Talk:Pederasty

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — Phdarts — continues after insertion below

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty

[Note: discussion continued at #Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty (part 2). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Material removed by Haiduc to child abuse page

Template:RFC error 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)

[undent]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)

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)

[undent]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)

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.

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)

"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."

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)

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)

It appears someone has since updated the Victorian section to focus on the Uranian poets, a welcome improvement. Some of that text can be moved to Uranian poetry and the summary style section here shortened. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

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 -- 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. 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." As a result, Hopkins's poetry displays bountiful pederastic themes and nuances.

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)

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)

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)

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)

WikiProject LGBT studies

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)

[undent]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)

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)

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.

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)

The essence of your argument seems to be a critique of the source, but you are not a published academic. Thus your OR is not valid here. Haiduc (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you are misreading my question. I am placing this information here to discuss any problems therein. I am also questioning why the source has been chosen above other sources. I have not attempted any original research. Please address the issues and assume good faith. Phdarts (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC). Also, you would do well to actually discuss information properly when it is placed here for discussion. Restoring it as you did seems to show a strong proclivity for dismissive editing [23]. Please discuss constructively. Phdarts (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant sourced views concerning pederasty

This material requires proper discussion. The material was deleted by Haiduc several times and any reasons given for deletion seem to be quite unsatisfactory. [24]

So I am placing the information here for discussion:

• While organizations as vocal as NAMBLA might argue for pederasty as the sexual education of boys, survivor groups insist that, for some, trauma is still the result (Crosson-Tower 2007).

Haiduc, your edit summary said “Undid revision 218997012 by Phdarts (talk) edit based on a misunderstanding of the term. However, the term used by Crosson Tower is that used in academic circles. It is not the so-called misunderstanding that is written into the definition of pederasty that you have added as a source to the lead line. Crosson-tower is not talking about anal intercourse between males. She is talking about the sort of classical and ancient pederasty that is claimed by some ancient Greeks and NAMBLA to improve the education of boys. Why are you insisting that she is misunderstanding the term? Phdarts (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you also changed the heading from “views concerning abuse” to “accusations of abuse”. [25] Why do you prefer the heading to be written as an accusation rather than a concern? Phdarts (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• In literature on sexual deviance, a pederast is a type of pedophile who is sexually attracted to boys (Goode and Vail 2007). 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).

Haiduc, your edit summary is unsatisfactory [26]. Please explain why you removed this above sourced information from the article. Phdarts (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• 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", [27], and the Internet provides a potential catalyst for pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real thing [28]. According to ANESVAD the Internet facilitates contact between paedophiles (those who feel attracted to children) or pederasts (those who commit sexual abuse with minors) [29].

Again, this requires discussion, Haiduc. Please explain exactly why you do not want this information in the article [30]. Phdarts (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article for proper discussion

To avoid any edit warring, I have moved some rather contentious edits here for the purpose of discussion:

Conflation with sexual abuse of a minor

Main article: child sexual abuse

File:Oxford Pederasty.jpg

At the palaestra
Youth, holding a net shopping bag filled with walnuts, a love gift, draws close to a man who reaches out to fondle him; Attic red-figure plate 530-430 BCE; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

Though paederasty was once accepted in many cultures, some modern observers have retrospectively labeled it abusive. Enid Bloch argues that many Greek boys who were involved in paederastic relationships may have been harmed by the experience. If the relationship included anal intercourse, Bloch writes, the boy may have been traumatized by worry that he was violating social customs. According to Bloch, the "most shameful thing that could happen to any Greek male was penetration by another male." In this respect Bloch is in accord with Greek sexual morality, which also recognized a difference between ethical pederasty which excluded anal intercourse and "hubristic" pederasty which was believed to debase the boy as well as the man who penetrated him.

Bloch further argues that vases showing "a boy standing perfectly still as a man reaches out for his genitals" indicate the boy may have "psychologically immobilized, unable to move or run away." Many vases, however, show the boys responding warmly to the man's advances, placing their hands around the man's neck or on his arm, a gesture thought to indicate affection and reciprocity.

While sexually expressed relationships between men and boys are generally lawful, they are subject to regulation just as other types of sexual relationships. Age of consent laws set a lower limit on the age at which youths are enfranchised to enter into a sexual relationship with another person. This limit varies from one jurisdiction to another, ranging from the early teens to the early twenties.

In 1980 under the aegis of National Organization for Women, feminists adopted a resolution on lesbian and gay rights, which defined pederasty as "the involvement of children by adults in sexual activity," claiming that "over 90% of all pederasts are heterosexual males who seek out young girls as their victims." The text of the resolution read:"Whereas, pederasty is an issue of exploitation and violence, not affectional/sexual preference/orientation." This resolution was in effect for nineteen years, and was superseded by another which did not broach in any way the topic of pederasty.

---

Please discuss these properly. Firstly we can start with the heading. Who's view is it that these are about conflating pederasty with child abuse? Phdarts (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to get this discussion going again. Haiduc wrote the heading "Conflation with sexual abuse of a minor". Is there any particular view that this is a conflation? If not, I suggest: "Child Abuse", or "Views about pederasty as child abuse". Phdarts (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Views about slurs

Hello, especially Haiduc. The material removed here [31] was done so partially on the pretext of the claimed existence of a slur.

• Men in pederastic relationships are accused of being necessarily materialistic and manipulative. The claim is that the older partner's interest in the younger is always purely for sexual gratification, and that beneath a guise of caring or loving, and a veneer of acceptability of endowing the younger partner with "choice", these relationships are universally damaging to the youth because they are based on mutual deception. The attention given by the older to the younger is assailed as fundamentally self-interested, and the claim is made that the youths are discarded once past the age of attraction.

Seriously, I would like to identify which groups would consider it a reasonable statement or view, and which groups would consider it a slur? Any information on this may be enlightening. Phdarts (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Having had a cursory glance at the NAMBLA literature, it would seem that NAMBLA or NAMBLA members may consider this sort of viewpoint a slur. Does anyone here have access to secondary literature that discusses the slur issue? Phdarts (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic propaganda

We have heard for a long time now how homosexuality = child abuse. Take it elsewhere, Jack-a-roe and company. Haiduc (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. You have in general, been removing properly sourced information about the majority views on pederasty. You have been removing them on the false basis of some sort of misunderstanding of the meaning of pederasty, or claiming that other editors are politically motivated, or that majority views are anti-homosexual propaganda. However, the sources presented, and that you persistently remove without sufficient discussion, are sources that refer specifically to the academic and classical definition of pederasty. It is a fact that specific and largely majority views consider classical pederasty to be child abuse. This includes the views of academic experts on psychology, law, sexology, and other academics central to any studies on pederasty. Over the centuries, society and society's laws have taken into account possible sexual harrassment, risks and so on, that are associated with pederasty, and laws have been invoked to take care of any potentially harmful situation. That includes the homosexual community, who would like themselves to be accepted into normal society and life. Homosexuals in general now have strong reservations against pederasty. An encyclopedia should be informed by information about modern scientific findings on the effects of adult sexual activities on child and adolescent psychology and physiology, and the potential harm sustained. You have yourself stated that pederasty is a legitimate activity. However, that is a fringe view. Homosexuals in general do not hold that view, and society at large certainly does not hold that view. You seem to have been acting on a fringe view in your editing. It is an editor's duty to point out the particular bias of other editors. Thus I am pointing out your view as something that is most definitely fringe. Please take this into account before you personally attack any more editors. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Lets review. 1. The popularity of a view is of no interest to use here, except if we were to report on actual survey figures. 2. It is my distinct impression that you are trying to game the system by abusing the practice of validating a statement by the use of a citation. 3. The method you are employing is to broadcast bona fide statements describing adult molestation of a child across the entire pederastic spectrum. 4. Other users have pointed that out to you. 5. Your responses to critiques of your methods generally have been of a repetitive nature: you repeat on and on ad infinitum that "majority views" have to be represented. But you never acknowledge or respond to the critiques of your contentions and methods.

If you want to mention something here, in a subsection, about those pederastic relationships which fall outside the law, with a link to the more specific articles, I do not think anyone would oppose you. It is your blanket condemnation of pederastic relationships that is homophobic, inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Haiduc (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no homophobia underlying the recent improvements to the article. That's a red herring. If everything were the same but pederasty were within a heterosexual rather than homosexual context, there would be no difference in the approach of editing based on citing reliable sources presenting accurate information. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, your completely unreasonable accusations of homophobic propaganda are a reflection on the type of editing you have been pushing. You are pushing undue weight [32], and you are doing it by removing properly sourced information on pederasty that happens to be matter of fact negative view. It is a significant view that pederasty involves or risks child abuse. It is a significant view that pederasty often involves child pornography. Repeating these facts is necessary because you repeatedly remove such material from the article [33] and continue to push minority views above majority. Again, there is nothing wrong with stating historical facts about pederasty. However, there is a lot wrong with continually deleting the fact that people view pederasty both old and new to be a form of pedophilia and a form of child abuse, and something that involves child pornography. There should be no problem at all with presenting these more or less self-evident facts. Please stop causing trouble on this article and discussion page, and stop attacking other editors. The material will inevitably be presented into the article as it is correct and properly sourced. Phdarts (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are gaming the system by taking advantage of the multiple uses/meanings of the word "pederasty", and you continue to parrot the same arguments over and over again, in complete disregard of Wikipedia methods of discussion and resolution of disagreements. Your response is all form and no substance, and your attack on legitimate homosexual expression is merely clever homophobia. Haiduc (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. You are the one kneejerk restoring your point of view into the article without considered discussion [34]. Please address the issues. Your past reasoning has been found wanting by multiple editors. You have claimed on multiple occasions that your view of pederasty is well understood, and other views of pederasty are misunderstood. However, the sources completely disagree with your claims. Addressing other editors as homophobes will simply get you in trouble and annoy those editors. If you continue your tirade of attacks, I, and other editors may be deterred from working here. Now please address the issues and deal with the questions that have been presented. Phdarts (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been told by several editors that you are off base, something that I am sure you understand full well, appearances notwithstanding. Further infliction of your personal feelings upon the article and further taking advantage of other editors with interminable repetitions of vacuous arguments will be met in like manner. Haiduc (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, again you have evaded the issues. Please deal with the questions put to you, and discuss the sourced material. You have as yet failed to deal with the fact that the sources you have persistently deleted deal with pederasty as it is understood in the classical sense. And you have not explained your repeat claims of misunderstanding. Please deal with the issues without the constant accusations. Phdarts (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC) AnotherSolipsist is also deleting material out of hand without sufficient discussion [35]. The material has been placed above to enable discussion. If any part of it is contested, then specify which part, and give clear explanations without referring to other editors as homophobic, on political agendas, or similar dismissal of good faith. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

restoring related sections and attributing extreme minority views

The child pornography section was deleted entirely because the editor claimed the term was being misused (OR) and that it didn't discuss the article's subject (untrue).

"While sexually expressed relationships between men and boys can be lawful within certain legal boundaries in many jurisdictions" was changed to "While sexually expressed relationships between men and boys are generally lawful, they are subject to regulation just as other types of sexual relationships."

This is an extreme minority opinion and OR.

This was deleted as "nonsense" and "conflation." "In modern culture, when an adult engages in sexual relations with a minor it is defined under the law as child sexual abuse." This appears to be the majority opinion.

This was deleted as "conflation" and "un-skewing." "This resolution was in effect for nineteen years, and was superseded by another which did not broach in any way the topic of pederasty. - National Organization for Women; "DELINEATION OF LESBIAN RIGHTS ISSUES 1980" It appears to be pertinent to the topic of the page.

I have attributed this extreme minority opinion : "DeVries states that many vases, however, show the boys responding warmly to the man's advances, placing their hands around the man's neck or on his arm, a gesture thought to indicate affection and reciprocity." ResearchEditor (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the quick revert, I did not realize you were commenting on it here. Nevertheless it was deserved and I will work to see that it stands.

Child pornography belongs here as much as pornography belongs in the Heterosexuality article.

Sexual relations with minors are legal pretty much everywhere. That is a self-evident truth, not "extreme minority opinion and OR". You obviously are not familiar with the AoC laws.

It is not "majority opinion" that determines the law. Please leave wishful thinking out of here.

The NOW material was already there and you have duplicated it.

Your "extreme minority opinion" is common among those familiar with the subject, something that I do not blame you for not knowing. But you might want to read up on pederasty before editing here, so as not to embarrass yourself further. Haiduc (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Child pornography belongs here as much as pornography belongs in the Heterosexuality article." - Incorrect analogy. Child pornography includes by definition pornography of young teenagers who are minors - that's why it needs mentioning in this article, not because pederasty is homosexual. The homosexual aspect is a straw man and has nothing to do with the fact that pederastic pornography is child pornography.

"Sexual relations with minors are legal pretty much everywhere. That is a self-evident truth, not 'extreme minority opinion and OR'. " ... That's exactly the opposite of reality. Sexual relations involving an adult and a minor younger than the age of consent are by definition illegal, since that's what "age of consent" means. If the boy in a pederastic sexual activities is a young teen or pre-teen, that's called child sexual abuse. (Again, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, the same would apply if it were a hetrosexual interaction.) That's the majority, mainstream view. The idea that pederasty is accepted by the mainstream of society anywhere in the world today is a fringe theory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Any claim that one can uncover the reality of pederastic relationships in antiquity by looking at the pictures on the vases is utterly laughable. They aren't photographs. They cannot be used to show that the youths were traumatised or, for that matter, that they were in love. They are conventional images. There is substantial literature on Greek vases written by qualified classicists, which should be used for descriptions. The statement that vases "show the boys responding warmly to the man's advances" is not "extreme minority opinion", it's a description of what they depict, not an opinion at all. It tells us nothing about reality. Please use appropriately qualified historians and art historians for meaningful opinion on vases. On the issue of "minors" it is the case in many legislations that the age of sexual consent is younger than that of full adulthood. There is no single "age of majority", but rather a series of stages. Paul B (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"The idea that pederasty is accepted by the mainstream of society anywhere in the world today is a fringe theory." This is nonsense. See Age disparity in sexual relationships. Sexual relationhips between young persons and older persons are entirely acceptable by "the mainstream of society". How many middle-aged rockstars cavort with teeenage groupies? Have you never heard of the concept of a "toy boy"? Paul B (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that age-divergent relationships are accepted by mainstream society when the disparity is not extreme, and the younger partner is not a minor. The older the age of the younger partner, the greater the divergence in ages can become and remain within the mainstream-accepted-range. When the younger partner is very young, approaching the age of consent, substantially less divergence is generally accepted. When the younger partner is younger than the age of consent, sexual relations are illegal, indicating complete rejection by society (if it were accepted, it would not be outlawed).

