Talk:Pederasty/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Brass tacks

Paul, I appreciate your endless patience, but I think there is a danger here of the more disciplined editors being ground down by endless nonsequiturs. Allow me to interject and say that we should address the specifics of the article, rather than gut feelings and other truthiness-type notions. I have been through this grinder for some time now and I speak from experience. I have begun a general cleanup of some of the more outrageous accusations and misconceptions insinuated into the text. By and large the game seems to be to confuse the two definitions of pederasty, one being anal sex with underage children and the other being a legitimate love relationship between an adolescent and an older male. I will remove all the inappropriate inclusions, which seek to smear pederasty by association with child abuse - they do not belong here but rather at the appropriate articles (I am sorry, I am not familiar with that domain, others will have to move text there if they are interested.) Haiduc (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Any such removal of relevant views on pederasty will result in an article that is strongly biased towards the fringe. As pederasty is generally considered to be abusive, or close to something that is abusive, then that view should be presented with explanations. The trick is to write the article with each "type" of pederasty to have associated views properly presented and to put majority, minority and fringe in proper perspective. The appearance of any alleged non-sequitur does not mean that information be persistently removed just because it is condemnatory towards pederasty. If a view exists and is sourced, then it gets in, especially if it explains the majority view. The only undue accusations I have seen here are from those editors accusing others of homophobia just because they present good research. All in proper proportion. Phdarts (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please place child pornography and other unrelated stuff in their respective articles. Child pornography no more belongs here than ordinary pornography belongs in the article on heterosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the related literature. It refers specifically to pederasty. Pederasty is the title of the sections that the information comes from. By restricting pederasty to a rose-tinted anachronistic variety the article will be extremely narrow. Suppressing information will lead to a highly biased article, in this case, in favour of the notion of pederasty as a legitimate activity. There are more than pro-pederasty views to include here. Pederasty is obviously related to child pornography. Pederasts do not only break the law when they abuse children, they also break the law by creating and collecting child pornography. Thats a fact that requires inclusion in this pederasty article. Phdarts (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time and that of other constructive editors here with your political agenda. Haiduc (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, could you please explain your last accusation. Phdarts (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He explained it pretty well, although not in terms that I would use. You explain why your vision for this article is so wildly deviated from the status-quo academic perspective and focus for this area. forestPIG 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider visions to be important for editing. The article requires balancing and putting fringe POV in perspective. I provide reliable sources to that end. Haiduc dismisses such sources despite the article still being full of argumentative and unsources pro-pederastic views. In the process, Haiduc also accuses me (and others) of homophobia and unspecified political agendas. Perhaps you would like to refer to the scholarly views that state pederasty is generally considered to be either dubious or illegal. Or would you rather cast more aspersions on me or other editors who are working to clean up this half of the POV fork? Phdarts (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Every single claim you make is based on the alternative definition of the word "pederasty" which is irrelevant here. And your argumentation consists of endless repetition rather than genuine dialog. Please! Enough is enough. If after all the discussion we have had you still refuse to acknowledge that the word has different meanings, and that they cannot be lumped together, I do not see what else can be achieved by further talk. Haiduc (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Some things obviously need repeating. I have already said that the trick is to treat each definition and view as seperately as reasonable, as well as to make distinctions between pedophilia and pederasty wherever necessary, rather than as you have done; remove alternative definitions. Further talk is inevitable and something that committed editors are generally open to. Haiduc, I suggest you change your tone to something less dismissive. Phdarts (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Repetition is not how we discuss things here. I am not the one who dismisses you, legitimate scholarship on pederasty dismisses you:

pederasty. (gr. "pais": boy and "eran": to love) 1."Boy love" in ancient Greece. The literal translation is misleading, since the term does not refer to a child, but rather to a "boy" after puberty. The correct meaning is therefore: "Sexual relationship between a man and a male adolescent". In ancient Greece such relationships were customary and enjoyed general social approval. Pederasty had an educational function, obliging the adult lover ("the inspirer") to teach his young beloved ("the listener") good citizenship; the adolescent, in turn, had the obligation to learn from his adult role model. The relationship ended when the adolescent was ready for marriage. 2. Anal intercourse between males. This is a modern usage resulting from a misunderstanding of the original term and ignorance of its historical implications. In this reductionist sense, the term has crept into Western legal jargon and is often used in the context of persecuting sex offenses. {http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/CDS.HTM#P}

