Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 8

text removed due to not supported by the reference
The following text removed from article, because it does not match the reference:

In two studies designed to measure sexual preferences using phallometric data, it was found that "30% of the [child sex] offenders tested did not show sufficient arousal [to children] to derive a usable score."

The reference in the footnote: Wogan, Michael (2002). Wogan, Michael (2002)

The text of the reference states that the test equipment itself was unusable, that the results could not be used.

Here is the text from the source:

No one is sure of the exact percentage, but there is a fairly high level of false negatives among convicted sex offenders who appear "normal" even though they are not. For example, in the study by Castonguay, et al. (1993) presentence offenders showed less arousal than those who had been sentenced. In some studies, 30% of the offenders tested did not show sufficient arousal to derive a usable score (Barbaree, Seto, Serin, Amos, and Preston, 1994; Freund and Blanchard, 1989). (But see Castonguay, et al., 1993, "[None of our tests] have yielded a phallometric record with absolutely no changes," p. 506.) Finally, there is concern among researchers that the measure may be susceptible to faking (Harris, Rice, Chaplin and Quinsey, 1999; Lalumiere and Earls, 1992; Proulx, Cote and Achille, 1993; Quinsey and Chaplin, 1988b; Rice, Harris and Quinsey, 1990).

That does not provide any information about the responses of the studied offenders,. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The source states that 30% of the studied offenders responded negatively [to child stimuli]. Barry Jameson (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about the line "there is a fairly high level of false negatives among convicted sex offenders who appear "normal" even though they are not." Does that mean that the tests showed them to be "normal" but, what? Their own personal opinions say that they're not? What does "normal" mean in this context anyway? Still, I think the most neutral way to present the information would be to first, leave the sentence that you took out in there, but also add after it the sentence that followed it, "there is concern among researchers that the measure may be susceptible to faking," with all the references there are there. That way it not only shows that there are disagreements but it presents both sides and it lets the reader decide for themselves which side to believe per NPOV. Ospinad (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the full source text? It does not state what you wrote: "The source states that 30% of the studied offenders responded negatively" - it states this: "30% of the offenders tested did not show sufficient arousal to derive a usable score" - that means the score cannot be used; the equipment provides no data either positive or negative; it is "unusuable".

The heading and first paragraph of the section in the source state:

"Disadvantages of phallometric assessment" Phallometric assessment has several disadvantages. The method is invasive, technically complex, and requires special equipment and specially trained personnel to administer. There is a risk of false positive identifications among normal males. The measure is ineffective with intrafamilial sex offenders, especially those with female victims, who often show normal patterns of sexual arousal (Barbaree and Marshall, 1989; Barsetti, Earls, Lalumiere and Belanger, 1998).

The entire section of the reference, the paragraph above and previously quoted, points out that this method of testing is not reliable, at risk of false positives, and therefore does not provide any data, positive or negative, that can be used for testing an individuals internal propensities.

The statement in the article misrepresents the source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not supported by the reference? Aside from a few parentheticals which you haven't disputed, it's an exact quote. Barry Jameson's paraphrase would also be supported: In a medical context, "negatively" means "not indicating the presence of a particular ... condition." 30% of the samples did not show any indication of arousal towards children; thus, 30% responded negatively.
 * The author provides no evidence for his attribution of these negative results to instrument failure. His points simply beg the question. Nevertheless, I would not object to including them as well. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack-A-Roe, your claim is incorrect. The reason that the offenders weren't aroused is because they do not find images of children to be arousing.


 * Nowhere does the source state what you claim.


 * If this specific method of measuring arousal is at risk of false positives, that means that even fewer offenders are aroused by children, which contradicts your apparent beliefs. Pushing your POV by removing sources which you dislike - then claming that the source is being mis-quoted - is unacceptable. Barry Jameson (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, whatever you think about the reference, it is out of line to accuse someone of POV-pushing. See WP:POVPUSH.  You also have no idea what my beliefs are, you only see my edits, so discuss those and leave me out of it.  I'm sure you don't want me explaining what I think your POV is, and I don't intend to do so.


 * Back on-topic: Your statement above is simply incorrect. That reference specifically and clearly explains that the researchers do not trust the equipment to reveal dependable results. They also wrote: " Finally, there is concern among researchers that the measure may be susceptible to faking".  So it's unreliable and subject to faking.  That means that whatever the equipment shows, it is unreliable and can't be used.


 * However, it's a minor point and I don't want to take the time to argue about it. So, for now, I'll disengage from this discussion and return to  later at a more convenient time.  Best Wishes... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly if the statement is wrong then it should be altered to correct it. There is the issue of context and relative significance though. Are there any more significant or summarizing conclusions in that study, or in the stream of study? It does seem to be a little bit cherry picked to me, on face value.  I guess I need to remind all, including myself, on the serious nature of this subject, and the importance of WP getting the facts straight without any distortion from pedophilia enthusiasts (no particular editor attributed).  Jelly Roal (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Child Sexuality" in See Also & Content of "Pedophilia-Related Activism" Section
I would say that this IS related to pedophilia, as both have an impact on the same relationships (nonsexual or sexual). They are also related by their general association as discussion topics. GrooV (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pedophilia is a psychological disorder of an adult. It doesn't matter what's going on inside the body or mind of a child. That is in a separate universe.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If a part of this article talks about adults who want to engage in sex with children and some that do in fact try to do so, how is "child sexuality" not a relevant topic for the See Also section? Especially considering that the child is the target of the adult's sexual attraction and, at times, his or her sexual advances. Furthermore, there is a section on pro-pedophile and anti-pedophile activism, which are two movements that have opposing stances on what constitutes child sexuality. Albeit the pedophile advocacy section is nothing but a couple titles right now, it should likely be expanded a bit. ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what child sexuality has to do this topic at all. But I do agree that the pedophile advocacy section can use some attention; based on your suggestion, I've started the text for one part of that section.  I haven't added any text in the "anti-" part of that section.  No agenda there, I just don't have that info on hand at this time.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I disagree in regards to whether or not it's appropriate to include the title "Child sexuality" within the See Also section (my reasons can be found above), I do appreciate you starting to fill in the pedophile advocacy portion. However, in my opinion, this section should simply be an overview, considering that there's an entire article on each of the two types of activism. Thus, I would recommend that this section include something akin to the introductions (with the pro-pedophile one currently pending in the MedCom wiki) of each of those other articles. I'll try to bring one of the currently proposed intros that got some approval at the MedCom wiki onto this Talk Page within a day or two. For the time being, I think the passage you just added would work, but it should probably be shortened a bit. That said, I don't think we should copy the intro that is at the top of the Pro-pedophile activism article here, because there's too much controversy surrounding it, and it's going to be replaced anyways with whatever we come up with at the MedCom wiki. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a bit of an issue with you including Dallam, a paper that we all know of, but effectively demonstrating a rebuttal to a paper accused of PPA. This is not relevant to a brief description, as it is third level discourse. GrooV (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1 out of 10 adults are pedophiles?
Are at least 1 out of 10 adults pedophiles?

Spinneypress: http://www.spinneypress.com.au/215_book_desc.html Dr. David Finkelhor Director, Crimes Against Children Research Center Horton Social Sciences Center, University of New Hampshire: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1885&Witness_ID=6683

According to many studies, about 1 out of 5 girls, and 1 out of 10 boys are molested, either by other children or adults (mostly males). What concerns me is that none of the articles I have read on this subject estimate how many adults are doing the molesting. Lets take girls, for instance, under the age of 18. If 1 out of 4 or 5 girls are being molested, and if about half of the molesters are older than 18, isn't 1 in every 10 adults (mostly males), a child molester? Putting this another way, if we include the molesters who are under 18 with those that are over 18, then about 1 in every 5 men (some women), are child molesters. Some adults molest more than on child, but some children are molested by more than one adult.

If this is not bad enough, how about the men/boys that only think about molesting women, but never act on it. In addition to this, who is looking at the hundreds of websites and magazines that either have nude, or sexually explicit photos and videos of children? Then there are the Japanese cartoons called Lolicon and Shotacon-Manga, where small girls and boys are having sex with adults. And lastly, what is the attraction now of all the porn photos and movies showing women with no pubic hair? It seems this also is relating back to prepubescent imagery.

So what do all of these examples show? Could there actually be 5 out of every 10 adult males who lust after children? It looks to me like there are a lot more adults molesting children, or lusting after them than previously thought. Has anyone seen any studies addressing this issue?

Thanks for reading my thoughts, and I hope some of you can prove me wrong.

° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 62.148.169.47 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look up the defition of pedophilia. Also, this is definitely original research. If you find reliable sources stating anything that you address above, please feel free to incorporate the information into the article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your questions are confusing, as you seem to be unable to distinguish between pedophilia and child sexual abuse. We will be able to provide a better answer if you address paedophilia and child sexual abuse separately. If people are sexually attracted to children but not acting on their attraction, why is their sexuality even an issue for you? Barry Jameson (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all I think you are confusing pedophiles with child molesters. We know that there are some child molesters who aren't pedophiles but we can only assume that there are some pedophiles who aren't child molesters. Because a pedophile who's never molested would never come out and tell people he's a pedophile (except in rare cases like Lindsay Ashford) there's no way to know how many of them are out there. Also, in this question:
 * Lets take girls, for instance, under the age of 18. If 1 out of 4 or 5 girls are being molested, and if about half of the molesters are older than 18, isn't 1 in every 10 adults (mostly males), a child molester?
 * I think you are assuming that the total number of people under 18 are equal to the total number of people over 18. There are many more adults in the world than there are children. So the number of child molesters would be much less 1 in every 10. That's also assuming that only half of all child molesters are over 18 which is probably not true either. Ospinad (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems likely that a truly awful amount of child abusers are pedophiles. However, we would need to refer to research directly if that statement was made. Being specific is important here. So I think the 1 in 10 stat may be used in the article, but only if followed by more specific information on how many of them are considered pedophiles. It would also help if it explained why they are pedophiles in that context if the info is out there. I'll have a search. Jelly Roal (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you even looked at the pedophilia article? Only a fraction of child abusers are pedophiles. Barry Jameson (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you defending child abusers, pedophiles or both? I believe my edits and comments are based upon good research. It is clearly awful that such pedophilia is so common. The important thing is that the information gets presented here properly without any undue promotion of any particular view. Jelly Roal (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice sideways personal attack. Come on, now, there was no defending of either in that statement, but classic zealot response. The statement was that only a fraction of child abusers are pedophiles. Does that mean that one or both is somehow "noble"? Of course not. But the correlation between the characteristic of pedophilia and the action of child sexual abuse is not very high. One could say that "It seems likely that a truly awful amount of child abusers are" homosexuals... since there's a lot of man-on-boy abuse. Is that an accurate statement? No. Just as with Pedophilia and child sexual abuse, they may be related, but not strongly. How about "It seems likely that a truly awful amount of child abusers are" married. Does that mean that being married makes one a child molester? Or "It seems likely that a truly awful amount of child abusers are" Catholic priests. Same question. The fallacy is in equating an attribute and a behavior. Neither is being defended. One needs help and the other needs punishment (and help, but a slightly different kind). That was the point.  •  VigilancePrime   •   •   •  '' 19 07:32 Feb '08


 * Then perhaps I should zealously reiterate; The important thing is that the information gets presented here properly without any undue promotion of any particular view.Jelly Roal (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that is the kind of zealotry that Wikipedia needs more of! Yes, the most important thing here is to present the information neutrally and work hard not to draw conclusions in the text (which is very easy to do even unintentionally). I personally also think that the focus of this article, just as every medically-based article, should be to the clinical standards of the condition without necessarily judgement. It's important to note the "common usage" of the term, but the article main should be about the psychiatric/medicological condition of pedophilia. (That will also help with bias concerns, by keeping a very scientific approach).  •  VigilancePrime   •   •   •  '' 19 07:32 Feb '08


 * Clearly science view should be presented. But there is also the long term legal and ethical view to present, together with the views of the majority public. These aspects do seem to need more clear explanation. Not just whats and whos by any whys from the literature should be presented more clearly. Jelly Roal (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Expertise?
I have made a living out of processing and categorising these offenders according to the level of danger that they pose to the community according to risk benefit analysis, and have helped to rehabilltate them via individually tailored Self Help Action Timetables (SHATs) and Emotional Diaries. Rachel Cragg (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have legitimate referenced information to add, please do so, but expertise does not carry weight for individual editors on Wikipedia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, expertise backed by reliable references is always more than welcome. -Jmh123 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's welcome, but having expertise in real life does not make an editor's contributions to Wikipedia more worthy than those of others - exemplary sourcing and care for NPOV do that. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct: the claim of expertise, in and of itself, does not give someone's contributions more weight than another's. The claim of expertise is just that, a claim, and experts should be subject to the same rigors as everyone else.  Even experts rarely agree on everything about a subject, that is also important to recognize, but the contributions of people who actually know something about a topic should never be discouraged.  I think that was a great error on the part of Wikipedia in its growing years.  -Jmh123 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro and Anti activism
The link to these two articles at the end, it seems a bit oversimplified. It is possible for activism to exist that might relate to issues like these, but not fit into a 'pro' or 'anti' label, such as things that have characteristics with aspects of either of the general classes. It is sort of a 'with us or against us policy' for the two, taking popular labels for it, and not recognizing neutral parties. Tyciol (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a complex issue. What do you suggest. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agree aswell. Terrasidius (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Paedophilia is a very polarised issue. I know of no "middle way" group, for example a campaigning group for correct definitions of paedophilia. Lambton T/C 18:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia or Paedophilia
Shouldnt the title of be the proper etymological spelling with the ae? As opposed to the American spelling meaning love of the ground? lol Terrasidius (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry can you expand. How does the American spelling mean something totally different. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Pedo is the latinized form effectively meaning love of feet or the ground, where as the ae or æ is the purely latinized form of ai in the greek paidophilia; ae (æ) incidentally is pronounced aye or ah-ee. So Julius Caesar would be Yoo-li-oos Kai-sahr (in ancient roman latin, not more modern forms) exampli gratia. Terrasidius (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello? I wasnt joking by the way. I think the proper spelling would be approriate, given that its from Greek roots æ or ae > e. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 11:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT; Furthermore if this is an "english language wiki" then it should be proper english (thats british english) not a subvarient like american english. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 12:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:ENGVAR which says that both varieties of English are correct so far as Wikipedia is concerned, but that in a given aricle, the first edit which uses the American or the British variant determines the usage for that article, unless there is a strong national tie to the subject. Thus an article on the American Civil War would use American spelling and one on Shakespeare would use British spelling. The first edit of this article, from 2001, used American spelling, so "pedophile " it is, throughout the article, unless a strong British national tie to the practice or disorder can be proven. The Oxford English dictionary lists "pedophile" as a variant of "paedophile. Edison (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would usually agree with Edison's stand on this, but we're not just talking a preference of English over American here, it's actually to do with the origin of the word. I'm not a phonetics expert or anything, but with what Terrasidius said, surely the American spelling is more of a 'say it the way it sounds' thing rather than being 'truthful' to the origins of the language? I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well, but essentially, I think the title should probably be spelt paedophilia, since this is most loyal to the history of the language from which the words comes. I'm not all that bothered either way, but I do think if Wikipedia is going for accuracy here, the title should probably be changed. Sky83 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Cure"
Can the useage of words such as "treatment" or "cure" please be avoided where it refers to dealing with paedophilia. It somehow gives paedophilia as a condition, a negative connotation, one of a disease. This is certainly not the case! There are many like myself who see no need for this condition to be "cured", no more so in fact than you would choose to "treat" homosexuality. Putting innocents at risk (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The parts of the text that refer to possible "treatments" or "cures" are written from the mainstream medical and layman perspective, which identifies pedophilia either as a mental/sexual disorder or as a sexual paraphilia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am failing to see what is meant by this. "Mainstream medical (and I'm assuming you include psychological, because psychological study mainstream determines the medical mainstream re: psychological disorders) and layman perspectives". Are you saying that the notion of the mainstream community and the layman community should be given LESS weight than the FRINGE medical and psychological community that believes pedophilia is not a mental/sexual disorder or a sexual paraphilia? If it's the mainstream medical view, then to neglect to include things which flow from it because the fringe medical view differs, would be to give undue weight to the MINORITY view.


 * If those are the mainstream medical views, and the layman's views, then premises and research which run from the MAINSTREAM position are appropriate for conclusion in the article, as long as we're not synthesizing them. I really don't get what you mean here. 71.7.206.159 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure which part of my explanation you found confusing. I was simply responding to Putting innocents at risk's comment above. The user was inquiring into the use of the words "treatment" and "cure" in reference to "treating" the condition of pedophilia. Thus, I clarified in what context these words are used within the article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Paedophilia is a condition. I'm struggling to see what all the fuss is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcissus1x (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Treatment" should be used be used over "cure", as anything can be treated. Homosexuality can be treated. Whether there is a "cure" and what the moral connotations of "cure" are, go out of the window, which is usually a good thing. Lambton T/C 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to get off topic here, but homosexuality can now be treated? That's news to me. I thought most Western medical professionals now agree that there is no successful "treatment" for homosexuality, and that there is no legal or moral need for a treatment of this sort. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, a treatment does not automatically equal a remedy. Some homosexuals enrol on treatment courses regardless. Lambton T/C 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinsey
I have deleted the sentence re Kinsey in the summary of pro-pedophile activism, because it falsely implied that there has been a "movement" that goes from Kinsey to Rind, and began gaining momentum with Kinsey. Kinsey's report in no way was "pro-pedophile activism," (and saying so is not a summary of the pro-pedophile activism article, since that is not stated there).-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Kinsey, although doubtful of trauma-nativist arguments in this sphere, was not an activist. Lambton T/C 00:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

misquoted references
This paragraph has two problems as follows:


 * 1) Some research indicates that most perpetrators of child sexual abuse are not primarily interested in pre-pubescent youths. - reference: Lanning, Kenneth (2001). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (Third Edition). National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
 * 2) In two studies designed to measure sexual preferences using phallometric data, it was found that "30% of the [child sex] offenders tested did not show sufficient arousal [to children] to derive a usable score." - reference: Wogan, Michael (2002). Wogan, Michael (2002)

Regarding #1 - a good solid reference with a lot of usable info. But it does not support the statement that was in the article.

Regarding #2 - That one's totally off-track. The experiment did not show that the sex offenders were not aroused by children, it showed that the test was faulty and did not provide results that could be used to indicate anything at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lautmann reference
This paragraph is moved here because it does not meet WP:RS:

Sociology professor Rüdiger Lautmann, stated in his book on pedophilia, "In this book I am concerned exclusively with the first type [the true pedophile who "has a general interest in social contact with children, including a sexual dimension"], which constitutes approximately five percent of all pedosexually active men."

- the reference: Rüdiger Lautmann http://www.shfri.net/trans/lautmann/lautmann.htm

The document is published on a questionable website. In addition, in the document, the statement about the five percent is made in passing - with no supporting references or rationale at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy Says: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

If that does not suffice: Lautmann, Rüdiger (1994). “Attraction to Children.” Ingrid Klein Pubs. Inc., Hamburg. ISBN ISBN 3-89521-015-3 Lambton T/C 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mayo Clinic puts the number at 7%: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

requesting verification of references

 * The statements in this paragraph are questionable, so the references need to be verified.

