Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 12

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Pederasty is a form of paedophilia!

As adolescent boys and teenagers in general are still children, then pederasty and indeed adult attraction to teenage girls is paedophilia! Just because someone has past the age of ´puberty´ that does not make them mature adults. Children become adults around the age of 19 to 20, or perhaps 22 years.

Even though it is more difficult to perceive in girls as teenage girls were make-up and young women wear similar clothes, it is evident that the appearance of teenage boys and young (adult) men are clearly different, in that stubble and a muscular physique are adult traits in males. Therefore, gay men usually prefer stubble on men as it is a signal that they are no longer children. (Many men in their 20s have stubble in order NOT to resemble adolescent children.) Lack of facial hair and slight physique are child traits in males and therefore, pederasts (adult men attracted soley or mainly to teenage boys), mainly for these children´s traits, are paedophiles as it is children, not adults that they find sexually attractive.

Many people find that pederasty, or homosexual or gay paedophilia, as I prefer to call it, is the worst type of sexual abuse and abusing a 17-year-old boy is worse than abusing an 8-year-old girl as you are stripping the young boy of his sex identity as a male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.199.119 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

..........riiiiiiight.
Ok, apart from that initial expression of sarcasm, I'll just assume good faith from here on and lay it out straight: the term "pedophilia" is NOT gender specific. It has nothing to do with same-sex or opposite sex. An adult male attracted to male children is still a pedophile, nobody was ever disputing that. Pedophilia is an attraction/preference, not an act in an of itself, nor is it a law of some sort like you seem to be implying. The act is child sexual abuse, which is also not a gender specific term. Furthermore, pedophilia refers to prepubescent children. An attraction to teens/late adolescents is Ephebophilia, which is, need I repeat myself, not gender specific. Therefore, I fail to see your point in the context of this article.Legitimus (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
IP, Legitimus has summed up the basic part of this, but I want to add on to that: Who exactly says that children do not become adults until "around the age of 19 to 20, or perhaps 22 years"? You are honestly saying that there is much difference between a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old, physically and mentally, and that a person is probably not an adult until 22? And, in addition to that, "though it is more difficult to perceive in girls as teenage girls were make-up and young women wear similar clothes, it is evident that the appearance of teenage boys and young (adult) men are clearly different, in that stubble and a muscular physique are adult traits in males"? Whoa!!!! I almost do not even know where to begin; you are confusing several things. Have you not seen mid to late teenage girls who actually look 21? Yes, 14-year-old girls and boys often look quite young, but 16, 17 and 18-year-old "girls" often look no younger than 20 to 21-year-old women (though not all 16, 17 or even 18-year-old "girls," of course). And plenty of 17 to 18-year-old "boys" have the build of adult males and facial hair; some of them almost have a full beard at age 17. In other words, plenty of them look adult. Why would a true pedophile genuinely want someone in the sexual sense who looks like an adult or greatly resembles an adult? See, this type of reasoning caused Mark Foley to be wrongly labeled a pedophile. Despite this wrong labeling, there were some valid sources who pointed out this mistake by society and the media...as seen with What To Call Foley. The congressman isn't a pedophile. He's an ephebophile and Foley Is No Pedophile. Plus, you say that early 20-somethings often grow facial hair not to look like teenagers. Well, if you believe that, then you obviously realize how much early 20-somethings are indistinguishable from late teenagers. Does an early 20-something man looking like a teenager mean that he will be targeted by pedophiles due to his teenage look? I can say no, he will not be targeted by pedophiles, unless he looks 13-ish, but he might be targeted by ephebophiles. But for the record, ephebophilia is not about the mere sexual attraction to mid to late teenagers, seeing as plenty of normal people have found late teenagers sexually attractive; it is about the sexual preference for this age group.
What else? I do not see how "[sexually] abusing a 17-year-old boy is worse than abusing an 8-year-old girl." For one, that 17-year-old "boy," unless mentally disabled in a way that prevents it, should be more than able to refuse sexual advances from anyone, just as an 18-year-old man should be able to, unless raped by force or through drugs. If you want to say that the 17-year-old can be easily manipulated into sex, I still ask how is a 17-year-old "boy" that different than an 18-year-old man to the point where that 17-year-old "boy" must be called a child, other than by law? There are actual sexual abuse victims out there who wish that they had been 16 or 17 in order not to have been sexually molested at the time they were 8 or whatever very young age. In addition, plenty of prepubescent children have been sexually molested by mid to late teenagers (see Child-on-child sexual abuse for part of that). Thus, while you are correct that "just because someone has past the age of ´puberty´ that does not make them mature adults," that also does not mean that they are infantile. Nor does it take away from the fact that late pubescents (particularly females) often have bodies that significantly resemble adult bodies and that post-pubescents indeed have adult bodies (no matter their level of mental maturity). Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Flyer I think you pretty much answer your own inquiry, 'who says' is basically the law. As to who defines the law, that's voted upon by various powers. It's purely a legal assumption, naturally this will generalize as it doesn't recognize the differences between people. Although in this case, I'm not sure where 19/20/22 come from since for most law's it's 18 or 16 as more common numbers, so I can share the confusion at where those're pulled from in this case (personal opinion of the IP?) Also, maybe we should call this person '86'? :) Tyciol (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I may have partly answered my own inquiry there, but I was not speaking of the law, which we all know generally considers 18-year-olds to be adults. I was speaking of there often being no physical difference age-wise between mid to late teenagers and early-20 something adults, especially in the case of late teenagers (such as 16 to 19-year-olds; not to mention 18 and 19-year-olds are typically legal adults across the world), and thus it makes no sense whatsoever to label a sexual attraction to mid to teenagers as pedophilia (unless those teenagers seriously look or are physically undeveloped puberty-wise). Within this article, and context of pedophilia (when the term is used correctly), we are not speaking of a sexual attraction to mid to late teenagers. A 17-year-old may typically be a child by law, but a 17-year-old is in no way biologically a child and is in no way significantly mentally different than an 18-year-old legal adult (unless mentally impaired). That is my main point on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with you Leg, cept some term disputes. Mostly because you said a male attracted to a male child's a pedo, but that only applies to prepubescent male children, and even then, if it's based on that prepubescence. Furthermore the 'act' (I presume you mean sex) can be more broadly called statutory rape, since I think that term shows more up in law than abuse, which is more a term used in therapeutic situations right? Tyciol (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I was trying not to bog down my statement with too many terms, in that the goal of my statement was that gender is not relevant in the term of pedophilia. This IP poster seems to have mistaken the term "pedophilia" to refer to the sex itself, and I was attempting to point out that this is incorrect. I was not isolating to just sex, but the full spectrum, making CSA the most appropriate term. "Statutory rape" is not a very good term to use, because a) it is not used very often in laws themselves, but rather is a more of a pop term b)it technically only refers to intercourse and c)it can include sex with an mature but mentally handicapped adult.
I'm not ever sure why we are even responding to this IP poster. My initial impression was the post was some kind of homophobic soapboxing spouted by a bigoted individual, with nothing remotely constructive to offer this article. I pondered erasing it altogether under trolling guidelines, but I decided to just assume good faith in hopes of a reply. But given the lack of reply, it would seem this was a drive-by.Legitimus (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that Legitimus was also keeping it to the point of referring to prepubescent children as children and teenagers as teenagers, as we often do here. As for individuals who are pubescent but are not yet teenagers, that is generally overlooked due to most people (a few experts included) still associating a sexual attraction to pubescent pre-teens with pedophilia and most people still associating puberty with teenagers. Most early pubescents, especially the boys, hardly look any different than prepubescents, which often makes it difficult to differentiate sexual attraction to such pubescents from pedophilia. All in all, because of this, the IP would likely know what we are talking about. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how this discussion relates to the article. IP, are you suggesting any changes to the article and if so, based on what reliable sources? If not, you're entitled to your personal opinions of course, but this isn't the best forum to debate them. Euryalus (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't help but notice the use of 'many people find' (reminds me a bit of 'some argue', see WP:AWW). Firstly, being abused does not necessarily 'strip' one of one's sexual identity. Many people don't form strong sexual identities anyway and still manage to lead productive lives because they find their identity through other means (see genderqueer). Furthermore, those with strong sexual identities wouldn't lose them just as a result of abuse, if they are anything concrete it would not be easily dismantled. Furthermore, considering how much pressure is put on females to remain chaste and 'pure' as it were, one could easily argue that females they are just as harmed (I think much more so, to be honest) by sexual abuse than males are. Sexual identity is one thing (if you lose your sense of heterosexuality because of homosexual actions then was it that cohesive to begin with?) but women (and especially children) who are abused lose more important things, such as their sense of safety, trust, etc. These are more fundamental things needed to live happy and whole lives. Sexual identity is more of a secondary thing which people use to enjoy lives and engage in a specific form of interaction with select partners. It's also more easily mastered than basic necessities like trust and fear, which apply to a much greater variety of things, like everyday living. Tyciol (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to mostly agree with Tyciol on his analysis here, except for the part about females being more harmed by child sexual abuse than males. I really am not sure which sex is more harmed by such abuse. In the case of adults being raped, though, due to lack of evidence, it would seem that women are more mentally harmed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia and LGBT parenting

