Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 9

message: We need names of these psychologists for this article. I searched the APA's articles for something like this, and I didn't find it. The Rind article doesn't call for the normalizing of pedophilia in any way. If any conclusion is obvious to be drawn from the Rind article, it is that Adults' often don't suffer the negative effects of CSA from their childhood, which doesn't specifically address the immediate effects of sex with an adult on the child, while the child still is a child. Lotusduck 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Green, Richard (2002). (on Ipce) // paroxysm (n) 21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. // paroxysm (n) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: His paper was called "Is pedophilia a mental disorder?." It did cause some controversy, though not as much as Rind, and I do not see why you think it would be "more" controversial, as Rind's analysis was regarding actual CSA, while Green is simply discussing a common sexual attraction. // paroxysm (n) 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? Green was proposing that all paraphilias be removed from the DSM because he did not see them as mental disorders. // paroxysm (n) 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the ipce summary has confused me and I will have to get on with reading the whole article. Okay, here we go. Like I did with the rind articles' significance, I think maybe the topics of this paragraph need to be broken up and fleshed out. It moves directly from greens' paper to defining pedophilia as a sexual orientation, after reading the paper I'm pretty sure that's mixing too many issues, as I think he would best define it as a paraphilia like foot fetishism (the foot fetish article says it's a paraphilia anyway), then it moves to legal norms, which I'm now especially happy that my edits in combination with jamesjames have made that sentance strictly about legal norms, because those are a different issue than psychological diagnoses, but may be mixing the issue too much even in this paragraph. An opening paragraph probably should mention both legal norms and issues of psychological diagnoses is probably a good thing, but like an opening paragraph that talks about both plant respiration and photosynthesis, it has to be very carefully worded because lay-readers confuse the two. (plant respiration is rather like animal respiration- even undergraduate students in a botany class frequently mess that one up, as I think students of rhetoric probably often trip up matters of defining things and matters of policy of things.) Oh well, I'd better get started. Lotusduck 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some psychologists want to declassify pedophilia as a mental illness

message: The first paragraph is confusing. I'm not sure what is being supported or not supported. --Gbleem 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not sure, perhaps it's finally NPOV. Why does one side have to be supported over the other? --DanielCD 16:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing first paragraph

message: We either need a title inclusive enough to cover both pedophilia and adult-child sex, or the article needs to be cleaned up to cover either pedophilia or adult-child sex. Childlove movement, the original title, denotes exactly what the movement is. I prefer this name and I don't see how it point-of-view. Alternatively, we could use a long title like Advocacy of pedophilia and adult-child sex. On the other hand, if we just covered one specific topic without the other, it would probably be best to cover child sex advocacy, because I admit: there seems to be more organization and public advocates for this than pedophilia advocacy in general. Then again, it would be kind of strange to cover adult-child sex advocacy and not the other, since most adult-child sex advocacy is paired with pedophile acceptance activism. // paroxysm (n) 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it "Childlove movement" and it'll be deleted. Paedophilia means both things in the common language (see top definition. This is not a medical encyclopaedia, so it's perfectly okay to use English as it is generally used. I think you're bashing away at a straw man. Let's concentrate on the more important job of writing an NPOV article. I know you want it to be called "Childlove movement". I sympathise to some extent, but it won't fly. I also understand why there's felt to be a desire to separate "paedophilia" from "adult-child sex", but compare "homosexuality". Again, the word is used for both the orientation and the acts in the common language. James James 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just dandy for a word to have more than one meaning. However, it is wrong to use a word without making it obvious which meaning is being used when the definition is particular to the issue. --Gbleem 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both meanings are being used. That was the point. James James 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Using "marijuana legalization" as a model: "adult and child sex legalization." --Gbleem 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that not all involved advocate "adult and child sex legalisation". Far from it. It would be a gross mischaracterisation of what they do actually advocate. Some advocate that; some advocate more acceptance of paedophilia qua orientation. So the current title is far more appropriate than your suggestion, no? James James 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: The controversy over Rind et.al -- It seems like this section is out of place. This may be important, but I think it should be lower down. The sharp change between it and the intro kind of gets confusing. --DanielCD 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could use another big heading, like impacts of psych papers. Maybe. I leave it to someone else to decide, but good idea. `Lotusduck 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rind stuff

message: Okay, paroxysm, your link was dead, and I don't know who Berlin is or to what that referrs. Lotusduck 03:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click the "you can still view the normal site" link, and then once you do that try the URL again.  (http://www.behavioral.net/Past_Issues.htm?ID=3253) // paroxysm (n) 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I found this today: . It seems to give a little different take on the issue from other things I've read. --DanielCD 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sexual orientation 

message: :This is the discussion thread for the tag disputing the neutrality and factual accuracy of the Pedophile activism article.
This is more of a comment than an edit. I decided to search for the most controversial topic possible on Wikipedia and found this one, and as expected, people are asking to delete it, not for its irrelevance, its inaccuracy or its lack of neutrality, but for what it is.
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's duty is to inform people. It might not be nice, it might not be clean and tidy, it might go against your values, but denying the existence of such a thing as childlove movements for any of these reasons is abominable beyond any kind of deviant sexual activity you could imagine. The holocaust, the rape of Nanking, the armenian genocide, all these are recorded, and for what purpose? So people will know. So people will be informed. Same goes for this article. I myself was surprised to learn of the existence of such movements, and I'd like to know more. Why? Not because I'm a pervert, not because I'm crazy, because I want to KNOW.
An encyclopedia is not a moral judge, it has to record regardless of anything, as long as it is true. If Wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously, these kinds of things must not happen. However, the neutrality of the article is indeed debatable. Someone needs to do some serious research and rewrite this. For now, I'll add a link to the Kinsey reports article, since they're mentionned in the article.
Once proper research is effected, the article should be rewritten. And if you still want to delete that article after it has been rewritten neutrally, I hope you choke. Censorship of the truth is completely unacceptable in our age. Dali 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the deletion issue: I certainly wouldn't worry about that. There's simply no way this article will be deleted. I shouldn't even have to mention why. Besides, if it was, either I or someone else would just restore it. --DanielCD 14:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should worry about it. Re-created articles can be speedied, and this one likely would be. James James 08:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss my point. That would be like deleting the article on Psychoanalysis. It's an issue that so obviously calls for an article that to say it doesn't is just ridiculous. You're not going to be able to just wipe it away with a swish, because it's a valid issue and will re-arise of it's own accord, without any help from me. And besides, quite frankly, at this point, I don't care what ya'll do with it. I've had enough of it for now. --DanielCD 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and Factual Inaccuracy Disappointment