User:Herostratus/Pedophilia and Me

So how the hell did I get involved in this stuff?

Started when I ran across this: Articles for deletion/Childlove movement. I have to say, I was appalled and my eyes about rolled out of my head: you've got to be fucking kidding me... Who knew such things even existed? Funny!

Not so funny when a little more investigation revealed that the child sexuality article was badly slanted. And after all our article is the first result from a Google search on "child sexuality", so this was Not A Good Thing. And there was a bunch of other activity on similar articles that was, uh, problematical. Turns out there's some kind of loose group of what I'll call sex-with-children-normalization advocates that were trying to subvert the Wikipedia for their own bizarre agenda. There was also quite a bit of puppetry etc. involved. That got me kind of angry, and so for about five years I kept an eye on on this subject. (Again, several other editors have been much more effective at this than I am and several other editors are much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, as I lack the academic or professional background to have anything remotely approaching real expertise in this area.)

Of course, slanted editing is never welcome. But in this area it's especially problematical, because:
 * This is a subject where we really don't want people to get the wrong ideas. It's not good if people get the wrong ideas about, say, the history of the Slovak language, but misinformation on this subject could cause real-world harm.
 * This is a potential political problem for the Wikipedia. We don't want outside parties to get the idea that we present slanted information on this subject or countenance over-emphasis on fringe ideologies in this area . This could be quite a disaster.

So that is why I edited in this area (I don't any longer). I don't much care or really know about the subject, except what I've learned here. It's solely because I care about the Wikipedia and wish to defend it.

<!--- DONT REALLY NEED ALL THIS OTHER STUFF, SAVE FOR NOW

Some background
Sometimes people get a little agitated around this area, so here's some taxonomy that I've worked out:
 * A pedophile is someone primarily attracted to children. By children I mean pre-pubescent and maybe peri-pubescent.
 * A child molester (child sex criminal, what have you) is someone who's molested children.
 * A sex-with-children normalization advocate is a Wikipedia editor who edits the Wikipedia as a platform to promote a toxic politico-sexual agenda, instead of adhering to NPOV.

It's very important to note that these populations do not overlap perfectly, at all. A Venn Diagram would show three distinct circles. Although I have absolutely no idea of the percentages involved, my take is:
 * I assume (and hope!) that most pedophiles are law-abiding citizens who do not let their affliction drive their actions as regards children.
 * I know that many child molesters are not pedophiles, but just assholes. Although asshole is much too mild a term, you know what I mean: these are lowlifes who like to hurt people, have no impulse control, are mentally ill, or whatever. Obviously they deserve to be locked up. (Of course, some child molesters are pedophiles, driven around the bend by their affliction and perhaps also mentally ill or whatever.)
 * I think that sex-with-children normalization advocates here on Wikipedia are a mixed bag. Surely many of them are pedophiles, but it seems that many are simply naifs, with a fair helping of trolls thrown in. This seems odd and is indeed difficult to easily explain. Someday I'll address this in phenomena in detail.

If you want me to disrespect you...
You can use these types of arguments:

"1) Homosexuality was once considered loathsome and abnormal. 2) This was proved false. 3) Pedophilia is now considered loathsome and abnormal. Therefore, per point 2, this will also be proved false."

or

"1) A seventeen-year-old is a minor. An eighteen-year-old is a major. 2) Sex between a seventeen-year-old and an eighteen-year-old is no big deal. 3) Therefore, sex between a minor and a major is no big deal. 4) A ten-year-old is also a minor. 5) But we have established, at point 3, that sex between a minor and a major is no big deal. 6) Therefore, sex between and eighteen-year-old and a ten-year-old is no big deal.

or

1) Wikipedia contains images such as a human penis or Mohammed. 2) But many people find these images objectionable. 3) But we we host them anyway. 4) Therefore, we host objectionable images. 5) Many people would find a detailed photo of a person raping the headless corpse of an eight-year-old objectionable. 5) but per point 4, we host objectionable images. 6) Therefore, we (can/should/must) host a detailed photo of a person raping the headless corpse of an eight-year-old.

I don't know the names of the logical fallacies here, but fallacies they are. Someday I'll look up the names.

In particular, note that "minor" and "child" are confused, usually in two ways: 1) deliberately, by people trying to confuse the issue so that they can use the second argument above, and 2) in ignorance, by pedants and idiots. I don't care your motive, in either case I will not respect your intellectual processes, and don't expect me to.

Because there is no clear bright-line definition for "child", "adolescent", and so forth, the rigid-minded sometimes insist that therefore these words have no meaning or only have meaning inasmuch as they are set down in law. Nonsense.

Finally, like many people, I don't care what people do as long it's among consenting adults. But "adults" is as bright a line as "consenting". When and if the "NonCon Community" gains public acceptance (NonCon = non-consensual sex (not fantasy or play, but actual rape)), then we can talk about the "Pedosexual Community" gaining public acceptance.

On the other hand...
Having, I think, established my credentials as an anti sex-with-children normalization advocacy editor, let me say that we should not let ourselves get hysterical on this subject.

For one thing, the problem has abated quite a bit since 2005, thanks to the efforts and eyes of many editors. Anyone who talks as if we were still in a 2005-type situation is doing a disservice to these editors and the reputation of Wikipedia in general. (Of course, constant vigilance is still required.)

For another thing, the fear that predators will use Wikipedia to contact actual children in real life is ridiculously overblown, in my opinion. Surely there are many worse venues than Wikipedia for that.

And here's where I suppose I get myself in trouble, but my position is that, as the default, people should be able to edit the Wikipedia provided they adhere to the five pillars and so forth. Regarding pedophiles who have not committed any crime, they are members of our human family who, after all, are suffering from a terrible affliction. Whether it is a paraphilia or not is beside the point, it is certainly an affliction. How would you like it if you could never express your sexuality, and in fact had to hide its nature. Have a little compassion for these people, for chrissakes. If they've really stayed away from criminality, they must be hoeing an awfully tough row, don't you think? Walk a mile in their shoes, and consider Terence ("I am a human, nothing human is alien to me") before you start throwing around slurs, mmmmkay?

This is why I don't describe myself as an "anti-pedophile" editor except when I have to, to get through to a particularly thick-skulled person. I am not "anti" any human being, as a rule.

I concur that for sound political reasons it's appropriate to not allow editors to self-identify as pedophiles on their user page and so forth. However, encyclopediasts should not allow themselves to fall into anti-intellectualist hysteria.

My actual concern is with sex-with-children normalization advocates (and their fellow-traveling trolls). This is an editing issue, rather than an issue of people's internal lives or off-wiki predilections.

And although it's true that most of the abuse and puppetry comes from the sex-with-children normalization side, there has been some abuse from the "other" side. There is no call, for instance, for hurling insults at another editor based on your perception of his predilections as inferred from his edits. I have no real knowledge of the work of Xavier Von Erck, for instance, but when he edited here he he was a nasty piece of work who had to be kicked out. I do not wish to be associated with people like him.

Oh well. I have taken plenty of abuse from both "sides" (He's a censoring prude! He's a pedophilia apologist! He's two, two, two editors in one!), so I suppose I must be doing something right.

-->