Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 5

Archived discussion:

• before July 12, 2004
• before September 30, 2005

"Cultural Norms"

I have removed large parts of the section on cultural norms. Apparently some editors are pursuing an agenda of portraying paedophilia and sexual relationships with prepubescent children as acceptable. They do this by offering often bizarre POV statements on sexuality, by suggesting that paedophilia is tolerated in certain cultures and by confusing the distinction between sex with prepubescent children (i.e. paedophilia) and sex with adolescents. This muddying of the waters obviously plays into the hands of those who try to promote acceptance of paedophilia by appealing to a degree of tolerance of sexual relationships between adults and relatively mature adolescents. Please acquaint yourselves with Wikipedia policies and stop using Wikipedia to push your agenda WP:NOT.

• In the early 20th century Western society, discussing sex with one's children was frowned upon. This was likely brought on by the Victorian age. This led to many adults not being completely prepared for sexual intercourse, or having misinformation. As a result, sexual education became commonplace in schools in the second half of the 20th century. Sexual education has been criticized, though, to focus too much on abstinence and biology, and not enough on forms of birth control. In general, critics assert that sexual education avoids discussion of ways to enjoy sex, or how to attain mutual pleasure in ways other than vaginal intercourse.

This paragraph attempts to summarise the history of sex in 20th century Western society to draw a POV conclusion regarding sexual enjoyment. This has strictly nothing to do with paedophilia - that is, unless one regards paedophilia as a natural aspect of human sexuality and pursues an agenda of portraying paedophilia as a way of attaining sexual enjoyment. Please check WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:PN. Also, if you paedophile activists really think that the increased public concern about paedophilia is a result of a Victorian views of sexuality, I'd say that you're deeply in denial: sex with prepubescent children constitutes one of the severest forms of child abuse. The increased public concern about paedophilia is a result of an increased awareness about the vulnerability of children and the resulting need to protect them.

• Sex between children and adults was condoned and often encouraged by Polynesians and other cultures, especially matriarchical societies. The reason for this was because these societies revered fertility and motherhood and did not attempt to control sex. Western influence and domination has eroded their open views about sex. Therefore, direct observation is no longer possible, and the only references are older observations made before widespread Western influence.

No evidence or references are provided to back up the bizarre view that paedophilia is a common feature of "matriarchical" [sic] societies. Please check WP:PN, WP:V, WP:NOR and in case you come up with a source, make sure it conforms to WP:RS.

• In Japanese society, the attraction towards teenage girls (high-school students) is a widespread cultural phenomenon. The manifestations of such attraction, such as lolicon art, school uniform fetishes and sexual relations with teenage girls (e.g. enjo kosai) are more tolerated by society than in the West, though child pornography is illegal in Japan.

As this article clearly states, paedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children, i.e. children below the age of 10-13. Paedophilia is not about adolescents.

• In France and in most of the Francophone world, relationships between children and adults are usually accepted. Movies like Brodeuses (A common thread) (2003) usually show these relationships in a casual way, not giving much importance or attention to the difference of age. Nabokov's Lolita—the book was first released in France (in 1955), while Adrian Lyne's 1997 film Lolita faced no restrictions in all of Europe, including France; and Celine Dion's Lolita —the song—was released only in French by the Canadian bilingual singer. The movie Pretty Baby (1978)—depicting 12-year old Brooke Shields playing a preteen prostitute—was filmed by a Frenchman, Louis Malle.

Paedophilia and sexual relationships between children and adults are widely thought of as abhorrent in France and the Francophone world. Paedophilia is about sex with children below 10-13 and not about adolescents.

• Another society with tolerance for such relationships is Brazil, where ageism or prejuidicial treatment on the grounds of age has been forbidden by the Brazilian Constitution since 1998. In 1999, 28-year old Marcio Garcia, a nationally famous actor, dated 14-year old model Daniella Sarahyba for over a year in which period the relationship was accepted by the Brazilian mainstream media and by the television network which he worked for. Also in the 1990s 13-year old Kelly Key, who would become a famous singer, started dating 23-year old singer Latino, whom she married later on. Before that, in 1982, 40-year-old Caetano Veloso —a famous Brazilian singer and composer—began a relationship with 13-year-old Paula Lavigne, though he was already married at the time. He divorced and married Lavigne 3 years later. Their marriage lasted 19 years, ending only in 2004. The relationship was respected and he was not persecuted by the media or music industry. None were named as pedophiles, an accusation that could be considered as slander in Brazil.

So the near-universal condemnation of acting out paedophilia is the result of [[ageism]?? WP:PN

• Reactions to adult-adolescent relationships may be considered by some as a prejudice like racism or the hatred against immigrants: ageism. In the 1980s, 15-year-old Brazilian student Eliane Maciel sought for judicial help against her conservative parents. She wanted the judge to rule that she had the right to date a 33-year old man with whom she was in love, and she won. They eventually married. Her drama was told in the 1983 autobiographical best-seller Com licença, eu vou à luta—É ilegal ser menor? ("Excuse me, I'm gonna fight—Is it illegal to be a minor?"), which adapted for a prize-winning 1986 film. It's important to realize that contempt for age differences in relationships is not limited to adult-child relationships. For instance, it is not unusual for a relationship between a 55-year-old and a 25-year-old to be opposed in the West.

And again, this has nothing to do with paedophilia - these are adolescents.

• In many countries, sexual attraction, desires or fantasies in adults towards underage adolescents is quite common. A sign of this is that, in the adult porn industry, a reasonable market share goes to movies that show young women dressed in uniforms, characterized as high-school students. Some of these movies are regularly aired on popular adult channels like Playboy TV.

"Young women dressed in uniforms" are not prepubescent. Paedophilia is about sex with children below 10-13. - pir 22:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Response

The definition of Pedophilia is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Puberty being defined as when your body is physically capable of reproduction. I would assume children under that age of 10 generally (although some girls reach puberty at age 7). This is important to somebody who is a Pedo because it is part of the fantasy. Talking about 13yr old girls in Brazil sleeping with older men is not an accurate example of pedophilia.

Pedophilia isn't "about sex with children below 10-13," it's an attraction. In my opinion, sexual relations between adults and children shouldn't be legalized, but at least provide a real argument for it, not: "sex with prepubescent children constitutes one of the severest forms of child abuse." 24ip | lolol 01:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You did not in the least respond to my justification for removing large parts of the section on cultural norms. Wikipedia is not about my opnions or your opinions, it is about writing a high-quality encyclopedia. I removed these parts because they violate Wikipedia policy.

Also, you do not seem to have understood what I wrote. Pedophilia 'is' an attraction, of course, and more procisely it is about a primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children, in other words it is about wanting to have sex with children below 10-13. Secondly, when I said that sex with prepubescent children constitutes one of the severest forms of child abuse, I did not make an argument or ask for this opinion to be inserted as fact into the article - it was obviously a side comment on a bizarre idea implicit in the first paragraph, namely the idea that the near-universal abhorrence felt towards paedophilia is the result of Victorian attitudes to sex. It was also a response to the even more bizarre idea that the strong rejection most people express towards paedophilia is due to ageism.

I would be pleased if you could in the future respond to my justification for removing the text before you put it back. - pir 16:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"This has strictly nothing to do with paedophilia - that is, unless one regards paedophilia as a natural aspect of human sexuality" -- I believe it is, and I very much doubt I'm alone. There will always be kids attracted to adults (as I was) and adults attracted to children. This has almost certainly always been the case. I disagree with removal just because you make the subjective judgement that pedophilia is "unnatural".

Wikipedia is about writing a high-quality encyclopedia, and the talk pages are there to facility writing such articles - not for general debate about your opinion. - pir

"sex with prepubescent children constitutes one of the severest forms of child abuse." -- As one of the "abused" (legally speaking, only), I believe this is not true. I could argue that sexual repression and teaching kids that sex is wrong is a form of child abuse. I see gentle sexual intimacy between children and adults as natural and non-harmful. I am not a pedophile, but I am pro pedophile rights and children's rights not to be messed up with anti-sex nonsense.

Irrelevant an inverifiable. - pir

Btw - "paraphillia" is just a category that certain people use, and an intentionally derogatory term. It actually means very little in terms of human sexuality itself - it's more just a way for people to say pedophilia is "unnatural" or a "fetish". It's an artificial category dreamed up by certain human psychologists, according to their own POV about sex.

No. According to Wikipedia, Paraphilia is a widely used mental health term to indicate sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity. - pir

I disagree with removing great chunks of information like this, simply because you are anti-pedophilia. I don't think that some of what you've removed is POV at all. Much of it is simply neutral information, and that's what an encyclopedia is for. I disagree with removal based more on an ideological stance than a particular desire to improve the article.

I removed them because they violate the named Wikipedia policies. - pir

I don't want to see this article used as some kind of argument for legalisation, but it should in no way be an anti-pedophilia article either.

For those who added this information in the first place, I hope you can source everything, explain the direct bearing on the subject of pedophilia, neutralise any POV language, and get it all put back up --Kate--195.93.21.101 00:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

We are here to write a NPOV article appropriate for a high-quality encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia policies. That means : WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PN. I will continue to remove content that violates Wikipedia policy. - pir 16:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"According to Wikipedia, Paraphilia is a widely used mental health term to indicate sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity."

-Then I'm convinced that pedophilia cannot logically be a paraphillia. "Interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity"? Rubbish. Please refer to my earlier comments. My own supposed "abuser" was the most sensitive and affectionate men I've ever met, bar none.

This article may enlighten, particularly the latter parts.

http://www.logicalreality.com/p2/2SexPlay1.htm

"For those who added this information in the first place, I hope you can source everything, explain the direct bearing on the subject of pedophilia, neutralise any POV language, and get it all put back up" - I stand by this. Make the information irrefutably stand up to the standards of wiki policy and put it back up, whoever wrote these sections.

--Kate--172.216.189.162 23:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of everyone's opinion, I don't think the case has been fully made that the deleted material is POV. It seems pir may be deleting simply because he/she is uncomfortable with pedophilia. I'm uncomfortable with Islam, but it isn't right for me to delete parts that offend me, using wikipedia policy to claim parts are biased because they make Islam seem acceptable.

• Sex between children and adults was condoned and often encouraged by Polynesians and other cultures, especially matriarchical societies. The reason for this was because these societies revered fertility and motherhood and did not attempt to control sex.

How is this POV, for instance? And this is obviously relevent to pedophilia, since it relates to adult-child sexual relationships. The exact phrasing may be a little off, but this is a case for re-wording, surely, not deleting--Neural 01:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hate to butt in, but for one thing, it's wrong. Any research you've read in regards to this probably came from Margaret Mead, whose research methods were atrocious. Other aspects, such as the New Guinean "fellatio" fertilization of boys isn't in any way a condoning of A-C sex. If such a statement is currently in the article, I'm going to snatch it out unless it's ruthlessly cited. --DanielCD 03:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Polynesian bit seems very POV to me. Aside from the clunky turn of phrase "the reason for this was because," it's an expression of an opinion with little to back it up. "Revered" is an emotional term (and what does matriarchy and motherhood have to do with paedophilia?) I say remove the second sentence completely.Indecisive 03:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a very good reason why this happened, you realize. Many people against adult/minor sexual relations considered sex with adolescents/teens as "pedophilia". The issue had long been muddied by anti-pedophile activists and it melted into the general culture. Most pedophiles are into the age of 8-12, which would be considered today as "tweens". Some people consider the ages of 10-12 as adolescents, while the true definition of the word means period OF puberty, not before. However, as everyone knows, different kids develop at different times. Some start earlier than others. The body begins to go through growth spurts as early as 10 in some cases; sometimes even earlier. Thus, in this sense the attraction to the chronological age of the minor doesn't count as much as the physical maturity of him/her. And yes, it was accepted in times past. Instead of removing the text, what should have been done is making it NPOV as much as possible without removing history. --Rookiee 16:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone care to look at the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, fourth edition, text revised, for mental disorders? Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder...instead of debating your opinion why don't you look up the criteria for yourself..DSM-IV TR, by the American Psychiatric Association 2000, it's in a library near you!

At one time, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder - do you still think that's so? Wanttobesailing

well, you can also find books which say the Earth is flat. even if it's in a book, it's still pov.

the inclusion in dsm-iv is certainly not without controversy, either. 24ip | lolol 19:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The DSM-IV is not without some controversy, that is true any clinician will agree to that. However, if you look at the website to which you referenced, the authors who are commentating, are not disagreeing to the fact that the people who have pedophilia are still people and need to be treated as such, both as humans and as far as their treatment is concerned. I agree that society often condemns people that have this disorder and think of them and sick and evil. However, there needs to be some argument that the disorder needs to be separated from the person. When I said that someone should look at the criteria, I was saying that in order to be diagnosed with pedophilia you have to meet certain criteria...whether or not you agree with the criteria is irrelevant, pedophilia is what it is and the definition comes from that book. The reference you referred to is saying just that, that people can have this disorder and it is not considered a good thing, but that they are humans as well. I would argue that pedophile or sexual predator are not good terms, because it argues that the person is that thing, rather than a person has a disorder, such as Joe is a pedophile rather than Joe has pedophilia. I'm not really sure why people are arguing this as a point of view...it sounds like you're wanting to say that having sex with a child is an okay thing to do? If that is the case, do it, get convicted, go to jail, and be treated. And I agree with the editor, there are some disorders that have some controversy with them, maybe because of how easy it is to be diagnosed, but for the most part the DSM-IV is a good version, has some flaws, but when the next version comes out there probably won't be too many differences. What you are arguing is a point of view, you think that pedophilia is or should be considered okay, if the editor has to take that out because they are trying to get an OBJECTIVE encyclopedia and not a SUBJECTIVE view point, then fine. I think it's harsh to comment on the editor's views and opinions just because you don't agree with what they have to take out...not only that but to degrade the editor and tell them they are discriminating and don't like pedophilia or is uncomfortable with it, all because they had to take out statments because it was not an objective view point. Shame on all of you who've said that...if you want to disagree with the criteria of pedophilia, fine, but call a spade a spade and realize that yes, it is a view point. That's all I have to say about this and I hope you all let it go.

