Talk:Pederasty/Archive 8

Recent concerted effort by CSA-minded editors
It appears that the group of editors who have recently launched their concerted effort to recast the discourse on pederasty in child-abuse terms are basing their thrust on the work by Crosson-Tower. It may well be that C-T has her own opinions on pederasty, and if it is indeed so there is no question that they need to be integrated into some aspect or other of the discussion. But it is grossly improper and POV to use the theories of one child abuse advocate as a filter for an entire article on love relations between men and boys across history. Her work fits into the context of modern views and practices. To that end I have restored the appropriate article on that topic (Pederasty in the modern world, article recently gutted for spurious reasons by this same team of CSA-minded editors) and I would encourage these editors to place the discussion of C-T's work under an appropriate subheading in that article. A couple of words about her work may well be warranted here also, under "Modern constructs". On a separate note, I would like to draw attention to user Jack-a-Roe's abuse of this page to mischaracterize my comments. In response to the odd claim that relations between adults and minors are "illegal everywhere," I specifically indicated that sexual relations between adults and youths above the age of consent were legal almost everywhere in the world. This user proceeds to denounce my statement as a "fringe theory" by claiming that "Sexual relations involving an adult and a minor younger than the age of consent are by definition illegal." It may be that this user genuinely misread my comments, or there may be some other explanation. In either case I hope that this clarification sets him straight, and I would hope that henceforth such tactics will not be repeated. Haiduc (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I already pointed that out yesterday ("On the issue of "minors" it is the case in many legislations that the age of sexual consent is younger than that of full adulthood. There is no single "age of majority", but rather a series of stages"), but Jack keeps giving examples of underage sex. I really think there is a kind of unconscious doublethink here which makes it difficult to see the point that is being made. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, calling some editors CSA minded is completely inappropriate, as is inferring that there is a concerted conspiracy. Please stop your persistent incivility.


 * There is a significant view that pederasty is abusive in more than one way. That will be helpful for the reader to understand the nature of pederasty. As such it requires proper representation in this article. We are discussing this and you should not go round making your own decisions on where to stow the material, especially since the material presented here in discussion has contradicted all of your claims. You have failed to prove that those with a view about pederasty as abusive is erroneous or an erroneous conceptualization of pederasty. What you have done is shown that you ignore facts given in discussion, you dismiss the fact that your claims are wrong, and you walk your own fringe POV (that pederasty is perfectly legitimate) all over this article regardless. The so-called CSA minded editors are not removing sourced views that pederasty is possibly harmless, or that it is considered by some to have been acceptable.  Basically, you are insisting on a POV fork. This is clearly a subject that can stand more information to be presented. Discussion can continue until more of such sourced views are presented and verified. After verification, you are not to work them into another POV fork. We are discussing material relevant to pederasty. All relevant views will be presented. Phdarts (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the majority view is that pederastic relationships would be always abusive, then why are there AgeofConsent-laws in Europe that allow 14, 15 and 16 years olds to have a sexual relationship with an adult man? Fulcher (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing the issues Fulcher. I don't think the sources state that pederasty is always abusive. They discuss the issue. Crosson Tower explains one particular view that some believe pederasty to be abusive even to 18 year olds as asking them for consent is always abusive. This is consistent with some homosexual group's recommendation to raise the age of consent across the board so that homosexuality is not lumped in with pederasty. Of course a lot of heterosexuals would most likely agree with the idea. Phdarts (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You said: "This is consistent with some homosexual group's recommendation to raise the age of consent across the board so that homosexuality is not lumped in with pederasty." Please name these homosexual groups. Fulcher (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Fulcher. The material is from Percy who states that the modern homophile movement sought to distance themselves from pederasts from the beginning. He names the Youth Committee of the North American Conference of Homophile Organizations as an example.  He states the pederast element had to create their own groups instead, starting with Gemeinschaft der Eigenen. Of course now they include NAMBLA. Phdarts (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From the outside looking in at this dispute, Phdarts, it certainly would appear that you and a couple of other fairly new editors are editing this article with a political bias, and an agenda which attempts to place a modern context on the historical view of pederasty. Your edits are not improving the article one iota, and you seem to think Politically Correct (which is relative and changes with the season) is the most important criteria for a Wikipedia article, instead of scholarship. I urge you to actually learn a bit about the subjects you edit, rather than play tag team editing with a few other new editors to push a particular agenda. Just a suggestion. Jeffpw (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeffpw, considering your uncivil comment on another user's talk page and your recent and historical edits to this article, you don't qualify as an uninvolved editor with an outside viewpoint. Phdarts is doing good work to help this article get closer to a state of accuracy and balance. Your comment about what s/he thinks or what agenda s/he may or may not have is not helpful to the article.  Please leave comments about editors out of it and focus on the content of the topic.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Phdarts is not doing good work here. S/he is editing an article where h/she obviously has no expertise, and has only emotions and not intellect to guide him/her. Ditto for you and a few others. And throwing words like incivility around at me will have little effect, I'm afraid. I'm past caring about the sensibilities of Wikipedians, the vast majority of whom are lemmings with little knowledge of the subjects they actually edit. My comments stand: this article is being attacked by some hysterics who seem determined to present the subject to the public here through modern, sexually repressive (and, one presumes right wing) eyes. Jeffpw (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not expect in the least that noting your uncivil comment would have any effect on your behavior. You've made your feelings quite clear. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeffpw, perhaps you could address the issues. I have placed specific material on this discussion page so that unhelpful edit wars do not cause trouble, and so that the information can be discussed properly. Phdarts (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

unexplained re-adding of unsourced content #1
This edit by User:Jeffpw restored a sentence that has no reference:


 * The history and scope of pederasty has been the subject of extensive censorship. In the West, the topic was suppressed in academic circles for much of modern history. 

