Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 4

message: When I corrected, in the opening section, that the term "pedophilia" is mistakenly used when what is meant is "ephebophilia," (I'd changed "used" to "misused") it was reverted because some dictionary has included it that way.  Then when I tried to put what is the most comprehensive and authoritative examination of the subject on the article page, Rind et al.'s Meta-Analysis, it was removed because it uses the term "child sexual abuse" in its title (and by implication belongs in that section).  Well, this is also mistaken.  In fact, a conclusion of the meta-analysis was that the terminology ought to change to be more reflective of the reality of some of these encounters.  
Why is it OK to have a misdefinition in the opening section but then not OK for article links? Bacasper 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rind never mentions pedophilia in his article, so it isn't relevant. -Will Beback 22:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Because definitions are relative, so saying it's a misuse violates NPOV. Think Humpty Dumpty in Alice.. JayW 20:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: This is on a fairly minor issue. User:Haham hanuka believes that the sentence:
In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote people who are sexually attracted to adolescents[1], as well as people who have engaged in sexual abuse of a child.
is POV, I think because linking to the article on child sex abuse inherently expresses the opinion that every sexual activity with a child is abuse. How about replacing that last clause with "and is strongly associated with child sex abuse". It certainly is true that in the US, the term pedophilia has strong connotations of child abuse. As a reference: "When most people think of child molesters, they are thinking of pedophiles" from The Psychology of Sexual Predation & Pedophilia, O'Connor, Dr. Tom. North Carolina Wesleyan College, October 13, 2005. I won't update the article until Haham and others have a chance to respond. Deepak 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still problematic, but I believe we should write about the legal status of child sex on intro.--Haham hanuka 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, yes we should. Immediately after the sentence on france and brazil? What would you like to say? I suggest something like 'Most countries define an age of consent, below which it is illegal for adults to engage in sex with a child of that age. Typically this varies from 14 to 16 years,but can be as high as 21 or as low as 12.'  Could you explain why you find the previous sentence problematic? All it seems to imply is that to most people in the US and other countries, pedophilia has a connotation of child abuse. Deepak 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sexual activities between adults and children would not be considered child sexual abuse? -Will Beback 19:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the US context, none. But if we agree that the definition of pedophilia includes 'strong sexual attraction to adolescents' then that is not per se sexual abuse if the person does not act upon it. However the term pedophilia does carry strong connotations of child abuse, as the citation shows. Deepak 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't it said that pedophiles are guilty of child sexual abuse, but rather that when they do engage in sexual activity with children is it child sexual abuse. -Will Beback 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean. The sentence says that pedophilia denotes sexual abuse of a child, which is not necessarily true. But in the US, the term is associated with child abuse.  Deepak 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Deepak 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the change socalifornia 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  child abuse 

message: Harmful to Minors may or may not say this, I can't remember. If anyone has a copy of the book, please check. Thanks, JayW 23:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Citation needed] sentence

message: The word "mistakenly," which Haham hanuka is adding to the introduction, is POV. Whether or not that usage is mistaken or lame is opinion, since there is no authority for the English language. A word can be used to mean whatever its speaker wants, and, though they might be an idiot for muddling English, we can not neutrally say they are "wrong" to use it in that fashion. See also: Chapter VI of Through the Looking Glass. JayW 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as pedophilia is a technical term or a term of art in psychology, there is justification in calling its popular usage 'mistaken'. However I would agree that pedophilia is now a fairly common layman's term overshadowing its usage in pyschology, hence its definition is dictated by convention. So yeah, I think 'mistakenly' is wrong but perhaps this distinction could be emphasized more. Deepak 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fact not pov, "Pedophilia, paedophilia, or pædophilia (see spelling differences), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children." - which means they are attracted to children but not to teenagers. --Haham hanuka 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #You apparently don't understand language. A word is, unfortunately, defined by its usage. So, if people use "pedophilia" to mean "ephebophilia," while we can bitch and give our opinion about their flawed usage, we can't neutrally say that they're using it "wrong." The word pedophilia has multiple definitions - among them are "sexual interest in anyone under the AoC" and "child sexual abuse." They are, technically, not using the word "mistakenly," but - in my opinion - problematically and illogically. JayW 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: #Your argument is non sequitur. JayW 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JayW. There are severla definitions of the term, the scientific definitions given by various references (which don't agree entirely) and the common usage given by dictionaries. None of those definitions is "wrong". We;'re here to describe, not proscribe. -Will Beback 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As a comment on your joke, I'd say that Wikipedia is more scholarly then JETPRFD, considering they misspelled "psychiatric". --Snake712 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mistakenly"

