![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
As adolescent boys and teenagers in general are still children, then pederasty and indeed adult attraction to teenage girls is paedophilia! Just because someone has past the age of ´puberty´ that does not make them mature adults. Children become adults around the age of 19 to 20, or perhaps 22 years.
Even though it is more difficult to perceive in girls as teenage girls were make-up and young women wear similar clothes, it is evident that the appearance of teenage boys and young (adult) men are clearly different, in that stubble and a muscular physique are adult traits in males. Therefore, gay men usually prefer stubble on men as it is a signal that they are no longer children. (Many men in their 20s have stubble in order NOT to resemble adolescent children.) Lack of facial hair and slight physique are child traits in males and therefore, pederasts (adult men attracted soley or mainly to teenage boys), mainly for these children´s traits, are paedophiles as it is children, not adults that they find sexually attractive.
Many people find that pederasty, or homosexual or gay paedophilia, as I prefer to call it, is the worst type of sexual abuse and abusing a 17-year-old boy is worse than abusing an 8-year-old girl as you are stripping the young boy of his sex identity as a male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.199.119 ( talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Opponents of LGBT parenting have sometimes claimed that it increases the likelihood of incest and pedophilia. For instance, on July 6 2009, there was a disturbing story published about an openly gay parent who had abused his child after obtaining an adoption from social services. Critics later used this story to make a generalization thart this was more common in the whole LGBT culture. [1] [2] [3] [4] ADM ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
While I welcome Dr Cantor's contributionss as much as any two legged hominid, I do feel that the following might be assumed to be egregious self-promotion, in violation of WP:SOAP.
"Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[28][29] and poor social skills.[30] Beginning in 2002, other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues, began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[3][31][32] poorer scores on memory tests,[31] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[3][31][33][34] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[35] lesser physical height,[36] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness"
The edit on this topic, referring directly to Dr Cantor and Dr Blanchard, were made by one 'MarionTheLibrarian' on 26th of Ma 2008, who, shockingly, is Dr Cantor. Much as I welcome Dr Cantor's edits, I fail to see why the following text is in the above is anything more than self-promotion :
"most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues"
Dr Cantor's research is clearly linked to as a reference for the more general statement this is a part of. I fail to see why this text is required in the article, other than opening wikipedia to accusations of self-promotion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.227.0 ( talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we allowed to quote specific cases here? What are the rules concerning what may and may not be published? Hawkesworth ( talk) 17:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Cody Steven Nelson Olstad is a PEDOFILE or so called as a pedofiliac. The article is written with Pschyo approach. It fails to mention the reason why it is considered mental disorder? WHat is the social and historical background relevant to the particular approach towards pedophilia? Homosexuality was considered and is considered by many experts to date to be Pyschological disorder. SOme cite sociological reasons against homosexuality and incest. I think pedophilia also shares similar reasons. This section may be expanded on these lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.97 ( talk) 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the idea is that pedophilia article doesn't have an explained why is it a mental disorder, (and yet not homosexuality). Homosexuality is considered by some as a psychological disorder, and in the past (not long ago, early 1990s even), homosexuality was as taboo as pedophilia. Then, without warning, homosexuality was an accepted, cultural norm, without anyone trying to find any "cures". So why is pedophilia a mental disorder, or better yet, what makes it a mental disorder? Because somebody said so? Colonel Marksman ( talk) 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Should it be noted that some people (incl myself) spell "pedophile" as "paedophile"? It's said that both spellings apply in Wiktionary wiktionary.org/wiki/paedophile -- Keithf2008 ( talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm made a little uncomfortable by the fact that the phrase "girl love" redirects to this page. "Girl love" was a 1990s riot grrrl/zine slogan that referred to sisterhood and support between girls. It has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.
Reference 17, "# ^ Mayo Clinic Proceedings "A Profile of Pedophilia"Mayo Clinic Proceedings Accessed June 2, 2008", has a broken link. The study can currently be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadrice ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As I recently stated on the Ephebophilia article talk page, this article's Diagnosis section lists "early pubertal age" as part of the criteria when diagnosing a person as a pedophile. Even when boys and girls do hit puberty (as in just starting to evolve into adults), they do not look like they have and largely still resemble prepubescents. I highly doubt that a pedophile who usually goes after prepubescent boys of about age 9 is going to pass on going after a pubescent boy of age 11. Not much physical difference between the two boys age-wise. Pubic hair? If the 11-year-old has any, the pedophile could insist that the boy shave...if pubic or any other type of body hair resulting from puberty turns the pedophile "off" (which is the case for most, since this type of hair symbolizes adult characteristics). It is not until the 11-year-old boy significantly develops some adult physical features...that the pedophile may "quit" the boy and will usually start to look for a younger boy (of course one who is or looks prepubescent). Most experts who study these sexual philias are still going to consider a man who typically goes after pubescent 11-year and 12-year-old boys for sexual gratification to be pedophiles. This is all where the term Hebephilia gets lost.
Or would including "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead be a bad idea? If so, why? A bit of confusion? Flyer22 ( talk) 05:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Female Paedophilia fully deserves to be a separate Wiki article and there is plenty to write about it (ref all the recent publicity in the uk and books by Michele Elliott etc) . Also why no Further reading section as with Child sexual abuse article ? Also if most child sexual abusers are paedophiles there should surely be a lot of overlap between this one and the Child sexual abuse article. -- Penbat ( talk) 17:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Legitimus ( talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the following sentence needs to be revised. "Another study, using structural MRI, shows that pedophilic men have a lower volume of white matter than non-sexual criminals.[39]" This sentence carries with it the distinct implication that "pedophilia" in of itself is inherently criminal. This section is about the biological causes of pedophilic attraction not child molestation. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the sentence has been altered but not in any meaningful way. Changing "pedophilc men" to "male pedophiles" doesn't resolve the problem with this sentence at all. I suggest that this sentence be reworded again or simply omitted from this section entirely. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is just awful. To hunt down a paedophile are we really looking for a left-handed midget person with downe-syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.1.97 ( talk) 10:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I’m changing the text on the legal definition from “age of consent” to “statutory rape”.
The only source provided is an article entitled: “Legal, social and biological definitions of pedophilia”, by Professors M. Ashley Ames and David A. Houston (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 19, Number 4 / August 1990) (link here, abstract here).
The article is available in full here for those willing to pay US$ 34,00. I have bought the full article.
The article never uses the term “age of consent”, and always associates a legal definition of pedophilia with the concept of “child molestation” It mentions 10 times the term “sexual abuse”.
The term “age of consent” is not accurate because in some jurisdictions the age of statutory rape (= child molestation) is lower than the age of consent.
The Legal Dictionary (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com) defines “statutory rape” (link here) as “sexual intercourse with a female below the legal age of consent, but above the age of a child”, adding that “the age above which the female is no longer a child varies although 14 is common” and that “intercourse with a female child (below 14 or whatever the state law provides) is rape, which is a felony”.
The Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition.defines child as: child, "at common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14." while the definition of rape includes that "carnal knowledge of a child is frequently declared to be rape by statute."
For example, the Penal Code of California (text here) defines rape in article 269 as a felony (clause “b”) in reference to sexual acts “upon a child who is under 14 years of age” (clause “a), penalty 15 years to life. The crime of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” is defined in article 261.5, which refers to the age of consent of 18, maybe a felony or a misdemeanor, with penalties of up to 4 years in prison (clauses “b”, “c” and “d”).
Other example: the Penal Code of Belgium ([text here (French)) defines child sexual abuse in article 375 for sexual acts with children under 14: « Est réputé viol à l'aide de violences tout acte de pénétration sexuelle, de quelque nature qu'il soit et par quelque moyen que ce soit, commis sur la personne d'un enfant qui n'a pas atteint l'âge de quatorze ans accomplis », roughly translated as « It is regarded as violent rape all acts of sexual penetration of any nature and by any means, committed over the person of a child that has not reached the age of fourteen years », penalty 15 to 20 years o prison.
However, the age of consent in Belgium is 16, as defined in article 372 of the Belgium Penal Code (see link above) which refers to “attentat à la pudeur commis sans violences ni menaces” (roughly translated as “sexual assault against decency committed without violences nor threats”), penalty 5 to 10 years of prison.
It is clear that the authors of this article provided as source for a legal definition referred to the legal concept of child sexual abuse and not to the concept of age of consent. As seen above, the ages involved in these two concepts are not necessarily the same. AleBZ ( talk) 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think User:AleBZ has a point and I agree in part with him (or her). If the authors of the article cited (Ames and Houston) didn’t use the term “age of consent”, then we shouldn’t use it either. Instead, the authors use the expression “child molestation” and argue for a separation between “child molestation” and rape.
Wikipedia has a policy that can’t be changed, which is called Verifiability. It says that:
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed”.
Secondly, the article refers only to “offenders convicted of child molestation”. It does not mention the words “accused or convicted” (included in Wikipedia), so I’m removing the word “accused”.
As to the police, what a specific police officer says is not important here. Police officers are not robots, they are human beings that have emotions. In many places, they do not necessarily follow manuals of legal terms or have a Bachelor of Laws or equivalent. Legal terms are most often used by lawyers, judges, defense attorneys, Law professors and scholars, in legal studies or lawsuits. I’m a lawyer and I believe User:AleBZ has been somehow confused about legal concepts.
Speaking strictly in legal terms and depending on the jurisdiction, referring to a non-pedophile as a pedophile, or to an accused person as a convicted one, may be seen as defamation and hate speech, especially when written or in public. This may vary according to the local laws about defamation and freedom of speech.
Definitions must be as accurate as possible, especially the legal ones. We should be responsible editors and legally fair, especially with a sensitive issue like this that can stress different persons in a variety of ways. So I’m rewriting this paragraph word by word, presenting sources to each phrase, legal concept or word. Leb Lilo ( talk) 19:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Causes
The cause or causes of pedophilia are not known.[17] The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be a strong risk factor, but research does not show a causal relationship, as the vast majority of sexually abused children do not grow up to be adult offenders, nor do the majority of adult offenders report childhood sexual abuse. The US Government Accountability Office concluded, "the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established." Until 1996, there was greater belief in the theory of a "cycle of violence," because most of the research done was retrospective—abusers were asked if they had experienced past abuse. Even the majority of studies found that most adult sex offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood, but studies varied in terms of their estimates of the percentage of such offenders who had been abused, from 0 to 79 percent. More recent prospective longitudinal research — studying children with documented cases of sexual abuse over time to determine what percentage become adult offenders — has demonstrated that the cycle of violence theory is not an adequate explanation for why people molest children.[29]
Just because the majority of child abuse victims do not go on to abuse children does not, in any way, substantiate the notion that offenders were less likely to have been abused themselves and asking an offender if they were abused as a child relies entirely on a) Their honesty (pedophiles are notorious liars) and b) Whether they can even recall being abused, as it is becoming more and more accepted that adults who were abused as children may not even be able to recall such a memory due to the subsequent major personality disorder risk associated with abuse in early years. 213.7.125.221 ( talk) 14:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I was not part of the earlier discussion, but the above comments appear to conflate child molestation with pedophilia. That is, most of the existing research pertains to the frequency of child molestation in the histories of child molesters, not the frequency of child molestation in the history of pedophiles. Moreover, the evidence does not exactly say that child molestation begets child molestation so much as it says that people who grow up in chaotic households go on to lead chaotic lives: Child molesters also report having suffered physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect in their own childhoods, and people who were molested in childhood are also at elevated risk of committing physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect of their own children. That is, bad history begets bad future; there is little evidence for any specific assocations like molestation leading to molestation or neglect to neglect, etc.
It is true that many psychologists and other mental health professionals without expertise in this specific part of the field still believe that there is a causal link, but this misconception is the same as many mismatches between science and the non-expert practitioner: Many psychologists also continue to believe in psychoanalysis, etc. despite the lack of empirical backing.
— James Cantor (
talk)
13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Flyer22: Yes. You and Legitimus are indeed among the most effective and productive editors on this topic, and I apologize if I did not seem to be giving a greater benefit of the doubt. I meant to address only the specific comments immediately above, which appeared (to my eye) to be discussing existing evidence (and which is about child molesters rather than pedophiles per se). Again, I apologize if I seemed to be saying that you yourself (or Legitimus) were unaware of the distinction.
My own beliefs about whether there is a causal relationship between experiencing sexual abuse and subsequently developing pedophilia is pretty much along standard scientific thinking: Assume the null hypothesis until the data compel us to believe otherwise. It is not possible to prove a lack of a causal relationship between experiencing abuse and developing pedophilia. Rather, we assume there is no relationship until the data compel us to believe there is one. In the present state of affairs (for better or for worse), there is no proof in either direction; so, the scientifically superior hypothesis is (by default) that there is no causal association. Researchers have been attempting to demonstrate one for a very long time now, and still none has found one (other than in the general associations that I mentioned earlier). So, sooner or later, one has to take "no" as an answer. The overall body of existing evidence is much more consistent with the idea that experiencing childhood sexual abuse is a disinibitor of antisocial behavior in general, not a cause of pedophilia per se.
— James Cantor (
talk)
20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
As adolescent boys and teenagers in general are still children, then pederasty and indeed adult attraction to teenage girls is paedophilia! Just because someone has past the age of ´puberty´ that does not make them mature adults. Children become adults around the age of 19 to 20, or perhaps 22 years.
Even though it is more difficult to perceive in girls as teenage girls were make-up and young women wear similar clothes, it is evident that the appearance of teenage boys and young (adult) men are clearly different, in that stubble and a muscular physique are adult traits in males. Therefore, gay men usually prefer stubble on men as it is a signal that they are no longer children. (Many men in their 20s have stubble in order NOT to resemble adolescent children.) Lack of facial hair and slight physique are child traits in males and therefore, pederasts (adult men attracted soley or mainly to teenage boys), mainly for these children´s traits, are paedophiles as it is children, not adults that they find sexually attractive.
Many people find that pederasty, or homosexual or gay paedophilia, as I prefer to call it, is the worst type of sexual abuse and abusing a 17-year-old boy is worse than abusing an 8-year-old girl as you are stripping the young boy of his sex identity as a male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.199.119 ( talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Opponents of LGBT parenting have sometimes claimed that it increases the likelihood of incest and pedophilia. For instance, on July 6 2009, there was a disturbing story published about an openly gay parent who had abused his child after obtaining an adoption from social services. Critics later used this story to make a generalization thart this was more common in the whole LGBT culture. [1] [2] [3] [4] ADM ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
While I welcome Dr Cantor's contributionss as much as any two legged hominid, I do feel that the following might be assumed to be egregious self-promotion, in violation of WP:SOAP.
"Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[28][29] and poor social skills.[30] Beginning in 2002, other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues, began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[3][31][32] poorer scores on memory tests,[31] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[3][31][33][34] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[35] lesser physical height,[36] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness"
The edit on this topic, referring directly to Dr Cantor and Dr Blanchard, were made by one 'MarionTheLibrarian' on 26th of Ma 2008, who, shockingly, is Dr Cantor. Much as I welcome Dr Cantor's edits, I fail to see why the following text is in the above is anything more than self-promotion :
"most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues"
Dr Cantor's research is clearly linked to as a reference for the more general statement this is a part of. I fail to see why this text is required in the article, other than opening wikipedia to accusations of self-promotion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.227.0 ( talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we allowed to quote specific cases here? What are the rules concerning what may and may not be published? Hawkesworth ( talk) 17:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Cody Steven Nelson Olstad is a PEDOFILE or so called as a pedofiliac. The article is written with Pschyo approach. It fails to mention the reason why it is considered mental disorder? WHat is the social and historical background relevant to the particular approach towards pedophilia? Homosexuality was considered and is considered by many experts to date to be Pyschological disorder. SOme cite sociological reasons against homosexuality and incest. I think pedophilia also shares similar reasons. This section may be expanded on these lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.97 ( talk) 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the idea is that pedophilia article doesn't have an explained why is it a mental disorder, (and yet not homosexuality). Homosexuality is considered by some as a psychological disorder, and in the past (not long ago, early 1990s even), homosexuality was as taboo as pedophilia. Then, without warning, homosexuality was an accepted, cultural norm, without anyone trying to find any "cures". So why is pedophilia a mental disorder, or better yet, what makes it a mental disorder? Because somebody said so? Colonel Marksman ( talk) 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Should it be noted that some people (incl myself) spell "pedophile" as "paedophile"? It's said that both spellings apply in Wiktionary wiktionary.org/wiki/paedophile -- Keithf2008 ( talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm made a little uncomfortable by the fact that the phrase "girl love" redirects to this page. "Girl love" was a 1990s riot grrrl/zine slogan that referred to sisterhood and support between girls. It has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.
Reference 17, "# ^ Mayo Clinic Proceedings "A Profile of Pedophilia"Mayo Clinic Proceedings Accessed June 2, 2008", has a broken link. The study can currently be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadrice ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As I recently stated on the Ephebophilia article talk page, this article's Diagnosis section lists "early pubertal age" as part of the criteria when diagnosing a person as a pedophile. Even when boys and girls do hit puberty (as in just starting to evolve into adults), they do not look like they have and largely still resemble prepubescents. I highly doubt that a pedophile who usually goes after prepubescent boys of about age 9 is going to pass on going after a pubescent boy of age 11. Not much physical difference between the two boys age-wise. Pubic hair? If the 11-year-old has any, the pedophile could insist that the boy shave...if pubic or any other type of body hair resulting from puberty turns the pedophile "off" (which is the case for most, since this type of hair symbolizes adult characteristics). It is not until the 11-year-old boy significantly develops some adult physical features...that the pedophile may "quit" the boy and will usually start to look for a younger boy (of course one who is or looks prepubescent). Most experts who study these sexual philias are still going to consider a man who typically goes after pubescent 11-year and 12-year-old boys for sexual gratification to be pedophiles. This is all where the term Hebephilia gets lost.
Or would including "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead be a bad idea? If so, why? A bit of confusion? Flyer22 ( talk) 05:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Female Paedophilia fully deserves to be a separate Wiki article and there is plenty to write about it (ref all the recent publicity in the uk and books by Michele Elliott etc) . Also why no Further reading section as with Child sexual abuse article ? Also if most child sexual abusers are paedophiles there should surely be a lot of overlap between this one and the Child sexual abuse article. -- Penbat ( talk) 17:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Legitimus ( talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the following sentence needs to be revised. "Another study, using structural MRI, shows that pedophilic men have a lower volume of white matter than non-sexual criminals.[39]" This sentence carries with it the distinct implication that "pedophilia" in of itself is inherently criminal. This section is about the biological causes of pedophilic attraction not child molestation. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the sentence has been altered but not in any meaningful way. Changing "pedophilc men" to "male pedophiles" doesn't resolve the problem with this sentence at all. I suggest that this sentence be reworded again or simply omitted from this section entirely. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is just awful. To hunt down a paedophile are we really looking for a left-handed midget person with downe-syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.1.97 ( talk) 10:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I’m changing the text on the legal definition from “age of consent” to “statutory rape”.
The only source provided is an article entitled: “Legal, social and biological definitions of pedophilia”, by Professors M. Ashley Ames and David A. Houston (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 19, Number 4 / August 1990) (link here, abstract here).
The article is available in full here for those willing to pay US$ 34,00. I have bought the full article.
The article never uses the term “age of consent”, and always associates a legal definition of pedophilia with the concept of “child molestation” It mentions 10 times the term “sexual abuse”.
The term “age of consent” is not accurate because in some jurisdictions the age of statutory rape (= child molestation) is lower than the age of consent.
The Legal Dictionary (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com) defines “statutory rape” (link here) as “sexual intercourse with a female below the legal age of consent, but above the age of a child”, adding that “the age above which the female is no longer a child varies although 14 is common” and that “intercourse with a female child (below 14 or whatever the state law provides) is rape, which is a felony”.
The Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition.defines child as: child, "at common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14." while the definition of rape includes that "carnal knowledge of a child is frequently declared to be rape by statute."
For example, the Penal Code of California (text here) defines rape in article 269 as a felony (clause “b”) in reference to sexual acts “upon a child who is under 14 years of age” (clause “a), penalty 15 years to life. The crime of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” is defined in article 261.5, which refers to the age of consent of 18, maybe a felony or a misdemeanor, with penalties of up to 4 years in prison (clauses “b”, “c” and “d”).
Other example: the Penal Code of Belgium ([text here (French)) defines child sexual abuse in article 375 for sexual acts with children under 14: « Est réputé viol à l'aide de violences tout acte de pénétration sexuelle, de quelque nature qu'il soit et par quelque moyen que ce soit, commis sur la personne d'un enfant qui n'a pas atteint l'âge de quatorze ans accomplis », roughly translated as « It is regarded as violent rape all acts of sexual penetration of any nature and by any means, committed over the person of a child that has not reached the age of fourteen years », penalty 15 to 20 years o prison.
However, the age of consent in Belgium is 16, as defined in article 372 of the Belgium Penal Code (see link above) which refers to “attentat à la pudeur commis sans violences ni menaces” (roughly translated as “sexual assault against decency committed without violences nor threats”), penalty 5 to 10 years of prison.
It is clear that the authors of this article provided as source for a legal definition referred to the legal concept of child sexual abuse and not to the concept of age of consent. As seen above, the ages involved in these two concepts are not necessarily the same. AleBZ ( talk) 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think User:AleBZ has a point and I agree in part with him (or her). If the authors of the article cited (Ames and Houston) didn’t use the term “age of consent”, then we shouldn’t use it either. Instead, the authors use the expression “child molestation” and argue for a separation between “child molestation” and rape.
Wikipedia has a policy that can’t be changed, which is called Verifiability. It says that:
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed”.
Secondly, the article refers only to “offenders convicted of child molestation”. It does not mention the words “accused or convicted” (included in Wikipedia), so I’m removing the word “accused”.
As to the police, what a specific police officer says is not important here. Police officers are not robots, they are human beings that have emotions. In many places, they do not necessarily follow manuals of legal terms or have a Bachelor of Laws or equivalent. Legal terms are most often used by lawyers, judges, defense attorneys, Law professors and scholars, in legal studies or lawsuits. I’m a lawyer and I believe User:AleBZ has been somehow confused about legal concepts.
Speaking strictly in legal terms and depending on the jurisdiction, referring to a non-pedophile as a pedophile, or to an accused person as a convicted one, may be seen as defamation and hate speech, especially when written or in public. This may vary according to the local laws about defamation and freedom of speech.
Definitions must be as accurate as possible, especially the legal ones. We should be responsible editors and legally fair, especially with a sensitive issue like this that can stress different persons in a variety of ways. So I’m rewriting this paragraph word by word, presenting sources to each phrase, legal concept or word. Leb Lilo ( talk) 19:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Causes
The cause or causes of pedophilia are not known.[17] The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be a strong risk factor, but research does not show a causal relationship, as the vast majority of sexually abused children do not grow up to be adult offenders, nor do the majority of adult offenders report childhood sexual abuse. The US Government Accountability Office concluded, "the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established." Until 1996, there was greater belief in the theory of a "cycle of violence," because most of the research done was retrospective—abusers were asked if they had experienced past abuse. Even the majority of studies found that most adult sex offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood, but studies varied in terms of their estimates of the percentage of such offenders who had been abused, from 0 to 79 percent. More recent prospective longitudinal research — studying children with documented cases of sexual abuse over time to determine what percentage become adult offenders — has demonstrated that the cycle of violence theory is not an adequate explanation for why people molest children.[29]
Just because the majority of child abuse victims do not go on to abuse children does not, in any way, substantiate the notion that offenders were less likely to have been abused themselves and asking an offender if they were abused as a child relies entirely on a) Their honesty (pedophiles are notorious liars) and b) Whether they can even recall being abused, as it is becoming more and more accepted that adults who were abused as children may not even be able to recall such a memory due to the subsequent major personality disorder risk associated with abuse in early years. 213.7.125.221 ( talk) 14:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I was not part of the earlier discussion, but the above comments appear to conflate child molestation with pedophilia. That is, most of the existing research pertains to the frequency of child molestation in the histories of child molesters, not the frequency of child molestation in the history of pedophiles. Moreover, the evidence does not exactly say that child molestation begets child molestation so much as it says that people who grow up in chaotic households go on to lead chaotic lives: Child molesters also report having suffered physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect in their own childhoods, and people who were molested in childhood are also at elevated risk of committing physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect of their own children. That is, bad history begets bad future; there is little evidence for any specific assocations like molestation leading to molestation or neglect to neglect, etc.
It is true that many psychologists and other mental health professionals without expertise in this specific part of the field still believe that there is a causal link, but this misconception is the same as many mismatches between science and the non-expert practitioner: Many psychologists also continue to believe in psychoanalysis, etc. despite the lack of empirical backing.
— James Cantor (
talk)
13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Flyer22: Yes. You and Legitimus are indeed among the most effective and productive editors on this topic, and I apologize if I did not seem to be giving a greater benefit of the doubt. I meant to address only the specific comments immediately above, which appeared (to my eye) to be discussing existing evidence (and which is about child molesters rather than pedophiles per se). Again, I apologize if I seemed to be saying that you yourself (or Legitimus) were unaware of the distinction.
My own beliefs about whether there is a causal relationship between experiencing sexual abuse and subsequently developing pedophilia is pretty much along standard scientific thinking: Assume the null hypothesis until the data compel us to believe otherwise. It is not possible to prove a lack of a causal relationship between experiencing abuse and developing pedophilia. Rather, we assume there is no relationship until the data compel us to believe there is one. In the present state of affairs (for better or for worse), there is no proof in either direction; so, the scientifically superior hypothesis is (by default) that there is no causal association. Researchers have been attempting to demonstrate one for a very long time now, and still none has found one (other than in the general associations that I mentioned earlier). So, sooner or later, one has to take "no" as an answer. The overall body of existing evidence is much more consistent with the idea that experiencing childhood sexual abuse is a disinibitor of antisocial behavior in general, not a cause of pedophilia per se.
— James Cantor (
talk)
20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)