Talk:Pedophilia/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 18 January 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Topic

We don't need this article. In half an hour, if you don't give me $500 million in clean notes of varying denominations, in a black bombproof suitcase no-one raises any objections, I will ban-hammer it. Thoughts? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!} 16:57, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Lets use this as a reason to start some sort of proposed deletion proccess. tmtoulouse ^oppress 16:58, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Eh, I think you should just ban-hammer it now. --_transResident Transformers fan^form! 16:59, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

But I want my $500 million! I'll wait out the 30 minutes, then

WHAM!

Goes the wikiMjolnir. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Dump it. It's spelt wrong anyway : pædophilia and "see also AS" is a bit naughty - the man might be a total wazzock but not one of those. Keep ^{me in the dark} 17:08, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

To you and me it's spelled wrong but to those wacky Americans it's not. RIP Noah Webster. Genghis Khant 17:12, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Uh, just do it right and delete links to it as well, ok? And it wasn't Webster who tried to reform English spelling, wasn't it that library guy, Dewey? And he wanted to go much further. human^{be in} 17:42, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Analogies

With regard to this edit, can we come up with a better analogy? Or do we just need to dispense with analogies altogether when dealing with the topic of pedophilia.. It seems easy to offend people's sensibilities, because if we compare pedophilia to, say, chocolate cake, in an effort to make some point about it, then people assume that we're saying that pedophilia is as harmless as chocolate cake.

But the whole point of an analogy is to make a point about relationships between items. Apple is to stop sign as banana is to school bus. This analogy deals with colors; it doesn't imply that an apple is as good for you as a banana, just because they're used in the same sentence. Landmartian (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Is an analogy really needed? I mean, will it improve anyone's understanding of the issue? I've got to say I can't think of a great example. Comparisons with homosexuality, even if well intended, are a really bad idea as the two things are often falsely lumped together for political point-scoring, both by pedophile advocacy movements hoping to benefit from the respect the LGBT movement has won, and by the religious right denigrating gay people by associating them with pedophiles. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Valid point. Landmartian (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How about 'pedophiles are to heterosexuals as child rapists are to... well... rapists'? It's a pretty reliable analogy, it doesn't negatively reflect on a marginalised group (LGBTQ community) so it can't really be used negatively, and I don't think many people would say "comparing rapists to child rapists is insulting to rapists!", unless they're rape apologists, and... well, they're rape apologists. The problem is that any analogy involving the word 'pedophile' invokes the idea of 'child molester', in part because the press uses pedophile to refer to child abusers. Irishpadfoot (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Are there any plausible hypotheses about the evolutionary psychology of pedophilia?

We know that, up to a point, youthfulness is often an attribute non-pedophiles look for in a mate. For a long-term relationship, assuming the partners do not live in an industrialized society in which having a high school education is an advantage for a mate, it makes sense to mate with someone as close to pubescence as possible, since they have more years of fertility ahead of them. This would explain the fetish behind magazines such as Barely Legal and websites that advertise models who have just turned 18 and look younger than 18.

So maybe pedophilic attractions developed because it was more adaptive to err on the side of too young rather than too old. In pubescence, fertile young women still have many characteristics of children, and therefore it might be maladaptive for a man to be strongly repelled by childlike traits.

Maybe there were situations, in caveman eras, in which someone started a sexual relationship with a prepubescent, and that relationship continued into pubescence and produced offspring. Maybe those who did this had an advantage over rivals, by being the first to form an emotional bond with the child, and to claim the child as their long-term partner. Maybe this emotional bond was promoted by their providing the child with food and other resources; thus it also served to protect the child's well-being.

Who knows what complicated social purposes pedophilia might have served? Maybe, in a variant of the super-uncles theory, pedophiles served as caregivers for young family members, since they would tend to volunteer for roles that would put them in close contact with those kids. A counter-argument would be that their engaging in child sexual abuse would cause enough harm to those children to outweigh the value of the care they provided. Maybe in caveman days, though, the resources they provided would have meant the difference between life and death for the child, so that back then, the pedophilia was adaptive.

