Talk:Hebephilia

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Section sizes

Section size for Hebephilia (14 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	5,530	5,530
Etymology, definitions and history	6,595	6,595
Research	13	9,216
General	2,395	2,395
Correlates	5,221	5,221
Prevalence	1,587	1,587
DSM-5 debate	18	23,537
Proposal	3,421	3,421
Responses	16	16,645
General	9,698	9,698
Attraction as normal or abnormal	6,931	6,931
Use in court	3,453	3,453
References	28	28
External links	355	355
Total	45,261	45,261

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

James Cantor (talk · contribs) / Banglange (talk · contribs) / Starburst9 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/James_Cantor)

It is requested that an image or photograph of Hebephilia be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

"Minor Attracted Person" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Minor Attracted Person and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 9#Minor Attracted Person until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 12:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pubescent Children" OXYMORON

In the article, hebephilia is stated to be an attraction to "pubescent CHILDREN."

Children are prepubescent individuals with no secondary sex characteristics. Those developing said characteristics are not children but rather adolescents and should be referred to as such.

"Pubescent CHILDREN" is an oxymoron because despite legal definitions, the REAL definition of children is those who have not begun puberty and thus have no secondary sex characteristics.

People in the early stages of puberty are not children but rather adolescents.

HildaSimp (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New section

@Crossroads. Do you have any rationale for the removal of the "characteristics" and "prevalence" sections from the revision prior to your mass revert? Bolt and Thunder (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to remove the pre-existing content on those matters (which there is, just the headings are organized differently). The pictures do not seem necessary either. On a controversial topic like this, which also has a history of problematic editing, it's best to make small edits that are easier for others to parse in the diff viewer. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]