Opponents of LGBT parenting have sometimes claimed that it increases the likelihood of incest and pedophilia. For instance, on July 6 2009, there was a disturbing story published about an openly gay parent who had abused his child after obtaining an adoption from social services. Critics later used this story to make a generalization thart this was more common in the whole LGBT culture. [1] [2][3] [4] ADM (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If we include information on that in this article, it would be ideal to include information from experts opposing, and (to be fair) maybe a few of them considering, the idea that LGBT parenting increases the likelihood of incest and pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of this sentiment is based on the broader misconception that homosexuals are more prone to sexually abusing children. In that case Groth and Birnbaum (1978) is a perhaps good start, being one of the earliest studies towards discrediting this; it found that the sex of the child was not related to the pedophile's adult sexual identity and past behavior (for example, men who'd had sex with adult women also had sex with very young boys).Legitimus (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Possible conflict of interest

While I welcome Dr Cantor's contributionss as much as any two legged hominid, I do feel that the following might be assumed to be egregious self-promotion, in violation of WP:SOAP.

"Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[28][29] and poor social skills.[30] Beginning in 2002, other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues, began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[3][31][32] poorer scores on memory tests,[31] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[3][31][33][34] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[35] lesser physical height,[36] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness"

The edit on this topic, referring directly to Dr Cantor and Dr Blanchard, were made by one 'MarionTheLibrarian' on 26th of Ma 2008, who, shockingly, is Dr Cantor. Much as I welcome Dr Cantor's edits, I fail to see why the following text is in the above is anything more than self-promotion :

"most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues"

