Talk:Pederasty in the modern world

POV
Horrendously POV. The article reads as a defense of sexual exploitation of minors and an attack on anyone who attempts to call "pederasty" what it is in most nations - a crime. | Klaw Talk 16:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not a soapbox for you or anyone else. Male relations with boy or girl adolescents are legal or illegal depending on the law, and pederasty is not a crime anywhere except in a few countries with very high ages of consent. Furthermore, the legality or morality of a topic is none of our business (or would you go about deleting articles on fascism and marijuana?). Defend your position better or remove the label. Haiduc 17:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My position is well explained. Encyclopedia articles should give facts, not a defense of a position or practice, and this article is quite clearly a defense of pederasty (which is illegal in most nations, with ages of consent typically at 16 or higher around the world).
 * Your response, on the other hand, is a classic straw man argument. I pointed out that the article is POV. You accused me of being on a "soapbox," and started talking some nonsense about "deleting articles on fascism and marijuana" - even though I never suggested a deletion. Rewrite the article to eliminate its bias and I'll remove the tag. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The declarations that "pederasty is illegal" is an inherently polemical and inaccurate statement, which is why it deserves to be qualified as a "soapbox" argument. If you want a politically correct restatement, it is inherently NPOV. It is just as absurd and biased a statement as to claim that "sex with girls is ilegal in most nations."
 * The article is a discussion of an aspect of homosexuality which is clearly not illegal (even under your arbitrary delimitation of "16 or higher" there is a period of two or more years in the life of a young person when it is not illegal, and your figure is only valid for the United States - please do not Americanize this discussion).
 * Sorry if I misunderstood your tag as a call for deletion. I am afraid that it is you, with your misrepresentation that are presenting the "classic straw man argument" by waving the flag of sexual exploitation and lawlesness when this discussion has nothing to do with any of that. (Those aspects of human relations appear everywhere, as you well know, not only in pederastic relationships). Haiduc 18:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your edits and included them into the article, most of the stuff was already there if you had careed to read more carefully. I also restored your deletion as you gave no justification for it. Haiduc 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pederasty is illegal in at least 70 nations and in several US states, according to the age of consent table I sourced in the article. (That includes jurisdictions where homosexual intercourse is illegal entirely, and those where it's restricted to adults 18 and over.) There's no question here: it's illegal in a lot of places, and it's legal in some. There are very few jurisdictions that allow sexual activity between an adult male and a child of any age, and the trend is towards more restrictions, not fewer.
 * There are plenty of things I think are immoral or that I think should be illegal, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. An article on "pederasty in the modern world" can certainly be encyclopedic, but it should be balanced and fact-based, not a polemic from someone who is advocating pederasty. The article can't pretend that it's legal or socially acceptable everywhere, because it's not. Right now, the article is just your defense of the practice, with attacks on opponents, such as the Catholic Church. You can certainly discuss efforts to legalize pederasty, but not emotional arguments for its legalization. And you should pair that discussion with one of efforts to restrict pederasty by raising ages of consent and by cracking down on child prostitution in some areas of the world. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that we are tilting in opposite directions on this, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I have not done a statistical analysis but I will venture a guess that those prohibiting sexuality below 18 are in a minority, and the trend towards higher ages is not universal (the Austrians recently lowered the age to 14, the British to 16). Let's be accurate here, at least. I agree that a more ample presentation would be welcome, but let's not moralize. Haiduc 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Absurd edit. Here is what ECPAT is REALLY about: "ECPAT International is a global network dedicated to eliminating the commercial sexual exploitation of children or CSEC. There are now 73 groups in 67 countries in the ECPAT network. The International Secretariat is based in Bangkok, Thailand." They have nothing for or against pederasty. And your removal of Bullough's definition is simply a violent imposition of your definition over my definition. That's not how we are going to balance this article, I am afraid. I do agree with your "Opposition" subtitle. Haiduc 18:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think your Bullough definition is still there, isn't it? Look, I'm not deleting content, I'm just rephrasing stuff to make it NPOV. Some will even support your view - for example, making clear what pro-pederasty folks see as the difference between it and pedophilia. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this is a more balanced version than either my original or your modification. If you have further problems, please discuss. If not, please remove the tag. Haiduc 02:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Your revised intro is much more balanced. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:53, 13 December 2005 (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)

Changes of 1/1/06
I have made several changes to the text introduced today and around the deletions made today by Haiduc, but I'm posting my comments here for anyone else who may come along later to this discussion.

The salient point in most of these edits is that pederasty by definition refers to sexual activity between an adult male and an adolescent boy. This means that whether the contact is commercial or noncommercial, consensual or non-consensual (assuming consent is even possible), it is all pederasty.


 * "Exonerated" becomes "attempted to exonerate." It's a grammatical issue; the publisher can not exonerate the writer in this case. He can only offer the evidence, and it is up to the court of public opinion whether or not to exonerate the writer.


 * ECPAT fights child prostitution, child pornography, and child sex trafficking. That includes any child below the age of consent. And since this article is on pederasty - the largely-illegal practice of adult men having sex with adolescent boys - ECPAT's activities are absolutely relevant, and removing them multiple times is evidence of bias. Indeed, there's a recent paper on their site on "the sexual exploitation of boys, girls, and adolescents in Perú (in Spanish).


 * Calling pederasty "man-boy love" is inherently NPOV.


 * "Pederasty ... comes under attack" becomes " ... is a controversial practice." "Attack" implies that pederasty is somehow in the right here, and the attackers are in the wrong. "Controversial" is neutral.


 * The Internet has become a popular tool for pederasts intent on molestation to find victims. There's no reason to delete this phrase from the section on technology & the Justin Berry incident.

In general, I think that Haiduc's changes today leaned heavily towards making this article more of a defense of pederasty, rather than an article on what pederasty is and its current legal and social status.| Klaw ¡digame! 23:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. Haiduc 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We should not put words in the editor's mouth, and let him speak for himself. Haiduc 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Many organizations fight child abuse, but unless they specifically target pederasty as a category they do not belong here, the list would be endless, beginning with the Interpol and ending with the FBI. Haiduc 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Haiduc is referring here to the mention of ECPAT | Klaw ¡digame! )


 * "Controversial" as a qualifier for the whole category is inaccurate, since suche relationships are opoen and legal (ie a 16 with a 24 in London) in most places. It is specious to restrict the discussion to the most extreme cases and judge form that. Haiduc 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved your comments below mine to make it clear which words are mine and which are yours.
 * According to Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. This is true for any topic, and on a page covering an activity that is largely illegal in the world, it is particularly important.
 * Regarding your specific comments: The editor saying he exonerated Rind is not the same as him actually exonerating Rind.
 * ECPAT is just one example of an organization that fights pederasty where it is illegal. We can certainly provide others, but one or two examples are sufficient. Requiring that an organization target pederasty and only pederasty to be listed here is ludicrous, as any organization that targets pederasty will also target pedophilia. Most people don't draw a distinction between the two activities.
 * Your contention that "such relationships are open and legal in most places" is false. Pederasty (which is not a question of relationships, but of sexual activity) is completely (all ages) or mostly illegal in most jurisdictions. That fact plus the reality that pederasty is largely viewed in the developed world as sexual abuse (because minors can not give informed consent) makes the subject more than "controversial," and the header tag is appropriate. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Keith, I am afraid that your arguments work against, and not for you. Your invocation of the soapbox rule cuts both ways. The material you have tried to introduce into this article is exactly the kind which has no place in a neutral document. Let's look at just the latest crop, so as to save everyone's time here: You know, there are many aspects of this that we can agree on, and I am perfectly comfortable documenting and discussing the abuses which plague illegal relations between children and adults. You have no argument from me whatsoever. I am not looking to whitewash anything here. But neither are we here to tar and feather. Haiduc 06:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Rind's exoneration. The editors never claimed to "exonerate" anyone. That term may have been borrowed from a secondary article, but as the link to the Halifax paper was extinguished by the paper I cannot say for sure where it came from. But your insistent re-introduction into the text is  pushing "attempting" thus implying "failing." Your opinion. Just leave the whole "exoneration" thing out, so we do not have to argue about it.
 * 2) The ECPAT thing. You really want to parade the white knight here to show how the good guys hate pederasty. But what they hate is illegal activity with underage children. It would be just as accurate to say that ECPAT fights homosexuality, since illegal pederasty also falls under that rubric. But it would be a misleading generalization, as is your current use.
 * 3) The legality thing. I never wrote that "such relationships are open and legal in most places". God knows where you got that one. (oh, memory! Haiduc 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)) They certainly are legal in a large part of the world, most of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, a number of US states, and so forth. I'll see if I can get a color-keyed map drawn up, to make this a bit more graphic. This is really something that we need not argue about at all since the numbers tell the story pretty clearly. As for being open, they are certainly not open in most places, for a number of reasons that are irrelevant to our discussion here. Your false representation of my argument (which I think was an honest mistake on your part, not an intentional deception) simply shows to what extent you have turned my position into a caricature of what it really is, and thus energized yourself to fight it. You don't have to do that, I am not who you have made me out to be. I am sorry that this topic gets you goat as much as it does, I am sure there are perfectly good reasons for it, but I am not here to fight those battles, I just want to get an article that is accurate and defensible on all points.
 * 4) Your "not a question of relationships, but of sexual activity". There you go again sexualizing things. The Greeks (and others) certainly thought otherwise. Please look at the discussion on "chaste pederasty" here. It seems to me that you are unwilling to allow a discussion of any sense of the word other than that in the first paragraph of the article, but there clearly are two senses here and in current academic use.
 * 5) Your "pederasty is largely viewed in the developed world as sexual abuse (because minors can not give informed consent)". As you said above, this is not a soapbox. Let's have a little bit of respect for other nations to set their own standards without preaching a point of view that intelligent people the world over have agreed to disagree about. Or shall we call all the French pedophiles because they allow their fifteen year olds to make sexual decisions for themselves? They might then argue that US high school football is child abuse because boys cannot give informed consent to an activity that puts their health and life in danger, and girls cannot give informed consent to being turned into bouncing bimbo sex objects to get the boy's juices flowing (again, presumably without their informed consent), the better to bash each other up?
 * 6) The header tag thing. You are not really saying that header tag is meant for controversial topics, are you?


 * You have indicated that you don't want to include any mention of organizations that are opposed to pederasty. (Incidentally, ECPAT is not opposed to homosexuality, despite your hyperbolic claims, but to adult-child sexual contact, which includes pederasty.) It is POV to have an article about a controversial and largely illegal practice without any mention of organized efforts to stop the practice. If you have a better example than ECPAT, by all means, put it in the article. ECPAT is a good example of an international secular group that is fighting pederasty (and pedophilia and child prostitution).
 * Regarding pederasty's legality: In Japan the age of consent is 16, and it's 18 if the younger partner subsequently complains. So it's illegal for more than half of teenagers below the age of 18 (illegal for ages 13-15, legal for 16-17) and possibly for all of them. In France it's illegal if the victim is aged 13 or 14. Russia raised its AOC in 2002 to 16, so it's illegal for more than half of adolescents there. You mentioned China - the same country where a court ruled in 2000 that homosexuality (even between adults) was "abnormal and unacceptable to the Chinese public." In Australia the AOC is 16 in some states and 18 in at least one (Queensland). And pederasty involving a boy below the age of 16 is illegal in at least 40 U.S. states, with many setting the AOC at 17 or 18. source So pederasty is not "legal in a large part of the world."
 * Finally, in response to this comment: Your "not a question of relationships, but of sexual activity". There you go again sexualizing things. The Greeks (and others) certainly thought otherwise.  This article is about "Pederasty in the modern world." What the ancient Greeks thought is irrelevant. (They thought there were only four elements and that the gods lived on Mount Olympus too.) American Heritage dictionary defines "pederast" as "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy." Merriam-Webster says roughly the same.  That's what the term means. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be thrilled to include here any number of organizations which had declared themselves against pederasty per se. If my memory serves me right, I was the one who introduced the Catholic church, because they came right out and said so. But to let you belabor the message of the good people at ECPAT to suit your views?! Inappropriate. But really, I am afraid that we are increasingly talking at cross purposes here. Like the endless argument of "It is legal!" "NO, it is illegal!" Can't you see that we are both saying the same thing, that we are busily arguing whether the cup is half empty or half full??? As for your age figures (where did you ever dig those up, they seem unrealistic, see here and here), for the map I intend to use the ones in the Wikipedia article. As for your attempt at reductio ad absurdum, trying to limit the scope of discourse to a couple of restrictive dictionary definitions, I think it is appropriate to use a more inclusive definition of the practice, a modern sexological one which is in keeping with the extensive body of published material on this practice, whether in the past or in the present. It is after all included in the article. And you have still not answered my challenge to your inappropriate use of the NPOV tag. Haiduc 04:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Big-time POV Problems
The article cannot both portray pederasty as a practice whose allegedly universal abusive nature is subject to widespread dispute, then proceed in the "criticisms" section to push the POV that pederasty is abusive by dubbing pederastic acts as "abuse" and "child molestation." This is an encyclopedia, guys and girls, not a personal advocacy web page. Stick to the facts. Corax 05:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DSMIV definition of pedophilia
The DSM IV criteria for diagnosing pedophilia reads in part: "Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger)."

