Talk:Hebephilia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:07, 13 February 2020 editCrossroads (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,542 edits →Added the following source: Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management: re← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:11, 13 February 2020 edit undoCrossroads (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,542 editsm →Added the following source: Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management: tweakNext edit →
Line 51:		Line 51:

	:I think we should work on recrafting the article in a sandbox. I've copied the article to ]. This is so that we can get an easier understanding of what we have in mind and work together with little editing conflict. we don't usually have editing conflict, but you know what I mean. We could also work on an outline here on the talk page, without creating a whole nother version of the article here on the talk page. But I think that the sandbox route will be easier. And we're agreed on looking at what the other non-primary academic sources state. ] (]) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)		:I think we should work on recrafting the article in a sandbox. I've copied the article to ]. This is so that we can get an easier understanding of what we have in mind and work together with little editing conflict. we don't usually have editing conflict, but you know what I mean. We could also work on an outline here on the talk page, without creating a whole nother version of the article here on the talk page. But I think that the sandbox route will be easier. And we're agreed on looking at what the other non-primary academic sources state. ] (]) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the sources and the sandbox. To be clear, I knew we always had to cover the arguments against hebephilia as a diagnosis. We're agreed on trimming the fat. I wasn't proposing copying the source exactly, either. Other than that, it makes sense to test some changes in the sandbox and discuss from there. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)		::Thanks for the sources and the sandbox. To be clear, I knew we always had to cover the arguments against hebephilia as a diagnosis since we have to cover the debate. We're agreed on trimming the fat. I wasn't proposing copying the source exactly, either. Other than that, it makes sense to test some changes in the sandbox and discuss from there. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:11, 13 February 2020

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. 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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Section sizes

Section size for Hebephilia (14 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	5,473	5,473
Etymology, definitions and history	6,595	6,595
Research	13	9,216
General	2,395	2,395
Correlates	5,221	5,221
Prevalence	1,587	1,587
DSM-5 debate	18	23,537
Proposal	3,421	3,421
Responses	16	16,645
General	9,698	9,698
Attraction as normal or abnormal	6,931	6,931
Use in court	3,453	3,453
References	28	28
External links	355	355
Total	45,204	45,204

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

James Cantor (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Special:Diff/773805490)

Added the following source: Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management

As seen here, here and here, I added this 2015 "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source, from Springer, to the Ephebophilia article and to this article. From pages 29-41, it extensively reviews the hebephilia research and debate, and can help replace some or most of the primary sourced material in this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

But then again, we don't want to overly rely on a single source. We should look for more secondary and tertiary sources to replace the primary sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. I think this source will be helpful in determining whether some of the play-by-play of the DSM debate is undue and should be cut. I think the "Variation of normal" subsection is too long. I also note that some things covered there are also covered in the preceding section, like the argument that 'hebephilia is not abnormal because the sexualization of pubescent girls is normative'. I don't think we need duplicate coverage of arguments. Crossroads 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The source pretty much covers everything that is in the Hebephilia article, except that it has a lot more material on the research, which can obviously help to fill out the currently small "Research" section. It shows that all of the main points in the DSM-5 debate section are due. It's just a matter trimming fat, such as letter to the editor responses (unless it's a response we definitely should cover because it's noted in the source or other sources as relevant) and unnecessary redundancy. Definitely agree that we don't need blow-by-blow material. And avoiding unnecessary redundancy is why I moved the "In court cases where the term hebephilia is used" piece from the "Overview" section to the "Use in American civil commitment proceedings" section, and the "According to Michael C. Seto, the 'ICD-10 incorporates hebephilia in its definition of pedophilia'" piece from the "Overview" section to the "Responses" section and tweaked that (adding that Skye Stephens agrees as well). I don't see that the "psychologists Robert Prentky and Howard Barbaree stated that examples of highly sexualized young girls appear frequently in advertising, fashion shows, television programs, and films, making it questionable whether sexual attraction to pubescents is abnormal" aspect (that type of argument) in the "Variation of normal" section is repeated in the "Responses" section...unless you mean the "participants questioned whether sexual attraction to pubescent children can be considered abnormal in a context where their sexualization is to a certain extent normative" part. Do you mean that part? If so, it seems valid to report on the panel's thoughts outside of the "variation of normal" debate. I wouldn't categorize that as redundancy, at least not as unnecessary redundancy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished reading the chapter. Again, thanks for finding the source and starting on the changes.

That said, I think the article as written suffers from undue weight. This is evident to me when I compare the article to the new source. I put the section sizes template above. This article goes into great detail and length describing the hand-wringing over civil commitment and various arguments that hebephilia is a variation of normal, even needlessly repeating some as I mentioned, and thus is misleading. Most reliable sources about human sexuality do not treat hebephilia as "normal", and certainly not as innate, nor give any room to that idea; but this article may lead the reader to think that viewpoint holds more weight than it does (which is almost none). I don't think anyone is to blame for this, but somehow the article drifted into narrating the arguments at the time of the DSM proposal in great detail (which I called a play-by-play).