Dr Cantor's research is clearly linked to as a reference for the more general statement this is a part of. I fail to see why this text is required in the article, other than opening wikipedia to accusations of self-promotion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.227.0 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The anon editor alerted me to the above edit on my talkpage.
It is entirely true that I added that text to the mainpage. I made the edit in May, 2008[5], about two weeks after joining WP and while still writing under a pseudonym (User:MarionTheLibrarian). I imitated the style I saw on other pages, and I do indeed regret that I included my own name without disclosing my real-world identity.
By about six weeks later, I developed a better appreciation for WP norms, and I began editing under my actual name and linked my old and new user pages. In the year since then, I've frequently disclosed on talkpages any relationship I've had with any edits I've made ([6][7][8]), including disclosures here on the pedophilia talkpage.[9]
Whether the text itself is inappropriate or merely requires another editor to endorse it is, of course, best decided by others.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
In terms of disclosure, I was involved with an edit war with James Cantor last week, as he violated WP:3RR to remove large sections of text in an article that I've contributed to. This followed my opposition to his placement of five ELs to web pages that he either owned or was involved with[10][11][12]. In the edit war, he didn't raise points where he disagreed with the text. The text was deleted merely for a lack of references. He and another editor then proceeded to remove references[13][14][15] as well as more text[16][17][18][19]. Had they deleted specific points that they disagreed with, that would have been much more reasonable. That written...
94.192.227.0 has raised a specific and valid concern. The claim of notability is self-promotional. James Cantor's offered response is not in line with wikipedia policy, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. Neither the endorsement of one other editor nor the enforcement of a gang of editors will make the past COI edit right. Deletion of the point of disagreement, the claim to notability for himself and his professor, will. BitterGrey (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. User:Bittergrey is certainly entitled to disagree with my deletion of long unsourced text from paraphilic infantilism, but he is becoming increasing disruptive on the issue. He has posted the same complaint on WP:3RRN, pedophilia, and WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, sexology, and on several user's talkpages.
  2. In no case has any editor supported Bittergrey's contention that my removal was inappropriate. In fact, the support for my removal the unsourced text has been unanimous, including user:MishMich [20], user:Jack-A-Roe [21], user:WhatamIdoing [22], and user:William_M._Connolley [23].
  3. I certainly support every editor's disclosure of relevant information, but User:Bittergrey provides only a partial one above. For anyone who believes that these other factors are relevant: User:Bittergrey is an SPA whose contributions are essentially limited to paraphilic infantilism, the topic of his personal off-wiki website for enthusiasts of paraphilic infantilism.
  4. Finally, regarding the above seeming agreement between Bittergrey and the anon editor 94.192.227.0, I am starting to smell a sockpuppet.
I do not believe that any of this thread is relevant to pedophilia, and I do not believe that referring to a unanimous consensus of uninvolved editors as a "gang" is appropriate or productive.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur that the other article is rather irrelevant to this thread and smacks of an ax to grind on the part of Bittergrey.
Regarding the subject at hand, I think mention of the research authors' names as "notable" is not necessary for purposes of stating the findings of that research. It is a little self-promoting, but the research and assertions from that research seem fine. I have removed just a short part regarding the names but left the rest.Legitimus (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Legitimus, sorry if my disclosure was overly extensive. When I requested comments about a separate issue on the sexology page, James Cantor thought the goings-on at paraphilic infantilism needed to be brought up there[24]. This was one factor in my mentioning it here.
To 217.112.186.11: Per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."
To all: Per the same guidelines, "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs." Diffs permit others to quickly check facts, and are especially important when making negative comments.
BitterGrey (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cases of pedophilia

Are we allowed to quote specific cases here? What are the rules concerning what may and may not be published? Hawkesworth (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I suppose, but with some caveats. First, be sure that you are referring to pedophilia and not child sexual abuse. If you have cases of persons wherein you have a source showing they were medically diagnosed as having pedophilia, then post it here so we can look it over. However if it is one of the countless cases of an adult abusing a child, it may be of limited value to this article.Legitimus (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed you are a new user, so I will provide some more detail.
Generally, when you add information to an article, it should be relevant and contribute to the knowledge in it. This is an encyclopedia, so the concern really is more about raw facts and information. In this article in particular, it is heavily emphasized that a reliable source be referenced from which you are getting the information that you add. Reliable sources include medical journals, books (especially academic ones), and some mainstream news sources. Whereas web blogs, self-published materials, and extremist/fringe sources should be avoided. (see link for details).
There is quite a bit of policy, so if you could be more specific about what you mean, perhaps I and any others here can help.Legitimus (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Social Taboo

Cody Steven Nelson Olstad is a PEDOFILE or so called as a pedofiliac. The article is written with Pschyo approach. It fails to mention the reason why it is considered mental disorder? WHat is the social and historical background relevant to the particular approach towards pedophilia? Homosexuality was considered and is considered by many experts to date to be Pyschological disorder. SOme cite sociological reasons against homosexuality and incest. I think pedophilia also shares similar reasons. This section may be expanded on these lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.97 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this article fails to explain why pedophilia is considered a mental disorder. Many experts to date consider homosexuality a mental disorder? Care to provide reliable/valid sources for that statement? Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea is that pedophilia article doesn't have an explained why is it a mental disorder, (and yet not homosexuality). Homosexuality is considered by some as a psychological disorder, and in the past (not long ago, early 1990s even), homosexuality was as taboo as pedophilia. Then, without warning, homosexuality was an accepted, cultural norm, without anyone trying to find any "cures". So why is pedophilia a mental disorder, or better yet, what makes it a mental disorder? Because somebody said so? Colonel Marksman (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite simple: Acting on pedophilia causes demonstrable harm to another person and violates the rights of another. Homosexuals who act on their preference do so with another willing, like-minded person (or else we call that "rape"). It doesn't matter if society or any specific person disagrees with it's morality, there is no harm to an unwilling/naive participant. That's why homosexuality was taken out. Pedophilia was scrutinized in the same manner as homosexuality, and it failed that "acid test."Legitimus (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition to what Legitimus has stated, acting on pedophilia cannot simply be summed up as "taboo" and it is not this article's job to explain why homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder while pedophilia is. Plus, it is still not as though homosexuality is even close to being as accepted as normal as heterosexuality is. Even if considered almost as equally normal by most people, it still would have a long way before being seen as natural by most people...if ever. And there most certainly were people still trying to find "a cure" for homosexuality after it was no longer declared a mental disorder. Scientists and other researchers are still trying to find out what makes someone gay...as in "the gay gene"...far more than they are trying to find out what makes someone heterosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile v. Paedophile.

Should it be noted that some people (incl myself) spell "pedophile" as "paedophile"? It's said that both spellings apply in Wiktionary wiktionary.org/wiki/paedophile --Keithf2008 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that in the first line of the article?Legitimus (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't like that when I created this section. --Keithf2008 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was. Check the article's edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"girl love" and riot grrrl

I'm made a little uncomfortable by the fact that the phrase "girl love" redirects to this page. "Girl love" was a 1990s riot grrrl/zine slogan that referred to sisterhood and support between girls. It has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

Hmm, hadn't considered that. Anyone in favor of changing the redirect? It would be more a positive usage of the term.Legitimus (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That's OK with me. The similar but different term of self-identification used by pedophiles is "girllover", that one is probably an appropriate redirect to this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken links in References

Reference 17, "# ^ Mayo Clinic Proceedings "A Profile of Pedophilia"Mayo Clinic Proceedings Accessed June 2, 2008", has a broken link. The study can currently be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadrice (talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we include the wording "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead?

