Jump to content

Talk:Pedophilia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 201: Line 201:
:Personally, having seen many undergraduate survey-takers rushing through surveys just to get them finished (and not reading carefully), I would not be at all surprised if even the one or two persons (of the ~200 students) who gave "1" as a response did so accidentally or even purposefully just to screw up the survey itself. To me, remarkable claims require remarkable evidence, and this study doesn't present anything remarkable. It's now 20 years old, and I cannot recall a replication of its results.
:Personally, having seen many undergraduate survey-takers rushing through surveys just to get them finished (and not reading carefully), I would not be at all surprised if even the one or two persons (of the ~200 students) who gave "1" as a response did so accidentally or even purposefully just to screw up the survey itself. To me, remarkable claims require remarkable evidence, and this study doesn't present anything remarkable. It's now 20 years old, and I cannot recall a replication of its results.
:[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

== "Disorder" and 19th century social construction ==

Another major issue with how this is presented is the undue weight we give to the term as co-opted by psychology etc. to describe a disease/disorder. Saying "pedophilia is a disorder" is merely [[Reification (fallacy)|reification]] of the concept and a violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. The term ''paidophilia'' existed for centuries before being appropriated by Krafft-Ebing to describe a psychopathology. It's only since the moral panics of the 1970s that a whole cottage industry of catching and "curing" this population emerged. The term ''pedophile'' came to be widely used by the public around that time. Like many words that have a specific meaning in a certain field, "pedophilia" has a shifting and varying definition both inside and outside of fields that study it. That's why I agree with Wikiposter123 that the word "disorder" in the first sentence is not accurate, and I support that proposed rewrite. What we usually do on terms of art like this is to specify. An example would be [[moron (psychology)]], another piece of jargon that emerged from eugenic psychology. It had a precise meaning to "experts," as well as a lay/non-technical meaning. It seems that this article should make the same distinction, and we should not be using the word "is" in such an authoritative manner. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 23:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:39, 1 September 2010

Blatant Bias

Although all paraphilias are "technically" classified as disorders, not one other paraphilia is referred as such on Wikipedia. The use of the invented/out dated term "psychiatric disorder" to describe pedophilia is an obvious attempt to demonize it. From the paraphilia article:

  • Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one's genitals to an unsuspecting person, or to perform sexual acts that can be watched by others.
  • Fetishism: the use of inanimate objects to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.
  • Frotteurism: recurrent urges of behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
  • Pedophilia: a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children,[1] or has engaged in child sexual abuse.[2][3][4]
  • Sexual Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer for sexual pleasure.
  • Sexual Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of a person is sexually exciting.
  • Transvestic fetishism: arousal from "clothing associated with members of the opposite sex."[5][6]
  • Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing, or engaging in sexual activities, or who is engaging in activities usually considered to be of a private nature.[7][8]

