Irresoponsible Misinformation at UToronto?

[chevre]

So, I was browsing the wikipedia discussion page for the diaper fetishism article and stumbled across a link to this powerpoint presentation: hxxp://www.utm.utoronto.ca/fileadmin/w3psy/Psy344Sex05.pps

It looks to be a presentation from some psychology class at the University of Toronto, mainly focusing on the subject of sexual abuse and pedophilia. However, it goes on to explore links between paraphilias and pedophilia. It basically talks about infantilism saying that, while not all infantilists are pedophiles, there is a definite link. Of course, no citation or any evidence is provided to back up this claim.

And what's equally disturbing, is that the first slide implies the presenter is affiliated with the police! :wallbash: So uh, if you're ab/dl in Ontario, I guess you should watch out. It's disturbing to me that such a presentation could be made to college students, especially by law enforcement.

Oh well, the good news is that the discussion page's mention of it was specifically removing it as a source, claiming it is not credible and disagrees with credible sources. But still, it's frustrating to see it.

 

[Scratchpaws]

I can understand why they would link pedophilia to infantilism. They are similarly themed around childhood, and can be of a sexual nature. It makes it very tempting for forensic psychologists to see a correlation between the two. The statistics that resulted from research were showed in the presentation and made a reasonable case at first glance, however, I cannot compare these to any control data. For instance, one of the numbers is that 18% of pedophiles have been linked to other paraphilia, but if the average non-pedophile has a 17% chance of having an other paraphilia, this really is not an adequate find to conclude a "link" between pedophilia and other paraphilia.
There is however a strong distinction between the two, that one would probably not be aware of if you aren't an AB yourself. Like, I sure as heck know I'm not a pedophile. I think the researchers would have been able to conclude this rather quickly if they spoke to fetishists other than pedophiles, which I'm tempted to conclude they didn't. Poorly managed or funded research can get dirty rather quickly, and the fact that Wikipedia rejects it as a viable source does suggest this may have been the case.
Scientists need to be reminded to think outside the box every once in a while. :smile1:

 

[dogboy]

The fact that the writer was a cop explains a lot, as I think people in law enforcement see crime around every corner. To the ignorant, all they can see is a grown adult being attracted not only to baby diapers, but also the baby. The issue is further complicated by the psychological community lumping infantilism together with pedophilia all under the unbrella of paraphelia. It's easy to jump from one misguided conclusion to the next.

The only common thread that binds all these conditions together is the link to objects. The psychological community then has to see children as objects in the eyes of their abusers. The dead body for necrophiliacs is an object. The animal for zoophiles is an object, and baby paraphernalia such as diapers, pacifiers, plushies are all objects. But the motivation and cause I think are quite different, and for that reason I don't think we should be lumped together. If you wanted to take it one step further, all people with obsessive compulsive behavior disorders could be lumped together, but again, the causing factors would probably be different.

 

[Hex]

It basically talks about infantilism saying that, while not all infantilists are pedophiles, there is a definite link

[font="Calibri,Arial"]I have to say, this wouldn't surprise me. Look at how many pedos the mods have to deal with on a regular basis.

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the link)[/font]

 

[TOAccountant]

Most law enforcement and physcologists have a hard time distinguishing the two groups.

As a friend of mine put it: "Why would someone who wants to be the baby want to be with the baby?"

 

[Chillhouse]

This just in, a link has been found between pedophiles, and people who like bread. Over 88% of pedophiles have claimed they eat bread on a regular bases. So if you see someone eating bread, slap it out of their hands and make a citizen's arrest.

 

[bobbyjeff]

This just in, a link has been found between pedophiles, and people who like bread. Over 88% of pedophiles have claimed they eat bread on a regular bases. So if you see someone eating bread, slap it out of their hands and make a citizen's arrest.

Even more shockingly, upon further investigation into doughy-diapergate it has been discovered with 100% confidence that there is a positive correlative link between oxygen consumption and pedophilia. 100% of all child molesters are known to breath oxygen. If you are not a pedophile then we can prove it by dunking you in the river. If you survive then you must not need oxygen and therefore are not a pedo; however, if you are dead when you stop struggling you must have been a monster. Good riddance.

 

[DannyTheNinja]

Slide 98: "18% of paedophiles have associated paraphilic behaviors."

Considering the sheer number of people that have paraphilias, this isn't even a real statistic.

--Danny :ninja:

 

[Raccoon]

There is a definite link between being male AND being female to pedophilia. While most are male, the rest are female; so between the two there is a 100% correlation.

Anybody who had any trauma below the age of three - including being born - will associate the post-trauma comfort of being in diapers with them; and so are latent or potential diaper-fetishists. This proves the link between diaper-fetishism and pedophilia.

 

[ade]

i would say that, from my own observations, the proportion of paedophiles within 'our' community is probably less than that of the civil service or the gay movement.
that said, this is still a fine-line we're walking, not just in social perceptions but also in how our own desires can be perverted as we grow and develop......and also at the hands of others.

