Category talk:Pederasty

Deletion attempts

There have been two attempts to delete this category so far, the first one resulted in a No consensus, keep decision, and the second resulted in a consensus Keep decision as per details below:

• The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 5#Category:Pederasty. Haiduc 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Category was created by request at:

1. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15#Category:Pederastic lovers, and
2. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 2#Category:Pederasty organizations.

I could not find another attempt at deletion other than that above.

--William Allen Simpson 23:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with Pedophilia

I decided to add Pedophilia as a parent category. I realize that Pedophilia implies crime and Pederasty, at least to some historians, does not. That is all controversial. My justification that historical or not, crime in some locality/time or not, Pederasty is a specialized case of Pedophilia. That is my only reasoning and I hope we can avoid arguments about any implications of the two words. I am just trying to help the user browse from one subject to the other. AWM -- 70.231.175.26 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you've mischaracterized the controversy. A number of editors consider pedophilia to be an orientation or desire, rather than an act, and therefore say that it is not a crime (as opposed to child sexual abuse, which is a crime). Further, some editors argue that pedophiles desire younger people than pederasts do, so they consider the two concepts to be separate. I personally believe that there is a tendency here to define pedophilia too narrowly, and I think that for the average reader placing the pederasty category under the pedophilia category will assist article navigation. -Will Beback 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from editing until your ban has been lifted. -Will Beback 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but though there may be some overlap, as there also is between marriage and pedophilia, it is particularly inappropriate and confusing to conflate the terms. Frankly, it smacks of politics and flies in the face of historical facts. Haiduc 01:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You may all be interested in what those terms mean today in Modern Greek. I've made a relative comment in Talk:Pederasty:

Readers may be interested to know that the term 'pederasty' in modern Greek is equivalent to the term 'pedophilia'. Actually there is no term for what I read as the English definition of 'pederasty' in Modern Greek! Source: [1]. The other term ('pedophilia') does not exist in modern Greek (browse for it here). In view of that, I think there may be a need for proper mentioning of this, since the meaning of the Greek term is definitely altered in English. Most native users of Greek, regardless of their good level in English, are likely to confuse those two terms. This was also noted in the categorization debate over at Talk:Alexander the Great ([2]).

Please discuss. •NikoSilver• 10:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If I read you right, you would like the article to indicate that in modern Greek pederasty and pedophilia refer to the same activity. But it is not clear what that activity is, which also puts into question what the meaning of "pedophilia" is in modern Greek. My miserable Greek suggests that your link defines the term to refer to a man who has sexual relations with "παιδί ή έφηβο". Fine, but what exactly is implied by "paidi e efebo?" Is "paides" in modern Greek still genderless? What age ranges does it include? And, likewise, how about "efebos?" I am not asking so as to cast doubt on your claim, merely to understand what we are talking about, and what to say in the article and under whose authority. Haiduc 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my complete unawereness on the subject. First off, the answers to your questions: Paidi exactly translates to child, and yes it is genderlsess (neuter); that applies to ancient Greek too. Efebos is adolescent; there is a gender (male), but when we include both male and female, we default to male (so it could be and probably is genderless -see below); also applies to ancient Greek. So, I am saying:

• There is no modern word in any Greek dictionary that I've seen for 'pedophilia', despite the fact that the compound is indeed reasonably Greek (pedi + -philia). I've never heard of it in my entire life, and it striked me as kinda odd, but I found other references.
• I originally thought the word pederasty is defined more or less to what I read in the definition of pedophilia:
  • WP Pedophilia:
    is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles. Many researchers use the term to refer to all those who have sexually abused a child.
  • Online dict for pederast (Greek: Παιδεραστής):
    παιδεραστής ο [peδerastís] O7 : άντρας που επιδιώκει σεξουαλικές σχέσεις (συνήθ. ομοφυλοφιλικές) με παιδί ή έφηβο. [λόγ. < αρχ. παιδεραστής]
    pederast (...): male who seeks sexual relationships (usually homosexual) with child or adolescent. (derives from ancient same word)
  • Pedophilia#Definitions:
    The word comes from the Greek paidophilia (παιδοφιλία)—pais (παις, "child") and philia (φιλία, "love, friendship"). Paidophilia was coined by Greek poets either as a substitute for "paiderastia" (pederasty), or vice versa.

