while completely ignoring the first. Both issues should be addressed and properly sourced (Maritz did his part already). Happy Camper II 07:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed two different questions.

On the first question, the studies MoritzB quotes suggest a correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality but not causation. Suggesting causation on the basis of this research is the synthesis I was referring to above. In any case, the research is contradicted by substantial other research, examples of which have already been given.

On the second question, there seems to be very little data to suggest that a higher percentage of homosexuals are also pedophiles, compared to heterosexuals. Certainly the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, as previous editors have noted both here and in the similar discussion at [[Talk:Homosexuality]. It should also be borne in mind that even if there are a number of homosexuals who are pedophiles it is once again a synthesis to automatically leap to the conclusion that there is a link between the two. The majority of pedophiles are two legs and there is no automatic link between these two facts either.

Moritz proposal claim only correlation, not causation. Basically all research in this area is of a correlational nature, its just the way things are in the current state of research. The development of homosexuality does however seem to have a connection between pedophiles and homosexuals, and for this you have offered no contrary evidence so far.

His text does not even address the second question, this one should however be covered as well but we can leave it for later. At this moment, his text can be restored since it involves no controversy in the slightest. Happy Camper II 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just some comments - I don't have much more to add to this debate and would welcome a wider contribution from others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus (talk • contribs) 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few questions on the research. Are these statistics for men who identify as homosexuals or are all underage sexual contact listed as homosexual because they occur between two males? Jmm6f488 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexual pedophiles" are exclusively attracted to boys (25-40%), "heterosexual pedophiles" are exclusively attracted to girls. Also, I noticed an important clarification: "Ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls."

This should be added, too.

MoritzB 07:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question is some heterosexuals molest young boys because essentially "they can" it is more of a power thing, like some heterosexuals will rape men in prison as a form of dominance. Does the study differentiate between people who are heterosexual that molest boys and those that are homosexual and molest boys? Jmm6f488 08:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the Blanchard paper does not suggest that homosexual may have higher pedophiliac tendencies; it suggests that pedophiles may have higher homosexual tendencies. Very different.--Ramdrake 10:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nobody denies that pedophiles have higher homosexual tendencies. It is a fact.MoritzB 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems everything is settled, lets unlock the article and add the text. Happy Camper 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Camper II (talk • contribs)

"nobody denies that pedophiles have higher homosexual tendencies"? I wouldn't call 9% a higher tendency. That's a complete obfuscation. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get the 9% from? Is it from the 11:1 ratio? That was the ratio of heterosexual to homosexuals within the pedophile population. 20:1 is the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals in the nonpedophile population (or rather in the whole population). Assuming those numbers are right then it does mean that pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than nonpedophiles. That doesn't mean that pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than they are to be heterosexual, and as far as the ratio between pedophiles and nonpedophiles within the hetero or homosexual population, these numbers don't tell us anything about that. Ospinad 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just assumed that everyone had seen the alternative studies presented in the same discussion over at Talk:Homosexuality. That is where I got it. You may want to look at those, and a study which directly addresses the theory that "pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than nonpedophiles". This appears to be untrue. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males. Pointing out something other than that is a falsehood, and is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go through that discussion when I get a chance but just going by what you said it seems like you are confusing two different things. It seems like you believe these two statements contradict themselves:

The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males
Pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than nonpedophiles

However, they don't. Now I could care less about the issue of pedophilia but speaking from a strictly logical point of view, both of these statements could be true. If 2 out every 10 pedophiles were homosexual and 1 out of every 10 nonpedophiles were homosexual then #1 would be true because there would be 8 heterosexual pedophiles for every 2 homosexual pedophiles, and #2 would be true because pedophiles would be more likely to be homosexual (20%) than nonpedophiles are to be homosexual (10%). But like I said, this doesn't tell us anything about the probability that a homosexual (or a heterosexual or any random person) would be a pedophile. It could range anywhere from 1% to 99%. Ospinad 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they contradict themselves, I'm saying that according to the evidence provided by the study "Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?" there is no increased risk of sexual abuse by homosexuals, with the vast majority of sexual abuse being carried out by heterosexuals. If the slightly higher percentage of homosexual pedophilies (as compared to the general population) has no substantial affects, then why is it relevant? If homosexuals are a patent minority of pedophiles, why is more attention to them as such necessary (unless you want to suggest otherwise in contradiction of the facts?). Adding these stats as if the suggested homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles is giving undue weight to a tertiary subject in the study of pedophilia in order to push an agenda. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You should beleive in the good faith of others. Accusing people of pushing an agenda is not ok.

This subject has been documented in atleast 20 studies (that I know of) and probably over 100 in total, it should be unwise to leave it out since it is well established and interesting in understanding the etiology of pedophilia and homosexuality. Happy Camper II 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion of 20, much less 100, studies that "document" a predisposition by homosexuals towards pedophilia is highly doubtful. Simply saying so is not enough, and when making assertions about facts likely to be challenged, you should include reliable sources. As to the AGF issue, I'm sure everyone here has the best of intentions: to improve the article. The conflict is over what constitutes an improvement. I for one do not see how including content that conflates homosexuality and pedophilia is an improvement. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I was talking about 2) "Pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than nonpedophiles", reference to 20 studies can be found in Freund (1989). It would be improper to ignore results that are consistent and well documented in research. Happy Camper II 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Camper II (talk • contribs)

The studies from Freund, one already in the article from 1970 and this one from 89, are both outdated, and I don't see a link that demonstrates that they say what they say. Furthermore, such a statement, coming from a period in history where until recently homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder, does not stand as a reliable contradiction of a much more recent and reliable study ("Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?" ) which directly controverts that idea. What's more the numbers in the studies MoritzB provided do not say that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. They make a correlation that shows a slightly higher percentage of homosexuals exist in the recorded pedophile population as compared to the general population. Whatever the change in compared stats for homosexuals, heterosexual males are still in the overwhelming majority when it comes to pedophilia. You're confusing a correlating statistic with a causal conclusion. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that I wrote that I was addressing #2:"Pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than nonpedophiles" You keep misunderstanding because you address completely different issues. You are fighting windmill's here. Happy Camper II _{(oi oi!)} 17:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Happy Camper II. Saying, "pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than nonpedophiles are to be homosexual" is not the same thing as saying, "homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals are to be pedophiles." If the first one is true that doesn't mean the second one is true. VanTucky, it does seem like you keep misunderstanding. First you said that you disagreed with the statement, "pedophiles have higher homosexual tendencies" then you said that the study, "Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?" contradicts that. It doesn't. Your study says that most pedophiles are heterosexual. That's fine. But the studies from Freund (according to Happy Camper II) say that pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than nonpedophiles, and that doesn't contradict it. I think that both of these statements are ok to go in the article because they don't contradict each other...