 

[BitterGrey]

So, I was browsing the wikipedia discussion page for the diaper fetishism article and stumbled across a link to this powerpoint presentation: ...Psy344Sex05.pps

Back in January 2006, and Admin on Wikipedia deleted the standing paraphilic infantilism article and replaced it with a stub, using this presentation as his sole reference. That was my reason for getting involved in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is dependent on its editors for accuracy and balance. Some editors might have an active, pedophilia-centric focus. Others will just Google and insert whatever comes up, not knowing any better. That something will often be pedophilia research, because pedophilia research is well funded and has a captive base of research subjects.

More recently, I've been dealing with another Canadian who claims to know something about infantilism based on his research on pedophiles. I wonder if the nationality is merely coincidental.

(By the way, would you mind disabling that link, Chevre? The search engines consider all links as votes of support. By linking to it, we are promoting it.)

 

[Raccoon]

All diaper-fetishists are pedophiles.
All Moslems are terrorists.
All Mexicans in America are illegals.
All spanking is abuse. No spanking is abuse.

People are desperate to understand and eradicate pedophilia: lack of results eliminates funding; positive results gets funding: even if the positive results are falsities.

Burn the witch!

 

[bobbyjeff]

We've found a witch! May we burn her?

 

[EmeraldsAndLime]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those few slides on infantilism were phrased like that for the sake of generality. [Proper] PowerPoint slids should be basic dot points and no more that 4-5 on a slide. It's hard to convey specific information on the slides alone, so I'm assuming the lecturer in this instance elaborated on it further and noted that it's not always the case.

In saying that, I not going to defend nor argue the author of this presentation on the basis that it's too vague to draw an definitive conclusions from. Even on the Links to Paedophilia slide where it says,

...have identified individuals who are practicing infantilist and are involved in the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

I don't see much of a problem with that. Partly because it is true, but more precisely, it phrases it such that it makes it appear to be about the individual, rather than infantilists as a collective group. I do have a problem being considered the same as these perverts, but I'm apathetic to the fact we have a common interest. Both paedophiles and infantilists can come from any walk of life, some of whom actually hold jobs working with children, or are in a position with a lot of responsibility and they have to act mature beyond their years. The same can be said for anyone who is involved in any other fetish.

Irresponsible misinformation? Hardly. As aforementioned, I agree with it to a reasonable extent simply because it's very general and, for the most part, it's true. Besides, why get so caught up if a bunch of psychology kids think we're a bit freaky? It's going to be their career to deal with the strange, bizarre and emotional. I doubt one class of students makes much of a different when a large portion of people think we're messed up anyhow.

 

[the0silent0alchemist]

This just in, a link has been found between pedophiles, and people who like bread. Over 88% of pedophiles have claimed they eat bread on a regular bases. So if you see someone eating bread, slap it out of their hands and make a citizen's arrest.

thus exposing one of the most common mistakes of statistical analysis, the perception that correlation implies causation, and just how much correlations are misused or blindly applied or just plain irrelevant

 

[Iggy]

wikipedia is a terrible website in my opinion, the admins there are extremely overzealous and at times really have no objectivity. Besides one person/website that has been talked about here before and his links to pedo, I know no nobody that's pedo related to this fetish. There's many many many fetishes, this is the same as saying people who are BDSM will torture someone when they murder them. It's largely based on assumption and really poor to see this out of a university; however, I've seen such blasphemous remarks given by lecturers before that are way off-base.

 

[Darkfinn]

That's the lovely thing about Wiki... anyone can edit it and say pretty much whatever they want as long as they provide some kind of documentation.

Thus why Wiki is not accepted as a source for an academic paper.

 

[EmeraldsAndLime]

That's the lovely thing about Wiki... anyone can edit it and say pretty much whatever they want as long as they provide some kind of documentation.

Thus why Wiki is not accepted as a source for an academic paper.

I think it's a brilliant site, people just misuse it. I completely agree that it shouldn't be used as a formal academic reference.

However, it's good to use when you want a different explanation or something, or you want to formulate ideas about a report you have to do. In the references section each article has, more often than not there are some legitimate sources that you could scout out at your local library or whatever. It takes the pain out of searching for proper sources.

 

[Calico]

People just need to know the difference between facts and opinions. Sometimes when you are reading a wiki article, you can tell what is someone's opinion.

 

[dogboy]

Wikipedia is blocked in the Lynchburg school system, partly because of false information, and partly because it contains obscene information. I remember when Stephen Colbert had his Colbert nation deluge Wikipedia with information that African elephants habitated North America. Pedophilia is a terrible thing, but I think it's blown out of proportion in terms of hot buttons in America. It's still a small segment of society. That sad part is that it's usually perpetrated by a family member, or a person close to the family. This hardly has anything to do with diaper fetishes.