Talk:Pederasty/Archive 14

Recent dubious edits to this article, including the promotion of NAMBLA views and the Rind et al. study
has made a string of questionable, dubious edits to the Pederasty article, some of which I have reverted or tweaked. It started with this edit, which added "boylove," a common expression made by pedophile and pederasty advocates. After some more dubious editing, Newmancbn included this pro-"adult-child sex" edit focusing on WP:Fringe/pedophile/pederasty group NAMBLA and the highly controversial, methodically flawed Rind et al. study. Regarding this and this response, Newmancbn, I highly suggest you take into account that WP:Neutral does not mean we give equal weight to minority and/or fringe views; see its WP:Undue weight section and the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance subsections. I am well-versed in pedophilia, pederasty and child sexual abuse topics, and on the topic concerning the type of editors who usually add pro-NAMBLA and/or pro Rind et al. study material. So is Legitimus, Herostratus and WLU. Legitimus already has the Pederasty article WP:Watchlisted; so Herostratus and WLU, care to add on to what is wrong with Newmancbn's edits? Newmancbn is also topic-banned from religious topics/material, and yet added dubious religious material to the article (as seen with that NAMBLA/Rind et al. addition). So now I will ping all of the editors that he pinged in that topic ban discussion on his talk page, in that same exact order: Jayron32, The Bushranger, Oncenawhile, Dougweller, MarnetteD, Ian.thomson, Jytdog, Malik Shabazz, Drmies, Zero0000, Debresser, and Mendaliv.

Newmancbn also added back the Rind et al. study material, after stating that he would not WP:Edit war. Newmancbn, adding most of the text back is still WP:Edit warring. I warned you with this WP:Dummy edit that if you continue with your pro-"adult-child sex" editing, things will not end well for you. I meant that. See WP:Child protect. Editors have been indefinitely blocked and/or banned for the type of pro editing that you are repeatedly engaging in at this article. You should revert yourself now. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for meeting me in the talk page. I appreciate it. I am studying to be a hakham and I have encountered young men with this orientation in training for marriage guidance, in my tradition homosexuality or any orientation is not problematic. I discovered there was little information available for these people about their orientation, and they are usually demonized by christian and secular modern western society. The DSM recently added this 'boysexual' orientation which I believe they now call "hebesexuality", but later changed it to a 'sexual interest' from pressure from conservatives. I just added peer reviewed information from academic journals to give a bit of a broader perspective on this. I really don't see why the Rind et al. study should not be mentioned, however if everyone else thinks so, what about removing it and just adding a reference that says the study exists and referencing a hyperlink to it? Since it is one of the only studies conducted on this subject.--Newmancbn (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your ping did not work, and there is no need to ping me to this discussion anyway. This article is on my WP:Watchlist. Your interpretation of the DSM-5, a highly criticized manual, is wrong. And hebephilia is not a sexual orientation, not by any authoritative medical categorization anyway. I will cease responding to you now so that others can weigh in before I state anything else on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if there wasn't the concerning content and continued tendentious behavior, ancient Greece falls under pre-Constantinian Mediterranean cultures, and Christian theology definitely falls under Abrahamic religions, both of which are definitely under Newmancbn's topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Really dude lol? I apologize, I would have never thought that, or made the connection. I'll make sure to stay away from xianity and athenian pederasty.--Newmancbn (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see, what's the largest body of water bordering on Greece? And "ancient" usually covers periods before the third century, right?  So how would "pre-Constantinian Mediterranean" not ancient Greece?
 * And Judaism is an Abrahamic religion, yes? So, given that Christianity either branched off from Judaism or both developed out of emerging threads in the Israelite religion (depending on whichever scholar you're reading), wouldn't Christianity be an Abrahamic religion?  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, I just wasn't thinking :-P I'll avoid discussing Mediterranean, Grecian, and Abrahamic things, thanks for explaining it to me.--Newmancbn (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't had this page watchlisted but I've added it again now. I'm not really up for delving into the past history before this point, sorry, but I'll help out going forward if I can. As a general rule, I trust Flyer22 to have a good take on these matters and I trust her judgment, erudition, and experience. I'm a little concerned about the "vibe" I'm getting from some of this. This is a pretty fraught subject and if Newmancbn is topic banned elsewhere this is a relevant date point and perhaps it would be an excellent idea if he chose to contribute in one of the plethora of other topic areas we have. We want to be pretty conservative about changes and pretty mainstream in our general approach to these fraught topics. For Newmancbn I have a couple questions: what's your source for asserting that "hebesexuality" was included in the DSM -- is this from a draft version or what? Your assertion about pressure from conservatives -- what form did this take and how did it differ from normal review? I'm a little concerned that you think that the (alleged) removal of "hebesexuality" from the DSM was untoward and, apparently, wrong, since this is a fairly fringe term. We want to be particularly careful with introducing non-mainstream terminology here ("boylove" is another, essentially slang, term that we want to be careful about tossing around) and I suppose you can figure out why. Again, Rind et al is essentially discredited so let's not go there. All in all, Newmancbn... if you would like some help getting started contributing at History of rail transport or some other subject, I would be glad to help and I think this might be best all round. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure no problem. The new DSM essentially stated that adults who were attracted to minors have a distinct and unalterable orientation much like homosexuality, but later changed it to the term 'sexual interest' after criticism from Liberty Counsel, a conservative watchdog group, saying it was a mistake. Here is a quote from a news article "In a press release Friday, Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit organization that promotes the causes of religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the family observed that in its newly published Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), APA “changed the classification of pedophilia from a ‘disorder’ to a ‘sexual orientation,’ but, following the public outcry, APA released a statement that it was a mistake. APA, Liberty Counsel noted, now states “sexual orientation” is an error and should read instead, “sexual interest"”. The new DSM also contained a controversy to separate hebesexuality and ephebosexuality, people attracted to preadolescents and adolescents, from pedophilia, those attracted to prepubescent children. Which is discussed on the hebephilia article. For the best information on this subject and an extensive outline of these DSM controversies here is the work of one of the leading writers for the DSM on hebesexuality Karen Franklen, PhD --Newmancbn (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your descriptions again are not very accurate; for example, your use of "were attracted to minors." The DSM matter, as your first two sources show, is primarily about pedophilia. The term minor as it relates to law is a very broad term, and includes post-pubescents. Medical consensus is clear that sexual attraction to post-pubescents is not a mental disorder. There is very little physical or mental difference, if any at all, between a 17-year-old (an age commonly declared a minor) and an 18-year-old (an age commonly declared an adult), for example. Also, while some scientists use the term sexual orientation loosely to refer to any type of sexual attraction, and sometimes compare pedophilia to a sexual orientation, the vast majority of them do not believe that it is a sexual orientation; and that includes the American Psychological Association (APA) and American Psychiatric Association (APA). A sexual orientation, like the Sexual orientation article notes, is about which sex/gender one is sexually attracted to, not which age range one is sexually attracted to. Sexual attraction based on age range is a chronophilia matter. The Huffington Post source does not support your statement that "The new DSM essentially stated that adults who were attracted to minors have a distinct and unalterable orientation much like homosexuality, but later changed it to the term 'sexual interest' after criticism from Liberty Counsel, a conservative watchdog group, saying it was a mistake." The breitbart.com source notes that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) called the "sexual orientation" matter a mistake, and shows why the APA feels that way. And as for your assertion about the APA calling their use of "sexual orientation" a mistake due to social conservatives and public outcry, that is an assertion by the Liberty Counsel; they stated, "The DSM-5 has been under consideration for ten years. It is hard to accept that its publication was a mistake or an error. It is more likely that the public outcry prompted the APA’s recent press statement."


 * Also, Karen Franklin, whose Wikipedia article was recently deleted, is not the best source to go to about hebephilia content...for a non-pro-hebephilia person, that is. She has been described as having a very pro-hebephilia outlook, as indicated by the Hebephilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You may be completely right that it was the Liberty Counsel who claimed they changed it after conservative pressure, and they may have wanted to change it on their own volition. I actually don't think it has much bearing on the topic, because if they changed it on their own or because of external influence, it doesn't really change what their conclusions are, just what the semantics are. I meant to quote breitbart, not huffington post, I apologize for the ambiguity. If the DSM-5 originally stated even those attracted to prepubescent children have a sexual orientation and not just hebesexuals and ephebosexuals, their conclusions would include boysexual people as well who are attracted to preadolescent and adolescent boys. As far as whether or not boylove is an orientation or a sexual preference for the gay boys and gay men exclusively attracted to each other, that is a question of a more philosophical nature that I think few would benefit from asking, and even fewer from providing an answer to, since the distinction is non-existant in those that experience either one, as both are unchangeable sexual preferences that are not subject to change based on introduced environmental factors. The distinction appears to be only semantic, which is why the DSM-5 labeled it originally as an orientation, however given the concern of distinguishing gender based sexual preference, orientation, from age based sexual preference, chronophilia, which you stated above, they changed the term to the general term 'sexual preference', which still entails all of the attributes of an orientation, except in this case is not gender based, which is why boysexual can also be loosely described as an orientation.


 * Or maybe her views could be valid and objective, and just happen to disagree with other psychologists? I don't think its possible for anyone know if she arrived at the conclusions through studying the impiricle data and by testing and observation, or through bias. Since she is one of the leading and respected sexual psychologists, and one of the leading contributors to the DSM I think her research should be considered on wikipedia if it is regarded by the DSM and APA. Out of curiosity what was the cause for the deletion of her wikipedia article? She seems to definitely be a notable person, given her contributions to the DSM-5--Newmancbn (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're stepping into my territory (that is, mental health). I have the actual DSM-5 book right here in my hands, all 3.4 lbs of it. The sources above are frankly ludicrous and putting a blatant spin on the matter. The DSM says nothing of the sort. If I have learned anything in working in this industry, is never to trust a news site on mental health (or most medical topics for that matter). Especially not Breitbart with its outspoken conservative bias, or Karen Franklin who has a similar bias as well as a personal axe to grind with specific individuals (she is also regarded as something of a quack who's "expert opinion" is available to the highest bidder) and furthermore has made no contributions to the DSM I was able to find in the citations within the book.
 * The problem stems from the term "orientation" being shamelessly hijacked to carry all sorts of loaded meanings in common discourse. Among these are that "orientation" automatically implies legitimacy, normality, unchangeability, and all legal rights and protections of any Protected class/minority. Attempting to attach this meaning to the usage of the word in the DSM-V is not only incorrect (it is nearly interchangeable with "sexual interest"), but speaks volumes about agendas. Whether it's conservative sources being alarmist/mistrusting "governing" bodies, or pro-pedophile individuals or groups trying to ride the LGBT community's coat-tails, it is still agenda based and a misuse of the term. And for the record, regardless of varies debates or rumor sites you might call up, the words hebephilia, hebesexuality, ephebophilia or ephebosexuality do not appear in any form in the final text.Legitimus (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC):
 * I missed this sentence (dyslexia) "and furthermore has made no contributions to the DSM I was able to find in the citations within the book". I didn't know she's not a direct contributor to the DSM-5. Her research as been discussed at length in the articles I've read about it, and I must have misread it to mean her work was being used a primary source for the text. So her research is deferred to by the DSM-V writers but she does not actually contribute? Thanks for clarifying that for me.--Newmancbn (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like we agree the psychological states of an 'orientation' and a 'sexual preference' are indistinguishable, except i relation to one being dictated by gender and chronophilia by age, and in the case of boysexual people, dictated by both gender and age. I agree they only differ in that orientation implies legal rights, while sexual preference does not. So if Karen Franklin is something of quack, why is she one of the leading contributors for the DSM-5? With all respect, is it possible that is WP:POV? Are there any studies showing she is a quack? Also just out of curiousity, why was her wikipedia article deleted? Thank you for your information and expertise and contributions.--Newmancbn (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Newmancbn, the APA's conclusion is not that pedophilia or hebephilia are sexual orientations. Semantics very much matter in this case, and the use of the term sexual orientation is not simply a semantics issue, as is made clear by the APA. You are the one who brought this topic up; I am correcting you on it. You stated "unchangeable sexual preferences." What proof do you have that hebephilia is unchangeable? The vast majority of researchers believe that pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual fixation, but hardly do they ever refer to hebephilia as one (if they refer to it as that, or something similar, at all). You've called Franklin "one of the leading and respected sexual psychologists" and "one of the leading contributors to the DSM." Any WP:Reliable citations for that? As for why her Wikipedia article was deleted, I already linked to the discussion that shows why above.


 * You still have yet to remove the Rind study from the article, I see, even after what I stated about it being WP:Undue weight and WP:Fringe. You have not even included research content refuting its conclusions. If you were concerned with POV, you would be concerned with that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here, could you please explain it to me? If pedophilia is a fixable sexual preference (people exclusively attracted to prepubescent children), how could hebesexuality (people exclusively attracted to preadolescents) and ephebesexuality (people exclusively attracted to adolescents) not be fixable sexual preferences? Most of the work on hebesexual and ephebesexual preferences by Karen Franklin is about the fixed nature and evolutionary basis of those preferences, like an orientation that doesn't change. Are there any studies showing hebesexuality or ephebesexuality are not fixed sexual preferences but are changeable? I thought there was a pretty firm consensus on this in sexual psychology, but I could be mistaken, could you show me the studies? Thank you for your expertise.--Newmancbn (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thats reasonable. I thought that the reference to the peer reviewed study by Rind et al. was adequate to indicate its legitimacy for publication on wikipedia, since it is published research in an academic journal and frequently cited in other studies. Before I change it, does anyone have any studies showing "it is essentially discredited"?--Newmancbn (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not very interested in debating what is or is not fixable about pedophilia or hebephilia with you, but why do you think that ephebophilia is fixed? It involves post-pubescents all the way up to age 19, and, like I already somewhat noted above, that age group is often physically indistinguishable from early legal adults (especially since it includes early legal adults). If an ephebophile can find a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old sexually attractive, that ephebophile can find a 20-year-old sexually attractive. That is why researchers are not searching for a cure for ephebophilia; it involves sexual attraction to adult-like bodies or adult bodies. For hebephilia, it is similar; many girls are post-pubescent by age 14 or 15, for example. With pedophilia, researchers generally don't see any chance of curing that. With hebephilia, since the sexual attraction includes some level (or a full level in the case of a post-pubescent 14-year-old) of attraction to adult characteristics, there is hope for researchers that a hebephile's sexual attraction can be directed to an adult -- that the hebephile can be sexually satisfied by an adult (a legal adult, not simply a biological adult), even if only an adolescent-looking adult. Furthermore, there is no indication that the majority of hebephiles are exclusive hebephiles; many of them are sexually attracted to adults (18-year-old or older) as well (though adults are not their primary sexual attraction). But again, I'm not especially concerned with this debate at the moment; I'm concerned with you pulling the WP:Undue pro-"adult-child sex" material you added to the Pederasty article. Also see what Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) states about WP:Primary sources and distinguishing peer-reviewed material from a review article. I'm going to cease replying to you again for now. This section is getting WP:Too long, didn't read, if not already, and others might want to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay thats fair enough, one last reply, I agree epheobosexuality cannot be fixed since the distinction between young adults and adolescents is marginal at most or nonexistent, however clearly the same cannot be said for hebesexuality, where the difference between a preadolescent and a young adult is rather substantial. You said "For hebephilia, it is similar; many girls are post-pubescent by age 14 or 15.... with hebephilia, since the sexual attraction includes some level (or a full level in the case of a post-pubescent 14-year-old) of attraction to adult characteristics, there is hope for researchers that a hebephile's sexual attraction can be directed to an adult -- that the hebephile can be sexually satisfied by an adult (a legal adult, not simply a biological adult), even if only an adolescent-looking adult." if this is the case and they 'can be sexually satisfied by an... adolescent-looking adult' wouldn't that make them attracted to adolescents and not preadolescents, and ephebosexual? Girls mature faster than boys, and boysexual people who are hebesexual will most likely not find adolescents attractive, since the difference in boys at that age is substantially greater than those of girls. Also I read there is an indication that most people inaptly labeled 'pedophiles' are actually exclusive hebesexuals. There surely must be exclusively boysexual-hebesexual people. Also I have never read that Rind et al. is discredited in the scientific fields of sexual psychology, human biology, or anthropology, only about it being meet with hostility and criticism in the senate and house of representatives and by the US government in general. Could you show me the studies indicating that it is discredited scientifically? Thank you again for your scholarship.--Newmancbn (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The way that you are defining adolescent is odd; you're defining it as if it excludes pubescents. Like the Preadolescence and Adolescence articles note, the onset of puberty is commonly considered the beginning of adolescence. So, yes, a hebephile can be sexually attracted to an adolescent-looking adult. Something to keep in mind is that these chronophilias are about appearance, not simply a person noting their age (though, yes, some people are specifically sexually drawn to the age of a person). A pedophile (a true pedophile) who has not found a pubescent or post-pubescent sexually attractive in any way might find a pubescent sexually attractive if that pubescent looks prepubescent. After all, and I've noted this times before on Wikipedia, an early pubescent, such as an 11-year-old, especially a boy, often still looks prepubescent. My "20:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)" post above can seem confusing since I am noting post-pubescents as part of hebephilia, but what I mean is that the hebephilia age range can include post-pubescents, and that there is no way to know that a 14-year-old girl, for example, who has clearly reached puberty, is post-pubescent...unless she undergoes some type of medical evaluation to assess that and it is revealed to you. And I never stated that there are no exclusive hebephiles.


 * Regarding the validity or lack thereof concerning the Rind et al. study, like the Rind et al. controversy article shows, it was criticized by scientists in addition to the other critics and not simply on social grounds. For example, this 2010 scholarly book source (page 146) cites the Dallam (2002) review of the study, which relays, "This review suggests that this is a serious misrepresentation. A number of researchers have demonstrated that the Rind et al.'s (1997) data either fails to support their case, was presented in a misleading or biased way, or equally supports alternative explanations." Like this 2012 scholarly book source (page 421; page 441 for the Google URL link) states, many scientists have called the Rind study poorly designed and statistically flawed. A part of that flaw, to some researchers, is using a broad definition of child sexual abuse, including the addition of post-pubescents (as old as 16, or older than 17 in Dallam's review) in the definition of child sexual abuse. Age of majority and age of consent laws vary around the world; as I'm sure you know, it's not always age 18. In the United States, the most common age of consent is age 16; so, yes, it can be categorized as flawed to include sexual contact between post-pubescent minors and adults as "child sexual abuse," since it is often legal for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a post-pubescent minor. However, I'm not stating that the term child sexual abuse does not fit in some such cases. Another argument against the Rind et al. study, the aforementioned 2012 book shows, is that "the study is sullied by the authors' biases – because one of the authors has published articles in a pro-pedophile journal." This 2013 scholarly book source (starting on page 183) notes more criticisms of the Rind et al. study, notably that, with regard to harm, the study "looked only at long-term psychological effects" and that "one cannot conclude from this type of definition that there is no harm." The Rind et al. study has its supporters, and I mean scientists who support the study, but it is not the scientific mainstream/scientific consensus. The Rind et al. study challenges the scientific mainstream view of child sexual abuse (that child sexual abuse is necessarily harmful to prepubescents and early pubescents), which is why I call the study WP:Fringe and state that if we are going to include it in the Pederasty article, it should be made explicitly clear that it is criticized by many scientists and is not in any way the scientific mainstream; doing that is per the WP:Due weight policy and the WP:Fringe guideline. And speaking of the Rind et al. study, the lead of the Rind et al. controversy article should be clear that the study has been criticized by many scientists; I'll add that using the sources I cited above in this paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow thank you, that was an incredibly thorough explanation. Excellent research, I now understand the criticisms of the study, it is a shame there has only been a single study done to investigate this phenomenon, I don't think the conclusions are necessarily wrong, but the study was not done with the precision it should have been. Including late adolescents is not relevant to that study. I agree it can be taken out of the article. What about the other things you and I both worked on and contributed to such as the age range section and the term 'boylove'?--Newmancbn (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)