Category talk:Pedophilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Category[edit]

I added this category to category:child sexual abuse because sexual activity between adults and children is generally categorized as abuse. -Willmcw 18:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is - no argument there (well, a slight argument - pedophilia doesn't necessarily translate into a set of acts). But are you really going to say that the Ancient Greeks incorporated acts of sexually abusing children into their society? The point: Not all instances of pedophilia translate into acts of sexually abusing children, and by adding this category you're pushing a contemporary POV onto history, and a culturally specific POV onto other cultures. -Seth Mahoney 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are some sexual acts between adults and children not abusive? Is that your point? -Willmcw 20:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that not all pedophilia results in sexual acts between adults and children. My further intention was to invite you to think seriously on whether or not you think, for example, the Ancient Greeks were all child abusers. Regardless of what you think on that subject, though, you have to realize that a "yes, they were" answer is POV and contentious, and yet pedophilia (more accurately, pederasty) characterizes a part of Ancient Greek culture that was thought necessary. And this isn't unique to Ancient Greece. I could probably name off 50 societies that relied on, and incorporated, some form of what we would characterize as pedophilia (and correspondingly characterize as abuse, abnormal, dangerous, etc.), but they would characterize as perfectly normal and nonharmful. In other words, my opinion on whether or not these are cases of abuse is irrelevant here (since my opinion is POV). What is relevant is that characterizing all these cases as abusive is POV. That it happens to be a POV that our society generally accepts as true is also irrelevant. -Seth Mahoney 20:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I see the relevance, except indirectly, of the Ancient Greeks. When you say that not all pedophilia results in sexual acts, I'm sure you're right in that some folks probably just fantasize about them. However when they do fulfill their fantasies they are peforming child sexual abuse, aren't they? Here are the actual articles and categories included under this category:
  • Categories:
  • Child pornography
  • Childlove
  • Articles:
  • Childlove movement
  • MARTIJN
  • North American Man/Boy Love Association
  • Pedophilia
  • Pedophilia and sexual orientation
  • Perverted-Justice.com
There's nothing about Ancient Greeks in most of these articles. -Willmcw 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me try again:
1. Regardless of what is currently in the category, that pedophilia/pederasty = child abuse is a POV particular (in fact, peculiar) to our culture. POV, regardless of whether it is personal or cultural, is inappropriate to an encyclopedia.
a. Taking up at least one of the articles in this category, NAMBLA has a different POV than you. Are you asserting that your POV is more NPOV than their POV?
2. Since not all instances of pedophilia are instances of child abuse (since in some situations pedophiles may not engage in sexual activity with children) shows that Category:Child sexual abuse is inappropriate here. It might be appropriate (ignoring objection 1 above) if it were the case that all instances of pedophilia necessarily involved instances of sexual activity with children. -Seth Mahoney 21:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule that a topic has to fit 100% into a category in order to go there. NAMBLA's viewpoints are represented in their article. I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say that sex with children is only considered abuse in this culture. Sex with children is forbidden in every country that I am aware of. Is there an exception? -Willmcw 21:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct and incorrect regarding where sex with children is forbidden. You're incorrect in the sense that different cultures use different definitions of 'child'. In Spain currently (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) the age of consent is 12. For most of European history, and likewise throughout much of Chinese and Japanese history, women were married off at 12 or earlier. Ancient Greece is another obvious exception. In Japan, young boys, either before puberty or having just started puberty, who performed in Kabuki were known to be prostitutes. Want more examples? -Seth Mahoney 22:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Current examples are the best as lots of things were different in the old days. Isn't pedophilia technically the sexual desire for pre-pubescent children? If so, an age-of-consent law that forbids sex with children under 12 would still outlaw pedophilic activities. -Willmcw 22:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: http://www.glrl.org.au/publications/major_reports/age_of_consent/age_of_consent_07.htm