Can you point out a single other paraphilia referred to as a "psychiatric/psychological disorder". Scholarly sources don't make the distinction between pedophilia being a mental disorder and other paraphilias not being one, that distinction is being made by you. Referring to it first and foremost as a paraphilia is the least biased way to refer to it and is actually more descriptive, and it follows the practice on Wikipedia of referring to paraphilias as paraphilias and not as disorders.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously had no idea about the manner the other paraphilia are described on Wikipedia. And I doubt this was anything designed to intentionally single pedophilia out, but rather nobody noticed until now. This is cause for some consideration, but let's be methodical.
Now, granted, not all paraphilia work the same way. That is to say, some behaviors associated with certain "paraphilia" can exist in a non-pathological form, but cross over into being a mental disorder when certain diagnostic thresholds are crossed. Fetishism, Masochism, Sadism, and Transvestic fetishism have to have some element of persistence and "cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty" to be mental disorders. Generally speaking, pedophilia is not one of those paraphila. Like Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, and Frotteurism, merely acting on it is diagnostic (not by itself, but it is a criteria) because all 4 involve non-consenting persons. My theory is that pedophilia has the emphasis that it is a mental disorder because not only is it considered much more heinous and damaging than the other 3, but it has very little if any "healthy" expressions of it and it so incredibly deviant by human norms of sexual expression. Plenty of people have probably flashed someone without having any inclination to a mental disorder, many young men "peep", and fraternity brothers, soldiers and other male in-groups engage in all manner of screw-ball pranks involving their genitals. But nobody casually goes "Hey lets hang out by the elementary school and seduce one of the kids."
What I'm saying is, is it really such a horrible skew to mention it's a mental disorder in the first sentence? Legitimus (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are healthy expressions in the sense that women who suffer from the disease where you remain in a child's body for the rest of your life(forget the name) often don't find people who are sexually interested in them, pedophiles can provide them genuine sexual interest and help with their self image. Humorously enough, people with mannequin paraphilia might be sexually turned on by the people who have that horrible calcification disease that turns people into living statues(forget its name also), but I digress.
"so incredibly deviant by human norms of sexual expression" Not nearly as deviant as other paraphilias like those turned on by statues and mannequins(see above), urine, being beaten, animals, etc, which I would seem much more out of the norm seeing as how sexual attraction in these don't involve actual humans.
Pedophilia has to cause distress to the individual to be classified as a disorder, and believe it or not but there are many pedophiles without that much stress about it. I am particularly sympathetic to pedophiles not just because of the dilemmas inherent in their paraphilia, but mostly for the stigma it causes. For the average pedophile they will never get a chance to live out their sexual fantasy(although it's the same with most people so of that I don't care too much[I believe in self discipline]). However, pedophiles are stigmatized by society, more so then even the gays, and for that I feel sorry for them. It is not something they choose as I have come to understand no paraphilias or sexual orientation are something anybody chooses. Not only does this press my on sympathy button for people with odd sexual preferences, but also for my sympathy for people labeled as "mentally disordered". Having known many people who have suffered from mental illness, committed or attempted suicide, and seen the stigma attached I personally do not look lightly on people who refer to others with depression, anorexia, paraphilias or other disorders as "crazy" or other such terms. As such I typically prefer to refer to people as "depressed" or "anorexic" or "paraphiliac" using the specific term rather than just using "mentally disordered" a term which biases people in a negative way and attaches stigma to what it is describing(and believe me it does). I don't really see any reason why pedophilia should get this special treatment, it has led many people to harm children, but the paraphilia itself is no different psychologically than any other paraphilia. Just like masochists aren't turned on by pain, but use pain to evoke feelings of submission, or humiliation, those feelings being what turns them on, pedophiles aren't actually turned on by the physical bodies of children, but rather the feelings of innocence and purity which those children's bodies evoke in them. Perhaps I am naive in believing that if pedophiles could find an alternate route to those feelings of purity and innocence, and try to find those qualities in adults, that they would be better able to explore that side of their sexuality without harming children, but I do believe paraphilias can be healthily exercised and co-exist with people's sexuality.
The reason I believe other paraphilias on Wikipedia are not described as "mental disorders" is because people realize that term carries a stigma with it, a stigma that anyone who has had a mental disorder understands, where as with pedophilia I think people are ok with letting them be stigmatized by additionally referring to it as a "mental disorder" instead of more specifically referring to it as a "paraphilia". Paraphilias, homosexuality, and other non-mainstream sexual preferences carry their own host of stigma, especially pedophiles who are seen as particularly disgusting, and who actually do harm with their paraphilia. There is simply no need to further stigmatize pedophiles within their article. Make the article very explicit in the harm that is done to children who are sexually molested, that should be the emphasis, not the unnecessary further stigmatization of pedophiles. A slightly off topic point and I apologize because my post has been so long, but Western society is a guilt society, not a shame society. Probably due to Christian influence, most western societies deal with preventing crime and moral wrong doing by evoking guilt in people, and using guilt to prevent them from doing wrong acts. By making child molesting an act which evokes guilt by emphasizing the irreparable harm it does to children you are more likely to prevent pedophiles from doing it then you are by demonizing them(which leads to reckless vigilantism and panic). Gay men were demonized in the west for hundreds of years, didn't stop them from having sex.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Psychiatric disorder" to describe pedophilia is not outdated; it is described that way in every instance by authoritative sources. Being sexually aroused by urine, being beaten, and animals is no better in my eyes. Though being "turned on" by statues and mannequins is not as "ugh!" as far as I see, considering the large number of normal people who are "turned on" by blow-up dolls and sex toys.
You're asking us not to call pedophilia a mental disorder in this article. We simply cannot do that, and I see no reason we should. Most of the text even classifies this as a mental disorder. Why should the lead (intro) not specify this as well? Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, not sure Wikiposter0123 is saying we should remove everything about it being a mental disorder. Just that it not be in the opening sentence. Is that right? Now, I do understand and agree with much of what you said, about empathy for people suffering from a condition and not wishing to stigmatize people with the brand "insanity." That's fine. (Though one correction I need to emphasize about diagnostic criteria: You do not need distress to meet the criteria. A person without distress who looks at child porn or abuses a child sexually meets the criteria.) The thing is, the very word "pedophile" itself I think carries far more stigma than "mental disorder." I even heard a person with schizophrenia once say "I might be crazy, but at least I ain't a ----ing pedo!" So, de-emphasizing that it is a mental disorder in this article I'm not sure is going to have all that much affect on the matter.Legitimus (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Wikiposter0123 is insisting that we not state it as a mental disorder in the lead. This is why I said, "Most of the text even classifies this as a mental disorder. Why should the lead (intro) not specify this as well?" Simply put, I disagree with Wikiposter0123. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I would like. Thank you for explaining Legitimus. You can talk about it as a "mental disorder" but in the lead I think "paraphilia", on top of being a more specific definition anyways, would be more neutral considering that is how other paraphilia's are described and it seems we(the Wikipedia community) are labeling pedophilia as more of a mental disease than other paraphilias by our word choice used when describing it. Pedophiles already have to deal with stigma of being pedophiles, but using that as a justification to not show them the same courtesy we show other paraphilias on Wikipedia by not unnecessarily referring to them with terms loaded with stigma such as "mental disorder" in the very first sentence, a term which while clinically correct automatically applies the "crazy" stigma to them, is biased against them. I am less worried about the added crazy stigma affecting how pedophiles are viewed, and more worried as to how they view themselves. It's one thing to have the public at large dislike you (like homosexuals in many places), it's another to have the entire psychological community label you as crazy. I am worried this choice of wording in the lead could unnecessarily have negative effects on the self esteem of pedophiles, encourage hate and fear of pedophiles, and overall not do much to improve our understanding of pedophilia(which is what the article should be about).

