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 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

EL added on MRI research

I have added an external link to a non-technical article on MRI research on pedophilia. Because I am the author of that article, I thought it appropriate to note that here, so that other editors could check it for relevance. — James Cantor (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I give thumbs up on this, as it's just science (not politics) and is presented well with proper sourcing. It was also easier to read, and therefore I think it is beneficial to this article. Only problem I noted was with formatting: It would not load in Firefox, only in Internet Explorer.Legitimus (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I also give thumbs up to this. Though the problem Legitimus pointed out is, well, a problem, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look into the compatability problem. I've replaced the link with a more universally compatable one. Thanks again. — James Cantor (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned that the sampling techniques (criminal behavior, self-report) did not properly represent the definition of pedophile in the lead of the article. forestPIG ^(grunt) 11:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I was thinking of an old revision that now appears to have gone. But still, the sample cannot be deemed properly representative of the population of people qualifying for the diagnosis of pedophilia. Behavioral aspects in sampling cast serious doubts on that. forestPIG ^(grunt) 19:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the current stance from the APA? After much research I'm unable to find there older link. I know it was considered for removal in 2003? http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/apa_debates.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.188.25 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The APA stands by the stance that it is a mental disorder, and that "Children cannot consent to sexual activity." Further, they have made new research in diagnosing it [1]. I would avoid using IPCE as a source, as it not considered reliable.Legitimus (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article should be divorced from the criminal behavior material.

I've noticed a inconsistency in how these articles on sexual orientation are written, homophilia and heterophilia do not have large sections on the behavior and characteristics of sexual offenders and persons with psychological problems. In the pedophilia article, there is however almost only material on this. The displays what I believe is a cultural bias which is very improper and gives a very misleading picture of reality. The fact is that we do not know very much about pedophiles who are non-offenders or outside of legal and therapy settings. To maintain balance, the reader should be aware of this fact and I believe this is achieved most efficiently by moving the material to a new or existing article on sexual offenders towards children. The material on pedophiles with mental problems can instead be moved to articles on the particular problems that they experience. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that unlike your two cited examples, pedophilia is medically considered to be a mental illness.Legitimus (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not in itself. Only forms which causes distress. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to voice your opinion BEFORE I make major changes to the entire article. It will be easier if we agree from the start. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All material relating to criminal, behavioral, clinical, self-report samples, etc should be treated with great care. All such materials are highly speculative when used as a commentary on pedophilia in general, with much of it being highly doubtful, even for diagnostic pedophilia. forestPIG ^(grunt) 19:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, how do you think this material should be dealt with? I suggest moving it to other more relevant articles and maintaining a much shorter article instead. I think this would better reflect the state of knowledge on this topic (which is very weak). Glenn Stokowski (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of information, distress is not required for it to be a mental illness. Acting on those impulses is also diagnostic, and with some professionals this includes the use of child pornography. In most industrialized nations, such actions are criminal acts.

You are also pointing out a somewhat paradoxical model: A person with a given sexual attraction is inherently driven to act on that attraction. Sex is, after all, one of the most primal of drives along with eating and sleeping. A person lacking a drive to act on such an attraction is arguable not attracted at all, and thereby, not a pedophile.Legitimus (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't in any way say what is and what is not a mental illness. It only says what is diagnosed as mental illness, which is quite a different thing. Besides, DSM does have little or no scientific validity today, it should be regarded as perhaps little more than a cultural curiosity, at any rate, there is no scientific support behind the idea that pedophilia is a mental illness. Given this current state of knowledge, this fact should be reflected in the wiki-articles by making sure that the material is balanced. At this point, the article is very unbalanced and gives impressions about pedophilia in general which is based on a very problematic minority of pedophiles (mostly criminal and/or psychological unhealthy ones). Glenn Stokowski (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's patently absurd. DSM means Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and is one of the backbones of clinical practice, and is a standard of guidelines by which mental illness is defined in diagnosis and treatment. You have revealed a massive and misguided bias by calling it scientifically invalid. You have offered no sources nor basis for such a charge. And you conveniently failed to address the paradox you appear to be trumpeting.Legitimus (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is scientifically valid if it meets the standard of science. It might seem meaningless to point this out, but in this case it bears significance. For example, the definintion of pedophilia is so bad that it is almost useless in actual scientific practice. Second, a diagnosis should only exist if it has some practical importance (this is one of their own criteria), when it comes to pedophilia, this is not the case. Diagnosis someone with pedophilia gives no useful information as far as treatment goes, it turns no wheels, it does practically nothing. All treatments today are dealing with other issues, for example bad impulse control, depression, lowering general sex-drive etc. There is little or no scientific evidence behind it aswell, this has been pointed out many times in the scientific literature. (see Moser, Charles and Peggy J. Kleinplatz, "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal," paper presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual conference, San Francisco, California, May 19, 2003.) Then we can add various circumstantial support to the uncientific nature of the DSM, the removal of homosexuality is the usual example, which where done for political purposes according the Spitzer himself. At any rate, claiming that the DSM is scientifically valid today is a very strong claim with very weak scientific support. It should not be regarded as more than a cultural courioisty in regards to pedophilia. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We could argue the DSM til we're blue in the face, you're missing the point. Pedophilia has multiple definitions in this article. It is, at its most base definition, a sexual preference for prepubescent children. By its very nature, it is a disorder no matter how you want to analyze it. It is a deep, primal drive towards actions that are both illegal and dangerous. Again I must point out the paradox: No drive, no pedophilia. A person who is 40 years old, married with children, and has never once sexually assaulted a child or ever used child pornography in their entire lifetime is going to be a hard sell to be classified as a pedophile.Legitimus (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your only point is that the mass of people have a certain view and even if it is wrong, this is what Wikipedia should say. Your view is however inconsistent with actual practice here on Wikipedia. Reading the article on God, it is not assumed that God exist despite that this being the most popular view in the world today. So tell me, should we write the majority opinion or the scientifically informed one instead? Your example shows one the problems with DSM, if he is attracted towards children, most researchers would classify him as a pedophile while DSM would not.Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Stokowski, your description of pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" (in your first edit at 10:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)), and your analogy comparing pedophilia to homosexuality in your DSM comment (17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)), are well outside the mainstream and have been rejected by the scientific community. Pedophilia-as-sexual-orientation has been confirmed by wide consensus among Wikipedia editors as a fringe theory. It is a claim routinely found in literature promoted by pro-pedophile activists and as such is discussed in that article, not this one.

