Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 3

message: I notice that cultural issues have been removed completely. Ideally there should be something on culture, with citations of relevant research (regardless of whether they support or refute claims by activists). Failing that, is it possible (and desirable) to have a description of the controversy, without taking sides? 
Personally, I remember years ago reading surprising descriptions of Polynesians' attitudes to children and sexuality, and I think a Wikipedia user should be able to look up whether there is any basis to such claims. --Singkong2005 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't there  be something on culture? 

message: *Some researchers have suggested a distinction between pedophilia and nepiophilia...
Which researchers? Could we have a reference please? -Willmcw 22:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepiophilia 

message: The situation offenders page, linked from here says
:"This is common in sex crimes; see situational sexual behavior. One example involves otherwise law-abidding citizens of developed nations, where strict laws prohibit child molestation who travel to Third World countries as child sex tourists, where extreme poverty, lack of infrastructure and lack of police affords them the opportunity to practice child molestion with virtual impunity. This ties in with the very high rate of child prostitution in the developing world."
I'm not an expert but are child sex tourists really usually considered situation sex offenders? I'm not saying they necessarily pedophiles but from the word and from what I could gather from the rather short explaination it sounds to me as if someone who actively seeks out to violate the law and have sex with children couldn't really be classes as a situational offender. Someone who went as a normal sex tourist and decided to take up the offer of a child prostitute when offered or even a normal tourists who decided so would probably be a situational offender but a child sex tourist? 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume child prostitutes in third-world nations would have less diseases, which might be a plus to someone who "doesn't really care one way or the other" (preferential? situational?). It's not the most excellent of paragraphs. "Law abidding"? I could see some seekers of child prostitutes being situational and some being preferential. So probably scrap it, if there isn't any source cited about it. Isn't that in the situational offender article though? Best to discuss it on that article's talk page. socalifornia 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situational offenders? 

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

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

message: I noticed that there is nothing in the article about statutory rape, which is often incorrectly reported in the media as paedophilia.  I think that a subsection devoted to discussing statutory rape within this article is warranted.
Whilst the age of consent varies from country to country, it is usually no more than 18 years of age (sometimes it is 17, 16, or even as young as 12, or sometimes even there are no boundaries) and often there is a stipulation that under that age is okay provided that there is a certain age difference (e.g. no more than 2 years).
Anyway, the thing is that the media is regularly running stories calling such-and-such a paedophile because they had sex with someone below the age of consent, when the person that they had consentual sex with was actually physically mature (for example, age 15).  A case in point was an article that appeared in my local newspaper 2 years ago, whereby a man arranged for a 15 year old girl to travel interstate to see him, having met her over the internet.  The girl was not a real person - she was actually a number of police officers.  But the newspaper printed his photograph and name on the front page (he was a public figure) stating that he was a paedophile.  I would assert that he was not.  The fact that she was 15 is irrelevant if she is sexually mature.  Paedophilia refers to pre-pubescent people, not to people who have gone through puberty at a young age and are already sexually developed.
Surveys are taken annually in most western countries about the average age for boys and girls to lose their virginity.  The typical average age is between 14 and 16 1/2 years.  Yet the average age of consent for these countries is between 16 and 18.  In other words, 50% or more people have at some stage in their lives engaged in statutory rape.  Thus, if they had all been prosecuted, popular media would be able to say that anything up to 50% of the world's population are paedophiles, using the legal definition referencing statutory rape laws.
Such statements are plainly inaccurate, but I feel that they must be included in this article, to demonstrate popular confusions as to what paedophilia is.
On a personal note, one of my friends at university, who was 19 years old at the time, was a self-confessed paedophile, who delighted in looking at girls of the age of 8-12 (typically).  One of his catch-phrases was "she'll look good in a few years time".  He was eventually banned from the university for looking at child pornography.  The guy eventually had consentual sex with a 14 year old girl, who lost her virginity to him.  He told us that he thought that she was a little old.  He was, without question, a paedophile, yet he did not ever rape anyone.  There is a difference.
From what I have read (and the documentaries that I have seen on the topic), most child sex offences are committed by people who are not sexually attracted to children (in other words, they are not paedophils).  Apparently rape is usually a control issue, and people who rape children are really no different to the people who rape adults - be they raping men, women, or in a gang rape scenario.  There is some dispute about that, but that is my understanding of things.  Apparently a few paedophiles have raped children, but the majority of paedophiles never have.  This is my understanding of it.  However, my understanding is that most paedophiles will at some stage view child pornography, which in itself is a crime.
Anyway, I thought that this should be included in the article, but I don't know how to fit it in.  As this is a controversial topic, I will wait for consensus, and maybe even suggest for someone else to write it.203.122.225.241 23:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. Too often is 'rape' included under the term 'paedophilia' without any thought having been given to the issue. Are we to believe that all who are attracted to adult women will go out and rape adult women? Of course not. The media is a dangerous player in spreading this stereotype; one would have to be both a paedophile and rapist to conform to the commonly-held image of a 'paedophile'. 81.77.190.199 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right. In order to fit to the societally held version of a pedophile, you would have to be someone who forces children into sexual acts with physical force or threats of violence.
Most pedophiles do NOT fit into that category. They are people, who if a child asked them to act sexually with them, or they asked the child and the child gave their permission, they would act sexually with them. The same way that if an adult man was asked by an adult female to act sexually with them, or the adult man asked the adult female if he could act sexually with them and they gave their permission, they would do it. The big thing that leads to children being mentally or emotionally harmed is not the sexual relationship itself. It is the reaction, or rather, overreaction of society and a few mentally unstable people, who believe that they are protecting children from sexual feelings they believe the children cannot understand, when they are actually stunting their emotional and sexual development as an individual. --69.250.243.197 11:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paedophilia vs Statutory Rape 

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

message: I made a few edits to the article. Namely, I removed a couple of "counterarguments" in the "Law" section, as these are points about the ideas behind laws, not a section to carry out an argument. I would have incorporated the "but bonobos do it" information elsewhere in the article, probably under Cultural norms, if the bonobo article said anything of the sort (it references "incest," not "pedophila"). 66.241.95.9 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "young girls are often more disposed to tearing blah blah blah" part is needed to differentiate the comment from general criticism of sex (as vaginal tearing is possible no matter the age). 24.224.153.40 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't have a clue who you're exposing: not me, certainly, since I didn't write it in the first place; but yes, please provide your citations and then it can be worked into the article. Thanks. 24.224.153.40 21:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The above statements seem to say that pregnancy in a young child is fatal, or would be fatal if not terminated early.  There should be some evidence given.  Facts contradict these statements - Here's one relevant topic: world's youngest mother. EthanL 04:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, this material (particularly the details) should probably be in Pregnancy rather than here. The Land 11:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Our article currently quotes one study ("2-10% of child molesters are pedophiles") and cites it as a fact. The many studies done on child molesters, however, reveal more diverse results. In my opinion we should include the results of various studies, and cite them as just that, the results of various studies. I tried to edit it like this and failed. If someone else could try:
*Quinsey, Chaplin, & Carrigin (1979)
*Quinsey, Steinmen, Bergersen, & Holmes (1975)
*Avery-Clark & Laws (1984)
*Abel, Becker, Murphy, & Flanagan (1981)
*Marshall et al. (1988, 1986)
*Marshall, Barbaree, & Christopher (1986)
*Barbaree & Marshall (1989)
*Freund (1981) and etc.
Diversity is such that Barbaree & Marshall reported statistics of 48% pedophiles for extrafamilial and 28% pedophiles for interfamilial child sexual abuse. 2-10 are problably the lowest numbers. 24.224.153.40 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual "deviancy" in child molesters