Well, part of the point is that in many places, for most of history, age of consent laws have been absent. And historical examples aren't irrelevant at all - Wikipedia includes historical as well as contemporary articles. But also, 'pedophilia' can sometimes include desire for teenagers or pubescent people. Regardless, I'm removing the category again. Please don't add it back unless you can provide evidence (the burden of proof is on you) that it is universally accepted (historically as well as in curernt times) that pedophilia necessarily equates to child sexual abuse. If you continue to feel the need to add that parent category, hash it out here before you make any changes. -Seth Mahoney 22:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two more problems here, the first of which is that consensus does not mean truth. If we're going to be committed to reporting facts, we can't rely solely on consensus to determine what to include. The other is that adding a parent category to this category is asserting something to be true. Not adding a category, by contrast, asserts nothing - neither that it is true that X nor that it is false that X. In cases where something is likely to be contested as POV, not adding the parent category seems the safest bet. -Seth Mahoney 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is universally accepted as true, not even the roundness of the Earth. This quote seems to establish the relevent connection:
  • Pedophilia, a form of child sexual abuse, is an abnormal interest in children that is based on the intention by the perpetrator to be sexually aroused by children.[1]
I am going to re-add the category. Since we disagree on this poin it looks like the best way to proceed would be an RfC. -Willmcw 22:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to check the history of Talk:Pedophilia. I believe there was quite a bit of discussion over whether to apply the category to that article, as well. -Seth Mahoney 22:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
category:Child sexual abuse was only created two days ago. I haven't noticed any discussion since then. -Willmcw 23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia is the sexual interest in children. It is not a "form of child sexual abuse." Pedophilia does not even necessarily include the desire to sexually abuse children; some pedophiles are interested in other things, including legal acts. 24ip | lolol 01:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which non-sexual, legal acts fall within the desires of a pedophile? -Willmcw 06:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sexual fetishism, Category:Paraphilia. And having the capacity to be aroused by children does not even mean you desire any particular act with them. 24ip | lolol 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual fetishism and paraphilia aren't sexual acts. My question was what sexual acts are pedophilic that wouldn't count as sexual abuse of children? Is the capacity to be aroused by children the same as pedophilia? That seems like a very loose definition. -Willmcw 23:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some pedophiles derive arousal from fetishistic acts like tickling. This isn't inherently sexual, but that's not what I said, anyway. 24ip | lolol 21:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So tickling children for the purpose of sexual pleasure is not child sexual abuse? -Willmcw 23:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Sexual abuse#Child sexual abuse.
And anyway, how would tickling hurt a child? 24ip | lolol 18:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does a child have to be "hurt" for it to be abuse? I don't see any mention in outr article on pedophilia about tickling being a pedophilic act. (I suppose people of any orientation might find tickling arousing, just like toe licking). -Willmcw 04:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what other definition of 'abuse' anyone could possibly be working with. What would warrant calling something abuse if it doesn't harm the "abused"? Anyway, this is way far away from the point, which is this: pedophilia is not an act. -Seth Mahoney 22:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And is tickling inherently pedophilic? Why are we talking about it? Anyway, the category covers not just "pedophilia," but also pedophiles, pro-pedophile organizations, etc. "Childlove", for example, is an act. -Willmcw 22:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. You're making my case for me. Pro-pedophile organizations aren't acts, pedophiles aren't acts, the childlove movement isn't an act (or, maybe it is, but its not a sexual act). None of these are instances of child sexual abuse, and all instances of child sexual abuse are acts. Unfortunately, you're also avoiding a question: If we're not talking about harm, what definition of 'abuse' could you possibly be using? -Seth Mahoney 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given that not all pedophiles act on their desires, and that some act on their desires through fantasy and role-playing, its the only definition we've got. To rephrase: Since not all instances of pedophilia can be reduced to sexual acts, we can't speak of it exclusively in terms of sexual acts. So long as it remains in the realm of desire or role-play, pedophilia is not child sexual abuse. -Seth Mahoney 16:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, not all pedophiles are child sexual abusers. But those who go beyond fantasizing or role playing with other adults and actually do pedophilic acts are child sexual abusers. That's good enough for categorization. -Willmcw 20:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it absolutely is not good enough for categorization. Some heterosexuals get off on rape. Some of them actually rape. That doesn't warrant putting Category:Heterosexuality (if it exists) in Category:Rape (if it exists). -Seth Mahoney 22:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All pedophiles who fulfill their desires are child sex abusers. All heterosexuals who act on their desires are not rapists. It's an invalid comparison. -Willmcw 22:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering. Would you consider an adult who masturbates to computer-generated child pornography to be a child abuser? Would you consider them to be a pedophile? --Carnildo 05:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't matter what we think, we should just be reporting the common or academic views. However since you ask, I would say that a child pornographer is certainly a sexual abuser of children. His customers must certainly share some of the guilt. Technically, just being sexually aroused by children in some fashion does not make one a pedophile, but the common definition is looser and I'd say that yes, masturbating to child pronography is a pedophilic act. The issue of whether fake images still count is too legalistic/theological, and doesn't really matter for this discussion. -Willmcw 20:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you simply see the words "child pornography" and reflexively think "BAD BAD BAD"? I specified "computer-generated child pornography" -- that is, child pornography in which no actual children are involved. If you find it easier to visualize, substitute "cartoon child pornography" for "computer-generated child pornography". --Carnildo 21:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to get the impression you aren't actually reading anything anyone else is saying. Actually, not all pedophiles who fulfill their desires are sex abusers, since some fulfill their desires without involving children at all. -Seth Mahoney 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one of our basic disagreements here is what percentage of pedophiles have to be child sex abusers in order for the category to apply. One position is that it must be 100%. I belieev that simply a preponderance is sufficient. Of course, there is really no way of knowing what the real number is. -Willmcw 20:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there is no way to know whether or not we should apply the category, and we should err on the side of caution. And, as I (and you) stated above:
"You're making my case for me. Pro-pedophile organizations aren't acts, pedophiles aren't acts, the childlove movement isn't an act (or, maybe it is, but its not a sexual act). None of these are instances of child sexual abuse, and all instances of child sexual abuse are acts."
You'll note, and you agreed with this above, that the category isn't about pedophiles per se. There are (or should be) plenty of articles about organizations, books, research, etc., and none of these fits the description of "child sexual abuse". In the end, it doesn't even matter how many pedophiles act on their desires, because we aren't just talking about pedophiles here. -Seth Mahoney 22:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it very odd that pedophilic acts are not considered child sexual abuse, or that the article pedophilia is believed to not discuss pedophilic acts. However, I'm not going to continue to argue the point on this page. I concede the point. -Willmcw 23:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I 'personally' think the very concept of "abuse" is POV. (But, then, I love the controversy...)
  • If I stick a banana up your ass, am I abusing you? Am I abusing the banana? Or am I abusing my position as the more powerful of the two of us? Or are you abusing my good nature and natural inclination towards compliance by asking for it?
  • When a male professor accepts head from a female student in return for a better grade, is he (abusing her by) abusing his position of authority and power over her future, or is she abusing him by using her wily female charms? Or, perhaps you feel it is too complicated to consider that there is no 'abuse' and they have, rather, entered into a tacit (and mutual) contract.
  • When I see a little pink arse flitting past my face at the beach, is not my desire (to tenderly kiss it before indulging in an act of violent sodomy) merely a case of my disease manifesting itself? Why must it be considered abuse? Why a crime? Why not just an illegal fetish? A psychological disorder? Who are you to say it is ‘abuse’?