We might look to the behaviors of bonobos too, and try to figure out what purpose sexual play between adult and juvenile bonobos serves. "The range of partners includes adults of the same sex, an adult with a juvenile of either sex, and two juveniles together. The range of activities includes mouth-to-mouth kissing, oral sex, genital caressing by hand, penis-fencing by two males, male-on-male mounting, and genito-genital rubbing (G-G rubbing is the shorthand term) by two estrous females, who moosh their swollen vulvas back and forth against each other in a spate of feverish sisterly cordiality. Usually there’s no orgasm culminating these activities. Their social purpose seems to be communication of various sorts: expression of goodwill, calming of excitement, greeting, tension relief, bonding, solicitation of food sharing, and reconciliation. To that list of benefits we might also add sheer pleasure and (for the juveniles) instructional play." [1] Landmartian (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology is itself a somewhat controversial discipline. I suggest it would be unwise to use such a vehicle to promote what could be construed as pedophilia apologetics.--Coffee (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder, then, how one would approach the question of, "Where did this come from? Why does it exist?" Landmartian (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Abnormality" section

The title + beginning of this section smells like the author was operating under the fallacy that normal = good, abnormal = bad. The percentages given aren't exactly a super tiny minority and a super quick Google says me it's not much less than e.g. the amount of homosexuals. Not sure how to improve; I'm just pointing out the fallacy. Ginko (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about the reliability of the statistics, mainly because a major problem with discussions about pedophilia is the lack of reliable statistics (It's almost as if there's some stigma attached to admitting to being a pedophile! /sarcasm). For example, the Guardian quotes Sarah Goode's 2009 and 2011 studies that put the estimate at 20% of adult men, although it admits it may be flawed. Also, we have almost no evidence regarding female pedophiles. Because of this, I'd argue to changing the first sentence. I also think a better definition of "the fallacy that normal = good, abnormal = bad" is a complete inverse, almost, of argumentum ad populum, and also, when people claim it is "unnatural", an appeal to nature. As a potential renaming, how about "Statistics"? Irishpadfoot (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Debate

See also Debate:Should pedophiles be pressured to remain closeted? Landmartian (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

online section ... cut it or improve it

I don't agree with the online section's inclusion, because it seems a little trivial for the article. It seems to say that one danger of pedophilia is that pedophiles might be called names. Maybe that's true, but it's so insignificant compared to the other points made in the article. I'd rather drop it. As an alternative, I think it could be fleshed out a little more to prove its relevance. I don't think that'll work, but, as it stands, it's not enough. If it gets beefed up it should not appear larger than the other, more important, points. MarmotHead (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They get called "child molestors" and such but they also get discriminated against solely on the basis of openly being pedophiles, without necessarily being called any other names. When they get kicked out of places like Wikipedia, systemic bias is introduced into those sites' content. Perpetuating that bias is in fact part of the stated goal of kicking those editors out. People don't want them editing articles in ways that will produce a neutral point of view. Landmartian (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, people don't want them editing articles from a pro-pedophile POV, which is what inevitably happens. Plus all the other good reasons a site like Wikipedia would have for not wanting to be associated with pedophiles. As for the "online" section in this article, this is barely scratching the surface of the subject & reads a lot like pedophile apologetics (basically saying pedophiles on the internet are harmless). While this may be true of some, any reasonable discussion of pedophiles online should at least mention child pornography, pedophile rings, child predators on the internet, and the rather odious pedophile communities at Reddit, TVTropes, 8chan, etc. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone claim, by the way, that the pedophile communities at Reddit, TVTropes, 8chan, etc. pose a direct threat to children? I was just wondering, because people seem to assume that they would on Wikipedia if allowed to hang around openly there. That always seemed a little weird, because most child sexual abuse isn't facilitated by the Internet, and wikis in particular seem like an unlikely kind of site on which to try to groom kids for abuse. If they were, To Catch a Predator-style stings would probably operate on wikis. Instead, they use chat rooms. Landmartian (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The risk isn't necessarily predatory activities on Wikipedia itself, but pedophiles making connections with other pedophiles, which facilitates the child porn trade & may result in other crimes, as well as the site getting a reputation for this sort of thing, as with Reddit, 8cha, et al. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what good reasons would a site have for not wanting to be associated with pedophiles? That sounds like catering to fear of people with a certain sexual orientation/preference they can't help (which is a totally different matter than fear of people who advocate or engage in a sexual practice, which they can help). Landmartian (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Right-wing authoritarianism

With regard to this edit, removing the language "People scoring high on right-wing authoritarianism in this study showed reactions towards pedophiles that were more hostile than the reactions from people with average or low levels of RWA": that information seems kinda relevant. Right-wingers tend to favor more restrictions on "thoughtcrime" type offenses, such as looking at pornography or altering your mind with psychotropic drugs. Landmartian (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Advicedoge's edits

I am wondering, why they were reverted? They seem to be a slight improvement to the article. Blacke (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WatcherIntheDark, why not discuss it on the talk page instead of edit-warring over it? --Blacke (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think a mix of both versions is best: the first sentence of this version and "a strong indicator that pedophilia apologetics are inbound" instead of the statutory rape thing. But WatcherIntheDark should definitely stop reverting. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 16:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to different opinions on this edit. If there is a consensus it is a worse than the original, I'm okay with going back to that. But WatcherInTheDark should DISCUSS the matter rather than just silently edit-warring over it. Blacke (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to explain my edits here. I added "typically below the age of consent" because usually people don't use the word if the minor is above the age of consent, and ages of consent and age of majority tend to vary widely from place to place. For example, an 18 year old is a minor in many jurisdictions such as Puerto Rico, New Zealand, British Columbia and Singapore, but they can legally consent at age 16 (with some exceptions such as if the younger partner is exploited or authority figures), and most people aren't going call attraction to an 18-20 year old pedophilia. I changed "a pedophilia apologetics" to "statutory rape apologetics" because it was more accurate as it both condemns justifying immoral actions and doesn't misuse terminology (this is RationalWiki after all). While it is a separate issue from true pedophilia, insisting that it's "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" doesn't change the fact that it is sexual misconduct. Advicedoge (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't statutory rape by default, that involves -actually doing anything-, which should not be conflated with pedophillia and is why many pedophiles who would seek help don't - they don't want the stigma of being called a child rapist. Not all pedophiles are rapists, but all (applicable) rapists are pedophiles. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

All rapists of minors are pedophiles? The article claims otherwise. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

My point is misworded but still a valid point - combining the two isn't accurate because not all pedophile defenders inherently also defend statutory rape (although many/most do or would). It's better to just list both. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that seems fair enough. Yeah, there's no harm in listing both. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Paravant, I'm slightly confused by your statement "not all pedophile defenders inherently also defend statutory rape". I've never heard of a pedophile apologist who didn't oppose age of consent laws. What pray tell would be the point of that? In what sense would such a person be a "pedophile apologist"? Blacke (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on pedophilia defenders, but I imagine there's many of 'em that primarily just want to be less vilified by society. I mean, when you can't talk to anyone about it because they'd report you to the cops, just owning certain pictures can get you thrown in jail and the law can demand your isolation from any part of society that has kids in it, would a lack of your preferred kind of intercourse really be the most pertinent thing on your mind? Many opponents to statutory rape laws, on the other hand, will agree with society's vilification of pedophiles, only seeking to justify hebephilia and/or ephebophilia. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

What do we mean by "pedophile apologist"? Does it mean someone who wants to repeal laws that protect minors (such as age of consent laws, and child pornography laws)? If that's what it means, then no doubt "pedophile apologists" are people who want bad things. But if all you mean by "pedophile apologist" is, someone who thinks that the law should remain as it is, but that at the same time pedophiles deserve some protection and dignity, such as protection from vigilante action, the ability to participate in society in ways which don't endanger minors (e.g. hold a job which doesn't involve contact with minors, buy or rent a house, etc)? Well, I think that is too broad a definition of "pedophile apologist", because if that's the definition then I think most right-thinking people would be pedophile apologists. Blacke (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that it is not statutory rape by default. I am also referring to those who use and defend jailbait, which is still a sex offense. "Hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" simply refer to a predominant attraction towards early teens and older teens respectively. A lot of self-proclaimed "hebephiles" and "ephebophiles" will try to justify their abusive activity by saying "We aren't attracted to prepubescent children so we aren't pedophiles". Insofar that is true, but at the same time it is used as a fallacious argument to make it sound like the stuff they were doing or want to do with a 15-year old is perfectly okay and not abusive. Even though it is still a misuse of the word, I'm not sure what other snarky words we can use other than "pedophile apologists" which would encompass jailbait users and people who seek to commit statutory sexual assault.Advicedoge (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of this chatter might be related to Wikipedia's talk:Ephebophilia page; you all seem to be regurgitating the same things said this year and in its archive.-- Forerunner (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not. In fact, I hadn't even seen the talk page until just now. I'm discussing this because the intro paragraph wasn't (and still isn't) particularly accurate in defining what pedophilia is, but at the same time, I think there needs to be some discussion before any significant changes on this matter are made.Advicedoge (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orientation

"At least one study has suggested that pedophilia is probably a sexual orientation (a person's inborn and unalterable sexual preference, irrespective of whether that preference is harmful to others or not). This type of suggestion tends to cause a firestorm of controversy, as some people figure that since homosexuality is a sexual orientation, that means that if pedophilia were to be regarded as a sexual orientation, society would have to condone child sexual abuse in the same way as it accepts sexual intercourse between consenting adults of the same sex."

The last sentence is false. The current understanding in practical all of the world is that children cannot give consent to sex. "Pedophilia, on the other hand, involves sex between an adult and a child who is not legally able to consent. There are substantial asymmetries in cognitive ability, psychosexual development, and autonomy that are not usually present in sexual interactions between consenting adults."

Thoughts? ^{— Unsigned, by: Mad physicist / talk / contribs}

References

I think that recognising paedophilia as an orientation would mean to search other treatments for paedophiles, but it will not mean that this behavior would be accepted, because of the reasons you mentioned. I am quite sure that a paedophile community will never exist, and sex abuse will remain as sex abuse. Kids are not physicall nor mentally prepared for sex, that's a fact.^{— Unsigned, by: Ep0605 / talk / contribs} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

intro

the current intro paragraph totally fails any quality standards:

Pedophilia (a.k.a. paedophilia or pædophilia, if you're British) is the common term for sexual attraction to a minor. In technical medical contexts it has the narrower definition of the sexual attraction to prepubescents only.[1] The counterpart technical terms for sexual attraction to older minors are "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia", although an insistence on their use in a discussion of pedophilia is generally a strong indicator that pedophilia apologetics and 'justifications' for statutory rape are inbound. While pedophilia itself is believed to be largely biological in origin, the propensity to act upon it by engaging in child sexual abuse is increased by, perhaps not surprisingly, being the victim of a pedophile oneself.[2] There has been an increase in media reports covering pedophilic acts between female teachers and tween or young teen students, especially male pupils.[3]

- the 1st & 2nd lines are "ass-backwards", in that the technical term is the original & primary (& only clinically significant) definition, & the "common useage" is a mis-application of same. ergo, technical definition should come first, "colloquial" usage 2nd. see "narcotic" for another example of "jargon creep".

- the 3rd sentence is vastly "op-ed" re: insistence on correct usage or vocabulary = pedo-justification. it is also a bit semantically "untidy" in its final phrase.

- the 4th line is deeply "speculative" abt causes & behaviour; & either needs to be backed up by a lot more cites, or dropped from the itro

- the 5th line is "temporally subjective"; i.e.: easily out-of-date, & also lacking sufficient "proofs" (& debatable relevence) to be worth including in the intro section.

23.91.225.96 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The counterpart technical terms for sexual attraction to older minors are "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia", although an insistence on their use in a discussion of pedophilia is generally a strong indicator that pedophilia apologetics and 'justifications' for statutory rape are inbound

This is patently incorrect- rather the whole of the modern scientific research makes clear distinctions in the various terminology for constructive purposes. To misuse the term "pedophile" when one means "hebephile" or "ephebophile" would fall nothing short of intellectual dishonesty, particularly when used in terms of a learned profession. (such as in the context of psychology). Therefore "insistence" on the proper use of the terminology (e.g. intellectual honesty) is not casually linked to "justification" or "apologetics". I could find no credible source that supports this notion, and the scientific literature rejects this notion outright in those rare instances it doesn't remain silent on the issue. Therefore, this line has been removed from the text. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Medical science has historically differentiated between different types of attraction, often based on the dubious worst of discredited psychoanalytic theory or dubious techniques such as the Penile plethysmograph (used by Ray Blanchard who's one of the strongest proponents), and without a clear understanding of whether or not they're distinct psychiatric/clinical conditions (there is certainly debate in the psychiatric community). But in modern political/social/ethical discourse "pedophile" is the usual term for sexual activity or desire for anybody under age (allowing for the fact that ages of consent vary). Even if the distinction is useful in some medical contexts (possibly, I've not seen proof of that statement), insisting on the proper terminology is often based on a desire by sexual offenders to avoid the stigmatised word "pedophile" and insist that they're much more innocent because they're only attracted to 12 year old girls with waists. Pedophilia advocates have a long history of misusing language and inventing different terms for what is a deeply immoral and repugnant desire. If you want a reference on using ephebophilia to minimise crimes see Jeffrey Epstein's friends and Milo. [2][3][4] --Annanoon (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ephebophilia

Not that I want to be accused of advocating for this, but I do think ephebophilia should be more clearly distinguished in the article. Whilst hebephilia is almost the same as it’s the sexual preference toward younger teens (12-16) which is equally reprehensive, ephebophilia is the preference over older teens (16-21). Should be notice that for medical science and psychology the adolescence last until around 20-21 years old. Thus, even disregarding the consent age that in most countries is around 16, thinking that someone who is into people of 18 or 19 years old is at the same level than pedophiles is kind of a stretch. It can be creepy if the other person is very old, but never will be place at the same level. --TV Guy (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The counterpart technical terms for sexual attraction to older minors are "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia", although an insistence on their use in a discussion of pedophilia is generally a strong indicator that pedophilia apologetics and 'justifications' for statutory rape are inbound.

I think that's a no. Not claiming that you are an apologist and the informal way of referring to sex with a minor is pedophilia.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 16:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I always thought that Rational Wiki did not based its articles in "informal terms" but in scientific terminology, am I wrong? In any case, although it would never be a case of having sex (is a case of having the fetish, the pedophile that practice its pedophilia is call a pederast, that's another mistake), ephebophilia even taking into practice is not sex with minors, as people of 18-20 are not minors in most jurisdictions, and even those in 16-17 are not minors in other jurisdictions (as there are western countries where the majority of age is attain at 16 or 17). --TV Guy (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I suggest this change:

"The counterpart technical terms for sexual attraction to older adolescents are "hebephilia" (attraction toward 12-16 individuals) and "ephebophilia" (16-20), although an insistence on their use in a discussion of pedophilia is generally a strong indicator that pedophilia apologetics and 'justifications' for statutory rape are inbound." I think that's a much better wording and more scientifically accurate. And btw I'm 20 so I guess I can't be a ephebophile just yet, maybe in a year if I'm still with my girlfriend who will be 19 at the time. --TV Guy (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ephebophilia is actually 15-18 ^{— Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs}

Teenagers are pedophiles

"'Pedophilia' (a.k.a. paedophilia or pædophilia, if you're British) is the common term for sexual attraction to a minor."

Only on RationalWiki we can learn that the word "pedophilia" is commonly used to mean attraction to a "minor" (!), so that - for example - all the horny teenagers in high school and college are commonly considered pedophiles, since they are sexually attracted to each other.

McLaghing (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Point taken, I fixed it. Gœʦ ϝϭг Ѕæⳑ @ 22:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"attraction to a minor (if you're adult)" is still absurd: In most of the countries the age of majority is 18 years, and nobody calls a 18 year old (hence adult) man a "pedophile" if he has 17 year old (hence minor) girlfriend. And even looking at the age of consent does not fix this absurd definition. If giving an imprecise definition of pedophilia as the first line of the article is really necessary - instead of giving the scientific definition and then discuss some common abuse of the term - then at least write something like: "the sexual attraction of an adult person to a child".

McLaghing (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a horrible topic that often triggers insanity. Pedophilia as a medical term is about attraction to "children," who are, by definition, pre-pubescent. The term is used popularly, though, very differently, and often sloppily, referring to sexual attraction or activity that is illegal, which varies with culture and jurisdiction. In the U.S., there is, for example, in a few places, no minimum age of marriage and so no minimum age of consent (but generally below a certain age a court must consent to the marriage.) McLaghing's argument, though, is superficial, because nobody considers those people "pedophiles," he is mixing definitions. --Some random Smith (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, even this sentence " is the common term for sexual attraction to a minor" is kind of a stretch. How common is it? In what countries is common? Is just en America is talking about? Because for example in Europe is much more common to use the clinical terminology than the was that is aparently common in America. So is common by what standard? --TV Guy (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Some random Smith Except for your last sentence, it seems to me that we are saying the same thing. I do not understand why at the end you conclude that I am mixing definitions, when I am the one who pointed out that RationalWiki uses an incorrect definition of pedophilia. McLaghing (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It was a reference to the type of argument you used, which is to apply reasoning to a definition to extend it into absurdity. You are indeed correct on the medical definition, and it is also the case that popular usage strays far from this. It's a bit odd to see the common idea on RationalWiki on this -- that if one proposes accurate terminology, one is therefore about to propose legalizing "statutory rape" or "pedophilia," which is anti-science and anti-intellectual. I was tempted to revert your change back in, but ... I don't care enough. --Some random Smith (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced the "attraction to a minor" definition of pedophilia at the beginning of the article with the correct scientific definition. The count down until everything will be reverted back starts in 3, 2, 1... now! McLaghing (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

...and reverted back in less than 15 minutes by Spud, of course without giving any explanation. McLaghing (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you knew it was going to be reverted, then why make the edit? —Kazitor, ^pending 11:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

To point out how things work here. I gave a quite clear explanation of why the definition of pedophilia given by RationalWiki is absurd and I corrected it with the definition established by the scientific community. Then, everything is reverted back and no explanation of why so is given. Does that seem to you the normal behavior of a community which claim to have a "Scientific Point of View"? McLaghing (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there a list of standard losing arguments on RationalWiki? If so, this must be on it. Kazitor is correct, to make an edit you know is going to be reverted is disruptive on wikis. --Some random Smith (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Then go write a standard list of losing arguments... Maybe come back when you will have something to say on why RationalWiki should use "attraction to a minor" instead of the definition of pedophilia given by the scientific community. McLaghing (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

McLaughing, I don't come or go based on stupid advice from a noob, who has no idea of how to create agreement, but presents losing arguments. I've already agreed that your point was correct, but instead of building on that and acknowledging agreement, you simply wave your penis. I say "penis" because most women know better and don't play this game and because this is, after all RationalWiki, according to my browser bar. I could also answer your question (i.e., why is an "incorrect definition" used?), but why should I bother? --Some random Smith (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, this article seems to conflate biological immaturity (sexual), with legal minority, which includes sexually mature minors. In the latter case, ephebophilia or hebephilia might be a more accurate medical characterization.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree wtih McLaghing, Rational Wiki should try to be as accurate as possible on clinical terminology, and this is not advocating a conduct more than using "anti-social behavior disorder" instead of "psychopath" is advocating for serial killing. --TV Guy (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, and another thing I just notice; the article reinforces the missconception that molestation victims are more often future abusers, which is not only debunked by several studies, it's also a stygma that many molestation victims suffer contributing to the culture of silence surrounding the issue for fear to be label as future pedophiles. Something that several victims' advocate and support organizations are trying hard to eliminate. --TV Guy (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)