Talk:Pedophilia

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Clinical diagnosis characterized by frequent and intense sexual urges directed towards prepubescent children. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Psychology and Sociology [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

Mike- are you quoting? If so- put in the quotation marks and give your references. Put the references down as you read the ones I sent you under References, please. Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 14:25, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually I just know that from doing online reading - but sure, I'll provide the reference you sent to me. Thanks. Mike Mayors (Talk) 14:35, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Citing sources?

I'm not sure how to cite it properly. When someone gets a chance, can you check/correct my citation in the introduction? Mike Mayors (Talk) 14:38, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Controversy

The goal here is to present this topic in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. The goal here is to be a great on-line free encyclopedia. I am willing to help you do that. This is by nature a contentious subject and our goal has nothing to do with a head to head rivalry with Wikipedia. It can be destructive to the wiki to fcus on contentious and inflammatory subjects - like child sexual abuse and pedophilia. I am willing to do that because I am expert enough to guide us in making an informative article that is NOT contentious, but educates according to the consensus of modern medicine, including the work of clinical psychologtists. No one here is expert enough to make the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of this topic the centerpiece of this article, and I have overstepped my bounds here to avoid that. Just like fat and salt taste best, and pornography draws a crowd, so does conetentiousness- that doesn't mean any of these things are good for us. Quite the opposite. Please, let us consider what is important about this topic in an educational manner. Unless you personally have the expertise to guide this article through the most fringe and inflammatory aspects of the subject, I ask you to refrain from putting up a guide post or plan that inplies that's the course the article should take. If you disagree, please e-mail me privately through my user page. Nancy Sculerati 10:10, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I totally concur, Nancy. Yi Zhe Wu 10:12, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Same here. I'll do my best to find non-controversial sources. Mike Mayors (Talk) 10:15, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Prevalence

Excellent job, I'm glad someone revamped my poorly worded sentences. However I do have a question about the opening sentence:

"With rare exceptions, sexual contact with prepubescent children is socially discouraged, socially unacceptable, or a criminal offense in all modern societies."

While that is true as it contributes to problems with pedophilia research, would it not be more accurate to say "the sexual attraction towards prepubescent children" as it does not imply criminal offenses and refers specifically to the disorder itself? Mike Mayors (Talk) 16:01, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm not saying that this is worded perfectly, but look back inthe article's history, it replaced the phrase that there is a "natural reluctance" to admit to pedophilia. The point is that there are few if any soicieties in which pediophilia is a social plus, the whole issue of what exactly is natural behavior really should not be assumed. But yes, it might be better to say that sexua contact with prepubescent children is socially discouraged, and that therefore compulsive longings to have such contact ... In other words, it's not as if we are taught that thinking about it is forbidden so much that doing it is taught to be un-natural , criminal, etc and therefore admitting to wanting to do it is not a nice thing to do either. Nancy Sculerati 18:35, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
I see...well it's worded better than I could have written it. Plus the difference between the sexual attraction and the urge to commit criminal offenses is municipal, as they both go back to the disorder itself. I'll just leave it as is. Plus the article is far from finished. I'll try to find more information to add to it. Mike Mayors (Talk) 20:06, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Is "pedophilic " a word?

I've seen it used in the context of pedophilic fantasies ... according to dictionary.com it is ... but my spell checker doesn't recognize it. Mike Mayors (Talk) 16:03, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

In terms of suffix it should be...but...my spelling checker doesn't recognize it either. Yi Zhe Wu 16:02, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Oxford English Dictionary-current online edition : paedophilic | pedophilic, a. and n.

A. adj. = PAEDOPHILIAC a.

1927 Psychoanal. Rev. 14 191 It is only in rare cases that one encounters an individual who has pedophilic predilections and at the same time is suffering from venereal disease. 1954 Jrnl. Projective Techniques 18 348/1 The rapists probably do differ from the pedophiles, however, on the variable of aggression, the majority of the pedophilic acts having been of a passive and seductive nature. 1994 Irish Times (Nexis) 17 May 4 What was at issue was his paedophilic inclination towards children.

