Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 13

The point of view outlined in this (very good!) article is seriously missing in paedophilia. Someone should expand that article to include at least a mention of this.

The article was moved from boylover, deleting that articles history and talk page. User: Zanthalon repeatedly deleted without explanation links to organizations that help "child lovers" and children who were "loved" alike. Get-back-world-respect 22:15, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The changes to the external links that you have made were not supported by other people who have been involved in editing the page. Your troll-like vandalism is not appreciated. The links you are adding are already on the child sexual abuse page where they belong. Pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not the same thing. Please desist from trying to blur the distinction. --Zanthalon 22:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right, not every "childlover" becomes a child abuser. Some can be helped, e.g. by Stop it now A campaign to prevent Child Sexual Abuse by calling on potential abusers to seek help.

Some children that were "loved" can find help as well: Male Survivor - Overcoming sexual victimization of boys and men.

Please do not restrict links from here to pages where theses aspects are neglected. Get-back-world-respect 23:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, the discussion of the boylover is still there. Talk:Boylover --Zanthalon 22:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You should have move talk and history with the rest of the page. Get-back-world-respect 23:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Difference Between Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Links that relate to abuse recovery and the sexual victimisation of children do not belong on this page. Pedophilia by itself does not imply any action on the sexual attraction at all. Whether it is a paraphilia or not, pedophilia is not an action in and of itself; therefore it does not have any victims. I am removing once again the links that are already appropriately placed on the child sexual abuse page. Zanthalon 23:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The links do not only relate to abuse recovery and sexual victimisation of children. Just read. One focusses on helping pedophiles to deal with their paraphilia, so this is exactly the right article to have it. Also note that many who were once "loved" by a "childlover" have severe problems with that experience later, so the other link is equally appropriate. Get-back-world-respect 23:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Pedophilia and Talk:Child_sexual_abuse for more discussion on this same topic.

Requests for Comment

Both the links in question and the behaviour of Get-back-world-respect have been submitted to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. If you wish to comment on this issue, please do so here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Get-back-world-respect. --Zanthalon 14:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Boylover

The term boylover was not invented by pedophiles, but probably comes from pederast and is a neutral term.Wildt 01:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I understand that this maye be intended as a neutral term as used by some as such, it doesn't sound that neutral to me. In fact, the entire article seems like a page promoting "childlovers" rather than an NPOV article on a subject. Just my $0.02. BCorr|Брайен 20:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can understand how this might seem to be a page promoting a particular point of view. The goal, however, is to present the issue objectively. I believe that this page has evolved out of a need to address the social movement of minor-attracted adults who seek societal and legal acceptance for their sexual attraction. This is not properly addressed in Pedophilia which focuses more on the clinical definitions and history of pedophilia. --Zanthalon 21:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If that's the goal, I'd suggest that the article should directly address the social movement, rather than the difference between the definition of pedophiles and that of childlovers. It should talk about 1) How there are generally defined, 2) how they define themselves, 3) What the goals and work of the movement are and 4) How they are organized, what they have achieved to date. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Presenting an issue objectively cannot mean taking the view of a partisan group, using their definitions and advertising their websites. Wildt, who used the term if not pedophiles? Usually foreign terms are used when talking about paraphilia, I do not believe that the league of the dyslexic fought for the new term. Zanthalon, paraphilias are not legally forbidden. Abusing children is forbidden. It can be prevented by proper treatment. Get-back-world-respect 23:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In Danish there is Drenge-kærlighed (boylove) which is a translation of pederasty. I belive I have seen older British newspapers calling pedophiles childlovers. Vern Bullough mentions that pedophilia used to be called "knabenliebe". But I see now that the article doesn't say the term was invented by pedophiles.

BTW this article is 37KB long. Wildt 18:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Childlove Movement

I have recrafted this article, using BCorr's excellent suggestions as a basis for doing so. The article now focuses on the childlove movement and its history rather than on a semantic discussion of the terminology used.

While I understand the concerns of Get-back-world-respect regarding the issues of the prevention of child sexual abuse, treatment of offenders and recovery for victims, I still do not think that this article is the place to put links to the organizations he is supporting. Several leading pedophilia experts, including Dr. Fred Berlin of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and Dr. John Bradford, a psychiatrist specializing in pedophilia at the University of Ottawa have concluded that most exclusive type pedophiles, ie, those whose primary sexual attraction is to children do not abuse. Their data shows that the majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by so-called situational offenders, people whose primary attraction is not to children, but who turn to children for sexual purposes due to adverse factors in their lives or an inability to attract sexual partners within their primary attraction group.

This article is interesting and probably useful in conveying attitudes among a segment of the population. However, it cannot possibly be viewed as NPOV when it uses terms like "consensual" to describe sexual relations with a minor, and especially a pre-pubescent minor. A relationship between an adult and a child is never an equal one and this article presents the issue only from the adult's point of view. Let us suppose that we use the term "childlover" only to describe non-violent pedophiles. Now suppose any of these children grows up with an altered view of relationships, perhaps has difficulty relating sexually and emotionally to peers, and perhaps most significantly feels, as an adult, that they were coerced, that they felt pressured and intimidated to engage in "consensual" acts, and that they were taken advantage of. But the adult member of that "relationship" thinks it was consensual. What recourse should that now-adult child have against his "lover."

Another flaw of the article is that, after acknowledging the descriptive difference between pedophiles and ephebophiles, it never again bothers with the distinction. A relationship between a non-peer and a teenager is at least biologically appropriate if of tainted equality, but a relationship with a prepubscent child is not even biologically appropiate. In this article, they are all "childlovers." If an objective of the movement is to change people's perception of pedophilia, I fail to see anything in this article which makes any move in that direction. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting observations. I have made some additional edits to reflect these observations. In particular, I have mentioned that childlovers argue that children are capable of consent. I have also added a paragraph pointing out that ephebophiles have some different issues and that they argue that sexual maturity and adulthood begin with puberty.

I also point out that most childlovers claim not to advocate penetrative intercourse with pre-pubescent children.

