Talk:Chronophilia

Errors re: ephebophilia on the Chronophilia page, my accurate corrections, citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Layah50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist

The amendments I made are already supported by sources cited in the existing chrophilia page and on the ephebophilia page. There are obvious errors on the current page, including contradictions between some content on the page and other content on the page. For example:

• The page properly notes that chronophilia are determined by Tanner stages, not simply by age, but then ignores the fact that many 15 to 19 year olds are already Tanner stage 5. If further sources are needed aside from those already provided in the Chronophilia and ephebophilia articles ( which both already contain cited sources that support virtually EVERYTHING I said, as I merely made corrections that clarified certain errors and oversights, and which better unified contradictions in the existing text, aligning them with more accurate details ), there is also this further research article by Drs. Michael Seto and Skye Stephens (both of whom are extensively cited as reliable sources on both the ephebophilia and chronophilia pages as they currently exist) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293334555_Hebephilic_Sexual_Offending

which further notes the following: "This wide age range is problematic as it would include...sexually mature teenagers who could be easily confused with young adults. A sexual preference in those in late adolescence who show many signs of sexual maturity (Tanner stage 4) or who are sexually mature (Tanner stage 5) is not representative of hebephilia; instead, it can be described as ephebophilia or teleiophilia (Hames & Blanchard, 2012). The distinction is important in both conceptual and practical ways. given older adolescents are reproductively viable and the fact that typically men are sex-ually attracted to older adolescents, as reflected in self-report, psychophysiological, and pornography use studies (Freund, Seeley, Marshall, & Glinfort, 1972; Symons, 1979).1" In light of this, I ask that you please reinstate my factual and accurate changes to the chronophilia page, which presented glaring mistakes. Ephebophilia is not considered a paraphilia, nor an atypical chronophilia, and, especially in the area of 16 to 19 ( notable, when defined imprecisely by generic age range, rather than by Tanner stage, the errors increase because, again, and as above specifically noted by one of the doctors already frequently cited in the Chronophilia and Ephebophilia pages as they currently exist, many later teens are already in Tanner Stage 5 development ) it often overlaps with teliophilia. Again, in light of the provided documentation, the observable errors and contradictions in the existing Chronophilia page, and the supporting citation ALREADY present on those pages (if one reviews them in relation to the corrections I made, and in relation to the pages existing contradictions and errors), I ask that my changes to the page be reinstated. I do not have the tech savvy to make the citation corrections myself, but I have provided a valid source above, and, as stated, existing material and citations on the pages as they currently are already support my changes. I ask that my accurate changes be reinstated and the provided citation added. I would HATE to think that my changes, despite being factual and elucidating, have been edited out based on any ideological biases of the editor(s).

This chronphilia page currently contains glaring misinformation and inaccuracies. As they were previously corrected, they are now blatant disinformation.

This needs to be addressed, for the sake of the accuracy of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia that presents facts, not biases nor biased misinformation (poplular or otherwise). If editors don't like the formatting style of editing that I have employed in attempts to correct the serious errors &, in some cases, outright falsehoods currently presented on this page, then they should take the highly credentialed sources (see below for one such source, from one of the chief doctors [Dr. Michael Seto ] already cited on this and other related philia pages ) that I have provided and make the proper corrections to the page themselves.

Ephebophilia is not just broad attraction to "late teens", nor is teleiophilia exculsive attraction to "20s & 30s" as the page currently and falsely claims. Ephbophilia & Teleiophilia, both clinically normative, are defined by attractions to Tanner Stages 4 & 5. This is an essential detail, as its abscence causes misclassification, including potentially harmful misclassification of things that aren't paraphilia as paraphilia.

The chronophilia are, as the existing article already states, primarily determined by Tanner stage, not by a specific age, though certain Tanner stages tend to correspond with certain ages. It is common knowledge that, by age 18, the average Western Industrial citizen has already attained Tanner stage 5, and has become a teleiophilia focus. Dr. Seto's & Dr. Blanchard's research and observations acknowledge this, and were cited. If there were any flaws in the formatting of the citations, it is of course entirely proper for editors to edit and correct those errors, but to omit the revisions entirely, when they are both factual, corrective and sufficiently sourced, has an air of activist editing and even fact suppression. Here is the full information AND quoted material for the Dr. Michael Seto citations, which also reference the related & cited works of Dr. Ray Blanchard ( both prominent in the field, both frequently cited on existing chronophilia and related pages ): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293334555_Hebephilic_Sexual_Offending January 2016 DOI:10.1007/978-1-4939-2416-5_3 In book: Sexual offenders: Predisposing antecedents, assessments, and management (pp.29-44)Publisher: SpringerEditors: Amy Phenix, Harry Hoberman Authors: Skye Stephens at Saint Mary's University Skye Stephens Saint Mary's University Michael C Seto at University of Ottawa Michael C Seto University of Ottawa.