Notice that "prepubescent child" is clearly specified as the criterion, not any specific age, and that "13 or under" is used only to give a general idea of the age range of prepubescent children. Rendering in the second paragraph the definition of pedophilia as "an attraction to children under the age of 13" is thus inaccurate. Not only does it fail to identify the key criterion laid down in DSM IV -- that of prepubescence -- but it wrong implies that the age of 13 enjoys some sort of status as an official age below which youngsters only attract pedophiles, and above which youngsters no longer attract pedophiles. Corax 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong
I think that this entire page should be done away with. It is just trying to hide the real truth about pedophiles by call it, pederastic love. Khalif 14:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's easy to say. Much harder to discuss individual issues in order to resolve disputes in a constructive fashion. Haiduc 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to break this to tyou, but this page isn't about pedophilia or pedophiles. It's obvious by this post that you either haven't read or haven't undrestood the content of an article whose deletion you're calling for.  How embarrassing. Corax 15:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eliminating pages on subjects which we don't like runs completely counter to the idea of Wikipedia. The goal should be to handle these topics in an NPOV fashion. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag restored
This page continues to read as a defense of pederasty, deprecating all considerations of the practice's illegality and lack of acceptance in most cultures. In particular, I object to the introduction, which currently reads:

Pederasty is defined as "The erotic relationship between an adult male and a boy, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection" Vern L. Bullough in glbtq (see also the Oxford Classical Dictionary).

First of all, using an LGBT source on this topic violates Reliable sources, both because of its orientation and because that source is itself poorly sourced (such as the claim that most pederastic relationships are consensual, with no study or supporting evidence to back it up). Second, the claim that the younger partner "returns his affection" presents no end of problems, as it eliminates any consideration of pederasty as the abuse of a teenager by an adult, and it neatly avoids the question of whether, say, a 14-year-old has the maturity to consent to a relationship with an adult. Neutral point of view is a policy, not a guideline, and an article that defends pederasty directly or via obfuscation is a clear violation. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, the Oxford Classical Dictionary is not "LGBT." Please try your argument again. Corax 04:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, the OCD isn't quoted here. The LGBT source (glbtq.com) is. Please try your counterargument again, and lose the tone. (I'm also not sure why the OCD definition would apply in an article on pederasty in the modern world, but that's a separate issue.) | Klaw ¡digame! 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, just because it isn't quoted directly does not mean its content does not mirror the content of the work that is quoted. Corax 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um. How about quoting it, at least here on the talk page? Or using its definition to replace the contentious one? I have never, at any point, said that the OCD was invalid or biased. I can't say any such thing because the quote in question isn't here. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can look up what the OCD is and see if it's "biased" whether you see the text of the definition or not. Presumably, the only reason you want to wait is so that, if the definition turns out to be one with which you don't agree, you can play your game of calling it biased. Corax 06:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that throwing out comments on racism made by black people is a reasonable policy, since that is what would happen if your ideas of exclusionism were to become the rule here. Bullough is a sexologist, and I have no intimations about his orientation nor am I interested in it. Your objection to it is as relevant as the putative objection of some pedophile who may object to our including the dictionary definition in the article. Unless you can refute Bullough's reliability, that criticism has no merit, including your dislike about the affection bit. Furthermore, your bandying about the example of relations between a fourteen year old and an adult is a poor choice, since that kind of relationship is legal in many places where people in government are presumably intelligent enough and civilized enough to know what is good law and what is not.
 * If you have material from reputable scientific sources arguing that a relationship between "a teenager and an adult" is intrinsically abusive even when it is within the bounds of the law I would be very interested in it and would jump at the opportunity to include it in the article. Until then what you are discussing is statutory rape and child abuse. They have their own articles. They are as relevant here as they are in the article about marriage. But just as that article presumably should have a section about child marriage and other abuses, such as female circumcision, marital rape, etc, likewise I welcome a discussion of abusive and illegal practices here. But if you want this article to sell the notion of the evils of pederasty, without any basis in fact or scholarship, I am sorry, I will oppose that.
 * If you want to make a case for your tag, you will have to bring in - or point to - appropriate material. Otherwise it will come down again, as inappropriate and biased. Haiduc 17:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a case for your tag, you will have to bring in - or point to - appropriate material. Otherwise it will come down again, as inappropriate and biased.  Please review WP:NPOV. No such requirement for imposing the tag exists, and as you are the primary poster of the POV material, it would be highly inappropriate for you to remove the tag.
 * Your entire response above is filled with strawman arguments that I never made. Foremost among them: But if you want this article to sell the notion of the evils of pederasty, That's not what I want, nor is it something that I have indicated that I want. Wikipedia policy mandates neutrality in articles, and an article that either paints pederasty in a positive light or that attempts to obfuscate its negative aspects is POV and must have the npov tag on it until these issues are resolved. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are problems here with all your contentions:


