Revision as of 11:51, 3 July 2022 editLegitimus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,216 edits →Contradiction with another article: cm← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:53, 7 July 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,006 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Ephebophilia/Archive 3) (botNext edit → |
Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== There is no real evidence == |
|
|
|
|
|
A few proposals to improve the Ephebophilia page: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. instead of citing Blanchard, whose text just cites Kraft-Ebing, we should cite Kraft-Ebing directly. Readers should also know that Kraft-Ebing was a German physician writing 100 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. one very important fact is that since Kraft-Ebing wrote about ephebophilia in 1924 no research has ever shown his ideas to be correct. Uncritically repeating a vague assertion from 100 years ago, when no other scientist has ever confirmed his ideas is a disservice to Misplaced Pages users. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. almost everyone who writes about ephebophilia cites Dr Michael Seto, but everyone omits the fact that Seto has no evidence for its existence. Seto's work is much more recent. He assumes that ephebophilia is real, and says it's age of attraction is 15-17 (not 15-19 as the 100 year old work of Kraft-Ebing states). Seto does not claim to have any evidence to show ephebophilia really exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
4. it is misleading to publish information about ephebophilia as if it is established scientific fact. There's more evidence for the existence of the Yeti than for ephebophilia. The total lack of science behind this concept should be made clear to Misplaced Pages users. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed with all this. Blanchard is a pseudoscientist, and an ephebophile is just a pedophile with a thesaurus. ] (]) 22:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Add needed == |
|
== Add needed == |
In the section about "Etymology and definitions" at the end, where it's said "Although ephebophilia is not a psychiatric diagnosis, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public and the media to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development", should be added also that is also used by general public to refer to any person under the age of majority, not only the age of consent. So, "Although ephebophilia is not a psychiatric diagnosis, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public and the media to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent and even the local age of majority, regardless of their level of physical or mental development." 151.36.12.92 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Why it is written that to be considered ephebophilia the minimum age must be at least 15 but the article about pedophilia states that to be considered pedophilia the boy or girl must be under 16? Isn't this a contradiction? 151.36.77.13 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)