Talk:Pederasty/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

original research and unclear focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection

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

Link to discussion at BLP noticeboard: [1]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

More representative sources needed

Hello all. I'm on a search for more representative sources. Here is an interesting one [2]. I will be looking more closely at the legal aspects of pederasty and related sexual deviance. There may also be relevant material in criminology texts, especially regarding the isolation of pederasts in prisons (for their own safety). This article requires more than cutting the OR in order to clean it up. Theres plenty of relevant literature out there. I would like to encourage a search. Phdarts (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Actually I followed up on the propaganda issue that Haiduc brought up. There is literature on this matter: [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child abuse accusations as covert homophobia

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here's a nice editorial about that, called "It's not homophobic to inverstigate child sexual abuse": [4] -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Material removed by Haiduc to child abuse page

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

Pederasty is often associated with child pornography; "The production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" (Crosson-Tower 2007). Some researchers say that the Internet contacts increase paedophilia. For example psychology professor Miguel Angel states that “not all paedophiles become pederasts, but "when someone carries a desire inside, he will tend to try to make it reality", [5], and the Internet provides a potential catalyst for pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real thing [6]. According to ANESVAD the Internet facilitates contact between paedophiles (those who feel attracted to children) or pederasts (those who commit sexual abuse with minors) [7].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Dictionary.com Unabridged -- sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.
• American Heritage Dictionary -- A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.
• Online Etymology Dictionary -- "sodomy with a boy," 1609, from Mod.L. pæderastia, from Gk. paiderastia "love of boys," from paiderastes "pederast," from pais (gen. paidos) "child, boy" + erastes "lover," from erasthai "to love." Pederast is 1730s, from Fr. pédéraste, from Gk. paiderastes.
• WordNet -- sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner)
• Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary -- The crime against nature; sodomy.
• Encyclopædia Britannica -- no separate article - a Britannica search leads to this description: "aspect of pedophilia ( in pedophilia ) ... In general, the younger the child and the greater the disparity in age between pedophile and victim, the more severe the penalty. Most severe penalties are usually reserved for pederasty, sexual contacts between adult males and young boys." [8].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient Greece

This reference [9] seems to contradict what we say in the article--we say it "reached its height in the 5th century B.C.," but thus says Athenian society passed legal and moral sanctions against it in the 5th century B.C. Also, why isn't Aristotle mentioned? (or did I miss that somewhere?)-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ok, well, while looking for more information on Aristotle and pederasty, I found this [10]--it is a review of William Percy's book about pederasty. Can you further enlighten us regarding the truth of these statements (And why they are not in the article?)
• 1."Percy notes that Greek pederasty was an aristocratic practice with little relevance to most Greek men."--this is sort of mentioned, but the part about how it had little relevance to most people is left out of the article..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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