You wrote: If an objective of the movement is to change people's perception of pedophilia, I fail to see anything in this article which makes any move in that direction. The object of the article is not to argue the case of childlovers but to provide information about what they believe and advocate. --Zanthalon 04:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that was the object of the article but the article says it is an objective of the movement, and I didn't see anything in the descriptions of the movement in the article which would encourage empathy toward the movement or its members. Thanks for your response. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:25, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Logical questions raised by assertions

I appreciate your efforts to clarify the article, but the clarifications in themselves raise logical questions. I've interspersed some comments:

The primary misconceptions that childlovers usually seek to dispel are that they seek only a sexual relationship with the child and that they seek to engage in sexual activities that could be physically harmful to the child. They argue in the first case that the physical relationship is simply a manifestation of the emotional and spiritual love that exists between the participants, rather than being the raison d'etre of the relationship. Once again, the adult's (controlling individual's) POV. If anything this emphasizes the inequality of the relationship. In the second case, many childlovers wish to point out that they do not seek penetrative sexual relations with pre-pubescent children, but only to engage in what they would consider to be age-appropriate activities such as snuggling, kissing, fondling or oral sex. Fondling? 'Oral sex'? Age appropriate? Maybe for a 16 or 17 yo. Again no acknowledgment of the inherent difference between pre- and post-pubesence. And again, by specifying what the "childlover" does or doesn't seek, and what they consider age-appropriate emphasizes their sense of control and actual control of a "consensual" relationship.

Childlovers point out that there is ample scientific and medical evidence that shows quite clearly that children are sexual from a very early age. And that they wish to engage in sex with adults? I think you'd better give some citations other than advocacy websites. Therefore, they believe that there is no harm in a child engaging in sexual activities as long as there is informed consent. What makes consent with a child "informed"? "Let's take off our clothes? OK?" "Is it OK if I touch you there? Does that feel good? I won't hurt you. OK?" "This is our secret, right? Most childlovers do not support age of consent laws None at all? 12 years? 6 years? 6 months?, arguing that with proper sexual education who will be writing that curriculum?, children can be capable of consenting to intimate physical activities.

Ephebophiles are also largely opposed to consent legislation. They argue that in former times, puberty was considered to be the threshold of adulthood in many societies and that it is a natural indication that the body is sexually mature. They believe that ages of consent are legal definitions that are both arbitrary and discriminatory. So they are empowered substitute their own judgment? Why?

There are also a number of efforts underway to define the ethics of childlove and to create an ethical framework in which consensual adult-child relationships could take place. They had better address the legal issues in tandem, unless we are creating an ethical basis of violating widely accepted law. Otherwise it can simply be viewed as the age-old efforts of criminals to justify criminality. Much of these efforts are based upon the works of Frans Gieles and Gerald Roelofs. The primary efforts have taken place under the auspices of IPCE, the Human Face of Pedophilia and CLogo.

-- Cecropia | Talk 04:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article urgently needs a section Criticism. Get-back-world-respect 07:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. It is not usually necessary to also describe opposing views. Retrieved from Guidelines for Controversial Articles --Zanthalon 18:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would rather integrate this article into pedophilia. See my suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Get-back-world-respect --Moonlight shadow 20:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No article on Wikipedia is entitled to present debatable views without rebuttal. I think GBWR's proposal to have a Criticism section is generous. And that they "believe" that children can form their own relationships is arguable under at least three grounds: (1) that they objectively believe this rather use this as a rationale for their desires; (2) it is legally insupportable as parents have the right by law to determine the appropriateness of children's relationships--what standing has a pedophile to challenge this?; (3) a pedophile's belief about a child's maturity is a legal nullity. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that the form this article is currently taking makes it appropriate for inclusion in the pedophilia article. Of course, the whole issue is open for discussion, but I have moved this article in the direction of discussing the childlove movement per se, while leaving the pedophilia page to deal with the clinical and historical issues of pedophilia.

While I agree with Cecropia's assertion that childlovers do not have a legal basis as parents have a right to determine the appropriateness, I do not think that this is an issue for this page. This is a youth rights issue. The article already mentions that many childlovers are also supporters of youth rights.

The issue of a child's maturity is an issue for age of consent legislation, and this article already mentions that most childlovers have problems with current consent legislation.

Bearing that in mind, I am continuing to work to address the issues and concerns you brought up yesterday. But it is not likely to happen overnight; I do have a life outside the Internet to lead as well. :) --Zanthalon 20:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this should redirect to pedophilia where it could have its own paragraph. In my eyes the term "childlover" for pedophile is an offense to every mother and every father who loves his child while not being sexually attracted to it. And presenting the fight of paraphiles for the legality of sex with children as a youth rights issue would be called sick by an overwhelming majority of the population, even though not the majority of the users who find such an "encyclopedia article". Get-back-world-respect 21:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Get-back-world-respect shows bias and prejudice in the assertion that that the term "childlover" is offensive. Should you be editing this section when you can't leave your bias behind? Who says that your points of view are more valid than that of "child lovers?" Furthermore, nobody objects to the use of "survivor" for those who have been sexually abused. "Child lover" is a term that pedophiles apparently give themselves, like those who choose to call themselves "survivors." Why is the chosen terminology of pedophiles offensive, but that of others not? Whether or not you find the way they frame their objectives sick or not, it isn't your place to edit or censor. If this is supposed to be balanced and objective, then both points of view must be presented. Madeline

The term "childlover" as used here is offensive as it implicates that only people who are sexually attracted to children really love them. The term "survivor" is only used in an external link, and many abused children commit suicide, so those who do not are indeed survivors, even if it would be as inappropriate to call them so in an encyclopedia article as it is unacceptable to call pedophiles "childlovers". Interesting to see that "Madeline"'s only contribution to wikipedia is in defense of pedophiles. Get-back-world-respect 03:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pedophiles have never claimed that the term "child lover" applies only to them. They use it as a defense against the loaded term "pedophile" and it accurately reflects their true feelings and intentions. You're wrong on that count; pedophiles certainly don't claim a monopoly on the ability to love children. "Many abused children commit suicide?" Perhaps about 0.01% of them? Where are the figures, GBWR? You might also be interested to know that many non-abused children also commit suicide. You'd surely be interested to compare the rates of suicide to a control group. If it is inappropriate to use the label "survivors" give themselves, only then it is inappropriate to use the label "child lovers" give themselves. Your remark about my only contribution to wikipedia is wrong, GBWR. As it happens I've made dozens of contributions to other areas before I registered my username, so you might want to have a think about your pithy remarks before using them.