Shouldn't there be something on culture?

I notice that cultural issues have been removed completely. Ideally there should be something on culture, with citations of relevant research (regardless of whether they support or refute claims by activists). Failing that, is it possible (and desirable) to have a description of the controversy, without taking sides?

Personally, I remember years ago reading surprising descriptions of Polynesians' attitudes to children and sexuality, and I think a Wikipedia user should be able to look up whether there is any basis to such claims. --Singkong2005 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Law Section

I removed the bulleted reference to pregnancy prevention which was listed as part of the list of reasons often stated for opposing prepubescent sexual activities with adults since prepubescent girls cannot get pregnant. It is really an argument for sometimes made in defense of statutory rape laws. --Cab88 09:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My response to Cab88's editing out factual medical information that I posted in support of child sexual abuse law.

Response to above edits in Law section: This information I have provided is medically accurate and I will be happy to provide the links to expert medical literature as to why sex with prepubescent children is dangerous- your statements are misleading propaganda that provides barely a footnote to outdated commentary that is based in obsolete irrelevant science papers in zoology and not human sexual development and lacks any weight and backing in current scientific medical and legal research. You are presenting weak truths mixed with deliberate falsehoods and not giving an accurate encyclopedic reflection of the accepted scholarly reasons underlying why sex with prepubescent children is dangerous. This is hardly a neutral presentation, is entirely pro-pedophile POV, and gives not one accuraate statement as to why these laws against child sexual abuse exist and why sex with prepubescent children is illegal, and you really makes no truthful statement as to why sex with prepubescents is dangerous, but rather you laud POV pedophilic propaganda to promote the impression that perhaps these laws have no reasonable foundation. You are exposed!

Pedophile laws and statutory rape laws have no reasonable foundation. Why? Because injury can happen to any woman or girl if she is not prepared properly for sex, I.E. proper lubrication. Pregnancy can occur in pre-pubescent children, HOWEVER, it is NOT fatally dangerous in all cases, there have been sketchily documented cases of 4 year olds getting pregnant by other 4 year olds, and carrying the babies to term with no problems whatsoever.

The real basis behind the statutory rape laws, is the unjust supposition that children cannot decide for themselves whether to have sex and would be dominated by an adults more forceful personality. This lie has been put to rest by recent studies in Denmark and other countries, including the United States, that find that most pedophiles do NOT have forceful personalities and are milquetoast at best. It also assumes that children are naive when it comes to sex, and that is a good reason to take their rights to consent away from them. This is not a good enough reason, considering that if children were instructed on how babies were made, and what sex is from an early age, this reasoning would be taken away. HOWEVER, everytime that we try to point this out, we are shouted down by religious groups saying that children must remain 'innocent', and their definition of innocent is naive and stupid.Christopher1

"would be dominated by an adult's more forceful personality". You don't think there's just a little difference in the persuasive power of a determined adult and a child's ability to judge and be persuaded? I'd really like a reference to this "study".

"most pedophiles do NOT have forceful personalities and are milquetoast at best." This is just bad. I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole without some solid evidence. All of these claims are weak to the point of nausea.

Also: try not to use the word "milquetoast" - at least not in the company of other people. --DanielCD 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

it's considered unnatural for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a prepubescent because of the belief that they cannot reproduce. In actuality, pregnancy in a prepubescent child is possible and is considered a medical emergency. Prepubescent pregnancy however rare, is fatally dangerous, the immature underdeveloped female body is not capable to handle the competition between its own growth and development and providing proper support to the developing fetus, and always results in permanent physical damage or death to the prepubescent mother and likely to result in a stillbirth.Erupted ectopic pregnancy is the leading risk of death amongst pregnant prepubescent girls. The earliest recorded pregnancy in the medical literature, was in a 1 year old human infant. You are plainly wrong and heinously biased away from fact. Prepubescent girls can get pregnant and it is a medical emergency that endangers the life of the female prepubescent child. Erupted ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of death due to pregnancy in prepubescent girls.

There have been no reported cases of prepubescent girls dying at any more of a rate from pregnancy than adult women, with proper medical care. If you would go to the NIH's website, and look at their statistics, you would see that there is no basis for this arguement whatsoever. Christopher1

Oral sex with prepubescent children of either gender, can result in choking, difficulty breathing, emesis with burning and scarring of the esophagus, swelling of the epiglottis resulting in obstructed airway, infection of the nasopharynx, lung and or upper-respiratory infection,infection, permanent lung damage due to aspiration of ejaculate, bruising and/or permanent scarring or damage to the thyroid glands and lymphatic tissue, larynx, uvula, eustacion tubes, crushing of the trachea, tearing or bruising of the mouth, throat, or nasopharynx, anaphylactic reaction to ejaculate,loss of teeth, irritation to the gums and tongue, brain damage and/or death due to asphysiation, and/or nasal aspiration of ejaculate into the sinus with invasion into the cerebral spinal fluid due to attraction of spermatazoa to prostaglandins of the brain tissue.

The problem with the arguements here against oral sex is that these problems can ALSO happen in grown women. Is it more likely with children? No, it is not, and therefore should not be even taken into account for the discussion. Is this even a common effect or side effect of sex or oral sex in children? No, it is not, in fact, I have done research, and can find NO reasoning for these so called effects of oral sex in prepubescent children, even after talking with doctors who specialize in sexual abuse.Christopher1

Cab88

The way you are wording it seems to be as POV as before, to me. Your version is still saying which use of the word pedophilia is correct (and the older version was saying which use was incorrect). However, the definition of pedophilia is certainly relevant to who is using it, I suppose. It would be POV to say which use is correct and which use is incorrect. If we can cite a source which says it is wrong we can include that, but as their view and not ours. For example:

"Impact" is not a noun.

is POV.

On questioning, 80% of a usage panel agreed that impact should not be used as a noun [1]

is not. 24ip | lolol 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that all medical definitions of pedophilia I have seen clearly specify that the attraction be towards prepubscent children [for example: http://www.answers.com/pedophilia&r=67], thus describtion sexual attractions and activities by an adult towards an adolescent, who by definition is not prepubescent, does not appear accurate from a medical standpoint even if a common usage of the term. I think it is relevent to point this out. This can be explained without neccesarilly taking a possition from a general point of view as to whether the broader definition is appropriate or correct. The following links provide some medical info on the medical definition of pedophilia: [2], [3], [4], [5]

--Cab88 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Just because a term has a specific tenchnical meaning does not mean that common usage is incorrect, it just means that within the medical field they use the term more precisely. Usage determines definition. Perhaps we can say that the term is loosely used in common culture to refer to sex or desire for sex with underage persons. BTW, where do we get the fact about Brazil from? Is there a source to indicate that they accept pedophilia in Brazil? -Willmcw 22:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The mere fact that child prostitution is epidemic in Brazil would point to the societies lax view on underage sex I would imagine.

Some societies have noticed, rightfully, that there is no correlation between childhood sex, mental illness, and sexual transmitted diseases. Children get sexually transmitted diseases at a LOWER rate than adults in Brazil, taking into account differences in the number of children having sex and the number of adults having sex. The real reason behind the backlash against pedophiles is that religious zealots and power-mongers have realized that pedophiles are a convenient target for the neurosis of most adults that they have to protect their children from the 'big, bad boogieman', when in reality, it is usually PARENTS that are most likely to kill/injure their own children.Christopher1

My point was not for the article to judge whether this particuler broader definition of pedophilia is correct or not but simply to note that it differs from the common medical usage definition. I have added a sentance that I believe is NPOV which makes this point without judging the validity of broader definition. Hopefully this should satisfy all. --Cab88 15:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's good language. Thanks for adding it. Also, if we don't have a source for the usage of the word in Brazil I'm going to remove that sentence. -Willmcw 17:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nepiophilia

• Some researchers have suggested a distinction between pedophilia and nepiophilia...

Which researchers? Could we have a reference please? -Willmcw 22:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

---

This is a discussion regarding a proposal to revert the article to this version from the current version

---

Please do not make a blanket revert to a much older version. In this instance, a number of important contributions, like cross links to other languages, were lost. Also, please discuss here your reasons for making that major change. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The problems with cultural bias which have crept into the article seem to have originated with the addition of the reference on the top on August 21st to pedophilia being a "paraphilia." Paraphilia is a term straight out of the western schools of thought. It's actually quite a loaded term, to be honest. The former article (as of the last edit by LuxofTKGL on August 20th), is an article which takes an honest look at the cultural values of many societies around the world. It puts the issue into historical context. Would you like to embark on edit war over this issue? You infer in your comment here that a much earlier version is by definition, an invalid one. I would disagree. I think that if any fair minded person looks at both articles side by side and compares the two - he will assent to the notion that the august 20th version is the more NPOV version. I think the education of the public - which, of course, wikipedia is dedicated to - is very important. Quality of literary form, quality of communicative style, and neutral point of view are all vital on wikipedia. Please tell me exactly which crosslinks and other additions you believe are important, and we can try, together, to weave them into the context of the better framework of the previous article -- Rainbird 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not going to re-justify the edits of all the editors who have contributed since August. Instead, please make the changes to the existing article, without disturbing the uncontested contributions such as the international cross-linking. Thank you. -Willmcw 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the hard work which others have put into writing the article. In fact, I myself, have hesitated with contributing to wikipedia because of the knowledge that my work may be transitory, and could be eventually buried in a mountain of other people's edits and revisions. However, I believe the article over the past month and two and three, has been deliberately skewed by those with a passionate aversion to the concept of pedophilia. Why is the whole article put into the frame of reference with the idea of "paraphilia" - and the "icd-10"? The article in the form it is in, is beyond help, at this point. It's a sad thing to watch other writers' work be buried, but it is their responsibility to come back and work alongside of us in a rational and fair-minded manner, in the future. It is our responsibility to purvey a high quality article for the hundreds of people who will come by to read it, this week.

We have a very dangerous situation developing in the usa, towards those people who identify themselves with pedophilia. For instance, recently people on the sex offender registry for this offence, were denied access to public shelters during hurricane Katrina, which destroyed New Orleans in 2005. The sex offender registry itself spawns hate crimes, including murders against this group of individuals - a murder happened recently in Bellingham, Washington, usa. Pedophiles are becoming as hated as the jewish people were in central europe, in the early 1900s. I for one, do not assent to the idea that they have a disease, or that there is a rightful reason to hate them. The issue of pedophilia/teliophilia, as it is currently portrayed and thought about by mainstream western public opinion, closely parallels the attitudes decades ago towards homosexuality.

Wikipedia should not be a place where stigma and hateful diatribe is heaped on one social group or the other. You may not see this as clearly - because you're immersed in your society and it's opinions - and you can't see the forest for the trees. But it is so important to bring neutrality to the article, and bring in a balanced mixture of other cultural contexts. Pedophilia is not child molestation. Thought is not action. Also, I hope that you've read the article on historical pederasty. It's quite informative. Cultural attitudes, traditions, and rituals come and go and change. There was a day and age in the usa where masturbation was deemed as sinful as pedophilia/teliophilia, is today. We cannot be judging these issues through the lens of current culture-specific opinion. I am going to revert this article to that August 20th version, and I will diligently hunt for meritworthy additions that should be included - which have been added over the course of the months since august. If I don't see one or two, someone who is as conscientious as yourself has to insert these things. I will wait, however, another 24 hours to hear your response, first - so that we can go forward with this project hand in hand, in agreement as to the literary merits and factual accuracy of the article we are seeking to write. -- Rainbird 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad if pedophiles are unfairly targeted for persecution, but it is not our job, as Wikipedia editors, to fix that. We're here to write the world's encyclopedia, not to right the world's wrongs. If pedophiles are stigmatized then we need to report that, not make apologies for them. No, please do not revert. Make the changes to the existing version, preferably a little at a time. Literary quality is nice, but this is an encyclopedia, not literature. The most important qualities are accuracy and neutrality. -Willmcw 17:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we are at an impasse here, Willmcw. We both seem to have the best interests of the quality of the article at heart, but seem to have different visions for what the best text is, for it.

My point above was that a western cultural bias is not NPOV. Looking over edits today, I see that only perhaps two or three people have been adamantly wanting to delete the sections of the article which give global, historical and cultural context - pir and haham hanuka, and also a person with ip address 66.32.214.183. I consider this vandalism.

These individuals have added very little if anything to the article, themselves. Pir insists in his comment that in promoting a western cultural bias - he is promoting a NPOV standpoint. Of course, that's an assertion that people from english speaking countries will perhaps readily believe, because they are immersed within their culture and it's perspectives.

Haham Hanuka marks one major deletion as a quote unquote minor revision, hoping perhaps that his edit won't be noticed.

I would like to see the article reverted to where it does not assert in any way that pedophilia should be looked at as a disease of some sort.

Surely we can come to some sort of consensus here about what is best for the encyclopedia. I agree that wikipedia is not to be a forum for activism and POV kinds of assertions within the articles. However, the article as it stood on august 20th was not about these things - it was fleshed out with cultural geography - people had added paragraphs who were knowledgeable about how pedophilia has been thought of in other societies and over the course of history. Those are scholarly addendums. -- Rainbird 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If there are things in the current version that you don't like then fix those specific things. Do not revert several months of editing. -Willmcw 00:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the language links which you mentioned I only see about three or four big edits... Rookiee has added a lot just recently - in his new section "pedosexual" The other two large edits were pir's deletions. These are the only edits which he has made to this article in the entire year of 2005, to date. He has nothing to add to the article, he only wants to make it a POV piece - reflecting western cultural bias. There are lots of minor changes - a few writers have gone around changing around the tenor of single phrases by adding a word or taking out a word... The changes they have made between those two revisions are just gross. They want to nurse hatred and stigma towards the group. If you want to say "This group suffers stigma" - go ahead. But don't allow people to write on these pages - "The prejudice against this group reflects who they are - and it's backed up by a scientific theory" Don't defend people who write like this. As for reverting the article, don't worry about me doing that. Until there's a consensus which will allow it - there is no point. It would just end up being a volley back and forth, nothing would be gained. At any rate, I don't think that there's anything more to be gained by debating this issue with you. I should step aside and let some other people voice their opinions.-- Rainbird 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind giving an example of what bias you're talking about? I don't see the current version of the article making any assertions that "the prejudice against this group reflects who they are - and it's backed up by a scientific theory." It seems neutral enough to me, except the new "Pedosexuality" section which seems to have some inaccuracy.. 24ip | lolol 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what is point-of-view about the term "paraphilia." According to our own wiki page, "Paraphilia is a mental health term [...] used to indicate sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity." 24ip | lolol 01:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with 24. Improve the current version is probably your best bet. If you really feel a reversal is the best way, use your talk page or here to take the revert you want to use and incorporate the new content and when done, present it here. It'll be reviewed and if we feel it doesn't lose anything, we will agree to completing replacing the current version with the new version (at least I will) Nil Einne 19:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, Nil Einne. I might just do that. I'm rather new to wikipedia, so I have to become familiar with the social traditions of the group. In response to 24ip - I think I've answered your questions already; and I've already spoken quite a bit on this page. I think it's time to sit back and listen to others. -- Rainbird 20:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you give individual examples of inserted pov? 24ip | lolol 21:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Situational offenders?

