Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 2

DSM-IV
I believe Hebephilia Is Not a Mental Disorder in DSM-IV-TR and Should Not Become One in DSM-5 is the best overview of the DSM-IV-TR debate. I'd like to see a section on this before the DSM-V stuff. Jokestress (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This aspect is already covered by the As a variation of normal sexual desires section, as well as others. It's not justifiable to build a section on that source. A summary of it can go in the section I just mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They cover a lot of info not discussed, specifically how the DSM-5 debate came about through misuse of the DSM-IV-TR. We should also have a section on DSM III. Right now, you'd think this all magically appeared in DSM-5. Jokestress (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's mostly redundant, and the information can be summarized without it requiring a section of its own. All I see is you trying to hammer home the "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The part that is not redundant should be included here, because that part explains the context of the DSM-V debate, and how they felt their version was misused in the run-up. It's an important citation to include from two unquestionably authoritative sources. All I see is you trying to keep out reliable and verifiable sourcing because you don't like the expert consensus POV represented proportionally in the article. And "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" should be hammered home from the first sentence, as that is a fact and is the consensus of several fields of expertise. Jokestress (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I stated, "the information can be summarized without it requiring a section of its own." And considering that I've repeatedly argued that most researchers don't consider hebephilia to be a mental disorder or a paraphilia, your claim that I'm trying to "keep out reliable and verifiable sourcing because [I] don't like the expert consensus POV represented proportionally in the article" is patently false. What I don't like is when editors are clearly using Wikipedia to promote their personal POV and to axe-grind researchers they don't like...but act like that's not what they are doing and that their actions are purely for building the best article they can. As for "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" being something that "should be hammered home from the first sentence, as that is a fact and is the consensus of several fields of expertise," we've been over this. And you most certainly had no agreement to state that it is "not a mental disorder" in the first sentence. For a long time, and maybe never, the first sentence didn't even state that hebephilia "is a mental disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The we should rename the section to discuss all DSM versions. DSM-5 is covered way out of proportion due to an SPA with some axe-grinding proxies. Jokestress (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your personal attacks are tired. The DSM-5 is currently covered the way that it is in the article mostly due to your interactions with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the page about hebephilia, not the DSM-5; discussions about the DSM-5 in general that do not touch directly on hebephilia should not go on this page. Axe-grinding is not limited solely to SPA. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DSM V debate is bloated
I have added a undue weight tag to the DSM V debate section, because it is really way to big for the encyclopedic value of that section. It reads more as a detailed report on all aspects of the debate than a sensible summary of it that you would expect for an encyclopedia. It needs to be trimmed down at least 75%. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much agree. My initial plan was to summarize all the sources I could find in about as much detail as what is there now for each source, then cut down dramatically by collapsing repetitive criticisms and rebuttals into shorter summaries and taking out "X person with Y qualification said..." parts.  However, I am editing much more slowly these days and have not made the time to continue reading and integrating sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is one thing, but I think there is a broader problem, and that is that everything is coined in context of the DSM-V, which was maybe the catalyst, but not the reason for the debate. The reason for the debate is legitimate criticisms that, outside of the DSM-V debate hold as well. So, I propose that we instead we coin it much more like that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Overlap with paedophilia
The text that I changed said that hebephilia significantly overlaps with the official diagnostic criteria for pedophilia but the source doesn't say this at all and in fact the source says that paedophilia is restricted to tanner stage 1 (i.e. no signs of puberty). What the source says is that some people with hebephilic or adolescent sexual interest ALSO have paedophilic interest but then counters that some people go the other way and have hebephilic or adolescent sexual interest as well as adultophilic sexual interests. I do not dispute this at all and in fact agree with it but the source does not mention anything about overlapping with diagnostic criteria. :-) Hence I think source was being misinterpeted. Comments?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the source is incorrect, or that age 11-14 overlaps with age young-13 as the official diagnosis for pedophilia indicates. If you suggest we need a source explicitly stating that the sage 11-13 consists of an overlap, I agree. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * MrADHD, I was the one who added "significantly" during one of my tweaks to the addition. This is because hebephilia also overlaps with ephebophilia, and, without a qualifier, the text made it seem as though it only overlaps with pedophilia. It overlaps more with pedophilia than with ephebophilia, but I understand about being strict with what sources state or imply. I was also the one who applied that source to that line because it's not covered by these sources, unless you count the ICD-10's inclusion of "early pubertal"; but then again, as stated before, the ICD-10 does not mention hebephilia by name. As for mentioning the pedophilia overlap, or any overlap, in the lead, I don't have much more to state on the matter than what I stated in these edit summaries.


