Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Terminology

message: I'm thinking that to avoid confusion, the pages should be used like this:
*The Terminology section of the main project page should contain basic definitions of terms.
*This Terminology subpage should contain expansions and examples of terms as needed, AND (at the bottom) labeled drafts of changes for review, but not discussion.
*This Terminology subpage talkpage should be used for terminology discussion. Herostratus 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page use

message: Don't know if it's too late or the wrong place to mention this or if it even matters, but... 
Here's the existing definition #2: "A sexual preference for or especial attraction to adolescents." 
I may be wrong, but maybe what we actually mean to say is "A sexual preference for or especial attraction to adolescent or younger persons" or something to that effect.  Joey Q. McCartney 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophile def'n #2

message: I dug up this old note by user Hermitian from somewhere:
*Pedophilia, the condition of having ones idealized image of a sexual partner be that of a pre- or peri-pubescent minor, is only considered a mental illness in need of treatment if 1) the person is uncomfortable with the feelings, or 2) the person is unable to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law.
Hmmmm, this is techically true. A theoretical law-abiding person who is perfectly happy with their feelings would not have the paraphilia of pedophilia, I guess. I think this is a disctinction without a diference, though - the person would still be a pedophile. When homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders, homosexuals were still homosexuals. 
It's true that homosexuals mainly self-identify as gay, and by the same token our theoretical happy pedophile ought to be able to self-identify as a girllover/boylover/childlover. But I don't see how it would be very common to be comfortable if you could never have (satisfying) sex. Also, to be realistic: homosexuals can self-identify as gay because they fought and basically won a culture war to do that. Most groups don't get to self-identify in terms of names - only groups that are large and/or not-extremely-unpopular do. That's not totally unreasonable; I would not want to have to call fascists something like Human Development Advocates or whatever. (Not making any sort of analogy between the two). Herostratus 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: There has been much editing recently by guys who feel the pedophilia is limited to pre-pubescents and pubescents and pederasty relates to older children.  I'm not sure any of us have the right to be too dogmatic on this issue.  There is no consensus between every learned dictionary, nor is there any consensus in the medical community or the legal situation - which varies between countries.
For instance: 
The New Oxford Dictionary of English (the UK's No. 1 authority) defines paedophilia a ‘sexual feelings towards children' and a paedophile as ‘a person who is sexually attracted to children.  A child is defined as ‘a young human being below the age of full physical development’.  Pederasty is defined as ‘sexual activity involving a man and a boy’. There is no distinction made between feelings for or attraction to pre-pubescent, pubescent or adolescent children. The prime distinction is between the sexual feelings of a pedophile ( male or female) and the sexual activity of the pederast (male).
The American Heritage Dictionary defines pedophilia as ‘The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.’ And pederasty as ‘A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.' Merriam Webster defines a pederast as 'one that practices anal intercourse especially with a boy'. There is no age definition or exclusion.
The American Psychological Association and the US Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders strictly define a pedophile as 'a person who over at least a 6 month period has recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (age 13 years or younger).'  The DSM manual adds that a person who fits this diagnosis would have to be at least 16 years old and five years older than the child to whom their sexual fantasies are directed. 
Any thoughts?  I would plan to add this text with your edits onto the pedophilia page.
Tony Sandel Apr 2006
*Tony, here is a reponse to your post.
**Dictionary definitions aside, I'm not convinced that that is this is the actual scholarly understanding of what "pederasty" means, to the extent that there is a scholarly understanding. I know the word is used in both ways (teen-only and pre-teen) in the everyday world, and in fact often includes both sexes in common usage. The actual usage is what matters, and its probably a hard word to pin down, but my inclination without looking into it in more detail is that pederasty usually refers to relations between an adult male and a teen male.
**Politics:
***User:Haiduc is an extraordinarily erudite, energetic, cogent, and relentless editor and debater. He's an excellent editor. He's on a mission - and by that I don't mean to accuse him of any POV or bias in his edits - but he's on a mission to ensure that Wikipedia reflects what he sees as the truth of pederasty: (1) it involves men and teen boys (2) it is far more common in societies than is commonly assumed (3) it is an integral part of homosexuality, homsexual history, homosexual culture, and what being a homosexual is (4) it is generally beneficial to society and the parties involved.
***I do not want to tangle with him (and his supporters). You do not want to tangle with him, believe me. He knows far about this issue than you or I.
***It's not just Haiduc. The group protecting the NAMBLA article, and others, will be all over us like a cheap suit if we try to define pederasty downward.
***And for other reasons both political and scholarly, it's greatly preferable IMO to seperate teen sex and sexuality from pre-teen sex and sexuality, provided this is scholarly of course.
*User:Haiduc provided me with the following cite, and he has many others I'm sure: "{Pederasty is] The erotic relationship between an adult male and a youth, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection" by Vern L. Bullough in .
Herostratus 17:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophile vs Pederast

message: Don't know if it's too late or the wrong place to mention this or if it even matters, but... 
Here's the existing definition #2: "A sexual preference for or especial attraction to adolescents." 
I may be wrong, but maybe what we actually mean to say is "A sexual preference for or especial attraction to adolescent or younger persons" or something to that effect.  Joey Q. McCartney 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophile def'n #2

message: I dug up this old note by user Hermitian from somewhere:
:Pedophilia, the condition of having ones idealized image of a 
:sexual partner be that of a pre- or peri-pubescent minor, is 
:only considered a mental illness in need of treatment if 
:1) the person is uncomfortable with the feelings, or 2) the 
:person is unable to conform their behavior to the requirements 
:of the law. 
Hmmmm, this is techically true. A theoretical law-abiding person who is perfectly happy would not have the paraphilia of pedophilia, I guess. I think this is a disctinction without a diference, though - the person would still be a pedophile. When homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders, homosexuals were still homosexuals. 
It's true that homosexuals mainly self-identify as gay, and by the same token our theoretical happy pedophile ought to be able to self-identify as a girllover/boylover/childlover. But I don't see how it would be very common to be comfortable if you could never have (satisfying) sex. Also, to be realistic: homosexuals can self-identify as gay because they fought and basically won a culture war to do that. Most groups don't get to self-identify in terms of names - only groups that are large and/or not-extremely-unpopular do. That's not totally unreasonable; I would not want to have to call fascists something like Human Development Advocates or whatever. (Not making any sort of analogy between the two). Herostratus 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Here's a less-medical definition that I like. The following is excerpted from The Dutch Paedophile Emancipation Movement by Dr. Frits Bernardm in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, volume 1 number 2 (Autumn 1987), p. 35-45. Copyright © 1987, Frits Bernard. 
------
Under the auspices of the [Dutch] Nationaal Centrum voor Geestelijke Volksgezondheid (NCGV; National Center for Mental Health) a special workgroup was formed in 1973 to deal with the possibilities of assistance for paedophiles.  This NCGV workgroup was made up of prominent authorities in various areas such as psychology, criminology, psychiatry, etc.17 This new group met for the first time on March 18, 1974, in Utrecht.  The definitive report concerning the conclusions of the commission appeared in 1976, entitled Pedofilie en Samenleving (Paedophilia and Society).  In the report the words "paedophilia" and "paedophile" are defined as follows:
Paedophilia is the human quality characterized by an attraction to children, also in the physical sense, which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's life. Every adult for whom this attraction is of fundamental importance is a paedophile as long as this attraction has importance for him or her.
------
I would recast that somewhat, maybe, this:
Paedophilia is the attraction to children which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's inner sexual or romantic life. Every adult for whom this attraction is of fundamental importance is a paedophile as long as this attraction has importance for him or her.
I think an advantage of this is that the term sexual or romantic allows the term to cover classic pedophiles and also childlovers, to the extent that there is a difference. At the same time, "dominates the person's life" is awfully strong, and "sexual or romantic" dilutes that somewhat. I think some self-identifying pedophiles/childlovers would not necessarily agree that it dominates their entire life. I think that "inner" is important to add (if "sexual or romantic" is added) to clarify that we're not (usually) talking about actual activities, in most cases. 
The other changes are just for clarity and succinctness, I think. 
I dunno. Maybe the 1973 version is better. Hmmm. Herostratus 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a better definition? 

message: Swell. As if things weren't confusing enough, the article Adolescence says that the World Health Organization defines "adolescence" as covering ages 10-20. Herostratus 10:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that this is the direction that the medical community and human rights people are moving. Off the top of my head, I can't tell you any specific source that support this. I'll make finding information about this at the top of my To do list. FloNight talk 10:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really. I don't a problem with it, it's just -- grrr I like it when things are nailed down. I saw that the State of Missouri Dept. of Education has a term they use for people 10-14, someday I'll go back and retrieve it. Ten seems kind of young for "adolescent", to me, but what do I know? People do seem to be maturing faster these days... Herostratus 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adolescent. 

message: An editor recently wrote this comment on a talk page:
*Mixing together 6-year-olds and 17-year-olds confuses the issue, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch we are trying to encourage the word "child" to refer only to pre-adolescents (roughly, persons through age 12) and older persons, who may be styled teens, adolescents, or youth.
For many legal and cultural purposes, "child" is synonymous with "Minor". Where did the editors of this project decide on this strategy?  -Will Beback 09:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, I do not agree with that editors assertion. One of the reasons I joined PAW was to persuade fellow editors to expand the definition of child back to its real cultural and legal meaning in our articles. Since the project was launched we haven't discussed it to my knowledge. I'll make a statement about it today here.  FloNight talk 09:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Land, I appreciate your very reasonable attempt to settle this quickyly. Unfortunately, I'm not satisfied. It makes no sense to me for us to use the most restrictive pedophilia definition. It forces us to modify our child sexual abuse and child sexuality articles away from real world legal, medical, developmental psychology, children's rights. --FloNight talk 04:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Child" (moved here from main project talk page) 

message: Wouldn't we want the def of pedophilia to mention that it is a mental illness per the DSM and ICD-9? DPetersontalk 18:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (moved here from main page)