Talk:Pederasty/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


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 (talkcontribs) 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..... (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)


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)