According to WP:Verifiability:


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

The statement needs a reference or it should be removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the only related view I could find by Bloch: "For most of the past two thousand years no one would discuss Greek pederasty directly, and the innumerable references in ancient literature to erotic relationships between men and boys were ignored or suppressed.". Of course though, Bloch may well be talking about society's need to avoid the troublesome subject, due to its percieved sordid nature, and perhaps due to the influence of religious thought on society. I couldn't find anything about censorship though. Phdarts (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

unexplained re-adding of unsourced content #2
This edit by User:Haiduc restored a paragraph that has no references, without justification:


 * Pederastic eros in the West, while remaining mostly hidden, has nevertheless revealed itself in a variety of settings. Legal records are one of the more important windows into this secret world, since for much of the time pederastic relations, like other forms of homosexual relations, were illegal. The expression of desire through literature and art, albeit in coded fashion, can also afford a view of the pederastic interests of the author.

Per WP:Verifiability, that content needs references or it should be removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is well that you have ample free time to impose your opinions here. The rest of us do not. You are attempting to remove commonsensical information that anyone with an iota of understanding of pederasty would recognize as blatantly self-evident. As usual you are gaming the system and posing as the oh-so-proper editor maligned and unfairly treated by the unreasonable and opinionated editors dominating the article. But yours is a pyrrhic tactic in which you try to force other editors ad nauseam to justify every period and comma in the article. It is abusive, and a form of vandalism. It is not anybody's obligation to educate you, and you are not allowed to mutilate Wikipedia simply because you are unfamiliar with the topic you are editing. Haiduc (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Haiduc. Please address the issues, provide proper sourcing, and stop your persistent incivility. Phdarts (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It says clearly on the to-do list above that one of the things to do is to remove POV and Bias in the article as it stood as of September 2006. At that time it was largely created by the person named Haiduc. So in conclusion the to-do list meant remove POV and Bias by Haiduc. The editor who pointd this out commented "It reads like a propaganda travel brochure written by the town fathers"

Also some guy with lots of knowledge of the subject wrote a huge section that disproved some of the claims on the page and Haiduc got rid of it entirely and just took the parts he liked.

Here is the original.

Sexual Crimes in ANCIENT GREECE α. Child Abuse & Sex Offenses

<<Εαν τις υβριζη εις τινα η παιδα η γυναικα η ανδρα των ελευθερων η των δουλων η παρανομον τι πιοηση εις τουτων τινα γραφεσθω προς τους θεσμοθετας ο βουλομενος Αθηναιων οις εξεστιν οι δε θεσμοθεται εισαγοντων εις την ηλιαιαν τριακοντα ημερων αφ ης γραφη. Οτου δ αν καταγνω η Ηλιαια τιματω αυτου παραχρημα οτου αν δοκη αξιος ειναι παθειν η αποτεισαι>>.

(Νομος υβρεως,Δημοσθ.Κατα Μειδιου 47)

Meaning <>.

β.Pimping To those condemned for pimping freeman or slave ,child or woman the penalty of death is given.

-<<Και τους προαγωγους γραφεσθαι κελευει (the law) καν αλωσι θανατω ζημιουσι>>. Αισχιν. Κατα Τιμαρχου -<<Υμεις Μενωνα μεν τον μυλωθρον απεκτεινατε (=execute) διοτι παιδ ελευθερον εκ Πελληνης εσχεν (=abused,raped) εν τω μυλωνι... Ευθυμαχον δε διοτι την ολυνθιαν παιδισκην εστησεν επ οικηματος (=put up in a brothel)>>. Δειναρχος ,κατα Δημοσθενους ,23

WHORING & *ΚΙΝΑΙΔΙΣΜΟΣ(=homosexuality) <<Αν τις Αθηναιων εταιρηση μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα αρχοντων γενεσθαι μηδ ιεροσυνην ιερωσασθαι μηδε συνδικησαι τω δημω μην αρχην αρχετω ουδεμιαν μητε ενδημω μητε υπεροριον μητε κληρωτην μητε χειροτονητην μηδ επικηρυκειαν αποσταλλεσθω μηδε γνωμην λεγετω μηδ εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω μηδ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανηφοριαις στεφανουσθω μηδ εντος των της αγορας περιρραντηριων πορευεσθω. Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη καταγνωσθεντος αυτου εταιρειν θανατω ζημιουσθω>>. (Αισχινης Κατα Τιμαρχου 52, 1)

Meaning <<Whoever Athenian gives his body to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden to be elected as one of the nine lords and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office or any other position internal or external by voting or chance and never to be sent as messenger never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market. Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered to the eleven to be slain before the day has passed <<τεθνατω αυθημερον>>. Ο Δημοσθενης reports the <<περι της εταιρησεως νομον >> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 21), [εταιρειν= το τους ανδρας πασχειν τα των εταιρων εταιρει μεν ουν και πορνευεται ο πασχητιων] ενω στον ιδιο λογο του (παρ. 30) μνημονευει τον σχετικο νομο του Σολωνος συμφωνα με τον οποιο ο δραστης εστερειτο το σημαντικοτερο για τον Αθηναιο πολιτη δικαιωμα το δικαιωμα του λογου ενωπιον της βουλης και της εκλησσιας αλλα και αυτο της υποβολης <<γραφων>> και <<εισαγγελιων>> δηλαδη δημοσιων μυνησεων. <<μητε λεγειν μητε γραφειν εξειναι τοις ηταιρηκοσιν>> And Λυσιας (Κατ Αλκιβιαδου Α) gives us safe information about the cruel treatment of homosexuals (κιναιδων) in Ancient Athens not only by legislation but by its "liberal" society that mocked and stigmatized this practice. Ο Αριστοφανης δε αθυροστομος τους παραδιδει σε δεινη χλευη παρουσιαζοντας τους με θηλυπρεπεις ενδυμασιες ακκιζομενους (=κουναμενους) ως εταιρες κ.λ.π. και αποκαλωντας τους με ασεμνες ονομασιες π.χ. <<Χαονες>> προκαλωντας ατελειωτους γελωτες στο κοινο.

Στους εταιριζομενους <<τους ομοτεχνους πορναις>> (Δημ.Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 58), συνεχιζει ο Δημοσθενης << οι νομοι ουκ εωσι ουδε τα εννομα τους αισχρως βεβιωκοτας νομον θειναι>> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 24), meaning <>.

Homosexuality α. Of the Athenian State <<Ει τις πεπορνευομενος η εταιρηκως εστι εξειργεσθω ειναι των ρητορων>> (Αισχινης κατα Τιμαρχ. 5,2). ( It is forbidden to whoever has given himself as prostitute or a girl or boy to be a council of the state ). Despite things told and written even in certain universities that homosexuality & pedophilia were not only sanctioned but a normal practice is PROVEN FALSE BY THE ATTIC LAWS. What impresses especially is the cruelty of the penalties to the offenders from total loss of civil rights and death (μη εξεστω αυτω λεγειν και γραφειν = απαγορευεται σε αυτον να λαβαινη το λογο στις λαικες συνελευσεις και να υποβαλλη δημοσιες καταγγελιες) the same day the verdict was pronounced by the Ηλιαστικο δικαστηριο. Sex crimes were of the heinest type and belonged to the category of public offenses. This derives from the fact that every citizen had the right ( a moral and political obligation in Ancient Greece) to bring against them <<γραφην εταιρησεως >> according to the special <<περι φθορας νομον>> meaning a public suit because the above offenses were public as they attackes against the state itself ( All of Athens). Beyond the harsh treatment against sex offenders the public opinion was especially hard against them. Homosexuals were called χλευαστικως <<κιναιδους>> meaning those that move shame & aversion <<κινουν την αιδω>> and bring about the punishment of NEMESIS. They were also called ανδρογυναια,γυνανδρους,ημιανδρους,πορνους,ομοτεχνους εταιραις ο δε Αριστοφανης οπως προαναφερθηκε που ηταν ιδιαιτερα καυστικος εξαπελυε εναντιον τους προκαλωντας εκρηξεις γελωτος και χλευασμων του λαου στα θεατρα επικλησεις ως χαονες και αρσενικες πορνες. Ειναι πραγματι εντυπωσιακη αυτη η σταση της Αθηναικης πολιτειας και κοινωνιας απεναντι των ατομων αυτων που εφτανε μεχρι και τον κοινωνικο αποκλεισμο τους θα ελεγε κανεις οτι η ποινη τους ηταν η οιονει capitis deminutio του ρωμαικου δικαιου δηλαδη νομικος αποκεφαλισμος μη αποκλειομενης και της παραπομπης τους στον δημιο οπως ρητωςπροβλεπονταν απο την σχετικη διαταξη. The only logical explanation for this harsh treatment from the most free and liberal state of ancient greece is the regard of such actions as ABOMINATION ΜΙΑΣΜΑ as a disgusting act that made them οιονει εναγεις, that <<εμιαινον>> polluted the city thus and divine wrath would fall on everyone. This is also proven from the fact that they had the same treatment as murderers. To remain out of any public event or sacred place and lose all civil rights. . Χαρακτηριστικη και διαφωτιστικη ειναι η πληροφορια που μας δινει ο Δημοσθενης (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος) και αφορα βεβαιως τους <<ανδροφονους>> στους οποιους απαγορευονταν και η εισοδος <<εντος των περριραντηριων της αγορας>> δηλαδη του <<καθαγιασμενου δια ιερων ραντισματων χωρου της αγορας>> ως μη εχοντων <<καθαρας τας χειρας>>. Εξ αυτου σφοδρως μπορει να πιθανολογηθη οτι επιβαλλονταν η αυτη απαγορευση και στους εταιριζομενους ως μη εχοντας <<καθαρον>> το σωμα τους.

β. The Spartan Laws Against child Abuse Against the commonplace mythicaly regarded as commonplace like <<δωρικους ερωτες>> an excellent source of Spartan Legislation and life, the honest Ξενοφων ο Αθηναιος in his work <<Λακεδαιμονιων πολιτεια>> ΙΙ,13 reports the law attributed to Lycurgus according to which child abuse is condemned as an ABOMINATION = <<Εις τις παιδος σωματος ορεγομενος φανειη αισχιστον τουτο θεις εποιησεν (ο Λυκουργος) εν Λακεδαιμονι μηδεν ηττον εραστας παιδικων απεχθεσαι>>. [The lawmaker Λυκουργος charakterized as most horrid if someone desired the body of a child and set that lovers should abstain from this (lovers of the same sex in ancient greece are Spiritual Brethren not sexual partners, remember this & please learn Ancient Greek dont read "translations" in other languages Ancient Greek cannot be translated)]. Ο Πλουταρχος also (Λακεδ. επιτηδ. 7,237 c) informs us that whoever tried to abuse someone was striped of his civil rights for life = <<Εραν των την ψυχην σπουδαιων παιδων εφειτο το δε πλησιαζειν αισχρον νενομιστο ως του σωματος ερωντας αλλ ου της ψυχης ο δε εγκληθεις ως επ αισχυνη πλησιαζων ατιμος δια βιου ην>>. Meaning = The (Λυκουργειος) law allowed admiration towards the mental gifts of the youths but any physical desire was an abomination that declared carnal and not spiritual love. Whoever by law was condemned thus was dishonoured (striped of his civil rights) for life.

γ. Of Magna Grecia (Lower Italy) Even in Magna Grecia where customs and morals where supposedly more lax CHILD ABUSE WAS PUNISHED WITH THE MAXIMUM PENALTY MEANING DEATH THAT TOOK THE FORM OF THE HANGING OF THE OFFENDER. Particularly ο Μαξιμος ο Τυριος (20,9α) informs us=

<<Εν Λοκροις τοις Ιταλιωταις εφηβος ην καλος και νομος καλος και ερασται πονηροι εραν μεν ηναγκαζοντο υπο του καλλους ειργοντο ομως υπο του νομου κακως εραν οιστρουμενοι δε υπο του παθους προς την υβριν τον μεν εφηβον ουκ επεισαν ηξαν δε οι δυστυχεις επι βροχον παντες>>. [To those greeks that reside in Italy Λοκρους (η Επιζεφυριους) there were a handsome youth and cunning lovers but also a proper law. And the lovers where possesed by strong desire because of his physical beauty but were stopped by the law to manifest the carnal part of love but in the end by their strong passion to abuse him tried to lure him but were lead all of them to the gallows.]

And while in Greek Legislation the maximum penalty is given for the heinous crime of child abuse in the Roman it is absent as a crime (Α' βασιλειων ιδ,ιε 12 ,κβ 46, β βασιλειων κγ 7)

* Κιναδος δηλ. ο κινων την αιδω

Liddel-Scott τομος ΙΙ σελιδα 719 Κιναιδεια,homosexuality= η παρα φυσιν ασελγεια(animal lust,abuse), Αισχινης 18,29 Δημητριος Φαληρευς 97. Κιναιδευομαι= ειμαι κιναιδος Κιναιδος,homosexual= ο καταπυγων(degenerate,One who has annal sex), ο καθολα αισχρος (all shamefull,dishonourable), κακοηθης ανθρωπος (immoral person) -

Cheers.Burrburr (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for placing this here for discussion Burrburr. Clearly there is a lot of NPOVing to do on this article. Phdarts (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Burrbur. I noticed that you added some "see also" labels to the article that Haiduc removed with the edit summary "rv political campaign";. We can discuss this matter here also so as to avoid edit wars. Phdarts (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See also tags; Pedophilia and Child Abuse


 * OK, I'll start off. There seems to be a significant view that pederasty is a form of pedophilia (sexual attraction for children, boys in general in this case). Thus pedophilia is a reasonable link.