As I recently stated on the Ephebophilia article talk page, this article's Diagnosis section lists "early pubertal age" as part of the criteria when diagnosing a person as a pedophile. Even when boys and girls do hit puberty (as in just starting to evolve into adults), they do not look like they have and largely still resemble prepubescents. I highly doubt that a pedophile who usually goes after prepubescent boys of about age 9 is going to pass on going after a pubescent boy of age 11. Not much physical difference between the two boys age-wise. Pubic hair? If the 11-year-old has any, the pedophile could insist that the boy shave...if pubic or any other type of body hair resulting from puberty turns the pedophile "off" (which is the case for most, since this type of hair symbolizes adult characteristics). It is not until the 11-year-old boy significantly develops some adult physical features...that the pedophile may "quit" the boy and will usually start to look for a younger boy (of course one who is or looks prepubescent). Most experts who study these sexual philias are still going to consider a man who typically goes after pubescent 11-year and 12-year-old boys for sexual gratification to be pedophiles. This is all where the term Hebephilia gets lost.

Or would including "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead be a bad idea? If so, why? A bit of confusion? Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We could put "right at the point of puberty" instead of the word "early pubescent," since some people are likely to classify "early pubescent" differently; we surely do not need people thinking that by "early pubescent," we also mean 13-year-old girls. Most 13-year-old girls have hit puberty and clearly display the most obvious of adult female features, such as breasts.
I am only throwing this option for the lead out there because I do not want people thinking that a pubescent kid is necessarily out of the range for a pedophile; they should know that it depends (as in just how far along the kids are in puberty/are on the Tanner scale). Of course, the Diagnosis section touches on the early pubertal stage part, but not everyone goes past reading the leads of Wikipedia articles. There are pedophiles out there who will claim that they are not pedophiles simply because they went after a pubertal 13-year old boy who looks 11, and it irks me. I am not that hard-pressed on specifying the lead in the way I have described, but I felt I would definitely put it out there. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well the DSM itself says "prepubescent" and immediately defines it as "(generally age 13 years or younger)". One could argue developmental terminology I suppose, but when considering the matter from a clinical perspective rather than a research one, this is generally ok to lump this area together. Diagnosis is complex and must consider matters in context.
In case studies of pedophiles, each one usually has a somewhat narrow developmental "window" they consider ideal, and this is variable. They are not all the same and some are broader than others. For some patients it's 4-6, some it's 9-12, and so forth. You also have to consider that pedophilia is not always an exclusive preference. Likewise, offending itself can be opportunistic and in that way can be close but not ideal to their preferred age.
Think about it this way. It's not so much about what is possible (people who don't look their age), the preference is based on what one normally sees in that age range. And on average, 13 and under don't look like developed adults. Some can, but generally they don't.
And ignore all the excuses sex offenders make. The tortured logic, bargaining and little technicalities are so common they could almost be considered a diagnostic feature of the disease itself.Legitimus (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Legitimus, I am familiar with what you point out on this matter. It generally being okay to lump together is why I brought this topic up. 13-year-old boys usually still look prepubescent or at least have very little obvious adult features. I am not aware of whether any 13-year-old boy could pull off an adult-look or has pulled it off, as in looking like a late teenager. With 13-year-old girls, however, there is more of a possibility of them pulling off an adult-look, as in looking like a late teenager, but even that is not often. The opportunistic matter is what I brought up when giving the example of a pedophile who typically prefers boys of around age 9 but is not likely going to pass on a pubescent 11-year-old boy who looks 9. As for pedophilia not always being an exclusive sexual preference, I take it you mean how some pedophiles become sexually involved with adults? Or do you rather mean not always exclusive to one age range? I myself always view pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children and children who look prepubescent. A pedophile having a sexual relationship with an adult does little to make me think that very young children are not that pedophile's sexual preference, especially since pedophiles often date or marry to get close to their significant others' children. A child molester who does not have a sexual preference for prepubescent and very early pubescent children is what I view as a situational offender, even when they are a repeat offender, though I still often call them pedophiles as well.
Anyway, you are basically saying that you are not for the lead being changed to what I suggested, right? Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess I think it should be avoided just for sake of simplicity. This is already a confusing topic for a layperson and even educated adults I know think all sex under 18 is pedophilia. I think a person looking on this article with fresh eyes is going to come away from it having a pretty good notion what is intended.Legitimus (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely understand what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Female Paedophilia and Further reading and child sexual abuse article

Female Paedophilia fully deserves to be a separate Wiki article and there is plenty to write about it (ref all the recent publicity in the uk and books by Michele Elliott etc) . Also why no Further reading section as with Child sexual abuse article ? Also if most child sexual abusers are paedophiles there should surely be a lot of overlap between this one and the Child sexual abuse article. --Penbat (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Any information on female pedophiles can be covered in this article. We do not need a separate article on pedophilia regarding women. How is it more deserving of a separate article than an article on pedophilia regarding men? Just because this article mostly covers men? There is hardly any research on pedophilia regarding women because it is rare. I certainly have tried to study it. Also, you need to be sure that the women are diagnosed as pedophiles, not sources simply calling them pedophiles due to their sexual abuse of children or minors. And if it is about a woman being sexual with a 16-year-old boy, for example, that clearly is not pedophilia.
On a side note, I do not believe that most child sexual abusers are pedophiles, as in a true sexual preference for prepubescent children; this has been debated on this talk page before. Currently, as you see, we go with the source saying that most child sexual abusers are pedophiles (which could be defined that way due how that source defines pedophilia, as in how much they focus in on the act of child sexual abuse). Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes the basics of pedophilia apply to male and females but it would be useful to ring fence the evidence that does exist regarding female paedophilia in a separate female pedophilia article. That is not to say that most of this pedophilia article does not equally apply to male and female, it is just worth ring fencing any female specific evidence. Here in the UK it is a hot issue. Having a separate female article is not like having a separate male article because many people (including professionals) assume that pedophiles are almost always male so this pedophilia article as a whole was written with males in mind.
Also as you might expect, females often use different contexts to abuse children to men and that is worth exploring and how much they act alone and how much under the control of a man. There is some research on all this.
I noticed 3 books on Amazon on female child sex abuse including Michele Elliot who claims that 20% of pedophiles are female. --Penbat (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this topic is so touchy, and the fact that it's medical, creates a much higher standard for sources. News is almost useless due to them completely screwing the terminology up most of the time. Certain book sources (except maybe textbooks or manuals) are not going to be usable because their contents are opinions and hearsay, not empirically established fact.
You know, I have been seeing lots of activity lately about that UK daycare incident and I'm almost snickering at how shocked everybody seems. Female pedophilia is rare, but it still happens. The problem is estimates of just how rare compared to men are all over the place. From fractions of a percent to 33%.
Also, it is true that not all child sex offenders are pedophiles. That's a whole other mess though.
I do have access to a large medical journal database, so if you want to know more about a research study, let me know.