"The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles."
"The perpetrators of child sexual abuse or assault are overwhelmingly adult heterosexual males. In one study, 88% of the adult perpetrators were identified as heterosexual whereas less than 1% were identified as possibly homosexual."

Ospinad 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like there's a lot of OR debate going on here. Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, any paragraph on this topic should first and foremost present the mainstream scientific view, and then discuss minority views in accordance with their prominence in the academic field. As I've suggested at the parallel discussion, here is a draft proposal:

According to mainstream health organizations, there is no evidence that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.[4] The American Psychological Association states: "The perpetrators of child sexual abuse or assault are overwhelmingly adult heterosexual males. In one study, 88% of the adult perpetrators were identified as heterosexual whereas less than 1% were identified as possibly homosexual. In addition, three-quarters (75%) of these heterosexual male perpetrators were or had been in a close relationship with the child's mother, grandmother, or another close relative. This research is consistent with other studies that indicate that individuals who commit child sexual assault or abuse are rarely homosexually identified persons."[5] One researcher explains: "Gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." (ref to Stevenson 2000) A minority of researchers, most famously Paul Cameron and Ray Blanchard, have published articles disputing the mainstream view. (ref to a few studies)

Fireplace 17:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can lend my support to that. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's ok as an addition to Moritz proposal. They are not in conflict. Happy Camper II _{(oi oi!)} 18:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Blanchard agrees with the APA. He says that "ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls" although he supports this statement with no evidence.

However, Freund says that "homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population".

Thus, that version would misrepresent Blanchard. MoritzB 18:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am okay with Euryalus's proposal and also with Fireplace's proposal but I oppose the inclusion of Moritz' proposal, SqueakBox 18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Moritz comments, but lets all remind ourselves that we are dealing with two different questions here which both should be included. With minor changes, both proposals are good for inclusion. Please read both texts again if there is uncertainty. Happy Camper II _{(oi oi!)} 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with adding this statement, "Gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." It's misleading because it's comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare homosexuals to pedophiles because they are not mutually exclusive. What is it trying to say? That gay men aren't as likely to molest than pedophiles or than heterosexuals? A person can be a homosexual and a pedophile. That statement is about as meaningful as saying, "Straight men desire consensual sexual relationship with adult women. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." The first statement is misleading because they are implying "Gay nonpedophile men, or straight nonpedophile men" Ospinad 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream scientific view on supposed link between homosexuality and pedophilia

First, I'd like to flag a few things about the editors who are pushing for the inclusion of the studies which suggest a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. User:MoritzB has been the subject of an ANI regarding his allegedly racist views, and has been threated with multiple blocks for pushing fringe views and canvassing. User:Happy Camper II has less than 50 edits, is already the subject of a CheckUser request, and says things like "not all facts are that pretty for homosexuals" regarding the "homo-article." These should be taken into account when assessing consensus.

Second, there's a consistent confusion in this discussion between sexual orientation and sexual-behavior-with-children. People seem to be defending the inclusion of the claim that "Pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than non-pedophiles", but that is inconsistent with the mainstream research (see below), which does not assess a man as a "homosexual" merely because he molested a boy.

Here is a summary of some of the mainstream scientific research conducted on this issue:

"...no evidence is available from this data that children are at greater risk to be molested by identifiable homosexuals than by other adults. There is no support for the claim to this effect by groups advocating legislation limiting rights of homosexuals." Further, "A child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than [the risk of being molested] by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual." (Jenny C, Roesler TA, Poyer KL. Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics. 1994;94:41-44.)

"Sexual orientation, gay or straight, is not a good predictor of erotic interest in or sexual behavior with children," and "Gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." (Stevenson, M.R. (2000). Public policy, homosexuality and the sexual coercion of children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(4))

A review of the literature provided no evidence that gay men are more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. (Newton, Homosexual behavior and child molestation: a review of the evidence, 1978).

"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims.... There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male." Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.

Calling the above Groth study "the most sophisticated of its kind": "Since 1978, no credible new data have been published that contradict the conclusions of Newton (1978) or Groth and Birnbaum (1978). Why do many lay people continue to believe this stereotype? One reason is that understanding the data concerning child molestation requires sufficient knowledge and sophistication to distinguish male-male sexual molestation from adult homosexuality, and to understand that male-male molestations are perpetrated by men who are heterosexuals or who lack any adult sexual orientation." (GM Herek - Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, 1991)

"Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation." (Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press.)

"There is no evidence that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children." (American Psychological Association)

"The value of children themselves and the necessity of the state to protect them from dangers had not changed, but what had was the conceptual understanding of behavior that constituted this risk. This new body of research, allied to investigations into sexual normality itself that revealed its pluralistic practices, meant that from the early 1960s, the association between homosexuality and pedophilia gradually began to fade away." (The rise and fall of homophobia and sexual psychopath legislation in postwar society, J Pratt - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1998)

"The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women." (McConaghy, N. (1998). Paedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265.)

Now, regarding Blanchard's studies on this issue, mainstream scientists have called him "uninformed" and "often confus[ing] sexual behavior with sexual orientation" (Understanding Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gay Priests Are Not the Problem By Michael R. Stevenson, Ph.D.) and that he "did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators." Regarding Elliot, "In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed." (Herek, UC Davis Dept. of Psychology).

With all that data in mind, here is another draft proposal:

The consensus among mainstream health professionals is that there is no evidence that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.[6] Most male molestation victims are assaulted by men (cite; even to Blanchard if you like), but these male perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual or else are not sexually attracted to other adults. (Stevenson, Groth, Jenny, etc.). Prior to the 1960s, mental health professionals tended to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, but in light of new bodies of research and a new understanding of sexual normality, that view gradually faded away. (Pratt, APA).

