Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) →Overlap with paedophilia: Reply. |
Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) →Onward - future direction of the article: Thoughts and comments? |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
==Onward - future direction of the article== |
==Onward - future direction of the article== |
||
Okay, I think that there needs to be some mention on why laws exist in most if not all nations of the world to protect young adolescents from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. I am sure a few paragraphs could be written on this at least - for example the power imbalance in a relationship between a young adolescent and a mature adult due to mental immaturity and inexperience etc and the potential for abuse. The inability of the adolescent to make sound decisions etc. For example a young adolescent does not have the maturity to decide whether they want to be photographed naked but yet some adults seek to pressure, manipulate or otherwise exploit them and distribute their images on the net as child pornography. Points such as these can be discussed as to why society and the law protects young adolescents from sexual abuse or exploitation with law. There is very little controversy that these young vulnerable adolescents require protecting from themselves and most importantly from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. Even adult women find it difficult handling an abusive male, a young adolescent is even less, much less equipped for dealing with an adult who may seek to abuse them. These things need discussed in a section of the article. I may make a stab at it when I get some free time. If anyone wants to fire a few sources below, I will try and summarise them.--[[User:MrADHD|<span style="color:blue">MrADHD]] | [[User_talk:MrADHD|''T@1k?''</span>]] 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
Okay, I think that there needs to be some mention on why laws exist in most if not all nations of the world to protect young adolescents from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. I am sure a few paragraphs could be written on this at least - for example the power imbalance in a relationship between a young adolescent and a mature adult due to mental immaturity and inexperience etc and the potential for abuse. The inability of the adolescent to make sound decisions etc. For example a young adolescent does not have the maturity to decide whether they want to be photographed naked but yet some adults seek to pressure, manipulate or otherwise exploit them and distribute their images on the net as child pornography. Points such as these can be discussed as to why society and the law protects young adolescents from sexual abuse or exploitation with law. There is very little controversy that these young vulnerable adolescents require protecting from themselves and most importantly from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. Even adult women find it difficult handling an abusive male, a young adolescent is even less, much less equipped for dealing with an adult who may seek to abuse them. These things need discussed in a section of the article. I may make a stab at it when I get some free time. If anyone wants to fire a few sources below, I will try and summarise them.--[[User:MrADHD|<span style="color:blue">MrADHD]] | [[User_talk:MrADHD|''T@1k?''</span>]] 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Or are these issues already and better covered in other wiki articles? Thoughts and comments welcome! :-)--[[User:MrADHD|<span style="color:blue">MrADHD]] | [[User_talk:MrADHD|''T@1k?''</span>]] 23:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:11, 27 February 2013
Psychology C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Sexology and sexuality C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) | ||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
"Prosecuting" psychologists' position missing
I'm thinking over something - several sources talk about the split between defence and proseucting psychologist/psychiatrists and their testimonies in court cases. Yet none of the sources I've integrated to date have discussed things from the latter perspective. There seems to be two possible solutions - either these experts aren't publishing, or the article is unbalanced and not neutral because they are not integrated.
Is anyone aware of sources that exist that represent the prosecuting psychologists/psychiatrists' perspectives? Give me a list and I'll try to find the time to integrate them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those claims are generally made by people trying to characterize someone's financial motivation as evidence of bias. Most psychologists who testify do more of one or the other, but to characterize someone as a defense psychologist or prosecution psychologist is POV-pushing. Jokestress (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rather than dealing in generalities, I'd rather locate and discuss specific sources. The reason why I started this section is because so many sources discuss the presence and arguments for hebephilia as a, if not diagnosis, then at least useful term, in involuntary commitment hearings. I am assuming those discussions are based on some sort of research base and arguments within the scientific literature, and I am requesting that any editor who has access to or seen said sources identify them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Stagnant
This has not seen any recent movement, and there are many more unaddressed issues. Though I am under no obligation to do so, I have held off editing in article space for now, but if there's not movement, I will begin addressing the tags sometime soon. Jokestress (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Most people here do not agree with most of what you want done with this article. That's what you need to accept. Like I told you above, "When the majority of editors, and based on WP:CONSENSUS (not just by head count), find the state of this article satisfactory, then it will be acceptable to remove your non-neutral and undue tags."
- Coming here and essentially making a threat that the article needs to be the way that you want it or you'll make it the way that you want it is only going to get you constantly reverted.
- Given your hatred for James Cantor and some researchers he works with, and your hatred for medicalizing sexualities at all, you have as much of a WP:COI regarding this article as you claim Cantor to have. And you should therefore step back from editing it just as much as you feel he should. You know by now that it's not a good thing at all for you to edit where Cantor has edited anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what three regular editors here think, or what I think. What matters is reflecting the scientific and legal consensus that the narrow operationalized definition presented on this page reflects the view of a minority of experts. Most experts do not consider this a real disease, and even among those who use the term, the definitions vary significantly. The article should reflect the majority view, with the minority view currently presented in proportion to the majority view. Something under 10% of experts consider this legit, and the article should be a proportional reflection of that. Jokestress (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Regular editors of this article or not, it's more than three editors here who disagree with a lot of what you want done with it. And even if it were only three editors, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. If three editors here state that there are no WP:Neutrality violations or WP:UNDUE issues, and their arguments are shown to disprove yours, then the neutrality and undue tags can be removed. It does matter what three or more editors here think. And because it matters what you think, this is why COI applies to you in this case. As for the majority view, WLU has argued against you on that; so I'll let him tackle that part of your comment. As for definitions, something most hebephilia definitions have in common is that it is a concentrated sexual interest in pubescents. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have not bothered getting involved in the discussion because I don't like debating, but this is worth mentioning if it's going to concern consensus. Jokestress has as much of a COI as Cantor does, and I dare say would have no interest in this article whatsoever if nobody from her personal shit list was involved. This is an agenda and an axe to grind, not a reasonable attempt at improving a subject. Further I see a severe case of cherry-picking sources and wiki-lawyering tactics.Legitimus (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's no secret that I consider James Cantor an WP:SPA here to promote himself and his friends and to discredit his critics. I'm not the only one. As far as you're concerned, Legitimus, I see an undisclosed COI from an pseudonymous "mental health provider." Perhaps you'd like to join those of us who identify ourselves for purposes of transparency, rather than making COI accusations? James Cantor accidentally outed himself; perhaps you can be more intentional. That goes for everyone else using fake names here as well. It's very easy to make accusations while hypocritically hiding behind a username. I did not get involved until the BLP accusations and other well-poisoning happening here. Legitimus, you have expressed strong support for the minority view along with the other "consensus" editors here, so I question your own objectivity. I frequently work on topics where I disagree with the subject but have no problem presenting them in a fair and accurate manner. That's my goal here. Jokestress (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just a note: I recently have repeatedly stated that most researchers do not consider hebephilia a mental disorder or a paraphilia. But Cantor has criticized my use of the word "researchers" and believes that most of what he considers to be the actual researchers do view hebephilia as a psychiatric issue that should be diagnosable.
