Talk:Pedophile

Proposal to move this article to "Pedophilia"

I think this article should appear under "Pedophilia". This article talks mostly about the attraction and not just the person, and the full English "Pedophile" article redirects to "Pedophilia" instead of the other way around as the simple English version does. I'll wait a while before doing this so others can comment on this proposal. Author99 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And I think you are right. En wiki does use the more general title of pedophilia. The article refers to pedophilia, and usage of the term 'pedophile' are often based on, or influenced by, local law. Pedophilia as a general term is not subject to that effect. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6 and Macdonald-ross, I was not engaging in unhelpful changes, as made clear here and here. I know what I am doing. You should not be letting these edits by a problematic, indefinitely blocked editor stand. The article can be moved to Pedophilia without keeping his edits and without splitting the article's edit history. What you have let stand in this regard, while reverting FDR's other problematic edits, is a mess. This is a mess, and, given that you reverted FDR on that same matter, it makes no sense that you would then revert me on that mess. 72.203.170.176 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You might want to explain what you want to do so that it doesn't appear that you are making problem edits yourself. How does redirecting pedophilia to pedophile help, when the main article should be at pedophilia? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6, I've explained here at my talk page. 72.203.170.176 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I've changed the content at the Pedophilia article to the way that it was when the article was titled Pedophile. FDR did a number on the article with problematic editing that should have never remained. And the edit histories of the article are still wrongly split; they should be combined. 72.203.170.176 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Refined definition

I just removed ", or who are not yet fully sexually adult" from the end of the definition, as pedophilia does not cover the older end of the age spectrum encompassed by "not yet fully sexually adult". Attractions to children who have reached puberty is covered by Hebephilia and Ephebophilia. I'm new to editing, so I hope I've done this correctly. The rest of the edit looks too complicated to me, so I'll refrain from editing more until I've studied my Wikipedia manual. Author99 (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting it right

Removed the stuff about teenagers who like teenagers not being pedophiles. That explanation is a completely superfluous and unnecassary distraction. The addition of the word "adult" fixes that.

With regards to the statement that pedophilia is a "mental illness", this is something that has been greatly argued over the years. One of the criteria for mental illness is "distress". Many pedophiles show no distress whatsoever about what they are doing. It iis regarded as a "mental disorder" not a mental illness. They are not the same thing by any means. A person with pedophilia might be very happy molesting kids, and not feel any distress whatever until he's slammed in the cooler.

Removed "but not older than that". The definition is about liking children and pubescent kids. A pedophile might also be attracted to older teenagers and adults as well. Many pedophiles have adult partners and lead active sex lives with them. The inclusion of that phrase indicates that a pedophile would not find anyone older sexually attractive. While the definition is specifically about attraction to children, the additional info makes for confusion, not clarity.

Amandajm (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit worried about Some pedophiles are sexually attracted to children but do not take action on their feelings to abuse children. - Those are the thieves that don?t steal? - I am not a psychiatrist, so I don't really know; but in my pinion we should leave that out (Or formulate it differently). --Eptalon (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "mental disorder" seems a little pov; I'm not entirely familiar with the Simple English WP's policy on npov but surely it would do to mention the criteria for it to be called a mental disorder.

The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its
"Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":

* A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors 
     involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
* B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
* C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

As you can see, the attraction itself is not sufficient to claim it is a mental disorder; there also needs to be either action upon the urges or distress/difficulty caused by it. Adapting the diagnostic criteria into simple English shouldn't be too difficult a job, although I hesitate to do so as I tend to overestimate what constitutes simple or easily understood grammatical structures and verbiage. 58.191.155.98 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please create an account, if you intend to contribute a bigger amount of material; it makes communication easier. The first question comes to my mind regarding the list above:

• Do all three of them need to be met, is it two out of three, or one out of three?

As to medical terminology: I am not a doctor, neither in the medical profession, however "fantasies" will be something rather hard to prove, no? - So please go ahead an make the changes you see fit, simplifying is easier than getting it right in the first place. --Eptalon (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder by the majority of the medical community. There is no significant debate there about it. The only significant debate on this front are the pedophiles arguing against the medical community defining pedophilia as a mental disorder. 72.216.11.235 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And, yes, there are some pedophiles who fight against their sexual attraction and don't sexually abuse children. 72.216.11.235 (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to clarify I don't agree with the proposal to change the definition of pedophiles from 16 year old people and older people who sexually abuse children to 18 year old people and older people who do that, I just thought that the change was being made because all the people I know always say "you can't be a pedophile and be less than 18" so I assumed that was the case. It was sloppy editing on my part. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the title of this section, you still aren't getting it right. Both of these edits make no sense.[1][2] In that first diff, no, it does not already say that. Yes, the first line says 16 or older, but "older" obviously means anyone who is 20 and up as well. The DSM and WHO sources specifically say that the child must be five years younger than an adolescent 16 or older. The way you have it worded, it's as though a person needs to be five years younger than a 20-year-old or older for the disorder to be diagnosed as pedophilia. Even though we know that a person just five years younger than a person who is 20 years old or older is not prepubescent unless suffering from some physical developmental disorder. In that second diff, all it says is that pedophiles may be sexually attracted to prespubescent children and adults. And that statement, which is also sourced in the English Wikipedia Pedophilia article, is true. It doesn't say "equally attracted to." You are correct that pedophiles, if accurately defining pedophilia, have a sexual preference for prepubescent children. But sexual preference means primary or exclusive. Your foe or foes at the English Wikipedia Pedophilia article state the same thing, which is why the lead of that article and this one says "primary or exclusive" -- that's what the sources say. Sources you clearly haven't read. Who do I have to report to around here to make sure you follow what the sources say? 193.104.27.90 (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then word it as "the child must be at least five years younger than the person in the case of adolescent pedophiles aged 16-17". Does that work?--RJR3333 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also feel free to change 16-17 to 16-19 or even 16-20 if you look, since some definitions of adolescence include anyone over 13 but under 21. I chose 16-17 because most people consider 17 year olds adolescents due to the fact they are still technically children whereas 18 years is usually the age of majority, so most people don't call 18 year olds adolescents, but I'm open to changing the wording. You don't need to report me, go ahead and change everything. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not say "16-17 before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia," though. To put that is us interpreting what they mean without it being clear that that's what they mean. And if we say "It is clear," that is also interpretation. They can just as easily mean an 18-year-old as well since some 13-year-olds, more commonly boys, are prepubescent. 19 is a long-shot, but what I stated still applies. And many people, including researchers, define 18 and 19-year-olds as adolescent. In fact, sources usually give the age range for adolescence as the teenage years (13-19), instead of starting as early as when puberty begins (typically 10 for girls and 11 or 12 for boys). Early 20-somethings have also been characterized as adolescent. And you still didn't tackle the "some pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children and adults" issue I mentioned above. You could have at least reworded it as "Though having a sexual preference for prepubescent children, some pedophiles are sexually attracted to adults as well." As for reporting, I rather meant reporting the situation -- what is going on here between our edits -- to some authority figure or noticeboard (dispute resolution or otherwise)...so that they can examine this issue. 193.104.27.90 (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources of course do not say "16-19" either, but, seeing as you added that instead, I can accept it as a compromise. I will now be adding "Though having a sexual preference for prepubescent children, some pedophiles are sexually attracted to adults as well." because that is supported by reliable sources in the English Wikipedia Pedophilia article and in this one. The very definition of preference is that one is liked more than the other anyway, although it can also mean exclusivity. 193.104.27.90 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I took down 16-19 age range. The reason I put it in was because I can't see how the five year rule would apply to 20 year olds having sex with 15 year olds, seeing as how most fifteen year olds are post-pubescent, and it would be extremely rare for a fifteen year old to not have even BEGUN puberty yet and the fact that the age of sexual consent in many places is fifteen years, I think in most outside the USA actually. But I don't want controversy, and as you said I don't have a source for it, so it might be OR by synthesis. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you still have "in the case of adolescent pedophiles," which is what I wanted, it's fine. That the adolescent needs to be 16 or older is specified from the start, so perhaps it's not necessary to repeat "16 or older." The reason that I feel that we should keep "in the case of adolescent pedophiles," however, is for clarity, so that the text is initially clear that we don't mean five years younger than any non-prepubescent, despite it, when referring to older people above 19, being extremely rare that a person is going to be prepubescent at age 15 (the same goes for 14, even though more common than 15, at least when referring to boys). But the age of consent doesn't factor into this because even with the age of consent being 12 in a few places, it's still pedophilia if the 12-year-old is prepubescent or looks prepubescent and the older person has a sexual preference for prepubescents. 193.104.27.90 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So if an 18 year old never went through puberty and a 30 year old had sex with her, would he be a pedophile then? Is there an age after which it would not matter if the younger partner were prepubescent? --RJR3333 (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The guy would only be a pedophile if he had a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescents. If an 18-year-old were prepubescent, which obviously cannot happen unless suffering from a serious physical developmental disorder, the sexual interaction would be legal if 18 is the age of consent/age of majority, but the sexual attraction would still be pedophilia if the guy has a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescents. The 18-year-old prepubescent would obviously look like a child, and would be biologically a child, because he or she has not reached/gone through puberty. 193.104.27.90 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)