Fireplace 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Lesbian pedophiles are virtually non-existent. Furthermore, the amount of homosexual pedophiles (25-40%) is relevant and not controversial. Can you offer some studies which dispute Blanchard's figures? You also chose the ignore the studies which stated that homosexuality and pedophilia likely have a common cause.MoritzB 03:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The cited studies are inconsistent with the claim that "25-40%" of child molesters are homosexual. See Jenny, Stevenson, Groth, and McConaghy. Fireplace 03:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Still confusing child molestation with the percentage of homosexual orientation among pedophiles. I assume this consistent confusion stems from wrongfully thinking that pedophiles equals child molesters, which is not how the term is defined in mainstream research. Once again, no evidence against Blanchard et al. have been offered. Happy Camper II _{(oi oi!)} 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence against Blanchard doesn't need to be offerred and hashed out in this setting. It's enough to show (as it has been, with citations, above) that the mainstream scientific community rejects his research. It's not up to us to decide the validity of his research, but merely to determine what the scientific consensus is on it. And that's been done. --joeOnSunset 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what? This is rediculous. I'm not sure indulging this is productive, as it's pretty obvious from the edit histories of some of the people involved that, well, let's just say it looks like there's a lack of "good faith." Heading for saner pastures... --joeOnSunset 09:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

joeOnSunset beat me to most of what needed saying. When someone proposes a reference to a particular study (eg the Blanchard one), there is no need to "prove" it right or wrong. What there is a need to do is identify precisely what the study indicates, consider what other material exists on the same topic, and determine how much weight (if any) this new study should have in a Wikipedia article on the subject.

In this case, the issues that we should be considering have been hashed and rehased in interminable detail. There seems to me to be a consensus that the Blanchard study suggests a correlation but not a causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia, that a host of other material on the topic contradicts the Blanchard findings, and that on balance any significant addition regarding the Blanchard study would result in undue weight being given to what is a minority scientific viewpoint.

MoritzB and Happy Camper II disagree with the above (in passing, Happy Camper II should be considered innocent of the sockpuppet allegation until proven guilty). Their views should be respected but they are in a clear minority, and consensus has not been established for their proposed changes. I am not sure continued debate on this is productive, as it seems very unlikely that anyone is going to change their views. Euryalus 09:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments reveal simply that you haven't read Blanchard's study. 25-40% of pedophiles are homosexual. They are interested in boys, not adult men. This isn't a "minority scientific viewpoint" and no studies you have mentioned contradict these findings.MoritzB 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone still seems to be confused. Saying that, "Pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than non-pedophiles" says NOTHING about homosexuals, it only says something about pedophiles. And it doesn't contradict this statement, "gay men are less likely than heterosexual men to molest children."

"Most male molestation victims are assaulted by men but these male perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual or else are not sexually attracted to other adults."

What does this mean? That most child molestors who molest boys are men who are more attracted to women than men, or that they are men who are more attracted to boys instead of men? This is very misleading because it is going out of its way to avoid calling men who molest boys homosexual. Why is it so hard to believe that a person can be both a pedophile and homosexual? Men who molest boys are more likely to be homosexual pedophiles than they are to be homosexual nonpedophiles or heterosexual pedophiles or heterosexual nonpedophiles. Is anyone taking into account the difference between the number of children who get molested that are girls as compared to boys? If we are asking the question "are children more likely to be molested by homosexuals?" then that would depend on whether we are talking about boys or girls. If we are talking about boys then the answer would be yes, but overall girls are victims of molestation much more often than boys, so what does this really tell us? Ospinad 17:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very misleading because it is going out of its way to avoid calling men who molest boys "homosexual". That's exactly correct. The mainstream literature specifically does not assess a man as homosexual merely because he molested a boy (the common sense reason here is that a lot of child molestation has to do with power, ease of access, etc., not simply gender). Each of the studies on this topic includes a section describing their assessment techniques. Blanchard, et al., are criticized for failing to draw this distinction. Fireplace 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't get it, lol. "Most male molestation victims are assaulted by men but these male perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual or else are not sexually attracted to other adults" Let me ask you a question. It basically says that most of the men who molest boys are "heterosexual OR are not sexually attracted to other adults (in other words PEDOPHILES)" Well, which one are they? Are most men who molest boys heterosexual or pedophiles? And when it says "heterosexual" do they mean heterosexual nonpedophiles? And when they say "pedophile" do they mean heterosexual or homosexual pedophiles? You know, homosexuals can be pedophiles just like heterosexuals. Calling a man who molests a boy a "homosexual pedophile" is not anymore of an insult to homosexuals than it is to heterosexuals to call a man who molests a girl a "heterosexual pedophile". Ospinad 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the proposal we are discussing:

Some scientific studies indicate that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. According to Blanchard et. al. "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are not different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. According to W.H. James there seem likely to be causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia. However, according to earlier studies the correlation is less significant. An empirical study found that homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population.

It needs a little tweaking but its essence is clear and claims nothing about homosexuals being child abusers. To clarify even more we can change "homosexual attraction" to "homosexual attraction towards children" to leave nothing to chance. So you can list 1000 studies that show that homosexuals do not molest children more than heterosexuals does, it still does not contradict Blanchard's findings, since he did not study that. Should be clear enough. Happy Camper II _{(oi oi!)} 17:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Happy Camper II. To put it simply, these two statements don't contradict each other.

Pedophiles are more likely to be homosexuals than nonpedophiles.
Pedophiles are more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual.