message: The article correctly defines pedophilia.  However, the news media and the American legal system are calling any adult who has any sexual interest in anyone under 18 years old a pedophile. Nineteen year-old males are being charged with statutory rape and labled sex offenders for life for having consensual sex with seventeen year old females.  Older males are getting long prison sentences that in the past were reserved for murderers for trying to have consensual sex with thirteen or fourteen year-olds.  Twenty years ago, such prosecutions would be rare.  Most Americans would say it is a good thing, that we are locking away all these "pedophiles" for life. That all these people are monsters.  Charlie Chaplin might be serving a life sentence today.  So might Elvis Presley.  And so would Roman Polanski.  One in every hundred US citizens are in jail.  In some US states, the rate of incarceration is even higher.  Only N. Korea, Russia, and S. Africa have a higher incarceration rate than the United States.  Most Americans think this is a good thing.  I think there is hysteria regarding this issue.  I think the pendulum has swung from one extreme to another.   When someone thinks of a thirteen or fourteen year-olds having sex, they may think of themselves when they were that age or their daughter or sister.  I lived in a low rent rooming house in the 1980s.  In this rooming house, there lived many female runaways (and some throwaways) who ran away from home or from institutions because they were sexually, physically and emotionally abused where they had been living.  They feared being caught by the state, because the state would put them back in loveless, abusive institutions, or loveless, abusive foster homes. Many poor people would run foster homes not because they wanted to help children, but because they would get money from the state for doing so.  Most of these children had been neglected, unloved, and abused their entire lives.  The US government and US states did very little for them.  Pimps would often lure these teenagers into drugs and prostitution.  Many of these teenagers had been having sex with many partners on a regular basis for many years. This was of course not good. There was a middle-aged guy who owned a parasailing consession.  One of these ruanways moved in with him.  She married the guy when she turned 18.  Whenever I saw them together they always seemed happy.  I, myself, had not had a single sexual encounter till that point in my life.  Prior to the age of 18, I had never had a date.  From the age of 18 to 24 I lived in a monestary.  These runaways seemed in every way more mature and knowledgeable about the world than I.  I could have turned them in.  I could have turned in thier boyfriends most of whom were over eighteen.  But I don't think I would have been doing them any favor.  And I really didn't see their boyfriends as criminals.  Today, of course, their boyfriends would all receive long prison sentences.  
I often render help to the homeless.  Six months ago, I came across a homeless, white, 14-year-old, crack-addicted runaway.  She had a pimp.  She wanted to stop selling herself, she wanted to stop using drugs, and she wanted to stop being beaten for not bringing back enough money for her pimps' drug addiction.  She didn't want to go into a drug program.  She had tried that before.  She was the only white girl in the program, and the black girls would gang-up on her.  And she didn't want to be placed in another highly restrictive foster home where she would be unloved, treated like a prisoner, beaten and verbally abused, if not also sexually abused.  She begged me to allow her to stay with me so she could get off the streets.  No homeless shelter would take her because she was underage.  And she found the county program for underage children too restrictive.  It is hard to expect a child who has lived on the streets for many years to go into a loveless, highly restrictive environment, with limited tasteless food, and little opportunity for recreation or sensory stimulation.  It is also somewhat unrealistic to expect EVERY teenager who has been having sex on a regular basis for years to stop having sex.  Once teenagers have sex, it is very hard to get them to stop.  I had to tell this homeless teenager that there was nothing I could do to help her, because if I tried to help her, I could be charged with all kinds of criminal offenses.  I went to the police and told them there was a 14 year-old girl working as a prostitute.  I told them I could take them to her pimp.  They were not interested.  So basically what you have is a considerable number of poor, female teenagers whose parents threw them out or abused them.  No one seems to care much about them.  There is very little help available to them.  They can't legally work.  If anyone tries to help them, they can be charged with all kinds of crimes, even if they never lay a hand on them.  The thing society cares about most is making sure they don't have any kind of sex.  A seventeen year old female was tried, charged and convicted as an adult for child pornography for posting nude pictures of herself on the Internet.  The definition of pedophilia is sliding. It still means what this article says it means.  But if the media, the courts and people continue using the word to mean attraction to anyone under 18, eventually the word will need to be defined differently.  Lexigraphers look to actual word useage when they revise dictionaries.  Once a word is used often enough to mean something new, it eventually takes on that new meaning.  I observe very few people using the word "pedophilia" in its true, correct, sense.  Only trained professionals seem to know its real meaning.  I find this scary.  --Grass
::I had to tell this homeless teenager that there was nothing I could do to help her, because if I tried to help her, I could be charged with all kinds of criminal offenses.
:"... One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -MLK Jr. JayW 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is just one problem when it concerns pedophiles and unjust laws. Few will disobey as most don't realize some of those laws are unjust. I've heard Americans say they'd gladly lose some liberties to be more free (ok, that was over terrorism, but things are merging anyay). Well, if this goes on soon people will have no liberties at all. --LeBonhomme 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouting "COME ON!!!" on the internet isn't going to change anything. If you want to affect policy, write your congressman, write your newspapers, speak publically, propose and argue for concrete changes solving real problems (such as 17-year-olds having sex). Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing what the contents of articles should be, not for debating issues, anyway. Clayboy 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Pedophilia  

