Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pedophilia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:58, 30 July 2015 view sourceZumoarirodoka (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,604 edits "Mohammed" is generally considered an archaic translation of Muhammad← Previous edit Revision as of 02:41, 1 August 2015 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,006 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 19) (botNext edit →
Line 36: Line 36:
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
== Clean up: Prevalence and child molestation ==

. I removed several dubious statements and replaced them with better sourced information. I'll explain the major changes:

*"As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders might be separated into two types: Exclusive (i.e., "true pedophiles") and non-exclusive (or, in some cases, "non-pedophilic")."
*:I've changed the typology to "pedophilic and non-pedophilic (or preferential and situational)", with references to match. "Exclusive" is confusing because most pedophiles are not exclusive, per the DSM's exclusive vs. non-exclusive typology. This exact confusion between the two typologies occurs in the next sentence, which I moved to a more appropriate section.

*"They state that approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia."
*:I wrote a longer explanation, but a search reveals that consensus was already formed on the ] to remove this. In sum, the 88% figure is a blatant error by the Mayo Clinic author and not representive of the literature at large. I've replaced it with sources that are consistent with the 1/3 estimate James mentioned in that discussion.

*"A behavioral analysis report by the FBI states that a "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., true pedophiles)"."
*:The "" and "(i.e., true pedophiles)" parts are not from . In fact, it specifically says "No distinction is made here as to whether this preference is for prepubescent (pedophile) or pubescent (hebephile) children" after that line (p. 53). Removed since we have less vague sources now.

*"A review article in the British Journal of Psychiatry notes the overlap between extrafamilial and intrafamilial offenders. One study found that around half of the fathers and stepfathers in its sample who were referred for committing extrafamilial abuse had also been abusing their own children."
*:Says nothing specific about pedophilia. Will move to the ] article.

*"one study estimated that by the time of entry to treatment, nonincestuous pedophiles who molest boys had committed an average of 282 offenses against 150 victims."
*:The use of the mean here is very misleading. The median number of victims of pedophilic molesters in this study () was 1.3 for girl victims, and 4.4 for boy victims. states, "Although the data from Abel et al. (1987) does indicate a higher number of victims, the mean scores appear to have been skewed by very few extreme outliers. The median scores may be a better indication of the true size of victim number." All subsequent studies have reported far lower mean averages, comparable to Abel's median. I changed it to the medians.

*"Some child molesters—pedophiles or not—threaten their victims to stop them from reporting their actions. "
*:Apart from being more appropriate on the ] page, the source (DSM 5) contains nothing remotely resembling these claims. Removed.
] (]) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

::We don't know how accurate it is to state that most pedophiles are not exclusive, and we certainly cannot base such a statement solely on the DSM's exclusive vs. non-exclusive typology. Like I stated in the ] section above, experts on pedophilia are generally in agreement that pedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction. There are experts who refer to exclusive pedophiles as true pedophiles. But there's also the fact that the pedophiles who have a bit of sexual attraction to adults are essentially exclusive pedophiles because they cannot be sexually satisfied by adults (not for long anyway, if at all).

::Regarding your proposed changes, seen and , I'm fine with most of them. I have a few questions, objections, and other statements. Why remove the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part? We state this in the lead; I think it's only natural to state it in the Prevalence and child molestation section as well. Although research doesn't have much on female pedophiles, and the prevalence data on female pedophiles might be underestimated, it's like James and I agreed on in about ]s in females; it's rare that paraphilias are documented in females (girls or women). Perhaps you removed the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part because you think that the section is clear enough that pedophilia is not found in women as much as it is found in men? And why change "female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders" to "Females account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders"? Your change took away the uncertainty of "may" by making it an "is" matter.

::As for the "According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male sex offenders" part, I think that fits better in the Prevalence and child molestation section where it was, instead of in the ICD-10 and DSM section, since it is about prevalence.

::Regarding the ] source, it's clear that complaints have been made regarding its prevalence information; see ]. What led you to the archives of the Child sexual abuse article regarding that, as opposed to the archives of the Pedophilia article regarding it? Or was it the archives of the Pedophilia article that led you to those archives of the Child sexual abuse article? After all, in the aforementioned Number of pedophiles among child molesters" discussion, I point to the Child sexual abuse article archives.

::The FBI source is clear to distinguish the medical definition of pedophilia from the common use definition of pedophilia; for example, page 35 for its PDF format, states, "One problem is the fact the term pedophile has both a less precise lay definition and a more precise diagnostic definition. In the ''DSM-IV-TR'' pedophilia is classified as a paraphilia, one of the psychosexual disorders. It is important for investigators to understand the ''DSM-IV-TR'' diagnostic criteria for pedophilia require there be fantasies, urges, or behaviors that are recurrent, intense, and sexually arousing and all of which involve prepubescent children, generally age 13 or younger." But then, on page 37, it goes on to state, "For the purposes of this publication, when the term pedophile is used it will be defined as a significantly older individual who prefers to have sex with individuals legally considered to be children. Pedophiles are individuals whose erotic imagery and sexual fantasies focus on children. They do not settle for child victims, but, in fact, clearly prefer to have sex with children. The law, not puberty, will determine who is a child. The term, therefore, will be applied to those whose sexual behavior involves pubescent children as long as it is part of a true sexual preference and pattern of behavior and not just an isolated opportunity. As previously stated this is inconsistent with the strict diagnostic criteria for pedophilia in the ''DSM-IV-TR''." So, yeah, I agree with not using that source for pedophilia prevalence information. We also need to tweak the In law and forensic psychology section regarding that source, since it , "The FBI, however, makes a point of acknowledging sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for prepubescent children." As noted, the FBI source does acknowledge that, but it, or rather Kenneth Lanning, is clear about how he personally defines ''pedophile.'' The source is also dated to 2010, not 2001 (the Pedophilia article currently dates it to 2001). Regarding the "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., true pedophiles)" part, ] allows us to change a quote, usually with brackets, when it makes the text clearer, but adding in "" or "(i.e., true pedophiles)" is not clearer in this case because we know that the source is personally defining the term ''pedophile'' more broadly. That stated, maybe we are referring to a different page 53? I don't see the "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders" line on page 53. But, surely, it's somewhere in the source; I don't think that the line was fabricated.

::Michael Seto is already linked in the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section; so, per ], we should delink him in the Prevalence and child molestation section. And perhaps only mention him by his last name after the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section. Likewise, we should delink the term ''child sexual abuse'' in the Prevalence and child molestation section.

::For the "Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress" paragraph: The "fewer, often familial victims" part seems to me like it should be "fewer, often familial, victims" or "fewer (often familial) victims"; I'm speaking of the comma placement, which was there before your proposed changes. For the "pedophilic offenders" part, you changed "often have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial" to "sometimes have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial." Why did you change "often" to "sometimes"? You also removed that they "are more inwardly driven to offend." Why did you remove that? They are more inwardly driven to offend. After all, they are the ones who have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children and cannot be sexually satisfied by a post-pubescent person, or by anyone who looks sexually mature.

::Regarding the "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not" paragraph, I'm not sure how the sourcing got mixed up there; I was the one who changed the sourcing for that paragraph to the DSM-5, but that's because it was previously supported by the DSM-IV-TR source and I was under the impression that the DSM-5 source did not make drastic changes regarding the DSM-IV-TR pedophilia aspects. I'd consulted Legitimus via email before updating parts of the article with the DSM-5 source, trading out the DSM-IV-TR sourcing for DSM-5 sourcing. Perhaps the "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not" paragraph was originally supported by a different reference or was meant to be supported by a different reference. Whatever the case, an obvious error happened there. I still think that, because pedophiles are often child sexual abusers, the section should mention something about the tactics they employ to sexually abuse children. ] (]) 08:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

:::. I restored the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part. I had removed it because it seemed implicit in the other statistics given.
:::I found the link to the child sexual abuse talk page from your comment in these archives.
:::I meant page 69 of the Lanning PDF, which is marked 53 in the text.
:::I changed "often large" to "sometimes large" because an average of 1.3/4.4 does not seem particularly large. I've changed it to "often large'''r'''" now, because it's indisputable that pedophilic molesters average more victims than non-pedophiles, if not a "large number".
:::I had omitted that pedophiles "are more inwardly driven to offend", along with its counterpart, that non-pedophiles "have a general preference for adult partners", because they seemed self-evident. I added it back for now. ] (]) 19:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

:::If you guys feel a brief summary of the techniques of child molesters is relevant, there's some information in Seto's book we could reference instead:
::::{{cot|Seto (2008)}}
::::Sex offenders against children vary in other respects as well. Some men groom potential victims, giving the child their attention and gifts to build trust and affection and increase their contacts, whereas other men use threats or physical force to make children comply with their sexual demands (Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christenson, 1965; Kaufman et al., 1998; Lang & Frenzel, 1988; W. L. Marshall & Christie, 1981)
::::The Modus Operandi Questionnaire was developed to assess offenders' tactics for gaining sexual access to children (Kaufman et al., 1998; Kaufman, Hilliker, & Daleiden, 1996; Kaufman, Hilliker, & Lathrop, 1994; Kaufman, Hilliker, Lathrop, Daleiden, & Rudy, 1996). Kaufman et al. (1998) compared 114 adolescent sex offenders and 114 adult sex offenders, evenly divided into those who offended against related children and those who offended against unrelated children. Overall, sex offenders were more likely to use nonviolent tactics (provide alcohol or drugs, give gifts, and engage in physical play that led to sexual touching) than threat or force.
{{cob}}
:::Possible wording: "Child molesters, pedophilic or not, employ a variety of methods to gain sexual access to children. Some groom their victims into compliance with attention and gifts, while others use threats, alcohol or drugs, or physical force." ] (]) 23:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

::::I know that it's taken me some time to get back to this, , but I'm okay with all those changes. Yeah, the "have a general preference for adult partners" part is not needed. And I also noted above why I'd generally rather stay away from stating "sexual preference" in this article. I also agree with adding a brief summary from Seto about the techniques that child sexual abusers use to sexually abuse children; I'm assuming that the Seto material applies to pedophilic offenders as well, especially since it's common for pedophiles to sexually abuse children. ] (]) 05:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

. ] (]) 14:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the changes are in good direction and overall the section seems in a good state now. However, the first paragraph still might benefit from adding some context, maybe some info from other paragraphs might appear in the first paragraph, still suddenly there is information about sex offenders without explaining why it is there. But I currently don't have a good idea how to do it without breaking other parts or repeating too much stuff. ] (]) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

:{{User|Lunruj}}, I don't understand what issue you have with . It's called "Prevalence and child molestation"; so the section begins with prevalence information about pedophilia, and then goes into the topic of child molestation, its connection to pedophilia and its prevalence. It's not like all prevalence information in that section should be in the first paragraph (whether about pedophiles or non-pedophiles). And the section mentions sex offenders in the context of child sexual abuse because child molesters are sex offenders. ] (]) 12:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

:: The informations about how many child sexual abuse offenders are females or whether cases of sexual abuse are underreported would fit well to the article about child sexual abuse. But how it says anything about pedophilia or pedophiles? Concretely following says nothing about pedophilia or pedophiles: "Most sexual offenders against children are male. Females may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders, and one study estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters. The true number of female child molesters may be underrepresented by available estimates, for reasons including a "societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys and adult women, as well as women's greater access to very young children who cannot report their abuse", among other explanations." It's like writing an article about methanol and having there a section about fuels because methanol can be used as fuel. I am missing any connection here. What is the information used for in the section with respect to pedophilia? Does it give some estimate of prevalence of pedophilia (or estimation of difference in prevalence of pedophilia among males and females)? Is difference of prevalence of pedophilia among males and females used to (partially) explain difference in child molestation by males and females? Etc. If yes, then it belongs there, but I don't see it being used this way. ] (]) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

:::The reason is that child sexual abuse (CSA) and pedophilia are strongly linked subjects. You cannot talk about one without talking about the other. It is, more or less, the disorder's defining characteristic of concern because of the horrific harm it causes. The passage in question is simply using CSA instances to make inferences about pedophiles as a population since they are usually the perpetrators. By the way, your analogy doesn't seem very compelling. The article on ] ''does'' have a ], as it should, because that is a topic of concern/interest with methanol.] (]) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I bumped into this pre-print of to-be-published new study from Germany and thought it might be interesting for editors of this article (and this particular section). It covers self reported interest in children, contact offending and child pornography usage. I didn't read it thoroughly, but for what I did it seems top-quality and as much representative of a population as possible, since authors have been able to minimize self-selection bias that is common problem with internet surveys. There's some interesting details of rather large portion of dropping out before critical questions and some denying the usage of their answers after completing the survey. Check it out. ] (]) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

== Source question ==

Looking at the section "Causes and biological associations", are the following sources reasonable for usage in this article? If so why? If not why not?
*{{cite news |last=Zarembo |first=Alan |date=January 14, 2013 |title=Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115 |newspaper=] |access-date=2 May 2015 }}
*{{cite news |last=Khan |first=Razib |date=September 9, 2012 |title=Pedophiles: born that way? |url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/pedophiles-born-that-way/#.VUT5pY5Viko |newspaper=] |access-date=2 May 2015 }}
*{{cite news |last=Henley |first=Jon |date=January 3, 2013 |title=Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light |url=http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light |newspaper=] |access-date=2 May 2015 }}
--] (]) 16:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, what about this source:
*{{cite book|author=Jay R. Feierman|title=Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=nnKEBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA290|date=6 December 2012|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-1-4613-9682-6|page=290}}
--] (]) 17:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:The biomedical aspects of pedophilia should be sourced to academic journals or books, per ]. As for Feierman's book, it was published in 1990 (despite the date on Google). There are lots of more recent sources discussing the possible biological origins of pedophilia. ] (]) 22:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

== As of DSM 5 Paedophilia is no longer a disorder == == As of DSM 5 Paedophilia is no longer a disorder ==


Revision as of 02:41, 1 August 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why does this article characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder?
A: Fundamentally, Misplaced Pages articles need to reflect the consensus expressed in the best-available reliable sources. Those sources characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder, so this article must as well. Those sources state that a mental disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress, disability or a strong impulse to harm oneself or others. Because pedophilia creates a strong impulse to have sexual relations with prepubertal children (an act which is innately harmful), and people with the disorder that avoid doing so often suffer great distress, it is considered to be a mental disorder. This is what differentiates it from other types of sexual attractions or orientations that do not innately lead to harm or distress.
Q: Why isn't ______ point of view about pedophilia represented in this article?
A: Information on Misplaced Pages must rely first and foremost on reliable sources that can be independently verified. Sources come in many forms but some are clearly better than others. Peer-reviewed journal articles, major published manuals and textbooks are considered very reliable, while personal blog posts or anonymous forums are often nearly worthless and almost never acceptable. This article in particular is about a topic in the area of medicine, and so requires a much higher standard of source than, say, an article about a fictional television program. Another key matter in excluding some material is the concept of fringe theories; sources that represent extremely minor and often flawed views of a topic that are plainly contradicted by more rigorous and reliable sources. For pedophilia in particular there are many fringe points of view that exist, but few have any scientific backing verifiable by reliable sources, and many are outright discredited for questionable relevance or due to the author(s) clearly having ulterior motives, i.e. being a pedophile themselves attempting to justify or normalize their behavior.
Q: Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Muhammad)?
A: Covering this particular sub-topic is highly problematic for several reasons. The term "pedophilia" itself did not exist until the 19th century, and was coined specifically to refer to a mental illness with set criteria. While the condition no doubt existed prior to that, there was no way to categorize or name it, and thus no reliable source exists labeling any historical person as having "pedophilia." Labeling a historical person based on sexual behavior alone, especially a single recorded perpetration, is also problematic because not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. The person's internal mental "drive" to engage in such behavior is a key component in diagnosis, something that is almost always missing from historical accounts. A third problem is that the vast majority of such recorded instances in history that people often think of actually would not qualify, because the "child" victim was at or past puberty, whereas, medically, pedophilia usually only refers to prepubescent children.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pedophilia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pedophilia at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pedophilia.
CautionPer the Misplaced Pages:Child protection policy, editors who attempt to use Misplaced Pages to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as paedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

As of DSM 5 Paedophilia is no longer a disorder

Hey guys, I'm a psychologist doing a PhD on paedophilia and I just wanted to point out that parts of the opening paragraph are incorrect because as of the DSM 5 'pedophilia' is NOT a psychiatric disorder.

The DSM 5 makes a clear distinction between a paraphilia (a sexual fetish) and a paraphilic disorder (that same fetish causing harm). This was done to make it clear that people who engage in consensual sexual fetishism (such as the BDSM sub-culture) are not mentally ill.

A paraphilia only becomes a paraphilic disorder if causes distress for the person who has it, or harm to another person.

Thus, in the case of pedophilia an individual can only be diagnosed with the disorder if the paraphilia causes them harm (typically in the form of emotional distress), or causes them to act on their urges (thus harming someone else).

This distinction is important in the case of paedophilia because it is common in the media for people to conflate the terms "paedophile", "sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" as if all three mean the same thing, when they do not. Believe it or not this 'classification pluralism' is even found in research studies themselves, so keep an eye open for it. It's bad science.

