Talk:Pederasty/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Lexis-nexis

It doesn't seem to be a term in current usage in news publications. Lexis-nexis only returns 390 documents in all major US and world news publications for the previous ten years on the search term "pederasty." Some of them are historical book reviews, some refer to Catholic clergy cases, at least a dozen are to one Latvian criminal case from 2000. (Pederasty appears to be a separate crime in Latvia, although it also seems that they do not use the term to refer to boys only, but boys and girls). It is also a separate crime in Iran; here is a macabre and barbaric example: -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Express

July 19, 2002 RAPIST TO BE THROWN OVER CLIFF

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 31

LENGTH: 88 words

A CARPENTER who raped and killed his nephew will be executed by being thrown off a cliff in a sack, said an Iranian newspaper yesterday.

If he survives the fall down a rocky precipice, he will be hanged. He has 20 days to appeal. The man was arrested in the northwestern Iranian city of Mashhad after "seducing" and killing the 16-year-old boy, who worked as an assistant at his workshop. Under Iran's Islamic law, pederasty, homosexuality and adultery are among a long list of crimes punishable by death.

Some folks, who strongly hate Islam, are without a doubt happy, if Amnesty International reports some mad abuse of human rights in an Islamic country, while others ..... Fulcher (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that you are not Google-impaired. Do a search for pederasty in Google-scholar and Google-books, not in the MEDICAL search engines, you dear thing! Haiduc (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I checked pubmed because one of the references you list in the short list of "general references" for this article was a broken pubmed link: "Pederasty among primitives: institutionalized initiation and cultic prostitution, by G. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg." -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• And the top Google scholar hit for pederasty is this: -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Propagandizing pederasty: a thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles

Authors: Durkin K. F.; Bryant C. D.

Source: Deviant Behavior, Volume 20, Number 2, 1 April 1999 , pp. 103-127(25)

Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Abstract:

Although pedophilia has been the topic of an extensive research effort, the preponderance of this research has used subjects from clinical or correctional populations. This constitutes a major empirical concern as most of the academic knowledge on this topic is based on data gathered from either incarcerated offenders or probationers in treatment. However, such offenders constitute an unrepresentative sample of the larger population of pedophiles. Accordingly,there is a large number of pedophiles for whom little information is available. Computer networks offer a unique opportunity for the study of those pedophiles who are not in a correctional or clinical population. The data for this study were gathered from a Usenet discussion group composed of pedophiles, alt.support.boy-lovers. The sample includes 41 admitted pedophiles who participate in this particular computer forum.The centralresearch question addressed was How do pedophiles who use the Internet account for their deviance? Scott and Lyman's (1968) classic formulation of accounts served as the theoretical framework for this study. The results of this research indicate that more than half of these pedophiles offered accounts for their deviant orientation and behavior. Moreover, all of these accounts took the form of justifications, and none took the form of excuses.

Suggested structure

• The article needs proper proportion in the lead
• It could do with an introduction section also
• Then a section on the current situation.
• There can be a history section that includes subjections.
• There can also be a “contemporary pederasty” section or similar that follows on from the history section, which again should also contain the majority viewpoints. Phdarts (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sad. Haiduc (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good suggestion for an improved structure which could address the pov problems with this article. Isn't that listed on the to-do list above for this article, address pov problems? --PetraSchelm (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, what do you find sad about the above structure? Phdarts (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is I think the opener reads a little awkwardly, and I come away from it confused. Besides objecting to calling child sexual abuse a "model," I'm staying out of the POV debate, because I a)don't know enough about the subject b)cover the abuse aspect elsewhere. However, if anybody needs a psychological take, let me know.Legitimus (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Legitimus, the model angle may be more appropriately termed as a conceptualization. Its a good effort to be inclusive of the majority view though. Phdarts (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What is sad? Your refusal to engage in meaningful discourse. It would be even sadder to think that you believe you have engaged in meaningful discourse. Haiduc (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe his question was what do you find sad about the article structure--i.e., comment on content, not on contributors, please. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will decide for myself what to say. Haiduc (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merging

I now believe the most productive way forward is to merge with the pederasty in the modern world article. Please give suggestions below regarding how we may best merge the two structures on this article. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Some commentators"

I suggest that this sentence is not at all accurate--it is not "some commentators," but all of contemporary psychology and medicine. It is also not accurate to over-weight Rind against this, or leave out criticism of Rind and information about Rind's biases, the condemnation of this study by Congress, etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Today, some commentators consider that they have a negative effect on the psychological development of the youth. A study countering this position, authored by Bruce Rind and others, was published by the American Psychological Association in 1998."

Arbitrary and capricious merge of Modern Pederasty article into this one

As should be obvious to even uninitiated readers, the article on Pederasty in the modern world covers a subset of pederastic practices in more detail than can be afforded in this, the root article for a whole suite of more specific and detailed articles. While the editors who are attempting the merge have certainly repeated a number of times their belief that the merge is necessary and useful so as to undo a "pov fork" they have not substantiated their claim in any meaningful manner.