Yes. It is. One reason I don't use a spell checker is that none include the majority of medical terms. This is an unusual word, true, but you would not use pediophilia as an adjective. It is a noun. Nancy Sculerati 18:26, 10 June 2007 (CDT) PS- I really shouldn't even try to make excuses for my dreadful spelling. What I should do is thank you both for fixing it so often. :-)

That's alright, spelling/grammar issues are only important when the article is ready for approval. Right now I'm going to focus on adding substance and content. Mike Mayors (Talk) 20:09, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Pedophilia a sexual orientation?

Just to be clear, I am acting as an author in the below exchanges. Stephen Ewen 05:24, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

The opening line of this article calls pedophilia a "sexual orientaton". I am no expert in this but that just does not sit right. Who says it is an "orientation"? I am concerned that that is how it would be characterized in a sterile way by pedophiliacs, especially in light of the DSM calling it a sexual deviation, a mental disorder. Stephen Ewen 03:35, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Fred Berlin does, among many others. It is probably the most used term among experts. Note that calling something a orientation does not mean that it cannot be a disorder at the same time. David Kuhn 03:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
I also see that you changed DSM and ICD to mental health professionals. I can see the appeal, but it doesn't fit the data very well as many mental health professionals disagree and do not use DSM or ICD in their diagnoses. There has been alot written about this over the years. DSM and ICD is more in line with the data. David Kuhn 03:49, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
DSM or ICD are jargon to more than half our readers. Stephen Ewen 04:01, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
That's is why they are meant to link to describing articles. The problem with your alternative is that it is less specific, which is more problematic due to all the controversy on that topic. David Kuhn 04:00, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

There is a way to link and describe more plainly. Also, I am not impressed that "Berlin and many others" would call it in orientation. We can cite Eminent Person A and many others who will say pedophilia is normal and should be accepted. So what? I am also not impressed if a minority finds the DSM classification of their disorder objectionable. Again, so what? What an encyclopedia should tell in an intro is the general majority consensus of all experts. It should not appease a minority who wish to have their deviance accepted or incrementally downplayed. Stephen Ewen 04:06, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps I should clarify why this is a problem. Over the years many researchers have critiziced the DSM diagnosis of pedophilia. They argue that it is poorly researched, vague, useless in practice, not used by mental health professionals in the field, that it may not even be a disorder, uses arbitrary criteria and so forth. So this is why it is more reasonable to state the DSM and ICD classify it as a disorder, because this is true and easy to verify. Anything else is fraught with controversy and problems. Let's keep things simple by using orientation, which simple states towards what the attraction is directed, it is as neutral as one can get. David Kuhn 04:16, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Again, for an intro, I do not care that "many researchers" have criticized X. What I want to know is what is the general consensus among all experts, mental health, criminal justice, sociologists, plus parents, teachers, social workers, voters, etc. The general consensus is, frankly, that pedophilia is among the grossest deviances within societies deserving of the strongest disapprobation along with strong criminal penalities. That sense needs to be conveyed. Minority criticisms will get their say later. Stephen Ewen 04:17, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
On this point you are quite wrong, there was a debate a few years ago among experts and the opinions where far from those you describe. Only one person of over 20 stated it in the way you describe. See, peer comments on Green and Schmidt [1]. We may dislike pedophilia alot, but its important to keep a cool head and try to be neutral. David Kuhn 04:32, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Again, I can cite Expert A to back up anything. What is important is the general consensus among all experts (especially over some time), not minority views. The consensus among all experts on the matter is that pedophilia is as I say, not just a sexual "difference" no less moral than, say, sex and sexual attraction between a married man and a woman. Stephen Ewen 04:42, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Feel free to support your viewpoint with some kind of evidence. And let us remind our selves that such things as evolution is a minority view if we look at the whole world. David Kuhn 04:49, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
So, are you saying that the general consensus among all experts is that pedophilia is just a sexual "difference", no less moral than, say, sex and sexual attraction between a married man and a woman? And is that your view? Stephen Ewen 04:50, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
There is no general consensus among experts. Some think its a abnormal deviance, some think its a deviance but no necessarily problematic, some think it is a unproblematic natural variation. If we state it is abnormal, then we just give one perspective. If we state it is unproblematic then we do the same mistake. This is why i think orientation is best, since it has room to also say that it is considered a disorder by for example DSM and ICD. David Kuhn 05:07, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I think that is hogwash. If there were no general consensus, there would be no general, society-wide disapprobation to it. Besides, from what I see from doing a broad overview of the literature, experts are not wringing their hands over the matter. I see a general consensus that it is a deviance that is, and should be, both criminal and treated. Those wanting it to be accepted as "normal" are fringe at worst and a minority at best. Evolutionary behavioral biologists who view it as normal are a clear minority and you should avoid introducing such views here except as a minority view, certainly not tailor the whole article in line with such views. Stephen Ewen 05:16, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

