Talk:Chronophilia

Errors re: ephebophilia on the Chronophilia page, my accurate corrections, citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Layah50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist

The amendments I made are already supported by sources cited in the existing chrophilia page and on the ephebophilia page. There are obvious errors on the current page, including contradictions between some content on the page and other content on the page. For example:

• The page properly notes that chronophilia are determined by Tanner stages, not simply by age, but then ignores the fact that many 15 to 19 year olds are already Tanner stage 5. If further sources are needed aside from those already provided in the Chronophilia and ephebophilia articles ( which both already contain cited sources that support virtually EVERYTHING I said, as I merely made corrections that clarified certain errors and oversights, and which better unified contradictions in the existing text, aligning them with more accurate details ), there is also this further research article by Drs. Michael Seto and Skye Stephens (both of whom are extensively cited as reliable sources on both the ephebophilia and chronophilia pages as they currently exist) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293334555_Hebephilic_Sexual_Offending

which further notes the following: "This wide age range is problematic as it would include...sexually mature teenagers who could be easily confused with young adults. A sexual preference in those in late adolescence who show many signs of sexual maturity (Tanner stage 4) or who are sexually mature (Tanner stage 5) is not representative of hebephilia; instead, it can be described as ephebophilia or teleiophilia (Hames & Blanchard, 2012). The distinction is important in both conceptual and practical ways. given older adolescents are reproductively viable and the fact that typically men are sex-ually attracted to older adolescents, as reflected in self-report, psychophysiological, and pornography use studies (Freund, Seeley, Marshall, & Glinfort, 1972; Symons, 1979).1" In light of this, I ask that you please reinstate my factual and accurate changes to the chronophilia page, which presented glaring mistakes. Ephebophilia is not considered a paraphilia, nor an atypical chronophilia, and, especially in the area of 16 to 19 ( notable, when defined imprecisely by generic age range, rather than by Tanner stage, the errors increase because, again, and as above specifically noted by one of the doctors already frequently cited in the Chronophilia and Ephebophilia pages as they currently exist, many later teens are already in Tanner Stage 5 development ) it often overlaps with teliophilia. Again, in light of the provided documentation, the observable errors and contradictions in the existing Chronophilia page, and the supporting citation ALREADY present on those pages (if one reviews them in relation to the corrections I made, and in relation to the pages existing contradictions and errors), I ask that my changes to the page be reinstated. I do not have the tech savvy to make the citation corrections myself, but I have provided a valid source above, and, as stated, existing material and citations on the pages as they currently are already support my changes. I ask that my accurate changes be reinstated and the provided citation added. I would HATE to think that my changes, despite being factual and elucidating, have been edited out based on any ideological biases of the editor(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14d:4101:e4e0:7108:fa11:aca9:a756 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Prevalence

The introductory literature review in https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10790632211013811 cites a variety of prevalence statistics, most all of which surprised me. I wonder what other editors think about summarizing them in this article. (The study itself is self-selected and thus inappropriate.) There is a WP:MEDRS source at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213421000788, which also has some quite frankly astonishing statistics in its Introduction, but the Results and Discussion are behind a paywall. Can anyone read that and summarize it here please? 2601:647:5701:39B0:FD01:3444:3CA0:8370 (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Overall, this particular WP article is intended as more of a hub or umbrella term, providing a summary of the included terms as well as links to their full articles. So these studies are probably more suited to the pedophilia and hebephilia articles, though granted your two sources cover both. These studies seem to lump these two together, but the text further down does differentiate between the two. The first one, Ciardha et al 2021, sounds fairly useless on the matter of prevalence, because as you said, it's self-selected and has some other sampling issues (the cohort is entirely composed of men that volunteer for research and have a past track record of doing so.) Perhaps of interest is that the prevalence in this sample gets smaller and smaller as the age range goes down, with true pedophilic interest (age 11 and below) generally being a fraction of a percent, depending on whether the individual is asked if they have ever experienced attraction at any time, or have fantasied.

I was able to get a copy of the second paper, Savoie et al 2022. While interesting, the results section suggests this paper is really more of a criticism of prior research. It draws on previous studies and shows that the prevalence statistics are all over the place. Problems seem to be in inconsistent definitions and sampling issues.

That doesn't mean these studies aren't worth mentioning in articles, just that they would need to be framed properly.Legitimus (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, especially because you understand the nuances here much better than I do. Since I can't read it, could I ask how you would summarize the results numbers from the Savoie paper for each of those two articles, if you had to in a single sentence or short paragraph each, please? 2601:647:5701:39B0:7FD8:D02C:5AED:8C23 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If we're specifically talking about prevalence, it'd be something like this:

The prevalence of (pedophilic/hebephilic) sexual interest in the general population is not known, and estimates vary considerably. Most research looks at male subjects and individuals in the criminal justice system, and obtaining a representative sample from the general population is difficult due to stigma as well as privacy about sexual topics. One literature review found that most prior studies had issues with external validity and definitions, leading to a large range of prevalence estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

References

"Minor-attracted persons" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Minor-attracted persons has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 17 § Minor-attracted persons until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)