Therefore the merge is nothing but an attempt by a group of editors working in consort who have in common their antagonism towards pederastic homosexuality in all its forms, legal and illegal. It is not the original split that is POV, but this forcible merge, executed by fiat and unsupported by any reasoning process. Its net effect, besides swelling this already long article to 84kb, is to deprive readers of Wikipedia of proper coverage of an important and timely topic. Haiduc (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The merge was supported by 5 editors and opposed by only one, in two discussions on this page: #Suggested structure, and #Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty. Far from arbitrary or capricious, there is good reason for this merge. The page at Pederasty in the modern world was mostly the same information as in this article, plus some WP:original research, and a small amount of unique information that is now in this article. The merge was a good-faith process, with discussion in advance and supported by consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• In re-reading the comment above, I must add that I have seen no antagonism towards homosexuality in this process. There is insufficient verifiable information for an article about Pederasty in the modern world. That's not antagonism, it's just accuracy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (By way of illustration: there were two references and associated text describing serious instances of homosexual child sexual abuse in the criticisms section of Pederasty in the modern world; those have been completely removed and were not added to this article during the merge. They were removed because they were not about the topic of "pederasty". If there were a motivation of antagonism in this process, those disturbing stories would have been retained or even emphasized. But this has been a fair and neutral process, so those stories were left out, and properly so. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Haiduc, your objection is unfounded. The merge is actually very well substantiated. Much of the pederasty in the modern world article is explicitly supported by information on pederasty. This is a pederasty article. Any article on Wikipedia should contain all relevant information. Thus the merge is perfectly reasonable. There is work to do in summarizing some of the information, but reverting the merge as you did simply jams up the process of proper encyclopedic writing. If there are any specific parts of the merge that you object to, then point them out here (with valid reasoning please) and we can see what we can do about making those parts more clear. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The practice of spinning off sub-topics from an overlarge main article is one of the main ways Wikipedia grows. The proper approach in this case would have been to eliminate excessive duplication from the main article, not to use that duplication as a rationalization to gut what is a perfectly valid subtopic of pederasty. Just as we treat the Greeks and the Japanese and the Middle East in their own articles, the same needs to be done with the moderns.

What is going on here is a concerted hatchet job, managed by a person with demonstrable unfamiliarity with the topic, and with a political axe to grind. The result is the suppression of valid information and the sliming of notable individuals. As an example witness the latest smearing of Vern Bullough.

I have neither the appetite nor the time to further enable this gang bang by pointing out your errors, fallacies and abuses. Sooner or later someone else with sufficient ethics and erudition will join me in paying attention to this domain, and then the damage you are inflicting will be repaired. This is neither the first nor the last time that this kind of hanky-panky has been attempted, which is not surprising with a subject that is politically inconvenient for moralists, vanilla gays and pedophiles. You people are just a bit better organized. But you know what they say, information wants to be free. Haiduc (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

excessive duplication with other articles

Several of the sections of this article are quite long, considering that there are other articles on the same topics. It would improve this article to use WP:Summary style for those, such that the paragraphs in this article are similar to the lead sections in this split-off pages.

Here are some of the sections that would benefit from this approach:

• The Greeks - main article Pederasty in Ancient Greece
  • There are several more articles that seem to be about that same topic:
    • Athenian pederasty
    • Spartan pederasty
    • Philosophy of Greek pederasty
    • Erastes
    • Eromenos

The summary of the Ancient Greek pederasty in this article should be shorter since the topics are expanded in detail in the split-off articles. The summary here can be based upon, and/or used to improve, the lead(s) of the linked main articles.

• The Romans - main article Homosexuality in ancient Rome
  • This one is somewhat unclear because in Homosexuality in ancient Rome it states that " pederasty was condemned in the Republican era and dismissed as a sign of an effeminate Greek lifestyle.", yet in this article it is described differently.

• Christianity - that section does not link to a main article. It does not appear to be about pederasty, other than to say it was suppressed.

• The Middle East and Central Asia - main article Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia
  • A very long section in this article; with a link to a long main article. It seem that not all of the info overlaps, so much of the text here could be merged into that main article, with a summary style couple of paragraphs on this page, similar to the lead in the main article. An example of a shorter section leading to a main article is seen in the pederasty section of Homosexuality and Islam.

• Japan - main article Shudō - Good length for summary style section

• Victorian England - no link to a main article
  • This section appears to be too long in proportion to the other sections, also, some of it, ie, Shakespeare, is not Victorian Era. Another concern is that the article on Victorian morality does not mention pederasty, so, was pederasty a part of English society at that time? It seems that mostly it was embraced only by the Uranian poets; if so, the section heading could be changed and a summary style section crafted with a main link to Uranian poetry.

• (Various other areas) - generally appear to be of appropriate length; more sources needed.

The above described clean-up based on summary style would tighten up and improve this and the related articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Text moved to talk

Perhaps some of this can be moved to the main article, Uranian poets? It's very detailed for a summary, and none of it is there. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Browning, another Eton master and past student of Cory, followed in his master’s footsteps, only to be likewise dismissed in 1875. Both are thought to have influenced Oxford don Walter Pater, whose aesthetics promoted pederasty as the truest expression of classical culture.

This culture of Victorian pederasty gave rise to the most conspicuous group of pederastic writers in 19th-century England, the Uranian poets. Although most of the writers of Uranian poetry and prose are today considered minor literary figures at best, the prominent Uranian representatives --- Walter Pater, Gerard Manley Hopkins, and Oscar Wilde -- are figures of world-standing. Hopkins and Wilde were both deeply influenced by Pater, who had provided private tuition to Hopkins in preparation for Hopkins's final Oxford University examinations (and subsequently became a lifelong friend) and who had become a friend of Wilde while Wilde was still a student at Magdalen College, Oxford. Inspired by the Paterian appeal to a pederastic pedagogy, Wilde went on to encode pederastic and homoerotic culture -- though not in the "elevated" pederastic sense that it held for Pater and Hopkins -- in a number of works such as The Portrait of Mr. W. H., a story about Shakespeare's putative love for a boy-actor, remarkable for being the first openly published work in the English language to touch on the topic of romantic pederasty. In the case of Hopkins, "Hopkins often was, it must be admitted, strikingly Ruskinian in his love of Aristotelian particulars and their arrangements; however, it was at the foot of Pater -- the foremost Victorian unifier of ‘eros, pedagogy, and aesthetics’ -- that Hopkins would ever remain." As a result, Hopkins's poetry displays bountiful pederastic themes and nuances.

Michelangelo

Here's an old talkpage exchange I found about Michelangelo (also about the NPOV problems in the pederasty articles in general). I'm not seeing any scholarly corroboration of a connection between Michelangelo and pederasty, only speculation. Also, there is the problem again of unpublished primary source translations being used as a source, which is SYN/OR. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Concrete suggestions for Pederasty?