Offensive links

I do not think that wikipedia should link to grossly offensive pages, not even for reasons of "documenting". Links to communities of people who propagate sex with children or child pornography, which are both crimes in most countries, in my eyes fall under that category. At the article Anti-French sentiment in the United States a link "Fuckfrance.com" was added. Such a title is totally unacceptable for a website, and we should not advertise such things under any condition. What would you say if we listed crap like FuckUSA.org or FuckIsrael.com? At both George W. Bush and John Kerry even all "critical" links were deleted. I do not see why there should not be a limit of indecency for link lists of other controversial articles as well. What do others think? I ask the same question at Talk:anti-American sentiment, Talk:anti-Semitism and Talk:List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles. Get-back-world-respect 22:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zanthalon readded such links without explanation even within the article as if they were wiki-links. Check Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Inline_external_links, this clearly should not be done, amongst others for the obvious reason that it makes it difficult for the reader to distinguish between wikipedia links and external links. He also removed without justification a comment that the term "childlover" is seen as a euphemism. Get-back-world-respect 22:10, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This was an oversight on my part. I noted your earlier comment to this effect, but copied in the new text to the wrong window, which edited the wrong version of the document. Thank you for pointing this out. I have now added the links in question to External Links. --Zanthalon 22:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Get-back-world-respect 22:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with deleting links because we find them offensive is that offensive is subjective. What you may find offensive, others may not. I might not be as offended by a 'fuckusa.org' site as you might think, since I tend to have a somewhat anti-American point of view. There are a lot of links on Wikipedia that I find offensive, such as links to skinhead and neo-Nazi organizations. That being said, I fully support that they are there. Deleting them and pretending they are not there is not going to make them go away. I am not familiar with the debates in anti-American Sentiment or in anti-French Sentiment in the United States so I cannot comment at all on why these links were deleted.

There are laws that define a lot of what those groups propagate as crimes. That can objectively said, and I am not even sure if it is legal to willingly link to such sites. Get-back-world-respect 22:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While what these groups advocate are considered illegal in many jurisdictions, talking about them is not. Smoking pot is illegal but telling people how to do it or grow marijuana is not illegal. Blowing up buildings with bombs is also illegal under most circumstances, but having a website telling people how to make bombs from household chemicals is not illegal. As far as I know, none of these groups are encouraging anybody to actually break the law. They are advocating changing the law and discussing ethics on the basis of a society where the laws were different than they currently are. If any of these groups were actively inciting people to break the law, you would have a very valid point in asking for them to be deleted. --Zanthalon

Child pornography is prohibited. Some of the groups you listed are known for spreading it. And I do not think you are as shameless as saying that these groups do not use to encourage pedophiles to practice their paraphilia. Which other reason would there be to delete links to organizations that help pedophiles? Get-back-world-respect 23:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you please point out to me which of these groups are known for spreading [child pornography]? Could you provide proof of this allegation? As far as I know, none of these groups are engaged in or facilitating any illegal activities at all. --Zanthalon 23:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So you have never gotten copies of the magazines with nude children - all "over the age of consent"? Ask NAMBLA then. Get-back-world-respect 23:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have never received any magazines of nude children at all. Furthermore, since I am not a member of NAMBLA, I am wholly unfamiliar with any printed products they may sell. But I take it you have received their literature? Then perhaps you are in a better position to tell us what was inside? --Zanthalon 23:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do a google search and find out what people who still have contact to the real world found out about NAMBLA. Get-back-world-respect 00:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reason to delete the links would be that the sites are not helpful for the article reader and provide no valuable information. The fact that the organisations maintaining these sites might have also distributed child porn is irrelevant. They don't do it on these sites, so why should we care? Paranoid 05:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that the definition of childlover in the first two paragraphs is sufficiently detailed. I do not think that adding the word 'euphemism' adds to the definition at all. --Zanthalon 22:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As you wrote that an article about a controversial group does not need to cover the view of the majority, it still does have to prominently point out the controversy. Get-back-world-respect 22:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that the controversy surrounding this page is sufficiently attested to in the notation at the top that the neutrality of the article is in dispute. --Zanthalon 23:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, neutrality tags are meant to be temporary while the content is worked out on the talk page. Then they get removed. Rmhermen 01:17, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

My point precisely. Some of us here are collaborating to make this article neutral, whilst others are resorting to being as obstructionist as possible. I believe that a consensus can be reached about this article in such a manner that the neutrality notice can be removed. --Zanthalon 01:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If there is controversy, please at least point out an external source claiming that there is. Your assertion is not sufficient. Paranoid 05:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I want to include external links that show that there is a controversy, but a certain interest group is blocking it. Cecropia's comments show I am not alone with my view, and if you still have some contact to the real world you know that this article is extremely biased for those who call themselves "boylovers". By the way, a simple google search shows that "boylove" is the only term frequently used. Get-back-world-respect 00:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you want to include external links, then present them for discussion here. You have already included your external links on a number of other pages, and the page here links to those pages. So I do not see any further need to include them here. But if you really think so, then try to provide logical arguments rather than your own biased point of view.

Is this article biased in favour of boylovers? I was unaware of that. I for one am not a boylover at all. So I have no reason whatsoever to write an article biased in favour of boylovers. But if you really think so, present your arguments and we can discuss it further. --Zanthalon 01:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I insist that a page about people who are pedophiles but in no way harmful because non-violent and caring for consensus with children who are easily influenced by them needs external links to organizations that help pedophiles by offering them to help with psychological treatment. This article nearly completely disregards the common opinion that "childlover" is a euphemist term people use for decriminalizing the crime of child abuse. And if you are not a pedophile, why are pedophilia related topics the only ones that show up in your contribution list and why do you try to edit all those article such that they shed a positive light on pedophiles? Get-back-world-respect 02:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Text moved from Talk:Boylove below

A little more to the article. And the two have been made into one.

---

I know that this has been discussed before. However I still vote for integration with the article on pedophilia. As with most terms there is no one and only definition of pedophilia. Just as heterosexuality and homosexuality it is not only about making love, but also falling in love. It depends on the individual pedophile, whether he considers sex important to him and morally acceptable. Defining girllovers and boylovers as "non-sadistic" is not very specific either. I believe that most situational offenders are not sadistic, even if the sex is not fully consensual. --Moon light shadow 09:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pedophilia seems something apart from boylover / girllover. I think the reason this article is so small is that no one has taken the time to build it up because of the nature of the topic.