- It's no secret that I consider James Cantor an WP:SPA here to promote himself and his friends and to discredit his critics. I'm not the only one. As far as you're concerned, Legitimus, I see an undisclosed COI from an pseudonymous "mental health provider." Perhaps you'd like to join those of us who identify ourselves for purposes of transparency, rather than making COI accusations? James Cantor accidentally outed himself; perhaps you can be more intentional. That goes for everyone else using fake names here as well. It's very easy to make accusations while hypocritically hiding behind a username. I did not get involved until the BLP accusations and other well-poisoning happening here. Legitimus, you have expressed strong support for the minority view along with the other "consensus" editors here, so I question your own objectivity. I frequently work on topics where I disagree with the subject but have no problem presenting them in a fair and accurate manner. That's my goal here. Jokestress (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have not bothered getting involved in the discussion because I don't like debating, but this is worth mentioning if it's going to concern consensus. Jokestress has as much of a COI as Cantor does, and I dare say would have no interest in this article whatsoever if nobody from her personal shit list was involved. This is an agenda and an axe to grind, not a reasonable attempt at improving a subject. Further I see a severe case of cherry-picking sources and wiki-lawyering tactics.Legitimus (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Regular editors of this article or not, it's more than three editors here who disagree with a lot of what you want done with it. And even if it were only three editors, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. If three editors here state that there are no WP:Neutrality violations or WP:UNDUE issues, and their arguments are shown to disprove yours, then the neutrality and undue tags can be removed. It does matter what three or more editors here think. And because it matters what you think, this is why COI applies to you in this case. As for the majority view, WLU has argued against you on that; so I'll let him tackle that part of your comment. As for definitions, something most hebephilia definitions have in common is that it is a concentrated sexual interest in pubescents. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what three regular editors here think, or what I think. What matters is reflecting the scientific and legal consensus that the narrow operationalized definition presented on this page reflects the view of a minority of experts. Most experts do not consider this a real disease, and even among those who use the term, the definitions vary significantly. The article should reflect the majority view, with the minority view currently presented in proportion to the majority view. Something under 10% of experts consider this legit, and the article should be a proportional reflection of that. Jokestress (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- On the topic of COI: Jokestress, even if we were to state that all of us at this article have a COI, it still stands that your COI is pretty much on the same level of COI that you claim Cantor to have. As some of us here know, you were a part of a well-publicized campaign against J. Michael Bailey, who Cantor has supported. And you hate Cantor almost as much. Now you are at an article repeatedly attacking a diagnosis proposal made by Ray Blanchard, Cantor et al.; when these individuals are involved, it's never simply about being neutral with you; it's rather about you having, as Legitimus has stated, an axe to grind against these people. You do this at almost all such articles involving views expressed by Bailey, Cantor or other researchers you don't like. You constantly hound Cantor around Wikipedia, and that is not at all about "fair and accurate" matters. You act like Cantor is always pushing his POV and that you are never pushing yours, which is the opposite of what many others at this site have seen. For years on Wikipedia, you and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like you have been repeatedly asked this for nothing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"What matters is reflecting the scientific and legal consensus" Agreed, and this can only be done by integrating the best, most recent and most reliable sources; the page isn't there yet, and it is in part my fault for not continuing to read and integrate sources (obviously it's not my page but like any interested editor, the page only expands if I work at it). This section is long on assertions and short on sources, fortunately there are lots still to integrate so I will focus on that.
I do think the tags can and indeed should remain - mostly because there are too many sources missing. I also think that Jokestress has as much right as any other editor to raise concerns about the page, but more strongly do I think that she does have a nonfinancial COI and her mere assertions should be taken with a substantial grain of salt. Please, let us focus on missing and inaccurately summarized sources rather than editor opinion at least until the page has reached saturation. Let us also remember that claiming a COI does not prove a COI, outing editors is never a good thing and everything should be based on sources. Jokestress, it is very hard to assume good faith when you make demands about real-life identities when there is quite substantial evidence that anyone with a known real-life identity who disagrees with you has reason to fear harassment. And now, I will try to get all the way through at least one source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- FYI Jokestress I have employment restrictions against using me real identity, as it could be construed as representing the views and opinions of the institute I work for. Suffice it to say I don't have a biography article of any sort on wikipedia as I'm simply not anyone notable enough, nor has anything I've published ever been referenced or used as source. I'm also not very enthusiastic about the possibility of photos of my children being secretly posted online with obscene captions.