Also, neither one implies that most homosexuals are pedophiles. Ospinad 17:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that both your 1. and 2. above are consistent with the mainstream position, and should be included. If so, I think you've making a statistics mistake. I'll pick a number out of the air to demonstrate what I mean. Suppose 5% of the entire male population is gay. According to the mainstream view cited above, gay men are no more likely to be pedophiles than straight men. So, the percentage of gay men in the population of pedophiles is less than or equal to 5% (according to the mainstream view). But that is inconsistent with your statement #1 above. Fireplace 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Freund the proportion of pedophiles who are also teleiophilic homosexuals is 1/11. Another mainstream position is that the percentage of homosexual pedophiles (who are exclusively interested in boys) is 25-40%. MoritzB 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're making a mistake :-)

"The mainstream view cited above" doesn't show that "gay men are no more likely to be pedophiles than straight men." It shows that pedophiles are more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual, which was my #2 above. I said it before and I'll say it again. Saying that pedophiles are more likely than nonpedophiles to be homosexual is NOT the same thing as saying homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles. Big difference. In fact, no one here has cited any studies that show the percentage of pedophiles within the homosexual, heterosexual or general population. All we know is that 5% of the general population is homosexual. 25-40% of the pedophile population is homosexual. What percentage of any population are pedophiles? We don't know; these numbers don't tell us anything about that. Ospinad 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to this already, and repetition is no longer fruitful. From the various comments you've made and the terminology you use, I suspect you neither have a science/research background, nor are you very familiar with contemporary academic discussions about sexuality. If you have library access, I invite you to review the articles I cited above.

In the meantime, the only people currently advocating for the inclusion Blanchard's claims are Ospinad and MoritzB (Happy Camper II was perm banned from wikipedia, and MoritzB has been repeatedly warned and threated with blocks for pushing fringe theories).

SqueakBox, Jeeny, VanTucky, Euryalus, joeOnSunset, and myself are all opposed to that presentation. The consensus seems clear. Fireplace 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confused, Fireplace. Blanchard said that 25-40% of male pedophiles are homosexual. This fact isn't controversial. At least you haven't cited any studies which dispute this figure.

Blanchard didn't say that ordinary, teleiophilic homosexuals are more likely to molest children. MoritzB 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A comment on Blanchard. He has never suggested that homosexual males attracted to adults are likely to molest children any more than heterosexual males. In "Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation", a study by Blanchard and others, it was shown, based on phallometric tests, that men who molested boys exclusively were, in average, not sexually interested in adult men, virtually no more interested in adult men than in adult women, and much more interested in girls than in adults of either gender (they hardly can be compared to ordinary homosexuals, then). In "The Discriminative Validity of a Phallometric Test for Pedophilic Interests Among Adolescent Sex Offenders Against Children", another study by Blanchard and others, it was shown, again based on phallomatric tests, that men who molested boys were not in average attracted to adult men, and that in average their were even more attracted to adult women. In "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles", Blanchard and his colleagues explicitly stated that men attracted to adult men were no more likely to molest children than heterosexual men attracted to adult women, and caustioned against the misuse of his work. Groth similarly has said that men who molest boys are not typically homosexual in adult orientation. As one can infer, what Blanchard, who's criticized by Fireplace, and Groth, who's praised by him, have shown and said is essentially the same. 189.13.149.79 16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Note on Happy Camper II

FYI: Happy Camper II has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of an individual indefinitely banned by the ArbCom. Fireplace 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

"Around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. As epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles. The high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles indicates that that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles may not be different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults and according to W.H. James there seem likely to be causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia.

Still, there is little or no evidence that ordinary homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. However, according to Freund homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population."MoritzB 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus already exists against this. Fireplace 02:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The versions you have proposed haven't been adequately discussed and are in a logical contradiction with the sources. (Blanchard)

I can't help if you do not have JSTOR access but if you have please read the study. I cannot copy the whole article. MoritzB 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean SOURCE, as in, single source. There are many above that do not agree with YOUR one source. As usual. Pfft! - Jeeny ^Talk 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moritz piece assumes pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing as if men and boys werte the same thing, so lots of faulty assumptions and I too oppose, SqueakBox 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A male pedophile who is exclusively interested in boys is called a homosexual pedophile in scientific literature.MoritzB 04:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article in dispute sounds more of a story of gay bashing rather than an article of truth. Who knows what the book really says and how much the statement is taken out of context or order. --CobraBK 05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are sufficient reliable sources for content of this type, such content should probably be included. I would like to see the sources which are specifically referred to. Unless those sources are specifically pointed out, I would think that inclusion might qualify as giving the idea undue weight. Also, the last comment above by MoritzB doesn't indicate how widespread "homosexual pedophilia" is, and is not in and of itself particularly relevant. In a case like this, however, I do think at least two comparatively reliable sources would probably be desirable before the addition of such content, preferably with the content changes indicated here before made in the article itself. John Carter 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." (Blanchard et. al.) Blanchard cites numerous studies which support this view. We don't know of any studies which would dispute that rate.MoritzB 23:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For any new readers: the problem with the above quote is that it suggests (even if it doesn't literally state) that a disproportionately high number of pedophiles are homosexual, which is contradicted by the mainstream view. A proposal which captures the mainstream view (cataloged here is:

The consensus among mainstream health professionals is that there is no evidence that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.[7] Most male molestation victims are assaulted by men (cite; even to Blanchard if you like), but these male perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual or else are not sexually attracted to other adults. (cite to several studies, incl. Stevenson; Groth; Jenny; etc.). Prior to the 1960s, mental health professionals tended to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, but in light of new bodies of research and a new understanding of sexual normality, that view gradually faded away. (Pratt, APA).

Fireplace 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't responded to the criticism about that proposal. Why do you want to exclude Blanchard's study which doesn't contradict the mainstream view?MoritzB 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

you are confusing the issue. "there is no evidence that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children" may be correct, and it may still hold that "around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys". For example, "pedophiles preferring boys" may not answer to the description of "gay men" at all, and may show no "outward" sign of homosexuality other than their pedophilia. MoritzB's study is perfectly quotable, but it should not be used to imply things it doesn't, such as "higher incidence among homosexuals". If, according to "Freund", "homosexuals are at about a 11:1 ratio in the pedophile population and at a 20:1 ratio in the general population", "incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals" is just about twice as high as among homosexuals, not "6-20 times", and the question is raised of how significant this result is. Freund may well be quoted side by side with APA saying there is "no evidence". What will not do is simply removing all references to the academic discussion of the question. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Freund's study investigated the incidence of teleiophilic homosexuality among pedophiles (1:11). Freund himself says that 40% of male pedophiles are homosexual and attracted to male children. MoritzB 13:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, the possible inclusion of the Blanchard study has been debated and debated at interminable length both here and at Talk:Homosexuality. The problems of undue weight, synthesis and the basic significance or otherwise of his findings have received a good airing. You're welcome to continue this debate but I sincerely doubt there will be any change of views sufficient to change the current consensus that this study does not deserve a place in this article. Euryalus 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. A short paragraph about relevant non-controversial scientific findings cannot be undue weight. Furthermore, most of the objections have been based on false arguments.