You criticized pederasty on its talk page a while back, but made no edits to the article. I've placed a POV tag on the page -- what are the changes you think should be made? DanB†DanD 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) My comments elaborate in the discussion problems with the scholarship of the article, specifically that where there is a dearth of data, sodomy is confused with pederasty, and on the whole the article seems to suggest that pederasty is common. On the other hand, I do not want to re-write this article; I do not want to make it my focus. It is a contentious business of which I want no part of. My interest is the culture of the Italian peninsula mainly from 1600-1800. My intersection with pederasty was that one of the authors of the pederasty article was making octupus-like links to items of little relationship, and also using those articles to foward his view that "pederasty was commonplace" specially among the "luminaries of the time". He also made specific statements that were false, he made Michelangelo into a pederast, and the evidence of this is sketchy. The article of pederasty is a problems, for which I do not want to be the solution. I would warn the editors that some of the behavior exhibited by Haiduc and others could be seen as legally troublesome, if it means to link Michelangelo, a common topic for middle school children, to pederasty, and from there to man-boy organizations like NAMBLA. I am comfortable patrolling Italian art, I do not want to be responsible for what occurs in "pederasty". CARAVAGGISTI 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger

Hey, can someone direct me to the discussion about the merge with Pederasty in the modern world? If there was no discussion or properly informed decision to do this, I support a revert and a proper discussion. forestPIG 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed with a merge template on both articles: #Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty. An additional comment agreeing about the merge is in this section: #Suggested structure. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I call 5:2 a weak consensus. But if more people turn up on the opposite side, we may have to reconsider. forestPIG 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Conensus isn't just numbers though--in this discussion, there was the issue of a pov fork--isolating "pederasty" from "modern pederasty" definitionally. There are already subtopic pages which address "modern pederasty," such as the NAMBLA article. The material that was in the modern article and here was almost identical. There's also an ongoing issue regarding spin-offs of this article which aren't really necessary--such as the pederasty in the renaissance article, the roman pederasty article, and the excess number of articles on Greek pederasty. I'd say we should be looking at how to condense and consolidate, so as not to give the false impression that pederasty is more significant than it is or was. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, I am with you on the need to consolidate, and I believe many other editors would if they were working on this part of Wikipedia. Its not just a matter of cleaning up POV forks either. Summary form is encyclopedic, and a lot of encyclopedic summarizing can be achieved here by consolidating. Phdarts (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullough

I have supported an edit by SqueakBox, that put a source in its context by mentioning Bullough, as opposed to "some commentators". In my own opinion, though, the use of "Padika" alongside that author is excessive and unwarranted. It appears to tie the independent opinions of an academic to a highly controversial and for this subject, largely unrelated journal that he once edited and is therefore unnecessary. It appears to be a rather peripheral fact that in retrospect would reflect badly upon the author, i.e. a kind of guilt by association. forestPIG 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it reflects badly on the author? Is he on the record stating that he is not proud of having been on the editorial board of this academic journal? It seems he is very open about his bias (whereas the Wiki article was trying to conceal it).-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I feel that it is peculiar and unwarranted. It is not the kind of treatment that we would give most authors, concerning subjects (sex with prepubescents) that fall outside of the current article's subject area. forestPIG 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Paidika restricts itself to "sex with prepubescents"? (And if I'm remembering correctly, the title itself is synonymous with the term used here, "eromenos.")-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The full title of that journal as published is Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The publication did not hide its bias and regularly published content in support of normalizing the idea of pedophilia. Clearly, someone who chooses to join its editorial board is not concerned about distancing themselves from the topic of the journal's specialty. Why would it be "a kind of guilt by association" when it was the decision of that author to engage in that publicly known association? The topic of this article is associated with pedophilia - though the two are not identical concepts, they are related in several ways (in common usage, legally, and by an overlap in age range and pubertal status of the boy participant). It is therefore relevant and appropriate to mention that an author quoted on the topic of pederasty was also a member of the editorial board of a pro-pedophilia publication. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The personality assassination tactics that this gang has been inflicting on scholars in this field are nothing in not consistent. They tried to do it to Hekma, they tried to do it to Rind, and now they are snapping at Bullough's heels. But any idiot can go to the article on Bullough and find out what the man was really known for, an eminent professor and scientist. But no, that does not suit these characters. They pick out his work for Paidika, sliming the man and his work and his ideas with insinuations of pedophilia activism, and then blithely shrug their shoulders and have the nerve to imply that he slimed himself. When Bullough wrote the article in glbtq that rankles you and interferes with your political agenda he was not acting as a board member of Paidika, because glbtq is not Paidika. What a shameless bunch you all are! But what does shame have to do with it? You are on a mission to stop abuse. So what if you have to be abusive to do it? The ends justify the means when you have right on your side. Haiduc (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullough's association with Paidika is not a slime projected by any Wikipedia editor, it's simply a part of his body of work that applies to his comments about pederasty. In what way is it a "personality assassination tactic" to include relevant information about sources quoted in articles? He chose to be part of that magazine, he didn't try to hide it.

And: the pro-pedophile slant of Paidika is also not projected by any Wikipedia editor, it's in Paidika's mission statement - and note that it's written in the first person: “The starting point of PAIDIKA is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles. … [W]e intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.”