- I also do need to mention that I have no opinion on whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder. This is another reason why I have stayed out of the debate. Though I don't think it's fair to favor certain professional's opinions who have never actually conducted any primary research in this subject area and appear to have financial and/or political stakes in opposing this.
- I am more interested in adding information about the term (and/or very concept) in an investigative capacity. The principle (whether called "hebephilia" or something else) undeniably exists among criminal profilers and other members of law enforcement for use as a way to classify sexually-based offenders, though the actual motive that drives a criminal towards this population varies. For now I'd rather wait for the other parts to get sorted out.Legitimus (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is off topic, but I'd kind of like to also say Andrea, would you please get off the hobbyhorse that we're not legitimate editors if we don't use our real names, OK? Your constant harping on this annoys and depresses me. I'm just a little person, Andrea. OK? I've had people (not here, but at Wikipedia Review) make credible threats to hunt me down and -- I'm not sure what. Have me lynched as a pedophile if possible, I guess, or at at any rate destroy my life. I'm just a little person, Andrea. I don't have a fancy job or a Wikipedia article or lot of money or a reading public or a foundation backing me up or whatever. Is that OK with you Andrea? Is it OK with you if I still edit the Wikipedia even if I don't have those nice things? That would be nice, because I do like editing the Wikipedia, so if I have your permission to continue doing so even if I don't use my real name, I'd be grateful. Because, you know, maybe I work with children in a position of trust, or maybe I have a position of trust in my community, or something like that (I'm obviously not going to say if I do or not, but maybe). And I'm just a little person, as I said, and if someone likes you decides to come after me, using the kind of tactics for which you are so well noted, I don't really have a whole lot to defend myself with. I'm different from you in that way, Andrea. Is that OK too? Is that something you can understand? I suppose probably not, but even if not, how about a nice hot steaming cup of... tea, or something? Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Herostratus, I believe civility and fair dealing suffer because of anonymity on contentious topics at Wikipedia. I believe topics like this should require people to identify themselves, due to the potential for people like yourself editing topics of this nature. If you have concerns that your behavior here may affect your real life, you should probably think about changing your behavior. You would never have been so disrespectful above if you weren't using a pseudonym. It's only because you believe there are no real-life consequences for your behavior here. You may have a massive COI. You might be the former head of NAMBLA for all we know. I get credible threats and all sorts of harassment and attacks on a regular basis, but I am not going to let silly stuff like that worry me. I encourage everyone to identify themselves or at least comport themselves as if they were using their real names. Since you seem interested in doing neither, maybe you can go edit elsewhere while the rest of us try to reach consensus on this complex topic. If you have some RAEG to express to me in the future, please put it on my talk page or email me. If you have a COI to disclose or a point about content to add here, you are welcome to join in.
- Legitimus, as I have said a million times, this is a phenomenon vs. term debate. Of course there are people primarily attracted to minors within very narrow groups based on levels of sexual maturity. The question is how to organize a theoretical framework for such interests. The consensus among medical and legal experts is that "hebephilia" is a problematic conceptual framework that should not be codified. This article need to reflect that clearly and explain why, with a little bit of space given for arguments of the activist minority trying to make this concept happen, in proportion to the overwhelming consensus against it. Jokestress (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Herostratus the former head of NAMBLA? Laughable, and you know it; otherwise, he wouldn't be considered one of the members of what you call "the camp" who is overly sensitive to making sure that pedophiles, child sexual abusers and certain others don't push their pro-pedophile, pro-"nothing abnormal about adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescent children" POVs on Wikipedia. As for COI, everyone except you is clear above about why revealing their true identities isn't helpful in this case or generally at all on Wikipedia. And it's not like people can't lie about their identity anyway; the Essjay case is a reminder to many. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- And I highly doubt that Herostratus wouldn't have "been so disrespectful above" if only he had not been using a pseudonym and we knew his true identity, especially since all of us knowing yours doesn't stop you from being so disrespectful. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Flyer22, as I said, if you want to RAEG at me, please put it on my talk page or get one of your
sockpuppets"brothers" to do so. If you have a contribution to keep this page from stagnating with NPOV tags on it, please feel free to make suggestions. My main suggestion right now is to expand the the DSM IV material for now. Keep writing, dude! Jokestress (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)- Why should I "[P]lease put it on [your] talk page," when you don't do the same regarding others? Oh, that's right. You do sometimes, after you've misbehaved at the talk page. Nice sockpuppet quip, though; you may want to ask Alison why she considers those supposed sockpuppets of mine to be another person. But keep trying to push your obvious POVs on Wikipedia; it's great entertainment watching you fail. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Flyer22, as I said, if you want to RAEG at me, please put it on my talk page or get one of your
- And I highly doubt that Herostratus wouldn't have "been so disrespectful above" if only he had not been using a pseudonym and we knew his true identity, especially since all of us knowing yours doesn't stop you from being so disrespectful. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Herostratus the former head of NAMBLA? Laughable, and you know it; otherwise, he wouldn't be considered one of the members of what you call "the camp" who is overly sensitive to making sure that pedophiles, child sexual abusers and certain others don't push their pro-pedophile, pro-"nothing abnormal about adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescent children" POVs on Wikipedia. As for COI, everyone except you is clear above about why revealing their true identities isn't helpful in this case or generally at all on Wikipedia. And it's not like people can't lie about their identity anyway; the Essjay case is a reminder to many. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is off topic, but I'd kind of like to also say Andrea, would you please get off the hobbyhorse that we're not legitimate editors if we don't use our real names, OK? Your constant harping on this annoys and depresses me. I'm just a little person, Andrea. OK? I've had people (not here, but at Wikipedia Review) make credible threats to hunt me down and -- I'm not sure what. Have me lynched as a pedophile if possible, I guess, or at at any rate destroy my life. I'm just a little person, Andrea. I don't have a fancy job or a Wikipedia article or lot of money or a reading public or a foundation backing me up or whatever. Is that OK with you Andrea? Is it OK with you if I still edit the Wikipedia even if I don't have those nice things? That would be nice, because I do like editing the Wikipedia, so if I have your permission to continue doing so even if I don't use my real name, I'd be grateful. Because, you know, maybe I work with children in a position of trust, or maybe I have a position of trust in my community, or something like that (I'm obviously not going to say if I do or not, but maybe). And I'm just a little person, as I said, and if someone likes you decides to come after me, using the kind of tactics for which you are so well noted, I don't really have a whole lot to defend myself with. I'm different from you in that way, Andrea. Is that OK too? Is that something you can understand? I suppose probably not, but even if not, how about a nice hot steaming cup of... tea, or something? Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Jokestress, what the heck do you mean "the potential for people like yourself editing topics of this nature". What do you mean by "people like yourself"? "Topics of this nature"? Well? What kind of person is "like myself", Andrea? You'd best explain yourself, I think. And it is absolutely un-Wikipedian and a strike against core Wikipedia functioning for you to insist on only engaging with editors willing to out themselves. This bizarre and persistent demand, often repeated and here doubled down on, absolutely disqualifies you from editing the Wikipedia, period, in my opinion.