message: I've been looking into this silly "wikipedophilia" thing today, and I haven't found very much.  This lack of results is interesting in itself.  The source of these charges comes from the press release from "Parents for the Online Safety of Children," a group allegedly founded in 1997 by “an organization of concerned citizens.”  A Google search for the name of this group reveals absolutely no results whatsoever, except for several references to their press release attacking Wikipedia; apparently this organization has never had any mention in any Web site, news service, Usenet newsgroup, or any mention anywhere before now.  The sudden appearance of this group and its claims of “pedophiles” on Wikipedia suggests two possibilities:  1) The press release may be fake, one of many Internet-based trolls; or 2) it is a result of a recent edit war here. --Modemac 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's something interesting: a blogger did some detective work and put two and two together to come up with a [http://www.ridingsun.com/posts/1134805044.shtml possible reason for the bogus "wiki pedophile" press release.  It might (emphasis on might) be some petty revenge for the QuakeAID scandal early this year that was exposed to the public, thanks to Wikipedia! --Modemac 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'press release' is from baou.com, which is a group of trolls posing as a news organisation. See QuakeAID The Land 10:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Parents for the Online Safety of Children?" 

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

message: I replaced the following:
"The term pedophile is often also used to describe any person who has perpetrated sexual crimes against children; this use, however, is seen as erroneous by some individuals, especially when viewed from a medical standpoint, as the majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by situational offenders rather than people sexually attracted to prepubertal children."
I wanted to show that there are two groups not included in the medical definition.
The information about situational offenders should be further down in the article. Too much detail for the beginning.  --Gbleem 00:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale for judgement of that use as erreneous should be included, and indeed that some people feel it is errenous needs to be included, which is not elsewhere in the article currently. // paroxysm (n) 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to be two different definitions for two different purposes. People agreeing or disagreeing with the two common uses of the term is so obvious I don't think it needs to be put in the summary at the beginning.--Gbleem 01:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of article edits 

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

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

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

message: I've just removed a 'Cultural issues' section which said that while pedophilia was taboo, thinkgs like 'skinny dipping' weren't, necessarily. I removed it because it seemed to have very little to do with pedophilia. The Land 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back in because psychiatrists do (should) consider culture when making a diagnosis. Basically the point was that certain cultural items may have little to do with pedophilia but it is not a "goes without saying" point. However, this is something a professional should decide because some pedophiles try to use culture as a wildcard.--Gbleem 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Issues section 

message: "sexual activity involving older children is also usually a crime but marriage , minor emancipation and age of consent laws may allow legal sexual relations with a minor."
Why I reverted this: There are three things that may influence the legality of sex with an older child. I mentioned those three items and leave the reader to do further research. This phrase covers all possibilities without explanations of all the different ways the three items can combine. --Gbleem 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  crime revert 

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

message: I'm not sure I understand the nature of your misunderstanding.
Cultural context does not effect the definition of the condition, the definition does not change, but cultural context affects the process by which psychiatrist determines the existence of the condition, i.e. how the psychiatrist interprets the signs and symptoms.
Massaging an infant's genitalia is an example of something that might be misinterpreted if cultural context is not considered. --Gbleem 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, there was a recent news item about a father who was arrested for molestation when a photo processor found pictures of the man (a recent immigrant to the U.S. from a 3rd World country)  putting his mouth on his baby's genitals. The members of the man's ethnic group rallied to his defense and insisted that it was a common cultural practice and he was released. Now his actions were not in any way pedophilic, but they resembled it. -Willmcw 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear that is a legal example but it could be analagous to how a psych might interpret signs and symptoms.--Gbleem 06:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was part of a joyous ceremony. I didn't see a detailed article, but it sounded like the practice was done in a group setting, almost like a Jewish bris, which is why it was photographed. We should find an actual account if we're going to go any further with this example. -Willmcw 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you but it's not necessary. The point I wanted to make was about the process used by psychiatrists.--Gbleem 02:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: culture and diagnosis

message: I put that little paragraph back in. It's just good essay writing to encompass your entire piece in the first couple of paragraphs. It tells the reader that we will be comparing and contrasting the two major definitions (or maybe classes of definitions): 1. medical definition and 2. a more general definition.
It lets the reader know that there are two classes of definitions that can be confused. Beware which one we are talking about while reading this article. It gives the reader a framework.
--Gbleem 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  two definition paragraph 

