Talk:Pederasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pederasty article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

To-do list for Pederasty:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Add references to the page using the <ref></ref> method. Please use primary sources whenever possible. Expand scope: Flesh out China, Japan, and Melanesia sections in "Post-classical and modern forms" section Integrate relevant material from the French version Integrate relevant material from the German version Discuss use as tool of population control: Post-colonial Greece, Siwa . . . As secondary effect of generalized pederasty: Ottoman empire? Remove the POV and Bias from the article.

Archives
1 (18 June 2004 to 26 December 2005) 2 (2006) 3 (2007-April 2008)

Contents 1 Dictionary Definition of Pederasty 2 Definitions 3 Injurious Result of the Discrepancy in Definitions 4 Majority views? 5 Moralizing edits 5.1 Stuff like this 6 Cross-purposes 7 Reference #3/"Mygenes" 8 original research and unclear focus 9 Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty 10 Protection 11 More representative sources needed 12 Child abuse accusations as covert homophobia 13 Material removed by Haiduc to child abuse page 14 Ancient Greece 15 Lexis-nexis 16 Suggested structure 17 "Some commentators" 18 Arbitrary and capricious merge of Modern Pederasty article into this one 19 excessive duplication with other articles 20 Text moved to talk 21 Michelangelo 22 Merger 23 Bullough 24 Fraudulent edits by Jack-a-Roe 24.1 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Infobox_in_Pederasty 25 Brass tacks 26 The first line

[edit] Dictionary Definition of Pederasty

Merriam-Webster (and many other dictionaries) defines Pederasty as "one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy" I believe that this should be dealt with in this article. Now, I was going to put it in as an alternative definition but I figured there would be a firestorm of protest, however, I don't believe it can be ignored either.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what they say, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." It is not lexicographers who have the last word on a topic, but the specialists who study that topic. Sociologists, anthropologists, historians, sexologists. Any of these, claiming your dictionary definition as authoritative, would be laughed out of the room. If you study the topic you come to realize that this is not what pederasty is though it certainly is an activity that has been engaged in by some pederasts in some contexts. Some dictionaries still use this definition, and a brief mention of this apparent linguistic disconnect would be fitting, but more as a footnote than anything else.

It would perhaps be interesting to have a discussion of the practice in what regards its occurrence in pederasty, but sources are few and often not specific. I just have not had the interest or patience for it, but you will probably be able to show that it was disapproved of but encountered among the Greeks and Moslems, and popular in Eastern Asia. Haiduc (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

Quoting the article: "Pederasty.... refers to an erotic relationship, sexually expressed or not, between a boy ...... and an adult male outside his immediate family."

Quoting The New Oxford Dictionary of English: "sexual activity involving a man and a boy."

Quoting Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition): "Pederast - one that practices anal intercourse, esp. with a boy."

Turning to an older dictionary, the 1951 edition of the Concise Oxford has: "Pederastry - sodomy." Sodomy is defined as copulation between male persons.

The difference is the three dictionaries all refer to a physical sexual relationship. Wikipedia has a different definition, not necessarily "sexually expressed".

Has this discrepancy been discussed previously?

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you will go back through the discussions you will see it raised. It is a discrepancy between academics (all of them as far as I can tell, no serious academic has posited that as a definition) and lexicographers. As I mentioned before, and per Wikipedia guidelines, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." Haiduc (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I put in some text about the disparity between the article's (or encyclopedic) definition of pederasty and the various dictionary definitions of it without going into the reasons. I believe its noteworthy and NPOV for readers who will wonder why this is not addressed in the article and assign bias to the omission.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was an incipient discussion of this aspect already, so I combined your sources with the original text and expanded it a bit. Haiduc (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Injurious Result of the Discrepancy in Definitions

Following on the above discussion of definitions, the choice that has been made has a serious result that I think must be considered.

It is easy to say "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". What does this mean? In my understanding, it means "if an article will amount to nothing more than a dictionary definition, it should not be a Wikipedia article".

The way "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is being used in this discussion is different. Here it seems to mean "we can write this article using a meaning of pederasty which does not agree with the dictionary definition and thus does not agree with the common understanding of what the word means."

---

A relationship between a man and a boy that is not pederastic in the common use of the word can be labelled pederastic based on how this article uses the word.

This licence to stretch the meaning plays into the hands of some editors who seem to like to label people in the most negative ways possible. (Examples can be provided if necessary.)

In the article Historical pederastic relationships, one relationship is described in these words: "The intimacy only went as far as bathing the boy and towelling him off." This was not a pederastic relationship in the usual meaning of the word, However the approach taken in this article allows the relationship to be so labelled.

This is wrong because it provides misleading information to the reader. If this happened in the case of a BLP, it would likely be libelous.

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy. The word "pederasty" has been used in many ways. That does in no way alter its correct and central meaning as used by historians, sexologists, and many others, and as supported by countless published studies from any number of disciplines. Its use in other venues, such as law or on the street, can best be treated in other existing articles such as the ones on child abuse, homosexuality or anal sex. We are looking to distinguish separate phenomena and to treat them independently, not to confuse them and lump them all together, are we not?

In Lord Montgomery's case, the following review of Hamilton's book sheds some light: "Being oppressed by a sense of loneliness, he found solace in the company of young boys and developed strong homosexual propensities. The author surmises that it was the influence of Greek literature which shaped his seeking gratification in homosexual urges." You claim that this was "not pederastic in the usual meaning of the word?" Whose use? Yours?

Aaronovitch in The Independent has a good take on all this: "A clunk-click association between sexuality and sex is a tendency of both the puritan and the pornographer. They both want to reduce sexuality to a set of mechanical propositions, one to condemn and the other to profit. But it may just be (and I haven't seen the letters either) that Montgomery was an even greater hero than Glover thought he was. Glover's objection springs in part from his own obvious discomfort with homosexuality, so he can't see what others may see that a Monty who felt drawn to boys, and yet refused to act upon his desires, was an even nobler warrior than history has so far suggested." The fact is that neither you nor anyone else can limit pederasty to the insertion of the penis in the anus, something that Aaronovitch consigns to the domain of puritans and pornographers. Hopefully we here are neither of the two, and if we have such leanings we are able to leave them at the door.

As for your roundabout charges of negativity, they seem out of left field to me. Haiduc (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this.

You asked: " You claim that this was "not pederastic in the usual meaning of the word?" Whose use? Yours?"

The "usual meaning" in the sense of the meaning found in general dictionaries. Because of the method by which reputable lexicographers work, this is the generally understood meaning. I think the dictionaries I quoted above are very widely used dictionaries with good reputations.

I can agree that the subject is broader in scope than simply whether or not physical intercourse is involved.

Can you not agree that, given the mores of British society around the time of WWII and since, this has a significantly different effect on personal reputation.

I think this difference is suggested by the words above: "others may see that a Monty who felt drawn to boys, and yet refused to act upon his desires, was an even nobler warrior than history has so far suggested".

(Perhaps it would be clearer to say that these words illustrate that a significant difference exists.)

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(signing revised wording) Wanderer57 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding those dictionary definitions (by no means all) that restrict themselves to a physical act, I think they have been sufficiently treated in the article as it stands.

Regarding Monty, my intention was to show that the implications of his erotic relationships with Trueb and others have been discussed by others and are not a Wikipedia invention. As for whether they enhance or undermine his reputation, it seems there are conflicting opinions, and at any rate we cannot serve as hagiographers to Monty. Haiduc (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of hagiography.

The point I'm trying to make is this:

• The relationship Montgomery was reportedly in in the late 1940's was apparently pederastic in the way the word is used in this article.
• The relationship was apparently not pederastic in the way the word is usually defined in general dictionaries.
• Ergo, this article is creating a dilemma for Wikipedia in that using the word to describe the relationship conveys an incorrect impression.

One way to try to resolve this would be to change the article. The problem is that this requires a major rethinking of the article.

Another way would be to forgo labelling the relationship as pederastic.

Let me ask you Haiduc, if you would support the second approach. Also if you can suggest any other approach. Feedback please. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You leave yourself open to suspicions of hagiography if you express concern with a blot on the reputation of a personage. And, if I read you right, you are aiming to achieve your goal of "de-pederastizing" Monty's relations with his boys by either forcibly re-writing this article to redefine pederasty as something that Monty clearly did not do (in flagrant contradiction of what all the academics in recent times describe it to be), or will leave the article alone as long as I capitulate and agree to remove Monty from the list of pederastic couples.

Unfortunately I am not in a position to make bargains here. The article on pederasty is not written at my discretion but reflects academic realities that we cannot bend at will. And Monty's loving relations with boys are too widely known for us to be able to arbitrarily make them disappear. Haiduc (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think being concerned about an apparently incorrect statement about a person (or about anything) is part of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. I believe hagiology is attempting to remove statements that are true but negative.

I should think we could agree that the present case is about something more complicated, a statement which is true using one definition and false using another. Therefore an ambiguous statement. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(I have no intention of trying to rewrite this article. In fact I have never edited it, to the best of my recollection, and have no plans to do so.) Wanderer57 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you say to placing a short statement at the beginning of the Historical pederastic couples article clarifying that the entries conform to modern academic definitions of pederasty, and not to lexicographical ones? Haiduc (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Majority views?

Hi. I can't seem to find the information in the article. What are current majority views on the practice of pederasty according to the literature? Round my neighbourhood its not regarded with much acceptance. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdarts (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any statistics. All we can say is that if it legal it is considered integral to LGBT rights, and if it is illegal it is considered a form of child abuse. Haiduc (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems to go some way towards explaining the majority view. So how about having that statement writ more clearly in the lead section? Phdarts (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of a source that says it is "integral to LGBT rights," but I am aware of sources which state that LGBT rights orgs denounce PPA orgs. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what PPA stands for , nor why you seem intent on peddling it here. It is false to claim that the rights of male youths above the age of consent to have relations with others of their own sex is not supported by mainstream LGBT organizations. Bring evidence or lay off. Haiduc (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the reverse is true--the onus is on you to produce a source that any LGBT org says this is an LGBT issue, as you claim. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You come in here claiming that GLBT organizations discriminate against the very group they exist to serve, by excluding individuals above the age of consent on the basis of arbitrary and capricious age rules stricter than those dictated by law. I will provide here a link for one of many GLBT organizations that serve even youth below the age of consent: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Who are you trying to fool, by claiming that GLBT organizations do not care for the young, and do not provide services for them, all the more so when they are above the age of consent??? Enough of this. Haiduc (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

LGBT orgs supporting LGBT youth is not the same as LGBT orgs endorsing pederasty, and you know it, so don't make that claim on the talkpage to other editors.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see why there is a bit of friction here, though I suggest a solution. I believe the article looks quite NAMBLA. I don't think readers or editors would like that. I suggest trying to differentiate this article from the pedophilia article in reasonable ways, but at the same time being about as sensitive as some editors are on the pedophilia and related articles. Its a subject that really does require more careful editing.

Some of the images look dodgy and promotional, and some of the associated text. No need to ditch everything visual, but I think something needs to be done about that.

I am absolutely certain that most homosexuals will not like this article looking as NAMBLA as it does. If there is a way of getting the majority "homosexual views" on this then that may help. Further suggestions will be appreciated. Phdarts (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not majority views but accuracy and neutrality that matter in Wikipedia editing. As far as the edits flogging criminality, I am sorry but since there is nothing inherently criminal about pederasty they seem to be little more than inappropriate finger waggling. Let's try to stay neutral, I see no other solution. As for your other contributions, thank you, I look forward to a fruitful collaboration. Haiduc (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. You restored this into the lead section: "Though occasionally criminalized in the past, currently it is legal in most nations if the boy has reached the local age of consent."

That statement is inaccurate and it does not go anywhere near what I would consider an attempt at neutrality.

The first part of the sentence says that it was once criminalized sometimes. Then it says now it is legal in most places. Then it gives the proviso, as long as a boy has reached a legal age of consent. In simple terms of imagery alone, the picture is quite dazzlingly inconsistent.

Now I'm not about to do a survey, but lets consider what the average person on the street would consider about pederasty, even when it is defined so softly as:

"an erotic relationship, sexually expressed or not, between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family".

When the average person considers criminalization, they will have some sort of idea of when and why it is a crime. By stating why it is a crime and under what conditions, the answer is more clearly given. Its an encyclopedic statement of fact.

I realize the article has a historical content, but lets not get too tangled up in what ancient Greeks and Romans did and considered. Just a cursory glance of the literature and the web shows that pederasty is really thought of in terms of something that is prohibited in legal, ethical and cultural terms. It seems to be that all views should be present here, and in good proportion. You say majority views are not important here, and then dismiss a straight statement as finger waggling. I suggest you be a little more tolerant of open discussion. Phdarts (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that we should be casting any article in Wikipedia from a purely Western perspective. If we were, we would say that in Europe it was widely criminalized with the advent of Judeo-Christian morality, together with other forms of same-sex love and sexuality, since late antiquity. Perhaps we should, as long as we continue to indicate that it was widely legal in the rest of the world. That includes Asia, Africa, the Americas, and presumably Australia and Oceania. The whole problem is that if you are to launch into this whole dissertation in the intro it is no longer an intro. And if you are to phrase it as you did you immediately introduce a value judgment where we have no business to do so. Last I checked the article on Heterosexuality it did not state in the intro that heterosexuality is illegal when performed with partners below the age of consent. Correct me if I am wrong. And please do not lose sight of the fact that pederasty is not a crime, no more than homosexuality. Certain expressions of it are certainly criminal, as are certain expressions of homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or of driving a car, for that matter.

As for my "suppression of discussion," I think you may protest too much. As for the definition being "soft," I think that if you look at the list of Historical pederastic relationships you will see that far from being "soft," it is simply realistic. Not that we have to make that judgment either, it has already been made for us by scholars in the field. Haiduc (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The kind of "dissertation" I wrote in was a simple statement of fact. And you insisted on this "dissertation" [1].

When the average person (including the average homosexual) contemplates the notion of adults having erotic relations with non-adults, it is generally in terms of prohibition, unethical behaviour, abuse, and illegality. I don't think you have succeeded in persuading anyone that pederasty is considered "perfectly acceptable" from a majority view. The majority view on pederasty is generally one of condemnation. Phdarts (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Phdarts, I do not think anyone of us is qualified to speak for the average person, or for the average homosexual. Even if someone were, what is that to us as editors of an encyclopedia?! I run into a lot of white people who, seeing that I too am white and thinking me one of them, will go off into racist rants of one type or another. I am led by that to believe that most whites are racist, and I would not be surprised if that held true of the other races too. But does the apparent opinion of that majority entitle me to go and edit the article about black people to reflect that bigotry? That seems to me the gist of your argument.

There is another issue here. In your presentation of what the average person thinks about pederasty I sense that you are also speaking for yourself. The problem with that is that you do not come across as a person with a neutral attitude towards pederasty, but rather as someone with a very negative and judgmental view of this type of relationship. Do you really think it is appropriate to color this, or any article, to reflect your personal opinions - even if you cloak them with the argument that everyone thinks like you do?

Finally, do you really think it is appropriate for you to stand in judgment of so many nations in this world, as well as many US states, whose peoples have chosen to empower their youth to enter into love relationships with older people, and dictate to them that their views are "unethical" and "abusive"? I hope that this little bit of "open discussion" will not put you off - is this not what you were calling for? Haiduc (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is my judgment that I believe most people condemn pederasty. It is not pure speculation at all though. It is not a guess. It is illogical to talk about criminality in the sentence you prefer, then reject anything about why it is prohibited. Furthermore, the statement about both legal and illegal pederasty being strongly condemned in general was there already in the article before I arrived. I am simply adding the current majority view from the main part of the article into the lead section to make the lead more representative and balanced in viewpoints. Phdarts (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what the "avarage homosexual" thinks about the subject? It's pure speculation (and it varies a lot - depending on who is asking them and under which circumstances). Besides that, do we even know whether the majority of homo- or bisexual men today are actually free of ephebophile feelings? For another site we did a lot of research to give the viewer a very profound picture about homosexuality in general, but most of the historical material we found was doubtlessly pederastic. So it's not suprising that all those GLBT-sites which are so inredible proud about their "famous gays in history" are listing a lot of people, who were clearly pederasts. Fulcher

(talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As a homosexual I would have the same logic as someone of any other orientation. I don't think the public will take on any glamorous example of famous pederasts to make their judgments. Indeed, they are more likely to think about Garry Glitter in this matter. Its already in the article that pederasty both legal and illegal is generally condemned. To have due weight, it would be a good idea to explain more of the legal reasoning, and ethical standing of that current status. I'm not interested in condemning any particular behaviour myself. Just making sure the significant views that condemn certain types of pederasty get encyclopedically presented. Phdarts (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what's going on with these pederasty articles is not only a serious POV unbalance, but a walled garden of them. Essentially, an OR defintiion of pederasty is being enforced, and proliferated extensively. Outside opinion should be sought. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside uninvolved input would be welcome. I do believe the statements about pederasty being generally condemned are in the article already though, and all they need is proper weight. History is all good and well, and some of it is nicely written. However, this is not a history book, its an encyclopedia and the current status of pederasty should be properly presented. Phdarts (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm noticing that as I'm starting to check references, some are not RS. Also, whole sections are OR. Retroactively interpreting/speculating that relationships were "pederastic" seems to be going on. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You should read the literature on pederasty (in the context of historical homosexualities). I always suggest Murray (2000) and the cross-cultural analyses. This recent tone is nothing but editors who probably have not read up on the subject, deluding themselves that a neutral, amoral analysis is advocacy. Once again, "NAMBLA" is dredged up, and the same editors who seek to medicalise and condemn to doom any article involving [child], [adult] and [sexuality] are now on the job. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, some editors have turned up to place some reliably sourced statements of fact into the article. I realize pederasty is a bit of a sticky subject, but we have to deal with objectionable facts, especially about what most people deem pederasty to be, and its nature. Again, I appeal to the normal current view of any reasonable individual when you ask them "what do you think about men having erotic relations with boys?". In the vast majority of cases, in both higher and normal educational levels you will get the Crosson Tower response; pederasty is considered to be objected to in general. Most people abhor men who seek erotic relations with 12-16 year olds, and they will object to men who actively focus on seeking erotic relations with 16-18 year olds because while they do, they will also be looking at the younger set. That is the common perception of pederasty. Its associated with NAMBLA because that is also what NAMBLA proponents do. Phdarts (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true, and deserves coverage. With due weight, which considering the history and ethnology of pederasty, does not amount to an introduction, and certainly no more than 10% of the article. J*Lambton ^T/_C 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moralizing edits

While I concur wholeheartedly with the intention to protect children from abuse, I do not think that the way to accomplish that is to come in here and engage in alarmist and moralizing edits. It is quite clear, I think, that different people have different points of view, a matter that can be discussed once we find a way to make sure that we are all talking about the same thing (difficult with a term that has many meanings) and a proper place and form for it. But I think we need to not only be respectful of each other, but even more to be respectful of those parts of the world that view things differently from the way they are seen in Kansas or Riyadh. And we might note here that in this respect the likes of Kansas and Riyadh are in a distinct minority.

As I said previously, we have no right to flog the "illegality" of pederasty in the intro (or anywhere) any more than we flog the illegality of homosexuality in that intro. It should be clear that pederasty is not illegal but controlled. That control is effected by means of age of consent laws. If you want to say this in the intro I would be in agreement. Haiduc (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and pederasty are definitely different subjects. There are clearly many places where majorities of people consider pederasty to be pedophilia, and illegal. If you think they are moralizing then that is just your view. The fact is, that is what people think in general. The concern is that even in situations where pedophilia is legal it is still abusive because it is still about men having relations with boys. That is why there is such a majority concern over pederasty as a concept. Sorry, but thats just the way it is. That is the common perception.—This is part of a comment by Phdarts , which was interrupted by the following:

Sorry, but statements like "Homosexuality and pederasty are definitely different subjects." are nothing more than wishful thinking on your side. Is, for example, a 16 y/o boy not a male person, when an older guy has a relationship with him? Does he then turn into some kind of "neutral being" or what is your point? Fulcher (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, you restored this version: [2] into the article, which largely goes against everything you have just said. This statement [3] is a simple and straightforward reliable source that gives a clear idea of what most people consider about pederasty. No moralizing or judgement. Its basic, intuitively appropriate, and just one of those things. As a homosexual, its something that I would simply have to put up with as a fact. As a statement from a reliable source, Crosson-Tower 2007 is just the sort of reliable source that this article needs. Phdarts (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

People everywhere are in a distinct minority, Haiduc, why is Kansas or Riyadh any different? Legal is a matter of place (with nearly 200 separate legal jurisdictions) but I do not believe that pedophilia is legal in even one of these jurisdictions. I would have thought that, far from being legal, pederastry is by definition the abusing of underage minors. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty is nearly always treated as a form of homosexuality. It is the primary form that homosexuality has taken over history. More scholarship, and no more revisionism, please. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Most homosexuals do not engage in pederasty; pederasty is a subset of homosexuality. The example listed by Fulcher 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC), "16 y/o boy... when an older guy has a relationship with him" is an example of a pederastic relationship that would be illegal in some countries and legal in others; if the boy were 12, it would be considered a crime in every country, that's not a moral statement, it's a description of laws. Regarding the relationship of the term to pedophilia: with a 16 year-old, that would not be a likely diagnosis. But if the boy is 12 or 13, and the man is significantly older (more than 5 years, according to the DSM), that would qualify for the pedophilia diagnosis. That's not a moral statement, it's a description of a psychiatric diagnosis. Regarding social issues, in no modern country is it socially accepted for significantly older adults to engage in sexual relationships with teens below the age of consent, especially with young teens or preadolescents; that has nothing to do with homosexuality and is true even in countries where homosexuality is accepted as a sexual orientation. That's an observation of a social issue; non-acceptance of the practice by "society", also not a moral statement. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You said: "Most homosexuals do not engage in pederasty". Do you know of any sources that would confirm such a statement or is that just your personal impression? Fulcher (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: GLBTQ:

In Greco-Roman antiquity, the predominant form of same-sex sexual relationships was pederastic, but in the modern West the predominant form is androphilic. Hence, the pederast in contemporary times is definitely a minority within a minority.

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's speculation and not published in a book. Any "statistics" about this subject? And the same site lists a countless number of men that were clearly pederasts, so I have my doubts..... 84.150.254.208 (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The gay movement has firmly rejected the pederast/pedophile move to infiltrate it and gone in the other direction - eg towards civil gay marriages, something that is total anathema to the pederasts and pedophiles. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Were gay activists against the lowering of Age of Consent-Laws in the past (for example in the UK)? If they were not, would that not be a contradiction to your statement? And where are those many gay men that are protesting against the partly legal status of pederastic relationships? Fulcher (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fulcher. I believe this issue is about the addition of reliably sourced information that clarifies the majority view on pederasty. As far as I know, pederasty is condemned, just as it has said in the aricle, and of course, a large percentage of homosexuals will be disgusted at illegal pederasty, and will tend to object to or be concerned about pederasty that is not technally illegal. So whatever the orientation, the general view is that pederasty is something that people object to. Phdarts (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats an important issue for this article, SqueekBox. I'll have a dig around for more reliable sources. Phdarts (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff like this

"In some countries, such as England, pederasty is considered to be pedophilia, and in the United States most agree that pederasty is the abuse of boys, especially those between 12 and 16 years old (Crosson-Tower 2007)".

Poisonous POV. Irrelevant to the opening. Irrelevant to the vast expanse of pederasty before the point. Totally ignores the point, reinforced just before, that pederasty may not be expressed. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That' quote is based on a reliable source. While some might believe that pederasty can exist without sexual abuse, there are no reliable sources that we have seen so far describing relationships between men and boys that are sexual, but in which the sexuality is not expressed through sexual interactions. Maybe something like that existed in history, but in present day, if it exists, no-one is writing about it.

Almost the entire article is historical, and the small part of it that regards present-day just says that it's not practiced and is considered pedophilia. There are zero references regarding (a) present-day pederasty that is accepted by any present-day society, or (b) that any form of present-day pederasty exists that is not expressed in sexual activity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

JLambton. The statement "Currently both illegal and legal forms of pederasty are strongly condemned" is in the main body of the article. Why should it not be represented in the lead section?

Also, could you please explain what you mean when you say "Poisonous POV" and perhaps refer me to the appropriate policy page.

Could you also explain to me why there was no particular fuss over this convoluted statement: [4]Phdarts (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the size of the introduction, it deserves a mention, although not in the first paragraph (which should describe only the essence (and) historical form of pederasty), and certainly not in the "absolutified" form that SqueakBox advocates for his own personal bias. J*Lambton ^T/_C 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, given that its a majority view, it deserves a much more significant mention in the lead. I believe that perhaps it doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph though I would like to hear from others in that matter. I am not sure what you mean by absolutified. Could you explain a bit more or give us an/the example. Phdarts (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-purposes

I am sorry, but "Currently both illegal and legal forms of pederasty are strongly condemned" is an unsubstantiated fantasy, unless you are using circular reasoning by defining pederasty as child abuse and then claiming that child abuse is condemned. But then you are at the wrong article. What is lawful is lawful, despite what you may like to think, or wish into existence.

The main problem here, as far as I can tell, is that we are tripping over the different meanings of pederasty. Whether we like it or not, "pederasty" means the illegal abuse, often buggery, of boy children below the age of consent. Whether we like it or not, "pederasty" means the lawful expression of homosexual affection, sexually expressed or not. Thus the whole tug-of-war of the last few days could be resolved if we could agree on how to reconcile these two very different definitions.

So, before dealing with the very serious problems introduced into the article over the last couple of days, I think we need to work out a resolution to this contradiction. Haiduc (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty simple. State what is considered to be the majority view as the definition. Where other more minority definitions come in, then give views on that. Pederasty as an article will benefit from the more current and up to date views, arguments and reasoning. Of course both illegal and legal forms of pederasty are condemned. That doesn't mean they are both illegal. Its just that they are both generally looked down upon. The legal age of consent may be 16 in many places, but that doesn't mean everybody wants it to be 16 for all situations. When a particular type of sexual preference involves age ranges from 12 to 16, then a whole lot of people get very concerned about it all. That concern will generally extend to men and 17-18 year old boys having erotic relations, and indeed, mature men and boyish looking mature men having erotic relations. The concern is not only about something out of the ordinary happening. There is a genuine concern about potential abusive activity. Why do you think NAMBLA is such a strongly associated issue here? Phdarts (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that NAMBLA promotes the elimination of age of consent laws, is an organization of very damaged and damaging individuals. It is not at all clear to me, however, why you persist in dragging it into this discussion. There is another article, on modern pederasty, where it would be more relevant.

As for your preoccupation with legal behaviors and appearances of other people's boyfriends, all I can say is that I respect your concern but please do not use this article as a way to act it out. Let us rather concentrate on making sure that this article addresses one particular issue, and not an amalgam of contradictory phenomena. Haiduc (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am simply talking about something that is already in the article. NAMBLA is mentioned there and of course it is highly relevant. When pederasty is mentioned in any common situation, NAMBLA and similar groups and scenarios will quite naturally spring to mind. I am not personalizing anything to myself, not moralizing, finger waggling or any such thing. I am simply talking about the literature, what is in the article already, and what requires clarifying. Please focus on the majority views.

So what is wrong with talking about legal behaviors? Is it something you find problematic in the context of this article? Phdarts (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In an article taking in the history of such relationships over the entire planet, over the span of three thousand years, NAMBLA gets less than fifteen seconds of fame. I do not get your comment about something wrong with talking about legal behaviors. Majority views are irrelevant, what we seek are scholarly and published views of this particular topic, not its synonymous meaning, that is treated betterin other articles, like the one on child abuse. Haiduc (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA is a current issue. A pederasty article should not focus so much on times when slaves could not complain about pederasty, or when pedophiles could marry their 7 year old niece.Phdarts (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference #3/"Mygenes"

This looks like a self-published book. Was it published elsewhere? What it is being used for as a reference is very vague. Here is a quote that seems more imformative and relevant:(it seems very odd that Greek "pederasty" is being retroactively defined as homosexuality, when that is not what the Greeks thought of it as at all. They had no word for homosexuality, and by modern standards they were bisexual. In addition, why are we retroacively defining them as homosexual, but not retroactively defining them as child abusers. (Selective application of retroactive defintitions.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That was an (edit conflict) coincidence - in my note below, I mentioned the same self-published genetics book, but I had not yet seen the comment above. Without replying to the rest of the above comment, I concur the self-published book is not a reliable source for this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no-one has disagreed about that source being unrelilable, I've removed it from the article. The rest of the thread in this section seems to be on a different topic, so I'm entering this comment as an aside. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• "In Greek culture, homosexuality between adults-as we have it in the West today-was considered
• despicable (mainly if one was the receptive partner). One classical writer,5 talking of the mature male who
• was also receptive, said, “we class those who enjoy the passive part as belonging to the lowest depth of vice
• and allow them not the least degree of confidence or respect or friendship.” Boys were not denigrated for
• being receptive-it was appropriate to their status. "

Does it matter, whether Greeks despised sexual relationships between adults or not? I don't think so, since the sexual attraction of an adult man for male teenagers is of course already a case of homosexuality. Then, now and in future. Fulcher (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What your'e making is a retroactive argument, based on "it's obvious now, by modern defintions, therefore that's what it was then." While I'm not disinclined to agree with you, what I'm pointing out is that the same is true for calling it child sexual abuse/exploitation. They're both modern views of Greek pederasty. In the article, while we note what it is thought of now, we should also note what the Greeks themselves thought of it. They most definitely did not consider it homosexuality. They had dim view of what they considered homosexuality. (And even by modern defintions, "pederasts" were bisexual.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is surely a strong tendency to group adolescent teenagers together with prebuescent children in certain countries, especially in the US with its bigger influence of Christian morality (the usually higher Ageofconsent-laws in the States reflect that). So if we want to give modern views about pederasty more weight, then it would be also logical to point out from which corner it comes from, at least originally. Besides that, there seem to be several cases of men, who were considered to be exclusivly atteracted to teenage boys, while showing no interest in women, but I admit they rather lived in later eras (especially during the Renaissance). That's why nobody can assume it was "always" connected to bisexuality. On the other hand, a lot of androphilic men, who claim to be "100% gay", say that they had sexual relationships with females in the past, sometimes they were even married for decades and came out very late. Where are those many "pure homosexual men"? Fulcher (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

? You're jumping around historically, and to all kinds of conclusions (a general problem with this article, as Jack-A-Roe pointed out, is that many eras are confused, but we can get to that later.) Let's start with the Greeks. What do we know about them? We know that they practiced something called "pederasty," which they did not consider homosexuality. By modern definitions, a minority of people such as William Percy and Bruce Rind consider this retroactively "homosexuality." The majority opinion, retroactively, is that it was exploitative child abuse. Both are retroactive views, one majority, one minority. Per NPOV, tht should be clearly prsented in the article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, they could not call it "homosexuality", because the word was not invented yet! In the 19th century, for example, it was common in Germany to call just every homosexual a "Päderast". Friedrich Engels did that, when he complaint about the emancipation of "urnings" in a letter to Karl Marx: [5] Besides that, there is still a French term 'pede' that just means gay (now where would that come from?). Fulcher (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right--they didn't have a word for it or conceptualize it the way we do now. Therefore calling it homosexuality is a retroactive defintion. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And? The term "heterosexuality" was created at roughly the same time. So I guess adult men and women that had sex with each other in ancient times can't therefore be called "heterosexual" either. Fulcher (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] original research and unclear focus

With all due respect to the editors who have been working on this article, there are problems that need improvement. The article includes long passages with no sources and strays from the topic of historical pederasty. There is confusion about the definition of the term, sweeping in all forms of sexual relationships between men and boys, from chaste philosophical relations all the way to "boy prostitution" and general discussions of homosexual relationships with dubious sources such as a self-published book about Genetics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think the original research is a problem that probably just needs weeding out. I am more positive about the focus issue though. I believe it is quite easy to identify the majority view on what pederasty is and how it differs slightly from pedophilia. The legal information relating to pederasty and pedophilia do slso seem to help in that regard. Some of the historical researchers have a minority or even fringe notion of pederasty and they can be represented as such by stating their definition within any information presented. Phdarts (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty

The article shares much information with Pederasty in the modern world; the two articles should be merged. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we had Pederasty in the modern world. I would support merging it with this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a merge. "Pederasty in the modern world" is a pov fork of "pederasty," essentially. ("Pederasty" isn't even defined as historical, nor should it be). That article has many pov problems/OR problems, btw, I've just started looking it over...Also, I'm concerned that the "historical" definitions of pederasty are not the historical defintions at all, but definitions imposed after-the- fact by a handful of modern writers like Hekma and Rind and William Percy, who have strong agenda/biases. That should be noted. And there is no reason to allow their modern redefinitions and exlude the modern perception of pederasty as child abuse. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Haiduc mentioned that there was an article on modern pederasty without linking to it. I did find it rather odd that modern pederasty would be different from pederasty. A merge is necessary, otherwise the majority view will simply not get proper representation. Phdarts (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

While I welcome a lot of the cleanup work that you people are doing here, I would oppose a merge. First, the material was originally split off this article because of size concerns. Even after a number of other splits, the size concern is still an issue, as this article is already 65kb long. I will not engage the other arguments thrown up, they are unencyclopedic and inaccurate. Haiduc (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, size won't be a problem--most of "modern pederasty" is OR that should be deleted. Meanwhile, the pov fork is a big problem. If you "choose not to engage," that's your choice, but there's a consensus for a merge. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What POV fork are you claiming? By the way, I like the way you are rushing to anoint yourself with the claim of consensus. But you are nothing more than a group descending on an article or collection of articles with the intent of imposing your own POV by force of numbers rather than strength of reason, while smearing living persons the way you tried to smear Hekma and continue to smear Rind. I have been editing here for a long time and I cannot remember anything even close to this distasteful spectacle of a bunch of nonentities (as are we all who edit this project) presuming to stand in judgment of bona fide academics and hijacking the Wikipedia in order to trash their reputation. You are very fortunate that you are carrying on your activities at the end of the semester, a time when I am too busy with important matters to properly attend to your doings here. Haiduc (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a display! I was wondering what you meant by the phrase "you people" in your prior comment; it appears you've answered that question before I could ask it.

Regarding the claim of consensus, maybe it's too soon for that. I'm not in a hurry for the articles to be merged - it's fine with me to wait a while so others have the opportunity to enter their comments. That's why I posted the proposed merge tag, to request discussion - not to demand an instant merge. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also quite happy to take my time. I see no urgent rush to merge. What could be productive for the time being is simply to add some of the more majority views from modern pederasty to the pederasty article, and remove the obvious OR and argumentative phrasing. A bit of sifting and sorting and this article can look respectably encyclopedic in a fairly short time as long as editors are willing for it to be so. Phdarts (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(sorry, could keep indenting, but it's getting a little extreme) It doesn't seem as though an article on the "modern world" is really a valid separate entry. Once it's cleaned up to remove the pov statements and is deemed factual, it seems to belong as a section in the main pederasty article. Vertium (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

After a week with no further comments other than one more editor concurring with the merge, the merge was started by another editor. I observed that the results were improving the content, so I assisted a bit. I concur with the merge; the result makes a better, less confusing article; and especially important, helps to clear out the extensive original research that was in the split-off "present day" article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I have protected for 48 hours to stop on-going edit warring over the appropriateness and fairness of the characterisation of Rhind as a source, and permit a rational discussion of it here. DGG (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to discussion at BLP noticeboard: [6]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be protected yet. --Rob (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More representative sources needed

Hello all. I'm on a search for more representative sources. Here is an interesting one [7]. I will be looking more closely at the legal aspects of pederasty and related sexual deviance. There may also be relevant material in criminology texts, especially regarding the isolation of pederasts in prisons (for their own safety). This article requires more than cutting the OR in order to clean it up. Theres plenty of relevant literature out there. I would like to encourage a search. Phdarts (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You would be well advised to stop peddling your pedophilia propaganda in an article dealing with the history and present of LGBT expression. Haiduc (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you seem to be rather annoyed about something. The information I am adding is taken directly from the source literature. Its also largely in agreement with other information in the references section. If you are not interested in discussing the actual information itself, then I don't know quite why you are here. Could you please explain yourself. Phdarts (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You and I will have no problems as long as you recognize that pederasty is a very wide topic that cannot be characterized in any single way. Thus, while there certainly have been and are illegal and unethical manifestations, there were and are lawful and ethical ones as well. Keep those two separate, and we will have no disagreement. Try to make it look as if all pederasty is child abuse and I will do everything in my power to expose you as a homophobe and hypocrite. I would like to think that you are neither of those two, and I would like to think that we can come to a mutual understanding so that we can collaborate and not work in opposition to each other. Haiduc (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Threatening other contributors: '[either you agree with me, or else] you are a homophobe and a hypocrite, and I will do everything in my power..." blahblah, doesn't seem like a collaborative approach to me. Every editor is free to disagree with you, and namecalling and threatening are not acceptable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I followed up on the propaganda issue that Haiduc brought up. There is literature on this matter: [8]

It looks to being interesting as some of the literature says that pederasts tend to use denial of harm and excuse, but on the web they use more elaborate methods such as justification in a propagandizing way. I will follow up on this research stream. If anyone has already been down this avenue of research, your input will be welcome. Phdarts (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the pro-pedophile activism article, where some of Mary de Young's research, "NAMBLA: Accounting for deviance" is summarized--there's an outline of main themes she discovered. There's also a good article by Stephanie Dallam (link in the PPA article). -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a direct link to the Dallam article: http://leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/5.html -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Petra. Thats helpful. Phdarts (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your propaganda does not consist in making a valid argument that child abuse exists. Your propaganda consists of of your blanket smearing of legitimate pederasty, a homosexual practice that has nothing to do intrinsically with child abuse, any more than heterosexuality implies child abuse. Your only argument is that you want to represent "majority views" here and your method is to misuse the multiple and often contrasting meanings of the word "pederasty." The association of homosexuality with child abuse is a well-known homophobic tactic. Haiduc (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

More fallacious ad hominem attacks. (And all major LGBT orgs refuse to have anything to do with NAMBLA et al--"pederasty" is not a homosexual issue. You smear them by claiming an association they completely renounce. They are completely opposed to child abuse and exploitation. Only fringers like Percy and Rind claim "pederasty" is homosexual.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA is not the point since they want to eliminate AoC laws, raising the specter of legalized sexual pedophilia. Anybody in his right mind would refuse to have anything to do with them. So your comment is a straw man argument. NAMBLA thus is not modern pederasty, it is pedophilia advocacy. Two guys in love, one a teen above the age of consent and the other an adult, maybe only a few years older, is modern pederasty. It is precisely your forcible imposition of the vocabulary of the CSA domain onto such legitimate, legal homosexual relationships that constitutes the homophobic aspect of your approach. As for Percy and Rind, they are not important, the article would stand up just as well with or without them. Not that I accept the validity of your attack on them - as a Wikipedia editor you are a nobody and have no right to have a personal opinion on bona fide scholars. And the same is true of me and of everybody else editing here. Haiduc (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is: can they really speak for homosexuals as a whole? How representative are they? And when there is no connection between male homosexuality and pederasty, then why do so many gay sites clearly have contents that are at least partly ephebophile? Fulcher (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You might find some literature from the far-right conservative groups to support that argument. If you do find anything along those lines (homosexual - ephebophile connection), feel free to add, as long as the view is not fringe and is appropriately attributed. Phdarts (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting with three wikipedia articles about photographers of my home country. The articles about Wilhelm_von_Gloeden and Guglielmo_Plüschow both carry the categories "Gay artists | Pederasty | LGBT people from Germany" and are still wildely known for a photo art that is both considered as "pederastic" and "gay" (just do a search with their names). A similar thing can be said about Herbert_List, who is also still remembered for depicting many male youths. They are all an important part of gay art. Fulcher (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child abuse accusations as covert homophobia

Academic discussion have a certain form to them, and even the previous exchange qualifies (even if in a very modest way) for that category. Therefore I think it will be instructive to bring in here bits and pieces of evidence for something which is obvious to some but maybe not to others. The first installment is below:

"Molestation 101: Child Abuse, Homophobia, and The Boys of St. Vincent"
It is nearly impossible today to open a magazine or newspaper without reading an account of a shocking child abuse scandal. Such scandals provide "commentators" with endless opportunities for numbing reiterations of their banal outrage and with a culturally sanctioned outlet for their prurient imaginings of ritualized retributive violence. Much of this violence is, whether explicitly or not, homophobic, and the discourse around child abuse has given stalwart homophobes (that is, almost everyone) a seemingly unassailable venue for homophobic ecstasy in the guise of inflamed righteousness.
—Kevin Ohi - Molestation 101: Child Abuse, Homophobia, and The Boys of St. Vincent - GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6:2 (2000) 195-248

Haiduc (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that the majority of the victims of child sexual abuse are female, and the majority of sexual abusers are male. Is everyone homophobic when they point out that abuse? This is a nonsense persecution fantasy argument. It falls under de Young's "condemn the condemners": if they point out sexual abuse, loudly accuse them of something you think is worse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What has the abuse of girls by men have to do with our work here?! Haiduc (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

? your source above refers to child sexual abuse in general, not child sexual abuse of boys: "it is nearly impossible today to open a magazine..." That's the worst logical fallacy in his argument. Pointing out child sexual abuse is not homophobic; most of it is male on female.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And here's a nice editorial about that, called "It's not homophobic to inverstigate child sexual abuse": [9] -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice blog, but it doesn't exculpate you. "Sexual abuse in general"? Perhaps you missed the fact that the article was principally about homophobia, and the inclusion of girls does not make it any less relevant to boys? Haiduc (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Exculpate me? Why on earth would I need to be "exculpated?" The sentence in your ref is: "It is nearly impossible today to open a magazine or newspaper without reading an account of a shocking child abuse scandal." Says nothing about "child abuse scandal involving adult men and boys." (Nor would it matter if it did, as child sexual abuse as a general term always covers both genders; hence it is preposterous to claim that pointing out child sexual abuse is "homophobic," as the majority of it is male on female. Nor does male on male child sexual abuse equal homosexuality; plenty of refs on that. ). What the ref I provided makes clear is that accusations of "homophobia" do not hide or excuse child abuse, but they have certainly been used as a defense by child abusers, (among the many defenses and cognitive distortions) as de Young notes in her analysis of NAMBLA. I'd be very clear if I were you, that you are not accusing other editors of homophobia, like me or Phdarts, as that is a personal attack and I will report it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. When you presume to cast legitimate homosexual relationships in a derogatory light you automatically qualify for the label of homophobe, just like a person who denigrates Jews automatically becomes an antisemite. "Report" me?! You are the one who should be reported, for your tendentious edits and your belligerent attitude. That ugly message you stuck on my talk page is still there, and it is not going anywhere, I assure you, unlike my warning to you which you deleted. But I have better things to do with my time than to play cop to your misbehavior. Haiduc (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're still not making sense to me--are you calling me homophobic? Because if you are, that is a personal attack and I will report it. Meanwhile, while there is a minority view that pederasty is "legitimate homosexual behavior," it is a minority view, and is even acknowledged by the minority as such: "According to NAMBLA's David Thorstad, pederasty is 'love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age.' Thorstad states that "middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists" say pederasty "has nothing to do with gay liberation." While he admits that others define it as sexual abuse, he does not share this view." -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in minority or majority views, I am referring to established law, which is not open to discussion. As you are repeating yourself I will refer you to my previous comments for your other questions. Haiduc (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The sourced material you have deleted re NAMBLA, above, should be replaced in the article; the pov fork created by separating modern/historical does not have consensus, per discussion above. Per WP:WEIGHT, minority and majority views have to be given due weight, so whether you are personally interested in them is not relevant to the article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Material removed by Haiduc to child abuse page

A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again To add a discussion to RFC: Add {{templatename | section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=~~~~~ }} Use the name of the RFC tag name in place of "templatename". Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again. Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

I am placing the information here because Haiduc did not. Here are the statements and sources:

Pederasty is often associated with child pornography; "The production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" (Crosson-Tower 2007). Some researchers say that the Internet contacts increase paedophilia. For example psychology professor Miguel Angel states that “not all paedophiles become pederasts, but "when someone carries a desire inside, he will tend to try to make it reality", [10], and the Internet provides a potential catalyst for pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real thing [11]. According to ANESVAD the Internet facilitates contact between paedophiles (those who feel attracted to children) or pederasts (those who commit sexual abuse with minors) [12].

Now we have an opportunity to discuss the material directly, and hopefully without anyone casting aspersions on anybody else. Phdarts (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For these people a "pederast" would be also someone, who molests prepubescent girls - so in other words: they don't really know what they are talking about, since they can't even use the right terms. Absurd. Fulcher (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"These people" and "you people"--very us v. them mentality. And which kind of "these people" is Dr. Crosson-Tower?: -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"People", who don't do their homework properly. Fulcher (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia Crosson-Tower, Ph.D., taught in the behavioral sciences department at Fitchburg State College in Massachusetts for 24 years and continues to be the director of the Child Protection Institute at the College. Currently, she consults for various schools and social agencies and maintains a private practice, Harvest Counseling and Consultation, which specializes in the treatment of survivors of abuse and the perpetrators of sexual abuse as well as the supervision of other professionals. She offers workshops and trainings, both nationally and internationally, for educators and other human service professionals.

Dr. Crosson-Tower is the author of numerous publications, including: Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect, Exploring Child Welfare: A Practice Perspective, When Children Are Abused: An Educator's Guide to Intervention, Secret Scars: A Guide for Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse, Homeless Students and How Schools Can Combat Child Abuse and Neglect. In addition, she has authored a monograph, Designing and Implementing a School Reporting Protocol: A How-to Manual for Massachusetts Teachers, for the Children's Trust Fund in Boston, and is currently working on a child sexual abuse text and a handbook for clergy to aid them in responding to abuse.

I am sure that Crosson-Tower is a fine woman, and I actually do not question the validity of her statement. She simply is using the word "pederast" to signify a person who has sexual intercourse with underage children. That is not the way the term is used historically in academe, it is the way it is used in CSA and legal work, and belongs at the respective article, not here. Again, you are trying to take a very special subset of pederasty (which actually extends beyond the borders of pederasty if the relationship is with a pre-adolescent) and trying to smear the entire field of pederasty with it. Haiduc (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty as Crosson-Tower and others use the term seems to be the common usage, and relates to the law, ethics, the psychology of extreme deviance and so on. That makes it the majority usage, and scientifically correct to refer to pederasty as a deviant and harmful behavior that is generally condemned by society. I don't think people here should take the "boy love" root of the word too literally. Even at times in history when it was not punished, it was still condemned by parts of society. And we are back to current majority again, who strongly condemn pederasty no matter how fuzzy the definition. Phdarts (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing fuzzy here is your imposition of misconstrued definitions to muddy the waters. The name of the article is not "Common modern constructs of pederasty". The hoi-polloization of the article (inventing a "majority opinion" and then presuming to use that as a standard) which you are trying to impose through the ad nauseam repetition of fantastic notions of your own fabrication serves no interests but your own personal ones. Haiduc (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My or any other editor's views are irrelevant here. The sources are reliable and the information improves the article. You have presented no valid reason for you to have removed it in the first place. Of course the information can be added to the article. Its relevant and reliable, and it represents majority view on what pederasty is about. Phdarts (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive a newcomer. What is the definition? I was under the impression that pederasty meant between two men, usually one who is underage (Random House dictionary definition). I'm not saying that's correct, it's just what I always thought was right. If it were to refer to all sexual interaction between adults and underage, what makes it distinctive from pedophilia?Legitimus (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is just the problem, there is not one definition, there are at least two and possibly more. That is what the whole "debate" is about. The word "pederasty" is polysemous, meaning (if you will forgive me) that it has more than one meaning. Some people use it to mean "buggery of children" while others use it for love relationships between adolescents and post-adolescents or adults, where the erotic is always present. The sexual aspect is not necessarily actualized (in which case it is "chaste pederasty") and if the relationship does have a sexual dimension, the sexuality in many cases is not of a penetrative nature.

As you can see, the first definition is a lot simpler, which is perhaps why most people stop at that level. Difference from pedophilia? While there may be some overlap, pederastic relationships involve adolescents, often well-developed types if you look at the Greek vase paintings, while pedophilia involves pre-pubescents. That is why pederasty is legal pretty much everywhere (subject to age of consent laws, of course) while sexual pedophilia is illegal everywhere and has been so almost without exception since archaic antiquity. Haiduc (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That's what I thought. It's kind of a strange term to use in the mental health field, and I usually don't hear it used the way Crosson-Tower is using it. But I understand what she is saying; likely she means ephebophilia. A proclivity rather than a concept or "act." I take it she's an older scientist, and I think that was the only term they had back in the day.Legitimus (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have not read the book, but as it seems to be a treatise on child molestation I would imagine that she is using the first meaning I described, that of men having anal sex with little children. I am sure our democratizing friends will enlighten us. Petra? Phdarts? Haiduc (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Crosson-Tower is actually a textbook in current usage, with a 2007 edition. But I don't think "pederasty" is a term in much circulation by anybody at all. The problem at this article is that an NPOV definition is not being used; the different usages aren't being combined to give a full picture of what people IRL think of it/what it means. The majority defintion is that it's synonymous with sexual abuse/exploitation of adolescent boys 12 and up ; there's a minority defintion from NAMBLA, Bruce Rind et al that it's a) love b) the oldest/most common form of homosexuality. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A brief perusal of the sources (and they are numerous, to say the least) of the various articles on pederasty will quickly give the lie to Petra's claim. Haiduc (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've requested outside comment on this--but my experience with these is that they don't generate much outside comment. Hopefully we'll get some useful input, but if not, we can always seek more elsewhere. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the quote proposed is a little confusing. Now, pederasty does technically describe abuse in the modern day. But the paragraphs seems to stray off the subject.Legitimus (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? (I'm genunely confused). -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The quotation seems as though it is talking about child pornography and pedophilia. It uses the word "pederast" but seems like it is referring the concept of internet facilitation of child sex crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Aha, you are referring to the text by Phdarts, sorry. Yes--it seems that is referring to pornography and the internet, not specifically to the definition of pederasty; it gives examples of current usage. I agree the text should be modified/used in place where pornography/the internet is specifically addressed, although the references Phdarts provided could be used as examples of current usage, as well the definitions Jack has provided below. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

←I've looked through this article and some of the references, those I could find in an initial review. I've also done some Google Scholar and Books searches. I've not been able to find any contemporary use of the term "pederasty" other than either as a synonym for sodomy, or in discussions of pedophilia or child sexual abuse. The only significant information I've found on pederasty is historical, from the Greek Age through even the 18th century - but nothing contemporary. Maybe there is such use of the word and I was not able to find it. If so, it would be helpful if the particular references on that were supplied here on the talk page, or in footnotes in the article. As the article reads currently, the modern info is vague and the references are general ones without page numbers, so there's no way to see what's supported in that regard.

What I did find in searching is that dictionaries and other basic mainststream sources do not indicate any "chaste" aspect to pederasty at all. That may be in references for historical uses of the term, but I was not seeking historical sources, I was trying to find contemporary uses and only found sexual definitions, nothing "chaste". Here are the basic, mainstream definitions I could locate for the word pederasty:

• Dictionary.com Unabridged -- sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.
• American Heritage Dictionary -- A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.
• Online Etymology Dictionary -- "sodomy with a boy," 1609, from Mod.L. pæderastia, from Gk. paiderastia "love of boys," from paiderastes "pederast," from pais (gen. paidos) "child, boy" + erastes "lover," from erasthai "to love." Pederast is 1730s, from Fr. pédéraste, from Gk. paiderastes.
• WordNet -- sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner)
• Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary -- The crime against nature; sodomy.
• Encyclopædia Britannica -- no separate article - a Britannica search leads to this description: "aspect of pedophilia ( in pedophilia ) ... In general, the younger the child and the greater the disparity in age between pedophile and victim, the more severe the penalty. Most severe penalties are usually reserved for pederasty, sexual contacts between adult males and young boys." [13].

If there are modern uses of the term that reflect what the article states, there must be sources explaining it; we should locate those. If they're not available, then the article should be modified to indicate that those elements are historical and to define the term as it's used today - or indicate that it is not in general use today, which appears to be the case from those searches. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You will need to read something other than a dictionary for scholarly definitions. These do not apply here. For non-dictionary definitions you will find the reading list and the references useful. Haiduc (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I did review the list but most of it is historical. Please help me to find the references you feel are important to this discussion by listing a few of them here so I can take a look. There are way too many in the article for me to read all of them, and there are none directly cited to specific statements that regard modern use of the term. If you provide a few of them here, I am willing to read them.

Regarding mainstream dictionaries, simply put, they are reliable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

All you have succeeded in doing with that list of "reliable sources" (which I do not dispute in the least) is to buttress the argument that "pederasty" is polysemic. Yes, Jack, I agree with you. What you say is really so. It is, however, only half the story, or even less than half. For the other definition you can go to the glbtq website, as well as a number of books and papers on the topic. I can certainly dig a up a collection of these for you, but first please explain for me what you intend by dismissing sources as historical. We are dealing with a practice that is historical up to the present day and modern only in the moment. Are you trying to dismiss historical perspectives and project a modern dictionary definition on events and activities that predate these definitions? Haiduc (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Common pattern: Pederasty is generally condemned in the majority view, regardless of exact definition, “scholarly” or otherwise.

The article is currently lacking all relevant views in proper proportion.

I am not interested in why some editors are claiming that the scholarly view is the only one necessary, whilst persistently removing scholarly views that condemn pederasty and accusing other editors of homophobia. If there are views shown in reliable sources then they can be presented in the article. Phdarts (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to believe that an article should cover all meanings of a given word, but that is patently absurd when one of the meanings (child abuse) already has it separate article(s) which are quite comprehensive. All that is needed is a mention that another meaning exists, with a link to that location, which we already have.

But as we see above, you are really not interested in reasoning. What you are obviously interested in is misrepresenting my views (re you claim above, I do NOT think that "the scholarly view is the only one necessary;" Both the strictly sexual/criminal and the anthropological/historical views are necessary, but the strictly sexual/criminal is ALREADY covered elsewhere) and in imposing a disparaging moralistic discourse on a complex and subtle topic. And you wave the wand of majoritarian interpretations, which is a meaningless argument in any academic setting, such as the present one. What a fascinating coincidence (and I am sure it is only a coincidence!) that so many editors sharing your mindset should descend on this suite of articles all at once. Haiduc (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, the sources that I have presented are reliable, and your shouting in bold does not help your objections. Reliable sources on the majority view of pederasty get into the article whether they are condemnatory or not. Phdarts (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since your idea of discussion seems to consist of repeating your original contention ad infinitum in complete disregard of whatever objections your interlocutor brings up, I will have to leave you to your own devices. I do sympathize, however, with you and with your reluctance to engage in meaningful debate. In your position you cannot afford to, since your concepts are fallacious in their essence. The only way they can be defended is through repetition. I see it as an abusive approach to debate, ironic considering your ostensible "anti-abuse" agenda. Haiduc (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you removed the information from the article with no discussion at all, so I placed it here for discussion. I have given you a lot of opportunities to present a valid objection to the reliable sources presented. You have only presented more invalid objections and accusations. There are enough editors here who find the information to be reliable and relevant for the information to go back into the article. Actually I believe the only way forward here now is to merge with the "pederasty in the modern world" article. See below. Phdarts (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greece

This reference [14] seems to contradict what we say in the article--we say it "reached its height in the 5th century B.C.," but thus says Athenian society passed legal and moral sanctions against it in the 5th century B.C. Also, why isn't Aristotle mentioned? (or did I miss that somewhere?)-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1: Clio Med. 1995;27:261-73.Links The Greek medical texts and the sexual ethos of ancient Athens.

Keuls EC. After at least a century of institutionalized pederasty Athenian society developed legal and moral sanctions against this practice at the end of the fifth century BC as the indirect result of the introduction of medicine. Viewing the sex drive as a bodily need, analogous to hunger and thirst, it cast a disparaging light on the role played by the passive partner. It is here argued that the principal catalyst of the transformation of biology into prescriptive ethics was Democritus of Abdera, whose preoccupation with medicine is known. Democritus probably influenced Aristotle, who articulated the harshest condemnation of pederasty found in Greek texts.

• Pub med returns 17 hits for "pederasty"--many from the Journal of Homosexuality. Theo Sandfort, William Percy, Gerald Jones are authors--familiar names from the PPA article.

Yes, Petra, you did miss Aristotle. The topic is extensive and does not all fit in one article. You will find Aristotle (with a couple of his pederastic boyfriends) at the "couples" article, and I am sure he is also in one or two of the specifically Greek articles (check "philosophy" and maybe Athens). Haiduc (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You've ignored the point re the 5th century B.C.. (And since Aristotle is of the most notable of the Greeks, surely he should be mentioned in the briefest of summaries.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would very much welcome anything by Aristotle regarding pederasty. Please provide sources. We can figure out later which article it fits in and in what proportion. Haiduc (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the reference I cited above says "Aristotle articulated the harshest condemnation of pederasty found in Greek texts," and should be in this article. It also says, "Athenian society developed legal and moral sanctions against pederasty at the end of the 5th century BC," which should be in the article instead of "pederasty reached its height in the 5th century BC"--or a combination of both: "Pederasty reached its height in the 5th century BC, and then legal and moral sanctions were passed against it at the end of the century.". -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra, I am torn between educating you in Greek pederasty or telling you to go do it yourself before you presume to edit on the topic. Greek pederasty was never a free-for-all, being regulated from the very beginning, as it was regulated in Crete, where according to many ancient sources it radiated from. I am afraid that the formulation you are proposing is misleading and nonsensical. You would do well to find what texts the writer is referring to. Do not forget that Aristotle himself was a pederast, and that his son was the beloved of another pederast. That is not consistent with the image of a fulminating philosopher dead set against pederasty that your snippet implies. Haiduc (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, well, while looking for more information on Aristotle and pederasty, I found this [15]--it is a review of William Percy's book about pederasty. Can you further enlighten us regarding the truth of these statements (And why they are not in the article?)
• 1."Percy notes that Greek pederasty was an aristocratic practice with little relevance to most Greek men."--this is sort of mentioned, but the part about how it had little relevance to most people is left out of the article..

• 2."The adoption of institutionalized pederasty was a response to the overpopulation of Greece that began in the eighth century. Initially, colonization provided an outlet for increased population pressure at home, but after a century the best locations were all settled. Among the wealthy was the added fear that too many heirs would cause the family estates to be divided into plots so small as to plunge the family into poverty. Aristotle figures prominently in this argument, since he first claimed that the Cretans tried to lower the birth rate by segregating men and women and institutionalizing pederasty. Sparta adopted Cretan pederasty in the late seventh century, just after the devastating ...war... As with Crete, the reason for the adoption of pederasty, infanticide,5 and the seclusion of women was to prevent the subdivision of land between too many heirs." --why isn't this theory mentioned, and attributed to Aristotle?

• "The question of classification also arises in Percy's description of the symposium led by the tyrant Polycrates of Samos as "the first such gathering of pederasts in all history that we can document."12 This presupposes that these men thought of themselves primarily as pederasts rather than philosophers, poets, or artists; that sexual identity took precedence over aristocratic, civic, or intellectual; or that these men were exclusively pederastic. From what we know about other, later symposia, there were frequently slave girls, entertainers and prostitutes present, and some participants actually waited until they got home to make love to their wives. A great deal of drinking also took place at the symposium, but it would be equally misleading to refer to it as the first such gathering of winos in all history."--a general criticsim made of Percy's book is that he overstates the case for pederasty quite a bit (also, that he has to rely on his imagination to work with very very little actual information...why doesn't the article clearly indicate that most research on Greek pederasty is speculative, due to the paucity of surviving historical fragments of texts, etc.? -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know that I am the one who will be able to enlighten you, nor that you are in any condition to be so improved. All the arguments you have brought up are interesting, and probably belong in an article on Percy's book. They are less valuable here.

You seem to have a collection of "betes noires" among whom Percy, Rind and who knows who else - oh yes, NAMBLA, and use them as ammunition to prove who knows what. But madam, I don't give a good god damn about any of these entities. If you are so interested in Greek pederasty, I wish that you would read enough about it so that you would know what you are talking about. Then you would understand clearly that with or without Percy this material remains essentially the same.

Pederasty as speculation?!?! So is the theory of gravity. It is after all a theory, you know what I mean?

Pederasty irrelevant to most people?! Pederasty was one of the principal identifiers of Greek civilization, setting it apart from the others, together with athletic nudity, the Olympics, and probably the Eleusinian mysteries. It was to Greece what football is to the Americans.

As for the particulars of what you brought up, that pederasty was claimed to be a response to overpopulation, it is already mentioned, probably in the more specific articles; the (pecualiar) claim that Polycrates' bash was a gay fest is not mentioned because there is no room to mention every fancy notion every single scholar has ever had, and so forth. Haiduc (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But William Percy's book is shortlisted as one of the primary references to which you referred us: Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece by William A. Percy; University of Illinois Press, 1996. ISBN. Further, Vern Bullough (a member of the editorial board of Paidika, incidentally), in his GLBTQ entry which is a central reference for the article tells us: "Although there are many references to the custom in both the surviving Greek and Roman literature, most scholars have been reluctant to discuss the subject, and few traditional histories of Greek life or culture by modern writers included a discussion of it until the last part of the twentieth century." Hence the significance of Percy cannot be underestimated; he's a primary theorist of the newly surmised/revisionist importance of pederasty in ancient Greece; most scholars do not share his views. Thornton, referred to in the same book review above, also confrims "Most Greeks, the commoners, did not participate." That's one thing that should be clarified in this article and the Athenian pederasty article: this was irrelevant to/not practiced by most people. Second, the speculative nature of many of Percy's observations: he is going on little evidence/using his imagination. Third, he has a bias, and this leads him to overstate his case. Fourth, the population control theory, as articulated by Aristotle and Percy. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He is significant to you, because you are apparently unfamiliar with the field. He is not central to me. At the present time a great many scholars have entered the discussion on Greek pederasty, so Bullough's comments to the contrary are no longer applicable. Haiduc (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he's significant to the article, because he's shortlisted as a general reference...also, I do not see the population control theory in the Athenian pederasty article, or clarification regarding the irrelevance of it to most people.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He is significant to you because you want to use him as a prop for your polemical tack. That is all. As for population control, why should it ever be at the Athenian article?! Irrelevant to most. Dig a little deeper, you statement is indefensible. They had to prohibit slaves from doing something they obviously wanted to do. Not so irrelevant. Haiduc (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a significant theory, according to both Aristotle and Percy, hence it should be included. Also, the fact that it was irrelevant to most Greeks is verifiable, according to sources. I think it's important to include both because it counters some of the pov problems in the article(s)--namely, overstating the incidence/importance, and romanticization. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a dialogue, it is a serial monologue. Whatever I say, it is as if I did not say anything. Is this a conscious tactic on your part? The population theory is discussed in the appropriate article, and it is part of a complex etiology which does not fit here. The "irrelevance" contention is just that. Present it as one view among many, next to that of Plato who considered it key to Greek culture. And I'll be sure to counterbalance it with other, more realistic assessments. Beware at this early stage of your exposure to Greek pederasty to not be wildly swayed this way or that by whatever you come across. Haiduc (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lexis-nexis

It doesn't seem to be a term in current usage in news publications. Lexis-nexis only returns 390 documents in all major US and world news publications for the previous ten years on the search term "pederasty." Some of them are historical book reviews, some refer to Catholic clergy cases, at least a dozen are to one Latvian criminal case from 2000. (Pederasty appears to be a separate crime in Latvia, although it also seems that they do not use the term to refer to boys only, but boys and girls). It is also a separate crime in Iran; here is a macabre and barbaric example: -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Express

July 19, 2002 RAPIST TO BE THROWN OVER CLIFF

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 31

LENGTH: 88 words

A CARPENTER who raped and killed his nephew will be executed by being thrown off a cliff in a sack, said an Iranian newspaper yesterday.

If he survives the fall down a rocky precipice, he will be hanged. He has 20 days to appeal. The man was arrested in the northwestern Iranian city of Mashhad after "seducing" and killing the 16-year-old boy, who worked as an assistant at his workshop. Under Iran's Islamic law, pederasty, homosexuality and adultery are among a long list of crimes punishable by death.

Some folks, who strongly hate Islam, are without a doubt happy, if Amnesty International reports some mad abuse of human rights in an Islamic country, while others ..... Fulcher (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that you are not Google-impaired. Do a search for pederasty in Google-scholar and Google-books, not in the MEDICAL search engines, you dear thing! Haiduc (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I checked pubmed because one of the references you list in the short list of "general references" for this article was a broken pubmed link: "Pederasty among primitives: institutionalized initiation and cultic prostitution, by G. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg." -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• And the top Google scholar hit for pederasty is this: -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Propagandizing pederasty: a thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles

Authors: Durkin K. F.; Bryant C. D.

Source: Deviant Behavior, Volume 20, Number 2, 1 April 1999 , pp. 103-127(25)

Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Abstract:

Although pedophilia has been the topic of an extensive research effort, the preponderance of this research has used subjects from clinical or correctional populations. This constitutes a major empirical concern as most of the academic knowledge on this topic is based on data gathered from either incarcerated offenders or probationers in treatment. However, such offenders constitute an unrepresentative sample of the larger population of pedophiles. Accordingly,there is a large number of pedophiles for whom little information is available. Computer networks offer a unique opportunity for the study of those pedophiles who are not in a correctional or clinical population. The data for this study were gathered from a Usenet discussion group composed of pedophiles, alt.support.boy-lovers. The sample includes 41 admitted pedophiles who participate in this particular computer forum.The centralresearch question addressed was How do pedophiles who use the Internet account for their deviance? Scott and Lyman's (1968) classic formulation of accounts served as the theoretical framework for this study. The results of this research indicate that more than half of these pedophiles offered accounts for their deviant orientation and behavior. Moreover, all of these accounts took the form of justifications, and none took the form of excuses.

[edit] Suggested structure

• The article needs proper proportion in the lead
• It could do with an introduction section also
• Then a section on the current situation.
• There can be a history section that includes subjections.
• There can also be a “contemporary pederasty” section or similar that follows on from the history section, which again should also contain the majority viewpoints. Phdarts (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sad. Haiduc (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good suggestion for an improved structure which could address the pov problems with this article. Isn't that listed on the to-do list above for this article, address pov problems? --PetraSchelm (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, what do you find sad about the above structure? Phdarts (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is I think the opener reads a little awkwardly, and I come away from it confused. Besides objecting to calling child sexual abuse a "model," I'm staying out of the POV debate, because I a)don't know enough about the subject b)cover the abuse aspect elsewhere. However, if anybody needs a psychological take, let me know.Legitimus (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Legitimus, the model angle may be more appropriately termed as a conceptualization. Its a good effort to be inclusive of the majority view though. Phdarts (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What is sad? Your refusal to engage in meaningful discourse. It would be even sadder to think that you believe you have engaged in meaningful discourse. Haiduc (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe his question was what do you find sad about the article structure--i.e., comment on content, not on contributors, please. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will decide for myself what to say. Haiduc (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merging

I now believe the most productive way forward is to merge with the pederasty in the modern world article. Please give suggestions below regarding how we may best merge the two structures on this article. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Some commentators"

I suggest that this sentence is not at all accurate--it is not "some commentators," but all of contemporary psychology and medicine. It is also not accurate to over-weight Rind against this, or leave out criticism of Rind and information about Rind's biases, the condemnation of this study by Congress, etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Today, some commentators consider that they have a negative effect on the psychological development of the youth. A study countering this position, authored by Bruce Rind and others, was published by the American Psychological Association in 1998."

[edit] Arbitrary and capricious merge of Modern Pederasty article into this one

As should be obvious to even uninitiated readers, the article on Pederasty in the modern world covers a subset of pederastic practices in more detail than can be afforded in this, the root article for a whole suite of more specific and detailed articles. While the editors who are attempting the merge have certainly repeated a number of times their belief that the merge is necessary and useful so as to undo a "pov fork" they have not substantiated their claim in any meaningful manner.

Therefore the merge is nothing but an attempt by a group of editors working in consort who have in common their antagonism towards pederastic homosexuality in all its forms, legal and illegal. It is not the original split that is POV, but this forcible merge, executed by fiat and unsupported by any reasoning process. Its net effect, besides swelling this already long article to 84kb, is to deprive readers of Wikipedia of proper coverage of an important and timely topic. Haiduc (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The merge was supported by 5 editors and opposed by only one, in two discussions on this page: #Suggested structure, and #Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty. Far from arbitrary or capricious, there is good reason for this merge. The page at Pederasty in the modern world was mostly the same information as in this article, plus some WP:original research, and a small amount of unique information that is now in this article. The merge was a good-faith process, with discussion in advance and supported by consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• In re-reading the comment above, I must add that I have seen no antagonism towards homosexuality in this process. There is insufficient verifiable information for an article about Pederasty in the modern world. That's not antagonism, it's just accuracy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (By way of illustration: there were two references and associated text describing serious instances of homosexual child sexual abuse in the criticisms section of Pederasty in the modern world; those have been completely removed and were not added to this article during the merge. They were removed because they were not about the topic of "pederasty". If there were a motivation of antagonism in this process, those disturbing stories would have been retained or even emphasized. But this has been a fair and neutral process, so those stories were left out, and properly so. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Haiduc, your objection is unfounded. The merge is actually very well substantiated. Much of the pederasty in the modern world article is explicitly supported by information on pederasty. This is a pederasty article. Any article on Wikipedia should contain all relevant information. Thus the merge is perfectly reasonable. There is work to do in summarizing some of the information, but reverting the merge as you did simply jams up the process of proper encyclopedic writing. If there are any specific parts of the merge that you object to, then point them out here (with valid reasoning please) and we can see what we can do about making those parts more clear. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The practice of spinning off sub-topics from an overlarge main article is one of the main ways Wikipedia grows. The proper approach in this case would have been to eliminate excessive duplication from the main article, not to use that duplication as a rationalization to gut what is a perfectly valid subtopic of pederasty. Just as we treat the Greeks and the Japanese and the Middle East in their own articles, the same needs to be done with the moderns.

What is going on here is a concerted hatchet job, managed by a person with demonstrable unfamiliarity with the topic, and with a political axe to grind. The result is the suppression of valid information and the sliming of notable individuals. As an example witness the latest smearing of Vern Bullough.

I have neither the appetite nor the time to further enable this gang bang by pointing out your errors, fallacies and abuses. Sooner or later someone else with sufficient ethics and erudition will join me in paying attention to this domain, and then the damage you are inflicting will be repaired. This is neither the first nor the last time that this kind of hanky-panky has been attempted, which is not surprising with a subject that is politically inconvenient for moralists, vanilla gays and pedophiles. You people are just a bit better organized. But you know what they say, information wants to be free. Haiduc (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] excessive duplication with other articles

Several of the sections of this article are quite long, considering that there are other articles on the same topics. It would improve this article to use WP:Summary style for those, such that the paragraphs in this article are similar to the lead sections in this split-off pages.

Here are some of the sections that would benefit from this approach:

• The Greeks - main article Pederasty in Ancient Greece
  • There are several more articles that seem to be about that same topic:
    • Athenian pederasty
    • Spartan pederasty
    • Philosophy of Greek pederasty
    • Erastes
    • Eromenos

The summary of the Ancient Greek pederasty in this article should be shorter since the topics are expanded in detail in the split-off articles. The summary here can be based upon, and/or used to improve, the lead(s) of the linked main articles.

• The Romans - main article Homosexuality in ancient Rome
  • This one is somewhat unclear because in Homosexuality in ancient Rome it states that " pederasty was condemned in the Republican era and dismissed as a sign of an effeminate Greek lifestyle.", yet in this article it is described differently.

• Christianity - that section does not link to a main article. It does not appear to be about pederasty, other than to say it was suppressed.

• The Middle East and Central Asia - main article Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia
  • A very long section in this article; with a link to a long main article. It seem that not all of the info overlaps, so much of the text here could be merged into that main article, with a summary style couple of paragraphs on this page, similar to the lead in the main article. An example of a shorter section leading to a main article is seen in the pederasty section of Homosexuality and Islam.

• Japan - main article Shudō - Good length for summary style section

• Victorian England - no link to a main article
  • This section appears to be too long in proportion to the other sections, also, some of it, ie, Shakespeare, is not Victorian Era. Another concern is that the article on Victorian morality does not mention pederasty, so, was pederasty a part of English society at that time? It seems that mostly it was embraced only by the Uranian poets; if so, the section heading could be changed and a summary style section crafted with a main link to Uranian poetry.

• (Various other areas) - generally appear to be of appropriate length; more sources needed.

The above described clean-up based on summary style would tighten up and improve this and the related articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved to talk

Perhaps some of this can be moved to the main article, Uranian poets? It's very detailed for a summary, and none of it is there. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Browning, another Eton master and past student of Cory, followed in his master’s footsteps, only to be likewise dismissed in 1875. Both are thought to have influenced Oxford don Walter Pater, whose aesthetics promoted pederasty as the truest expression of classical culture.^[1]

This culture of Victorian pederasty gave rise to the most conspicuous group of pederastic writers in 19th-century England, the Uranian poets. Although most of the writers of Uranian poetry and prose are today considered minor literary figures at best, the prominent Uranian representatives --- Walter Pater, Gerard Manley Hopkins, and Oscar Wilde -- are figures of world-standing. Hopkins and Wilde were both deeply influenced by Pater, who had provided private tuition to Hopkins in preparation for Hopkins's final Oxford University examinations (and subsequently became a lifelong friend) and who had become a friend of Wilde while Wilde was still a student at Magdalen College, Oxford. Inspired by the Paterian appeal to a pederastic pedagogy, Wilde went on to encode pederastic and homoerotic culture -- though not in the "elevated" pederastic sense that it held for Pater and Hopkins^[2] -- in a number of works such as The Portrait of Mr. W. H., a story about Shakespeare's putative love for a boy-actor, remarkable for being the first openly published work in the English language to touch on the topic of romantic pederasty.^[3] In the case of Hopkins, "Hopkins often was, it must be admitted, strikingly Ruskinian in his love of Aristotelian particulars and their arrangements; however, it was at the foot of Pater -- the foremost Victorian unifier of ‘eros, pedagogy, and aesthetics’ -- that Hopkins would ever remain."^[4] As a result, Hopkins's poetry displays bountiful pederastic themes and nuances.

[edit] Michelangelo

Here's an old talkpage exchange I found about Michelangelo (also about the NPOV problems in the pederasty articles in general). I'm not seeing any scholarly corroboration of a connection between Michelangelo and pederasty, only speculation. Also, there is the problem again of unpublished primary source translations being used as a source, which is SYN/OR. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Concrete suggestions for Pederasty?

You criticized pederasty on its talk page a while back, but made no edits to the article. I've placed a POV tag on the page -- what are the changes you think should be made? DanB†DanD 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) My comments elaborate in the discussion problems with the scholarship of the article, specifically that where there is a dearth of data, sodomy is confused with pederasty, and on the whole the article seems to suggest that pederasty is common. On the other hand, I do not want to re-write this article; I do not want to make it my focus. It is a contentious business of which I want no part of. My interest is the culture of the Italian peninsula mainly from 1600-1800. My intersection with pederasty was that one of the authors of the pederasty article was making octupus-like links to items of little relationship, and also using those articles to foward his view that "pederasty was commonplace" specially among the "luminaries of the time". He also made specific statements that were false, he made Michelangelo into a pederast, and the evidence of this is sketchy. The article of pederasty is a problems, for which I do not want to be the solution. I would warn the editors that some of the behavior exhibited by Haiduc and others could be seen as legally troublesome, if it means to link Michelangelo, a common topic for middle school children, to pederasty, and from there to man-boy organizations like NAMBLA. I am comfortable patrolling Italian art, I do not want to be responsible for what occurs in "pederasty". CARAVAGGISTI 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

Hey, can someone direct me to the discussion about the merge with Pederasty in the modern world? If there was no discussion or properly informed decision to do this, I support a revert and a proper discussion. forestPIG 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed with a merge template on both articles: #Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty. An additional comment agreeing about the merge is in this section: #Suggested structure. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I call 5:2 a weak consensus. But if more people turn up on the opposite side, we may have to reconsider. forestPIG 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Conensus isn't just numbers though--in this discussion, there was the issue of a pov fork--isolating "pederasty" from "modern pederasty" definitionally. There are already subtopic pages which address "modern pederasty," such as the NAMBLA article. The material that was in the modern article and here was almost identical. There's also an ongoing issue regarding spin-offs of this article which aren't really necessary--such as the pederasty in the renaissance article, the roman pederasty article, and the excess number of articles on Greek pederasty. I'd say we should be looking at how to condense and consolidate, so as not to give the false impression that pederasty is more significant than it is or was. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, I am with you on the need to consolidate, and I believe many other editors would if they were working on this part of Wikipedia. Its not just a matter of cleaning up POV forks either. Summary form is encyclopedic, and a lot of encyclopedic summarizing can be achieved here by consolidating. Phdarts (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bullough

I have supported an edit by SqueakBox, that put a source in its context by mentioning Bullough, as opposed to "some commentators". In my own opinion, though, the use of "Padika" alongside that author is excessive and unwarranted. It appears to tie the independent opinions of an academic to a highly controversial and for this subject, largely unrelated journal that he once edited and is therefore unnecessary. It appears to be a rather peripheral fact that in retrospect would reflect badly upon the author, i.e. a kind of guilt by association. forestPIG 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it reflects badly on the author? Is he on the record stating that he is not proud of having been on the editorial board of this academic journal? It seems he is very open about his bias (whereas the Wiki article was trying to conceal it).-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I feel that it is peculiar and unwarranted. It is not the kind of treatment that we would give most authors, concerning subjects (sex with prepubescents) that fall outside of the current article's subject area. forestPIG 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Paidika restricts itself to "sex with prepubescents"? (And if I'm remembering correctly, the title itself is synonymous with the term used here, "eromenos.")-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The full title of that journal as published is Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The publication did not hide its bias and regularly published content in support of normalizing the idea of pedophilia. Clearly, someone who chooses to join its editorial board is not concerned about distancing themselves from the topic of the journal's specialty. Why would it be "a kind of guilt by association" when it was the decision of that author to engage in that publicly known association? The topic of this article is associated with pedophilia - though the two are not identical concepts, they are related in several ways (in common usage, legally, and by an overlap in age range and pubertal status of the boy participant). It is therefore relevant and appropriate to mention that an author quoted on the topic of pederasty was also a member of the editorial board of a pro-pedophilia publication. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The personality assassination tactics that this gang has been inflicting on scholars in this field are nothing in not consistent. They tried to do it to Hekma, they tried to do it to Rind, and now they are snapping at Bullough's heels. But any idiot can go to the article on Bullough and find out what the man was really known for, an eminent professor and scientist. But no, that does not suit these characters. They pick out his work for Paidika, sliming the man and his work and his ideas with insinuations of pedophilia activism, and then blithely shrug their shoulders and have the nerve to imply that he slimed himself. When Bullough wrote the article in glbtq that rankles you and interferes with your political agenda he was not acting as a board member of Paidika, because glbtq is not Paidika. What a shameless bunch you all are! But what does shame have to do with it? You are on a mission to stop abuse. So what if you have to be abusive to do it? The ends justify the means when you have right on your side. Haiduc (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullough's association with Paidika is not a slime projected by any Wikipedia editor, it's simply a part of his body of work that applies to his comments about pederasty. In what way is it a "personality assassination tactic" to include relevant information about sources quoted in articles? He chose to be part of that magazine, he didn't try to hide it.

And: the pro-pedophile slant of Paidika is also not projected by any Wikipedia editor, it's in Paidika's mission statement - and note that it's written in the first person: “The starting point of PAIDIKA is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles. … [W]e intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.”

If he didn't want that associated with his name, he would not have joined their editorial board. There's no reason for Wikipedia to hide the published facts. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are your own worst enemy. Haiduc (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with hiding. It's just that referring to a small journal on a controversial yet unrelated (pedophilia=prepubescent, pederasty=adolescent) subject comes across as dirt digging, whether deliberate or not. forestPIG 10:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated that it's at all unrelated. Once again, Paidika addresses adolescents also, and the term itself it synonymous with "eromenos." (Or controversial--it's not at all controversial to Bullough, who was happy to be on the editorial board, and is making a statement in this article entirely consistent with his beliefs). -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[in]PetraSchelm - Even if there is a slight overlap of subjects, I am asking you to consider whether the Paid reference alongside the independent scholar really is warranted, or at all required. I hope that you are in a good position to make this consideration independently of any personal feelings about the author in question, because it appears to me as if the only reason for this extravagant mentioning of affiliation could be to create a negative association. forestPIG 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ForestPig, why do you think it is "negative"?--this seems to be a value judgement on your part, that Bullough does not share. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

By all general standards of public-morality, we have to be vigilant of any linkage drawn between an academic and pedophilia. Now, of course, it was a linkage that the author was happy to make. But the fact that we mention it in an article about adolescent sex, alongside a reference to another journal, and despite the author in question's broad participation in activities totally unrelated to Paidika, leads me to question why someone would want to go this far in summarising some career achievements of an author whilst neglecting others. It just seems strange. forestPIG 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello ForestPig. It seems a far stretch to say that there would be any sort of slander or traversty to have a self-declared statement in the article. I would keep it there unless there is anything substantial to prove that there is anything to worry about. In the context of this article, it seems fair enough for any related academic on any particular side to make such a statement. Phdarts (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Phdarts - I would like to explain that I do not see this as slanderous. What I do see it as is a far-fetched, and odd association made "against" an author who was commenting not to glamorise pederasty, let alone pedophilia - the topic of a small fringe journal that he was once on the editorial board of. I have yet to see anyone argue successfully towards the point that this journal mention is at all relevant to an author who was speaking independently. In fact, whether deliberate or not - the only possible result of forcing this undesirable association on an article that covers a borderline-acceptable subject, appears to manifest itself as a rather ugly form of anti-intellectualism. forestPIG 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullough's known bias in favor of pederasty helps explain to readers why his definition differs so very much from the dictionary. It is extremely misleading to present the defintion unattributed "some say..." or without characterizing the source to whom it is attributed. Vern Bullough is not an impartial source; he was on the editorial board of Paidika, which favorably endorsed pedophilia and pederasty. The only reason I can see to be so intent on keeping that information out is a pov push to present Bullough as something he is not. i.e., an impartial source. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, I am afraid that your unfamiliarity with the topic has led you to make what is an indefensible statement. You are trying to impose a common dictionary definition of pederasty ("a man buggering a little boy") as the "true" definition of pederasty. Unfortunately for your argument, the understanding that pederasty includes relationships that range the gamut from crude carnal trysts to emotional and sexual – yet not penetrative relationships, or to loving but chaste relationships is to be found throughout the literature on the topic. Here is just one example (they are beyond counting) of this kind of thinking.

Thus Bullough's definition, far from being the solitary utterance of a pedophilia apologist (and why for god's sake would such a thing even be incorporated in one of the principal gay history websites on the net?) is actually a reflection of the general academic approach to the subject, and is informed not by his association with Paidika but by his experience as a scholar in the field of sexology and history. Haiduc (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the cite you provided is there any such sweeping/general definition as Bullough provides. (Someone else, Carvaggisti, noted that extension of Greek definitions to cover "sodomy" in other historical periods was misleading). -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That was not the point of that citation, but rather to show that the relationships in Greek times (one example among many) ranged from hubristic (read "sodomitical") to respectful and restrained (read "non-penetrative"). Your invocation of some user's comments about sodomy leads me to believe that you are irretrievably wedded to the proposition that pederasty is tantamount to sodomy. From that perspective everything you have done here is of course reasonable and proper. You just happen to be wrong. The concept of chaste pederasty is discussed in the literature, accepted by some and rejected by other - not everybody agrees, but we all understand that none of us owns the truth. Haiduc (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• The conflation of sodomy with pederasty was not made by me, but by whomever wrote this section of Pederasty in the renaissance: "Florence in particular was famous for its high incidence of pederasty.[citation needed] So widespread was the practice that in 1432 the city established "Gli Ufficiali di Notte" (The Officers of the Night) to root out the practice of sodomy. From that year until 1502, the number of men charged with sodomy numbered greater than 17,000, of which 3,000 were convicted. The prevalence of pederasty in Renaissance Florence is perhaps best conveyed by the fact that the Germans adopted the word Florenzer, when they were talking about a pederast.[3][4]" Caravaggisti's point was that these two definitions were mixed up. The problem with Bullough is that he seems to extend an overly romanticzed Greek definition to the status of a general definition, which is then used misleadingly in this article and extended to every historical period as a general definition. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again you commit the fallacy of assuming that an example can be generalized over a whole category. Even in this case things are complex, since the mere fact that the Ufficiali constructed the relationships as sodomitical is not borne out be many of the examples, which did not necessarily involve anal sex. Bullough's definition does not limit itself to the Greeks nor is it solely inspired by the Greeks. The essentialization of attraction over carnality is widely encountered, most famously perhaps in the Moslem tradition. Why do you think that El-Rouayheb discusses chaste pederasty extensively in his work on the Islamic world? Haiduc (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You completely bypassed discussing the point that sodomy is conflated with pederasty in the pederasty in the renaissaince article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I pointed out that the word "sodomy" was used by the Florentines as a kind of catchall term, which should not be taken too literally. Probably if I were to edit the article today I would bring in evidence so as to clarify what is being spoken about. These things become clearer with time, as does the fact that there is a tremendous amount of confusion around this whole topic because people have always spoken about it in euphemisms which have given rise to slews of interpretations. It probably began even before Leviticus, with his "you shall not lie with a man the lyings of a woman." Haiduc (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmhmm. Well, if 'sodomy" was used by the Florentines as a "catch-all" then you should have no problem with the modern dictionary definition as a "catch-all" either. (The point being that the defintion has not been at all historically and consistently Bullough's rose-colored-glassed version, or the current dictionary defintion, and more specificity per historical period would be useful. You are in fact not only citing Bullough's defintion as the "academic" defintion, but you are on the record telling other editors that this is the definiton of pederasty. But it's not. It's Bullough's definition; it's attributable to Bullough. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to reduce the wide scope of pederasty to "illegal anal sex between a man and a boy," and to perform thereby an act of historical and cognitive erasure of all its other aspects, a reductionist and antagonistic act springing from your personal antipathy to this aspect of homosexual expression, and springing from who knows what else which is not my business but yours.

In order to be successful in your campaign, you have to undermine those definitions which describe pederasty as emotionally based, possibly chaste, and if sexually expressed then often (maybe predominantly) excluding anal sex. You will fail at this task because it is not sufficient to show that some (many dictionaries) define pederasty in this fashion, but you must also show that no one else defines it in any other fashion, and that is an impossible task since more encompassing definitions certainly do exist.

Finally, your bizarre notion that Florentine euphemistic practices validate modern misconceptions is just that, a bizarre notion. Haiduc (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I would say that I have a dedication to NPOV, whereas you want to impose an erroneously overly romaticized notion, and over far more of history than is warranted. Bullough's definition does not suffice to cover all of history, and that's because he has a bias in favor of pederasty. -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, I do not think you understand the purpose of a definition. It is not there to cover all imaginable ramifications of a thing, but to come as close as possible to the essence of that thing. Here's an example, from About.com, a definition of marriage: "marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge." We can all think up plenty of counterexamples, quite likely from our personal experience. But that does not invalidate the definition. It is a workable formulation, a starting place. As for your chest pounding regarding how objective you are and how subjective everybody else is, don't you realize that everybody thinks the same way??? Haiduc (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet Bullough's defintion is not in the OED...it's a definition written by a partisan source who endorsed pederasty, hence that is made clear in the article, so as not to mislead readers. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another desperate grab for legitimacy. So whatever is NOT in the OED is invalid, and GLBTQ is a "partisan source"??? On such premises you propose to build the foundations of your edits here??? Haiduc (talk)

There's quite a lot more to do with the article to get it into shape. No rush though. Bullogh seems to have his own particular version of pederasty, and it does seem to be romanticized somewhat. Considering the majority views on pederasty, Bullogh seems to be in a minority, towards fringe. It may be appropriate to place the view, but only in contrast with the majority. Phdarts (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What have your comments, Phdarts, got to do with this discussion, or with academic principles?! Haiduc (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, please read the title of this section. Phdarts (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraudulent edits by Jack-a-Roe

It must be pointed out that user Jack-a-Roe has interfered with this article on false premises twice in a row, first to remove the LGBT box claiming that underage sex is not a LGBT issue, and then to reinstate scurrilous phrasing besmirching a reputable academic because the material was "not attributed." But as it has been pointed out to him and others here, pederasty does not necessarily imply underage sex any more than marriage between a man and a woman implies underage sex. Pederastic relationships between men and boys above the age of consent certainly are a gay reality and are perfectly legal. As for the attribution of the material, that is what the footnote is for, and the citation was properly referenced. Haiduc (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:Haiduc, you seem to be mistaken about the meaning of the word fraudulent. It does not mean "edits that Haiduc does not agree with". I suggest you check your dictionary.
• The attribution of Bullough has been discussed; it is a fringe theory that does not match dictionary definitions or those of most writers. It requires attribution due to the author's bias. It also requires more context by inclusion of more mainstream defintions or be a reorganization of the definitions section, to avoid undue weight.
• Regarding the LGBT infobox, rather than make this determination here, maybe it will be best to ask the editors at the LGBT wikiproject if they consider pederasty part of their project, If they do, I would not argue to remove the infobox. If not, then it has to go. I might post at the project about this soon, or you are welcome to do so if you wish.
• Regarding your statement that " pederasty does not necessarily imply underage sex any more than marriage between a man and a woman implies underage sex", that's just... completely... wrong. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you have failed to point out any fraudulent activity at all and your continued accusations of other editors seem to be quite unhelpful. This whole section you created is unhelpful and seems to make constructive discussion quite impossible from the get go. Please stop. Phdarts (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They are bad edits, not fraudulent. If you ever want help on this article, please leave me a message. forestPIG 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the edits made by Jack-A-Roe. The LGBT infobox should not be part of this page, unless the editors at that project agree this topic is part of theirs. I also agree with his discussion on Bullough. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They look good edits to me. I strongly agree that LGBT has nothing whatsoever to do with underage sex, and to imply it does is actually unacceptably hostile to gay people, propounding the myth that gay men abuse children etc. So if naything is fraudulent it is trying to include the LGBT infobox on this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Squeekbox. I agree. Phdarts (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As I just have stated elsewhere in the wiki, I won't engage in a topic such as this. However, Haiduc is right: there are pederastic relationships that are perfectly legal. After all there are adolescents above the age of consent having affairs with, say, young men in their twenties, aren't they? In some cultures that was even an institution (the erastes/eromenos institution in Greece and Rome). The image of Fellini's Satyricon with Encolpius and the androgynous Giton comes now to my mind. Has anyone among you read of the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades, or in Plato's Phaedrus the relationship between Lysis and Menexes? This has nothing to do with child abuse and it's certainly what today is called a gay issue. Anyway, as I said, I don't want to engage in a topic such as this one except that pointing out that K.J. Dover's very scholarly Greek homosexuality is must reading to approach the subject more objectively. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the centrality of pederasty throughout the history of homosexuality, the removal of this box (if it does go ahead) would appear to be more a case of popular sensibilities overcoming historical truth. forestPIG 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Infobox_in_Pederasty

Please join in. forestPIG 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've come here from the project page. I'd support the inclusion of the sidebar, since the term pederasty is exclusively used in a homosexual context. Pederasty is a particular mode of homosexual interaction that was of great cultural importance in ancient Europe. Older men involved in relationships with teenage girls are not called pederasts. Perhaps they should be, but they aren't. Also, it is perfectly correct to say that "pederasty does not necessarily imply underage sex any more than marriage between a man and a woman implies underage sex". In ancient times the concept of an age of consent did not exist, so speaking of 'underage sex' in either a homosexual or a heterosexual context is largely meaningless. The age of consent (and therefore marriage) has also been much lower than it now is in most of the West in relatively recent history. In a modern context a relationship between an older man and a youth above the age of consent could legitimately be labeled pederastic. As forestPIG says, to delete the sidebar would be "a case of popular sensibilities overcoming historical truth." Paul B (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• My comments are about the relevance to the project, since pederasty is indisputably a form of homosexual interaction and therefore within the scope of the project. However, note that there is a general discussion about the use and design of the sidebar in the project page. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case we could equally argue that the infobox should be at child sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You non sequitors would be laughable is they were not so dogmatic. Did you actually read what I wrote? I shall try to simplify it for you. 1. The term pederasty applies to homosexual relationships only. Child sex abuse does not. 2. Historically, sexual relationships have begun earlier than is now normal, and that makes the concept of "child sex abuse" in this context largely meaningless when applied to ancient cultures (or even to the 18th century, or to India before the late Victorian phase of the Raj). 3. Ages of consennt vary around the world, and pederastic relationships can be entirely legal in the modern world. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a view that pederasty was of importance. That doesn't mean that everybody thinks pederasty was really important. Moreover, pederasty is not exclusively a homosexual activity. It is sometimes used as a term to include the infant/underage girls that are abused along with infant/underage boys. Again, majority views rears its relevant head. The majority consider pederasty to be abhorent. It is associated above all with abuse. Now we can tell the reader that, yes, it is generally considered abhorent(condemned on moral, legal, yuk factor grounds), though some people don't condemn it, and some fringe groups want to promote it per se, and on the Internet, persistent sex criminals want to call promote it as normal homosexuality (according to the literature). Phdarts (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty as a culturally significant concept is never about "infant" girls or boys. It's almost always used to refer to pubescent/teenage boys. That's the specific meaing of the term. Yes, it's true that similar practices can be identified involving girls, Sappho being the well known example, but it is culturally myopic in the extreme to identify these experiences in ancient and non-western cultures as "abuse" and to use rhetoric such as "abhorrant". You will not find this language used by the many scholars who discuss this issue, and in Wikipedia it is the consensus of scholars that matters, not of tabloid readers. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The International Lesbian and Gay Association specifically distances itself from underage sex in their 2006 statement: ILGA’s Public Stance Against Paedophilia and Commitment to the Protection of Children.

The idea that pederasty would not fall under that rejection because pederasty is "a relationship between an older man and a youth above the age of consent " is a fringe theory. If that's what pederasty is, then the definition in the article needs to be changed, because as it is now it refers to sexual relationships between older adult males and boys ranging under various sub-definitions from 11 to 19.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ILGA's opinion is irrelevant. Unless of course, they published literature that attempted to deny certain historic truths, e.g. their former endorsement of pro-pederasty groups, or revising their endorsement of sexual relations between men an boys above the age of consent (which ranges from about 18-13 in countries where their associates are actively campaigning). Queer studies is an even more clear cut issue - at least for anyone who has read within that area. forestPIG 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ILGA may be irrelevant to you; maybe to others it's not. Apparently you did not glance at the content of the provided link, or you would know that they don't cover-up their former acceptance of NAMBLA or MARTIJN or other pedophile groups as memebers. They explain their 1994 decision clearly and directly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack, please recognise that the actual point of what I said was that ILGA do not cover up their previous association with pederasty. forestPIG 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost all gay people do reject illegal sexual relationships, though, both forced rape of adults and child sexual abuse. As a straight man I strongly support the gay rights movement, gay marriages etc and indeed some of my most passionate edits have to been to articles re gay men being executed for sodomy in Iran. I have also always supported the lowering of the age of consent in the UK from 21 and then 18 to 16, equal to heterosexual AoC, and at that age people can do what they want. But historically pederasty has been about pubescent boys, and puberty is much earlier. Perhaps young teenagers were able to give informed consent in the frankly primitive societies of Ancient Greece but we live in a completely different world right now. I feel having this inbox here insults not only all the gay people who struggle so much but also those of us straight people who support their liberation. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, SqueakBox, but your argument is based on several indefensible fallacies. Of course people, gay or otherwise, largely reject illegal relationships, but your very conflation of illegality and pederasty is fallacious since pederasty is not illegal. It is controlled, as are many other activities, including driving a car. I am glad that you support an AoC of sixteen in the UK, but it is not our business to have an opinion on where the bar should be set, whether in Riyadh at 21 or Rome at 14. Indeed, in London at sixteen, in Paris at fifteen, and in Rome at fourteen boys can choose whomever they like as a lover. They are not underage, and it is not our business (or our right) to smear their lovers as molesters. As for history, maybe you should take a look at the various articles on historical pederastic relationships, to disabuse yourself of that notion. Greece primitive?! That is an ethnocentric claim if ever I heard one. Haiduc (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and we can also refer to social norms within homosexuality. It is a norm that homosexuals generally have relationships within the same general age group. Mature homosexuals generally have relationships with mature homosexuals. A mature homosexual man having a relationship with an imature homosexual man of age range 16-19, will generally be seen as a dodgy situation within gay society. The lowering of age of consent is more of an issue with 16 year olds wanting relationships with other 16 year olds. No matter where you go or who you talk to in the world, men having relationships with boys is either dodgy or illegal from the vast majority view. Phdarts (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that we should be dealing here in gut feelings and generalities, but if we are to lapse into chitchat like this, I will mention the comments of a middle-aged friend who told me that whenever he walked through SF together with his college-age Asian lover people frowned at them, and when they walked apart to avoid the stares everyone hit on his boyf. By what rights do you call a legitimate love "dodgy" and by what rights do you presume to impose that point of view on an encyclopedia article? Haiduc (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, majority viewpoints. Illegal love can also be real. A man of 50 and a boy of 14 could actually love or be in love. Nevertheless, in general men of 50 who seek to have erotic relations with boys of any age are considered by the majority to be dodgy/criminal and or akin to pedophiles. The majority would also consider a boy of 14-17 to be in an erotic relationship with a 50 year old man to be misguided/misled. There are legal regulations and NGO organizations set up to deal with this sort of problematic situation. Homosexual men in general do not want to be associated with pederasty. We all know why not. The majority view is that it is strongly condemned as something actually, or close to pedophilia/abuse. There is no lapse into chitchat. It has been written and sourced (though demoted as a view) in this article, that pederasty is strongly condemned. From that point, clear explanations should be given for the relevant variants of that view, including each argument. Issues such as child abuse, fiduciary duty, social norms, should be covered properly. We can also cover relevant sexual issues such as internet pornography, fetishes, and so on. Haiduc, judging by your reactions to the changes that are happening here, it is clear that a lot more explanation should be given to the majority views in this article. And a lot of the ancient history of pederasty should be condensed right down and the romanticised argumentative and unsourced POV should be removed. I am sure Wikipedia can afford to look like it is promoting fringe and largely condemned practices. A sensible and straightforward explanation approach is needed. Phdarts (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the greatest difficulty understanding your mentality. The notion that "a lot of the ancient history of pederasty should be condensed right down" is ludicrous. The ancient history of this topic is discussed extensively by scholars. That, indeed, is what is centrally relevant to this topic. Paul B (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Paul. I truly understand your point and have read a lot of similar urgings in the archives of this discussion page. But there are many scholars who deal in relation to this subject. A lot of them do not deal with, or condone, the "toga party" variety of pederasty. A lot of the scholars, even the historians, deal with pederasty as a prohibited activity. Some are from the child psychology, child abuse prevention perspective, others are from the strict history of crime persective, and others from the sexual deviance perspective. And of course, there are views of some academics who sympathise with NAMBLA and similar groups who would similarly want to promote the notion of pederasty as something spiritually and educationally efficacious.

However, this is the modern world. Throwing slaves to the lions, or getting them to hack each other to pieces for fun is generally looked down upon in modern society. Its certainly not encouraged. The same with pederasty. Nothing wrong with saying pederasts love pederasty, or that NAMBLA encourages a stable and loving polygamy between 55 year old pedophiles and infant blondes. If there is a source that states the view then let it in as long as its not fringe. But unless Wallmart starts doing really well on sales of pederasty costumes and lubricant, or you come across a family endorsed "Pederasts R'Us" in the mall then I think we are going to have to put ancient history into a sensible "compare and contrast" encyclopedic arrangement. Phdarts (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The ancient Greeks did not wear togas, nor did they throw slaves to lions. You seem to have a view of history derived from TV movies. I don't know anything about NAMBLA, but I'm rather surprised to hear that they advocate "polygamy"???? What's all this stuff about Wallmart? You do realise don't you that we are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia here? That means scholarship is our model. 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Paul. Sorry, but you seem to be rattled and/or in distress. Please read the literature that is related to this article, and please sign your name. I believe most editors here have the patience. Take your time. Phdarts (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one making wild comparisons, strange uses of the word "polygamy", and silly comments about Wallmart. You are. This I asume is not the relevant "literature that is related to this article". Instead, the research of experts is. I don't see you referring to any. So where is the rattling coming from? I did sign my name. Perhaps you are unfamilar with Wikipedia signing processes, but if you accidentally type five tildes instead of four (as I did), only the date appears. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to discuss relevant matters. Such as the ones I mentioned above in relation to the literature on sexual deviance, criminality, and you know; what the current majority is generally concerned about. Take your time. I am sure your issues will be open for scrutiny for some time, by more editors than just me. Phdarts (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been. The fact is that there is extensive discussion of this issue in many sources, which are listed in the article. These date back to Dover's famous study. I don't see much evidence that you are referring to any studies in a modern context. You added a totally unpaginated reference to a book called Extreme Deviance at one point - a book that apparently includes environmental activism as an example of "extreme deviance"! At any rate there was no cited text referring to the specific issue. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I am happy to discuss any issue or source that is relevant, including that of the views compatible or antagonistic with NAMBLA. Though I am sure that most encyclopedists find the group totally disgusting or objectionable, as will most people of the modern perspective, though I am sure that they will be willing to discuss the views associated as long as it is encyclopedic. You stated "I have the greatest difficulty understanding your mentality. The notion that "a lot of the ancient history of pederasty should be condensed right down" is ludicrous. The ancient history of this topicv is discussed extensively be scholars. That, indeed, is what is centrally relevant to this topic." You seem to be interested in making sure the ancient views are presented really clearly here. So which of the modern views in particular are you interested in superceding with the ancient? Phdarts (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should be about the history of the concept and its application in a range of historical, modern and non-western cultural contexts. I'm not sure what modern views you are referring to. Rejection by the gay liberation movement section is a bit of a mess. Most of the latter part of it seems to have nothing to do with gay lib. The assertion that "currently both illegal and legal forms of pederasty are strongly condemned" is uncited, and the examples given are entirely political scandals involving US politicians. Attitudes in Europe are very different - but also vary widely between southern and Northern Europe. The opening episode of Queer as Folk, a UK TV show, did indeed depict a 15 year old boy in a sexual relationship with an older man. I'd suggest that the issue of condemnation bet separated from the gay liberation context, and discussed in terms of changing attitudes to intergenerational relationships, and issues of power-difference and sexual harassment, which extends beyond pederasty as such to embrace workplace relationships and other contexts. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not sure any editor would consider the history of energy, for example, to be as relevant as the modern concept. Most encyclopedias would explain the current concept of energy and how it relates to current application and then to older ideas, rather than, initially a 3000 year old notion of energy, spiritual or otherwise. However, I am sure mose editors are into seperating issues that need seperating. If you have any other issue that you find hard to understand, please feel free to name it. Phdarts (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "history of energy", only of concepts about it. Older concepts are by definition obsolete, and so less significant than modern understanding. Your analogy is rather like comparing 'art' with 'astronomy'. We would not devote a lot of the article on the latter to what people thought in the 16th century, but in art what happened in the Renaissance is rather more important than what happened yestersday. No-one would argue that we should have more on Andy Warhol than on Micheangelo, just because Michelangelo is older. The concept of pederasty is strongly associated with historical cultures that are just as important as modern ones. If you have any other issue that you find hard to understand, please feel free to name it. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The concept of energy has a history. It has evolved as a concept. Only alternative medicine practitioners nowadays would consider the application of leaches to be a removal of negative energy. We have moved on as a majority. Science is an important perspective because it majority view indicates it to be. If you want to keep the pederasty artifcle as a "history of pederasty" article then I think you are in the wrong. Pederasty as a concept includes a great deal of views. And of course when you menton erotic relations between men and boys, the majority will most likely think in terms of illegality and condemnation. Just as the modern thinker will consider slavery in terms of condemnation. And I am not making ridiculous comparisons here, I am simply stating an obvious evolution in thought. Phdarts (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I alreadty explained that it evolved as a concept. Thank you for repeating that. I also already explained that "this article should be about the history of the concept and its application in a range of historical, modern and non-western cultural contexts." Perhaps you did not actually read that. You make a fundamental error is assuming that the concept of 'progress' can be applied to cultural phenomena is the same way that it applies to science. For example, the Victorians knew a great deal more about the science of energy than the ancient Romans did. Yet Victorians considered homosexuality to be morally deviant, an idea that would incomprehensible to Romans. Who was more "modern"? Cultural values cannot be compared in terms of direct increases in knowledge since they are subject to a very complex range of influences. That's why it is important to avoid what is known as presentism, by showing how attitudes have differed over time and other cultures. Not to do so encourages complacency, ignorance and prejudice. Paul B (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Majority veiws are the core of what I am talking about. There are plenty of views on pederasty as something to be condemned within the literature. I am in agreement with other editors here on not to conflate the romanticized notion of pederasty as a LGBT issue, and to make sure that pederasty is not promoted by Wikipedia as as the wet dream of a pedophile, just as it seems to have been presented here in the past, nausiating images and all. I have no problem with history. Pederasty is not history though. Its a current issue, and one that is generally condemned according not only to what is blindingly obvious in everyday life, but also in the literature. Phdarts (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. but your personal emotions about what is and isn't nauseating are of no interest. Reliable sources are. Though you repatedly assert that "there are plenty of views on pederasty as something to be condemned within the literature" I have not seem you provide any evidence of that whatsover. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, please focus on the issues. There are plenty of reliable sources to the majority views. I don't think I have gained any particular respect from explaining the literature to you, so I will focus on presenting the literature in the article [16].Phdarts (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's mainly because you have not explained any literature. Please feel free to do so. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should be about what scholars refer to as pederasty. Type pederasty into an academic search engine or database - and that is a rough idea of what we should be covering. If child sexual abuse prevention advocates publish papers on the subject, these should also be included.

I have already explained the literature, and will continue to point out the obvious if that is what is required. There is a problem on this article with some editors refusing to accept the fact that pederasty is generally condemned. You asked for the literature on that view and I presented it after it was deleted [17]. It has since been deleted again and a completely unsatisfactory reason was given [18].

Promotion of pederasty by NAMBLA and similar groups is a key issue here. That is also part of the literature (Goode et al 2007). There is a strong presence on the Internet of child pornographers, pedophiles, pederasts, and similarly associated criminals. According to the literature, they generally use rationalizations for child abuse, such as pederasty has been a part of humanity since the beginning [19], or that pederasty is primarily boy love [20]. They deny child abuse and child pornography as if it is irrelevant (Good et al 2007) [21]. They tend to call legal pederasty legitimate, even though society generally condemns it, some call it abuse nevertheless, and the related individuals often suffer psychologically. I have no problem whatsoever with the views of pederasts being presented, whether scholarly or not. What is happening here, however, is that scholarly views condemnatory towards pederasty are simply being suppressed. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the inclusion of all relevant views. When a view about pederasty is condemnatory is can still be included. I know that relating pederasty to child porn and child abuse is condemnatory, but that is the fact. Its a fact that will inevitably be presented because it is the major view of scholars and others alike. Phdarts (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern day activities and opinions should be added for context, especially where they refer specifically to pederasty. But as this is particularly rare, we should not be whitewashing the vast bulk of work throughout history with synthetic implications from work that does not mention the practise.

We seem to have lost site of the fact that most scholarly work on pederasty is carried out from a value-free historical perspective. This, understandably leaves some in a daze, but it is also the right way to cover the subject in an encyclopedia article. Anything seriously removed from what we have now (especially if incorporating populism) would be a laughing stock among established scholars of the subject. forestPIG 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scholars on the subject of pederasty include those who write about child abuse and extreme sexual deviance. They are publishers of literature on this matter, and are part of the scholarly literature in general. Can you explain to me why they tend to be deleted so freely on this article? Phdarts (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Their works very rarely use the term "pederasty", or even samples that can be described as pederastic. Oftentimes, the sample is abuse-specific and non pederastic. The vast majority of pederasty papers have been written from the value-neutral historical perspective. Please present pederasty works that do not follow this trend, and demonstrate that they are relevant to this page. forestPIG 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty is considered by many to be a strongly related to pedophilia and child abuse. It is totally relevant to this article. The historical perspective is as value laden as any other literature and the criminology, psychology literature includes historical perspectives anyway. You can't dismiss major sourced views just because they reflect or "neutrally" describe what most people think about pederasty. Phdarts (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brass tacks

Paul, I appreciate your endless patience, but I think there is a danger here of the more disciplined editors being ground down by endless nonsequiturs. Allow me to interject and say that we should address the specifics of the article, rather than gut feelings and other truthiness-type notions. I have been through this grinder for some time now and I speak from experience. I have begun a general cleanup of some of the more outrageous accusations and misconceptions insinuated into the text. By and large the game seems to be to confuse the two definitions of pederasty, one being anal sex with underage children and the other being a legitimate love relationship between an adolescent and an older male. I will remove all the inappropriate inclusions, which seek to smear pederasty by association with child abuse - they do not belong here but rather at the appropriate articles (I am sorry, I am not familiar with that domain, others will have to move text there if they are interested.) Haiduc (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Any such removal of relevant views on pederasty will result in an article that is strongly biased towards the fringe. As pederasty is generally considered to be abusive, or close to something that is abusive, then that view should be presented with explanations. The trick is to write the article with each "type" of pederasty to have associated views properly presented and to put majority, minority and fringe in proper perspective. The appearance of any alleged non-sequitur does not mean that information be persistently removed just because it is condemnatory towards pederasty. If a view exists and is sourced, then it gets in, especially if it explains the majority view. The only undue accusations I have seen here are from those editors accusing others of homophobia just because they present good research. All in proper proportion. Phdarts (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please place child pornography and other unrelated stuff in their respective articles. Child pornography no more belongs here than ordinary pornography belongs in the article on heterosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the related literature. It refers specifically to pederasty. Pederasty is the title of the sections that the information comes from. By restricting pederasty to a rose-tinted anachronistic variety the article will be extremely narrow. Suppressing information will lead to a highly biased article, in this case, in favour of the notion of pederasty as a legitimate activity. There are more than pro-pederasty views to include here. Pederasty is obviously related to child pornography. Pederasts do not only break the law when they abuse children, they also break the law by creating and collecting child pornography. Thats a fact that requires inclusion in this pederasty article. Phdarts (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time and that of other constructive editors here with your political agenda. Haiduc (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, could you please explain your last accusation. Phdarts (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He explained it pretty well, although not in terms that I would use. You explain why your vision for this article is so wildly deviated from the status-quo academic perspective and focus for this area. forestPIG 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider visions to be important for editing. The article requires balancing and putting fringe POV in perspective. I provide reliable sources to that end. Haiduc dismisses such sources despite the article still being full of argumentative and unsources pro-pederastic views. In the process, Haiduc also accuses me (and others) of homophobia and unspecified political agendas. Perhaps you would like to refer to the scholarly views that state pederasty is generally considered to be either dubious or illegal. Or would you rather cast more aspersions on me or other editors who are working to clean up this half of the POV fork? Phdarts (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Every single claim you make is based on the alternative definition of the word "pederasty" which is irrelevant here. And your argumentation consists of endless repetition rather than genuine dialog. Please! Enough is enough. If after all the discussion we have had you still refuse to acknowledge that the word has different meanings, and that they cannot be lumped together, I do not see what else can be achieved by further talk. Haiduc (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Some things obviously need repeating. I have already said that the trick is to treat each definition and view as seperately as reasonable, as well as to make distinctions between pedophilia and pederasty wherever necessary, rather than as you have done; remove alternative definitions. Further talk is inevitable and something that committed editors are generally open to. Haiduc, I suggest you change your tone to something less dismissive. Phdarts (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Repetition is not how we discuss things here. I am not the one who dismisses you, legitimate scholarship on pederasty dismisses you:

pederasty. (gr. "pais": boy and "eran": to love) 1."Boy love" in ancient Greece. The literal translation is misleading, since the term does not refer to a child, but rather to a "boy" after puberty. The correct meaning is therefore: "Sexual relationship between a man and a male adolescent". In ancient Greece such relationships were customary and enjoyed general social approval. Pederasty had an educational function, obliging the adult lover ("the inspirer") to teach his young beloved ("the listener") good citizenship; the adolescent, in turn, had the obligation to learn from his adult role model. The relationship ended when the adolescent was ready for marriage. 2. Anal intercourse between males. This is a modern usage resulting from a misunderstanding of the original term and ignorance of its historical implications. In this reductionist sense, the term has crept into Western legal jargon and is often used in the context of persecuting sex offenses. {http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/CDS.HTM#P}

Alternative definitions have not been "removed." They were described and readers were directed to the appropriate articles, at least in the original version, before the article was tampered with for political purposes. Haiduc (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is only one view. There are a range of other views that are more current. Again, I have no problem with the above view being present in the article. There is most definitely a problem when editors restrict a whole article to a narrow POV though. The article needs a lot of attribution of unsourced views. Perhaps you could work on attributing them instead of claiming that one particular view is dismissive of me as an editor. I am working with including all relevant views and I suggest you should heed that recommendation of Wikipedia policies. Phdarts (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I utterly reject your preposterous claim that just because different meanings are represented by a single word, they should be conflated and discussed in a single article as if they were a single thing. That is an intellectual fraud. Haiduc (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can call it what you like. If there are multiple views about pederasty, then they can clearly exist in the same article. The policy page explains things pretty clearly. Not only are you treating alternative views pejoratively, you are also persistently working on keeping them from the article [22]. Haiduc, you seem to be completely on the wrong track. I'd have a really good look at the NPOV policy page if I were you. Phdarts (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Sex and Human Sexuality have different articles for the different meanings. If you would like to start an article that documents the non-scholarly, modern definition of pederasty, go ahead. This article is for the primary and linguistic meaning that has dominated throughout history - "pederasty", as you would see in an academic database or textbook on homosexuality. forestPIG 00:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig, are you moving the goalposts? According to the literature, the broad definition of pederasty ancient and modern is the erotic relationship between men and boys (generally from boyhood up to around 20 years old). Men who have erotic relations with 10-20 year olds are called pederasts and their sexual interactions with those younger than the age of consent is illegal. Or are you just talking about the pederasts who restrict themselves to erotic relations with people who look a bit boyish? Phdarts (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The first line

I kept the basic information in, but the source that was there seems to be rather odd so I am placing it here to see what sort of problems actually exist with it.

Pederasty or paederasty (literally 'boy-love', see etymology below) refers to a sexual relationship, whether or not consummated, between an adolescent boy and an adult male.^[5]

The source, for example seems to be argumentative. There also seems to be a problem with the "whether consummated or not" part as it is not in the source. There is also a problem with the use here of "misunderstanding". There may be the view that people misunderstand the nature of pederasty in general, just as they misunderstand the nature of pedophilia, but that does not mean that their views should be rejected. Secondly, I don't think editors here are treating pederasty as anal intercourse between males. In general the classic, academic and general notion of pederasty is an erotic or sexual desire by men for boys/adolescent males. In short, I believe the first line needs better sourcing and needs to be more clearly in line with what pederasty is considered to be. Feel free to make suggestions. Phdarts (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, PS, I would like to hear some reasoning for why the etymology needs to be in the lead line. Phdarts (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)