If he didn't want that associated with his name, he would not have joined their editorial board. There's no reason for Wikipedia to hide the published facts. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are your own worst enemy. Haiduc (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with hiding. It's just that referring to a small journal on a controversial yet unrelated (pedophilia=prepubescent, pederasty=adolescent) subject comes across as dirt digging, whether deliberate or not. forestPIG 10:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated that it's at all unrelated. Once again, Paidika addresses adolescents also, and the term itself it synonymous with "eromenos." (Or controversial--it's not at all controversial to Bullough, who was happy to be on the editorial board, and is making a statement in this article entirely consistent with his beliefs). -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[in]PetraSchelm - Even if there is a slight overlap of subjects, I am asking you to consider whether the Paid reference alongside the independent scholar really is warranted, or at all required. I hope that you are in a good position to make this consideration independently of any personal feelings about the author in question, because it appears to me as if the only reason for this extravagant mentioning of affiliation could be to create a negative association. forestPIG 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ForestPig, why do you think it is "negative"?--this seems to be a value judgement on your part, that Bullough does not share. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

By all general standards of public-morality, we have to be vigilant of any linkage drawn between an academic and pedophilia. Now, of course, it was a linkage that the author was happy to make. But the fact that we mention it in an article about adolescent sex, alongside a reference to another journal, and despite the author in question's broad participation in activities totally unrelated to Paidika, leads me to question why someone would want to go this far in summarising some career achievements of an author whilst neglecting others. It just seems strange. forestPIG 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello ForestPig. It seems a far stretch to say that there would be any sort of slander or traversty to have a self-declared statement in the article. I would keep it there unless there is anything substantial to prove that there is anything to worry about. In the context of this article, it seems fair enough for any related academic on any particular side to make such a statement. Phdarts (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Phdarts - I would like to explain that I do not see this as slanderous. What I do see it as is a far-fetched, and odd association made "against" an author who was commenting not to glamorise pederasty, let alone pedophilia - the topic of a small fringe journal that he was once on the editorial board of. I have yet to see anyone argue successfully towards the point that this journal mention is at all relevant to an author who was speaking independently. In fact, whether deliberate or not - the only possible result of forcing this undesirable association on an article that covers a borderline-acceptable subject, appears to manifest itself as a rather ugly form of anti-intellectualism. forestPIG 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullough's known bias in favor of pederasty helps explain to readers why his definition differs so very much from the dictionary. It is extremely misleading to present the defintion unattributed "some say..." or without characterizing the source to whom it is attributed. Vern Bullough is not an impartial source; he was on the editorial board of Paidika, which favorably endorsed pedophilia and pederasty. The only reason I can see to be so intent on keeping that information out is a pov push to present Bullough as something he is not. i.e., an impartial source. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, I am afraid that your unfamiliarity with the topic has led you to make what is an indefensible statement. You are trying to impose a common dictionary definition of pederasty ("a man buggering a little boy") as the "true" definition of pederasty. Unfortunately for your argument, the understanding that pederasty includes relationships that range the gamut from crude carnal trysts to emotional and sexual – yet not penetrative relationships, or to loving but chaste relationships is to be found throughout the literature on the topic. Here is just one example (they are beyond counting) of this kind of thinking.

Thus Bullough's definition, far from being the solitary utterance of a pedophilia apologist (and why for god's sake would such a thing even be incorporated in one of the principal gay history websites on the net?) is actually a reflection of the general academic approach to the subject, and is informed not by his association with Paidika but by his experience as a scholar in the field of sexology and history. Haiduc (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the cite you provided is there any such sweeping/general definition as Bullough provides. (Someone else, Carvaggisti, noted that extension of Greek definitions to cover "sodomy" in other historical periods was misleading). -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That was not the point of that citation, but rather to show that the relationships in Greek times (one example among many) ranged from hubristic (read "sodomitical") to respectful and restrained (read "non-penetrative"). Your invocation of some user's comments about sodomy leads me to believe that you are irretrievably wedded to the proposition that pederasty is tantamount to sodomy. From that perspective everything you have done here is of course reasonable and proper. You just happen to be wrong. The concept of chaste pederasty is discussed in the literature, accepted by some and rejected by other - not everybody agrees, but we all understand that none of us owns the truth. Haiduc (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• The conflation of sodomy with pederasty was not made by me, but by whomever wrote this section of Pederasty in the renaissance: "Florence in particular was famous for its high incidence of pederasty.[citation needed] So widespread was the practice that in 1432 the city established "Gli Ufficiali di Notte" (The Officers of the Night) to root out the practice of sodomy. From that year until 1502, the number of men charged with sodomy numbered greater than 17,000, of which 3,000 were convicted. The prevalence of pederasty in Renaissance Florence is perhaps best conveyed by the fact that the Germans adopted the word Florenzer, when they were talking about a pederast.[3][4]" Caravaggisti's point was that these two definitions were mixed up. The problem with Bullough is that he seems to extend an overly romanticzed Greek definition to the status of a general definition, which is then used misleadingly in this article and extended to every historical period as a general definition. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again you commit the fallacy of assuming that an example can be generalized over a whole category. Even in this case things are complex, since the mere fact that the Ufficiali constructed the relationships as sodomitical is not borne out be many of the examples, which did not necessarily involve anal sex. Bullough's definition does not limit itself to the Greeks nor is it solely inspired by the Greeks. The essentialization of attraction over carnality is widely encountered, most famously perhaps in the Moslem tradition. Why do you think that El-Rouayheb discusses chaste pederasty extensively in his work on the Islamic world? Haiduc (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You completely bypassed discussing the point that sodomy is conflated with pederasty in the pederasty in the renaissaince article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I pointed out that the word "sodomy" was used by the Florentines as a kind of catchall term, which should not be taken too literally. Probably if I were to edit the article today I would bring in evidence so as to clarify what is being spoken about. These things become clearer with time, as does the fact that there is a tremendous amount of confusion around this whole topic because people have always spoken about it in euphemisms which have given rise to slews of interpretations. It probably began even before Leviticus, with his "you shall not lie with a man the lyings of a woman." Haiduc (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmhmm. Well, if 'sodomy" was used by the Florentines as a "catch-all" then you should have no problem with the modern dictionary definition as a "catch-all" either. (The point being that the defintion has not been at all historically and consistently Bullough's rose-colored-glassed version, or the current dictionary defintion, and more specificity per historical period would be useful. You are in fact not only citing Bullough's defintion as the "academic" defintion, but you are on the record telling other editors that this is the definiton of pederasty. But it's not. It's Bullough's definition; it's attributable to Bullough. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to reduce the wide scope of pederasty to "illegal anal sex between a man and a boy," and to perform thereby an act of historical and cognitive erasure of all its other aspects, a reductionist and antagonistic act springing from your personal antipathy to this aspect of homosexual expression, and springing from who knows what else which is not my business but yours.