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

message: In a previous version someone had mentioned marriage and emancipation. Without going into detail I wanted to mention that there are two other aspects of law that affect the age of consent. I also wanted to say that this may allow sex with post pubescent children without using the word minor.
I made a slight change to the sentace by The Land
"Sexual activity between adults and children is now almost always a crime. In the past, however, sex between children and adults was condoned and often encouraged by some cultures. For an example see Pederasty in ancient Greece. . Laws concerning the age of consent vary between jurisdictions, most usually at 16 or 18 but sometimes as young as 12."
*Fair enough. However, we've ended up with 'youth emancipation laws' mentioned again. I'm not clear whether such laws exist or they're something various pedophiles are campaigning for. In either case we should be clear about it, or leave the term out entirely. The Land 14:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick google and found a couple of documents that say that emancipation has no effect on age of consent. You can sign a lease but you can't have sex with your 20 year old boyfriend. I'm guessing the young as 12 is in another country or only with a spouse. --Gbleem 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Googling, I find that minor emancipation is a procedure in some US states that enables young people to act in law as adults under certain circumstances (e.g. marriage, service in the armed forces, living along and being responsible for oneself). But no suggestion this alters the law about sexual relationships. . I therefore propose to remove any more references to minor emancipation in the article. Also, Age of consent has a long list of ages in different jurisdictions. I think the only base this leaves uncovered is whether marriage allows earlier sex - but that's also dealt with under Age of consent. The Land 18:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  law, age of consent and marriage 

message: "Pedophilia (Am. English), or paedophilia (Commonwealth English), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children.  A person diagnosed with pedophilia is called a pedophile.  
The term pedophile is also often used for those attracted to children of all ages and the perpetrators of sexual crimes against children of any age.  This usage includes many people who do not meet the criteria for a medical diagnosis of pedophilia."
Hitting the reader with the formal medical definition right up front is just to big of a blast. This warms them up first. The second definition for the general use and how it differs is balanced in weight and tone of the first definition. Together they give the two concepts we will be differentiating in the article.
Also there is no time element in this version. While the general def must have come after the original coining of the term one did not replace the other and they are both currently used. The time issue should be dealt with in the definition history.
--Gbleem 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this edit  intended as a reversion or was that the unintended result of an edit conflict? There were far more changes than just the intro. -Willmcw 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now an explanation of each major change on the talk page. My idea of major may be different than someone elses. If there is a particular edit that you would like me to explain please ask. --Gbleem 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning 

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

message: I don't think wikipedia should encourage euphemisms in general as they are POV so I suggest that the "childlove movement" article be merged into pedophila and NPOV'd.Homey 16:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophilia is a clinical term. The "childlove" movement is a social/cultural phenomenon, composed of at least as many ephebophiles as pedophiles.  I think it's a good thing to keep them seperate for those reasons alone, but merging them would make for one enormously sized article. I would also disagree about the term being euphemistic -- that claim seems POV in itself, but that's another discussion. Clayboy 17:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently made the same merger recommendation. On reflection and discussion it appears that the two articles cover different ground. "Childlove movement" may not be the ideal title, but it seems to make sense to have it separate from this article. -Willmcw 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hardly a "euphemism". To say that is to say it doesn't exist. To call it a euphemism...now THAT's POV, an attempt to belittle something you disagree with. --DanielCD 20:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem with the pedophilia article has been that in the past it has tried to cover everything. I want the article to cover the medical definition because it is the smallest definition. Other definitions are basically dictionary definitions or can be equated with other terms. It's not about my POV on the topic of pedophilia but my POV of how and when to write a wikipedia article. --Gbleem 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think a big problem with controversial articles it that so many people try to season the pot, it often comes out a little "off the mark". Fragments of things are removed and others added. And, as in my comment in the section below, sentences have meanings altered by adding or amending the sentence into an odd-sounding monstrosity, as opposed to rewriting it (I'm guilty of this myself). Over time, all the little changes have a deep effect on the focus and quality of the article. This one definitely needs to be re-focused towards a more scientific core, and I welcome any efforts you feel need to be made in that regard. --DanielCD 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with "[[Childlove movement]]"