The situation offenders page, linked from here says

"This is common in sex crimes; see situational sexual behavior. One example involves otherwise law-abidding citizens of developed nations, where strict laws prohibit child molestation who travel to Third World countries as child sex tourists, where extreme poverty, lack of infrastructure and lack of police affords them the opportunity to practice child molestion with virtual impunity. This ties in with the very high rate of child prostitution in the developing world."

I'm not an expert but are child sex tourists really usually considered situation sex offenders? I'm not saying they necessarily pedophiles but from the word and from what I could gather from the rather short explaination it sounds to me as if someone who actively seeks out to violate the law and have sex with children couldn't really be classes as a situational offender. Someone who went as a normal sex tourist and decided to take up the offer of a child prostitute when offered or even a normal tourists who decided so would probably be a situational offender but a child sex tourist? 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Risks

I could suggest some additions and modification to the risks part. In terms of social aspects, one thing that seems to be missing is a mention that sex with a child may be very harmful due to current cultural and social norms in many countries, especially when it involves incest. I don't know how to explain this but basically what I'm saying is I think there is a lot of people who say it will be harmful to the kid because even if it is a 'loving', tender, mutually agreed etc etc act the child will often end up confused, scared, and possibly with some sort of psyhological problems because they're unable to come to terms with what they've done and what it says about the person they were involved with given current societal and culture attitudes. Indeed I have seen this point made by paedophiles before, that you should not have sex with children currently even tho they believe in an ideal world you should. Also, what about the oft mentioned although heavily disputed point that having sex while a kid may make it more likely or even according to some very likely that the kid will then grown up to feel attracted to kids. Of course, this is a big risk, if true, given current societal norms and laws. But even without these societal norms and laws, you might argue that being attracted to kids is a big disadvantage because it's always going to be harder to find a kid to have a relationship with and there is always a bigger risk you may harm the kid in some way and you also will have big probs maintaining a longterm relationship assuming you only ever feel attracted to kids and for other obvious reasons. Obviously all the part about societal norms doesn't really belong in the law part where we talk about kids IMHO but I feel it should be included somewhere. Nil Einne 19:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You're arguements are salient, about the cultural and social norms in many countries, however this should not be the reason to uphold such blatently ageist laws. At one time, it was also illegal for a white woman to be seen with a black man, and this was seen as a cultural norm, and that changed.Christopher1

Also in terms of medical risks in the law section, this needs reworking. I would assume anal intercourse with males and females children has a high risk or tearing and injure as well. But the two current risks mentioned are only referring to risks with vaginal intercourse. Also, if the risk with pap smears and cervical cancer is not believed to be a risk if condoms are use? To my knowledge there is no specific risk for oral intercourse or for a kid penetrating an adult. Or for most other types of non penetrative sexual contact. Perhaps this point should be made. Since clearly if you're going to argue for the laws for medical reasons it doesn't really make sense to claim you have to have to have a complete ban on sexual contact when it's only certain activities that are risky. However besides specific risks, perhaps we should also mention generic risks such as STDs? This is significantly related to the social aspect and the part about pap smears issue, since if children can't appreciate the risks and implications of having sex, they clearly can't be expected to make any sort of decision about the use of protection. It's up to the adults to make the right decision here. And I suppose you could argue that it justifies laws against sex because your putting the kids at quite a risk since it will be difficult and likely already to late to punish adults for making the 'wrong' decision. Of course, this argument kinds of falls flat since again, the counter argument is you could just make it compulsary to use protection which is easier to set up and enforce (since you just teach kids its wrong for adults to ever have sex without protection, teach them about protection and punish any adults who manage and perhaps even try to violate this if it can be proven). Of course, in all these cases the counter argument for justification is that even tho you could just legislate against certain kinds of sexual acts and against not using protection and it may be seem like a fairly straightfoward to implement and teach kids, in practice it'll be much harder then straightforward banning sex. Nil Einne 19:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been no documented sources that have proved absolutely that children engaging in any form of sex with adults are any more or less likely to come out with injuries. Considering that in many or most sexual abuses cases, the most signifigant form of injury in a female child that has been subjected to sexual intercourse is a broken hymen, even at 2 years of age, that disproves the reasoning that sex is always injurious to children.Christopher1

Pedophilia

Since the technical psychological def of pedophilia is someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to prepubscent children is there a word for someone who is sexually attracted to people of all age groups including prepubscent and adults (and adolsecents of course)? What about someone who is attracted to adolescents (especially young adolescents e.g. 10-14) either exclusively, or adults+adolsecents or prepubsecent children+adolsecents? Nil Einne 20:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The attraction does not have to be exclusively to prepubescent children, it can be primarily as well, i.e. mainly attracted to prepubescents but also to (an)other age group(s). If they are attracted to children, but not primarily, their attractions can still be considered pedophilic, however. Someone attracted to adolescents primarily or exclusively would be classified as an ephebophile (though the ages 10-12 are typically considered in the pedophilic range). There isn't any specific word for people who like children and adolescents equally (except maybe chronophile). 24ip | lolol 21:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the term "Omniphile" tossed around from time to time. Sometimes in both good and bad connotation. Most recently I remember hearing it in someone's criticism of the "Mr X" whom Alfred Kinsey received most of his data on child sexuality from back during his interviews. The guy was into all ages, and as portrayed in the movie, was seen to be somewhat of a kook. Personally, I think this issue of labelling people to sexual "castes" is an outdated idea and will result in an absolute multitude of facetted terminology for every aspect of sexuality, which as humans go, is about as diverse as fingerprints. Kinsey was absolutely correct; "Everyone's different." --Rookiee 16:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposition for a restructuring of pedophilia, child abuse, psychology, law, terminology, etc

I've put a new discussion on the Talk:Child_sexual_abuse page regarding my proposition and the reasons behind it.

Illustration

I think that this Image:Alice Liddell 2.jpg [6] (by Lewis Carroll) may be a good illustration to this article. --Haham hanuka 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Paedophilia vs Statutory Rape

I noticed that there is nothing in the article about statutory rape, which is often incorrectly reported in the media as paedophilia. I think that a subsection devoted to discussing statutory rape within this article is warranted.

Whilst the age of consent varies from country to country, it is usually no more than 18 years of age (sometimes it is 17, 16, or even as young as 12, or sometimes even there are no boundaries) and often there is a stipulation that under that age is okay provided that there is a certain age difference (e.g. no more than 2 years).

Anyway, the thing is that the media is regularly running stories calling such-and-such a paedophile because they had sex with someone below the age of consent, when the person that they had consentual sex with was actually physically mature (for example, age 15). A case in point was an article that appeared in my local newspaper 2 years ago, whereby a man arranged for a 15 year old girl to travel interstate to see him, having met her over the internet. The girl was not a real person - she was actually a number of police officers. But the newspaper printed his photograph and name on the front page (he was a public figure) stating that he was a paedophile. I would assert that he was not. The fact that she was 15 is irrelevant if she is sexually mature. Paedophilia refers to pre-pubescent people, not to people who have gone through puberty at a young age and are already sexually developed.

Surveys are taken annually in most western countries about the average age for boys and girls to lose their virginity. The typical average age is between 14 and 16 1/2 years. Yet the average age of consent for these countries is between 16 and 18. In other words, 50% or more people have at some stage in their lives engaged in statutory rape. Thus, if they had all been prosecuted, popular media would be able to say that anything up to 50% of the world's population are paedophiles, using the legal definition referencing statutory rape laws.

Such statements are plainly inaccurate, but I feel that they must be included in this article, to demonstrate popular confusions as to what paedophilia is.

On a personal note, one of my friends at university, who was 19 years old at the time, was a self-confessed paedophile, who delighted in looking at girls of the age of 8-12 (typically). One of his catch-phrases was "she'll look good in a few years time". He was eventually banned from the university for looking at child pornography. The guy eventually had consentual sex with a 14 year old girl, who lost her virginity to him. He told us that he thought that she was a little old. He was, without question, a paedophile, yet he did not ever rape anyone. There is a difference.

From what I have read (and the documentaries that I have seen on the topic), most child sex offences are committed by people who are not sexually attracted to children (in other words, they are not paedophils). Apparently rape is usually a control issue, and people who rape children are really no different to the people who rape adults - be they raping men, women, or in a gang rape scenario. There is some dispute about that, but that is my understanding of things. Apparently a few paedophiles have raped children, but the majority of paedophiles never have. This is my understanding of it. However, my understanding is that most paedophiles will at some stage view child pornography, which in itself is a crime.

Anyway, I thought that this should be included in the article, but I don't know how to fit it in. As this is a controversial topic, I will wait for consensus, and maybe even suggest for someone else to write it. This article scared me a little and I'm not game to add anything! :) 203.122.225.241 23:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good point. Too often is 'rape' included under the term 'paedophilia' without any thought having been given to the issue. Are we to believe that all who are attracted to adult women will go out and rape adult women? Of course not. The media is a dangerous player in spreading this stereotype; one would have to be both a paedophile and rapist to conform to the commonly-held image of a 'paedophile'. 81.77.190.199 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to forums

I removed a set of external links to forums promoting pedophilia. Our task here is to describe to phenomenon in a neutral fashion, not to promote it. There is no indication that these forums are even notable promoters, like NAMBLA is. -Willmcw 07:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

These forums provide valuable insight into pedophilia of utmost use to any serious person researching pedophilia or 'childlove.' It is in no way a "promotion," nor is linking them straying from our NPOV policy. 24.224.153.40 17:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the type of material that readers would find that would give them a valuable insight into pedophilia? The only reason we have external links is to provide "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews". I note also that most of these same links are also at Childlove. having them in both articles seems redundant. -Willmcw 18:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, can you explain how these websites are organizations that are advocate pedophilia? Sitting around chatting and sharing dirty stories is not advocating. -Willmcw 19:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone is interested in learning about something, it's absolutely silly to sit around idly reading scholarly discussion and medical statistics without actually examing their subject of scrutinisation. Though this isn't at all always possible, the Internet is a goldmine for anyone interested in investigating otherwise secretive pedophiles; indeed, observing pedophiles "chatting and sharing dirty stories" is a wonderful way to learn who they are.

On your second question, the Internet, and more specifically, forums like these, are the source of the 'childlove movement.' Ideas for the aims of the 'childlove movement' were first put forth on Usenet and places like those linked. 24.224.153.40 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Scholars who want to investigate the what pedophiles think can find the forums on their own. This seciton is devoted to organizations (not forums) that advocate for acceptance of pedophiles. You have not convinced me that these forums advocate for anything, or that they provide a meaningful, relevant content. We hardly allow fan forums of movie stars, and these seem of even less value. They certainly are not appropriate in this section. -Willmcw 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The origins of pedophile advocacy are these forums. Hella relevant to pedophilia advocacy, if you ask me. And good God, these forums are useful to people who want to research pedophilia, I haven't a clue why you believe they shouldn't be in the article. tkGL and Butterfly Kisses are not solely forums. 24.224.153.40 01:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the forums could easily be used to promote paedophilia, and to exchange information on child molestation. Let's not encourage this.

On an unrelated note, what is the point of the picture? It looks like it's just a picture of a teacher and his pupil. Why is this relevant at all to paedophilia. DJ Clayworth 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so you are clearly warned, anon, that was your third revert. DJ Clayworth 01:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware it was my third revert, user. The forums are not and could not be used to "exchange information on child molestion," as this is not legally tolerated, nor would it be tolerated by the site administrators as it is contrary to the spirit of 'childlove.' Even if linking them was somehow encouraging the creation of an underground kiddiefucking network, that is not within the concern of an NPOV encyclopedia. 24.224.153.40 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't read them but I saw that the "Girlchat" site hosts what appear to be pornographic stories involving young girls. It certainly is not the purpose of an NPOV encyclopedia to provide links to child pornography. If the sites do not provide information on sex with children, tehn what do they provide, besides porn? I just don't see any need for these external links. -Willmcw 02:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't visit GirlChat, but what you said here surprised me. Fortunately, it seems you either made it up or just misunderstood something. From the GirlChat FAQ:

Can I post pictures/fiction?

NO! Do not even think about using GirlChat as a place for exchanging pictures, nor to post fictional writing. In different localities different materials are considered illegal. For instance a fictional story involving children while not illegal under federal law in the US, is illegal under federal law in Canada. Therefore we must ban all such material. This restriction is not because GirlChat is pro-censorship, even the subject of child pornography elicits a range of opinion here. It is because our support role is too valuable to be compromised by the kind of attention that even a hint of pornography would bring. The only pictures allowed inside posts are our signature pictures associated with the user authentication. The only justifiable reason for posting a link to a picture is if it is genuinely important to the content of your post and is legal in the UK, Canada and the US.

Now that I've had a look at GirlChat again, I don't know how you can miss the advocacy on these sites. One of the very first posts on the page, November 28th: http://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/334162.htm

Butterfly Kisses has a forum and section of their website completely dedicated to 'childlove' advocacy, in fact.. 24.224.153.40 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple of postings do not make these forums into organizations that advocate for pedophilia. NAMBLA is an organization. BoyChat is just a forum. Further, most of these websites also have links in Childlove. How many different places on Wikipedia do we need to link to them? If Childlove and Pedophilia are separate concepts why are they in both places? Do they advocate childlove or pedophilia? -Willmcw 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

A Google search of BoyChat for the word "pedophilia" brings up only six hits.[7] annabelleigh gets just 16 hits.[8] How do these site advocate for pedophilia if they don't even use the term? They appear to be pedophilic websites, not pedophilia advocacy organizations. If we want to create a web directory of pedophilic websites then we should label them correctly.

Furthermore, the sentiment in the GirlChat rule that you posted may sound stern, as does this one:

• GirlChat strictly prohibits posting any pictures..., drawings, or artwork of the nude human form ( any age ), ... in your post, link, or URL leading to material that portrays, depicts or describes someone under the age of 18....[9]

However the enforcement seems spotty. [10][11]. Also a link to this website.[12][13]. -Willmcw 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Google results are clearly flawed. Google only appears to spidering one or two messages ever posted there (probably from other sites linking in). Google also only returns two hits for "girllover," even though that word is very prolific there.

I do not know who told you that 'childlove' and pedophilia are seperate concepts, but that's not right. 'Childlove' is just a substitute used by people to afraid to call pedophilia pedophilia. All the "little kids turn me on but I'm not a pedophile!!" nonsense some pedophiles resort to is silly.

None of the "spotty" links you posted actually violate any rules, except maybe the link to "newstar-cherry.com," which is legal anyway.

Nobody is saying these are organizations.

What justification do you have for simply removing the links? 24.224.153.40 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I still see no advocacy. If Childlove and pedophilia are the same thing then lets merge the articles. -Willmcw 23:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply when I'm finished reading "Order of the Phoenix," which will probably be a few days. "Childlover" can go in the advocacy section along with the pedosexual header.

You'll have Wikipedia all to yourself.. 24.224.153.40 23:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with the merger. I think the term Childlover deserves separate treatment, if only as the euphemising term preferred by the movement. DJ Clayworth 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

ASFAR

I deleted the link to asfar.org. Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions is a general youth rights organization, not a pedophile organization. Its main page is not relevant to this article. Woty

Loli?

Someone deleted the bit on lolicon that was here before, apparently because it was relevant to ephebophilia and not pedophilia... but most of the girls in lolicon are 6-11. May it go back? 24.224.153.40 01:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I asked a while back what the relevance of the picture was, and I didn't get an answer. Any suggestions before I remove it? DJ Clayworth 01:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've scratched my head looking at it and wondering why it was there. If we need a picture, I'm sure we can find something better. In the mean time, go ahead and remove it. -Willmcw 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say it's hard to come up with an idea of a picture that is tasteful, relevant and legal. Maybe we have a broken teddy bear somewhere? That's the sort of thing the meainstream media seem to use. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One option, Image:Rembrandt - Ganymede.jpg, might be considered to have too strong a POV. Anyway, the article doesn't really need an illustration. -Willmcw 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Come again? What does a falcon nipping some kid and a broken teddy have to do with pedophilia? (Or , err, you wouldn't happen to have just been trying to provoke some reaction with an inane comment like that.. right, Willmcw?)

The Alice Liddel picture is a little.. weird there, in my opinion.. or at least a better caption would be nice.. 24.224.153.40 02:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed it would seem to indicate that Wikipedia is saying that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. If I was Lewis Carrol I would consider sueing. DJ Clayworth 14:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you were Lewis Carroll, you'd be dead. 24.224.153.40 02:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hard to believe that anything on this article could possibly be funny. I forgot to mention that the picture really bothered me so I removed it. Is there really any need for a picture at all. I have to agree with DJ Clayworth. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I agree with the removal of the picture, especially since it implies Alice was the object of a pedophile's love/lust, a disputed point, but I'm afraid "it bothered me" is in no way a reason to remove anything (wp:npov). Liddell's picture here does not help illustrate the article, however. 24.224.153.40 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It bothered me that it appears to claim that Wikipedia is saying that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile which is POV. I noted that above. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Can We Agree On This

There has to be an acknowledgement that some individuals 9however misguided or mentally ill we may believe them to be) genuinely do not believe that there is anything wrong with sexual activity between adults and children. If this is to be an encyclopaedia, we cannot editorialise like this. The facts regarding this subject in culture, law and history are the most important thing - and sometimes the facts can be unpleasant.

I agree that this is a possibility. - Rudykog 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

True. Some people don't believe that murder is wrong, or genocide. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone's mentally ill because they do not share your opinion? 24.224.153.40 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In this statement:Courting a teenager below the age of consent is legal in some jurisdictions, especially when the individual is above the marriageable age. what do we mean by 'courting' exactly? Do we mean a lead-up to sex, or a lead-up to marriage? DJ Clayworth 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really good at editing, but I was thinking some useful information if anyone wants to go fishing for it is: the profile of the abuser. I've read some books on child abuse and why some adults are attracted to children and some of the reasons citing by child abusers themselves were: #Not preferring adult/adult sex because of the risk of rejection. An adult is is an EQUAL who is not easily manipulated. Can say "no" easily and/or end the relationship. A child can be bribed easily with "candy", "toes", and "promises of friendship".

1. Many child molesters feel like they're "children trapped in adult bodies". They often act like children and feel as if they can only really be themselves in the presence of children. (Example: Michael Jackson)
2. Child molesters usually target emotionally needy children who are "loners", have self-esteem issues, and are very quiet socially.
3. They frequently use some kind of position of authority: coach, teacher, or priest, ect.. Where children are obligated to respect their authority. One tactic they use to escape detection is to target ONLY ONE CHILD to the exclusion of the rest, say on a basketball team, so that if the abused child blows the whistle the other "non-abused" children will come to their coaches' defense. This is also done in the family" "a father of five abusing only the youngest". The other siblings will vehemently defend their father if the youngest reports because of the common myth that "if he'd done it to you, he would have done it to me too!"
4. Once having identified the often "lonely child", the molester begins the process of gaining the childs trust. The process of gaining a child's trust in psychology is called "grooming". The molester will identify the insecurities of the child and then offer to meet those needs in exchange for deeper and deeper levels of secrecy. (The frog in the water scenerio).
5. According to statistical research at this time, nearly all child molesters are men. This is regardless of wether the victim is a boy or a girl.
6. The child molester is very rarely a stranger. He is almost always a relative (incest) or a friend of the family. He takes advantage of the child's natural fear/respect of adults to convince the child that there is nothing wrong with sexual touching.
7. The child molester will often take advantage of a child's natural sexual curiosity. "Do you know was a ***** looks like?" "Do you want to see?". This is also done in the form of "sexual games". "If you get an answer wrong you have to take off your shirt. If I get an answer wrong I have to take off my shirt".
8. 1/3 of all children report having been molested as children. Many researchers, police officers believe the actually amount is more like 1/2 because of lack of reporting.
9. The child is often frightened to tell someone about the abuse, not just because of fear of physical harm. But also because their "trusted adult" who has become their "friend" will have to go to jail. They also are afraid they won't be believed. (This is an extremely reasonable fear due to the molester almost always either being a relative, a trusted family friend, and/or in a position of great respect: teacher, priest."
10. Overwhelming scientific evidence, both from liberal and conservative sources, provide a strong link of any form of "child-adult sex" with borderline personality disordorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bi-polar, and adult sexual dysfunction along with many others.

Hope that helps =) (unsigned user:24.20.254.93)

Much of this is not relevant to pedophilia, but rather child sexual abuse. 24.224.153.40 20:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the only one who finds it enraging that pedophiles are attempting to use a neutral encyclopedia to promote thier grotesque viewpoints? The vast majority of humanity agrees that sex with children is wrong, hence why it is against laws in countries across the world. It is not a form of oppression, or stereotyping or anything else, it is very simply the innate desire in human beings to try and protect their children from harm. And despite whatever these pedophile advocates will say to justify themselves, their manipulation and desire to engage in sexual relations with children, as well as the act itself, is most definately harmful. Please, some administrators must take a strong stand on this. Pedophilia is wrong. Please let these encyclopedia pages reflect that! Not the perverse opinions of a small but highly organized minority. (unsigned User:Rich Karpusiewicz)

WP:NPOV is your friend. No such opinion will be reflected by this article as long as there are rational Wikipedians to stop it. 24.224.153.40 18:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Rational Wikipedians?" Earlier you said: "The forums are not and could not be used to "exchange information on child molestion," as this is not legally tolerated, nor would it be tolerated by the site administrators as it is contrary to the spirit of 'childlove.' Even if linking them was somehow encouraging the creation of an underground kiddiefucking network, that is not within the concern of an NPOV encyclopedia." I can't see how linking to forums to learn more about pedophiles and put you into direct contact with them is not promotion, nor how that is not the concern of a scholarly encyclopedia. Academic journals and databases do not typically present users with the option of going to talk with potentially criminal elements about topics which are clearly in the realm of the illegal. True pedophile researchers can do their research without a direct link from Wikipedia.

Whoa, that was a bizarre subject change.

1. Pedophilia is not "clearly in the realms of the illegal"
2. The best way to learn about something does not usually involve distancing yourself from your subject of study and never actually interacting with it. These forums are for discussions between pedophiles, so they're also less prone to lie. Observe and learn.
3. Providing external links useful for anyone studying pedophilia is indeed within the 'concern' of an NPOV encyclopedia. 24.224.153.40 19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

I made a few edits to the article. Namely, I removed a couple of "counterarguments" in the "Law" section, as these are points about the ideas behind laws, not a section to carry out an argument. I would have incorporated the "but bonobos do it" information elsewhere in the article, probably under Cultural norms, if the bonobo article said anything of the sort (it references "incest," not "pedophila"). 66.241.95.9 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The "young girls are often more disposed to tearing blah blah blah" part is needed to differentiate the comment from general criticism of sex (as vaginal tearing is possible no matter the age). 24.224.153.40 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to above edits in Law section: This information I have provided is medically accurate and I will be happy to provide the links to expert medical literature as to why sex with prepubescent children is dangerous- your statements are misleading propaganda that provides barely a footnote to outdated commentary that is based in obsolete irrelevant science papers in zoology and not human sexual development and lacks any weight and backing in current scientific medical and legal research. You are presenting weak truths mixed with deliberate falsehoods and not giving an accurate encyclopedic reflection of the accepted scholarly reasons underlying why sex with prepubescent children is dangerous. This is hardly a neutral presentation, is entirely pro-pedophile POV, and gives not one accuraate statement as to why these laws against child sexual abuse exist and why sex with prepubescent children is illegal, and you really makes no truthful statement as to why sex with prepubescents is dangerous, but rather you laud POV pedophilic propaganda to promote the impression that perhaps these laws have no reasonable foundation. You are exposed!

• it's considered unnatural for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a prepubescent because of the belief that they cannot reproduce. In actuality, pregnancy in a prepubescent child is possible and is considered a medical emergency. Prepubescent pregnancy however rare, is fatally dangerous, the immature underdeveloped female body is not capable to handle the competition between its own growth and development and providing proper support to the developing fetus, and always results in permanent physical damage or death to the prepubescent mother and likely to result in a stillbirth.Erupted ectopic pregnancy is the leading risk of death amongst pregnant prepubescent girls. The earliest recorded pregnancy in the medical literature, was in a 1 year old human infant. You are plainly wrong and heinously biased away from fact.

I'm afraid I don't have a clue who you're exposing: not me, certainly, since I didn't write it in the first place; but yes, please provide your citations and then it can be worked into the article. Thanks. 24.224.153.40 21:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The above statements seem to say that pregnancy in a young child is fatal, or would be fatal if not terminated early. There should be some evidence given. Facts contradict these statements - Here's one relevant topic: world's youngest mother. EthanL 04:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, this material (particularly the details) should probably be in Pregnancy rather than here. The Land 11:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sexual "deviancy" in child molesters

Our article currently quotes one study ("2-10% of child molesters are pedophiles") and cites it as a fact. The many studies done on child molesters, however, reveal more diverse results. In my opinion we should include the results of various studies, and cite them as just that, the results of various studies. I tried to edit it like this and failed. If someone else could try:

• Quinsey, Chaplin, & Carrigin (1979)
• Quinsey, Steinmen, Bergersen, & Holmes (1975)
• Avery-Clark & Laws (1984)
• Abel, Becker, Murphy, & Flanagan (1981)
• Marshall et al. (1988, 1986)
• Marshall, Barbaree, & Christopher (1986)
• Barbaree & Marshall (1989)
• Freund (1981) and etc.

Diversity is such that Barbaree & Marshall reported statistics of 48% pedophiles for extrafamilial and 28% pedophiles for interfamilial child sexual abuse. 2-10 are problably the lowest numbers. 24.224.153.40 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Attention to this article on the Internet

Forgive me if this seems somewhat irrelevant, as I'm new to this, but this page seems to be negatively reflecting on Wikipedia, as is shown by this. It seem like this page should be cleaned up to remove the pro-pedophile bias that is still apparent.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Paroxysm 18:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Example, the following points are awfully weakly stated and look rather pro-pedophile, perhaps as much for what they leave out as for what they state:

• • • children are seen as unable to understand the putative physical, emotional, and social consequences of sexual acts and are therefore seen as unable to give informed consent;
    • sexual acts can, like all relationships, involve coercion and abuse of power, which can break bonds of trust and apparently cause emotional harm;
    • belief that children have little or no interest in, or desire for sexual pleasure, and thus would not naturally seek it or agree to such activity without influence or coercion;
    • it is often considered unnatural for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a prepubescent because they are unable to reproduce;
  • most media depicts sexual activity as harmful to children or morally wrong; and
    • belief that individuals should abstain from sex until marriage (or a fixation on virginity in females), paired with legal prevention of marriage below a certain age.

I think a cleanup would have to work on the apparent bias of these points. --213.80.84.98 20:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Click the edit button. Say more. It's really that simple. // paroxysm (n) 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Parents for the Online Safety of Children?"