Middle-age rock stars who cavort with girls younger than the local age of consent are breaking the law; clearly not endorsed by mainstream society. If the rock star's cavorting-girl-partner is not a minor, the activity is legal, but for a rock star who is middle-aged with a girl under twenty, he would receive sneers from most of society other than perhaps his fans, whatever it says in Age disparity in sexual relationships. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Middle-age rock stars who cavort with girls younger than the local age of consent are breaking the law".Exactly. And the same rule applies to homosexual relationships. That's the whole point. Your statement that if a "rock star who is middle-aged with a girl under twenty, he would receive sneers from most of society" is of course uncited personal POV, the truth of which I rather doubt. It's just as likely that he would be regarded with jealousy by other men. Throughout history men of all ages have been attracted to young "nubile" women. It is considered normal precisely because it is normal. You don't need Darwin to explain why. Pathologising the same process in homosexual men is simply away of implying that while such lustful urges in heterosexuals are normal, in homosexuals they are perverted and deviant. It's backdoor homophobia. Paul B (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul, if you can find a representative source that states heterosexuality is associated with pornography, then add it to the appropriate article. As it is there is a reliable source that reasonably connects child porn with pederasty. The core notion is relating to illegal behavior and explains why there are pederasty statutes in law that relate directly to ancient Greek definitions of pederasty. You have said nothing that would dismiss the information in question from this article. Phdarts (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[undent] "if you can find a representative source that states heterosexuality is associated with pornography, then add it to the appropriate article". I'm afraid that that question reveals the homophobic bias that you consciously or unconsciously entertain. There are no end of sources stating that the overwhelming majority of pornography is heterosexually oriented. That is not difficult to prove. It would however be inappropriate to add it to the article on heterosexuality, just as much as it would be to add the fact that there is lesbian porn and male gay porn to those articles. Porn exists for all forms of sexuality. It is not relevant to the topic of an article on any sexuality to point out that porn for that orientation exists. To add a large section on the fact to the heterosexuality article would be to push a POV that heterosexuality is morally offensive in some way. That's why it would be wrong and misleading, just as it would be wrong to add all through the article on marriage that married couples throughout history may have been traumatised or revolted by sex with eachother. No doubt many have been. Most marriages throughout history have been arranged, and many couples have no doubt had abusive or unpleasant sex lives. To keep repeating that throughout the article would be rightly interpreted as pushing an anti-marriage POV. Paul B (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Phdarts is correct regarding the inclusion of the source and text based upon it in the article.

This means what, exactly? This is pure assertion, and it is not even clear what source you mean. Paul B (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Paul, you are welcome to disagree with my statements, but your use of the term "backdoor homophobia" is unwarranted and just plain wrong. It's also kind of funny considering one of the meanings for the term "pederasty", though I assume you didn't intend it as a pun. By the way, you don't know if I'm straight or gay or male or female.

The homosexual nature of pederasty is not what makes it abusive. The practice of older adults in sexual relations with young barely post-pubescent teens - male or female - is not an idealized or romanticized educational "sexual apprenticeship" within a cultural context. It's illegal and contrary to cultural norms. A heterosexual example is the scandal of Neil Goldschmidt, mayor of Portland who's career was ruined because he "cavorted" with a 14 year-old girl. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not wrong (I was aware of the potential pun, but I hoped no one would be so tasteless as to note it). "By the way, you don't know if I'm straight or gay or male or female." No, and neither do you. That's irrelevant. The point is that it is de facto homophobic, whether that is unconscious or not, for the simple reason that when pederasty is used as a label for abusive relationships a concept is created that is almost only ever applied to homosexuals. There is no special word for men who are attacted to young women. That is normal male sexuality. Why do you keep repeating the point over and over that sex with people below the age of consent is illegal? No-one needs to be told what everybody knows. Everybody, including child abuse professionals, also knows that there is a difference between paedophiles who are attacted to children and adults who are attacted to post-pubescent young persons. Paedophile sexuality is also not clearly definable in terms of adult homo/hetero orientations, as several studies have shown, indicating fluidity between attraction to boys and girls among paedophiles. The actual age of concent is a partially arbitary limit that differs between countries and cultures and has changed over time (both upwards and downwards). There is no special term for men who are attracted to young women, or women who are attacted to young men. The concept of 'sexual apprenticeship' of young men with older women is so commonplace that it is a staple of autobiographical literature, and the spectacle of famous older men with young women is in every tabloid. The central point - and this needs to be emphasised - is that there should be no difference in the way homosexual relationships are understood. That means that using the concept of "pederast" in the way you wish to do creates such a distinction. It pathologises normal homosexual attaction to youth in the way that normal heterosexual attaction to youth is not pathologised. I'm surprised that you have so much difficulty understanding this, and have to repeat the obvious fact that sex with underage persons is illegal and unacceptable. Is anyone arguing with you about that? I don't think so. It's a straw man. Paul B (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is the literature discusses child pornography that is something that is used by those who are sexually attracted to adolescents and children (boys in this case). They are talking about pederasty and pederasts per se. If a reliable source states that pederasty is associated with child pornography or that child pornography is involved in pederasty, then it can be added to the article. The main point of this involves the view that pederastic behavior can still be illegal even though it does not involve direct contact with children as it can be done via child pornography. It is also related to child abuse, as child pornography is considered abusive. This is why pederasty is included in so many texts on child abuse. And again, no it is not a misunderstanding of the term as has been claimed by Haiduc and others. The term is explained in the text and it is not about anal sex between men, or child abuse per se. It is pederasty and relevant views relating to pederasty. The material helps the reader understand what happens in pederastic groups, with individual pederasts, in law situations when pederasts are prosecuted, and the sort of things that people in general (majority views) are concerned about when they look for non-abusive tutors for their children etc. And it involves negative view points. This is an encyclopedia and should include negative modern majority views, together with the sympathetic views of some academics. Phdarts (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you mentioned in your edit summary[36]:

“RV inapropriate association of male homosexuality with child abuse and pornography, as well as odd notion that populist thinking is the measure of truth”.

Nobody is saying populist thinking is the truth. Please stop making such ridiculous accusations, and stop implying there is a homophobic conspiracy to any of this. There is a perfectly reasonable association between pederasty and child pornography and it is not populist. There is a research based and academic view that pederasts seek and use child pornography, and that child pornographers market child pornography to pederasts.Phdarts (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion would go more smoothly if you first learned what "paederast" actually means, Phdarts. The removed comments are offhand, not "research-based," and were made in comment on subjects only tangentially related to paederasty. (Crosson-Tower is a discussion of child pornography; paederasty isn't considered beyond the name-drop.) It's linguistic carelessness. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolipsist, this is a million miles away from name dropping. Crosson-Tower writes a section entitled:

"Pederasty" and states "Chapter 1 briefly discussed the practice of pederasty among early Greeks. But this practice is not confined to ancient times; pederasty thrives in our culture today"

• She then quotes Rossman: "Rossman (1976) describes pederasts as males over age 18 who are sexually attracted to and involved with young boys who are between ages 12 and 16.

• She goes into detail on views about pederasty, whether it is considered to be abusive, even for relations with 18 year olds, and why or why not.

• She then clearly states that the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pederasts. There is no namedropping whatsoever, and she is being linguistically correct.

The problem with some editors excuses for removing negative views on pederasty is that they treat negative views on pederasty as erroneous per se. If there is a view that pederasty is a form of pedophilia then it can be included, and if there is a view that pederasty is a form of abuse, then it can be included. These are all highly relevant views about men having erotic relations with boys. All relevant views will be included and NPOV will be satisfied despite resistance from those who persistently remove critical views and claim that homosexual editors are homophobes. A lot of the criticism of pederasty comes from the majority of homosexual groups and the majority of heterosexuals, so please lets keep the fringe in proper perspective. Phdarts (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the majority opinion (required by wikipedia), pertinent data and needed attribution to the page. If one can show that CSA and pederasty are 1) legal and 2) accepted by society, then please do so. Otherwise, they are extreme minority views and need to be attributed or deleted (as per undue weight), depending on the section and source. The section on NOW is also pertinent to the topic and should never have been deleted. Remember, "verifiability, not truth" is the guideline. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Defs of pederasty :

Erotic love, sexually expressed or chaste, between a man and an adolescent boy.

(archaic) Anal intercourse in general, usually between a man and an adolescent boy. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent concerted effort by CSA-minded editors

It appears that the group of editors who have recently launched their concerted effort to recast the discourse on pederasty in child-abuse terms are basing their thrust on the work by Crosson-Tower. It may well be that C-T has her own opinions on pederasty, and if it is indeed so there is no question that they need to be integrated into some aspect or other of the discussion. But it is grossly improper and POV to use the theories of one child abuse advocate as a filter for an entire article on love relations between men and boys across history. Her work fits into the context of modern views and practices. To that end I have restored the appropriate article on that topic (Pederasty in the modern world, article recently gutted for spurious reasons by this same team of CSA-minded editors) and I would encourage these editors to place the discussion of C-T's work under an appropriate subheading in that article. A couple of words about her work may well be warranted here also, under "Modern constructs".
On a separate note, I would like to draw attention to user Jack-a-Roe's abuse of this page to mischaracterize my comments. In response to the odd claim that relations between adults and minors are "illegal everywhere," I specifically indicated that sexual relations between adults and youths above the age of consent were legal almost everywhere in the world. This user proceeds to denounce my statement as a "fringe theory" by claiming that "Sexual relations involving an adult and a minor younger than the age of consent are by definition illegal." It may be that this user genuinely misread my comments, or there may be some other explanation. In either case I hope that this clarification sets him straight, and I would hope that henceforth such tactics will not be repeated. Haiduc (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I already pointed that out yesterday ("On the issue of "minors" it is the case in many legislations that the age of sexual consent is younger than that of full adulthood. There is no single "age of majority", but rather a series of stages"), but Jack keeps giving examples of underage sex. I really think there is a kind of unconscious doublethink here which makes it difficult to see the point that is being made. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, calling some editors CSA minded is completely inappropriate, as is inferring that there is a concerted conspiracy. Please stop your persistent incivility.

There is a significant view that pederasty is abusive in more than one way. That will be helpful for the reader to understand the nature of pederasty. As such it requires proper representation in this article. We are discussing this and you should not go round making your own decisions on where to stow the material, especially since the material presented here in discussion has contradicted all of your claims. You have failed to prove that those with a view about pederasty as abusive is erroneous or an erroneous conceptualization of pederasty. What you have done is shown that you ignore facts given in discussion, you dismiss the fact that your claims are wrong, and you walk your own fringe POV (that pederasty is perfectly legitimate) all over this article regardless. The so-called CSA minded editors are not removing sourced views that pederasty is possibly harmless, or that it is considered by some to have been acceptable. Basically, you are insisting on a POV fork. This is clearly a subject that can stand more information to be presented. Discussion can continue until more of such sourced views are presented and verified. After verification, you are not to work them into another POV fork. We are discussing material relevant to pederasty. All relevant views will be presented. Phdarts (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If the majority view is that pederastic relationships would be always abusive, then why are there AgeofConsent-laws in Europe that allow 14, 15 and 16 years olds to have a sexual relationship with an adult man? Fulcher (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the issues Fulcher. I don't think the sources state that pederasty is always abusive. They discuss the issue. Crosson Tower explains one particular view that some believe pederasty to be abusive even to 18 year olds as asking them for consent is always abusive. This is consistent with some homosexual group's recommendation to raise the age of consent across the board so that homosexuality is not lumped in with pederasty. Of course a lot of heterosexuals would most likely agree with the idea. Phdarts (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You said: "This is consistent with some homosexual group's recommendation to raise the age of consent across the board so that homosexuality is not lumped in with pederasty." Please name these homosexual groups. Fulcher (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fulcher. The material is from Percy who states that the modern homophile movement sought to distance themselves from pederasts from the beginning. He names the Youth Committee of the North American Conference of Homophile Organizations as an example. He states the pederast element had to create their own groups instead, starting with Gemeinschaft der Eigenen. Of course now they include NAMBLA. Phdarts (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

From the outside looking in at this dispute, Phdarts, it certainly would appear that you and a couple of other fairly new editors are editing this article with a political bias, and an agenda which attempts to place a modern context on the historical view of pederasty. Your edits are not improving the article one iota, and you seem to think Politically Correct (which is relative and changes with the season) is the most important criteria for a Wikipedia article, instead of scholarship. I urge you to actually learn a bit about the subjects you edit, rather than play tag team editing with a few other new editors to push a particular agenda. Just a suggestion. Jeffpw (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw, considering your uncivil comment on another user's talk page and your recent and historical edits to this article, you don't qualify as an uninvolved editor with an outside viewpoint. Phdarts is doing good work to help this article get closer to a state of accuracy and balance. Your comment about what s/he thinks or what agenda s/he may or may not have is not helpful to the article. Please leave comments about editors out of it and focus on the content of the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Phdarts is not doing good work here. S/he is editing an article where h/she obviously has no expertise, and has only emotions and not intellect to guide him/her. Ditto for you and a few others. And throwing words like incivility around at me will have little effect, I'm afraid. I'm past caring about the sensibilities of Wikipedians, the vast majority of whom are lemmings with little knowledge of the subjects they actually edit. My comments stand: this article is being attacked by some hysterics who seem determined to present the subject to the public here through modern, sexually repressive (and, one presumes right wing) eyes. Jeffpw (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not expect in the least that noting your uncivil comment would have any effect on your behavior. You've made your feelings quite clear. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw, perhaps you could address the issues. I have placed specific material on this discussion page so that unhelpful edit wars do not cause trouble, and so that the information can be discussed properly. Phdarts (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

unexplained re-adding of unsourced content #1

This edit by User:Jeffpw restored a sentence that has no reference:

The history and scope of pederasty has been the subject of extensive censorship. In the West, the topic was suppressed in academic circles for much of modern history.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}

According to WP:Verifiability:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

The statement needs a reference or it should be removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the only related view I could find by Bloch: "For most of the past two thousand years no one would discuss Greek pederasty directly, and the innumerable references in ancient literature to erotic relationships between men and boys were ignored or suppressed.". Of course though, Bloch may well be talking about society's need to avoid the troublesome subject, due to its percieved sordid nature, and perhaps due to the influence of religious thought on society. I couldn't find anything about censorship though. Phdarts (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

unexplained re-adding of unsourced content #2

This edit by User:Haiduc restored a paragraph that has no references, without justification:

Pederastic eros in the West, while remaining mostly hidden, has nevertheless revealed itself in a variety of settings. Legal records are one of the more important windows into this secret world, since for much of the time pederastic relations, like other forms of homosexual relations, were illegal. The expression of desire through literature and art, albeit in coded fashion, can also afford a view of the pederastic interests of the author.

Per WP:Verifiability, that content needs references or it should be removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is well that you have ample free time to impose your opinions here. The rest of us do not. You are attempting to remove commonsensical information that anyone with an iota of understanding of pederasty would recognize as blatantly self-evident. As usual you are gaming the system and posing as the oh-so-proper editor maligned and unfairly treated by the unreasonable and opinionated editors dominating the article. But yours is a pyrrhic tactic in which you try to force other editors ad nauseam to justify every period and comma in the article. It is abusive, and a form of vandalism. It is not anybody's obligation to educate you, and you are not allowed to mutilate Wikipedia simply because you are unfamiliar with the topic you are editing. Haiduc (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. Please address the issues, provide proper sourcing, and stop your persistent incivility. Phdarts (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It says clearly on the to-do list above that one of the things to do is to remove POV and Bias in the article as it stood as of September 2006. At that time it was largely created by the person named Haiduc. So in conclusion the to-do list meant remove POV and Bias by Haiduc. The editor who pointd this out commented "It reads like a propaganda travel brochure written by the town fathers"

Also some guy with lots of knowledge of the subject wrote a huge section that disproved some of the claims on the page and Haiduc got rid of it entirely and just took the parts he liked.