 * For quick reference, here is what the source states: Green noted that, “A cornerstone of the argument for bundling hebephilia with pedophilia is the overlap between interest in prepubertals and pubertals. What of the overlap between hebephiles and teleiophiles (adultophiles)? What of the 50 percent hebephile/50 percent teleiophile?” (Ref. 10, p 586). Indeed, one of the earlier studies found precisely that. Barbaree and Marshall17 examined phallometric responses to pictures of nude females ranging in age from 3 to 24 in 61 child molesters (21 of whom were incest offenders) and a matched group of 22 nonoffenders. Barbaree and Marshall found five distinct phallometric profiles, none of which reflected a unique and distinct preference for adolescents. One of the profiles was characterized by responses to both adolescent and adult stimuli. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when talking about overlapping, that source is talking about individuals sexual interests, not overlapping diagnostic categories. You say hebephilia "overlaps much more with pedophilia than ephebophilia", but does it though? Research into hebephilia is in it's infancy - what makes you say this? I would have thought that adolescentophila would overlap more with adultophilia as paedophilia can't lead to reproduction and natural selection therefore should weed out the paraphilia paedophilia (which I believe is quite rare - I have never known anyone who was a paedophile in my life but have read about them in the newspapers). The source that we have here seems to be stating that there exists diverse age preferences, including some who respond equally to adolescents and adults (no preference) and the hebephiles whose interest goes upward into adultophilia rather than downward and then you have hebephiles who go downward into paedophilia territory. From what I am reading there are hebephiles who only are attracted to secondary sex characteristics. Then of course you have hebephiles who are attracted to boys and girls or one or the other. Gender and age preferences seem to be very diverse with few hard and fast rules.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the various overlaps in sexual interest such as interest in adults for some hebephiles and prepubescent kids for other hebephiles being discussed in the article body.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that we are thinking of the term "overlap" differently. I stated that hebephilia overlaps more with pedophilia than ephebophilia because the hebephilia age range, at least as proposed by the researchers, and as described in most sources now, is 11-14. Ages 11-14 is mostly a time of prepubescence and pubescence (a time of prepubescence more so for boys than girls). And many early pubertal individuals, especially boys, still look prepubertal; and, in the case of these boys, if they don't look completely prepubertal, they look mostly prepubertal. This is why a pedophile (someone with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children) could find an early pubescent as sexually attractive as a true pubescent. Ephebophilia, if the age range given for it is consistently defined as anyone 14 or older, or 15 or older, is not a time of prepubescence for most people. Thus, hebephilia is more closely related to pedophilia than to ephebophilia. This is why, other than the term not being as widespread and sometimes being conflated with hebephilia, there is no scholarly debate (at least not a significant one, if one at all) over whether or not ephebophilia is a mental disorder/paraphilia; it covers mid pubescents, late pubescents (as in those at the end of puberty) and post-pubescents. Many girls have completed puberty by age 14 or age 15. And most people have completed puberty by age 16 or 17; it usually doesn't take reaching 18 to finish puberty. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those age ranges flyer are approximate for early to mid adolesence stage of development- hebephilia is defined as preference for early to mid pubesence. Some kids start puberty at age 8 and late bloomers start as late as age 14. The important thing is that we stick to what reliable sources say and follow NPOV as best possible. :-) I am tired - enjoyed the discussion Flyer. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  01:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but most people, especially boys, do not start puberty at age 8. Starting puberty at age 8 is still often considered precocious puberty. People being pubescent at age 10 or 11 is of course much more common, which is why the hebephilia age range (as defined by the researchers who are researching the term these days) set the beginning of the age range at age 11; starting at this age was definitely needed because significantly more boys than girls haven't started puberty at age 10. My point is that 11-14 is closer on the scale, overlaps more on the scale, to/with pedophilia than to/with ephebophilia (which has an age range that goes all the way up to 19). Get some good rest. I've enjoyed the discussion as well; you do make me think critically. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree and this sounds like your personal opinion - don't mean to be rude. :-) The research by Blanchard et. al. actually found two subtypes of hebephiles in as far as chronophilia goes. He found one group of hebephiles also demonstrated strong attractions to prepubescents and he called this type of hebephile 'pedohebephilic type'. He then found the other group of hebephiles who preferred young adolescents but had little or no interest in prepubescents and called these 'hebephilic type' - presumably this type would only be attracted to secondary sex characteristics (since they don't like prepubescents) and would in decreasing level of attraction find older adolescents and then adults attractive but his research I don't believe went this far. Then of course he defined the third group as pedophilic type for those who had strong attractions to prepubescents but little or no attraction to adolescents and adults. I hope you don't mind me constructively criticising but I feel there is too much original thought and we need to stick to what the research says more closely.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more than my personal opinion, MrADHD, especially what I stated about puberty...and pedophiles being sexually attracted not only to those who are prepubescent...but also to those who look prepubescent (as it is the prepubescent look, the reality or appearance, of having no secondary sex characteristics, that they are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to); yes, a lot of early pubescents, especially boys (because they typically begin puberty later than girls and initially don't have the secondary sex characteristics, such as breasts, that can be identified by just walking down the street), do look prepubescent. As noted, the overlap has been discussed among researchers and the overlap aspect is a big reason for the proposal to combine pedophilia and hebephilia into the pedohebephilia category (as also noted in the reliable source mentioned above). At this talk page, Cantor and I have also discussed why the hebephilia age range is better set to begin at age 11. The overlap factor has been discussed on this talk page more than just recently, and was again discussed on this talk page in this discussion. Also, if a hebephilic type has a little sexual interest in prepubescents, that is obviously still sexual interest. It is rare that my statements about pedophilia, whether relating to hebephilia or not, are based only on my personal opinion. But I don't have much more to state on this matter at the moment. I'm busy with other matters, and don't have good time or good interest to debate this at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't have mentioned original opinion sorry if I upset - I just new of the two different sub-types that had been found by Blanchard, so one subtype would overlap more closely with ephebophilia and the other subtype with paedophilia. Ugh definitions are confusing and annoying! Your point about boys is a good point. We will leave the debate for there. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries about the personal opinion comment, MrADHD. And the frustration of distinguishing these things is obviously very understandable (you obviously aren't alone on that). Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem arises from the use of age categories at some times and developmental stages at the other. if we use ages, they overlap. if we use developmental stages, they do as well. The DSM-IV uses them both, which is confusing, while the ICD-10 includes early pubescent children in the definition, effectively including hebephilia in the diagnostic criteria (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618). So yes, there is overlap, and there is a solid source that states that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry for the delay as I wanted to research this a bit better and speak with a paediatrician about this. Okay after spending sometime reading up on puberty and speaking with a paediatrician I feel comfortable in saying that ICD-10 does not cover hebephilia as the average ovulating 13 or 14 year old is not at an 'early pubertal age'. In fact some definitions define ability to reproduce as the completion of puberty although other sources define it as obtaining adult height and adult breast size etc (around age 15 or 16 or so), so an average 14 year old is either finished puberty or on the verge of finishing puberty in another year or two. The 'early pubertal age' would refer to tanner stage 2 stage of puberty, i.e. an average 10 or 11 year old child. The source you quote does indeed state that hebephilia can be diagnosed under the ICD-10 and it is indeed a source that is what would usually be regarded as a good quality source but the author is very much in error if the author thinks that an ovulating 14 year old is of 'early pubertal age' and goes against what is taught in paediatrics throughout the world about puberty. You are not entirely wrong in saying that there is overlap but you would need to clarify that and say that there is some or partial overlap in the likes of a paedophile and a hebephile under the ICD-10 diagnostic codes as according to the research both preferential paedophiles and preferential hebephiles may both include a strong attraction towards an average 11 and possibly some 12 year olds, so yes there is some overlap but not full overlap in ICD-10. I don't believe that ICD-10 allows for hebephilia to be diagnosed as paedophilia though. In fact this article and it's references actually defines hebephilia as a sexual preference for early to mid pubescent children, but the ICD-10 diagnostic codes do not include 'mid pubescence'. See the problem? I would welcome Flyer's wise thoughts on what I have wrote. Again sorry for the delay but this took a bit of research and I haven't been feeling well.