This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

Template:Calm talk

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 15 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

Please remember to keep the lead section as short and as concise as possible. I moved the "Pedophile" definition to its own section, but the bullet points that are still there should eventually be condensed into prose form. --slakr 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to retain the terminology in the Intro section. I've read through the Lead Section guidelines that Slakr cites. It suggests that the Intro consist of 3-4 paragraphs; four paragraphs is the length of the Intro in the consensus version. The guideline requires that an intro “provide an overview” and “establish context,” and I do think our consensus version does a better job of this.

But, if we need to keep it short, I propose that we split off the following material into a Terminology section. This section will immediately follow the Intro and appear *below* the index. Note that no changes have been made to the test itself. This change leaves the definition of the umbrella term by itself as the intro.

===PROPOSED TITLE: Terminology===

The legal term child sexual offender refers to a sex offender who has been convicted for one or more child sexual abuse offenses.[7] The term therefore describes a person who has committed child sexual abuse, without regard to the perpetrator’s motivation.[8]

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. A person who fits its diagnostic criteria experiences intense, recurring, sexually arousing fantasies or urges toward a child, or engages in sexual activities with a child for period of at least six months.[9] Its diagnosis also requires that the fantasies or urges cause clinically significant distress,[10] or impairment in social, occupational, and other areas of functioning.[11] In addition, this condition must persist for least six months;[12] the person must be at least sixteen years of age, and at least five years older than the target of the fantasies, urges, or conduct.[13] For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia is a pedophile.

The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders. However, not all child sexual offenders meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia,[14] and not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges to engage in sexual activity with children. Law enforcement and legal professionals have begun to use the term predatory pedophile,[15] a phrase coined by children's attorney Andrew Vachss to refer specifically to pedophiles who engage in sexual activity with minors.[16] The term emphasizes that child sexual abuse consists of conduct chosen by the perpetrator.[17]

Please discuss this proposal here. -ZeroZ 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I think what's needed is to add this sentence to the end of the lead/Intro: "The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders" and then follow through immediately with the terminology section. -Jmh123 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems as before, it is not a psychiatric disorder in any objective sense, it is just classified as such by DSM and ICD. Thomas Wiederman 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I went ahead and did a partial cleanup on this article to make it a little prettier, more neutral, and less cluttered. Please feel free to alter any of the things I changed, revert them, or whatever. Please know that all of my edits are in the best of faith and as neutral as I can make them. I'm not an expert here, so I'm not well-versed in the articles/research cited. There's a mini-rundown:

• I did a bunch of edits in order to separate out the changes more easily in case there's any dispute.

• Concise-ifying. Is that a word? :P Anyway, I made some bizarre structures like "Minors' inability to consent" into "Age of consent." Essentially, the aim is to make the article overall less wordy by avoiding prepositional phrases and such.

• I clarified the "legal" wording of sections to make them less confusing (eg, in the outside US section, I made it sound less like the treaty outright prevented abuse (which, sadly, is impossible) and more like what was intended-- the treaty forces those that sign it to enact laws against abuse-related stuff). Also de-guilted some sentences (e.g., added "alleged" to "offender" when referring to prosecution of alleged offenders).

• There were a couple of weasel words that I tagged with {{weasel-inline}}. Please consider revising in order to better make the sentences more complete-- I'm not familiar with the research.

• Reformatting. Hopefully I didn't miss the mark on this one, but it seemed (and, well, still seems) like the medical/research sections are big paragraph blobs. I tried to add a couple subheaders and move the offender stuff out of the medical section, but if that's unacceptable, by all means, undo it. Ideally, though, if you do so, replace it with something even better and more easy to read.

• Wikifying. I added some internal links here and there to their respective topics. Also, I added boldness to mentions of the article's title (per manual of style).

If you have any issues, questions, comments, or concerns, please discuss them in a civil manner. Cheers. :) --slakr 02:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! There was confusion on what the weasel words tagging involved. For example, I added weasel tags to the following:

• "Many states include in their...." There was no mention of which states, or at least, a number of states, that included it, and I wasn't sure about the cite. "Many" could refer to 10, 20, 40, or 50 states, so it should be changed to more accurately reflect the number it is trying to assert. Btw, I removed the "so-called" text for WP:NPOV considerations, as it gives a discrediting tone to the text that follows it. Consider also removing the air quotes.
• "During the last three decades many state legislatures have increased prison terms...." Again, how many are we talking about? There are probably quite a few, but which ones? How many? How few? How much have they increased? These are considerations to take into account when avoiding weasel words.

