Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 26 November 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


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 irritate 16:58, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

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

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


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. humanbe in 17:42, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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. (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. (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)