 * 1) Your contention that one of the definitions in the intro is inappropriate because using a GLBT encyclopaedia cannot be a reliable source on GLBT topics requires more explanation. Why can't a GLBT encyclopaedia be a reliable source on GLBT topics?
 * 2) Your contention that it is poorly sourced applies equally well to the dictionary definition that pederasty is anal sex, usually with a boy. I will keep on looking for more definitions (two more are in the works) but that is no reason to throw out what we have now, one neutral and one disparaging.
 * 3) The most elementary perusal of age of consent laws will put paid to your theory of "practice's illegality and lack of acceptance in most cultures." It is obviously legal in most countries, and as for lack of acceptance, I am aware that in some places people look askance on relationships with boys but I have not yet found anything to document that with respect to relationships within the bounds of the law. If you know of any sources, please pass them on. Seriously. That the practice is restricted to older youths, that is covered already, and seems no more notable that marriage being restricted to older girls. But presumably you will not go around claiming that marriage is "illegal in most countries" beacuse you cannot marry twelve year old girls in most countries.
 * 4) The contention that the article "defends pederasty" and "obfuscates" is not backed up by any concrete examples. Back up your accusations or retract them. Haiduc 23:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Replying in parts...
 * The most elementary perusal of age of consent laws will put paid to your theory of "practice's illegality and lack of acceptance in most cultures." I fully addressed this earlier on the talk page. Pederasty includes sex with boys aged as young as 13, which is illegal in almost all countries. Sources and specifics above, despite your counterclaims.
 * Your contention that it is poorly sourced applies equally well to the dictionary definition that pederasty is anal sex, usually with a boy. Why is a widely accepted dictionary poorly sourced? Regardless, there are four' dictionary definitions available here:
 * Pederast: A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy. (American Heritage Dictionary)
 * Pederasty: anal intercourse especially with a boy as the passive partner (Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary)
 * Pederasty: sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner) (Princeton University WordNet)
 * Pederasty: Homosexual anal intercourse, especially when practiced on boys. (CancerWEB online medical dictionary)
 * So, we have four clear definitions of what pederasty means, all from reliable, unbiased sources. Why is this article trying to alter the definition of pederasty when the word has a clear and undisputed meaning? | Klaw ¡digame! 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * None of those definitions contradicts the definition you claim is "POV." (How can a definition not be POV? NPOV can easily be maintained by introducing all commonly used meanings of disputed terms.)  The difference between the definition you've disputed and those you've cited as legitimate is that the allegedly illegitimate definition is more specific and more closely aligns with the meaning given to the word(s) by the very people who coined it.


 * Anyhow, I am not prepared to play your game of claiming that any source that backs your position is unbiased, while any source that contradicts your position is biased. Both definitions are legitimate, so both deserve to be mentioned.  I mean, just check out the Wiktionary definition of the word.  Are you now going to claim that IT is not neutral?  What kind of bullet-proof reference do you want?  A stone chiseled by the hand of god? Or would that be "biased," too, what with all the catholic scandals? Corax 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand Keithlaw's problem here. The article gives as thorough of a treatment to the argument that pederasty is an unnatural, inherently harmful abomination, as it does to the argument that sex between men and teenage boys is not harmful under all conditions.

Is his problem that one side of the story is getting too much air time? If so, I fail to see how. Is his problem that the article does not conclude that pederasty is a codeword for universally destructive sexual molestation of small children? If so, he needs to consider that a variety of studies indicate that pederastic relationships are viewed positively by the younger participants long after they they've ended. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot make conclusive statements that are not backed by conclusive evidence. If his problem is that a definition of pederasty is given that he doesn't like, he needs to deal with it. Encyclopedias should not tailor their content according to people's preferences. It should conform solely to verifiable facts. And the fact is that the Oxford Classical Dictionary -- not a "gay" source by any stretch of the imagination -- gives a different definition of pederasty than webster's dictionary. Both meanings are frequently used. As such, both should be included. Corax 04:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, please address your comments about me to me. I'm right here, an active participant in the discussion.
 * Second, I have never seen this OCD definition. It's not in the article. The only definition quoted in that first paragraph comes from glbtq.com. Keep your comments to the content that's actually in the article; there is no point discussing material that isn't present.
 * The issue I continue to have with the header is that it violates WP:NPOV and WP:V.
 * If his problem is that a definition of pederasty is given that he doesn't like, he needs to deal with it. Of course, it's just a matter of me not liking a definition. Not that I've presented numerous policy-based arguments on the subject.
 * Let's look at the definition in question:
 * The erotic relationship between an adult male and a boy, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection
 * That definition excludes any relationship where the teenager doesn't return the affection, even though such relationships - including non-consensual ones - are still pederastic. Given the unreliable nature of the source, which makes other unsourced and unverified claims (Although most pederastic relationships are consensual, and often involve mentoring and support for the youthful partner from the adult, a statement provided without any backup), we shouldn't be using this definition at all, much less as the header of the article.
 * Corax, you wrote: As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot make conclusive statements that are not backed by conclusive evidence. I am only insisting that the article live up to that. I see no evidence that all pederastic relationships involve a return of affection from the teenaged partner, either here or on glbtq.com; ergo, the glbtq definition violates WP:NPOV and WP:V - two of the three core policies on article content - and should come out. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I can address whomever I wish. Second, the Oxford Classical Dictionary is sourced in the article. Third, your point about omiting everything after "in which the older partner..." seems reasonable, except that - as I have noted - that is how pederasty is defined by the OCD and LGBTQ. You might disagree with this definition, and that's fine.  I disagree with the basterdization that has become so common that Webster now repeats it.  Nevertheless, the idea of pederasty as a pedagogical, consensual relationship between an adult and adolescent male is still prevalent.  As such, it has every right to be in the header.  That you don't like the definition is not compelling.  And there's no other conceivable reason for it to be excluded. Corax 06:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, I am not prepared to play your game of claiming that any source that backs your position is unbiased, while any source that contradicts your position is biased. I'm not playing any such game. I've pointed out that ONE source is biased and presents an inaccurate definition of pederasty. That's all. Neither you (Corax) nor Haiduc has countered that argument. You (Corax, again) have argued that OCD supports glbtq, but you haven't produced the OCD's quotes or definition(s) of pederasty. Instead of pointing to an invisible book, produce its relevant content and we can discuss it from there. It may provide a solution all parties can live with. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, you have not answered any of the four points I raised. Instead, you have proceded to flog a reductionist definition as the only definition that is valid. Unfortunately it is the one that is least valid since it does not address pederasty as a cultural phenomenon, the subject of countless academic and popular works. I will leave it to you to inform all those scholars and writers that they have misunderstood the field of discourse.