message: This really has nothing to do with this article, though someone earlier claimed the word "paraphilia" does not have a negative connotation. The response that it does is correct.  Psychology and psychiatry consider all the paraphilias to be mental disorders.  Remember, it was not long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.  If you have a sex fetish, you can lose your children, as all sex fetishes are considered mental disorders.  That means "bdsm," "D/s," "S&M" are all classified as mental disorders.  If you suggest the use valvet handcuffs that can be cause for some judge to take your children away from you.  It can also be used against you in a criminal trial to prove you are morally depraved, and have a "dark side" that could incline you to commit murder.  If you are a teacher, you can lose your job and your teacher's license.  --Grass
*You're right. Check out the article Moral panic. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't parpaphilias that are either painful to the bearer and/or harmful to others if acted upon. Herostratus 13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraphilias 

message: [image removed, not public domain]
Hot or not? If you turned around at a party and saw her looking at you like that, would you chat her up, maybe ask her for a date? Answer here.
:What does this have to do with editing the article? -Will Beback 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just bears on the terminology issue, which is constantly discussed. If you use a broad interpretation -- pedopphile=people who think that that picture is sexy -- you'd have to say that the great majority of men are pedophiles. Just another reason why the term "pedophile" is basically usesless when not accompanied by modifiers, IMO. Herostratus 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Although she was about 16 at the time of filming, Brooke Shields had a body double in Blue Lagoon if that's what you're referring to.  --MMX 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw this thread and wanted to say: I think there would be controversy today over filming the nude scenes of the much younger girl who appears earlier in the movie. Joey Q. McCartney 07:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To further complicate the terminology issue... 

message: I think an article about Neo-Nazis should have links to major neo-Nazi web sites, and to Simon Weisenthal's web site.  An article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should have links to advocates with each point of view.  I personally believe pedophilia is horribly destructive, but I think this article ought to provide links to web sites that support pedophilia, as well as those that oppose it.  I think an article about terrorists ought to have links to terrorist web sites and to anti-terrorist web sites.  I think providing links to Neo-Nazi and terrorist web sites does more good than harm.  An article on Holocaust revisionism ought to have links to major web sites of holocaust revisionists.  Sunlight is the enemy of darkness.  I wish Wikipedia would do a better job of presenting all sides.  I would rather Wikipeida articles contain more information than less.  I am a very critical reader.  I want to hear all points of view.  An article on Moonies, Seventh Day Aventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientolgists, Mormons ought to give all points of view.   An article which gives no point of view does readers a disservice.  It is imporantant to understand the mindset of your enemy.  "Censoring" a viewpoint does not help the cause of truth and justice.  --Grass
:We not only have links supporting pedophilia, we have a whole article about the movement. See Pedophile activism. -Will Beback 05:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't have articles that are too big, see Wikipedia:Article size. Pedophile activism has a section in the main article. In fact, pedophile activism is significantly larger than this article. Skinnyweed 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More rather than less. 