My main concern is that by the wording in Wikipedia you would think paraphilias like BDSM, Wool fetishes, etc, are all just different sexual tastes, where as you would view pedophilia as more of a disease that needs to be cured, and pedophiles as being crazy and scary. I would just like the wording used when describing paraphilias to reflect that pedophilia is not seen by the medical community as psychologically different from other paraphilia(which it isn't), but since the harm it causes there has been a much greater emphasis on removing it from individuals, where as many other paraphilias are left alone or even encouraged.

In short, just use the word paraphilia to describe pedophilia in the opening lead. It is a more accurate term, it's the term used to describe other paraphilias through out Wikipedia, and it won't unnecessarily emotionally influence the readers coming here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "disorder" must not be removed from the lead sentence. All mainstream sources define pedophilia as a disorder. It doesn't matter whether or not they consider the other paraphilias to be disorders or not, those are different topics. The inclusion of pedophilia in the paraphilias is useful as a way to collect and organize information, but there is no general science of how paraphilias work as a group. It's a taxonomy of information, but there is no claim in the sources of any causal or functional mental or physical conditions in common between the different paraphilias. Quite likely, some other paraphilias are not disorders in the same way. For this topic though, to describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and not as a disorder would be to omit an essential core aspect of the definition, according to the sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiposter0123, I do not see how not informing readers at the very beginning that pedophilia is a mental disorder is being neutral. All I see is it being a disservice to readers, and an entryway for pedophiles to further claim pedophilia as not being an illness. Not to mention...as a victory over Wikipedia, since many pedophiles have tried to have "mental disorder" removed from the lead over and over again. But even if neutral to leave "mental disorder" out, I do not see why we should be neutral in this case, in the same way that I do not see why we should be neutral when it comes to describing Anorexia nervosa as an eating disorder. BDSM is not an illness; it is, in fact, just "different sexual tastes." There are plenty of people who try BSDM, new and old. But no one randomly just becomes a pedophile or says, "I'd like to try sexually molesting that prepubescent child over there." Therefore, it is psychologically different than pedophilia. This is why we do not outright describe it as a mental disorder in the lead. This is not blatant bias. This is blatant truth.
And what do you mean by this edit? Mental disorders may fall into a specific category. Pedophilia is commonly referred to as a psychological disorder or as a psychiatric disorder, not just simply a "mental disorder" with no specification. Also, your bringing "mental disorder" out from under the pipelink works against your cause. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For this topic though, to describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and not as a disorder would be to omit an essential core aspect of the definition, according to the sources."
Pedophilia is defined as a paraphilia, that is what the sources say. Wikipedia is leading people to believe that pedohilia is more of a disorder than other paraphilias in a way that is not supported by "the sources". Find some sources which say that pedophilia is more of a disorder, or represent them the same way.

BDSM is not an illness; it is, in fact, just "different sexual tastes."
I think you misread the article:

With the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) in 1994 new criteria of diagnosis were available describing BDSM clearly not as disorders of sexual preferences. They are now not regarded as illnesses in and of themselves.

Oh, so now they have their own category. Yeah, no one in the medical field views alternate sex preferences as illnesses that need to be cured.

So far you have not shown any evidence that pedophilia is seen by the medical community as more of a disorder then other paraphilia, nor have you disproven claims that pedophilia is medically represented differently in Wikipedia from other paraphilia. You can talk about how pedophilia is harshly despised in the Western world, the harm it does, and the attempts to rid pedophiles of their preferences, but to make it seem more "crazy" than other paraphilias, when the medical community does not see it as such, is your own bias being injected into the article.Wikiposter0123 (talk)

Pedophilia is defined as a paraphilia, yes. It is also defined as a mental disorder. We will continue to define it as such. You keep complaining about the other articles. Take it up with them. But good luck on trying to say in the lead of the BDSM article that it is a mental disorder. I did not misread the BDSM article. You have. Or rather overlooked parts of it. It clearly states what is needed for BDSM to be considered an illness. Legitimus also explained this to you.
So far, you have not given any valid reason why pedophilia should not be defined as a mental disorder. All you have done is cite other stuff exists and play the "poor pedophile" card. The medical community does not see pedophilia as more "crazy" than some other paraphilias? Funny. But I must correct you on the "crazy" part. Pedophiles are far from crazy...usually.
And as for you constantly referring to BDSM and other sexual behaviors that deviate from the norm but may still be carried out by normal people, I suggest you read this paragraph in the Paraphilia article:

Paraphilial psychopathology is not the same as psychologically normative adult human sexual behaviors, sexual fantasy, and sex play. These terms have been used in interchangeable ways which can allow for cognitive and clinical diagnostic misjudgment to occur. Consensual adult activities and adult entertainment that may involve some aspects of sexual roleplay, novel, superficial, or trivial aspects of sexual fetishism, or may incorporate the use of sex toys are not necessarily paraphilic.

Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pedophilia is defined as a paraphilia, yes. It is also defined as a mental disorder." Pedophilia is defined as a paraphilia, a paraphilia is defined as a mental disorder. Why call a dolphin an animal when you could call it a mammal? Why call a AK47 a weapon instead of gun.All paraphilia's are mental disorders, but not all mental disorders are paraphilias. "So far, you have not given any valid reason why pedophilia should not be defined as a mental disorder." So far I havn't argued that it shouldn't. Just that the more specific term paraphilia should be used in the lead sentence instead. "All you have done is cite other stuff exists and play the "poor pedophile" card. " Citing how other stuff are portrayed in Wikipedia to portray bias in this article is not the same as other stuff exists. I am not saying everybody else is wrong so this should be too, I am saying this is wrong and everything is right and we should emulate them. "Poor pedophile" card? I'm not playing anything, the reasons I stated are the reasons I want it changed, are you suggesting I am ulterior motives? "I did not misread the BDSM article. You have. Or rather overlooked parts of it. It clearly states what is needed for BDSM to be considered an illness." You have misread both the BDSM article, this article, and my response.

pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children they have either acted on or cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.

"The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors" must "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning"

This clearly states that pedophilia needs to be acted on or cause distress to be a disorder, yet you have characterized solely having a sexual preference for children as being a disorder in the lead.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I knew you were going to bring the "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" part up. The thing is, though, "solely" having a sexual preference for prepubescent children is a disorder. That is the very definition of pedophilia, for goodness sakes. Sexual preference includes "intense and recurrent sexual urges" or else it would not be a sexual preference (sexual orientation, if you want to call it that, though, no, I do not consider it a sexual orientation that should be legitimately compared to heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality). Pedophilia does not need to be acted on or cause distress just to be considered a disorder. It also clearly needs to include "intense and recurrent sexual urges towards" prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the deifintion says. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the mental disorder pedophilia is: "a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children they have either acted on or cause distress or interpersonal difficulty." What you are claiming is in direct conflict with the definition whose words were chosen extremely carefully. Solely having the preference does not qualify as having the disorder. You are leaving out the criteria for the disorder, doing exactly what I am afraid people visiting will do.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about???? Legitimus already explained to you below. Are you saying pedophilia is not a sexual preference for prepubescent children? Well, it is. That is the precise and most dominant definition of the disorder. If you are saying that having a sexual preference for prepubescent children is not a disorder by itself, which it is clear you are from what you state below, that is wrong. It goes against everything researched by experts regarding pedophilia. The ICD-10 and other highly reliable sources also factor into this. That quote you cited also does not say "prepubescent children," but we know that pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children, not just "children" (which often includes any person under 18). Perhaps it is time that we bring Dr. James Cantor into this discussion, because he will go into the detail I am not willing to, and sometimes cannot without getting very frustrated. He is also more of an expert on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 asked if I would weigh in here, which I am happy to do:
  • Once stripped of Wikiposter0123’s POV language, Wikiposter’s original, underlying request is not (in itself) unreasonable to me. (Scholarly study of pedophilia predates even the first DSM.) The lede sentence referring to pedophilia as a paraphilia rather than as a disorder and then noting pedophilia's status in the DSM would not (to my ear) significantly downplay or overdue it. (That is, DSM status could appear in the second sentence of the lede rather than in the first.) I cannot say that I feel strongly, however; I agree with Legitimus that it isn’t such a horrible skew (if a skew at all) to include the DSM status in the first sentence.
  • Wikiposter’s note about how pedophiles “will never get a chance to live out their sexual fantasy” is also not unreasonable. Indeed, I have previously expressed that myself, with Dan Savage in this column of his. One should note, however, that there is no meaningful way to poll people on this, so there is no way to know how many such pedophiles there might be in the population.
  • It might also be useful to note that the current proposal for DSM-5 is to distinguish paraphilias (the sexual interests) from paraphilic disorders (the sexual interests that ALSO meet the other criteria for clinical significance, such as acting out the interest). That is, a person who is sexual attracted primarily to children, but never acted on it and isn’t distressed/impaired by it WOULD be pedohebephilic but WOULD NOT get the diagnosis of pedohebephilic DISORDER.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the DSM-5 is successful in its proposal, are you saying we would need to not classify pedophilia as a mental disorder in the beginning of the lead? I have never heard of pedophilia not being classified as a mental disorder when it comes to the psychological/medical field. How can one be a pedophile, someone with a sexual preference for prepubescent children, and not be distressed/impaired by that? Simply not getting to act out those intense sexual urges is distress. Furthermore, why distinguish between the preference and the disorder simply because of the DSM-5, when all other reliable psychological/medical sources would still classify pedophilia as both -- a sexual preference and a mental disorder? How would we go about saying there is a difference between pedophilia being a sexual preference and pedophilia being a mental disorder without it sounding like a fringe belief? Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly: Pedophilia (and hebephilia) would remain classified as mental illnesses in the DSM if the current proposal is successful. It is, however, possible to write perfectly good definitions of pedophilia without mentioning that it is deemed a mental illness. To me, both of these are reasonably accurate and NPOV: "Pedophilia is a paraphilia involving the sexual interest in prepubescent children" and "Pedophilia is a mental/psychiatric illness/disorder characterized by having a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children."
I can certainly appreciate the question about how one could be primarily attracted to children and NOT be concerned about it. In practice, of course, it nearly never happens: The very fact that the person is coming to see a professional qualified to apply the DSM (physician or psychologist) denotes that the person is distressed (or was sent by the legal/correctional system). However, there is certainly evidence that there exist "gold star pedophiles," as Savage put it, and there exist research projects attempting to study them. The largest one I know of is in Germany, called the Dunkelfeld Project.
In my opinion, pedophilia NOT being a disorder is indeed a fringe belief. Personally, I have a more middle-of-the-road view: Pedophilia IS a disorder, but the central feature of pedophilia is its sexual (paraphilic) aspect, not its mental illness aspect.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting about the proposal. I keep up with what is going on with the DSM enough, but had not known about this particular piece. Thanks for the information and your take on all that.
As for the lead, if we go with the first version you displayed (which would need to include "primary sexual interest" to be more accurate), I still believe it would be vital for the next line, or somewhere close after, to specify that it is considered a disorder. But as said before, I prefer the disorder mention first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed re-write of lead, edited