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad you did your own research to debunk what a experts say about this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, tis not me who did all the research on puberty, but many thousands of people more wise and experienced than I so alas I cannot take your kind credit for doing the research. Not my research but is scientific consensus - puberty is a widely researched subject. Here is one source that gives a good overview of puberty which confirms what I said. And then here is the ICD-10 diagnostic codes which says early pubertal age but does not mention mid pubertal age. And here is a source defining hebephilia as covering mid pubescence. Here is the source describing the different types of philia that I discussed above in a comment to Flyer. I might see if I can get a medical doctor to have a read on this and comment here just to make sure that what I say is medically accurate as you seem to dispute how puberty is defined.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MrADHD, for me, it's as simple as stating that hebephilia overlaps with pedophilia because hebephilia covers the 11-14 age range; like I stated above, that age range includes prepubescents because some people are still prepubescent at those ages. It is more unlikely that a person is going to be prepubescent at age 13 or 14, especially in the case of girls because girls typically begin puberty before boys, but it does happen. We've already been over this discussion, though, MrADHD; we discussed a lot of this in this discussion. And in this one, Cantor stated that the ICD-10 (partly) covers hebephilia because it includes "early pubertal age." I stated why I don't consider the ICD-10 to truly cover hebephilia...since early pubescents, especially boys, look more prepubescent than they do pubescent. I agree with you about there only being partial overlap. But "overlap" doesn't mean "the same thing as," of course; otherwise, pedophilia and hebephilia wouldn't be distinguished by experts in these fields at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did Cantor say this Cantor stated that the ICD-10 (partly) covers hebephilia because it includes "early pubescents."? I was under the impression from Cantor's writing that he tried to argue that hebephilia was fully diagnosable under current ICD-10 diagnostic codes? Yes we have discussed before. The age range for hebephilia covers average ages for early to mid pubescence. Of course some people enter puberty early and others have a more late onset for puberty. Hebephilia is defined simply as attraction to early to mid pubescent children/adolescents - the age ranges are just there for the average age for when this occurs.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck sentence as I found where Cantor had discussed this issue.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  21:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cantor stated that in the discussion I just linked to in my 21:11 statement above. The "partly" is my emphasis because Cantor acknowledges in that discussion that the ICD-10 only says  "early pubertal age." Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Even more confusion, the seto reference that Kim linked to. In it the author states that "Recent evidence suggests that hebephilia is a distinct paraphilia" (distinct from paedophilia) but then goes on to say that it is incorporated into the ICD-10 definition of pedophilia, (which is partially true). See this quote, "However, the DSM-IV-TR does not list hebephilia as a specific diagnosis, and the ICD-10 incorporates hebephilia in its definition of pedophilia: “A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." So basically the reference says that evidence suggests hebephilia is not the same as paedophilia but then says in the same paragraph that it can be diagnosed as paedophilia anyway (under the ICD-10). Ugh!! Confusion!! Does anyone find researchers and research annoying at times? :-P-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, the easy way is to accept that the DSM-IV and the ICD-10 are slightly different in definition, and to accept that the ICD-10 definition overlaps partially with the definition for hebephilia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that is pretty much it in a nutshell. :-) There is a new ICD-11 due out I believe in 2015, which may if we are lucky make things more clear - lets hope so. It would make editing wikipedia a lot easier!-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, will you now correct the lead text to reflect this after you eliminated the overlap part? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do in the next couple of days just busy at the moment or you can go ahead and do it and we can always tweak each other's wording until we are both happy. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  13:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As stated above, it overlaps with ephebophilia as well; so only mentioning its overlap with pedophilia gives the impression that it doesn't overlap with ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have made some changes after discussions with the two good people above, namely flyer and Kim, which I think are an improvement to the article. Sorry for the delay, as always I have an excuse - I got distracted doing a major revision of my evidence for sexology case and then dealing with a content dispute on the fibromyalgia page and real life things. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  16:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Onward - future direction of the article
Okay, I think that there needs to be some mention on why laws exist in most if not all nations of the world to protect young adolescents from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. I am sure a few paragraphs could be written on this at least - for example the power imbalance in a relationship between a young adolescent and a mature adult due to mental immaturity and inexperience etc and the potential for abuse. The inability of the adolescent to make sound decisions etc. For example a young adolescent does not have the maturity to decide whether they want to be photographed naked but yet some adults seek to pressure, manipulate or otherwise exploit them and distribute their images on the net as child pornography. Points such as these can be discussed as to why society and the law protects young adolescents from sexual abuse or exploitation with law. There is very little controversy that these young vulnerable adolescents require protecting from themselves and most importantly from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. Even adult women find it difficult handling an abusive male, a young adolescent is even less, much less equipped for dealing with an adult who may seek to abuse them. These things need discussed in a section of the article. I may make a stab at it when I get some free time. If anyone wants to fire a few sources below, I will try and summarise them.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or are these issues already and better covered in other wiki articles? Thoughts and comments welcome! :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  23:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MrADHD, I think those issues belong in other wiki articles. Shouldn't this article on this history of the concept of hebephilia and the related research, rather than get into a detailed description of the general politics of the dsm5 debate, since hebephilia probably isn't in there anyway - this part seems very focused on recentism. Nor should the article get into a "civil commitment for sex offenders" debate (which is a whole other topic and not only related to hebephilia)? This article appears unorganized, seems to go way off topic, and seems to over represent the views of a few commentators, rather than just describing the history of the concept and the related research. Whether laws protect vulnerable adolescents from predatory adults doesn't seem to me to be the topic of this article. Why are the views of Karen Franklin on hebephilia so dominant, since apparently she isn't a researcher on hebephilia, but rather specializes in the evaluation and treatment of criminal defendants? The views of Allen Frances seem to me more pertinent and well balanced to me, as he's looking at over diagnosing in general which is more of a concern.   What do other editors think? Star767 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For most of how this article got this way, start reading at Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 1 and keep reading downward, and see the section above. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the usual editors of this article, including me, are currently on a general break from it because of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology; it was spurred on by our interactions at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this page should focus on hebephilia with a link to pedophilia, I don't think we need to re-hash the reasons why adult-child sex is harmful. This page is, or should be in my opinion, primarily about how hebephilia is unique or different from pedophilia.  The DSM-5 debate (about hebephilia, not in general) is very noteworthy and should be discussed here (though I agree with Star767's comment that there is far too much detial on letters to the editor).  Since hebephilia is strongly linked to the civil commitment issue, I think it should definitely be discussed here (again, in specific relation to hebephilia, not in general).  Really, the solution is to always follow the sources.
 * I have reverted the massive attribution of the history to Franklin. James Cantor has published a rebuttal of specific points, few of which were on matters of history.  Franklin's article is a very useful history of the idea and on pure matters of fact (when topics were discussed, the names of the key players) there's no reason to attribute.  When it discusses her specific opinions, there I would note her name.
 * Frances is already cited four times in the article, I have no issue with including more sources by him. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stumbled on this source today ; might be relevant. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this: FiachraByrne (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Stabilising The Normativity of This Article
This article, prior to my edit, has an obviously, and to my mind disturbingly quietistic, 'non-normative' stance on the fact of hebephilia being perverse in the medical definition. It does this by hiding less technical definitions of what it is, and even then burying that in medicalese and academic disupte. This is not acceptable to any Wikipedian, nor to any user of the encyclopedia.