message: "The APA's diagnosis criteria does not necessitate actual sexual acts with children, and thus the diagnosis can be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges alone, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria."
If the patient meets the other criteria then is the word "alone" appropriate? 
Is this better:
"The APA's diagnosis criteria does not necessitate actual sexual acts with children, and thus the diagnosis can be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges without sexual acts with children, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria."
or
"The APA's diagnosis criteria does not necessitate actual sexual acts with children, and thus the diagnosis can be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria."
??? --Gbleem 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second one. ;)) --DanielCD 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fantasy alone sentence 

message: Someone really needs to clean up that ref section. I'll try to as I have time. --DanielCD 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they're relavant as they are sites for pedophiles about pedophilia, and feature large communities of them. Likewise, if someone wants to do research on pedophiles or pedophilia in general then these sites would be worth checking out. = Silent War = 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The forums were moved to the activism article previously, I odn't why they ended up back here. Anyone doing serious research on the topic can find such links on their own, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. -Will Beback 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make a motion to take them out. They are simply not relevant to pedophilia per se. I'm not judging the material. I'm just saying there's already a place for it at the advocacy article. You could throw thousands of links in here and say they are "helpful", but they really detract from the article's purpose, which is to define and cover pedophilia as a "condition" (for lack of a better all-encompassing term). Those articles have more to do with social issues. They are mentioned, and a link is provided to the advocacy article. People who want them that bad will go to the advocacy article anyway, or better yet, just Google. --DanielCD 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: Does anyone else think this looks nicer than unstyled text? // paroxysm (n) 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The move across Wikipedia is towards using footnotes rather than inline references. -Will Beback 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the  they're using in the Coke article. // paroxysm (n) 00:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note style

message: I propose revising the Advocacy section so that it reads entirely as follows: 
:Advocacy of pedophilia
:There are formal organizations that seek to remove the stigma from pedophilia. Some such groups also seek changes to age-of-consent laws. 
THanks. 151.204.169.69 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments like these are not productive. --DanielCD 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocacy section

message: The article could be improved by a discussion of treatability. Pro and con could be discussed, so everyone could get a sqay. This excellent article is cited, and staates doctor berlin's opinion that it can be treated successfully: http://www.behavioral.net/Past_Issues.htm?ID=3253. However, there are likely other opinnions. I am very interested in information about the treatability of pedophilia, and I rthink this article could ddefinitely benefit from adding more of this information, as many people look for it and want the truth. What is the truth? I had hopoe I would find this here, but I did not; some information, but mthere is much more potential ans the subject is covered poorly; I have hope in Wikipedia that someone can find the right way to state the current doctor's opinions on this because I always see new information here.
Please if possible find information and improve the section about treatability of this as I feel it will make the article to have much more quality. Juts a request tghanks.
:Someone should give this at least a glace. --DanielCD 18:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatability

message: Are we including all pedophiles here.  I will note that mothers molest their own young sons and young daughters.  I will also note that fathers molest their sons as well as their daughters.  (Please see sources in the incest article.)  We currently have a local child-care woman being charged with gross abuse of her stepdaughters along with taken lewd photos of them.  I want to see this article reflect female and male pedophiles.  Please comment/suggest how here?
Anacapa 02:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophile =/= child molester. I think the article you're looking for is this one = Silent War = 08:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I understand your comment about gender. From reading the article, the scientific studies seem to focus on males. But all we can do is report what's out there. If any studies of females, or of both genders, can be found, I think it would be great to mention or discuss such studies, and/or any verifiable information about what percentage of pedophiles are female. Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: balanced Gender POV