Dr. Seto is directly quoted therein stating the following: "In the clinical literature, hebephilia has often been (impre-cisely and thus confusingly) equated to a sexual preference in adolescents, which is typically defined as the developmen-tal period between the ages of 12 and 18. This wide age range is problematic as it would include pubescent children... along with sexually mature teenagers who could be easily confused with young adults. A sexual preference in those in late adolescence who show many signs of sexual maturity (Tanner stage 4) or who are sexually mature (Tanner stage 5) is not representative of hebephilia; instead, it can be described as ephebophilia or teleiophilia (Hames & Blanchard, 2012)... older adolescents are reproductively viable and the fact that typically men are sex-ually attracted to older adolescents, as reflected in self-report, psychophysiological, and pornography use studies (Freund, Seeley, Marshall, & Glinfort, 1972; Symons, 1979)."

These corrections NEED to be added to this page if it is to have anything approaching factual accuracy. Vague and/or cryptic excuses about editing style or about formatting of already provided & cited, highly legitimate sources, should not obstruct proper corrections of inaccurate and/or false information, nor should it impede the provision of accurate facts. The instances of fact obstruction, even in the face of clear and convincing evidence from extremely reputable sources, hints at Wikipedia having a problem of some minority faction of its editors abusing their positions & editing abilities in an authoritarian manner, and allowing and/or placing biased misinformation and disinformation in articles which are supposed to be factual and bias-free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4101:E4E0:75BC:F097:F2D0:3BF9 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello (again, I think? Without you registering an account, it's hard to tell if you're the same editor). It may be of interest to you that the other editor who was reverting seemingly reasonable edits has now been banned from the site for their disruptive and agenda-based editing. I'm still unable to weigh in on the matter myself (there's so much information to parse), but at least now you can expect a more reasonable response if you make edits to the article.Legitimus (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow. HalleluJah ( Not that I want anyone banned or blocked from this site, I really don't, and I think sometimes the site administrators can be a little heavy-handed and don't always give the benefit of the doubt, but the editor you mention was preventing important, 100% factual revisions to the chronophilia page, and reasserting falsehoods in a way that was escalating from misinformation to deliberate disinformation ). Thanks so much for informing me of this Legitimus ( and, while I am not the only person to use this computer, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has been recently editing this page on it lol ). I was considering how best to address this situation, and debating whether or not to reinstate the edits and citations, but I didn't want to end up in an edit war, and I certainly didn't want wikipedia administrators deciding that I was the problem and taking actions against me, even though I have been acting in good faith and posted factual corrections ( with quotations and citations from some of the very doctors and sources this and other chronophilia related pages ALREADY use significantly ). I know sometimes Wikipedia has had a tendency to default side with its official editors over lay editors. Some of the information on the page, without my edits, was just blatantly wrong ( some of it even contradicted by other more accurate statements already on the page ), and in a way prone to be misused and to spread both misinformation and potentially dangerous disinformation about this already delicate and fraught topic. I at first thought the errors were just oversights and misinformation, but it became fairly clear that the editor you mention didn't want corrections made, and she (or he ) seemed to be determined to keep the disinformation, inaccuracies and errors in place, which I can only believe had an agenda motivation. Thank you, again, as you have provided a substantial amount of assistance and insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4101:E4E0:75BC:F097:F2D0:3BF9 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted to an older version of the page, removing all the text added by the blocked editor. If you notice any remaining errors, please feel free to point them out. gnu57 11:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, gnu57. Thanks so much for your consideration and response. I meant to reply to you some days prior, but I was busy with other things and didn't get an earlier opportunity. I was planning to make editions and explanatory responses to you yesterday (May 24th), regarding remaining errors, but then I heard that the legendary Tina Turner passed, and as I have been a fan of hers since my childhood, the rest of my day was largely spent following coverage and making tributary commentary regarding the recently belated queen of rock n' roll.

• Deep breath*, okay, regarding the chronphilia page, I did make a few corrections. No massive text walls, just a few important revisions and additions. My reason for those is simply that the page, as it existed, had serious inaccuracies and factual errors. They were, in the main, technical errors, but they were serious enough to constitute misinformation, especially since, in areas of scientific classification, technicalities can matter quite a lot.