That is your opinion (which is not supported by internal debates among experts). Pedophilia is neither criminal nor opted for mandatory treatment (in any country), so you have no support here either. In fact, it is clearly wrong. David Kuhn 05:28, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Pedophilia is not criminal in any country? You're kidding, right? Not treated in any country? C'mon. That is fallacious on its face. Mere prison is "treatment", it's called "just deserts". Sexual offender lists is "treatment", it's called social and civic isolation, and is a societal-wide utilitarian treatment as deterrence to others who might otherwise act on pedophilic urges. Mandatory psychiatric and medical treatment is another, and political matter. ---Stephen Ewen 05:28, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
It is not criminal in any country (atleast modern ones), child sexual abuse is however criminal in most countries. You seem to be mixing the two, which may explain the nature of this whole argument. David Kuhn 05:36, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Oh, sure, thoughts and urges are not criminal, only actions. Fine. As it should be. Still, the condition even apart from action is considered deviant, a psychological ill, and not normal, just as I describe. ---Stephen Ewen 05:42, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
There is room for that view, which is my point all along. Sexual orientation dictates the orientation of the sexual attraction, not whether it is deviant or not. So we can call it a sexual orientation (which it is by definition) and we can add that it is considered a disorder by DSM and ICD (which is factually correct). These are clearcut cases. After this we can add a section dealing with the more specific viewpoints by different people, here we can bring forth "its sick and pedophiles should be killed" aswell as "it is a normal variation" etc. The problem arises when we pit different viewpoints against each other, but this is not needed if we do it this way. David Kuhn 05:49, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, whatever the truth may be (and I lean towards Stephen's point of view), as the article now stands the first two sentences are virtual duplicates of one another and I URGE that they should be rewritten. They make the article seem extremely clunky. Although I suppose what you're really arguing about is HOW these two sentences should read. As a disinterested outsider, would you like me to take a shot at copyediting them? Hayford Peirce 11:06, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
It would be nice if you could post a suggestion here so we can take a peak at it before adding it. David Kuhn 11:11, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Okie. Here's a possible rewrite: Pedophilia is defined by mental health professionals as frequent and intense sexual urges directed towards prepubescent children. It is classified as a paraphilia mental disorder by the standard diagnosis manuals DSM and ICD. Some authorities consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation towards prepubescent individuals, whereas others classify it as a chronic psychiatric disorder.[1] The term pedophile or paedophile refers to any adult or adolescent individual who has such urges. Hayford Peirce 12:26, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I think it's good, I made some minor edits for clarification, I don't think they change anything major but please take a look.

Pedophilia is defined by mental health professionals as frequent and intense sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. It is classified as a mental disorder and paraphilia by the standard diagnosis manuals DSM and ICD.

--I'd like to drop the section below for now:

Some authorities consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation towards prepubescent individuals, whereas others classify it as a chronic psychiatric disorder.[2] The term pedophile or paedophile refers to any adult or adolescent individual who has such urges.