Dr. Paul Cameron has drawn some false conclusions of Blanchard's study and people seem to believe in Cameron's interpretation of the study. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

MoritzB 13:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB has quoted several studies. His detractors afaics have not cited a single study refuting him, except a link to a faq at apa.org. This is not acceptable. If Blanchard is really "fringe" (I wouldn't know), we can expect the people familiar with mainstream thought to be able to provide crushing evidence. Instead, we get "debunking" along the lines of "The studies from Freund, one already in the article from 1970 and this one from 89, are both outdated, and I don't see a link that demonstrates that they say what they say." (VanTucky). This is not a bona fide debate. The Blanchard study is clearly pertinent to this topic (not to Homosexuality, this is the Pedophilia article). If it is fringy, it should be put in perspective by citing mainstream sources, and not by spin and hand-waving on talk. dab (𒁳) 13:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I only see one source (Blanchard) cited by MoritzB. Did I miss something? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

“approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.”

“Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1." Freund, K., Watson, R. & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, p. 107

According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented." John M. W. Bradford, et al., “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia,” Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988): 225. Elsewhere the study notes: “Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations,” p. 218.

A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation. Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995'): 581. MoritzB 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)MoritzB 14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

dab (𒁳), the problem with the Blanchard quote isn't the statistic, per se. The problem is that the presentation confusingly seems to suggest that pedophiles are disproportionately likely to be homosexual. This is clearly contradicted by the mainstream view (see the 9 studies/reports cited here). A version which presents Blanchard's data within the context of the mainstream view would look like:

The consensus among mainstream health professionals is that there is no evidence that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.[8] There is evidence that between 25-40% of male pedophiles prefer boys, (cite Blanchard) but these male perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual or else are not sexually attracted to other adults. (cite to several studies, incl. Stevenson; Groth; Jenny; etc.). Prior to the 1960s, mental health professionals tended to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, but in light of new bodies of research and a new understanding of sexual normality, that view gradually faded away. (Pratt, APA).

Fireplace 14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, you are forming an original synthesis (WP:SYN) which is forbidden. There is no evidence how many male pedophiles in Blanchard's data were involved in heterosexual relationships. Furthermore, Freund's study (1:11 ratio) needs to be included.MoritzB 15:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanchard's study and the Groth, Jenny, Stevenson, etc., studies were all making claims about the population as a whole. No one is saying that Groth, Jenny, etc., were talking about the same specific people that Blanchard talked to. There's no WP:SYN at play.

This sentence is an example of WP:SYN: "There is evidence that between 25-40% of male pedophiles prefer boys, (cite Blanchard) but these male perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual..."

Also, true pedophiles are usually neither heterosexual nor homosexual. They are just pedophiles. The words are misleading.

MoritzB 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as Freund goes, there is *no* scientific consensus about the demographics of homosexuality in the general population. Having just pulled up the Freund article, the conclusion about the ratio in the general population isn't the conclusion of his own work. To support that claim, he instead cites studies from 1972, 1920 (!!), and 1983 (and, in the area of measuring sexual orientation demographics, older studies are clearly unreliable). Further, I wasn't able to find the 1:11 ratio in that paper. What page is it on? And finally, Freund's paper extensively cites Paul Cameron, who has been widely criticized by mainstream scientists and was even kicked out of the APA for noncompliance with an ethics investigation. Freud and Cameron have co-authored papers on homosexuality as well. This casts doubt on whether Freund's work can be considered mainstream. Fireplace 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1:11 ratio is in the abstract of Freund's paper. He is a respected scientist. MoritzB 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The abstract is available here. It doesn't mention a 1:11 ratio...? Fireplace 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1556756&dopt=Citation

MoritzB 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Previous objections still stand though. Fireplace 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand your objections. The ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles is certainly relevant in this article. MoritzB 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the objections because they don't make sense. You're the only one here who does. Ospinad 20:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a big problem throughout this debate -- references to child molesters (legal category) are constantly jumbled up with pedophiles (psych category); there is some overlap between them, but they are not the same set of people. Sources which are about child molesters may have no relevence to this article. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Freund's study investigated the incidence of teleiophilic homosexuality among pedophiles (1:11)" -> That's untrue. Freund came to the 11:1 ratio based on a study by Gene Abel in which it was demonstrated that a sample of homosexual molesters victimized many more children than a sample of heterosexual molesters. As a sexual predator is more likely to be arrested the more people he victimizes, Freund wondered that the total proportion of heterosexual to homosexual child molesters might be different from that of busted heterosexual and homosexual child molesters. I believe many in here have tried to make polemicist presentations of studies. Freund did find a higher proportion of pedophiles with a bisexual/homosexual development compared to the general population, but those pedophiles are rarely interested in adult males (the most desired partners of gay men), which suggests that homosexual pedophiles are quite distinct, in their sexual profiles, from teleiophilic homosexuals. Plus, all of Freund's comparisons between non-criminal, teleiophilic homosexual and heterosexual men showed that homosexuals were no more attracted to children than heterosexuals (in some studies, the came out as even less attracted). Because of all of this, it can't be argued, based on Freund, that teleiophilic homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.189.70.215.143 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