I have cited and even given relevant quotations further validating all of the changes made. It should be noted that my main citation source, and the only individual whom I quoted, is one of the leading scientists in the field of chronophilia study, and was also already referenced on the versions of the page prior to my editing, as well as on related philia pages (particularly the page on ephebophilia). The changes I made, or some variant of them, are essential for a proper definition of chronophilia, as well as for proper definitions of hebephilia, ephebophilia and teleiophilia. The hard, categorical scientific reality is that these chronophilia are determined by casually observable stages of physical development, most clearly categorized by the Tanner Scale. They are not determined by specific ages. In this area, even the current ephebophilia main page is somewhat erroneous in its blanket "15 to 19, or 15 and 16" claim. Attraction to a Tanner 5, postpubertal 17 or even 16 year old qualifies as teleiphillic attraction, not as ephebophilia. That isn't speculative, that isn't conjecture, it isn't a maybe, it's a categorical fact, which the scientists in the field acknowledge (see the related quotes from Dr. Michael Seto et al ). I understand that this topic generates a lot of emotion and controversy. I understand that a majority of people, particularly in current Western culture, disapprove of adult male attraction to minors and that many disapprove even of the attraction of males over age 21 to 18 and 19 year old young adults. Those sentiments and perspectives are understandable, but they should in no way be allowed to result in the omission of facts on a (probably the) leading, international online encyclopedia, and they certainly should not give license to misinformation (nor any trace of disinformation) to be disseminated on said online encyclopedia (nor in any encyclopedia or serious reference work).

The sensitive nature of the subject, and its ability to garner emotionally charged and even hysterical responses, makes accuracy in detailing the precise clinical meanings of these terms all the more important. A facts first encyclopedia should never be allowed to become a tool of disinformation campaigns on any side of the socio-political spectrum. The chronophilia page, as it existed, would have allowed for (in example) false claims that celebrities like comedian Jerry Seinfeld and rapper Drake are "ephebophiles" because both have previously dated postpubertal teens. Of course, the reality that the teens in question were obviously Tanner 5 in development rules out any ephebophilia claims (without even getting into the almost as relevant question of whether Seinfeld and Drake had/have a specific preference for ephebophilic range partners over teleophilic range partners, or only had/have situational involvement with persons in the prior category). It's okay to dislike the fact that those celebrities dated teenagers. It would NOT be okay to incorrectly lump them into a categorization that the scientific data does not support and/or directly refutes. Wikipedia is probably the leading online encyclopedia on the planet. People, myself included, come here for facts, and it is very important that the site continually provide hard facts, wherever possible and as much as is possible, even when those facts may be distasteful to a popular majority. Stating those facts is not an endorsement of any related behaviours. I want to be clear, not of my edits are in any way meant to suggest that people should embrace adults dating teens, but the facts regarding chronophilia, ephebophiila and teleiophilia should reflect the actual scientific parameters, and should be as accurate as possible. Please note, there may be some technical imperfections in how some of my citations are formatted. I ask that you please give due consideration and amend these, where appropriate, rather than blanket removing them and/or the factual information related to them. Thank you so much for all your time, efforts, and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4101:E4E0:F1F7:473F:5EBF:CD85 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Prevalence

The introductory literature review in https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10790632211013811 cites a variety of prevalence statistics, most all of which surprised me. I wonder what other editors think about summarizing them in this article. (The study itself is self-selected and thus inappropriate.) There is a WP:MEDRS source at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213421000788, which also has some quite frankly astonishing statistics in its Introduction, but the Results and Discussion are behind a paywall. Can anyone read that and summarize it here please? 2601:647:5701:39B0:FD01:3444:3CA0:8370 (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Overall, this particular WP article is intended as more of a hub or umbrella term, providing a summary of the included terms as well as links to their full articles. So these studies are probably more suited to the pedophilia and hebephilia articles, though granted your two sources cover both. These studies seem to lump these two together, but the text further down does differentiate between the two. The first one, Ciardha et al 2021, sounds fairly useless on the matter of prevalence, because as you said, it's self-selected and has some other sampling issues (the cohort is entirely composed of men that volunteer for research and have a past track record of doing so.) Perhaps of interest is that the prevalence in this sample gets smaller and smaller as the age range goes down, with true pedophilic interest (age 11 and below) generally being a fraction of a percent, depending on whether the individual is asked if they have ever experienced attraction at any time, or have fantasied.

I was able to get a copy of the second paper, Savoie et al 2022. While interesting, the results section suggests this paper is really more of a criticism of prior research. It draws on previous studies and shows that the prevalence statistics are all over the place. Problems seem to be in inconsistent definitions and sampling issues.

That doesn't mean these studies aren't worth mentioning in articles, just that they would need to be framed properly.Legitimus (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, especially because you understand the nuances here much better than I do. Since I can't read it, could I ask how you would summarize the results numbers from the Savoie paper for each of those two articles, if you had to in a single sentence or short paragraph each, please? 2601:647:5701:39B0:7FD8:D02C:5AED:8C23 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If we're specifically talking about prevalence, it'd be something like this:

The prevalence of (pedophilic/hebephilic) sexual interest in the general population is not known, and estimates vary considerably. Most research looks at male subjects and individuals in the criminal justice system, and obtaining a representative sample from the general population is difficult due to stigma as well as privacy about sexual topics. One literature review found that most prior studies had issues with external validity and definitions, leading to a large range of prevalence estimates.