I think the Stephens and Seto source sets a tone we should follow. So, some suggestions: The civil commitment stuff is really part of the DSM debate and should be part of that section. I also strongly oppose having a heading called "variation of normal". Any duplicate mentions of the same argument should be cut. Next, we can follow more closely the new source by setting out the negative reactions by the three types mentioned (which includes the civil commitment concerns). Then, lastly, would be what the new source calls "rejoinders". The DSM-5 section could perhaps have the subsections "Proposal", "Criticisms", and "Responses".

Some of the above are more suggestions than anything, and I know big changes can be a pain. I do however feel strongly about shortening the weight given to the "is normal" arguments, removing that section title, and increasing the weight given to the rejoinders. As an example of the latter, we should add this source by Ryniker, cited in Stephens and Seto but ignored in the current article. From that same paragraph, we should add the point that typical men are attracted to cues of sexual maturity, while hebephiles are not.

As you can see, I already made some cuts and additions. Looking forward to your thoughts. Crossroads 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You stated, "Most reliable sources about human sexuality do not treat hebephilia as 'normal', and certainly not as innate, nor give any room to that idea; but this article may lead the reader to think that viewpoint holds more weight than it does (which is almost none)." But the vast majority of sources that address hebephilia, including primary sources in the article, address the debate surrounding it (which significantly concerns whether it can be validly considered a paraphilia or mental disorder). And, as mentioned, that includes the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source. And the vast majority of academic sources on hebephilia are primary sources, with few non-primary sources...except for when considering the ones that cover it via passing or brief mentions or inaccurately define it. On page 31 of the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source, it states, "Writers have been deeply divided on whether hebephilia should be included in DSM-5 who have argued that a sexual interest in pubescent girls is normal. It is readily apparent when reading arguments against hebephilia that many authors have focused on a critique of the idea that a sexual interest or behavior involving adolescents in the age range mentioned in early DSM-5 documents (ages 11-14 and sometimes expanded to include adolescents as a whole) is maladaptive or abnormal. This occurs even though hebephilia refers specifically to pubescent children as defined by maturation status."

More academic book sources about hebephilia, including the debate (of course).
In addition to the following three academic book sources that take the time to significantly discuss hebephilia, there is this 2011 "Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy" source, from Oxford University Press, starting on page 28, which is already used in the article. This 2014 "Pathways to Sexual Aggression" source, from Routledge, page 181, which presents a short literature review of hebephilia, states, "While the present chapter does not aim to resolve the debate about the validity of hebephilia as a mental disorder, it does aim to provide empirical data on sexual aggressors against adolescents. First, a short literature review of the available knowledge on hebephilia/sexual aggressors against adolescents will be presented. Second, our data on the offending process of sexual aggressors against adolescents will be presented, hopefully advancing the debate about hebephilia." It goes on to state things like "If the arguments against hebephilia as a mental disorder diagnosis seem compelling, so are the rebuttals by the DSM-5 workgroup." This 2015 "The DSM-5 in Perspective: Philosophical Reflections on the Psychiatric Babel" source, from Springer, page 113, states, "The diagnostic category of 'hebephilia' (the erotic preference for pubescent children) was suggested in 2008 for inclusion in the DSM-5. Immediately, a violent debate took place about whether this condition should be considered a disease or not, and the proposal to include hebephilia in the DSM-5 was rejected in 2012." But then again, this source is critical of the DSM as a whole. Either way, the source significantly dives into the hebephilia debate and gives its take on it. This 2016 "The Wiley Handbook on the Psychology of Violence" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 484, states, "Prior to the release of the DSM‐5 in 2013, there was a great deal of debate about including hebephilia as a paraphilia. While some researchers and clinicians argued that hebephilia is a valid erotic age preference and therefore should be included (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2009), others argued that this sexual interest was not a mental disorder (e.g., DeClue, 2009; Frances & First, 2011)." It cites Michael C. Seto for its statement that hebephilia would meet biologically informed criteria for a mental disorder, and for other statements.

More academic book sources about hebephilia, including the debate (of course).

In addition to the following three academic book sources that take the time to significantly discuss hebephilia, there is this 2011 "Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy" source, from Oxford University Press, starting on page 28, which is already used in the article.