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. The word "pedophile" can loosely be used to refer either to someone with sexual interest in underage people in general, someone who has molested children, or in the clinical term for pedophilia paraphilia[1][2][3][4] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the mental disorder pedophilia is a "paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children they have either acted on or cause distress or interpersonal difficulty."[4]

Explains different ways the word pedophile is used. Does not assume all pedophilias have the pedophile paraphilia that the current lead does.

At the very least there should be some mention of the difference between the clinical term "pedophilia" and the way the term is usually used.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the ICD-10, which is just as important as the DSM if not more so due to its international recognition. The ICD critera does not call disorders of this nature paraphila, but rather "Disorders of sexual preference." And it doesn't require distress or action, only sexual preference for purposes of pedophilia.
I would really prefer the wrongful "pop culture" meaning of the term be downplayed as much as possible. That is, references to "underage" (which is based around age-of-consent law, not science) and using the term as a behavioral descriptor rather than a preference descriptor should be very low in the lead and small as possible, or at the very least emphasized that they are incorrect. The term's heavy stigma and shock value has lead to it's overuse in popular culture and news media.Legitimus (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses the typical vernacular used when directing people. People coming here probably are probably looking for info on why people have that sexual preference, not info on the specific disorder. To frame the preference as a mental disorder when that's not it's definition will only mislead readers. They need to be told right away what the word "pedophile" typically refers to, then make the difference between the sexual preference for children and the actual molestation of children, both of which are being represented as a disorder, when only the later is recognized as such by the sources.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I responded above, but I will also briefly respond to this. The acts of adults sexually molesting children and having sex with teenagers is not being presented as a disorder. We clearly differentiate in the lead, in the distinction tag as well. And, again, pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Sexual preference includes "intense and recurrent sexual urges." Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per NPOV (particularly UNDUE), NOR, V, and per consensus of editors in this discussion. It's a disorder, that's how all the mainstream sources define it. Removing the term disorder from the main definition would make it incomplete and inaccurate. There are several other errors in the proposed change, not the least of which is demoting the scientific use of the term to the least priority position rather than the first where it belongs. This is a science article about a medical condition. Non-scientific uses of the term are worth a passing mention to provide context, but they are not the substance of the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed of course. The current lead (with the exception of Wikiposter0123 changing it so that "mental disorder" shows clearly) has went through significant discussion to get to this point -- get it just right. We, not only the editors you currently see here, went over every aspect of what needed to be addressed in the lead, and the way the lead is now is its best. As I stated before, trying to downplay pedophilia as a mental disorder in the lead of this article is not the way to go. If you want the other paraphilia articles to define those paraphilias as a mental disorder, then you take it there (to those discussion pages). Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, of courseas the proposer this version or any other version that clarifies the distinction between pedophilia the mental disorder, and pedophilia the sexual preference for prepubescent children. The way the word is used to denote the later and the lack of distinction between the medical term and the common usage will likely result in readers being mislead into believing that the two are the same and that having sexual preferences for children is classified as a disorder.(which it isn't)

"And, again, pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Sexual preference includes "intense and recurrent sexual urges."" You just called pedophilia the "sexual preference for prepubescent children", what would be wrong with explaining this as being the commonly used definition and then explaining the medically used definition before going into the the article and discussing the medically used definition.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pedophilia the mental disorder is the same thing as pedophilia the sexual preference for prepubescent children; it is never distinguished by experts in this field. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikiposter0123, your repeated statement that there is a "distinction between pedophilia the mental disorder, and pedophilia the sexual preference for prepubescent children" is nonsense. It's contrary to all definitions, scientific and social. You have presented not one reliable source to support your campaign, and not one other editor has agreed with you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include: That is a much more balanced and accurate lead. I also think we should acknowledge that the term has a lay/vernacular use (or misuse) so readers understand the terminological conflation that occurs. Jokestress (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include? Why should we, when as Jack stated, "that there is a distinction between pedophilia the mental disorder, and pedophilia the sexual preference for prepubescent children is nonsense. It's contrary to all definitions, scientific and social"? Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The language you quote above does not appear in the proposed rewrite and is thus irrelevant to the discussion. That said, Jack is incorrect. There is a distinction between the phenomenon and the terms used to describe it. The terms end up framing the phenomenon conceptually. See Foucault, The History of Sexuality, or Szasz. Jokestress (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The language I quote above has everything to do with the proposed rewrite, which is why Wikiposter0123 kept repeating it. And, no, Jack and I are not wrong. There is no distinction between pedophilia the mental disorder and pedophilia the sexual preference for prepubescent children when it comes to all definitions, scientific and social. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: As written, the proposed lede does (to me) downplay the official status. However, I also believe that an accurate and acceptable lede can be written without the word disorder in the first sentence.— James Cantor (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for weighing in, James, though I do not see at all how the lead could remain as accurate as it is by removing "mental disorder." But you did say "without [it being] in the first sentence," which is not the same thing as it being completely removed from the lead. Either way, I prefer it (the word) right at the beginning. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. I believe the official status as a disorder still belongs in the lede, but I perceive no big difference in whether it's in the first sentence.— James Cantor (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: Pedophilia is currently considered a mental disorder by most mental health practitioners. That is different than saying sexual interest in minors is a mental disorder. That's why what's in there now is inaccurate. Something like my first sentence would be accurate and would be fine in the opening section, but the current first sentence is a violation of WP:NPOV in addition to being incorrect. Jokestress (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not say sexual interest in minors is a mental disorder, especially since minors are usually considered to be pubescent or post-pubescent individuals who simply have not yet attained legal adulthood. The first sentence of the lead currently says: "Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." That is not inaccurate, or in violation of WP:NPOV in any way. That is the very definition of pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that pedophilia "is currently considered a mental disorder" by the experts.
It is correct that that is different from saying that "sexual interest in minors is a mental disorder".
But is is INcorrect to fault the current lede: The current lede refers to the PRIMARY or EXCLUSIVE interest, which is different from mere "sexual interest" and different from "minors" rather an "prepubescent children." In my view, the current lede is accurate and NPOV, but there can certainly be other accurate and NPOV ledes.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Is pedophilia a mental disorder?"

Should Richard Green (sexologist)'s article and resulting controversy advocating removal pedophilia from DSM be added to the article? Lionel (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There is no controversy about the inclusion of pedophilia in the DSM. It's unlikely there are any reliable sources that state otherwise, but if you have those, please post them here for review. Regarding the controversy about Green's advocacy of removing it from the DSM, that suggestion was a fringe theory that did not generate a debate in the scientific community and is not sufficiently notable to be included in this article. The Richard Green bio article states only that there was a debate within one journal, and that comment is sourced only to an article in that same journal, by Green himself. Unless there are independent sources showing that the debate moved beyond that one publication, it would be undue weight to mention it in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Jack-A-Roe's statements on it being fringe theory and it did not really gain any traction as far as I know. I would add, having read the full text of Green's article, that this may be because some of this sources he used were later (or previously) discredited. For example his mention of pacific island cultures where sex with children was allegedly commonplace was proved false by anthropologists in the early 20th century (the original accounts cited by Green were essentially religious propaganda to justify converting islanders to Christianity). Furthermore, there are much more recent (as in, the last 6 months) articles from people such as Blanchard and O'Donohue that show no evidence of any such debate, but rather merely debate what criteria should be used in the upcoming DSM-V.Legitimus (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. It seems that several of the people camped out here are not familiar with what's actually going on with the DSM-V. Removal of all paraphilias from the DSM, including pedophilia, is not a "fringe theory," but a proposal under serious consideration. Many have noted that the current status of paraphilia in the DSM is analogous to the status of homosexuality in the 1970s. See
  • Dan Karasic and Jack Drescher, Sexual and gender diagnoses of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM): a reevaluation, p. 137.
  • Peggy Kleinplatz, New directions in sex therapy: innovations and alternatives, p. 105
  • Charles Moser, Are the paraphilias mental disorders? (DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias)
  • Charles Silverstein The Ethical and Moral Implications of Sexual Classification: A Commentary
One editor here, User:James Cantor, is a single purpose account with a horse in the game, and thus a conflict of interest. He is here to promote the new sexual classifications he and his friends came up with, like hebephilia. See Karen Franklin's Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality. Please note that Cantor has altered the Wikipedia bios of almost everyone above (including Franklin's) because they disagree with his POV. He has also puffed up the Wikipedia bios of his coworkers who are working to push through these new classifications, thus expanding paraphilia instead of removing it. Allen Frances, of the DSM-IV task force, has had choice words about the whole sordid process, and the pub date on the document got pushed back to 2013 because of all these problems.
I understand that this topic is going to draw editors who have very strong opinions about it, but there is clearly a lot of WP:OWN going on here. Not all people consider paraphilias, including pedophilia, to be mental disorders, and there is plenty of reliably-sourced material to back that up. The historical parallels to homosexuality have been observed by many experts. In matters involving nonconsensual sex, consent is a legal issue, not a mental issue. Richard Green is certainly a reliable source for this specific POV, per Lionel's suggestion. Jokestress (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The people you have listed is not "many." And unless you show me a reliable source backing up such a claim, I will not believe that "Many have noted that the current status of paraphilia in the DSM is analogous to the status of homosexuality in the 1970s," unless, of course, we are talking about pedophiles always comparing the two (as they usually do). You are quick to assume we do not know what is going on with the DSM-V. Do not assume such. But disregarding that for a moment, why only focus on the DSM-V? What about all other highly reliable sources stating pedophilia as a mental disorder? Are you saying that pedophilia has a good chance of not being considered a mental disorder, and all because of the DSM-V? If so, I will (try to) believe it when I read it.
"Own" going on at this article? More like a team of editors working brilliantly together as they continue to strive for complete accuracy.
As for James Cantor, disagree with your statements about him. Not much more to say about that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22, the topic of this section is the DSM, hence the focus on that. Your interest in writing a bio for Cantor speaks volumes about your POV already. There are people who see his place in history as akin to the "experts" who sought to prosecute or "cure" homosexuals in the mid-20th century. What I see at this article is a small group of entrenched editors who have rejected most suggestions, like the very reasonable one that started this section. It's just a microcosm of the larger debate, where experts asking a reasonable academic question that challenges the status quo are set upon by defenders of conventional wisdom. It's the definition of WP:OWN. You asked for some sourcing:
  • "Behaviours such as "homosexuality" and "paedophilia" are functional among apes, and probably among humans as well. When such behaviours occur among humans they may violate moral norms, but not biological laws. ... There is no theoretical reason for not including homosexuality among the paraphilias; there is only the pragmatic reason that the gay organizations are politically strong. " Fog (1992), Paraphilias and Therapy 236
  • Moser and Kleinplatz concluded that "the situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM." via Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center. Source: "The situation of the Paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM." Source: DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias (2006).