 * There is also a significant view that pederasty leads to a significant and reasoned concern about child abuse. Again, this would seem to justify the link. Phdarts (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed so. This whole screed is uncited (or rather cited to "some guy"), and is an attempt to prove that homosexuality was illegal in ancient Greece! Paul B (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Child Abuse Related Organizations
There is a dispute over this edit. I guess the issue is whether they alone consider themselves to be child abuse help agencies, or whether there are others who consider them to be child abuse help agencies. Phdarts (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

restoration of majority opinion, data pertinent to topic and needed attribution - 2
I have restored the majority opinion in places were it was and was deleted recently. I have attributed a controversial extreme minority statement as required by wikipolicy. I have restored a section pertaining to this topic from four different sources. I have deleted a POV statement that was OR about child abuse orgs. I have restored cats that are clearly related to the topic. I have deleted the footer for a group that does not endorse pederasty. I have deleted two unsourced statements that need to have references to be replaced. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for offering space for discussion here. I agree that your edits are sound. Phdarts (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found wikipedia articles on age of consent all over the world and I added the links. If you look you see by far most places hover around 16 to 18 for age of consent which would make pederastic relationships with at least half the adolescent population in most places illegal. Please take a look before deleting my edits yet again. If this doesn't satisfy you people I don't know what will. Burrburr (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Burrburr. I believe that will also show some variability in how pederasty is actually handled in child abuse and law situations. But we do also still have to deal with the issue of "mature men and boy". Even in countries where the age of consent is low, there will still be a general view on men and boy meaning mature man (+21-70 and over) and boy (2 years old up to 19 or so), which will explain why pederasty is still considered abusive, unethical, a type of pedophilia etc by so many people including homosexuals. Phdarts (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is sheer uncited assertion without any founation whatever. Your conflation of pederasty with paedophilia reveals your position to be pure homophobia, since you know full well that sexual acts with a "2 year old" are never considered pederastic, either in a classical or a modern context, and that relationships between older men and young women are so utterly commonplace that they have existed throughout history. The extreme minority opinion is your opinion, since it persistently distorts and misrepresents evidence. Paul B (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Paul but again the literature contradicts you. Remember again that pederasty is generally considered to be erotic relations between men and boys, whereas pedophilia is considered adults and children of any gender. Age definitely varies according to juristiction. Once more we see you an editor who wants critical views removed accusing another editor of homophobia when simple facts about pederasty and pedophilia are being presented. Anyone can check the facts. Feel free to do so. It is not my problem that old men and young women have sexual relations. It is only my duty as an editor to balance articles properly according to majority and minority viewpoints. The main point I was making, before you accused me, an admitted homosexual, of homophobia, is that the age of consent varies according to juristiction. However, there are many other factors involved here, including the general concern over the abuse of boys (whatever age one considers boys to be). Please focus on the issues, and stop the persistent incivillity. Phdarts (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I accuse you of homophobia because the evidence is clear that your position necessarily implies it, whatever you may consciously believe. It implies it because you are creating and sustaining a double standard. It is not your 'problem' that older men and young women have sexual relatuions precisely because it is not nor has it ever been any sort of problem as such, but rather the norm. To say that someone's position is homophobic is not incivility. It is an argument about the nature of the position. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a view in the literature that pederasty is an erotic attraction to boys both adolescent and young. Paul Barlow, you are personally attacking me. I am referring to properly sourced literature on specific viewpoints that pederasty is considered to be abusive. Once again, please stop the persistent ad nausium incivility. Phdarts (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop the persistent ad nauseum repetition. I have explained why there is no incivility in what I said, sibnce I was decribing your position and your editing methods. If you look on google scholar you will see that the great majority of literature on pederasty is historical and anthropological. That is the majority position and it is typically non-judgemental, or at least complex and nuanced. Your version gives total prominence to a non-mainstream article by Bloch in a non-classicist publication, an article that is nothing more than pure speculation. The views of actual specialists are ignored or subordinated to this minority and marginal publication. That's givng undue weight. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul Barlow, there is judgment throughout the literature you refer to. There are views on what pederasty is, both old and new. The only difference between Crosson Tower and other sources is that the ones you are objecting to are critical and consider pederasty to be abusive. Many editors here are aware that there is a POV fork that needs to be fixed, and there seems to me to be considerable, uncivil and desperate resistance to that POV fork being fixed. There is a lot more information to be presented here that is also highly relevant and clarifies the nature of pederasty and the views of significant sources on pederasty. There has also been a lot of literature presented on this discussion page that has largely been ignored by editors wishing it to be kept out of the article. If it is to be ignored, then I guess there was nothing to object to in the first place and it can be restored. Unless you would like to actually stop accusing other editors of bad faith and start addressing the sources? Are you not interested in discussing sources? Phdarts (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[undent] I just did, or are you not interested in reading? Paul B (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also many sources on pederasty that consider it to be abusive, a type of pedophilia, unethical, unlawful and so on. Some of them are presented on this discussion page for the purposes of discussion. Do you want to continue to ignore them? Phdarts (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "There are also many sources on pederasty that consider it to be abusive". No. There are not. The error is the use of "it", as though there is a single phenomenon, not a wide range of phenomena in different cultural contexts and a series of distinct usages of a term. That has already been pointed out to you. There are indeed several sources on this page which point to the fact that the word is used in different contexts by various authors. There are also several sources which have nothing to do with pederasty and others which are attributed to "some guy" (our Greek contributor, whose opinions derived from "some guy" you treated as NPOV). Paul B (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was NPOV. I simply encouraged the use of constructive discussion here together with the presentation of sources. If you have a source that disagrees with the sources of Bloch, Crosson Tower and others, feel free to present them. Otherwise your objections to critical views of pederasty are simply unfounded objections. Phdarts (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychological viewpoint
Bloch gives many more interesting views than have been presented. For example:

"Greek pederasty was not as fully accepted in Greek society as modern commentators have supposed, but in many cases brought risks for the boys of intense shame as well as physical damage."

And: "The Greeks seem to have regarded sex as an activity one does by oneself, even though the other person is there to be acted upon. This self-centered notion of male sexuality was especially evident in pederastic relationships. The man fulfilled his desire while the boy was presumed to be feeling nothing at all, certainly not erotic arousal. Indeed, a boy who too obviously enjoyed such passive sex would have seemed perverted.(6)"

"The very fact that Greek men thought the boy did not feel anything erotic is an indication of how traumatized these young boys actually must have been. "

Bloch then goes on to give a scortching attack on scholars of ancient Greek history who seem oblivious to the attacks, shaming, physical harm that slaves and socially inferior boys had to endure. This is a highly relevant view that is directly associated with Greek and so-called academic literature. I suggest that this view be properly explained in relation to the other child abuse related literature on pederasty. Phdarts (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bloch is writing for a journal of Men's Studies published by the "Men's Studies Press", a private publisher set up purely for the purpose of publishing material supportive of its position. It appears to have little academic credibility, certainly not in classical studies. The arguments used by Bloch have no value at all in comparison to those of real scholars of ancient Greek history, who should be used as the mainstream source, not a non academic publisher of no status whatever. It's frankly typcal of the worst kind of American "scholarship" that simply projects modern assumptions onto the past with little grasp of cultural context or art historical methods for understanding and interpreting images. As a masterly non sequitur the last sentence you quote stands out - creating supposed trauma on the basis of non-evidence. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Enid Bloch is Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York Buffalo . She deals with ancient Greek issues is profound todepth . The journal of men's studies is an independent scholarly journal, and the publisher is also independent and renowned experts seem to fill its journals with reliable facts and knowledge .  Bloch seems to be eminently quotable and academically highly credible. Obviously a reputable source. Phdarts (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know full well what her position is, though whether she deals in "profound depth" or not is a separate question. The point is that the publication is not a very good quality one and the article is speculative. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article seems to be rigorously researched and extensively sourced using other reliably sourced literature. Bloch criticises the very literature that you prefer to keep in the article and she deals directly with the subject of pederasty defined by those sources. As such, your objections seem to ring quite hollow. Phdarts (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you ever reas any books about Greek sexual norms. Foucault? Dover? Paul B (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bloch is welcome here. The fact, however, is that this discussion needs to be carried on not here, but at the Greek pederasty article, where we can accommodate even such innovative views as Bloch's. I say "innovative" since absolutely nothing in the whole corpus of literature supports or even remotely suggests such a view. We have evidence of the boys being standoffish, cruel, jealous, embarrassed, and even horny. Sometimes angry enough to kill, or protecting their honor at the price of life itself, or very angry. But anything BUT paralyzed with fear. That sounds a lot more like the way an American woman might feel, confronted with a Greek erastes. But she said it, and he published it, and it should be aired, where it belongs, and in the proper context. Haiduc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bloch is relevant here. This pederasty article is full of imagery, text, views on ancient Greek pederasty that overlap with other views. The main view of Bloch is to criticize most of the so called classical literature and to show that psychological and physical harm is relevant here(psychological and physical relate to modern findings on psychological and medical harm). So Bloch is relevant in the areas of this article that will cover the view that pederasty us abusive in ancient general and modern general and clinical contexts. Its a relevant view the context is right here, it corroborates similar views on pederasty that are also reputable sources, and its a highly reputable source that will help the reader to understand all significant views on pederasty in context. Phdarts (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is not the best location for engaging in the debate between the proponents of penetration / domination and the proponents of a more nuanced view ranging from dikaios eros to genuine abuse. It is a subtopic of Greek pederasty and should be explored there in full. However, to the extent that article is summarized here, we could also briefly summarize that debate under the Greek section here as well. Haiduc (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At last! That is, I believe, what editors had in mind. It seems highly irregular that such a simple concept should involve so many accusations of homophobia and political agendas. I trust we will be able to move forward without more of such disruptive behavior. OK, next topic. Perhaps you would like to address the other issues and sources presented above that have thus far been overlooked? Phdarts (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dealing with the contrasting and shifting views of Greek pederasty in a reasonable and lucid manner is such a big task in itself that I think we should work on that before we attempt anything else. We can probably identify two parallel streams of thought, beginning in Victorian England, with Symonds and the Uranians on one side (and I include there Pater, Wilde and Hopkins) and conventional Victorian morality on the other, to the last quarter of the 20th c. with Dover and Foucault on one side and Percy and Sergent and Hubbard on the other. Both camps, of course had many adherents and their detractors. It is a very complicated tale that is missing from this article simply because it entails more reading than I have had time (and maybe inclination) to do. In itself it is the substance of a PhD thesis. Haiduc (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So its a bit of a long story is it? I'd be an optimist about all this. I noticed, for example, there are many other articles on Wikipedia are managing their long stories pretty well. And there is also a wealth of clarifying knowledge of pederasty in the child abuse and child pornography related material that will also be part of that long story. I suggest the Wikipedia recommendation to be bold. Then if a source is requested, supply it, and work with all relevant views in good order and we will be manage to make this article similar to other well written articles on Wikipedia. Phdarts (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggested edit:


 * Academics such as Bloch hold the view that pederasty is psychologically and physically harmful to the involved boy. "We should not be afraid to call Greek pederasty a form of child abuse. This was not sex between consenting adults, or even between two children discovering their sexuality in their own way and at their own pace, but the deliberate use of a child by an adult for the sexual gratification of the adult."


 * I believe that gives a pretty clear idea of Bloch's view. Phdarts (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That view needs to be located in time. It is part of a school of thought that essentializes "penetration" as the principal function of Greek pederasty. Did that view begin with Dover? It needs to be documented. If we mention Bloch, then in the same breath we need to point out that she explains Socrates' ideas and behavior as springing from a history of child molestation, rather than reason or ethical thinking and morality. So:


 * A separate school of thought that can be traced to the work of Dover and Foucault asserts that pederasty, rather than being essentially a mentoring process energized by the erotic love of the man for the boy and the boy's reciprocating affection, was instead a vehicle for the sexual gratification of men at the expense of the boys, a zero sum game in which the man won and the boy lost. This view reduces the institution of pederasty to a sexual act, and identifies that act as the anal penetration of free boys by their elders. It is a construct which runs counter to the bulk of the evidence from antiquity, which delineates two separate pederastic currents, one an ethical pedagogy which specifically excluded penetration from the range of permitted interactions, and another of a practice condemned by ancient society but nevertheless engaged in by brutal and uneducated men, which consisted in the buggering of free and slave boys for sexual gratification, often if not usually mediated by the exchange of money for sex.


 * Nevertheless, this construct of pederasty as anal rape has been accepted by a number of academics, such as Halperin, Bloch and others. Bloch holds the view that pederasty is psychologically and physically harmful to the involved boy. "We should not be afraid to call Greek pederasty a form of child abuse. This was not sex between consenting adults, or even between two children discovering their sexuality in their own way and at their own pace, but the deliberate use of a child by an adult for the sexual gratification of the adult." Bloch uses her understanding of Greek pederasty to explain Socrates' ideas and behavior as springing from a history of child molestation, rather than from reason or ethical thinking and morality. "Socrates’ spells of immobility, the little spirit voice inhibiting his actions, even his desire for a death brought on by the ascending paralysis of hemlock poisoning, all seem to me to reflect the trauma and anxieties of his Athenian boyhood, the paralysis of the abused child."Socrates & I: Reflections on Childhood and Philosophy by Enid Bloch; March 26th, 2004 


 * Concurrent with the introduction of this purely penetrative model of Greek pederasty, a number of voices rose in opposition ...etc, etc, etc."


 * This, however, is much too elaborate for this article, so after it has been further developed and posted at "Greek pederasty" an abstract of it needs to be written, which should be placed here in the appropriate section. Haiduc (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Haiduc, your suggestion is too much for this article, and makes unnecessary demands that cannot be satisifed. Bloch's statement as I wrote above is easy to understand in just about any context of the article. I suggest it be placed with similar views that pederasty is abusive. It could have a seperate paragraph though, together with other psychologically oriented views. It could also be used to explain how some academics have tended to dismiss the harmful nature of pederasty in their writings. Phdarts (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as you persist in seeing pederasty as a unitary phenomenon you will be at odds with both historical and modern views. As for generating the abstract before the full discussion that may be possible, but not in the unqualified terms you suggest. Haiduc (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia provides many dispute resolution options for this sort of discussion problem. If editors can't agree on exact wording, then properly attributed quotes will do. In order to deal with the problems you present, I did some more research and of course found more relevant majority views. I do have some more information to add to Crosson Tower and Bloch. It will allow for a much better explanation of both expert and public majority views on pederasty. It sounds to me as though you would like to have the new material presented here. Or would you like to explore more of the exact quote option?  Phdarts (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that there was a dispute here. We were discussing the addition of a paragraph touching on the shifting views of pederasty, especially the late 20th c. sally into "penetration." As long as it is contextualized I see no problem with adding such material, it is actually useful and necessary, but perhaps for different reasons than you seem to suggest. By the way, I removed some of the child abuse material, I think you are flogging that dead horse a bit too much. I did keep a couple of your contributions which seemed to be remotely relevant. I also got rid of the Rind stuff, it belongs at the modern article more than here and it is not worth fighting about. Haiduc (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, it is clear that you are disputing the need to place relevant and core critical views of pederasty in the article. The material you just removed  was untouched in the article until I added proper citations to it and clarified it properly with more relevant material.  The material is clearly relevant and we have to represent sources properly, including Rind. There was a clear controversy over that matter and as such it requires sources such as Lilienfeld 2002 to explain the material on pederasty. Rind is important in the history of pederasty and it is notable because certain pro-pederasty groups praised it, and the majority were up in arms over the material as it was seen as offensively soft on the damaging and immoral acts of child abuse.


