Talk:Britten’s Children

P(a)edophile
Bridcut uses the term "paedocrat". This article labelled Britten as a paedophile. This is a highly charged term with several meanings. It has a very strict literal meaning of one one who is sexually attracted to children (which is undeniably true of Britten). It is also seen in contexts such as "he is a convicted paedophile" (seen in the The Times recently). Thus the term is used in the media, to mean a criminal act (which the book does not accuse Britten of performing). The book treads a very careful line (and the author has done a brilliant job in doing so): this article must respect that. Bluewave 19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi - I don't recall the use of the word paedocrat, but I've added a new para taken from p 237. Tony 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tony


 * I took out the paedophile phrase from the sentence "Bridcut provides ample proof that Britten was sexually attracted to young boys, in other words a paedophile, but is similarly able to show that it is unlikely that Britten ever stepped over the line of propriety and molested any of the boys." If the term "paedophile" is used in its strictest sense, then it is simply a restatement of the earlier phrase "Britten was sexually attracted to young boys". However, the term is sensationalist (something which Bridcut studiously avoided) and is used in the media to imply criminal behaviour (which Bridcut does not suggest). Bluewave 10:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bridcut did avoid labouring the fact, but he did mention it (as per the quotation) and in a summary of the book I think it is fair to put it in. Is it not important to recognise that Britten was a paedophile, but that some/many paedophiles are not the predatory types portrayeed by the media?  An encyclopaedia should be free to use words in their correct context.  In English Law, the words paedophile and paedophilia never appear as offences.  It is a condition; it is not illegal.  I have not reverted your edit at this stage as we may get some other Wikipedians adding to the debate and let's wait to hear what they say... Tony 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Tony


 * OK. Fair point. Happy to get other views. Bluewave 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick search for "pedocrat" and turned up nothing. It may well become a word in the English language someday, but for the moment it is of no use to us. So I would be of the opinion that "pedophile" would be a useful term, as long as we make it clear that he was an ethical pedophile. As an aside, I have recently come across the term "pedosadist" (again, not much on Google) but if it ever takes off it will be helpful in differentiating between people who hurt children and people who love children without harming them. (Funny, you'd think it would be an obvious distinction.) Haiduc 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)