By the way, describing the very-mainstream DSM as a "cultural courioisty" [sic] (17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)) and stating that the DSM has "little or no scientific validity" (10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)) does not serve you well; those statements are so far afield that they marginalize and undermine whatever points you are trying to make. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So your point is that I'm wrong because you think I'm wrong. If DSM has scientific validity, then please show this. Most researchers would disagree with you on that point so I'm curious what kind of evidence you have to support your claim. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[Reply to Legitimus, Glenn, Jack-A-Roe]

Legitimus - I was not fully aware of who you were replying to. Whilst distress is most certainly not required to satisfy the DSM definition of pedophilia, there must be that specific, long lasting urge. Said urge is not necessary for one to partake in sexual activities with a prepubescent child. Sampling concerns therefore remain, regardless of what prejudice is in popular circulation. Also, to state that "a person with a given sexual attraction is inherently driven to act on that attraction" is a patently incorrect and slightly disturbing take on human sexuality. It fails to separate desire from behaviour, and the desire/fantasy itself may be unrelated to physical contact. Beyond the level of inherent drives, there may also be moral inhibitors.

Jack - whilst it was certainly a bad decision on the part of Glenn Stokowski to make his first edit on this article, the association you draw is inappropriate. The editor does appear to be unaware of how perceptions are likely to develop here, not wanting them to be aired with immediate effect. And whilst the claim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is a fringe theory, it is simply so because it cannot be compared to hetero - homo - sexuality. Pedophilia is primarily a Chronophilia, which is described by various "qualified" individuals as an "orientation", "mental disorder", "aberrance", etc. --forestPIG ^(grunt) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig, I am well aware of the difference between pedophilia and child sexual abuse, and that the former is not required for the latter to occur (for example see Holmes 2004) and of the ideosyncratic nature of anylyzing associated criminal behaviors. However, the reseach findings and definitions stands as established by the medical community. Bitch at me all you want, this is what the journals and textbooks and manuals say. Our duty is to report the findings and definitions set forth, not make our own based on personal philosophizing.Legitimus (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the journals and research, you will find a almost universal rejection of the DSM definition, not only by researchers but also by people working with pedophiles in various settings. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Heterophilia and homophilia? LOL! I hardly ever hear/see heterosexuality and homosexuality referred to by those names. In the same way I hardly ever hear/see pedophilia referred to as pedosexuality, though I am sure that is because I do not hang with pedophiles (not knowingly, anyway). Yes, I look at pedophilia as a sexual orientation, because that really is how it seems and is described by experts, in that these pedophiles cannot change their sexual preference for children, in the same way that heterosexual people cannot change their sexual preference for the opposite sex and homosexual people cannot change their sexual preference for the same sex. But pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder, not as a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined as sexually preferring men or women, being sexually attracted to both, or neither. Not as sexually preferring men or women, being sexually attracted to both, or neither, or children.

I also do not believe that anyone is born a pedophile. I do not believe that anyone is born heterosexual or homosexual either. I believe that sexual orientation is a combination of things, and that biology only plays a small part in it.

I do not see a valid reason for not including material on pedophiles with mental problems in this article. Or why, meaning that we would need to create these articles, it should instead be moved to articles on the particular problems that they experience. Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder, despite it being like a sexual orientation. It is only natural that we include material on pedophiles with mental problems in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

These are just cultural expressions, there is no way to prove if it is a orientation or not. Same goes for homosexuality or any other sexual variation. The whole article is written as if it is a disorder, which is a view that has basically no scientific support at all. It's similar to write an article on quantum physics based on the popular view of physics rather than informed scientific opinion. The entire article rests on false assumptions. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple actually. If there is scientific evidence showing that pedophilia is a disorder, then someone should be able to show this evidence. If it is not possible, then either it is a false claim, or a claim which cannot be settled with a scientific approach. In either case, the article should be rewritten. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And, what, you want this article rewritten to act as though pedophilia is not a mental disorder, even though it is defined that way by the medical community? You can talk "scientific" all you want. But this topic is in the medical community's hands. Just as rockets are left to the scientists. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And, oh, the scientific community is pretty much in agreement that sexual orientation exists, just as they do not believe that pedophilia is something simply made up in fairy tale land. Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Legitimus, Jack and Flyer. Pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder by the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organisation, so claims that pedophilia is a sexual orientation do not belong in a medical article. I do agree that some of the statements which refer to sex offenders but not pedophiles are inappropriate for this article because not all perpetrators meet the diagnostic criteria for the disorder which is explained here, but those facts are appropriate for the child sexual abuse article so a new article is not needed. Glenn: please remember that according to most medical experts, all pedophiles have mental health problems because pedophilia is a mental disorder. The article must reflect the views of the medical community. Jenever Spirit (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider this mythical "medical community", let see how we could justify believing in the opinion of the majority of this community. Obviously, the reason we "want" to use their opinion is because they are experts and we are in their field of expertise, therefor they are PROBABLY right in their claims about pedophilia. There are however many issues with this argument. FIRST: The medical community does not have a say in the diagnosis of pedophilia. Instead, it is a very small group who vote on these diagnoses. It could be claimed that it was a majority opinion anyway because most practitioners support the diagnosis. However, this is not the case, it is rejected by researchers and therapists in actual practice. Another serious issue is the lack of adequate research behind the diagnosis, there is to date no adequate scientific evidence which shows that pedophilia is a mental disorder. So all we really have is a handful of people who voted pedophilia to continue to remain as a diagnosis, with little or no scientific evidence to support this. In the 70's homosexuality was removed by popular vote which also was a decision without adequate scientific evidence. Once again, we have a cultural phenomena here, one which cannot be resolved by science today simply because we do not have enough evidence to make a decision. More grave is that pedophilia does not even meet the standards of the DSM itself, which even makes the whole case internally inconsistent. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to offer any sources to support your claim. When the chips are down, that is what matters here. I would really like to see your evidence that the majority of therapists and researchers reject pedophilia as a mental disorder.Legitimus (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"As Marshall (1997) has correctly noted, the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilia is virtually ignored by both practitioners and researchers." O'Donohue, W., Regev, L. G., & Hagstrom, A. (2000). Problems With the DSM-IV Diagnosis of Pedophilia. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol. 12, no. 2, 2000 Glenn Stokowski (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythical "medical community"? Laughing out loud! Even if we were to say that the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilia is virtually ignored by both practitioners and researchers, that does not mean that most practitioners and researchers feel that pedophilia is not a mental disorder. The bottomline is...you are asking us to have this article go against the medical community. We are telling you that we cannot do that. Pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder by virtually all of the medical community; this includes most researchers early on in this field. It was defined as a mental disorder even before the DSM-IV, back when it was first given the name paedophilia erotica. Valid sources are always calling it that. Without any of that, we would hardly have an article on pedophilia. Thus, whatever vision you have in mind for this article would not be how pedophilia is defined. It would also get Wikipedia laughed right off the net. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some may indeed feel that way, although many doesn't. What we can say with high certainty is that the DSM diagnosis is very poor and largely ignored. The claim that pedophilia is a disorder rests not on science but on culture. If we read Peer Commentaries of Green and Schmidt, which discuss this matter, then you will find that the vast majority of those who think it is a disorder (which far from everyone, with many claiming it to be a orientation) either makes purely cultural claims, or practical ones (easier to do research etc.) If we are writing the Wikipedia article with the idea that it is a disorder, then this should be done by full awareness that it is a cultural claim, not a scientific one. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the vast majority of those who say pedophilia is a mental disorder either make purely cultural claims, or practical ones...unless we are talking about people not as educated about pedophilia or not thoroughly educated about pedophilia. I say some may feel like you do, but many do not. And calling it a cultural claim? That's absurd. It is a medical claim. And calling it a cultural claim would have to go for many other articles on Wikipedia dealing with mental disorders. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion made in the opening. The 2 are linked in the reakl world and so need to be in wikipedia as well. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The two are linked, but statements about sex offenders and not about pedophiles (see the causes section) should be moved to child sexual abuse. The claims about pedophilia being a sexual orientation are the absurd part of Glenn's suggestion. Jenever Spirit (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I will say that some talk of situational offenders (who are also at times called non-pedophiles) should be in this article, because of how that topic is often linked to pedophilia and studied with it in giving people a better understanding of pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly common position among researchers today. "Although most researchers have tended to discuss sexual orientation in terms of the sexes or gender identities of the individuals involved (most likely assuming that the individual to whom one one is attracted is of consenting age), there have been a growing number of researchers who have defined sexual orientation in much broader terms, which include pedophilia (e.g., Barbaree, Bogaert, & Seto, 1995; Berlin, 2000; Feierman, 1990; Laws & O'Donohue, 1997; Suppe 1984)." Gaither, G. A. (2002). Peer Commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002). Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2002, pp. 479-503. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quoting these sources out of context. Mind you some of us do have the full journals handy. Donohue (2000), which you mentioned a few paragraphs back, was NOT arguing that pedophilia isn't a mental disorder. He was merely pointing out how the DSM criteria stink. But not because they're cultural and unscientific, but because their too exclusionary. Nowhere does Donohue say that it is not a mental disorder, in fact he emphasizes that it is and that the DSM lets too many slip through. He argues that a sexual attraction to children is "a prototypical example of a behavioral disturbance, and that if the [diagnostic] definition does not classify it as such, then this is a problem for the definition."

He goes on, in his conclusions, that pedophilia should be a behavioral diagnosis, that is, EVERYBODY who commits child sexual abuse should be diagnosed as a pedophile. This view is not necessarily going to sit well with everybody, but he makes a compelling argument in the paper. He also suggests the use of plethymography, something the DSM takes a negative stance on, but is actually well thought of and indeed very common in research settings (There have been some refinements in the manner in which its employed since the DSM's investigation of it).

Peer Commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002) likewise is being misused. First of all, note how the quote starts of by saying most researchers do not consider it an orientation. And in the paragraph after that, it explains that even if it were to be thought of as an orientation "...it should still be classified as a mental disorder."Legitimus (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, you are making a straw man argument here. I never claimed O'Donohue had that position, rather that practitioners and researchers in the field ignored the DSM position, which is exactly what the quote says and also something O'Donohue agrees with.

Again, I was combating the notion that it was a "absurd part" to claim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Since many researchers hold this position, it would be unfair to call it absurd. The disorder part is divided in the field, some argue that it is not a disorder at all, some do. At the end of the day, it is a value judgment (as Cantor pointed out earlier in the thread), not a scientific judgement. If we choose to make this value judgment in the article, it should be stated clearly and not pretend to have a scientific basis. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because some hold the view that it is an orientation does not make that mainstream. Further, that same article pointed out that labeling it an orientation is besides the point, it is still a disorder.

Getting to the root of this discussion, the very title of this article, as stated before, has multiple contextual meanings. It is:

a descriptor of an internal sexual preference
the letter-for-letter title of a mental disorder
a descriptor for a behavior
a type of criminal (as in the UK police unit)
a word misused in an overbroad manner in popular parlance

Rather than exclude material, this article has to be inclusive of these facets of the word "pedophilia." Some emphasis is perhaps needed on the alternative medical diagnostic methods besides the DSM. But there is no need to completely cut off all research on criminals, as diagnostically recognized offenders account for a significant percentage of offenders overall.

At the minimal core, we have "a descriptor of an internal sexual preference" and the article should be written from this perspective. We should include the other ideas aswell, but in the right context. As the article is written now, it is from the mental disorder perspective, which is less fundamental and lacks a scientific basis. So, with a slight shift in focus, we can keep most of the material, while making the article less ridden with value statements. I think this should be agreeable to everyone. If someone want to maintain the idea that it actually is a disorder, then I expect some scientific evidence to support this claim. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

True, though comparatively, there isn't much to that core concept. Basically, there isn't much to say about it, it's rather straightforward. And there is also less interest in approaching the subject from that facet.