I've been looking into this silly "wikipedophilia" thing today, and I haven't found very much. This lack of results is interesting in itself. The source of these charges comes from the press release from "Parents for the Online Safety of Children," a group allegedly founded in 1997 by “an organization of concerned citizens.” A Google search for the name of this group reveals absolutely no results whatsoever, except for several references to their press release attacking Wikipedia; apparently this organization has never had any mention in any Web site, news service, Usenet newsgroup, or any mention anywhere before now. The sudden appearance of this group and its claims of “pedophiles” on Wikipedia suggests two possibilities: 1) The press release may be fake, one of many Internet-based trolls; or 2) it is a result of a recent edit war here. --Modemac 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's something interesting: a blogger did some detective work and put two and two together to come up with a [http://www.ridingsun.com/posts/1134805044.shtml possible reason for the bogus "wiki pedophile" press release. It might (emphasis on might) be some petty revenge for the QuakeAID scandal early this year that was exposed to the public, thanks to Wikipedia! --Modemac 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'press release' is from baou.com, which is a group of trolls posing as a news organisation. See QuakeAID The Land 10:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Childlove movement

Since advocacy for pedophilia is the goal of the childlove movement, and since the content was well-covered there, I've moved the majority of the "Advocacy" section from here to there. The material here just duplicated what was already there. -Willmcw 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal and reorganization

I recently removed, reorganized and condensed parts of this article. My goals were to: 1. Remove unnecessary repetition. 2. Focus the article on the medical definition of pedophilia.

The reasons for the taboo illegality of child sex should probably be distributed amoung other articles where it can be refocused on that particular topic. The medical reasons against child sex should probably be put in a medical article about the victims of sexual abuse. --Gbleem 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Will you be doing those follow-on tasks? -Willmcw 18:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia, when referring to child sexual offenders, is not a colloquialism as it has been used in formal literature, and in fact some researchers disapprove of the APA's definition and believe the sole criterion should be whether or not one has committed child sexual abuse.

Your "cultural variations" section was unreferenced and repetitious with the Law section. The first sentence ("...When determing if an individual has the condition of pedophilia cultural context should be considered...") was completely incorrect. The explanation after the see also links was superfluous.

But thanks for being one of the only non-pedophilic users actually trying to contribute NPOV. // paroxysm (n) 22:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to rewrite what was there. Someone had mentioned cultural stuff. Cultural issues do have a place in diagnosis. I understand some pedifiles want to hide behind cultural issues as a behavioral wildcard however I would hope a professional shrink would consider that as well.--Gbleem 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think link discriptions are superfulous but maybe there is a style guideline somewhere.--Gbleem 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter if you born in Ancient Greece or Canada, if children arouse you more than adults, you can be diagnosed as a pedophile. Birthplace and time have no place in diagnosis. // paroxysm (n) 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the article's getting a lot better. Keep it up! (Yes, I will join in). The Land 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

the "Cultural variations/norms" section was mostly a paragraph about views of child pornography, which I moved to that article. I assume we want to keep the topics separate. -Willmcw 22:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The section is absolutely barebones. Maybe it should be merged with Law? // paroxysm (n) 22:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the POV concern over the sentence? -Willmcw 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguably pedophilic relations didn't exist in (say) ancient Greece because of very different social structures, conceptions of childhood.adulthood, etc, but I wouldn't make too much of that argument. Guess the NPOV tag was added when there was more controversial material there. The Land 22:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've taken it out; the first sentence of 'law' implies that the current laws and norms have not been there forever, and we have an article on (for instance) Homosexuality in ancient Greece which covers the ground for Greece more than adequately. I think this article, in particular, is the wrong place to get involved in detailed debates about sexuality in 15-odd ancient civilisations. The Land 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

user:Paroxysm moved the text down to "Law" and inserted it there twice, and keeps reverting attempts to remove one or the other copy. I encourage that user to read the text before reinserting it again. -Willmcw 23:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice I'd pasted it twice. Sorry. // paroxysm (n) 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to pro-pedophile forums

Is there a reason we should have those in Wikipedia? Forums in general are not considered to be good "further sources" in Wikipedia:external links. The argument before was that they participated "Childlove advocacy", but that's no reason to include them in this page -Willmcw 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophiles are not easily solicited subjects of study because of the social implications of being "exposed" of an attraction to children, and even then, they're more likely to lie to make their group look better. The linked forums allow anyone interested in observing or understanding pedophilia to easily do so; they can provide statistics answered by a surely non-biased sample (polls on tkGL such as "Do you have sadistic fantasies?", "How low/high does your age of attraction extend?" or "Do you believe intergenerational relationships should be legalized?" and so on), and generally offer insight if any researcher wants to form an independant opinion. You can leaf through documents of studies conducted on child sexual abusers, sure, but pedophile forums would surely be useful to any scholarly researcher. // paroxysm (n) 00:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone interested in doing serious research on pedophiles does not need our help finding their websites. The same logic could be used to add tons of links to all manner of counterculture websites with little useful content. I'm all for linking academic or professional sites. But forums composed of entires about the sexiness of some pre-teen starlet do not add to our encyclopedia in a useful way. -Willmcw 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Willmcw here... as we all know we are not a links directory, and the many of the links provided are not highly relevant to the article. The Land 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Our goal is to help anyone interested in learning about pedophilia acheive that goal; there is no reason we should hold back highly useful links. That you dismiss them as all talking only about "the sexiness of some pre-teen starlet blah blah blah" or whatever seems to evidence that you've hardly glanced at them. // paroxysm (n) 19:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point, pedophilia links aren't highly relevant to pedophilia. Got me there. // paroxysm (n) 19:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As a member of TKGL, I can say from both my own experience, and that of others I've gotten to know through the forum, that such a forum is about the only place that a pedophile/childlover can be truely honest. If you want to see pedophiles being open and honest about their orientation (or disorder <_<) then you'd be pretty ignorant to avoid a childlove forum. Silent War 03:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not our purpose to provide links to places where pedophiles can be open and honest about their orientation. The purpose of our external links can be found here: Wikipedia:external links, which strongly discourages the addition of forums. Why? Because they don not provide useful information, only opinions and chatter. -Will Beback 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear God. The links are not there to provide pedophiles with a place where they can be "open and honest about their orientation," it is to allow anyone interested in pedophilia to do some empirical research. They are useful, they are informative, and they sure as hell aren't just "opinions and chatter," but pretty much the only damn place you'll be able to see self-provided statistics, personal stories regarding pedophilia which can be helpful if anyone is interested in theorizing a cause, and general information provided about pedophilia by pedophiles, as opposed to child sex offenders, who usually get to be the lab rats (typically resulting in a horribly skewed representation of pedophilia). // paroxysm (n) 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Self-provided statistics"? What are those? What genreal information can we find in one of those forums, and it it's worthwhile, how come we don't have it here? On what basis do can we assert that the forum members are not child sex abusers? Thos conceopt that we need to provide links to forums so that future researchers can find them more easily is spurious. These alleged researchers can find the forums easily enough on their own. Wikipedia is not a link farm. -Will Beback 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you had read my very first reply...

The concept of assisting people in learning about something via external links is not "spurious," and there's no reason we should exclude useful links which are helpful to anyone who wants to see pedophiles being open about their orientation and past. I do not see why we should fail to include useful, educating links from this article, and leave researchers to "find them on their own."

We can not be sure the members of said forums have never abused a child, but we can at least be sure they are actually pedophiles in the first place, and thus such a sample would be far more accurate than a trip to the jailyard.

I consider the "GLography" section of tkGL of especial interest in anyone wanting to do any serious, non-theoretical research on the cause of pedophilia, as most outline some event in the past which, in my opinion, probably caused arrested sexual orientation. // paroxysm (n) 22:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim that we need to provide help to researchers who may, someday, want to find out what pedoophiles think is spurious. The same reasoning could be used to defend the inclusion of any websites. "Gee, researchers might want to know what type of material child pornographers post on their websites"... If there is a specific page on one of the sites that is useful then link to that. -Will Beback 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing against a strawman. We provide external links to educate users and provide them with further information. These links fit that goal for reasons I have reiterated several times already. This is all I have to say until you actually belie my argument. // paroxysm (n) 23:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"On what basis do can we assert that the forum members are not child sex abusers?" How about the fact they're on a forum, NOT in jail? I, for one, am not a child sex abuser. "Gee, researchers might want to know what type of material child pornographers post on their websites" I don't know about the other forums, but TKGL has a strongly enforced policy of not posting or linking to child porn. Like Paroxysm keeps saying, a childlove forum is a good place to learn about the mentality of pedophiles, which I'm sure makes linking to them worthwhile. = Silent War = 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to act cautiously with external links to forums, with that in mind there is no reason to create subsection devoted to forum links with links to three seperate forums. I suggest you Paroxysm look at what are generally considered good external links in an article. This an article about pedophilia, it is here to provide information on this particular paraphilia. A link to pedarist/pedophile online communities in no way provides the reader with more general information on the subject of pedophilia, which after all is the purpose of external links. Like I said its a reference article about pedophilia and the links do not add to the article's informative value. It might be possible to argue or justify creating such a subsection in the article on pedophilia communities or organizations if such an article existed but it doesn't belong here and certainly not in its present form. I removed them ..--Nikostar 02:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument, which I've heard about 20 times rephrased already, does not qualify the removal of these links. Wikipedia policy advises against linking forums because they are generally not informative and useful in any way, or a more desirable, static webpage exists which already provides the relevant information. However, these forums in particular are useful and educating for the reasons I've said above (I'm seriously contemplating just making some sort of form-reply here..), and it's quite justified to link them. I don't see the point of segregating them into their own little section, like Willmcw has done, so I undid that with my last revert.

I realize the purpose of external links is to provide more information, and these links do just that. Did you even read this section? How many times am I going to have to repeat myself? I feel like I'm engaged in some sort of never-ending litany. // paroxysm (n) 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen I do not care how many time you have to repeat yourself you are still missing the point. The links do not belong here because they are neither neccesary and provide no further information on the general subject of pedophilia. They might be appropriate at the article on pedophile advocacy/organizations but not here, especially when you consider that external links to forums are not encourage unless really neccesary for the article. Maybe you should listen to what others have to say and your never-ending litany might come to an end. I am also now repeating myself and you know what I still see no reason why the articles needs not one, not two, but the three links to three seperate pedophilia advocacy forums. Any I see no reason why it needs any of them for that matter. They should still go- the article certainly will not be in anyway less informative without them and that is the most important point!!! --Nikostar 03:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the bloody thread and you'll learn why these links are both educating and providing of "general information of pedophilia." Seriously, just look up. I've already outlined the reasons for linking and you guys are still repeating yourself without bothering to refute anything. Just please.. read. // paroxysm (n) 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone teach me how to revert articles so I can get those forum links un-deleted AGAIN!? = Silent War = 03:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Try Help:Reverting. But remember not to revert four times in one day (WP:3RR). // paroxysm (n) 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of article edits

I replaced the following: "The term pedophile is often also used to describe any person who has perpetrated sexual crimes against children; this use, however, is seen as erroneous by some individuals, especially when viewed from a medical standpoint, as the majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by situational offenders rather than people sexually attracted to prepubertal children."

I wanted to show that there are two groups not included in the medical definition. The information about situational offenders should be further down in the article. Too much detail for the beginning. --Gbleem 00:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The rationale for judgement of that use as erreneous should be included, and indeed that some people feel it is errenous needs to be included, which is not elsewhere in the article currently. // paroxysm (n) 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

They seem to be two different definitions for two different purposes. People agreeing or disagreeing with the two common uses of the term is so obvious I don't think it needs to be put in the summary at the beginning.--Gbleem 01:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Law

It will work better if the law section only has information related to diagnosis. Non medical definitions of pedophile can be covered by the child sexual abuse article. That's why I have child sexual abuse at the beginning. The two topics in the law section should be: 1. How legal issues are/should be used by the professional in diagnosing pedophilia. 2. How the identification of the condition could be used in a conviction or defense. Both of these should be kept short and refer to child sexual abuse. --Gbleem 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Concentration on the medical definition

The reason I want this article to concentrate on the medical definition is because it is the smaller definition of the term. The broader use of the term can be explained by reference to other articles like child sexual abuse or situational offender.--Gbleem 00:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See also anotations

Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also seems to support limited use of descriptions in the see also section. I think my anotations are good. If the article is printed you get some idea about what the item is. --Gbleem 00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cultural Issues section

I've just removed a 'Cultural issues' section which said that while pedophilia was taboo, thinkgs like 'skinny dipping' weren't, necessarily. I removed it because it seemed to have very little to do with pedophilia. The Land 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it back in because psychiatrists do (should) consider culture when making a diagnosis. Basically the point was that certain cultural items may have little to do with pedophilia but it is not a "goes without saying" point. However, this is something a professional should decide because some pedophiles try to use culture as a wildcard.--Gbleem 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

crime revert

"sexual activity involving older children is also usually a crime but marriage , minor emancipation and age of consent laws may allow legal sexual relations with a minor."

Why I reverted this: There are three things that may influence the legality of sex with an older child. I mentioned those three items and leave the reader to do further research. This phrase covers all possibilities without explanations of all the different ways the three items can combine. --Gbleem 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Gbleem revert

I reverted Gbleem's recent changes to this article.

• The readded paragraph at the top is redundant with the original which I removed into ==Definitions==. I think it would have been better suited at the top but you seemed to consider that a bit much detail.
• Cultural context is not and should not be considered when determining whether a person is a pedophile. The entire notion doesn't make sense. Cultural context might be relevant to determining whether something should be considered child sexual abuse, but even that would be an opinion. Pedophilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. How should "diagnosis" be affected by by "cultural context"? Maybe cultural context for sexual activity with a child, whether that be norm, but I don't understand how "cultural context" is relevant to whether or not a person is considered sexually attracted to children.
• Touching a child is never an overt "indicator of pedophilia." The section about massaging infants does not belong in this article.
• "Law" makes much more sense as its own header.
• The see also annotations recommended by the manual of style were not referring to how you are using them now. For example, if we linked "John Doe" from here, it might be useful to explain how John Doe is relevant to pedophilia. We are assuming our reader's are already aware of what the linked words mean, however, and if they did for this article, all relevance should be immediantly clear. // paroxysm (n) 20:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

culture and diagnosis

I'm not sure I understand the nature of your misunderstanding. Cultural context does not effect the definition of the condition, the definition does not change, but cultural context affects the process by which psychiatrist determines the existence of the condition, i.e. how the psychiatrist interprets the signs and symptoms.