External link

{{editprotected}} The very last External Link currently reads like this:- Paedophilia is not a crime - well reasoned, written by a monogamous married man. I'd like to propose removing the words "well reasoned" and the comma. WP:NPOV requires that we describe the link contents neutrally. (It would be a different matter if a reliable source had described the essay in those terms; then it would be a simple matter of attribution. But as it stands, this edit should be a no-brainer.) Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it take out the rest of the description, as well - no where in the article is the author identified by gender or sexual fidelity. 199.125.109.77 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Either remove the entire summary or replace it with something more neutral (ie not referring to the marital status or gender of the author). I also think we are at the point where the entire article can be unprotected. Euryalus 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While the authors gender and fidelity is probably horribly irrelevent, it is stated on [9] that the article is written by Martin Willett: Editor of Debate Unlimited, and on [10] that his marriage is "faithful". I would suggest just changing the summary to indicate the name of the author. 199.125.109.51 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be more informative, as well as more neutral, in terms of information presented. I didn't suggest removing the rest of the description because I didn't want there to be any controversy about the edit. However, if we can reach a consensus as to what would be the best form of words for the description, so much the better. I would suggest that the author's name and editorial capacity would be suitable information to include. A name by itself is often not valuable information. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the wording to be more neutral. Cheers. --MZMcBride 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The linked essay is just private opinion by a totally non-notable person. Why is it useful for Wikipedia to refer to it? DanB†DanD 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because there should be a more positive view of pedophilia for balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.3.236 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrites without consensus or even discussion

I don't keep up with this article as well as I should because I find it so depressing. However, I see that the long-standing first paragraph was rewritten some weeks ago, and reviewing the talk page for that period I find that there was no discussion of the rewrite.

To rewrite the lead of a controversial article -- perhaps the most notorious ongoing POV dispute on Wikipedia -- without establishing consensus on the talk page is really not good procedure at all. I believe that the article should be reverted to its older form. If people wish to argue for the new version, they should gain support for its specific changes before simply diving in.

DanB†DanD 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There were discussions on the changes. You probably have to go to an archive of the talk page to see it. Ospinad 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I've reviewed the talk page for late July and there was no discussion of many of the major the changes to the lead, including replacing the long-standing, authoritatively sourced definition of pedophilia as a paraphilia.

I'm sorry to go back so far into "ancient history," but when process has been so badly disrupted it can't just be treated as a fait accompli.

DanB†DanD 05:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The current lead says "Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is a preferential or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile. The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." What looks wrong to you? A.Z. 08:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of things look wrong to me.

1. PROCESS -- this lead was inserted without discussion, largely by you, as I see by reviewing the edit history. You do not simply rewrite the lead of a controversial article without discussion and then say "What's wrong with the new version?" You propose changes to a stable version, and the reasons for those changes, and gather support before making them.

2. SOURCING -- there is no source given for the main definition "a preferential or exclusive attraction". A common-sense summary in the lead may be fine for nonacademic articles, but when a definition is the subject of academic and popular controversy as this one is, defining statements need to be sourced.

3. ACCURACY -- the material cited to the DSM matches the next-most-recent edition, not the DSM-IV-R, which expresses current APA judgment.

4. CONSISTENCY -- some of the definitions in the body of the article--cited to well-known writers--refer to an attraction to early pubescents as well as to prepubescents. Removing the word "peripubescent" (although I consider that a clumsy word from a stylistic point of view) from the lead made the article's lead inconsistent with the body.

and, lest we forget:

5. PROCESS -- these changes have been made sloppily and high-handedly.

DanB†DanD 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was the only thing I changed. My other changes were reverted. A.Z. 05:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for the personal slant my comment took. DanB†DanD 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Considering a revert" in archive 7 covers all the discussion that Dan needs to see. Consensus was established, and repeatedly implied thereafter via the again, fully discussed modification of the first few sentences in ways that did not challenge the broad, nonmedical opening sentence. I agree with this usage because unlike other paraphilias, much of what is defined in dictionaries and throughout history as pedophilic may not satisfy the highly restricted medical diagnosis. It is clear that pedophilia has come to mean many different things in many different situations, and thus we should only state the one uniting feature, i.e. attraction in the opening sentence. 86.150.128.67 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? 86.150.128.67, if you are not a sock of a banned suer (which I believe you are, specifically Voice of britain/Farenhorst) how can you possibly talk about an alleged consensus that was reached in your absence, indeed before you even joined the project (you have been less than 48 hours). There has not been any conmsensus on any of the ped article in at least months and its a classic sign of those who push the pro-pedophile activism viewpoint to claim otherwise, as you folk continuously do in spite iof the evidenc almost as if your idea of consensus is to ignore anyone who opposes you and claim you have the only consensus, SqueakBox 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please dump the unfounded, inflammatory and potentially damaging spiel about sockpuppets, or at least channel it into an active complaint? Also, please have a look at the archive. You will find that the article was most certainly changed with consensus. Am I allowed to take a look at the archive when the issue arises? I should hope I am. I joined this group of articles after seeing the problems caused by DPeterson and XavierVE, and I already have a great deal of knowledge for this website as a whole. I currently hold another account for unrelated articles, which exposes my personal details, although I am not currently engaged in editing with it (which regardless, would be fine by my reading of the rules).

The only person here who has improperly used a sockpuppet is yourself. 86.150.128.67 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DSM

Is the DSM worth mentioning? If it is, then should it be mentioned in the introduction as saying that pedophilia is a paraphilia, without any further information? There's a rather large section of criticism on their article, and a section about the influence of politics when it comes to deciding what is a disease or not.

Also, what does the "standard" in "standard medical diagnosis manual" stand for? I'm not a native speaker of English, so this could be the reason why I don't know what the word "standard" is supposed to mean in this context. It looks like a vague, subjective, unverifiable term to me. If I'm right, then the sentence could be rephrased to "The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are medical diagnosis manuals, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." A.Z. 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything is notable, DSM is. It's the most influential manual in the world in this area. However, I completely agree that the criticism of DSM (of which there is plenty) should be mentioned in the article. DSM has little or no scientific credibility left nowadays. Völund Smed 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The DSM is the single most widely used tool in regards to pedophilia within the legal and law enforcement communities the world over. Professionally, no other resource is considered credible. The idea that it shouldn't be mentioned is laughable, as even if it has fallen out of favor with the scientific community, it is still the primary professional resource when it comes to those dealing with pedophilia in society. VanTucky ^Talk 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First line

The first and second sentences say "Pedophilia is a preferential or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile".

