Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

Regarding pedophilia to child sexual abuse.

Pedophilia should not be directly related to child sexual abuse as pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children, not the act of causing harm to them. The overall feel of this section is that a pedophile cannot behave towards a child in a protective manner and this is an ill-perceived ideal based on stereotype.

It's the same as saying everyone who thinks about suicide kills themselves.

115.198.94.160 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think pedophilia has any relevance or should be mentioned in this article at all. Saying something is "not" something doesn't really belong. Paraphilic infantilism is not driving a monster truck, either. But we don't need to say it in the article. Sure, there may be some idiots out there who commonly confuse paraphilic infantilism with driving monster trucks, but I do not see that we cater on wikipedia in an article to saying everything under a sun something is not. You do not define something by listing out everything it is *not*, but rather, what it is. Move to delete reference to pedophilia as having nothing to do with the article. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Since paraphilic infantilism is commonly confused with pedophilia, so commonly confused with it, apparently, that WP:Reliable sources address the matter, it is WP:Due weight (very appropriate) that the article addresses this misconception. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed "infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any other form of child sexual abuse" to "infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any form of child sexual abuse", because the word "other" implied that pedophilia is a form of child abuse which it is not. 31.52.253.135 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"Commonly confused" by who, exactly?

First, this appears to be a straight-forward example of weasel words and unsupported attribution, as it is effectively the same as vaguely declaring that "some are said to believe", "many people say", "x has been described as y", etc. But, who exactly are these people who confuse paraphilic infantilism with pedophilia, how common is "common", and most importantly, why is their confusion and misconceptions credible or noteworthy?

I'm also reminded of the phase "teach the controversy"; from a movement in which unscientific opinions were suggested to be given comparable weight and credibility as scientific fact. And yet, if we look at the Wikipedia article on evolution, it should be noted that there is no mention of the pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design outside of the very last paragraph of the last section, concerning "Social and Cultural Responses".

In my view that approach is appropriate, because it is not the role of an encyclopedia to imbue all ideas with equal weight, but instead to primarily present objective facts and credible viewpoints from verifiable sources.

Finally, on top of the fact that there is no credible or verifiable association between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, the label of "pedophile" itself is an extremely value-laden label. These kinds of labels, especially when misapplied, can do real damage to the health and safety of people as well as the ability for society at large to understand and discuss the true diversity or human experience.

It's for these reasons that I also strongly argue to remove the vague and dubious references to pedophilia from this article as being totally irrelevant and given undue weight compared to objective facts and credible, modern and verifiable viewpoints.

(If anything, "teaching the controversy" in which paraphilic infantilism is confused with pedophilia should be relegated to a specific section of the article. But only if there is a legitimate and reasonable basis to give weight to such an obvious misconception. In my view it's long past due that those who want to include references to pedophilia in this article justify doing so with something more credible than weasel words, lest this very article becomes a vector for propagating this harmful and factually baseless misconception.) FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

commented added on behalf of FuwaFuwaDL 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not important but I feel that you do not understand English correctly. "infantilism is not related to paedophilia, or any other form of sexual abuse of children" implies that paedophilia is a form of child abuse, which is not contrary to the usual understanding of the matter, so the sentence could remain in this form. To imply that infantilism is a form of child abuse you would have to write "paedophilia is not related to infantilism, or any other form of sexual abuse of children". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.54.83 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added a reference to a new (2019) study indicating that there is no correlation between infantilism and pedophilic interests. I've also removed the language "infantilism is commonly confused with pedophilia" from the introduction (where no source was cited) and revised it in the main text (where the source cited was from 1991). If the article were to assert that this confusion is common, I'd think it would have to cite a more recent source to show that the confusion remains commmon. Otherwise there is a problem with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. The current policy on WP:Reliable sources doesn't appear to address this issue. HighStdDev (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. Per WP:MEDRS, we should not be basing content on some new primary source study. And we include historical views, such as John Money's. Whether such views should be regulated to the "History" section is something to consider. Either way, without your addition, the article is already clear that paraphilic infantilism is not the same thing as pedophilia. As for citing that the confusion is common, which it clearly is and is why you felt the need to add the study you added, I will see about sourcing that with a newer WP:MEDRS-compliant source later on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(1) There are a lot of primary sources in the reference list of the article currently, the WP:MEDRS policy on primary sources not withstanding. If this article can cite a case study, I don't see why it can't cite a survey study with over a thousand subjects. Is there a suitably neutral way of including the finding in Fuss et al. somewhere in this article? Perhaps a direct quotation?

(2) I really think the paragraph on Money's views in the "pedophilia" section has to be removed or modified. As written, it is making a speculative allegation about diaper fetishists, using the word "may," that would be Defamation per se if said about a named individual. Can the claim about diaper fetishists be removed from this paragraph, leaving behind the unproblematic comment about Money's view of infantilism?

(3) Consider "sometimes confused" rather than "commonly confused" if a neutral, recent source can't be found. HighStdDev (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of primary sources in the article. And when someone has argued that regarding other articles, my response has been that existing poor sources and/or content does not mean that it is okay to add more poor sources and/or poor content. Furthermore, primary-sourced content based on older sources is much more likely to be covered in secondary and/or tertiary academic sources than a primary source from the current year is. I haven't edited this article much, but if I ever get around to doing so, it would include replacing the primary sources with secondary and tertiary sources where possible without losing important content. I might need to do that even if I'd rather not take the time to do it; this is so that the article adheres to WP:MEDRS as best it can (which may sometimes mean retaining a primary source here and there, per WP:MEDDATE), to help keep out poor or WP:Fringe content. If there is any content in the article that falls under WP:Fringe, we should consider how best to present that material or to remove it. But when it comes to early/historical sexological views, even if they are fringe, we should include those in some way. For example, Money's Lovemap theory is something we should cover. I changed the aforementioned Money text from "states" to "argued." I think that with the WP:In-text attribution and the use of "argued" and "may," it's clear that this is Money's opinion. It's not presented as fact. It seems to fit in that section because the sentence briefly addresses sexual attraction to diaper-wearing babies, and it doesn't seem he was referring to people with that attraction being sexually oriented toward adults in any way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I take your point about adding further primary sources. The paragraph on Money needed further editing. As written, the passage suggested that Money thought that (some? all?) diaper fetishists "may be" nepiophiles. That is a shocking accusation, bordering on libel, if he indeed took that view. I was not able to find the Money book cited in this passage, but I was able to find Money's definition of "autonepiophilia" in Lovemaps (p. 259). There, he defines the terms "autonepiophilia" and "nepiophilia" without saying anything about diaper fetishists. I've edited the passage on Money so that it makes no mention of diaper fetishists. I trust this is OK, since diaper fetishism is not the topic of this article. HighStdDev (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

With this edit, you removed the "Money argued" piece. If he did argue that diaper fetishists may be sexually attracted to diaper-wearing babies, that is his argument and would still be his argument even if in the Diaper fetishism article. Whether or not to include the material is not a matter of libel. Unless speaking of libel in terms of some WP:BLP matter, libel has nothing to do with how we write Wikipedia articles; see, for example, WP:No legal threats. Diaper fetishism is a related topic, which is why it's mentioned in the lead and there is a section on it in this article. The Money bit you removed can go there, where Money is already mentioned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

But, yes, without being sure if he made the argument and since the piece is not vital, we can leave it out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Infantilist found guilty of kidnap, rape and torture of child

In light of the David Challenor case should the sentence

"Though commonly confused with pedophilia, the two conditions are distinct and infantilists do not seek children as sexual partners."

not be amended to read

"Though commonly confused with pedophilia, the two conditions are distinct and infantilists do not normally seek children as sexual partners."

I'm hesitant to edit the article as I don't know if someone is actively managing it and whether this would require some additional information on how different paraphilias can be present in the same person, but I think this should be amended (especially since this is not the only conviction of an infantilist in relation to children).Small candles (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Content should be based on what the literature states, not on some news headline. That stated, child molesters come from a variety of backgrounds. It is obviously incorrect to imply that an infantilist can never be sexually interested in little children. Those familiar with the literature on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics know that it's not even the case that everyone is who has sexually abused a little kid is technically a pedophile; the Pedophilia article addresses this. So feel free to add "normally." I'm not going to revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

All this conversation does is prove just how completely out-of-place, and potentially loaded, the above sentence is.

Any category of person, or member of any group, has the possibility of being a pedophile (or a rapist, murderer, or on the positive side, an olympic athlete, renowned artist, astronaut, etc.), but that obviously does not warrant the weight of inclusion without solid evidence of a genuine connection, correlation or causation.

For example, there have been countless documented examples of priests having sexually abused children, but if you check the article on priests you won't any reference to pedophilia, or other such value-laden language to that effect. You certainly don't see a sentence that says, "Though commonly confused with pedophilia, the two conditions are distinct and priests do not normally seek children as sexual partners.". And rightly so, because even with an abundance of examples of priests having sexually abused children, it is still not considered by any rational person to be a defining feature of priesthood in general.

So, again, clearing up the possibility of "confusion" is not something that should be a persistent through-line of this article (which should really be focused on accurately describing what paraphilic infantilism is, and not what it is not). If anything, explaining the differences between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia should be relegated to its own (unbiased, well-sourced and verifiable) section or article entirely. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

_____

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Adult baby wearing child attire.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Petition to remove, replace or localize value-laden, inaccurate, biased or otherwise dated terminology.

I would like us to examine and discuss the use of various terms used in this article, and whether they are appropriate in the context of our modern understanding of paraphilic infantilism as well as paraphilias and atypical sexual interests in general. For example:

1 - The word "syndrome" as used in "Adult Baby Syndrome". According to the American Psychological Association's Dictionary of Psychology a "syndrome" is defined as "n. a set of symptoms and signs that are usually due to a single cause (or set of related causes) and together indicate a particular physical or mental disease or disorder.". However, as of the DSM-5, the psychological consensus draws a clear and intention distinction between paraphilias (as a benign, but atypical sexual desire) and paraphilic disorders (as stress, impairment, or personal harm to the self or others as the result of paraphilias). Connecting those two dots makes it very clear that paraphilias like paraphilic infantilism are not in and of themselves to be considered a mental disease or psychological disorder--rendering the term "Adult Baby Syndrome" archaic, obsolete and potentially misleading in the context of the lead section.

2 - Similarly, the word "condition" as used in the section header "Relation to other conditions", may also evoke the concept of paraphilia being a "medical condition. Though admittedly this point is debatable, as "condition" is a fairly broad term on its own.

3 - As eluded to in the article itself, the term "psychosexual infantilism" is extremely archaic, has changed over time, and is fundamentally less descriptive than the term "paraphilic infantilism". Not only is "physchosexual infantilism" a virtually unused term in modern research or ABDL subculture context, neither Freud's (1856–1939) nor Stekel's (1868-1940) use of the term is consistent with the modern classification or understanding or infantilism, paraphilias, or the diversity of human sexual expression in general. Thus, I'm arguing that the term "psychosexual infantilism" is only relevant in a historical context, and likely doesn't belong as one of the a.k.a.'s in the lead section.

There may be other ways in which terminology can be clarified or improved, but I want to stress my general belief that it's both important and socially responsible that the terms used by Wikipedia to discuss sensitive topics adequately reflect the modern day understanding and consensus, otherwise we run the risk of further perpetuating historical systemic biases. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

4 - The use of "gone wrong" or "errors" here are both further examples of value-laden and biased terminology. (From: "A variety of causes have been proposed, including altered lovemaps, imprinting gone wrong and errors in erotic targets, though there is no consensus.) These ought to be replaced with neutral language. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

5 - The sentence "Additionally, infantilists may not consider themselves as suffering from a medical condition and may not want to change their behavior, a common occurrence among individuals with paraphilias" seems to imply that [paraphilic] infantilism is a medical condition or is a behavior that needs to be corrected or avoided. Not only is this not consistent with recent psychological consensus on paraphilias according to the DSM-5, this statement feels generally biased. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Quick note: I have implemented some of these changes.

To me, it's very important that we do not introduce bias into this article by pathologizing benign sexual fetishes (as is consistent with the declassification of fetishes in the DSM-5), associating legitimate sexual expression with crime, or giving undue weight to "confusion" by disingenuously or erroneously conflating paraphilic infantilism with totally unrelated, and in some cases deeply stigmatized or taboo, sexual behaviors.

In fact, we should take it a step further and depathologize, decriminalize and destigmatize the language in this article in favor of truly fair, accurate and neutral descriptions.

As editors, we are not here to keep the article static and stagnant. We are here to leave it in better condition than we found it. And so, we really ought to come together to try and improve the accuracy, neutrality, verifiability and overall quality of this article, so that we can help the people in the future develop a better understanding of this paraphilia and fetishes like it.

And not only because "knowledge is power" and the truth is important, but also because there is a human side to sexuality, fetishism, and the long history of shame and stigmatization that has lead to many past injustices. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Criminology is not relevant to the topic.

Among other issues, this article contains a line that reads, "Criminologists Stephen and Ronald Holmes believe that while there is no simple answer to the origins of infantilism, the practices may involve an element of stress reduction similar to that of transvestism."

However, paraphilic infantilism is not a crime, nor is it typically associated with crime. As such, I fail to see the relevance of criminology and the quoted opinion. It should be removed. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(This comment is a quote from a user page who keeps adding this back without first discussing it here.)

Let me go ahead and quote for you chapter 4 of "Sex Crimes" on "Nuisance Sex Behaviors" (a completely made up weasel word, and the chapter which mentions fetishes and infantilism):

"There are many sexual behvaiors that are completely abhorrent to the senses of most Americans. These practices become more visible as scores of sex offenders are placed in correctional institutions throughout the United States. [...] there is a growing amount of serious literature that suggests that many rapist, lust murderers, and sexually motivated serial murderers have histories of sexual behaviors that reflect patterns that in the past have been considered only nuisances. [...] Nuisance sex behaviors are often viewed in a less serious fashion than sex crimes that cause serious trauma and death. But there may be great benefit in analyzing those who commit such nuisance sex acts; such analysis may indeed hold the key to understanding those who move into more serious sex offenses." (Sex Crimes, Page 63. Emphasis mine.)

This source is book on sex crimes written by criminologists. It is explicitly about crime, written by people whose expertise is on crime (and not on the psychological or biological origins of paraphilias). Furthermore, it broadly and explicitly links what they call "nuisance sex behaviors" to crime, a category under which "infantilism" is later defined. And what insight to they have into the origins of infantilism? Practically nothing of value; three sentences of unsourced suppositions, with no new data, no original or cited research, and nothing of value behind it:

"Why does one choose to practice infantilism? There is no simple answer to this question. At first blush, one would think it is totally sexual. But there does appear to be an element of street reduction for the practitioner of this form of sexual activity." (Sex Crimes, Page 81)

That's it. That doesn't even qualify as a "theory" on the origins of paraphilic infantilism. It's simply a short statement about the motivations of participants. Do you honestly believe that this little blurb carries any due weight when compared to actual theories on the psychological origins of paraphilias born out of psychological and psychiatric research?

This source is absolutely worthless at best, and at worst is explicitly associating non-normative sexual behaviors with some of the worst acts of violent crime without any evidence. I will be removing it again, and adding this comment into the talk page where others can see it, and if you add it again despite my well-reasoned objections without engaging in a discussion first, I will have no other choice but to take it to arbitration. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Copypaste from my talk page

”

Again, just because the authors of that book/source are criminologists does not mean everything they write about is criminal. https://books.google.com/books?id=_zqOsZSZxYQC&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false A blurb on the page says “This form of paraphilia should not be confused with any form of sexual child abuse, pedophilia, incest, or other forms of child molestation.” So I don’t see what you are saying, the authors themselves are making it very clear that that paraphilia in and of itself shouldn’t be confused with those heinous crimes, and they don’t consider it a crime. “Furthermore, it broadly and explicitly links what they call "nuisance sex behaviors" to crime, a category under which "infantilism" is later defined.” I do not see them as doing that due to them specifically making it clear on the page cited that the paraphilia should be separated from those crimes & not confused with them, and not mentioning infantilism anywhere else.

If you have a problem with the word criminologists being put in the article, I’ll say that what you consider broken clocks can be right twice a day, and again repeat that those criminologists, researchers in crime, explicitly say that the paraphilia shouldn’t be confused with crime, and even say practitioners of the activity are consenting adult partners, “Practitioners are called adult babies (Abs), diaper lovers (DIs), and consenting partners.” . Consider the fact that they are including the paraphilia in that book specifically to differentiate it between those actual harmful crimes and make that clear to the audience who may be confused, which I hope you can agree is an understandable reaction and confusion.