In any event I came to this page because I was hoping to find some discussion about why, in the DSM 5, paedophilia and a few other paraphilia are described as sexual 'orientations' while others are listed as sexual 'interests'.

No such luck.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to register an account and engage in debate over these issues, and for that I apologise.

But if you'd like to verify what I'm saying just get a DSM 5, go to page 699 for the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia and to the bottom of page 685 for an explanation of the difference between a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder.

Have a good day. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.94.156 (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The DSM-5 still classifies pedophilia as a disorder, no matter its pedophilia and pedophilic disorder terminology. Furthermore, the "sexual orientation" wording for pedophilia in the DSM-5 is a mistake, and the DSM-5's setup regarding pedophilia significantly deviates from the vast majority of medical sources on the topic. The vast majority of medical sources on the topic, including the World Health Organization (WHO), consider pedophilia a mental disorder through and through. So the current WP:Lead paragraph is not incorrect. We give most of our WP:Weight to what the vast majority of medical sources state. And we accurately note the DSM-5's terminology/definition in the second paragraph, along with the WHO's definition. Also, the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section of the Pedophilia article addresses "paraphilia" and "paraphiliic disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As Flyer22 put it, we've been over this issue with a backhoe and the topic is covered in the text of the article. If you took the time to read the article in full you would know that. I'd also like to say that if you are "doing a PhD" you are not a psychologist. A psychologist already has a PhD and is licensed to practice in an area. In fact in some jurisdictions its even a crime to claim such a thing falsely.Legitimus (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Prevalence of pedophilia according to phallometric studies

Hello everybody,

I would suggest that in the chapter "Prevalence and child molestation" after this sentence

"The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men."

this sentence should be added as an additional information:

"A meta-analysis of phallometric studies revealed that 22% of men show greater or equal sexual arousal to child stimuli (individuals up to 13 years old) than to adult stimuli."

Footnote 13 should be:

Filip Schuster (2014): Every fifth boy and man is pedophilic or hebephilic. https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf

The word "phallometric" in the new sentence should be linked to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Penile_plethysmograph

--Ber2015 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I could not verify this source with any peer-reviewed journal, and could find no record of it having been published, nor any information about the author Filip Schuster including what his credentials might be. We cannot accept this source until such information can be demonstrated. Please note that ipce.info is not considered a reliable source and is generally prohibited due to being a site run by pedophiles (much of the information is biased, self-published, or alters existing scholarly literature to suit said bias).Legitimus (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Who and WP:Neutral

As seen with this edit, I reverted Pigsonthewing on the Template:Who tags after Sjö accidentally reverted Pigsonthewing. Like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Misplaced Pages should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Misplaced Pages must remain vague." Similarly, Template:Whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." And WP:Weasel words is clear that these words are not automatically banned. If we are going to name researchers for the text that Pigsonthewing questioned, then we need to make sure that it has appropriate WP:In-text attribution, since inappropriate WP:In-text attribution can make these matters seem like only one or a few researchers are stating that.

And as for the heading that Pigsonthewing objected to, it is correctly titled since the section is about the misuse of the medical (authoritative) definition of pedophilia; I don't see how it is a WP:Neutral violation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I was about to revert my revert, after taking an extra look at the changes, but I saw that you already did. I agree with the above.Sjö (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I see here that KateWishing also reverted Pigsonthewing; Pigsonthewing reverted again, and then I reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22 on both counts. It would be misleading to attribute the distinction to any particular researcher because almost all modern pedophilia experts insist on it. Most recent scientific papers about pedophilia mention the distinction. (Such as this one, published today: "Pedophilia refers to the sexual attraction to children who are prepubescent hebephilia refers to the sexual attraction to children who are pubescent The propensity to be sexually aroused by children is distinct from child molestation, which refers to the overt sexual contact with children. Not all child molesters prefer children sexually (as often occurs in cases of incest), and an unknown proportion of pedophiles and hebephiles suppress their sexual interests throughout their lives, never coming to clinical or forensic attention.") It is not even possible to coherently discuss the paraphilia or the cause of child sexual abuse without making this distinction. KateWishing (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It's always amusing to be told not to edit war by someone who is edit warring. Your comment on the subheading confirms that it is a breach of NPoV - it is expressing the point of view of one section of society, over another; for example over that of Oxford University Publishing's Oxford Dictionaries: "Paedophile: A person who is sexually attracted to children.". The improper and repeated removal of {{Who}} is not excused by your overly verbose quoting of template documentation which has the standing of an essay, not policy. If a source says "Some researchers" then we should report that as "Foo says 'Some researchers....'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted you twice. You reverted twice. My second revert was to restore the WP:Consensus version and to let you know that I am interested in discussing this. We should generally be going by authoritative sources (meaning high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) for the definition of pedophilia, not dictionary sources; dictionary sources are often simplistic and outdated. Such sources are not appropriate for all or even most Misplaced Pages topics, and they especially are not important enough for medical topics. I see the same matters come up in other parts of Misplaced Pages as well, whether it's a matter dealing with law, science, or something else. The lay definitions of pedophilia are imprecise and often completely incorrect, as has been discussed many times at this talk page. And as for the removal of Template:Who, it was appropriate, and I explained why above. So did KateWishing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
And as for what Template:Who states... People often have never even read the templates they are applying to articles. Discussions that have taken place at Template talk:POV show that. If people are not going to read and follow what these templates state, to the best of their abilities, they should not be using them. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your straw-man arguments. I'm confident that Oxford Dictionaries are an authoritative source; nor does anything in MEDRES preclude their use when describing the common usage of terms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing "strawman" about what I stated, and I am not interested in your attitude; I was willing to ignore it earlier on in this discussion, but not anymore. And I certainly am not interested in poor rationales for using dictionaries as authoritative sources for this type of topic, especially since I can point to various cases, including this one, where dictionary sources are insufficient or should be avoided unless referring to etymology or how the dictionaries define the term. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ad hominem as well? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Not any more ad hominem than how you approached this discussion; if you don't want people responding to you with a poor attitude, then don't start off a discussion with one and continue it with one. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
More ad hominem; you fail utterly to address the points at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion that I have "fail utterly to address the points at hand" is ridiculous. That I addressed your sketchy/inappropriate editing and non-points above is clear to anyone (except to you, obviously) reading this section. But since you fail to understand what an ad hominem is, just as you fail to edit Misplaced Pages the way you are supposed to with regard to this subject, and continue to reply with a sour attitude, try to fail at replying to me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A dictionary's purpose is to document the popular usage of a term -- popular opinion. Popular opinion has no WP:WEIGHT over expert consensus. Laypeople often believe that schizophrenia refers to disassociative identity disorder, but we don't give equal validity to that incorrect definition, either. Schizophrenia, a featured article, currently explains that "schizophrenia does not imply a "split personality" or "multiple personality disorder" — a condition with which it is often confused in public perception." KateWishing (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
"Equal validity" is another straw man; as is "what people believe", which is different to a definition in a reputable dictionary. Can we now leave aside such distractions, and discuss how to improve this article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Your idea of a straw man differs from mine, as does your idea of improving this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not a strawman since the function of a dictionary is to document "what people believe." The Oxford English Dictionary itself states: "The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary. The Dictionary is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’." Going back to my previous point, one of the OED's definitions for schizophrenia reads: "a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements." KateWishing (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It is entierly a straw man. Oterwise, please provide a diff for anyone calling for "Equal validity". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer Fichter

Please add about Jennifer Fichter case--Kaiyr (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Jennifer Fichter case is not really relevant to a discussion of pedophilia because of the age (17) of the victims.  Etamni | ✉  10:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization

The reorganization by Doc James was helpful. However, I wonder about changing "Prevalence and child molestation" to "Epidemiology." I know Epidemiology is standard under WP:MEDSECTIONS, but I'd prefer to have "child molestation" in the heading because readers may not think to look in Epidemiology for information about pedophilia's connection to child molestation. KateWishing (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That section starts with "The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known", thus it does discuss frequency.
How about a subheading regarding the frequency of child molestation? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. I added a subheader. KateWishing (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
KateWishing, you think so much like me sometimes that I wonder if you are my twin. When I made this edit, I was thinking of changing the Epidemiology section to "Epidemiology and child sexual abuse" (just like it used to be titled "Prevalence and child molestation") because that's clearer; basically, for the reasons you cited above. I was considering doing it at some point, but decided to let Doc James's changes mostly remain uncontested for the day. I'm fine with his other changes to the setup. Flyer22 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I admire your precise editing style and have probably absorbed some of it. KateWishing (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Pedophilia: Difference between revisions Add topic