In order to be successful in your campaign, you have to undermine those definitions which describe pederasty as emotionally based, possibly chaste, and if sexually expressed then often (maybe predominantly) excluding anal sex. You will fail at this task because it is not sufficient to show that some (many dictionaries) define pederasty in this fashion, but you must also show that no one else defines it in any other fashion, and that is an impossible task since more encompassing definitions certainly do exist.

Finally, your bizarre notion that Florentine euphemistic practices validate modern misconceptions is just that, a bizarre notion. Haiduc (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I would say that I have a dedication to NPOV, whereas you want to impose an erroneously overly romaticized notion, and over far more of history than is warranted. Bullough's definition does not suffice to cover all of history, and that's because he has a bias in favor of pederasty. -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, I do not think you understand the purpose of a definition. It is not there to cover all imaginable ramifications of a thing, but to come as close as possible to the essence of that thing. Here's an example, from About.com, a definition of marriage: "marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge." We can all think up plenty of counterexamples, quite likely from our personal experience. But that does not invalidate the definition. It is a workable formulation, a starting place. As for your chest pounding regarding how objective you are and how subjective everybody else is, don't you realize that everybody thinks the same way??? Haiduc (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet Bullough's defintion is not in the OED...it's a definition written by a partisan source who endorsed pederasty, hence that is made clear in the article, so as not to mislead readers. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another desperate grab for legitimacy. So whatever is NOT in the OED is invalid, and GLBTQ is a "partisan source"??? On such premises you propose to build the foundations of your edits here??? Haiduc (talk)

There's quite a lot more to do with the article to get it into shape. No rush though. Bullogh seems to have his own particular version of pederasty, and it does seem to be romanticized somewhat. Considering the majority views on pederasty, Bullogh seems to be in a minority, towards fringe. It may be appropriate to place the view, but only in contrast with the majority. Phdarts (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What have your comments, Phdarts, got to do with this discussion, or with academic principles?! Haiduc (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, please read the title of this section. Phdarts (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fraudulent edits by Jack-a-Roe

It must be pointed out that user Jack-a-Roe has interfered with this article on false premises twice in a row, first to remove the LGBT box claiming that underage sex is not a LGBT issue, and then to reinstate scurrilous phrasing besmirching a reputable academic because the material was "not attributed." But as it has been pointed out to him and others here, pederasty does not necessarily imply underage sex any more than marriage between a man and a woman implies underage sex. Pederastic relationships between men and boys above the age of consent certainly are a gay reality and are perfectly legal. As for the attribution of the material, that is what the footnote is for, and the citation was properly referenced. Haiduc (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:Haiduc, you seem to be mistaken about the meaning of the word fraudulent. It does not mean "edits that Haiduc does not agree with". I suggest you check your dictionary.
• The attribution of Bullough has been discussed; it is a fringe theory that does not match dictionary definitions or those of most writers. It requires attribution due to the author's bias. It also requires more context by inclusion of more mainstream defintions or be a reorganization of the definitions section, to avoid undue weight.
• Regarding the LGBT infobox, rather than make this determination here, maybe it will be best to ask the editors at the LGBT wikiproject if they consider pederasty part of their project, If they do, I would not argue to remove the infobox. If not, then it has to go. I might post at the project about this soon, or you are welcome to do so if you wish.
• Regarding your statement that " pederasty does not necessarily imply underage sex any more than marriage between a man and a woman implies underage sex", that's just... completely... wrong. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you have failed to point out any fraudulent activity at all and your continued accusations of other editors seem to be quite unhelpful. This whole section you created is unhelpful and seems to make constructive discussion quite impossible from the get go. Please stop. Phdarts (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They are bad edits, not fraudulent. If you ever want help on this article, please leave me a message. forestPIG 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the edits made by Jack-A-Roe. The LGBT infobox should not be part of this page, unless the editors at that project agree this topic is part of theirs. I also agree with his discussion on Bullough. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They look good edits to me. I strongly agree that LGBT has nothing whatsoever to do with underage sex, and to imply it does is actually unacceptably hostile to gay people, propounding the myth that gay men abuse children etc. So if naything is fraudulent it is trying to include the LGBT infobox on this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Squeekbox. I agree. Phdarts (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As I just have stated elsewhere in the wiki, I won't engage in a topic such as this. However, Haiduc is right: there are pederastic relationships that are perfectly legal. After all there are adolescents above the age of consent having affairs with, say, young men in their twenties, aren't they? In some cultures that was even an institution (the erastes/eromenos institution in Greece and Rome). The image of Fellini's Satyricon with Encolpius and the androgynous Giton comes now to my mind. Has anyone among you read of the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades, or in Plato's Phaedrus the relationship between Lysis and Menexes? This has nothing to do with child abuse and it's certainly what today is called a gay issue. Anyway, as I said, I don't want to engage in a topic such as this one except that pointing out that K.J. Dover's very scholarly Greek homosexuality is must reading to approach the subject more objectively. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the centrality of pederasty throughout the history of homosexuality, the removal of this box (if it does go ahead) would appear to be more a case of popular sensibilities overcoming historical truth. forestPIG 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies

Please join in. forestPIG 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've come here from the project page. I'd support the inclusion of the sidebar, since the term pederasty is exclusively used in a homosexual context. Pederasty is a particular mode of homosexual interaction that was of great cultural importance in ancient Europe. Older men involved in relationships with teenage girls are not called pederasts. Perhaps they should be, but they aren't. Also, it is perfectly correct to say that "pederasty does not necessarily imply underage sex any more than marriage between a man and a woman implies underage sex". In ancient times the concept of an age of consent did not exist, so speaking of 'underage sex' in either a homosexual or a heterosexual context is largely meaningless. The age of consent (and therefore marriage) has also been much lower than it now is in most of the West in relatively recent history. In a modern context a relationship between an older man and a youth above the age of consent could legitimately be labeled pederastic. As forestPIG says, to delete the sidebar would be "a case of popular sensibilities overcoming historical truth." Paul B (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• My comments are about the relevance to the project, since pederasty is indisputably a form of homosexual interaction and therefore within the scope of the project. However, note that there is a general discussion about the use and design of the sidebar in the project page. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case we could equally argue that the infobox should be at child sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You non sequitors would be laughable is they were not so dogmatic. Did you actually read what I wrote? I shall try to simplify it for you. 1. The term pederasty applies to homosexual relationships only. Child sex abuse does not. 2. Historically, sexual relationships have begun earlier than is now normal, and that makes the concept of "child sex abuse" in this context largely meaningless when applied to ancient cultures (or even to the 18th century, or to India before the late Victorian phase of the Raj). 3. Ages of consennt vary around the world, and pederastic relationships can be entirely legal in the modern world. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a view that pederasty was of importance. That doesn't mean that everybody thinks pederasty was really important. Moreover, pederasty is not exclusively a homosexual activity. It is sometimes used as a term to include the infant/underage girls that are abused along with infant/underage boys. Again, majority views rears its relevant head. The majority consider pederasty to be abhorent. It is associated above all with abuse. Now we can tell the reader that, yes, it is generally considered abhorent(condemned on moral, legal, yuk factor grounds), though some people don't condemn it, and some fringe groups want to promote it per se, and on the Internet, persistent sex criminals want to call promote it as normal homosexuality (according to the literature). Phdarts (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty as a culturally significant concept is never about "infant" girls or boys. It's almost always used to refer to pubescent/teenage boys. That's the specific meaing of the term. Yes, it's true that similar practices can be identified involving girls, Sappho being the well known example, but it is culturally myopic in the extreme to identify these experiences in ancient and non-western cultures as "abuse" and to use rhetoric such as "abhorrant". You will not find this language used by the many scholars who discuss this issue, and in Wikipedia it is the consensus of scholars that matters, not of tabloid readers. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The International Lesbian and Gay Association specifically distances itself from underage sex in their 2006 statement: ILGA’s Public Stance Against Paedophilia and Commitment to the Protection of Children.

The idea that pederasty would not fall under that rejection because pederasty is "a relationship between an older man and a youth above the age of consent " is a fringe theory. If that's what pederasty is, then the definition in the article needs to be changed, because as it is now it refers to sexual relationships between older adult males and boys ranging under various sub-definitions from 11 to 19.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ILGA's opinion is irrelevant. Unless of course, they published literature that attempted to deny certain historic truths, e.g. their former endorsement of pro-pederasty groups, or revising their endorsement of sexual relations between men an boys above the age of consent (which ranges from about 18-13 in countries where their associates are actively campaigning). Queer studies is an even more clear cut issue - at least for anyone who has read within that area. forestPIG 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ILGA may be irrelevant to you; maybe to others it's not. Apparently you did not glance at the content of the provided link, or you would know that they don't cover-up their former acceptance of NAMBLA or MARTIJN or other pedophile groups as memebers. They explain their 1994 decision clearly and directly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack, please recognise that the actual point of what I said was that ILGA do not cover up their previous association with pederasty. forestPIG 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost all gay people do reject illegal sexual relationships, though, both forced rape of adults and child sexual abuse. As a straight man I strongly support the gay rights movement, gay marriages etc and indeed some of my most passionate edits have to been to articles re gay men being executed for sodomy in Iran. I have also always supported the lowering of the age of consent in the UK from 21 and then 18 to 16, equal to heterosexual AoC, and at that age people can do what they want. But historically pederasty has been about pubescent boys, and puberty is much earlier. Perhaps young teenagers were able to give informed consent in the frankly primitive societies of Ancient Greece but we live in a completely different world right now. I feel having this inbox here insults not only all the gay people who struggle so much but also those of us straight people who support their liberation. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, SqueakBox, but your argument is based on several indefensible fallacies. Of course people, gay or otherwise, largely reject illegal relationships, but your very conflation of illegality and pederasty is fallacious since pederasty is not illegal. It is controlled, as are many other activities, including driving a car. I am glad that you support an AoC of sixteen in the UK, but it is not our business to have an opinion on where the bar should be set, whether in Riyadh at 21 or Rome at 14. Indeed, in London at sixteen, in Paris at fifteen, and in Rome at fourteen boys can choose whomever they like as a lover. They are not underage, and it is not our business (or our right) to smear their lovers as molesters. As for history, maybe you should take a look at the various articles on historical pederastic relationships, to disabuse yourself of that notion. Greece primitive?! That is an ethnocentric claim if ever I heard one. Haiduc (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and we can also refer to social norms within homosexuality. It is a norm that homosexuals generally have relationships within the same general age group. Mature homosexuals generally have relationships with mature homosexuals. A mature homosexual man having a relationship with an imature homosexual man of age range 16-19, will generally be seen as a dodgy situation within gay society. The lowering of age of consent is more of an issue with 16 year olds wanting relationships with other 16 year olds. No matter where you go or who you talk to in the world, men having relationships with boys is either dodgy or illegal from the vast majority view. Phdarts (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that we should be dealing here in gut feelings and generalities, but if we are to lapse into chitchat like this, I will mention the comments of a middle-aged friend who told me that whenever he walked through SF together with his college-age Asian lover people frowned at them, and when they walked apart to avoid the stares everyone hit on his boyf. By what rights do you call a legitimate love "dodgy" and by what rights do you presume to impose that point of view on an encyclopedia article? Haiduc (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, majority viewpoints. Illegal love can also be real. A man of 50 and a boy of 14 could actually love or be in love. Nevertheless, in general men of 50 who seek to have erotic relations with boys of any age are considered by the majority to be dodgy/criminal and or akin to pedophiles. The majority would also consider a boy of 14-17 to be in an erotic relationship with a 50 year old man to be misguided/misled. There are legal regulations and NGO organizations set up to deal with this sort of problematic situation. Homosexual men in general do not want to be associated with pederasty. We all know why not. The majority view is that it is strongly condemned as something actually, or close to pedophilia/abuse. There is no lapse into chitchat. It has been written and sourced (though demoted as a view) in this article, that pederasty is strongly condemned. From that point, clear explanations should be given for the relevant variants of that view, including each argument. Issues such as child abuse, fiduciary duty, social norms, should be covered properly. We can also cover relevant sexual issues such as internet pornography, fetishes, and so on. Haiduc, judging by your reactions to the changes that are happening here, it is clear that a lot more explanation should be given to the majority views in this article. And a lot of the ancient history of pederasty should be condensed right down and the romanticised argumentative and unsourced POV should be removed. I am sure Wikipedia can afford to look like it is promoting fringe and largely condemned practices. A sensible and straightforward explanation approach is needed. Phdarts (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the greatest difficulty understanding your mentality. The notion that "a lot of the ancient history of pederasty should be condensed right down" is ludicrous. The ancient history of this topic is discussed extensively by scholars. That, indeed, is what is centrally relevant to this topic. Paul B (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Paul. I truly understand your point and have read a lot of similar urgings in the archives of this discussion page. But there are many scholars who deal in relation to this subject. A lot of them do not deal with, or condone, the "toga party" variety of pederasty. A lot of the scholars, even the historians, deal with pederasty as a prohibited activity. Some are from the child psychology, child abuse prevention perspective, others are from the strict history of crime persective, and others from the sexual deviance perspective. And of course, there are views of some academics who sympathise with NAMBLA and similar groups who would similarly want to promote the notion of pederasty as something spiritually and educationally efficacious.