  • "The relationship of paraphilia to homosexuality has been neglected in gay politics and scholarship in general." John Money (1990. Gay, straight, and in-between: The sexology of erotic orientation.
The Green article is a significant aspect of this debate, and it led to a LOT of discussion when published. We should also cover the Rind controversy, as well as the taxonomy of homosexual and non-homosexual pedophiles, which is what Cantor etc. are trying to codify as non-existent. Jokestress (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we don't WP:OWN, we're who's left. That's not the same thing. If an editor(s) making pro-pedophile arguments ends up getting tracked down by the FBI because he's a wanted child molester, it doesn't count as being "entrenched."
Also, I am well aware of your differences (dare I say, feud) with Blanchard, Cantor and their associates. This is not the place to start that up again. An WP:RS is an WP:RS, regardless of whether the author is a user too. Though also I must state, I do prefer O'Donohue's DSM-V proposal over that of Blanchard's. But that is a matter of opinion really, and not something that needs incorporating into the article.Legitimus (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jokestress’ various allegations and insinuations about me personally, this is certainly not the first talkpage where she’s asserted them. I believe it would only further spread her feud with me if I went point-by-point through her allegations, but I would be happy to respond to any questions about any of them (here or on my talkpage). The interested editor can also ascertain Jokestress balance of truth and spin-doctoring by just checking what she says. (For example, by going to the five aforementioned pages, one can see that I have actually edited two: On Drescher, I added two publications and a category, and on Kleinplatz, I improved some grammar.
The interested editor might also want to refer to Jokestress’ boingboing blog about my WP editing.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jokestress, I'm biased as far as James is concerned? You can hardly talk, as your bias against James seems to seep from your every word. I am not interested in your accusations against James. I said... "Unless you show me a reliable source backing up [the claim] that 'Many have noted that the current status of paraphilia in the DSM is analogous to the status of homosexuality in the 1970s,'" I will not believe you, "unless, of course, we are talking about pedophiles always comparing the two (as they usually do)." You still have not provided a source that says "many." Thus, I am not at all convinced to remove "mental disorder" from the lead simply based on your arguments. As for the proposed section, that is more understandable. We'll see how that goes. But eliminating "mental disorder" from the lead is not likely to happen. If you want it changed back to "psychological disorder" or "psychiatric disorder," I am all for that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for reasons I have already gone over. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus Haploid Christ. The DSM aside, the chance that pedophilia is not going to be consider a mental disorder can be calculated with precision: it is zero. What, are people going to suddenly stop loving and protecting their children? Is that what is going to happen? Are people goig to be like "Yeah, my next-door neighbor is a pedophile but, you know, 'behaviors such pedophilia are functional, probably, among humans', so he's babysitting Saturday night!" (In fact, now that I think of it, regarding the the Fog quote, since we're not privy to the ideation of apes, according to you he's perforce advocating pedophilic behavior, otherwise known as child sexual abuse or rape, which is a serious crime in all jurisdictions. In my opinion this passage should be removed and oversighted, in fact this entire thread should be removed. Herostratus (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Include: I do not see a problem in an appropriate mentioning of Green’s article. I think it an error, however, to refer to a single academic discussion in a single journal as a controversy or as any kind of a consensus among experts. Academics are supposed to push the envelopes of ideas, and, in describing the range of opinions in a field, one would want to name the extremes. Green’s article anchors one extreme on pedophilia. Moser and Kleinplatz anchor one extreme regarding which paraphilias ought to be in the DSM system. (They believe no paraphilia should be…aligning their philosophy with Green’s, in a way.) O’Donohue anchors one extreme regarding the age range to which pedophilia should refer. (He believes in the broadest range: up to age 16). Karen Franklin anchors the other extreme regarding the age range for pedophilia; she wants altogether to exclude hebephilia, which is repeatedly defined in the relevant literature and DSM proposals to be ages 11–14. It is an error, however, to treat the extreme views as the mainstream one, the majority one, or even a significant minority one.— James Cantor (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, folks. Flyer22 asked on my talkpage if I would wiegh in here, which I am happy to do. (I have been away and offline for a few days.)
I believe my comments would be more easily understood inserted into the above; if that obfuscates rather than clarifies, then I will relocate my comments to down here.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL@"jesus haploid christ"— James Cantor (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— unregistered(talk) saying pedophilia is a mental disorder is like saying having a fetish or something is a mental disorder. and calling it a mental disorder just uplifts the blame on the person. its has nothing to do with genetics or anything it is not a mental disorders, but rather conflicts between an individual and society. just like a perso[...] — unregistered(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.68.75 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say I disagree with what you have stated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special section on Pedophilia: Concepts and Controversy