Massaging an infant's genitalia is an example of something that might be misinterpreted if cultural context is not considered. --Gbleem 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, there was a recent news item about a father who was arrested for molestation when a photo processor found pictures of the man (a recent immigrant to the U.S. from a 3rd World country) putting his mouth on his baby's genitals. The members of the man's ethnic group rallied to his defense and insisted that it was a common cultural practice and he was released. Now his actions were not in any way pedophilic, but they resembled it. -Willmcw 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear that is a legal example but it could be analagous to how a psych might interpret signs and symptoms.--Gbleem 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it was part of a joyous ceremony. I didn't see a detailed article, but it sounded like the practice was done in a group setting, almost like a Jewish bris, which is why it was photographed. We should find an actual account if we're going to go any further with this example. -Willmcw 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you but it's not necessary. The point I wanted to make was about the process used by psychiatrists.--Gbleem 02:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

two definition paragraph

I put that little paragraph back in. It's just good essay writing to encompass your entire piece in the first couple of paragraphs. It tells the reader that we will be comparing and contrasting the two major definitions (or maybe classes of definitions): 1. medical definition and 2. a more general definition.

It lets the reader know that there are two classes of definitions that can be confused. Beware which one we are talking about while reading this article. It gives the reader a framework. --Gbleem 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1/4 of all men

"In this regard, there is evidence that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children ^[14]."

I'll trust that freund-costell said this however the way it is placed in the article seems to imply that all of these men would be diagnosed by a psych as having pedophilia. Were freund-costell trying to say that a quarter of all men are pedophiles or is someone trying to make an arguement against the legitimacy of the DSM definition?

--Gbleem 07:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Twenty-six subjects [of the eighty] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equalled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides." Hence, 32.5% of the sample was made up of pedophiles. // paroxysm (n) 18:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats closer to 1/3rd than 1/4th Sam Spade 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"sexual arousal" may be called a sign of pedophilia but that alone does not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of medically defined pedophilia. I'm not sure where the quotes are here. Is that freund-costell making a comment about another source or is it you making a comment about freund-costell? --Gbleem 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The APA is not God. The quote if from their study.

Besides, the sentence reads "There is evidence that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children." It does not say "A quarter of all adult men are pedophiles." // paroxysm (n) 17:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

definition, criminals included

The dictionary definition seems to be closer to the medical definition or maybe somewhere in between depending on the dictionary and your definition of child. I'm comparing the "official" definition to the common use. Lately the word has been used quite often to refer to criminals that may not be medically defined pedophiles, e.g. an adult having sex with a teen. --Gbleem 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

law, age of consent and marriage

In a previous version someone had mentioned marriage and emancipation. Without going into detail I wanted to mention that there are two other aspects of law that affect the age of consent. I also wanted to say that this may allow sex with post pubescent children without using the word minor. I made a slight change to the sentace by The Land

"Sexual activity between adults and children is now almost always a crime. In the past, however, sex between children and adults was condoned and often encouraged by some cultures. For an example see Pederasty in ancient Greece. ^[15]. Laws concerning the age of consent vary between jurisdictions, most usually at 16 or 18 but sometimes as young as 12."

• Fair enough. However, we've ended up with 'youth emancipation laws' mentioned again. I'm not clear whether such laws exist or they're something various pedophiles are campaigning for. In either case we should be clear about it, or leave the term out entirely. The Land 14:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick google and found a couple of documents that say that emancipation has no effect on age of consent. You can sign a lease but you can't have sex with your 20 year old boyfriend. I'm guessing the young as 12 is in another country or only with a spouse. --Gbleem 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Also Googling, I find that minor emancipation is a procedure in some US states that enables young people to act in law as adults under certain circumstances (e.g. marriage, service in the armed forces, living along and being responsible for oneself). But no suggestion this alters the law about sexual relationships. [16]. I therefore propose to remove any more references to minor emancipation in the article. Also, Age of consent has a long list of ages in different jurisdictions. I think the only base this leaves uncovered is whether marriage allows earlier sex - but that's also dealt with under Age of consent. The Land 18:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Beginning

"Pedophilia (Am. English), or paedophilia (Commonwealth English), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children. A person diagnosed with pedophilia is called a pedophile. The term pedophile is also often used for those attracted to children of all ages and the perpetrators of sexual crimes against children of any age. This usage includes many people who do not meet the criteria for a medical diagnosis of pedophilia."

Hitting the reader with the formal medical definition right up front is just to big of a blast. This warms them up first. The second definition for the general use and how it differs is balanced in weight and tone of the first definition. Together they give the two concepts we will be differentiating in the article.

Also there is no time element in this version. While the general def must have come after the original coining of the term one did not replace the other and they are both currently used. The time issue should be dealt with in the definition history.

--Gbleem 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Was this edit [17] intended as a reversion or was that the unintended result of an edit conflict? There were far more changes than just the intro. -Willmcw 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is now an explanation of each major change on the talk page. My idea of major may be different than someone elses. If there is a particular edit that you would like me to explain please ask. --Gbleem 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Separation of diagnosis and definition

I separated definition and diagnosis. The Definition section contains the history of the term and non-medical definitions. The Diagnosis section contains the medical criteria and the process of diagnosis. I put definition first because I believe it helps in understanding the section on diagnosis. While the medical diagnostic criteria contains a definition the process of using the diagnostic criteria to make a diagnosis is not the same as defining a word. --Gbleem 00:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

a brief comment

I've seen a lot of talk about POV -- now, not being a veteran I'm a bit hesitant to do editing of my own, but if there is going to be representation of viewpoints about pedophilia, it should not be of just (forgive the oversimplifications) adult pro and adult against, but include more of the pov of children. --Elizabeth of North Carolina 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Children tend to think what adults tell them to think. Unfortunately. // paroxysm (n) 04:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If everyone agrees with this, that children can't be trusted or are simply unable to make individual decisions about how they feel about pedophilia, then shouldn't that make the act of pedophilia itself manipulation, even in a neutral POV? It just seems to me that some research has been done about the reactions of and effects on younger people due to this (both in the US and other cultures) and some of this should be mentioned to give the page greater depth.--Elizabeth of North Carolina 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"act of pedophilia" - It is not an act, it is a state or situation. Minor mention of effects might be ok, but most effects (I assume) should be covered at the child sexual abuse article and a ref to there would prolly be best. Too much here would detract from the article's focus. --DanielCD 15:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that does make sense. Thanks --Elizabeth of North Carolina 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I think this article is not NPOV. The legal standpoint is that "the [Counter Pedophilia Investigative Unit, a government organization] still believes that pedophilia is much more than a preference. In fact, the CPIU strongly believes that pedophilia is a psychological disorder despite what the DSM may or may not decide."[18]. The APA and most reference articles have come to similar conclusions. I've found in this wikipedia article that a much more substantial period of time is spent refuting cultural, social, and legal norms which condemn pedophilia than discussing the norms, the end result being that the article seems to be an apologetic piece. I've seen a lot of statistics in the article along that bent and I plan on doing some research to provide statistics that show upper limits as well as lower limits. However, because I know we all have strong feelings on the subject, I plan on making my research thoroughly before making any changes. That said, there are a few changes I'm going to make right now. I'm going to add conventionally accepted definitions and legal definitions to the beginning of the article. The current definition does not even include the phrase "psychosexual disorder", which is agreed upon by Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster. While the APA is debating about whether it pedophilia is a disorder, Dr. Fredrick Berlin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital's Sexual Disorders Clinic has also said that "people who are sexually attracted to children should learn not to feel ashamed of their condition." However, he also went on to say that "[pedophila] impairs [pedophiles'] function" [19]. The problem in this article is not so much one of false information, but of balance. While the APA is debating, it is unlikely that the definition will change -- I am going to try to incorporate this and other information into the article in the next few days. --Elizabeth of North Carolina 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Counter Pedophilia Investigative Unit, a government organization" - beware that the government has an agenda to keep current views about pedophilia in place. They don't want any research done, they have a view they want held, probably for political reasons. This is not to belittle the problem. Some ideas that are spread are blatant lies, such as the idea that pedophilia is untreatable. Total bull. The issue taps into the the same anxious nerve that caused the witch hunts of the middle ages, which is a instinctual response. But they want to harness the power of this instinctual response. It wins votes. Plus, common folks love it to as it's a major form of entertainment, just like watching "witches" burn to death used to be for them.

There are many ways that this problem could be dealt with that the current system disallows, such as treatment with confidential therapy. But the public is willing to sacrifice some children to keep the scapegoat line-up coming. Doesn't put them much above the peds themselves; people often become what they hate, or pretend to hate. --ShadowPasha 02:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would the government need an agenda to keep current views about pedophilia in place? I would imagine that the mass populous would keep thier own views in place since the pro-pedophile lobby sure arnt winning them over. You say they dont want any research done? Prehaps you may want to do you research and actually discover that there is more research into pedophilia than almost any other paraphilia/orientation there is. Prehaps it may also be relevent here to suggest that your view that some ideas are spread as blatent lies, although may be exagerated and it could be argued to be slightly biased against pedophiles, are vertainly far from blatent lies. To compare parental concern and a need to see something doen about the pedophile problem to witch burnings, is nothing short of ludicrous.

All in all, you would have use beleive that there is a government conspiracy to make pedophiles look bad just to gain electoral support and to entertain the masses since we have now outlawed witchburnings. Hmmm. I just have to wonder.--82.46.163.23 19:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about any conspiracy. But I do believe that the condition is quite treatable, and conditions for treating it can be implemented. However many things I've seen claim it to be completely untreatable. I wouldn't call it a lie, but it is certainly far from the established fact it is often presented to be. The primary thing that needs to be changed, as far as I can see, are laws about patient-client confidentiality. They should have the option to report, but not be forced to; they should be able to exercise their own judgement. --DanielCD 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I know first hand that any "teatment" short of a lobotomy or similar mutilation usually doesn't work, and if it does seem to work, the "patient" is often only lying about the success. The thing that many don't realise is that what goes on in someone's head doesn't matter if doesn't translate into a negative action. = Silent War = 03:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

WWW.LOGICALREALITY.COM

WWW.LOGICALREALITY.COM y a pro-pedopholia web site which is fighting to legalize pedophilia and child-pornography to please old men. Please, visit that site and don't let them mes up our kids.

200.109.44.14 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)desperate young boy.

Ok, I visited it. Didn't find anything "pro-pedophilia" there, but I hope my visit prevented them messing up "our kids" ;-) Clayboy 16:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Children have as much right to their sexuality as anyone else. To assume the manifestation of childhood sexuality was naturally meant to never include sexual contact with an adult is not only impractical, irrational, illogical, unscientific, unfounded and without any tangible basis in fact; for such a thing to be true it would have to set humanity apart from all the other species we evolved from. To associate concepts of sex between children and adults exclusively with concepts of physical assault or emotional rape is like saying that giving and receiving pleasure from others is harmful to children's emotional development. Again, believing children should not engage in sexual behavior because it is harmful to them is no more rational then claiming it is harmful for children to play." [20]

I found this in their pedophilia section. However I don't think they should have a wikipedia entry. It could just be one guy with a web site.--Gbleem 17:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But like so many things written about this subject, the ideas in this paragraph are left so vague as to be of no more value than using one of Nostradamus' quatrains to decide who should be the next President. --DanielCD 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with "Childlove movement"

I don't think wikipedia should encourage euphemisms in general as they are POV so I suggest that the "childlove movement" article be merged into pedophila and NPOV'd.Homey 16:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a clinical term. The "childlove" movement is a social/cultural phenomenon, composed of at least as many ephebophiles as pedophiles. I think it's a good thing to keep them seperate for those reasons alone, but merging them would make for one enormously sized article. I would also disagree about the term being euphemistic -- that claim seems POV in itself, but that's another discussion. Clayboy 17:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently made the same merger recommendation. On reflection and discussion it appears that the two articles cover different ground. "Childlove movement" may not be the ideal title, but it seems to make sense to have it separate from this article. -Willmcw 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is hardly a "euphemism". To say that is to say it doesn't exist. To call it a euphemism...now THAT's POV, an attempt to belittle something you disagree with. --DanielCD 20:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the pedophilia article has been that in the past it has tried to cover everything. I want the article to cover the medical definition because it is the smallest definition. Other definitions are basically dictionary definitions or can be equated with other terms. It's not about my POV on the topic of pedophilia but my POV of how and when to write a wikipedia article. --Gbleem 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think a big problem with controversial articles it that so many people try to season the pot, it often comes out a little "off the mark". Fragments of things are removed and others added. And, as in my comment in the section below, sentences have meanings altered by adding or amending the sentence into an odd-sounding monstrosity, as opposed to rewriting it (I'm guilty of this myself). Over time, all the little changes have a deep effect on the focus and quality of the article. This one definitely needs to be re-focused towards a more scientific core, and I welcome any efforts you feel need to be made in that regard. --DanielCD 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

pedophilia as a legal term

" Pedophilia itself is not a legal term, as it describes not an act, but a psychological state, and hence no crime."

There's something just not quite right about this sentence structurally.

1. Are we sure there isn't a legal use of pedophilia or pedophile somewhere using some definition?--Gbleem 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2. with not, but and hence it really bounces back and forth.--Gbleem 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

3. What's the point we are trying to make? One must be aware of which meaning of the term we are using? I want to avoid stating or implying that sex crimes are excused or ok if there is a diagnosis of pedophilia for npov reasons. However, I would support putting something in the law section about how the diagnosis of pedophilia might be presented in a criminal trial. --Gbleem 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was I who authored that sentence. I changed it from something that was there before instead of writing it anew, which I prolly should have done. My intention was basically to impress the fact that it is the actions of pedophiles and others that constitute crimes, and not the illness itself. I was simply trying to distinguish the two, as many people seem to confuse them in their comments. I believe it isn't considered a legal term because there is actually no "pedophilia" crime. The criminal actions are always described in their individual detail, and there is simply no legal need for the term "pedophilia" or "pedophile". However, I could be wrong, this is just my take on the legal side.

Anyway, this was my thinking, I am not in any way trying to apologize or excuse anything, just clarify. It is a rather labrinthine sentence and could probably be improved, so be my guest if you feel you can state it better. --DanielCD 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

fantasy alone sentence

"The APA's diagnosis criteria does not necessitate actual sexual acts with children, and thus the diagnosis can be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges alone, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria."

If the patient meets the other criteria then is the word "alone" appropriate? Is this better:

"The APA's diagnosis criteria does not necessitate actual sexual acts with children, and thus the diagnosis can be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges without sexual acts with children, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria."

or

"The APA's diagnosis criteria does not necessitate actual sexual acts with children, and thus the diagnosis can be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria."

??? --Gbleem 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Second one. ;)) --DanielCD 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion and pedophilia

Don't you think there should be a section on the link between religion and pedophilia, many religions oppose it, mainly Buddism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Confcusism. --User:70.248.252.11

Christianity and Judaism belief, as far as I know, is not against pedophilia. You'll have to provide some passages to evidence that. In fact..

A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition... Talmud (Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b)

// paroxysm (n) 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion isn't something I know a lot about, but stricter forms of Christian faith forbid sex before marriage, and the age to get married in most countries is around 16-18. Therefore, sex with a minor is sinful as it is always before marriage. But then again, pedophilia isn't about sex with kids per se, the definition is an attraction to children... I suppose it would be interesting to add a part to the article about religious beliefs clashing with pedophilia. = Silent War = 11:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to add it? --User:70.248.252.11

The Bible does not mention pedophilia at all; therefore, these religions you cited, or at least Christianity and Judaism, are not to our knowledge opposed to pedophilia and we have no basis to say they are. The government has induced certain restrictions on their own accord which forbid marriage of children: religion has had no say in this.

Again, passages would be helpful. // paroxysm (n) 03:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It ain't mentioned in the Bible but certain Popes and Rabbis in history have condemed Pedophilia.

Indeed, based on their personal opinion, not God's. Perhaps the section should be titled "Certain popes and rabbis who don't like pedophilia." // paroxysm (n) 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

"Some other definitions of pedophilia require an age difference of at least five years. These, however, may overlook the tendency of pedophilic sexual inclination to develop during puberty or childhood"

The "however" throws me off here, as I'm not seeing the contrast. How is age difference related to the development of P. in childhood? I think this could be stated a bit better.

"Nevertheless, some researchers, such as Howard E. Barbaree, have endorsed the use of actions as a sole criterion for the diagnosis of pedophilia as a means of taxonomic simplification, rebuking the American Psychiatric Association's standards as 'unsatisfactory'."

Just a comment: it seems to me that this "simplification" may be dangerous, as it invites people to overlook the actual critical facts of how "pedophilia" operates and is developed in the human mind. It rather removes the human aspect of understanding the problem, and invites more of the generalizing that leads to misinformation. Convenient, yea. It would be convinent to post a label on everyones' heads stating whether they are liberal or conservative. Convenient, yea. But the complexities of the human mind aren't that black and white.

It seems (IMHO) this guys idea throws out the baby with the bathwater. It values coralling people like cattle into a category that can easily be disposed of over attempting to understand and either prevent pedophilia from developing or providing effective treatment. It in fact seems an attempt to dismiss these things as possibilities. --DanielCD 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume that sentence is trying to say that a thirteen-year-old sexually interested in a nine-year-old may still be a pedophile. I agree with you about Barbaree's half-baked idea, though: simplification is good, but not to the point of misconception and error. Treatment will be hopeless unless individual motives are considered. // paroxysm (n) 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Understanding will always win over brute force. Treatment could mean treatment for the general population and their lack of willingness to examine issues. It's the attitude of dismissing details with a label that irks me. --DanielCD 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed anon link

The link was essentially an article that listed Wiki members. It would quote these members then ridicule them; it went so far as to compare something one Wiki member said with something a child killer had said, although it gave no evidence of exact wording comparison. I saw this compilation list as flamebait. Not to mention the article itself had nothing to do with the subject of Pedophilia and everything to do with compiling a witch hunt list of Wiki members. Please note objections here. --Jelligraze 07:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article I would consider it to be relevant to an article on pedophilia from Wikipedia. The points raised in the article are definitely valid and if any particular segment of society is trying to use Wikipedia to push their agenda people should be made aware of this. The article does "name names" but this is, I feel, necessary to make the point. Accusations without concrete examples would be rightly rejected out of hand. Merely because you disagree with it is no reason to remove it.

That article is too stupid to describe in words, and, at any rate, it would be relevant in the article Wikipedia's article about pedophilia, but not pedophilia which is intended to cover that general topic without deviating into self-referential links. // paroxysm (n) 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's start with your name. Give an email address as well. Implying people remove something that prevents you from POVing the article because they "disagree with it" is called doublethink, or doublespeak. Perhaps people should look that up once and a while. --DanielCD 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, your "concrete examples" aren't so solid either. That article is not well-written or balanced; an unfit reference. No dissenting opinions there to clear up the misrepresentation (another PC term for "lying") either.

And note he didn't even sign his comment. --DanielCD 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for objections to be "noted here" which is what I did.I didn't revert the Wiki article. The hysterical reaction to those objections merely reinforces my feeling that the removed "External links" article makes some valid points. Wikipedia articles attempt NPOV which is good but an external source cannot be expected to live up to the same standards. The objection to a source that it is "not balanced" would mean removing most of the external sources quoted in this article or would you claim that BoyChat presents any "dissenting opinions".

Having read many talk pages I note that many people don't give a name or email address.

DanielCD who are you to demand my identity?

Anon.

No one is "hysterical"; I think that's just wishful thinking on someone's part. I don't know anything about "Boychat", but it doesn't seem to attack anyone, so there's no need for responses. A name is a username, that makes you take responsibility for what you do, and many of those people have given email addresses with their usernames. Staying anonymous means you don't want to take responsibility for what you are doing.

You can take lots of things people say about themselves, lift them out of the context they are in, and attack them with it. What's the percentage of people at Wikipedia who make claims of sexual feelings that the thought/sex police dissaprove of? When has there ever been a minor solicited at Wikipedia? At least here people don't have to hide; they can made to be responsible if they "solicit" a minor because a record is left, and how many minors are editing Wikipedia anyway? In two years, I think I've encountered one 17yo (who is now probably 19), and no other minors. Things like this require no proof whatsoever: they're said because the Nose-rings hear it and instantly believe it, and there are quite a few Nose-ringers out there.

So for everyone that continues to refer to this garbage as if it's such a silky fine pinnacle of human reasoning:

• "who is a self-described liberal Marxist" – Perhaps he likes to shop at Wal-Mart and loves anchovies on his pizza as well. who gives a cr@p?
• "Zanthalon is a frequent editor of the Pedophilia article, ensuring it is written from a pro-pedophile standpoint." – I don’t think I've ever seen this guy around; at least not in the last two months. A bald-face lie
• "one can see the recent scandals of pedophiles infiltrating the Catholic church for easy access to children" – pure BS
• "They're part of the pedophile underground that has infiltrated WikiPedia." – Evidence? More Nose-ring shIt
• "who claims to not have had any sexual relationship with children" – Who the F*k is the author of this article to judge the proof or falsity of this?
• "...I try as I may, whenever I can, to open the eyes of the ignorant on this matter, and ask for their understanding." I can see how fighting ignorance and understanding are opposed to the author of that article and whatever "agenda" him and other anti-free speech types are pushing
• "LuxOfTKGL is also the administrator of a community of pedophiles." – what...no reference to this "community"? Ya'd think he'd wanna tell the world about it, but...nothing
• "Such sentiments were echoed by Joseph Duncan, a convicted pedophile and murderer." Who is this? WTF does he have to do with Wikipedia? More smoke and mirrors – and wishful thinking
• "...to plant pedophilia in WikiPedia." Does this even make any sense??
• "Of course you wouldn't, Rookiee. Of course you wouldn't." – Cute statement meant to immediately blind people to the facts of what was just said.
• "On the pedophilia talk page, we find a probable pedophile named "Rainbird" defending pedophilia and complaining about sex offender registries." Of course, people who like that article would like to be able to round up and "punish the guilty ones" just because they have an opinion ...eh?
• "Perhaps the most disturbing element is that WikiPedia allows anyone, provided they have an IP address, to edit and change an article without registering." Oh my God, that means you too! Plus someone might see what this "anonymous" person has to say, and no one will be there to control what they hear, how they hear it, and how they interpret it! Cr@p we're in danger without someone to think for us!
• "1 in 5 children are solicited for sex online," Solicited on Wikipedia? Relevance?
• "Pedophiles are dangerous people" – the author has met them all? He's met any of them?

Given this, I think it's safe to say that that article is pure, unadulterated, crystalline Horse Shit. --DanielCD 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, if anyone thinks any of this has anything to do with "defending pedophilia"...that's probably the best capstone I could ask for my position here. "Pedophilia" is "beside the point" as far as my statements here are concerned. When someone defends what's right, and has the finger pointed at them for that reason, then there's a witchhunt about. Say what you need to say, but don't do it with deceit like this.

If you want help, feel free to leave me a message. --DanielCD 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that article was actually written to attack pedophilia, but to attack Wikipedia. In this way, people who dislike Wikipedia are trying to recruit groups with certain interests, such as anti-ped, to attack Wikipedia. Do I know this for certain? No. But I'd like to understand why so many people think Wikipedia is as bad as people are saying it is. To attack it as a "nest of pedophilia" is just too low a blow to overlook. --DanielCD 15:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zack Parson's and something awful article

Mentioning this article and zack parsons' opinion really add nothing to this page. By comparison, having a comment by an attorney general is perfectly acceptable, as he is someone who is in a noticeable position. Zack parsons is not. He writes for a so called comedy website that really has nothing to do with pedophillia, sexuality or the law (other than using foums members to stage DDOS attacks on pro-pedophile websites). His opinion is no more distinguisable than those belonging to any member of any website on the internet. In addition to him not being a person of noteworthy opinion, the actual linked article says nothing of value. Find an article by a reputible source that actually says something worthwhile and add that, but leave this rubbish out.

I have to agree that "something awful" is not a decent source to cite, especially for this material. I know some things about that site, and it's ok, but ok if you want a laugh. Surely there must be better refs out there if that information is as important as it seems to be. --ShadowPuppet 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Parsons' comment to avoid the use of "weasel words," i.e. give a specific, verifiable example of criticism. SA is visited by millions and his commentary is as notable as any newspaper opinion.

His article is indeed, without a doubt rubbish, but we can still mention rubbish opinions.

If you can find a better source, feel free to replace it. // paroxysm (n) 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Someone really needs to clean up that ref section. I'll try to as I have time. --DanielCD 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Boy/Girl chat stuff needs to go to Ped. Activism. I don't think it needs to be here. Please comment on this, as I will remove some if there's no response. --DanielCD 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that they're relavant as they are sites for pedophiles about pedophilia, and feature large communities of them. Likewise, if someone wants to do research on pedophiles or pedophilia in general then these sites would be worth checking out. = Silent War = 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The forums were moved to the activism article previously, I odn't why they ended up back here. Anyone doing serious research on the topic can find such links on their own, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. -Will Beback 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make a motion to take them out. They are simply not relevant to pedophilia per se. I'm not judging the material. I'm just saying there's already a place for it at the advocacy article. You could throw thousands of links in here and say they are "helpful", but they really detract from the article's purpose, which is to define and cover pedophilia as a "condition" (for lack of a better all-encompassing term). Those articles have more to do with social issues. They are mentioned, and a link is provided to the advocacy article. People who want them that bad will go to the advocacy article anyway, or better yet, just Google. --DanielCD 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I may have made some errors trying to straighten those refs. --DanielCD 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This page doesn't seem neutral at all - In fact, it seems down-right biased.

This entry doesn't seem neutral at all. In fact, it seems to promote and make excuses for the medical and legal reasons of pedophilia, rather than give an objective definition of both the legal and medical entities of the word. As someone who's done coursework in Abnormal Psychology and field medicine, I tend to find this page reads more like a "Pedophilia is a natrual, and perfectly normal" propiganda page, as well a place providing links to forums in which active discussions of potentially illegal acts occur, which I also believe places the Wiki at legal risk. These forums don't provide an active and scientific venue for observation at all, rather, a place for a select group to come and voice their acted upon and non-acted upon sexual fantasies. It's for these reasons I believe that this page should be removed, and a new wiki entry be formulated that takes neither a pro- or con-pedophilia stance, and rather, gives an objective information on exactly WHAT pedophilia is, in the legal and medical sense, rather than EXCUSES and PROMOTIONS of the behavior, and links where fantasies can be shared instead of scientific facts.

68.114.134.240 02:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV

"providing links to forums in which active discussions of potentially illegal acts occur" - Good grief look at the section just above for pete's sake. --DanielCD 02:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE::"some people believe this also refers to sex with an underaged person, but statistics show this is done by situational offenders. " I can't seem to find this in any article. --DanielCD 05:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've given up on the links, since clearly no one with a significantly different bias than myself wants them in, but I'll just contradict you on one point: they're completely within the law, and it definitely doesn't put Wikipedia at risk by linking to them.

You go on for some time about the obvious bias in this article, but uh.. you forgot to say just what's biased, and how this isn't an "objective description." How about you edit the article and fix it, and then we can work towards a better version? That's what wiki's all about. // paroxysm (n) 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"pro- or con-pedophilia stance" - NPOVing such a controversial subject isn't as rosy and easy as it may look. Many people who come here are used to tuning in to forums where they or their POV are in control (meaning it's not a free-speech forum). That's why a lot of things here may seem to be POV. I agree there are concerns, but they take work and sweat to remedy; you can't just swish things away with a rant. That's what frustrates me so about people coming in wanting to refer to things that consist primarily of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Yes, we need a no point of view stance, but it takes work. You should list the specifics of what you see as the problem. Generalities simply don't mean much. --DanielCD 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The ball is in your court. Dribble it out. I'm a overly-sarcastic ass a lot of the time, but no one's unique in receiving the butt end of that. That doesn't mean me or anyone else here isn't open to your ideas.

The ball is in your court. Dribble it out. Just don't go away and complain that you weren't given a chance to say your piece and have it be heard with open ears. --DanielCD 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a section on dangers? Public perception? I have to admit that the bulk of what keeps me around here while so many other articles need attention is this mystery of peoples' behavior. They want something, but don't seem to know quite what. Every since the attack on Wikipedia drew me here last year I've been hanging around here trying to find out what the bitch is. Funny thing, no one seems to know, even the people doing the bitching. --DanielCD 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For starters, if you're going to include pro-pedophilia links, you should for the sake of neutrality, include anti-pedophilia links. A few moments ago, I attempted to add some. They disappeared within seconds. Which leads me to believe that someone is sabotoging any attempt to alter this page whatsoever to be more objective. I think that the link section needs to be broken up into three catigories, scientific and medical information, pro-pedophilia groups liks, and con-pedophilia groups and links. That right there is a BIG source of what I view as a pro bias. I only see one link to medical information reguarding the psychiatric diagnosis, and the rest seem to be sites promiting pedophilia. Secondly, the medical diagnosis and legal topics need to be seperated, because they are completely different topics of discussion. Thirdly, it needs to stick to a rigid definition of what Pedophilia is considered to be, by the legal and medical community, not such phrases such as some people believe this also refers to sex with an underaged person, but statistics show this is done by situational offenders. Comments like this prove that a bias exists towards the pro-pedophilia community, and instead of providing objective information, provides what I see as an enabling excuse. Wikipedia was founded under the ideals of providing accurate, non-biased information over free public domain. This page needs to reflect it as well, reguardless of who, pedophilic or not, reads it. It seems to me, to maintain the POV that it currently has, just for the risk by what I've read of offending a few people who claim to have pedophilic tendancies, serves only to offend not only the community at large, but also serves to decrease the credability of wikipedia as a valid repository of information that is used by hundreds of thousands of secondary and collegate-level students, as well as many others.

User:ChanceGearheartEMTIV04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV

Thank you. Put them here and we'll look at them. I've already made a motion to remove the "pro" links per the above section. I just got here this morning to bear with me. If someone is snatching stuff with no comment that's not right either. There should be both pro and con links. But even there, there's a standard, so please choose prudently. --DanielCD 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"moments ago, I attempted to add some. They disappeared within seconds. " Come on, I don't see this in the edit history. --DanielCD 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Striking this, as I'm not sure of the timing of these events. --DanielCD 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I pruned it to three of each for the moment. Jessica Lunsford Foundation and the other might also go to the advocacy article. Links distinctly focusing on missing children are not really directly applicable herre either. In fact, the pro and con stuff should be kept to a sharp minimum here (IMHO), but we'll overlook that for now and try to get something we all agree on first. --DanielCD 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"The use of the term pedophile to describe child sexual offenders is seen as erroneous by some individuals, especially when viewed from a medical standpoint, as the majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by situational offenders rather than people sexually attracted to prepubertal children."

This really needs a strong citation. --DanielCD 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Daniel. Raising that statement means that there must be some verifyable statiscial or psychiatric studies done to prove that statement, even as a viable theory. Until then, I think it's just providing what I view as an excuse statement. I'll browse around some and look as much as I can between college classes today.

Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV 206.23.241.175 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Patience I put this here as a reminder for patience an all parts (including me). It takes time to evaluate the value of some sources. --DanielCD 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Note style

Does anyone else think this looks nicer than unstyled text? // paroxysm (n) 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The move across Wikipedia is towards using footnotes rather than inline references. -Will Beback 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant the <div style="font-size:85%;"> they're using in the Coke article. // paroxysm (n) 00:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Links have been altered drastically, again

Why were the links to Perverted Justice, the CPIU, and the FBI's Violent and Sexual Crimes website removed? Once again, the section has been altered to contain predominatly pro-pedophilic sites.

It's 3 to 1.

Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV

Those all only provide relevant information in opposition to child sexual abuse, which this article is not about. Find some informative websites criticizing the sexual attraction to children, k? That's what we need. // paroxysm (n) 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Paroxysm, no. Whereas the FBI page gives relevant information on the crime of child sexual abuse, PeeJ and CPIU both focus on pedophilia as well as the crime aspect of it, making them both viable material for the article. Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV

PJ posts chats of predators chatting up teenagers. CPIU focuses on and tries to prevent child sexual abuse. They would be more relevant at child sexual abuse; this article discusses the paraphilia, full stop, and its relation to CSA. Find something about that. // paroxysm (n) 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Look the people who are involved in the PJ FBI stuff are going to be at the Advocacy article. The pedophilia being refered to here is more of a mental state/condition and the facts and ideas relating it to offense are mentioned in the article. I think it's fair to have one support/info site related to pedophilia without having to "balance" it because all the other sites covering mental things have similar links without any "con" sites. Other than that, let's just drop the pro/con crap and focus on the medical material. I want to focus on that and I'm getting sick of playing "musical links" with this pro/con shit.

You can't make a mental state or illness or whatever into a crime per se. Peoples' actions are crimes, not the people themselves. --DanielCD 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It also kinda irks me that basically nothing can be done at this article without appearing to be on one "side" or another. --DanielCD 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

you know, if that's the case, Daniel, let's rethink this. What about removing any mention of enabling excuses, and focus on the psychological and medical definition of Pedophilia, and make a seperate topic for Pedophile Activism. I think that's going to be the most objective way of presenting this. While at it, let's remove all of the social controversy links, and just focus on objective and backup-able medical information. -- Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV

Ya, I think there might be some re-thinking in order, and I've been trying to redo some material. It's hard, though, to get to the library during the week and Internet sources are often poor (I'm usually rather picky about the refs I use), and I hate writing material without being able to cite it. Right now I'm kinda in conflict about how to proceed here. We might even need another article, but I don't want to do it prematurely before it's thought out. Then we'd have a place to put issues, and when people want a simple, solid definition of the condition/illness, they will have this to provide such information. I get frustrated with the pro/con debate because it seems impossible to be fair.

A lot of problems come because things are not defined solidly, and people debate, each using the same words, but meaning different things, and it ends up taking pages and pages of discussion that could be reduced if everone's on the same page.

Herostratus is making a commendable effort in making a project regarding this (see User:Herostratus/Pedophilia). It might be a good time to bring that out of the mothballs and utilize it. Both he and I have an interest in improving the quality of Wikipedia, but to do it fairly, and this might be good arena for each side to make cases/debate. --DanielCD 14:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take out any slant that's there, but I also want to be sure not to demonize where it's not merited. People genuinly have this problem, by no means do all of them offend, and many many suffer untold anguish trying to sort out their lives. All this is usually completely ignored by the mainstream, but I think it deserves consideration. My bias here is perhaps this: that what I've stated above be at least considered when wording things. --DanielCD 20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy section

I propose revising the Advocacy section so that it reads entirely as follows:

Advocacy of pedophilia

There are formal organizations that seek to remove the stigma from pedophilia. Some such groups also seek changes to age-of-consent laws.

THanks. 151.204.169.69 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments like these are not productive. --DanielCD 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In this section I think we should include a mention about how some researchers (like Abel, Mittleman, and Becker, (1985); and Ward et al., (1995)) believe the culture created by advocacy creates a mindset that can influence how willing a person is to act out their desires. This idea is related to both pedophilia and advocacy and is thus quite relevant here. I don't want to use this ref though as this aspect is not directly mentioned there to the degree I'd judge adequate. --DanielCD 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW: The article as it is now is actually really good. It seems fair and quite impartial, and I'm not seeing any over-the-line language on either side. It could still use a lot of information though, and I wouldn't say it's anything near complete. --DanielCD 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one more anti site could be put in external links if it relates specifically to pedophilia, not some side-branch topic. --DanielCD 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some examples of room for improvement

In response to DanielCD's request at P. Activism talk, here are some comments about the P. article. I'll try to be specific, but first, I have to make one general comment: I think that the writing could be better than it currently is; with a subject as controversial as this one, it takes really good writing not to look POV. I'm probably not being very diplomatic. Anyway, here are a few specifics:

• "Pedophilia (Am. English), or paedophilia (Commonwealth English), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children."

Maybe the "over time" criterion should be included here.

"Over time" might be understood, but I don't see why that can't be included if it's in the medical definition. In fact, if it isn't, it probably needs to be.

• "Some other definitions of pedophilia require an age difference of at least five years. These, however, may overlook the tendency of pedophilic sexual inclination to develop during puberty or childhood [1]. Some sexologists such as Dr. John Money assert that not only adults but postpubescent adolescents may also qualify as pedophiles."

Doesn't say why some definitions include that criterion.

Second and third sentences a bit verbose and imprecise.

I'll have to look for the age difference. I wish I had a DM handy right now. I know that criteria is mentioned, but it looks like it needs to be specifically stated who requires it and why. I'd like to know that myself, come to think of it; I know there's a rational, just doesn't come to mind. But yes, this paragraph is very vague and could use some more specific language as well as referencing. All this can be done; it's just looking up the refs can get boring. :P

• "The use of the term pedophile to describe child sexual offenders is seen as erroneous by some individuals, especially when viewed from a medical standpoint, as the majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by situational offenders rather than people sexually attracted to prepubertal children.[2]"

"is seen as", "some individuals" "viewed from a medical standpoint", etc. Although this sentence is not really POV, it gives the impression of being POV because it's a bit rambling or imprecise.

I agree. Needs tighter language and referencing.

• The paragraph on sexual orientation is a bit confusing. Again, that makes it easy for people to assume it's POV, whether it is or not.

That's one nut I don't like cracking. I would hope someone else more familiar with the ideas surrounding "sexual orientation" could take up the slack on that part. :/

• One paragraph talks about studies showing that lots of people are attracted to children. If there are studies showing the opposite, we ought to include them.

Ok, I need to look again at the article, but I think I have an idea what you mean. Some looking will be needed here. Anyone know of any numbers studies regarding this (after the Kinsey stuff - let's go beyond that)?

• The "Criminal" and "Treatment" sections are a bit rambling/imprecise. They may also read as a little defensive. If we're going to discuss things like situational offenders and reorientation therapy, we must be careful how we do it, or it will sound defensive and therefore POV. Along those lines, We need to assume that our readers are openminded and objective, not try to persuade them to be. As soon as we think our readers have preconceived notions about the subject, we start trying to persuade them to be NPOV. Trying to persuade readers to be NPOV is POV :-)

There are many studies regarding the criminal/treatment side of this, so we should go forth and enrich. I think there's masses of material we can use; it just takes work to hunt down. But yes, let's look at the wording/substance here.

• I also think the organization of the article could use some work, in terms of what sections there should be, what they should be called, where they should go, and what section a given piece of info belongs in. But it's hard to give a brief example. I'll hold off for now :-)

THanks. JM Joey Q. McCartney 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We might consider discussing some new outlines. Then we can cut and past it into a solid form. Outline might not be too different from now, but in all the slash and burn editing it could use a tune-up.

I for one think these are solid, quite excellent criticisms, and they deserve the attention of all of us who care about quality. There will be some wording changes and such. As this is worked out, people watching this article should comment now, as this material is being up up for debate now, and if no one says anything, it's going to be assumed no one cares. IMHO, that should put the burden of proof on anyone wanting to slash material on their shoulders. --DanielCD 18:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"The proponents of such a view point out that homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are not normally associated with attraction to children, and that children are both physically and mentally different enough from adults to warrant categorizing attraction toward them as a completely different sexual orientation."

This sentence really needs some re-thinking/writing. I'm not even sure to what side of the issue the word "proponents" is pointing to here. I can see what's being said, but this makes no sense. Also, it needs a ref, so let's leave it here and look for one. Then we can let the source help a little in rephrasing. --DanielCD 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: I know NAMBLA has had a massive fight over the idea of sexual orientation in this regard, and the advocacy article probably has as well. But I seriously don't think that issue should spill over here. One or two additional strategically-worded sentences should do on that count (IMHO). --DanielCD 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am ceasing my work here. Please disregard any statements I've made regarding my intentions of improving the article. --DanielCD 12:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't see your comments on my comments until just now. Thanks for the positive feedback. Joey Q. McCartney 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Treatabiliity

The article could be improved by a discussion of treatability. Pro and con could be discussed, so everyone could get a sqay. This excellent article is cited, and staates doctor berlin's opinion that it can be treated successfully: http://www.behavioral.net/Past_Issues.htm?ID=3253. However, there are likely other opinnions. I am very interested in information about the treatability of pedophilia, and I rthink this article could ddefinitely benefit from adding more of this information, as many people look for it and want the truth. What is the truth? I had hopoe I would find this here, but I did not; some information, but mthere is much more potential ans the subject is covered poorly; I have hope in Wikipedia that someone can find the right way to state the current doctor's opinions on this because I always see new information here.

Please if possible find information and improve the section about treatability of this as I feel it will make the article to have much more quality. Juts a request tghanks.

balanced Gender POV

Are we including all pedophiles here. I will note that mothers molest their own young sons and young daughters. I will also note that fathers molest their sons as well as their daughters. (Please see sources in the incest article.) We currently have a local child-care woman being charged with gross abuse of her stepdaughters along with taken lewd photos of them. I want to see this article reflect female and male pedophiles. Please comment/suggest how here? Anacapa 02:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophile =/= child molester. I think the article you're looking for is this one = Silent War = 08:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Miscellany link

The description of Open Hands is not sourced. One option would be to simply quote the first sentence from the site's home page. Joey Q. McCartney 06:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedosmile

While pedosmile is the name of a pro-pedophilia magazine, someone made up a new term for "pedosmile". http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spot_the_pedo Sure it's too new to add right now, but one day I think it will qualify.

NOTE: Richard something who abducted Polly Class (I got this name wrong), a 12-year old girl, it was in the Bay Area, California in the 1990s. His name might not be Richard. The abductor carried what the author calls a pedosmile. DyslexicEditor 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)