Template:EGLPHP: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<gallery> | <gallery> | ||
File:Schustertable.png|A comparison of various phallometric studies | File:Schustertable.png|A comparison of various phallometric studies | ||
File:PedoPrevalence.jpg|Phallometric studies establish hebephilic interest as normative, pedophilic as common | File:PedoPrevalence.jpg|Phallometric studies establish hebephilic interest as normative, pedophilic as common | ||
File:Pedoprevalence2.jpg|(Continued) Prevalence of pedophile feelings 20% of men, even in self-reports | File:Pedoprevalence2.jpg|(Continued) Prevalence of pedophile feelings 20% of men, even in self-reports | ||
Latest revision as of 04:10, 4 November 2022
-
A comparison of various phallometric studies -
Phallometric studies establish hebephilic interest as normative, pedophilic as common -
(Continued) Prevalence of pedophile feelings 20% of men, even in self-reports -
Tromovitch Presentation (using inclusivist/nonpreferential definition of pedophilia) -
Tromovitch Presentation (cont'd) -
Freund and Costell (1970) - showing prevalence of heterosexual pedophilic and hebephilic response -
Freund and Costell (1970) alternative version: arousal levels to nude images -
Hebephilia is universal (see characteristics and the associated article for more excerpts) -
Search results suggest hebephilia is common -
...as do porno trends -
...as do historical marriage trends -
Example RV curve -
Roder (2013) attractiveness and femininity ratings by age -
Preference for neotenic features is common -
Non-offending pedophilia and impulse control