Here is the original.

Sexual Crimes in ANCIENT GREECE α. Child Abuse & Sex Offenses

<<Εαν τις υβριζη εις τινα η παιδα η γυναικα η ανδρα των ελευθερων η των δουλων η παρανομον τι πιοηση εις τουτων τινα γραφεσθω προς τους θεσμοθετας ο βουλομενος Αθηναιων οις εξεστιν οι δε θεσμοθεται εισαγοντων εις την ηλιαιαν τριακοντα ημερων αφ ης γραφη. Οτου δ αν καταγνω η Ηλιαια τιματω αυτου παραχρημα οτου αν δοκη αξιος ειναι παθειν η αποτεισαι>>.

(Νομος υβρεως,Δημοσθ.Κατα Μειδιου 47)

Meaning <<Whoever abuses any child or woman be they free or slaves or breaks the law regarding to them should be accused of commiting a public offense from any Athenian that wants and has the right (to sue) before the lawmakers and they must to the latest in a month to bring him to trial to be judjed and suffer the consequenses of the law >>.

β.Pimping To those condemned for pimping freeman or slave ,child or woman the penalty of death is given.

-<<Και τους προαγωγους γραφεσθαι κελευει (the law) καν αλωσι θανατω ζημιουσι>>. Αισχιν. Κατα Τιμαρχου -<<Υμεις Μενωνα μεν τον μυλωθρον απεκτεινατε (=execute) διοτι παιδ ελευθερον εκ Πελληνης εσχεν (=abused,raped) εν τω μυλωνι... Ευθυμαχον δε διοτι την ολυνθιαν παιδισκην εστησεν επ οικηματος (=put up in a brothel)>>. Δειναρχος ,κατα Δημοσθενους ,23

WHORING & *ΚΙΝΑΙΔΙΣΜΟΣ(=homosexuality) <<Αν τις Αθηναιων εταιρηση μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα αρχοντων γενεσθαι μηδ ιεροσυνην ιερωσασθαι μηδε συνδικησαι τω δημω μην αρχην αρχετω ουδεμιαν μητε ενδημω μητε υπεροριον μητε κληρωτην μητε χειροτονητην μηδ επικηρυκειαν αποσταλλεσθω μηδε γνωμην λεγετω μηδ εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω μηδ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανηφοριαις στεφανουσθω μηδ εντος των της αγορας περιρραντηριων πορευεσθω . Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη καταγνωσθεντος αυτου εταιρειν θανατω ζημιουσθω>>. (Αισχινης Κατα Τιμαρχου 52 , 1)

Meaning <<Whoever Athenian gives his body to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden to be elected as one of the nine lords and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office or any other position internal or external by voting or chance and never to be sent as messenger never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market. Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered to the eleven to be slain before the day has passed <<τεθνατω αυθημερον>> . Ο Δημοσθενης reports the <<περι της εταιρησεως νομον >> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 21), [εταιρειν= το τους ανδρας πασχειν τα των εταιρων εταιρει μεν ουν και πορνευεται ο πασχητιων] ενω στον ιδιο λογο του (παρ. 30) μνημονευει τον σχετικο νομο του Σολωνος συμφωνα με τον οποιο ο δραστης εστερειτο το σημαντικοτερο για τον Αθηναιο πολιτη δικαιωμα το δικαιωμα του λογου ενωπιον της βουλης και της εκλησσιας αλλα και αυτο της υποβολης <<γραφων>> και <<εισαγγελιων>> δηλαδη δημοσιων μυνησεων. <<μητε λεγειν μητε γραφειν εξειναι τοις ηταιρηκοσιν>> And Λυσιας (Κατ Αλκιβιαδου Α) gives us safe information about the cruel treatment of homosexuals (κιναιδων) in Ancient Athens not only by legislation but by its "liberal" society that mocked and stigmatized this practice . Ο Αριστοφανης δε αθυροστομος τους παραδιδει σε δεινη χλευη παρουσιαζοντας τους με θηλυπρεπεις ενδυμασιες ακκιζομενους (=κουναμενους) ως εταιρες κ.λ.π. και αποκαλωντας τους με ασεμνες ονομασιες π.χ. <<Χαονες>> προκαλωντας ατελειωτους γελωτες στο κοινο.

Στους εταιριζομενους <<τους ομοτεχνους πορναις>> (Δημ.Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 58), συνεχιζει ο Δημοσθενης << οι νομοι ουκ εωσι ουδε τα εννομα τους αισχρως βεβιωκοτας νομον θειναι>> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 24), meaning <<the law forbids them to propose laws>>.

Homosexuality α. Of the Athenian State <<Ει τις πεπορνευομενος η εταιρηκως εστι εξειργεσθω ειναι των ρητορων>> (Αισχινης κατα Τιμαρχ. 5,2). ( It is forbidden to whoever has given himself as prostitute or a girl or boy to be a council of the state ). Despite things told and written even in certain universities that homosexuality & pedophilia were not only sanctioned but a normal practice is PROVEN FALSE BY THE ATTIC LAWS . What impresses especially is the cruelty of the penalties to the offenders from total loss of civil rights and death (μη εξεστω αυτω λεγειν και γραφειν = απαγορευεται σε αυτον να λαβαινη το λογο στις λαικες συνελευσεις και να υποβαλλη δημοσιες καταγγελιες) the same day the verdict was pronounced by the Ηλιαστικο δικαστηριο . Sex crimes were of the heinest type and belonged to the category of public offenses . This derives from the fact that every citizen had the right ( a moral and political obligation in Ancient Greece) to bring against them <<γραφην εταιρησεως >> according to the special <<περι φθορας νομον>> meaning a public suit because the above offenses were public as they attackes against the state itself ( All of Athens). Beyond the harsh treatment against sex offenders the public opinion was especially hard against them . Homosexuals were called χλευαστικως <<κιναιδους>> meaning those that move shame & aversion <<κινουν την αιδω>> and bring about the punishment of NEMESIS. They were also called ανδρογυναια,γυνανδρους,ημιανδρους,πορνους,ομοτεχνους εταιραις ο δε Αριστοφανης οπως προαναφερθηκε που ηταν ιδιαιτερα καυστικος εξαπελυε εναντιον τους προκαλωντας εκρηξεις γελωτος και χλευασμων του λαου στα θεατρα επικλησεις ως χαονες και αρσενικες πορνες . Ειναι πραγματι εντυπωσιακη αυτη η σταση της Αθηναικης πολιτειας και κοινωνιας απεναντι των ατομων αυτων που εφτανε μεχρι και τον κοινωνικο αποκλεισμο τους θα ελεγε κανεις οτι η ποινη τους ηταν η οιονει capitis deminutio του ρωμαικου δικαιου δηλαδη νομικος αποκεφαλισμος μη αποκλειομενης και της παραπομπης τους στον δημιο οπως ρητωςπροβλεπονταν απο την σχετικη διαταξη. The only logical explanation for this harsh treatment from the most free and liberal state of ancient greece is the regard of such actions as ABOMINATION ΜΙΑΣΜΑ as a disgusting act that made them οιονει εναγεις , that <<εμιαινον>> polluted the city thus and divine wrath would fall on everyone . This is also proven from the fact that they had the same treatment as murderers . To remain out of any public event or sacred place and lose all civil rights. . Χαρακτηριστικη και διαφωτιστικη ειναι η πληροφορια που μας δινει ο Δημοσθενης (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος) και αφορα βεβαιως τους <<ανδροφονους>> στους οποιους απαγορευονταν και η εισοδος <<εντος των περριραντηριων της αγορας>> δηλαδη του <<καθαγιασμενου δια ιερων ραντισματων χωρου της αγορας>> ως μη εχοντων <<καθαρας τας χειρας>>. Εξ αυτου σφοδρως μπορει να πιθανολογηθη οτι επιβαλλονταν η αυτη απαγορευση και στους εταιριζομενους ως μη εχοντας <<καθαρον>> το σωμα τους.

β. The Spartan Laws Against child Abuse Against the commonplace mythicaly regarded as commonplace like <<δωρικους ερωτες>> an excellent source of Spartan Legislation and life , the honest Ξενοφων ο Αθηναιος in his work <<Λακεδαιμονιων πολιτεια>> ΙΙ,13 reports the law attributed to Lycurgus according to which child abuse is condemned as an ABOMINATION = <<Εις τις παιδος σωματος ορεγομενος φανειη αισχιστον τουτο θεις εποιησεν (ο Λυκουργος) εν Λακεδαιμονι μηδεν ηττον εραστας παιδικων απεχθεσαι>>. [The lawmaker Λυκουργος charakterized as most horrid if someone desired the body of a child and set that lovers should abstain from this (lovers of the same sex in ancient greece are Spiritual Brethren not sexual partners, remember this & please learn Ancient Greek dont read "translations" in other languages Ancient Greek cannot be translated)] . Ο Πλουταρχος also (Λακεδ. επιτηδ. 7,237 c) informs us that whoever tried to abuse someone was striped of his civil rights for life = <<Εραν των την ψυχην σπουδαιων παιδων εφειτο το δε πλησιαζειν αισχρον νενομιστο ως του σωματος ερωντας αλλ ου της ψυχης ο δε εγκληθεις ως επ αισχυνη πλησιαζων ατιμος δια βιου ην>>. Meaning = The (Λυκουργειος) law allowed admiration towards the mental gifts of the youths but any physical desire was an abomination that declared carnal and not spiritual love . Whoever by law was condemned thus was dishonoured (striped of his civil rights) for life .

γ. Of Magna Grecia (Lower Italy) Even in Magna Grecia where customs and morals where supposedly more lax CHILD ABUSE WAS PUNISHED WITH THE MAXIMUM PENALTY MEANING DEATH THAT TOOK THE FORM OF THE HANGING OF THE OFFENDER. Particularly ο Μαξιμος ο Τυριος (20,9α) informs us=

<<Εν Λοκροις τοις Ιταλιωταις εφηβος ην καλος και νομος καλος και ερασται πονηροι εραν μεν ηναγκαζοντο υπο του καλλους ειργοντο ομως υπο του νομου κακως εραν οιστρουμενοι δε υπο του παθους προς την υβριν τον μεν εφηβον ουκ επεισαν ηξαν δε οι δυστυχεις επι βροχον παντες>>. [To those greeks that reside in Italy Λοκρους (η Επιζεφυριους) there were a handsome youth and cunning lovers but also a proper law . And the lovers where possesed by strong desire because of his physical beauty but were stopped by the law to manifest the carnal part of love but in the end by their strong passion to abuse him tried to lure him but were lead all of them to the gallows.]

And while in Greek Legislation the maximum penalty is given for the heinous crime of child abuse in the Roman it is absent as a crime (Α' βασιλειων ιδ,ιε 12 ,κβ 46, β βασιλειων κγ 7)

   * Κιναδος δηλ. ο κινων την αιδω

Liddel-Scott τομος ΙΙ σελιδα 719 Κιναιδεια,homosexuality= η παρα φυσιν ασελγεια(animal lust,abuse), Αισχινης 18,29 Δημητριος Φαληρευς 97. Κιναιδευομαι= ειμαι κιναιδος Κιναιδος,homosexual= ο καταπυγων(degenerate,One who has annal sex) , ο καθολα αισχρος (all shamefull,dishonourable), κακοηθης ανθρωπος (immoral person) -

Cheers.Burrburr (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for placing this here for discussion Burrburr. Clearly there is a lot of NPOVing to do on this article. Phdarts (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• See also tags; Pedophilia and Child Abuse

Hello again Burrbur. I noticed that you added some "see also" labels to the article that Haiduc removed with the edit summary "rv political campaign"; [37]. We can discuss this matter here also so as to avoid edit wars. Phdarts (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start off. There seems to be a significant view that pederasty is a form of pedophilia (sexual attraction for children, boys in general in this case). Thus pedophilia is a reasonable link.

There is also a significant view that pederasty leads to a significant and reasoned concern about child abuse. Again, this would seem to justify the link. Phdarts (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so. This whole screed is uncited (or rather cited to "some guy"), and is an attempt to prove that homosexuality was illegal in ancient Greece! Paul B (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Child Abuse Related Organizations

There is a dispute over this edit [38]. I guess the issue is whether they alone consider themselves to be child abuse help agencies, or whether there are others who consider them to be child abuse help agencies. Phdarts (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

restoration of majority opinion, data pertinent to topic and needed attribution - 2

I have restored the majority opinion in places were it was and was deleted recently. I have attributed a controversial extreme minority statement as required by wikipolicy. I have restored a section pertaining to this topic from four different sources. I have deleted a POV statement that was OR about child abuse orgs. I have restored cats that are clearly related to the topic. I have deleted the footer for a group that does not endorse pederasty. I have deleted two unsourced statements that need to have references to be replaced. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering space for discussion here. I agree that your edits are sound. Phdarts (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found wikipedia articles on age of consent all over the world and I added the links. If you look you see by far most places hover around 16 to 18 for age of consent which would make pederastic relationships with at least half the adolescent population in most places illegal. Please take a look before deleting my edits yet again. If this doesn't satisfy you people I don't know what will. Burrburr (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Burrburr. I believe that will also show some variability in how pederasty is actually handled in child abuse and law situations. But we do also still have to deal with the issue of "mature men and boy". Even in countries where the age of consent is low, there will still be a general view on men and boy meaning mature man (+21-70 and over) and boy (2 years old up to 19 or so), which will explain why pederasty is still considered abusive, unethical, a type of pedophilia etc by so many people including homosexuals. Phdarts (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is sheer uncited assertion without any founation whatever. Your conflation of pederasty with paedophilia reveals your position to be pure homophobia, since you know full well that sexual acts with a "2 year old" are never considered pederastic, either in a classical or a modern context, and that relationships between older men and young women are so utterly commonplace that they have existed throughout history. The extreme minority opinion is your opinion, since it persistently distorts and misrepresents evidence. Paul B (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Paul but again the literature contradicts you. Remember again that pederasty is generally considered to be erotic relations between men and boys, whereas pedophilia is considered adults and children of any gender. Age definitely varies according to juristiction. Once more we see you an editor who wants critical views removed accusing another editor of homophobia when simple facts about pederasty and pedophilia are being presented. Anyone can check the facts. Feel free to do so. It is not my problem that old men and young women have sexual relations. It is only my duty as an editor to balance articles properly according to majority and minority viewpoints. The main point I was making, before you accused me, an admitted homosexual, of homophobia, is that the age of consent varies according to juristiction. However, there are many other factors involved here, including the general concern over the abuse of boys (whatever age one considers boys to be). Please focus on the issues, and stop the persistent incivillity. Phdarts (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I accuse you of homophobia because the evidence is clear that your position necessarily implies it, whatever you may consciously believe. It implies it because you are creating and sustaining a double standard. It is not your 'problem' that older men and young women have sexual relatuions precisely because it is not nor has it ever been any sort of problem as such, but rather the norm. To say that someone's position is homophobic is not incivility. It is an argument about the nature of the position. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a view in the literature that pederasty is an erotic attraction to boys both adolescent and young. Paul Barlow, you are personally attacking me. I am referring to properly sourced literature on specific viewpoints that pederasty is considered to be abusive. Once again, please stop the persistent ad nausium incivility. Phdarts (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the persistent ad nauseum repetition. I have explained why there is no incivility in what I said, sibnce I was decribing your position and your editing methods. If you look on google scholar you will see that the great majority of literature on pederasty is historical and anthropological. That is the majority position and it is typically non-judgemental, or at least complex and nuanced. Your version gives total prominence to a non-mainstream article by Bloch in a non-classicist publication, an article that is nothing more than pure speculation. The views of actual specialists are ignored or subordinated to this minority and marginal publication. That's givng undue weight. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, there is judgment throughout the literature you refer to. There are views on what pederasty is, both old and new. The only difference between Crosson Tower and other sources is that the ones you are objecting to are critical and consider pederasty to be abusive. Many editors here are aware that there is a POV fork that needs to be fixed, and there seems to me to be considerable, uncivil and desperate resistance to that POV fork being fixed. There is a lot more information to be presented here that is also highly relevant and clarifies the nature of pederasty and the views of significant sources on pederasty. There has also been a lot of literature presented on this discussion page that has largely been ignored by editors wishing it to be kept out of the article. If it is to be ignored, then I guess there was nothing to object to in the first place and it can be restored. Unless you would like to actually stop accusing other editors of bad faith and start addressing the sources? Are you not interested in discussing sources? Phdarts (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[undent] I just did, or are you not interested in reading? Paul B (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also many sources on pederasty that consider it to be abusive, a type of pedophilia, unethical, unlawful and so on. Some of them are presented on this discussion page for the purposes of discussion. Do you want to continue to ignore them? Phdarts (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are also many sources on pederasty that consider it to be abusive". No. There are not. The error is the use of "it", as though there is a single phenomenon, not a wide range of phenomena in different cultural contexts and a series of distinct usages of a term. That has already been pointed out to you. There are indeed several sources on this page which point to the fact that the word is used in different contexts by various authors. There are also several sources which have nothing to do with pederasty and others which are attributed to "some guy" (our Greek contributor, whose opinions derived from "some guy" you treated as NPOV). Paul B (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was NPOV. I simply encouraged the use of constructive discussion here together with the presentation of sources. If you have a source that disagrees with the sources of Bloch, Crosson Tower and others, feel free to present them. Otherwise your objections to critical views of pederasty are simply unfounded objections. Phdarts (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychological viewpoint

