Talk:Pederasty/Archive 2

SEXISM
I am really disappointed to see that this article totally ignores over half the Greek population! Pederasty wasn't just practiced among the men, people. For starters, Plutarch informs us that older Spartan women had sexual relations with adolescent girls. And let's not forget Psappha (aka Sappho) of Lesbos and her school!


 * If you would like to collect material to that effect I'm sure we can find a place for it. However, if the Greeks did not call it pederasty we'll have to simply mention it here and place the bulk of it at Lesbianism. Haiduc 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you both are missing a very important point, and that is that "pederasty" is not the same as "ephebophilia." Pederasty was a very specific ancient Greek institution that, like many other Greek institutions, was for males only.  The above user might consider this sexist, but -- surprise, surprise -- the ancient Greeks were sexist.  The very word pederasty traces its root back to the two ancient Greek words "paid" and "eros," meaning "boy" and "erotic love."  By definition, there was no such thing as Greek pederasty for girls.  And even if there were a similar institution, it would go under a separate article, not this one. Corax 05:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I must correct u on the etymology since the ancient word for boy is not "paid" its actual "pais" (παις) u must be confusing "paid" for another form of "pais", "paidos" (παιδός) used only in the form "to paidos" (roughly "of the boy), (του παιδός) or perhaps the plural form for boys "paides" (παίδες) 83.171.227.72 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that ephebophilia is something else (was not the state of "ephebe" also a purely masculine condition?) But it is significant that at least some of Sappho's poems appear to express a pederastic sensibility. As for "pais," the word had a more flexible meaning, being used for "son" as well as for "child." And yes, other than a brief mention here, it should go into a separate article, at Sappho and at Lesbianism. Haiduc 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. How would we know what Sappho's poems express or don't express since out of all her works which have so far been found, only one has been found intact with many of her fragments in that book being translated into modern era with the 'translators filling in the gaps as to what she might have actually been writing, in essence modern translators were writing Sappho's poems for her. So how would we know what Sappho's poems expressed or didn't express? BONK 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on Sappho, but her reputation goes back millennia (why do you think her works were suppressed?) and the surviving fragments have given scholars some material to go by also. Haiduc 01:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia/Pederasty
Copied from my talk page -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you have one of those user boxes where it says you are against censorship, and so am I. But I could not help being a bit amused by that in light of your attempted deletion of my notice on the GLBT board. It is neither fair nor true to conflate pedophilia with pederasty, and the last person I would expect that of is someone with a certain degree of sensitivity to gender issues, which you certainly seem to possess. If any disgreement remains between us on this topic and you wish to resolve it, please let me know. Haiduc 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In countries where the legal age for homosexual sex is different than for the heterosexual, and so higher than the average age of consent worldwide, 16 years: I agree, that's unfair, is just pure discrimination. But a middle-aged man having sex with a boy who is under-age is no different than a middle-aged man having sex with a girl who is under-age. It's paedophilia. I'm not going to say it's any better just because it's the homosexual equivalent of "normal" pedophilia. It's still a middle-aged man having sex with a child.


 * Historical arguments are baseless: Humanity's done and allowed a LOT of stupid things, and stupidly not allowed many other things. That's just how it goes. Today we know better than to allow children to be molested by adults.


 * I'm quite appalled that you are in favour of sexual abuse of children and from your edits and very pro-active stance, maybe even a practioner of this. Let me guess, you're a member of the "Childlove movement"?-- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  19:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Actually, pedophilia has nothing to do with what a country's age of consent is.  Pedophilia is a predominant or exclusive attraction of an adult for a prepubescent child, whether that adult lives in a country with an age of consent of 14 or an age of consent of 30.  "Boy," like all words, is a culturally constructed category which until very recently did not extend to include sexually potent males.


 * Furthermore, I am quite appalled that you would accuse somebody of being in favor of the "sexual abuse of children" when you have absolutely no way to substantiate this claim. Even if the person in question does not believe that sex between adolescent and adult males is necessarily harmful, your accusation begs the question of whether all such relationships are in fact abusive.  A lot of important research has been done in this area, not the least of which was the Rind meta-analysis in 1998, which has shown that the term you bandy about, "child sex abuse," is often so inclusive that it applies even to consensual relationships of which both the participants speak positively.


 * Also, this article is certainly not the appropriate place for such a debate to transpire. What is up with the individuals who feel the need to incessantly edit every article even remotely related to the sexuality of legally designated minors, so that they end up centering on the question of whether every all instances of legally designated minors being sexual with older people is intrinsically abusive? Corax 06:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to either attack or defend pederastic relationships. Nor a place to speculate on user's motivations for contributing to provocative topics, or for flogging pedophilia. Haiduc 11:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Now only if the child sex hysterics could let go of their obsession.  Corax 18:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course pederasty is not paedophilia. However, a grown middle-aged man probably shouldn't be having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy, or girl for that matter. That was not the custom of the Ancient Greeks. The erastes would have typically been a young adult male or older teen; middle-aged men were typically expected to marry and beget children. You can make fairly good arguments, whether philosophical, historical or scientifically based, pro or con. But I would speculate that relationships between middle-aged men and adolescents were fairly rare, as they are now. Dan Asad 18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's off course difficult to find out what was more common in Greek City States about 2 1/2 millenniums ago, but there are at least a lot of bearded men courting male teenagers on those Greek vases, as you can it see here: http://androphile.org/preview/Museum/Greece/indexGreece.htm I don't know how "representative" these kind of illustrations are and whether these bearded guys were already married or not, but I have the feeling that your hasty judgement mainly reflects your moral (and aesthetic?) cosiderations against pederasty. 89.49.176.73 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your speculation of the frequency of sexual relationships between middle-aged men and adolescent males in ancient Greece is probably correct. However this article does not and should not touch on the issue of whether pederastic sexual relationships are moral or immoral.  This is an encyclopedia which deals in facts, not speculation or moral prescriptions. Corax 19:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to look for material from other cultures reflecting on such pairs. I know of nothing from the Greeks. al-Tifashi, in his Delight of Hearts has an anecdote in which someone is blamed for trysts with young boys and advised to look for older ones. But then he is caught, and as the punishment is to parade around town with his beloved on his shoulders, he rejoices for not having listened to advice, else he would have had a big lout to carry, instead of a small boy.
 * On a purely speculative note, since the common thread seems to be not the sex but the love and the transmission of knowledge, I wonder whether large age differences were problematized, or simply seen as increasing the learning opportunities of the boyHaiduc 20:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that the relationships, or pairings, were long-lasting, oftentimes lifelong--: the social structure reflected the needs of the societies. There were boy prostitutes, but unmarried middle-aged men who entered into romantic relationships with adolescent boys were most likely both from aristocratic families. These were probably exceptional cases where the relationships extended beyond the customary duration. However, in the adolescent/young-adult male submodel, the sexual aspect of the relationship was likely ended after the adolescent started to show facial hair. And you have to keep in mind that Southern European and Middle Eastern youths arrive at puberty much earlier than Northerners. So the relationships were likely started at the onset of adolescence. How common it was for adult males to continue having a sexual relationship with bearded youths, I am uncertain of. But they had to be doing something. . . Clearly there had to be friendships where age disparity was not present. How common this was, I cannot say.

Montaigne makes a point in his essay On Friendship that it was expected of the beloved to search for beauty in the Lover that was internal, which caused the Beloved to develop "the desire mentally to conceive through the medium of the beauty of the mind." Ne noted that Aeschylus was rebuked for giving the role of Lover to Achilles. And this is why the Ancients thought highly of Youth: because they seek the higher virtue. In my opinion, he is quite correct in his opinion. But Plato, in the Symposium, implicitly gives more value to the kinship and like-mindedness of Socrates and Agathon than he does to the desire of Alcibiades for Socrates, or more precisely, the character of his wisdom. So I see kinship as the ideal, but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. Dan Asad 02:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Spanish proverb?
This was posted today and moved over here:


 * Spain
 * Who gets in bed with children, rises up wet.