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

message: While pedosmile is the name of a pro-pedophilia magazine, someone made up a new term for "pedosmile".  http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spot_the_pedo  Sure it's too new to add right now, but one day I think it will qualify.
NOTE: Richard something who abducted Polly Class (I got this name wrong), a 12-year old girl, it was in the Bay Area, California in the 1990s.  His name might not be Richard.  The abductor carried what the author calls a pedosmile.  DyslexicEditor 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um.. it's a joke. Of course it will never qualify. Ineloquent 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedosmile 

message: Reorientation therapy, which is "dismissed as ineffective," was relocated without explanation to the top of the treatment section. I'm just interested in the reason. Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I wrote that section I intended the first paragraph, which you moved to the bottom, to be introductory. On second thought it needs some revision, since treatment is not neccesarily "reorientation therapy." Hmm. Ineloquent 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: treatment

message: With much mulling I've removed most of them. The only justification I could see in WP:EL was that where an article has a number of points of view then links should be provided to each of them. On reading the article I do not detect significant competing points of view. The article is very factual. Furthermore I felt a number of the external links we had were tending towards off-topic. The only one I've left is the pedocyclopedia news section, and purely because it seems to be a very good news stories archive. The Land 08:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social aspects external links 

message: I've found what I believe to be a somewhat appropriate place for the info that, in more or less the following form, was in the "Pedophile Activism" section of the "Pedophilia" article: 
:"In an interview with KCTV5[26], [27] Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General, characterized pedophile activists' efforts to change age-of-consent laws as 'twisted.'" 
::Kline himself is not really the most credible authority, having presided over the Matthew Limon fiasco, and now in the midst of trying to seize abortion records to conduct a fishing expedition for statutory rape cases.St. Jimmy 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phil Kline reference

message: :A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be a pedophile, and referred to as such; however, there may be other motivations for the crime, much as adult rape can sometimes have non-sexual reasons
This sentence is misleading. Sexual abuse against children generally has sexual reasons in all cases, just not pedophilic per se. 24.224.153.40 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's what that says. Aside from that, a lot of pedophilia "per se" isn't about sex at all. I can't make sense of this. --DanielCD 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: assumed to be a pedophile, and referred to as such
The problem that should be addressed here is that this is done out of ignorance, or even arrogance. People deliberately use the word incorrectly in spite of any relevant medical definitions. There is a question here as to why that is (a desire to use a term that is derogatory?) Because when it's used outside of the medical definition, it becomes little more than a perjorative. An interesting aspect to this. --DanielCD 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: inaccurate sentence

message: A bit of a silly quibble perhaps, but I was discussion etymologies and suffixes/prefixes with some people the other day, and it dawned on me that the difference between the British and American spellings of pædophile/pedophile could be slightly problematic in that the former suggests an attraction to children, and the latter suggests an attraction to feet. Not really an important point, just a minor humourous curiousity to linguists perhaps. 82.4.43.239 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait until you see our article on "paedo-pedo-philes", who are attracted to British children's feet. -Will Beback 06:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone attracted to feet would be called a podophile (if the term foot fetishist didn't already exist). Please don't mix up your Greek and Latin roots! Angr (talk • contribs) 07:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no. Don't use the words 'Greek' and 'root' in the context of an article about pedophiles. - Richardcavell 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Angr: If a pedophile is not a reference to one who is attracted to feet, why is the Greek root -pedo used in correspondence with feet in other words, such as pedestal, pedicure, pedestrian, pedometer, and pedal?  I strongly believe that all instances of pedophile in this article should be replaced with paedophile.  Discuss. Mengsk 19:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedestal, pedicure, pedestrian, pedometer, and pedal all derive from the Latin word for foot; pedophile derives from the Greek word for child! JayW 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW the World Health Organization uses the British spelling, it appears. Therefore it's to be slightly preferred. Herostratus 09:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pæd-/Ped 

message: We seem to have a link being added to a website called IPCE. IPCE's missions statement says "Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults. In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners." So, in other words, is a pro-pedophile website. The Land 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing the articles on the site makes the intent even clearer. It is not an objective, impartial website, but rather is an activist site. Therefore it belongs among the other pro-pedophilia websites at pedophile activism. -Will Beback 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a whole article on groups like IPCE - pedophile activism. Please add the link there. -Will Beback 01:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ipce 

message: I removed the following unsourced fact from the article. Please include source before adding back to the article. In the middle-east, the name Abu is scarce as it translates into paedophile in urdu. FloNight talk 11:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced fact