Bloch gives many more interesting views than have been presented. For example:

"Greek pederasty was not as fully accepted in Greek society as modern commentators have supposed, but in many cases brought risks for the boys of intense shame as well as physical damage."

And: "The Greeks seem to have regarded sex as an activity one does by oneself, even though the other person is there to be acted upon. This self-centered notion of male sexuality was especially evident in pederastic relationships. The man fulfilled his desire while the boy was presumed to be feeling nothing at all, certainly not erotic arousal. Indeed, a boy who too obviously enjoyed such passive sex would have seemed perverted.(6)"

"The very fact that Greek men thought the boy did not feel anything erotic is an indication of how traumatized these young boys actually must have been. "

Bloch then goes on to give a scortching attack on scholars of ancient Greek history who seem oblivious to the attacks, shaming, physical harm that slaves and socially inferior boys had to endure. This is a highly relevant view that is directly associated with Greek and so-called academic literature. I suggest that this view be properly explained in relation to the other child abuse related literature on pederasty. Phdarts (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloch is writing for a journal of Men's Studies published by the "Men's Studies Press", a private publisher set up purely for the purpose of publishing material supportive of its position. It appears to have little academic credibility, certainly not in classical studies. The arguments used by Bloch have no value at all in comparison to those of real scholars of ancient Greek history, who should be used as the mainstream source, not a non academic publisher of no status whatever. It's frankly typcal of the worst kind of American "scholarship" that simply projects modern assumptions onto the past with little grasp of cultural context or art historical methods for understanding and interpreting images. As a masterly non sequitur the last sentence you quote stands out - creating supposed trauma on the basis of non-evidence. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Enid Bloch is Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York Buffalo [39]. She deals with ancient Greek issues is profound todepth [40]. The journal of men's studies is an independent scholarly journal, and the publisher is also independent and renowned experts seem to fill its journals with reliable facts and knowledge [41]. Bloch seems to be eminently quotable and academically highly credible. Obviously a reputable source. Phdarts (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know full well what her position is, though whether she deals in "profound depth" or not is a separate question. The point is that the publication is not a very good quality one and the article is speculative. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be rigorously researched and extensively sourced using other reliably sourced literature. Bloch criticises the very literature that you prefer to keep in the article and she deals directly with the subject of pederasty defined by those sources. As such, your objections seem to ring quite hollow. Phdarts (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever reas any books about Greek sexual norms. Foucault? Dover? Paul B (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloch is welcome here. The fact, however, is that this discussion needs to be carried on not here, but at the Greek pederasty article, where we can accommodate even such innovative views as Bloch's. I say "innovative" since absolutely nothing in the whole corpus of literature supports or even remotely suggests such a view. We have evidence of the boys being standoffish, cruel, jealous, embarrassed, and even horny. Sometimes angry enough to kill, or protecting their honor at the price of life itself, or very angry. But anything BUT paralyzed with fear. That sounds a lot more like the way an American woman might feel, confronted with a Greek erastes. But she said it, and he published it, and it should be aired, where it belongs, and in the proper context. Haiduc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloch is relevant here. This pederasty article is full of imagery, text, views on ancient Greek pederasty that overlap with other views. The main view of Bloch is to criticize most of the so called classical literature and to show that psychological and physical harm is relevant here(psychological and physical relate to modern findings on psychological and medical harm). So Bloch is relevant in the areas of this article that will cover the view that pederasty us abusive in ancient general and modern general and clinical contexts. Its a relevant view the context is right here, it corroborates similar views on pederasty that are also reputable sources, and its a highly reputable source that will help the reader to understand all significant views on pederasty in context. Phdarts (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not the best location for engaging in the debate between the proponents of penetration / domination and the proponents of a more nuanced view ranging from dikaios eros to genuine abuse. It is a subtopic of Greek pederasty and should be explored there in full. However, to the extent that article is summarized here, we could also briefly summarize that debate under the Greek section here as well. Haiduc (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At last! That is, I believe, what editors had in mind. It seems highly irregular that such a simple concept should involve so many accusations of homophobia and political agendas. I trust we will be able to move forward without more of such disruptive behavior. OK, next topic. Perhaps you would like to address the other issues and sources presented above that have thus far been overlooked? Phdarts (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the contrasting and shifting views of Greek pederasty in a reasonable and lucid manner is such a big task in itself that I think we should work on that before we attempt anything else. We can probably identify two parallel streams of thought, beginning in Victorian England, with Symonds and the Uranians on one side (and I include there Pater, Wilde and Hopkins) and conventional Victorian morality on the other, to the last quarter of the 20th c. with Dover and Foucault on one side and Percy and Sergent and Hubbard on the other. Both camps, of course had many adherents and their detractors. It is a very complicated tale that is missing from this article simply because it entails more reading than I have had time (and maybe inclination) to do. In itself it is the substance of a PhD thesis. Haiduc (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So its a bit of a long story is it? I'd be an optimist about all this. I noticed, for example, there are many other articles on Wikipedia are managing their long stories pretty well. And there is also a wealth of clarifying knowledge of pederasty in the child abuse and child pornography related material that will also be part of that long story. I suggest the Wikipedia recommendation to be bold. Then if a source is requested, supply it, and work with all relevant views in good order and we will be manage to make this article similar to other well written articles on Wikipedia. Phdarts (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggested edit:

• Academics such as Bloch hold the view that pederasty is psychologically and physically harmful to the involved boy. "We should not be afraid to call Greek pederasty a form of child abuse. This was not sex between consenting adults, or even between two children discovering their sexuality in their own way and at their own pace, but the deliberate use of a child by an adult for the sexual gratification of the adult."

• I believe that gives a pretty clear idea of Bloch's view. Phdarts (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That view needs to be located in time. It is part of a school of thought that essentializes "penetration" as the principal function of Greek pederasty. Did that view begin with Dover? It needs to be documented. If we mention Bloch, then in the same breath we need to point out that she explains Socrates' ideas and behavior as springing from a history of child molestation, rather than reason or ethical thinking and morality. So:

A separate school of thought that can be traced to the work of Dover and Foucault asserts that pederasty, rather than being essentially a mentoring process energized by the erotic love of the man for the boy and the boy's reciprocating affection, was instead a vehicle for the sexual gratification of men at the expense of the boys, a zero sum game in which the man won and the boy lost. This view reduces the institution of pederasty to a sexual act, and identifies that act as the anal penetration of free boys by their elders. It is a construct which runs counter to the bulk of the evidence from antiquity, which delineates two separate pederastic currents, one an ethical pedagogy which specifically excluded penetration from the range of permitted interactions, and another of a practice condemned by ancient society but nevertheless engaged in by brutal and uneducated men, which consisted in the buggering of free and slave boys for sexual gratification, often if not usually mediated by the exchange of money for sex.

Nevertheless, this construct of pederasty as anal rape has been accepted by a number of academics, such as Halperin, Bloch and others. Bloch holds the view that pederasty is psychologically and physically harmful to the involved boy. "We should not be afraid to call Greek pederasty a form of child abuse. This was not sex between consenting adults, or even between two children discovering their sexuality in their own way and at their own pace, but the deliberate use of a child by an adult for the sexual gratification of the adult." Bloch uses her understanding of Greek pederasty to explain Socrates' ideas and behavior as springing from a history of child molestation, rather than from reason or ethical thinking and morality. "Socrates’ spells of immobility, the little spirit voice inhibiting his actions, even his desire for a death brought on by the ascending paralysis of hemlock poisoning, all seem to me to reflect the trauma and anxieties of his Athenian boyhood, the paralysis of the abused child."<ref.>Socrates & I: Reflections on Childhood and Philosophy by Enid Bloch; March 26th, 2004 [42]</ref.>

Concurrent with the introduction of this purely penetrative model of Greek pederasty, a number of voices rose in opposition ...etc, etc, etc."

This, however, is much too elaborate for this article, so after it has been further developed and posted at "Greek pederasty" an abstract of it needs to be written, which should be placed here in the appropriate section. Haiduc (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Haiduc, your suggestion is too much for this article, and makes unnecessary demands that cannot be satisifed. Bloch's statement as I wrote above is easy to understand in just about any context of the article. I suggest it be placed with similar views that pederasty is abusive. It could have a seperate paragraph though, together with other psychologically oriented views. It could also be used to explain how some academics have tended to dismiss the harmful nature of pederasty in their writings. Phdarts (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as you persist in seeing pederasty as a unitary phenomenon you will be at odds with both historical and modern views. As for generating the abstract before the full discussion that may be possible, but not in the unqualified terms you suggest. Haiduc (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides many dispute resolution options for this sort of discussion problem. If editors can't agree on exact wording, then properly attributed quotes will do. In order to deal with the problems you present, I did some more research and of course found more relevant majority views. I do have some more information to add to Crosson Tower and Bloch. It will allow for a much better explanation of both expert and public majority views on pederasty. It sounds to me as though you would like to have the new material presented here. Or would you like to explore more of the exact quote option? Phdarts (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a dispute here. We were discussing the addition of a paragraph touching on the shifting views of pederasty, especially the late 20th c. sally into "penetration." As long as it is contextualized I see no problem with adding such material, it is actually useful and necessary, but perhaps for different reasons than you seem to suggest. By the way, I removed some of the child abuse material, I think you are flogging that dead horse a bit too much. I did keep a couple of your contributions which seemed to be remotely relevant. I also got rid of the Rind stuff, it belongs at the modern article more than here and it is not worth fighting about. Haiduc (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, it is clear that you are disputing the need to place relevant and core critical views of pederasty in the article. The material you just removed [43] was untouched in the article until I added proper citations to it and clarified it properly with more relevant material. The material is clearly relevant and we have to represent sources properly, including Rind. There was a clear controversy over that matter and as such it requires sources such as Lilienfeld 2002 to explain the material on pederasty. Rind is important in the history of pederasty and it is notable because certain pro-pederasty groups praised it, and the majority were up in arms over the material as it was seen as offensively soft on the damaging and immoral acts of child abuse.

The few editors here who do not want such majority oriented views in the article have been trying to cast doubt on those views and in the process asking for more information and sources on such views. I and others have been researching and providing them and there are clearly a lot out there. Your tendency to POV fork material seems to extend to disruptive editing in addition to your tendency for incivility. I suggest instead of presenting implausible arguments for removing normal views and rationales that are critical of pederasty, you start trying to source some of the more speculative assertions you have in the article. Phdarts (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see "you and others" are still engaged in your interminable polemics and your smear tactics of bandying about NAMBLA in a guilt-by-association campaign. Too bad. To conclude our obviously sterile exchange, I concur with your view that something should be said here (and more at the "Greek pederasty" article) about the "penetration" proponents. That remains a valuable addition to the discussion. The rest of your insinuations are of political value only, and it is very clear what kind of politics you are playing. Haiduc (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK Haiduc, you just made another uncivil accusation and you have shown again your refusal to assume good faith [44]. Editors here are clearly concerned that the critical view is not getting properly presented, and there are clearly many examples of sourceless pro-pederasty POV pushing in the article. I will be flexible as always, but the alternatives are more condemnatory. Keep in mind these are critical views of pederasty. When academics, experts, the public in general, of any major sexual orientation, are asked about erotic relations between men and boys they will generally be coldly critical, look disgusted, or try to laugh off the objectionable subject. That includes most homosexuals who are reasonable in the psychology research-supported dissociation from pederasty. If you want to restrict options, then we end up with straightforward quotes. Like it or not, this article is going to be clarified with all relevant views in proper proportion. Its just a matter of time. If you don't want to edit cooperatively, its your loss. Phdarts (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are the very last person qualified to pass judgment on my civility, in light of the tone and content of your discourse, and your behavior here. As for good faith, it would stand you in good stead to study well the subject, as you seem familiar with the words but not the meaning. That, unfortunately, is the very crux of the matter. You are trying to shove down our throats an authoritarian, moralistic and punitive construct of pederasty, founded on the presumption of pederasty being one thing and one thing only, and that thing a matter of opprobrium and universal contempt. To that end you and your cohorts have from the very beginning engaged in scurrilous tactics designed to taint what has been an attempt to maintain a balanced view of an aspect of human culture which has had various aspects, some admirable, and some shameful.

Your notion that this article needs to reflect your imagined "majority view" is off the wall. First of all we do not know what the majority view is, it is simply an ideation that you have been parroting from day one. Second, even if we did know, it would not matter one iota, since Wikipedia articles are not founded on "majority view" but on scholarship. The sooner you get that, the better for you and for Wikipedia. Haiduc (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Me and my cohorts? Haiduc, assume good faith!

I am here to cooperate with Wikipedians on improving articles. There are clear fringe views on pederasty that contrast sharply with current majority views, academic or otherwise. I have read Wikipedia avidly for years, and have seen what happens on Wikipedia when fringe views are protected and promoted as they have been here and on similar articles. I have seen Wikipedians and Wikipedian administrators deal decisively with articles where fringe views have been promoted above majority academic and general viewpoints. I will offer you some time to re-consider your actions and your failure to assume good faith. In the meantime do your best to make up for your mistakes. Phdarts (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Current academic majority views? Even Bloch makes it quit clear that most academics accept paederasty as non-abusive and often beneficial. Do you have any source for your claim that this is a fringe view? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolipsist. You have left out a rather important element of Bloch's view. You have left out the fact that some modern academics (historians) write about the subject and simply accept what the ancient Greek pederasts said about pederasty:

"For most of the past two thousand years no one would discuss Greek pederasty directly, and the innumerable references in ancient literature to erotic relationships between men and boys were ignored or suppressed. This situation has changed in recent years with the publication of important books about sexuality in the ancient world, but despite the openness of modern discussion, the question has yet to be raised whether Greek pederasty was good for the young boys who were the object of adult male sexual attention. Modern scholars have tended to accept without question or doubt the rationale of the ancient pederasts that their activities were beneficial to boys, that they were educating boys in the habits and ways of manhood and of citizenship. This paper explores sex between men and boys from the point of view of the child rather than the adult, drawing evidence both from ancient literature and from modern medicine to reveal how deeply troubling and damaging the pederastic experience must have been for many Greek boys."

She also states: "This ready acceptance of the rationale of the Greeks is surprising, given the increasing sensitivity in our own culture to issues of child abuse."

She is talking specifically about some select historians, not about academics who deal with ethics or child abuse. Including the majority of academics in society who do not deal with historical pederasty, and who are asked about pederasty in general, of course most academics are concerned about child abuse as is the rest of society, and they will be in the vast majority. Crosson Tower says that whole countries would consider pederasty to be a type of pedophilia and abusive. Phdarts (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported accusations are just incivility/personal attack. Provide proof

Haiduc. You have claimed once again that certain peer reviewed material is homophobic propaganda [45]. Where is your proof? The edits I am making are certainly not homophobic [46]. If you have no proof, then it cannot be propaganda of any sort. Either provide proof that the edits contain homophobia, or get reported for incivility. Phdarts (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're characterizing legal relationships between males as psychologically toxic and associating them with child abuse. I don't think Haiduc's charges are unfounded. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reporting what is in the literature in a very straightforward manner. Now you are saying that it is me that is doing the characterization. So you are being uncivil also. You also provide zero proof of anything homophobic happening at all. Your uncivil accusations ring hollow. Phdarts (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Paederasty isn't limited to illegal, abusive relationships, and the literature does not contain evidence that all paederasty, including those relationships that are legal, have "a negative effect on the psychological development of a youth." You did not provide any source for this claim. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolipsist. You called this a smear: [47]. Would you care to make your explanations?

You also called this a gross simplification of Rind et al, then you just removed the whole lot[48]. You also claimed that the sources do not support the view. Your claims require proof. You have presented none. You have recently been in the habit of removing peer reviewed sourced information on pederasty, that is generally critical towards pederasty, or that sheds a majority oriented light on pederasty. Your edits are rather suspicious. I believe a lot of explanation from you and Haiduc is required. So will it be forthcoming, or will you simply continue to tag-team critical views out of the article? Phdarts (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rind et al. (1998) is among the most cited studies in the field of child sexual abuse, and scientists generally accept its findings. I demonstrated this at Talk:Child_sexual_abuse/Archive_7#Notability_of_Rind_et_al._.281998.29. A summary more representative of the mainstream academic POV would read along the lines of "Rind was criticized by NARTH and Nancy Grace, while the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex defended the study." Of course, this would be almost as biased as your version. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of work regarding pederasty does not concern abusive or illegal relationships, child abuse or value laden law-enforcement ranting. Please gain a better understanding of the topic before you "[report] what is in the literature in a very straightforward manner" - as your method of doing that has some serious flaws. forestPIG 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolipsist and ForesticPig. You have both failed to actually deal with the material. You are both saying I am wrong, but have said nothing about anything specific at all. All I have done is present Lilienfeld, and Lilienfeld's account of the controversy. As far as I can see, the only reason people are objecting to it is because those editors do not want NAMBLA mentioned. This is an article on pederasty, NAMBLA is a pro-pederasty organization and peer reviewed articles are helpful in showing the relevant controversy. Now if you want to say that anyone is misunderstanding the subject, then find a source that contradicts Lilienfeld, and present it in the article. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I have as much knowledge and expertise as anyone else. Phdarts (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lilienfeld's article is about the clash of legitimate social science (Rind et al. (1998)) with politics and the scientifically illiterate public (the reaction against Rind et al.). Your attempt to represent the lauding side wholly as NAMBLA is ridiculous and definitely not in line with Lilienfeld. Stop cherry-picking. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok you call it cherry picking. Provide the whole quote then. Phdarts (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty and homosexuality mutually exclusive

Hello again AnotherSolipsist. You removed this fact from the article [49]. Why? Phdarts (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a quotation from the source supporting this dubious claim. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly dubious. Lumping child sex abusers and homosexuals is what is dubious, as well as being extremely anti-gay people and thus violating NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start to learn something about this subject, before you write anymore nonsense? 84.150.250.199 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's try and help him instead of goading. I can send him photocopies of work relating to pederasty if he likes. Ironically, that would be straight out of a queer studies book :) forestPIG 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig. The studies you seem to be referring to are in the article already and I get the picture. However, the whole picture is not getting presented into the article text. The article is full of unsourced dubious statements. I am providing sources and clarifying those statements and I am using diverse sources, books, peer reviewed articles and so on. Perhaps you could also do something similar. This article needs to continue the POV fork cleanup to get it anywhere near being a reasonable Wikipedia article. Phdarts (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, are you going to provide a quote? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Its was in the article. Its interesting how some editors can treat me as if I am some sort of novice in the subject just because I don't push the "golden age of pederasty" line, yet at the same time they need to ask me for sources. Phdarts (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Views on Rind's study

Hello again AnotherSolipsist. You also removed views on Rind's study [50]. Why exactly? Phdarts (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He may have removed it because it contained unsourced generalisations and another underhand attack relating to a distant topic. You may have noticed that quite a lot of people are tiring of this approach. forestPIG 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are being unspecific. If you don't want to seem as if you are simply putting the boot in to maintain a ridiculously lopsided and spurious article, perhaps you could make an effort to deal with the material more concretely instead of vaguely criticising my editing per se. Phdarts (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been told already that editors here are aware you are playing a semantic game, and that it is not going to fly. How much clearer do people have to get with you? Haiduc (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"semantic game"? What's that intended to convey? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc. When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, you and similarly inclined editors cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text [51][52][53][54][55], and as can be seen clearly from the above, you make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. When material is moved here for discussion, you ignore it [56][57], and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by chucking ridiculous and uncivil accusations about [58][59]. You and like-minded editors constantly refuse to assume good faith, and totally fail to address the actual facts being presented. Your protestations amount to “I don’t like it”. This is an encyclopedia that presents all relevant views. You are restricting this article to “the dreamy age of men and boys together” view of pederasty and that is totally unacceptable. You have failed to provide proof of homophobic agendas either in editing or in the literature itself. Thus you are to be reported for your uncivil disruptions. Phdarts (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The concerns of child abuse prevention organizations about pederasty

I moved this here for discussion, as there is a lot of unproductive editwarring surrounding it:

Child abuse prevention organizations assert that it is impossible for non-adults to offer "informed consent" to sexual activity - arguing that "consent" assumes certain knowledge and life experiences that a child or teenager is unlikely to have.[60]

The organization seems to me to be set up to prevent child abuse. Any other views on this? Phdarts (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC) PS, Scratch that, it looks like a pretty poor source. The line will be fine though with a few adjustment:

Those concerned about child abuse assert that it is impossible for non-adults to offer "informed consent" to sexual activity - arguing that "consent" assumes certain knowledge and life experiences that a child or teenager is unlikely to have.

Which are the more likely sources of this view? Phdarts (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I reported Haiduc and AnotherSolipsist on the Wikiquette alerts article [61] to try to improve discussion on this discussion page. Feel free to reply or add anything there. Phdarts (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are specific research and critical views on pederasty to be considered as homophobic propaganda?

This article was having no problems (for many years) until a group of like-minded editors suddenly descended on it en masse about a month ago. "Coincidence" is probably not the best word to describe the event. Their edits all aimed to depict pederasty as child abuse, and used as stratagem the fact that the word "pederasty" is polysemic. One of its meanings IS indeed "child abuse." But that meaning is well covered at the article(s) on that topic. There is a link to them in the article.

The meaning of "pederasty" that IS covered in this article is as defined here: the definition which applies to much of its history and which is used by sexologists, historians, artists, etc. It happens to include many legitimate homosexual relationships in modern times, to the extent that they take place between adolescent youths above the age of consent and post-adolescent or older males. Thus the insistent efforts to impose a child abuse model on all pederasty is, sad to say, homophobic.

One of the main arguments that this crowd has been clinging to is that they want the article to reflect "majority views." But Wikipedia is not a compendium of conventional wisdom. It is an elitist undertaking: we humble editors take the knowledge that scholars and intellectuals (the elite) have created and present it in digestible form for the use of the masses. Not the other way around.

The argument as phrased in the RfC, that all "some users" are doing is "introducing material that explains pederasty in relation to the broader pedophilic..." is nothing but a gaming of the Wikipedia system of supporting edits with proper references. The "pedophilia" advocates are indeed providing proper references. Unfortunately, they are references for studies of child abuse, not for the study of pederasty as defined in history and sexology, which is the only topic we deal with in here. Haiduc (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This statement I believe is in order: A Wikiquette discussion led to a suggestion by the Wikiquette editor to start an RFC on the material in question [62]. Some editors are introducing material that explains pederasty in relation to the broader pedophilic “child love” nature of “boy love”, the risk of child abuse, its mutual exclusivity from homosexuality, and its relationship with pro pederasty groups. Some other editors are saying that it is homophobic propaganda [63][64][65][66][67]. If anyone thinks that is not accurate then feel free to point out the specifics.

The pederasty article seems to have had a significant amount of questioning and disputes in the archives [68][69]. Editors aside, there has been more information presented on the nature of pederasty over the past month or two. A lot of this comes from sections of books labeled as pederasty, peer reviewed articles on pederasty, and these tend to come from academic publishers of psychology, science, sexology, history, and other relevant areas.

The allegations of homophobic propaganda have been applied by some editors to much of the above. The material tends, though not always, to be critical, or covers areas relating to pro-pederasty groups, law, and the internet. In the absence of any reliable literature calling material relating to pederasty homophobic propaganda, the accusations can be construed as incivility.

There is a line of research in the literature that covers propaganda; "Durkin, Keith F. & Clifton, D. Bryant (1999) Propagandizing pederasty: A thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles. Deviant Behavior 20,2:103-127.". This is quoted by other related sources, and covers internet “boy love” groups and their cognitive distortions regarding pederasty, and how they “justify” actual erotic contact with minors, internet contact, and the production and use of child pornography.

The literature in question does not seem to come from right-wing political parties, or from conservative religious groups. For the most part it is peer reviewed literature produced by experts in research and the field that relates directly to pederasty as is defined in both the classical and modern sense. Phdarts (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Unrepentat pedophiles"?! What on Earth does that have to do with historical pederasty and legal legitimate homosexual relationships which happen to be of a pederastic nature??? There you go again, ignoring the complexity of the topic and smearing all pederasty with the pedophilia tar brush. Other editors have already pointed this out to you. This is your notion of dialogue??? Haiduc (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That phrase is part of a title of a paper in reliable source peer-reviewed journal, that also includes the term "pederasty" in its title - an appropriate reference for an article on... "pederasty". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the article deals with the cognitive distortions of adults who have a ““romantic” interest in boys”. Of course, the authors quite clearly state that society and public at large tends to refer to them as child molesters and perverts. Durkin et al explain that referring to themselves as “boy lovers” will make it seem a more acceptable mode of sexuality and consequently they are able to maintain some sort of positive self-image in the face of general condemnation.

They use several methods to attempt to rationalize, justify, and otherwise normalize their deviance. These are: condemning the condemners (arguing that they are an oppressed minority, similar to homosexuals) denial of injury and the claim of legitimate benefit (the claim to the contact being educational), reference to children’s rights or children’s liberties, association with “great men” (reference to Alexander the Great, Socrates, Plato, Wilde and others) and so on, as a way to lessen the social stigma. Its an interesting line of research in itself and seems to be continuous from the 1950s onwards. Phdarts (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see here is a group of editors who have appeared out of nowhere in the last couple of weeks, attempting to change the focus of this article from an historical examination of Pederasty, and to impose a modern construct on the term. I note that at least one of the editors has been banned as a sockpuppet. The other editors who are attempting this radical rewritw of this article seem to be working in tandem.

The word itself has become synonymous with Pedophile in modern times, and the average reader (or editor) does not understand the distinction. That's not our problem. Wikipedia is ostensibly a scholarly resource, educating people who lack formal training in fields of interest. What is the problem here is editors who apparently have no scholarship in this field reading and interpreting scholarly articles with an imperfect grasp of what is before their eyes, and using it to further their political agenda.

One of the main contributers to this article, who has worked hard for several years to uphold the standards of legitimate scholarship, is Haiduc. I myself have no real understanding of this subject or interest. I do have an interest in seeing the standards of intellectual integrity at Wikipedia upheld. The only work I have done here is to protect it from vandalism when I have seen it under attack, both overtly and subtly.

Phdarts and his cohorts are appealing to emotions and hysteria in their attempts to alter this article, and I would urge people to read the last stable version by Haiduc and compare it to what these new editors are trying to insert before weighing in. Personally, I do see homophobia in these new edits; and worse still, an attempt by a small group to subvert scholarship with a currently politically correct and distorted version of this subject. Jeffpw (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Jeffpw. You are accusing editors of subversion. That is a personal attack.

The sources I for one, am using, are straightforward references and literature relating to pederasty. Feel free to read them for yourself. Articles no doubt evolve. It seems quite a nonsense argument to focus pederasty exclusively on the ancient or historical version of pederasty. In addition, some of the critical views on that historical literature has been objected to in this regard also. The use of the term "homophobic propaganda" label seems to have been rather inconsistently applied, and only to information that does not shed a kind light on pederasty. Again, I don't see editors trying to remove positive views of pederasty, only the less positive ones. Phdarts (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC). PS, you are not exactly an outsider here [70], and your claims seem to be quite inaccurate [71]. Making desperate accusations is no substitute for dealing with the actual material literature pertinent to the the article. Phdarts (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you would be well advised to stop lecturing people on "assuming good faith." You long ago squandered any claim to that presumption through your abusive behavior. You and your bunch lose a certain amount of credibility when you keep mouthing "assume good faith, assume good faith" while forcibly imposing your willful distortions. Assuming good faith does not mean that we should be idiots here.

Kind light?! I have all along gleefully included accounts of all kinds of nasty doings by pederasts, as can be seen, for example, in the articles on historical pederastic relationships. I have also included criticisms in the more general articles, including a discussion of the Dover - Foucault - Halperin stream of thought which depicts Greek pederasty as dominance.

The problem, of course, is that pederasty is a complex human relationship that has both positive and negative manifestations. Your attempt to cherry-pick the literature on child abuse by using those texts which employ terminology useful to your cause, in other words which use "pederasty" as a synonym for child abuse rather than in the sexological and anthropological sense of the word (a word which is admittedly polysemic), is a reductionist and simplistic attempt to project a modern medical discussion onto all history. To use as analogy, it is like taking the literature on wife abuse to "prove" that marriage is inherently abusive (not that some feminists haven't tried that). 'Nuff said. Haiduc (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. You offer lots of accusations, but no evidence. This has been the case all along. Your objections are generally towards the editing of editors who do not hold your particular point of view, who are working to provide broader views not of your own. There is some unconstructive edit warring here, and you are most definitely part of it. I have been removing parts of those wars to this article so as to improve discussion, and you have largely ignored the material facts [72] and continued your vague accusations of homophobia to all editors who do not agree with you. If you could perhaps offer something specific that you find wrong with the peer reviewed material you don’t like, then perhaps your position could improve a bit. Phdarts (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No evidence? This reads as no less than character assassination. Whoever you are, you are guilty of a brutal assault on one of the best minds among Wiki contributors. I do not know him, but it is clear to all but those who seek to destroy informed debate and sensitive perception that Haiduc is a scholar, a philosopher and - perhaps more importantly - a lover of humanity in all its diversity. Was it not Goethe - himself no pederast - who said:

"Paederasty is as old as humanity itself, and one can therefore say that it is natural, that it resides in nature, even if it proceeds against nature. What culture has won from nature will not be surrendered or given up at any price."

The article under attack is well-resourced and informative. I do not believe that in presenting historical and literary evidence, it contravenes any legal or moral boundaries. In this age of democratic fundamentalism, the subject may attract the attention of bigots and homophobes, but you must surely be intelligent enough to recognise that the authors who treat of unfashionable topics cannot be held to account for doing just that. Even Professor Dover's account of Ancient Greek practices, for example, received - if not accolades - the grudging admiration of educated readers and scholars worldwide, and this at a time when sexual emancipation of any kind was hardly a subject for nice people to think about. When one considers the real problems in the world, the above discussions appear grotesque and misguided. It is time you got out of the mid-West or provincial U.K. or wherever, and look around you at suffering humanity and the real problems they face. Domniqencore (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gothe did reveal some personal fascination for this subject, I would say (it's on the discussion-page of the German version of this article). Fulcher (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: the account Domniqencore was created today and the above uncivil comment is its first contribution. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

you just love to throw around "uncivil" against anybody who dares to disagree with you, and keep harping on "assume good faith' while doing nothing of the kind in return. As was stated above, you and your lot are attacking one of the most scholarly contributers to this encyclopedia. It's people like you and your ilk here who are responsible for the dumbing down of this encyclopedia, and the dumbing down of culture in general. Why dont you go edit the Jerry Springer article. That seems a much more fitting subject for your time--it's both salacious and full of nonsense, much like most of your edits here. Jeffpw (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderfully insightful and collaborative comment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could provide a diff or a particular line showing an alleged piece of homophobic propaganda? Because thus far, nothing specific has been presented. Phdarts (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Phdarts (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start off. Is this line below considered to be homophobic, and if so, why? Phdarts (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Some studies have concluded that homosexuality and pederasty tend to be mutually exclusive (Li, West, and Woodhouse1990)."

IMO, this is neither homophobic nor propaganda. ResearchEditor (talk)

• ::Comment: An article that presents only the modern, legal, "acceptable" version of pederasty is POV, even if the article states that it is using the narrower dfinition. The article should include the view of many that pederasty is morally wrong. If RS can be found that seem homophobic, then so be it. Wikipedia should reflect this unfortunate reality.

Exluding information from RSs on pederasty, particularly scientific literature, is simply unacceptable. (What is the point of a RfC if the article contributors are just going to swamp community views by repeating reams of debate that univolved editors can read above?)Yobmod (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a third party who has read the discussion and the article as of 18:23, 1 July 2008. I think the biggest issue in this article is one of definition. As has been said, the word is polysemic, and I do not believe this is adequately handled throughout the article. Different manifestations have been described, but how the word is intended to be interpretted in the article is never clearly defined. As I read, I could identify at least 3 significantly different possible definitions: chaste pederasty, unchaste pederasty, and "brutal" pederasty (involving castration). I recommend saying early in the article something along the lines of "for the purposes of the article pederasty will mean...", and then use more descriptive terms when talking about other forms of pederasty.

Additionally, I think the description of chaste pederasty badly needs to be expanded. Is this just a form of mentorship? What is "sexual" about it? Maybe I'm not intuitive enough but many of the words used in the introduction were too vague in my opinion.

With regards to the main debate, I'm always in favor of more (accurate) information as opposed to less. However, I think what is being described needs to be clearly defined. Using pederasty for a synonym with "child abuse" is at best sloppy english. Regardless of whether or not scholarly sources have used the word this way, for this article's purpose, since it covers modern AND historical use of the word, definitions need to be extremely carefully managed. Clarity is key.

Further, this article should not become a redundant copy of Child Abuse. There should in my opinion be a link to the page on child abuse. But filling up paragraphs with "child abuse is bad" is unnecessary as it goes without saying and is already covered fully. AzureFury (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction - problems

Some problems with the opening

"sexual relationship, whether or not consummated" I don't really see how a sexual relationship cannot be consummated. I can see an erotic one as not, and clearly sexual desire not, but a sexual relationship?

"The Western model of male adult relations is seen by researchers as a departure from this norm since it has rarely appeared as a pattern in other times and places.[citation needed] Unlike the other models, it ‘assumes that homosexuality is not merely a behavior, but something innate to a person’s real being.' In this sense, such cultures do not see the practise of pederasty as something in line with any ideological or traditional model, but rather - that the behaviour has become partially integrated into the child sexual abuse model."

This is practically incomprehensible, and is infected with social science gobbedegook.

"Later repression of male love culminating in the persecution of homosexuals during Mediaeval times and the Spanish Inquisition and Renaissance Italy[4] also stemmed from the growing Christian movements in Europe."

A few logical fallacies here. Suggesting (1) that pederasty was a social norm everywhere until a certain phase of historical developement (2) strongly implying a causal connection between Christianity and persection that was absent in other cultures. There is no persecution in Islamic culture, perhaps? At least, has to be well-sourced. Hinnibilis (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that all of those statements are unusable and unsupported in their current forms and need to be changed or removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are they unsupported? See below.Domniqencore (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The lack of citation referred to above by one, 'Jack-A-Roe', is due to deliberate removal of a numbered reference on 24 May 2008, by - guess who? - the self-same Jack-A-Roe. There is obviously a personal agenda going on here, which is more than mere vandalism: the deliberate undermining of serious work by responsible editors. This should not be tolerated by the Wiki administrators. Domniqencore (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That reference was removed because it is a self-published, off-topic, unreliable source. Another editor also found it unreliable and posted a talk page section about it: #Reference #3/"Mygenes". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we can get working on seperating issues without even needing sources. Seperating the various issues into the correct paragraphs will help. Also, making sure Wikipedia is not making particular conclusions will help. Phdarts (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty (part 2)

Proposed: Pederasty in the modern world to be merged with this article, Pederasty, for the following reasons:

• There is no significant cultural pederasty practiced in the modern world
• Most of the split-off article is original research
• Most of the split-off article does not address the modern world and rather discusses historical events of the the past century or two
• Much of the text in the split-off article duplicates content that applies more to this article

Note: these two articles were merged in late May 2008 according to consensus on this page. The merge was reverted [73] [74] by one editor without prior discussion.

Regarding the length of this article, most of the content from the other article was already merged. When the merge is re-done, the length of this page will not increase much. See also: discussion above at #excessive duplication with other articles.

Links to other sections on this page where the merge was discussed:

• #Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty
• #Suggested structure
• #Arbitrary and capricious merge of Modern Pederasty article into this one
• #excessive duplication with other articles
• #Merger

Comments entered in the above linked sections are still current, entered less than a month ago. Please enter additional comments here to centralize the discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure Jack. The merge can be conducted whilst keeping specific issues seperate and in good logical or sequential order. All relevant views, majority and minority, in reasonable proportion. Phdarts (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Hinnibilis (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

what is this article about? Let's start there

There is a clear fallacy built into this article, which is one of the fallacies of definition, i.e. redefine the word you are talking about (in this case pederasty does not necessarily involve sexual connection) and then say how it is not a crime, not harmful &c, which may be perfectly true under the redefinition. But of course most people will not spot this and will assume the word has its ordinary meaning. This is a classic pro-paedo manouevre. It happens under our very eyes at the beginning, where 'Pederasty' is said not to require consummation, even though described as a 'sexual relationship'. Yet the next para says that the dictionary definition is somehow wrong - "dictionary definitions of the practice reduce it to anal intercourse, ranging from moralistic ones based on the Christian discourse on homosexuality". If a 1971 dictionary says that is what the word means, it is safe to assume that's what it does mean. In any case, we have to be clear what the article attached to this word actually is about? Why is the Greek section there, given that the Greeks, in particular Plato, had quite a moralistic view of man-boy relationships in general?

So what is the article about? Someone tell me. Hinnibilis (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have re-written the introduction to conform with standard dictionary definitions, i.e. an explicitly sexual practice involving post-adolescent males and adolescent boys. Under this definition, actually much of the article can now be deleted, since the Greek practices do not conform to the modern definition. Perhaps there should be an article about the Greek variety, but not here. Hinnibilis (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think thats fine. I added a set of definitions in a specific definition and classification section as there may be subtle differences from various majority points of view. Minority POV we can deal with later. The majority of law, social studies, and psychology, consider pederasty in terms of sexuality, so yes the sexual aspect is priority. Phdarts (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding where to put the Plato info, there are already at least a six articles on Greek pederasty, there might be more, I've not done a full search. There's a list in the section above at #excessive duplication with other articles. That set of overlapping articles seem to be a distinction in search of a difference. A positive approach would be to merge them into one in-depth article on Greek pederasty with whatever information can be properly sourced, and a summary style paragraph and link from this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to know how to divide this material. There is the pederasty/paedophilia distinction, which is partly one of age (under age of consent but pubescent, under age of consent but pre-pubescent); partly one of gender (pederasty is specifically boys - interesting as far as I can see that there are no articles concerning the ancient institutionalised practice of older men marrying young girls). Partly one of the supposed acceptance of pederasty in old but non-Greek cultures (very little actual evidence for that I think) and finally the institutionalisation of pederasty in classical Greek culture. All these should be handled differently. Hinnibilis (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-styled "pedophilia police" and sockpuppet abuse of article

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the sacking of this article over the course of the last month and a half has been executed by (at least some) socks of banned users. I have reverted their damage.

It is to be hoped that the future evolution of this article will come not as a barrage of edits from a gang of militants acting in cahoots with each other but through a process of measured discussion and debate.

One of the (few) positive things to have arisen from the recent mayhem is the elaboration of recent work on the dominance model of Greek pederasty. More work needs to be done on it. For those who see this article as tilted to an overly positive view of pederasty and its history, it should come as much-needed balance. Haiduc (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]I have begun to recover some of the other useful additions from the last six weeks. More work remains to be done, as time allows. Haiduc (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of the recent edits as well as your choice of words used to describe other editors with different opinions. The majority view of pederasty is not a positive one. Discussion and debate is needed on the article, but not the large deletion of material from it without consensus. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority view of the government in the 1950s reflected McCarthyism in its most egregious form. People of good reputation were smeared and harmed by hysterics who pursued their agendas without an ounce of qualm as to the moral implications of their actions on our society. Thank God it was soon shown to be the hysteria of a population influenced by a neo-fascist cult leader. One hopes that this will prevail, here, as well. For you to argue that the majority view here should prevail reminds me of Joseph Welch's question to Mr. McCarthy, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?'". Do not accuse me again of lacking good faith. you have shown yourselves unworthy of that. I reiterate Mr. Welch's last question: HAVE YOU NO SHAME? Jeffpw (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and debate are very necessary, but the recent crowd (which presumably will soon reappear in some new costume or other) engaged in neither and did not respond to such when it was offered. Instead they tried to shove a subset of pederasty (abusive and/or illegal relationships) down the throats of previous editors, insisting it was the "true" version.

As for "non-positive" aspects of pederasty, there are plenty, both in the article and in history, going back to the time of the Greeks and the Persians. You are welcome to document them, but not to toy with bona fide sexological definitions. Haiduc (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use the modern definition of pedastery simply because it's popular at the moment, but it is painfully clear to me that definition is a huge issue in this article. If the word is used inconsistently, then it can be said that the whole article violates WP:VERIFY since each sentence with the word "pedastery" could have multiple meanings. I don't think excessive deletion needs to take place, though the section on Greek Pedastery should only be a few paragraphs long since there are indeed multiple articles devoted to it. AzureFury (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be able to be consistent as long as we keep in mind the very real difference between the use of the word as a slur or a synonym for pedophilia, and its historical and cultural sense.

On a separate note, I think we need to address the question of how to deal with all the material imported from the currently defunct article on Pederasty in the modern world. The reason given for it demise was that it was all "POV," but to be perfectly honest, I never understood the logic behind that accusation, all the more so as a large proportion of the material in that article was subsequently imported into this article. Now that we can all debate the matter at leisure and in a civilized fashion, I would be grateful if someone (ResearchEditor?) can make some kind of a case for that action, namely redirecting the "Modern" article into this one (from which it was originally broken out for reasons of size a couple of years ago).