This 2014 "Pathways to Sexual Aggression" source, from Routledge, page 181, which presents a short literature review of hebephilia, states, "While the present chapter does not aim to resolve the debate about the validity of hebephilia as a mental disorder, it does aim to provide empirical data on sexual aggressors against adolescents. First, a short literature review of the available knowledge on hebephilia/sexual aggressors against adolescents will be presented. Second, our data on the offending process of sexual aggressors against adolescents will be presented, hopefully advancing the debate about hebephilia." It goes on to state things like "If the arguments against hebephilia as a mental disorder diagnosis seem compelling, so are the rebuttals by the DSM-5 workgroup."

This 2015 "The DSM-5 in Perspective: Philosophical Reflections on the Psychiatric Babel" source, from Springer, page 113, states, "The diagnostic category of 'hebephilia' (the erotic preference for pubescent children) was suggested in 2008 for inclusion in the DSM-5. Immediately, a violent debate took place about whether this condition should be considered a disease or not, and the proposal to include hebephilia in the DSM-5 was rejected in 2012." But then again, this source is critical of the DSM as a whole. Either way, the source significantly dives into the hebephilia debate and gives its take on it.

This 2016 "The Wiley Handbook on the Psychology of Violence" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 484, states, "Prior to the release of the DSM‐5 in 2013, there was a great deal of debate about including hebephilia as a paraphilia. While some researchers and clinicians argued that hebephilia is a valid erotic age preference and therefore should be included (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2009), others argued that this sexual interest was not a mental disorder (e.g., DeClue, 2009; Frances & First, 2011)." It cites Michael C. Seto for its statement that hebephilia would meet biologically informed criteria for a mental disorder, and for other statements.

The writers and authors that the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source mentions are mainly academics, such as Michael First and Allen Frances. Like First's Misplaced Pages article relays, he is "an American psychiatrist who focuses on diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. First was one of the editors of DSM-IV-TR, the Editor of Text and Criteria for the DSM-IV, and the editor of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. He also served as consultant to the World Health Organization for the revision of ICD-11." Like Frances's Misplaced Pages article notes, he "chaired the task force that produced the fourth revision of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and became critical of the current version, DSM-5." Skye Stephens and Michael C. Seto, who authored the hebephilia text in the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source, are on the other side of the hebephilia debate. This is another reason to not only go by what they state. The side that opposes the hebephilia diagnosis is not considered a fringe side. Stephens and Seto are clear that the concept/diagnosis of hebephilia is not widely accepted. So as far as the tone goes, I don't see that the article is far off from the weight that discussion of the debate in the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source and other sources is given. Stephens and Seto take time to significantly address the debate. And like I mentioned above, "It shows that all of the main points in the DSM-5 debate section are due. It's just a matter trimming fat, such as letter to the editor responses (unless it's a response we definitely should cover because it's noted in the source or other sources as relevant) and unnecessary redundancy." I'm fine with you having cut this and this.

I agree that "The civil commitment stuff is really part of the DSM debate and should be part of that section." I argued this before. It was a subsection of that section before.

As for having a section called "Variation of normal"? Well, that is part of the debate. And I think it's best to have a clear section heading about it, rather than have it buried with other material. That various academics have indicated, or outright put forward the notion, that hebephilia is some form of normal obviously doesn't mean we are endorsing that view. And obscuring it with other information by not letting it be its own section won't make it any less something that is being noted. The main heading for the debate section is titled "DSM-5 debate," which lets readers know that the "variation of normal" viewpoint is debated. That stated, we could rename the section "Disputes about normal attraction" or something like that. Right now, that section is only five paragraphs long. And it goes over important points in the debate. So we shouldn't cut anything that is due. I am all for including material such as "typical men are attracted to cues of sexual maturity, while hebephiles are not." Given that hebephilia is a proposed diagnosis, though, it might be best to use in-text attribution (like the article often does) when stating even that. I mean, that "typical men are attracted to cues of sexual maturity" is something I feel is fine stating in Misplaced Pages's voice. But stating "while hebephiles are not" is speaking on a highly debated sexual categorization/proposed diagnosis.

Not sure what you are proposing by "Rejoinders." Laypeople generally won't know what is meant by that title. And I'm not seeing that we can copy all or most of the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source's section on rejoinders unless significantly putting the material in our own words.

I think we should work on recrafting the article in a sandbox. I've copied the article to here. This is so that we can get an easier understanding of what we have in mind and work together with little editing conflict. we don't usually have editing conflict, but you know what I mean. We could also work on an outline here on the talk page, without creating a whole nother version of the article here on the talk page. But I think that the sandbox route will be easier. And we're agreed on looking at what the other non-primary academic sources state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources and the sandbox. To be clear, I knew we always had to cover the arguments against hebephilia as a diagnosis since we have to cover the debate. We're agreed on trimming the fat. I wasn't proposing copying the source exactly, either. Other than that, it makes sense to test some changes in the sandbox and discuss from there. Crossroads 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories: