Jump to content

Talk:Chronophilia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

comment from 2005

"Teleiophilia [...]is the norm in most societies" ?! Reference? I'd rather say the current societal norm is for adolescents to be attracted to people about their own age, not to considerably older people. In fact sex between an adult and a minor is seen as a criminal offence, even rape in some states (not that I agree with that).--84.188.134.80 01:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC

"Yet in society years generations ago kings used to have childern (Mostly female little girls) as sex slaves, disgusting acts like this make me sick".......

User:George: As a teenager, I feel the need to say, Shut up!!! The author was referring to the fact that many teenagers have crushes on older women. Grow up!!!

references please

Please reference where you got all these terms. Verify and source or be nominated for deletion. I mean, valid topic and all, but the terminology doesn't seem notable, including chronophilia. If I can't find the word chronophilia in a news source, I'm going to nominate this page for deletion on that basis. There's probably already a milf page. Lotusduck 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition change

Changed the definition of teleiophilia as it's not ONLY an attraction of children to adults. This link - [article link APA paper with cited sources] - shows that the article clearly defines a "teleiophile" as "having one’s primary erotic interest in adults" in the context of discussing the sexuality of adults. Ginnna 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I get why it's always said it's the norm in most societies. Before I thought it was making reference to that american pie milf thing. Cool, good work. I'll try and add that reference to the page, too. Lotusduck 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only a form of chronophilia when possessed by a child. // paroxysm (n) 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Verification

So... what else on this page needs to be verified? Because if it's all good and everyone feels comfortable with it now, the notification on top should be removed.

The gernatophilia or however it's spelled should have a reference. I mean, I'm not taking whoever wrote that in bad faith, but we need to know what feild it comes from, in general, it needs a reference. And I'm not sure if I remember the term chronophilia being used in the linked paper or not. Seeing it used by professionals is important for future editors. Lotusduck 03:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It's listed at dictionary.com... I know that isn't use by a professional but... hey, it's in a dictionary. Ginnna 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's used in Protoparaphilia (PDF) and the book Aging and Gender in Literature: Studies in Creativity: "[John] Money goes on to describe chronophilia, or age disparity ..."
I'll add a reference for gerontophilia. // paroxysm (n) 02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The term Chronophilia however, does not have a dictionary.com entry. Not saying it's made up, but it does need some reference. Lotusduck 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Tony White mentions chronophilia

Ok, bear with me here.

I found an article by Dr. Tony White which mentions chronophilia (I hope that link to the article works... it shows the cached webpage with "chronophilia" highlighted in yellow... in case it doesn't work, just find his article here and check out the fourth paragraph up from the end of the section entitled "The Luck Factor In Life Long Monogamy" or go here and check out page 9 which, by the way, also mentions gerontophilia).

I found that Tony White is a psychologist of 20 years and a transactional analyst of 17 years. He lives in Australia and is a member of the WPATA (Western Pacific Association of Transactional Analysis).

So... this counts as chronophilia being mentioned by a professional, right? Ginnna 08:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed verify tag

Heh... also added tildes to my history note because I haven't been on wikipedia for a while and forgot that you don't have to tilde your history notes to get your name on them....... yeah... anyway, being that everything now seems to be verified/referenced/cited/authenticated, I removed the "verify" tag. If anyone feels things still need verification, let everyone know! (This IS where I add the tildes, right? hee hee...) Ginnna 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Teleiophilia

This article claims that the tem teleiophilia was coined by Kurt Freund. However, all the sources I can find list the term as being invented in 2000 (after Freund died) by Ray Blanchard. I found that in Freund's papers, he uses the terms gynephilia and androphilia to indicate an erotic preference for adults. I will change it unless someone can put me right. ntennis 08:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that teleiophilia generally refers to children/adolescents being attracted to adult individuals, instead of their peers? 193.217.55.223 17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of any studies suggesting that preferential attraction to fully adult individuals is more common than preferential attraction to adolescents? Liesbet Koreveld (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Blanchard2008" :
    • The term was introduced by Glueck (1955).<ref>Glueck, B. C., Jr. (1955). ''Final report: Research project for the study and treatment of persons convicted of crimes involving sexual aberrations. June 1962 to June 1955.'' New York: New York State Department of Mental Hygiene.
    • Blanchard, R. Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., Dickey, R., & Klassen, P. E. (2008). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM–V. ''Archives of Sexual Behavior.'' DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9399-9.

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia is NOT different

"Pedophilia [...] differs from all these conditions in that it is a clinically-recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

Not true. A sexual orientation is not a disease. I wonder how long it takes, until finally everyone understands that.

It is a disorder. Obesity is not a disease either, but hardly a norm. I wonder whether you are aware that some diseases may lead to criminal prosecution, cleptomania,... pedophilia... How you can imprison a person who cannot help but love gold... or small boys? Mukadderat (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposite to Chronophilia

What is the opposite? I.e the more common: having no sexual preferences between late adolescents and adults, or the less common: having no preferences at all. 188.22.22.121 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The real antonym should "chronophobia", the fear of sexual attraction limited to individuals of particular age ranges. However, according to your description, having no preferences at all, it seems to be "asexuality". --Yejianfei (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability & original research

This topic does not appear to be notable enough for an article. So far, there are no sources showing any use of the term other than by John Money who coined it. I've done some searches and did not find any uses of the term other than references in passing to John Money -- maybe I missed some, if so, please post the sources to the article. Also, probably because there are no sources, the article does not present any information about the term itself other than the first couple sentences that describe John Money's invention of the term.

The rest of the article is about other more-specific paraphilias There also,no writers connect those terms with chronophilia other than John Money who lists four of them (pedophilia, hebephilia, nepiophilia and gerontophilia). The others that are listed in the article are not mentioned by Money as chronophilia in any sources that have yet been found. Also, Money uses a fringe definition for pedophilia, so his use of that term in relation to chronophilia does not support the inclusion of the mainstream definition pedophilia within his idea of chronophilia. Those various connections between terms in this article are original research, in the form of synthesis.

Unless sources can be found to support the content of this page, it should be redirected to List of paraphilias where the more specific terms that are actually used by scientists can be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this page very informing. It should not be deleted. --Stijn Calle (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The information about the specific paraphilias is available in other articles. The problem with this page is that no authors uses the term in research or clinical practice, or anywhere that has yet been found. It seems to be used only by John Money. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this seems to be an article documenting a non-notable neologism. I would recommend merging it into John Money, or taking it to WP:AFD. Robofish (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Money's page is a better merge-target since he seems to be the only one who's used the term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If it were an apt neologism, perhaps publication by Money, soon amplified by later use in Wikipedia (despite the purported illegitimacy of such bootstrapping by the world's most influential recent publication) would soon be enough to propagate it and endow it with legitimate notability. I think 'chronophilia' is handicapped, though, by being an inept composition of Greek - a lot of academic and literary people are sensitive to these problems through repeated exposure to the word roots. One doesn't need to be a Greek scholar. The coinage "love of time" is not really on the money (no pun intended) here. Arguably Money should have coined 'helikiaphilia,' love of a particular age or stage of life (from ἡλικία) instead. I would suggest leaving this article on a highly notable topic as it is but titling it something basic like 'Sexual orientations based on age' as a specialty link from 'Sexual orientation.' Sexual orientation currently is defined as relating purely to gender, and the legitimacy of broadening it to include relative age would need to be looked into. But obviously this page cannot be put under paraphilias. No one would classify teleiophilia as a paraphilia. Yet the taxonomy of age-related attractions given on this page is inescapable and too basic to be considered non-notable or original research. We are just quibbling about how to title the page, not about deleting or moving it. Not realizing this is just an error. Summerbell (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There is still a lot research to be made about sexuality, right now bisexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality is a sexual orientation with a preference for the "sex organs" and is like the most acepted and most know kind of sexual orientation, but we have this "chronophilia" which is people with a sexual orientation where their sexual preference is ages, I find ridiculous when people says, pedophiles, gerontophiles, teleiodophiles are not a sexual orientation when they are indeed heterosexuals or bisexuals or homosexuals (with an age sexual preference) Also there is the not yet named sexual orientation for gender preference (anyone knows if it has a name?) that preference includes pansexuals (preference for any gender), androsexuals (androphilia, preference for masculinity) and gynosexual(gynophilia, preference for femininity). I really think this page should stay as it will be important if some sexologist sees it and decides to makes studies about these subjects as is clear there is little research and need more studies about it. Or in the the near future more studies will be done about this.
Alusky (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

en-GB/en-US "paedo"?

Any reason en-GB "paedo" is used here? DSM refers to "pedohebephilia" and "pedophilia", I see no reason for en-GB spelling here. :/ –  Alyx  talk  10:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction with "hebephilia" article.

This article says: "In this context, the adolescentophilia focused on boys is ephebophilia (from the Greek ephebos), the adolescentophilia focused on girls is hebephilia..."

The hebephilia article says: "Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (a sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to those in later adolescence, approximately 15-19 years old,[1][2]"

This is obviously a contradiciton, this article giving a gender-based distinction and the other giving an age-based distinction. Note that the passage from the hebephilia article is sourced. -- megA (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

MegA (megA), see the definitions section of the Hebephilia article. It notes different usages for the etymology of the term hebephilia, including the female Hebe. The part of the Chronophilia article you are referring to also concerns etymology. Note that the text begins by stating: "Hebephilia and ephebophilia are sexual preference for pubescent and post-pubescent youths, respectively." Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I just tweaked the text here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Flyer, maybe this makes it clearer that these are different approaches. -- megA (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it helps, megA. Either way, it's fine with me. Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes

  • "Adolescentophilia", "adultophilia", "korophilia", "parthenophilia", and "graeophilia" have few or no hits on Google Scholar. I removed them.
  • I changed the line about pedophilia and child sexual abuse to reflect both aspects of the distinction, and not use the problematic Mayo source.
  • Ephebophilia and hebephilia are almost always now distinguished by age, not gender. The archaic gender distinction might be worth mentioning in their respective articles, but not here.
  • Krafft-Ebing does not mention hebephilia or ephebophilia, so it's not an appropriate source for that topic.

KateWishing (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Article WP:Full-protected because of pedophilia definition dispute

HJ Mitchell, while I appreciate you trying to help after I requested WP:Semi protection, 84.82.169.44 (talk · contribs) is wrong, per what I stated here, here, here and here, and you have indeed WP:Full-protected WP:The wrong version in this case. He is distinguishing pedophilia from pedophilic disorder when they are the same exact thing. Notice that pedophilic disorder redirects to the Pedophilia article. This section of the Pedophilia article, near the end, makes it clear that pedophilic disorder is the same thing as pedophilia. Even if they were not the same exact thing, this would mean that since the DSM-5 definition is a contrast to how the vast majority of WP:Reliable medical sources define pedophilia, we should not be giving WP:Undue weight to that definition. WP:Med has stated similarly regarding other terminological changes made by the DSM-5. The IP's behavior at the Chronophilia article is exactly why I made this recent edit to the Pedophilia article to clarify that, in contrast to what the IP asserted, the American Psychiatric Association does not consider pedophilia a sexual orientation. For whatever reason, I did not get any help with the IP after I made that edit to the Pedophilia article. But sigh; it's just another reason for me to be frustrated with this site. In this edit, the IP stated, "Than note that the pedophilia page is wrong. Not everyone who is sexually attrackted to children is an offender or experiences distress or interpersonal difficulty. But those people are still pedophile's, they just don't suffer from a mental disorder." That comment, which I figured would confuse WP:Administrators who are not familiar with how pedophilia is defined, misses the point entirely and is inaccurate. For example, the Pedophilia article is clear that not all people who have expressed sexual attraction to prepubescent children are pedophiles. Furthermore, I reiterate that the Chronophilia article should be indefinitely WP:Semi-protected or WP:Semi-protected for a long time. As has been proven time and time again at the Pedophilia and Sexual orientation articles, there is nothing to work out with editors like the IP. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article should describe pedophilia as a disorder, in line with the general consensus. Detailed discussion of the DSM-5 is not really appropriate for this page. Our Pedophilia article should probably mention somewhere that the DSM-5 distinguishes between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder (it does, explicitly), while still deferring to the more common view that pedophilia is a disorder in itself. KateWishing (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
KateWishing, you stated, "it does, explicitly." James Cantor and I had discussions about whether or not the DSM-5 distinguishes the terms pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. He stated that they do. However, since then, the American Psychiatric Association has been clear that the matter was essentially only a name change; see here and here; they made an error with the terminology in the DSM-5, and they seemingly do not have "a non-mental disorder pedophile" category. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The APA corrected "orientation" to "interest", but they chose to leave the distinction between "pedophilia" and "pedophilic disorder." These lines are still in the DSM-5:
"However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual interest but not pedophilic disorder. [...] Pedophilia per se appears to be a lifelong condition. Pedophilic disorder, however, necessarily includes other elements that may change over time with or without treatment: subjective distress (e.g., guilt, shame, intense sexual frustration, or feelings of isolation) or psychosocial impairment, or the propensity to act out sexually with children, or both. Therefore, the course of pedophilic disorder may fluctuate, increase, or decrease with age. [...] Since pedophilia is a necessary condition for pedophilic disorder, any factor that increases the probability of pedophilia also increases the risk of pedophilic disorder."
Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, but it's still distinguished from pedophilic disorder in the DSM (as a "sexual interest"). KateWishing (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware that the text you quoted is still in the DSM-5; there are also still versions of the DSM-5 with the "sexual orientation" error. I cannot get over what they state in this source, however, making it clear that having a sexual attraction that can harm others is what distinguishes that sexual attraction from a non-paraphilic and/or non-mental disorder sexual attraction. And specifically with regard to pedophilia, they state, "In the case of pedophilic disorder, the notable detail is what wasn’t revised in the new manual. Although proposals were discussed throughout the DSM-5 development process, diagnostic criteria ultimately remained the same as in DSM-IV TR. Only the disorder name will be changed from pedophilia to pedophilic disorder to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other listings."
Where does the DSM-5 manual state that pedophilia is not a mental disorder? Distinguishing between "pedophilia" and "pedophilic disorder" is not necessarily the same thing as stating that "regular pedophilia" is not a mental disorder. My point on that is that we should not put words into the association's mouths. Also, to personally address the quote you cited, I note here on this talk page that nowhere has it been shown that people with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children usually do not act on that sexual attraction and do not generally have an impulse problem in that regard. But it has been repeatedly shown that pedophiles -- people with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children -- have an impulse problem when it comes to the fact that they should not be sexually abusing prepubescent children. If you want to add something about the above quoted text to the Pedophilia article, then I think it should be in the aforementioned section that already discusses the name change. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't plan to add anything unless others think it's helpful. If we do mention it, it would have to follow the DSM's own wording closely to avoid putting words into the APA's mouth, like you said. KateWishing (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, so what are we supposed to do when we correct the IP's text and the IP shows back up to re-add his text? For two days, his inaccurate text has needlessly remained in the article. He is the type of editor I have to repeatedly deal with at the Pedophilia article, oftentimes invoking the WP:Child protection policy. Wikipedia should not be giving this editor any leeway. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss it with them. If they refuse, report them for edit-warring. If they hop to a new IP, we can consider semi-protection. I don't see anything here beyond a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and the answer is always discussion. If one party makes a good-faith effort to discuss the problem, as you've done here, and the other just resumes edit-warring after the full protection expires, it becomes very obvious where the problem lies and admins can better target solutions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:84.82.169.44, please stop reverting without discussion. The DSM's distinction is interesting, and, like I said, might warrant careful mention on the Pedophilia page, but few sources explicitly deny that pedophilia is a mental disorder, and countless sources say that it is. Wikipedia summarizes the viewpoints of reliable sources with due weight given to the majority view of experts. Your personal opinion doesn't matter here. KateWishing (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chronophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chronophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Should the misnomer be prepetuated: Pedophilia for what is Pederasty?

Since the suffix -philia does not come from a sexual condition, but a being fond of condition "love" (Philadelpha called city of brotherly love), pedophilia and the like are misnomers. The condition is pederasty, eros being the term for sexual itch (cf. erotic). So we should have chronerasty, not chronophilia. Saying that something is a paraphilia (misnomer for parerasty) indicates that such is abnormal. And I wonder if the opening paragraph's use of paraphilia is actually supported by the sources cited. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC))

That is your personal opinion. The information in the article has numerous sources going back centuries that contradict your personal opinion/lack of understanding of linguistic description.Legitimus (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronophilia/Archive_1&oldid=1145972205"