|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Pedophilia
|
This Crime related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Sexuality[edit]
Is it me or is kind of disturbing to see the Rainbow flag right at the side of the title of this article? I know is because of the subject matter is sexuality but it truly can be missinterpreted. --TV Guy (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- The sexuality navbar is there because pedophilia is a sexual attraction. It's the same reason why necrophilia has the sexuality navbar.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 07:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- But there's a navbar for crime, shouldn't be better to have both? --TV Guy (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Pedophilia is not a crime. Rape, assault, molestation: these are crimes. Anyone can be guilty or innocent of them, regardless of their sexual preference. It is rather bigoted to suggest that someone is a criminal by virtue of their sexuality. Mean mr. custard (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) @TV Guy
- But there's a navbar for crime, shouldn't be better to have both? --TV Guy (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
A far more realistic approach to the issue[edit]
| Insane ramblings |
|---|
|
While I'm certainly not any form of authority regarding sexual orientations, I think the terms pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia are self defeating. You cannot be attracted to "age", given that human age is merely a subjective measurement of chronological aging. Not even "normal" people are attracted to age; they are attracted to a particular body type (the biological body commonly associated with certain chronological age). For instance, a hebephile isn't attracted to a specific range of chronological age, but females with a pubescent body type, which merely happens to be found within 11-14 year old females. The same applies to men attracted to mature women: they are not attracted to their age, but their body type, commonly found on mature women. Take a look at this [link removed -- Em] Wanna guess that girl's age? She certainly looks like in her late teens, doesn't she? Well, guess what? She's 13 years old, but she definitely doesn't look like your typical 13 year old girl. Now take a look at this other girl (warning: NSFW link) [link removed -- Em] That girl over there is an 18 years old porn star, perfectly legal to bang, but she definitely doesn't look like your average 18 year old girl. She looks like fucking 14 at best. So, what's my point? If people didn't know both girls' age, they'd assume the porn star to be underage, yet the latina girl to be perfectly legal. As a matter of fact, even most "normal" men would make a move on the 13 year old latina; they'd assume she's perfectly legal, provided they weren't aware of the fact she's actually underage. Yet, if you tried to get laid with her, you'd get your ass jailed. The underage looking porn star, on the other hand, would be perfectly bangable, even by a 70 year old man, as disgusting as it'd be. Even if you asked so called "hebephiles", most (if not all of them) would choose the porn star, if only because she's petite (underage) looking. Also, imagine a hypotetical scenario of future human female species, where most female bodies barely made it through puberty (in terms of biological "aging"), even if said females were 90 years old (as illogical and ridiculous as that sounds). They'd be 90 years old women with the body we commonly associate with a 12-13 years old, while perfectly legal, under current human law. Being attracted to them wouldn't be considered pedophilia/hebephilia, under current human law, unless they were actually underage, under chronological age measurement. Another scenario would be the inverse, where liking a mature looking woman, that is actually chronologically speaking 10 years old (as idiotic as it sounds), would be considered pedophilia. Long-story-short: You cannot be attracted to age; only to an specific body type. The terms pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia are, at best, arbitrary and only serve to draw more stigma on humans that are attracted to an specific body type (bar probably those attracted to male/female children/toddlers). It's the entire reason why there's so much demonization of pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles (and thanks to religious puritanism, of course).Proud Manarchist (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC) |
"Public Opinion" section[edit]
I was wondering if there's a more recent survey than 2014 already available? Percentages can change in 6 years. Thunderclapper (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Problems with this article[edit]
Looking back at this article, I still think this article is still pretty flawed.
One issue I have is how the article tries to define pedophilia. The thing is that the "technical medical" definition is not restricted to medical contexts, but also used in other contexts including in discourse around fighting child sexual abuse and trafficking (examples: The Mama Bear Effect ECPAT, the Quebec government). I realize we ought to call out and condemn who try to play semantics to try and justify their jailbait and raping the underage (ex. the "it's ephebophilia not pedophilia" hack), but I don't think trying to force this article's "common term" definition is the correct way of doing so; furthermore even that fails to capture the fuzziness on how the term is commonly used. Many use it to refer to the act of child molestation itself, and also apply the term to people who aren't yet adults (ex. Sara Palin calling Lena Dunham a "pedophile" for what she did when she was like 7).
Another thing is that a lot of the article is messy and contains a lot of unnecessary information. For example, I don't think the "Cultural influences" section as being relevant to the article or pedophilia as a condition. A lot of the "Online" section was copied from the Online pedophile activism article and much of the stuff here would be more appropriate there. And the "Semantics" section is rather messily written, though this is obviously easily fixed.
Although most of the content is good, I think this article is still in need of a major rewrite or reformatting.Advicedoge (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree this doesn't seem the most enlightened of articles. From the church-like moralistic framing focusing on urges (seriously what century is this? did anyone hear about psychology and every literature ever about rape?) to the dumb section on orientation implying sexual desire would operate on the the level of the "objective reality" as opposed to whatever is subjective to the person. Like, I don't know if hentai, role playing or whatever "special-bodied adult" surrogate partner therapy could help in the worst cases of the paraphilic disorder (assuming then that having to get laid was really unavoidable, which I truly do not), but rest assured that there's no affair of the mind that with enough tricks cannot be duped.
Btw what seems instead clear is that 50% *at most* of child abusers even care at all about the "age" factor (even though I'm not sure if that is including or excluding cases of molests between minors). --Mirh (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Add this to the page[edit]
Pedophiles are useless eaters. — Unsigned, by: Wildcat Fan / talk / contribs