(Please understand that my comments are written in stylistic fashion and do not represent my true desires. In fact I hate little pink arses. {I am a fan of little yellow ones [owned by consenting adults, of course!]})--JohnO 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Desisions (links)[edit]

moved to Talk:Child pornography -Willmcw 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law:

Should the Pedophilia category be included in category:Child sexual abuse, or does that express a POV?

RfC response: I have done my best to read through, or at least thoroughly skim, much of the discussion. I think that Pedophilia should NOT be categorized as child abuse. Pedophilia is a state of mind, not an action. Think of less controversial examples...is someone who gets excited when imagining dragons being slayed a dragon abuser? Is someone who loves to think up different ways to invade countries a war monger? Is someone who spends their leisure hours imagining how to melt the polar ice caps or build a giant robot a mad scientist? The point is if someone has certain thoughts, but never follows up on them, they are not guilty of abuse against anyone other than themselves. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Pedophilia is a separate subject from Child sexual abuse and this the catagories ought to stay separate. However the category:Childlove ought to be merged in. That would make this this category the central one organzing articles non abuse related articles on adult/child sexuality. None of this is to be construed that I support Child sexual abuse. Klonimus 03:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up pedophilia in my dictionary...and it told me it was am american alternate spelling. try again, and it said 'being sexually attracted to children'. Some of the comments above clearly confuse the definition of 'paedophile' to mean someone who commits a sexual act with a child, which it does not mean. Being a paedophile is not, in itself, any kind of crime nor an act of child abuse. I have absolutely no idea how common it is amongst ordinary, upstanding citizens. Almost certainly, much more common than people would like to think. None of that is grounds for including 'pedophile' within the category 'child abuse'. However.... If I had occasion to look up category 'child sexual abuse', I would expect it to contain articles relevant to the category. In that pedophilia is certainly likely to be one of the contributing factors towards acts of sexual child abuse, I would expect it to be listed. Sandpiper 03:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, all the articles on wikipedia that refer to child sexual abuse already link to pedophilia, so this isn't really an issue. -Seth Mahoney 21:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would depend what you consider the purpose of having a category is. Some sort of index of related articles? Sandpiper 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categories is an important consideration, definitely. I've got something stronger in mind than "related articles" - if an article gets to be added to a category (or a category gets to be added to a category), I'd like it to fall under that category, so Category:Islam doesn't get to be included in Category:Christianity (or the other way around), even though they're closely related, and even though I might want to get to one from the other (though likely you can get to both Category:Islam and Category:Christianity through a parent category they share). Its possible that perhaps Category:Pedophilia and Category:Child sexual abuse could share a parent category, but it would have to be carefully named so as not to imply any necessary connection between the two.
It sounded like you were saying you wanted to be able to get to pedophilia from articles related to the sexual abuse of children. Since this is likely already facilitated by links to pedophilia from the various articles in question, this doesn't seem to be an issue, hence my comment.
-Seth Mahoney 22:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the editors decided above (if I'm repeating this correctly), Category:Pedophilia applies to articles about the longing to have sex with children, while Category:Child sexual abuse covers articles concering actually having sex with children. -Willmcw 23:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: it is disingenuous to pretend that child sexual abuse exists only as a discrete set of acts without any ideological/psychological framework. Pedophilia deserves a place under category: child sexual abuse. Add a few qualifying comments about cultural definitions of childhood. However, it is quite misleading to assume that sexual activity begins with marriage in cultures that practice prepubescent marriage. Some of the commentary on this page is - to say the least - disturbing.
Consider that this article could be used as a research tool by some concerned reader deciding whether to notify the authorities of suspicious behavior. Any reasonable person would want to make pertinent information available. I'm rather suspicious of those who argue otherwise. Of course pedophilia is relevant to child sexual abuse.
Durova 23:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophile advocate subcategory[edit]

I would like to create a subcategory for advocates of pedophilia/childlove. Suggestions??--Gbleem 19:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, as pedophilia certainly has plenty of opponents. The world rarely hears from proponents, no less actual pedophiles. As long as the new section maintains a NPOV, I can't see any reason NOT to add it. Lindsay Ashford comes to mind, by the way. I learned of him only last week. What a brave soul he is! Zebruh 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have category:pedophile organizations. Other than Ashford, who'd go in the advocate category? -Willmcw 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
for some reason it isn't listed under pedophilia. Is this a technical issue. Would pedophile advocacy be better to diffentiate it from anti child abuse groups? --Gbleem 20:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if category:pedophile organizations is a subcategory of category:pedophilia. -Willmcw 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been some kind of glitch.--Gbleem 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are we talking about here?[edit]

I noticed that an article I have contributed to, Pederasty, has been included in this category. I have my doubts about that, but I can't argue one way or another without some clear definition of the range of this topic. So I have tagged it "NPOV" until this is resolved. Haiduc 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been over-enthusiastic in some categorizing. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, while pederasty theoretically involves pubescent boys. However takling a more careful read of the Pederasty article I see that it covers instances with boys who are as young as 12, or who are depicted without pubic hair. On that basis, it seems reasonable to consider them closely-enough related to have a categorization. -Willmcw 06:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said of child marriage, and the lack of pubic hair can extend into late adolescence for some, depending on nutrition and genetics. Take a look at Amor Vincit Omnia (I don't mean to corrupt you). There is a further issue, much more profound: you are projecting a minoritarian (not to say rare) disorder (one held by some to be innate, much like any other orientation) onto entire societies. Thus you seem to be using a kind of street-level logic but presenting it as academic discourse. It simply does not make sense and appears on its face to be a polemical tactic (though I am not accusing you, Willmcw, since I have no reson to assume you have an axe to grind - I just think you made an honest assumption, but one unwittingly influenced and informed by others who do have an axe to grind). The propaganda on this subject is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
These are somewhat generalized arguments, but since a workable definition does not seem to be forthcoming here, it is impossible to be more precise, it is a bit like jousting with a cloud. So I will remove pederasty from the category until you can come up with a more plausible argument. (I was going to remove ephebophilia as well, but I see sanother has saved me the bother.) Haiduc 10:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is family affair listed here?[edit]

It doesnt seem to be pedophilia. --Mats33 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Pedophilia&oldid=682703477"