First off, the cited source is a poor choice since it includes Berlin who clearly states that he consider pedophilia to be an orientation. Instead i propose a new section in which we can take up the arguments and counterarguments in the debate on whether pedophilia should be classified as a disorder or not. There is alot of material in this area so it should be covered separately (I intend to do so fairly soon). ...said David Kuhn (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.) 13:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

That's fine with me. Please don't forget to sign your edits, which, of course, which really is easy to forget.... :) Hayford Peirce 13:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, I'll add the new version to the article. David Kuhn 13:53, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Okay um...I only read 3/4 of the comments but it seems Stephen wants some sort of mention to the morality of pedophilia. If it hasen't been stated already, pedophilia is a sexual attraction or mental disorder depending on the terminology you prefer. It does not imply actions, only sexual urges. Not to relate homosexuality with pedophilia, but a homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted toward the same sex - and does not necessarily imply sexual actions, simply an attraction. Therefore I think morality (if you choose) would better be stated in child sexual abuse since that specifically relates to actions. On this article however, to state that a mental disorder or sexual attraction is immoral I feel is quite bigoted, being that we don't even know what causes pedophilia and whether or not people can change their sexual attraction.
Am I on point here, or is there a bigger issue at hand? (Try to keep actions separate from urges) Mike Mayors (Talk) 14:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
I think you are right on the point, the discussion became abit long because me and Stephen where talking about different things without realising it. I agree on everything you say here, let's keep the morals where they belong (and in contained form when possible). David Kuhn 14:37, 27 June 2007 (CDT)


This page is an exemplar of the massive problem with CZ Neutrality Policy

I looked at the article and this Talk page for the first time now. It reads exactly like the discussion pages of Race, Global Warming etc etc. This is where a VERY CLEAR MINORITY view is not only expressing itself, but also denying that there is a mainstream consensus. The result is chaos, with some limited manipulation of the article by interested parties.

This is a clear case of the need for Editorial control, and Stephen Ewen is right to revert to the last Editor-sanctioned draft version.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:28, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't see any passages that advocate the specific minority view (i.e. the view that pedophilia should be legitimate), when did it happen? Yi Zhe Wu 17:05, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
There are other minority views, which are less obviously a denial of the consensus, and these appear in the discussion.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:25, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Paedophilia - Sexual orientation or mental condition?

What is the known information behind the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation as opposed to a mental condition? While trying earnestly not to in anyway advocate paedophilia, was homosexuality not considered to be a mental condition not that relatively long ago?

The basis for criticising paedophilia is that a child has not got the mental capacities or the physical development that is necessary for one to advocate or agree to having sex. This was touched on in the article, but I do feel that it could be expanded somewhat. If this is the case Paedophilia is not something that can be 'cured' as it is a sexual orientation and the only 'cure' possible is through either:

A) Removing someones sex drive completely through the use of drugs. B) Locking them up and throwing away the key.

I'm no expert, so I'll let someone else explain how I am wrong on this :-) Denis Cavanagh 17:49, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Nor am I even vaguely competent in these matters, but "orientation" is by analogy with heterosexual or homosexual attraction. Given that these are socially accepted in most western countries, it has the effect of placing pedophilia in a similar social context. "Mental condition" is a medical description, with some social consequences perhaps; "sexual orientation" includes the idea of social acceptance within the medical description.
This is why the article has to be written by medical experts, who will not [I hope] fall into these traps. The other questions you ask, about the causes and cures for pedophilia, I have no knowledge on. I imagine that there is no cure; I do recall reading that removal of the sex drive [even castration] makes no difference, because this is a mental condition without known physical causes. Like rehabilitation from drug usage, there is probably a very low success rate. But I really don't know anything! Someone who is expert, please help with the article. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:07, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

The best we have right now is that an inactive M.D. wrote it as a mental disorder. We are wise to leave it at that point rather than at a point left by someone who has been banned from the project for refusal to verify identity.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:40, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Who was banned? Denis Cavanagh 20:16, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
See the red name here and in the article and talk history pages.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:05, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
The article is left over by the doctor and now is still incomplete, maybe we should hide it in the cold storage and wait for a new medical editor to come and revise it? Yi Zhe Wu 21:26, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
  1. Fagan, P. et al. "Pedophilia". JAMA. 2002;288:2458-2465. Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/19/2458
  2. Fagan, P. et al. "Pedophilia". JAMA. 2002;288:2458-2465. Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/19/2458