I have corrected this without using any newly conjured normativity, but simply by defining hebephilia as a version of sexual perversity, which is indeed how Wikipedia has categorised chronophilia. So, let's clarify the facts, as established, before diving into what is not established. I do not expect this edit to be reverted, and I will come and re-revert, if anyone does so without a substantive argument.

There is no change in substance here, only in clarity.

Jmanooch (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, I think you have just to let this lie. I see that you want to govern the tone, but it's not going to fly. Under WP:MOSLINK as the most harmless of reasons, we need to stabilise what a chronophilia is, since basically, no-one will know. I'm an Oxford graduate with a vast vocabulary, and I don't know. So, since it's listed on the chronophilia page as a form sexual perversity let's get that clear from the get-go. Otherwise, the clarification is merely to improve flow and blocking in the first para.


 * Let's not get deep into this. Let it lie, unless you want to edit out chronophilia's definition also. Ok?

Jmanooch (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, I have requested Temporary Full page protection against your suspicious and overaggressive reversions. You have to conduct a discourse here on the talk page, if you wish to conform to editorial standards, and I do not see you are pursuing that. I have also noted your stealth attempts to avoid a conventional determination and definition of what hebephilia is, even by mere linkage to other pages, and I see this as detrimental under WP:NPOV. As has been amply proven, maybe to your distaste, neutral point of view often means having to run with, as a clarificatory baseline, what is considered 'normal' or 'normative' in the current discourse. As such, and indeed merely by linkage, hebephilia is a perversion, and this must be in the topline of the article.


 * Jmanooch (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, it's about time someone took you on, and I am outraged by your specious reversions, so I am going to also add a note on dispute resolution and the Admin board. Your creeping de-normativisation of this kind of content is not acceptable, nor is your editorial standard and conduct - blasting editors with irrelevant content, and drawing them into ad-hominem, I am just the latest - so let's get it on, as it were.