All those few sickos I've seen arrested for raping 5-year-olds here in Greece, are prosecuted for 'paederasteía' and are called 'pederastés'. The last not so recent case was that of Douris in Ermioni, and was described by the media as such. It seems that the difference between those terms in Greek, is that paidophilia is just the attraction, but when this attraction becomes action, it's called pederasty.[3] So, no it is not the same, but worse! -philia is attraction,[4] while -erasteia is action! Here I mainly see the distinction between adolescents/children and boys/children. Also, it strikes me that -erasteia may be considered more acceptable (adolescent boys -not children), while -philia may be considered least acceptable (young children). •NikoSilver• 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So how about this: "In modern Greek the term παιδοφιλία is used indiscriminately for any sexual relations between men and children or adolescents of any age or gender." Haiduc 03:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, please let me sort this out completely first. That's not the only difference. As I said, -philia is the attraction, while -erasteia is the action (both are indescriminately used on boys/girls-kids/adolescents). I'll get back with sources (Greek & English) when I have more time. •NikoSilver• 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit amazed that Wikipedia uses the term 'pederasty' for sex or love between 14-17 year old boys and men who are older than 18 (or 21?), and that there are categories and lists of names of pederasts. Although there might have been other definitions in earlier ages, 'pederasty' is now used in the same way as 'pedophilia'. I think the right term should be 'ephebophilia'. You shouldn't bother with Greek extractions, philia and erasteia, when everybody is confusing them because of the 'pedo' that's before them. What you need is a clear and obvious word, but a neutral one. Like 'ephebophilia'. Soczyczi 01:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the media likes to lump together all words that start with "ped-" that does not make it correct usage. WP should provide objective, scholarly information. Therefore it is also unimportant how these things are called in Modern Greek, just as it would be unimportant to note that in France gays used to be referred to as pédés (for pederasts), even if they were in fact androphile like Genet. Yes, everyday language is sometimes imprecise -- sometimes on purpose (by the media), sometimes due to lack of knowledge (by the people). But that is not what WP should be about.

As for calling people ephebophiles or pederasts, I think it is mainly a question of theory vs. practice. That is, while some of them (like Wilde) styled themselves as pederasts in the Greek tradition (where the benefit for the younger man lay in social advancement, networking, and learning, and the sexual component was not all that important or even absent) in fact many of their relationships were probably more selfish and sexually motivated, making the label ephebophile (as an expression for the purely sexual aspect of pederasty) perhaps more appropriate. Others, like Adelswärd-Fersen, might be be called proper pederasts, in light of how they behaved towards their lovers.

But in the end, we can only guess what motives they had, if their relationships were really pederastic in the Greek sense (with mutual, immaterial benefits for both partners) or more one-sided (sex for money). Drawing a distinction is difficult here, but pederasty and ephebophilia are most definitely not the same thing -- pederasty (in the classical sense) includes behavior that goes beyond the purely sexual aspect. If that were not the case, the ancient Greeks would probably not have considered it such a vital part of the coming-of-age of a young man. Morn 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a popularity contest

I was bemused by the recent edit by DrBat, edit made with the excuse that "everyone else keeps on reverting your edits here." There is ample evidence that no division between pederasty and LGBT history can be made, and lawful pederasty (relations between men and youths above the age of consent but still teenagers) has been repeatedly the focus of political activity by LGBT organs, as in the "recent" equalization of age of consent in the UK. DrBat, please restore the LGBT category. Just because a number of editors have attempted to remove it for reasons of their own, it does not mean that you are entitled to do so without proper documentation or discussion. Haiduc 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, see Wikipedia:Consensus.

And this is coming from a user who posted on my talk page defending pederasty, saying that attacks on pederasty by mainstream queers is equivalent to attacks on queers by mainstream "straights", and are an attack by a majority against a minority. It'd be one thing if you were arguing that "it's not an endorsement of the subject. It is simply part of a tracking system for articles that fall within the scope of this project", as other users have said, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what your opinion on the subject is. --DrBat 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will defend pederasty against attacks, and I will also oppose anyone who attempts to praise it. You, on the other hand, in your haste to beautify LGBT by cutting off what you perceive to be its warts, have unveiled a troubling antagonism against pederasty that is simply out of place. We are not here to judge, we are here to document. And as I have indicated on your user page, there is plenty of documentation substantiating the identity between LGBT and pederasty, such as the one I indicated. And as for your notion of consensus, it is nothing but gang rape unless we go through the proper steps of research and analysis. For some reason you seem to be resistant to that and persist in trying to politicize the process. Haiduc 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"I will also oppose anyone who attempts to praise it."

Most of your edits on the subject, including your example of gays' opposition to it being analoguous to homophobia, make me think otherwise. --DrBat 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you address my critique of your actions here rather than engage in idle speculation and ad hominem attacks. Haiduc 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)