Legitimus (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Penbat, I was just about to say that you brought up good points on this matter. You have, and I was about to state that I do not mind if you create an article on this subject. But now Legitimus has reinforced my thoughts that it may not be for the best. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I was taken aback when I typed in "female pedophilia" into Wikipedia and got nothing back. The attitude here is unrealistic. If for example a new planet was discovered, if you take the approach that only irrefutable cast iron 100% scientifically proven information was allowed on Wikipeda then nothing could be ever be said about this hypothetical new planet, no theorising by scientists or opinions or even simply reporting any evidence by scientists would be valid.
I found the following 3 books on Amazon:
I do know that Michele Elliot has worked with thousands of abused children over 20 years and she writes on her experiences. One obvious way of getting a rough measure of male/female ratios is to interview say a 1000 abused children and ask them - this sort of research has been done. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence and statistic analysis about the contexts and modus operandi of female abusers.
The way to do this, like analysis of a new planet, is to present the evidence from various different authorities in the subject such as government authorities and experts who work in the field. The various bits of evidence that does exist (anecdotal or statistical or otherwise) should be laid out for the reader to decide if he or she is persuaded. There is no intention for this to be a hyped up debased shock horror newspaper type article. --Penbat (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There are references in academic papers:
female pedophilia
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22female+pedophilia%22&btnG=Search
female pedophiles
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22female+pedophiles%22&btnG=Search
female pedophile
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22female+pedophile%22&btnG=Search
--Penbat (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
and books for example
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&q=%22female%20pedophile%22&sa=N&tab=sp
--Penbat (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
and this - Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial - Myriam S. Denov
http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Female-Sex-Offending-Culture/dp/0754635651/ref=sip_rech_dp_3
--Penbat (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Penbat, I am not seeing how the attitude here about this is unrealistic. Or how you were shocked that we do not have an article on female pedophiles. What is not clear about what we have stated? Child sexual abuse does not always equate to pedophilia; this is especially true in the case of women. As you point out, for example, some women who have sexually abused children were "under the control" of or otherwise influenced by pedophilic men. And, as I touched on before, women being sexual with mid teenagers could even be included in some book/other media definitions of pedophilia, when it really is not pedophilia. I would not even categorize Mary Kay Letourneau as a pedophile. At most, you would have an article on child sexual abuse carried out by women rather than an article truly about female pedophiles. For example, I recently had to revert an editor on this article who added a reference for female pedophiles...when the reference mentioned nothing about the women being female pedophiles but rather child sexual abusers. Even if that article were to call the women female pedophiles, it would be inaccurate unless those women were diagnosed as pedophiles. This same type of referencing would no doubt happen in a Wikipedia article here about female pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


I forgot this one as well
http://www.amazon.com/Female-Sexual-Abuse-of-Children/lm/2I4QTF47BYR9E/ref=cm_lmt_dtpa_f_3_rdssss0?pf_rd_p=253462201&pf_rd_s=listmania-center&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=089862004X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0MG9H0MSGB29QKJNEK53
I have given plenty of academic references to research papers and academic books for "female pedophiles" by experts in their field. They chose to use that expression not me. On the otherhand, some of the other material from Amazon might be considered in part to be "female child sexual abuse" rather than "female pedophilia". But that doesnt negate anything. Whether it is "female pedophilia" or "female child sexual abuse", Wikipedias coverage of this area is woefully inadequate. There is plenty of serious research that has been done and it is a very important subject that deserves much more attention than it has so far. It is a subject that many are "in denial of" but the evidence says otherwise. --Penbat (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand what you mean. For example, I created the article child-on-child sexual abuse some years ago because a)It is a neglected and not widely recognized problem and b) the main article on child sexual abuse was already quite large. Regarding the subject of gender, I want to direct you to this section: Child_sexual_abuse#Demographics. That is the primary place where the offender's sex was studied. Given this information you have provided I can certainly see merit it expanding the matter, but I would definitely approach it as "child sexual abuse by females" rather than pedophilia. The term "pedophilia" has a standardized, internationally recognized definition (ICD F65.4) that need to be upheld no matter what expert misuses the term.Legitimus (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Legitimus, you created the Child-on-child sexual abuse article? I was under impression that a different editor had. I remember a different editor having asked about creating it here on this talk page a year or two ago and how SqueakBox was against it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes that was me, back in 2007. I actually asked about making it in the CSA talk page and I remember you replied. Oddly enough Squeakbox didn't reply until after I'd created it. At that time, we still had a lot of pedophile editors and I was very new, so that's probably why he was against it. We're ok now though, we've worked collaboratively on a number of articles.
That's one thing to keep in mind, Penbat. Up until about a year ago, we had many actual pedophiles who were editors on wikipedia that would brow-beat other editors to further their own points of view. That's probably why some articles aren't as developed as they should be. Today, most if not all of them have been blocked (a few were even tracked down, discovered to be sex offenders and arrested) so it's not really a problem anymore.Legitimus (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I usually pride myself on having a good memory. How I could have forgotten that was you is beyond me. Wait, I think I forgot because you seemed to so naturally fit in here, and it became as though you have always been here in my mind. Thanks for refreshing my memory on the matter, although I need no reminder of how many pedophiles were here. I remember emailing SqueakBox about that because I was so disgusted. I could clearly see them as pedophiles, with the same type of rationale each time. I was particularly disgusted by the then-article Adult-child sex in which some of the pedophiles would use information/references actually about adults having sex with underage teenagers to make it seem as though adults sexually abusing prepubescent children was okay simply because some of the psychologists were saying that these teenagers were not mentally harmed by their teenager-adult sexual encounters; in other words, these pedophiles were using the word "child" for "teenager" (which was dishonest) to make it seem as though these psychologists were actually talking about children in the sense that we usually think of "children" (as in prepubescent or very early pubescent individuals). Obviously, the age of consent being 16 or 17 in some states and allowing teenagers to have sex with adults is not the same as 6 and 7-year-olds "having sex with" an adult, and yet these pedophiles were equating the two. Jack-A-Roe got on that real quick; I commend him for often pointing that out and doing his best to combat the misleading things that were going on with that article. There were so many types of debates (including deletion debates) about that article (partly seen in its now red link above; just click on it), such as the title, which automatically implies "prepubescent children" but was rather about teenager-adult sex. The pedophiles argued how "child" is defined by law, etc., etc., etc. I do not remember you being involved in all that, but it was hell. I would not call all the editors for keeping that article pedophiles, but I would apply that word to a lot of them.
Anyway, I know that you and SqueakBox have gotten along since after your creation of the Child-on-child sexual abuse article. You two are other editors here I appreciate and am thankful for being at this site. I limit my editing from all the other pedophilia-related, child sexual abuse-related articles because it would overwhelm me and stir up too many emotions of my own personal experiences with the horrors of child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Biological Associations

I think the following sentence needs to be revised. "Another study, using structural MRI, shows that pedophilic men have a lower volume of white matter than non-sexual criminals.[39]" This sentence carries with it the distinct implication that "pedophilia" in of itself is inherently criminal. This section is about the biological causes of pedophilic attraction not child molestation. Siddhartha21 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading the source, I think I'd agree this needs to be worded a little differently. This study did not use all criminal samples for one. The "pedophilic" group were men who were medically diagnosed has having pedophilia, many of them openly admitting their sexual preferences and without any criminal conviction. Though some did have criminal convictions. The control group were men with criminal convictions but no sexual offenses and this was for a specific reason: "The use of a nonsexual offender comparison group is the most straightforward way to control for potential effects of both stress and of general criminality." So maybe this needs some explain in the text.Legitimus (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the sentence has been altered but not in any meaningful way. Changing "pedophilc men" to "male pedophiles" doesn't resolve the problem with this sentence at all. I suggest that this sentence be reworded again or simply omitted from this section entirely. Siddhartha21 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is just awful. To hunt down a paedophile are we really looking for a left-handed midget person with downe-syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.1.97 (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal definition: age of consent vs. statutory rape

I’m changing the text on the legal definition from “age of consent” to “statutory rape”.

The only source provided is an article entitled: “Legal, social and biological definitions of pedophilia”, by Professors M. Ashley Ames and David A. Houston (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 19, Number 4 / August 1990) (link here, abstract here).

The article is available in full here for those willing to pay US$ 34,00. I have bought the full article.

The article never uses the term “age of consent”, and always associates a legal definition of pedophilia with the concept of “child molestation” It mentions 10 times the term “sexual abuse”.

The term “age of consent” is not accurate because in some jurisdictions the age of statutory rape (= child molestation) is lower than the age of consent.

The Legal Dictionary (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com) defines “statutory rape” (link here) as “sexual intercourse with a female below the legal age of consent, but above the age of a child”, adding that “the age above which the female is no longer a child varies although 14 is common” and that “intercourse with a female child (below 14 or whatever the state law provides) is rape, which is a felony”.

The Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition.defines child as: child, "at common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14." while the definition of rape includes that "carnal knowledge of a child is frequently declared to be rape by statute."

For example, the Penal Code of California (text here) defines rape in article 269 as a felony (clause “b”) in reference to sexual acts “upon a child who is under 14 years of age” (clause “a), penalty 15 years to life. The crime of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” is defined in article 261.5, which refers to the age of consent of 18, maybe a felony or a misdemeanor, with penalties of up to 4 years in prison (clauses “b”, “c” and “d”).

Other example: the Penal Code of Belgium ([text here (French)) defines child sexual abuse in article 375 for sexual acts with children under 14: « Est réputé viol à l'aide de violences tout acte de pénétration sexuelle, de quelque nature qu'il soit et par quelque moyen que ce soit, commis sur la personne d'un enfant qui n'a pas atteint l'âge de quatorze ans accomplis », roughly translated as « It is regarded as violent rape all acts of sexual penetration of any nature and by any means, committed over the person of a child that has not reached the age of fourteen years », penalty 15 to 20 years o prison.

However, the age of consent in Belgium is 16, as defined in article 372 of the Belgium Penal Code (see link above) which refers to “attentat à la pudeur commis sans violences ni menaces” (roughly translated as “sexual assault against decency committed without violences nor threats”), penalty 5 to 10 years of prison.

It is clear that the authors of this article provided as source for a legal definition referred to the legal concept of child sexual abuse and not to the concept of age of consent. As seen above, the ages involved in these two concepts are not necessarily the same. AleBZ (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate such a thorough analysis from a legal standpoint. Something I want to stress though is that using legal definitions for "pedophilia" itself is still inherently flawed. Pedophilia is first and foremost the name of an attraction to young undeveloped children, a mental disorder. The law enforcement usage of the term, much like the "pop culture" usage, has always been largely incorrect because it lumps together people who commit child molestation and people who commit statutory rape with a late teenager. This muddling of these two areas is probably the result of the laws being just as muddled in some jurisdictions. In pop culture it's even popular to call a 55 year old dating a 22 year old a "pedophile" simply due to the social distaste for such a pairing. Ideally we want to avoid this usage as much as possible.Legitimus (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
In pop culture it's even popular to call a 55 year old dating a 22 year old a "pedophile" simply due to the social distaste for such a pairing, really? I have not seen that as too common.
As for AleBZ's points, I have to state that the law considering a person under 14 as a child does not mean that they do not refer to adults going after underage people 14 and higher as pedophiles. We used to have mention in this article's lead about law enforcement in the United Kingdom using the word pedophile to include 15-year-olds and younger. I cannot say that I am completely for AleBz's change. What is considered a child by law does not stop how law enforcement commonly uses the word pedophile. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
We could mention both, statutory rape and age of consent, for the reasons I stated above. Any thoughts on that? Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Another thing to point out is if "pedophile" is generally used by law enforcement to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors below the local line of statutory rape, usually under 14 years of age), how does this (with the under 14 part) add up that well to some researchers describing this usage as improper and suggesting it can confound two separate types of offenders...when, really, the term pedophilia is already often defined partly by the cut-off point of age 13? Flyer22 (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've heard the 22/55 thing or similar from some people and I just want to slap them. Probably isn't common, but ignorant people say things like that and it's precisely why I hope this article can be as concise as possible.
But yes it seems far more common for law enforcement to use this term for sex with someone below the age of consent than statutory rape. I offer Maryland as an example: With a victim 13 and below it is called "rape in the 2nd degree" but 14 and 15 it is called "sexual offense in the __ degree" (varies on circumstances). Police in Maryland regularly call offenders who have sex with people under 16 "pedophiles." Indeed they even stretch this distinction to cases with victims 16-17 due to a loophole in the prostitution law (explained: 16 is the age of consent, but if money or goods are exchanged, then it becomes "Sexual solicitation of minor").Legitimus (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
My father is a cop; I have mentioned that before on this talk page in the past (stepfather, actually), and so I am somewhat familiar with law enforcement lingo because of that (not that I was significantly around it). But, yeah, I take it you are fine with age of consent being added back to the lead? As I stated, we can mention both. It seems off to leave it at just statutory rape, for the reasons you and I have stated. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have taken care of it, though you removed the statutory rape mention completely (not that I object).
On a side note, though you will already know this from watching this article, Ronabop has added to the lead the fact that older adolescents can be pedophiles (16 and 17-year-olds). We do not have to mention 18 and 19-year-olds, of course, because surely people can surmise that those ages qualify as well. But, anyway, "adult or older adolescent" was in the lead before. Ronabop expanded on it better than it was in the lead then. Are you okay with this addition? If anything, I feel that it helps stress the point to people of what pedophilia actually is. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's good, particularly with it's explicit attribution to the highly regarded ICD. Now both the ICD and DSM have good representation in the lead.Legitimus (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think User:AleBZ has a point and I agree in part with him (or her). If the authors of the article cited (Ames and Houston) didn’t use the term “age of consent”, then we shouldn’t use it either. Instead, the authors use the expression “child molestation” and argue for a separation between “child molestation” and rape.

Wikipedia has a policy that can’t be changed, which is called Verifiability. It says that:

“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed”.

Secondly, the article refers only to “offenders convicted of child molestation”. It does not mention the words “accused or convicted” (included in Wikipedia), so I’m removing the word “accused”.

As to the police, what a specific police officer says is not important here. Police officers are not robots, they are human beings that have emotions. In many places, they do not necessarily follow manuals of legal terms or have a Bachelor of Laws or equivalent. Legal terms are most often used by lawyers, judges, defense attorneys, Law professors and scholars, in legal studies or lawsuits. I’m a lawyer and I believe User:AleBZ has been somehow confused about legal concepts.

Speaking strictly in legal terms and depending on the jurisdiction, referring to a non-pedophile as a pedophile, or to an accused person as a convicted one, may be seen as defamation and hate speech, especially when written or in public. This may vary according to the local laws about defamation and freedom of speech.

Definitions must be as accurate as possible, especially the legal ones. We should be responsible editors and legally fair, especially with a sensitive issue like this that can stress different persons in a variety of ways. So I’m rewriting this paragraph word by word, presenting sources to each phrase, legal concept or word. Leb Lilo (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We were going for accurate definitions, and in the legal sense. But I understand your points. In either regard, Jack-A-Roe, who has mostly designed the lead in the past, has tweaked it away from the age of consent or statutory rape mention. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I just changed Jack's line from "In law enforcement, the term 'pedophile' is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse, referring to abuse of prepubescent children and adolescent minors" to "In law enforcement, the term 'pedophile' is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse or sexual abuse of an adolescent minor" because the term child sexual abuse most often refers to sexual abuse of prepubescent children, rather than teenage minors, as the Statutory rape article basically states. Then the Laws regarding child sexual abuse article states, "An adult's sexual intercourse with a child below the legal age of consent is defined as statutory rape" with this source: Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition. child, "at common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14." See also definition under rape "carnal knowledge of a child is frequently declared to be rape by statute."
I am now a little confused about how to tackle this law enforcement line, but maybe we should mention statutory rape or at least both statutory rape and age of consent. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have now changed it to this, though statutory rape and age of consent are still not in the lead (not directly, anyway). I guess I will see how Jack feels about my tweaks. I am trying to be as accurate as possible, I point out. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The tweaks in general look OK on first reading. Regarding statutory rape or age of consent, we have no sources connecting those terms to pedophilia, so those terms should not be used in this article. If sources like that are found, then we can use them - until then, not. Lanning points out confusion in definitions regarding "sexual victimization of children" and says that the definitions are important for science and research, but that for investigations, it doesn't matter because they are working on a practical level, what were the actions? who was the victim or perpetrator? what laws were broken? etc. Here's a quote: A father who coerces, a violent abductor, an acquaintance who seduces, a child-pornography collector, or an older boyfriend can all be referred to as a “child molester” or “pedophile". -- keep in mind he is discussing police/investigator uses here, not science. Statutes don't use the term pedophile at all, they just describe actions and address the ages of the victims and perpetrators. This article is about the term "pedophilia", not about the laws. It's a scientific term. Non-scientific uses of the word should be mentioned only in passing to avoid confusion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Good points, Jack. It is apparent that for the law enforcement part, we were going on how police use the term. But you are saying that we should not include that in relation to statutory rape or age of consent because statues don't use the term pedophilia at all. I hear ya. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Causes should highlight questionable data

Causes

The cause or causes of pedophilia are not known.[17] The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be a strong risk factor, but research does not show a causal relationship, as the vast majority of sexually abused children do not grow up to be adult offenders, nor do the majority of adult offenders report childhood sexual abuse. The US Government Accountability Office concluded, "the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established." Until 1996, there was greater belief in the theory of a "cycle of violence," because most of the research done was retrospective—abusers were asked if they had experienced past abuse. Even the majority of studies found that most adult sex offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood, but studies varied in terms of their estimates of the percentage of such offenders who had been abused, from 0 to 79 percent. More recent prospective longitudinal research — studying children with documented cases of sexual abuse over time to determine what percentage become adult offenders — has demonstrated that the cycle of violence theory is not an adequate explanation for why people molest children.[29]

Just because the majority of child abuse victims do not go on to abuse children does not, in any way, substantiate the notion that offenders were less likely to have been abused themselves and asking an offender if they were abused as a child relies entirely on a) Their honesty (pedophiles are notorious liars) and b) Whether they can even recall being abused, as it is becoming more and more accepted that adults who were abused as children may not even be able to recall such a memory due to the subsequent major personality disorder risk associated with abuse in early years. 213.7.125.221 (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points, IP. I actually fought against the editor who put all this doubt in about the cycle of child sexual abuse. I believe that this cycle most definitely exists and is strong, in the similar way that the cycle of violence exists and is strong. Every psychologist and sexologist I have talked to about it in regards to child sexual abuse also strongly believes in it; they often cite it. You can see it often cited on news shows such as Nancy Grace by whatever psychologist she has on. And just look at how the cycle of child sexual abuse affects Child-on-child sexual abuse. If you were to Google this cycle of sexual abuse topic, you would find experts on child sexual abuse who report that the majority of pedophiles were sexually abused as children. This makes me unsure of what to believe on this matter sometimes. Child sexual abuse is even often a contributing factor for females being serial killers. I decided to give up fighting the editor who added all the doubt in this article about the cycle of child sexual abuse, and who has been absent from this article and probably Wikipedia for over a year or something like that, but I do feel that it should be more balanced with thoughts from experts on these topics who believe in it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I was of similar sentiment myself, but I forgot about this part all that time ago when PetraSchelm was still editing. There is certainly conclusive evidence of an almost "viral" model to child-on-child abuse and I never quite agreed about there being no cycle of abuse. It's not 100%, but it's certainly is higher than controls. Here is an excellent journal source that both of you would be interested in, from The British Journal of Psychiatry: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/179/6/482
I've had a heavy workload of late so I have not had much time for primary editing, but I will drop in sources as i find them.Legitimus (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I remember you in that discussion, Legitimus. And thanks for your help on this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I was not part of the earlier discussion, but the above comments appear to conflate child molestation with pedophilia. That is, most of the existing research pertains to the frequency of child molestation in the histories of child molesters, not the frequency of child molestation in the history of pedophiles. Moreover, the evidence does not exactly say that child molestation begets child molestation so much as it says that people who grow up in chaotic households go on to lead chaotic lives: Child molesters also report having suffered physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect in their own childhoods, and people who were molested in childhood are also at elevated risk of committing physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect of their own children. That is, bad history begets bad future; there is little evidence for any specific assocations like molestation leading to molestation or neglect to neglect, etc.
It is true that many psychologists and other mental health professionals without expertise in this specific part of the field still believe that there is a causal link, but this misconception is the same as many mismatches between science and the non-expert practitioner: Many psychologists also continue to believe in psychoanalysis, etc. despite the lack of empirical backing.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not about conflating child molestation with pedophilia, James. Legitimus and I know the difference between the two. But at the same time, many child molesters are pedophiles. We even state in this and the Child sexual abuse article that most child molesters (as in the ones who have sexually abused prepubescent children) are pedophiles. I have already stated in the past that I do not believe that most child molesters are actual pedophiles (as in the sense of having a sexual preference for prepubescent children), but that is my belief. On the topic of whether most pedophiles were sexually abused as children, there are psychologists who do have expertise in this specific field and are not willing to discount that pedophiles having been sexually abused as children may have been a contributing factor to those people having become pedophiles themselves; not the only or main contributing factor, of course, but a factor nevertheless. You are saying that you believe a pedophile having been sexually abused as child most likely had no impact on him or her being a pedophile? If so, why is that? Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
James does have a point. I should confess that this subject matter is indeed outside my particular area of specialty (I'd prefer to keep what that is to myself). The British study quoted above is only about molestation, and right now I do not know if it controlled for these other variables. Even them, it only identified 35% of perpetrators as having an abuse history. Still, I can't help but think it would be at least a risk factor towards pedophilia.Legitimus (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Flyer22: Yes. You and Legitimus are indeed among the most effective and productive editors on this topic, and I apologize if I did not seem to be giving a greater benefit of the doubt. I meant to address only the specific comments immediately above, which appeared (to my eye) to be discussing existing evidence (and which is about child molesters rather than pedophiles per se). Again, I apologize if I seemed to be saying that you yourself (or Legitimus) were unaware of the distinction.
My own beliefs about whether there is a causal relationship between experiencing sexual abuse and subsequently developing pedophilia is pretty much along standard scientific thinking: Assume the null hypothesis until the data compel us to believe otherwise. It is not possible to prove a lack of a causal relationship between experiencing abuse and developing pedophilia. Rather, we assume there is no relationship until the data compel us to believe there is one. In the present state of affairs (for better or for worse), there is no proof in either direction; so, the scientifically superior hypothesis is (by default) that there is no causal association. Researchers have been attempting to demonstrate one for a very long time now, and still none has found one (other than in the general associations that I mentioned earlier). So, sooner or later, one has to take "no" as an answer. The overall body of existing evidence is much more consistent with the idea that experiencing childhood sexual abuse is a disinibitor of antisocial behavior in general, not a cause of pedophilia per se.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, James. And I would like to point out that Jack-A-Roe and Legitimus are more effective and productive editors here on these topics than myself (as I stated, I try not to edit much on these topics). What you have stated on this matter makes perfect sense, and I thank you for offering your expertise on this. I am now more compelled to leave the section the IP brought up as is. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_12"