Should this article summarize the 19 published responses to Green's target article which appeared in the December 2002 Archives of Sexual Behavior following a debate held at the International Academy of Sex Research conference? We have covered the other four target articles from this journal in relevant articles. Jokestress (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Briere and Runtz (1989)

Should we include the following prevalence findings from a sample of 193 university males? Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1989). University males' sexual interest in children: Predicting potential indices of "pedophilia" in a non-forensic sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 65-75. PMID 2706562

21% indicated some level of sexual attraction to some small children; 9% described at least some sexual fantasies about children; 5% reported having masturbated during sexual fantasies about children; and 7% stated that there was some likelihood that they would have sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment. Given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates of child-focused sexual interest in this sample were even higher.

I believe this would be helpful in explaining the difference between the sexual interest and acting on that interest, which is often lost on people. Jokestress (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose inclusion. That paper was in the article a couple years ago and was removed by consensus after discussion. The paper is not a "prevalence finding", it's one tiny-sample-size questionnaire of one specialized population. Even that paper itself includes statements indicating that it is speculative. Also, it did not tabulate sexual preference (the definition of pedophilia), it only asked about attraction, not the same thing. And the paper was not picked up by researchers and extended to any significant conclusions. If it had been, there would be more studies supporting those unlikely percentages, but there are not. It would be good for the article to cite studies that have documented the prevalence of pedophilia, but so far, those have not been found, that's why there is no prevalence data in the article. It would be undue weight to present this small speculative report in the article when there is no further support for its content. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Jack-A-Roe, that makes sense re preference, but I guess it seems it would be useful to include published reports from all convenience samples (which nearly all the research is based on, anyway). We should probably also have more in there about limitations of incarcerated/convicted populations, which is about the only population discussed here, and maybe women as well. I guess my main issue with how this is presented is that (to my knowledge) we don't have coverage anywhere on the project for the other phenomena Briere and Runtz are reporting: the non-preferential sexual interests. It seems like a glaring omission, given that those "lesser" phenomena are not currently classified as mental disorders and are self-reported at significant levels. Jokestress (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jokestress, yes, I remember that paper being included in this article. I did not have a problem with its inclusion, but Jack made a good case for removing it back then. We could dig through the archives and see what was said about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion. First, Briere & Runtz (1989) is not actually about pedophilia. (Even the authors put the word pedophilia in quotes in the title.) None of the people in the study (college undergraduates) would have met the inclusion criteria for any existing study of pedophiles.
Second, the abstract of the article, which Jokestress posted, only very inaccurately reflects the content of the article itself. (I have a copy of the article, and I would be happy to email it to interested editors.) In their survey, Briere and Runtz asked students to rate from 1 to 5 (from frequently to never) their responses to the questions. The great majority of students gave "5" to everything, a small group gave a "4" to something, and one or two persons gave a "1" or "2" to something. However, in providing the results, Brier and Runtz divided everyone into two groups: those who said "5" and those who gave any number from 1 to 4. Thus, people who said "4" (meaning that they had some fleeting experience) were treated the same as if they had said "1" (frequent and on-going experience). If the "4"'s were treated together with the "5"'s (which I think would be the more reasonable thing), then very, very few of the sample actually responded positively to any of the questions.
Personally, having seen many undergraduate survey-takers rushing through surveys just to get them finished (and not reading carefully), I would not be at all surprised if even the one or two persons (of the ~200 students) who gave "1" as a response did so accidentally or even purposefully just to screw up the survey itself. To me, remarkable claims require remarkable evidence, and this study doesn't present anything remarkable. It's now 20 years old, and I cannot recall a replication of its results.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disorder" and 19th century social construction

Another major issue with how this is presented is the undue weight we give to the term as co-opted by psychology etc. to describe a disease/disorder. Saying "pedophilia is a disorder" is merely reification of the concept and a violation of WP:NPOV. The term paidophilia existed for centuries before being appropriated by Krafft-Ebing to describe a psychopathology. It's only since the moral panics of the 1970s that a whole cottage industry of catching and "curing" this population emerged. The term pedophile came to be widely used by the public around that time. Like many words that have a specific meaning in a certain field, "pedophilia" has a shifting and varying definition both inside and outside of fields that study it. That's why I agree with Wikiposter123 that the word "disorder" in the first sentence is not accurate, and I support that proposed rewrite. What we usually do on terms of art like this is to specify. An example would be moron (psychology), another piece of jargon that emerged from eugenic psychology. It had a precise meaning to "experts," as well as a lay/non-technical meaning. It seems that this article should make the same distinction, and we should not be using the word "is" in such an authoritative manner. Jokestress (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: ICD-10 Section F65.4: Paedophilia (online access via ICD-10 site map table of contents)
  2. ^ Finkelhor, David (1986). A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse: Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Sage Publications. p. 90. ISBN 0803927495. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "pedophilia". Encyclopædia Britannica.
  4. ^ medem.com
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference DSM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Hirschfeld, M. (1910). Die tranvestiten [Transvestites]. Berlin: Alfred Pulvermacher.
  7. ^ Hirschfeld, M. (1938). Sexual anomalies and perversions: Physical and psychological development, diagnosis and treatment (new and revised edition). London: Encyclopaedic Press.
  8. ^ Smith, R. S. (1976). Voyeurism: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5, 585-608.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&oldid=382370756"