Alternative definitions have not been "removed." They were described and readers were directed to the appropriate articles, at least in the original version, before the article was tampered with for political purposes. Haiduc (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is only one view. There are a range of other views that are more current. Again, I have no problem with the above view being present in the article. There is most definitely a problem when editors restrict a whole article to a narrow POV though. The article needs a lot of attribution of unsourced views. Perhaps you could work on attributing them instead of claiming that one particular view is dismissive of me as an editor. I am working with including all relevant views and I suggest you should heed that recommendation of Wikipedia policies. Phdarts (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I utterly reject your preposterous claim that just because different meanings are represented by a single word, they should be conflated and discussed in a single article as if they were a single thing. That is an intellectual fraud. Haiduc (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can call it what you like. If there are multiple views about pederasty, then they can clearly exist in the same article. The policy page explains things pretty clearly. Not only are you treating alternative views pejoratively, you are also persistently working on keeping them from the article [1]. Haiduc, you seem to be completely on the wrong track. I'd have a really good look at the NPOV policy page if I were you. Phdarts (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Sex and Human Sexuality have different articles for the different meanings. If you would like to start an article that documents the non-scholarly, modern definition of pederasty, go ahead. This article is for the primary and linguistic meaning that has dominated throughout history - "pederasty", as you would see in an academic database or textbook on homosexuality. forestPIG 00:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig, are you moving the goalposts? According to the literature, the broad definition of pederasty ancient and modern is the erotic relationship between men and boys (generally from boyhood up to around 20 years old). Men who have erotic relations with 10-20 year olds are called pederasts and their sexual interactions with those younger than the age of consent is illegal. Or are you just talking about the pederasts who restrict themselves to erotic relations with people who look a bit boyish? Phdarts (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The first line

I kept the basic information in, but the source that was there seems to be rather odd so I am placing it here to see what sort of problems actually exist with it.

Pederasty or paederasty (literally 'boy-love', see etymology below) refers to a sexual relationship, whether or not consummated, between an adolescent boy and an adult male.

The source, for example seems to be argumentative. There also seems to be a problem with the "whether consummated or not" part as it is not in the source. There is also a problem with the use here of "misunderstanding". There may be the view that people misunderstand the nature of pederasty in general, just as they misunderstand the nature of pedophilia, but that does not mean that their views should be rejected. Secondly, I don't think editors here are treating pederasty as anal intercourse between males. In general the classic, academic and general notion of pederasty is an erotic or sexual desire by men for boys/adolescent males. In short, I believe the first line needs better sourcing and needs to be more clearly in line with what pederasty is considered to be. Feel free to make suggestions. Phdarts (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, PS, I would like to hear some reasoning for why the etymology needs to be in the lead line. Phdarts (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The essence of your argument seems to be a critique of the source, but you are not a published academic. Thus your OR is not valid here. Haiduc (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you are misreading my question. I am placing this information here to discuss any problems therein. I am also questioning why the source has been chosen above other sources. I have not attempted any original research. Please address the issues and assume good faith. Phdarts (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC). Also, you would do well to actually discuss information properly when it is placed here for discussion. Restoring it as you did seems to show a strong proclivity for dismissive editing [2]. Please discuss constructively. Phdarts (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant sourced views concerning pederasty

This material requires proper discussion. The material was deleted by Haiduc several times and any reasons given for deletion seem to be quite unsatisfactory. [3]

So I am placing the information here for discussion:

• While organizations as vocal as NAMBLA might argue for pederasty as the sexual education of boys, survivor groups insist that, for some, trauma is still the result (Crosson-Tower 2007).

Haiduc, your edit summary said “Undid revision 218997012 by Phdarts (talk) edit based on a misunderstanding of the term. However, the term used by Crosson Tower is that used in academic circles. It is not the so-called misunderstanding that is written into the definition of pederasty that you have added as a source to the lead line. Crosson-tower is not talking about anal intercourse between males. She is talking about the sort of classical and ancient pederasty that is claimed by some ancient Greeks and NAMBLA to improve the education of boys. Why are you insisting that she is misunderstanding the term? Phdarts (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you also changed the heading from “views concerning abuse” to “accusations of abuse”. [4] Why do you prefer the heading to be written as an accusation rather than a concern? Phdarts (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• In literature on sexual deviance, a pederast is a type of pedophile who is sexually attracted to boys (Goode and Vail 2007). In some countries, such as England, pederasty is considered to be pedophilia, and in the United States most agree that pederasty is the abuse of boys, especially those between 12 and 16 years old (Crosson-Tower 2007).