 * jmanooch 01:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanooch (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, Jmanooch. I care not for your personal opinion on this matter, and neither does Wikipedia, or for your false accusations regarding me. But I will state that your accusation that I am trying to normalize hebephilia or that I advocate adult-child sexual relationships is absurd, as many here know that I advocate in the opposite direction (often citing the WP:CHILD PROTECT policy). I'm against your changes for the following reasons: I don't like misrepresentation of research and/or editing that goes against how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What I have to state to you on this matter is what I have already stated with this and this revert, and this WP:Dummy edit. You are engaging in WP:Original research, WP:SOAPBOXING, WP:BATTLEFIELD and you are the one, at this time, not adhering to WP:NPOV. Fact is: Neither hebephilia nor ephebophilia are officially recognized by any medical authority as paraphilias or mental disorders; this especially goes for ephebophilia because it mostly concerns post-pubescents -- people who are underage or are of age and have fully attained adult bodies. And, again, the term "chronophilia," while covering sexual perversions such as pedophilia, is not about sexual perversions; it's about sexual preferences for specific age groups, including normal adult-adult sexual attraction.


 * Looking at your contributions and talk page, including inappropriately reporting me at WP:Requests for page protection (which I saw before you left a message about it here, and which is inappropriate because your report is not what that page is for), and your going to a WP:ArbCom clerk about the sexology case (which, yes, you are too late to weigh in on in a way that will affect the Arbs' decision), you clearly are an inexperienced Wikipedian. You certainly cannot teach me anything about Wikipedia that I don't already know. And I have no interest in teaching you how things are supposed to work at this site, except for the following: Sign your user name properly. You aren't supposed to do it manually. To sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . I've just properly signed your user name above three times. Someone else will revert your changes to this article, as one editor already has, and then you can debate with them. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also inappropriate, and should be reverted. That page is closed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, that input is highly appropriate, and justified under this on-page invitation: "Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case." I chose to make myself a party to that page, on the basis of your specious edit-war, which is I see now is part of a strategy to dominate the perception of this issue, using all possible means, including drawing other editors into ad-hominem counter-attacks, that then leaves the field open for the rest of your edit-cartel. jmanooch 03:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, methinks you doth protest too much. Which accusations of what? Other than creeping normalisation (de-normativisation, I've corrected that above), of these proclivities, I know nothing of you nor care.


 * And I have to revert again, because, again, under WP:MOSLINK a chronophilia is a sexual perversity and this must be made simple and clear. You NEED to CHANGE the OTHER ARTICLES, not just delete links and definitions on this one, to suit your purpose.


 * There is NO RESEARCH here, I am simple using links and definitions that WP already houses.


 * And, my relative inexperience with WP is EXACTLY the reason why it's good for me to take you on. I'm smart enough to know how the thing works, more or less, smart enough to know you are pulling the wool, and using aggressive edit tactics, tenacious enough not to give up, and smart enough to know that hebephilia is not medicalised under DSM-5, and thus no matter what 'research' you throw at us, hebephilia is not accepted by the vast majority of the medical profession as a medical disorder, and ipso facto, it remains a sexual perversion. Get on with allowing the edit, because I've added nothing other than links and clarity.


 * As to correcting my nick, I removed the links to make it simpler - Wikipedia is convoluted enough - but since it 's now 'on' as I said, I've put it back. I autosigned all previous posts.


 * I'll still report you, and find a way to comment on your dispute: it's clear you are an edit-cartel, and you need light shone on you. More aggression from you, in the absence of any from me, only raises questions about you. I have no axe to grind - I am just cleaning up Wikipedia, after a weird experience being linked from Mystic_River_(film) to hebephilia and find a kind of pseudo-medical otherworld, rather than a clear definition. I'll revert once more, and if your edit-cartel re-reverts, I'll see if I can bring media attention to this underhand tactic, because it's surely worth it.


 * I'll also try to play the WP oversight game, but it's clear you're more expert at that than me, which is no compliment.


 * jmanooch 03:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pages are based on reliable sources, not editor opinion. It does not matter if the page is "non-normative" in your opinion, what matters is whether you can provide a reliable source indicating someone else finds it such.  This may be the case, and I encourage you to pursue such sources to improve the page. Your statements are also startlingly combative, which is not a good thing.  This is not a contenst of personality or flame war, please do not treat it as such.  If you are noting problems and issues with other pages, please use reliable sources to improve those pages.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: So that this will be documented here once this section is archived, this discussion shows why I have not directly replied to Jmanooch's latest reply to me above. I finally read that reply just moments ago, and I still won't be directly responding to it. Also, regarding my "I advocate in the opposite direction" wording above, that I advocate anything on Wikipedia is a bad word choice on my part. It's not so much that I advocate on Wikipedia the protection of children (little children or underage teenagers) from sexual abuse; it's that I follow our WP:CHILD PROTECT policy as closely as I can. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Protection of the children and including a proper encyclopedic material has got nothing to do with each other. It's absolutely obvious, that hebephilia is not a disorder or perversion. The pure definition of hebephilia is love to teenagers who are no longer prepubertals. The age is secondary to this definition, as the age is a generalization and approximation.
 * We have many countries in the world, where it is common to marry and live with teenagers of 12-14 years. That would include Yemen, Ethiopia, and also many traditional tribes, such as Masai, Samburu, Dasannech, etc. It is not possible that the majority of the male population of a certain country is suffering from a medical disorder.
 * Also, an interesting fact, in USA, in 1900's a new law was passed, that was raising the age of girls who can be married from 10 years to 12. That means they legalized marriage with girls starting from 12 years. And that means also, that prior to that, a marriage with a girl as young as 10 was legal, normal and valid.
 * I fully support the position of Flyer22 and WLU.
 * I also doubt there is a real overlap between pedophilia and hebephilia. This overlap is artificial, caused by approximate generalization of age as inclusive criteria.
 * And, I think for anyone discussing, researching or dealing with the ages, should make a separation between boys and girls. The way the article reads, there is no such separation evident. I think this should be corrected, and speaking honestly, I think all this article should be rewritten. It looks like exchange of opinions between experts back and worth, he said that, that one replied that.. doesn't really look encyclopedian to me. Having said this critic in a good faith, I'm excusing myself from doing any actual changes to the article and hope someone more knowledge that me will do that. Greenbd (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Greenbd. As you can see from this article, and its talk page (especially the archives), the definition of hebephilia is debated. Personally, I would not describe a 12-year-old as a teenager, but rather as a pre-teenager, since 12 is not a part of the teenage years. As for the overlap, I don't believe that it's artificial, per my statements in the section above and previous discussions that were had about that topic on this talk page. But the overlap matter is also obviously a part of the debate among researchers (not so much that it doesn't exist, though). As for "a separation between boys and girls," I'm not sure what you mean, but the lead (intro) does make a distinction between boys and girls with regard to puberty and that "and some definitions of ephebophilia include mid-pubescents aged 14 to late pubescents aged 16 (for girls) or 18 (for boys)." The latter aspect is also mentioned in the Definitions, classifications and history section of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Flyer22, in my opinion we should disengage from the age issue completely while discussing the hebephilia, because different children/teenagers reach puberty at different ages. And then, we should just have one section, that will discuss various views of how the stages of maturity are being correlated to the generalization of ages. In my opinion, 12 years olds can be called teenagers and pre-teenagers. Some mature early and in the age of 12 act and look like teenagers, while some as you rightly mentioned will look and act as pre-teenager, for whatever this term means. About distinction between boys and girls, it is mentioned, but then where the actual discussion takes place regarding the overlapping and the ages, there is no longer separation between boys and girls that is being applied. Greenbd (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't, or rather shouldn't, disengage from the age issue completely while discussing hebephilia; we shouldn't because the age aspect, defined differently by some sources, is a part of most definitions of hebephilia and is a part of the debate with regard to the DSM-5 matter. Furthermore, because of all the attention the attempt to list hebephilia in the DSM-5 got, hebephilia is now widely defined with the 11-14 years age range. By stating in the lead "approximately," "approximate because age of onset of puberty varies" and mentioning the average ages of puberty, this article makes it clear that the 11-14 years age range is a rough marker for hebephilia. That age range also helps people understand that hebephilia, at least as defined by some sources (especially those DSM-5-related), is not (or generally is not) about sexual attraction to/sexual preference for post-pubescent teenagers. But, since you mentioned having a section that includes discussion of the age aspect, it doesn't appear that you are stating that we should disengage from the age issue completely while discussing hebephilia. It appears that you are stating that we should mostly disengage from the age issue completely while discussing hebephilia, such as in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, however, the most important aspects of a topic should be summarized in the lead. And it's difficult not to discuss the age aspects at other portions of the article, such as the DSM-5 section; it's especially important, for example, to the In civil commitment proceedings subsection. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please let me know, when you are saying: "hebephilia is now widely defined with the 11-14 years age range." do you refer to girls or boys? I think it cannot be same for both genders as it's widely recognized that boys and girls attain puberty at different ages. I also would like to let you know, that I support your position regarding Jmanooch and also find his expression unnecessarily combative. Greenbd (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that the 11-14 years age range is based on the proposal for the DSM-5, as shown in most sources mentioning that age range, and that proposal doesn't distinguish between boys and girls, the "now widely defined with the 11-14 years age range" aspect applies to boys and girls. And, yes, from your initial response above, it's clear that you disagree with Jmanooch's statements. I appreciate your stance with regard to how he behaved toward me. Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, like I mentioned in the "Overlap with paedophilia" section above, Cantor (a researcher who is a substantial contributor in the sexology field to the topics of pedophilia and hebephilia) discussed why the hebephilia age range is better set to begin at age 11. Another hebephilia age range discussion that you may be interested in reading is this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Lets find where out common grounds are. I see that hebephilia is a term that is referring to physiology primary, and the age issue is a secondary to it. Do you agree with me? Greenbd (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's also how the lead treats the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Criminology aspect
I've been meaning to bring this up for a while but have not been sure how to go about it. I have a lot of info but not really a way to put it into a cohesive and intelligible paragraph. If someone could please help me put this together coherently, and/or suggest an alternate article that would be better, by all means.

The matter concerns using the model of a "hebephile" in criminal profiling. Profiling and criminology don't really care if it's a mental disorder, or if it's a deviant sexuality etc. All that matters is that it is a pattern of criminal behavior. It has categorizations, predictable patterns, motivations and modus operandi. The sources I am consulting (Holmes, and Douglas et al) primarily define this victim categorization as 13-17, though more accurately it refers to victims that are at least pubertal, but at most are still below the legal age of majority and/or consent depending on the context. The use of the hard chronological upper limit from a law (rather than a physiological time-point) is intentional: Offenders that are preferential to this age range are not necessarily motivated by the physical appearance, but rather their legal and social disadvantage. While some exceptions exist, as a general rule underage adolescents cannot own property, sign contracts, vote, or purchase certain items; their parent's still control many aspects of their lives, including schooling, religion, the ability to travel or leave the home; and they are financially dependent on their parents for the basic needs of life. An adolescent may also be capable of genuine sexual attraction to the older person, but they lack the cognitive/emotional maturity and forethought to negotiate the relationship fairly. The hebephilic offender exploits these factors for his or her own gratification, and uses them as leverage, which is effectively a kind of victim grooming.

Law enforcement, criminologists and profilers do not put this label on everyone who commits statutory rape. Rather, it is broken down into situational and preferential types (Douglas et al). A situational offender may still exploit the above-mentioned disadvantages of a teen to get what they want, but they do not specifically seek this out to the exclusion of adult relationships. This is observable in many of the To Catch a Predator cases where the "bait" is 13-15 years old and the perpetrator is married or recently divorced with complaints of sexual or emotional frustration. The teen is simply an easy target, someone easy to control the relationship with that they think they can leave behind when they are done and/or find better. Preferential offenders actively prefer this age range, but might do so for variable reasons. These are the types that I have heard FBI agents call "hebephiles." They might be sociopaths who enjoy the control over their sexual partner, they might be too mentally or socially inadequate to court their own age, or they might have a genuine mental fixation akin to pedophilia (Holmes). I believe this latter type is probably what a lot of the CAMH research has been on. I think they do exist, but are less common than pedophiles (personal opinion, not sourced).Legitimus (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. My predecessors and I at CAMH investigate the underlying sexual attraction to pubescent children. (I avoid the term "fixation," as it implies a theory for which there is no real evidence.)  As for proportions, however, in most samples hebephiles outnumber pedophiles, usually at around 3:1.— James Cantor (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There should be a section about that in this article, which you discussed on this talk page earlier this year, Legitimus. There were no objections to you adding that material to this article, and I don't see why there would be...considering that the term hebephilia is not restricted to the medicalized definition it has seen in recent years. That aspect should not be split off from the Hebephilia article...unless that aspect were to take up so much of that article that a WP:SPINOUT article would be needed. If here on the talk page you name the specific aspects, and provide the full information about the sources (name of the book or journal, etc.) if you want, that you feel should be covered in this article, I'm sure that we can come up with a good summary for it. If the aspects are adequately summarized by what you stated above in this section, then we can mold a paragraph or two out of that. It would be easier to start off with a paragraph or two, preferably decent-sized per Manual of Style/Layout. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "All that matters is that it is a pattern of criminal behavior." That is very right. But we can expand on it. What is a "criminal behavior"? It is what had been decided to be so. Here we come to the issue of LAC - legal age of consent. That is what actually governs whether the action is criminal or not as regarding to the age. The issue of LAC is complex, due to nations having it set differently. So a person A having a relationship with girl B with an age that is legal in his nation/location, going with her to a vacation to another country and suddenly the very same course of action may be criminal if that's country LAC is higher.
 * "but they lack the cognitive/emotional maturity and forethought to negotiate the relationship fairly." I don't think that is correct phrasing. Assuming that there is a genuine love between adolescent and an adult, why such a relationship should be "negotiated" at all? In genuine love people care about each other, not negotiate with each other. Also, on the same topic, maybe in the past 13-17 age were considered lacking in cognitive/emotional maturity. But these days, some or perhaps many of them enough matured IMHO.
 * "They might be sociopaths who enjoy the control over their sexual partner." I think some teens can actually have more control in such relationships.
 * I do agree with the inclusion of the Criminology aspect as a part of this article or a new article. Also, in addition to portraiting the issue from a western perspective, I would suggest also to mention other realities and the history of it. Such as of what I have mentioned about Arabic countries and African tribes. Greenbd (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the same argument though, a person A who lights his wife B on fire with gasoline for cheating on him might be branded a heinous murderer in one country, but his actions carried out while on vacation in certain other countries would be both legal and perfectly acceptable too. As you can see, cultural relativism is not a strong platform to stand on.  These same arguments about low age of consent in other cultures are the same sort of argument made by groups like NAMBLA and similar groups.
 * Now granted, LAC is a certainly a factor. But it should be noted that while LAC is variable, Age of Majority is relatively consistent. LAC establishes a specific crime, but when building a profile it is just as important to consider the younger person's social and legal standing in the world even if it's not a crime by itself.  Remember the US has variable LAC 16-18, yet most of my sources are used by the FBI, which crosses jurisdictions.  For example, a serial killer in his early history might have an established pattern of dating people under 18 in several states, starting in one state where it's illegal and he faced threat of prosecution, moving to another where it is not illegal and pursuing several relationships there which end up recorded due to parent or occupational disapproval, and eventually "graduating" to murder.  No I'm not saying every "hebe" graduates to murder, I'm refering to when the murder has happened and law enforcement is looking in suspect history.  The pattern would be used to establish the suspect has a particularly strong affinity for under 18 girls among other evidence of guilt.
 * Re: "negotiate," my mistake. I misused the word.  I was referring to the adolescent's ability to emotionally navigate the relationship; that is, go through it with the other person in a rational manner.  Regarding adolescent's ability to be rational about relationships in general, I would advise you look at neurological research on this age group.  Their brains are very different from adults ; they have low impulse control, high activation of the "reward" regions, and weakened ability to tolerate negative emotional states.  This is not old anecdotal data; that study I just posted came out this year.  They are not stupid, or immature, but they do have vulnerabilities that put them at risk that they most certainly would have not have taken if they were older.
 * I will do my best to assemble a coherent paragraph or two on it once I gather all my sources and comb them over. It will not be huge and I will post it here first.Legitimus (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * James, before Legitimus responded again, I was tempted to move your comment after Greenbd's for thread order, but I now feel that it's best left up there now that Legitimus has responded again. I don't want to reply up there and move my initial response to Legitimus even further out of the way, making it seem like I made this comment first, so I'll reply down here: I'm confused by your statement that there is no real evidence for "fixation." From what I understand, "fixation" in this case means "sexual preference," or, more accurately, "primary or exclusive sexual attraction." And you and most other sexologists and/or psychologists agree that some people do have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescents; in fact, it seems that most sexologists and/or psychologists who study pedophilia call that type "true pedophiles" (especially in the case of exclusivity). The reason they state that pedophilia cannot be cured is because people with those attractions show almost or no sexual interest in those who clearly have secondary sex characteristics, as opposed to child sexual abusers who are opportunistic and/or situational offenders, and therefore cannot lead a normal romantic/sexual life ("normal" in this case obviously mean a romantic/sexual life with an adult). Are you stating that there is no real evidence for "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescents," even though such attraction has been widely documented, or do you mean that there is no real evidence for "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents"? If the latter, I'm still confused because I believe that it was you added to the lead of this article that hebephilia refers to sexual preference. That is, before I changed it to "primary or exclusive sexual attraction" to be consistent with what was extensively discussed at the Pedophilia talk page about most accurately defining pedophilia in the first sentence/first paragraph of the Pedophilia article's lead. Considering that opportunistic and/or situational offenders are distinguished from pedophiles who are sexual with prepubescents, how would opportunistic and/or situational offenders be distinguished from hebephiles who are sexual with pubescents? Similarly to what Legitimus pointed out above about distinguishing, it does not seem accurate to call every man who may find a 14-year-old sexually attractive and/or is sexual with a 14-year-old "a hebephile," especially considering that some girls can look almost or completely physically mature at age 14 (due to puberty being almost or completely over at that age) and considering sexual attraction to 14-year-old girls or older is normalized in some societies. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Age
(Lets find where out common grounds are. I see that hebephilia is a term that is referring to physiology primary, and the age issue is a secondary to it. Do you agree with me? Greenbd (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's also how the lead treats the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC))

Since you agree that physiological appearance is the primary characteristic of hebephilia, I find "partner who appears to be of a specific age" in the lead is not correct. I think it should be said: "person who is attracted to a specific physiological appearance related to age". Greenbd (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If no one disagrees I'll go ahead and change it. If anyone will disagree in the future, feel free to revert. Greenbd (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Criminality and action
I see some discussion on the talk page is centered around criminality and action. Lets put things in perspective, this article is about Hebephilia, that is love or attraction. Love or attraction and actual action and relationship are two different things. I guess there are many hebephiles who spent their entire lives without doing anything at all, no necessarily because of criminal law, though including it, but mostly because of cultural issues.

An ordinary person will find it difficult to maintain a relationship with an adolescent in the western society.

An action and a relationship is a sub-topic within the article and criminal issue is the sub-topic within the sub-topic of action and relationship. So I believe we shouldn't over emphasize it. Greenbd (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Umerabid
Please enter a comment below. Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. Subject/headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umerabid123 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Boring and useless.
Wikipedia has become a mine field for researchers.

This very article shows it all. No statements but quotes. Mr......said this, Madam.... said that ... And so on.

If you don't have to say anything about the subject, SHUT up. The ongoing quoting is useless and not refreshing.

An encyclopidea tells people an answer. Your article has no answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.101.78 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What is perversion, and what is sick?
''Flyer22, I have requested Temporary Full page protection against your suspicious and overaggressive reversions. You have to conduct a discourse here on the talk page, if you wish to conform to editorial standards, and I do not see you are pursuing that. I have also noted your stealth attempts to avoid a conventional determination and definition of what hebephilia is, even by mere linkage to other pages, and I see this as detrimental under WP:NPOV. As has been amply proven, maybe to your distaste, neutral point of view often means having to run with, as a clarificatory baseline, what is considered 'normal' or 'normative' in the current discourse. As such, and indeed merely by linkage, hebephilia is a perversion, and this must be in the topline of the article.''

I would call you a PERVERT. Define jealousy and unability- You are one of the guys that any dictator loves ''I have requested Temporary Full page protection....' WOw. Big guy you are. Your blabla is making me choke. Trying to make a pov with semi-educated, extremely large sentences (which of course do not contain any grammatical flaw).

And btw. being in love with a 12yo is not a PERVERSION, it's nature and natural. I assume you are gay, wifeless and have no kids.

Loving can never be a perversion. Caring also not.

If you try to do a theoretical shrink shit, then yes the guy who contacted you is right.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanooch (talk • contribs)

Changes to propose
Flyer22 asked that I explain my changes on the talk page. Personally, I do not understand what might be controversial. All I did was to reorder text to group information on the same topic to be together and chronological (and to reword some things to clarify them). The only problem Flyer22 has expressed was believing am ViperFace, which I am not, and which Flyer22 seems now to be backing off of.

So, I am proposing these changes which, again, I think are clearer.