Can anyone furnish source or context, in order to replace it in the article? Haiduc 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Should we also remove the other unsourced/non-contextualized proverbs? -Willmcw 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I had no problem finding sources for those two. Google this: "They will kill each other for a boy. Never for a woman" and do the same for the other one about the crowbar. So they can be confirmed. What's needed is to confirm the Spanish one and then figure out what it means. Do you know what it means? Haiduc 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of it. Even if this adage refers to sexual contact, it is not specifically pederastic. My guess, based on reading this translation, is that it has nothing to do with pederasty, and rather is a general warning about getting into disputes with immature people. Similar to the adages "got to bed with dogs and wake up with fleas" (which nobody would seriously suggest concerns bestilality) and "only a fool argues with a fool". But that's just a guess. It'd probably be a good idea to have these adage in their original language, when available, for accuracy. I'm not disputing that we should get a source and context for it, it just seems odd to single it out when others are also unsourced. -Willmcw 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That was hilarious, thank you! I would have sourced the others, but it just seemed awkward to use those particular websites. But I think I saw a Somerset Maugham reference I can follow up. As for the "crowbar" anecdote (which I first heard in 1966 in junior high), it's one of theose things that everyone has heard but no one knows where it comes from. If you have an idea on how to source it properly, I would appreciate it. Haiduc 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What Google finds easily:
 * el que con niños se acuesta, que con su pan se lo coma: no es más que una variante del viejo refrán tradicional "el que con niños se acuesta cagado (mojado) amanece". --Javierme 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tarde lo comprendió el rey: quien se acuesta con niños amanece cagado, in an article about Michael Jackson.
 * El que con niños se acuesta, cagado se levanta. El que con niños se acuesta, meado amanece.
 * It has a true literal meaning: "Sleeping with children and you may wake up fouled up" and several metaphorical ones. As we see in the El Colombiano reference, one of them is about pederasty.
 * --Error 00:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. How would you render in English "que con su pan se lo coma"? "Let him suffer the consequences"? And "cagado", is this a double entendre on an alternate sense of "in trouble"? How about then, "Who sleeps with boys wakes up in deep shit"? Haiduc 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This was the first time I found "con su pan se lo coma" with this proverb. The traditional forms I remember are "meado" and "mojado". "Let him suffer the consequences" sounds good, but un-proverbial. Cagado has the literal sense and could have that alternate one you point. It would depend on the context. However, rather than "boys", niños is more "children" or even "babies". Niño/niña can mean "teenager", and even "person quite younger than the speaker" but I'd say those are dialectal meanings. --Error 01:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of a line in La virgen de los sicarios where the protagonist, in a Colombian brothel, tells a boy of sixteen Quita tu ropa, niño. Thanks for your help! Haiduc 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In Delfín Carbonell Basset's bilingual A Dictionary of Proverbs the main form is "Quien con niños se acuesta, cagado se levanta (amanece)", the English counterpart provided is "If you lie down with dogs you'll get up with fleas", and the meaning: "[...]don't diddle with people of no account because you'll be sorry for it". --Javierme 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm from Guatemala, Central America and we commonly use this expression "el que con ninios se acuesta, cagado/meado amanece", this expression is used when someone older goes out with someone younger, although I have heard this expression many times, I've never seen it used impliying homosexuality or pedofilia, it usually means that if an older person is messing around with a younger one, he (the older one) could end up in some kind of trouble. I also think it's important to note that this expression has no implicit sexual meaning, it mostly means "messing around" or some kind of "relationship". --216.230.150.5 04:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am Spanish. The proverb means that when you deal with people who don't behave like adults, you will have to bear the consequences. So it doesn't has anything to do with actually sleeping with children. --vaceituno 00:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

English proverb?

 * Then spoke the headmaster of Rugger, A most accomplished old bugger: "I spend half each night With a smooth catamite. My wife? I don't even hug 'er."

That's no proverb. It's a mildly amusing ditty.

TRiG 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Proverb??? Nope! Try more like a classic example of the poetic form called a Limerick

Ranster 1:24, 9 January 2007

Central Asia
This edit, specifiying a date when pederasty became less common, "it was common in pre-Modern Japan until the Meiji restoration, in Mughal India until the British colonization, amongst the Aztecs prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and in China and Central Asia until the 1820s." needs a source.


 * For the record, it used to say "until the early 20th century", but was changed by an anon. Clayboy 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Quran reference
I am going to remove the Quranic verse reference since it is incorrect 50:24 indicates Surat Qaf Aya 24. Which approximates the meaning of sending stubborn non believer to hell. Check it yourself if you dont beleive me. I checked with other articles to see if Sura:Aya is how quran is referenced and it seems to be so.
 * Added refs: (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19) Haiduc 03:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to delete Pederasty category
Editors here may be interested in the following: * Category:Pederasty LGBT Category on one of the three main forms of homosexuality, with close to one hundred and fifty articles, is seen as "serving no educational purpose" and having "no meaning." Second time this deletion is attempted. CfD log 2006 February 5

Chickenhawk reference
Why has it been removed? It's relevant to the other article but it's also relevant to this one. Anoni-mouse 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a modern issue. I have also removed the other specific links and only left the general ones. The link section had not been revisited since the other articles were spun off. Haiduc 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I might agree with you if this was the Pederasty in Ancient Greece article but it isn't, this is entitled Pederasty and I think the chickenhawk link is relevant. I will put it back unless someone can explain why it isn't relevent to Pederasty. Anoni-mouse 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If one could show that "Chickenhawk" is an aspect of pederasty that all or most pederastic cultures have in common then it would belong there. As it is, it is a modern English slang term that does not seem to have much relevance to any other time or place. I don't see why this is even an issue here. Haiduc 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, just so I get this right, this (from Filmography) is relevent.
 * 1) Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys, dir. Adi Sideman (USA, 1994)

* Independent documentary consisting of interviews with members of NAMBLA.

But a link "Chickenhawk" is not relevent? Anoni-mouse 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is very difficult to try to make everything fit some logical structure. I also had some doubts about the wisdom of leaving the filmography here, and the deciding factor for leaving the section here was that the films illuminate many aspects of pederasty, not just the modern one. But If I understand you correctly, what you are trying to do is balance things out by covering all aspects of pederasty, including the predatory one. While the Chickenhawk article is too narrowly focused to fit here, Sexual abuse is not, and since the issue has come up both in the past (ancient Greece and Turkey, as well as the early Christians come to mind) and obviously in the present, it seems appropriate. I hope that will address your concerns, I'll be interested in what other critiques you might have. Haiduc 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your objection seems to be that because the word itself is modern slang its not relevent. The word describes a concept. A concept that is relevent to most pederastic cultures.

"In broad terms, a chickenhawk is any individual of higher status who seeks out individuals of some lower status, for the purpose of sex. Classically, the chickenhawk is of a mature age, in addition to occupying some station which imbues him with power over potential subordinate "prey"." (From "Chickenhawk", Wikipedia)

Would you tell me that nobody felt puppy love until the term was invented? It is after all modern slang. Men have used money, power and/or authority to initiate sexual relations with others (male or female) ever since someone found out it was possible to do so. The modern word used to descibe this in pederastic relationships is chickenhawk. If you know of a better word thats not quite so "modern" then perhaps you could suggest it. If not, "Chickenhawk" is better than no link at all. In relationships that are defined by an age imbalance the dangers of possible abuse of power/authority are surely obvious. Anoni-mouse 09:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument, just like the term itself, is essentially a modern one, from many points of view:


 * 1) "For the purpose of sex" is the predominant constructions of these relationships in our day. But past practices were much more varied, as I am sure you are aware. The Japanese talk about honor, faithfulness, transcendence of social class barriers, and love. The Greeks talk about love, transmission of values and knowledge, humility and democracy. Moslems talk about communing with the Divine, and falling prey to overwhelming love, quite separate from physical coupling.
 * 2) "Mature age" The age difference was not necessarily that great, not among the Greeks, not among the Japanese. It is generally thought that typically youths in their twenties would associate with youths in their teens.
 * 3) I am guessing here (but so are you), but what we now dismiss as puppy love would have been acknowledged as a real and valid and praiseworthy emotion, since adolescents were taken more seriously than today and not marginalized.
 * 4) "Money, power and authority." Same as point #1.
 * 5) The "age imbalance" argument is largely a modern construct, in the past the objections were not because of age, but because of violence, or because of feminization of the youth, or because of contravention of religious dogma, or because of undermining of loyalty to one's lord.
 * So "sexual abuse" is the closest we can come to what you are concerned about. However, in the other article we could also include Child abuse, since the modern argument is much more age-oriented than in the past. Again, I do not mean to make light of your very valid concerns - I just do not think it is correct to project them onto past cultures. Haiduc 12:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is not just about historic pederasty but also modern pederasty (otherwise the article might be call Pederasty in History, or something similar). If you intend this article to deal only with historic pederasty it will need a rewrite (90% of the Filmography section and the section "Post-classical and modern forms" would need to be removed), and renaming. What the Japanese ,Greeks or Moslems "talk" about is only relevent if that is what they were actually doing and if there were no incidences of chickenhawking.Would you claim that in ancient times everything was done with the purest intentions with no incidence of what we, with our modern english slang, would call chickenhawking (and I'm sure they had their own words to descibe it)? Anoni-mouse 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the criteria for a general article, when specific articles are also available. The links here need to be restricted to those aspects which are general rather than specific. "Sexual abuse" can be said to be aplicable to many periods, modern and historic, and thus is an appropriate link. "Chickenhawk" is a piece of Anglo slang, and no more appropriate than "Eromenos" or "Mahmud Ghaznavi". The intentions of the ancients, just like the intentions of the moderns, are all legitimate topics, there was abuse then and there is abuse now. The Greeks called it Hubris and the Moslems Liwat and the Japanese must have had a word for it too but I do not know it. But please do not try to link Hubris to the article on the moderns, or Anglo slang to an overview of the practice everywhere and everywhen. I am not sure why you consider that it is the place of an encyclopaedia article to sit in judgement over anyone. Haiduc 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a question of judgement but of relevence(I'm also not sure where you get the idea that it is about judgement since nobody else has mentioned it). As I've mentioned before, the word is not important, the concept is. The universality of the problem is shown by the example of three different societies having a word for the concept. I'm not hung up on the word chickenhawk but we don't seem to have a better one to link to. Anoni-mouse 06:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not correct to say that "The universality of the problem is shown by the example of three different societies having a word for the concept" since those three societies are actually problematizing three concepts and not one (as I had mentioned before). You obviously want to present a balanced view, but nor can you sit in judgment and weigh whether "What the Japanese ,Greeks or Moslems "talk" about is only relevent if that is what they were actually doing". It is all relevant when correctly presented. But I do agree with you that criticisms as well as defenses of the practice must be documented here, the only question - and this is an editorial decision - is whether something is of sufficent importance to make it into the general article, or is relegated to the specific one. "Chickenhawk" is in its essence an indictment of only one aspect of such relationships in only one time period, not general enough here, but there is an article discussing criticisms of homosexual activities which is general enough to be included, Criticisms of sexual behavior. That might be an appropriate link. It is a pity you cannot accept that you have actually won the essence of your argument, just not the formulation. Haiduc 13:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"What the Japanese ,Greeks or Moslems "talk" about is only relevent if that is what they were actually doing" If you read this in context you will see that I'm applying it only to the problem of chickenhawking not to the rest of the article. Merely because somebody claims only to be interested in "higher" things like love, honor, faithfulness etc does not mean that no abuse is occuring. You seem very willing to take their claims at face value which shows either naivety or a lack of interest in dissenting opinions. This recurring accusation of "sitting in judgment" is unfair, incorrect and a blatant attempt to debase an argument which does not mirror your own views.I'm not saying that chickenhawking should be included in the main body of the article merely that a link to it should be included. I'm not here to win any arguments, what I'd like to achieve is improvement to an article which is in dire need of balance. As proof refer to the compromise on "common" instead of "prevalent", nobody won that "argument" but the article was (in a small way) improved. The Criticisms of sexual behavior article is much to general to be relevent here. Introducing criticisms of homosexual activities in general because of something which is a subset of homosexual activities seems to me to be unfair and not balanced (but thats just me being judgmental again).Anoni-mouse 08:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Pederastic societys
"In those societies where pederasty is prevalent" Why is this in the present tense? Are there societies where pederasty is prevalent now? If so perhaps an example could be given. If not, I'll change it to the past tense. Anoni-mouse 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Present tense is used so as not to give the false impression that pederasty only happened in the past. Reports of its integration in Afghan and Pakistani culture are frequent and have been cited in the discussion on Central Asia (See Pederasty in the Islamic lands. Haiduc 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That pederasty occurs in the present day is not in dispute. Its prevalence in any modern society is. I've read the article you mention (written by you I see) and don't see the case for pederasty's prevalence being proven. I quote "The prevalence of homosexual relationships in Kandahar and other Pashtun areas" homosexual, not pederastic. The inference is that many, and perhaps the majority, of these relationships are pederastic but inference is not proof. A different wording such as "In those societies where pederasty is common" would be better.Anoni-mouse 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this wording, it seems reasonable. Haiduc 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact the adjective PREVALENT means generally or widely accepted, practiced and favored while historically the practice has always been marginal to a lesser of greater degree. Galassi

Persian Pederasty
In this article a source provided for the claim of commonplace pederasty within the Persian Empire was Herodotus' "Histories," book 1, paragraph 135. The pertinent text as translated by A.D. Godley reads:

"...and [the Persians'] luxurious practices are of all kinds, and all borrowed: the Greeks taught them pederasty. Every Persian marries many lawful wives, and keeps still more concubines."

The original text reads:

"...καὶ εὐπαθείας τε παντοδαπὰς πυνθανόμενοι ἐπιτηδεύουσι, καὶ δὴ καὶ ἀπ' ̔Ελλήνων μαθόντες παισὶ μίσγονται. γαμέουσι δὲ ἕκαστος αὐτω̂ν πολλὰς μὲν κουριδίας γυναι̂κας, πολλῳ̂ δ' ἔτι πλευ̂νας παλλακὰς κτω̂νται."

I translate this as follows:

"...and [the Persians] adopted luxurious practices of all sorts; from the Greeks they learned to mingle with children. On the one hand, they each marry several woman, yet still keep even more concubines."

Paragraph 135 describes some examples of acculturation in Persian society in the fifth century BCE. While we can assume that to 'mingle' or mix with a child as meant by Herodotus would be in a sexually intimate way we cannot assume that this means man-boy love. The 'children' may very well be young concubine girls from Greece or Macedonia or a Persian satrapy. Either way, Mr Godley took liberty with his translation and the claims of pederasty are not asserted by Herodotus.

It is also suggested in this article that "Athenaeus [states in Deipnosophistae] that the Persians also enjoyed the practice..." In fact, Athenaeus only cites Herodotus' writing on the matter and doesn't comment further. I was unable to find any other corroboration in regards to pederasty in Persia.

The information regarding Iran after the Islamic invasion is accurate. Please note that by this time the correct nomenclature is 'Iran' and not 'Persia.' --User:Aria Parsi_2.8.06


 * The information is interesting, but I wonder whether you might be interpreting it too narrowly. Liddell-Scott, for παισ gives "II. Boy, youth, lad, girl, maiden;" Thus child is not restricted as to age to what we now see as "children" but includes the adolescent age depicted on vases, etc. As for your interpretation that Herodotus may have refered to girls, that does not make sense to me. Why would the Persians need anyone to teach them to lie with girls?! And if the Greeks had anything to teach regarding relations with youths, it was pre-eminently their understanding of relations between men and boys that they evolved to a high level of sophistication. So I have to side with Godley on this one, his translation is the only one that makes sense under the circumstances. I appreciated your contributions to the article, by the way. Thank you for the clarifications. Haiduc 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On balancing the article
I would be very happy if you (Anoni-mouse) or anyone were to point out ways in which this article can be improved or balanced, and I am actually appreciative of your contributions so far. Since you feel that the article is in need of balance perhaps we can collaborate to balance it. But I think that we can agree that approaching the topic with the intent to either gild it or tar brush it is counterproductive. Haiduc 12:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, how to achieve a better balance.First we need to agree on 4 things:
 * 1.This is a controversial subject.
 * 2.The majority of people find pederastic relationships, where the younger is beneath the age of consent, unexceptable. This results in pederasty in general being met with suspicion.
 * 3.There is a place for the advocacy of pederastic relationships, but this isn't it.
 * 4.There is a place for the condemnation of pederastic relationships,but this isn't it.

The first sentence in the article is a good example of the lack of balance. "Pederasty as idealized by the ancient Greeks, was a relationship and bond between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family." This may be true (that it was idealised by the ancient Greeks) but this is not, I think, a NPOV way of beginning the article. Better would be to start with definition of what pederasty is.Pederasty in the modern world should also be handled before the ancient world (which would also deal with the concept of chickenhawking). The change of tense in the first paragraph("Pederasty as idealized by the ancient Greeks, was a relationship" and"In those societies where pederasty is common") is confusing. I believe it to mean that the ancient Greeks had a different view of pederasty to that of the modern world but this should be clarified.But, to generalise, what is needed for balance is a clearer indication that the practise of pederasty was, even in ancient Greece, not without its detractors. The general tone of the article is laudatory not neutral.Anoni-mouse 19:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From the point of view of writing an article for a universal encyclopaedia - accessible from every country in the world, and consisting of content which is not dependent on the fashion of the hour, points 1 and 2 are immaterial, unless I am missing something and you wish to be more specific. Points 3 and 4 are a reiteration of what I already laid out in my previous post, so we are in perfect agreement on those two.
 * I disagree with your critique of the intro section (the first three paragraphs). Those three paragraphs need to be taken as a whole to determine whether or not the intro is unbalanced. As such, if you look at them carefully, you will see that they are a micro-encapsulation of the many sides and manifestations of pederasty, from ancient times to the present and include a discussion of the contested and debated aspects of pederasty. It is unreasonable to expect that everything will be touched upon in those three paragraphs, and I certainly hope you are not planning to moralize here. The only reasonable premise for such an article is that pederasty is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, simply an aspect of human experience that has had many manifestations, as have they all.
 * As for what comes first, in as general an article as this one it makes sense to begin at the beginning and end at the end, and that is exactly what has been done - the intro starts with the Greeks and ends with the moderns. As for the change of tense, no one else has been confused. The Greeks no longer exist, ergo past tense. Pederasty is still being practiced, ergo present tense. From an editorial point of view, it might be equally good form (maybe even better) to render the Greeks in the present tense, but that would be vulnerable to a POV attack. The present formulation is not. As for detractors in ancient times, I think that if you study the material carefully you will see that what was being attacked was anal penetration, not all aspects of pederasty, a distinction which, I hope you will agree, is out of place in sentence one, paragraph one.
 * Now I have a question for you: our conversation until now has been a bit vague, coming from what I perceive to be a certain level of discomfort on your part with the topic and with a presentation that is not sufficiently negative, as you see it. You even call the material "laudatory." Upon what are you basing your critique? So far you have not brough any historical material into the debate, and I for one would feel comfortable with some substance. Not that I am averse to debating the issues over a virtual mug of beer, but I think that for the purposes of writing an article we need to set that aside, your opinions or mine, and try to work from material that is out there. Haiduc 00:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit by Southerncomfort
First of all, my apologies - I thought you deleted the intro, not seeing that most of it was moved to a different section. However, I have to absolutely disagree with both your changes. First of all, you misunderstand the sense of the section - when it argues that "pederasty was common" it does not say anything about whether it was common or not among the various peoples cited. It simply documents its presence in a large group of societies, thus making it common globally at that time (the Gauls and the Scythians will be included as soon as I track down the sources).

As for your imposition of a narrow sexological and mechanistic "definition" on a practice that has been varied and complex and dates back millennia, I am sorry but it is incorrect, inadequate, and absurd. That is why little can be said about pederasty without narrowing down the discussion to the instance discussed. Imagine if someone tried to impose a definition of marriage across the ages as "Marriage refers to sexual relations between an man and a woman (who is usually the passive partner)." Haiduc 11:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My edits were for NPOV, which this article, in its current form, does not adhere to and another editor has addressed why your intro is not NPOV. The article should begin with the standard dictionary definition of "pederasty" not an idealized, romanticized definition from ancient history. We're living in the modern world - modern definitions first. SouthernComfort 20:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits were not "NPOV" -- your edits tried to transform an encyclopedia article on pederasty as practiced in antiquity into an article about Pederasty in the modern world. If you want to make edits to the latter, feel free.  But do not vandalize every article that includes the word pederasty so that the article becomes a tirade about how "some people" today use the word and view the ancient practice.  Corax 21:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Be careful, Corax, in accusing others of vandalism which is a borderline personal attack - please see No personal attacks. If you disagree, I welcome the involvement of administrators. This article is not currently NPOV since it is not balanced by presenting the ancient Greek view of pederasty. Perhaps you should move the information in question to Pederasty in the ancient world. SouthernComfort 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Commenting on how closely somebody's edits align with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is not a personal attack.  If it were, you yourself just made a personal attack against me.  Corax 06:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * SC, I'd like to think that I do not lecture you. Please let me know if I should step over the line. But I hope you will consider the thought that to start out an article on complex ancient cultural practices - ones that often were of a non-sexual nature - with a modern reductionistic description of sexual intercourse, would not be useful to that putative student of history for whom, as I have previously mentioned, I am compiling this group of articles. Or anyone. And please do not succumb to the temptation to bandy the "npov" tag since it is not useful. If you have particular objections and criticisms, please discuss them. Haiduc 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove the tag as we have not agreed upon anything. I have explained myself and my reasons for disputing this article, which is unbalanced. As such, it is indeed POV. As I have read further above, other editors seem to agree. SouthernComfort 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, as I have related above, I suggest moving much of this information to Pederasty in the ancient world. The article could use the shortening anyway. And what of critical assessments of pederasty? I see none included here. SouthernComfort 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definition
So now the dictionary definition of "pederasty" is nonsense? Interesting. SouthernComfort 00:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I only speak for myself, when I tell you that this definition made a rather primitive impression on me. Would they also define male homosexuality between two adults as something that mainly concerns anal intercourse? I haven't heard of any scientific study that proves the blatant assumption of this Merriam-Webster dictionary (which seems to be a kind of bible to some people). I'm not a native English speaker and this is what I found in a book from my shelf at home: ped-er-asty amorous or sexual relations between a man and a boy. (from Oxford's Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English by A S Hornby, Oxford University Press 1974). Fulcher 15:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I would like my concerns regarding Pederasty in the ancient world, since there is an article called Pederasty in the modern world, to be addressed. It is not NPOV for this article to solely focus on the ancient practice. Thank you. SouthernComfort 00:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The right thing in the wrong place is nonsense, I am afraid. I am sorry you choose to take this one-sided approach to editing. I appreciated the other side of you better. As for an article on pederasty in the ancient world, I do not see what that has to do with this one, which attempts to be a broad perspective on 2500 years of pederasty all over the world. Presumably it would address the Thracians, Persians, Taifali, Heruli, Gauls, Scythians, and Romans. However, the material on these (with the exception of the Romans, which probably deserve their own article) is so skimpy that once mentioned little more can be said about it (though Sergeant has attempted it in a book I still have to get, about Indo-European pederasty). If you can dig up enough material it may be worth a shot, but so far we have too little to go on. Haiduc 01:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not taking a one-sided direction here and our disagreements should not be taken personally. However, the intro clearly needs balance and I have attempted to do so by first providing the standard dictionary definition. For instance, please see homosexuality and heterosexuality. Exactly why do you oppose the proper inclusion of a standard definition at the very beginning? As we both agree, this article is about "pederasty" in general, not the ancient practice in specific, therefore it must be inclusive of modern perspectives, including critical viewpoints. Also, I do not appreciate the other individual's hostile tone and accusation of "vandalism" - I am surprised you remained silent when you seem to prefer collaborative efforts. If you disagree with my opinion, I recommend you ask other editors involved in the human sexuality articles for their opinions. I think there will be some level of agreement that the intro needs NPOVing and that the article should be more balanced. SouthernComfort 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the definition you are trying to ram down my throat is not applicable to a great many of the pederastic relationships covered in the article, and since you are not willing to explore that unfortunate problem, your edits are one-sided. Pederasty is immensely varied, and thus does not lend itself to the kind of generalizations you point to in the other articles. A great deal of my work here is to reduce broad statements to accurate and defensible ones.
 * I too was put off by Corax's characterization of your work as "vandalism." Particularly when dealing with incendiary topics such as this one, it is not helpful to turn up the heat. On the other hand, I myself perceive your edit as abusive. But no, you are not a vandal, and Corax, when you read this, please consider that SC's work here, while not free of personal baggage (who is?) is not vandalism.
 * As for critical viewpoints, they are there, in the discussion about Plato, in the discussion about Islam, and many other places. I just do not think that we as editors should adopt either a critical or an adulatory tone. And your "definition" is just that, and a slur on the philosophical pederasty of the Greeks, and on the nazar of the Persians and Arabs. Haiduc 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat. But certainly the intro is problematic as it is not neutral and the dictionary definition included is accurate, because this is the definition that has come to be the accepted one in modern times. This is why I have suggested moving the bulk of the ancient history material to a new article, as there is already an article on pederasty in modern times. Is there another dictionary whose wording you think is better? And also, as I have suggested, homosexuality and heterosexuality are good examples of a neutral introduction. The introduction in this article should be concise and to the point, and leave elaborate discussion of the practice, ancient and modern, for the rest of the article. By the way, I also disagree with saying that it was common amongst certain peoples (Celts, Persians, etc) - there is no evidence, unlike in the case of Greeks and Romans, where pederasty was an established part of those cultures. But first let us come to some agreement on a neutral and concise introduction. SouthernComfort 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And what makes the dictionary's definition of the word neutral, but not this article's? If we were to go by the dictionary's "neutral" definition, then there would be absolutely no point in having a distinct pederasty article; we could just redirect to the article on child sexual abuse.  The word pederasty has a precise historical origin and precise historical meaning.  It is that meaning -- the one understood by classicists, historians, and other scholars for hundreds if not thousands of years, and not the Oprah-esque reinvention -- which this article correctly focuses on since it is the one generally intended by informed users of the word.  If you want to conduct your little proxy debate by citing people's negative opinions on the facts about pederasty, pederasty in Persia/Iran in particular, that's fine.  Do it in Pederasty in the modern world.  Let's try to keep the main article clear of commentary and opinion, and zeroed in on the indisputable facts. Corax 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is pointless to continue this discussion if you will not read either the material or the arguments. Modern definitions do not apply to ancient practices, the dictionary definition is distinct from the academic definitions, the sexualization of all relationships is YOUR creation, the historical material is insufficient for an article and its removal would mutilate this article which is meant as a generalized intro with leads into more specific ones, and the statement that it was common (which you seem to fail has been removed) referred to its presence in MANY cultures, not to many instances in ONE culture. I am sorry my friend, but you seem to be arguing here as if you were the only one existing, this is not a dialogue but your your personal monologue with yourself. When you will have the time and patience to treat this matter with the attention it requires, I will be more than happy to relate to you. Until then you are making monkeys out of both of us. Haiduc 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your POV - apparently other editors agree with me as a cursory examination of this page reveals. I recommend an RfC regarding the issue, so that we can invite others to comment and see if they think the article has POV problems or not and suggest solutions. I think that is fair. SouthernComfort 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Herodotus claims that the Persians borrowed the practice from the Greeks. Mention of that belongs under the section concerning ancient Greece, not in the intro. This is the exact quote from Herodotus: ''But the Persians more than all men welcome foreign customs. They wear the Median dress, thinking it more beautiful than their own, and the Egyptian cuirass in war. Their luxurious practices are of all kinds, and all borrowed: the Greeks taught them pederasty. Every Persian marries many lawful wives, and keeps still more concubines.'' SouthernComfort 03:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While I stand by my claim that you have refused to engage the discussion, nevertheless this is useful in that it points out flaws in the article. Perhaps my coming edit will resolve some matters. Haiduc 04:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro is a bit better, however the term "pederasty" does not necessarily refer to just teenaged boys. As I understand it, the term refers to any sexual contact between adult men and underage boys. Perhaps it should be reworded as such, i.e. between adult men and underage boys. This is how all dictionaries define the term. SouthernComfort 05:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure why you consider the "baccha" image to be appropriate for the intro as it is simply a picture of a boy and does not really illustrate anything about pederasty. Wouldn't one of the artistic depictions of the Greeks (Cambridge tondo.jpg, for instance) be more suitable? SouthernComfort 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The baccha has a clearly defined pederastic role in Central Asia, and this picture is somewhat neutral, leaving some latitude for thought and personal interpretation, whereas all the Greek pictures are celebratory in nature. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "as I understand it" but I don;t think that has much to do with the full range of historical pederastic experience. I explained why your formulation was an oversimplification of a more complex situtation. As for your constant "defense" of the Persians from the "stain" of pederasty, after this attempt to repair the damage I will leave it to others to deal with. It would be healthy for this to go to RfC. Haiduc 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have submitted the question on Herodotus here 05:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize that that is totally inaccurate - you are not including the full comment, but stating that the practice was documented among ancient Persians when it was only Herodotus making the claim and even he states that the practice was learned from the Greeks. I have no problem including the full comment since then there is context, but as your edits are completely out of context. SouthernComfort 05:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the RfC, I think it would be a good idea so long as it deals with the article as a whole. And this is a content-dispute, therefore the RfC would not be against any specific editor. SouthernComfort 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I see the problem. In the first place you do not seem to have noticed that the whole passage is quoted in the proper article. Secondly, you have obviously not seen the fact that Herodotus is not the only one in antiquity to discuss Persian pederasty - Plutarch did as well, and claimed that it was NOT an Greek import (not that it matters) see here. I am restoring the segment (adding a link), since both your reasons for deletion do not hold up. Haiduc 20:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You incorrectly linked "Persians" (of Achaemenid times) to the later Persians of the post-Islamic period. I have corrected the link and placed Herodotus' claim in context. If you wish to add Plutarch's comment, that's fine with me, but Herodotus claims it was learned from the Greeks. SouthernComfort 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also still think it is POV to claim that pederasty is only between adult "males" (it should be "men") and "adolescents." Pederasty is defined simply as sex between men and boys, who are not necessarily teenagers. SouthernComfort 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Adult males"??? Where do you get this stuff?! As for what "it is" you must possess knowledge beyond my ken, all I know is that sex may be part of it but often is not, as per the Sufis, the Platonists, etc. Why do keep on trying to sexualize a complex argument?! Haiduc 23:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The dictionary. The dictionary definition is obviously important and we cannot ignore it. The intro is supposed to give a general definition of pederasty, not the romantic ideal of the ancient Greeks. SouthernComfort 23:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the inclusion of that picture at the very beginning. It is POV since it is not a good illustration of "pederasty" and if you disagree, I suggest we ask others for their opinion. SouthernComfort 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is "pov" about it? As for the dictionary, that is not how an article is written, with a dictionary. That discussion is where it belongs. Read the article. Haiduc 23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The image does not illustrate anything at all about the topic of pederasty - the definition of which we have been debating for awhile now - why put it up there in the first place? I suggest using some neutral artwork or some other such illustration. Concerning the dictionary issue, certainly it is important, when wanting to ensure a general introduction, that one takes into account the definition provided by the dictionary. Wouldn't you agree? SouthernComfort 23:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please see Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child - underage is underage. If you're under 18, it is widely accepted that you are a child. When the two Iranian Arab teenagers were executed, gay media were quick to condemn the execution of "children" in Iran. Thusly, we must uphold the same standard here - pederasty is clearly sex between a man and an boy who is a minor, i.e. a child. This is NPOV. SouthernComfort 00:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * SC, you are playing word games with what attempts to be an academic article. I feel like I used to feel when arguing with my kids when they still were teenagers (they've grown up now, I am a grandfather). I am not sure what the convention on the rights of the child has to say on the Persia of Darius and the Greece of Lycurgus, and it does not matter. A child can be five or fifteen, and that's a big difference. That's why we call people teenagers, or young adults, or whatever. I am not trying to hide anything here, just trying to be as accurate and inclusive as possible, so that we can narrow down the discussion later as we look at individual examples.
 * On the photograph, let's stop and think for a moment. At first I could not understand why on earth you would oppose it, and then I looked at it with fresh eyes and I saw all those men with turbans, the whole oriental look of it, and I imagined you took it as another attack. West vs. East. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why did I make the switch? I too am trying to make the article as neutral as possible, because it is not my business to either "sell" or "damn" pederasty. Plus, it is not one thing, no more than Islam is one thing. So, I took out what all of a sudden struck me as an inappropriately romantic picture for an intro (Pan swooning over Daphnis, almost syrupy, you will have to admit) and I replaced it with one of the best images we have here, if not the best. Why do I like it so much? Look at it under maximum magnification, if you would, for a moment. Look at the individual faces. Thse are real people with real emotions. No one is smiling. This is no frilly romanticizing here, these are hard people leading hard lives, and this is what they have to do for a living. It is a really ambivalent image, that to me speaks not of "gay liberation" (ha!) but of a boy who dances because he has to, and maybe gets fucked because he has to. He may be a Moslem, more likely he is a Christian or a Jew, they were the ones doing the dirty work. It is not a pretty picture, and there is a lot of sadness there, a lot of poverty too. And there is beauty and poignancy as well. That's what makes it great, that's what makes it valuable. Appropriate? Nothing could be more appropriate. That's what pederasty really was for many, not the embraces of philosophers on fancy couches. Give me a break. I have more to say to you, but this is enough for one night. Haiduc 03:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

deleted references to Korean Hwarangs. Hwarangs were an elite group of children from noble families, not a group of prostitutes.

dictionary definition
I included a dictionary definition of pederasty (reworded from http://m-w.com/dictionary/pederasty). The exclusion of the word's definition, and the inclusion of only more favorable descriptions, violates wikipedia's POV policies. The word is what it is, and no NPOV-striving summary should exclude it.

Add the Baha'i Faith after Islam
The Baha'i Faith, which claims to be the fulfillment of all major religions and comes after Islam (the first of the two prophets claimed to be the 12th Imam of Shia Islam) also forbids pederasty. Indeed, it is the only mention of any type of homosexuality by Baha'u'llah. Here:

"We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 58)

and...

"The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 223)

I also would change the phrase "later picked up by Islam" by "later promulgated by Islam and, later still, by the Baha'i Faith" or something like that. 71.116.241.123 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Do you know what word was translated as "boys"? Was it "ghilman"? I will follow your suggestions. Haiduc 00:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but you can check here maybe: http://reference.bahai.org/en/ Look under Languages and search under Arabic for The Most Holy Book or the Kitab-i Aqdas. Thanks for making the changes. :) Do you think we could add a section like Islam has? You could just add my entire first post in as a subsection.

71.116.241.123 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately I do not read Arabic. I don't think we have enough material to fill out a section properly. If you can find other historical references and commentary perhaps we can build up something more solid. Haiduc 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The original word used in the arabic is is "Ghilmán", which is the plural form of the term "Ghúlám" which according to the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic is defined as: boy; youth, lad; slave; servant; waiter. More information regarding the context of the use can be found at . -- Jeff3000 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed
The first section of this article (and every wikipedia article for that matter) should include the most common and basic definition of the article's subject. In the case of this pederasty article, I've found no major dictionary that supports the definition stated on the wikipedia page. Wikipedia should NOT be used as a tool for re-defining "controversial" terms. In addition pederasty and pedophilia seem to be related on more that one level. From my cursory analysis, pederasty refers to the act of anal intercourse with a child, while pedophilia refers to the condition of having a sexual preference for children. There is no way that anyone with some semblance of NPOV can argue the terms are NOT related, other than the fact that one is a physical act and the other is a non-physical idea.

Perhaps people with an agenda could lay off the article for a few weeks and let others have some sort of say in the matter. If an individual is unable to practice NPOV then let it happen by consensus.

J. Crocker 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thumbing through dictionaries in order to gain understanding of academic subjects is bound to be futile. There are many (indeed practically all) scholarly texts on this topic that make mincemeat of those dictionary definitions. I must say that red flags go up for me when someone barges into an article with ad hominem accusations ("people with an agenda") and other preemptory protestations of personal intellectual integrity, to say nothing of the presumption of countering decades of study with "cursory analyses.&quot; What is wrong with thorough study? Haiduc 11:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Pedophilia
Certainly, the line:

"it is held to be unrelated to pedophilia – the sexual exploitation, homo- or heterosexual, of a child's immaturity." rings with blatant POV bias. Furthermore, this statement horribly misrepresents the definition of pedophilia; it's a mental state, not a course of action, in the same way that depression is not equivalent to suicide. I'm going to let a more advanced editor deal with this, however. --Ultimus 17:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The material being challenged is not the creation of the editors here, but a paraphrase of a recent scholarly paper. I am copying the source text below so that all can see it in its entirety.

"''Current discussion of Greek homosexuality and pederasty start from Dover and Foucault. By pederasty we mean what the Greeks meant: a consensual, homoerotic relationship between adolescent and adult males, which we would categorize (somewhat anachronistically) as homosexual. Ped-erasty refers to the eros of the erastes for a pais, the adult love of an adolescent. In the pederastic verses attributed to Theognis, the cognate term, pedophilia, is used. Needless to say, pederasty (both ancient and modern) should not be confused with our meaning of pedophilia to designate the sexual exploitation - whether heterosexual or homosexual - of a child's immaturity. The distinction between the two is observed socially by recognizing an appropriate age for erotic interest on the part of the adult and for sexual consent on the part of the adolescent."
 * This material is from a valid source, Vernon Provencal's "Glukus Himeros: Pederastic Influence on the Myth of Ganymede," in Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, ed. B. C. Verstraete and V. Provencal, Harrington Park Press, 2005, N1 p.128. Needless to say, it will have to be restored to the article since no valid argument has been brought against its inclusion. This note is being posted here to give opposing editors another chance to express their views. Haiduc 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to GLBT movement
I'm disgusted that this is linked to the GLBT movement at all, or to GLBT themes. Paedophiles, child molesters, any form of sex with underage children is not symbolic of the GLBT community or the goals of our community. Paedophiles are outcasts and should remain so. I want a consensus to have the article's link with the GLBT community severed. It is as offensive and presumptuous as linking racism with 'white' people. Enzedbrit 01:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pederasty does not necessarily involve underage children any more than heterosexuality mandates marriage with twelve year old girls. To say nothing about paedophilia, which is altogether out of the discussion. So while I agree with your position on underage sex I am not quite sure what to make of it in this context, which deals - by and large - with relationships which either were lawful in their time, or would be lawful in most jurisdictions today. Haiduc 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The throw away game. Someone is appealing at 16, turns 18, move onto a younger squire.  It's sick in my eyes and in the eyes of many more.  Sex with young people - old men tupping teenagers - if that's what they want to do and they can find someone willing to give it up, then that's their business, but don't link it to the GLBT rights movement or GLBT culture.  That is my point.  Linking this practice to somehow be an element of the GLBT culture would repulse most of that community.  Lots of gay men enjoy anal fisting - do we also link that to the GLBT rights movement?  Our community hasn't fought and continues to fight to legitimise paedophilia, pederasty, any of it.  Nor would I link marriage or sex between men and underage girls as systemic of, or linkable to, the heterosexual community. Enzedbrit 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Historically such relationships usually turned into life-long friendships, and your attempt to reduce love affairs to sexual manipulations is dishonest and manipulative itself. Nor is it our place here to besmirch men and disempower youths in law-abiding relationships with each other simply because our erotic fancies lie elsewhere. And there would be neither a GLBT rights movement and certainly no GLBT culture (unless you call parading half naked in leather or miniskirts "culture") if not for the pederastic tradition. And certainly a lot of effort was spent by the gay community in the UK gaining 16 year olds sexual emancipation, not that long ago - how short our memories are when we are busy insulting others while claiming ourselves to be offended. Let's not use the Wikipedia to perpetuate a historic lie, shall we? "Our struggle" is not one to distort the past, I hope. Haiduc 10:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can voice my opinion here as I am not influencing the article in question, although I have removed pederasty as a GLBT subcategory. There most certainly would have been a GLBT rights movement without the pederastic tradition.  To suggest the opposite really is insulting and yes, that does offend me.  I can not only think to my own involvement in the GLBT rights movement and that concerning the civil union debate in NZ, but also surrounding the GLBT organisations of which I am a member and have been involved here too.  If you wish to struggle for the rights of pederasts, then you must expect to do it freed from the scope of somehow being a part of the wider Queer rights movement.  You're on your own.  As for summarising GLBT culture with cross-dressing or leather fetish, then I at least forgive you for also presuming pederasty as part of the GLBT movement.  To my recollection, and correct me if I'm wrong, the lowering of the age of consent to 16 was to equalise the homosexual age of consent with heterosexuals.  Do not please presume that this was to allow old men to get their paws on young boys for the purpose of carnal pleasure only to then form 'a life-long friendship', but rather for equality of GLBT people in the eyes of the law.  Enzedbrit 21:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How hypocrite. If the GLBT people in Britain only wanted equality then they could have asked to set the hetero AoC-law up to 18 years instead of lowering the homo one. Fulcher 12:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They could have but that would never have gone through and homosexual equality would have suffered a major set-back. Besides, it is not the desire of most GLBT people to secure our rights by robbing others of those they already have. So I fail to see hypocricy. If you want to fiddle with kiddies, do it in your own movement. You'll get no help from any legitimate GLBT organisation. Enzedbrit 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not politicize the discussion here with gratuitous insults. You are free to think what you will, but your edits "in defense of the LGBT movement" are distorting scientific and historical facts. We are not here to defend or attack anything or anyone. It is a fact that, right or wrong, egalitarian relationships were ridiculed and marginalized even in homophilic societies, such as Greece or Japan or the Muslim world. It is a fine thing that this previously repressed group has attained a measure of freedom, but fiddling with historical details to suit your wishes is not a good use of that freedom. If you would like to impose your own contrary opinion on this article, or any others, you will have to provide references for your novel interpretation. Haiduc 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, I think you need to open your eyes to the world of the internet. Pederasty certainly is a common and most popular feature of homosexual pornographic websites. It would appear that the preference of young teenage boys over adult males is common among homosexual adult males, and why not? Often on the Internet, these boys are referred to as TWINKS, perhaps you could define this for us. And I would argue that that whilst this form of pederasty is not pedophilic, it does involve those who are 18/19 years old, and very rarely 17. Am I right in saying that still comes under the heading Pederasty, as they are young smooth-skinned teenagers/adolescents having sexual activity with adult males? The internet shows extremes and there appears to be nothing in the middle i.e. boys who have reached puberty but not the age of consent e.g. 13-18. This is pretty much the age range that most of the historical practices referred to, especially among the Muslims and Greeks. I called up the London LGBT switchboard and pretended to be a gay sixteen year old and they recommended that I go to bars and have sexual activity with males of all ages, in fact the idea that I would have relations with adult males was assumed. As for lowering the legal age of consent for males to have anal sex (which is basically its purpose), you cannot continue to deny the fact that this is something pushed for in your society and that it is just as natural for a homosexual man to desire a young boy as it is for a heterosexual man to desire a young girl. And we all know how straight men like teens, don't we?

Modern constructs
I've deleted the unsourced assertion that the gay movement has rejected pederasty out of a cynical wish for "cultural legitimacy and acceptance" rather than out of sincere moral conviction. DanB DanD 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to source the sincerity and morality claim? I think I can find a couple of good sources for the political expediancy claim (not cynicism, realism). Haiduc 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Major world GLBT organisations have rejected the support of pederasty and resisted association with organisations such as NAMBLA. Look at ILGA.  Follow the news on 365gay.com.  Follow any major or not so major GLBT media source. Enzedbrit 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, how does being a pederast make one gay or lesbian? How does an affiliation for sex with minors somehow make one a homosexual?  Seriously here, I ask you.  Do pederasts form relations with similar age same-sex individuals or are they only interested in sex with children/teenagers.  If the latter is true, then that might be a homosexual attraction but there is a fundamental difference between that and homosexuals.  I would suspect that most people who indulge in pederasty are heterosexuals, regardless of the gender of the child with whom they have sex.  Sex between a man and a boy doesn't mean that the man has to be gay. Enzedbrit 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, we are not here to disparage anybody (re your "sex with kiddies" remark). The tradition of deprecating people with other sexual appetites than one's own goes back a long way and is the foundation for homophobia. None of us here or anywhere is immune from that kind of abuse. As far as what has been rejected by the major gay groups, it is my understanding that illegal sexual relationships with underage persons have been rejected. If NAMBLA has been sidelined it is because of their (in my opinion) bizzarre and irrational attack on the age of consent laws. As far as pederastic relationships per se, to the extent they fall under the protection of the law as they do in the great majority of countries as long as they do not involve underage persons, I have heard nary a whisper from the gay establishment. Regarding whether or not pederasts are homosexuals in the strict sense of the word, obviously there is a great deal of variation. But it is highly significant that the Greeks have been invoked time and again by early gay activists. I will also question your forcing the discussion in the direction of pure sex. I do not think that homosexuality is merely "sex with men" or heterosexuality "sex with women" (for a male, of course). So your repeated invocations of "sex with minors" are a kind of suppression of the fact that what is being discussed is, much of the time, a mutual love relationship between two human beings which goes far beyond sex and at times does not even include sex. It is also, in many cases, a tradition of major cultural significance. Haiduc 11:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Haiduc, Enzedbrit's comment makes me think that the article could really use, along with a description of the social and institutional distinction between the organized gay (or "androphile") movement and pederasty, a description of the distinction between pederasty and the organized pedophile movement.
 * As far as I'm aware, institutionally there has been no such division. You make the distinction theoretically in the article--can you defend it in real cultural terms as applied to the modern world? Because if not, then the whole "modern constructs" section of this article is maybe miscategorized--what IS the modern construct of pederasty that is not pedophiliac?
 * DanB DanD 05:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much to be said about these distinctions, but the sources are scarce. It would be interesting to find a discussion of the widespread use of the term "boy" in the gay media and the flesh markets, as well as of the "barely legal" segment of the erotically titillating materials. And what are we to make of the boyish hairless bodies on display everywhere? Also, I wonder if anyone has analyzed the quasi-pederastic environment of the leather daddy/boy relationships, where an apparently pederastic ethos is sublimated into a bond with a virtual boy. As for the differences with the pedophile movement, I would not know where to begin other than the obvious age difference. Nor do I know what to say to your conflation of the two. I am not the one making the distinction, it is made for us by scholars in the field. Cultural terms?! What is the essence of pederasty? Is it the nurturing, loving relationship between unequals? Then such relationships cross category boundaries, down into pedophilia and up into "egalitarian" gay relationships. Or is it any sexual connection between an adult and an adolescent? Then you have a neater separation but you lose the cultural aspect. And who is doing the "constructing" anyway? In the final analysis, I do not think that the distinctions you are looking for are going to be easy to find. Much seems to be a matter of degree. Take Oscar Wilde and his relations with Bosie and Robbie Ross. We call one gay and the other pederastic, but don't you think that Oscar himself would have rejected that, and assimilated the two, and proclaimed their pederastic ethos, as indeed he did in his life and at his trial? And conversely, is not a sixteen year old today looking for a fling with a man more in the style of modern gay relationships than traditional pederastic ones? Anyway, the section of the article you refer to is one of the most embryonic and disjointed, and by all means chip in if you think you can improve it. Haiduc 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dan, I will respond to all your comments as soon as I have another free moment. In the mean time I welcome your critical eye on this article. Haiduc 11:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Plato and "sodomy"
To my eyes, pretty much the entire section on ancient Greeks appears to be derived directly from Plato's Symposium. However, the way it reads, it gives the impression Plato is only one voice in a debate among various people--when what you describe is pretty much identical to the debate Plato wrote all the parts for, and which he guided to a very specific conclusion.

Are there other sources? I don't see them in your references, and I'm not well-read enough to guess who they would be. Aristophanes includes sexual jibes in his satire of Socrates in The Clouds--is that substantive enough to be mentioned? And if not him, who? Xenophon? Who are the people in this debate, aside from Plato's characters? (I may simply not be well-read enough to know)

Last, I think that saying Plato thought pederastic relationships should "stop short of sodomy" is just wrong (in fact I'm going to change it myself). Sodomy is a vague, culturally loaded word to use for anal sex in the first place, and in the second place Plato never says "Make out with your eromenos but don't fuck him in the ass" or "a little sex is okay, but not too much." He says that sexuality should be transcended completely and subsumed into abstract love of virtue.

And anyway, as I understand it, the Greeks are believed to have practiced intercrural rather than anal sex.

DanB DanD 05:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One does not become "europroktos" from intercrural sex alone. And I would like to refer you to Pederasty in ancient Greece for a better-annotated discussion of the topic. What has been left here is only a brief synopsis. Your point on sodomy is well taken, and your solution aptly worded, thank you. Haiduc 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Subhuman penetratees" -- Accuracy?
The rule of thumb in sociology of sex is that in any military society (from Sparta, to Sepoys, to Russian pre-Czarist army, to German NSDAP) "the pitcher" is not considered homosexual at all (this is mirrored somewhat in incarcerated populations), and even a single incidence of assuming the feminine stance caused automatic loss of status, rendering a penetrated subject permanently "female". Eventually "the catchers" are permitted more egalitarian sexual practices, but only amongst themselves. Burton has some nice passages apropos the Sepoys, and Hubermann has a fascinating study of Soviet era camp-whores, off the bat. Galassi
 * FYI, Galassi is a sockpuppet of perma-banned user:Primetime. -Will Beback 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I am not surprised. Haiduc 02:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The added sentence seems overstated, and conflicts with some statements in Plato that do refer to sex between citizens. It's also awfully anal-centric. I don't like to delete it out of hand, but can anyone suggest a way to make it a bit more accurate? Certainly it's true that shame was attached to pederasty in many cultures where it was practiced, so it's worth retaining that fact. But why use "general sociological principle" when we have specific data on some of these cultures? DanB DanD 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am removing the text and posting it below while we discuss. There are several problems that I see with it. First of all it reduces relations that reportedly were multidimensional human relations (whether you look at the Greeks, the Japanese or the Muslims, etc.) to the level of interactions between bacteria (viz. "penetratee"). Then it confirms that de-humanization by claiming that the youths were treated as "subhuman". And finally it is logically fallacious ("a" therefore "x") since in no way does it show why relations with putative subhumans should be chaste. Finally, it is a novel theory encountered nowhere in the literature I have come across. So until Galassa can substantiate this material I think we need to hold it at arm's length.

"It is also important to note that in any military society where pederasty is prevalent a penetratee is accorded subhuman status, so from a sociological standpoint pederasty practiced in ancient Greece was in all likelihood chaste, unless perpetrated upon slaves or captives." Haiduc 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ISLAM
It must be pointed out, in the interests of clarity and truthfullness, that the teachings of the religion of Islam strongly and forcefully forbid and condem any and all forms of sexual activity between the same sex, irrespective of their age or age difference.

In the Islamic holy book, The Qur'an, Allah (God) states:

We also (sent) (the prophet) Lot: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (Al A'raf 7:80-81)

"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" (Al Shu'ara' 26:165-166).

Islamic jurisprudence is based upon the Qur'an and the Prophet's teachings and does not permit or consider sexual activity between males as either normal or natural, infact it is a punishable crime.

The 3 verses (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19), that refer to youth in heaven do not allude nor paint a scence of pederasty, but rather illustrate to the reader that all things in heaven are full of beauty, purity, youth and are of incorruptible conditions.

Furthermore, these 3 verses are not about pederasty, since there shall be no old or "mature of age" human inhabitants in heaven, as God will admit the people to heaven restored to their youthfull healthy selfs. This is illustrated in the hadith recorded by al-Tirmindhi that states:

An old woman came to see the Prophet and asked him to pray for her that she might go to Paradise. He replied, "No old woman will enter Paradise!" She was grieved and began crying. He told his companions to tell her "that the old woman would go to Paradise, but as a young girl".

It is important to always defrenciate between what a religion (any religion) teaches and what a people do, and this is the reason for my adding this to the post.


 * yeah, I think ascribing tolerance to "Islamic jurisprudence" is a bit much, especially considering the executions that continue to go on.
 * DanB DanD 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern Constructs: Satie and Britten
I have removed the names of Satie and Britten, since both were composers, not writers. As far as I know, there are no proof of Satie being inclined to boys, just assumptions; he did not write anything about the subject. Benjamin Britten could be mentioned here and his (chaste) love for young David Hemmings (who song Miles as a child in The Turn Of The Screw after Henry James' short story), but I leave this job to others because of my lack of vocabulary and self-confidence in English. Didyme 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Satie wrote Socrate. Britten is a highly equivocal figure and it's surprising that Haiduc includes him - he wrote often of child abuse or predatory pedophilia, and really only once, in Billy Budd, of a relationship that was pederastic in the sense used in this article. In his personal life, he lost interest in boys as they became adolescent.
 * Neither wrote their own texts, but Britten was closely involved in the shaping of his. Dan B † Dan  D  17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By "did not write", I meant "did not write any text". I did not know this work composed by Satie (Socrate): thank you very much! As for Britten, I knew that he had strong interest for boys before puberty, but I assumed that he liked adolescents too (because of his long relationship with Peter Pears). I have to admit that I know hardly anything about his life. I read about the story between him and David Hemmings in the CD-booklet of my recording of The Turn Of The Screw. Didyme 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Didyme, if you think it appropriate, add the material on Britten to the French version and I'll be happy to render it in English. Satie wove a web of mystery around his love life, but he was hanging out with the homosexual Francis Poulenc when the boy was only seventeen, and him a man of fifty. I agree with the removal however. Haiduc 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony Sandel has recently added a page on Britten's Children, a book about the composer's pedophilia. He wasn't attracted to older adolescents. The relationship with Peter Pears doesn't so much show the range of Britten's attraction as the poles of his attraction: in the biography by Humphrey Carpenter, Pears is reported as saying that there were two sides to Britten's sexuality - he needed to be dominated by an older man (Pears), but also needed to dominate boys. (This is one of the rare quotes that suggests Ben's relationships with boys were not always sexless.)


 * Interestingly, although nearly all Britten's mature work included a lead role for Pears, these roles can very rarely be seen as celebrating their lifelong love (an exception is the beautiful First Canticle). Rather, most characters he wrote for Pears were tormented souls, either driven to destroy innocence, destroyed by it, or both. Dan B † Dan  D  02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading Tony's article (mostly balanced and neutral) in the context of this one brings to mind the analogy of drawing lines in the sand. Pederasty? Pedophilia? Homosexuality? The DSM aside, it depends on who is doing the looking.


 * Wait - what? I don't really know what this means. Since the definition of pederasty on wikipedia is your own, you can include whatever you like. But as age of attraction is orthogonal to sex of attraction, I don't see that orientation and pedophilia share a definitional border, whether blurry or sharp. Dan B † Dan  D
 * Nothing very profound. Just reflecting on the difficulty of compressing human experience into hard-edged definitions. Where does pedophilia end and pederasty begin? Is there overlap? Where does pederasty end and garden-variety modern homosexuality begin? Is there overlap too? We are agreed that an eighteen year old and a seventeen year old in bed is not pederasty. But it could be, since chronological age and emotional age and physical age do not necessarily march in lockstep. So, it is a very difficult topic to address impartially, that's all. Haiduc 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Having read the article I am even more convinced that he belongs here. Look at this excerpt from the review cited there: Only once was the delicate calibration of these friendships unsettled by a reciprocal love. In 1938 Ben fell heavily for the 17-year-old son of the refugee conductor Hermann Scherchen. The attachment to Wulff Scherchen, lasting several years, was complicated by a simultaneous absorption with Peter Pears. . . If this is not a pederastic relationship, what is it? So I say he goes back in with that review and this one as sources. And now we have another catch: what is this about Auden and Michael Yates??? (Also in the Telegraph review.) Haiduc 03:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's actually a misleading detail in Tony's article. Britten was just twenty-four in 1938 when he met the seventeen-year-old Wulff.
 * I don't know anything about Michael Yates, but Auden was fourteen years older than Chester Kallman - whom he also met in 1938, when Kallman was also seventeen. Dan B † Dan  D  03:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On Auden and Yates. Haiduc 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. "Stop All the Clocks" and "Tell me the Truth About Love" were both written as lyrics for Britten. Boys were among the points on which Auden and Britten quarreled. Auden felt that Britten's attraction to "thin-as-a-board juveniles" stemmed from sexual repression, which he felt Britten could work through by being more adventurous sexually. Britten was offended, and the friendship was broken. Auden's poem "Underneath the Abject Willow" was written for Britten as part of this conversation; Britten set it to music, but as a comic patter song.


 * Do you know the play Once in a While the Odd Thing Happens? It's about Britten at the time all this was going on. Dan B † Dan  D  04:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some say that love's a little boy . . . Must have gotten a laugh out of Britten with that one. But he was an ass about the repression bit, especially considering his penchant for teens. No, I had no knowledge of the play. Funny how these ripples keep on expanding. Thanks for the ideas. Haiduc 04:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"the intro sets out arguments"
Haiduc, you write in your edit summary that "the intro sets out arguments supported by the discussion below." I'm not sure how to respond. As a Wikipedia editor with more experience than me, you know quite well that the article should not "set out arguments" or attempt to "support" them at all. Dan B † Dan  D  01:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dan, we are on equal footing here. What I was referring to is the practice of starting out an article with a short abstract, often three paragraphs long, summarizing the substance of the article. In the body of the article there are examples of those various forms that relations between men and youths can take, satisfying the requirements of the form. I agree, by the way, with your edit of the "prehistory" statement. I was basing it on historians' suppositions that Greek practices may have had a prehistoric precedent, but since that discussion is a bit tenuous it may best be left to the article on Greek pederasty. Haiduc 01:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive this intrusion by a newcomer to Wikipedia who is both impressed by the scope of this article and somewhat intimidated by the lengthy (and often heated) discussions on more controversial or sensitive points. At the risk of inviting a frosty reception, I have felt dissatisfied with the opening paragraphs, though I do agree with the idea of presenting an 'abstract' if one can avoid relying too heavily on expressions redolent of modern sexual theory and definition, when so much of the content to follow has to be seen within the context of its time and place.  I have a thing about current obsessions with 'sexual orientation' which was clearly not a concept assimilable by the ancients or even more recent societies.  I have however limited my 'interference' to the third (short) paragraph which I felt could be less unwieldy and the thought more objective historically speaking.  Please advise if my alteration betrays a misinterpretation of what after all is a skeletal introduction to a controversial subject. --Dominique 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any three-paragraph abstract of such a complex and extensive subject is likely to be unsatisfactory, my attempt was not so much to define pederaty as to indicate some idea of its scope, and to divorce it from any limiting constructs, modern or ancient. I too would be uncomfortable with introducing the discourse of orientation into a topic where it does not necessarily belong. On the other hand, "homosexuality" is ample enough to include all kinds of same-sex relations, and it is only the reader's projection which might confuse pederasty with orientation. We might add a small disclaimer somewhere that such relationships are not necessarily associated with orientation, though in its more modern (Western) interpretations I think it is fair to ask whether the older partner is not also inspired by a more multilateral orientation than that of the average bloke.


 * I might also borrow a page from Dan and mention that a good number of my edits here were made when I too was quite ignorant of proper editorial practice, and I neglected to properly source many edits. Haiduc 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That third paragraph is mine, written as a very inexperienced editor. The fact is, it should not be there at all without a source--and I don't have a source to add. I've been meaning to have a proper go-through of this set of articles for the past couple of weeks, but need a trip to the library first so have kept putting the work off. Please dive in!


 * I notice some edits to Greek love in your history. That article looks like a duplicate stub to me, that should really be merged with Pederasty in ancient Greece.


 * Regarding your edits so far, I don't think we can take Foucault's idea of orientation as a culturally-defined and modern concept to be academic consensus: it's influential, but not uncontroversial. And I don't think that the words "hetero-" and "homosexuality" necessarily imply orientation in the sense of personal identity categories in any case -- they are used for animal behavior without such implication.


 * Dan B † Dan  D  21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful response. I shall return to these observations later, except to say that the Greek Love article is a replacement of an earlier, brief 'stub' which I deemed tasteless and inadequate in its concentration on sexual acts.  When I wrote my version (which owes nothing to the original), I was unaware of the riches available in Wiki, though as you will have seen, I searched out references to the key terms used.  Yes, Pederasty in Ancient Greece is a comprehensive history which goes way beyond my more modest intentions which were merely to provide a readable summary setting out the essential information, but at the same time drawing a connecting thread - no matter how tenuous - across the ages to our own time with its severely sanitised version of 'the unspeakable vice of the Greeks'!  In any case, my early exploration of the Wiki resource included a visit to Greek love well in advance of 'pederasty' and its sister pages. This may well be the track of the uninitiated novice unequipped to deal with unfamiliar Greek-derived expressions!

My early opinion is that there is also a place for the concise thought if it be finely balanced. Hope this is of interest. I shall try to 'dive in' on the source question --Dominique 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, the new version of para 4 is better, though I wonder about 'adolescent girl'? (Spartan girls delayed marriage until 18 or 19 under Lycurgus's decree).


 * There are also some problems with etymology (e.g. pais, eran, philein) which should be addressed. I shall attempt to do so in due course.

--Dominique 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sure that a number of regular commentators are aware of the difficulties in reconciling assumed opinions on 'pederasty' and its interpretation with the language which inspired the term and like terms also. It has already been pointed out for instance that while 'pais' (boy) refers to the passive partner in the relationship, the word can also mean child, girl, son, daughter and slave.

Perhaps more critical are the verbs for love i.e. 'philein' and 'eran', both of which can refer to erotic desire, though 'philein' and its derivatives are used more often in the sense of family love, brother, friend and so on. 'Erastes' of course comes from 'eran', but (Dover notes) the poets sometimes eschew 'paiderastes' and 'paiderastein' for their 'philein' alternatives for reasons of metrical scanning. The word 'paidophilein' can be used for falling in love with a boy (of no particular age); even the word for pure love, 'agape', could have (in pre-Christian times) a sexual connotation. Thus the distinction between pederast and pedophile has no validity in etymological terms: the use of pedophile in relation to prepubescent children is one of popular usage, and should strictly be noted as such (e.g. in the present article, in 'Modern constructs' section). Even scholars with the reputation of W A Percy make concessions to popular usage in insisting that the Greeks were pederasts, and not pedophiles - with no apology for the tautology. I make these observations only in the context of the obvious and meticulous care with which many WP editors approach their work. --Dominique 21:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In that vein, there is a hilarious retort in ps-Lucian's Erotes in which Charicles berates the Socratic philosophers as being rather "philoneoi" than "philosophoi." However, the distiction between loving children and loving adolescents has long precedent - children have been off-bounds all along, and (in Greece, for example) there always was an age before which it was too soon, and another after which it was too late. Haiduc 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a little light relief - these discussions can get terribly sagacious. I would like to know more about any Greek data on age cut-off points, if they were that precise? --Dominique 23:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are various indicators, none too specific. Take a look at the Agoge article. Also, in the Greek Anthology, xii.228 and xii.4 of course. Though I would say something sacrilegious - that one should subtract a year from those figures so as to make sense of the text - it appears as though the Greeks count years by inception and not by completion. The same goes for the myths - Ovid places Narcissus in his "sixteenth year" (thus, fifteen) and the same goes for Iolaus, but I forget the source. Finally, Plato, with his famous comment that the best lovers choose boys who are old enough to think for themselves, in the Symposium. Haiduc 00:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Grateful for info and refs. --Dominique 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Any Useful Information Here?
I'm thinking specifically of the changing definition of sodomy over the years.

TRiG 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Pederasty in Greek
Readers may be interested to know that the term 'pederasty' in modern Greek is equivalent to the term 'pedophilia'. Actually there is no term for what I read as the English definition of 'pederasty' in Modern Greek! Source:. The other term ('pedophilia') does not exist in modern Greek (browse for it here). In view of that, I think there may be a need for proper mentioning of this, since the meaning of the Greek term is definitely altered in English. Most native users of Greek, regardless of their good level in English, are likely to confuse those two terms. This was also noted in the categorization debate over at Talk:Alexander the Great. •N i k o S il v e r• 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

rembrant painting
rembrandt's "rape of ganymede" has no place in this article as Rembrandt distorts the true teenage image of Ganymede into a baby! It has no place in this article!
 * here is the REAL Ganymede:



Uh...there is no real Ganymede? The Greek tradition encompassed many centuries and many styles of representation, so it's meaningless to point to any single version as authoritative. Dan B † Dan  D  08:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will hold the Greek version as authoritative. it was the perverted Christian painters in later years who transformed these teenage mythological boys into children. When speaking of Ganymede we must use the REAL version of ganymede not Rembrandt's stupid pedophilic version.


 * It wasn't a "pedophilic version", but a parody of all these other paintings and sculptures that were rather gloryfying the abduction of Ganymed.Fulcher 14:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also have an issue with "Amor vincia omnit" painting as that does not look like an adolescent boy. Since this is linked to LGBT I think it would be fair to include accurate paintings of adolescent boys and not CHILDREN, so as to not make people think pedophilia is connected to homosexuality. Notice all this pedophilic paintings were painted in the 15th, 16th centuries by Christian painters who had their own perverted view of Ancient Greece.

noun
How would one who commits paederasty be refered to? A paederast?


 * Yes. There was also a play by that name, "The Pederasts," by Diphilus (now lost or destroyed). Though "commit" may be a misnomer. "Practices" would normally be called for, unless the person is committing a crime, of course. Haiduc 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So pederasty is a type of pedophilia right? Baristarim 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not as I understand it. Pedophilia is the attraction to pre- or peripubescent children, while pederasty involves adolescents. If anything, it is "a type of ephebophilia". Clayboy 06:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The meanings of the terms all overlap, but it implies too much order to say that one is a "type" of any of the others.


 * They were coined at different times, for different purposes. In particular, pedophilia and pederasty are both ancient words. But "ephebophilia" is a modern, loaded word, coming from a particular faction of academic psychology but not widely accepted within that field. Personally, I think it's totally useless as a category either for psychology or behavior.


 * It's misleading to try to create a single classification system in which these terms have their own existence distinct from each other. Each reflects the point of view of its own creators. Dan B † Dan  D  07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)