Haiduc, your edit summary is unsatisfactory [5]. Please explain why you removed this above sourced information from the article. Phdarts (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• 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", [6], and the Internet provides a potential catalyst for pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real thing [7]. According to ANESVAD the Internet facilitates contact between paedophiles (those who feel attracted to children) or pederasts (those who commit sexual abuse with minors) [8].

Again, this requires discussion, Haiduc. Please explain exactly why you do not want this information in the article [9]. Phdarts (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflation with sexual abuse of a minor

Main article: child sexual abuse

At the palaestra
Youth, holding a net shopping bag filled with walnuts, a love gift, draws close to a man who reaches out to fondle him; Attic red-figure plate 530-430 BCE; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

Though paederasty was once accepted in many cultures, some modern observers have retrospectively labeled it abusive. Enid Bloch argues that many Greek boys who were involved in paederastic relationships may have been harmed by the experience. If the relationship included anal intercourse, Bloch writes, the boy may have been traumatized by worry that he was violating social customs. According to Bloch, the "most shameful thing that could happen to any Greek male was penetration by another male." In this respect Bloch is in accord with Greek sexual morality, which also recognized a difference between ethical pederasty which excluded anal intercourse and "hubristic" pederasty which was believed to debase the boy as well as the man who penetrated him.

Bloch further argues that vases showing "a boy standing perfectly still as a man reaches out for his genitals" indicate the boy may have "psychologically immobilized, unable to move or run away." Many vases, however, show the boys responding warmly to the man's advances, placing their hands around the man's neck or on his arm, a gesture thought to indicate affection and reciprocity.

While sexually expressed relationships between men and boys are generally lawful, they are subject to regulation just as other types of sexual relationships. Age of consent laws set a lower limit on the age at which youths are enfranchised to enter into a sexual relationship with another person. This limit varies from one jurisdiction to another, ranging from the early teens to the early twenties.

In 1980 under the aegis of National Organization for Women, feminists adopted a resolution on lesbian and gay rights, which defined pederasty as "the involvement of children by adults in sexual activity," claiming that "over 90% of all pederasts are heterosexual males who seek out young girls as their victims." The text of the resolution read:"Whereas, pederasty is an issue of exploitation and violence, not affectional/sexual preference/orientation." This resolution was in effect for nineteen years, and was superseded by another which did not broach in any way the topic of pederasty.

---

Please discuss these properly. Firstly we can start with the heading. Who's view is it that these are about conflating pederasty with child abuse? Phdarts (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to get this discussion going again. Haiduc wrote the heading "Conflation with sexual abuse of a minor". Is there any particular view that this is a conflation? If not, I suggest: "Child Abuse", or "Views about pederasty as child abuse". Phdarts (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Views about slurs

Hello, especially Haiduc. The material removed here [10] was done so partially on the pretext of the claimed existence of a slur.

• Men in pederastic relationships are accused of being necessarily materialistic and manipulative. The claim is that the older partner's interest in the younger is always purely for sexual gratification, and that beneath a guise of caring or loving, and a veneer of acceptability of endowing the younger partner with "choice", these relationships are universally damaging to the youth because they are based on mutual deception. The attention given by the older to the younger is assailed as fundamentally self-interested, and the claim is made that the youths are discarded once past the age of attraction.

Seriously, I would like to identify which groups would consider it a reasonable statement or view, and which groups would consider it a slur? Any information on this may be enlightening. Phdarts (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Having had a cursory glance at the NAMBLA literature, it would seem that NAMBLA or NAMBLA members may consider this sort of viewpoint a slur. Does anyone here have access to secondary literature that discusses the slur issue? Phdarts (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic propaganda