Anyone feeling adventerous and want to goto the Nambla website to research their arguements as to why man boy love should be accepted? :)--ShaunMacPherson 05:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This discussion should go to child sexual abuse section "Motivation for outlawing sex with children", because not all offenders are pedophiles. What would you consider the difference between Pedophilia and girl/boy love? I think it is not acceptable to declare girl and boy lovers as good guys by definition. Most pedophiles actually love children and do not want to harm them and in many cases do not perform sexual acts with children at all. However just like with heterosexuality and homosexuality there are a few rapists and sadists, although most cases of child sexual abuse by force (and also overall) are committed by situational offenders, who consider children acceptable victims rather than prefering them. The problem is that all these acts are blamed to pedophilia in the public perception and consensual acts are considered impossible. -- Moon light shadow 09:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

Some researchers have considered girllovers attracted to children not real pedophiles, because often they are not as fixated on their deviant sexuality as boylovers, and more often curable. Also boylovers more frequently relapse after treatment. Boylovers statistically prefer children a little older.

I took this section out for discussion here. This is quite a claim, I'd want the names of the major proponents of these ideas, and the counter arguements (science is very rarely one sided) as to this claim that homosexual pedophilia is more 'deviant' then heterosexual pedophilia. As well this term of 'curable' is more then a little vague, and suggests bias since I'd surmise that boy and girl lovers do not think they are in need of curing. --ShaunMacPherson 05:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Also boylovers more frequently relapse after treatment." This is already said in more detail in Pedophilia. -- Moon light shadow 09:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find the relevant information in pedophilia indicating that homosexual pedophiles are any less reponsive to treatment than heterosexual pedophiles. Give me one more hint?

Sorry, I was not quite right. It actually does not give more details, when comparing girl lovers to boy lovers, but only says the same. At the beginning of section "Underage sex": "The probability is much higher for boylovers compared to girllovers." However it includes the percentage of delinquent pedophiles who relapse. --Moon light shadow 15:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

Page Name: I think that this page needs to be either re-named "Boylovers and Girllovers" or that we need to stop the Girllover redirect and put real content there. Alternatively, we could use the generic term "Childlovers" as the page title and redirect both the "Girllover" and "Boylover" pages to it.

--

This article has improved drastically since I commented on it last. Very good work to all involved! --ShaunMacPherson 14:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

boylover, pedophile, child molester

These two paragraphs are flawed. However I can not fix easily them.

The term boylover is taken as a contrast with the terms pedophile or child molester. Many boylovers consider pedophile to be the more general term; that is, all boylovers are pedophiles, but not all pedophiles are boylovers. This is because pedophile would also include girllovers and child molesters, whereas boylovers differentiate themselves from the former and distance themselves from the latter.

A boylover is not a child molester. To assume that all boylovers are child molesters is equally fallacious as to assume that all heterosexuals are rapists. The fact that one expresses a sexual preference does not mean that that person is willing to break the law or harm others merely to achieve sexual gratification. Boylovers condemn child molesters and rapists of children as vehemently as any other sector of the population.

They try to make two many distinctions at once (boylover <-> girllover, pedophiles and child abusers overlap). The term child molester is not used in the common way, but to refer only to those persons, who have sexual contacts to children in a way, that child lovers consider unacceptable. This should be made clear in the article. --Moon light shadow 19:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have created a new page, Childlover that encompasses both boylovers and girllovers and redirected the boylover page to it. This is more accurate, rather than talking about girllove-specific issues on a boylove page. Zanthalon

Regarding Research

"Anyone feeling adventerous and want to goto the Nambla website to research their arguements as to why man boy love should be accepted?"

I'd recommend against taking NAMBLA's opinion as canonical for boylovers as a whole. They certainly are an organization of boylovers, and their point of view represents what SOME boylovers may believe, but they are by no means the "spokesmen" for the community as a whole. (Just the opposite; a large portion of the boylove community finds them... um... disagreeable.)

Part of the problem is that the whole specter of "child abuse" and its affiliated industry makes it difficult for boylovers to even DISCUSS their opinions on the topic without facing repercussions. It's one thing to say, "If you have sexual contact with a child, that is a crime and you will go to prison." It's quite another to say, "If you even EXPRESS an opinion about the issue that differs from what the child protection industry tells you it must be, you will be ostracized and probably sent to prison anyway (or locked up in an institution)." But that is the reality that many boylovers face.

Wikipedia, to my knowledge, tries to focus on the facts without the polemic; it's an encyclopedia, after all. But with this particular topic, it's almost impossible to separate the two. Just saying the dry statement, "Boylove is the romantic attraction between adult males and minor boys," starts the polemic. Saying, "Boylove is a disease/psychological disorder in which..." or "Boylove is the criminal molestation of..." is equally weighted. Is there any way at all to address this issue impartially?

If we want to research arguments as to why man-boy love should be accepted... first we would need an environment in which one could even ESPOUSE those arguments without immediately facing consequences. Is Wikipedia such an environment?

Wikipedia seems to be an environment where people who want to help pedophiles by showing them how to deal with their paraphilia, i.e. psychological therapy, are unwelcome, and people who post links to them are treated as if they had a "conduct problem". At the same time, links to groups that advovate crimes are welcome. Please do not further use this discussion site since it is of a redirect and was inappropriately not moved with the article. Get-back-world-respect 23:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since the individual involved in the moving has indicated that this discussion is still here, I imagine discussion is still open on it. Meantime, the idea that boylove represents a paraphilia which must be treated is in itself a political position which certainly has merit in itself, but is not the only possible position. Boylovers would argue that boylove is not a disease or disorder, and does not require treatment or therapy any more than heterosexuality or homosexuality does. Since the purpose of the childlove-née-boylove site is to report impartially on the views of boylovers, in would seem then that article using that to make a case about need for treatment would be inappropriately pushing a political agenda. It seems much more logical to me to note the opposing point of view, link to the page which presents it (the pedophilia page?) and make that case there.

This discussion is still here, but primarily for historical purposes. If you want your thoughts to be seen by more people, it is probably better to place them on either Talk:Pedophilia or Talk:Childlover as these are the pages that are being actively edited at this time. --Zanthalon 00:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, but none of this answers the question: how do we propose to get legitimate opinions outlining the arguments of actual boylovers (if we want to report accurately on these arguments) if we use NAMBLA as our reference and don't make an effort to solicit actual opinions in an environment where they won't be immediately attacked?

Another issue marginally related to research: was the decision to combine the "boylove" and "girllove" pages based on convenience with regards to Wikipedia, or on an actual research among boylovers and girllovers which reveal that we're dealing with qualitatively identical phenomena? If so, perhaps that should be addressed: similarities and differences between boylovers and girllovers. Otherwise, it might seem like an arbitrary political call on the part of the authors, somewhat akin to having only one page for Baptists and Presbyterians because they're all Christians, you know. (This may be part of a larger concern of mine: this whole article presents the childlove "movement" as some unified, sequential thing. It's not; there's no steering committee. It's fractured, with dozens of little groups often even at loggerheads with each other. The "CLogo" is a good example; a substantial number of boylovers are more than just uncomfortable with it; they're downright offended by it. Boylovers do not wish to be lumped in with girllovers on the whole, and any article which treats them jointly should probably highlight that fact.) But those points shouldn't be taken on my say-so; they should actually be investigated, researched with the groups themselves.

Hi. I would disagree with your presumption that NAMBLA is the primary reference for this article. The article cites NAMBLA as just one of many organisations that has been involved in the pedophile movement over the last thirty years. Indeed, if you look at the references of the article, you will not find NAMBLA mentioned at all.

I agree that boylovers and girllovers have a number of different issues. Originally, there was only a boylover page and the girllover page was redirected to the boylover page. The reason for changing this to a childlove page was not to suggest that boylove and girllove are identical, but to present the common arguments of the two in a single place. I do not think that at this time there is support for having an exhaustive discussion of every nuance of the child love community. If boylovers and girllovers each fight for their own page, what comes next? Separate pages for TBLs, LBLs, TGLs and LGLs? After that, the nepiophiles will come demanding their own page as well. If you think that these distinctions are necessary, feel free to sign up and start editing. Wikipedia is open to all comers.

Once again, I do not think that this article attempts to show that there is a single unified movement. What it does attempt to do is to point out the significant events and organizations that make up this movement.

You are right that there should be perhaps a greater mention that boylovers do not wish to be 'lumped together' with girllovers. Why not try to work this language in yourself.

No, I fully understand that not everybody likes the CLogo. I understand that many do not like it all and may even be offended by it. At the same time, however, it is supported by some people and deserves some mention in this article. --Zanthalon 04:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry... I didn't mean to imply that I thought NAMBLA was the primary source; rather, that was a response to a comment on the page by someone who suggested we should go talk to NAMBLA to get a boylover perspective. I was just trying to say, don't stop there... the community's not that simple...

I also agree that there's no support for a page on every possible flavor of childlover, but I would think that the limiting factor would be the actual constituencies which the community possesses. For example, there are very clear boylove communities and girllove communities, both in the real world and on the Internet. But LBLs, for example, tend not to have their own communities; rather, they are more like factions or interest groups within the boylover community. Should LBLs become a political force on their own, with their own communities, websites, and agenda, then at that point, why not have their own page? They've established an independent enough identity to warrant it.

It is, in part, my anal retentive nature that spurs these comments. I believe the articles should reflect the reality of what is out there. It is not (to my understanding) the purpose of Wikipedia to judge or evaluate these communities; simply to accurately report their existence, their beliefs, their organization (or lack thereof) and their history. Value judgments about them are for other discussion boards.

Which is why I keep coming back to: what's the actual research here? What are the sources? Would boylovers be in agreement with (just for an example) a page combined with girllovers? Would girllovers? When we mention (again, purely for example) NAMBLA, do we mention that they have a questionable reputation even within the boylove community? And by asking these questions, I'm not implying that it's not so; it may very well be that the answer is, yes, someone's already checked that. At which point, my response is, "Cool."

I was considering registering, but it seems like overkill just for me to become a one-trick pony on this issue...

(I did make one change: "condition" to "sexual preference" in the Symbols section. Truth is, I'm not convinced that "sexual preference" is a sufficiently neutral term; maybe you can help me come up with a better one; but I am convinced that "condition" is very value-laden, implying an illness or psychological condition.)

The "Criminality" of "Childlove"

GBWR: You seem insistent on including a clause in the beginning of this article that 'childlove' is a euphemism of 'criminals justifying criminality.' Please show us your proof of childlovers being criminals. Research I have already cited shows that most childlovers do not actually act on their attraction. Ergo, most childlovers are not criminals. I am open to the idea of including language about euphemisms into the article, but not in such a manner that suggests that all childlovers are criminals and not in a pejorative fashion. --Zanthalon 03:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This requires definition. Is a "childlover" different from a pedophile? If so, what essentially makes a "childover" different from a pedophile in terms a layman could understand? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that this is addressed in the first three paragraphs of the article. But to recap: Technically, a childlover is a pedophile. Many pedophiles have adopted the term childlover (or boylover or girllover) because society equates the term pedophile with child molester. Being a pedophile, however, does not mean that a person has acted on the attraction they have to young children. Therefore, being a pedophile is not tantamount to being a criminal. For this reason, I object to GBWR's comment that childlove is a euphemism of childlovers justifying criminality. --Zanthalon 04:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But therein we have an important rhetorical distinction on which a large part of the legitimacy of declaring oneself a "childlover" lies. You said: "Being a pedophile, however, does not mean that a person has acted on the attraction they have to young children." Before we get to the therefore: Does being a "childlover" mean that a person has not acted or would would not act on the attraction they have to young children"? -- Cecropia | Talk 05:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant term is already defined. The term "criminal" refers to someone who has committed a crime. So, in order to apply the word "criminal" to any person or group of people, one would have to demonstrate that a crime has been committed. The burden of proof, in this case, lies on the one using the defined term. The word "childlover" doesn't have to be different from "pedophile" (though many would argue that it is). One can be a childlover, a pedophile, an ephebophile, or sexually attracted to green Volkswagen Beetles... and if one hasn't committed a crime, one is not a criminal. (From the one-trick pony.) Marlais

Not having acted as a criminal does not mean not having argued in favour of crimes. Get-back-world-respect 12:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Granted. But that still doesn't make one a criminal. Arguing about the law, demonstrating against laws one feels are unjust, advocating changes in the law, and even being an activist in getting laws reconsidered... none of these things are crimes. Therefore the simple fact that pedophiles wish the law were different, and may argue that the law should be different, still does not meet the definition of "criminal." The label is inappropriate. Your own comment seems to acknowledge this ("Not having acted as a criminal...," italics added), so let's not try to imply it. Marlais

How about saying "It is widely seen as a euphemism, used by paedophiles to advance their views (esp. on social, political and legal issues) without the stigma attached to paedophilia." Euphemism needs to be in the introduction, and it has almost the same content as "criminals justifying criminality" but much more NPOV and not logically flawed.pir 15:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It comes down to accuracy. Implying criminality is completely inaccurate (especially without any credible evidence of a criminal act), so that's out from the beginning. Your reworking has a couple of different difficulties, however, which should be addressed in we want any claim of an NPOV article.

First of all, the use of the passive voice is almost always a red flag for evasion of accuracy. When one says, "It is widely seen..." the true researcher's question should be, "Widely seen by whom? Who are these people doing the wide seeing? Exactly how wide is it? What evidence do these anonymous, unnumbered people use to defend their wide view?" It is easy to start a sentence with, "Everyone knows that..." but it is also intellectually lazy and overwhelmingly inaccurate. If we are going to forward a value judgment, then it needs to be attributed and documented; if it is not, then the author is merely trying to be slick.

Second of all, is it true that "childlovers" use this term as a euphism to advance their views? It may very well be a euphimism, but is that their stated purpose? The problem with trying to speak for a group is that the group is accessible and capable of stating their own positions. Do they state their position as using the euphimism in order to "advance their views"? Or do they state another purpose for using the euphism, or perhaps even disagree that it is a euphimism at all but instead a term which they define to make a clear distinction between two concepts? These aren't things we as the authors can speculate on and decide for them--especially when dealing with a concept on which the authors themselves admit to bias. Instead, they must be investigated, and supported with quotes, citations, references... all those things which make a good article, you know. Marlais

It is correct that they should not be called criminals as many do not become criminals. It is however necessary to point out what the danger is: the crime of abuse. We are not writing about something that is stigmatized for obscure reasons, we write about a crime that can drive children into depression and suicide. The introduction needs to address that the term "childlove" is only used by a small minority and that the overwhelming majority of the societies has a view very sceptical of pedophelia. The point is not whether "childlovers" do or do not advance their views. Here they - or the ones defending the term - clearly do. The point is that this is the perception of many. Of course those who call themselves do not see it as a euphemism, that is why they made it up. That is clear from the introduction. Please sign your statements. Get-back-world-respect 18:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the word crime or criminal does not need to be in the introduction. First of all there is nothing criminal about being a paedophile or "child-lover" per se - people are not criminal because of who they are but because of what they do, I think we have established that point. Secondly, there is universal consensus that child abuse is a crime, no need to emphasise that. Thirdly, I think that this a very good article because it allows readers some understanding of how paedophiles see themselves. I have often wondered about this, and I believe it is very important to understand how they see themselves if our society is to come up with more effective approaches towards dealing with them. To immediately condemn paedophiles kind of destroys that. Of course we need to get the wording right and draw a clear line between explaining paedophiles' views and being apologists for those who commit one of the most damageing and inhumane crimes. IMO the article does that very well, without mentioning the word crime or criminal in the introduction.pir 19:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've registered an identity here largely for accountability on my comments, although really, this is about the only issue I'm addressing (hence my references to myself as a "one-trick pony"). Hope that helps. Now, if as, as you say, the introduction needs to addres that "the term 'childlove' is only used by a small minority and that the overwhelming majority of the societies has a very skeptical view of pedophelia [sic]," how about saying something more like:

"The term 'childlove' is only used by a small minority and the overwhelming majority of the societies has a very skeptical view of pedophilia."

Now we'd be saying exactly what you wish to say without using such value-laden terms. (Of course, we do run into a couple of accuracy issues, such as what exactly consititues an "overwhelming majority" of societies: which societies are they, and what percentage do the constitute of all societies? Do you mean all societies over time, or just the ones that happen to exist at this moment, i.e., is the statement historically accurate as well? Are there exceptions, and if so, what are they? On what basis do these overwhelming societies base their views? and so on. But those are questions that a little bit of good research should be able to address adequately.) Marlais

The very fact that sex with children, which is advocated by many self-proclaimed "childlovers", is a crime in most countries shows most clearly that the overwhelming majority in most societies are highly critical of the term, that is why it needs to be in the introduction. Get-back-world-respect 19:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. I thought your wording which I cited above to express that position with a much higher degree of accuracy and neutrality as well. I'd happily support changing the current wording to your words above.

I do think it's an interesting sub-discussion that sex with children was not a crime in most countries of the world up until the last twenty-five years or so, as the United States became more aggressive in exporting its influence. And in many countries (such as the one I call home), those laws are largely considered concessions to U.S. influence, and not taken terribly seriously (except, of course, when it's a U.S. citizen in violation of them, when they are taken very seriously indeed). There are several interesting studies on that, especially in Latin America, but they fall well outside the scope of this article. We'll have to leave the historical perspective to someone actually interested in doing the research.

So can we agree, then, that the objection in the introduction can best be worded as, "The term 'childlove' is only used by a small minority and the overwhelming majority of the societies has a very skeptical view of pedophilia"? Marlais

Sceptical is another euphemism, it has to be noted that sex with children is a crime.

Apart from that I would like to know why you used an I.P. address that seems to be related to hacking. Get-back-world-respect 20:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ad hominem. Does my IP matter, or instead the content of my comments? Marlais

Ad hominem would be if I said "Your IP address proves you are a hacking child molester." Asking why you used an IP address that seems to be related to hacking is nothing wrong. Get-back-world-respect 20:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ad hominem in the sense that it is personal. My IP address is of no relevance to you or this discussion. The content of my comments is. Marlais

If you are using a hacked IP deliberately it shows you are a criminal or have at least something to hide. If you are being hacked you should be glad someone warns you. Get-back-world-respect 20:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your warning. But again, the fact that you bring it up in the context of this discussion (especially when you obviously had no trouble finding my personal page) suggests you are trying to say something about me independent of the content of my comments. Even if I am all three--using a hacked IP, and criminal, and a person with something to hide--my comments here stand alone. So how about we agree to keep all further discussion about my mysterious IP and my questionable character on my user page, and use this page for discussion about the childlover article? Marlais 21:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just find interesting to note that this is the first topic I see whose discussion is dominated by users who seem to be solely interested in this one topic, who twist it in an extreme partisan way very distant from the commonly help opinion, they oppose the addition of external links that would not get close to balancing the articles, they are supported by anons and newly created accounts that are solely interested in this very topic, one chooses a very uncommon place for the very first edit, a request for comment on user conduct, and a scientific journal article is singled out which is thought to support the "boylovers'" view, so they make up an article with a completely inappropriate title, the first author's name. Sorry if you take offense at being the one user whose IP address seems to be involved in a hack, never encountered any such thing before. Get-back-world-respect 22:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

better use of 'euphemism' ?

It is widely seen as a euphemism of criminals justifying criminality.

maybe change this to the grammatical and less redundant:

It is seen by some as a euphemism for justifying criminal activity.

"by some" is more npov than "widely"... as for 'criminal', even if most self-professed childlovers don't engage in acts considered criminal by their society, some presumably do. +sj+ 18:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I missed pir's contribution above. I like that best. +sj+

"as for 'criminal', even if most self-professed childlovers don't engage in acts considered criminal by their society, some presumably do."

That's a logical fallacy. Even if most people claiming to be anti-childlovers don't engage in acts considered criminal by their society, some presumably do. Therefore, it is seen by some that professing anti-childlover views is a euphimism for justifying criminality? It doesn't make sense. Stick to facts. If it is "seen by some," who are those some? Do they have names? Do they write articles? Do they do research? And if "some" redheads commit crimes, does that mean that redheadedness is a precursor to criminality? Marlais

The logical fallacy is yours. Professing "childlovers" views is not a euphemism, the term is the euphemism. Furthermore, the crimes presumably committed by those critical of the term "childlover" are most likely unrelated to there being critical of the term, while the very distintion between pedophiles abusing children and "childlovers" many of whom advocate sex with children which are widely considered abuse makes the term a euphemism. Get-back-world-respect 19:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's use a more accurate analogy, then. Some homosexuals, in violation of the laws of their jurisdiction, have nonetheless gotten married, somehow convincing local officials to go along with them (organized crime, it seems). And that act is committed as a direct consequence of their being homosexual, and advocating changes in the laws regarding homosexuality. Would it then be accurate to say that homosexuality itself is in fact a term used to justify criminal activity? (This is further complicated by the result that some of these homosexuals have even succeeded in getting their local laws changed as a consequence of this activism, making what was once a crime no longer so.)

It becomes semantically fuzzy when one says, "Advocating sex with children." Does that mean that the pedophiles are advocating illegal sex with children in their current jurisdictions regardless of the law? Or are they advocating changes in the law regarding sex with children? And independent of the answer to that... does the fact that some self-proclaimed childlovers might even advocate criminal sex with children (though I've come across very few of those) serve as grounds to then label all childlovers as such advocates? Marlais

They are advocating what is considered child abuse and a crime. A less far-fetched analogy would be people forming the North American Man Boy Crack Dealing Association, advocating the legalization of crack selling to minors in an attempt to fight for childrens' right of free development of the mind. Get-back-world-respect 20:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And believe it or not, such an organization as that would be nothing criminal as long as they didn't commit the actual crime of selling crack, to minors or otherwise. And it gives the free marketplace of ideas a chance to evaluate and propose legislation as seems necessary. The advocating of ideas--even criminal ones--is not in itself criminal. Marlais

That was not the point as was shown some statements before. The point is that the label of "boylove" to hide the real interest crack-dealers would be a shameless euphemism. Get-back-world-respect 21:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Title change

I changed the title and altered the opening paragraph to better conform to Wiki convention, be more descriptive and NPOV.

A problem with the previous emphasis in the title was that Childlover is a descriptive term, whereby a group wants to replace a commonly used term for another for whatever reason. cf. Negro->Black (or Afro-American)->African American in the U.S. context over approximately a 40-year span.

Childlove movement, OTOH, describes what the article is actually about, a movement of an existing group of people one of whose objectives is lingusitic change. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

excellent way to help solve the problem. pir 22:42, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image

Am I the only one who finds the Clogo image really sickening? Text I can deal with, but this image is a bit too much. The doll looks spooky and especially the way that the guy who's holding her is in the dark with just the hands visible give me the creeps. It's depraved. I'm almost always opposed to censorship, but I'll make an exception for paedophilia. If no-one objects, I'll remove it in a day or so.pir 23:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I 0bject. The image is from their own brochure, it is not pornographic, and it illustrates a group prominently mentioned in the article. If that image has to go, it begs the question of whether the article needs to go, too. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:17, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think there's a huge difference between how image and text in the way they affect people? And what exactly does it say about Clogo? pir 23:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly there's a difference. Why is the article about Abu Ghraib full of a gratuitous plethora of images in addition to the textual description? This image is germane to what is being discussed. The article is full of equivocation. This picture is worth a thousand equivocations. I don't understand your second question. What does the pic say about Clogo? Or about the contents of the brochure?

How about the clogo butterfly on the opposite corner of the brochure? It is a well known logo that is used by a number of groups. There is even a collection of images [1]. --Moonlight shadow 08:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Abu Ghraib pictures are documentary evidence, so it's clear what they add to the article. This picture was taken for a propaganda purpose: to further the aims of the "childlove" movement, probably to illustrate the situation which paedophile feel they are in (I'd say: in the dark, having their hands on children, but wanting to come out and have their urges accepted by society). Still I feel that this image is full of messages which I can't really put my finger on but which I find disturbing. So what does this image add to the article? In my view it adds a propaganda message. I think this is a very good article, and I think it is important to hear what the "childlove" movement has to say, but I find this image problematic. I'd much prefer to replace these images by the Clogo butterfly. On the other hand, if I'm the only one who objects to it, leave it as it is, I don't want to impose myself here. pir 11:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So we can allow them to spread their twisted views in articles, but when it comes to sickening pictures they get banned? I would be glad if the picture went together with all the other crap the "childlovers" brought. But great idea about a butterfly. How about another picture of a young lad: "I was abused, but so regardfully!"? Get-back-world-respect 11:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we started to remove articles because they give voice to twisted views, I'd like the Nazi, Republican, neo-concervative, Stalinism, anti-Semitism, capitalism etc. articles to be removed. Other people would want to remove other articles. Why don't we do that ? because an encyclopedia is about making available as much information as possible. Then you can deal with problems by debate based on sound information. As opposed to debate based on propaganda or censorship of certain groups' views. I don't know what you think GBWR, but it seems to me that our society is not dealing with paedophilia in an effective way. It is a huge problem, with apparently 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 or 20 boys being sexually abused, in 70-90% of cases by someone they are close to and who they trust. About 80% of child sexual abuse is never reported. The legal system, moral condemnation, hysterical campaigns in the mass media don't do anything (or very little) to solve this problem, because that requires the co-operation of paedophiles. That's why it is extremely important for paedophiles' "twisted views" to be heard. Of course this has to happen in a sensitive way. The more I think about it the more I come to realise that my real objection to the images is that I think they are manipulative in ways that are not clear to the reader.pir 11:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images on this article

File:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg

picture?

Why have these images been restored to this article? I for one do not support their being there. - Mark 12:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to state that my revert of the anon was not intended to support their inclusion; rather, given the edit which followed it I thought it was best to. I'll stay out of this article from now on, though. :) -- Hadal 12:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's stop playing petty censor here. Wikipedia contains many images people find distasteful. It is manipulative and intellectually dishonest to leave these out and leave the content of the article in. Those removing the pictures are only making a case for this thing going up on VfD. The irony is that I suspect quite a few people would defend this whitewash of an article but not defend pictures taken from the movement's own literature which illustrates in the mildest way way the article's proponent's advocate. BTW, these are by no means the most provocative "legal" images they publish. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by your actions Cecropia. Does this mean you want this article to be deleted? Did you include the two images because you want the article to be deleted? pir 14:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, pir, I am not trying to get the article deleted. I believe it covers an important and timely subject. I'm trying to move it to balance and NPOV. The posting of the pictures gives dimension and context to what the proponents say they're interested in. My comment about VfD relates to the point that if the mild pictures, taken from the movement's public literature, are that horrifying to the people insisting on the deleting them, then it begs the question that the article itself should be deleted. I don't want that to happen, but neither do I want the article to be stripped of honest pro and con description of what we're talking about. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I completely support what you say (except re. these images to the article - see below). And apologies if anyone took my comment as implying that you were acting in bad faith, I just found it confusing.pir 16:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just having come into this discussion and not meaning to cause a hawok, you are talking about the image i've put to the right here? If so, whats offensive about it? Its a young boy kind of thing you see at the pool every day. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

File:Clogo pedo cover.jpg

I believe this is depraved and propagandisticpir

I was mainly objecting to the picture on the left. I feel that it is propagandistic and favours paedophile views on relationships of adults with children (see also my comments above). While I support this article which does indeed state and explain these views held by the "childlover" movement, I think the inclusion of these images is extremely problematic. In accord with the NPOV policy we state these views in the form "Childlovers believe the following etc", and then we can also state opposing views. This is not possible with images, especially propagandistic images, you just can't put it as "childlovers view the world as in this" and then add an image making the opposite point - if you include the image the article becomes propagandistic itself. As for the other image, I think it's not as bad, but it too is problematic, because of the text "OK Magazine". It suggests that it is "OK" for adults to be sexually attracted to boys. The style of the magazine front page is also reminiscent of mainstream magazines that would depict adults in poses emphasising their beauty and attractiveness, except that here it is a child, suggesting that it is "OK" to treat children in a way that is usually reserved for adult models. I don't feel qualified to take decisions on what is good taste and what is not, I am concerned about the article being NPOV rather than propagandistic. There is a very fine line between describing the "childlover" movement and being perceived to endorse their views. IMO, many readers that come to this article will perceive it as endorsing the childlover movement POV if it includes these images. - pir 16:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I took a closer look of the bigger version of the picture at left. I see a bit of a small leg underneath the doll, so apparently this is a picture of a child holding a doll with most detail except the doll obscured. Actually it is an excellent allegory of what pedophilia is about without showing an actual child, more appropriate than I realized at first. IMHO I don't see how these pictures could in any way be seen as an endorsement of the movement. -- Cecropia | Talk 00:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also: images are great for articles, they help to illustrate the concept in a powerful way - but not all article benefit. There's a really good reason why murder or snuff porn don't have them. The same seems true for articles regarding paedophilia. pir 17:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neither of the articles you cite advocate or form an apologia for the title behavior. The instant article talks about spiritual values and other affectional issues and gives the impression that sex is secondary or tertiary or perhaps even unnecessary for the pedophile's fulfillment. It also fudges the line between pre- and post-pubescent sex, which are a world apart. Showing photos of actual literature of organizations cited reveals focus and intent. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the images yet again; this is very quickly becoming an edit war. I don't think we should have these images here, any more than we should have pornographic images in the entry for Pornography. And, yes, if this article was voted for deletion, I would vote to have this article deleted and any relevent objective information moved to the pedophilia article; the article is, plain simply, a pro-pedophilia propaganda pamphlet, and sounds like the denials of a criminal who does not think their criminal inclinations are evil. -- Samboy 18:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Use of term

I don't think the Wikipedia should adopt the term childlover to describe "members of this movement". Better to say childlove advocate, if it's necessary to mention people at all.

Still better to avoid using the term as much as possible and describe the positions of the movement or of particular, named advocates of those positions.

For example, Jeffrey P. Braun says that sex makes children come alive or Mary Baker, professor of sexology at Brandeis, asserts that pedophiles have gotten a "bad rap" and wishes that "prudes" would just lighten up a bit.

Let's neither condemn the "childlove" movement nor accept its aims uncritically. --Uncle Ed 19:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No let condem this now and call it what it is SIN it is preverted if we start down the road by saying well maybe they hava valid point you know what will happen we will be have kids sold legally into prosititution and we will have people arguing in the courts to marriage their child bride or groom. Folks don't white wash this for the sake of POV somethings all rational people can see through and this one of them.

Uncle Ed has a point; there are so many unattributed "points of view" in this article that it almost reads like something posted on the Internet. "It is widely believed..." By whom? "Many people think..." How many? "They argue that..." Who argues it? I can imagine a newspaper report written in this style: "Someone in the government said that it is generally believed we ought to do that thing to those people." It comes off like a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Nobody needs to say, "Well, maybe they have a valid point." What needs to be said is simply, "This is the point they make" (hopefully with "they" being adequately attributed). If it is true that "all rational people" can see through it, then there's no reason to sacrifice neutrality; after all, all rational people are already going to see right through it. So there's nothing to gain by foresaking NPOV, and plenty to lose (unless you don't consider integrity a very big deal).

Doesn't anybody actually research anymore? Or are we going to continue writing this article off the top of our heads, and keep changing the name every time we paint ourselves in to a rhetorical corner? Marlais