However, this is the modern world. Throwing slaves to the lions, or getting them to hack each other to pieces for fun is generally looked down upon in modern society. Its certainly not encouraged. The same with pederasty. Nothing wrong with saying pederasts love pederasty, or that NAMBLA encourages a stable and loving polygamy between 55 year old pedophiles and infant blondes. If there is a source that states the view then let it in as long as its not fringe. But unless Wallmart starts doing really well on sales of pederasty costumes and lubricant, or you come across a family endorsed "Pederasts R'Us" in the mall then I think we are going to have to put ancient history into a sensible "compare and contrast" encyclopedic arrangement. Phdarts (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The ancient Greeks did not wear togas, nor did they throw slaves to lions. You seem to have a view of history derived from TV movies. I don't know anything about NAMBLA, but I'm rather surprised to hear that they advocate "polygamy"???? What's all this stuff about Wallmart? You do realise don't you that we are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia here? That means scholarship is our model. 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Paul. Sorry, but you seem to be rattled and/or in distress. Please read the literature that is related to this article, and please sign your name. I believe most editors here have the patience. Take your time. Phdarts (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one making wild comparisons, strange uses of the word "polygamy", and silly comments about Wallmart. You are. This I asume is not the relevant "literature that is related to this article". Instead, the research of experts is. I don't see you referring to any. So where is the rattling coming from? I did sign my name. Perhaps you are unfamilar with Wikipedia signing processes, but if you accidentally type five tildes instead of four (as I did), only the date appears. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to discuss relevant matters. Such as the ones I mentioned above in relation to the literature on sexual deviance, criminality, and you know; what the current majority is generally concerned about. Take your time. I am sure your issues will be open for scrutiny for some time, by more editors than just me. Phdarts (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been. The fact is that there is extensive discussion of this issue in many sources, which are listed in the article. These date back to Dover's famous study. I don't see much evidence that you are referring to any studies in a modern context. You added a totally unpaginated reference to a book called Extreme Deviance at one point - a book that apparently includes environmental activism as an example of "extreme deviance"! At any rate there was no cited text referring to the specific issue. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I am happy to discuss any issue or source that is relevant, including that of the views compatible or antagonistic with NAMBLA. Though I am sure that most encyclopedists find the group totally disgusting or objectionable, as will most people of the modern perspective, though I am sure that they will be willing to discuss the views associated as long as it is encyclopedic. You stated "I have the greatest difficulty understanding your mentality. The notion that "a lot of the ancient history of pederasty should be condensed right down" is ludicrous. The ancient history of this topicv is discussed extensively be scholars. That, indeed, is what is centrally relevant to this topic." You seem to be interested in making sure the ancient views are presented really clearly here. So which of the modern views in particular are you interested in superceding with the ancient? Phdarts (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[undent]This article should be about the history of the concept and its application in a range of historical, modern and non-western cultural contexts. I'm not sure what modern views you are referring to. Rejection by the gay liberation movement section is a bit of a mess. Most of the latter part of it seems to have nothing to do with gay lib. The assertion that "currently both illegal and legal forms of pederasty are strongly condemned" is uncited, and the examples given are entirely political scandals involving US politicians. Attitudes in Europe are very different - but also vary widely between southern and Northern Europe. The opening episode of Queer as Folk, a UK TV show, did indeed depict a 15 year old boy in a sexual relationship with an older man. I'd suggest that the issue of condemnation bet separated from the gay liberation context, and discussed in terms of changing attitudes to intergenerational relationships, and issues of power-difference and sexual harassment, which extends beyond pederasty as such to embrace workplace relationships and other contexts. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not sure any editor would consider the history of energy, for example, to be as relevant as the modern concept. Most encyclopedias would explain the current concept of energy and how it relates to current application and then to older ideas, rather than, initially a 3000 year old notion of energy, spiritual or otherwise. However, I am sure mose editors are into seperating issues that need seperating. If you have any other issue that you find hard to understand, please feel free to name it. Phdarts (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "history of energy", only of concepts about it. Older concepts are by definition obsolete, and so less significant than modern understanding. Your analogy is rather like comparing 'art' with 'astronomy'. We would not devote a lot of the article on the latter to what people thought in the 16th century, but in art what happened in the Renaissance is rather more important than what happened yestersday. No-one would argue that we should have more on Andy Warhol than on Micheangelo, just because Michelangelo is older. The concept of pederasty is strongly associated with historical cultures that are just as important as modern ones. If you have any other issue that you find hard to understand, please feel free to name it. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The concept of energy has a history. It has evolved as a concept. Only alternative medicine practitioners nowadays would consider the application of leaches to be a removal of negative energy. We have moved on as a majority. Science is an important perspective because it majority view indicates it to be. If you want to keep the pederasty artifcle as a "history of pederasty" article then I think you are in the wrong. Pederasty as a concept includes a great deal of views. And of course when you menton erotic relations between men and boys, the majority will most likely think in terms of illegality and condemnation. Just as the modern thinker will consider slavery in terms of condemnation. And I am not making ridiculous comparisons here, I am simply stating an obvious evolution in thought. Phdarts (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I alreadty explained that it evolved as a concept. Thank you for repeating that. I also already explained that "this article should be about the history of the concept and its application in a range of historical, modern and non-western cultural contexts." Perhaps you did not actually read that. You make a fundamental error is assuming that the concept of 'progress' can be applied to cultural phenomena is the same way that it applies to science. For example, the Victorians knew a great deal more about the science of energy than the ancient Romans did. Yet Victorians considered homosexuality to be morally deviant, an idea that would incomprehensible to Romans. Who was more "modern"? Cultural values cannot be compared in terms of direct increases in knowledge since they are subject to a very complex range of influences. That's why it is important to avoid what is known as presentism, by showing how attitudes have differed over time and other cultures. Not to do so encourages complacency, ignorance and prejudice. Paul B (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Majority veiws are the core of what I am talking about. There are plenty of views on pederasty as something to be condemned within the literature. I am in agreement with other editors here on not to conflate the romanticized notion of pederasty as a LGBT issue, and to make sure that pederasty is not promoted by Wikipedia as as the wet dream of a pedophile, just as it seems to have been presented here in the past, nausiating images and all. I have no problem with history. Pederasty is not history though. Its a current issue, and one that is generally condemned according not only to what is blindingly obvious in everyday life, but also in the literature. Phdarts (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. but your personal emotions about what is and isn't nauseating are of no interest. Reliable sources are. Though you repatedly assert that "there are plenty of views on pederasty as something to be condemned within the literature" I have not seem you provide any evidence of that whatsover. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, please focus on the issues. There are plenty of reliable sources to the majority views. I don't think I have gained any particular respect from explaining the literature to you, so I will focus on presenting the literature in the article [1].Phdarts (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's mainly because you have not explained any literature. Please feel free to do so. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should be about what scholars refer to as pederasty. Type pederasty into an academic search engine or database - and that is a rough idea of what we should be covering. If child sexual abuse prevention advocates publish papers on the subject, these should also be included.