These aren't too terribly serious, but in my opinion should probably be reworded to be more accurate to what they're trying to say, with the accompanying cite to go with it (if their present cites aren't sufficient). I thought a good example came later in the article when there was a listing of the states enacting exceptions to the incest laws. That's more of what we should be writing in order to avoid weasel words. --slakr 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clean-up. I added a couple of citations to support the statement about death from child sexual abuse, and some information from one study to clarify. It seemed that more clarification might be needed, as many do not realize that, beyond the widely publicized cases of kidnap, sexual assault, and murder by strangers, children do die of sexual abuse. The second study I cited found 6 probable and 6 certain cases in one decade in North Carolina. Death can also occur as a result of suffocation or head trauma (as a result of forced fellatio or simply the larger body mass of the adult), which is why I was not as specific about causes as your edited version, but that's enough for tonight. -Jmh123 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr and Monotonehell made several changes without seeking consensus. I object to some; to others I have none. However, I reverted all so that these changes could be debated by the editors. Jmh123’s added references to the Medical section have been retained.

My objection and counter-proposal concerning Slakr's proposed Introduction are contained in the section above entitled Quick note regarding the lead section. The rest of Slakr’s proposals I summarize below. Please comment after each of the proposals, for ease of reading. -ZeroZ 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Within Effects of CSA, addition of subsection: Abuse by females beginning with sentence: "It has been suggested that young children..."

• Within Effects of CSA, addition of subsection: Self-perception of abuse, beginning with sentence "Several studies have indicated that some children..."

• Move Epidemiology subsection out from Medical section, into its own section.

• Move Offenders subsection out from Medical section, into its own section.

I am presently neutral with respect to the abovelisted proposals. My objections to Slakr’s changes concern the changes in the Legal section. Most of the edits have altered the meaning of the sentences, and do not reflect the source material. As an example, the following is contained in the consensus version:

In the majority of states with incest laws, a perpetrator of intrafamilial child sexual abuse may be prosecuted for incest instead of child sexual abuse offenses. A related perpetrator, if convicted under the state's incest law, will receive a significantly lower penalty for committing the same acts that constitute criminal child sexual abuse in that state.

The bolded sentence above was changed to: The relative, if convicted, may receive a significantly lower penalty for committing the same acts that constitute criminal child sexual abuse in that state.

This changed statement is not correct, and creates uncertainty where none exists with respect to the laws cited. Conviction for sexual acts with a child in any given state for incest will result in a significantly lower penalty than if tried for the same acts using the criminal sexual abuse laws in that same state. That is the significance of the articles cited in that section. Slakr notes that s/he is not up on the research. While I understand the desire to avoid what s/he refers to as legalese, I find that the changes Slakr made in the Legal section result in less clear information.

Slakr noted several sentences in the Legal section where citations were needed; these have been added.

• Monotonehell reformatted the article to place the International law section after the Intro and before the US law section. This has the result of implying that definitions of child sexual abuse and the terminology concerning child sexual offenders, pedophilia, and predatory pedophiles apply across all nations; they do not. They do apply in the United States.

In my opinion, there is no way for this article to be both specific as to child sex abuse law in the US and diffuse enough to encompass the variety of legal regimes across nations. The brief subsections on non-US law subsections should continue to be included in this article. But rather than attempting to internationalize this article, I propose that main articles on the specific child sexual abuse laws of other countries should be developed and linked to this article, if there are editors who wish to take this project on. -ZeroZ 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reorganisation was to avoid the the "US" verses "The rest of the World" style of headings. Heading should have equal weight for each country. I also put the sections into alphabetical order. Changing the order of those sections should not have changed the meaning of any of that information as all the sections under "In the United States" are specific to the U.S. and all in "Outside the United States" are not. I was not attempting to Internationalize the entire article, but I was attempting to being steering it away from an exclusively U.S. discussion. Obviously if there is "no way for this article to be both specific as to child sex abuse law in the US and diffuse enough to encompass the variety of legal regimes across nations" then it should be renamed to reflect its content. However I don't subscribe to that opinion. Any article can be rewritten to achieve that, the first step is t set up a framework that is friendly to the process. --Monotonehell 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main complaint was simply the "United States" on one side and "Rest of the World" on the other. I've just removed this dichotomy without reordering the sections. I believe it still holds its integrity. --Monotonehell 08:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me. -ZeroZ 10:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw that you were disquieted by my edit to that sentence with regard to the legal aspects. I should note that my main intention in rewording that sentence is to reflect reality as opposed to some ideal reality as imposed by those reading the law. That is, a person may (or, I suppose another replacement might be might, but whatever *shrug*) receive a heavier sentence. That is, it doesn't necessarily mean that will happen, as sentencing is completely within the realm of the judge, with exceptions for mandatory sentencing (which you would have to cite). Additionally, using "perpetrator" is a heavy word that implies guilt, hence, it adds POV issues to any sentence it's used in. If you do not approve of my use of "relative," which I felt was most accurate to a sentence regarding incest, consider replacing it with "suspect," another term without legal POV issues. Remember, the news media gets successfully sued over things like this (eg, calling someone a murderer before they're deemed guilty), so one of my main goals here is to get rid of that POV tag at the top of the page. :P --slakr 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disquieted; I simply disagree. The article certainly should reflect reality, but I believe your proposed edits bring us farther away from it. It is a general principle in common law countries that judges or juries determine sentencing. However, there is no reason to recapitulate general principles of law when they are irrelevant to a particular point made in comparing the available sentences for two specific crimes, namely incest and child sexual abuse offenses. One might as well state that "a perpetrator convicted of voluntary manslaughter may receive a longer sentence than one convicted of second-degree murder, because sentencing is left up to the judge." While such a claim is (depending on the state) technically possible, it does not reflect the reality of sentencing. The sources cited emphasize that wide differences between the length of sentences as executed for these two specific crimes remain a reality in nearly all the states.

With respect to your second point, concerns about bias present no reason to change the term "perpetrator" to "suspect", or to use the word "alleged". The term "perpetrator" refers to a person who has performed certain offenses, but who has not necessarily been convicted yet. In contrast, the term "suspect" refers to a person who may or may not have performed the offenses in question. This article is about child abuse, its victims, and the persons who perform child abuse offenses; it is not about persons suspected of child abuse. If this article referred to "suspects" rather than "perpetrators", most of the statements made in the article would actually become biased in a way that they are not right now. Last, this article makes no claims about any specific person, so there is no reason to refer to any one as having been "alleged" to have performed offenses. I am not sure why you think Wikipedia could be sued on the basis of this article for "deeming someone guilty". -ZeroZ 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just move all legal material to a separate article and link to it? It feels out of place now. Thomas Wiederman 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the earlier discussion of this question under heading The importance of information about child sexual abuse laws. -ZeroZ 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section is nicely done as is. SamDavidson 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following part is presented as a solid logical argument: Between adults, most sexual activity does not constitute a criminal offense, unless one of the adults does not consent to the activity. In contrast, minors are unable to give consent under the law. Indeed, the term "minor" refers to a person who has not yet reached majority, the age at which one may give consent in any legal matter (for example, a minor cannot make a valid contract).^[1] Consequently, an adult who engages in sexual activity with a minor commits child sexual abuse. But obviously one cannot compare entering a legal contract with entering into sexual activity. There's a term at rhetoric for this logical mistake that escapes me. Can we replace this with a more reasoned section? Perhaps focusing on mental/emotional capacity rather than a logical fallacy? --Monotonehell 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be conflating the concept of willingness, which is a fluid conversational definition of "consent," with the extremely precise legal definition of consent. In law, minors are defined as those unable to consent in any legal matter. Legal matters include not only contracts (such as an agreement to make a contract), but also property (such as an agreement to sell land), and torts. An example of a tort is battery, which is any touching to which one does not legally consent (such as an agreement to undergo medical treatment, or an agreement to have sex). Minors cannot give valid consent to sexual activity, any more than they can validly consent to medical treatment. The lack of consent constitutes a tort (battery), and the laws of the US criminalize the specific battery of sex without legal consent (as rape, or sexual assault, or any of the other offenses listed in the Intro). This is why any sexual activity performed with a minor constitutes child sexual abuse as defined in the Intro. The title of the subsection emphasizes minors' legal status; their lack of capability to consent to sex is contextualized as part of their general lack of legal capability. This is the reason that the subsection itself is located under Legal responses, rather than being part of the Medical section. I am happy to further clarify the article along these lines if we reach consensus to do so. -ZeroZ 10:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up the consent/simple consent issue would probably solve the problems. I agree that this section is poor and should be removed or rewritten. Thomas Wiederman 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZeroZ: No I'm not, you obviously understand the concept enough to understand my point, so I must not have explained it clearly, sorry. My problem is with trying to illustrate the concept of inability to give consent legally with the inability to be held to contract as a minor. It's completely possible to enter into and execute a contract with and as a minor, it's just not legally binding to the minor if they decide to wig out. However, no matter how much actual consent a minor gives it's completely illegal in most jurisdictions to engage in sexual activity with them. That's the point I'm at odds with. (I've underlined the passage for added clarity) Third afterthought: Your example of consent to medical procedures is better. In fact most of your explanation above would be preferable to what exists already.

Thomas W: I think it's a very important point to be made, so shouldn't be removed. But definitely needs to be examined and rewritten. --Monotonehell 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth thought (I'm very scatological tonight lol): I've adapted ZeroZ's explanation above and I believe with a little more work it would provide a better section that we currently have. Although it needs a reference or two more:

--- Minors' inability to consent under law

There is a distinction between the concept of willingness, which is a coloquial definition of "consent," with the legal definition of consent. In law, minors are defined as those unable to consent in a legal matter. Legal matters include things such as contracts and torts. An example of a tort is battery, which is any touching to which one does not legally consent. Minors cannot give valid consent to sexual activity, any more than they can validly consent to medical treatment. The lack of consent constitutes a tort (battery), and the laws of many jurisdictions regard the specific battery of sex without legal consent (as rape, or sexual assault, or any of the other offenses listed above). This is why any sexual activity performed with a minor constitutes child sexual abuse as defined in these jurisdictions.

Some jurisdictions ^[2] include in their penal codes a "Romeo and Juliet" or "close in age" exception for cases where sexual activity occurs between a young adult and a minor whose ages are within a few years of each other.^[3] This exception typically bars charging the young adult with a sex offense, if the young adult did not use force or coercion on the minor and the minor is a teenager.^[4]

--- Ne? --Monotonehell 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that just doesn't work for me stylistically. Too wordy, and in trying too hard to be simple, is actually harder for me to follow than the current wording in the text. -Jmh123 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current wording is better. RalphLender^talk 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes Monotonehell made to this section. -ZeroZ 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you have reverted a non-substantial edit. --Monotonehell 12:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which of your changes are you referring to as non-substantial. Thanks. -ZeroZ 14:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one you just said that you reverted. --Monotonehell 16:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyskolos added the following[1] to the Medical section, immediately after the definition from the American Psychological Association.[2] I reverted the change and have placed the material here for consensus.

Studies of the effects of child sexual abuse often define it as including invitations or requests to do anything sexual, sexual kissing or hugging, touching or fondling of the genitals, indecent exposure, and attempted or completed sexual intercourse. (ref-Martin, J., Anderson, J., Romans, S., et al (1993). "Asking about child sexual abuse: methodological implications of a two-stage survey," Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 383-392.)

Is this material not redundant, given the clear information in the Intro? Please comment here. -ZeroZ 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have knowledge pertaining to childhood sexual abuse prevention or child advocacy groups. This would be a nice addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.250.255 (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSA is undoubtedly a multimillion grossing industry, based upon finding, making, taking advantage of and sometimes helping real and imagined victims. Some have resorted to prevention programs, again - as a way of making money -

http://www.childluresprevention.com/

http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/04/28/news/c-news.txt

The second is pure comedy, but I suppose that we may need something to lighten up a dull article ●Farenhorst 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a disallowed hyperlink on this page. i am unsure which one it is apparently this triggered it www.s . I was attempting to move this symbol ) from the intro as i believe it is vandalism to look like a smile. e.g. .) This cannot be allowed but since i have had a disallowed hyperlink problem and i am unaware of which link it is i am leaving this note for someone else to change it in case it is a prob with my computer rather than this page. Delighted eyes 14:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate that a certain editor refrain from working hand in hand with a known vandal to remove sourced information about peer reviewed and APA endorsed study work that reflects a non - victimological stream of thought in the CSA debate. Much of this information is balanced off with criticism and even comments from staunch victimologists such as Finkelhor.

Please do not censor Wikipedia. Thankyou. ●Farenhorst 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the edit war begins...

It is sourced material. A few questions I have that may help in integrating it into the article are...

If the experiences are positively received, is it then "abuse"? If not, it should be organized in the article differently. If so, how would it legitimately be a positive experience? (The definition of abuse would seem to be a detrimental experience, eh?)

Should a sub-heading be created that addresses this "positive" effect? That could help prevent the confusion and POV assertions going forward.

Do we need to protect this page? (I'm kidding; that's a rhetorical question.)  :-)

VigilancePrime 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This kind of material is deeply controversial and so far from mainstream as to have notability problems and may not be scientifically valid. Many abused children see their experience in a positive light at the time in order to cope eith the horror but later on is a different mater. This article si totally dispyuted p[recisely because of the addition of this kind of material and the trivialisation of CSA. Some people want to die (we call it suici9dal) but that doesnt make murder in any way a positive experience. I also think there may be an argument that abuse is by nature negative and therefore we shoudl stick tot he negative, SqueakBox 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point-of-view, but there is legitimate research and anecdotal references of childhood sexuality reaping benefits. Even if this is a tiny minority, it deserves recognition. I'm not saying that it deserves encouragement by any means, but there are documented cases of childhood sexuality having positive effects. I believe that this information should have its own section within this article and be very carefully phrased and excruciatingly well-referenced. That's the only way to be fair to the information and fair to the article's topic. VigilancePrime 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think notability is a big issue here, a compromise might be just a couple of sentences, also a direct criticism of this particular reasearch would be helpful, SqueakBox 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of controversy can make it magically "not scientifically valid", and neither can it make it not notable. Quite to the contrary, the massive amount of controversy surrounding this stance argues that it is quite notable. Were it not, nobody would would would pay any attention to it. And your assertion that "[m]any abused children see their experience in a positive light ... but later on is a different mater" is already handled by the paragraph. To quote:

There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light.

and also:

Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences.

Research indicating that it need not universally cause damage does not trivialize the cases where it does any more than research indicating that not all car crashes are fatal trivializes the cases where they are. Saying, essentially, that suicide is to murder as sexual activity desired by children is to that which is not is obviously faulty. Rather, a more apt analogy would be comparing it to the difference between assisted suicide (which, notably, is legal or sought to be so in places) and suicide. Finally, this term "abuse" is used because it is also used in the law, not because it is always necessarily abusive or otherwise negative.

I'll also answer your other post above so as not to have more threads than are necessary going at once. Chopping the paragraph down to such a ridiculous extent, especially when its subject matter is quite notable, is simply, well, ridiculous, and it's certainly not a compromise when you seem to be the only one so vehemently against it. There's also mentions of evidence against this within the paragraph itself (a couple of which I've already quoted), and the rest of the article basically goes against it, so it's not like this single paragraph horribly unbalances the article. Personally, I think that it should be put back into the article, perhaps in its own section, but certainly not removed or cut down. Stically 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove sourced material until you have consensus to do so! It's as simple as that.

Having read the literature on CSA and how it is interpreted in the psy community, I would have to say that this position is represented fairly within the current article. It is also important to note that studies which do not use legal or clinical samples (Rind, Sandfort, Bender & Blau, etc) are very important, since they are probably far more efficient at representing the real nature of what may be classified but rarely identified, prosecuted and treated as CSA. ●Farenhorst 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy that states "don't remove sourced material until you have consensus to do so" cos I have never seen it. WEither point it out to me or stop making up policy yourself (how many edits have you made) and then trying to impose it on others, SqueakBox 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe how ridiculous this is. Wikipedia is not the place for pro-pedophilia propoganda. The user who is complaining about censorship also admits on his/her userpage to grooming young boys to have relationships with! We don't need to start being politically correct toward child abusers. Don't let the NAMBLA crowd influence articles like this. --YellowTapedR 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it a place for homophobia, please keep that in mind. Happy Camper II 17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was what I said homophobic? Child sexual abuse has nothing to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. --YellowTapedR 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You slandered a admitted homosexual man, that is by any standard a homophobic attitude. By trying to connect a homosexual with NAMBLA you surely crossed the line. Happy Camper II 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't know whether he was a man or a woman; that's why I said "his/her" in my posting. So, clearly, I didn't know he was a homosexual, and I honestly don't care now that I do know. The thing I was referring to was him saying, "The benefit of an intergenerational relationship is that with a person such as myself, it can start off with boy-mentoring and then develop as he becomes more sexually appealing."

I also didn't say he belonged to NAMBLA, but he clearly is a pedophilia activist. Regardless, it's impossible to slander -- the correct term would be libel in this case -- an anonymous wikipedia user. The larger point I was trying to make is that pedophilia activists shouldn't be controlling this page. --YellowTapedR 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are trying to link homosexuals with pedophilia activism! Do you think that just because someone is homosexual, they are also pedophiles? Can you support surt an absurd claim? Happy Camper II 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding. Of course being homosexual doesn't make you a pedophile. The quote I provided and the nature of the user's edits support the claim about the user; it has nothing to do with him being gay. It's only relevant because the user is putting POV material into sensitive articles. --YellowTapedR 21:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you 2 please explain what you are talking about? YellowTaper certainly hasnt edited the article recently and I can get no clues from the top part of the thread, SqueakBox 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly saying that his homosexual orientation is related to adding pro pedophile material (your accusation--devoid of proof we might add). So how does homosexuality relate to this? Are gay people an open target here? Happy Camper II 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, enough. I don't think I could have been more clear before. I'll try to make it even clearer: 1) I didn't know he was gay 2) I didn't even know whether he was a man or woman and 3)I never said anything suggesting that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. I guess your strategy is to just shoot down people's arguments by accusing them of homophobia. Nice.

The user, by the way, has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet. I'm pretty sure you're a sock puppet, too, given your edit history. --YellowTapedR 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep stacking it, first accusing people of being pedophiles, running the arends of NAMBLA, linking homosexuality with pedophilia and then accusing people of being sock puppets. Keep it comming... Happy Camper II 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a monster, apparently. Have a good one. --YellowTapedR 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Happy Camper II has since been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet. Coming soon: Happy Camper III.)--YellowTapedR 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the article states:
Child sexual abuse is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Then, under the "Medical responses..." section, CSA is redefined with:
The American Psychological Association defines child sexual abuse as contact between a child and an adult or other person significantly older or in a position of power or control over the child, where the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the adult or another person.

These two definitions are significantly different, and the entire article consists of references to numerous studies, many of which have different operational definitions of CSA. Such inconsistencies discredit much of the article, leaving considerable room for misrepresentation of cited figures, thus making this an important issue to address. --Gotaro 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could try to work out higher standards for inclusion of sources in this particular article. By wiki standard the current article is fine, but by any other standard its horrendous. I suggest a section where each cited study (in discussion) also provides cites from the article showing their exact definitions, samples, method and results. This makes scrutiny and comparison between studies much easier for everyone (since far from all sources are easily accessible and many have been included just to win an argument rather than for the good of the article.) Völund Smed 07:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to note in the introduction that it is unclear how child sexual abuse is defined. The German penal code defines child sexual abuse as sexual acts with or by a child below 14 years of age (§ 176 StGB), no matter if any harm is done or the initiative is the child's own, no matter who is stimulated or gratified to what degree. The Citizendium:Child sexual abuse defines "Child sexual abuse occurs when an adult or older child forces or coerces a child into sexual activity." and Citizendium:Child abuse says "Child abuse, literally, is the act of intentionally harming a child, or the results of that act." The Citizendium has no definition for adult sexual abuse. It could even be seen as a fighting word as it is used to demonize sexuality, I would prefer clearer words such as child sexual coercion and inflicting child harm. Roman Czyborra 09:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Adult-child sex#Merge for the initial discussion. It sems peop[le are happy to merge adult-child sex with this article but there is a strong disagreement as to whether the merged article shoul;d be called child sexual abuse or adult-child sex, SqueakBox 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is appropriate for the article to state (within the section "Perspectives") that child sexual abuse is "often referred to as pedophilia." It is important to point out that this is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia" and not the appropriate scholarly or medical one. I recommend that the word "colloquially" be reinserted into this phrase, so that the final product would be: "often colloquially referred to as pedophilia." This is especially important because there are many misconceptions about what pedophilia actually is. Besides, since a wikilink is provided for the Wikipedia article on pedophilia, it would make sense to adhere to what is stated in that article - that this use of the term is colloquial and not scholarly or medical. ~ Homologeo 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word colloquially because it was used in reference to "adult-child sex"... There is nothing about "adult-child sex" being referred to as pedophilia that is colloquial. Unless by child, we also mean 17-year-olds. What I mean, of course, is that colloquial means incorrect/informal, as you know. It's not incorrect to call "adult-child sex" pedophilia...unless that "child" is a 17-year-old or such an adolescent, as the pedophilia article points out that sometimes a person is incorrectly (colloquially) called a pedophile. The section Perspectives is focusing on actual children, not adolescents. I don't object to pointing out that child sexual abuse is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia"... But stating or implying that "adult-child sex" is colloquially called pedophilia? Yes, I object that. Also, the way part was worded, it stated that Child sexual abuse is colloquially referred to as pedophilia. If anything, that should be worded the other way around, since it is pedophilia that is colloquially referred to as child sexual abuse. Flyer22 05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]