Again with the science thing, by way. What does that even mean? What sort of scientific evidence are you asking for? As an example, would you say schizophrenia or pica are disorders and that it is based on science?Legitimus (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should stay true to the facts, if there is very little information about the core, then that should be reflected in the article. I don't think it's a scientific question whether it is a disorder or not, I can't imagine a study which would prove it either way, its a decision based on cultural norms. I will go on editing the article from the core perspective, I hope there is agreement on this and that we can make a better article together. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't say there isn't much information on the core aspect, just that it there is not much one can say about it. Now the other part you are getting at: You feel that it's considered a disorder because of culture, but what makes you draw that conclusion? To cite my examples before (schizophrenia or pica), I wouldn't consider those two disorders to be results of culture. I don't think a formal "study" is needed to determine that wanting to eat rocks or bits of sharp metal is a disorder.Legitimus (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the only "scientific" criteria it could be considered a disorder is the "Darwinian", in that it doesn't lead to (high probability of) reproduction. But ofcourse, homosexuality also fails on that criteria, so its a non-starter. Apart from that, it appears that pedophiles are pretty normal, they are like most people, they don't hear voices in their heads or anything like that, they just feel attraction to different age-groups. Once homosexuality was accepted as normal, then all arguments against pedophilia immediately become obsolete. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That definition of disorder does not hold water though. Schizophrenia has little to do with reproduction; is a disorder because it causes an impairment in normally daily functioning. Pica is a disorder because acting on its impulse will result in harm (injury to the digestive system, poisoning, blockage, broken teeth). Consenting homosexual relations do not harm each other, or other people. Pedophilic relations do. (oh, don't even go there).Legitimus (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It was of sexual disorder, no definition of disorder will hold water, if you could make on up then DSM would had included it long time ago. Most pedophiles also find women sexually attractive, so there is no necessary result in harm even in this society. Homosexuality is more problematic if we look at the facts, they have more psychological problems and physical disease than heterosexuals in general, so you're treading on very thin ice here. I think we can accept gay-rights at this point in time. Glenn Stokowski (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Stokowski, you say, "Apart from that, it appears that pedophiles are pretty normal, they are like most people, they don't hear voices in their heads or anything like that..." Well, I call bullshit! Pedophiles are not normal and certainly are not like most people. A pedophile, and I'm not talking about a situational offender, is so obsessed with the thought of becoming sexually involved with a child that those thoughts become severely intrusive. It is most definitely like a voice in their head saying, "Gotta have the child, gotta have the child." Pedophiles have admitted to this. Their mind is often clouded with thoughts of what it will be like to become sexually intimate with the child they are fantasizing about at the moment. Some pedophiles urinate on themselves while at their computers instead of getting up to go to the bathroom because they do not want their fantasty of the child they are looking at or talking to on their computer to be disturbed. Pedophiles will drive hours non-stop while urinating on themselves just to get to a child across the country they have just talked to an hour ago. You can say that common line that normal men think about sex 24-7, but how many normal heterosexual or homosexual men and women think like that (like the descriptions I just gave about pedophiles) in regards to the sex the are sexually attracted to? I'll tell you -- hardly any, unless they are in need of serious psychological help. The sexual orientation of a normal heterosexual or homosexual man or woman does not get in their way so much that they can hardly focus on life outside of being sexually attracted to the sex that they are sexually attracted to. Pedophiles' sexual preference for children, on the other hand, often does get in their way of focusing on life outside of their sexual attraction to children. Those are the main differences from pedophilia and the heterosexual/homosexual sexual orientations.

You say that most pedophiles also find women sexually attractive. Well, I call bullshit on that as well. Unless we are talking about a very sexual tiny attraction equivalent to how even a homosexual person may find a person of the opposite sex a little sexually attractive. You may call that bisexuality. But I do not, because, in the end, that homosexual person has no actual romantic/sexual interest in the opposite sex. In the same way that pedophiles, not situational offenders, have no actual romantic/sexual interest in women, unless it is to get closer to that woman's child or children.

Pedophiles always try to use the fact that the DSM called homosexuality a mental disorder to mean that they themselves should not be considered to be suffering from a mental disorder. Well, newsflash: Just because both do not lead to reproduction does not mean that both are similar or even remotely the same. The DSM having included homosexuality does mean that it can be flawed, but that does not mean that every or most of the mental disorders it has listed should be discarded or reevaluated not to be a mental disorder. Your argument seems to be, "Wrong about one, could be wrong about more." I'm saying that that argument could be used for a number of other things in the past of medical, scientific, research history, etc., but it still does not mean "wrong before, therefore cannot be trusted anymore." The day the DSM takes pedophilia off of its list of mental disorders, then you can come back here and demand that we not call it a mental disorder, even while most other experts will still be calling it a mental disorder. But you are surely kidding yourself if you believe that pedophilia will ever be removed from that list or declared normal, with pedophiles being labeled a group that has had a great injustice done to them by descrimination.

You had/have a valid point about not having this article focus too much on child sexual abuse, but certainly not about most other statements you made. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Stokowski asked me on my talk page if I would weigh in on this discussion. I apologize for having been delayed. First, I have to say: Wow. Although a little heated here and there, the discussion you folks have had is as intelligent and as insightful as any I have seen among professional sex researchers. For what it's worth, the issues that folks here appear to be going in circles around are the same issues that professionals go in circles around. Please holler if I am not correctly capturing the main issues here:

Pedophilia is or is not a disorder. This is an unanswerable question. There does not exist a universal definition of disorder at all; there is no scientifically valid method of knowing whether anything is a disorder. So, although it is true (in a sense) that no one has proof of pedophilia being a disorder, that is true only because no one has proof of anything being a disorder. One should not interpet the lack of proof of disorder to be evidence that pedophilia is "normal" (we have no valid definition of "normal" for the exactly the same reasons that we have no valid definition of "disorder"). A thought experiment that many people find useful is to try to come up with a definition of "disorder" or "mental disorder" that captures all the conditions you think it should capture and excludes all the conditions you think it should exclude.
The DSM is valid/invalid. The sides being argued here appear to me to be a bit more dichotomous than I would recommend. The DSM is an enormous collection of a very wide range of assertions, and they vary considerably in how well validated they are. One is correct to not to accept DSM statements as gospel, but it is a mistake to through the baby out with the bath water: The DSM contains a great many well validated and well accepted statements. All claims should be considered on their own merits. (Other DSM comments have been made here, such as about how the DSM gets written and by whom. Although I think that that is an interesting conversation, it strikes me as rather tangential to improving the pedophilia page.)
Pedophilia is or is not a sexual orientation. It has long been my experience that "pedophilia is a sexual orientation" is an explicit statement serving as a front for a different, implicit conversation. To a scientist, the explicit statement is a taxonomic and theoretical issue. Addressing it depends on one's definition for "sexual orientation," and there is more than one reasonable definition: Some people use "sexual orientation" to refer to which of the two sexes one is attracted to, and some people use "sexual orientation" to refer to whom one wants as a sex partner in general. Pedophilia would count as a sexual orientation in this second definition, but not the first. Because the proportion of people who use the first definition so vastly outnumber the proportion who use the second, it will be virtually impossible for the second one to become the dominant one. In my own work, I will sometimes refer to erotic orientation to refer to one's erotic interests, which has a dimension for sexual orientation (which sex you want) and for age orientation (which age range you want). As I said, whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation is a front for an implicit conversation: Pedophilia as a sexual orientation is sometimes code for "because pedophilia is a sexual orientation, it should be legal and de-stigmatized like all the other sexual orientations." Although I think that that conversation should be had, it should be addressed head on, not disguised.
Finally, this thread began with whether the research on pedophilia is actually research on child molestation and therefore should be in a different article. There is certainly some solid logic in that statement, taken on its own. However, the discussion appears to be more dichotomous on this point that I believe is true. It is certainly the case that some authors publishing in RS's have failed to make this distinction and have slipped in their use of language in explicating their conclusions. It is also true, however, that other authors have been very careful to avoid that error. Moreover, removing mention of all research papers that used forensic/clinical samples and including only research papers that used pro-social pedophiles would not solve the problem: It would instead produce the reverse problem. We have no reason to believe that the non-clinical non-forensic samples represent the "typical" pedophile any more than the clinical/forensic samples do. Instead, research findings should be considered on a case-by-case basis on their own merits.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The second sentence in the summary is vandalism. The page is protected and my login is too new, so I cannot edit and remove. Skaven55 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Actually the page protection would normally have stopped the vandalism, but the vandal appears to have "farmed" his account so that it would let him edit. Luckily, he has been blocked, permanently.Legitimus (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexual abuse box