Some researchers have suggested a distinction between pedophilia and nepiophilia, especially for same-sex pedophilia (see for example Bernard 1975, 1982; Lautmann 1994), as it is unusual for pedophiles to prefer toddlers. According to Howells 1981; Bernard 1982; McConaghy 1993; Lautmann 1994, male-oriented pedophilia more prevalently blends in with ephebophilia, while female-oriented pedophilia more prevalently blends in with nepiophilia.


 * Here are the references from the footnotes section:

^ Howells, Kevin (1981). "Considerations Relevant to Theories of Etiology", Cook, M.; Howells, K. Adult Sexual Interest in Children, 78

^ Bernard, Frits (1982): "Pädophilie und Altersgrenzen" (Paedophilia and different ages of childhood), Bernard, Frits. Kinderschänder? - Pädophilie, von der Liebe mit Kindern ("Child molesters? Paedophilia, on childlove"), 81-109, Berlin: Foerster Verlag. (German)

^ McConaghy, Nathaniel (1993). "Sexual Behaviour: Problems and Management", 312, New York: Plenum.

^ Lautmann, Rüdiger (1994): "Unterschiede zwischen Knaben- und Mädchenliebe" (Differences of boy-love and girl-love), Lautmann, Rüdiger. Die Lust am Kind - Portrait des Pädophilen ("Erotic affection for minors: Portrait of paedophilia"), 36-40, Hamburg: Ingrid Klein Verlag. (German)


 * If anyone has access to these sources, please provide specific quotes that support the text. Thanks.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, an exact copy of Lautmann can be read on Riegel's site and then attributed to the source that I provided. Lambton T/C 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia Definition
This stipulated definition on this wiki page is not based upon physical evidence. As a result, pedophilia is a psuedo-scientific term due to this.

It implies that the human body cells at a particular age, when thought aesthetic as to cause sexual arousal, is a mental disorder. The human body of any age can be looked upon and cause sexual feeling, due to it's beauty or beauty and genetilia. A person need not think of the sexual act for this to occur. Only the beauty of the human is necessary to cause this. This is why a man can look at a beautifull woman walking down the street and be turned on without thinking of the act of sex. Sexual feelings can be caused witout the thought of sex, which by deduction allows beauty alone to cause sexual arousal.

All human genetilia, regardless of age, have the potential to arouse, due to the fact they are sexual in nature. Just because they are a different size or different age in no way proves that a person has a mental disorder because they are aroused by genetilia of a culturallly forbidden age group. There is no physical basis for the argument against this. In order for the later claim to be proven, the humans cells of a forbidden age group would have to be found to cause chemicals to be produced in humans that would produce a repelling feeling or cause no change at all. This will never occur. Beauty as I said before can alone create arousal.

Even sexual fantasies that include underage groups being considered a mental disorder has no physical basis. Fantasies alone are harmless. Even if they are carried out, this does not mean that act itself is criminal in nature, due to the fact that many children in a culturally forbidden age group masturbate (have sexual orgasms). Sexual affection no matter who with between two people cannot be proven to be a natural crime. For example, no physical abuse occurs, only chemical of pleasure occur. No emotiol or psychological abuse can be proven to derive from this experience either, only pleasurable emotional and psychological state or a product of such acts. Many confuse the shame and guilt and other disorders being derived from it, but instead it is the tabooish shame created by culture, usually after the act. It is impossible for a pleasurable act between two humans of any age group to produce these abusive feelings.

There is one form of underage sex that could be considered abnormal. That would be for an adult to force a child against their will to perform sexual acts. Fantasies of course due no harm, but the thoughts that would lead to such an act of course is a mental disorder, due to the fact that it leads a human into an act that inhibits the personal rights and freedoms of another human.

It is important that these psuedo-scientific on this wiki page be reviewed, and put pedaphilia in its proper category: psuedo-science not the rape or mental disorder category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinisterbreeze (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting opinion, but the opinions of editors have little weight. This encyclopedia is based on verifiable information found in reliable sources. Unless there are such sources for this viewpoint it doesn't belong in this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't simply present such a POV as fact. Still, there is good historical, cultural and present conflict to call into question any attempt to present the current medical-legal consensus on pedophilia and child sexual abuse as "fact" or "given". The taboo that you describe is no excuse for a whitewash article, and such a principle is justified by the policies of Wikipedia. Lambton T/C 21:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

contradicting the defintition in the lead
Okami is just one guy; if you want to note elsewhere in the article that this one guy has his own definition--that contradicts the DSM and the dictionary--I think that's fine, but it doesn't belong in the lead.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Usage of the term to describe an act is viewed as improper. "
 * Okami and Goldberg were reinforced by a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Peter Fagan (PhD), Thomas Wise, Chester Schmidt, and Fred Berlin (PhD). That's not "one guy." And the DSM does not define paedophilia as an act. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph is redundant with the first, which already says that paedophilia can be defined as "''The act ... of engaging in sexual activity with a child." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority opinion is not that "usage of the term to describe an act is viewed as improper." If you want to note that there's some minority opinion about that, I think that's fine elsewhere in the article, but it doesn't belong in the lead, where it contradicts the majority defintion/is misleading. ("Usage of the term..." isn't justified as a standard practice by 2 footnotes.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition again
I must say that defining pedophilia as simply a "sexual attraction to children by an adult" in the lead is off. We all know that most child molestors, who have felt sexual attraction to children, are not pedophiles. The lead made more sense before that, when it said "primary or exclusive" with a reference attributed to it. The way it is now, and without no mention that teenagers can be pedophiles, is incomplete. It's completely misleading not to note that pedophilia is a preferential disorder, not just some simple attraction. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that teens can be pedophiles - the DSM puts the cutoff at 16 years, so I've edited the sentence to "adults or older teens" - it's a bit awkward but gets the idea across.
 * "most child molestors, who have felt sexual attraction to children, are not pedophiles" --- That's incorrect. Most child molestors are pedophiles. (Mayo Clinic Proceedings Journal:  "approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia") In the DSM, acting on sexual urges to towards a prepubescent child by abusing the child is part of the definition of pedophilia.   American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines is as “The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.” - so the act of abuse is part of that definition also.  People don't go along having no sexual feelings towards children and then suddenly snap and rape a kid because they're alone in a room with them.   Incest abuse of a young teenage victim may be a "situational offense" but that's not pedohilic behavior, it's rape.  Someone who fantasizes about and then sexually abuses a child is a pedophile by defintion.  Not all pedophiles abuse of course, but the act of sexual  abuse of a prepubescent child is a primary indicator of pedophilia by all mainstream defintions.
 * "primary or exclusive" is not part of any of the mainstream definitions in either the DSM, the WHO's ICD, or the Dictionary. (The Okami paper is the opinion of only one researcher, not an established definition.)    WHO's definition uses the word "preference";  DSM uses "fantasies, ... urges, or behaviors...";  Stedman's Medical Dictionary uses "act or fantasy" - none mention "primary" or  "exclusive" so it would be undue weight to emphasize that one researcher's ideas. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most child molesters are not paedophiles. This has been confirmed by dozens of peer-reviewed studies, and contradicted only by a methodologically-lacking study from a self-published book aimed at a popular audience (from which your MCP citation takes its information). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen that all over ppa websites "most child molesters are not pedophiles," but it's just ppa propaganda. Pedophiles commit more crimes against children (although there may be more incestuous offenders). I'm not in favor of pov-pushing to say either group is worse--pedophiles/incestuous offenders, nor do I think the "preferential" distinction matters much re child molesters. Your insistence on calling Abel a "pseudoscientist" etc is becoming extremely tedious and tendentious. (I've also seen Abel bashed only on the fringe ppa websites).-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Petra is correct about Abel - author of the 2001 book and the study it reports, noted expert on the topic. Let's take a look:


 * -- Abel is clearly a reliable source.
 * Also, the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, a peer-reviewed journal, cited two sources for the statistics, not one. The other cited  reliable source is the American Psychiatric Association.
 * It's a fringe theory that most people sexually abusing children are not sexually attracted to children (ie, pedophiles). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra, if you imply that someone has even been influenced by pedophile activists, I will report this to the administrators noticeboard (produced on this page, because you delete me from your talk). J*Lambton T/C 22:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try to stop intimidating other users, Lambton. You may have hours to waste but don't assume others do, and we need to be free to edit in a calm atmosphere not a poisoned one. And remember your pal AS already has PPA splodging his block log. Besides the anti-pedophile rules at wikiepdia are against pro-pedophile activists and are not to be used as a tool to suppress PPAs opponents reasonable comments (who after all, only want a neutral article). Though iw ould also advise you against going to AN/I as you might be the one whop would end up being blocked (based on your relentless bad behaviour and rudeness). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only direct accusation of AS is that he has wrongfully called Gene Abel a pseudoscientist. If his assertion that "most child molesters are not pedophiles" happens to coincide with the pov of ppa websites, it's fine to point that out for purposes of talkpage discussion, to determine if a pov being offered for inclusion in the article is fringe or not and hence if it should be included, and what weight it should be given. (Can you source the pov anywhere but mhamic?  Cherrypicking studies used to back up the pov, like Okami, is another argument straight from Mhamic). I have noticed on the talkpage of the rape article that they ask straight up: "do you have a source for that pov?" One can certainly offer a pov for inclusion without endorsing it, but if you're offering a specific pov and pretending like you're not, or that nobody is supposed to discuss what the source of it is, you're just gaming.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Defintion again 2
Okay, guys, I don't have much editing freedom because I'm using the PlayStation 3, so combine this with the above discussion, like you did my other statement.

Anyway, no, it's not some fringe theory to say that pedophilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to children. That is the definition, or else they'd all be pedophiles. The top of the lead was saying they all are, while the bottom of the lead was saying they shouldn't all be called one. That made no sense.

I'll lay it out like this: If pedophilia weren't the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to children, then pedophiles would be able to live happily or somewhat peacefully romantic-wise with an adult. But they cannot because their sexual preference is so wrapped up in children. To say that pedophilia is all sexual attraction to children is like saying that ephebophilia is all sexual attraction to adolescents. Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to adolescents. Or else everyone would be a ephebophile. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack is, above, using sources. I think it would be helpful in this discussion to address sources/what sources say. We can't put our opinions in the article, only sources.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
And the dictionary? Most dictionaries give simple definitions of complicated matters. In any case, if the dictionary simply said that ephebophilia is the sexual attraction to adolescents, that would not stop the fact that it is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to adolescents. Unlike pedophilia, though, being sexually attracted to mid/late adolescents is not some mental disorder. However, being a ephebohile still isn't considered a good thing, since it's a sexual preference for adolescents. Yet the dictionary and it's simple definition would have everyone believe that everyone is a ephebophile. By the dictionary's definition, if one, Brad Pitt is a ephebophile since, while in his late 20s, he dated a 16/17-year-old Juliette Lewis. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, it is our job to give comprehensive (and true) definitions, not mostly some simple dictionary definition.

That said, I am pleased with the current lead of this article, which makes it clear that pedophilia is a sexual preference. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It''s going to be changed, because neither the ICD nor the DSM define it as a sexual preference either. Preferential is simply not a criteria (definition can include preferential, it is not limited to preferential.) The article will have a source-based definition in the lead. (Incidentally, one of the most vocal ppas I have seen defines himself as a "pedosexual," but states he is attracted to men, women, and children of both genders...I don't believe "preferential" is even advocated by ppas, necessarily.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And if it's changed, it'll be wrong...
...for all the reasons I've given. I don't know why you insist on acting as though this is my and the two other editors' who object to your change of the lead opinions, but it's not. You are basically saying that situational sexual offfenders are pedophiles, which is NOT TRUE. Most experts in this field would tell you that pedophilia is a sexual preference. If it weren't, then experts wouldn't feel as though these men desperately need a cure, wouldn't try and change their sexual preference toward adults. A pedophile saying he is sexually attracted to adults? It means nothing, considering that his sexual preference (no matter what he says) is toward children.

If pedophilia meant all sexual attraction to children, then situational sexual offenders, which this article discusses, would be called pedophiles. But instead they are talked about as if separate from pedophilia. Why? Because they all ARE NOT pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, being incivil and posting in caps and bold and not reading the sources/continuing to argue your own opinion instead of sources doesn't seem particularly constructive to me. When you calm down and read the sources, perhaps we can have a civil discussion.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please
Sources can be found everywhere, one in this article, which you wrongly called from one man. And don't speak to me of uncivility. You hardly know me, to act as though I am. Squeak knows me and I'm familiar with Jack-A-Roe, both of whom can tell you that I'm the furthest thing from uncivil. I wasn't trying to be uncivil.

If I had a computer right now, I would bring back sources. My opinion? Laughable. People working on this article should be familiar with what pedophilia is. Your including situational sexual offenders in the pedophile category shows that you are not. Your saying that pedophilia doesn't have to be preferential is like saying ephebophilia doesn't have to be preferential. Both are false.

Bottomline -- Experts compare pedophilia to sexual orientation for a reason. A preferential reason. You want to act as though the lead calling pedophilia preferential is false, then that's you. But I won't stand for such misinformation, and will be back on this "case" once I have a computer. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested to see if Stephan Hamann's fMRI research has been done in this area. That would solve this debate very quickly.  I don't think people just arbitrarily decide to rape a child.  Something has to be wrong. Legitimus (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And...
...whatever that wrong is, Legitmus, doesn't make it pedophilia. Situational sexual behavior doesn't make since to a lot of people. Heterosexual men and women have been documented to enter homosexual relationships while in prison, but to go back to their strictly heterosexual lives while out of prison. Reasons given for how a heterosexual person would have sex with someone of the same sex is lonlines, need for sexual intimacy, depression, etc. While I don't believe that anyone is 100% heterosexual or homosexual, I wouldn't call any of them bisexuals simply based on that situational sexual behavior.

I personally have a difficult time reasoning how an adult could sexually molest a child, and I hate comparing pedophilia to sexual orientation, but that's the truest thing to compare it to (as most experts do), and in that comparsion, there really isn't a true gray area, because a true pedophile cannot get on by happily being with adults sexually only.

Anyway, I'll get back to this discussion later. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Situational sexual behavior is completely unreferenced and therefore has no weight for this discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey now Flyer, I'm not trying to argue with you over this. Just pointing out that there are neurological aspects to this too, that go beyond observable behavior and interviewing.  That fact of the matter is, we don't really know the answer to many of these questions, because no one can truly read minds.  I think we're polarizing due to the sensitivity of this subject.  Your going to find different schools of thought for anything to do with paraphilia and sexuality.  For instance, there are those that say people who are homosexual in prison were homosexual the whole time and just in denial due to cultural stigma.  I don't necessarily agree on that, but it's one angle.  But wouldn't you agree that the diagnostic manuals simply say what they say? Legitimus (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Situational sexual behavior
I wasn't saying that article had to be taken into consideration. I was simply pointing out that situational sexual behavior exists, and other aspects of it. It can simply be researched, if anyone wants knowledge on it, rather than looking at our very own Wikipedia article on it. Anyone who says all those people were homosexual the whole time are idiots. I have so many gay/lesbian friends who have admitted if trapped with the opposite sex for a long time, they'd eventually have sex with them. Most have had sex with the opposite sex due to situational sexual behavior anyway. But this is still different, of course, than molesting a child. But similarities between the two, as to why both happen, have been given by experts.

That aside, my point is that we have the simple definition of pedophilia and the exact definition of pedophilia. The exact one should be used, as even this article notes that situational sexual offenders aren't pedophiles. Experts who go by the manuals still call pedophilia preferential. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, what do you think of it now? revision at time of typing Legitimus (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine
I'm pleased with the lead even more now, Legitimus (love that name by the way). The lead now has more sources to back up what I and others were saying, and it better corresponds with this article, which (as said before) thoroughly notes on the differences in pedophiles and situational sexual offenders.

If I had the time, I'd fix up the Situational sexual behavior article, as well as the Ephebophilia article, but oh well. Thanks for taking the time to put up with me and all these unneeded section headings. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

situational - continued
Prison and homosexuality is not a valid analogy because it's a closed system under pressure, and homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. It's original research to make that connection as if it were similar to pedophilia.

"Situational" does not imply that a person who is not a pedophile may suddenly decide to rape a kid without feeling any attraction.

According to the Child Abuse Unit of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Service:

"In the most common typology (the Burgess, Groth, and Holmstrom model), there are two (2) main types of pedophiles: the SITUATIONAL (who will stalk almost any vulnerable group) and the PREFERENTIAL (who desire children of a certain age range). It should be noted that while the situational pedophile prefers children it will select 'alternative' victims under stressful situations."

There's a lot more info in that reference that can be useful, for this article and others. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also that this particular source calls both situational and preferential offenders pedophiles. :-) I think there's room for the 1978 Groth distinction (which has eveolved over time and is not in the DSM) elsewhere in the article, but it is incorrect to cite it as "proof" that the theory of situational offenders is that they are defitionally not pedophiles (and this source certainly can't be cited as a reference for anything other than that they are both considered pedophiles, as that is what it states).-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This study is interesting because it notes the course of the concept of incest in relation to child sexual abuse--first it was biological, then extended to the whole the nuclear family, then, following the research showing that incestuous offenders were also often extrafamilial offenders as well, noted as not really a useful category at all:
 * "Incest and paedophilia: Originally, the legal definition of incest applied to vaginal intercourse between a male and female whom the offender knew to be his daughter, granddaughter, sister or mother — and did not include stepfathers or adoptive fathers or actions other than vaginal intercourse (Smith & Bentovim, 1994). In clinical practice, the definition has been modified by including sexual contact which occurred within the nuclear family, giving rise to the dichotomy of intrafamilial abuse (incest) and extrafamilial abuse (paedophilia). Consequently, there was confusion about sexual abuse by stepparents and adoptive parent abusers. Paedophilia has been defined as a 'perversion in which an adult has a sexual interest in children with paedophiliacs having certain fundamental features in common' (Glasser, 1990). However, just as incest does not imply homogeneity neither does paedophilia, and ambiguity in this term can lead to differences in usage. Another long-held belief is that incest and paedophile offenders are distinct (Cooper & Cormier, 1990; Glasser, 1990), together with an associated tendency to support community-based treatment for the incest offender but to view the paedophile as more dangerous. Conte (1991) contests this belief on the basis that about half of fathers and stepfathers, referred for treatment at clinics for having abused children outside the home, had at the same time been abusing their own children (Abel et al, 1988)."

The study also divides extrafamilial into one category, intra familial into a category, and a combination of the two into a third category for research purposes:

The abusers can be subdivided into incest-only perpetrators (n=66 men), paedophilia-only perpetrators (n=128, 126 men) and those who perpetrated both incest and paedophilia (n=33 men). Of the 225 male perpetrators, 159 (71%) perpetrated paedophilia, 99 (44%) perpetrated incest. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

expansion of the lead
The lead section seems incomplete, not giving a full overview of the article. I suggest adding a sentences on each of the following topics that have sections in the article: Prevalence in society and among child sexual offenders; causes; and treatment. This could be done with one more paragraph, that would keep the lead a good size for an article of this length. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Was not comparing the two as thoroughly as that
Jack-A-Roe, I was simply stating facts. Facts are...situational sexual offenders are not pedophiles, as this article thoroughly notes, just as heterosexual people who engage in homosexual activity are not homosexuals. Yes, homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but that does not stop the fact that pedophilia is compared to sexual orientation by many experts.

The lead of this article (by including preferential in the pedophilia definition) is only relaying what those sources attributed to it are saying and what this article says -- pedophiles and situational sexual offenders are not the same thing. To have had the top of this article's lead basically say that it's all the same thing while the bottom of the lead and the rest of this article says that it's not is what made no sense. Now it does make sense, backed up by sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're ignoring discussion posted above about your source, which explicitly calls situational offenders a type of pedophile, not un-pedophiles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring "my source"? What's "my source"? We all know that both types can be called pedophiles. That does not negate the fact that they aren't all truly pedophiles. Some sources simply call ephebophilia a sexual attraction to adolescents. But that does not negate the fact that the exact definition of a ephebophile is a person primarily or exclusively attracted to adolescents. Or else all people who have found a 17 or 18-yeard-old sexually attractive could be classified as ephebophiles.

If anything is being ignored, it's what this article thoroughly notes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your source specifically refers to situational offenders as pedophiles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The source cited by Jack-A-Roe misrepresents the Groth typology. Groth did not use the term "paedophile" to describe nonpaedophile child molesters. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean Flyer's source, the NY criminal justice thing above? (If so, that's what I was pointing out.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Child Abuse Unit of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Service source was in one of my comments, though I've not added it to the article so far. Whether or not it's mistaken about Groth, I don't know; it appears to be a reliable source so I linked it in the discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22, you wrote: "Facts are...situational sexual offenders are not pedophiles, as this article thoroughly notes,..." - that is not a "fact", it's your interpretation of what you've read, and while some sources support that idea, some do not. If the article ""thoroughly notes" that interpretation, that also does not make it a fact. Though we've been discussing the lead here,  the whole article needs work and improved referencing.

Analogy of pedophilia to homosexuality is completely off-track and not supported by sources. Homosexuality is a well-developed article - the word "situational" does not appear in it at all, and the word "pedophile" appears only in context of how prejudice is expressed against homosexual males, a totally unrelated topic. Consider how fast would it be reverted if it were added in Homosexuality that situational homosexual behavior in prisons between men who are not homosexuals is analogous to  situational child sexual abuse perpetrated by an adult who's not really a pedophile. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What source is that?
In any case, I've already addressed this topic above. This article makes clear that situational sexual offenders are not the same thing as pedophiles (it says this numerous times, in fact), current and old sources. Your wanting to keep your preferred simple (and wrong) definition does not stop that. There's a reason that so many sex experts find people calling situational sexual offenders the same as pedophiles problematic, which the section in this article titled Prevalence among child sex offenders points out. It's because they aren't the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, no actually--I'm not getting the impression you've read widely in this field. Perhaps you should start by reading the Mayo clinic pdf. (Both Mayo and Lauptmann put the number of exclusive pedophiles at 5-7%, but exclusive sexual attraction to children is not a diagnostic criteria of pedophelia--it's attraction, not preferential attraction.)  The old Groth typology has actually been eroded a great deal by research demonstrating that incestuous offenders are not as limited as previously thought, incidentally. And "preferntial" was never in the DSM or ICD-10.  You've also mixed up several different things--there are separate discussions going on about:

1) are most child molesters pedophiles (this refers not to whether the child molesters themselves are pedophiles, but how many child molesters are pedophiles, also, how many crimes they commit vs. nonpedophilic child molesters). 2) whether or not preferential pedophiles have a "sexual orientation." It's classified currently as a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation (but some believe that it is a sexual orientation). 3) where the relevance of the Groth typology fits in the article, and whether situational offenders--also called incestuous offenders--are a subcategory of pedophiles, or nonpedophilic.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and that other stuff
In no way was I saying that pedophilia is the same as homosexuality, and you know that.

I compared sexual orientation, both heterosexuality and homosexuality, to pedophilia. Why? Because several sex experts have/do, and I know what I'm talking about. My comparisons to situational sexual behavior are also valid, no matter how they are miscontrued.

I'm basing what I say on fact, not opinion. Most experts do, in fact, call pedophilia a sexual preference. Arguing against it, given the wannabe cures researchers are trying just to make these pedophiles truly desire adults romantically, doesn't even make sense. This article cites that pedophiles and situational sexual offenders are not the same thing because it's true. All of the lead should make that clear as well, not contradict itself and the rest of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful if you cited the "experts," to whom ou claim you are referring, instead of your own opinion (also probably helpful if you responded in threads, instead of posting a new subject header for each of you responses to someone else. I've never actually seen anyone do that before...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are already cited in the article. The ICD says that paedophilia is "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the DSM once again--says nothing about preferential (also, preference doesn't equal exlusive preference):


 * The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:


 * Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age *13 years or younger);
 * The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
 * The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Petra, you have not read extensively in this field


 * Your insistence to call all child sexual abusers pedophiles continues to prove that. I'm not mixing anything up. You are. And for what, to put in your simplified definition of what a pedophile is? So, really, all situational sexual offenders are pedophiles? I suppose all people sexually attracted to adolescents are ephebophiles? No such thing as not really being a pedophile if you sexually molest a child, but commit statutory rape against a teenager and there's a chance that you aren't really a ephebophile? That makes zero sense.


 * You keep mentioning Groth, but several experts and sources, other than Groth, back up my statements. A few in this article, including the current World Health Organization definition. You and I most definitely disagree on this subject. If we have to bring in some outside eyes, then so be it. But I simply cannot agree with your view, just as you don't agree with "mine". Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Groth's actual papers definitely back up the distinction between paedophilic and nonpaedophilic child molesters. What doesn't is some webpage Jack found on Google with an Amber-Alert marquee that cites Groth. I would suggest that this is not the pinnacle of reliable sources. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Groth's not in the DSM, though, nor does it have the relevance now that it had in 1978. Jack's source is a good example of how the criminal justice system deals with info re pedophiles, and as such, is a good example of what mainstream sources think (which is not irrelevant to the article--when prosecuting pedophiles, lawyers do not care if they are preferential or situational. So, for legal purposes, it's totally beside the point).-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Paedophilia is not defined as a sexual act in law. And yes, situational status is legally relevant. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is when it refers to a sex crime against a child. And designations as a sexually violent predator take many things into consideration; it's not a de facto result of situational/preferential--that's absurd.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The DSM is not Gospel. There's a reason that, despite it's influence, it's also criticized. And just because it neglects to mention specifically that pedophilia is a sexual preference (although I feel it is saying that by saying strong, sexual desires or whatnot) does not mean the people who wrote or support that manual do not see pedophilia as a sexual preference. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

About formatting of discussions
Flyer22, the way you've been formatting of your comments is making it difficult for me to understand and discuss with you. I don't know if it's bothering others or not, but for me, it's confusing to see every one of your posts have a new section headline and not be threaded with the ongoing discussion. Not only does it obscure the conversation, but it encourages multiple repetitions of the same few points. I'm not implying at all that's intentional, it's just a side effect of the confused formatting.

I understand this may be the result of temporarily limited access through your PSP rather than a computer. I hope you can get access to a better editing system soon. At least, please try to avoid starting every comment with a section heading. Unfortunately, if you can't find a way to thread your edits in context more effectively with your existing equipment, it may be too difficult for the discussion to be productive. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the new section headers?
I wouldn't if I had a computer right now. I already explained above that I don't have much editing freedom at the moment, because I'm using the PlayStation 3 at the moment to communicate via online. Jeez. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, Jack-A-Roe, which is why I tried to put off this discussion until I got/get access to a computer again. I'll try that now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get a computer by this week. I apologize for any discomfort I've caused you guys in editing. Talk with you all later. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding, and no apology needed. Please don't take it personally, it's just a technical thing.  One thing we know for sure, this question is not urgent, it's been discussed for a long time and will still be here when you have your computer...  Best Wishes, --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Guilty of pedophelia"
Here's something interesting to add to the previous discussions about whether pedophelia is a state of mind or actions--I've been meaning to add this Cochrane report about how sex offender treatment does not lower recidivism,+ a few others, like the results of the first large controlled study about sex offender treatment that came after this 2003 review, to several articles. Note that the Cochrane library refers to sex offenders as "guilty of pedophelia," clearly implying that pedophelia=sex offense against a child:


 * We included nine RCTs with over 500 male offenders, 231 of whom have been followed up for a decade. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in groups may reduce re-offence at one *year for child molesters when compared with standard care (n=155, 1 RCT, RR any sexual/violent crime - 0.41 CI 0.2 to 0.82, NNT 6 CI 3 to 20). However, when CBT was compared with *a trans-theoretical counselling group therapy the former may have increased poor attitudes to treatment (corrected n=38, 1 RCT, RR 2.8 CI 1.26 to 6.22, NNH 2 CI 1 to 5). The largest *trial compared broadly psychodynamic group therapy with no treatment for 231 men guilty of paedophilia, exhibitionism or sexual assault. Re-arrest over ten years was greater for *those allocated to group therapy (result not statistically significant [n=231, 1 RCT, RR 1.87 CI 0.78 to 4.47]). http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004858.html -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another good one too, less than a year old: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e6610741657237p6/?p=87a008f7162f47048dda784be672a8af&pi=9
 * For all our discussion, that's rather interesting, isn't it? Legitimus (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I'm going to try to find the studies about how the old Groth typology has been challenged by research showing that incestuous offenders don't always have just intrafamilial victims. (I think Groth was a somewhat useful paradigm, but it's not prescriptive/not science or law. Like Finkelhor's Four Factor model, it's just a theory, a heuristic to help nuance understanding, not to diagnose in black and white terms).-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep acting as though Groth should have less weight, when truth is, most experts and law enforcement still use Groth's paradigm (more to say below in the section titled fixated/regressed). "Pedophile or situational offender" is still widely used. It hasn't been thrown out as secondary or not important. And the media? The media calls all child sexual abuse cases pedophilia when it's an adult who has sexually abused a child, including children rather defined by law...such as teenagers. I sometimes refer to all men who have sexually abused children (not teenagers) as pedophiles as well. That does not mean that they are pedophiles. In my mind, I know that there is a good chance that they aren't one. But sometimes trying to explain that, the differences between a pedophile and a situational sexual offender, is tiresome. In the end, whether the adult is a pedophile or not, they are committing pedophilic acts if they are sexuallly abusing a prepubescent child or even one who has just hit puberty. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Group therapy
That's something else that should probably be in the article (though it pertains mostly to sex offender treatment, but also pedophiles in general)--group therapy actually *ups* the recidivism rate for child molesters. In the end, it's not "statistically significant," because there haven't been enough studies, as Cochrane points out, but there are individual studies. Group therapy for sociopaths (not just pedophiles) has the known danger of causing them to cement cognitive distortions through social validation from other sociopaths. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting concept. It makes perfect sense too, social validation is a very powerful force, especially when it comes to deviant behavior.Legitimus (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

On fixated/regressed
This journal article (warning: very pov and full of postmodernist critical theory jargon) makes some interesting points I agree with about the "sanitizing" of the situational offender in comparison to "true pedophile" by separating them from "true pedophiles." (Note also that this article is yet another source that acknowledges the Groth typology as comprising two types of pedophiles--situational as a subtype of pedophile, not a non-pedophile).-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

http://transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_08/article_01.shtml

"One of the effects of the drive to construct ever more precise definitions and profiles of paedophile character types is the creation of countless subspecies of paedophile... What many researchers have tended to do is to lump paedophilic offenders into two broad groupings: 'regressed' versus 'fixated' types (Groth and Birnbaum, 1978; Howells, 1981; Finkelhor, 1984: 49; McConaghy, 1993: 312; Cossins, 2000: 59–60). Fixated offenders are thought to be those who exhibit an exclusive sexual preference for young boys, while regressed offenders are thought to exhibit 'normal' sexual preference but be 'situationally induced' to have sex with children. McConaghy sums up the general rule of thumb: 'men who have a history of offending against girl children could all be considered as regressed, and homosexual pedophiles and hebephiles are fixated' (1993: 312; see also Howells, 1981: 78). [4] ....Yet as trite as such statements may sound to those of us studying in the social sciences and humanities, the preponderance of paedophilia research has remained almost totally unaffected by the postmodern deconstruction of identity, or the supposed 'qualitative revolution' (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998: vii). This is particularly evident in the 'regressed' versus 'fixated' model. Child sex offenders have too easily been mapped onto a homo/heterosexual distinction. In the course of reviewing the research of Groth and Birnbaum (1978), Howells (1981: 78) did note that the regressed-fixated dimension might not be entirely orthogonal to the heterosexual-homosexual dimension. Despite this qualification, however, the tendency has been to assume a hierarchy of offenders and normative masculinities. The 'fixated' is usually associated with the pathological homosexual predator (or 'true' paedophile) and the 'regressed' is rendered the more harmless, somewhat normative, heterosexual male suffering from stressful life circumstances such as unemployment or marriage breakdown.
 * Calling a situational offender a pedophile does not make him one. Since both offenders, pedophiles and situational offenders, are committing sexual abuse against children, it is in most people's nature to call both pedophiles. Because, in the end, both are committing pedophilic acts.


 * But the two are still distinguished in various sources/places, by crime websites/sources and sex experts.


 * Here from crimelibrary.com, they state:


 * Molesters engage in sex with children for a variety of reasons and sometimes these reasons have little to do with sexual desires. This type of offender, called a situational child molester, does not possess a genuine sexual preference for children. Rather, the motivational factors are criminal in nature. In some cases, the offender’s sexual abuse of young people is a natural outgrowth of other forms of abuse in his life. That abuse is a continuation of a process by which he has mistreated his friends, colleagues, spouse and family members. He will have low self-esteem, maintain poor moral standards and view sex with children as an opportunity to prolong the violence that is already an active component of his existence. Other situational offenders see children as a substitute for an adult partner. Although these types of offenders do not harbor a singular sexual desire for children, they may react to a built up sexual impulse or anger, that to them, is irresistible. However, the victim is incidental. It could have been a store clerk, an elderly person or simply a woman walking down a lonely street. Because of the circumstances at hand, such as the Polly Klass incident, the victim happened to be a child. His main criteria for a victim is availability. The situational child molester will usually have few victims, sometimes only one, and never repeat the event again. He could be a social misfit or a psychopathic personality who harbors a seething resentment and hostility toward society in general.


 * ''The second classification of sexual offender is defined as a preferential child molester. These offenders have a sexual preference for children and usually maintain these desires throughout their lives. Preferential child molesters can have an astounding number of victims and these crimes can remain undiscovered for many years. In 1995, a child molestation case in Texas caused a national uproar when the suspect was due to be released from prison after serving a six-year sentence for the rape of a 6year-old boy. He told the police that he got away with abusing over 240 children before getting caught for molesting a single child and if released, would do it again(4). One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners. These types of offenders wreak havoc upon society far out of proportion to their numbers.


 * The preferential child molester exhibits distinct patterns of behavior that are common among his kind. Simply stated, the preferential child molester is a pedophile who has carried his fantasies and desires into reality.''


 * And there's these sources, which simply show that the definition of a pedophile being one who has a sexual preference for children is far from becoming exstinct.


 * Also, and assessment of pedophilia by Kurt Freund from the Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, University of Toron:


 * The typically used definition of pedophilia is inappropriately loose—anyone convicted for sexually approaching a child—so that situational offenders who are unlikely to re-offend regardless of therapy are labeled as pedophiles then pronounced cured. In addition, studies of the effectiveness of therapy do not include comparison groups of those who do not obtain therapy.


 * That's just one of the reasons some experts have a problem with labeling situational sexual offenders pedophiles. Pedophilia cannot be cured, and labeling a situational offender a pedophile, especially one who is not likely to offend again, gives the allusion that pedophilia can be cured.


 * There are many sources on Google Books that still differentiate between pedophiles and situational sexual offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note regrading sex offender treatment; studies of the effectiveness of therapy do not include comparison groups of those who do not obtain therapy---that is from 1981, 24 years before the California longitudinal study which used comparison groups: . I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that "pedophilia cannot be cured"  or that "situational offender is not likely to offend again"--from sex offender treatment research or recidivism studies?  Because there's not a %100 recidivism rate for any type of pedophile, and incest offenders are half as likely to recidivate (but they do recidivate). It looks like you are quoting this from mhamic, which is not a reliable source...-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note regarding sources--the three sources Flyer has cited above are all blogs, two of them self-published, and are not RS (and are full of inaccuracies...). The crime library source is talking about the FBI typology of the situational offender subtype--aggressive/impulsive/opportunistic, not incest offenders/regressed offenders. It's important to distinguish what you mean when you say "situational," because it has at least two meanings--1) the opportunistic impulse attacker 2) regressed/intrafamilial/incestuous. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I got "the idea" that pedophilia cannot be cured from experts and research in this field. And I was not saying whatsoever that situational offenders will not offend again. I was merely giving an example of a situational offender possibly not offending again and, how, if the implication on him is that he is a pedophile, that it can be misleading to act as though he is cured. Sure, a pedophile who never acts on his sexual desires again may be looked at as cured as well. But pedophiles are considered to have a mental disorder that can be treated but not cured. Situational offenders aren't deemed to have a mental disorder (at least not the mental disorder of necessarily being pedophilia). As for three of the sources I used, I am quite aware of what they are. I was merely giving examples, as I noted above.


 * I also mentioned Google Books, which I didn't have the time to individually sort through and cite here, as I'm quite busy with life outside of Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IPT Forensics/offender profiling
I think we could probably put together a decent subsection on the issue of offender profiling, but this is not it, and IPT Forensics is not a reliable source.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempts have been made to use offender profiling to identify pedophiles, however, these methods have come under criticism for making claims that are in excess of what the evidence supports. '''

Questionable notability of theories
I'm not seeing these theories anywhere except IPT, ipce, and Paidika. Is there any evidence that they have notable acceptance in mainstream sources? -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

German psychologist Michael Griesemer theorized that pedophiles miss the switch of sexual interest from prepubescent to postpubescent partners (so-called sex-dimorphic maturation of the frontal brain) that usually occurs with the onset of puberty. Noted American sexologist John Money differentiated between affectional and sadistic pedophilia. He believed that affectional pedophilia was caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic.


 * Note that ITP is not IPT. John Money is a highly notable sexologist, and his hypothesis should definitely be included. IIRC, Judith Levine cites his hypothesis in Harmful to Minors, a widely-known book. Griesemer's hypothesis, which was published in Forensische Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie and presented at the 9th Conference of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders, was described in Horst Vogt's book Pädophilie. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but they're not notable. No mainstream sources cite them. They're not part of any expert synthesis. Their theories aren't notable enough for mention here (And both Money and Greisemer go off on weird tangents...) Citing them gives a very false impression of the notability of their ideas. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The prominent adherents required by WP:UNDUE -- Money and Levine -- have already been provided. We don't exclude simple minority views from having even one sentence. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis of surplus parental affection is also described in Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, edited by Jay Feierman, as part of Money's influential theory of lovemaps. Given the notability of this theory, I'm restoring it with a citation to Feierman. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't established the notabiliy at all, actually--you'd need sources comparable to the other notable theories. Being able to source something doesn't equal notability (or weight).-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N does not apply to article content, and the weight criteria have already been met. John Money alone is one of the most notable sexologists in the history of his field, and his theory of lovemaps is widely known. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The points you're missing are that 1) the notability of Money and the notability of his "lovemaps" theory are different 2) the lovemaps theory as it pertains to pedophilia is vandalized lovemaps 3) the vandalized lovemaps theory is a theory of child sexual abuse as a predictive factor in adult offending 4) as a predictive factor in adult offending, the lovemaps theory is not widely cited 5) the predictive hypothesis itself is largely discredited, but I think it would be fine to use the NYT link to Money as a footnote to the statement in the article I reprinted below. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE requires prominent adherents, so the notability of Money is relevant. Judith Levine, too, is prominent. Feierman describes Money's hypothesis favourably in the introduction. This review of Biosocial Dimensions by anthropologist Kathryn J. Dolan says that Money's theory has "tremendous implications." Money's hypothesis is also cited in Nonsex Offences Committed by Child Molesters among only three others.
 * As explained on our lovemaps page, paraphilic lovemaps are a category apart from vandalized lovemaps. While Money believes that childhood trauma (or the like) can lead to the development of the development of a vandalized and paraphilic lovemap, his main hypothesis on the development of affectional paedophilia is one of surplus parental love. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But only his vandalized lovemaps really pertain to pedophilia (and his concept of paraphilic lovemaps is not appreciably different from vandalized lovemaps in that they are both theories about how child sexual abuse produces adult offenders). You would need a number of references on par with the number of references available for the hypothesis that child sexual abuse produces adult offenders--thousands. This is just not a notable theory, but if you would like to use the NYT as a footnote, as I said, I I don't think that's undue weight. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No policy requires I produce thousands of references for anything. Please actually read WP:UNDUE. Minority viewpoints with prominent adherents merit mention. As for your comments on lovemaps, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Paraphilic lovemaps are not generally vandalized lovemaps. Besides, Biosocial Dimensions is vastly more reliable and academic than any newspaper article, and the NYT only mentions pedophilia once. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many ways of overstating the notability of something/giving it undue weight--in this article, devoting a sentence to this totally non-notable theory gives it undue weight (We do not have to mention every fringe theory with a sentence in every article simply because it exists). This theory is just not notable because it was cited by Levine and that book icpe loves so much--it's never cited in mainstream sources as even a vaguely plausible theory. The only way it could possibly fit in here without undue weight for a fringe theory is to locate it as an example of the kind of theory it is: speculation about child sexual abuse as factor in producing adult offenders. (And paraphilic lovemaps refers to all paraphilias; Money talks about pedophilia in vandalized lovemaps, as the NYT notes. The NYT is a mainstream source.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break to separate discussion re retrospective/prospective research

 * Money could possibly used as a footnote only (among others) for this statement: "One possible risk factor for development of the disorder is the experience of sexual abuse as a child" with this reference to his idea of "vandalized lovemaps." . The hypothesis that abuse creates abusers was always an unproven hypothesis (And has been largely discredited--the latest large study demonstrated that when all else was controlled for, sexual abuse had zero effect on producing abusers). -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to that last study? I'd like to read it.Legitimus (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On page 11 of this report, there is info on the Williams study (which was small) but found no difference between sexually abused children and controls for adult offenses. On p14 there is a table from the Widom study, which is tracking 908 substantiated cases of child abuse (all types, but including sexual) longitudinally--the table shows a slight increase for sexually abused children (males only) but that neglect is a more predictive factor than sexual abuse. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like this meta-analysis from 1996 (but there was a more recent larger prospective study). Most of the research was retrospective--asking child molesters if they had been abused, and relying on their self-reports. Prospective studies do the reverse--track children with documented cases of sexual abuse perpetrated against them to see if they are arrested as adults for sex offenses against children. (Both conclude that "the intergenerational cycle of violence" is a myth, but especially the prospective studies). Which makes sense, or otherwise there would be an epidemic of female child molesters. (One in five is molested, but a negligible percentage of women are child molesters...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now. Would you say that study indicates that it's a contributing factor though?  Obviously, it is not a reliable predictor, though it would seem to indicate that at least 7% of reported and identified victims go on to offend.  What I wonder is, how did a retrospective study arrive at 0% of convicted offenders having a history? Legitimus (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the retrospective studies (the self-reports of offenders about whether they were abused) always show a percentage, but the majority do not report any abuse--so, even the reports that show the strongest purported connection always show a minority; therefore it's not considered an important predictive factor. There's something else interesting/funny in the 1996 report above--in a footnote--that when offenders were told they would have to pass a polygraph about whether they were truthfully reporting past abuse, they reported a significantly lower proportion... The things that seem valuable from the Widom longitudinal study are that 1) neglect is as significant as sexual abuse (but neither is particuarly significant) 2. becoming victims of commercial sex exploitation is greater than/equal to the risk of becoming sexual abusers. (Which is interesting I think because the research on female victims shows strong (stronger, actually) correlation to CSEC, too -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it speculation or a theory that child sexual abuse is a factor in producing adult offenders. I definitely wouldn't go about saying a child being sexually abused does not contribute to that child possibly sexually offending a child when he or she is an adult. And it has not been largely disproven.

The study Most female child molesters were victims of sexual abuse is indicative of sexual molestation having played a role in them sexually offending children.

There has always been debate over whether child sexual abuse plays a significant role in a child becoming a sexual offender when they are an adult.

An expert in this USAToday article, for example says: ''Most sexual offenders were sexually abused as children; 40% to 80% of pedophiles were raped as a child. The large majority of them learn to do what they do. Others we don't understand as well. Pedophiles often target and abuse children who are the same age the predator was when he was first sexually abused.''

However, this report from SFGate says: ''Researchers can say that if a child experiences or witnesses physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, his chances for molesting children when he's a teen or adult increase. What's certain is that most people who are abused sexually at a young age do not become child molesters. There are simply too many victims.''

But look at the statistics that show over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.

Yet then we have this article that says most sex offenders were not sexually assaulted as children.

And, of course, there's this by Groth, which says: According to a study done by Dr. Nicholas Groth, at least 80% of sexual offenders were sexually abused or exposed to sexual abuse of other family members when they were children.

My point? I don't believe that it's a coincidence that (according to one study) most female child molesters were sexually abused. And, no, I don't believe that reasoning that if child sexual abuse "makes child molesters", there would be more female child molesters is a valid argument. Research isn't saying that if you are sexually molested as a child, you will be a child molester. It's saying that if a child experiences or witnesses physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, his chances for molesting children when he's a teen or adult increase and that it can contribute to him (or her) becoming a child molester. Why are most child molestors/pedophiles men? It most likely has to do with a combination of things, one of those being something that's biologically in the male. I certainly do not believe, however, that anyone is born a pedophile, in the same way that I don't believe anyone is born a serial killer.

It seems that we have three different reports -- One type is saying that most child molestors and rapists were sexually abused. While the other is focusing more on saying that most children who are sexually abused will not become child molestors themselves. And then we have the side that says most child molesters weren't sexually abused as children. It's a complicated topic.

I do feel that Money should be noted for these reasons. Possibly him and other sources which echo or seemingly echo his thoughts on child sexual abuse possibly contributing to adults being child sexual offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to grasp the difference between prospective and retrospective studies, what a meta-analysis is, and what the weight of opinion is. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not confusing the difference between prospective and retrospective studies. I even alluded to above that just because most female child molesters in that study were sexually abused does not mean that most female child abuse victims become adult sexual offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So...what are we trying to say here? In the article I mean? Though exact numbers are difficult to arrive at, I admit I always thought abuse was a risk factor.  My professor used to always sarcastically call CSA "The gift that keeps on giving," to illustrate his observations about later-life symptoms and, according to him, that a fraction of the victims would go on to commit abuse in some way.  He is one man, though he was a practicing psychiatrist and not a researcher.  An interesting observation he made was female victims would not so much act on children as they would act as enablers, dating and marrying men who (as if by fate) would sexually abuse their children, and dismiss it.  I observed this myself quite a few times.  Further, female offenders get away with it obscenely often.  But I'm not set in my opinion.  Ultimately we need to decide what's worth our our trouble to put in this article.  What are the consequences of indicating there is no connection, and what are they if there is a connection?Legitimus (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all that was already in the article (since before I got here): One possible risk factor for development of the disorder is the experience of sexual abuse as a child. We could expand on it with the results of the 1996 meta-analysis (which includes the Williams and Widom studies). We could add the estimated percentages, from the retrospective and prospective studies (and explain the difference). It might be helpful to add that prior to mid-90s, "the intergenerational cycle of violence" was an important hypothesis in sexual abuse, but that it is no longer. (I think I had the same professor as you :-)  Some of the old-schoolers are reluctant to give that theory up, no matter what the research says). I think it's important to be clear about the research, because it's another way of de-stigmatizing survivors. There's still a persistent prejudice against them that they're "damaged goods," and part of that is biased nonsensical fear that since they were abused they will become abusers, and that is not what the research says at all.  It's also another reason to be very clear about the difference between retrospective and prospective research--the number of abusers who say they were abused is higher than the the number of people with verified abuse who became adult abusers. That's two different populations--the group "abusers who say they were abused" and the group "abused who became abusers."  The data on the abusers can't be extrapolated to the abused. Even allowing for self-reports, the population of abusers is not a representative sample of the abused--do you see? -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe better explanation--it's like one of those tricky math-word problems. If 1,000 children were abused, and 7 of them became adult offenders, that's .07 percent--weak link between abuse and becoming an abuser. But if you took those 7 abusers and studied them, and they all reported abuse, you'd get 100 percent--strong link between being an abuser and having been abused. (Except it's an imperfect analogy in that, even in the retropsective studies with high abuse reports, the percentages average out in meta-analysis to a minority even for those retrospective studies.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The stigma on the victim was something I hadn't considered.  I think that theory may be so persistent because perhaps we want to cling to an easy-to-understand explanation for pedophilia.  That and, as they say, "when it rains it pours." Legitimus (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but also, for a while those retrospective self-report studies were all people had to go on. So by the time the propsective studies with a higher evidentiary value were done, the social learning myth already had traction. (Also, it's still in effect for DV--Lenore Walker was right about that.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that all children of sexual abuse are damaged or that most child sexual abuse victims will become child molesters or pedophiles, but research still shows that child sexual abuse may be a contributing factor to adults becoming offenders. The above citation from SFGate makes it clear when it says, "Researchers can say that if a child experiences or witnesses physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, his chances for molesting children when he's a teen or adult increase."


 * Something about this should be noted in this article, as well as being very clear about the difference between retrospective and prospective research--the number of abusers who say they were abused is higher than the the number of people with verified abuse who became adult abusers. That's two different populations--the group "abusers who say they were abused" and the group "abused who became abusers." Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Researchers can say that if a child experiences or witnesses physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, his chances for molesting children when he's a teen or adult increase. What's certain is that most people who are abused sexually at a young age do not become child molesters. There are simply too many victims."--you've misread this: note that she says "can say," not "say" --and then follows it up with what is certain; the observation re the myth is set up and then refuted. (And while this piece is not bad, it's still the popular press, and even if there was something usable here, which there isn't, it would not be appropriate to cite "Jane Ellen Stevens, a science and technology journalist, also teaches at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism" as an expert on pedophilia). -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't misread anything. And now you're playng with words when you say, "Note that she says 'can say,' not 'say'"... That's ridiculous. She is still saying that research is indicative of that. There are often quotes on AIDS from researchers that start off with "Researchers can say" when they are pointing out accuarate details. And just because you feel that she is not the best expert on pedophilia is not a reason to not cite her. Besides, she isn't the only one who says if a child experiences or witnesses physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, his chances for molesting children when he's a teen or adult increase. That's not a myth. And it's not just the popular press who has cited that. She mentions research, which I'm sure does not focus on popular press (at least not soley). But, you know, sometimes you are all for popular press, what's in the mainstream media as opposed to what notable psychologists say. So all this "popular press" talk doesn't really phase me either way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, name one "researcher" she cites. (Hint: she didn't cite any). -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None. (Hint: she didn't have to). Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually--it's "cite the underlying study, not the media article about the study"--in the case of your source, there is no underlying study. (It's a puff piece by a non-expert). -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There you again, Petra, calling the woman a non-expert. But the fact is, you even exclude true experts such as Money, just because you strongly disagree with their findings or theories. Honestly, sometimes I get your points, but I don't agree with all of them. And, yes, I know that scholarly sources are preferred, as Jack says below, but "the alternative" can still be used at times. The new study above about female child molesters, I feel is notable enough to be included in this article, and should be included in a way that continues to stress that despite that, most female child molestation victims or child molestation victims in general don't become child molesters or pedophiles as adults. The way that part of the section is now, I feel is too slanted, in a way of totally discounting that child sexual abuse may contribute to a child offending as an adult. It has not been totally thrown out as a possible factor. Just because it is believed not to contribute to most people sexually offending children as adults does not mean that it does not contribute to some people, no matter how few. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

←Popular press articles are reliable sources sometimes... but when it's a science topic, scholarly sources are preferred, and the pop-press sources can only be used when there is no better alternative. If it's a pop-press source that doesn't even quote or mention a scholarly source, that reduces its reliability (as regards the science; if it's reporting a current event, that would be a different question). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that, Jack. And I must state that I have always appreciated your resolve and tact when working with other editors since you showed up. You are a great editor and I have agreed with you several times on pedophilia-related articles. I just wanted to take this time to say thanks for being so easy to work with. Talk with you later. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break for humor regarding "the intergenerational cycle of violence"
There are also documented cases of abusers who claim abuse as a lame excuse for their actions: -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FBI typologies
This reference notes that post-Groth research found that Groth was more useful as a continuum than a dichotomy; also that the FBI developed its own typology system consisting of six categores, not two. -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting report. I've seen the six category chart somewhere else too, not sure where - I'll try to find it.  This report points out that situational offenders are not completely situational in that more than just an opportunity is required, the opportunity interacts with what they call a "'stable' tendency of an individual with a past history of antisocial acts."  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a another typology scale in that report also in addition to the FBI one, called the MTC: CM3 classification of child molesters, developed in 1990 but still studied in the 2000s. This one covers a continuum but omits sadistic forms due to lack of data for that typology at the time it was developed:
 * Axis I
 * Assesses the extent to which the offender is fixated with children (on a continuum)
 * Measures the level of social competence of the offender
 * Axis II
 * Assesses the amount of contact the offender has with children (e.g., exclusively involved with extrafamilial children, abuses own children)
 * Meaning of the contact (sexual and interpersonal)
 * Amount and type of physical injury involved in the contact (including threats and use of force)

There's so much information available in the new reports that have been located, it's going to take some time to organize and summarize. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's overwhelming (and there's more! :-) This is why I was so lazy about it when we removed the Groth fixated/regressed typlogy from the child sexual abuse article, and just said "looks like cut and paste from textbook circa 1985."  Research has gone way past Groth/Groth isn't used anymore as a strict dichotomy and hasn't been used that way for a long time. (The definition of pedophilia in the lead shouldn't go into detail about typologies of offenders, but elsewhere in both this article and child sexual abuse we should try to present a coherent summary of intrafamilial/incestuous/regressed/situational  v. fixated/extrafamilial, the original Groth dichotomy, the continuum it has morphed into, the relative uselessness of a dichotomy in comaprison to a continuum because of the overlap between extrafamilial/intrafamilial offenders, the research on pedophilic offenders who prefer boys, and how they have the most victims, but how that doesn't make incestuous offenders comparatively "harmless"/neither is better or worse, etc -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The FBI typologies are drawn from Holmes and Holmes Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool, now in it's third edition (2002) and available on Google Books   It's a textbook rather than a study though.  I agree though, this is a lot to wade through.  Maybe some of the WikiProject: Psychology group can help out.Legitimus (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can all slowly collaborate on an article about sex offender/child sex offender typologies, then we could summarize the main article here?  (and at child sexual abuse--would solve both problems to have one main article to summarize...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of overlap among many articles. Let me chart this out:  There is child sexual abuse, the act.  There is pedophilia, mental illness that may lead to act, though act can occur without it.  There is sexual offender and sexual predator, legal/social terms for persons who commits any of several acts.  Do we want to make Child sexual offender (currently redirects to CSA) or is editing of the aforementioned advised?  I don't want to get too tangled. Legitimus (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, sexual predator is very short, and looks like it refers mostly to the concept of SVP. Sex offender looks like it refers mostly to registered sex offenders, and laws about that. Maybe the article we want to create is child sex offender typologies? (there's more than enough info for an article, and that way neither child sexual abuse or pedopilia will get too weighed down with detail, but there will be a place for the detail/it can be wikilinked from both articles, so even if we have to oversimplify here it's not lost...?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Research may have gone "way past Groth", but Groth is still used as a dichotomy, whether strict ot not, in a variety of sources, as I pointed out above. My father is in law enforcement, and they categorize child molestors as either pedophiles or situational offenders. He specified that it is still that way in a variety of police establishments. I didn't have to just take his word for it, research shows this. Hell, it's even still used on fictional law shows critics have praised for accuracy...such as Law & Order. All this talk about Groth's paradigm no longer being ideal is false. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Groth's not rubbish, but rather a major predecessor in this area. He started some of this work and modern systems have merely expanded on it.  For instance, the FBI Holmes model has situational and preferential (aka fixed aka  pedophilic) as the two major categories, and then breaks them down further into smaller types.  Mind, law enforcement does not necessarily need to break it down that far for most cases, so it's understandable if they still refer to only two types.  Why are we arguing?  Groth's dichotomy would still be part of anything we would add.  It's just a lot to wade through. (PS I prefer Criminal Minds)Legitimus (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The law enforcement/FBI typology system isn't actually based on Groth's fixated/regressed dichotomy--it's a different system based on Park Dietz: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=104927 -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on Discussion prior to Controversial Editing
Reminder for everyone to earnestly attempt discussion and consensus-seeking prior to incorporating a controversial edit into the article. This holds especially true for PetraSchelm and AnotherSolipsist - it's pointless and quite unproductive to keep adding and removing content without reaching any real consensus first. This is getting us nowhere. Also, simply posting something on the Talk Page does not qualify as consensus or justify insertion of a controversial edit with a summary of "per talk." Please, let's try to work together here, not edit war. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (cur) (last) 02:05, 14 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (37,651 bytes) (no, that is *not* per talk--that's another thing you do; post a reply and then immed. revert without waiting for response--it's not exactly good faith discussion) (undo)--yes, I'd like to think this edit summary inspired him to stop, but actually he only stopped reverting and started discussing because he ran out of reverts :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

History of DSM definition/+ link to fuller DSM
"In the first edition of DSM-I (American Psychiatric Association, 1952), pedophilia was listed as one of the "sexual deviations." Pedophilia was labeled "sociopathic" because of its conflict with societal mores. In DSM-II (American Psychiatric Association, 1968), pedophilia remained a "sexual deviation," but "sociopathy" was gone and pedophilia fell into a group of "nonpsychotic mental disorders." Then, in DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980), pedophilia was included in the group of paraphilias. It was diagnosed for sexual activity or fantasy of sex by an adult with a prepubescent child. The acts needed to range from "repeatedly preferred" to the "exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement" (p. 272). But "isolated sexual acts with children [did] not warrant the diagnosis" (p. 271). In DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987), the requirement was scuttled that sex with children needed to be "repeatedly preferred." Pedophilia was diagnosable in persons who also had a sexual interest in adult–adult sex."

Here's the fuller DSM, which noted that incest offenders are specified as a subtype of pedophile:

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

psych disorders/substance abuse
Is there somewhere else maybe that this belongs, or did Fagan make a causality/correlation argument that can be quoted--I don't see how this relates to "causes" of pedophilia. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pedophilic sex offenders have elevated rates of psychiatric disorders and drug abuse. "


 * That's not exactly what it says, here's a quote from the abstract:


 * "Proximate risk factors for its behavioral expression are prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders and substance abuse disorders."


 * Also, note there has been confusion with this reference. The correct spelling of the author's name is Fagan, not Fagin, that's resulted in incorrectly named reference tags - should be faganJAMA, not faginJAMA.  I fixed those tags for the whole page, but in one of the reverts, someone changed some of them to the wrong spelling - that's why the reference got lost.  The URL for the abstract is in the corrected footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, I see. So should we put it back in "causes" section with text like, "While not causes of pedophilia itself, comorbid psychiatric illness--such as personality disorders and substance abuse--are risk factors for acting on pedophilic urges." ? -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems appropriate to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

POV and heads up
Where am I getting that pedophilia cannot be cured? I almost cannot believe you even asked that. From many sex experts is where. This isn't about mhamic, which you call an unreliable source, and which some here have disagreed with that assertion. Your need to inject POV into this article of what you think pedophilia is and what does not cause it is ridiculous. Using a 1996 citation to assert that child sexual abuse couldn't possibly contribute to adults sexually abusing, when new sources today still cite it as a possibility is ludicrous. The new study above about female child molesters shows that it is still a noted factor, and other sources clash with your thoughts. Experts on shows such as CNN and FOXNews still cite "cycle of abuse". As I stated before, I highly doubt that it's a coincidence that most female child molesters in that study were sexually abused. It can't be that different for men. Most victims don't even report their abuse. But I'll take care of all of this later. And the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to reread RS: "In science, single studies are usually considered tentative evidence that can change in the light of further scientific research. How reliable a single study is considered depends on the field, with studies relating to very complex and not entirely-understood fields, such as medicine, being less definitive. If single studies in such fields are used, care should be taken to respect their limits, and not to give undue weight to their results. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist)." So, for example, it's always better to seek a meta-analysis on a subject (preferably a Cochrane review if there is one), not to google for single studies and try to make sense of them yourself, which is OR of the SYN variey.  (Hence the 1996 meta-analysis from the GOA is preferable). WP also doesn't advise citing the popular press in science--always better to use a cite for the original study, not the FOX News version, as popular press coverage is not optimally reliable in the sciences. Mhamic is not a reliable source--it's a self-published website maintained by a layperson who interprets studies himself in his own amateur style. Likewise, your dad, TV shows you have seen, etc--not RS or useful for the article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't patronize me, or tell me to read a policy that I'm quite familiar with. I know that my dad or fictional television shows are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia. I'm simply pointing out that you are wrong, which you are. It's not "popular press in science" who disagree with you but rather actual experts in this field, and new studies, whether you feel they are less important or not. Those experts on news shows are still experts, no matter if you feel that their reports shouldn't matter. If they didn't, they wouldn't be on those shows.


 * Oh, and I'm not some meager 25-year-old child or Florida hick who has simply read on this subject. Your acting as though you are of superior knowledge on this topic than me is quite laughable. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't become a Perpetrator

 * For german speaking pedophile oriented folks in germany there is human dignity, real help and high level research: kein täter werden. This is of real international importance.
 * I am a german member of the WikiProject Germany. My ability to argument in hot discussions is limited. I see the subject from the side of human responsibility and dignity: People with pedophile orientation, who - without any doublestandards - face their responsibility, really not to harm human beings, have my respect. While i have no tolerance for the abuse of children and any other sexual abuse.
 * Four questions:
 * Exists the "kein täter werden" project already as a lemma? I found nothing.
 * How would it be well termed as a lemma?
 * Any admin or mentor who can help me to write an article on that project? I doubt to write good enough to make the article defend itself from the beginning. I do not know the customs and interestes around articles of that subject. So i would develop the article slowly on my page, then ask different people to review it, befor it will be released into the ocean.--Fluss (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "lemma." The "kein täter werden" project is mentioned at the end of our Medical therapies section, with reference to . --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The headword in a dictionary is called "Lemma". "Kein Täter werden" possibly is not the best choice for a headword in an english dictionary.
 * I found the project mentioned well in the Medical Therapies section, just without its "label". Its more than just honourable science trying some therapeutical experiment: Its an active, non discriminatory public project with its own website. It has really helped some people and will leave tracks on the long run anyway. An own article would not suffer a lack of material.--Fluss (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Prevalence" section
Our prevalence section equates sexual attraction to children with pedophilia. (This is where it may be helpful to explain that the DSM, since 1987, does not restrict pedophlia to exclusive or even repeated preference). -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful with that section not to confuse people, because it even notes college men (disturbing as it is) being a little sexually aroused by children, as well as a few women being sexually aroused by children, but noting how these people are not pedophiles. DSM says pedophilia is an intense, recurring sexual attraction to children, which is not the same as any sexual attraction to children. Pedophilic behavior does not automatically equate to pedophile, despite the DSM including the act of sexual intimacy with children. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
Can we please be consistent in spelling and use the ped not the paed US spelling throughout the article, even when dealing with UK and Commonwealth based issues/examples and when quoting. Portugal today adopted Brazilian spelling and I am asking this as a Brit myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We only use the ae spelling in quotations, which should remain verbatim unless square brackets are used (see Quotations). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes square brackets is what I was thinking. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Treatment section
The treatment section is a wreck. CBT is the most common current treatment, and there is nothing about that. Cognitive distortions, emphathy training, overcoming denial, etc. Also, wrap-around lifetime management/relapse prevention. The comparison Berlin makes (and ATSA) is to alcoholism, not homosexuality. All the stuff on psychosurgery has undue weight, and implies that this is being practiced. Those refs all look to me like they are about homosexuality, not pedophilia. The applied behavior analysis stuff refers to mentally retarded pedophiles; is not standard treatment. The whole section needs to be reworked. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did some research on this and located most of the many references that were in that section. None of the ones I found mentioned pedophilia. They mentioned mostly obsessive-compulsive disorder, intractable or suicidal depression and Parkinson's disease.  Almost all of the info was out of date, and the few that were more recent indicated that the surgical techniques are not used.


 * Separate searches to find more recent sources regarding psychosurgery for pedophilia came up empty, other than this paper that states: " The neurophysiological bases for hypothalamotomies on humans with deviant sexual behavior appear dubious, the indications make use of questionable scientific and clinical categories and assumptions, few reliable data have been submitted for side effects, and follow-up studies are based on poor methodology. Restrictive regulations against this type of experimental therapy are suggested."


 * Based on the above, I removed the paragraph. If anyone has new information or finds something worth keeping in the references from that section, maybe some of it can be used, but without verification, it appears to be at best a historical glitch that's not important.  Even to mention it as a historical oddity, a clear reference would be needed that addresses pedophilia rather than OCD or other conditions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What we do not know
It is unencyclopedic to say what we do not know, ridiculously so and one editor keeps trying to insert what he believes we do not know. And the twisting of facts and the failure to ref 19th century British law is way unacceptable. This is blatant POV pushing, please can we all get together to neutralise the article, which means no fringe views. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Squeekbox. I will keep my eyes open in the article for anything fringe.  I imagine the article may be prone to such stuff sneaking in. It may also be a good idea to determine which views are definitely majority, and indicate which may lean towards minority in the ethics department (without including fringe). I do get the impression also that some of the research findings can tend to be abused to support fringe views.  Again, its something I'll doublecheck for. Phdarts (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

moved section to talk page for rewrite
The following section from the article is inappropriate and needs to be rewritten. Some of the references are unreliable, and much of the content is original research. Here is the text:

These are the problems:


 * Paidika was a pro-pedophile advocacy journal and is not a reliable source because it's biased.
 * Green's article Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? is a fringe theory in direct opposition to the APA, the DSM, the WHOl, and all mainstream sources. If it is mentioned at all, it must be attributed and noted that it is a non-mainstream opinion/essay, not a peer-reviewed study
 * Reporting tests of sexual arousal as an indicator of prevalence of pedophilia is original research, unless a particular source specifically states that conclusion. Sexual arousal is not a diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, the criteria regards fantasies and urges, not a physical arousal response.  People can have physical arousal responses to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with their desires or thoughts.  Those tests are a research tool; some studies using that tool may report conclusions that mention pedophilia, in which case we can use them.   Otherwise not.
 * The idea that a couple tiny samples totaling less than 300 people, using sexual arousal as a criteria and not the diagnostic criteria, results in a belief that 20% to 32.5% of men are pedophiles is completely absurd., a result of improper synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, the stuff about marriageable age laws is speculative and erroneous--it jumps to the conclusion that many people were married to have sex at that age because it was legal. The law itself does not equal sex. Moreover, we would need a source to claim that this was pedophilia. My understanding of pre-modern English common law/history of marriage is that marriage was the basic economic unit of pre-industrial farming economy, and people were married young out of social/economic necessity, as economic partners in a division of labor. (And if they were married very young they delayed childbearing.) The purpose of marriage was not sexual or romantic. (See Stephanie Coontz writing on the history of marriage). -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the references are unreliable. The only one even approaching that description is Knopf's Paidika paper, which is used for a totally non-controversial claim. "Some" usually refers to a group of at least two things, Jack.
 * Richard Green is a major figure in sexology, and his paper was met favourably. The (many -- Green jokingly commented that the editor had sent it to "every sexologist over the age of 11") peer commentaries on his work were largely positive.
 * The studies cited pertain explicitly to paedophilia and sexual interest in children (e.g., Briere and Runtz, 1989 diagnosed 5% of their sample with paedophilia -- we should probably mention that). Our inclusion of these studies is by no means original. For example, in examining the prevelance of adult sexual interest in children, Bromberg and Johnson (2001) write:
 * "Studies of reporting biases reveal a tendency to under-report atypical sexual interests—including sexual interest in children—and behaviors and to over-report normative interests and behaviors (Catania, 1999; Gribble, Miller, Rogers, & Turner, 1999; Wiederman, 1999), which suggests that prevalence statistics underestimate levels of adult sexual interest in children. [...] Perhaps no less surprising are laboratory-derived findings that even “normal” males (i.e., men from the general population recruited from university settings, employment agencies, and through newspaper advertisements) typically have some degree of erection to photographs of nude female children who are as young as 6 years old (Farrall, 1992; Freund, McKnight, Langevin, & Cibiri, 1972; Langevin, Hucker, Ben-Aron, Purins, & Hook, 1985). Further, approximately 20% of men from college and community samples reported having at least some sexual attraction to children (Briere & Runtz, 1989; Hall, Hirschman, & Oliver, 1995) and 19% of men from a university sample reported experiencing intrusive sexual thoughts about engaging in sexual acts with children or minors (Byers, Purdon, & Clark, 1998).
 * "[...] Recently, however, Briere, Henschel, and Smiljanich (1992) found that 4% of their sample of university women reported some hypothetical likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior with a child given that nobody would know and that there would be no punishment. Similarly, 7% of women from another university sample (Byers, Purdon, & Clark, 1998) reported experiencing intrusive thoughts about engaging in sexual acts with children or minors. In another study employing a sample of female university students (Fromuth & Conn, 1997), 8% of the women indicated at least some sexual interest in children."
 * I can cite other studies which do the same, if you like. This isn't an original synthesis. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with including some of that, as long as the defintion of pedophilia in the lead specifies that it's attraction (and that the explanation regarding the DSM change in 1987 is included near that; also that the ICD 10 doesn't have its own defintion--it's just a numerical classification system, that refers to the DSM for all diagnostic purposes). -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should remain saying that Pedophilia is a sexual preference, as I've stated over and over. Otherwise, it's saying that all child molesters are pedophiles, which is not true. And it confuses this article when even it notes that not all child molesters are pedophiles. The DSM doesn't even simply say "attraction" but rather that it's an intense, ongoing attraction.... If the lead says "intense attraction"...then I'll be fine with it, seeing as I don't see that as that different than saying "sexual preference". Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Petra may have been talking about the lead of that section. Either way, I'm okay with what Petra has suggested.


 * Whether it's the actual lead of this article or the lead of that section, though, I feel it should be noted that pedophilia is an intense sexual attraction to children if we are to once again modify its definition in the actual lead or just mention its definition in the Prevalence section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just coming back to note that I just read the recent lead of this article a few minutes ago, and it seems to get the point across really well, combining both "sexual preference" and the specific DSM definition. It flows quite nicely. Great compromise, everyone.
 * And, AnotherSolipsist, yeah, cite more/better sources for what you state above if you can. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? I see no problem with this section at all. Half of the objections raised span from a misreading (or failure to read) official policy. The rest can be dealt with via text alterations.

Stop removing this material without consensus. You reproduce it elsewhere, but as far as the encyclopaedia goes, it is off line. J*Lambton T/C 17:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack moved it to talk once, and the only person who objected was you, just now. That means consensus is against you regarding moving it to talk for discussion, so lose the incivilty and the attitude. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Others have not opined, the basis of removal has already been strongly opposed, and the standard procedure is to discuss this before we remove sourced material.


 * "incivilty and the attitude".


 * How ironic. J*Lambton T/C 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving things to talk is a standard procedure, and there is no one standard procedure. As Squeakbox has pointed out to you, you do not set the agenda on the talkpage of any article, so get off it. And I think no one understands why you haven't been on civility parole since your last comment in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#balancing_re_Boychat.2Finternet -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:EP. J*Lambton T/C 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sociological Encyclopedia quote moved to talk for comment
This sentence does not belong in the first paragraph of the lead - it does not belong in the lead at all:

"According to one Sociological Encyclopedia, the significance of pedophilia 'rests on its unconventionality, an extreme symbol of sexual decadence threatening ‘‘moral’’ communities and nation-states.' Yuill, R.; Evans, D. (2006). 'Pedophilia', in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology"

A analysis of the sociological aspects of pedophilia could be useful to the article, but in the lead it is a diversion that does not serve the reader's understanding of the substantive topic in any way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it a diversion? It cuts to the heart of the matter: "Why is what I am reading deemed so important?". J*Lambton T/C 17:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a diversion because it frames the article, from the lead, as a philosophical or moral question rather than what it is: Pedophilia is as a mental disorder, not a moral issue, other than when it results in action of abuse. The sociology of how communities view the mental disorder is of interest for a section of the article, but not as a frame for the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a small, attributed quote from an encyclopedia, that does not reinforce your self-declared bias towards "Pedophilia is as a mental disorder" (IMO, it is just an aberration, but who cares - we're not here to script articles according to our own personal beliefs). Pedophilia sans abuse is most certainly a moral/ethical issue in the mainstream media, and even in professional circles, as exemplified by the case of Kevin Brown.


 * If you want to perform magic tricks with sourced material, I suggest that you make it reappear somewhere else in the article, before your opinions are supported by a consensus of editors (see below). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pedophilia is defined as a "mental disorder" in the DSM, it's not my bias, it's mainstream science. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Science, let alone "science says" is not any kind of absolute authority over an encyclopedia, nor is it the secular religion. And majority science is not "the science". <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Preserve Material
WP:EP

Some even see fit to remove sourced material without consensus. This leads to a great deal of grief for all editors. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 17:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exceptions include:
 * original research
 * irrelevancy
 * In this case, both of those two exceptions are at issue, and are being discussed. If "attraction" itself isn't pedophilia, then none of those studies belong, and including them is both irrelevant and an OR extrapolation. Which is blatantly obvious, from the above discussion.-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Both points are hotly contested (already proven). 2. We are dealing with the even higher standard of sourced material (give it some time, and wait to see what others think of the source in question). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 17:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment makes no sense. What is "hotly contested" and at the same time "already proven"? Discussion is already in progress re "give it some time."  If you object to that material being moved to talk while discussion is in progress, too bad; consensus is against you. "Sourced" material has to meet other requirements than merely being "sourced" as has been repeatedly explained to you. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive my grammar - I intended "which is already proven" (by the arguments on talk). You may wish to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia Policy as well as imperfect English. The guidelines set out are for removing material in the first place. You can't simply remove it, and use a lack of objection as justification for that move, as 1. A lack of objection may equal a lack of users, 2. Some users may not understand policy, 3. One does not have to state their objection "not to support" your actions.


 * This will go to a board, if you do not cease such disruptive and censorious behaviour. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please run, don't walk to report everyone else at this article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want irrelevant to an introduction on pedophilia:


 * "Often, the impetus behind such "pedophilic behavior" is the belief (seen by some professionals as a delusion) held by the adult that their behavior is helpful and pleasurable to the child. However, they do often tell the children to keep the act secret from parents and authorities alike." <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh you mean the "poorly worded" sourced two sentences I put in that reflect what the *consensus* of professionals believe? How about I provide more support on the consensus of mental health professoinals, policy makers, and the community of Western Civiliation - "pedophiles are notorious rationalizers, using excuses such as "it has eduational value for the child," "the child gets rewarded with sexual pleasure," or "the child was sexually provocative and wanted it."  Methods of preventing disclosure range from direct threats to being very generous and attentive to the child's needs." From "Essential Psychopathoogy and Its Treatment" by Jerrold S. Maxmen and Nicholas G. Ward, MDs.  Furthermore, it's an absolute mythology perpetuated by pedophilia advocates that children are sexual in any sense close to adult sexualtiy.  Sexual behavior in children is extremely rare.  Curiosity about other children's genitals, imitation of activities seen in movies, is not sexual behavior.  This argument is simply another in a long line of prevarications to justify thoughts and/or behavior that is immoral at the very least.  Prevarication is at the very root of the condition, so these two sentences cannot be removed or compromised, and still maintain an objective article that reflects the consensus of professionals and common sense, not the consensus of a handfull of people who disagree. Googie man (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sparked you, Googie man. Please make your contributions, but don't bias the article. Your opinions appear to be very strongly held, and for some reason you see fit to argue against others (not needed here). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So does this mean that Democrats can't edit the George W. Bush article, or that Jews can't objectively edit articles on Nazis. Believe me, the opinions I have are completely kept to myself. What I'm bringing in to this is 3 years of graduate school, and five years of clinical experience working with a wide variety of people, including pedophiles, and those who were molested.  Seems to me this is ultimately a semantic issue.  People who believe that pedophilia is a sexual orientation are chosing a label with too much baggage associated with it, and a definition that already has a firmly established meaning.  Trying to change the definition of the meaning just uses arguments that I find disingenous.  Anyway, the debate here is much more intellectually stimulating that deciding what infobox colors should go on the Reggie Jackson article.  Googie man (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are still misunderstanding other editors -- and your own words (opinions kept to yourself?). I want you to edit, but to edit neutrally. There are various reasons why I am doubtful, and these do not belong on a talk page. It has nothing to do with you being anti-pedophile (which I would not have known, if you really did keep your opinions to yourself!). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 00:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's discussing material he proposed for inclusion in the article, and the discussion is perfectly appropriate (especially considering that you called it "an irrelevant introduction to pedophilia," to which he is responding). -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply can't see how putting in accurate information from credible sources that reflect decades of consensus on the issue is interjecting my own opinion, i.e. bias. I find Auschwitz extremely distasteful, but that doesn't mean that I can't edit articles about Nazis without interjecting my opinion that they were all criminals.  I think all references explicit or implied, with my previous conflict with AnotherSolipsist, to whom I apologized, should be left out of the current discussion.  I've been a positive editor of Wikpedia for several years, this is an issue in which I take great interest, I'm not going anywhere.  Furthermore, if there is something I'm misunderstanding, I'm more than happy to take that into account, and have the misunderstanding explained.  Also if you want to know what sparked me, here it is - I go through the trouble to drive down to the library, find a credible source, put in the information to Wikipedia, then in a matter of hours its reverted.  I didn't just make this up what I edited into the article.  If you found it poorly written, then change it, don't take out two hours of my time entirely for whatever reason. Googie man (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well instead of an answer to my legitmate respectful question here, I get an accusation of "slavering" for a "Wikipedophile" scandal, and some vague threat about lawsuits. So let's discuss lawsuits here.  First off, with a libel suit there is a great burden of proof upon the plaintiff, so the courts won't be more clogged more than they already are by people who believe that feeling insulted is tantamount to libel.  This is of course a free society, and the laws and legal traditions are strongly on the side of free speech.  The very same laws that protect such things as pedophilia advocacy.  Furthermore, let's examine what I said.  First was I asked a question.  I didn't lie, I didn't lie and say someone did something, I didn't name a name.  There was nothing malicious, even though you don't like what I said.  And how can you harm the reputation of someone who is unknown? I have no idea who AnotherSolpsist is?  I addressed a question to an anonymous person who could be one of oh, probably 4 billion people in the world right now who have the capability to use the internet.  Further furthermore, let's just say that I made a lot of edits about the Holocaust, and Nazi Germany, and I made edits such as "The Nazis simply were doing this out of their own self interest and what was best for the German society."  If someone asked me "are you sure you're not an anti-Semite, and you've never actually discriminated against a Jew?", I certainly wouldn't be insulted, alarmed, or get in a tissy.  I wouldn't care - at all.  And I'd answer the question.  I have nothing to hide.  Further further furthermore, there is no lawyer in the universe who would take this case, as no one would stake their reputation over a spat on a website, which is legally speaking a message board.  And as you and I both know, there are a LOT worse things said on a message boards.  Millions of worse things.  A day.  Also, I made a sarcastic joke about "sympathizing" with something.  I hear all the time from people who don't like my political beliefs that I sympathize with baby-killers, that I sympathize with Godless devils, that I sympathize with evil, blah blah blah.  Fine.  I don't care.  All sound and fury signifying nothing.  And that's what anyone should think of MY beliefs if they are confident in their own.  Now, when will you stop leaving statements about ME on MY talk page, and discuss the issues?  Will anyone answer my questions about how my edits are not objective and how I'm wrong on this issue?  Googie man (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I never threatened lawsuits. I said that if you replicate your behaviour against AnotherSolipsist, with some other wrongly accused, you are effectively asking for one. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Never overtly threated - veiled threat, sure. But as I've abundantly said, the issue of me is over.  How about some real issue discussion.  At my talk page, please?  Googie man (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Now let's discuss the accustion that I *want* negative attention given to Wikipedia, and another, what was it, I want a "Wikipedophile" scandal. I'm not going to tell you exaclty how as I don't think you deserve that information Jovin Lambton, but I've put in a few years of my life to Wikipedia. I think it's an amazing project, something that's revolutionizing the dissemination of information, and we're all watching it happen right now. The revolution started with the Guttenberg press, is in part coming to an end, because of Wikipedia. So, and I will make this abundantly clear, ONE OF THE LAST THINGS I WANT IN THE WORLD IS FOR ANY ILL FATE TO BEFALL A PROJECT I'VE DEVOTED A SIGNFICANT PROPORTION OF MY LIFE IN HELPING. Another last thing I want Jovin Lambton, as long as we're talking about me, is for Wikipedia to be infiltrated by any group, whether it's New York Mets fans, anti-Islamisists, neo-Nazis, pedopahilia advocates, anyone who threatens the cornerstone of Wikipedia, NPOV. I, by the way, have just as much grounds now for a libel suit, as anyone I've addressed ever on Wikipedia, as I've been accused now of some pretty serious things. But I don't care, at all. Accuse away. But I'm really done talking about myself. I really REALLY want to discuss issues now. I am old news in this matter. Googie man (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly Lambton should not be the arbiter of what is neutral in this or other pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When is someone going to explain to me how and why the two sentences of information I edited in arePOV pushing when there's objective documenation and sourcing, or explain why it's "poorly worded", or inaccuarate. When is someone going to discuss with me how my "tendencies" lack objective merit?  I've been told it's "tragic" the consequences of people like me, that I want bad attention brought to Wikipedia, but I've been told nothing useful when I'm conciliatory and trying to understand.  Googie man (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only tragedy seems to be the way you are being treated as a new editor to the subject. This page is for discussing article details, if others stray off the subject best just to ignore them. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I never accused you of wanting anything. I asked another user whether they want all this to happen, after they (IMO) irresponsibly encouraged you to participate. I am not against you participating, as long as you keep to your promises. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking space up with my long-windedness. Thanks SqueekBox - Googie man (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeat Question
"When is someone going to explain to me how and why the two sentences of information I edited in arePOV pushing when there's objective documenation and sourcing, or explain why it's "poorly worded", or inaccuarate."

I find that when some people lose an argument, or you ask a question they cant' answer, they will throw in the past to distract the discussion from the issue, and make veiled personal threats. Nonetheless, I would like an answer to the question above, as the sourced statement I put in was taken out twice - once because it was seen as POV pushing, once because it was poorly worded. I'd simply like to know why on both accounts. Googie man (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is neutrality?
RFCsoc

The first version, which currently has a small number of editors favouring it, confuses me greatly:
 * Pedophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pedophiles demonstrate elevated sociopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. Pathologic personality traits in pedophiles and lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior. A review of qualitative research studies published between 1982 and 2001 revealed that pedophiles use cognitive distortions to meet personal needs. They justify abuse by making excuses, redefining their actions as love and mutuality, and exploiting the power imbalance inherent in all adult-child relationships. Other cognitive distortions include the idea of "children as sexual beings," "uncontrollability of sexuality," and "sexual entitlement-bias."

J*Lambton's redacted version:


 * According to some studies, pedophiles may suffer from impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, some professionals claim that pedophiles demonstrate elevated sociopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. These theories lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior (sampled from an outpatient clinic for sex offenders). A review of qualitative research studies published between 1982 and 2001 suggested that child sex offenders use cognitive distortions to meet personal needs, justifying abuse by making excuses, redefining their actions as love and mutuality, and exploiting the power imbalance inherent in all adult-child relationships. Other cognitive distortions in child sex offenders are said to include the idea of "children as sexual beings," "uncontrollability of sexuality," and "sexual entitlement-bias." <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's society's job to condemn pedophiles, and endorse theories without question not ours. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly is not our job to condemn pedophiles, our job is to report things as they are, and if society condemns pedophiles (which is true, I think) then we must reflect that in the article. Neutrality is about reflecting all mainstream views on a subject while avoiding fringe views. I certainly prefer the fist version is giving a more accurate portrayal of how pedophiles are perceived. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "society condemns pedophiles (which is true, I think) then we must reflect that in the article"
 * Yes. Not by way of endorsement, though. Your edit endorses those views by adopting them as givens. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It also misinterprets the sources as studies on pedophiles. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall we RfC? <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 13:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We can Rfc the article, yes, to get further input from outside editors. I do not believe we are endorsing any views, merely presenting the mainstream views that exist. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jovin, you seem obsessed with attacking other editors and to label a version mine is just going to get everyone's backs up. And I only support an Rfc that focuses on edits not editors, there is no "squeakbox" version any more than there is a "lambton" version. I urge you to reconsider your approach as you fully know trying to troll me on the PAW articles will only result in things turning sour, and I use troll to eman not being interested in the issues but only in seeking vengeance against other editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The second version is better. Where opinions differ, as they do with regard to elevated psychopathology in paedophiles (e.g., Glenn Wilson & David Cox, Paul Okami v. Cohen et al., Blanchard), they must clearly attributed. "Some studies" accomplishes this. We should also be careful in plainly calling "children are sexual beings" a cognitive distortion, as that "distortion" is widely accepted by sexologists. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Over-qualifying the statements "some researchers," etc. implies that this is not the majority view, and it is. It should be clearly presented as the majority view, and not watered down to imply that it is not the majority view, that would be a violation of NPOV. "Children as sexual beings" is a cognitive distortion of pedophiles, and it's cited. Pedophiles project adult sexuality onto children. Also, Googie man's psychology today cite should be in this section. It's a perfectly respectable secondary source. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur that the first version is superior; PetraSchelm's comment covered the points well. Also concur that the Psychology Today article is a reliable source.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with AnotherSolipsist that the second version is more reasonable, if not outstanding. The lack of attribution, lack of qualification, and overall partiality of the first version is really not acceptable.
 * Let's be careful not to equate "mainstream" social views with consensus professional views. "Pedophilia is disgusting" is a widespread view; the body of research supporting, say, the connection between pedophilia and sociopathy, while not necessarily controversial, is nothing copious by comparison. — xDanielx  T/C\R 03:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the revised version by Jovin Lambton for the following reasons: Presenting interpretation of information as fact is never a good idea, even when considering the mainstream perspective. Likewise, it's useful to attribute viewpoints to their sources, whenever possible. That said, maybe greater specificity could be incorporated into the paragraph to point out who exactly supports and has presented the ideas in question. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur with users Jack-A-Roe, SqueakBox and PetraSchelm that the majority view should be accurately represented in the article and that tiny minority views should not be. I support the first version. ResearchEditor (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:UNDUE, it isn't "easy to name prominent adherents" for a tiny minority view. Fred Berlin, Paul Okami, Glenn Cox and David Wilson, Ron Langevin and 6 other psychologists in Erotic preference, gender identity, and aggression in men, and Lisa Cohen and 8 other authors, amongst others, have all stated that these studies on paedophilic offenders and outpatients may not be generalizable to paedophiles living in the community. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with users ResearchEditor, Jack-A-Roe, SqueakBox and PetraSchelm.  This article has a long way to go before it looks like an encyclopedia version of what you'd see in 100 different journal articles from 100 on this topic.  We should take out leads from the consensus of trained people who spend their lives doing research.  This article is still full of misleading information.  There are other articles on Wikipedia where extreme minority views are more appropriate.  I've read very long, very well researched articles completely denying the Holocaust - at least the WP article on the Holocaust generally assumes that the event actually took place.  Googie man (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Misleading" is your personal POV. I doubt that you would be able to show us that the current article gives a fair and balanced portrayal on all professional work that applies to pedophilia. Why? Because it sells out almost completely to the medical model, and tends to over-represent and even treat as simple fact, the arguments of assertive medical models with their emphasis on pathology (not good enough, even if that is the consensus). Also, if you would like to take a critical look at the article, you might like to consider the recent inclusion of CSA type observations, and their role of conflating this article's subject of pedo-philia. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are completely incomparable. One topic deals with well-established historical information drawn from an abundance of purely descriptive evidence; the other deals with psychological suppositions. — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I recently added some references to the pedophilia page, I received a request to provide some outside input into this discussion. Although I am happy to do so (I am pretty well read on the topic), my opinion might not be what y’all are looking for.  If I were writing the paragraph myself, I would write something like this:


 * The scientific opinion about the causes of pedophilia is currently undergoing a large transformation. Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem and poor social skills. Until recently, many pedophilia researchers believed that pedophilia was actually caused by those characteristics.  Beginning in 2002, other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues, began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structures and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs, poorer scores on memory tests, greater rates of non-right-handedness, greater rates of school grade failure, and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.  These recent findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic and that the psychological characteristics are results rather than causes of pedophilia.  That is, knowing that one is pedophilic lowers one’s self esteem, etc.  Because these brain-related findings are still new, conventional theorists have not yet provided opinions on how best to interpret them.


 * If that it of interest to others, I can fill the references in.   —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)MarionTheLibrarian


 * I appreciate your knowledge, and your thoughtful participation. I think the structure you propose could be a good solution. My one concern is that the cognitive distortions are very important, and should still be highlighted in a separate subsection, as a significant aspect of pedophilia/acting out pedophilic behaviors. Maybe you could take the paragraph you have started above, which incorporates/explains very well the new brain-based research, and add it to the "causes" section, and the subsection that is now "psychopathology" could be renamed "cognitive distortions" and address that? -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * AnotherSolipsist is requesting comment from recent contributors. I'm not sure I can discuss the issue from a NPOV standpoint, so I'll do my best to reason from the perspective of policy. Neutrality, I think we can agree, is the stating of facts without dressing or qualification. To achieve it we must avoid spicing the facts with opinions, either fringe or mainstream (Squeakbox it is not our job to "reflect" "mainstream views", but to "report" "notable views"). For this reason I recommend an edited second version; per MarionTheLibrarian, is not a scientifically unquestionable fact that pedophiles have "impaired interpersonal functioning ... elevated passive-aggressiveness ... impaired self-concept [and] cognitive distortions". These are subjective terms based on the conclusions of several studies, not overwhelming scientific consesus. The conclusion of one or several studies should never be used as textbook-style fact. We do not state the conclusions of Rind et al. as fact for the same reason. Whenever there are significant scientific challenges to something from notable and reliable sources, it ceases to be fact in Wikipedia's eyes.


 * To be objective and neutral, we must state things as they are. It is an objective fact that Mihailides' study indicates that pedophiles have cognitive distortions. It is objective fact that Blanchard and Cantor have found mental abnormalities in pedophiles. We are not being neutral if we say an objectionable thing; we are being neutral if we say a notable source said that objectionable thing. We need to keep everything that is not completely certain in figurative quote marks, and be careful not to over-or-understate opinions. Given the subject's controversial nature, this is the only way to mantain encyclopedic neutrality. --Estemi (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that everyone needs to cool off and play fair. Personal accusations, sockpuppetting, |hiding critical changes in a dozen miscellaneous copyedits without appealing to the talk page, threats, etcetera are not good practice. I realize both "sides" on this issue feel the other is pulling the article into destruction and ruin, and must be sabotaged, blocked, and neutralized at all costs. This isn't healthy. Discussion, compromise, and process are important, and the middle path is probably more neutral than the polarized "ideal" that each individual has in mind. --Estemi (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be useful to remember that studies of pedophilic men are actually studies of >groups< of pedophilic men; the results are group averages. That is, the existence of group differences does not demonstrate that >every< pedophile has the characteristic in question.  It is even possible that only a small proportion of pedophiles have the characteristic in question, but that they have enough of that characteristic to pull down the average of the whole group.


 * Moreover, it remains possible that there is more than one way to develop pedophilia and that different types show different characteristics. Blanchard has recently demonstrated that there is probably more than one biological route to becoming homosexual (not to compare homosexuality to pedophilia).  One route is related to number of older brothers, and one route is related to handedness.  (Again, I can look up the ref, if anyone is interested.)


 * Finally, the research on (groups of) pedophiles is generally based on pedophiles who have actually committed a sexual offense. It is plausible that the biological/neurological characteristics are related to developing pedophilia and that the cognitive distortions et cetera are related to whether a pedophile acts on those urges.  That is, the neurological characteristics would be related to being pedophilic, but the cognitive distortions would be related to whether one controls it or becomes an actual child molestor.


 * Therefore, the most logical approach (to me) would be to put the cognitive distortion data in its own separate section and indicate that scientists have not yet settled on whether those characteristics cause pedophilia per se or make a person more likely to act on already-existing pedophilic urges. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory findings
Whittaker, J. Wilson (2007). "A comparison of neurocognitive functioning in pedophilic child molesters, nonpedophilic child molesters and normal adult males." Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Utah.

This study found that the paedophile offender group displayed a statistically significant reduction in Psychopathic Deviant Score ($$\bar{x} \,$$ = 351.42) compared to both nonpaedophilic molesters ($$\bar{x} \,$$ = 389.09; p in comparison to paedophiles = .026) and controls ($$\bar{x} \,$$ = 377.87). The elevated psychopathy of the controls in comparison to the paedophile offenders, the author notes, may be due to bias in the control group (likely), chance (unlikely), or actually reduced levels of sociopathy in paedophiles.

A good overview of weaknesses in previous studies is also provided, including the probable non-generalizability of this data to nonoffending paedophiles. He notes "pedophiles with frontal lobe damage [associated with sociopathy, impulsivity, etc.] may be at greater risk than pedophiles without such damage for acting upon their sexual interests, which increases the likelihood of their committing a crime, and subsquently increases the chance that they will be caught. [...] Consequently, there exists the possibility that neuropsychological weaknesses evidenced in pedophiles may simply be an artifact associated with self-selection bias..."

Marion's proposal is acceptable. This study should only be added if we choose to use Petra or Jovin's revision. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Comment
With the state of this article right now, if the content of it were used in any master's thesis or doctoral dissertation anywhere in the world, the reviewing committee would laugh it out of existence. Even the first paragraph is a compromise and cowing to the whims of a few extremely noisy advocates with more free time on their hands that I have. If any of us care about Wikipedia having credibility as a source for information, let's begin here by purging this article of all radical content that is far removed from the consensus of decades of research by trained professionals who write on their subject for their livelihoods. The struggle we have on this article is emblamatic of the struggle Wikipedia as a whole faces with its integrity. For the forces of dispassionate consensus, I applaud all of you, and encourage us to never give up. Never. Googie man (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A master's thesis like this, you mean? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A response! Well how about this - I'll read it, check out the university if I can, see who's on the faculty, and get back with you.  Any my point is this - THIS article would be laughed out.  It has had some ludicrous claims in it for almost a year, such as very poorly sourced claims about sexual practices in England at a time when Europe was one of the least developed, backward civilizations in the world.  One should never use the Dark Ages as an example of acceptable practices for our modern times.  Enough though.  I'm going to read this link now.  Thanks for the response, as you have every reason not to believe this, but I am very interested in learning about prevention, as you argued earlier.  Best regards, Googie man (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Short on free time. Let's just say if I were a professor at this University I'd laugh at this thesis, so far anyway.  Very hackneyed arguments on how in days of yore, pedophilia was AOK, as an implied argument for approval of the activity.  Lots of things were AOK back in the 1800's - slavery was commonplace.  Racism was the norm, not the exception.  It argues for making a morality free analysis of pedophilia, but even making that claim is in itself a moral claim.  Kinda circular.  People who find pedophilic activity morally repugnant can still help them compassionately, IF they want the help, and that is a big if.  So thanks, but so far, I find this thesis's arguments hollow.  What's the reputability level of this University?  Googie man (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage is not endorsement. Rejection on your grounds is censorship, and by virtue of removal - revisionism. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Soooooooooo, if someone wrote on the Holocaust article "the Holocaust never existed" and their edit was reverted, and then they yelled "censorship?" should we listen? The issue is not censorship, it's accuracy and consensus.  Everyone uses the word censorship when the consensus goes against their often fringe, specious conclusions.  I would love to write George W. Bush is a terrible President in 700 different ways on the WP article, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic now would it?  And if my edits were reverted, I certainly wouldn't use the "C" word.  Googie man (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Coverage is not endorsement. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then I'm talking about the quality of the coverage. The quality is crap, the removal of crap is the protection of content.  Crap is defined by interjecting articles that cover a particular point of view supported by a very small minority of non-professionals.  Googie man (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you back up your assertion that the article is biased? You could present some articles on PubMed or Google Scholer, that you feel represent the consensus. You could also present a list of professionals who have dealt with these issues. I'm sure that it would end up quite balanced, if we all participated, and would amount to a uselful starting point when dealing with weighting articles. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SHUN: Until an admin indef blocks Jovin, I suggest to the community at this article that he be functionally indeffed through shunning, so that he cannot continue to disrupt. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SHUN is for editors more interested in fighting than collaborating. It's interesting that you would invoke it immediantly after a request by Lambton for collaboration. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Har! Your'e hilarious. And I'm justifiably all out of AGF for Lambton, since his abusive sockpuppetry and legal threats. He should have been blocked for a lot longer than nine minutes, and hopefully for the sake of the project, he will be soon. Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to minimize his disruption by completely ignoring him. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is misleading and off again
Now the start of the lead is again saying that all child molesters are pedophiles. Not only that, but the second part of the lead is contradicting itself again, because it's saying that not all child molesters are pedophiles. Then, of course, the rest of this article contradicts the start-lead, because it's saying that not all child molesters are pedophiles.

The Prevalence section makes it clear, in a quote no less, that not all child molesters are pedophiles. So then, why, do we have the first part of the lead basically saying that they are? Because of the DSM? Even the DSM says that pedophilia is the intense sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Despite the DSM including the sexual act with a child, WE KNOW that child sexual abuse does not automatically equate to pedophilia. Most dictionaries don't even mention that pedophilia equates prepubescent children. They often just say "children", so following the dictionary's lead is off.

The way the lead is now is just causing more harm than good. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Child molestors are pedophiles by definition, ie, American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary: “The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.”    Not all pedophiles abuse children, but people who sexually abuse children are pedophiles.  It's a fringe theory that someone who has no sexual desire for children might suddenly have an uncontrollable urge to molest a kid and then go back to being a regular guy who's not attracted sexually to kids.  (Note, this does not apply to situational abuse of young teens, that's not pedophilia and is a different topic; this comment regards prepubescent children)
 * Pedophilia relates to prepubescent children - as defined in the DSM and in the WHO ICD (they also include "early pubertal" so that could be added to the article) - and regarding the dictionary definition of "child", American Heritage: "A person between birth and puberty." And, there are no sources describing pedophilia as applying to desires for or abuse of post-puberty minors, that's not part of the definition or the diagnosis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded below. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Child molestors are pedophiles by a bad definition. Dictionaries provide lay definitions, sexologists and mental health experts use specific, technical definitions. I am new to the wiki world, but I think the latter is the goal here.—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Stedman's Medical Dictionary is not an ordinary dictionary and does not provide "lay definitions" - it's a from a publisher that specializes in "medical language and reference products". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary has for pedophilia: "An unnatural desire for sexual relations with children." So, the choice is to use the definition that gave rise to the research findings or the definition that is used by the lay public, is inconsistent among medical dictionaries, and makes the research findings irrelevant. In my opinion, the former helps WP readers to bring their understanding of the issues closer to the level of the experts; the latter merely perpetuates what the person-on-the-street already knows. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Perhaps you should read the study quote which is already in the article, which explains that experts acknowledge that a continuum is more useful than a dichotomy, as the overlap is so significant. It's understandable to want black and white defintions, but the verifiable truth is much more grey. Meanwhile, can you take out the entire OR paragraph you added to cognitive distortions? I know you meant well, but that wasn't agreed upon, and its not encyclopedic to write essay-like opinion paragraphs. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As you wish; I'll put back in only the biological summary. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you've combined the information on the "cycle of violence" with biological causes, and the cycle of violence stuff isn't biological--can you separate those, please? -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How could a child molester not be a pedophile? It doesn't make sense, and common usage, which is very important in building the encyclopedia, is that those who molest children are by definition pedophiles, certainly in the UK anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate your opinion, but it is not shared by the experts. I recommend:
 * Freund, K., Watson, R., & Dickey, R. (1991). Sex offenses against female children perpetrated by men who are not pedophiles. The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 409–423.

and the recent, comprehensive book:
 * Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offenders against children. Washington, DC: APA Press.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While the opinion of experts is, of course, important it is not our only consideration in dealing with this article. Why? Because in real life pedophilia goes far beyond expert opinion. It has common usage amongst people, law enforcement, etc, and not solely amongst psychologists and our job is to include all this and not just the psychological views. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seto was actually published in 2007, not 2008, and his main argument is "Contrary to popular belief, not all sex offenders who target children are pedophiles..." Which does prove Squeakbox's point about popular belief, which is not irrelevant to the article. Moreover, the Mayo Clinic is expert synthesis, and puts the number of pedophilic molesters pretty high. And experts, as I noted, believe there is such an overlap between incestuous and nonincestuous offenders that a strict definition isn't possible. The DSM since 1987 hasn't required exclusive preference as a criteria. I think it's fine in the article to express the range of opinion/elucidate the known range of opinion--that is our job, after all--but I am sick of the either/or bickering for a black and white definition that doesn't exist, and absurd quotes of Okami re "proper" use of the term. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Seto was >released< in 2007, but its official publication date is 2008. (The difference between those dates is common.) In the Library of Congress, it's listed as 2008. If you look it up on Medline or PsycInfo, it's under 2008. If you ask Seto himself, he'll tell you 2008. (MarionThe...?) —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. Pedophilia does go beyond professional opinion. However, it also goes beyond medical definitions, within the professional model. Identifying pedophilia as a medical condition in which distress and diagnosis is required, leaves happy and/or undiagnosed pedophiles unexplained. Identifying all molesters as pedophiles is an extremely fringe opinion, even within the medical model. There is much more literature that attempts to classify a proportion of CSOs as pedophiles, as can be seen in the article itself. In my reading, the majority of authors have asserted that a minority of these offenders are pedophiles. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't approach issues from the standpoint of conventional wisdom. This is evidenced by our treatment of global warming and evolution; despite the significant public doubt in the reality of these processes, we respect the scientific consensus that they exist. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is simply not so, AS. These subjects, along with Intelligent design, US alleged gov terrorism and 9/11 all have huge problems with fringe, something JzG (Guy) articulates bteer than most of us but the fact that there are fringe POV pusghers opn allt hese issues in no way trump[s NPOV which is about common perceptions. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Common perception rarely has anything to do with the truth. We wouldn't say that "Humans only use 10% of their brain, despite the claims of a fringe sect of society calling themselves 'scientists," nor would we present evolution as a matter of opinion. Intelligent design, from a non-scientific perspective, is more mainstream than evolution. --AnotherSolipsist' (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Varying public opinions are to be welcomed and documented - not endorsed by the general "tone" of an article. Professional opinions are of paramount importance, when describing controversial psychological constructs such as pedophilia. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AS, we are not here to protray the truth, if it even exists, but what is verifiable. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And not all child molesters being pedophiles is verifiable, throughout this article. It's fact, not some fringe theory. How can not all child molesters be pedophiles? Simple. Because pedophilia is a sexual preference. That quote in the Prevalence section that some were so adamant on including even states such. Jack-A-Roe, you stated, "It's a fringe theory that someone who has no sexual desire for children might suddenly have an uncontrollable urge to molest a kid and then go back to being a regular guy who's not attracted sexually to kids." But that's not what a situational child molester is. They have no "uncontrollable urge" to molest a child. This article makes that clear and why situational child molesters molest children, most of whom have either one victim and far less victims than pedophiles. And it's not saying that none of them were sexually attracted to children. Some of them did/do find children a little sexually attractive. This article even points out "normal men" (ones with no mental disorder) who may have found a child a little sexually attractive at one point. When situational child molesters "find children sexually attractive", it's in that moment while molesting a child. I will bring up situational sexual behavior again, because some sex experts (no, I don't have a source with me at the moment, but even ones that come on news shows) have stated that in the same way a homosexual person who has sex with a heterosexual person envisions having sex with someone of the same sex during the act, often situational offenders will envision an adult partner during the act (no matter how difficult to ignore it's a child they are being sexually intimate with). They try to ignore the fact that the person is a child. That certanly does not sound like someone who is truly sexually attracted to children to me. And the DSM, as I've pointed out, does not even just say "attraction", it says an intense, ongoing sexual attraction. Why? Because pedophiles have an intense, ongoing sexual attraction to children, completely different than situational offenders.


 * Also, while the DSM point out the act, the DSM does not just say that if you sexually abuse a child, you are a pedophile, which is what a few here seem to imply it is saying. The DSM says if the person has acted on intense, sexual urges for a child. Well, if the person who molested the child does not have intense, sexual urges for children, then that means that person did not act on "intense, sexual urges" towards a child. Child molesters who are not pedophiles do not have intense, sexual urges for children.


 * MarionTheLibrarian is right that child molesters are pedophiles by a bad definition. All child molesters being pedophiles is not even a theory, it's a myth, as this article points out several times. We actually want to use the simple dictionary definition? If so, then let's take out the word "prepubescent" before the word child, since the dictionary often doesn't even mention prepubescent, but rather just says "children", which confuses people even more, since society often considers 14-year-olds and other teenagers under 18 children as well. The dictionary simply does not give all the details. It is our job as an encyclopedia to provide a more comprehensive definition, and precise one at that, which is why we add the word "prepubescent" even when the dictionary does not. Going by popular belief? That's the problem. Popular belief also believes in calling adults who have had sex with 16-year-olds pedophiles; they believe in calling it all pedophilia. And they are all wrong. Just as anyone who says that all child molesters are pedophiles are wrong. Experts have stated over and over again that believing all child molesters are pedophiles is not correct. It is our job to go with what the experts/psychological community have confirmed, not popular belief. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except we're not here to discuss the subject in general, or our opinions--the talkpage is for discussing proposed changes to the article. We're here to discuss sources. The primary source is the DSM, which states that exclusive preference is not a criteria (although diagnistically, indicating whether the preference is exclusive or not, and intrafamilal or extrafamilial or not is done).  One can certainly personally disagree with the DSM, and other research can be included, but it will never be correct to insert the opinion "the DSM is wrong," or, I diagree with the DSM, therefore it should be minimized or left out, or only the research that supports my pov that pedophilia is only an exclusive prefence can be included, or, only researchers who support my pov that there is one "proper" use of the term can be included/should be emphasized.  The research as a whole is contradictory, and points to a continuum of pedophilic behavior, not a strict black and white binary/exclusive-nonexclusive. Our job is to dispassionately and accurately summarize and weight existing research and opinion as best we can, not to argue pov. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Petra, I understand what you are saying. But even the DSM is clear in making it a sexual preference when it uses words such as "intense, sexual urges" and "intense, ongoing attraction"... Those are all words used to describe pedophiles, not situational offenders. Situational offenders, as I mentioned above, do not have "intense, sexual urges" for children. That's not an opinion of mine, but a fact. I do not even entirely disagree with the DSM, but to state that all child molesters are pedophiles when the DSM is not even truly saying that and many sources by experts state otherwise is not only undue weight but incorrect. I'd be completely okay with changing the lead to state that pedophilia is an intense, sexual attraction to prepubescent children, like the DSM says, if it is agreed upon here not to use the specific words "sexual preference", since I see "intense, sexual attraction" as saying "sexual preference", anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. That's why I was very specific about why I thought the DSM and the paper you referred to should not be given much weight. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

DSM IV TR
But your opinion, my opinion of the DSM (or a medical dictionary)--none of that matters. (Frankly, as someone who has used the DSM professionally, I think it is about as accurate as astrology. But it is integral to the insurance billing system. Without DSM codes/diagnosis, no one would be medically reimbursed for anything...) The question is, is the DSM the most widely used definition. The most widely used definition has to carry the most weight. Making end-runs around the most widely used definition to push a pov is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and skews articles. Compare our article to the Wiki article on major depressive disorder, for perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can type it as many times as you like: If you think that the DSM definition should be given more weight than in the proposal I made, then go ahead. As for the accuracy of the DSM diagnoses, several have reliability/validity data published for them, and they range from quite good to quite poor.  I would not treat them all as the same.  I still await your counter-proposal.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Counterproposal for what? For now, as far as I am concerned, what we are discussing is a change to the lead of the article to appropriately weight the DSM (and changes to the paragraph after that to add the history of the DSM, i.e., the 1987 change.). -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At 12:09, I wrote a "Proposed solution to definition problem," to solve the preceding dispute over whether the definition of pedophilia should be broad enough to include all child molesters as pedophilic. At 17:23, you said that my proposed definition was RO, so I said what my sources would be, and we were off of the races (and all over this page). So, to my mind, it would seem that another proposal is necessary to solve the original problem at which my proposal was aimed. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused about how things work--if one editor criticizes your "proposal," you can rewrite it, but no one has to make a "counterproposal," and other editors have to weigh in. When you come up with a whole paragraph that is rejected on grounds, it's unlikely to go in the article; you should break it down into points that you want to make and suggest those. (The gist of your paragraph was that you wanted to assert that "scientists and sexologists..." all say one thing, but clearly, that is not what they say; opinion is more divergent. So that would never go in the article, immediately someone would come and change it to clearly attribute the sources you use so that it doesn't sound falsely like "fact", and insert sources who say the opposite. Right now, in my opinion, it's more useful to focus on the lead, which we've been discussing for quite a while (and if you look at the peer review for this article, years). -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your description is exactly as I understood things. I am saying merely that I (still) believe my proposal to be rather accurate and sourceable. You are free not to like it, of course; I am merely challenging you to produce a superior one. If you have been attempting to do so for years, without success, then perhaps your dismissal of mine suggestion is hasty. I await both another suggestion from you and input from anyone else who would care to. Despite my wiki-youth, folks appeared quickly to appreciate my prior suggestion. (Although there is always beginners' luck.) —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a superior explanation already in the article; why would we degrade it by inserting false information like the three sentences beginnning "scientists and sexologists..."? -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Superior"? By what standard? "False"? My refs don't exist? "We"? Has someone else offered an opinion I cannot see? As I said already, I am happy to compromise, adjust, and listen to alternative proposals. But using more and more extreme language won't convince me of very much. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as has already been explained to you several times, it is false to claim "scientists and sexologists say" because they do not all say that. The information that's already in the article is superior because it doesn't make any such false claim. As has also been explained to you already, putting refs on your opinions doesn't make them true; you're making false claims about the refs, so attaching refs to the claims doesn't verify the claim. There's another policy you should read, since you are so new--WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe AnotherSolipsist could help you understand it; I know that's something he has struggled with. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I already said that I'd be happy with that phrase being watered down, are you sure I am the one who needs to read that statement?

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, "Petra, I understand what you are saying. But even the DSM is clear in making it a sexual preference when it uses words such as 'intense, sexual urges' and 'intense, ongoing attraction'... Those are all words used to describe pedophiles, not situational offenders. Situational offenders, as I mentioned above, do not have 'intense, sexual urges' for children. That's not an opinion of mine, but a fact. I do not even entirely disagree with the DSM, but to state that all child molesters are pedophiles when the DSM is not even truly saying that and many sources by experts state otherwise is not only undue weight but incorrect. I'd be completely okay with changing the lead to state that pedophilia is an intense, sexual attraction to prepubescent children, like the DSM says, if it is agreed upon here not to use the specific words 'sexual preference', since I see 'intense, sexual attraction' as saying 'sexual preference', anyway." Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, except here's the DSM IV TR/2000, which clearly and explicitly does not define it as a sexual preference, because it indicates that a diagnosis of pedophilia should be further clarified to indicate if it is exclusive type or nonexclusive type: -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:

Sexually Attracted to Males Sexually Attracted to Females Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

Limited to Incest

Specify type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children) Nonexclusive Type

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association


 * I see no conflict between the text of the DSM-IV-TR and what Flyer22 wrote. Urges, fantasies, and (six months of) behavior are merely various ways by which to infer the preference.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the paraphilias require an exclusive sexual preferences for diagnosis or defintion; they all indicate that sexual exclusivity be noted as further clarification, not as diagnostic criteria; this was changed in 1987. Whether Flyer means "preference" as sexual orientation/exclusive preference is the issue; the article should clearly state that the DSM explictly does not define pedophilia as an exclusive sexual preference--it does include those who do not have an exclusive preference for children. (Think for a moment about what that would mean--all married pedophiles would be excluded, no matter how many children they molested or how fixated they were...) What the DSM excludes is noted by the US Gov here (i.e., it excludes the one-time psychopath or sociopath without the six months as "situational," but not the "regressed" incest offender (here's one place where the difference between what is meant by "regressed" and "situational" is clarified): -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the earliest taxonomic systems for child molesters, which were based exclusively on clinical experience, three subtypes consistently appeared:


 * o Offender with an exclusive and longstanding sexual and social preference for children (Common Type 1).


 * o Offender whose offenses are seen as a shift or regression from a higher, adult level of psychosexual adaptation, typically in response to stress (Common Type 2).


 * o Offender who is a psychopath or sociopath with very poor social skills and who turns to children largely because they are easy to exploit -not because they are preferred or even desired partners (Common Type 3).


 * I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but it would be very useful (to me) if I could see exactly what Petra is proposing as the defintion rather than a perpetual list of what Petra thinks other people should be putting in theirs.
 * Secondly, does "everybody but one" still count as a "consensus;" or is this one of the places where "consensus" has crept to mean unanimity?
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous wording, "pedophilia is the sexual attraction to and/or preference for children" should probably go back in the lead sentence, and more information regarding the DSM should be added to the article where the DSM is discussed, specifically 1) that exclusive preference is not necessary for diagnosis, but diagnoses are clarified by whether they are exclusive/nonexclusive type, and whether they are incest only 2) more info about ego-dystonic aspect, how it was changed in 2000; what criticisms have been made of it. (As a side point, since you are a ten day old editor, you might want to read up on what consensus is, and again I urge you to read WP:NOT--specifically, "Wikipedia is not a democracy."  Consensus is based on discussion, it is not a vote--so, for example, if everyone at the UFO article agreed that UFOs exist, they would not have consensus. Also, you are a tad impatient--dicsussions usually last for a while, at least a day or two, and it is polite to wait for all known regular contributors at an article to weigh in, such as AnotherSolipsist and Jack-A-Roe.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AS I stated above, the DSM still seems to be making it clear that pedophilia is a sexual preferece. I highly doubt that they are calling all child molesters pedophiles. They cannot be that silly. Words such as "intense, sexual attraction", "marked distress or interpersonal difficulty", etc., are indicative of pedophiles. Situational offenders experience none of that, as many experts have attested to. Either way, I am fine with the current lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still not using "situational" in a way that is clear to me--if you mean regressed, yes, they can be diagnosed as pedophiles. Excusive preference is not a diagnostic criteria. The "situational" offenders excluded by the DSM are the random violent indiscriminate one-time only offenders. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm simply saying that not all child molesters are pedophiles, a fact that is backed up by many sex experts and various other valid sources. The DSM isn't even saying that all child molesters are pedophiles. If it's using the words such as "intense sexual attraction", which it does, then it's talking about pedophiles. Situational offenders experience none of that. Even when talking about the act, it's saying people who have acted on "intense sexual urges" towards children. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

removal of reliable source references
This edit:

22:35, 26 May 2008 AnotherSolipsist (Four editors have objected to this misinformation. Restoring previous compromise.)

removed four reliable source references supporting the content that was changed.

The edit summary mentions a compromise that does not exist. The prior and then restored definition was never accepted because it's incomplete and inaccurate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have noted on AnotherSolipsist's talkpage that it is particularly inappropriate to falsely claim consensus for the completely un-discussed inclusion of an unpublished doctoral disseration as a substitute for a medical dictionary: -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The misdefinition of paedophilia as an act is already given space in the second paragraph. The opening should define what we discuss in this article -- a sexual preference for children. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the fact that you lied about having consensus, and that you are substituting an upublished doctoral dissertation for a medical dictionary. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He did not lie. He stated the number of editors in opposition. This is in addition to the fact that Jack's edit goes against previous consensus, erases the established version without consensus and by virtue of implying a medical definition as the subject of this article, ignores undiagnosed pedophiles. Now lets please discuss this politely before reverting it again. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He told a direct lie. He stated that four editors supported the inclusion of the dissertation, when in fact there were none, because he didn't discuss it at all. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Non. If you actually take the time to look at his edit summary, he was referring to the version, not any one source. Face it - sources come and go with versions. Some they fit into, and some they don't. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He lied, period, whether you want to say he lied about consensus or the "previous compromise," (he lied about both, actually) that dissertation was not discussed; not agreed upon by anyone at all.-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So according to you, we can remove sources without consensus, but only add them with consensus. Now I understand. Go read the policies. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 06:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with lying about consensus? Oh yeah, nothing.  -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A claim that was already dismissed, maybe (God, this is boring). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 07:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. -PetraSchelm (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to RS discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#U.S._doctoral_dissertations_and_medical_dictionaries -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution to definition problem
The basic problem is that one definition of pedophilia is used by scientists, clinicians, and the law (for involuntary commitment), whereas another is often used by the public. It would therefore seem appropriate to indicate both usages on the page, but to warn readers (perhaps in each relevant section, because it's a long page) not to generalize information from the scientific/clinical definition to the lay-definition. Something along the lines of:


 * Scientists and sexologists restrict the word pedophilia to refer to the actual sexual interest in prepubescent children regardless of whether the person has ever acted on that interest. In common usage, the term is often a synonym for child molester, regardless of whether the person has a genuine sexual interest in children.  The empiricial findings summarized in the following applied the scientific definition, but because different researchers use different methods to ascertain whether someone has a genuine paraphilic interest in children (such as self-report or phallometry), the original studies should be consulted.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we can't put original research in the article. Also, as they point out at the RS board, we are probably not giving due weight to the DSM definition. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. The Freund article is the reference for the first sentence.  The Seto book is the reference for the second.  And I can produce a great many references as examples to support the third.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still writing as if this were fact, and it is not; it is opinion. "I can attach references to support my pov" does not transform your pov into fact. All of the relevant majority opinions have to be incorporated into the article/definition. (Which gives us a continuum, not a strict binary). And sentences such as "the original studies should be consulted" are didactic/OR/unencyclopedic. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? If I say "Scientists use..." and I present examples of scientists using...What's merely my opinion?
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I (personally) wouldn't worry about the DSM. It's under revision at the moment, and very few people (even the authors of the section) dislike it.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The DSM is always under revision; there is no "permanent DSM." A little history of the definitions of pedophilia in the DSM should probably be in the article. (See above). Plus maybe something about the proposed excision of the ego-syntonic criteria in the new version, since it is citable/has been published. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The prior DSM came out in 1994, and the committee for the new section on sexual disorders only started last month. To my eye, that doesn't look like perpetual revision, but if you want to add the DSM's current criteria to what I put above, I wouldn't object.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there was a revision, the DSM IV TR, that came out in 2000. The DSM is under constant revision, in that no editon is permanent, there is always another one coming, just as there is no final version of a textbook, they are continually updated in new editions to reflect new research. . -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oy, vey. You're going to go to the mat about a book with MarionTheLIBRARIAN?  The DSM-IV-TR was a text revision only (that's what the TR is for); the diagnostic criteria (i.e., the definitions) were not changed.  At least, they were not not meant to be changed; the time between editions was meant to be much longer.  The reason that any criteria were changed at all was for a rather bizzare error on APA's part: After the committees had completed their work, APA central office added to all criteria (without consultation) an extra criterion for 'distress'.  Because that made no sense for forensically relevant diagnoses, APA also removed it.  New committees were not struck; no other criteria changes were made; they just called back some of the committee-members.  My only point is that of the 15 years or so between versions, only a year or two is spent actually revising criteria.
 * To bring this back to the point and away from the pissing contest, I personally would not worry about the DSM. Nonetheless, as I said, if you would like to add more about the DSM, I would not object.  However, since an argument appears to ensue even when I am agreeing to what you want, there is little insentive for anyone to compromise on anything, is there?  I have presented what I think would be best, and I have proposed a compromise.  If you have any counter-proposals to make, I remain all ears.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care for your incivil language, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a battleground, you have only been editing for nine days, so perhaps you should heed the warning to keep a cool head, and take some time to familiarize yourself with WP: NOT. Further, the fact that the TR changed the definition is significant, and the history of the changing definitions of pedophilia should be in the article, as the DSM is the leading authority, and per due weight we have to note the current definition appropriately. I think giving the history of the changing definition after giving the definition gives a good window into how fluid the definition is and has been, and that after giving the primary definition, which is the DSM definition, (and the dictionary) it is fine to refine it with additonal information (and criticism of the DSM/info about how the ego-dystonic criteria will be taken out). -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

multiple defintions
There are multiple defintions of the term that depend on who is using it and for what purpose. Check out this newly edited version of the intro. All of the variations have citations. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the updated intro has an added paragraph regarding causes and treatment; for an article this long another paragraph is appropriate for proportional size of the lead section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the lead by Jack. I made a tiny tweak to it, but am satisfied with it nevertheless. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I too am happy with Jack's lead.:—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

abstract for Study that Legitimus mentioned above

 * Arch Sex Behav. 2007 Jun;36(3):423-36. Epub 2006 Dec 21. Links
 * The utility of the diagnosis of pedophilia: a comparison of various classification procedures.


 * Kingston DA, Firestone P, Moulden HM, Bradford JM.
 * School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 120 University Private, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada.
 * This study examined the utility of the diagnosis of pedophilia in a sample of extra-familial child molesters assessed at a university teaching hospital between 1982 and 1992.  Pedophilia was defined in one of four ways: (1) DSM diagnosis made by a psychiatrist; (2) deviant phallometric profile; (3) DSM diagnosis and a deviant phallometric profile; and, :(4) high scores based on the Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interest (Seto & Lalumière, 2001). Demographic data, psychological tests, and offence history were obtained and group :differences were analyzed along with the ability of certain variables to contribute uniquely to the classification of pedophilia. Results indicated that few significant differences existed on psychological measures between pedophilic and nonpedophilic extra-familial child molesters regardless of the classification system employed. Finally, results indicated that the procedures used to define pedophilia were not significantly related to one another. Results are discussed in terms of the utility of the diagnosis of pedophilia.

PMID: 17186129

Yes, I've read that paper. The reason they found no differences between methods is because of what statisticians call "shared variance." The different methods use overlapping data, which obscures any differences between them. The correct way for them to have conducted that study would have been to use a sensitivity/specificity analysis. Regardless, I don't see how that paper addresses your point in either direction. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of "the correct way" for scientists to conduct a study is OR, which we cannot use in the article. You should also read over the blockquote that's already in the article regarding the overlap between intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders. The point it, it is pov and factually incorrect to state "scientists and sexologists..." to support your opinion, when in fact they do not agree. After the medical dictionary/DSM definitions, noting other research is fine. But it is not accurate to state that "scientists and sexologists" have a unified opinion, as they do not. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said to put it in the article; I am entirely entitled to my opinion about it on the talk page. If all you have been trying to say is that "Scientists and sexologists" should be watered down, go ahead. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an attraction?
The recent change to the effect of labelling any sexual attraction to children "pedophilic" is problematic. It was discussed earlier, and seemed to work out in favour of a preferential definition.

It is problematic because anyone who is at all sexually attracted to children would be a pedophile as a result of this attraction. This would mean that a lot of historical figures and historical societies can be re-defined as pedophiles or highly pedophilic. Many of the more detailed sources state the need for a preferential attraction too. forestPIG 12:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I don't get that impression reading the article.  The second sentence refers to it as a "preference." "Pedophilic behavior" is separate and means actions taken, it doesn't refer to attraction.Legitimus (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Legitimus has it right. I also agree with Legitimus and Googie man below. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hall et al. 1995
This isn't getting discussed in Talk yet, so I will get it started to head off any editing warring. I would advise against using Hall, Hirschman, and Oliver (1995). The study had a very small sample, and while a noble effort, is not very generalizable. If it is to be included, it will need to be worded very carefully. I have a full text copy scanned from the original journal (as opposed to IPCE's write-up), so I can provide guidance if needed.Legitimus (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you feel is the problem? Sure, it has limitations, but the study was pretty unique in it's approach - that is using phallometric techniques on a volunteer sample from the general public. Similarly, there are limitations to the lead source in this section - acknowledged by the author. With Hall, I have gone to the lengths of dispelling the misconception that 30+% of the sample are likely to be pedophiles. forestPIG 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This study has a number of problems. It is NOT a representative sample of the general public.  It's a sample of people in rural Ohio, who are self-selecting.  More about the selection in a bit. Academics have tremendous pressure to publish, thus the "publish or perish" maxim.  Therefore there is simply a lot of bad research, and this Hall study is one example.  The researchers admit to a possible selection bias, as it's not only possible but likely, that people who have paraphilias are more likely to volunteer.  Many people consider sexual preferences far too personal to volunteer to strangers - that's what makes sex reserach difficult. People who have a lot of free time and whose free time is worth as little as $40.00 are also selected.  You're scraping the bottom of the barrel for humanity here, in other words.
 * The journal in which this was published is not particularly reputable. Furthermore, the study is misquoted, as no where can I find any number like 32.5%.  This study reaches the conclusion that pedophilia should not be a mental disorder because so many people have pedophilic tendencies.  There are at least as many mental health professionals who would tell you that there is now way 32.5% of about 150 million men in the US have pedophilic urges.  If we're going to pay the proper homage to NPOV, let's at least quote the study correctly, and also quote things like this "The slide and audiotape data combined suggest that most normal men are not sexually aroused by nude female children per se, but that some men who report no pedophilic activity are sexually aroused when a female child is depicted as enjoying sexual activity with an adult male."  "Some men" is awfully vague, and very unscientific, but at least this quote brings some balance.
 * Ultimately I don't have the free time or energy to police this article. If it's the consensus to have this study quoted in Wikipedia, so be it, and I'll respect that.  My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this study is very flawed.Googie man (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was never any consensus to have any of those studies in the prevalence section in the first place; they should all be deleted. What's weird about this article is that there's a pov push to do two completely opposite things: 1) establish pedophilia as an exclusive sexual preference which excludes "situational" offenders 2) claim that practically everyone is a pedophile based on sketchy "attraction" research. The attraction reserach is just not relevant, and certainly not in the "prevalence section," which purports to be about the prevalence of pedophilia. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Googie man's hit on several good points I was going to say. In addition the conclusion of the study seemed to indicate that phallometric testing is not that accurate for pedophilia.  It is simply too easy to generate a false positive, especially with the "more excitable" group, who have higher results on everything.  Men can get an erection when they're nervous or even scared, sometimes almost like the "white bear effect." One more thing, one fifth of participants, on hearing what was involved, immediately said "Eww" and left before any testing was done.Legitimus (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur that Hall et al is flawed and should be omitted. Flyer22 has also concurred about this in his her comment at 22:56, 2 June 2008 in the above section.  We have at this point a clear talk-page-consensus to remove that study.
 * I also concur that it is original research to list any studies regarding "sexual attraction" or phallometric tests in regards to prevalence of pedophilia - unless the authors of the study specifically described their interpretation of the results in context of prevalence of pedophilia. All studies that do not directly address pedophilia should be removed as improper synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to exemplify how POV the use of this source is, here's a quote from the home page of the website that quoted the Hall study:
 * "Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults."
 * This is all well and good, and I believe in people's freedom to conduct such discourse. However, it's abundantly clear IPCE is a site with a definite agenda, and therefore and extremely inappropriate source for information.  Googie man (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to clear up that I am female. I usually don't mind people calling me a guy or girl on this site, but I just wanted to make it clear that I am female. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting us know, I've updated my comment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I agree with most of the edits from the IP editors yesterday, and I'm annoyed about people using this article to push their viewpoint. An encylopedia should be value-neutral.

Much of the article is only relevant to child molesters, as it talks about victims and actions, which is irrelevant to pedophilia per se.

The section for "Biological findings", for example, refers to studies using serial child molesters. How are we supposed to understand pedophiles if we use studies about individuals who go around raping children? We can't understand heterosexuals or homosexuals by studying people who rape women or men; the same applies in the case of pedophiles.

The section for "Psychopathology and cognitive distortions" is also irrelevant. Statements such as "they justify abuse by making excuses, redefining their actions as love and mutuality, and exploiting the power imbalance inherent in all adult-child relationships" belong in an article about child sexual abuse, not an article about sexual attraction to children.

The Hall study is fine if its limitations are discussed. An editor who removed the study asks "how is a sample of 80 from rural Ohio representative of the sexual preferences of all of humanity?", however he expresses no concern over other small studies being used to make bold, sweeping assertions, implying a value push. The 32.5% figure in the Hall study does seem too high, so maybe we should make it clear that not all of these people would necessarily be diagnosed with pedophilia.

The ATSA page, quoted in the "Prevalence among child sex offenders" section states that "virtually all pedophiles are child molesters, not all child molesters are pedophiles." That statement is obviously incorrect, because studies about pedophilia use only people who are referred for committing sex offences, excluding the unidentified pedophiles who don't abuse. Nobody can make an assertion about a mostly hidden demographic using only extreme social actors. I think the people who added this paragraph are aware of that fact.

The section for "Pedophilia-related activism" is irrelevant. It basically discusses people who want to legalize child abuse and people who want all pedophiles (offenders or otherwise) to be lynched. An encyclopedia is not a place for value judgments such as those.

Are we ever going to see a value-free article? Does anyone want a value-free article? Gary P88 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The title of the article I used to source the new information for cognititive distortions is calledn"A Profile of Pedophilia." The source is the Mayo Clinic, one of the most reputatble clinics and research institutions in the world - are they "POV pushers".  When is WP's article on pedophilia going to be better than Citizendium's?  Becuase their article is much better than WP's, even though it's shorter.  And value free?  Referring to cancer as a disease instead of normal cell regeneration is a value judgment.  The consensus amongst professionals for decades is that pedophilia is a mental illness.  Take that out of the pedophilia article, then we might as well take out depression, anxiety, and panic disorder, and many othersas well. Here's the article from Citizendium, and notice how the article does not read like there is an enormous conflict going on within the establishment on what pedophilia really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googie man (talk • contribs)
 * Well said, Googie man. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mayo Clinic is using the term "pedophilia" loosely and inaccurately. One of the statements by the clinic is also misquoted. When discussing the prevalence of pedophilia in contact child sex offenders, the Mayo Clinic states that:


 * "An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia."


 * The Wikipedia article states that:


 * "According to the Mayo Clinic, approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia"


 * It is also interesting to note that the addition of material from the Mayo Clinic excluded this very important paragraph:


 * "When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. This sampling raises questions about the subjects’ willingness to be honest and/or to incriminate themselves on self-report surveys.5,7,23 The prison populations also exclude pedophiles who have not been caught, those whose level of offense was not severe enough to result in jail time, those who could control their impulses, and those who were more financially successful and better able to prevail in their legal troubles through the retention of private attorneys.7,27 This sampling introduces the possibility that the findings of lower intelligence, personality disorder, and an overall reduced level of functioning are more characteristic of pedophiles who were arrested than the characteristics of the group as a whole.11,23"


 * The above paragraph should be incorporated into the article.


 * When I refer to value judgments, I am not disagreeing with the reference to pedophilia as a mental ilness, as it fits the definition of a paraphilia. I am concerned about the reference to pedophiles as "abusers", as no research has ever investigated the prevalence of child sexual abuse within the general pedophilic demographic. It is in effect a value judgment. The quotations in the section on psychopathology are accurately quoted, however the surrounding text (in the original document), which is not quoted, provides context which shows that such cognitive functioning is relevant only to contact child sex offenders, not every individual with pedophilia. I think that only the issue of impaired interpersonal functioning and distress - a requirement for diagnosis of non-offenders - is necessary in an article about pedophilia. I also wish to point out that the selection of texts is very heavily biased. A version which I reverted to yesterday included a statement by Dr Fred Berlin, however this was removed. The current material on the psychopathology of child sex offenders belongs in the article on child sexual abuse.


 * If some editors wish to post material which criticises pedophilia per se, why not create a website to that effect and post material to Wikipedia in a neutral manner? If the biased edits are part of a campaign to encourage pedophiles to seek therapy, I suggest that a campaign is established elsewhere. Such a campaign could possibly be added as an external link. Gary P88 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the reverse is true--it is a value judgement (and wildly speculative OR conclusion) to assert that there is a "general pedophilic demographic" which is not represented by the research. No research has ever shown that they are not representative samples. Most pedophiles are detected when they come into contact with the criminal justice system, but less than %10 of sex crimes are reported. The sample is victim-selected, in other words, and research does not show that any type of pedophile is more likely to be reported; there's wide diversity. In addition, research on non-criminal/non-clinical populations--such as analysis of pedophile chatboards--shows a high level of cognitive distortion. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The assertion that there is a "general pedophilic demographic" which is not represented by the research is common sense, not original research. I noticed that you have conveniently ignored the statement from the Mayo Clinic, which supports what I said in my comment. Gary P88 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not common sense but indeed original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that Citizendium's artcle is more accurate on Pedophilia. I mean, it says that an adult's sexual attraction to 17-year-olds is abnormal, as if 17 looks any physically different than 18 or 19, something that I've wanted to correct in that article ever since I've seen it. It's just that I've yet to sign up there. Nevertheless, I agree with Googie man on his other points. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, thanks for the support of my points. Here's the part about Citizendium's article which is one of pedophilia's most salient features, but a fact that we'll never have in the WP article:


 * "With rare exception, sexual contact with prepubescent children is socially discouraged, socially unacceptable, or a criminal offense in all modern societies.:::


 * This is a simple fact that should be in this article, but never will, for obvious reasons. Instead, at any give time, the WP article will give the impression that pedophilia is actually quite common, that it's been practiced and accepted throughout civilizations the millenia, when in fact most humans are sexually stimulated only by other humans with secondary sexual characteristics that come about in puberty.  You will see homosexual behavior in our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, you will not see pedophilic behavior.  Millions of years of evolution have encoded on our DNA ways to protect our species - one way is to prevent sexual attraction to humans who aren't sexually mature.  There are all sorts of genetic deviations humans have - pedophilia is one of them.
 * But, we'll never ever be able to have this simple, common sense fact in the article because it offends the sensibilities of a noisy, free-time possessing, 0.5% of humanity with an internet connection and free time. What pedophiles should do instead of trying to change people's minds, or change policy, is to take responsibility for themselves, and seek treatment.  However, a distinct lack of insight, or solipsistic world view, is another hallmark, so that makes seeking treatment very unlikely.  In the mean time, the quality of this encyclopedia greatly suffers.  I say in this case, Citizendium wins - big time.  There is no way some people would ever be allowed to edit Citizendium.I'll let you decide who those people are. Googie man (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Googie man, you are very passionate about this topic and very against child sexual abuse (as all people should be), which I very much appreciate. You are very much like I was when I first started editing pedophilia-related articles. I cannot tell you how angry and frustrated I got over the now non-existent article Adult-child sex, though I always managed to keep "my cool" while responding to other editors. Great points again, you have brought up, but I do know that I've read about some chimpanzees, or some type of primemate, engaging in pedophilic behavior. Either way, thank you for being here and the work you do on pedophilia-related articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, thanks again for your kind comments. How about I ammend my statement to very rarely, as opposed to never.  I know that I've never read about it anyway.  Best regards,Googie man (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)