 * The few editors here who do not want such majority oriented views in the article have been trying to cast doubt on those views and in the process asking for more information and sources on such views. I and others have been researching and providing them and there are clearly a lot out there. Your tendency to POV fork material seems to extend to disruptive editing in addition to your tendency for incivility. I suggest instead of presenting implausible arguments for removing normal views and rationales that are critical of pederasty, you start trying to source some of the more speculative assertions you have in the article. Phdarts (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see "you and others" are still engaged in your interminable polemics and your smear tactics of bandying about NAMBLA in a guilt-by-association campaign. Too bad. To conclude our obviously sterile exchange, I concur with your view that something should be said here (and more at the "Greek pederasty" article) about the "penetration" proponents. That remains a valuable addition to the discussion. The rest of your insinuations are of political value only, and it is very clear what kind of politics you are playing. Haiduc (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Haiduc, you just made another uncivil accusation and you have shown again your refusal to assume good faith . Editors here are clearly concerned that the critical view is not getting properly presented, and there are clearly many examples of sourceless pro-pederasty POV pushing in the article. I will be flexible as always, but the alternatives are more condemnatory. Keep in mind these are critical views of pederasty. When academics, experts, the public in general, of any major sexual orientation, are asked about erotic relations between men and boys they will generally be coldly critical, look disgusted, or try to laugh off the objectionable subject. That includes most homosexuals who are reasonable in the psychology research-supported dissociation from pederasty. If you want to restrict options, then we end up with straightforward quotes. Like it or not, this article is going to be clarified with all relevant views in proper proportion. Its just a matter of time. If you don't want to edit cooperatively, its your loss. Phdarts (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the very last person qualified to pass judgment on my civility, in light of the tone and content of your discourse, and your behavior here. As for good faith, it would stand you in good stead to study well the subject, as you seem familiar with the words but not the meaning. That, unfortunately, is the very crux of the matter. You are trying to shove down our throats an authoritarian, moralistic and punitive construct of pederasty, founded on the presumption of pederasty being one thing and one thing only, and that thing a matter of opprobrium and universal contempt. To that end you and your cohorts have from the very beginning engaged in scurrilous tactics designed to taint what has been an attempt to maintain a balanced view of an aspect of human culture which has had various aspects, some admirable, and some shameful.
 * Your notion that this article needs to reflect your imagined "majority view" is off the wall. First of all we do not know what the majority view is, it is simply an ideation that you have been parroting from day one. Second, even if we did know, it would not matter one iota, since Wikipedia articles are not founded on "majority view" but on scholarship. The sooner you get that, the better for you and for Wikipedia. Haiduc (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Me and my cohorts? Haiduc, assume good faith!


 * I am here to cooperate with Wikipedians on improving articles. There are clear fringe views on pederasty that contrast sharply with current majority views, academic or otherwise. I have read Wikipedia avidly for years, and have seen what happens on Wikipedia when fringe views are protected and promoted as they have been here and on similar articles. I have seen Wikipedians and Wikipedian administrators deal decisively with articles where fringe views have been promoted above majority academic and general viewpoints. I will offer you some time to re-consider your actions and your failure to assume good faith. In the meantime do your best to make up for your mistakes. Phdarts (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Current academic majority views? Even Bloch makes it quit clear that most academics accept paederasty as non-abusive and often beneficial. Do you have any source for your claim that this is a fringe view? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * AnotherSolipsist. You have left out a rather important element of Bloch's view. You have left out the fact that some modern academics (historians) write about the subject and simply accept what the ancient Greek pederasts said about pederasty:


 * "For most of the past two thousand years no one would discuss Greek pederasty directly, and the innumerable references in ancient literature to erotic relationships between men and boys were ignored or suppressed. This situation has changed in recent years with the publication of important books about sexuality in the ancient world, but despite the openness of modern discussion, the question has yet to be raised whether Greek pederasty was good for the young boys who were the object of adult male sexual attention. Modern scholars have tended to accept without question or doubt the rationale of the ancient pederasts that their activities were beneficial to boys, that they were educating boys in the habits and ways of manhood and of citizenship. This paper explores sex between men and boys from the point of view of the child rather than the adult, drawing evidence both from ancient literature and from modern medicine to reveal how deeply troubling and damaging the pederastic experience must have been for many Greek boys."


 * She also states: "This ready acceptance of the rationale of the Greeks is surprising, given the increasing sensitivity in our own culture to issues of child abuse."


 * She is talking specifically about some select historians, not about academics who deal with ethics or child abuse. Including the majority of academics in society who do not deal with historical pederasty, and who are asked about pederasty in general, of course most academics are concerned about child abuse as is the rest of society, and they will be in the vast majority. Crosson Tower says that whole countries would consider pederasty to be a type of pedophilia and abusive. Phdarts (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)