Is fully appropriate for this article on pedophilia. Pedophilia is a sexual preference that, if exercised, is definitionally sexual abuse.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia is not a desire to have sexual contact with children, let alone a violent one. There is no "exercise" of pedophilia. Only child abuse, for which there may be many different motivations. Please read the article and don't add that tag again. forestPIG ^(grunt) 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The infobox does not define pedophilia, it is a navigation aid for various interrelated topics. Since a significant portion of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles, and since the word "pedophile" is widely used to refer to such offenders (even by governments, such as for example, the Paedophile Unit of the UK, the inclusion of the navigation infobox is appropriate for this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into a defenition debate here. The box seems contentious, but note that pedophilia is listed in the "Sociological theories" section of that box, so it is appropriate here. — Edokter • Talk • 23:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the under "Sociological theories" it would seem to make sense at least. For example, Misogyny is listed as well. Not a cause-and-effect relation per se, but still a theory. Also, before anybody gets too worked up, is it possible there is language-barrier issue here?Legitimus (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The sexual violence template in its current form (as a bright red sidebar) seems a bit questionable for articles, like this, that do not establish close relation to sexual violence. (Tends to emphasize the POV that pedophilia is closely related to sexual violence, which appears to be debatable and is not well established by the current article.) Perhaps reformulating the template as a footer bar would help. (See Template talk:Sexual Violence#Suggest convert to navbox template, and if you wish to respond to the idea of converting the template to a navbox, please do it there.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with with Jack-a-roe and edokter that it should remain. As for foresticpig, he's just been indef-blocked by arbcom as a pro-pedophilia POV sock account. Happy boxing day.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur and glad for the block. The idea that sex with a child is not violent is an aberrant concept. JodyB_talk 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this. The word 'violence' signifies physical force, and my dictionary also adds that it also suggests or implies physical injury of some kind. A violent sexual act should therefore be distinguished from a coercive one (where the act takes place against the victim's will, or without their consent, because of threats, unfair persuasion, coercion &c). Violence and coercion should also be distinguished from abuse. All adult-child sexual relations whatsoever are abusive. But they are not necessarily violent, nor possibly do they even have to be coercive. Precision of language is of the greatest importance here. Why can't the box say 'sexual abuse'? Peter Damian (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I agree and recommend that we make that change. But there is also some discussion in progress about this template and some other related ones that might affect the decision, and the new title has not yet been suggested there. The discussion is on these pages: Template talk:Sexual Violence and Template talk:Sexual ethics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

HI Jack. Peter Damian (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

JodyB, I feel that the better argument for not having the sexual abuse box in this article is that pedophilia is what goes on in the head rather than the act of child sexual abuse, though it is sometimes defined by the act of child sexual abuse as well.

Either way, I'm not for or against that box. It seems like somethimg is being worked out regarding its placement in this article, anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is why a sexual violence box, rather than sexual abuse box. On Flyer's point about pedophilia being 'in the head', I've checked on other definitions, and these include the practice of pedophilia as well as the stuff that goes on inside the head, whatever that may be. Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No major medical definitions refer to a practice of pedophilia. Those who say pedophilia refers only to sexual fantasies are wrong, but those who say it refers to a practice are also wrong. For a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis, acts or fantasies must be sustained. For an ICD-10 diagnosis, there must be a clear preference for children.

I think the box needs to be revised because it incorrectly changes the focus of an article, especially in the misogyny and misandry articles but also here. Jenever Spirit (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The definitions linked to at the beginning of an article suggest that the word can mean a practice. And you say "For a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis, acts or fantasies must be sustained." A practice by definition is sustained. So is it a practice? And if not, what is the English word referring to the practice of sex between adults and children? Peter Damian (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The word can be used to refer to the behavior itself, even in scientific sources and dictionaries (see end of first paragraph). However, this is usage is frequently discouraged to avoid confusion with the diagnostic definition. The alternative "pedophilic behavior" is sometimes used to refer to the act, though the behavior also is, by default, called child sexual abuse.Legitimus (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I think 'practice' is different from 'behaviour'. Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Jenever and Legitimus for summing that up for me. (I'm not sure that my explanation would have been as good, at least not at first, LOL.) Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The box doesn't seem to be appropriate for this article, because the text makes a point to distinguish between the various definitions of pedophilia, with emphasis placed on the distinction between this phenomenon and child sexual abuse. Besides, the box doesn't add any useful information, but does carry the threat of POV. Thus, it may be best to remove this box. It's quite appropriate for the CSA article, but not here. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"High" or "top" importance on this topic in sexuality project?

Forgive if this has been discussed before, but I have been reading over the importantce ratings and developed the opinion that this page is more like the "top" group than the "high" group. Thoughts? Or is this a question I'd better pose on the project page? — James Cantor (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly involved editor on this one, so others with more background might reply, but that seems to me to be a question better asked on the project page (in my world there isn't much space between "high" and "top" anyway).Bali ultimate (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Teenage pedophiles and related questions

One thing that perplexes me about this and a few other descriptions of pedophilia I've seen is that they describe the condition as if it were something that suddenly happens to adults. Is that really true? My impression is that virtually all teenagers at puberty are pedophiles, attracted to people of their own age. Does pedophilia result simply because they don't change and develop new preferences as they grow older?