It seems that everyone who has an exclusive sexual attraction to children necessarily has a preferential sexual attraction to children, so the words "or exclusive" are redundant.

The second line doesn't make it clear who is called a pedophile: is it someone who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent youths, or is it someone who has a preferential sexual attraction to prepubescent youths? Notwithstanding which is the right answer, the second sentence as it is just doesn't make it clear. A.Z. 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly anyone who has an exclusive sexual attraction to children can also be said to have a preferential attraction towards children but the opposite isn't always true. If someone prefers children that doesn't mean that they're necessarily exclusively attracted to them. It might make more sense if those two words were reversed in that opening sentence because of what you said (something like "it's usually an exclusive attraction but sometimes it can just be a preferential attraction), but I think they should both stay in there just so there's no confusion.

As for the second line, basically it just means that anyone who has either kind of those attractions would be considered a pedophile. Someone who has a small attraction towards children but prefers adults wouldn't normally be considered a pedophile. Ospinad 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't know whether the second line said that. It needs to be made clear that someone who has a small attraction towards children but prefers adults wouldn't normally be considered a pedophile. What about if they have a strong sexual attraction both towards children and adults, but don't prefer any of them in particular?

I don't know. You're talking about gray areas. What would you call someone who was equally attracted to both males and females? Heterosexual or Homosexual? If we didn't have the word "Bisexual" we'd probably say they were a little of both but unfortunately we don't have a word that means "equally attracted to children and adults." "Ephebophile" doesn't exactly mean the same thing. Ospinad 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the first line, what do you mean by saying "it's usually an exclusive attraction"? Do you mean that generally people who are attracted to children are not attracted to adults? I understand that, if someone prefers children, that doesn't mean they're necessarily exclusively attracted to them. I never said I didn't understand that, so I think we may have some miscommunication. The sentence I proposed was "Pedophilia is a preferential sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths." It could be "Pedophilia is a preferential sexual attraction by adults to prepubuscent youths. It is usually an exclusive attraction." or "Pedophilia is a preferential sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. It can be an exclusive attraction." A.Z. 03:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said that it is usually an exclusive attraction because that is my own opinion and I have no way of proving it. But I think your second example sounds good, "Pedophilia is a preferential sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. It can be an exclusive attraction." If you want to make it clearer then you can change it to that and it won't change the meaning of what it's saying. Ospinad 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia is usually an exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children; it's what makes it so difficult for them to have a happy sexual life with adults...because they generally have no interest in adults sexually. For instance, a man who may have sexually abused his (pre-pubescent) son or daughter, but when tested, shows to really favor adults sexually, would not be labeled as a pedophile by psychologists...at least not a true pedophile. He would rather be called a situational offender, mainly because he is not beyond their help. Flyer22 01:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? A.Z. 16:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., I'm removing that fact tag. Not only is it very well-known that pedophilia is the primary or exclusive (very much usually exclusive) sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, but it is in prominent psychology books as that. And even this article mentions situational offender, which I just saw. If Pedophilia didn't mean the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to children, then it wouldn't be something that so compulsively takes over that person's life, as it is seen to in every pedophile where they aren't truly interested in adults sexually/romantically, and they wouldn't be thought of as beyond help. Even the article on Ephebophilia mentions that the reason it is defined as Ephebophilia is because it is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to adolescents. The only difference there and here is that many normal men (and sometimes women) find mid-to-late adolescents sexually attractive. It is not considered normal to find pre-pubescent children sexually attractive. Pedophilia is not like bisexuality, which some people even argue the existence of, because "bisexual" individuals tend to have a sexual preference more often than not, and it is usually difficult for them to have a truly happy sexual/romantic life with the sex they do not favor (I've seen that countless times myself in real life). It is kind of odd, yes, how a person who has a little sexual attraction to the sex they do not favor, which is also argued to be inherent in all people, can be called a "bisexual", but a man who has molested his pre-pubescent son or daughter and yet tests to really be sexually/romantically attracted to adults is not labeled as a biaphile (a word I just made up), but that has to do with what a pedophile is truly defined as. I will later add a citation (maybe more than one of the same) to the definition of pedophilia, but for now...I am removing that fact tag. Flyer22 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Flyer, I think it's entirely inappropriate to remove fact tags like that. I think you should either re-add the tag or remove the definition, if you don't have a source. If you have a source, we'll say "according to X, pedophilia is..." I'm going to read your post now. A.Z. 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "pedophilia is usually an exclusive sexual attraction"? Do you mean that people generally either have an exclusive sexual attraction to children or don't have any sexual attraction to children at all? You can't remove the tag based on your claim that the definition is "well known". I can't even understand what the definition means (as you can see from my question above). A.Z. 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that it is a claim as to it being well-known, and I do have the source (sources), just not with me at this specific moment, but anyway. What I mean by "pedophilia usually being an exclusive sexual attraction to children" is what I stated above and that an exclusive sexual attraction to children is its true definition. However, sometimes situational offenders are wrongly mistaken to be pedophiles and are colloquially referred to as pedophiles, thus pedophilia has also been known to be defined as someone also capable of sexual/romantic attraction to adults, which is why the first line of this article now states "primary or exclusive". Anyway, since you feel that I shouldn't have removed the fact tag, I will make the move to add a citation or two sooner than later. Flyer22 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a source that addresses a lot of what I stated in this section, especially the term pedophile being colloquially used for the sex offenders (the ones who either sexually molested a child more so due to being a situational offender or the ones who had sex with a minor of adolescent years, such as a 17-year-old, but) who are not truly pedophiles. I could have easily added a reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders about pedophilia being an exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, but its entry isn't also about the mis-use of the term. Flyer22 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Would it be proper to include a mention of NAMBLA in this article? 70.118.88.184 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, NAMBLA is mentioned in the pro-pedophile activism article to which this article refers. Greetings: Roman Czyborra 10:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be appropriate, these people are also pedophiles not just PPAs, SqueakBox 20:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Theo Sandfort, teenagers, and the definition of pedophilia

Theo Sandfort, a very notable modern writer on pedophilia, published in 1984 the article "Sex in Pedophiliac Relationships" in The Journal of Sex Research. The subjects were 25 boys ranging in age from 10 to twenty-five, who were "then involved in pedophiliac relationships with adult males."

Clearly, the older of these boys are pubescent. It seems to me that this notable academic usage -- by one of the writers cited definitionally in pederasty -- causes a problem or two with the hard line between prepubescent "pedophilia" and pubescent "pederasty" that many editors on Wikipedia so forcefully assert.

How shall we incorporate this usage into the definitional paragraph? Dybryd 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how or if we should incorporate it. Pedophilia is certainly a different matter than pederasty or what one would call Ephebophilia, as we know, considering that a sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents is not considered a mental disorder, and with good reason I'd say, considering how 16 to 17-year-olds can easily pass for being legal adults, as in they look no physically different age-wise than 20-year-olds (well, the majority of the time). However, or if ever, we incorporate what you cite above, we have to make sure that it's not confusing, or alters the true definition of pedophilia, of course. Flyer22 12:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is, does pederasty sometimes extends below the pubertal age? If a pederast has a broad range of attraction, including individuals that are clearly sexually immature in appearance, then I would suppose that it is certainly relevant to pedophilia. However, at this point I doubt that it needs anything more than being mentioned under the "see also" category. Equilibrist 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why do we even have an article on something so digusting? I'm willing to bet that half the visitors to this page think they are gonna find some kind of child porn. To be honest, I think we should round up all the pedophiles, shoot them in the groin, wait about 10 minutes, then shoot them in the head. Just my personal opinion, don't go all "flame-war" on me about it. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, pedophilia is referred to here as the sexual attraction by adults to children, not the sexual abuse of children. I can understand that a human being would have the desire to torture and kill people who have abused children, but actually doing it would be immoral, I think.

As for why having an article on something as disgusting as child sexual abuse, I think Wikipedia simply assumes that uncensored and free information is a good thing. A.Z. 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And the best way to make a big problem an even bigger problem is to stop the info exchange and stick your head in the sand about it. No one can benefit from that. --DanielCD 20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I am deeply saddened at some of the mentatility here, because you don't like something that's just cause for it not to exist? In whose world, yours? Because it does exist in the real world. If you don't like it perhaps you shouldn't live in it? What's worse is that, had he replaced "pedophile" with "homosexual", he probably would have been banned by now, or at least barred from editing giving his clearly discriminatory views, not to mention that the whole gay pride parade would probably have come on over just to defend their views. You express the most retardedist, juvenile, pig-headed opinion and then reply with "dont go all flame-war on me"... the only thing I will credit you with is at least you saved us the bother and didn't blank the page like some other asshats tend to do. 70.53.129.124 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Tyler's comments are a prime example of the nature of the continuing problem of child abuse present-day. As a society, we seem content to throw pedophiles in jail for a couple years, and then humiliate and alienate them forever once they are released. Then some re-offend and nobody can figure out why and everyone screams "throw them in jail for life", "torture them", "execute them" etc. All these absurd patterns of behavior really do is nurse and exacerbate the problems they seem to attack. One of the most under-funded research areas in psychology today is the treatment and rehabilitation of pedophilia, especially violent pedophiles. The options available now are either quite ineffective or barbaric to say the least. I think it's quite presumptuous that one could claim "you can't cure pedophiles, they're too sick" or whatever variant you fancy. Such a statement assumes a complete knowledge of pedophilia, the psychological mechanisms that govern it, and proof that it is irreversible. Such attitudes seem to imply that we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement in this area while in fact we have done anything but. Only when we are able to view this problem in humane, rational, and scientific terms will we be able to address it with any meaningful confidence. So put simply, if pedophilia is a disease, then let us treat it as any other disease we seek to cure, as something that when eliminated will serve to benefit the individual as well as to ameliorate some of the pains of our society.

Kst447 (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to round them up and shoot them then your going to shoot up the whole world. Becuase most men are attracted to younger women (I didnt say kids) I said younger women. The problem people like you believe that everyone under 18 is a kid and everyone over 18 is an adult. But thats just not true. Some people under dont look like kids or act like kids. And its wrong to punish a man to have sex with someone just because there under a certain number. 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.82.152 (talk)

Removed content on June

An editor has expressed concerns on this talk page about this removal of material. SqueakBox removed three times the post, so I'm posting this one that he won't remove. A.Z. 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a banned user and a disruptive edit so my removal of it was fully justified given the history of problems, SqueakBox 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version of this section actually pointed out that there were many unsupported deletions following on from the edit listed. Thanks to A.Z. for re-creating this section though. And considering that he was blocked with the official justification of sourcing academic opinion and creating an article that is now doing just fine, I wish him a speedy return to action. digitalemotion 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

General Observation on the Topic

Get rid of "pedosexual" it is a perversion, not a sexual orientation, as such it is a paraphilia, or something different from the norm. It is NOT normal to want to rape kids. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Im a kid, seriously, and i HATE pedos. They are sick. So call it what it IS, Child Sexual Abuse, or even better, merge with RAPE. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

God bless perverted-justice.com, and all the work they do locking these kinds of asshats up. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if I were Atticus Finch, I would conclude that rather than requiring a child to be unwilling in order to find him/her sexually attractive, that most pedophiles wish to believe that their sexuality in fact makes sense because some children do welcome such relations. Just because this is not so does not mean that pedophiles desire to rape, but rather they desire to express their genuine love, an action which in fact proves to be almost invariably harmful to the recipient. I would also purport that simply being abnormal is in no way grounds for lesser treatment on behalf of the majority. Rather, it is the harm done that warrants attention.

Kst447 (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

^ Ray Blanchard, Howard E. Barbaree, Anthony F. Bogaert, Robert Dickey, Philip Klassen, Michael E. Kuban and Kenneth J. Zucker: Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 29, Number 5 (2000), pages 463 to 478.

[1] Ray Blanchard, Howard E. Barbaree, Anthony F. Bogaert, Robert Dickey, Philip Klassen, Michael E. Kuban and Kenneth J. Zucker: Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 29, Number 5 (2000), pages 463 to 478.

[1]