Jeffpw, I think that the worst offenders have moved on to happier hunting grounds, and any editors who are left can probably be part of whatever constructive dialog we can muster here. By the way, welcome back. Haiduc (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not one of the editors that was involved in the redirect edits. Perhaps one of the editors involved will notice these posts and answer your query. I do believe that we should define pederasty according to how the reliable journal and media sources define it. Whether there is or isn't a concurrence amongst sources in terms of its definition, this should be proportionally reflected in the page itself somehow, though this may be difficult to do so smoothly. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion until you consider that it is impossible to reconcile tabloid and mass media views with scholarly journals, and that mass media outweighs the academic publications 100 to 1. So I hope you will forgive me if I accept the first part of your advice but not the second, and edit here based on what reliable journals have to say about pederasty as defined by historians and anthropologists, and leave the media to its own devices. Haiduc (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi all. Just stumbled upon the article... I notice there's some area where sourcing is not present, is inadequate, or where the text doesn't seem to be totally verified. The unsourced passages in the article are easily observable, but other areas of concern (with focus on the Middle eastern section) are as follows:

• "Its seeming co-relation with the rise of Islam has been commented on by modern historians, who suggest that the protective attitude of Islam towards women, which removed them from public life, as well as the tendency of Islamic law to accommodate within the domain of "private behavior" activities that would take place regardless, as long as they do not interfere with public order." - which is sourced to "The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early–Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society" (Andrews and Kalpakli 2005) - I saw a discussion on p. 16 or 17 about the improvement in the social/legal status of women, about how there was often leeway for private behaviour (thus allowing for tracts of romantic, sexual etc. nature ) - but I don't see the connection made between "Its [i.e. pederasty] seeming co-relation with the rise of Islam" - can someone provide the page number where this assertion is made?
• "Literature and art reflected the fascination with love in general and beautiful boys in particular. The lover was conceived as martyr and hero. His desire, known as ishq, was glorified as mad, unreasonable, ecstatic, impossible to satisfy and leading even to death. An Arab proverb claims that "Ishq is a fire that burns down everything but the object of desire" - according to the citation, the work in question (Conventions of Love, Love of Conventions: Urdu Love Poetry in the Eighteenth Century; Faruqi 2001) is actually unpublished. Secondly, the language used in the article is rather generalised, whereas the paper discusses specifically within the context of Urdu love poetry of the eighteenth century. Thirdly, it is unclear if the source is even talking in the context of homoerotic (let alone male-boy love) literature - I personally see no indication of such by the source.
• "In central Asia the practice is reputed to have long been widespread, and remains a part of the culture, as exemplified by the proverb, Women for breeding, boys for pleasure, but melons for sheer delight." - the source for this is Burton, but no publication or real reference is provided. It also remains to be seen whether the preceding prose is verifiable to him or not.
• The next source used is: http://www.queer-journal.com/spring2004/essays1.htm - which is for me is broken. Presuming we can get eventual access to the link, is the journal a reliable source for statements regarding Islamic history?
• There's several further passages in this section which are unsourced. I'll tag most of it, but I do intend to remove some of the more dubious stuff like the following "Islamic jurisprudence generally considers that attraction towards beautiful youths is normal and natural. In order for any sexual act to be a punishable offense four witnesses were required." - The second sentence in particular seems a bit spontaneous and is technically incorrect - four witnesses are required for the hadd punishments, ta'zir punishments which are of lesser severity do not require that number.

I'm assuming that these issues are systemic throughout the article given that there is a similar lack of sourcing in a number of places. Regards, ITAQALLAH 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are areas where citations are substituted with self-references (i.e. See References section or See Mythology of same-sex love) which aren't really sufficient (cf. WP:V: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources."). ITAQALLAH 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not consistent in the level of sourcing, as it was written over a long span of time and many of the earlier contributions were not properly documented. Please do tag, and I will work to recover as much as can be recovered.

As far as four witnesses (or eight women) being required to prove a sex crime, that is a quite common understanding: "The minimum number of witnesses required for conviction of liwat was four" (El-Rouayheb, p.123). Haiduc (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The quote appears to be incomplete, it notes that the Hanafis stipulated two as they didn't see it as a hadd issue. One may note that the Hanafis were (and are) a much larger school than the Hanbalis, Malikis and Shafi'is. ITAQALLAH 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting, and not at all clear from the text. Would you give the two standards equal weight in the article? Haiduc (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc - re the Intro (which is much improved), I find the last sentence less than clear, though it makes an important point. I think perhaps it is too condensed, and suggest the following:

Consistent with this concept, Western society does not see the practice of pederasty as something in line with any ideological or traditional model. Instead, the popular view widely disseminated today conflates pederasty with the child sexual abuse model.

What do you think? Domniqencore (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed from the lead

Some researchers have argued that pederasty as a cross-cultural phenomenon is the predominant expression of male-male sexuality as viewed through historical record, though the practice has varied significantly within different cultures. <ref> Bruce Rind, Journal of Sex Research, Nov, 1998: Biased Use of Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Male Homosexuality in Human Sexuality Textbooks </ref>

This is a huge statement. I've removed it from the lead as I'm concerned at this time that there is not sufficient material from reliable sources to support this claim. The phrase "some researchers" in particular makes my undue-weight-alarm go off: Does "some" here mean one, three, 51%? - brenneman 07:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding slightly, it would be useful if the source for this was not one famous for being the shingle hung out by a number of advocacy groups. See Rind et al. controversy please. Regardless of the merits of this particular source, we need to be exactly right when making sweeping claims on contentious subjects, and having this author as the support simply creates additional problems. - brenneman 07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Chaste": a POV term

This is a side-issue to the main debate going on here, but I think a not insignificant one (and it's part of the general use of carelessly-universalized POV language which I think causes all the article's other problems).

Through this series of articles, the word "chaste" is used to describe non-sexual relationships. "Chaste" is not a neutral synonym for non-sexual. It is part of the Western idea of sexual morality, and it conveys not simply non-sexual but "morally pure because non-sexual".

I think the word always carries a judgment with it, and I don't think it should ever be used as a descriptor by a Wikipedia editor, except as directly referenced to a source or else in a discussion of the idea of chastity in itself.

Dybryd (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Chaste" is actually quite neutral and applied to sexual morality in non-Western ambits too. If I had used some of the other terms employed for this, such as "noble pederasty" you would have had a heart attack. These terms refer to the moderate (as the Greeks would have put it) expression of a man's sexual passion for a boy. But you are right, more references would be helpful. I will try to provide them, maybe we should elaborate on that in a separate article titled Chaste pederasty. As soon as this thunderstorm blows over. Haiduc (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't neutral. It is a term of moral judgment -- as you say, it is applied to sexual morality, not to sexual behavior. That fact that you could have chosen a still more POV term is irrelevant.

Dybryd (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dybryd has a good point here. The word "chaste" is not a simple neutral description, it has a lot of connotations. That term should only be used when sourced. Where the intent is to describe relationships that did not include sexual interactions, the term "non-sexual" is more appropriate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty#Australasia

I earlier removed this section as not having any citations. It was replaced with a link, per below.
The current existing text:

In Melanesia, many native cultures employed boy insemination rites integral to coming-of-age rituals lasting from mid- to late childhood, as documented in the writings of Gilbert Herdt. In Papua-New Guinea and nearby islands, some native tribes (about 20% at the end of the twentieth century, a proportion that has since been reduced to vestigial and moribund remnants as contacts with foreigners caused western morals to become prevalent) considered sperm to be the essence of masculinity and a source of strength, and a substance that does not form spontaneously but must be introduced. As a result, a mentor, chosen by the father and ideally the mother's young adult brother, had the duty of planting it in the body of their prepubescent son as part of extended initiation rites.[62]
The mentor also had the duty of educating the boy and seeing to his proper entry into manhood. They slept and worked together until the boy matured. Men who had had their first or second child were expected to relinquish the mentoring function to younger adults. Casual encounters between boys and men were also accepted, but the boy had to be the recipient, to avoid damaging his growth. Thus the Melanesian male went through a sexual cycle beginning with homosexuality, passing through bisexuality and ending with heterosexuality.

62 ^ Bruce M. Knauft, "What Ever Happened to Ritualized Homosexuality? Modern Sexual Subjects in Melanesia and Elsewhere" Annual Review of Sex Research, 2003

I'm reviewing the cited source (see the one-page version here) and there are serious concerns about almost every claim in this section. In short, there is very little relationsip between the material presented and that that exists in the source.

Had I not edited this article and a related article, I'd lean towards an immediate block of Haiduc until the matter is resolved, a review of all material he has contributed, and a probable topical ban. I am however open to hearing that this was a simple mistake, and that the misattribution occured in the heat of the moment. I'm going to re-remove this section, and place a note on both User talk:Haiduc and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this.

brenneman 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, you are off base. The citation provided was an initial citation, applicable to the text, a text that is not in the least controversial. Australasian pederasty is old hat. More citations will follow. Haiduc (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Once these paragraphs are fully cited and checked, it can go back in. Nandesuka (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

I could have removed more. Probably should have too.... I truly don't want to see these reverted, it was uncited text. I only put it here on the talk page out of courtesy. Beam 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy appreciated. Haiduc (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments: Nomination of Category:Modern pederasty

I am posting this here to get more eyes on it & to get the community's opinion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 27#Category:Modern pederasty to weigh in. Thanks, User529 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. User529 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —User529 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, are you planning on placing comments regarding this anywhere else? - brenneman 05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2 listings you quoted were courtesy notices to relevent sections. I added the listing here as CFD's do not get the notice that AFD's do by the average editor (most people would not be going to the category's page and seeing the notice (as they would with an AFD). I would rather this get community attention right off the bat (and get it over with in the normal timeframe) rather than having it be re-listed later for lack of feedback as some AFD's have to have done. (To answer your question: Nope, this is the only article Talk page I am listing this notice at -- I figured it was the best place to get notice of Pederasty editors) Thx, User529 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion etiquette

It was hardly surprising to find yesterday's textual additions peremptorily removed by this particular faction, whose reputation goes before them. My contribution did not involve deletion of existing material, and is pertinent to the article. These modest insertions could have been challenged in the usual way. The sources, as Haiduc suggested, can be checked.

I think you have to ask yourselves the following:

Are you interested in the subject of this article? Have you seriously researched this subject? Are you qualified to research and contribute to this article? Are you interested in applying standards of historical truth to the work undertaken by editors?

This is a scholarly field of enquiry. The subject may be 'controversial' in the minds of today's public at large, but their opinion is not in any way relevant to this undertaking: a specialist historical survey of an under-researched topic. The kind of editors who are most likely to have something valuable to contribute here will have in-depth experience of scholarship, Classics, and can read sources in the original languages. Others can sometimes offer helpful material provided they approach the subject - as we all should - with respect and humility, and take time to read the source material available, comprehensive though it may be.

Incidentally, I have - as you may have noticed - drawn upon recent work by Prof. W.A. Percy, who can be contacted direct. If you doubt the integrity or relevance of his expertise, do just that: [75]

I expect to revert the article to the abbreviated version of my insertions. If you have anything to say, I suggest you avoid another deletion, and make your point on the talk page. In the meantime I will consider further repairs to what has become a damaged presentation. Domniqencore (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of cogent arguments for its exclusion, I also support the restoration of the abbreviated material. I was also puzzled by Mr. Brenneman's edit summary for the deletion of the abbreviated version: "Based upon recent experiance, better if this examined on talk page first." Would you care to clarify your comment, Mr. Brenneman? What "experiance" are you referring to, and what does it have to do with Domniqencore? Haiduc (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The "recent experiance" as documented all over this page and the talk page of HistoricalPedCouples, as further documented on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, and probably at least six other places as well. The "recent experiance" where sources are non-existant, misinterpreted, or flatly refute the claims inserted in the articles in question.

As to Domniqencore, the editor has a total of four article edits, all to this article but for one to Greek Love. His talk page edits include pearlers like "The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument" and "I fear however that the citation-mongers are quite unscrupulous". Forgive me if I am not giving this editor the deference that you seem to be suggesting he deserves.
brenneman 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read Haiduc's questioning of the "recent experience" note. Anyone watchlisting this topic would easily be aware of the concerns about sources that have been "recently" discussed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe WP:AGF still applies to this article, yes? If you think that Domniqencore is a sockpuppet or is otherwise acting abusively, please state so openly; otherwise, we should assume he's a good-faith contributor, and his edits should not be treated with the kind of suspicion you're applying. The citation to Johansson seems to be legit, so if you have problems with this material, they need to be spelled out--your rationale seems to be "I don't trust these people", which is counter to the principle of assuming good faith.

As for your comments about Haiduc's sourcing, both here and at ANI, I find them exaggerated, and no justification for your revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm struggeling to find a more polite way to say "put up or shut up" but there are limits to polite discourse, particularly when it's being used as a stalling tactic, simply waiting for the other person to be worn down and move on... If you believe that my claims at ani are "exaggerated" please feel free to pick a particular statement of mine and we can examine it. Because, despite a wide stripe of similar "it's not so bad" style comments from a handful editors, every time I look at an actual citation it actually is that bad.
• In contentious areas, it's common for information to be "held" on the talk page for discussion prior to making it to the actual page. I'm happy to assume good faith with respect to this editor, but "seems to be legit" is simply not a tenable position at this time on this article. If the material gets discussed here and there is consensus that it should be included in the article, that's great, full steam ahead.
  brenneman 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, assuming good faith involves accepting that the citations an editor provides are legitimate, and finding actual reasons to say that the citation isn't acceptable if you think that's the case. "Pederasty is controversial" is not a reason.

I guess I should be a little more forceful than I tend to be. The citation to Johansson is legit. It's to an article in the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, edited by Wayne R. Dynes, now out of print and hosted in a freely available version on William Percy's website. Dynes and Percy are both scholars and experts in the topic. This work received good reviews and is widely cited, and easily meets Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. I see no reason to challenge it, especially not in a knee-jerk fashion. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As there are two "streams" in the above, I'm creating a subsection below for discussion of the reference, I'll address that there. Here I'll address the various problems I see with the above statement:

• I've not suggested that things need to be discussed here simple because "Pederasty is controversial."
• This article, and several related articles, have serious issues with misattribution of sourcing.
• As nicely as possible, occam's razor and assume good faith do occasionally work in opposition:
  1. If the source, the content, and the editor are all "legit" then after a short delay we'll work that out
  2. As the very-new and effectivly-single-purpose account demonstrates that they understand sources and quote them appropiately, they earn more leeway.
• The use of "knee-jerk" and saying I have no "actual reasons" when I've outlined them clearly is either obfuscation or simple laziness.

You're free to say you don't agree with my statemens or actions, but hand-waving like you've committed above adds nothing to the discussion. Are you going to reply to my request that you back up your statement that my problems with H's citation are exaggerated by being specific?
brenneman 02:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I think "hand-waving" characterizes your actions. You're removing material (an example is below) that is reliably sourced, without any attempt to demonstrate that there's a problem with the source. As for Haiduc's material, for now I'll simply note that in the ANI thread you've been talking about, at least one person thought that your arguments about the sourcing for Melanesian pederasty were unconvincing. I note further that you seem to have done nothing about fixing the problems you saw and restoring the material to the article--which is too bad, because the anthropological literature on Melanesian "ritual homosexuality" is rich, and belongs in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're really starting to get up my nose, mate. "At least one person thought" is the weakest, lamest, most hand-waving line of crap you could possibly have dished out. Please, if you're going to continue with this line, come back with even one diff from those discussions where I expressed a concern about sourced material where I was wrong. Not saying that it was impossible that I was wrong, just that you keep saying it withou providing any evidence...
brenneman 03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, I'm pretty frustrated with your style of discussion as well. I'm sure you know that digging up diffs from archived ANI threads is something that can't be done instantly--in fact, just figuring out where the discussion is archived is a gigantic pain. But if you go back to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#Request_for_review:_Consistant_misattribution_of_cited_sources and look through CBDunkerson's replies to you, you'll see that you were wrong about the citation for the Melanesia section--the source that Haiduc provided supports some of the material in the section. Nevermind that this was a citation provided in 2008 for material written in 2005--it's no surprise that Haiduc didn't have citations on hand to support every point. I notice you don't seem to have made too much effort to look through the work of Herdt to fix the material and include it in the article. You don't seem to be interested in adding anything to this article, only taking things out. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Brenneman, your form of address in your note to Akhilleus is totally unacceptable. Mind your manners. Also, make sure you let me know on my talk page the next time your administratorship comes up for review, as there is an ever lengthening list of unacceptable behavior that will need to be aired at that time. Haiduc (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent as well, replying to Ank.> Again with the appeal to authority: You are the one saying that I was wrong about the source, not CBDunkerson. You're the one that I'm asking to back up your claim with some evidence. For ease of reply, I'll copy below the problems I listed with the material. Please feel free to explain where I'm wrong. - brenneman 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Melanesian cultures employed insemination rites source covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway
  • Sperm essence of strength surprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
  • Not spontaneous but must be introduced unsupported by reference
• 20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these rites unsupported by reference
• Mentoring
  • Father, mother's young adult brother choose unsupported by reference
  • Educating, guiding into manhood unsupported by reference
• Fatherhood
  • First two kids ok to "mentor" unsupported by reference
  • After that had to quit it unsupported by reference
• Casual relationships existed this is supported by the reference, however
  • Boy had to be recipient (?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?
  • Growth could be damaged specifically refuted by reference
• Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle unsupported by reference

Encyclopedia of Homosexuality as a source + recent removals

Removed material:

A broad overview places pederasty as "probably the most characteristic, if not normative, form of male homosexual relations in the majority of human societies throughout history, though not in Western Europe and North America in modern times." <ref>Encyclopedia of Homosexuality: Pederasty, Warren Johansson [76] </ref>'

This is a highly controversial statement, that the typical homosexual relationship was pedaristic. To avoid the "undue weight" section of neutral point of view, some serious examination not only of this particular citation but the body of work is required. - brenneman 02:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" according to whom? Do you have a source that disputes this? As it stands, it looks like your assertion that this material is controversial is based on your personal opinion. Are you an expert on this topic? On what grounds do you assert that the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality is an unsuitable source? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, it's out of print, withdrawn by the former publisher, and now hosted only on the author's self-published website. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very dissapointed that you've chosen to edit-war as opposed to discussing it. I don't do the "I have a right to three reverts" thing so I'll leave it for now, but dissapointing, none the less. I also begin to feel that you're not even reading my responses. It's totally posible for something to be a suitable source, even an excellent but for a cherry-picked statement from it be used to support an opinon that is not the view held by the majority. Finally, your use of "Idon'tlikeit" in the edit summary was uncalled for, uneccesarily inflammitory, and totaly without basis or evidence. Please, before making further accusations of this nature fall back on evidence: Give me a diff where I give even the faintest hint that I have an opinion on this material aside from the normal encyclopedic concern? Failing that, if you continue to make comments of this nature you're being disruptive. Blocks for disruption are possible where editors attempt to create a hostile environment in order to win a perceived "battle" over content.
brenneman 03:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reading your responses, I just don't find them very responsive. In fact, "uneccesarily inflammitory, and totaly without basis or evidence" sums up my feelings about your contributions to this discussion. It would help if you would describe why you think this source is unsuitable for Wikipedia: so far, you haven't said a thing about that. Jack-a-Roe mentions that the source is out-of-print and withdrawn by the publisher. Out of print is no strike against a source; in fact, most academic books are published in limited print runs, are sold to college/university libraries and a limited audience of scholars (professional or not), and then go out of print. Withdrawn may indicate a problem, but some discussion about why the book was withdrawn might be in order. Until then, though, I say again that the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality was edited by an expert, the web version is hosted on an expert's academic website, and it is widely cited: in other words, the kind of scholarly source that Wikipedia articles should rely on. I'm happy to change my mind, when actual arguments are presented. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Shave a monkey and call him dad, you've just repeated exactly the behavior that's driving me mad: Saying "when actual arguments are presented" is beyond rude. I have presented arguments, several of them. That you don't agree is clear, but please stop pretending that I didn't take the time to write them down. - brenneman 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

By what possible standard would one argue that a book being withdrawn by its publisher merely "may" indicate a problem with it? The American Library Association describes this work as "ill-fated" and indicates that it was withdrawn due to some of the authors' credentials being falsified. What, exactly, does the author of the work you want to cite have to do for you to consider his work unreliable? Knock over a liquor store? Nandesuka (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that no one talked about this book being withdrawn until Jack-A-Roe's post. Now that I've had a chance to look at this a bit more, I agree that we shouldn't include the material based on this source. But previous claims were based on the idea that this was a fringe claim, which has not been demonstrated. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

←"Controversial": the sweeping claim specifying that homosexual relations down through all history of most of the world fit neatly into the particular form of pederasty (even if broadly defined) is controversial enough to be a fringe theory; a claim that goes well beyond mainstream academic consensus. If there were academic consensus on that idea, it would be easy to find more sources to support it, and a self-published source would not be needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-published. If there is an academic consensus against this idea, it should be easy to find a source that says so, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting that anything stated in even a single source must be included even over objections until we can locate a citation that activly refutes those claims? - brenneman 03:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any academic consensus against the idea that pederasty is caused primarily by consumption of Roquefort cheese. Clearly, we need to revise the article lede to include this vital information. Nandesuka (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an extremely helpful contribution. I notice that everyone seems to have an idea of what "academic consensus" is here, but the only source that's been cited so far happens to be contrary to what this consensus supposedly is. If you're going to claim that a source is making a fringy claim, it shouldn't be hard to illustrate what the mainstream view is. Even better, if we can illustrate what the academic consensus is, we can put it in the article! Wouldn't that be nice? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It does not surprise me that there are no sources "refuting" the claim that "pederasty is the normative form of homosexuality" precisely because it is such a stunningly absurd claim. Nandesuka (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Quibble: the source cited says it's typical or "characteristic," but not normative. Still an Extraordinary claim, though. - brenneman 04:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can find an academic discussion of the problems with the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality here: "Pseudonym or Hoax? Publisher halts sales of encyclopedia after controversy over authorship," Chronicle of Higher Education. May 26, 1995, pp. A10, A14. Based on the American Library Associations' review, I will suggest that either Garland's Gay histories and cultures: an encyclopedia (2000) or, for American topics, Encyclopedia of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender history in America (2004) are both preferable sources to the fraud-tainted EoH. The ALA review notes that the 2000 edition is slightly better about attributing exactly who wrote what article than the 2004 edition is. Nandesuka (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It bears pointing out that no one here has claimed that the statement is factually incorrect. Furthermore, Dynes / Johanssen is not the only source for that statement, as some of you may remember, it was also pointed out by Rind in a recent paper (within the last ten years or so). So what is all the fuss about? Haiduc (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance, here's another source: G. Haggerty, ed., Encyclopedia of Gay Histories and Cultures: Volume 2, from the article by David Menasco on Pederasty (pp. 672-674): "Cross-culturally and transhistorically, homosexual relations have most often been structured through some form of either age-grading or gender-grading. Pederasty may be taken to refer either to the most widely recognized forms of age-graded male homosexuality or age-graded male homosexuality in general, with the caveat that use of the term generally is limited to relations in which the younger partner is in some sense not fully mature...The term has sometimes been used to denote all-male homosexuality, or specific acts between males, probably owing to the close association of the idea of male homosexuality with traditionally recognized forms of age-graded male relationships."

As far as I know, this volume is in print, is not marred by controversies over the pseudonymy of any of the authors, and is well-regarded.

As for the absurdity of this claim, I'm having a hard time seeing it. Certainly in ancient Greece pederasty was the normative form of (male) homosexuality. In ancient Rome, which had a less enthusiastic attitude towards homosexuality, pederasty was still the normative form of male homosexuality. I know far less about 19th century Europe than I do about the ancient world, but as far as I can see the most visible depictions of male homosexuality during that period were modeled on an idealized picture of Greek pederasty--hence the term "Greek love". So if I'm out of step with the academic consensus I'd appreciate being directed to some sources that say otherwise. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: despite the slight difference in title, I believe the work I quoted is the same that Nandesuka was referring to in the post above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, I think we can agree that the Haggerty work is not tainted, and is a good source.

However, I don't see it making the broader, more sweeping claim under discussion here. I read Menasco as saying, here, "Pederasty exists," and that furthermore it is a term that is used to grade certain relationships by age, and that when speaking of homosexual relations in age-graded terms, pederasty is one of the "most widely recognized forms" (as opposed to, one supposes, geriasty?) That is a much more conservative claim than "pederasty is the normative form of homosexuality throughout history". If you think I'm misreading, please let me know how. Nandesuka (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the source similarly. But, upon reflection, I think that we may be approaching this bass-ackwards. I'd like to archive a lot of the older discussions above and suggest that we start from first principles: What should this article contain, what should be it's structure, etc. - brenneman 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is the meaning of "normative". I think we're reading Menasco similarly--pederasty is one of the most widely recognized forms of male homosexuality throughout history.

When I say that pederasty was normative in ancient Greece, I mean that it was the most common (and socially approved) form of male homosexuality. Male-male sexual relationships that were not age-graded, that is, not pederastic, were sometimes regarded as deviant, or were interepreted as being pederastic anyway. My username gives us a convenient example--in the Iliad, Achilles and Patroclus seem to be agemates (and, in the judgement of most classicists, not to be lovers)--but later Greek interpretations of their relationship cast them as a pederastic couple.

So, to me the idea that pederasty was normative until modern times means that 1) pederasty was the most common form of male homosexuality and 2) pederasty was recognized as the most common form of male homosexuality. This is in contrast to what I think is the most common idea of a male homosexual relationship in the modern west--that both partners are adults of a similar age, or at least both mature adults. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Another section for discussion

Removed text:

Professor William Percy, in a recent paper writes:

Believing that enough of what I argue will stand scrutiny, I hope we

can begin the process of restoring Greek pederasty to the great central

role that it played in Greek history and warfare, politics, art, literature

and learning, in short to the Greek miracle, in which changes in homosexual

representations and practices both reacted to and contributed to

transformations in the political, economic, and cultural realms.

This removal was an editorial one, not about citation. I fail to see what a quote from this author does to add to the general topic. - brenneman 04:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not essential as such, but what it says about the importance of the practice is quite significant. It can certainly be paraphrased. Haiduc (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Greek miracle...again

Of course, Percy has much more to say about the 'Greek Miracle' and its historical impact in the substantive paper (Reconsiderations about Greek Homosexualities) from which I was able to offer but a small slice. In our article's section on 'The Greeks', it would seem that the preoccupation with pederasty as a form of sexual behavior overshadows a greater and more powerful force for the contemporary society then and beyond, as the following quote from Percy's introductory 'Summary' would suggest:

To reduce homosexuality or same-sex behaviours to the purely physical

or sexual does an injustice to the complex phenomena of the Greek male experience. From Sparta to Athens to Thebes and beyond, the Greek world incorporated pederasty into their educational systems. Pederasty became a way to lead a boy into manhood and full participation in the polis, which meant not just participation in politics but primarily the ability to benefit the city in a wide range of potential ways. Thus the education, training, and even inspiration provided in the pederastic relationship released creative forces that led to what has been called the Greek 'miracle.' From around 630 BCE we find the institution of Greek pederasty in - forming the art and literature to a degree yet to be fully appreciated. Moreover, this influence not only extends to the 'higher' realms of culture, but also can be seen stimulating society at all levels, from the military to athletic games, from philosophy to historiography. An understanding of sexual practices - useful, even essential, to an appreciation of Greek pederasty - cannot fully explicate its relationship to these other phenomena; pederasty is found in many societies, and certainly existed before the Greeks. It is time that we move beyond Dover and recover the constructive dynamics of Greek pederasty.

As I argued before, the Greeks have a central place in any balanced discussion of historical pederasty, and indeed it could be argued that the prevalence of the pederastic principle 'in many societies' through the ages - as far as records permit such an assumption - may be connected to the fact that the phenomenon is more than an interesting quirk of sexuality but had a pragmatic function as a binding force within the societies, whether educationally, militarily, aesthetically, or even morally. For those who seek 'justification' in terms of 'rights' within our otherwise liberal societies today, it would seem to me that they would do well to consider just what history teaches us about the societies where male-youth bonding had a recognised role, even if such institutions could scarcely be replicated in the modern world.

Incidentally, the concept I quoted about 'prevalence' - and which attracted a certain vigorous reaction - was, in its original form, hedged in by qualifications e.g. 'according to historical record', 'probably', 'some researchers'. There really is no need for confrontation, since in any case, apart from the Greeks, the evidence is scanty on either side of the argument. But I do think we are talking about two different things, partly for the reasons given above, but also - perhaps more obviously - because adult homosexual relationships are today solely representative of same-sex intimacy as the modern mind conceives it. We can no more get inside the mind-set of the ancients than they could conceive of our thoughts and values. But we are led by fascination for what is different, and the urge (possibly) to find a link.

An interesting footnote to Percy's thesis reads:
The more the complexities of human psychosexuality come to light, the less valid it is to talk about homosexuality in the singular: "while homosexual desires and activities are probably ubiquitous, the specific forms that they assume are intimately shaped by particular sociohistorical contexts. Instead of talking about homosexuality, we should really speak in terms of homosexualities, plural, for there are may variations on the teme of same-sex relations" (Bagemihl, 1999). Domniqencore (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The pragmatic approach of the Greeks to pederasty is certainly worth exploring. Another interesting aspect we might work on is an "evolutionary tree" for pederasty. It seems to have started out in Minoan times and to have functioned for a millennium or more in a kind of steady state, as you might expect from a conservative insular society. Then it was imported to the mainland, initially in a pure state (archaic period), which in the large, cosmopolitan cities quickly began to degenerate into abusive and mercantile forms. Out of that you have the condemnation of sexual pederasty seen in Plato and Aristotle, and the eventual clarification of the two streams (pure/impure dikaios/hybris), as can be seen in Aeschines and Xenophon(?). Haiduc (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly want to learn more about this approach. Interestingly - re Xenophon - Prof Percy included a brief ref at the end of his Summary intro:

“It seems to me that something must also be said about the love of boys; for this too has a bearing on education.” Xenophon

A simple statement, but one that contains a world. Domniqencore (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

deletions

• Paul Michaut is reporting, and the article reports what he reports - not as fact but as his report. It may or may not be "true". Removal is simply censorship.
• Renaissance: well, that there were homoerotic age-differentiated relationships among artists and member of the literati is hardly news. I can't comment on all the cases. Leonardo is well documented, and Michelangelo is generally accepted.
• The Wilde story is clearly important, as it illustrates the explicit examination of the issue.

In any case it is clear that you are just trying to delete anything you can think of. Paul B (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is getting silly. There is an objection to the word "putative", so I change it to "imagined", to which no objection is made. It is reverted again with an utterly irrelevant edit summary. This is not editing, it is warring and is wholly unacceptable. Paul B (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You reverted my edit before I had a chance to finish my own. Your very aggressive and accusatory tone from the moment you entered this dialogue has been alarming and uncalled for. I removed the Shakespeare theory because the editor who added it appears to be more interested in promoting a tenuous theory regarding Shakespeare.

Regarding the 19th century entry, to say the article is simply reporting what someone says, regardless of whether it is true is a flawed rationale for its inclusion. The article should be including what we know about pederasty and its history, not a non-notable outsider's non-notable views of a culture's practice which lay readers could easily mistaken for fact.

Another editor has mentioned concerns regarding the Renaissance paragraph, which I fully share and was the reason for my edit.--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

recent edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=236023307&oldid=235418429 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=236023744&oldid=236023307

The above controversial edits has been going through a few rounds. So im creating a discussion section for this edit. Lihaas (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page until such a time as there is either substantative discussion here. - brenneman 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)