Talk:Chronophilia
Add topicLatest comment: 9 months ago by 141.239.250.43 in topic Prevalence
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chronophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Prevalence
[edit]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.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Savoie V, Quayle E, Flynn E (2021). "Prevalence and correlates of individuals with sexual interest in children: A systematic review". Child Abuse Negl. 115: 105005. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105005. PMID 33691252.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- The pertinent quotes from the full text of that source are: "sexual interest in pre-pubescent children (aged 13 or younger) ... prevalence rates ... ranged from 0.2% to 65% with a mean of 12.8%.... The prevalence of self-reported sexual interest in pubescent children (aged 14 to 16) ranged from 1.6% and 89.4% with a mean of 24.02%.... When looking at individuals who self-reported having had actual sexual contact with children (pre and pubescent children), the mean prevalence rate was 7.34%...."
- Most articles on these topics don't suggest those prevalence rates are anywhere near that high. 141.239.250.43 (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"Minor-attracted persons" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
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)
Parafile secret codes
[edit]it's come to my attention that some paraphilies use the symbol for the planet Saturn,"♄" as a code for any legal chronophilia.
I have an example of one of them doing this on Blue Sky: leiabryant13.bsky.social 2601:840:4500:D880:6804:6ACC:9B33:8E35 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)