Template:EGLPHP: Difference between revisions
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