Part of the problem here is that "pederasty" refers to two separate groups of entities: relationships and activities. The term has been used (here too) interchangeably and I am not sure how to deal with this conflict. But subsuming the relationships into the activities, and then subsuming all activities into that subset which are against the law - which seems to be your aim - is propagandistic and neither reasonable nor viable.

As for your attempt to discredit the definition because it does not address all possible aspects of pederastic relationships, please take a look at the Marriage definition and picture to yourself (from personal experience or otherwise) how many aspects of marriage are not addressed there. Thus Bullough's definition is accurate but necessarily incomplete, as are all such short blurbs. Consider yourself countered. And please do not keep repeating that Bullough or glbtq are unreliable, since repetition will not make your argument any more plausible, and you have failed to adduce any evidence of their "unreliability." Haiduc 00:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the problem around the various meanings of pederasty, and I have a proposed solution. But first, I have to address this point: And please do not keep repeating that Bullough or glbtq are unreliable, since repetition will not make your argument any more plausible, and you have failed to adduce any evidence of their "unreliability." I absolutely did so, by pointing out two major claims in Bullough's essay that aren't backed up by any proof, neither his own data nor in links or references to other studies. The fact that you don't want to see this unreliability is beyond anything I can control.
 * I am not saying that the dictionary defintion is the only definition; I think it's better than Bulloughs', because the same definition appears across multiple dictionaries, giving it reliability. But the position that the dictionary definition is the only acceptable definition is something you and Corax have imputed to me, not something I've advocated. I believe that the dictionary definition must be heeded, not repeated verbatim.
 * What if we replaced the entire introductory section with this paragraph:

''Pederasty refers to a sexual relationship between an adult male and a teenager, typically male, always above the age of twelve. Such relationships may be consensual or nonconsensual, and may be legal or illegal depending on local laws on the age of consent and prohibitions on homosexuality. Pederasty is distinct from pedophilia, a mental illness that involves a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.''
 * References could include Bulloughs and one of the dictionaries. I think this is neutral, and it makes some attempt to deflect vandals who will come here and scream "PEDOPHILES!" or something like that. I used the word homosexuality rather than sodomy, even though the laws in question typically cover sodomy, because the use of that word might be construed by some readers as POV. Rather than continue this debate over the tactics each of us is using, let's work on the actual text and see if we can come to a solution that satisfies all our concerns about POV without overloading the article with this-side/that-side rhetoric. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we are coming closer to a solution, but because the usages are so varied this will need some modification. Let me mull it over a bit. Haiduc 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I'm open to a second graf that explains the varied meanings as long as each is well-sourced. I do think it's important to open with something that says that this isn't the same thing as pedophilia, because the potential for vandalism is very high, so I'd prefer to see that point stay in graf 1. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No matter what we'll do, people with a political or psychological agenda will still scream "pedophile" until the fad blows over. I agree we need to address the alternative usages. I notice you have French. Take a look at this, I think you will find it very interesting. It gives us a great deal more material to work with, since the article addresses a universal practice, not one restricted to the English world. Haiduc 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good article, thanks for the link. I just scanned the intro and first section and I think it will be useful. I've noticed that the term pederasty in Latin American countries seems to refer to sexual contact with any minor (e.g., the case of Jean Succar Kuri, charged with pederasty in Mexico ). Could we carve out a section that specifies that the term pederasty has different meanings in different languages? The dicdefs I've pointed to are clearly geo-limited to Anglophone societies. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting connection. Kuri seems to have earned his title by sleeping with underage girls. The Mexicans call him a "pederasta" while the Americans call him a pedophile. Yet the girl in question started being molested by him when she was thirteen, and apparently the abuse continued quite some time into her teens. And of course the French used "pede" for all male relations, regardless of age. Yes, we should note all that down, after we have dealt with the intro. Haiduc 02:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New intro hashout
Keith, this version resolves some problems I see with your previous suggestion:

In the past century, the term pederasty has seen a number of different uses. In the classic and academic sense, it refers to the erotic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent boy. Such relationships may be sexually expressed or not, consensual or nonconsensual, sentimental or commercial, and their legality will vary depending on local age of consent laws and prohibitions on homosexuality. The term can also be employed of the attraction of the man to the boy, whether or not reciprocated. See Definitions below

Pederasty is contrasted with the other two forms of male homosexuality, androphilia and gender-structured relations, which are currently prevalent in modern industrialized societies. It is generally not used of lesbian relations.

The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with prepubescent or underage children of either sex. See Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse and Statutory rape

An alternative use has been to describe anal intercourse with either males or females, regardless of age. See sodomy and anal intercourse

Then I'd like to take the definitions presently in the intro and combine them with the dictionary definitions you brought up, as well as with the material from that French page, and lay out - in a separate section - what the "state of the art" is. Haiduc 16:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is good, except in one portion. The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with prepubescent or underage children of either sex.  I believe this sentence misleadingly implies that pederasty is often used to refer ONLY to pedophilic acts, to the exclusion of sexual activity with teenage males.  The current revision makes clear that the common usage of "pederast" denotes sexual interaction between a man and another male of any age under the age of consent.  I believe this subtlety should be preserved in whatever revision is decided upon. Corax 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Would "underage youths" instead of "underage children" do it? Haiduc 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "youths of any age under the age of consent"? Corax 05:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. How's this: "The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with prepubescent or older underage minors of either sex. See Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse and Statutory rape" Haiduc 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you're so adamant about including "prepubescent" in the definition at all. The common usage defintion of pederasty does not make a distinction between pubescents/adolescents and prepubescents, so I don't see why there's any need to do anything more than say "minors of any age under the age of consent." Rattling off a list of the stages of sexual development that those ages encompass is redundant and unnecessary. Moreover, it shifts the focus away from where it should be -- which is the legality of the act, and not the sexual development of the younger partner.  Corax 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point. "The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with minors below the age of consent regardless of sex or age. See Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse and Statutory rape" Haiduc 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is acceptable. Corax 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV on Advocacy of pederasty
Nearly half of this section is devoted to the Rind, et al. study. Although it is appropriate to cite this study in this section, and to discuss the results of the study, it is not appropropriate to omit the criticisms and controversy associated with the study. The study provoked statements by the APA saying that pederasty is harmful, and the study suffered both scientific and political criticisms following its publication (see the article on the Rind, et al. study). There are clearly conflicting views about the merit of the study and its findings, and the critical views have been expressed in verifiable sources. The WP:NPOV policy states: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." By omitting the criticisms of this study, the section does not fairly present the conflicting views associated with the study, and thereby adopts a POV that the findings are relevant but the criticisms are not relevant. The omission of the criticisms associated with this study is a violation of the NPOV policy. Drop the study altogether or present both sides of the conflict about the merit of the study and its findings. Kelly 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy on Advocacy of pederasty

 * The articles claims to cite "scientific studies conducted in recent decades, which suggest that pederasty may not necessarily cause psychological harm." I challenge the factual accuracy of this claim. I am not claiming that 100% of individuals who experience pederastic relationships when they are children are harmed by the experience. I am claiming the studies cited show significant evidence of harm for many or most people who have such experiences, and so to cite these articles as evidence to the contrary is a misrepresentation of the facts.
 * One study cited is Beitchman, J. H., Zucker,K. J., Hood, J. E., DaCosta, G. A., and Akman, D. 1991. "A Review of the Short-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse," Child Abuse & Neglect 15:537-556. "This is the first of a two-part report that critically evaluates empirical studies on the short- and long-term effects of child sexual abuse. With the exception of sexualized behavior, the majority of short-term effects noted in the literature are symptoms that characterize child clinical samples in general. Among adolescents, commonly reported sequelae include sexual dissatisfaction, promiscuity, homosexuality, and an increased risk for revictimization. Depression and suicidal ideation or behavior also appear to be more common among victims of sexual abuse compared to normal and psychiatric nonabused controls. Frequency and duration of abuse, abuse involving penetration, force, or violence, and a close relationship to the perpetrator appear to be the most harmful in terms of long-lasting effects on the child. The high prevalence of marital breakdown and psychopathology among parents of children who are sexually abused makes it difficult to determine the specific impact of sexual abuse over and above the effects of a disturbed home environment. Given the broad range of outcome among sexual abuse victims, as well as the methodological weaknesses present in many of the studies reviewed, it is not possible at this time to postulate the existence of a "post-sexual-abuse-syndrome" with a specific course or outcome." This clearly points to harm as a consequence of pederasty.
 * Another study cited is Beitchman, J. H., Zucker, K. J., Hood, J. E., DaCosta, G. A., Akman, D. and Cassavia, E. 1992. "A Review of the Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse," Child Abuse & Neglect 16:101-118. The published abstract for this study claims quite the opposite, stating: "The existing literature on the long-term sequelae of child sexual abuse is reviewed. The evidence suggests that sexual abuse is an important problem with serious long-term sequelae; but the specific effects of sexual abuse, independent of force, threat of force, or such family variables as parental psychopathology, are still to be clarified. Adult women with a history of childhood sexual abuse show greater evidence of sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood, depression, and are more likely than nonabused women to be revictimized. Anxiety, fear, and suicidal ideas and behavior have also been associated with a history of childhood sexual abuse but force and threat of force may be a necessary concomitant. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to confirm a relation between a history of childhood sexual abuse and a postsexual abuse syndrome and multiple or borderline personality disorder. Male victims of child sexual abuse show disturbed adult sexual functioning. The relation between age of onset of abuse and outcome is still equivocal. Greater long-term harm is associated with abuse involving a father or stepfather and abuse involving penetration. Longer duration is associated with greater impact, and the use of force or threat of force is associated with greater harm." The findings of this study, as summarized by the authors who conducted it, clearly point to harm as a consequence of pederasty.
 * The most recent study cited was Kilpatrick, A. 1987. "Childhood Sexual Experiences: Problems and Issues in Studying Long-range Effects," The Journal of Sex Research 23:173-196. A majority of the studies (19 out of 34) reviewed found that pederasty led to primarily harmful outcomes. Most of the remaining studied (14 out of 34) showed primarily neutral effects of pederasty for the majority of study participants, but harmful effects were observed for minorities even in these studies. Only one study suggested pederasty had positive outcomes. This study was severely flawed: it lacked a control group, involved a small number of cases, combined age groups, and used an unrepresentative convenience sample. This review clearly points to harm as a consequence of pederasty.
 * Drop the references above or provide more detailed descriptions fairly presenting the findings of the studies. I plan to look up the remaining studies cited as well. Kelly 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the work you are doing, not having been the one to contribute the data I was not aware of the details of the studies. That being said, I am ambivalent about both the studies and the proper path to take. First, I find it distasteful that we should have to use studies that claim homosexuality as a "sequela." Why is heterosexuality not a sequela?! Or is that subsumed under the promiscuity rubric? What does "increased risk for revictimization" mean? That the individual involved has become fixated on a traumatic event and is attempting to relive so as to resolve it, or that he appreciated the relationship and is seeking to recreate a positive experience? Coming from an obviously sex-negative and homosexuality-negative researcher, and without reading the entire thing, it is impossible to say.
 * As for the proper course of action, I am not sure. After all the claim in the article that is being substantiated with these references is not that there may well be no harm, but that harm does not necessarily follow from relations between minors and adults. It seems that these studies do back up that claim, in their own perverse way, by acknowledging that effects can be neutral. The final statement, that "it is not possible to postulate the existence of a post-abuse syndrome, and that environmental factors may well account for much of the negative effects" pretty much confirm that Beitchman et al., 1991 (warts and all) does indeed support the claim in the article.
 * The second study blurts out at the outset that, certain aggravating factors aside, it is not clear what the specific effects may be. That to me is lab-speak for "we did not find any yet but we are still looking." Well, until they find these specific effects with some degree of clarity all we have is that kids who have been forced, blackmailed, or have sick abusive parents are hurt by such things. Well, of course. But that has more to do with the article on sexual abuse than the present one. So I must disagree with your conclusion that this paper (Beitchman et al. 1992) "clearly points to harm as a consequence of pederasty." It does not. It clearly points to harm as a result of force and parental mental disease.
 * Finally, the third paper, Kilpatrick. Again you claim that "This review clearly points to harm as a consequence of pederasty." But the clarity you mention is elusive at best. By your figures, 41% of the studies found the effect to be neutral. This right off the bat fulfills the stipulation in the article claim. But let's examine this further. What exactly is this pederasty that is being examined? Child abuse of an infant by a relative? A drunken father bedding his daughter? We do not know. So, until we have access to the actual article all we can say is that this confirmas the claim, and possibly, upon examination of the text we may be able to say that it confirms the claim even more strongly, or not.
 * If you should locate the materials in question perhaps you would be so kind as to provide us with links so that we may read the papers ourselves. Haiduc 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to read the full articles, you will need to visit an academic library or pay the publishers an outrageous amount for each article (can be $30 to $50). I recommend an honest hedge in the article. Something along the lines: "Several studies indicate that pederasty does not necessarily lead to harm in every case. A certain percentage of people involved in pederastic (is that the proper adjective?) relationships report no serious or long-term harm as a result. However, these same studies show many other people do experience serious and long-lasting harm as a result of their involvement in pederastic relationships. It is not possible to predict with certainty who will and who will not experience harm as a result of their involvement in pederastic relationships." The wording is not important. It's the idea that the studies don't vindicate pederasty as harmless. The studies show some people escape harm, but many others do not escape harm, and we can't really say in advance who will experience harm. Kelly 22:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines, we can be even more specific: "Several studies of sexual relations between adults and young people [we do not know the age range studied, unfortunately] indicate that such relations does not necessarily lead to harm in every case. A certain percentage of youths involved in these relationships report no serious or long-term harm as a result. However, these same studies show many other people do experience serious and long-lasting harm as a result of their involvement in such relationships when associated with coercion, violence, or parental mental disease. No risk factor independent of these has yet been identified." While you may be right that "It is not possible to predict with 'certainty' who will and who will not experience harm as a result of their involvement in pederastic relationships," the studies here cited indicate that it is indeed possible to predict with a fair degree of probability who will suffer harm: youth forced and threatened into unwanted sexual relationships, and those raised in dysfunctional families. Also, I am uncomfortable using the qualifier "pederastic" in discussing these studies since it seems that the subjects make up a grab bag of youths involved with adults, ranging from incestuous molestation to who knows what. Some of these relationships may well be pederastic, but others obviously are not. Haiduc 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it could be pointed out that particular aspects of the relationships increase the probably someone will be harmed. That could be included in the article. But those are not predictive at the individual level. They are simply trends over groups of people. An individual could have all the negative things that increase the probability for harm, yet be one of the people who experience no harm. Conversely, an individual could have none of the things that increase the probability for harm, yet still experiece harm. The reason it's important to note we can't predict at the individual level is to keep people from thinking that "If I just don't do x, y, and z, everything will be okay for the young person." No one can say that with certainty. And I don't understand why the use of the term pederastic is objectionable. You are correct in saying the studies actually include a grab bag of relationships, but that means the results are based on the grab bag of relationships as a whole and can't be assumed to apply specifically to pederasty. If the studies are going to be cited as advocating the idea that harm does not always occur specifically in pederastic relationships, then describing the relationships in the study as specifically pederastic is appropriate to the intention. We might come to agreement here by being specific: these studies suggest harm does not always result from various kinds of relationships that include incest, pederasty, and so forth. If you're willing to name several kinds of relationships to which the studies apply, then specific references to pederastic could be eliminated or at least contextualized appropriately. Kelly 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to interpret scientific findings or help readers apply them to their lives, nor to warn readers away from pederasty any more than to seduce them into it. Let us simply do what you very wisely suggested at the beginning of this discussion, and that is to "provide more detailed descriptions fairly presenting the findings of the studies."
 * Why is the use of the term "pederastic" objectionable? Because while studies examining intergenerational relationships also reflect on the subset of pederastic relationships, it does not follow that they were studies of pederastic relationships. If B is a subset of A, it does not follow that A equals B.
 * As for wording that we could both agree upon, let's simply describe these studies as having examined a range of inter-generational relationships including incest, pederasty and rape, and that the conclusions were that the risk factors were as described above (including penetration, which I had forgotten). I have no problem with that. Haiduc 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and modify the section in a way you think is fair. I will read it when I come back from vacation Aug 14th. If I have serious objections, I will send you a message at your user discussion page and we can talk about it more until we reach a mutually satisfactory compromise. Kelly 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:QAF1.jpg
Image:QAF1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting of the notes
I'm going to be in the process of merging all the notes (academic and whatever) into a single notes set, all using the ref tags. First, it's too complicated having different references formats on the same page and second, the academic splitting of notes is largely irrelevant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

re Image:Batman panel - Robin what have I done to you.jpg
Not to take away from the fact that the panel does play into the premise Wertham pushed, but it doesn't quite support the caption that was added here. "Loved ones" seems to fit, "lovers" doesn't, unless the argument is being put forward that "...everyone else you have touched!" is a euphemism for intercourse. - J Greb 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? I thought that the term used in the caption was "love interests" rather than "lovers." Haiduc 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair point. The differentiation still stands, the caption works from the standpoint of a sexual relationship, either consummated or desired, the dialogue in the panel reads with less definite emphasis. Without the explicit reference, it's a guess on our part that the reference isn't parent/child in this specific case.
 * Is the panel an example of the ambiguous way, intentional or otherwise, the Batman/Robin relationship has been written at time, absolutely.
 * Is it a concrete example of a sexual relationship, show me a cite, either from the writer explicitly about how he handled the character or an expert that this fits the the method of bypassing 1960s censorship, I'll buy it. Otherwise it's Wiki acting as that expert. - J Greb 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You read too much into it, or perhaps you read too much into pederasty. The caption is not meant to imply a sexual relationship between Batman and Robin. The image is simply an example of the way the studio toyed with the theme of affection between Batman and Robin, in this case humorously. Surely you are not suggesting that we seek an expert to confirm the presence of humor. Haiduc 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right, and hopefully I'm in the minority on it :) - J Greb 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a very interesting book, We Boys Together, by J. P. Dennis, that makes the case that homosocial love affairs were the rule rather than the exception in American culture before WWII. It was not cool for boys to hang out with girls, and everything but outright sensuality and sex was ok between boys. As he describes it, it was a time of pervasive chaste, semi-conscious pederasty, and provides a context for the Batman and Robin romance. This will have to be worked into the article, but time being what it is. . . Haiduc 04:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's understandable, in general so much to add, so little time. And I can see where the under current you mention would come from. If Dennis' premise is sound, then most of the writers, in comics and in general, would have grown up with those themes and incorporated them into their writing, consciously or not. And I agree, if the context is there, it should be touched on in the article. - J Greb 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of "age of consent laws"
This is hugely misleading--age of consent laws are not a guide to "lawful pederastic relationships." This refers to age of consent laws for boys and girls. Further, in Spain, the age of consent is 13, but the average age of first intercourse is 18, older than in countries where the age of consent is 16. This grapg belongs in the age of consent article, and it should be appropriately contextualized. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The map accurately plots the age at which men and boys are allowed to enter into lawful pederastic relationships. Someone following its guidelines would not be misled, though it certainly is not meant as a "roadmap." Your Spanish statistics are a non-sequitur from two points of view. In the first place pederasty does not imply intercourse. In the second place we are not interested in average anything.


 * Having said that, I do want to acknowledge that most of your edits are reasonable. The article was written a long time ago, before the current standards of evidence were in effect, and it badly needs updating. To that extent I think you are providing a valuable service here. A bit more sensitivity with the scissors, and I think we can get along. Haiduc (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The map is a nice graphic, but it belongs in the age of consent article, because it refers to boys and girls, viz the age of consent--let's get input from others. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I accept your argument, you have not made a case that it does not belong here. Haiduc (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's a map of the legal age of consent, not a map of "lawful pederastic relationships." (It makes no sense; if pederastic relationships are not necessarily sexual, what difference does the sexual age of consent make? Aren't all the unsexual ones lawful? Also, how do you propose to indicate on the map which half of Spain refers only to boys, etc? ) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting point. I agree with you that non-sexual pederastic relationships are inherently lawful. But that only makes me think that the caption should be changed to indicate "Age of consent for sexually expressed pederastic relationships." If that seems too tendentious, and I see why some would think so, perhaps we can say "Age of consent laws in Europe by country, indicating age at which sexually expressed pederastic relationships become lawful" which I think is accurate and not implying that only pederastic relationships are addressed. I did not get your reference to "half of Spain." Haiduc (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

NOW
Regarding this edit: --the cite is from 1980, so it cannot be used to verify any claims about "being in effect for 19 years," obviously, as that is a logical/temporal impossibility. I searched for another ref to verify the claim, and di not find one. I did find a ref for the resolution itself, so I added that. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's take the same approach as with the other material that needs to be cited, a tag. Haiduc (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

age of consent
I think this should be moved to the age of consent article; let me check if it is already there/wanted to preserve just in case. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, as part of human rights campaigns granting the same freedoms to same-sex relationships as to heterosexual ones, the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals is being equalized at age 16.

original research and fringe theories
There are no sources in the article supporting contemporary use of the term "pederasty" as it's written on the page. I've searched for sources and not found any for current usage of the term other than either as a synonym for sodomy, or in discussions of pedophilia or child sexual abuse. The only significant sources on pederasty discuss it as a cultural practice is historical, from the Greek Age through even the 19th century - but nothing contemporary. As the article reads currently, the contemporary info is vague and unsupported, and even though the article refers to the modern world, most of the information is historical.

Mainstream definitions specifically do not refer to any cultural practices:
 * Dictionary.com Unabridged -- sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.
 * American Heritage Dictionary -- A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.
 * Online Etymology Dictionary -- "sodomy with a boy," 1609, from Mod.L. pæderastia, from Gk. paiderastia "love of boys," from paiderastes "pederast," from pais (gen. paidos) "child, boy" + erastes "lover," from erasthai "to love." Pederast is 1730s, from Fr. pédéraste, from Gk. paiderastes.
 * WordNet -- sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner)
 * Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary -- The crime against nature; sodomy.
 * Encyclopædia Britannica -- no separate article - a Britannica search leads to this description: "aspect of pedophilia ( in pedophilia ) ... In general, the younger the child and the greater the disparity in age between pedophile and victim, the more severe the penalty. Most severe penalties are usually reserved for pederasty, sexual contacts between adult males and young boys."

Scholarly sources I've been able to find use the term "pederasty" refer either to historical practices or use it in the context of abusive behaviors. Maybe there are some for other uses of the term and I missed them in my searches. If there are reliable sources that define pederasty in present day as anything like what is written in this article, those sources need to be added to the article. Unless that is done, the article is original research presenting a fringe theory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that article needs references. It was written at a time when they were not widely used in Wikipedia, so that the sources were not preserved. It is a mistake that needs to be corrected, and will be - gradually and as time allows.
 * Disagree with everything else. Haiduc (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)