Related question: were adults who are attracted to pre-pubertal or infant children attracted to children of the same abnormally young age at puberty? Alternatively, is it possible for an adult to grow up normally, with desire for older and older people, but then revert to some pedophile fantasy from childhood?

While I'm at it: do pedophiles also suffer an inability to revise standards of attractiveness to include other races to which they were not exposed in childhood? (in other words, does the same slow reassessment that allows for example a rural American gradually to perceive the beauty in East Asian features underlie the ability to appreciate older adults)

I asked a related question about "heterosexual" homosexual abusers at child sexual abuse previously but I don't want to duplicate the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 January 2009

I think you're mixing up several different terms and ideas. As you can see from the lead of this article, the word "pedophile" is grossly overused to mean "any person who engages in a sex act with someone under age of consent." This is incorrect. Not all such sex offenders are pedophiles. Furthermore, pedophilia is attraction to prepubescents, as in children who have not develop physical sex characteristics for the most part (typically, 13 and under). Attraction to a teenager is technically ephebophilia, and the psychology behind that is not the same thing. A teenager attracted to other teenagers is attracted to adolescents and post-adolescents, not prepubescents. If they were, they potentially are a pedophile even though they are teen-aged (subject to case-by-case assessment and clinical judgement, of course.)

Regarding persons who have relationships with adults but at some point engage in child sexual abuse, this is referred to as a "regressed" offender. They may, or may not, actually be pedophiles. In many cases the true motivation may not be clear psychologically speaking. Some may have been pedophiles all along, but they fake being "normal" by having adult relationships, either to get access to children or in attempt to suppress their urges. Others, well, we just don't know.

As to an age of onset, that's not very clear, though perhaps another user can answer that (James?).

The last part about race, well that's I think a bit tangential. Blanchard and Cantor's work would seem to indicate some kind of hard biological basis for true pedophilia. It's possible that pedophilia is not even comparable to adult heterosexual or homosexual attractions, and is more akin to a brain tumor (for example, it has happened that a person developed pedophilic urges following a traumatic brain injury). But again, I have only read a small amount of that material.Legitimus (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are certain characteristics of pedophiles, such as non-right-handedness, that exist before birth and do not change over the course of life. This suggests that a person is more or less born with the propensity to become pedophilic.

Although the typical teenaged male will experience sexual attraction to pubescent females, there is no evidence that these males prefer pubescent females to adult females. On their bedroom walls, you will typically find posters of adult female models, not pubescent females.

There is little evidence to support the existance of "regressed" pedophiles, although the idea is popular among some psychologists. The idea is usually invoked to explain the existance of non-pedophiles who have committed child molestation. I hope that is a help. — James Cantor (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. I did indeed find a reference about traumatic brain injury causing pedophilia, which specifically blames low white matter volume in the superior fronto-orbital fasciculus and the right arcuate fasciculus.[2] Now that is an intriguingly small amount of territory with sexual associations (and oddly, the latter is the right-side counterpart to a structure linking the two main language areas... which seems somehow appropriate for this sort of conceptualization, doesn't it?), and seems like a whole lot better of a lead than I knew was available to science. See also [3][4] - unfortunately all three of these are restricted and I haven't been able to examine them in detail from here; if anyone has access please consider updating the article! - and [5] (though that last paper is a single patient with a lesion in a different place, it is still an interesting read if only for the description of the patient who had to have a pencil surgically removed from...)

The physical model intrigues me, because there is something intriguing (and appalling) about the notion of some herpesvirus, etc. that could target and destroy a required structure of the brain to promote transmission by pedophilia. Though I also wonder if pedophiles simply repress any thought about sex for many years due to some trauma, thus fail to update their mental images? But never mind that: if you have a nerve bundle that you know is involved, can't you show them some Barely 18 Girls Gone Wild tapes and use PETT and biofeedback to guide them into a mood where they are activating the relevant area?

I'm not sure that bathroom wall images are representative of anything, because they're more, well, demonstrative than artistic, and where detailed might be modeled closely after adult porn films. Subjectively my impression about female attractiveness was that fully mature women were most attractive before puberty, then there were a few years during puberty when these traits seemed somehow overdone and classmates just beginning to develop breasts seemed most appealing, and then this reversed back to a general appreciation for adult development as I grew older - all very slow transitions over several years, comparable in rate to the dissolution of childhood biases against features of various other races, or against grey hair. Of course I shouldn't make too many assumptions based on subjective impressions, but it is very hard for me to imagine a model that doesn't involve the idea of updating the set of preferred features over time.

In any case: why is there such a public impression that pedophilia can't be treated? I ask a few straightforward questions and it seems like there are all sorts of possibilities. Wnt (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that ephebophilia is about the sexual preference, not the mere sexual attraction. Many normal men (okay, and women) have found mid to late teenagers sexually attractive. I always use the Britney Spears example, because she was a sex symbol by age 17, and many older adult men (including celebrities) found her sexually attractive at age 17. Flyer22 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wnt, the reason pedophilia is seen as something that cannot be cured is that it is akin to a sexual orientation (though I don't call it that, and rather describe it that way to get my point across, like many researches do, about its hold on the human mind and its incurability). Many pedophiles have been observed and studied and found to not be able to change their sexual preference for prepubescent children to instead a sexual preference for post-pubescent bodies. It is not just a "public impression" that it cannot be cured, but a clinically accepted "fact" for now, in the same way that heterosexuality and homosexuality are viewed as things that cannot truly be changed in a person; the Biology and sexual orientation article addresses that bit as well (not about pedophilia, of course, though).

Legitimus and James can help you out with more about this. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion on how "treatable" pedophilia is, depending on who you ask, even among psychologists and psychiatrists. Though even the most optimistic prognosis is that it is very difficult. It is my personal view that younger people who have not committed any offenses yet stand to benefit the most from treatment.

I'd like to share a quote from a radio program, wherein a doctor (who also is a professor of psychiatry) is speaking to a young man with pedophilic impulses whom both has not offended AND overtly does not NOT want to be a pedophile. They're real, not actors:

“

Caller: And I want to know if there’s a way I can not [have these urges] anymore.

Doctor: …ah… you know, I can’t guarantee that you can find a treatment that will take that away entirely. But with treatment oftentimes this can be sort of…managed. Let’s put it that way. And you can have-As you have more productive and real relationships with people your own age, this kind of diminishes. This kind of pathological stuff. So, you need to go get some treatment, Josh. It’s not ok. You’re going to hurt somebody, possibly. I mean-

Caller: I don’t want to hurt anybody.

Doctor: I know, I know you don’t. And so one of the great challenges in sexual addictions and behaviors such as that, is to get people into care before they hurt themselves or put themselves in harm’s way. Get some help with this. Check an organization called SASH, the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. SASH.org, and find a professional in your area, and then go talk to them.

”

While perhaps not a perfect clinical source, I think it illustrates this particular view found with many professionals in the US at least. Legitimus (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you like the MRI and the head injury papers. Just a correction, however, the cases that yielded the superior fronto-occipital fasciculus data are different from the cases that yielded the head injury data. These were separate research projects and their results are reported in different papers. I can supply you with the reprints of the original articles if you are unable to retrieve them from a library.

Regarding treatment, there is no evidence that pedophilia can be changed, but the field has not yet reached a solid consensus regarding whether a person's risk to commit sexual abuse can be changed. — James Cantor (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I should get to a place with access sooner or later. I just hope I remember to update this Wikipedia article when I do. ;)

I find this idea of pedophilia being a "sexual orientation" very strange. After all, evolution has designed two models of sexual orientation with the apparent primary purpose of bringing men and women together. Whether the use of the other model in gays and lesbians should be counted as an "error" or an "adaptation" is debatable, though I'm prone to believe the latter. But there's no apparent normal adaptive role for pedophilia. Most people who like men (i.e. women) are designed to like men for their entire lives. But any normal person who is a pedophile (i.e. a teenager) is designed to become a non-pedophile nearly every time. So from first principles calling it a "sexual orientation" and assuming it is as unchangeable as homosexuality seems unsupportably pessimistic. Of course, Wikipedia isn't the place to argue with established opinion - my goal here is only to point out that as a non-expert this seems like something that is very hard to understand and could use careful explanation. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wnt, I don't see how it is so difficult to understand. No one here is saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation; it's just that it is more like a sexual orientation than something that likely has a cure. I don't get what you mean by "Most people who like men (i.e. women) are designed to like men for their entire lives," unless you mean that just because a person is female, she will most likely be sexually/romantically attracted to men or that society "conditions" it to be that way. But the truth is...there is no one thing that makes up sexual orientation. Most researchers/scientists (like the Biology and sexual orientation article points out) believe that sexual orientation is a combination of biology and environment. Whether or not a person believes that the fact that gay and lesbian people exist is an error does not take away the fact that gay and lesbian people romantically/sexually prefer the same sex, despite what evolution wants and the fact that their reproductive organs are designed to be with the opposite sex.

In the case of pedophilia, while it's more a matter of being sexually attracted to how young someone (a child) looks and their body not being adult-like than it has to do with biological sex, it is still a matter of sexual preference. Pedophiles (I'm not speaking of situational offenders in this case) sexually prefer prepubescent children. As I stated before, many pedophiles have tried to change their sexual preference away from prepubescent children to instead post-pubescent bodies (preferably legal adults), but cannot. Many of them, not just the agenda-pushing ones, have called it a sexual orientation. Thus, I do not see how "assuming it is as unchangeable as homosexuality seems unsupportably pessimistic." There really is no assuming here. So far, it actually is that unchangeable.

Oh, and regarding evolution having "designed two models of sexual orientation with the apparent primary purpose of bringing men and women together," if you mean heterosexuality and homosexuality, let's not forget bisexuality (though exactly whether anyone should be considered bisexual is a debated topic). If you simply meant heterosexuality, oh well. I've stated what I have above.

As stated above, all pedophilia has thus far in the case of a "cure" are treatments that can help reduce pedophilic tendencies. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion - all I meant by the "two models" is that people may like men, or like women, or both, but most people who like men (such as women and gay men) will always like men for some deeply rooted biological adaptive reason, and ditto for those who like women. But most people who are attracted to children (most commonly, other children!) will grow out of it. Note also that it usually takes children many years to change their preference to older adults, and so I wouldn't expect any short program of treatment to do much.

I should add though that it seems to me that the attractiveness of men and of women is independently modified by different pheromones, and it would be interesting to see whether the very potent pheromones from a large colony of breeding mice could be used therapeutically to facilitate development of adult interest in pedophiles. But I will surely run afoul of the NOTAFORUM enforcers with this sort of wild speculation! ;) Wnt (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep mentioning something that bothers me. Look, at no point in a normal person's development are they attracted to prepubescent children, even when they are the same age. 14 year old teens are not attracted to 5 year olds, and 5 year olds are not attracted to other 5 year olds. If they are, there's something terribly wrong going on. Please don't confuse pedophilia with ephebophilia.

Don't confuse attraction with preference. A 14 year old may be attracted to other 14 year olds, but they also are just as attracted to adults more often than not. Even if one where to grant that a preference to the other 14 year olds, it is based on personality rather that physical features. That is, another person whom one can identify with strongly through common experiences and who is in the same phase of life. Along similar lines, there is a type of child sex offender in Holmes's work known as Naive/Inadequate whom are mentally retarded, and really do have the mind of a child about the same age as their victims, but have adult physiology. Legitimus (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, let's take a step back then. As I understand it pedophilia is formally defined as 0-13 here and ephebophilia is defined as 14-19 in that article. But puberty begins at age 10 or so and is long past by age 14. Therefore it follows that same-age attraction among pubescent classmates is defined as pedophilia, and so really the pedophilia-ephebophilia distinction seems a little irrelevant. To be clear, I never suggested that normal development included sexual attraction to substantially prepubescent children. I'm skeptical of your statement that 10-year-old children are really as attracted to adults as to their own age - it would be interesting to come up some references to that one way or the other, though. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I didn't actually type "do not modify," it's just part of the pre-made template and I didn't notice it said that. Second, this thread is not constructive to this article, and should not continue any further.Legitimus (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wnt, you are confusing almost everything on this subject. And I must say that it is quite difficult to discuss this with you when it seems you twist all of this. No offense. I mean, you say that "'most' people who like men (such as women and gay men) will always like men for some deeply rooted biological adaptive reason." But as I pointed out above, sexual orientation is not proven as simply some deeply biological thing and certainly not as the sole reason for sexual orientation. Secondly, you say that "most people who are attracted to children (most commonly, other children!) will grow out of it." What? Most prepubescent children are not thinking of having sex with other prepubescent children, and most teenagers are not sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Most teenagers are not sexually attracted to a pubescent 10-year-old either. Why? Because that 10-year-old still looks 10, like a child. What 10-year-old could pass for an adult? No 10-year-old that I have ever seen. But many 16 to 17-year-olds can easily past for adults, especially since they have adults bodies and 18 is classified as an adult. Third, the Ephebophilia article means 15 to 19, and puberty does not begin at age 10 for everyone. In fact, most 10-year-old boys do not look as though they have hit puberty at all; they still look like children. Just because a 10-year-old boy has hit puberty does not mean that it shows. How many 10-year-old boys have deep voices and facial hair? A pedophile who has a sexual preference for ages 5 to 9 prepubescent boys will still take a 10-year-old boy. Why? Because that 10-year-old boy does not look as though he has hit puberty and still looks like a child. 10-year-old girls who have just hit puberty still look like children as well, and most of them do not resemble the adult female body enough to appeal to normal mid to late teenagers and normal legal adults sexually. Despite being all literal with the term pedophilia, a sexual preference to that look is by all means pedophilia. If a child is pubescent but looks prepubescent (body and all), a pedophile is still going for that. Get my drift?

Same-age attraction among pubescent classmates is not defined as pedophilia. A person has to be at least 16 to be diagnosed with pedophilia, and pubescents finding each other sexually attractive is not pedophilia. If a 17-year-old finds a 10-year-old sexually attractive, then, yes, something is wrong with that 17-year-old sexually-speaking. If that 17-year-old mainly gets sexually aroused by the thought of having sex with 10-year-olds (pubescent or not) and younger children, then that 17-year-old is most definitely a pedophile. The pedophilia-ephebophilia distinction is not irrelevant at all.

People do not grow out of pedophilia. This article, which you should read thoroughly, makes that clear. Legitimus is not off at all in stating that pubescent and post-pubescent minors are mostly sexually attracted to post-pubescent bodies...such as teenagers and older adults. Most 13-year-old boys sexually fantasize about teenage or adult woman, not a 9-year-old little girl. Of course, a 13-year-old heterosexual boy is going to find a 13-year-old girl sexually attractive. That does not make that 13-year-old boy a pedophile. Even if he were sexually attracted to a 9-year-old little girl, diagnosing a 13-year-old with pedophilia would be premature. If he were 16 and still mostly sexually attracted to that "little girl age group," then he would definitely be a pedophile and could be diagnosed as one. And as for pheromones, I do not even believe that has much to do with sexual orientation and sexual preference in humans.

The "NOTAFORUM enforcers" are right; if you must continue this discussion, then do so on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think I was being that unclear - I wasn't talking 13 and 9 or 13 and 17 but 13 and 13, 12 and 12, maybe 11 and 11. I understand that's not a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, but it's the same target of attraction, and that target is transitory. But it's true that this discussion is going nowhere - it seems to be much harder to communicate about such ideas than I thought. (It sure doesn't help that there's no apparent word for, say, "attracted to 12-16 year olds" but these two industry terms that are separated by an arbitrary 14? 15? year old age cutoff that has no obvious biological relevance to puberty, but with one also implying two additional preconditions). You're saying that people don't grow out of pedophilia because you don't define it as pedophilia until they don't grow out of it!

To commit a moment of unrestrained editorializing, I feel like every time psychiatrists address a problem it goes the same way - they do all sorts of crazy things, talk about people's mothers, drill holes in people's heads, chop testicles off, use electroshock and dope people up to the eyeballs, after 50 years of talking they throw up their hands and say it's absolutely hopeless - then some biologist comes along and says "Oh, it's H. pylori", "Hey, let's try a phosphodiesterase inhibitor"... - and that's the end of that. Given the chance it would be tremendous fun to do some PETT and fMRI studies, try TMS, pheromones, biofeedback etc. trying to cure pedophiles with various wacky ideas for stimulating an "update" of preferred sexual targets, but judging by this talk page I pity the guy who ever has to get it published, even if it works. Anyway, you can kill off the "forum" now if you like - I think I'll go bother people at sexual orientation with some of this stuff. ;) Wnt (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You say, "I understand that's not a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, but it's the same target of attraction, and that target is transitory." But I point out that the thing is...there is nothing weird about an 11-year-old finding another 11-year-old sexually attractive. Like you said, that is not the clinical diagnosis of pedophilia. Furthermore, an 11-year-old finding an 11-year-old sexually attractive does not mean that that 11-year-old sexually prefers 11-year-olds/prepubescent children. There's no apparent word for, say, "attracted to 12-16 year olds" because pedophilia, in its true form, is about the sexual preference, not simply an attraction, and a sexual preference for 12-year-olds and under is considered pedophilia due to the fact that so many 12-year-olds, especially boys, have not hit puberty yet. These two "industry terms" are not separated by an arbitrary 14? 15? year old age cutoff that has no obvious biological relevance to puberty. Most 12-year-olds cannot pass for 16. Pedophilia is typically defined as 0 to 13 because so many people don't hit puberty until 13, and people 13 and under (unless it's a really advanced-looking 13-year-old girl) look like children. Ephebophilia is typically 15 to 19 just to give an honest description of the term; Ephebophiles want much younger but adult-looking individuals. They "get off" on what they consider "the teenage look." Most 13-year-olds (girls and boys) cannot pass for legal adults (such as 18) and look too much like children to really be a ephebophile's sexual preference (because 13-year-olds are usually not post-pubescent and are at a stage where they are just starting to look like adults). Most 15-year-olds look older than than 13-year-olds and a lot of them can easily pass for 18. Yes, a ephebophile could easily go after a 14-year-old, as well as an older-looking 13-year-old. But if you want a term for adults mostly going after pubescent (not post-pubescent) minors, as in minors right at puberty but still look very child-like, then hebephilia is it. As for your comment, "You're saying that people don't grow out of pedophilia because you don't define it as pedophilia until they don't grow out of it!," I say sort of.

No one here is trying to cure pedophiles with various wacky ideas or believes that "wacky ideas" would work. No need to pity any of us or people who would try your ideas. And I don't believe that the people at the Sexual orientation article (an article I watch) would want to hear about all this pedophilia talk there. Not to mention...that the "NOTAFORUM" policy here at Wikipedia applies there as well. But I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 10