message: Why is pedophilia listed under [Category:Pejorative terms for people]? Prove it. Skinnyweed 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DanielCD added it, probably because "pedophile" is oft-derogatory. JayW 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common sense. Q.E.D. --  Drini 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. So why isn't Homosexuality under that category? And that is used plenty. Skinnyweed 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed-category 

message: I want to complain that the word "exclusively attracted to" be removed from the definition.  The definition that a pedophile "is someone exclusively attracted to children" is wrong because many pedophiles are attracted to people of all ages.  I think there should be a distinction between people who experience pedophilic attractions but yet do not act on them and have normal intimate relationships with someone of around their own age and sexual preditors which really are harmful to society.  
Here's dictionary.com's definition of a pedophile, which is short, concise, and (in my opinion)correct:
ped·o·phile   Audio pronunciation of "pedophile" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pd-fl, pd-)
n.
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
Here is what the article defines pedophilia to be:
Pedophilia, paedophilia, or pædophilia (see spelling differences), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent or pubescent children.
I believe this should be changed to have the words "primarily or exclusively" omitted.
-- Adam H August 13, 2006
: As you mention the phrase is "primarily or exclusively". The wording is intended to dispell beliefs from both sides of the isle. Some people think the definition is "primarily" and some people think the definition is "exclusively". Use of the conjunction lets us state explicitly that it can be either. --Gbleem 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  After a thought I think maybe you were seeing the phrase "primarily or exclusively" as representing one end of the scale instead of two distinct concepts. This is why I really hate the use of the word "or" to be used to mean "also known as". People start to think the word "or" represents an equivalency. --Gbleem 22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: One reason we left in the law section is to provide a contrast to the medical definition. At the time many contributors were confusing the legal definition of child sexual abuse with the medical definition of pedophilia. I still think that is a good reason to have the law section.
Another reason is to show how the medical diagnosis relates to being charged with a sex crime although this seems to be covered in the "Occurrence in child sex offenders" section.
We could probably use a small section on law that links to child sexual abuse. Does the diagnosis of pedophile help the prosecution or defense?
--Gbleem 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do have a link to CSA in the first paragraph. But you're right, there were things I was a bit sorry to lose when I cut that section (why I hesitated until others supported it). What says wiki? DanB DanD 19:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law section. (see early pubertal ... and more! above) 

message: "In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is used in some countries to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent[1], as well as those who have sexually abused a child."
Should "in some countries" be changed to something else? Is pedophile a legal term in some countries? How about "Outside of psychiatry"?? suggestions??
--Gbleem 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  child sexual abuse 

message: Have you ever thought about what a Pedophile looks like? Eighty nine percent think that their old gieser from fourty to sixty that work at school as teacher or priest. Have you ever seen these guys? They couldn't get laid if they tried! In real life 5% of all pedofiles are like this! Have you ever heard a young girl say she think (insert movie star)is Hot? Now what makes you think that if she was ask to sleep with him, what makes you think she wouldn't? Now put yourself in her position your twelve, now think of the hottest star you can. Would you sleep with Him/her? It is not just movie star young girls/guys find attractive, it also reguler people, adults. Take the teenager that turned in his teacher for sleeping with him, after he couldn't get lade. I would banged her even if was hanged up side Down and gagged with spoon. This kid must ben one of the dumbbest guys alive. Hey hot teacher im going turn you in becuase im feelin guilty and im stupid dumb (bleeped out sorry). Now the real thing people never ask them selves: why would any one just wake up one day, and say i want be pedofile and have rest of the world hate me, ridiculed me and proscute me? People just don't decide these thing? Would you? Would you just wake up one day and and decide to go murder some one, and have the cops chase you down and then die in shoot out with the cops? It is the same thing! All people are born with it, it just take certain emotions to awaken it. Have any of you heard about people married when their three or four? This is a gift and should be treated as such. Pedofilla isn't rape and rape is rape. Rape = Evil and when  Pedophilia becomes rape it becomes rape and doesn't stay Pedophilia.
--Dontai 24:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, but nobody cares enough to really consider arguments like this as true. Then again this is centered to ephebophilic couples. Teens normally lust after attractive celebrities rather than children. On the other hand most people think of teens as children so WHATEVER~ ): --74.139.38.43 21:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Truth 