We have heard for a long time now how homosexuality = child abuse. Take it elsewhere, Jack-a-roe and company. Haiduc (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. You have in general, been removing properly sourced information about the majority views on pederasty. You have been removing them on the false basis of some sort of misunderstanding of the meaning of pederasty, or claiming that other editors are politically motivated, or that majority views are anti-homosexual propaganda. However, the sources presented, and that you persistently remove without sufficient discussion, are sources that refer specifically to the academic and classical definition of pederasty. It is a fact that specific and largely majority views consider classical pederasty to be child abuse. This includes the views of academic experts on psychology, law, sexology, and other academics central to any studies on pederasty. Over the centuries, society and society's laws have taken into account possible sexual harrassment, risks and so on, that are associated with pederasty, and laws have been invoked to take care of any potentially harmful situation. That includes the homosexual community, who would like themselves to be accepted into normal society and life. Homosexuals in general now have strong reservations against pederasty. An encyclopedia should be informed by information about modern scientific findings on the effects of adult sexual activities on child and adolescent psychology and physiology, and the potential harm sustained. You have yourself stated that pederasty is a legitimate activity. However, that is a fringe view. Homosexuals in general do not hold that view, and society at large certainly does not hold that view. You seem to have been acting on a fringe view in your editing. It is an editor's duty to point out the particular bias of other editors. Thus I am pointing out your view as something that is most definitely fringe. Please take this into account before you personally attack any more editors. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Lets review. 1. The popularity of a view is of no interest to use here, except if we were to report on actual survey figures. 2. It is my distinct impression that you are trying to game the system by abusing the practice of validating a statement by the use of a citation. 3. The method you are employing is to broadcast bona fide statements describing adult molestation of a child across the entire pederastic spectrum. 4. Other users have pointed that out to you. 5. Your responses to critiques of your methods generally have been of a repetitive nature: you repeat on and on ad infinitum that "majority views" have to be represented. But you never acknowledge or respond to the critiques of your contentions and methods.

If you want to mention something here, in a subsection, about those pederastic relationships which fall outside the law, with a link to the more specific articles, I do not think anyone would oppose you. It is your blanket condemnation of pederastic relationships that is homophobic, inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Haiduc (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no homophobia underlying the recent improvements to the article. That's a red herring. If everything were the same but pederasty were within a heterosexual rather than homosexual context, there would be no difference in the approach of editing based on citing reliable sources presenting accurate information. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, your completely unreasonable accusations of homophobic propaganda are a reflection on the type of editing you have been pushing. You are pushing undue weight [11], and you are doing it by removing properly sourced information on pederasty that happens to be matter of fact negative view. It is a significant view that pederasty involves or risks child abuse. It is a significant view that pederasty often involves child pornography. Repeating these facts is necessary because you repeatedly remove such material from the article [12] and continue to push minority views above majority. Again, there is nothing wrong with stating historical facts about pederasty. However, there is a lot wrong with continually deleting the fact that people view pederasty both old and new to be a form of pedophilia and a form of child abuse, and something that involves child pornography. There should be no problem at all with presenting these more or less self-evident facts. Please stop causing trouble on this article and discussion page, and stop attacking other editors. The material will inevitably be presented into the article as it is correct and properly sourced. Phdarts (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are gaming the system by taking advantage of the multiple uses/meanings of the word "pederasty", and you continue to parrot the same arguments over and over again, in complete disregard of Wikipedia methods of discussion and resolution of disagreements. Your response is all form and no substance, and your attack on legitimate homosexual expression is merely clever homophobia. Haiduc (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. You are the one kneejerk restoring your point of view into the article without considered discussion [13]. Please address the issues. Your past reasoning has been found wanting by multiple editors. You have claimed on multiple occasions that your view of pederasty is well understood, and other views of pederasty are misunderstood. However, the sources completely disagree with your claims. Addressing other editors as homophobes will simply get you in trouble and annoy those editors. If you continue your tirade of attacks, I, and other editors may be deterred from working here. Now please address the issues and deal with the questions that have been presented. Phdarts (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been told by several editors that you are off base, something that I am sure you understand full well, appearances notwithstanding. Further infliction of your personal feelings upon the article and further taking advantage of other editors with interminable repetitions of vacuous arguments will be met in like manner. Haiduc (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, again you have evaded the issues. Please deal with the questions put to you, and discuss the sourced material. You have as yet failed to deal with the fact that the sources you have persistently deleted deal with pederasty as it is understood in the classical sense. And you have not explained your repeat claims of misunderstanding. Please deal with the issues without the constant accusations. Phdarts (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC) AnotherSolipsist is also deleting material out of hand without sufficient discussion [14]. The material has been placed above to enable discussion. If any part of it is contested, then specify which part, and give clear explanations without referring to other editors as homophobic, on political agendas, or similar dismissal of good faith. Thank you. Phdarts (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

restoring related sections and attributing extreme minority views

The child pornography section was deleted entirely because the editor claimed the term was being misused (OR) and that it didn't discuss the article's subject (untrue).