And this from a person who published photos of an opponent's quite young children with jeering, nasty captions! This give me reasonable cause to suspect that that you demand that I out myself so that you can bully me, harass my family, call my employers with nasty lies about me, and so forth. I "should probably think about changing [my] behavior" so that you won't do this? Well think again chuckles. I don't take well to threats, and that's not how we operate here on the Wikipedia.
I get that you get "get credible threats and all sorts of harassment and attacks on a regular basis, but [you] am not going to let silly stuff like that worry [you]." That's your world, that's how you operate, and I suppose you thrive on that sort of stuff and give as well as you take, probably. You're a public figure. You have fans and supporters. You can't be ruined by a smear campaign. Hell, any attempt would probably just be good publicity for you. I'm not like that, and that's not my world, and "silly" stuff like that worries the living hell out of me.
As the merits of your case: who you are speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you say. In the poisoned atmosphere that you have created by demanding that editors out themselves, it's not possible to conduct a reasoned discussion, I would say. You need to go away from this page for awhile (I've taken the liberty of removing your tags) and think this over. I much dislike wikidrama and sterile fighting, but if you want to escalate this to the next levels of dispute resolution, that's your prerogative I guess. Bye. Herostratus (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)"get one of your
sockpuppets"brothers" to do so"? Joseph Welch (slightly amended): "Let us not assassinate this lass further, Jokestress. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" I mean really, is there no depth of depravity, character assassination, and general villainy to which you won't stoop? And we're supposed to turn our identities over to your tender mercies, heh. Anyway, we're done here. Now it's just embarrassing to watch you reveal yourself. So bye for now, and god luck with your other articles. Herostratus (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
DSM-IV
I believe Hebephilia Is Not a Mental Disorder in DSM-IV-TR and Should Not Become One in DSM-5 is the best overview of the DSM-IV-TR debate. I'd like to see a section on this before the DSM-V stuff. Jokestress (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- This aspect is already covered by the As a variation of normal sexual desires section, as well as others. It's not justifiable to build a section on that source. A summary of it can go in the section I just mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- They cover a lot of info not discussed, specifically how the DSM-5 debate came about through misuse of the DSM-IV-TR. We should also have a section on DSM III. Right now, you'd think this all magically appeared in DSM-5. Jokestress (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's mostly redundant, and the information can be summarized without it requiring a section of its own. All I see is you trying to hammer home the "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The part that is not redundant should be included here, because that part explains the context of the DSM-V debate, and how they felt their version was misused in the run-up. It's an important citation to include from two unquestionably authoritative sources. All I see is you trying to keep out reliable and verifiable sourcing because you don't like the expert consensus POV represented proportionally in the article. And "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" should be hammered home from the first sentence, as that is a fact and is the consensus of several fields of expertise. Jokestress (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Like I stated, "the information can be summarized without it requiring a section of its own." And considering that I've repeatedly argued that most researchers don't consider hebephilia to be a mental disorder or a paraphilia, your claim that I'm trying to "keep out reliable and verifiable sourcing because [I] don't like the expert consensus POV represented proportionally in the article" is patently false. What I don't like is when editors are clearly using Wikipedia to promote their personal POV and to axe-grind researchers they don't like...but act like that's not what they are doing and that their actions are purely for building the best article they can. As for "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" being something that "should be hammered home from the first sentence, as that is a fact and is the consensus of several fields of expertise," we've been over this. And you most certainly had no agreement to state that it is "not a mental disorder" in the first sentence. For a long time, and maybe never, the first sentence didn't even state that hebephilia "is a mental disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The we should rename the section to discuss all DSM versions. DSM-5 is covered way out of proportion due to an SPA with some axe-grinding proxies. Jokestress (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Like I stated, "the information can be summarized without it requiring a section of its own." And considering that I've repeatedly argued that most researchers don't consider hebephilia to be a mental disorder or a paraphilia, your claim that I'm trying to "keep out reliable and verifiable sourcing because [I] don't like the expert consensus POV represented proportionally in the article" is patently false. What I don't like is when editors are clearly using Wikipedia to promote their personal POV and to axe-grind researchers they don't like...but act like that's not what they are doing and that their actions are purely for building the best article they can. As for "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" being something that "should be hammered home from the first sentence, as that is a fact and is the consensus of several fields of expertise," we've been over this. And you most certainly had no agreement to state that it is "not a mental disorder" in the first sentence. For a long time, and maybe never, the first sentence didn't even state that hebephilia "is a mental disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The part that is not redundant should be included here, because that part explains the context of the DSM-V debate, and how they felt their version was misused in the run-up. It's an important citation to include from two unquestionably authoritative sources. All I see is you trying to keep out reliable and verifiable sourcing because you don't like the expert consensus POV represented proportionally in the article. And "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" should be hammered home from the first sentence, as that is a fact and is the consensus of several fields of expertise. Jokestress (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's mostly redundant, and the information can be summarized without it requiring a section of its own. All I see is you trying to hammer home the "hebephilia is not a mental disorder" aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- They cover a lot of info not discussed, specifically how the DSM-5 debate came about through misuse of the DSM-IV-TR. We should also have a section on DSM III. Right now, you'd think this all magically appeared in DSM-5. Jokestress (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the page about hebephilia, not the DSM-5; discussions about the DSM-5 in general that do not touch directly on hebephilia should not go on this page. Axe-grinding is not limited solely to SPA. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
DSM V debate is bloated
I have added a undue weight tag to the DSM V debate section, because it is really way to big for the encyclopedic value of that section. It reads more as a detailed report on all aspects of the debate than a sensible summary of it that you would expect for an encyclopedia. It needs to be trimmed down at least 75%. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I very much agree. My initial plan was to summarize all the sources I could find in about as much detail as what is there now for each source, then cut down dramatically by collapsing repetitive criticisms and rebuttals into shorter summaries and taking out "X person with Y qualification said..." parts. However, I am editing much more slowly these days and have not made the time to continue reading and integrating sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that is one thing, but I think there is a broader problem, and that is that everything is coined in context of the DSM-V, which was maybe the catalyst, but not the reason for the debate. The reason for the debate is legitimate criticisms that, outside of the DSM-V debate hold as well. So, I propose that we instead we coin it much more like that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Overlap with paedophilia
The text that I changed said that hebephilia significantly overlaps with the official diagnostic criteria for pedophilia but the source doesn't say this at all and in fact the source says that paedophilia is restricted to tanner stage 1 (i.e. no signs of puberty). What the source says is that some people with hebephilic or adolescent sexual interest ALSO have paedophilic interest but then counters that some people go the other way and have hebephilic or adolescent sexual interest as well as adultophilic sexual interests. I do not dispute this at all and in fact agree with it but the source does not mention anything about overlapping with diagnostic criteria. :-) Hence I think source was being misinterpeted. Comments?--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The question is whether the source is incorrect, or that age 11-14 overlaps with age young-13 as the official diagnosis for pedophilia indicates. If you suggest we need a source explicitly stating that the sage 11-13 consists of an overlap, I agree. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- MrADHD, I was the one who added "significantly" during one of my tweaks to the addition. This is because hebephilia also overlaps with ephebophilia, and, without a qualifier, the text made it seem as though it only overlaps with pedophilia. It overlaps more with pedophilia than with ephebophilia, but I understand about being strict with what sources state or imply. I was also the one who applied that source to that line because it's not covered by these sources, unless you count the ICD-10's inclusion of "early pubertal"; but then again, as stated before, the ICD-10 does not mention hebephilia by name. As for mentioning the pedophilia overlap, or any overlap, in the lead, I don't have much more to state on the matter than what I stated in these edit summaries.
- For quick reference, here is what the source states: Green noted that, “A cornerstone of the argument for bundling hebephilia with pedophilia is the overlap between interest in prepubertals and pubertals. What of the overlap between hebephiles and teleiophiles (adultophiles)? What of the 50 percent hebephile/50 percent teleiophile?” (Ref. 10, p 586). Indeed, one of the earlier studies found precisely that. Barbaree and Marshall17 examined phallometric responses to pictures of nude females ranging in age from 3 to 24 in 61 child molesters (21 of whom were incest offenders) and a matched group of 22 nonoffenders. Barbaree and Marshall found five distinct phallometric profiles, none of which reflected a unique and distinct preference for adolescents. One of the profiles was characterized by responses to both adolescent and adult stimuli. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but when talking about overlapping, that source is talking about individuals sexual interests, not overlapping diagnostic categories. You say hebephilia "overlaps much more with pedophilia than ephebophilia", but does it though? Research into hebephilia is in it's infancy - what makes you say this? I would have thought that adolescentophila would overlap more with adultophilia as paedophilia can't lead to reproduction and natural selection therefore should weed out the paraphilia paedophilia (which I believe is quite rare - I have never known anyone who was a paedophile in my life but have read about them in the newspapers). The source that we have here seems to be stating that there exists diverse age preferences, including some who respond equally to adolescents and adults (no preference) and the hebephiles whose interest goes upward into adultophilia rather than downward and then you have hebephiles who go downward into paedophilia territory. From what I am reading there are hebephiles who only are attracted to secondary sex characteristics. Then of course you have hebephiles who are attracted to boys and girls or one or the other. Gender and age preferences seem to be very diverse with few hard and fast rules.--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the various overlaps in sexual interest such as interest in adults for some hebephiles and prepubescent kids for other hebephiles being discussed in the article body.--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that we are thinking of the term "overlap" differently. I stated that hebephilia overlaps more with pedophilia than ephebophilia because the hebephilia age range, at least as proposed by the researchers, and as described in most sources now, is 11-14. Ages 11-14 is mostly a time of prepubescence and pubescence (a time of prepubescence more so for boys than girls). And many early pubertal individuals, especially boys, still look prepubertal; and, in the case of these boys, if they don't look completely prepubertal, they look mostly prepubertal. This is why a pedophile (someone with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children) could find an early pubescent as sexually attractive as a true pubescent. Ephebophilia, if the age range given for it is consistently defined as anyone 14 or older, or 15 or older, is not a time of prepubescence for most people. Thus, hebephilia is more closely related to pedophilia than to ephebophilia. This is why, other than the term not being as widespread and sometimes being conflated with hebephilia, there is no scholarly debate (at least not a significant one, if one at all) over whether or not ephebophilia is a mental disorder/paraphilia; it covers mid pubescents, late pubescents (as in those at the end of puberty) and post-pubescents. Many girls have completed puberty by age 14 or age 15. And most people have completed puberty by age 16 or 17; it usually doesn't take reaching 18 to finish puberty. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those age ranges flyer are approximate for early to mid adolesence stage of development- hebephilia is defined as preference for early to mid pubesence. Some kids start puberty at age 8 and late bloomers start as late as age 14. The important thing is that we stick to what reliable sources say and follow NPOV as best possible. :-) I am tired - enjoyed the discussion Flyer. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but most people, especially boys, do not start puberty at age 8. Starting puberty at age 8 is still often considered precocious puberty. People being pubescent at age 10 or 11 is of course much more common, which is why the hebephilia age range (as defined by the researchers who are researching the term these days) set the beginning of the age range at age 11; starting at this age was definitely needed because significantly more boys than girls haven't started puberty at age 10. My point is that 11-14 is closer on the scale, overlaps more on the scale, to/with pedophilia than to/with ephebophilia (which has an age range that goes all the way up to 19). Get some good rest. I've enjoyed the discussion as well; you do make me think critically. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree and this sounds like your personal opinion - don't mean to be rude. :-) The research by Blanchard et. al. actually found two subtypes of hebephiles in as far as chronophilia goes. He found one group of hebephiles also demonstrated strong attractions to prepubescents and he called this type of hebephile 'pedohebephilic type'. He then found the other group of hebephiles who preferred young adolescents but had little or no interest in prepubescents and called these 'hebephilic type' - presumably this type would only be attracted to secondary sex characteristics (since they don't like prepubescents) and would in decreasing level of attraction find older adolescents and then adults attractive but his research I don't believe went this far. Then of course he defined the third group as pedophilic type for those who had strong attractions to prepubescents but little or no attraction to adolescents and adults. I hope you don't mind me constructively criticising but I feel there is too much original thought and we need to stick to what the research says more closely.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's more than my personal opinion, MrADHD, especially what I stated about puberty...and pedophiles being sexually attracted not only to those who are prepubescent...but also to those who look prepubescent (as it is the prepubescent look, the reality or appearance, of having no secondary sex characteristics, that they are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to); yes, a lot of early pubescents, especially boys (because they typically begin puberty later than girls and initially don't have the secondary sex characteristics, such as breasts, that can be identified by just walking down the street), do look prepubescent. As noted, the overlap has been discussed among researchers and the overlap aspect is a big reason for the proposal to combine pedophilia and hebephilia into the pedohebephilia category (as also noted in the reliable source mentioned above). At this talk page, Cantor and I have also discussed why the hebephilia age range is better set to begin at age 11. The overlap factor has been discussed on this talk page more than just recently, and was again discussed on this talk page in this discussion. Also, if a hebephilic type has a little sexual interest in prepubescents, that is obviously still sexual interest. It is rare that my statements about pedophilia, whether relating to hebephilia or not, are based only on my personal opinion. But I don't have much more to state on this matter at the moment. I'm busy with other matters, and don't have good time or good interest to debate this at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I probably shouldn't have mentioned original opinion sorry if I upset - I just new of the two different sub-types that had been found by Blanchard, so one subtype would overlap more closely with ephebophilia and the other subtype with paedophilia. Ugh definitions are confusing and annoying! Your point about boys is a good point. We will leave the debate for there. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's more than my personal opinion, MrADHD, especially what I stated about puberty...and pedophiles being sexually attracted not only to those who are prepubescent...but also to those who look prepubescent (as it is the prepubescent look, the reality or appearance, of having no secondary sex characteristics, that they are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to); yes, a lot of early pubescents, especially boys (because they typically begin puberty later than girls and initially don't have the secondary sex characteristics, such as breasts, that can be identified by just walking down the street), do look prepubescent. As noted, the overlap has been discussed among researchers and the overlap aspect is a big reason for the proposal to combine pedophilia and hebephilia into the pedohebephilia category (as also noted in the reliable source mentioned above). At this talk page, Cantor and I have also discussed why the hebephilia age range is better set to begin at age 11. The overlap factor has been discussed on this talk page more than just recently, and was again discussed on this talk page in this discussion. Also, if a hebephilic type has a little sexual interest in prepubescents, that is obviously still sexual interest. It is rare that my statements about pedophilia, whether relating to hebephilia or not, are based only on my personal opinion. But I don't have much more to state on this matter at the moment. I'm busy with other matters, and don't have good time or good interest to debate this at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree and this sounds like your personal opinion - don't mean to be rude. :-) The research by Blanchard et. al. actually found two subtypes of hebephiles in as far as chronophilia goes. He found one group of hebephiles also demonstrated strong attractions to prepubescents and he called this type of hebephile 'pedohebephilic type'. He then found the other group of hebephiles who preferred young adolescents but had little or no interest in prepubescents and called these 'hebephilic type' - presumably this type would only be attracted to secondary sex characteristics (since they don't like prepubescents) and would in decreasing level of attraction find older adolescents and then adults attractive but his research I don't believe went this far. Then of course he defined the third group as pedophilic type for those who had strong attractions to prepubescents but little or no attraction to adolescents and adults. I hope you don't mind me constructively criticising but I feel there is too much original thought and we need to stick to what the research says more closely.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but most people, especially boys, do not start puberty at age 8. Starting puberty at age 8 is still often considered precocious puberty. People being pubescent at age 10 or 11 is of course much more common, which is why the hebephilia age range (as defined by the researchers who are researching the term these days) set the beginning of the age range at age 11; starting at this age was definitely needed because significantly more boys than girls haven't started puberty at age 10. My point is that 11-14 is closer on the scale, overlaps more on the scale, to/with pedophilia than to/with ephebophilia (which has an age range that goes all the way up to 19). Get some good rest. I've enjoyed the discussion as well; you do make me think critically. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those age ranges flyer are approximate for early to mid adolesence stage of development- hebephilia is defined as preference for early to mid pubesence. Some kids start puberty at age 8 and late bloomers start as late as age 14. The important thing is that we stick to what reliable sources say and follow NPOV as best possible. :-) I am tired - enjoyed the discussion Flyer. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that we are thinking of the term "overlap" differently. I stated that hebephilia overlaps more with pedophilia than ephebophilia because the hebephilia age range, at least as proposed by the researchers, and as described in most sources now, is 11-14. Ages 11-14 is mostly a time of prepubescence and pubescence (a time of prepubescence more so for boys than girls). And many early pubertal individuals, especially boys, still look prepubertal; and, in the case of these boys, if they don't look completely prepubertal, they look mostly prepubertal. This is why a pedophile (someone with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children) could find an early pubescent as sexually attractive as a true pubescent. Ephebophilia, if the age range given for it is consistently defined as anyone 14 or older, or 15 or older, is not a time of prepubescence for most people. Thus, hebephilia is more closely related to pedophilia than to ephebophilia. This is why, other than the term not being as widespread and sometimes being conflated with hebephilia, there is no scholarly debate (at least not a significant one, if one at all) over whether or not ephebophilia is a mental disorder/paraphilia; it covers mid pubescents, late pubescents (as in those at the end of puberty) and post-pubescents. Many girls have completed puberty by age 14 or age 15. And most people have completed puberty by age 16 or 17; it usually doesn't take reaching 18 to finish puberty. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- For quick reference, here is what the source states: Green noted that, “A cornerstone of the argument for bundling hebephilia with pedophilia is the overlap between interest in prepubertals and pubertals. What of the overlap between hebephiles and teleiophiles (adultophiles)? What of the 50 percent hebephile/50 percent teleiophile?” (Ref. 10, p 586). Indeed, one of the earlier studies found precisely that. Barbaree and Marshall17 examined phallometric responses to pictures of nude females ranging in age from 3 to 24 in 61 child molesters (21 of whom were incest offenders) and a matched group of 22 nonoffenders. Barbaree and Marshall found five distinct phallometric profiles, none of which reflected a unique and distinct preference for adolescents. One of the profiles was characterized by responses to both adolescent and adult stimuli. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem arises from the use of age categories at some times and developmental stages at the other. if we use ages, they overlap. if we use developmental stages, they do as well. The DSM-IV uses them both, which is confusing, while the ICD-10 includes early pubescent children in the definition, effectively including hebephilia in the diagnostic criteria (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618). So yes, there is overlap, and there is a solid source that states that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for the delay as I wanted to research this a bit better and speak with a paediatrician about this. Okay after spending sometime reading up on puberty and speaking with a paediatrician I feel comfortable in saying that ICD-10 does not cover hebephilia as the average ovulating 13 or 14 year old is not at an 'early pubertal age'. In fact some definitions define ability to reproduce as the completion of puberty although other sources define it as obtaining adult height and adult breast size etc (around age 15 or 16 or so), so an average 14 year old is either finished puberty or on the verge of finishing puberty in another year or two. The 'early pubertal age' would refer to tanner stage 2 stage of puberty, i.e. an average 10 or 11 year old child. The source you quote does indeed state that hebephilia can be diagnosed under the ICD-10 and it is indeed a source that is what would usually be regarded as a good quality source but the author is very much in error if the author thinks that an ovulating 14 year old is of 'early pubertal age' and goes against what is taught in paediatrics throughout the world about puberty. You are not entirely wrong in saying that there is overlap but you would need to clarify that and say that there is some or partial overlap in the likes of a paedophile and a hebephile under the ICD-10 diagnostic codes as according to the research both preferential paedophiles and preferential hebephiles may both include a strong attraction towards an average 11 and possibly some 12 year olds, so yes there is some overlap but not full overlap in ICD-10. I don't believe that ICD-10 allows for hebephilia to be diagnosed as paedophilia though. In fact this article and it's references actually defines hebephilia as a sexual preference for early to mid pubescent children, but the ICD-10 diagnostic codes do not include 'mid pubescence'. See the problem? I would welcome Flyer's wise thoughts on what I have wrote. Again sorry for the delay but this took a bit of research and I haven't been feeling well.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad you did your own research to debunk what a experts say about this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, tis not me who did all the research on puberty, but many thousands of people more wise and experienced than I so alas I cannot take your kind credit for doing the research. Not my research but is scientific consensus - puberty is a widely researched subject. Here is one source that gives a good overview of puberty which confirms what I said.[1] And then here is the ICD-10 diagnostic codes which says early pubertal age but does not mention mid pubertal age.[2] And here is a source defining hebephilia as covering mid pubescence.[3] Here is the source describing the different types of philia that I discussed above in a comment to Flyer.[4] I might see if I can get a medical doctor to have a read on this and comment here just to make sure that what I say is medically accurate as you seem to dispute how puberty is defined.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- MrADHD, for me, it's as simple as stating that hebephilia overlaps with pedophilia because hebephilia covers the 11-14 age range; like I stated above, that age range includes prepubescents because some people are still prepubescent at those ages. It is more unlikely that a person is going to be prepubescent at age 13 or 14, especially in the case of girls because girls typically begin puberty before boys, but it does happen. We've already been over this discussion, though, MrADHD; we discussed a lot of this in this discussion. And in this one, Cantor stated that the ICD-10 (partly) covers hebephilia because it includes "early pubertal age." I stated why I don't consider the ICD-10 to truly cover hebephilia...since early pubescents, especially boys, look more prepubescent than they do pubescent. I agree with you about there only being partial overlap. But "overlap" doesn't mean "the same thing as," of course; otherwise, pedophilia and hebephilia wouldn't be distinguished by experts in these fields at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Where did Cantor say this Cantor stated that the ICD-10 (partly) covers hebephilia because it includes "early pubescents."?I was under the impression from Cantor's writing that he tried to argue that hebephilia was fully diagnosable under current ICD-10 diagnostic codes? Yes we have discussed before. The age range for hebephilia covers average ages for early to mid pubescence. Of course some people enter puberty early and others have a more late onset for puberty. Hebephilia is defined simply as attraction to early to mid pubescent children/adolescents - the age ranges are just there for the average age for when this occurs.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- MrADHD, for me, it's as simple as stating that hebephilia overlaps with pedophilia because hebephilia covers the 11-14 age range; like I stated above, that age range includes prepubescents because some people are still prepubescent at those ages. It is more unlikely that a person is going to be prepubescent at age 13 or 14, especially in the case of girls because girls typically begin puberty before boys, but it does happen. We've already been over this discussion, though, MrADHD; we discussed a lot of this in this discussion. And in this one, Cantor stated that the ICD-10 (partly) covers hebephilia because it includes "early pubertal age." I stated why I don't consider the ICD-10 to truly cover hebephilia...since early pubescents, especially boys, look more prepubescent than they do pubescent. I agree with you about there only being partial overlap. But "overlap" doesn't mean "the same thing as," of course; otherwise, pedophilia and hebephilia wouldn't be distinguished by experts in these fields at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, tis not me who did all the research on puberty, but many thousands of people more wise and experienced than I so alas I cannot take your kind credit for doing the research. Not my research but is scientific consensus - puberty is a widely researched subject. Here is one source that gives a good overview of puberty which confirms what I said.[1] And then here is the ICD-10 diagnostic codes which says early pubertal age but does not mention mid pubertal age.[2] And here is a source defining hebephilia as covering mid pubescence.[3] Here is the source describing the different types of philia that I discussed above in a comment to Flyer.[4] I might see if I can get a medical doctor to have a read on this and comment here just to make sure that what I say is medically accurate as you seem to dispute how puberty is defined.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad you did your own research to debunk what a experts say about this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for the delay as I wanted to research this a bit better and speak with a paediatrician about this. Okay after spending sometime reading up on puberty and speaking with a paediatrician I feel comfortable in saying that ICD-10 does not cover hebephilia as the average ovulating 13 or 14 year old is not at an 'early pubertal age'. In fact some definitions define ability to reproduce as the completion of puberty although other sources define it as obtaining adult height and adult breast size etc (around age 15 or 16 or so), so an average 14 year old is either finished puberty or on the verge of finishing puberty in another year or two. The 'early pubertal age' would refer to tanner stage 2 stage of puberty, i.e. an average 10 or 11 year old child. The source you quote does indeed state that hebephilia can be diagnosed under the ICD-10 and it is indeed a source that is what would usually be regarded as a good quality source but the author is very much in error if the author thinks that an ovulating 14 year old is of 'early pubertal age' and goes against what is taught in paediatrics throughout the world about puberty. You are not entirely wrong in saying that there is overlap but you would need to clarify that and say that there is some or partial overlap in the likes of a paedophile and a hebephile under the ICD-10 diagnostic codes as according to the research both preferential paedophiles and preferential hebephiles may both include a strong attraction towards an average 11 and possibly some 12 year olds, so yes there is some overlap but not full overlap in ICD-10. I don't believe that ICD-10 allows for hebephilia to be diagnosed as paedophilia though. In fact this article and it's references actually defines hebephilia as a sexual preference for early to mid pubescent children, but the ICD-10 diagnostic codes do not include 'mid pubescence'. See the problem? I would welcome Flyer's wise thoughts on what I have wrote. Again sorry for the delay but this took a bit of research and I haven't been feeling well.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) Even more confusion, the seto reference that Kim linked to. In it the author states that "Recent evidence suggests that hebephilia is a distinct paraphilia" (distinct from paedophilia) but then goes on to say that it is incorporated into the ICD-10 definition of pedophilia, (which is partially true). See this quote, "However, the DSM-IV-TR does not list hebephilia as a specific diagnosis, and the ICD-10 incorporates hebephilia in its definition of pedophilia: “A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." So basically the reference says that evidence suggests hebephilia is not the same as paedophilia but then says in the same paragraph that it can be diagnosed as paedophilia anyway (under the ICD-10). Ugh!! Confusion!! Does anyone find researchers and research annoying at times? :-P--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, the easy way is to accept that the DSM-IV and the ICD-10 are slightly different in definition, and to accept that the ICD-10 definition overlaps partially with the definition for hebephilia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Onward - future direction of the article
Okay, I think that there needs to be some mention on why laws exist in most if not all nations of the world to protect young adolescents from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. I am sure a few paragraphs could be written on this at least - for example the power imbalance in a relationship between a young adolescent and a mature adult due to mental immaturity and inexperience etc and the potential for abuse. The inability of the adolescent to make sound decisions etc. For example a young adolescent does not have the maturity to decide whether they want to be photographed naked but yet some adults seek to pressure, manipulate or otherwise exploit them and distribute their images on the net as child pornography. Points such as these can be discussed as to why society and the law protects young adolescents from sexual abuse or exploitation with law. There is very little controversy that these young vulnerable adolescents require protecting from themselves and most importantly from adults who may seek to abuse or exploit them. Even adult women find it difficult handling an abusive male, a young adolescent is even less, much less equipped for dealing with an adult who may seek to abuse them. These things need discussed in a section of the article. I may make a stab at it when I get some free time. If anyone wants to fire a few sources below, I will try and summarise them.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)