Old:

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence (generally ages 15-19),[1][2] and differs from pedophilia,[2] which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (with the prepubescent age range extending to 13 for diagnostic criteria).[3][4][5]

Hebephilia is approximate in its age range because the age of onset and completion of puberty vary. Partly because of this, some definitions of chronophilias show some overlap between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia;[2] for example, the ICD-10 includes early pubertal age in its definition of pedophilia,[6] and some definitions of ephebophilia include mid-adolescents aged 14 to late adolescents. On average, girls begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 11 or 12,[7] and it is argued that separating sexual attraction to prepubescent children (pedophilia) from sexual attraction to early-to-mid or late pubescents (hebephilia, or sometimes ephebophilia specifically in the case of late pubescents) is clinically relevant.[1][2] While individuals with a sexual preference for adults may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals,[2][8]researchers and clinical diagnoses have proposed that hebephilia is characterized by a sexual preference for pubescent rather than adult partners.[2][9]

New:

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals. It differs from pedophilia,[1] which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children and differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence.[2][1] While individuals with a sexual preference for adults may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals,[1][3] research and clinical diagnoses refer to the preference rather than occasional or secondary interest.[1][4]

Hebephilia is approximate in its age range it refers to because the age of puberty varies; it is usually operationalized ages 11-14. Adolescence begins with puberty and typically spans ages 15-19. Some definitions of the chronophilias (sexual interests based on age) overlap.[1] For example, the ICD-10 includes early pubertal age in its definition of pedophilia,[5] the DSM-5 includes up to age 13 as prepubescent,[6] and some definitions of ephebophilia include mid-adolescents aged 14 to late adolescents.[7][8] On average, girls begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 11 or 12,[9] and it is argued that separating sexual attraction to prepubescent children (pedophilia) from sexual attraction to early-to-mid or late pubescents (hebephilia, or sometimes ephebophilia specifically in the case of late pubescents) is clinically relevant.[2][1]

Old:

Definitions, classifications and history Hebephilia is defined as a chronophilia in which an adult has a sexual preference or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals who are of the early to mid (or sometimes late) stages of pubertal development, generally aged 11–14, although the age of onset and completion of puberty vary.[2] TheDSM-5's diagnostic criteria for pedophilia and the general medical literature defines pedophilia as a disorder of primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, thus excluding hebephilia from its definition of pedophilia.[3][4][5] However, the ICD-10 diagnostic code for the definition of pedophilia partially overlaps with the definition of hebephilia, as the ICD-10 defines pedophilia as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[6] There is also a partial overlap of hebephilia with ephebophilia, which is sometimes defined as a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents aged 14 (or 15) to 19.

The term hebephilia is based on the Greek goddess and protector of youth Hebe, but, in Ancient Greece, also referred to the time before manhood in Athens (depending on the reference, the specific age could be 14, 16 or 18 years old). The suffix -philia is derived from -phil-, implying love or strong friendship.[12]

In 1914, physician Kurt Boas described hebephilia as "an alleged form of female fetishism".[13] Anthropologist and ethno-psychiatrist Paul K. Benedict used the term to distinguish pedophiles from sex offenders whose victims were adolescents.[14] Forensic psychologist Karen Franklintraced the history of use of the term in a 2010 article. She states that it is a variation of ephebophilia, used by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1906 to describe homosexual attraction to males between puberty and their early twenties, who considered the condition normal and nonpathological. Historically, criminal hebephilic acts where victims were "biologically ready for coitus" (i.e., statutory rape) were considered distinct from other forms of criminal sexuality such as rape and pedophilia, with wide variations within and across nations regarding what age was acceptable for adult-adolescent sexual contacts.[15] Bernard Glueck, Jr., conducted research on sex offenders at Sing Sing prison in the 1950s, using hebephilia as one of several classifications of subjects according to offense. In the 1960s, sexologist Kurt Freund used the term to distinguish between age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men during penile plethysmograph assessments, continuing his work with Ray Blanchard at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) after emigrating to Canada in 1968. After Freund's death in 1996, researchers at CAMH conducted research on neurological explanations of pedophilia, transexuality and homosexuality, and based on this research, hypothesized that hebephiles could also be distinguished on the basis of neurological and physiological measures.[15] In 1999 a separate group, spurred by the Catholic sex abuse cases, attempted to develop a psychological test by combining questions from the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, using the terms hebephilia to classify individuals attracted to adolescent members of the opposite sex. The group lobbied to create a new diagnosis of ephebophilia to identify individuals who had sexually abused adolescents; their efforts were unsuccessful. In court cases where the term hebephilia is used, it is placed within the DSM category of paraphilia, not otherwise specified.[15] Franklin has stated that she believes the concept is largely the result of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health,[15] though CAMH employee and clinical psychologist James Cantor challenged the factual accuracy of this claim, citing the existence of the concept in the ICD-10,[16] the use of the word in 100 scholarly texts from a variety of disciplines and time periods, the existence of 32 peer reviewed papers researching the concept and a variety of other factual errors in Franklin's paper.[17]

New:

Etymology

Bernard Glueck, Jr., conducted research on sex offenders at Sing Sing prison in the 1950s, first using hebephilia as one of several classifications of subjects according to offense. The term hebephilia is based on the Greek goddess and protector of youth Hebe, but, in Ancient Greece, also referred to the time before manhood in Athens (depending on the reference, the specific age could be 14, 16 or 18 years old). The suffix -philia is derived from -phil-, implying love or strong friendship.[12]

Definitions Different authors have used overlapping definitions of hebephilia. Definitions of hebephilia agree that it is a condition in which an adult has a sexual preference or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescent individuals, but apply differing cut-offs.[1] The DSM-5's diagnostic criteria for pedophilia defines pedophilia as a disorder of primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, but includes sexual interest in children up to 13, including what other authors call hebephilia.[6][7][8] The ICD-10 diagnosis of "paedophilia" defines pedophilia as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal "or early pubertal age," also including hebephilia.[5] Some writers have used cut-offs greater than age 14, which would include in hebephilia what other writers would call hebephilia.

In 1914, physician Kurt Boas described hebephilia as "an alleged form of female fetishism."[13] Anthropologist and ethno-psychiatrist Paul K. Benedict used the term to distinguish pedophiles from sex offenders whose victims were adolescents.[14]

In the 1960s, sexologist Kurt Freund used the term to distinguish between age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men during penile plethysmograph assessments, continuing his work with Ray Blanchard at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) after emigrating toCanada in 1968. After Freund's death in 1996, researchers at CAMH conducted research on neurological explanations of pedophilia, transexualityand homosexuality, and based on this research, hypothesized that hebephiles could also be distinguished on the basis of neurological and physiological measures.[15]

In 1999 a separate group, spurred by the Catholic sex abuse cases, attempted to develop a psychological test by combining questions from theMillon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, using the terms hebephilia to classify individuals attracted to adolescent members of the opposite sex. The group lobbied to create a new diagnosis of ephebophilia to identify individuals who had sexually abused adolescents; their efforts were unsuccessful. In court cases where the term hebephilia is used, it is placed within the DSM category ofparaphilia, not otherwise specified.[15]