Yes, it is not a full fledged theory, but I don’t think that warrants taking it out of the article altogether, and may I also mention that all the other sources and cites aren’t completely in depth “actual theories on the psychological origins of paraphilias born out of psychological and psychiatric research,” partly due to the dearth of more complete research and sources. It’s a blurb but a blurb that proposes new possible causes/relations to this paraphilia, stress reduction and relation to transvestivism(“Why does one choose to practice infantilism? There is no simple answer to this question. At first blush, one would think it is totally sexual. But there does appear to be an element of stress reduction for the practitioner of this form of sexual activity. This is similar to an element that is present in the practice of transvestivism.”) And as said above in the article, “Research on the

etiology

of paraphilias in general is minimal and as of 2008 had essentially come to a standstill; it is not clear whether the development of infantilism shares a common cause with other paraphilias.[40]“(40 can be accessed through

https://www.academia.edu/1909323/Handbook_of_sexual_and_gender_identity_disorders

) There is only one other bit within the article that mentions a possible cause being linked to ‘transvestism,’ and none to stress management/reduction, and this does not appear to be a well researched topic/area(I searched for sources and citations and much of what I found was already in the article.)”

Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see now that you're a good faith participant in editing this page, so thank you for joining the discussion here. I know it's not convenient to participate in these talk-pages because they are really slow moving, but it's worth doing to separate genuine attempts to improve the article from drive-by edits. To that point, I want you to understand that this page is not infrequently vandalized by bad-faith editors who seemingly want nothing more than to conflate paraphilic infantilism with (a) pedophilia, (b) sex crimes and (c) mental illness. A quick look at the revision history or even in this talk page will might shed some light on this.

At the very least, I hope the editors of this page can acknowledge the basic set of facts that (a) paraphilic infantilism is a consensual sexual interest/kink/fetish/roleplay between adults, which is in no way associated with pedophilia, (b) that there is no connection between paraphilic infantilism and any crime, and (c) that there is not necessarily a connection between paraphilic infantilism and mental illness or poor mental health. -- Should high-quality, verifiable sources challenge this set of facts, then that should be also reflected in the article, but from the research and sources that we have right now that doesn't appear to be the case.

One of the main pillars of Wikipedia editing is to present relevant facts and opinions with a neutral point of view. Among other things, this means avoiding value-laden language that (intentionally or otherwise) muddies the water around a topic. In the context of this article, to me that means sticking to the verifiable facts and avoiding the use of words that conflate paraphilic infantilism with crime or medical pathology.

I personally still don't feel that the source in question is high-quality, verifiable, or meets the bar for expertise in the subject of psychological/biological etiology of fetishes (especially when compared to the other theories that are already). But, like you pointed out, the research on this topic is sparse and because of that the bar for sources is still relatively low right now. I also don't think you've adequately defended the source's linking of "nuisance sex behaviors" to "more series sex offenses", which is not only self-contradictory to the excerpt that you shared, but is also inherently problematic, especially when considering how little real data/evidence that is used to back up that claim...

BUT, if you feel strongly that there is meaningful, valuable insight that this source brings to the table when it comes to stress relief or links to "transvestivism", then I don't have a problem with you adding that information to the appropriate sections and referencing this source. All that I ask is that you do so in a way that is neutral and avoids conflating paraphilic infantilism with crime. If that means removing the "Criminologists Stephen and Ronald Holmes" part of the sentence and working this information into the article in a more natural way, then I can live with that.

Sorry for writing a wall of text, but is that a reasonable compromise? FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I don’t see the problem with that excerpt. They explicitly state that the reader should not assume otherwise, contrary to whatever section of the book it’s in. Just because it’s in that section doesn’t mean the authors imply that’s always the case, especially if they clearly state otherwise. Just because they are Criminologists does not mean everything they write about is criminal or crime, sometimes they may be differentiating or making things clear, and if readers of the wiki article check the source they’ll know that. I don’t see a need for compromise, because I don’t see a major problem to begin with. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion is going in circles...

To be very clear, my problems with the source is that they are (a; undue weight) not experts in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, sexology, biology, or any other field that can shed light on the origins or etiology of paraphilias, (b; 'criminalization', for lack of a better term) very explicitly, and yet without any real evidence, associating what they call "nuisance sex behaviors" with sex crimes, despite the fact that's it's counter to the facts, and (c; low-quality source) the extent of the content in that source is little more than two vague sentences and no real data or insight.

Readers should not have to research every source themselves (and they won't, by the way) to understand and interpret what is being said. It is the "job" of the editor to find high quality, verifiable sources and to present that information to the reader in an accurate, clear, informative and unbiased way. Even if you really believe that the source in question doesn't conflate atypical sexual interests with sex crimes (which it very clearly does, again, see the quote above), that only makes it more important for the editors of this page to also not do so.

The "need for compromise" comes from the fact that you are seemingly adamant about including a line about crimonology in this wikipedia article, despite the fact that it's neither relevant to the article, nor is it even linking to a high quality source. Unfortunately, saying the same things over and over again is not going to get us anywhere. I'm against it, and I have laid out very clearly why. If you can't address my problems with the source, and if we can't find a compromise that you and I are both happy with, then we will have no choice but to find outside arbitration.

In light of the wikipedia editing guideline, the burden of justifying why this source and the word "criminologists" should be included in this article are on you. And even though the bar is pretty low right now, I feel confident that the arguments against including them are stronger. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If I can provide a third opinion here, albeit an unsolicited one, I think that Fuwa has the better end of the policy stick here: for someone whose name and edit history suggests that they could be considered an SPA on this and related subjects, they seem to have a good grasp on the relevant policy considerations. Having looked at the specifics of the wording (diffed here for those who might come upon this discussion next--thank you justanotherguy54, for not edit warring over this after the second revert, btw) I have to agree that the wording was non-neutral and problematically suggestive. Jag54, with regard to a sentence that starts with "Criminologists Stephen and Ronald Holmes believe that while there is no simple answer to the origins of infantilism...", I feel that "Just because they are Criminologists does not mean everything they write about is criminal or crime, sometimes they may be differentiating or making things clear, and if readers of the wiki article check the source they’ll know that. I don’t see a need for compromise, because I don’t see a major problem to begin with.", considerably underappreciates the concerns here. Yes, criminologists may at times make observations outside the narrow constraints of criminality or criminal justice, but in the context of an encyclopedia article, the reader is most definitely primed to contextualize any quote that begins by stating the quoted parties field of inquiry as pertaining to said specialty. I think it very much muddies the waters.

As to the argument that the nuances will become immediately apparent to anyone who follows up on the source, well, the simple reality is that while, as encyclopedists, we would always advise a reader to check into the sources, the vast majority simply do not, which is one of several important reasons that we construct our content to be as facially neutral as possible in the first impression. Further, I think Fuwas proposed compromise is a more than fair middle ground: there's a decent WP:WEIGHT/WP:MEDRS argument to be made here for excluding this quasi-armchair psychology altogether, so if Fuwa is proposing to maintain it, but suggests merely that the most potentially misleading and problematic part me excised, I think that's reasonable. Mind you, this is a bit of an atypical case: often one of the first things you want to consider doing when the neutrality of a statement is in question is ask whether better attribution will fix the issue. But every rule has it's exceptions, and I think this is a good example of that principle.

I do think it's only fair that I note that I am here by way of looking at old contributions of FlyerReborn, since deceased, who voiced an opinion on related issues above. So it may be that I am operating from a bias here, but I don't think so: I think I would have viewed the issues here in the same way even had I not seen her feedback. Indeed, Flyer actually seems to have argued in the other direction to some extent, insofar as she was in favour of maintaining certain other references to deviance (albeit by virtue of pointing out the lack of connection between this paraphilia and certain psychological pathologies/criminal offenses). But those were different cases and the functions of those references are very valuable for clarifying matters for the reader, whereas I think the disputed language in this instance actually implies a link and thereby confuses the issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Justanotherguy54, I'm very sorry, but I had to rollback your last two edits: they just made a complete mess of the talk page formatting and discussion, and made your new comments and the post you were trying to embed unreadable. I couldn't even figure out what was meant to go where and at what level of WP:INDENT because it was such a mess. Could you please reintroduce your thoughts through the normal UI when you have an opportunity? Also, please don't copy and paste another user's entire post again, including signature, as that only confuses matters further. Consider instead using the {{tq|quoted text}} template to quote the portions you want to respond to. Apologies: I don't like to refactor, let alone delete, another user's TP contributions, but it really was going to destroy any readability of the page. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why @Justanotherguy54 is so hell-bent on adding this passage even though the consensus seems to be that the source is weak and that criminologists are being given undue weight in the context of the psychiatric, psychological and sexological origins of paraphilia...

I wonder if this isn't something we need further mediation to handle, because it seems like we've now lost the thread of communication on this issue, leaving only an edit war. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)