"While sexually expressed relationships between men and boys can be lawful within certain legal boundaries in many jurisdictions" was changed to "While sexually expressed relationships between men and boys are generally lawful, they are subject to regulation just as other types of sexual relationships."

This is an extreme minority opinion and OR.

This was deleted as "nonsense" and "conflation." "In modern culture, when an adult engages in sexual relations with a minor it is defined under the law as child sexual abuse." This appears to be the majority opinion.

This was deleted as "conflation" and "un-skewing." "This resolution was in effect for nineteen years, and was superseded by another which did not broach in any way the topic of pederasty. - National Organization for Women; "DELINEATION OF LESBIAN RIGHTS ISSUES 1980" It appears to be pertinent to the topic of the page.

I have attributed this extreme minority opinion : "DeVries states that many vases, however, show the boys responding warmly to the man's advances, placing their hands around the man's neck or on his arm, a gesture thought to indicate affection and reciprocity." ResearchEditor (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the quick revert, I did not realize you were commenting on it here. Nevertheless it was deserved and I will work to see that it stands.

Child pornography belongs here as much as pornography belongs in the Heterosexuality article.

Sexual relations with minors are legal pretty much everywhere. That is a self-evident truth, not "extreme minority opinion and OR". You obviously are not familiar with the AoC laws.

It is not "majority opinion" that determines the law. Please leave wishful thinking out of here.

The NOW material was already there and you have duplicated it.

Your "extreme minority opinion" is common among those familiar with the subject, something that I do not blame you for not knowing. But you might want to read up on pederasty before editing here, so as not to embarrass yourself further. Haiduc (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Child pornography belongs here as much as pornography belongs in the Heterosexuality article." - Incorrect analogy. Child pornography includes by definition pornography of young teenagers who are minors - that's why it needs mentioning in this article, not because pederasty is homosexual. The homosexual aspect is a straw man and has nothing to do with the fact that pederastic pornography is child pornography.

"Sexual relations with minors are legal pretty much everywhere. That is a self-evident truth, not 'extreme minority opinion and OR'. " ... That's exactly the opposite of reality. Sexual relations involving an adult and a minor younger than the age of consent are by definition illegal, since that's what "age of consent" means. If the boy in a pederastic sexual activities is a young teen or pre-teen, that's called child sexual abuse. (Again, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, the same would apply if it were a hetrosexual interaction.) That's the majority, mainstream view. The idea that pederasty is accepted by the mainstream of society anywhere in the world today is a fringe theory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Any claim that one can uncover the reality of pederastic relationships in antiquity by looking at the pictures on the vases is utterly laughable. They aren't photographs. They cannot be used to show that the youths were traumatised or, for that matter, that they were in love. They are conventional images. There is substantial literature on Greek vases written by qualified classicists, which should be used for descriptions. The statement that vases "show the boys responding warmly to the man's advances" is not "extreme minority opinion", it's a description of what they depict, not an opinion at all. It tells us nothing about reality. Please use appropriately qualified historians and art historians for meaningful opinion on vases. On the issue of "minors" it is the case in many legislations that the age of sexual consent is younger than that of full adulthood. There is no single "age of majority", but rather a series of stages. Paul B (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"The idea that pederasty is accepted by the mainstream of society anywhere in the world today is a fringe theory." This is nonsense. See Age disparity in sexual relationships. Sexual relationhips between young persons and older persons are entirely acceptable by "the mainstream of society". How many middle-aged rockstars cavort with teeenage groupies? Have you never heard of the concept of a "toy boy"? Paul B (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that age-divergent relationships are accepted by mainstream society when the disparity is not extreme, and the younger partner is not a minor. The older the age of the younger partner, the greater the divergence in ages can become and remain within the mainstream-accepted-range. When the younger partner is very young, approaching the age of consent, substantially less divergence is generally accepted. When the younger partner is younger than the age of consent, sexual relations are illegal, indicating complete rejection by society (if it were accepted, it would not be outlawed).

Middle-age rock stars who cavort with girls younger than the local age of consent are breaking the law; clearly not endorsed by mainstream society. If the rock star's cavorting-girl-partner is not a minor, the activity is legal, but for a rock star who is middle-aged with a girl under twenty, he would receive sneers from most of society other than perhaps his fans, whatever it says in Age disparity in sexual relationships. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Middle-age rock stars who cavort with girls younger than the local age of consent are breaking the law".Exactly. And the same rule applies to homosexual relationships. That's the whole point. Your statement that if a "rock star who is middle-aged with a girl under twenty, he would receive sneers from most of society" is of course uncited personal POV, the truth of which I rather doubt. It's just as likely that he would be regarded with jealousy by other men. Throughout history men of all ages have been attracted to young "nubile" women. It is considered normal precisely because it is normal. You don't need Darwin to explain why. Pathologising the same process in homosexual men is simply away of implying that while such lustful urges in heterosexuals are normal, in homosexuals they are perverted and deviant. It's backdoor homophobia. Paul B (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul, if you can find a representative source that states heterosexuality is associated with pornography, then add it to the appropriate article. As it is there is a reliable source that reasonably connects child porn with pederasty. The core notion is relating to illegal behavior and explains why there are pederasty statutes in law that relate directly to ancient Greek definitions of pederasty. You have said nothing that would dismiss the information in question from this article. Phdarts (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[undent] "if you can find a representative source that states heterosexuality is associated with pornography, then add it to the appropriate article". I'm afraid that that question reveals the homophobic bias that you consciously or unconsciously entertain. There are no end of sources stating that the overwhelming majority of pornography is heterosexually oriented. That is not difficult to prove. It would however be inappropriate to add it to the article on heterosexuality, just as much as it would be to add the fact that there is lesbian porn and male gay porn to those articles. Porn exists for all forms of sexuality. It is not relevant to the topic of an article on any sexuality to point out that porn for that orientation exists. To add a large section on the fact to the heterosexuality article would be to push a POV that heterosexuality is morally offensive in some way. That's why it would be wrong and misleading, just as it would be wrong to add all through the article on marriage that married couples throughout history may have been traumatised or revolted by sex with eachother. No doubt many have been. Most marriages throughout history have been arranged, and many couples have no doubt had abusive or unpleasant sex lives. To keep repeating that throughout the article would be rightly interpreted as pushing an anti-marriage POV. Paul B (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Phdarts is correct regarding the inclusion of the source and text based upon it in the article.

This means what, exactly? This is pure assertion, and it is not even clear what source you mean. Paul B (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Paul, you are welcome to disagree with my statements, but your use of the term "backdoor homophobia" is unwarranted and just plain wrong. It's also kind of funny considering one of the meanings for the term "pederasty", though I assume you didn't intend it as a pun. By the way, you don't know if I'm straight or gay or male or female.

The homosexual nature of pederasty is not what makes it abusive. The practice of older adults in sexual relations with young barely post-pubescent teens - male or female - is not an idealized or romanticized educational "sexual apprenticeship" within a cultural context. It's illegal and contrary to cultural norms. A heterosexual example is the scandal of Neil Goldschmidt, mayor of Portland who's career was ruined because he "cavorted" with a 14 year-old girl. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not wrong (I was aware of the potential pun, but I hoped no one would be so tasteless as to note it). "By the way, you don't know if I'm straight or gay or male or female." No, and neither do you. That's irrelevant. The point is that it is de facto homophobic, whether that is unconscious or not, for the simple reason that when pederasty is used as a label for abusive relationships a concept is created that is almost only ever applied to homosexuals. There is no special word for men who are attacted to young women. That is normal male sexuality. Why do you keep repeating the point over and over that sex with people below the age of consent is illegal? No-one needs to be told what everybody knows. Everybody, including child abuse professionals, also knows that there is a difference between paedophiles who are attacted to children and adults who are attacted to post-pubescent young persons. Paedophile sexuality is also not clearly definable in terms of adult homo/hetero orientations, as several studies have shown, indicating fluidity between attraction to boys and girls among paedophiles. The actual age of concent is a partially arbitary limit that differs between countries and cultures and has changed over time (both upwards and downwards). There is no special term for men who are attracted to young women, or women who are attacted to young men. The concept of 'sexual apprenticeship' of young men with older women is so commonplace that it is a staple of autobiographical literature, and the spectacle of famous older men with young women is in every tabloid. The central point - and this needs to be emphasised - is that there should be no difference in the way homosexual relationships are understood. That means that using the concept of "pederast" in the way you wish to do creates such a distinction. It pathologises normal homosexual attaction to youth in the way that normal heterosexual attaction to youth is not pathologised. I'm surprised that you have so much difficulty understanding this, and have to repeat the obvious fact that sex with underage persons is illegal and unacceptable. Is anyone arguing with you about that? I don't think so. It's a straw man. Paul B (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is the literature discusses child pornography that is something that is used by those who are sexually attracted to adolescents and children (boys in this case). They are talking about pederasty and pederasts per se. If a reliable source states that pederasty is associated with child pornography or that child pornography is involved in pederasty, then it can be added to the article. The main point of this involves the view that pederastic behavior can still be illegal even though it does not involve direct contact with children as it can be done via child pornography. It is also related to child abuse, as child pornography is considered abusive. This is why pederasty is included in so many texts on child abuse. And again, no it is not a misunderstanding of the term as has been claimed by Haiduc and others. The term is explained in the text and it is not about anal sex between men, or child abuse per se. It is pederasty and relevant views relating to pederasty. The material helps the reader understand what happens in pederastic groups, with individual pederasts, in law situations when pederasts are prosecuted, and the sort of things that people in general (majority views) are concerned about when they look for non-abusive tutors for their children etc. And it involves negative view points. This is an encyclopedia and should include negative modern majority views, together with the sympathetic views of some academics. Phdarts (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, you mentioned in your edit summary[15]:

“RV inapropriate association of male homosexuality with child abuse and pornography, as well as odd notion that populist thinking is the measure of truth”.

Nobody is saying populist thinking is the truth. Please stop making such ridiculous accusations, and stop implying there is a homophobic conspiracy to any of this. There is a perfectly reasonable association between pederasty and child pornography and it is not populist. There is a research based and academic view that pederasts seek and use child pornography, and that child pornographers market child pornography to pederasts.Phdarts (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion would go more smoothly if you first learned what "paederast" actually means, Phdarts. The removed comments are offhand, not "research-based," and were made in comment on subjects only tangentially related to paederasty. (Crosson-Tower is a discussion of child pornography; paederasty isn't considered beyond the name-drop.) It's linguistic carelessness. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolipsist, this is a million miles away from name dropping. Crosson-Tower writes a section entitled:

"Pederasty" and states "Chapter 1 briefly discussed the practice of pederasty among early Greeks. But this practice is not confined to ancient times; pederasty thrives in our culture today"

• She then quotes Rossman: "Rossman (1976) describes pederasts as males over age 18 who are sexually attracted to and involved with young boys who are between ages 12 and 16.

• She goes into detail on views about pederasty, whether it is considered to be abusive, even for relations with 18 year olds, and why or why not.

• She then clearly states that the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pederasts. There is no namedropping whatsoever, and she is being linguistically correct.

The problem with some editors excuses for removing negative views on pederasty is that they treat negative views on pederasty as erroneous per se. If there is a view that pederasty is a form of pedophilia then it can be included, and if there is a view that pederasty is a form of abuse, then it can be included. These are all highly relevant views about men having erotic relations with boys. All relevant views will be included and NPOV will be satisfied despite resistance from those who persistently remove critical views and claim that homosexual editors are homophobes. A lot of the criticism of pederasty comes from the majority of homosexual groups and the majority of heterosexuals, so please lets keep the fringe in proper perspective. Phdarts (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the majority opinion (required by wikipedia), pertinent data and needed attribution to the page. If one can show that CSA and pederasty are 1) legal and 2) accepted by society, then please do so. Otherwise, they are extreme minority views and need to be attributed or deleted (as per undue weight), depending on the section and source. The section on NOW is also pertinent to the topic and should never have been deleted. Remember, "verifiability, not truth" is the guideline. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Defs of pederasty :

Erotic love, sexually expressed or chaste, between a man and an adolescent boy.

(archaic) Anal intercourse in general, usually between a man and an adolescent boy. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)