In 2010, Forensic psychologist Karen Franklin traced the history of use of the term. She stated it is a variation of ephebophilia, used by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1906 to describe homosexual attraction to males between puberty and their early twenties, who considered the condition normal and nonpathological. Historically, criminal hebephilic acts where victims were "biologically ready for coitus" (i.e., statutory rape) were considered distinct from other forms of criminal sexuality such as rape and pedophilia, with wide variations within and across nations regarding what age was acceptable for adult-adolescent sexual contacts.[15] Franklin has stated that she believes the concept is largely the result of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health,[15] although James Cantor, editor of the journal Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment pointed out a variety of factual errors in Franklin's paper. In his 2012 rebuttal in the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, Cantor stated "The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) contains code F65.4, which defines paedophilia as 'A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age ' (World Health Organization, 2007; emphasis added). That is, people with a sexual preference for early pubescent children do indeed receive a diagnosis in the ICD system. In Franklin's defense, one could claim that the word 'hebephilia' does not appear in the ICD; however, the people with hebephilia would receive a diagnosis nonetheless."[16] He indicated the use of the word in 100 scholarly texts from a variety of disciplines and time periods, and the existence of 32 peer reviewed papers researching the concept.[16]

Noterie (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of your changes were not clearer, in my opinion. For example, you moved the approximate age range for hebephilia out of the first paragraph of the lead. As has been extensively discussed on this talk page, that age range should be immediate. If you want to know why it is important to immediately mention that age range, then read the archives. You also confused the span of adolescence; like I mentioned in the edit history, the "ages 15-19" part is about ephebophilia, and your version stated "Adolescence begins with puberty and typically spans ages 15-19." That is inaccurate. I noted here, "Tweaked a part in the lead due to Noterie apparently having thought that 'generally ages 15-19' was referring to the span of adolescence. If adolescence typically begins at puberty, it spans earlier than 15. This time frame is about ephebophilia." I incorporated some of your changes, but with tweaks, as seen here; so your reverting here, with an improper use of WP:BRD, only looks like reverting out of spite.


 * As for believing that you are ViperFace, I still don't believe that you are new to editing Wikipedia, and I still don't trust you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad it's clear that your problem is a personal one. Let's change the page to "Flyer22's Hebephilia page," where your changes all go in and everyone else has to get your permission. Noterie (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding material and a re-org?
Hi, folks.

I’d like to propose a re-working of the mainpage, which I believe has some substantial problems. The first of these is that, currently, it is less a page hebephilia and more about the DSM/SVP debates. That is, there exists much research on hebephilia which isn’t included (including on prevalence and etiology). Second, the coverage of those debates is much more of a he-said/she-said rather than an encyclopedic review of the relevant issues.

I can add the relevant RS’s for the research pretty easily, and I am happy to email the RS’s to anyone else interested. To help with the second problem, I propose reworking the section to be issue-by-issue instead of author-by-author. I am thinking something like this:


 * Sexual attraction to pubescent children is normal
 * Arguments/evidence for
 * Arguments/evidence against
 * No sexual interest (even pedophilia) should be diagnosed
 * Arguments/evidence for
 * Arguments/evidence against
 * Hebephilia does not appear in diagnostic manuals
 * Arguments/evidence for
 * Arguments/evidence against
 * Hebephilia cannot be reliably diagnosed (too many false positives/negatives)
 * Arguments/evidence for
 * Arguments/evidence against
 * Hebephilia is not widely recognized
 * Arguments/evidence for
 * Arguments/evidence against
 * Acceptance/rejection of hebephilia is driven by financial interests
 * Arguments/evidence for
 * Arguments/evidence against
 * Sexual attraction to pubescents is evolutionarily adaptive.
 * Arguments/evidence for
 * Arguments/evidence against

Finally, the civil commitment (SVP) section is currently a series of arguments about whether various authors think hebephilia SHOULD be subject to SVP legislation. Missing from that section, however, is coverage of what courts have actually found (which is probably more relevant/important).

Thoughts? — James Cantor (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There should still be a Definitions, classifications and history section. If we are able to validly divide the history content into its own section, the division should ideally be needed; like MOS:Paragraphs states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." There should still be an Etiology section. There should still be a Prevalence section. Or, since they are small, we can combine the Etiology and Prevalence sections, so that they read as Etiology and prevalence. I think that even though hebephilia is not officially diagnosed as a mental disorder (unless one considers the DSM-5 having a prepubescent age range that extends to age 13 for pedophilia, and the ICD-10 including "early pubertal age" for pedophilia, to mean "that is an inclusion of hebephilia"), we should use a WP:MEDSECTIONS outline since the Hebephilia article is substantially a medical article (I also think that the Pedophilia article should resemble a WP:MEDSECTIONS outline more than it currently does; I'll eventually get to that).


 * As for your proposed headings, those are a lot of headings and they might not all be needed; again, refer to what I stated above about MOS:Paragraphs. A long table of contents can make an article look bigger than it actually is, and more difficult to navigate through. Also, three of the headings are too long; those headings are "No sexual interest (even pedophilia) should be diagnosed," "Hebephilia cannot be reliably diagnosed (too many false positives/negatives)" and "Acceptance/rejection of hebephilia is driven by financial interests." I don't think that it's best to have part of a heading placed in parentheses. I also think that slashes in headings are commonly discouraged. Looking at MOS:HEAD and at the "Article titles" section it points to, I don't see any comments on those matters. But MOS:HEAD states, "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well," and article headings usually don't have slashes.


 * Are you looking to delete anything in the article? I don't see anything in the article that necessarily needs to be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Perfect. No problem regarding appropriate section headings; I meant the list just to describe the kinds of content to be included.  I'd re-read MEDMOS before getting started, however.  Also, I agree there's nothing really needing to be deleted, just better organized.— James Cantor (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, as long as we don't go overboard with the number of headings (for example, needlessly including headings or subheadings for a little bit of material), I'm fine with your proposed changes. And a WP:MEDMOS outline obviously does not have to be exactly like the headings seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS; WP:MEDSECTIONS is clear that "The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition." Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Going by the Tanner scale for the definition
James, this edit at a different article regarding a fictional character brought me back to this edit you recently made to the lead, which as you know, I commented on (here and here while editing the article). As you may remember, we discussed the Tanner scale before: Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 1. So I ask you now, given the age ranges currently listed at the Tanner scale article, how is it not confusing for readers that we exclude stage 4 from the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In their article Hebephilia as a Sexual Disorder Beier et al. from the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld refer to the study Sexuelle Reifung von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland (Sexual maturation of children and adolescents in Germany). According to them, the avarage age for Tanner II (pubic hair) is 10,8 years for girls/10,9 years for boys and for Tanner IV it's 12,3 years/13,4 years. So it is indeed confusing. --Låps (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed the wording, per this section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Introduction way too verbose
Does anyone else agree? I think a 60% reduction would be appreciate. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I personally think it's fine. The Pedophilia and Ephebophilia one's are pretty long too. But it could be. I'll wait to see what others say. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The length of the lead is fine, per WP:Lead. And everything that is in the lead is there per various past discussions. I'm unwilling to significantly downsize it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Potential edits
Hi there, I've added a sentence in the etiology section as I think this is an area that is perhaps deserves some more explanation. I hope this is OK EBL 15:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie bl (talk • contribs)
 * Hello. I obtained a full-text copy of the paper you added.  I just had a brief skim through it and it does indeed reference hebephilia, though more or less just talks about the CAMH study already present in this article.  Correct if I'm wrong, but the it seems to be saying that the correlates of the CAMH study are signs of adverse events during an individual's neurodevelopment, and thereby other inferences can be made, rather than stating the adverse events as an entirely separate theory.Legitimus (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)