Talk:Pederasty/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Sotadic Zone

@Crossroads: As I said, Burton's theory of the Sotadic Zone (1886) was formulated in the second half of the 19th century, it has historical value, and is discussed in academic works that focus on the History of human sexuality and LGBT studies. In my opinion, it should be included in this article, since it's strongly related to the subject of pederasty and the academic fields that I previously mentioned. I propose to write a section dedicated to the Sotadic Zone in order to avoid misconceptions.--GenoV84 (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

While it may well occupy a small part of some works discussing historical views of sexuality, this is WP:Undue weight here, and all the more so as the first thing seen on the page. The idea that half the world's cultures are prone to pederasty - generally viewed nowadays as a form of sexual abuse - is completely outdated and nonsensical according to modern psychological and sociological research. Having it here connotes legitimacy to Burton's ideas. And having those claims here could be taken either as legitimizing pederasty or as defaming other cultures, either of which is unacceptable. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads:

I disagree with your statement, and I think that you're going too far by drawing these conclusions. According to the second source that I provided for the Sotadic Zone theory, Burton's inquiry sparked off from his scientific worldview, and his theory (alongside those of many other Western scholars and explorers that preceded him) was aimed at finding a scientific (although, outdated) explanation for the abnormal and endemic sexual practices (i.e. pederasty and sodomy) that were ubiquitous in the geographic regions included in the Sotadic Zone, practices that he considered repugnant and disgusting.

Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821–1890), Victorian explorer and writer, circulated the stereotype of Eastern “perversity” that might appeal to a homosexual audience in the mid-1800’s because of its homoeroticism. Although he was reputedly sexually interested in men himself, he was very clear that he viewed homosexuality as “un-British.” In 1885, he made headline news when he published his scandalous “Terminal Essay,” addressing a number of “interpretive” issues related to his translation of the anonymous Arabian classic, The Arabian Nights. In this essay, which was removed by the publishers from later editions, he expounded his theory on the origins of homosexuality using the terms “vice,” “inversion,” and “pederasty.” He mapped out an area in which he argued that the “vice” was not just prevalent but endemic. This area extended from the North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia to Egypt and the Syrian-Arabic peninsula. He called it the “Sotadic Zone,” derived from the name of the Greek poet Sotades as a euphemism for “sexual inversion.” According to Burton, climate was seen to facilitate pathological love, not race, as argued by most of his contemporaries. Although his theory is empirically useless, he challenged Victorian public thinking that stigmatized male homosexuality and theorizing about homosexuality in terms of cultural evolution.

— Markwell, Kevin (2008). "The Lure of the "Sotadic Zone"". The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 15 (2). Excerpted and reprinted with permission from Waitt, Gordon; Markwell, Kevin (2006). Gay Tourism: Culture and Context. New York: Haworth Press. ISBN 978-0-7890-1602-7.

--GenoV84 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to join the discussion, I believe you are right, Crossroads, when you speak about undue weight, as the paragraph in the map added by Geno seemed too large and detailed to me. However, I think such theory might deserve a mention in the article, and I would be comfortable with a smaller description in the image. Moreover, judging the value of theories (or their possible defaming of cultures and et caetera) is not our job, but the job of those who write the sources we utilize, and I consider it certainly wrong to base our decisions on it. Creador de Mundos (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As editors we do need to determine what has WP:Due weight, as well as what is too WP:Fringe for inclusion. And it doesn't matter that Burton considered himself scientific. Its not like Burton could have done a true scientific study on the matter anyway, with careful surveying, statistics, etc. 19th century science was wrong about many things, and especially in the case of things like scientific racism. We know that back then Europeans often saw other cultures through a highly distorted lens, and this includes thinking that various "perversions" were common amongst them.

Here is just one source of many showing the modern view. It is a review article of research on sexual orientation, including cross-culturally. They conclude, We expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) and that only a minority of individuals are sexually predisposed (whether exclusively or non-exclusively) to the same sex. Burton was wrong about the prevalence of this practice. And needless to say, he was wrong about climate having anything to do with human sexuality. We should not be using him or a fancy map derived from his statements here, as it lends authority to fringe and wrong ideas. And we would all the more err on the side of not including it if it involves tying half the world's cultures to a widely reviled practice. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no need for this material to be added to the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes/Citations

References

Enid Bloch's views

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3149/jms.0902.183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilh758 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

First problem is that source is already in the article. It's footnote 14, and literally in the same paragraph you edited. You added it twice. Second, you appear to not have read the source in it's entirety and are instead jumping to conclusions based on the bit of abstract you read. You quoted part of it while leaving out important context preceding it "the question has yet to be raised -". This changes the meaning the of the quote. Bloch is asking the question in the abstract, and the body text of the article answers it. In the conclusion section of the paper, it states the following as the opening volley: "We should not be afraid to call Greek pederasty a form of child abuse. This was not sex between consenting adults, or even between two children discovering their sexuality in their own way and at their own pace, but the deliberate use of a child by an adult for the sexual gratification of the adult." I don't know how more explicit a paper needs to be.Legitimus (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading for WP:BLP reasons. Yes, even the abstract when read in full is quite clear that she is critical of other writers for not condemning the practice enough. Indeed, some have said some sketchy things. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)