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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 3.

I reverted you because some of the info is redundant and superfluous e.g. indecent exposure covers pornography, "physicaly contact with the childs genitals" is covered by physical sexual contact. This part "except in certain non-sexual contexts such as a medical exam" is stating the obvious. The previous lede is too repetitive. Pass a Method talk 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says indecent exposure is a form of child sexual abuse. However, this article only reflects western/christian culture. For instance, in the amazonian jungle or African jungle, there are tribes where being completely naked is the norm. In some middle eastern tribes, a girl showing her face is considered indecent exposure. Also, many naturists or irreligious people would say the human body is not indecent. Therefore this article seems to have a conservative western bias. Do you agree? Pass a Method talk 09:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a contextual matter. It's less about the mere pretense of nudity and more about the intentions of the person exposing themselves. Don't confuse the legal definitions of indecent exposure with actual sexual exhibitionism, where the goal is sexual gratification of the person exposing themselves. A behavior that has been clearly documented among pedophiles is to deliberately expose themselves to young children as a form of sexual gratification. It's even mentioned in the DSM under that diagnosis (Page 571).

More importantly, the culture is very relevant because it colors the reaction of the victim too. While a child from a equatorial tribe may have no reaction to nudity because there is nothing strange about it. A child is a very conservative society would be extremely shocked at seeing nudity, and could suffer psychiatric problems. Neither culture is "right," but a person deliberately trying to victimize a child is going to behave in a way that violates the mores of their culture.

Legitimus (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimus is right. There isn't much more that I can add. Indecent exposure of adults by adults has been shown to have traumatizing effects on children. And since pedophiles use this type of tactic to entice young children sexually, it is a form of child sexual abuse. It's true that not all forms of nudity are. For example, a person who didn't mean to or in cultures where walking around nude is the norm. But in the cases where it is an attempt to sexually entice young children or to do this to children for the simple means of sexual gratification, it most certainly has been categorized as child sexual abuse by researchers/experts. And no matter what we personally think of whether or not it is abuse, it is cited as abuse by reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, a middle eastern woman exposing her elbow or knees is considered a child sexual abuser, because in the middle east that is considered part of her awrah (private parts). I could easily find reliable sources favoring my POV. As a compromise i suggest adding the words "In most western interpretations..." to the start of the sentence. Thoughts? Pass a Method talk 21:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If exposing the elbows or knees are considered "private parts" in some parts of the Middle East (I say "some" because the Middle East encompasses Western Asia and Northern Africa, and I doubt that they all go by that way of thinking), and a woman does that to a child in order to sexually entice that child, then, yes, that would be considered child sexual abuse by experts in the West. Now whether it would be considered so in the Middle East, I am not sure. But seeing as showing awrah is considered sinful and offensive, and such things are taken very seriously by those practicing Islam, I would assume so. Either way, unless you have reliable sources saying that such indecent exposure is not child sexual abuse in the Middle East, you cannot claim that it isn't. More importantly, what about their researchers? Do they have researchers studying child sexual abuse and pedophilia as extensively as the West does? If they do not, how can they possibly know what is and what is not harmful to children with regard to these matters adequately enough to claim that such a thing is not abuse? How is it that much different than the misinformation that was spread in Africa about safe sex and AIDS, due to their not having the same resources as the West, that led to the huge AIDS epidemic there?

If you don't believe that indecent exposure is harmful to children, which it seems you do not, I stress that experts disagree with you. You can call them "U.S. experts" or "experts of the West" all you want, but it's not just "the West" who have come to these conclusions about the effects of child sexual abuse. These things are not just based on "interpretations." Experts have seen such factors, including adults sexually exposing themselves to children, as having a traumatic effect on children time and time again. It's not just something made up by the experts. There are different types of indecent exposures to consider as well, such as a man taking off his clothing and masturbating in front of a child. Is that not child sexual abuse to you either? You mean to tell me that is only sexual abuse according to the West?

The wording "In most western interpretations" negates the fact that it's not just "the West" that recognizes some forms of indecent exposure as child sexual abuse. And if that exact wording cannot be sourced, we shouldn't use it anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not saying indecent exposure is not hamrful. Im only disputing the emphasis on genitals. In some cultures female nipples are offensive; in some cultures female nipples are not offensive at all. In some cultures genitals are offensive, in some not. In some cultures feet are offensive, in some not. In some cultures a woman showing her face in public is offensive, in some not. Do you see my drift? Decency norms vary tremendously accross the world, and this article lede should reflect that. For instance, answer these questions;

• Do you think a woman exposing her nipples to a 9 year old boy is traumatizing a child?
• Do you believe a man exposing his anus to a kid is abusing a child?
• Is a woman wearing revealing clothing (e.g. a bikini) in front of a ultra-conservative Saudi child considered indecent exposure?
• If a child grew up in a naturist household/settlement, would he/she be negatively affected by indecent exposure then? Pass a Method talk 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its indecent exposure based on the intent. Dream Focus 09:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DSM states that examples of behavior include "undressing the child and looking, exposing themselves, masturbating in the presence of the child, or gentle touching and fond ling of the child."

The phrasing therefore does not have to mention genitals, but can be written in a more generalized fashion. Abuse of children in various cultures is going to vary based on that culture. Just as certain behaviors would not be considered traumatic in some cultures, that lack of "shock value" would also make the abuser less inclined to gratify himself in that manner. But in the course of this discussion there comes a point where it is not our place to be dissecting the issue to this degree, but rather we are just reporting what science has found. Also, remember that most readers of this article are going to be living in the US, Canada, UK and Australia.Legitimus (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the abbreviation DSM stand for? Pass a Method talk 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PassaMethod, I know you are saying decency values vary by culture. Legitimus and I already went over that for you. Even Dream Focus has weighed in and has been clear that it is more so about intent. A woman exposing her nipples to a 9-year-old boy is not child sexual abuse unless her intent is to do so in a way that sexually entices the boy. And I can't think of any accidental or casual way that a man would just so happen to expose his anus to a child. So, yes, that is child sexual abuse. It's not like the anus is easily seen. Traumatizing is another matter, however. Even when there is not intent to sexually entice a child, nudity can have traumatizing effects on that child. But that, like you and Legitimus stated, depends on the culture. Legitimus has made this perfectly clear: Where walking around nude is normal, it's not exactly going to be traumatizing to a child to see an adult naked. But all that said, I don't believe that if it was "normal" for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children in one culture, that we should then say children there are not being sexually abused -- that it is not sexual and psychological trauma. Some things, like the effects of rape and adults having sex with prepubescent children, are universal. I specifically stated "prepubescent children" there...because there is no society that I am aware of that thinks it's okay for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children. While adults engaging in sex with those who have attained puberty is allowed in some countries, such as where the age of consent is as low as 14.

Anyway, I changed your wording of "with intent to shock" to "with intent to entice" because that is more accurate to what these offenders are trying to do, as shown by reliable resources. I was going to suggest we be specific with the wording as a compromise and because it is needed, so I of course agree with your attempting to be more specific. And the DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Flyer22 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going a bit off-topic here. I was speaking only about indecent exposure. You started speaking about sex with children. Nevertheless, you are mistaken about there being no society where "it's okay for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children". For example, in rural areas of Yemen, prepubescent marriage is common. Pass a Method talk 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PassaMethod, I know what you were speaking of. I went "a bit off-topic" clearly to make a point. Just because something is normal in one culture...doesn't mean it is not harmful. And this discussion is also about "sex with children" -- offenders exposing themselves in the hopes of becoming sexually intimate with children. We were informing you that this is an often seen characteristic of such offenders.

As for it being "okay for adults to sexually engage with prepubescent children" in rural areas of Yemen, care to provide a reliable source for that? I would think something like that would be mentioned in the Age of consent or Marriageable age articles. I have studied the topic of child sexual abuse and pedophilia extensively, as well as topics about marriageable age. Legitimus has also studied child sexual abuse and pedophilia extensively, and we haven't read anything about sex with prepubescent children being condoned in any culture. In fact, the passage in the Marriageable age article states, "In practice, "Yemeni law allows girls of any age to wed, but it forbids sex with them until the indefinite time they’re 'suitable for sexual intercourse'.", backed up by this source (which needs to be updated or changed). Call me crazy, but I assume "suitable for sexual intercourse" means "pubescent" in this case. It goes on to say, "Following the widely publicised divorce of a 10 year-old girl in 2008, there have been public and parliamentary efforts to raise the age to 17 or 18," backed up by three more sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read more on the subject. I could hardly find anything about it on Google Books or Google Scholar, except this bit about child marriage, but this source (not sure how reliable it is) talks about it (and links to reliable sources). It attributes this matter to interpretation of religious texts that it is "okay" for men to engage in sex with prepubescent girls, and to the husband's interpretation of when the girl is "suitable for sexual intercourse." From more of what I read elsewhere, some men interpret it as waiting until she is pubescent, while others seem to think it is okay due to what they believe are the religious texts condoning it (even though Mohammad waited a few years, according to the pdf source above). I wouldn't expect that all these men are taking a child bride and then waiting until she is pubescent anyway. However, I believe that since this topic seems to be taboo in Yemen and there are now efforts to raise the marriage age there, it is not looked upon as perfectly acceptable. Not by all, and probably not by most. This is also one country out of many others. All other countries/cultures are clear in prohibiting sexual acts with prepubescent children. At least to my knowledge, which I admit wasn't as aware of this problem in Yemen. A variety of scholarly sources led me to believe that there are no cultures that condone sexual acts with prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Flyer22. "with intent to shock" is wrong, I agree, since some people wave their butts at others to moon them, and there is streaking where people run around naked thinking it funny. But "with intent to entice" isn't accurate either, they usually just trying to get a sexual arousal themselves from the exposure, or intimidate the person, they not knowing how to respond, or doing a grooming period, letting them believe its normal and then moving onward from there. Dream Focus 19:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be phrased "with the intent to gratify their own sexual desires or intimidate/groom the child"?Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Dream Focus 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "with intent to entice" isn't inaccurate, from what I know of the subject. It's just not complete, which is why I am okay with Legitimus's wording; it is indeed more accurate since it encompasses the whole range. I also replied to PassaMethod a little higher. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To flyer22. I disagree with your assumption on different cultures. For example, in some parts of Japan, it is not uncommon to find erotic magazines depicting very young girls inside such magazines. Or for example in Saudi Arabia, prominent religious scholars are often seen issueing fatwas which promote pedophilia on national television. i.e. [1], [2]. Also in some sub-saharan African regions, tribal laws supersedes national law. Pass a Method talk 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree with "my assumption" all you want. But "erotic magazines depicting very young girls" does not equate to "actually having sex with prepubescent children is okay." Yes, Lolicon exists in Japan, but where is "sex with prepubescent children" condoned in Japan, other than in pedophile rings? Where is it shown that "sex with prepubescent children" is something these countries are generally A-okay with? Any reliable sources to support that claim? The first YouTube source you supplied is redundant to the islammonitor.org source I listed above, where it says, "...it’s permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed... You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7 or 8. But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and tradition." The second YouTube source is also redundant. And these sources still don't show where it is said that this is acceptable behavior by most people practicing Islam. From what I see, it's no different than us having pedophilia and pedophile rings in America. Most of America does not condone sex with prepubescent children. And I don't see where most Middle-Easterners condone it either. There have been protests against it there just as fiercely as there would be protests against it here. If "sex with prepubescent children" was even close to as acceptable as "sex with pubescents and post-pubescents" by the world, then I'd think that Yemen wouldn't be the only marriageable age in the Marriageable age article that says girls of any age can wed. Puberty also wouldn't be such a factor in age of consent laws. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see compelling, empirically collected data indicating sex with children is acceptable in any of these Muslim countries. This is all basically anecdotal evidence that is often misunderstood or blown out of proportion when reported here in the States due to, let's face it, a decidedly anti-Muslim climate.

Child marriages are far from the norm in any of these areas. Even when they do occur, the reason is primarily symbolic, not sex. Many times there is a dowry tradition at work (making the motivation greed basically), or the marriage is done as a way to unite hostile factions. Often times the bride doesn't even live the with groom until she has grown up. Yes, there are no doubt pedophiles among Muslims who's motivation is sex, but I do not see how they occur more frequently than pedophiles here in the US.

Most important though is they are not the norm and they are definitely not considered acceptable by most Muslims. I have seen plenty Imam condemn child marriage as a horrible practice that should be haraam.Legitimus (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Bacha bazi for how it is legal and common in Afghanistan to sell prepubescent boys as sex slaves. I linked to a news article about that awhile back in one of the articles about this topic, but can't find it. Dream Focus 02:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speak basic arabic and the second link shows a man called Muhammad al Arifi who is a very well known scholar in the Muslim world. He justifies child marriage because of Muhammads marriage to Aisha when she was 6 and was consummated at 9. This child marriage is well documented (in Sahih Bukhari etc) and hence considered completely authentic. Muslims emulate Muhammad's actions therefore an adult man marrying a child wont usually be criticized in conservative non-secular Muslim countries. Laws in some Muslim countries can be inconclusive and vague and secular laws and sharia often overlap. This is because in Islam you have a system called Ijma meaning consensus, which can result in a fatwa, which can overrule a national law. Therefore we should not give undue weight on the official "age of consent" which exists in muslim countries. Pass a Method talk 04:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, I am aware of the sex slave issue. I'm quite certain that Legitimus is as well. Sex trafficking is a big part of child sexual abuse. But what I'm saying is that it being "legal and common in Afghanistan to sell prepubescent boys as sex slaves" does not equate to "sex with prepubescent boys or girls is perfectly or generally acceptable in Afghanistan." I have seen and read about many in Afghanistan speaking out against sex trafficking, especially with regard to children. It is not at all a generally condoned act. LGBT rights in Afghanistan#Homosexual practices with boys touches on why men engaging in sexual acts with boys (prepubescent or otherwise) is tolerated but not truly condoned in Afghanistan. The entire reason it is tolerated, by some, is because it is viewed as rape rather than homosexuality. Apparently, some in Afghanistan will tolerate rape of a boy before they tolerate what they consider "true homosexuality." As you know, child sexual abuse is common all over the the world. The main question in this current discussion is whether or not it is a generally condoned act in any culture. I have not seen that it is. And if we want to get more specific -- since some people, especially pedophiles, don't consider engaging in sex with prepubescent children to be abuse -- I have not seen evidence that engaging in sexual acts with prepubescent children is a generally condoned act in any culture.

PassaMethod, Legitimus knows that such things exist, but he is saying that sex with prepubescent children is not something that is perfectly or generally condoned in these Muslim countries. He's saying it's not "the norm," as in just as normal as sex between adults/adult marriages. And seeing as Legitimus has a great deal of knowledge about these subjects, I trust his word. Yes, plenty of Muslims emulate Muhammad's actions...but not all do. And just because a Muslim worships Muhammad...doesn't mean he or she agrees with child marriage. Clearly, all do not, when, as Legitimus stated, "I have seen plenty Imam condemn child marriage as a horrible practice that should be haraam." Also, some practicing Islam may agree with marriage to a prepubescent child, but not with having sex with a prepubescent child; as I stated above, some of these men believe in waiting until the girl is pubescent. Until I see evidence that having sex with prepubescent children is generally condoned in any of these countries, I will not believe that it is. Many people have been trying to rid these countries of sex slavery and child marriage, and that includes many of their citizens. Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they have in recent times passed laws against the Lolicon that was so common in Japan, that the United Nations and others did criticize them for. Since that was mentioned above, I thought I'd make a separate section for it. I'll see if I can find the news report I saw, and update the Child pornography laws in Japan. They did state that Lolicon was creating a sexual interest in child and leading to abuse. Dream Focus 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That really is a topic best discussed elsewhere. There are several articles already devoted to the topic.Legitimus (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a man abusing a girl would be more intrusive and damaging than a boy abused by a woman. Mainly because of (a) double standards in society which say a male receiving sex is admirable, and (b) because physically, it would probably not be painful for a boy to have intercourse with a woman. Pass a Method talk 11:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget same-sex abuse. With that included, you have 4 different types. You also have to factor in age ranges, both prepubescent and peri-pubescent. And the manner of the abuse (use of violence, object-rape, blackmail, abuse of trust). Also consider men and women often manifest different symptoms as the result of the abuse, or the same symptoms are reacted to differently by peers (e.g. sexual compulsion has a gender double standard, despite it being equally unhealthy for men and women). And if you think girls under-report abuse, boys are far worse.

From that matrix, as you can see is generally not possible to make a gross generalization based on gender alone. It does abused men a disservice to claim such a thing, for even if were supported even slightly in the data, it implies abused boys are less worthy of rights and empathy. It is effectively a form of minimisation. Legitimus (talk] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]