I have already explained the literature, and will continue to point out the obvious if that is what is required. There is a problem on this article with some editors refusing to accept the fact that pederasty is generally condemned. You asked for the literature on that view and I presented it after it was deleted [2]. It has since been deleted again and a completely unsatisfactory reason was given [3].

Promotion of pederasty by NAMBLA and similar groups is a key issue here. That is also part of the literature (Goode et al 2007). There is a strong presence on the Internet of child pornographers, pedophiles, pederasts, and similarly associated criminals. According to the literature, they generally use rationalizations for child abuse, such as pederasty has been a part of humanity since the beginning [4], or that pederasty is primarily boy love [5]. They deny child abuse and child pornography as if it is irrelevant (Good et al 2007) [6]. They tend to call legal pederasty legitimate, even though society generally condemns it, some call it abuse nevertheless, and the related individuals often suffer psychologically. I have no problem whatsoever with the views of pederasts being presented, whether scholarly or not. What is happening here, however, is that scholarly views condemnatory towards pederasty are simply being suppressed. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the inclusion of all relevant views. When a view about pederasty is condemnatory is can still be included. I know that relating pederasty to child porn and child abuse is condemnatory, but that is the fact. Its a fact that will inevitably be presented because it is the major view of scholars and others alike. Phdarts (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern day activities and opinions should be added for context, especially where they refer specifically to pederasty. But as this is particularly rare, we should not be whitewashing the vast bulk of work throughout history with synthetic implications from work that does not mention the practise.

We seem to have lost site of the fact that most scholarly work on pederasty is carried out from a value-free historical perspective. This, understandably leaves some in a daze, but it is also the right way to cover the subject in an encyclopedia article. Anything seriously removed from what we have now (especially if incorporating populism) would be a laughing stock among established scholars of the subject. forestPIG 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scholars on the subject of pederasty include those who write about child abuse and extreme sexual deviance. They are publishers of literature on this matter, and are part of the scholarly literature in general. Can you explain to me why they tend to be deleted so freely on this article? Phdarts (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Their works very rarely use the term "pederasty", or even samples that can be described as pederastic. Oftentimes, the sample is abuse-specific and non pederastic. The vast majority of pederasty papers have been written from the value-neutral historical perspective. Please present pederasty works that do not follow this trend, and demonstrate that they are relevant to this page. forestPIG 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty is considered by many to be a strongly related to pedophilia and child abuse. It is totally relevant to this article. The historical perspective is as value laden as any other literature and the criminology, psychology literature includes historical perspectives anyway. You can't dismiss major sourced views just because they reflect or "neutrally" describe what most people think about pederasty. Phdarts (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)