message: Why was pædophilia removed? --Gbleem 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's archaic. JayW 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still an accepted spelling, so I'll add it.Cameron Nedland 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: :If no successes are observed after each single surgery, surgeons generally regard that the therapy will be more successful if brain mass is removed.
In the physical treatment section, these statements are confusing. I think I fixed the wording to make it say something coherent, but I'm not sure I got it right. I hope the person who wrote it can return and clean up the sentences a bit because It needs more explaination. Simply removing tissue from the cerebrum seems quite medieval. --DanielCD 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical therapies 

message: *Edwards, Douglas J. (2004). Mental Health's Cold Shoulder Treatment of Pedophilia in Behavioral Health Management, May-June.
This is ref #22 and it doesn't seem to be a working link. I mention it here as it is needed to ref the article and I was hoping someone could double check the syntax to make sure that isn't the problem. Otherwise, I hope someone could find another link, as I'd like to read this article. --DanielCD 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://archives.behavioral.net/Past_Issues.htm?ID=3253 JayW 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A problem ref

message: Someone put a POV tag on treatment. I would guess that there is a great variety of opinions on treatment in and outside the medical community. I haven't read any of the references but on the surface it seems well cited. What are the POV issues. --Gbleem 14:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a revert. Reason given during edit was lame. ip address on editor. --Gbleem 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Treatment 

message: I doubt the study included women also but can someone who has read the study say for sure? Mr. User:Skinnyweed says he doesn't think so. --Gbleem 14:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Online versions of both studies are linked in their references. DanB†DanD 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophilia is believed to be as common in women as it is in men.  However, women are arrested for sexual abuse much less than men.  Why is this(besides the fact that most child sexual abuse is situational, and unrelated to pedophilia)?  Primarily because people just don't suspect that a woman may be a pedophile.  A woman has more access to children, and because of this is less likely to be suspicious in their company.  A woman isn't as likely to be turned in if the relationship is discovered, as alot of people consider it a good thing for their sons to have sex early, but a bad thing for their daughters.  Finally, women can "play off" sexual encounters as something else, and get away with it.  For example, a woman may reach inside of a child's diaper, and tell herself and anyone witnessing it that she was checking if it was wet, when in reality, she's "copping a feel".  If a man tried this, he would be arrested on the spot, but women can get away with it. 216.229.65.148 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Extent of occurrence, women== 

message: "The Paedophile Impulse: Toward the Development of an Aetiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint"
The "Paedophile Impulse" article starts by defining paedophile in a way that is very different than the medical definition that this Wikipedia article is about. While the Wikipedia article does include a popular definition related to child sex abuse this was done only to demonstrate that the Wikipedia article is not about that popular definition. There is no reason for including the third definition from the "Paedophile Impulse" article for it is not popular enough to need differentiation.
--Gbleem 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting "Paedophile Impulse" article. 

message: What are the worldwide view issues? The WHO definition is discussed. I think all definitions are either WHO or APA aren't they? --Gbleem 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: Just during a very brief read-through (looking for bits of information) I suddenly spotted the following:
"Lolita syndrome is sometimes used to refer to attraction to adolescent females. The related word Lolicon refers to manga-style pornography depicting neotenous female children. "
"Shotacon" is manga-style pornography depicting neotenous male children."
I deleted everything but "Lolita syndrome is sometimes used to refer to attraction to adolescent females."
I know this might not be completely suitable, but I leave the work to those who are interested and better English.
The word "Lolicon" originated from a Japanese-coined English term, "Lolita complex", which is vitually the same as "Lolita syndrome"
In general, Lolicon refers to people that are, at least more strongly than normal, attracted to pre-adolescent females. Moreover, it is a popular usage only among people on which Japanese casual culture has great influence, and is never formal.
When the two terms are used in places mentioning to pornography context, I think at least it should be something like "Lolicon porn" "Shotacon porn", which imply the type of porn provided belongs to a genre in favor of Lolicon's and Shotacon's. This is rather analogous, although not exactly, to the usage of "gay porn", which are pornography for male homosexuals.
Everesti 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This line was added 14:31, 18 July 2006 (not by me). Now suddenly someone removes it and at the same time another user suggests to make a similar change in lolicon article. Just a coincidence? Zorndyke 10:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a coincidence... or that my comment reminded somebody to bring up the same discussion on that similar article. I also have to disagree with your changes, since I really don't think "Lolicon" itself "depicts" a kind of pornography - it is just something similar to the term "lolita syndrome".Everesti 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, not all lolicon art is pornographic, sometimes it's even hard to tell where the cute art ends and the lewd begins. Depending on the dictionary pornography may be defined as obscene material with no or little artistic merit, or at least "material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal" (according to dictionary.reference.com). The current lolicon definition in this article is a bit too narrow. However I found the part "neotonous female characters" strikingly spot on. I even quoted it in some forum a month ago. So I was quite disappointed to see it disappearing. We could try to reword this definition. Also I apologize that I assumed a connection between your edit and the edit of the lolicon article. Zorndyke 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lolicon" 

message: I'm starting to get confused. Why is there a tag on a paraphrase of a citation? Vogt 2006. If this guy is a legitimate researcher and he actually has the opinion represented by the paraphrase then I see no need to require any further citation. For example if Bowling Expert says in an article printed in "Bowling America" that he thinks pink bowling balls will be the fashion next year and he lists in his article some sources for statistics on bowling ball sales and interviews with executives with major bowling ball manufacturers then we only need to cite his article in "Bowling America".
: It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact that either is or isn't correct -- and it contradicts our article's current presentation of the academic consensus on what pedophilia is.
: If "many or even most researchers" define pedophilia on the basis of behavior, then it's not the place of Wikipedia to define pedophilia as an attraction, and we have to totally change the article. Which would be a giant pain!
: DanB†DanD 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your issue is. Someone put in the article something some author named Vogt wrote. It's cited as Vogt 2006. Why did you put a citation tag on it? --Gbleem 08:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because either it's wrong or the basic approach of the entire article is wrong. As it stands we are contradicting ourselves. If a majority or even many qualified medical researchers define pedophilia as a behavior, then we can't say that the medical definition of pedophilia is an attraction. DanB†DanD 08:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you are confusing what we as wikipedia article editors are saying with what the Vogt guy is saying. Vogt expressed a concept, someone mentioned it in the article and it is cited so I will remove the citation tag. The citation tag is for things that are not cited not for concepts you disagree with or issues about the structure of the article.--Gbleem 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut and pasted another tag to make the citation clearer. --Gbleem 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree or disagree - I have no idea. But it contradicts our opening definitional paragraph. If it's right, then the rest of the article is wrong. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you? DanB†DanD 17:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems you are confusing the issue of source citation with article structure. I think the citation issue is resolved. Let's keep the definition issue under the other topic so it will be easier to follow. --Gbleem 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big fact tag Vogt 2006

message: *:Category:Convicted child sex offenders
I thought we agreed we would take this out? I think it should be removed. --Gbleem 04:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  child sex offenders category 

message: "the latter version of the story might be more likely." Is there a better way to say this? --Gbleem 02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  story line 

message: "Gerophilia is being especially fond of or sexually attracted to older people." I'm not sure why my eyes skipped over the word "folks". Is it being fond of or sexually attracted? --Gbleem 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerontophilia

message: "("The paradox of man-manly love"), p. 6. Reprinted as a complete facsimile in Hohmann, Joachim S. (1977). Der unterdrückte Sexus ("Historical oppression of sexuality").  (in German)."  I found an ISBN number on Amazon.com but that could have been put up by anyone. Books with buyers and sellers are more likely to be accurate. --Gbleem 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected ISBN in above comment to avoid SmackBot template. --Droll 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paradox ISBN 

message: I beg to differ. While antiAOC organizations like NAMBLA are indeed unpopular, pushing for acceptance of paedosexuality as a sexual orientation, and not for the legalization of child abuse, is very easy and tends to be quite successful. Jillium 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Extremely unpopular"