This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 9 December 2011 (→Proposed change in the DSM for "at least 18 years and at least five years older": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:50, 9 December 2011 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (→Proposed change in the DSM for "at least 18 years and at least five years older": new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · 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  |
 | 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. |
| 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. |
 | Per 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 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. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | 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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · 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 |
Paedophile vs Pedophile.
It's been pointed out countless times on the internet by nonAmericans, but the actual definition for Pedophile is "foot fetish." Pedo means foot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk • contribs)
- No, foot fetishism is podophilia. Your American correspondent, Mr. Credible (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mr Credible is correct. This confusion results from mixing up the Greek and Latin word roots. The word pedophilia is rooted entirely in Greek, not Latin. "Ped-" in Greek is "child" (Pediatrician) but in Latin it means "foot" (Pedestrian). "Pod-" is the correct Greek root meaning foot (arthropod, podiatrist).Legitimus (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I request a move, the ommision of the A in Paedophile has led to bricks being thrown at Pedologists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.111.16 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's an urban legend. All such jokes/anecdotes stem from a single incident in the UK where a female pediatrician came home to find "paedo" spray-painted on her front door by some schmuck teenager.
- Also, in case you're a similar schmuck trying to be funny, you do know this site logs your IP address right? And that your location can be determined from it? Be warned, Jay and Silent Bob might come visit.Legitimus (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I request a move, the ommision of the A in Paedophile has led to bricks being thrown at Pedologists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.111.16 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mr Credible is correct. This confusion results from mixing up the Greek and Latin word roots. The word pedophilia is rooted entirely in Greek, not Latin. "Ped-" in Greek is "child" (Pediatrician) but in Latin it means "foot" (Pedestrian). "Pod-" is the correct Greek root meaning foot (arthropod, podiatrist).Legitimus (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Poor wording and clearly incorrect facts
The following post was blocked by an edit filter. As this was clearly a false positive, I am posting it on behalf of the user who tried to post it and was prevented.
I want to take issue with this: SECTION: Neurohormonal explanation Psychologist Vernon Quinsey believes pedophilia is caused by the "neurohormonal explanation".....<<Text>>..... Quinsey hypothesizes that the "perturbation" that causes an abnormal age preference for pre-pubescents must be a variation on the perturbation that causes an abnormal gender preference for men in the male brain. I question why "gender preference for men in the male brain" is stated to be abnormal. In the same sense, left-handedness is not considered to be abnormal. Is this something that Quinsey considers to be true, or is it an opinion that the editor failed to contain? Moveover, science is at odds with this idea when it comes to paedophilia: Quinsey believes male sexual preference for gender and age are independent of each other. Paedophiles are statistically less likely to be gay men and women: Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). (From http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:16, 7 June 2011 (talk • contribs) 86.0.41.189
- The Quinsey material was recently added. Issues with some more Quinsey material were also expressed in the above section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any opinion on this, Legitimus? Judging by the above section and this one, Quinsey is not a good source on these subjects. To me, he doesn't sound educated on these matters at all. Perhaps we should remove him altogether? Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say pull it. It was already under scrutiny anyway as a poor source.Legitimus (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. In that link, I also removed his information from the Development and sexual orientation section. It seemed best to remove all, as suggested. But if it's felt that what was stated there is something of value and accurate, it can be added back. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say pull it. It was already under scrutiny anyway as a poor source.Legitimus (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any opinion on this, Legitimus? Judging by the above section and this one, Quinsey is not a good source on these subjects. To me, he doesn't sound educated on these matters at all. Perhaps we should remove him altogether? Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes: Etymology in the lead, picture, etc.
I reverted Ewawer with this edit, because his changes added a picture (when I feel that pictures are not needed for this topic), and because they removed material out of the lead, breaking it up into five paragraphs (when the lead should be no more than four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD). That, combined with the picture pushing the Infobox disease box lower, made the lead look very messy in my view. I also reverted because having the etymology information in the lead is the result of an extensive discussion and compromise with Lihaas.
All that said, the entire design of the lead is a compromise due to extensive discussion, and seeing as the compromise with Lihaas was a minor addition, maybe it is not that much of an issue to exclude the etymology from the lead? Lihaas, you got anything to state on that? Because that's the only thing I'd be willing to compromise on in regards to this matter. I don't feel that an image is needed or significantly enhances the reader's understanding of this subject, as pictures on Misplaced Pages are supposed to do. More than anything, I feel it detracts from the article. And, obviously, more than four paragraphs is a no-no. Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are two things which were reverted. One was a pic and the other was a tidy up of the etymology. I think that the changes on etymology should have been left, as it improves the flow. As to the picture, I agree that the article is very important. To be honest I was a bit uncomfortable including the pic. However, I felt that it was relevant because it displays the context, which words alone sometimes fail to do. It is unfortunate that other watchers did not get a chance to see it in context before it was pulled. How can others really comment on the appropriateness of the pic without seeing it? Ewawer (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your edit summary for your above comment says "objection to pic being dumped," but your statements right now don't sound like you are that sure the picture is needed. I disagree with the picture being included because I don't feel that it is needed for readers to understand this topic, which is what Misplaced Pages images are supposed to do (significantly enhance readers understanding of a topic), and that it detracts from the article. Further, this article is not simply about child sexual abuse. The picture is more suitable for the Child sexual abuse article in displaying the context. But it was removed from that article once before as well. You ask "How can others really comment on the appropriateness of the pic without seeing it?" Well, by looking at a version in the edit history.
- As for your other edits, while I agree that removing the etymology information out of the lead improves the flow of the lead, it was put there as a compromise with another editor (Lihaas) and you removed the material in a way that violates Misplaced Pages style guidelines (by creating five paragraphs). All you had to do was remove it from the lead and tweak the section that also mentions it. Or, when removing it from the lead, combine the ICD-10 definition with the paragraph that discusses the DSM criteria. Not break the lead up into five paragraphs. That's my point there. But even so, I understand that not everyone is familiar with WP:LEAD, and I don't fault you too much for that. I am all for removing the etymology information out of the lead, but consensus versions of an article generally should not be changed without discussion. If the lead had not been extensively discussed and worked out already, I wouldn't see a problem with your removal (other than the style issue). But as it stands, that addition was/is a compromise with Lihaas after extensive discussion. So we need to talk it out in order to form new consensus, before overriding it. Lihaas is around (just edited the article not that long ago); he can be contacted about this if he's not still watching the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can offer little about the lead, but the picture I feel does not belong. As a person who was seeing the picture for the very first time when it was added to this article, it made no sense to me. It just looks like a man tutoring a little girl. Regardless of the historical significance of this painting, I don't think it offers anything useful to this subject to a lay-person reader. And I frankly cannot think of any sort of picture that could be added that wasn't either illegal, appalling, or far to esoteric to be a useful illustration.Legitimus (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Biased, social stratification
I just want to ad a comment on this article about pedophilia. I´m a swedish user, but read english pretty well, but don´t write it so good so you have to eccuse me.
Maybe this type of comments are not what the discussion are about so maybe it will be erased.
But the “facts” that are presented are extremly biased. These “facts” are made from research on incarcerated people. I make a citation from the article:
“ Pedophilic (andhebephilic) men have lower IQs, poorer scores on memory tests, greater rates of non-right-handedness, greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences, lesser physical height, greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness, and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures. ”
This characterisations are true about all incarcerated people, undepending of what crime they have commited (I work as a low skilled guard/”skötare” in these kind of facilitations).
The swedish authorities know from experience that pedophilia and childpornography cuts through all stratifications of society. Psychiatrys picture of paraphilias and sexual deviant people are drawn from people that come in contact with social security systems, psychiatry and justice system. However, most people in sexual minoritys groups never end up in these systems.
There is known that many pedophiles are hihgly skilled people, very competent in IT, working in high places in public offices and private sector (and probably is right-handed). They retire early and buy estates in Kambodja and Thailand, adopting or take cares of childs education there.
The “facts” in the article seems to me as a swedish citizcen as very american. Stigmatizing people from lower layer of the populations.
Thank you for speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew0101 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's really about proof. Those clinical studies cited in the section you quoted say what they say. We can't judge their merits, only report what has been researched. And those sources have been vetted by peer-review, some internationally (I should also point out many are Canadian, not American, and that a few are drawn from the population, not from prisons). The counter-argument is: how do we know what you say is true? You claim that most pedophiles never end up in "the system." Can you show a source that substantiates that? If you can, we can integrate it and "balance" the content. But if your statements are just rumor and/or conjecture, there is nothing to add.Legitimus (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is quite a comprehensive discussion on this in chapter 1 of Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children. The basic idea is to estimate the number of paedophiles in the population, and compare it to the number of convictions. Goode concludes that "Given the conviction rates in England and Wales ... it seems fairly plausible that most men sexually attracted to children ... are not in prison but out in the community"
- Paul Okami is reported to consider that up to 50% of people may have some degree of sexual attraction to children, and for 1% of people, their "primary erotic focus is prepubescent children".
- Considering a number of penile response studies, Goode concludes that "The clinical studies therefore indicate that somewhere between 17 and 58 per cent of a normal sample of men (who do not describe themselves as 'paedophile') seem to be capable of being sexually aroused by young children, under the age of 12 years old".
- Freund and Costell, 1970, The Structre of Erotic Preference in the Non-deviant Male, Behaviour Research and Therapy 8: 15-20.
- Quinsey et al., 1975, Penile Circumference, Skin Conductance and Ranking Responses of Child Molestors and "Normals" to Sexual and Nonsexual Visual Stimuli, Behaviour Therapy 6:213-19.
- Freund and Watson, 1991, Assessment of the Sensitivity and Specificity of a Phallometric Test: An Update of Phallometric Diagnosis of Pedophilia, Psychological Assessment 3: 254-60.
- Fedora et al., 1992, Sadism and other Paraphilias in Normal Controls and Aggressive and Nonaggressive Sex Offenders, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 21: 1-15.
- Nagayama Hall et al., 1995, Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men Behaviour Therapy, 26: 681-94.
- Three anonymous surveys suggest the following: "(Briere and Runtz 1989) looked at a sample of nearly 200 university males, in which 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% describe sexual fantasies involving children and 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught. This study was followed up a few years later (Smiljanich and Briere 1996), with a questionnaire study on 279 undergraduates which included 99 men and 188 women. This found 22 per cent of the male sample 9and 3 per cent of the female sample) admitted 'some attraction to children', with 14 per cent of the men using child porngoraphy, 4 per cent masturbating to sexual fantasies involving children and 3 per cent admitting to the 'possibility of sex with a child if undetected' (figures for the female sample were respectively 4 per cent, 0 per cent and 0 per cent).Both these studies made the point that any self-report of socially unacceptable phenomena is likely to underestimate it, so these figures may be conservative. ... (Becker-Blease et al. 2006) in a self completion questionnaire study of 531 undergraduate men ... found only 7 per cent admitted sexual attraction to 'little children', but 18 per cent had sexual fantasies of children, with 8 per cent masturbating to those fantasies, and 4 per cent admitting that they would have sex with a child 'if no one found out'.
- Briere and Runtz, 1989, University Males' Sexual Interest in Children: Predicting Potential Indices of Paedophilia in a Non-Forensic Sample, Child Abuse and Neglect, 13: 65-75
- Smiljanich and Briere, 1996, Self reported sexual interest in children: Sex differences and psychological correlates in a university sample, Violence and Victims 11 (1): 39-50
- Becker-Blease et al., 2006, Child Sex Abuse Perpetrators Among Male University Students, poster presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Hollywood, California, 4-7 November 2006. Abstract available online, http://hdl.handle.net/1794/4318, poster available at http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/istss06issd06/bbffISTSS06.pdf
Mathew0101 talking again:
I´m a swede and only read english Misplaced Pages, I have never before contributed. I´ve now oriented myself and checked Legitimus in english Misplaced Pages and he is obviously very smart. Me my self lack any kind of education, but have what we in Sweden call "work-experience" from hell of a lot sectors. And add to that life-experience. Legitimus write above: "The counter-argument is: how do we know what you say is true? You claim that most pedophiles never end up in "the system." Can you show a source that substantiates that? If you can, we can integrate it and "balance" the content. But if your statements are just rumor and/or conjecture, there is nothing to add." Sweden is a small country and all kind of people from every aspects and levels of justice system and "rättspsykiatri" (judicial psychiatry)and social workers sectors bump in to each other in the same night clubs and share information. It´s in Europe obvious from anonymized screenings that at least 1 % of all males are pedophiles in the sense that WHO:s ICD-10 puts it (in Sweden we don´t use DSM). Don´t tell me that you in US have 1,5 million child molesters in jail! If you have 1,5 million child molesters in jail (actually I wouldn´t be surprised from the media picture of US crazy country in Europe) I give you right. If you don´t have 1,5 million child molesters in jail your "facts" about for example "non-right-handedness" and pedophiles is probably biased. And the problem of weahlty pedophiles infecting third world countrys is not rumors. Every Skandinavian aid worker and diplomat knows this for facts. Legitimus also talk about "proof". I think Karl Popper said that nothing ever can be scientifically proved, only counter-proved.
- Matthew: "proof" is a strange animal. At the end of the day, people believe, quite simply, what they believe. You want to change somebody's intuition? You've also got to use a method they believe in. And generally, that's science. I don't think Legitimus is trying to discredit your experience, just trying to do the best for Misplaced Pages. The reason anecdotal evidence does not get so far is because notwithstanding the best will in the world, it's always prone to uncontrolled factors and subjective biases. I'm not saying science is perfect either. (Goodness knows, one of the reasons I'm attracted to this topic is due to grave concerns about some of the science that comes out of it!) But at the very least, it's our best attempt at overcoming human limitations. Somewhere in the iteration between science and intuition we seem to converge on the facts. And by the way, see my comment above ;) Gnathan87 (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Mathew0101 answering Gnathan and making a long speach explaining himself: I read your refrences to research above and think it supports my ideas. And of course you are right. Middle aged I finally (slowly) come to insights about science from pop-science magazines like Scientific American and New Scientist. My point is: The Misplaced Pages article on pedophiles of course must have references to this kind of research under “Causes and biological associations”. I just wanted to point out that this kind of research is totally worthless if you are trying to “catch” the nature of “The Pedophile”. Because scientists don’t have access to the group of general pedophiles. Individuals from lower “strata” of society are over-represented in the material. And in these strata the biological traits mentioned under “C.a.b.a.” are very common. At least in Skandinavia. And about anecdotal I also advise you to read this Misplaced Pages article: Prostitution_of_children, it got footnotes/references. There are also an article about "child sex tourism" in enlish Misplaced Pages that I strongly suggest that people working with this article should check out. This is a gigantic market and I guarantee you that this is not “anecdotal”. The kind of people that western psychiatry draws it conclusions on about pedophilia don’t have access to these markets because they often don’t have money to buy the flight-tickets. Very often they even don’t have cognitive functions enough to manage to buy a flight-ticket. I admit that there in the non-english-speaking western societies are a common opinion (anecdotal) that most child sex tourists are not suffering from pedophilic disorder but are tourists also in the sexual meaning, not only in the geographical so to say. And most child molesters in Skandinavian jails are find to not being pedophiles in the medical meaning (in swedish: “pedofil störning” = pedophilic disorder), just drunks and drug users that flipped out during stressful life experiences (acting out sexual on children = pedofili/pedophlia). What I found interesting was the differences in text between the english and swedish versions of Misplaced Pages under the word “pedofili/pedophilia”. And it also seems as if you got money in US or if you can make money for friends and colleagues in your branch, you get away with almost everything (OJ Simpson and Victor Salva– anecdotal). But you are in risk if you are european (Roman Polanski – anecdotal). It’s also obvious from a Skandinavian point of view that US-citizens are extremely afraid of “being a victim” or being sued. Therefore especially men don’t witness about sexual relations they had as kids with prominent profiles in society. This is not the case in Skandinavia and therefore the public picture (which can be or can not be extremely biased) of pedophilia are very different.
Here is some highly anecdotal (but very well checked by journalists) reading. Not because it contributes to Misplaced Pages, but to explain why I was reacting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/patrik-sjoberg-coach-molested-him_n_854911.html Also check out the articles about Göran Lindberg and Daniel Carleton Gajdusek in english wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/G%C3%B6ran_Lindberg http://en.wikipedia.org/Daniel_Carleton_Gajdusek
- Mathew0101 I get what you are saying, and it is an interesting discussion. Since you are new, I just wanted to point out that I was merely talking about wikipedia's rules for sources. When information is added to this article, it needs some kind of published source to back it up with. The reliability of sources is a continuous scale, with some obviously considered better than others. This article in particular has very high standards for sources due to previous problems many years back, where falsified, discredited or biased sources were used. For example, at one point in this article's long history, actual pedophiles would edit it and use their own personal websites (which contained propaganda and false information) as sources.
- Generally favored are sources published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Obviously, no source is perfect and none answers all the questions about this disorder, but each can be used to built a small piece of the knowledge base. One other clarification about anecdotal evidence. There are two kinds: Published reports/articles of isolated cases or opinions, and personal experience. Individual users (such as you and me) should not add information that is based only on our own personal experiences or observations, because it has to be independently verifiable to readers of the article. Suffice it to say I am a professional in mental health, but I do not put my own patient observations or even my own publications into this article. In fact, I choose not to outright claim any kind of degree, license or authority for personal and professional reasons (I am bound by certain rules due to my job). You would have no reason to believe such a claim from me anyway.
- That said, many of the sources offered by Gnathan87 are good. My only concern is that many of them are merely speculative (even if that speculation is being offered by experts), and one or two I think were discredited due to confounding variables. For example they seem to defined pedophilia using variable definitions, or at the very least confused the presence of any attraction to prepubescents as equal to primary or exclusive pedophilic sexuality. This very issue may be the exact reason for the disparity between the English and Swedish articles: That they define pedophile differently.Legitimus (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Mathew0101 making one last saying: Yes I understand that and I´m glad we had this discussion. Maybe it was wrong of me to make this entry because I must admit I really don´t had any material to offer (and maybe I was not very diplomatic, which is very un-swedish). I will now move on reading other articles about sociology, economy and philosophy of mind (!) wich is my main interest (I really have some interesting articles in these fields that I can make references to). Maybe during the autumn and winter I make some contributions to discussion in those subjects, with references in a proper way and more work put into my english. Thank you and maybe we will bump in to each other some other time. :)
"The errors of Karen Franklin's Pretextuality" article now available.
Hi, folks. People interested in Karen Franklin's various claims about hebephilia currently mentioned on the mainpage might be interested in this new publication that catalogs some of her factual errors on the topic. Because I am the author of that document, I am posting it here, rather than integrating it into the mainpage myself.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Duh!
In the section ICD-10 and DSM there's a sentence which I find quite redundant and rather a "duh moment": "On the other hand, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges can also qualify for the diagnosis." I'll remove this sentence unless some people actually find it useful. __meco (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think it's obvious. Generally (I suppose, not really knowing) that if you go to a shrink and say "I have strong desire to sleep covered in pancakes, and do, and this makes me happy and causes me no distress or other problems" he'll say "So why are you here?". Masturbating to child porn is an exception, I gather, and it's worthwhile to point this out. Herostratus (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is worth keeping. Besides WP:OBVIOUS, this clarification was put there because the ADA got all bent out of shape about the actual text of the DSM criteria being included in the article (claiming copyright) so we had to describe it as best we can.Legitimus (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would say that the point of that line is to stress the "yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges" part; it's pointing out that the act of child sexual abuse can meet diagnosis even without that psychological factor. Yes, the general public already assumes that the act of child sexual abuse alone makes someone a pedophile, but most experts disagree with that. So it seems that line is showing the difference in the DSM criteria. I, however, question whether the DSM would only rely on behavior (as stated in the debate section). From what I have read in more than one source about the DSM over the years, "intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children" would seem to be needed before making the diagnosis ("significant stress" included, but still...). Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is worth keeping. Besides WP:OBVIOUS, this clarification was put there because the ADA got all bent out of shape about the actual text of the DSM criteria being included in the article (claiming copyright) so we had to describe it as best we can.Legitimus (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Proposed change in the DSM for "at least 18 years and at least five years older"
MsBatfish was of course right to revert this edit by RJR3333. Even if RJR3333 had added the correct link, I wouldn't think it should be there in that part of the lead, making the line messy and awkward, and muddying the definition of pedophilia even further. This is a proposed change to the DSM; it does not belong in the lead at all, in my opinion. And if someone wants to bring up the fact that the proposed change to merge hebephilia with pedophilia to create "pedohebephilic disorder" is in the lead, well, I'll say that I don't feel that should be in the lead either. And, looking at the source I just linked to (updated as recently as November 18, 2011), it could simply be called "Pedophilic Disorder" if the merge is officially accepted by the DSM. But "pedohebephilic disorder" is mentioned in a subsection of the Etymology and definitions section (in this case, the Debate regarding the DSM criteria subsection), and I feel that any DSM proposal that we feel warrants inclusion in this article belongs somewhere in the Etymology and definitions section as well (most suitably in the ICD-10 and DSM subsection or the Debate regarding the DSM criteria subsection).
If RJR3333's edit is to be included in the lead, it should be in the second paragraph, right behind mention of proposed change "pedohebephilic disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- Unassessed sociology articles
- Unknown-importance sociology articles
- B-Class law articles
- Mid-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles