Talk:Pedophilia - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.159.131.3 (talk) at 11:15, 15 January 2012 (→To the editors trying to get pro-pedophilia material into this article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:15, 15 January 2012 by 72.159.131.3 (talk) (→To the editors trying to get pro-pedophilia material into this article: 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This 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
Mid	This 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.

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)

This 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

Sociology

	Society portal This 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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 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)

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)

Proposed criteria definitely do not belong in the lead. A mention is ok later in the article, but the lead should be as straight forward as possible to avoid confusing readers.Legitimus (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Discussion Closed - User Indefinitely Blocked
I know that this must have been here before, but this article exhibits extreme bias, that's just unacceptable. It is clear that this article was written by American pedo haters. As a person from Europe I wouldn't recommend anyone to believe anything in this article, because even if it's sourced, the sources are often obscure and the quotations are taken out of context. For example, I'd like to know where is homosexuality described as a mental disorder - because it's included in DSM too. --Kmaga (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) You know that this was brought up before because you are most likely one of the ones who brought it up before. Yep, this article certainly was not written by pedophile lovers, but everything in this article is pretty accurately attributed to reliable sources, with most likely nothing taken out of context. Anything taken "out of context" certainly is not in an attempt to paint pedophilia negatively. Pedophilia is already painted negatively, needing no push in that direction. It's painted negatively by society and the medical community. Not just American society and researchers either. What do you expect? This article to say that pedophilia and engaging in sexual activity with prepubescent children is perfectly normal/acceptable/that pedophilia is not a mental disorder? If so, you would be wrong on all accounts. Homosexuality is not described as a mental disorder in this article because it is not a mental disorder, it is not in the DSM, and pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. But congratulations on making the same argument that pedophiles make with that one, opining about how homosexuality used to be in the DSM. Seeing your comment here and looking through your contributions, I believe you to be WP:Trolling. You won't last long here with that behavior. And I am already tempted to remove this entire section. Maybe someone else will. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Why? Why so much hatred? I'm new to the english wikipedia and I don't see anything bad about my contributions. No, I'm not a troll and I didn't contribute to this discussion before. While pedophilia might be taken as a mental disorder, but mental disorder is a broad cathegory. Pedophilia is a paraphilia, just like fetishism and sadomasochism. And these are not described as mental disorders. But you're right that homosexuality was taken out of DSM, I didn't know that. --Kmaga (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Even if you are new to this version of Misplaced Pages, your assessment of this article is completely off. And it's the exact same arguments pedophiles make. That's why I didn't/don't take well to seeing it/hearing it. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder or a paraphilia (except for in cases where one defines paraphilia as engaging in sex that will not result in reproduction); it is no longer listed as one by the majority of researchers. The main point about homosexuality in this discussion is that it has nothing to do with pedophilia (except for in cases where a homosexual person happens to be a pedophile as well, just like a heterosexual person can be a pedophile). Therefore, it has nothing to do with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC) It has much to do with this article, because as I wrote, I was attempting to make a comparison. Homosexuality was considered paraphilia not long time ago, it was taken out of the list in 1993. Until that time it was on par with pedophilia. Do you get it? I still can't figure out why you're so hateful. --Kmaga (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC) No, it doesn't have "much to do with this article," as I've already explained to you above. The way you are comparing homosexuality is the same way pedophiles compare it, wanting to put it alongside pedophilia so that they can say, "See the DSM was once wrong about homosexuality, so who is to say that they are right about pedophilia? If homosexuality can be removed, then so can pedophilia." Do you get it? I believe that you do. You call it hateful; I call it tired of hearing this same silly argument. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, and it was taken off the list in 1973, not 1993. If it had taken that long... Oh forget it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC) That's exactly it. Except that I don't think that pedophilia should be removed, but that homosexuality should be put back on the list. All I want is all sexual deviations to be treated equally and objectively, and that's not what I see on english wikipedia. And it was taken off the list in 1993 - by the WHO. --Kmaga (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) You are correct that the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of diseases in 1993, but we were talking about the DSM...and the WHO didn't/and still doesn't have as much weight in the medical community as the DSM. Further, you don't seem to be getting the point -- that homosexuality is not a sexual deviation, and that it should not be covered in this article (not unless we are covering all the misconceptions about its relation to pedophilia). What you think should be considered a mental disorder and/or fetish/sexual deviation does not matter. Misplaced Pages goes by reliable sources. And with regard to medical topics such as this one, we go by high-quality sources, per WP:MED, and what the medical consensus is. The medical consensus is that pedophilia is a mental disorder, while homosexuality is not. Sexual deviations are treated equally and objectively on Misplaced Pages, but some things (like homosexuality) are not sexual deviations and some sexual deviations are classified as mental disorders. We cannot put things on equal footing when they are not on equal footing. I suggest you read over Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and work your way through its related projects. You are going to need that knowledge/experience if you are to edit here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) When did I say that homosexuality should be covered in the article? You started with this. Homosexuality has actually nothing to do with this article. It's not classified as a paraphilia, I know that now. But all other paraphilias, like those I mentioned above, should be treated equally. How do you explain that for example sadomasochism isn't described as a mental disorder and that only pedophilia is? --Kmaga (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) What else am I supposed to think when you show up at the Pedophilia article saying "For example, I'd like to know where is homosexuality described as a mental disorder - because it's included in DSM too."? And when you continue to go on about what a deviance homosexuality is after that and how it has "much to do with this article"? Am I to believe you wanted to propose neutral presentations of sexual deviations on Misplaced Pages here at the Pedophilia talk page instead of at projects like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychology or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? And anyway, like I just stated, some sexual deviations are classified as mental disorders...while others are not. I was quite clear in stating that: "We cannot put things on equal footing when they are not on equal footing." It is up to the medical community to make these decisions. We are simply following them. And for the record, sadomasochism can certainly be described as a mental disorder. See its article, the BDSM article and the Sadism and masochism as medical terms article. The Pedophilia talk page is not the place to propose neutral presentations of sexual deviations on Misplaced Pages. But just to reiterate, we cannot call all sexual deviations mental disorders unless the medical community says that they are. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) You're a liar. DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and it's so named because it includes only mental disorders. Sadomasochism is classified as a mental disorder, but it's not stated anywhere in the heading - and that applies to all other sexual deviations except pedophilia. Because of that, I require immediate deletion of this information from the heading of the Pedophilia article. This is only the start though, there are millions of other examples of bias in this article. --Kmaga (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I did not lie at all. I said, "...sadomasochism can certainly be described as a mental disorder. See its article, the BDSM article and the Sadism and masochism as medical terms article." You clearly did not do that. Sadomasochism is defined as a mental disorder if "the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning," as those articles state. I also did not lie when I stated that not all sexual deviations are considered mental disorders. Sadomasochism, for example, is a sexual deviation, but classifying it as a mental disorder depends on circumstances. Sexual fetishes are considered sexual deviations, but not all sexual fetishes are necessarily mental disorders. I don't care what you require; we will not be removing the fact (yes, fact) that pedophilia is considered a mental disorder from the lead of this article. You can keep complaining here all you want, but you will not be getting your way on that front. And this section will most likely be removed if you continue to insist that it should be. I have given you the facts. You don't want to face them. Fine! Misplaced Pages is not the place to soapbox. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC) You have no rights in here, so there's no point in threatening me. You're not only lying, but also dodging and distorting the facts. All items listed in the DSM are technically mental disorders, either fully or partially. The heading of the article about sadomasochism doesn't mention anything about it being a mental disorder, you can't find it in any other article except Pedophilia. Why do I need to repeat myself? I'm saving this discussion as a proof of your duplicity, because I don't believe that you're doing this unintentionally. I'll be watching you very closely. --Kmaga (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC) This isn't about me. Or you. And, nope, not lying, dodging or distorting anything. You simply don't understand these subjects very well, as evidenced by your thinking that homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder or that it is at all legitimate anymore (if it ever was) among researchers to list it as a paraphilia. The lead (it's called a lead, not heading) of the Sadomasochism article does mention that sadomasochism may be classified as a mental disorder. It says: "Sadomasochism should be differentiated from the clinical paraphilias which require that such practices lead to clinically significant distress or impairment for a diagnosis." And that is sourced to the DSM. But I suppose I'm still lying. It is the DSM saying that "sadomasochism is only a mental disorder if..." Not me. And that means that not all forms of sadomasochism are considered mental disorders. You just aren't comprehending that, for whatever reason. That's why you keep repeating yourself. You won't have to save this discussion. It will be archived, if it isn't removed first. And you can watch me all you want; I will be watching you as well. But if it comes to WP:Wikistalking, I will be reporting you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (i) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so if you want to go improve the BDSM articles then go to those talk pages. WP doesn't use article precedent to determine article content. (ii) Yes this article is biased because Misplaced Pages represents mainstream views and the mainstream is biased against pedos. Don't confuse neutrality with a lack of bias, they are not the same concepts. (iii) If you have no prior experience on Misplaced Pages how can you make the claim "you have no rights in here, so there's no point in threatening me?" It seems to me that someone new to wikipedia wouldn't have a grasp on our moderation hierarchy, nor how to check if someone is an admin, nor whether they were breaking rules from one of our 50+ policies. Nformation 20:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Because I'm not new to Misplaced Pages, only to the English Misplaced Pages. --Kmaga (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) OMG. I repeat yet again: All items listed in the DSM are technically mental disorders, either fully or partially. Which part of it don't you understand? --Kmaga (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) What part of other stuff exists do you not understand? Pedophilia is a mental disorder and so our article says it is. If you think that BDSM articles should be classified as such then go to those talk pages and make your case. What other articles do have nothing to do with what this article will do. Get it? Nformation 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC) The problem is that the whole article is fundamentally flawed, you can't find this type of bias in other language versions of Misplaced Pages.--Kmaga (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC) It is not fundamentally flawed because you say so. And how do you know that we cannot "find this type of bias in other language versions of Misplaced Pages"? Or are you fluent in all other languages? Somehow I doubt that. You can call it "bias" all you want. It is what the medical community says, and all those other language versions should be saying the same thing. I'm sure that most do. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Kmaga, I'm not sure why you are repeating yourself. I've already told you that not all forms of sadomasochism are considered mental disorders, and that this is backed to the DSM. The DSM is saying that. The ICD-10 also says that aspects of sadomasochism may be a part of a normal (as in normal to most people) sex life. I also told you that the lead of the Sadomasochism article mentions the mental disorder/paraphilia aspects of sadomasochism. If you look at that line, click on the number beside it and the Psychological categorization section, all of this should be evident. So I can't really answer why you are repeating yourself; that's what I don't understand. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC) OK, I see that you're unable to understand to the simplest things. Sadomasochism is an item listed under the DSM, and in this case it's a mental disorder only in part, because as you pointed out, some forms of sadomasochism aren't considered a mental disorder. --Kmaga (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC) No, I see that you are unable to understand the simplest things. That you aren't fully comprehending what I stated above is mind-boggling. Not every aspect of sadomasochism is considered a mental disorder. Yes! That is the point! The lead and lower body of the Sadomasochism article makes this clear by saying that sadomasochism can be considered a mental disorder. It doesn't simply say that it is one, because there are criteria (criteria put forth by both the DSM and ICD-10) designating it as a mental disorder only under certain circumstances. Contrast that with pedophilia, which is always considered a mental disorder if correctly defined as a sexual preference (whether exclusive or primary) for prepubescent children. I am through with this discussion. I believe that you are trolling or just aren't good at comprehending. Maybe it is a language barrier, I do not know. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Closed - User Indefinitely Blocked

I know that this must have been here before, but this article exhibits extreme bias, that's just unacceptable. It is clear that this article was written by American pedo haters. As a person from Europe I wouldn't recommend anyone to believe anything in this article, because even if it's sourced, the sources are often obscure and the quotations are taken out of context. For example, I'd like to know where is homosexuality described as a mental disorder - because it's included in DSM too. --Kmaga (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You know that this was brought up before because you are most likely one of the ones who brought it up before. Yep, this article certainly was not written by pedophile lovers, but everything in this article is pretty accurately attributed to reliable sources, with most likely nothing taken out of context. Anything taken "out of context" certainly is not in an attempt to paint pedophilia negatively. Pedophilia is already painted negatively, needing no push in that direction. It's painted negatively by society and the medical community. Not just American society and researchers either. What do you expect? This article to say that pedophilia and engaging in sexual activity with prepubescent children is perfectly normal/acceptable/that pedophilia is not a mental disorder? If so, you would be wrong on all accounts. Homosexuality is not described as a mental disorder in this article because it is not a mental disorder, it is not in the DSM, and pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. But congratulations on making the same argument that pedophiles make with that one, opining about how homosexuality used to be in the DSM.

Seeing your comment here and looking through your contributions, I believe you to be WP:Trolling. You won't last long here with that behavior. And I am already tempted to remove this entire section. Maybe someone else will. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? Why so much hatred? I'm new to the english wikipedia and I don't see anything bad about my contributions. No, I'm not a troll and I didn't contribute to this discussion before. While pedophilia might be taken as a mental disorder, but mental disorder is a broad cathegory. Pedophilia is a paraphilia, just like fetishism and sadomasochism. And these are not described as mental disorders. But you're right that homosexuality was taken out of DSM, I didn't know that. --Kmaga (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if you are new to this version of Misplaced Pages, your assessment of this article is completely off. And it's the exact same arguments pedophiles make. That's why I didn't/don't take well to seeing it/hearing it. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder or a paraphilia (except for in cases where one defines paraphilia as engaging in sex that will not result in reproduction); it is no longer listed as one by the majority of researchers. The main point about homosexuality in this discussion is that it has nothing to do with pedophilia (except for in cases where a homosexual person happens to be a pedophile as well, just like a heterosexual person can be a pedophile). Therefore, it has nothing to do with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It has much to do with this article, because as I wrote, I was attempting to make a comparison. Homosexuality was considered paraphilia not long time ago, it was taken out of the list in 1993. Until that time it was on par with pedophilia. Do you get it? I still can't figure out why you're so hateful. --Kmaga (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have "much to do with this article," as I've already explained to you above. The way you are comparing homosexuality is the same way pedophiles compare it, wanting to put it alongside pedophilia so that they can say, "See the DSM was once wrong about homosexuality, so who is to say that they are right about pedophilia? If homosexuality can be removed, then so can pedophilia." Do you get it? I believe that you do. You call it hateful; I call it tired of hearing this same silly argument. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and it was taken off the list in 1973, not 1993. If it had taken that long... Oh forget it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly it. Except that I don't think that pedophilia should be removed, but that homosexuality should be put back on the list. All I want is all sexual deviations to be treated equally and objectively, and that's not what I see on english wikipedia.

And it was taken off the list in 1993 - by the WHO. --Kmaga (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of diseases in 1993, but we were talking about the DSM...and the WHO didn't/and still doesn't have as much weight in the medical community as the DSM. Further, you don't seem to be getting the point -- that homosexuality is not a sexual deviation, and that it should not be covered in this article (not unless we are covering all the misconceptions about its relation to pedophilia). What you think should be considered a mental disorder and/or fetish/sexual deviation does not matter. Misplaced Pages goes by reliable sources. And with regard to medical topics such as this one, we go by high-quality sources, per WP:MED, and what the medical consensus is. The medical consensus is that pedophilia is a mental disorder, while homosexuality is not. Sexual deviations are treated equally and objectively on Misplaced Pages, but some things (like homosexuality) are not sexual deviations and some sexual deviations are classified as mental disorders. We cannot put things on equal footing when they are not on equal footing. I suggest you read over Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and work your way through its related projects. You are going to need that knowledge/experience if you are to edit here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

When did I say that homosexuality should be covered in the article? You started with this. Homosexuality has actually nothing to do with this article. It's not classified as a paraphilia, I know that now. But all other paraphilias, like those I mentioned above, should be treated equally. How do you explain that for example sadomasochism isn't described as a mental disorder and that only pedophilia is? --Kmaga (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What else am I supposed to think when you show up at the Pedophilia article saying "For example, I'd like to know where is homosexuality described as a mental disorder - because it's included in DSM too."? And when you continue to go on about what a deviance homosexuality is after that and how it has "much to do with this article"? Am I to believe you wanted to propose neutral presentations of sexual deviations on Misplaced Pages here at the Pedophilia talk page instead of at projects like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychology or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? And anyway, like I just stated, some sexual deviations are classified as mental disorders...while others are not. I was quite clear in stating that: "We cannot put things on equal footing when they are not on equal footing." It is up to the medical community to make these decisions. We are simply following them. And for the record, sadomasochism can certainly be described as a mental disorder. See its article, the BDSM article and the Sadism and masochism as medical terms article. The Pedophilia talk page is not the place to propose neutral presentations of sexual deviations on Misplaced Pages. But just to reiterate, we cannot call all sexual deviations mental disorders unless the medical community says that they are. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're a liar. DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and it's so named because it includes only mental disorders. Sadomasochism is classified as a mental disorder, but it's not stated anywhere in the heading - and that applies to all other sexual deviations except pedophilia. Because of that, I require immediate deletion of this information from the heading of the Pedophilia article. This is only the start though, there are millions of other examples of bias in this article. --Kmaga (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not lie at all. I said, "...sadomasochism can certainly be described as a mental disorder. See its article, the BDSM article and the Sadism and masochism as medical terms article." You clearly did not do that. Sadomasochism is defined as a mental disorder if "the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning," as those articles state. I also did not lie when I stated that not all sexual deviations are considered mental disorders. Sadomasochism, for example, is a sexual deviation, but classifying it as a mental disorder depends on circumstances. Sexual fetishes are considered sexual deviations, but not all sexual fetishes are necessarily mental disorders.

I don't care what you require; we will not be removing the fact (yes, fact) that pedophilia is considered a mental disorder from the lead of this article. You can keep complaining here all you want, but you will not be getting your way on that front. And this section will most likely be removed if you continue to insist that it should be. I have given you the facts. You don't want to face them. Fine! Misplaced Pages is not the place to soapbox. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You have no rights in here, so there's no point in threatening me. You're not only lying, but also dodging and distorting the facts. All items listed in the DSM are technically mental disorders, either fully or partially. The heading of the article about sadomasochism doesn't mention anything about it being a mental disorder, you can't find it in any other article except Pedophilia. Why do I need to repeat myself? I'm saving this discussion as a proof of your duplicity, because I don't believe that you're doing this unintentionally. I'll be watching you very closely. --Kmaga (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about me. Or you. And, nope, not lying, dodging or distorting anything. You simply don't understand these subjects very well, as evidenced by your thinking that homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder or that it is at all legitimate anymore (if it ever was) among researchers to list it as a paraphilia. The lead (it's called a lead, not heading) of the Sadomasochism article does mention that sadomasochism may be classified as a mental disorder. It says: "Sadomasochism should be differentiated from the clinical paraphilias which require that such practices lead to clinically significant distress or impairment for a diagnosis." And that is sourced to the DSM. But I suppose I'm still lying. It is the DSM saying that "sadomasochism is only a mental disorder if..." Not me. And that means that not all forms of sadomasochism are considered mental disorders. You just aren't comprehending that, for whatever reason. That's why you keep repeating yourself.

You won't have to save this discussion. It will be archived, if it isn't removed first. And you can watch me all you want; I will be watching you as well. But if it comes to WP:Wikistalking, I will be reporting you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so if you want to go improve the BDSM articles then go to those talk pages. WP doesn't use article precedent to determine article content. (ii) Yes this article is biased because Misplaced Pages represents mainstream views and the mainstream is biased against pedos. Don't confuse neutrality with a lack of bias, they are not the same concepts. (iii) If you have no prior experience on Misplaced Pages how can you make the claim "you have no rights in here, so there's no point in threatening me?" It seems to me that someone new to wikipedia wouldn't have a grasp on our moderation hierarchy, nor how to check if someone is an admin, nor whether they were breaking rules from one of our 50+ policies. Nformation 20:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm not new to Misplaced Pages, only to the English Misplaced Pages. --Kmaga (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG. I repeat yet again: All items listed in the DSM are technically mental disorders, either fully or partially. Which part of it don't you understand? --Kmaga (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What part of other stuff exists do you not understand? Pedophilia is a mental disorder and so our article says it is. If you think that BDSM articles should be classified as such then go to those talk pages and make your case. What other articles do have nothing to do with what this article will do. Get it? Nformation 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the whole article is fundamentally flawed, you can't find this type of bias in other language versions of Misplaced Pages.--Kmaga (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not fundamentally flawed because you say so. And how do you know that we cannot "find this type of bias in other language versions of Misplaced Pages"? Or are you fluent in all other languages? Somehow I doubt that. You can call it "bias" all you want. It is what the medical community says, and all those other language versions should be saying the same thing. I'm sure that most do. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Kmaga, I'm not sure why you are repeating yourself. I've already told you that not all forms of sadomasochism are considered mental disorders, and that this is backed to the DSM. The DSM is saying that. The ICD-10 also says that aspects of sadomasochism may be a part of a normal (as in normal to most people) sex life. I also told you that the lead of the Sadomasochism article mentions the mental disorder/paraphilia aspects of sadomasochism. If you look at that line, click on the number beside it and the Psychological categorization section, all of this should be evident. So I can't really answer why you are repeating yourself; that's what I don't understand. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that you're unable to understand to the simplest things. Sadomasochism is an item listed under the DSM, and in this case it's a mental disorder only in part, because as you pointed out, some forms of sadomasochism aren't considered a mental disorder. --Kmaga (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I see that you are unable to understand the simplest things. That you aren't fully comprehending what I stated above is mind-boggling. Not every aspect of sadomasochism is considered a mental disorder. Yes! That is the point! The lead and lower body of the Sadomasochism article makes this clear by saying that sadomasochism can be considered a mental disorder. It doesn't simply say that it is one, because there are criteria (criteria put forth by both the DSM and ICD-10) designating it as a mental disorder only under certain circumstances. Contrast that with pedophilia, which is always considered a mental disorder if correctly defined as a sexual preference (whether exclusive or primary) for prepubescent children.

I am through with this discussion. I believe that you are trolling or just aren't good at comprehending. Maybe it is a language barrier, I do not know. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: revert by User:WLU of revision 465534144 by User:Edifyingdiscourse

Good catch WLU. The image with the following caption:

Under modern diagnostic criteria Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl called Aisha when she was 6.

totally does not belong in the article. (). I just wanted to additionally point out the relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding its removal. It's not just because it is potentially (as WLU put it) "horribly unnecessarily negative and pejorative", but it is WP:Original research, and even if it were sourced it would be WP:SYNTH. Just thought I'd mention it here in case Edifyingdiscourse is looking for why their edit was removed or anyone else was thinking of re-adding it. MsBatfish (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And from what I read in a few sources, Muhammad is said to have not engaged in sexual intercourse with this girl until she was able to bear children, aka pubescent, which would technically make him not a pedophile...if he was not significantly sexually attracted to this girl at the time their marriage was initiated. Remember, pedophilia is about the sexual preference for prepubescent children or those who look prepubescent (which is why researchers are thinking of merging hebephilia with pedophilia to create the new category of "pedohebephilic disorder"). So even if Muhammad had been sexually attracted to this girl while she was prepubescent, he would have needed to have a significant sexual attraction to prepubescent girls in order to technically fit the definition of a pedophile. Legitimus and myself actually discussed something along these lines at Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Is indecent exposure child sexual abuse?, a discussion which evolved into the topic of child marriage. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. In addition, regardless of what any editor personally thinks about the subject, it is original research to say that Muhammad was a pedophile unless a reliable source specifically stated that. And even then we would have to say "_____ speculates such and such". One can't say that just because one source says that Muhammed may have had a child wife (who he may or may not have had sex with before she reached puberty) that therefore he was a pedophile. MsBatfish (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And pedophilia certainly isn't based on marriage. Saying that he "would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl" is just a no. Flyer22 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this specific matter is more political than scientific. The story of Aisha is a major talking point among American "Muslim bashers," as a way to denigrate the religion as a whole. Now what I am about to say is also original research I suppose, but I feel it is worth bringing up as a look from the other side: Aisha was 18, not 6. The way my Persian Muslim colleague explained it to me is the the Quran doesn't say anywhere she was 6. That comes from a third-party source, and was intended a sort of artistic metaphor for Aisha's "purity" and virginity (the numbers 6 and 9 have some kind of symbolic meaning). My colleague then pointed to several sources indicating the year of her death and age at that time, as well as the year of the marriage, from which it could be calculated that she was approximately 17 or 18. It is worth noting that he said he was offended this angle of the matter is so heavily downplayed in English Misplaced Pages, given how wildly accepted it is among educated Muslims, but surmises it is because the sources are all in Arabic or Farsi.Legitimus (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting and enlightening, Legitimus. Thanks for that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Some people think X was a pedophile" is a pretty terrible inclusion on pretty much any page, not to mention we could pick from hundreds of historical figures who married, had sex with or raped someone who we would consider age inappropriate. Really, I think this is a WP:UCS deletion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Legitimus, i disagree with your assertion that Aisha was 18. The "third party soure" you speak about are actually Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim which are considred essential and the most authentic book after the Quran by Sunni muslims as well as other denominations. In fact, if you disbelieve in these books, you are no longer considered Muslim by the Orthodox Muslims. Pass a Method talk 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential source on bio- aspects, for those interested.

Hi, folks. I recently delivered a keynote address summarizing the recent neurological research on pedophilia and related phenomena (in English). That talk just became avaiable online, so I thought I would post it here for anyone who might be interested in the biological section of the mainpage but is missing plain-language descriptions of the research.
The recording is avail at http://vimeo.com/33793616 .
— James Cantor (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion RFC

An editor asked me to seek consensus for this edit which he removed before i was finished providing more references. Do you support or oppose the edit? Pass a Method talk 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why jump right into an RFC rather than discuss the edit on the talk page? It's a little premature. Nformation 11:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod, you didn't necessarily need an RfC, but I can see why you added one since I stated that including your text would not go over well here at the talk page.

Like I stated in my edit summary, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia. There is also the fact that your sources don't call it pedophilia by name, I don't think. But even if you find sources that do, there's still the matter of what I stated about the diagnosis of pedophilia. Besides only being diagnosed in humans, it is based on sexual preference...not the act of sexual abuse. And "sexual abuse" is another term that is usually not applied to non-human animals.

Still, maybe you can make a good case for including this material in the article...if you find reliable sources calling it pedophilia. The article does mention how the term pedophilia is misused. So maybe it could go in that section, to say that some scholars apply the term to non-human animals? Or as a subsection of that section? Hmm, we'll see what others think. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason i did not discuss is bcause Flyer did not discuss. If he removes without really explaining, what am i suppose to say/discuss? He asked me to seek consensus, so i did. Also, you seemed quite rigid in your reply, so i thought a 3rd opinion was inevitable. Pass a Method talk 11:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod, I'm female and I explained why I reverted you in the edit summary; that type of edit was/is more of a revert and then discuss matter, per WP:BRD. I then suggested that you bring the matter to the talk page. Noformation is saying that starting an RfC discussion this soon is premature. Such a discussion is typically only used either after WP:Consensus has failed to be achieved or because an undesirable consensus has been achieved and outside views are wanted. Flyer22 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguous response you gave me meant that there was nothing to discuss. It was mostly a opinion based reply. Also you made the removal so YOU should have started a discussion, not me. Pass a Method talk 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about "PassaMethod, a section like this needs discussion on the talk page first. Not only should a section like this not be placed so high, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia." And the only part of that reply that is opinionated is where I felt the section should be placed. The rest is based on fact/policy, as shown above. How do you get around the fact that pedophilia is only diagnosed in humans, is not based on sexual acts (as defined by most of the psychological/medical community anyway), and is not used as a term in your sources? If we are to include your text, it will need to specifically use the word "pedophilia" and will need to be placed in a section allowing for the term to be used this way. Just like we have an In law and forensic psychology section about how the term is often not used in the medical sense in that regard. Those are my points. All valid. I do not at all understand when you call my edit summaries vague or ambiguous; they are pretty straight-forward and there is only so much that can be stated in edit summaries. And, no, I didn't have to start the discussion because I removed the material. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. Flyer22 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant your response on my talk page was ambiguous + opinionated. Pass a Method talk 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I made that comment, there wasn't much more to say after what I'd already stated in my edit summary. And just when I'd had an additional response ready, I saw that you had already started a discussion here...as I'd suggested. So I then replied here with most of what I was going to state on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess there was a bit of confusion involved today. Next time i recommend stating what you said in your edit summary on the talk page too. I dont really pay much attention to edit summaries if someone made a talk page comment. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Pass a Method talk

I do not think this section needs to be included because in short it is apples to oranges. Like most psychological principles, the study and classification of this disorder is based on the human mind and human physiology. These animals have different physiological processes involved (physical growth and sexual maturity), and there are parts of there psychology we will never truly understand until some person invents a mind-reading technology that works on animals. It just falls too far outside the subject. Not to mention that animal behavior is a popular talking point for people attempting to further an agenda. There is a possible home for this information though in Animal sexual behaviour.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I would tend not to think it's a good passage. We don't know the inner lives of animals, so we with animals we can only described so-called "pedophilic behavior", which is really a misnomer and which I think the article tries to clear this up although there is some discussion of "child molestation". Whether any animal behavior can be described as "child molestation" I don't know, but animal behaviors are not generally described as "burglary" or "assault and battery" or "wire fraud" I don't think, so maybe not. Anyway it is getting a bit far afield and I would be skeptical that we can extrapolate much useful information from animal behavior, particularly insect behavior. And unless it's show that we can, I don't see why it belongs in the article. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Jours apres lunes

I suppose the fashion industry is becoming more lenient as time passes. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/french-company-sells-lingerie-year-olds/story?id=14324742#.TvHnl1ZLPE8 Gravitoweak (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is tangentially related to this article's subject matter at best. Even if there was hard evidence that the designer of the clothing or the editors in charge of approving designs are attracted to children under 12, this would not be of any note in regards to this subject. There are several other articles that may apply, but again this is a news item, not a study.Legitimus (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is written from a victimologist perspectice. It is not written with a Neutral Point of View. Can anything be done given that the article is essentially controlled by a very small number of individuals who ban anyone who opposes them? Cataconia (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality is demonstrated through the presentation of reliable sources. It is not asserted. If you have reliable sources that verify a relevant point, present them. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As we all know, it doesn't work like that anymore in this article. The source will need to be approved by a few self appointed censors who, if they like it, will allow the edit to remain. If they do not, they will remove it regardless of how reliable and relevant it is. We all know this to be the case, why pretend any longer? Cataconia (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, neutrality requires more than reliable sources. If you handpick the sources to fit a certain view, the article will be biased but with reliable resources. This article is a perfect example of that. Cataconia (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Until you demonstrate an understanding of WP:UNDUE, there's no point continuing this conversation. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, why debate when you can just ban any opposition. Does anyone of you actually understand the science well enough to make a UNDUE judgment. Nope. Cataconia (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have specific changes you'd like to make to the article based on what WP considers reliable sources? If not then there's nothing to discuss, WP is not a forum for general discussion of the topic or for editors to WP:SOAPBOX. Nformation 23:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If I had, would they be allowed? No. It's not that people haven't tried adding reliable sources that doesn't completely conform to a very specific world-view that has the grips of this article. Where are they now? The sources are gone and the users are banned for made up reasons. The system has collapsed. Cataconia (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, unless you have specific changes to the article based on reliable sources you are wasting your time and the time of other editors. You're welcome to your opinions but wikipedia is not the place to express them, maybe consider WP:Alternative outlets. Nformation 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would they be allowed? Cataconia (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How can I possibly evaluate a source if I don't know what it is? Nformation 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those who did what you said, where are they now? Banned. I'm looking for options. Cataconia (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So obviously you know that those sources are not allowed here because they likely advocate pedophilia; there's your answer. Closing this thread, feel free to start a new one if you're willing to abide by WP:TALK. Nformation 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Advocate pedophilia? Have you gone mad? We are talking about mainstream research published in mainstream journals, Cataconia (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And what are you saying that these mainstream sources will say? That pedophilia is normal, a sexual orientation, that child sexual abuse is not abuse and is not harmful? This article is written the way it is because no mainstream psychological/medical sources present pedophilia in the way I just described. And what I just described is the only "neutrality" you could be talking about, since it is the exact opposite of what this article says (with the exception that pedophilia may be considered similar to a sexual orientation). You know exactly what we mean when we say "advocate pedophilia." You are obviously aware of what goes on at this article and talk page, so don't play clueless here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, post the sources here. If they are truly mainstream scholarly sources then no problem. If they advocate pedophilia I'll send a message to arbcom and you know the next step. Nformation 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you guys hold the view that any mainstream schorarly article that does not conform to your view is indeed promoting pedophilia or is used to promote pedophilia. The main problem with this is that there have been a schorarly debate for many decades where normal mainstream scientists have argued with each other on many of the finer points in this area, and this wiki-article does nothing to reflect this. It simply assumes that one side has won and that the other side should not be presented here. This is original research for starters, but I guess you won't be banning yourselfs anytime soon for that crime. Anyways, your fear of what media will say has completely destroyed the quality of these articles and has corrupted wikipedia to the point where it reads like pure propaganda. Cataconia (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, any source that does not conform to your point of view is "advocating pedophilia" and should be removed and the user who posted them should be banned. This is a complete corruption of what wikipedia stands for, This is might is right perspective, whoever has the banning powers decides what the article should look like. If I had the banning powers, I could say that your sources are promoting X and ban you, and you could do nothing about it. Today, you can be banned for posting a relevant mainstream scientific source into the article. Is this the wikipedia way? Cataconia (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're so convinced that you cannot do anything and cannot even name a source, why bother posting? If you post a link to an article in PubMed or APA PsycNET, nobody here is going to ban you.Legitimus (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is locked for some reason. Will take a few days. Cataconia (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article semi-protected, which means that non-registered users (aka IP editors) and newly registered users cannot edit it, only post on the talk page. But that is actually for a completely different reason: This article is a giant magnet for joke/prank vandalism. It was protected for a year once, and less 24 hours after the protection wore off, random teenage boys were posting their friends and teachers names. So now it is permanent.Legitimus (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I meant post a link to PubMed or PsycNET here on the talk page, so we can see what you are talking about.Legitimus (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're serious about adding to the page, then post here, on the talk page, the source you want to use and the change you want to make. It's very easy to debate abstracts - without any specifics you're just wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's alright, I will add them in the article in due time. They will be in line with wikipedia policies. Cataconia (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on your contribution history, I would suggest posting your suggestions here first or they'll probably be reverted as soon as someone else notices them. In addition, other editors can suggest changes, better sources, or state why the policies and guidelines prohibit the source or change. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I could do that, but I fail to see the point. I doubt anyone here knows more about the subject than me anyways, and you guys do not appear to have a history of going through that process before you post. Cataconia (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cataconia: You are absolutely correct that this article is owned and controlled by about 6 editors. Mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts are dismissed as "fringe" or as "promoting" pedophilia. It's an intractable problem specific to this topic. Most editors give up on dealing with these six people, which is of course what they hope to achieve. I wish you the best in dealing with them. Jokestress (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To the editors trying to get pro-pedophilia material into this article

It never ceases to surprise me how backwards the minds of pedophiles and those who support positive pedophilia/child rape arguments work. You are the ones supporting this material, continuously trying to get it into this article, and the six editors who block you every time are the corrupt ones? The higher-ups who ban you are the corrupt ones? Laughing my ass off. How is it not promoting pedophilia to say that pedophilia is as okay as heterosexuality and homosexuality and that adults engaging in sex acts with prepubescent children can result in as many positive effects as it can negative effects? And do enlighten us by telling us what "mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts" say that pedophilia is a normal mental process and that sexually abusing children isn't so bad? Even Rind et al. weren't mainstream and got their asses handed to them by the majority of psychologists and medical experts. What you are supporting are fringe views, per Misplaced Pages:Fringe. The majority of experts call pedophilia a mental disorder. The majority of experts deem adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubecent children, even pubescent ones, to be bad. This article is not being selective in its sources. It just so happens that the view that "pedophilia and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents equals bad" is the majority view. I don't even believe that there is a significant minority of researchers claiming otherwise. Or else sources of that nature would have been produced on this talk page by now. I don't know where you think being all secretive about these sources of yours is going to get you, when, if added to the article, we'll see them regardless, and when you're very likely to be reverted. So your criticism about this article, its protectors, and how this makes Misplaced Pages corrupt is laughable at best. Deeply disturbing at worst. Jokestress, how disgusting that you would support such garbage from a likely pedophile. If you're going to identify as a woman, you should at least think like one. In my interaction with pedophiles and child molesters, I haven't come across one woman supporting such garbage. Until now. Cataconia isn't even new, as evidenced by his knowledge of the inner workings here. Thank god we don't have you and those like you editing this article, for it would say that pedophilia is a normal variation of human sexuality and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents isn't something to be concerned about. I applaud the six "owners" of this article. And FYI: They aren't the only ones making sure that editors like you don't push your sickening POV here.

Sincerely, one of the birdies from Perverted-Justice. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories: