Talk:Pederasty/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Friedrich Engels and Oscar Wilde

The references made to these two historical persons are misrepresenting and even inaccurate. Furthermore, they are being accused with opinions regarding pederasty, and are put into the context of politically/ethically sensitive histories. So I think it's extra important to get things right.

1. Oscar Wilde. The text cited by the original entry's reference ("older men" and "younger boys") is mistaken. He says "older men" and "younger men", not boys. He does not, in the cited text, endorse pederasty. Even if it's implied. My followup comment regarding the difference between what this may be interpreted to mean vs. what it actually says, is relevant. It's unfair, given the ethical problem of supporting pederasty vs. supporting age-diverse but adult-consensual homosexual male partnership, to refer to the text with the word "boy" when in fact the word is not present.

2. Friedrich Engels. In the International Socialists Review article I cited, it is pointed out that it was a translation mistake that misinterpreted "boy love" to "sodomy" (a mis-equation referenced elsewhere in the article, though oddly uncritically, as if there is something normal about equating the two), and that Engels actually wrote the former. Just because elsewhere in the article there are arguments about "pederasty" meaning gay love, it's unethical, as editors, to allow the article itself to equate the two. Unless you think sodomy is entirely equivalent with pedophilia, even cultured/normalized pedophilia. Antifatalism (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey y'all, if nobody objects, I'd like to make these edits. My reasons have gone unchallenged, if unaddressed, so I think it's fair to do so. Whoever cares to revert them, should be held accountable to responding to the reasons for my edits, before being allowed to disagree in action. If nobody has responded to this by a week or so, I'll push my edits. Please consider my points, as well as others', that this article is problematic in many ways, in how it distinguishes "pederasty" from "pedophilia" without nuance and conflates "pederasty" with "homosexuality", the latter pair which even etymologically differ from one another. The context of this conflation is rife with historical and ongoing hegemonic harm. And of course, falsely attributing views (by misquoting, or by quoting inaccurately translated sources) to historical figures is unacceptable, in a form of information that claims to be factual. @Drmargi:? Antifatalism (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As seen here, here, here, and here, you were reverted more than once. Look at the WP:Editorializing you were doing. Also, going by that "trout" and other things, you've clearly edited Wikipedia times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Actually", @Flyer22 Reborn:, You're editorializing with the term "clearly", and are wrong, because NO, I haven't edited before. So fuck off with your nonsense assumption. There was a button for "trout", so I didn't have to program it; i didn't have to understand the formalities of text entry, like i do here. SO please, stop assuming. AND, if you or anyone else has problems with my initial edits which were reverted WITHOUT EXPLANATION, then GIVE EXPLANATION. Or else, fuck off. I'm sick of you and other authoritatively-toned COMPLETE STRANGERS WITHOUT EXPLANATION reverting my edits, without, again, let me say it in full: WITHOUT EXPLANATION. As I, rather, in the post clearly seen on which you've responded in your bs claim to be a receiver of "editorializing" (i.e. assumptive language lacking in full exposition), have given a full summary of the edit reversals and my position on this here talk page. I can barely figure out how to ping you or sign my address following this post. So don't disingenuously ignore my edit explanations and deflect to this bullshit about me supposedly lying about my own knowledge of protocol. This whole thing reeks of bad-faith conflation of pederasty w "sodomy"/homosexuality, a shy vague distinction between pederasty and pedophilia, and misassignment of quotes to historical figures to do so. Explain YOUR position. Antifatalism (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

And why don't you try checking the time stamps on those reverts and consider the fact that the striking proximity might indicate that they were done in (rapid) succession between 1. someone who had know idea what they were doing, system-wise, but were making logical arguments uncountered, and 2. people with more understanding of format and yet no responsibility to respond to said arguments. And in doing so, perpetuated misrepresentations of historical figures, which also continued a glaring problem in this article: The conflation of pederasty with homosexuality (and the ignoring of child abuse therein). Antifatalism (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Moderator-types that have asserted themselves to me, @Acroterion: @GorillaWarfare: and previously dissenting voices who've struck down my edits @Drmargi: please re-involve yourself. Antifatalism (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not editorializing. I'm stating a belief based on years of experience and common sense. If you want to claim that you are a complete newbie, so be it. Does not mean I need to believe you. And you were violating WP:Editorializing, and it's valid to state so. It's a valid reason to object to any edits you make engaging in WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Address my edits. Or go away and let me make them. You have no argument against them. I pointed out misquotes and misattributions and you're here deflecting. Go away. Antifatalism (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Me: This source is bad and has been contested, here's a link. It's mistranslating Engels' word for "boy-love" into "sodomy", which misconstrues his point as being homophobic rather than an opposition to child abuse. This other source is being directly misquoted in its use: it uses "man", a term distinguishing adulthood and consentability; whereas the use in this wikipedia article replaces "man" with "boy", and therefore falsely attributes a defense of pederasty (institutionalized sexuality between adult and youth) to a historical figure. You: *restates accusations rather than address argument*. Seriously, look at yourself. Drop the authoritarian, I-grew-up-faster-than-you bullshit and actually address the conversation. Antifatalism (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I do have an argument against them. I've already cited WP:Editorializing. I'll go into a little detail in the third paragraph of this post. If you can't follow our rules, it is you who should consider going away. And if you keep engaging in WP:Personal attacks, you will be WP:Blocked. So it's nice that you cleaned up these personal attacks you made. As for "antagonistic," I suggest you review how you've gone about this. "Antagonistic" certainly applies to you.

You keep going on about how we've equated pederasty with homosexuality. We go by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Pederasty does involve homosexuality. The fact that the boys were pubescent or post-pubescent doesn't make it any less homosexuality. I often debate with sources and present my case in detail, which some find to be walls of text at times, but you have repeatedly disregarded WP:Editorializing and proven yourself to be as unpleasant as possible. So I do not see why I should sit here and debate with you. It has nothing to do with being authoritarian. As for the others, pinging Acroterion, GorillaWarfare and Drmargi (or even MarnetteD) only works with a fresh WP:Ping. But, with the exception of Acroterion talking to you on your talk page, it seems they don't want to discuss with you either. You have the option of taking the matter to some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. And, for the record, I wasn't the one who reverted you, unless you were also this IP.

Addressing your edits specifically: This source, which was already in the article, and which you did not add, is a poor source. It does not count as WP:Reliable. So you could remove the entire Oscar Wilde piece as poorly sourced. If you want the text to remain, but want to change the "boy" part to "man," all you need to do is follow what the source states. If it states "younger man," then use that wording. You can also provide a different source -- a reliable one -- to support "man" instead of "boy." You cannot add the following: "Again, though, he says 'man', not 'boy', so while it may imply it, this is not evidence that Oscar Wilde endorsed pederasty." You cannot add that because that sentence is a WP:Editorializing violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate these specific suggestions. I'll work on not being an ass, and learning the rules. Thanks, and sorry.Antifatalism (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"Pederasty Is Not Pedophilia." "Then What Is It?"

I see that several users have made attempts to add something to this article that clearly addresses the relationships between pederasty and pedophilia, and have been rejected by the dominant voices with such limp, vague justifications as "pederasty isn't pedophilia; here's a link to a lengthy discussion between people whose only analysis of these terms involves pointing out the coexistence of pederastic relationships with 'marriages' (formal heterosexual couplings) with girls of similar ages as boys within pederasty, in 'antiquity'." People who all also make vague mention to the relative acceptability of 'other' (pointedly non-heterosexual) types of male sexuality in that period, demonstrating that their purpose here is to create a blur between the relative social acceptance (or institutional normalization) of pederasty, marriage, and homosexual relationships between "adults" (a concept that existed in ancient societies, and definitively was breached in pederastic relationships in which the very etymology of terms indicated a "young" person - someone too young to be treated equal, just as women were too female to be treated equal - was being dominated by a man, a fully enfranchised unit of society.

SO what is the overlap, and what is the difference? The overlap is that they are both admittedly the sexual objectification of the under-aged. the "paedes" (child) is granted to the "erastês" (agency-owning lover). A subordinate lover is not necessarily a slave; except when a person is made so without the possibility of consent, in that they are not granted such by society, as in the case of women and children in "Antiquity" in most cases. They bow to the authority of men.

So what is the difference? Pedophilia is, definitively, a pathology. It supposedly occurs only in contrast to accepted norms, and must be treated as an attack on them. It disrupts social unity and peace, and is therefore criminalized by society. Pedophilia is generally defined as an attraction to prepubescent children. Pederasty, on the contrary, is institutionalized sexual relationships with children. Under pederasty, a class of young sex slaves exists for the choosing and using by fully enfranchised adults, or men. This is it's chief reason for existence. Words like "love" were applied then, so I don't care to make a point about the subjectivities relative to modern values. Pederasty, in might be said, exists in subliminal form, when in institutions such as the Catholic church, the frequency for sexual child abuse is commonly found. Pederasty generally refers to relationships between adults and pubescent youth, ages 11-17. Perhaps there should be a "child sexual abuse" page on here, in which sexologists, historians, whoever, consider the presence of institutionalized slavery underpinning the normalized status of pederasty in "antiquity".I don't know. But I think this is an important discussion to continue having, and the "Child abuse issues" tab weakly and offensively relies on a scholar whose only claim toward abuse regards homosexuality in general, which is absurd. And it doesn't seem like many editors who fixate on this article have any goal at all except to continuously present the relative acceptability of pederasty in a way that historians of Antiquity often shy away from critical analysis of their subjects in favor of... well, seeming to personally invest themselves in understanding what was "normal" for the hegemonies that they study. Antifatalism (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinions do not matter. And WP:Original research is not tolerated. Like I stated in the #Clarification of terms section above, "[...] pederasty is not pedophilia. Is it child sexual abuse? In many contexts today, yes. But the topic is mainly historical. You might be interested in reading this discussion I had with other editors on the matter." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Address my edits. Or go away and let me make them. You have no argument against them. You have no argument against the proposals in this paragraph. You are vacuous and antagonistic. Antifatalism (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I do have an argument against them. I've made them. As for the rest, to further repeat what I stated above would be redundant. So see above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this section. I don't accept your reference to the conversation between you and other edits as any kind of evidence that pederasty isn't pedophilia. The crux of your basis for that claim, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the relative age between boys taken by men in pederastic relationships, and girls taken by men in marriages. I try to give some credit to this by specifying the pre-pubescent vs pubescent difference between pedophilia and later definitions of attraction to adolescents specifically, but the very use of the word "pederasty" is etymologically indicative that a child is made subordinate in an erotic relationship. That is pedophilia, at least according to an older use of the term. If your purpose in making that distinction was that somehow pederasty wasn't pedophilia because it wasn't pathological, in that it existed with relative acceptance in various cultures and often age-wise didn't differ much from marriage I don't think it's fair to use any historical hegemony's standards of normativity as evidence that some class of people - those to be used in pederastic relationships - weren't being abused. Rather, the etymology of the word pederasty specifies enough evidence that, if we consider abuse something someone suffers when conditions are forced onto them unwillfuly, and if we consider the category of "child" specifically involves people too young to give consent to adult relationships such as erotic ones then how is that not abuse? I don't think I'm stating personal opinions here. Definitely no more personal opinions than the conversation you linked as evidence, between you and other editors talking about the relative normalcy or non-pathology or non-abusiveness of pederasty in antiquity. Antifatalism (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I pointed to that discussion to help an editor understand why pederasty isn't pedophilia. As for your claim about the original definition of pedophilia, the term paedophilia erotica was coined by Richard von Krafft-Ebing, and he stated that a pedophile's primary sexual attraction is to children, rather than adults. For the topic, he focused on children under age 14, and believed that men who have a medical or neurological disorder and sexually abuse a male child are not true pedophiles. He said that victims of such men tended to be older and pubescent.

It's not so much about girls vs. boys, as it is about the fact that pedophilia is defined as a psychiatric condition and its focus is on prepubescents. By contrast, pederasty was a cultural matter that was restricted to men and boys and did not focus on prepubescents. One is a psychiatric condition. The other was societal/behavioral. As much as people confuse pedophilia with child sexual abuse, they are not the same thing, and experts are very clear on that. In any case, per WP:Talk, article talk pages are not the place to discuss things like this. Article talk pages are supposed to be directly related to improving the articles. Editors have more leeway on their own talk pages, but this is not something I want to discuss on your or my talk page either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sexual abuse vs age of consent and why they do not necessarily coincide neatly

The previously version of the lead/intro stated the pederasty between an adult and a adolescent under the age of consent is sexual abusive, as in it cause mental or physical trauma to the adolescent. This however makes no logical sense if apply is as a universal rule and is not in fact supported by current sex abuse research, at least in it's universal application. The reason is first, given that there is no universal age of consent, the same act ca be legal or illegal depending on the jurisdiction. So say we say take a case of a 30 yr. old man having sex with a 16 year old boy. In California, that would be illegal and considered sexual abuse under the law, but it would be legal and not sexual abuse under the law in England, Continental Europe, or Canada. Now may someone might try and argue otherwise, but I can't see how a different location Europe or Canada, for example, changes the abusive potential of the act. You also have to consider the fact that the child sex abuse research community has yet to come to consensus as to what age the average adolescent becomes able to give informed consent, which is the big reason there is no universal age of consent. So really what we have hear is the state via it's laws determining an age at which sexual activities between children/adolescents (below a certain age) and adults is considered sexual abuse. Because there is currently no consensus among sex abuse researchers as to what the age of consent should be (other then some time after puberty), its possible for a state or countries laws to consider something sexual abuse under the law that later research proves not to be the case. The opposite could also be true. Imagine a country lowers it's age of consent to from 16 to 14 but then research later supports 16 as the proper age of consent, then it would be consider child-adult sex involving 14 and 15 yr. olds to be not sexual abuse when it fact it was all along. It's possible for the law to eliminate the age of consent all together but that does not change the consensus that sex with prepubescent children is abusive in reality. So in summery, what this all means is that the law only tells us what the state considers to be sexually abusive (for purposes of the law) not necessarily what is sexually abusive in reality. As such I reworded the sentence on age of consent to reflect that age of consent laws only reflect what I just explained above. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Notcharliechaplin, see WP:Not a forum. And the edit you made is quite unnecessary. I fail to see in what way "is in the eyes of the law" is needed when the sentence already states "legally." Furthermore, "is in the eyes of the law" is unencyclopedic. We just state "legally." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "WP:FORUM" applies here as the issue I had/have is about the wording of the sentence giving a misleading impression not supported by facts. Since the sentence was not a quote, it's fair to debate what the best wording is. The sentence originality read "In most countries today, the local age of consent determines whether or not a person is considered legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and whether such contact is abusive to the young person.. The part in bold reads to me as "whether a particular sexual act is abusive (in a medical sense) to the young person is determined by the law not the actually physical or psychological effects of said act". In other words sexually abusive acts would only be physically or psychologically abusive if the law says it's so. But child sex abuse researchers do not base their conclusions on what constitutes abuse based on the what the law says but rather they determine what constitutes signs of abuse and then look at children who have engage in sexual (with adults or other peers, whether "voluntary" or not), for those signs. As such, the law could declare things either abusive or not abusive (by virtue of a lack of a law) when in reality CSA researchers have concludes otherwise. For example, if they law defined masturbation as "self abuse" it does not make it abusive or harmful regardless of what the law may say. What I objected to was the use of the phrase "...whether such contact is abusive to the young person" since that is determined by biological or psychological effects not what the law declares and the law may or not coincide with reality. Since the former wording of the sentence implied that the same act could be abusive or not abusive to the young person depending where the act took place (and thus what age of consent applied), that flies in the face of current sexual abuse research. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse regardless of whether it's legal or not. I think some people confuse the fact that law define something as "abuse" for the purpose of the law but the legal definition of abuse does not have to match what psychological researchers agree constitutes abuse, in a medical sense, at least in some instances. For example, the word abuse in "abuse of public funds" has a somewhat different meaning abuse in the term child sexual abuse, with the former being subjective (outside of the law) and the latter not (at least where there is consensus among CSA researchers). --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

And as for "no consensus," it is quite clear that the consensus is not "a little after the onset of puberty" or "age 13." It is clear that the vast majority of countries place their age of consent above age 13. So do not come here talking about "there is no consensus" simply because the the age of consent varies. The age of majority varies as well, but the vast majority of countries place their age of majority at age 18. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about consensus among legislatures/governments, where as I was talking about consensus among CSA researchers. I have seen no conscientious among CSA researchers as what they age of consent should be, if they have anything at all to say on the issue. CSA researchers do not appear to have not come to a majority conclusion as to age most teens are capable of giving informed consent, such that consensual sex acts between them and adults should not be considered sexually abusive (in general) psychologically (or legally sexual abuse, since I doubt they would agree the non-abusive sex acts should criminalized.). This issue here is not what the vast majority of countries set the age of consent at what the scientific evidence says if anything as to what age the vast majority of teenagers can give informed consent. Wikipedia should not be implying the the age of consent back by scientific consensus or scientific evidence when it is not. It may well be that the vast majority of legislatures who set the age of consent at 16 (the most common age of consent) are right or it may well that 17 or 18 is the correct age (some U.S. States) or that 14 (as in Germany) is the correct age but that's not for Wikipedia to declare, rather we should only state what the scientific evidence/scientific consensus (or at least majority) if we state anything at all. We can however state what the majority of legislatures have declared (via the law) without taking any position as to validity of such declarations. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Notcharliechaplin, again, read WP:Not a forum. I'm not interested in discussing any of this with you since you clearly are not familiar with the way Wikipedia is supposed works and I know your type. This is also unnecessary and not much better, but I'm not going to remove it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Woe now. I am familiar with the way Wikipedia works, we just have a disagreement on how to apply Wikipedia policies in this case. Please do not assume or imply anything about my type, as that violates Wikipedia policies about assuming good faith and that could be read to imply something potentiality libelous about me. You seemed either to misunderstand my intentions, misunderstand my argument and reasoning for the wording change. It is wholly appropriate to discuss a wording disagreement on the talk and quit inappropriate to make assumptions about a persons intentions/agenda/type based on a disagreement about the proper or likely interpretation of sentence and whether that conforms know facts. The fact is there is a disagreement as to whether the sentence as originally written makes implications that do no conforms with what reliable say on the subject. You obviousely prefer the old wording because it conforms a POV that you hold, which your entitled to, but Wikipedia is supposed to conform to NPOV and reflect what reliable sources say not individual POV's/agendas/politics/public opinion/etc. If you believe the old wording better reflects what reliable sources say on the subject then make your case here (and show your sources). The "under the law" addition I made accurately reflects what reliable sources say IMO. The fact is that legislatures can set the age of consent at whatever they wish, and they can use whatever criteria they wish to determine what they think the proper AOC should be and that there is no requirement that AOC be science based or rely on any sort of CSA research to determine it. Are you arguing otherwise? Thus the wording of that phrase should clearly reflect that. Any discussions about what CSA research says regarding age of consent and CSA should be left to the articles on CSA and Age of Consent, where it's more appropriate.

With regard to WP:Not a forum, I mean not going off into a digression or on a tangent about things that do not help improve this article. This is not the place to be going into all that discussion, especially when it's unsourced and involves your personal views as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You brought up the WP:Not a forum, so I simply explained why I did not think that applied in this case. I think your confusing rules regarding content in the article itself with what i posted on the talk page explaining why i felt that former wording was misleading and not supported by reliable sources (talk page content does not need to rely on reliable sources, NPOV, ect., only be relevant to improving the article which this discussing is clearly about). I do not believe that the reliable sources used in this article support what the sentence in question was implying, thus I took issue with the wording. As I have said before, the laws regarding age of consent simply state what the law and therefor the state as enforcers of the law, consider to sexual abuse. This is separate from what CSA researchers consider to be sexual abuse, though it may overlap with the law's definition depending on the country's laws in question and how they define CSA. There is can be difference between what is a crime under the law and what is considered medically/psychologically harmful by medical professionals, and while the two may overlap, legislatures are generally not required to ensure they do so. If you wish to argue that reliable sources say the two are one and the same then please do by providing such sources, as per Wikipedia policy. The problem asking me to provide reliable sources justifying my wording is that the issue of appropriate "age of consent" under the law is not currently directly addressed in CSA research, so far as I can determine, so I can only argue that your proffered wording make implications not supported by reliable sources. We can debate what the appropriate wording should be and see if a consensus arises, but Wikipedia policy requires both sides to defend their wording per NPOV, reliable sources, etc. I am open to alternative wording derived by consensus so long as it's supported by reliable sources. As I said before, CSA research for the most does not really address is issue of potential abuse between older teenagers (16-18yo), as the majority of research focuses on CSA involving prepubescent/pubescent children and adults so they don't really address how accurately the laws line with the the research on the subject. As such, any content in this article, should reflect that reality and simply state that the law state's what the state considers to be CSA, based on a sexual acts occurring on a person under a certain age (aka Age of consent), the age of which the the legislature solely determines, and nothing more. Any other implications should separately addressed elsewhere in the article via carefully worded content that clearly reflects only what reliable sources say and nothing more. Oh and just for clarification on something I said above, I was making a distinction between CSA researchers, legislatures, and general public opinion above, which I may not have been clear on. Articles on the subject of CSA should be clear on the what each groups states on the subject via opinion piece articles, studies, laws, opinion polls, etc. so long as they reflect notable and reliable sources. Each group should be clearly differentiated and it's views clearly stated without any implications be made that are unsupported by the sources. When I said "that's not for Wikipedia to declare" above, I meant that while we can state what the law says, public opinion says, CSA research says, etc., that it's not Wikipedia's place to evaluate whether age of consent in any particular is too high or low, accept where there is consensus of CSA researchers on the issue (i.e. a consensus that the AOC of some country is currently to low). We should not endorse fringe viewpoints like NABLA or give them undue weight, as per Wikipedia policy, but neither should we take position as to just what the correct AOC since that is still being debated, even in CSA research circles. All we can do (or should do per Wikipedia policy) is simply state that it varies law-wise and what what CSA researchers and public opinion have to say on it. Where there is less debate, CSA involving prepubescent children or pubescent/young teens, we can be more direct in stating a position, thus this article should clearly reflect the notion that sex between adult men and prepubescent/pubescent boys is viewed as harmful and wrong by CSA researchers, the law, and the public at large. When dealing with older teenagers which may or may not be under the age of consent, it needs to reflect that fact the issue is currently unsettled, and simply state in a neutral way what the law says vs researchers vs public opinion. Wikipedia is not a advocacy group or PSA. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

More off-topic, WP:Not a forum commentary, after I told you that I would not be discussing this matter with you. I am not interested in your views on this topic, especially ones that are just your views. And, no, I don't believe you are very familiar with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work (although you clearly understand some things about our protocols). But keep writing essays here on this talk page, I suppose. I won't be replying to you any further on this. And if you want to talk about not presuming things about you, then you also shouldn't make faulty claims such as "you obviousely prefer the old wording because it conforms a POV that you hold, which your entitled to." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Public schools in the UK

"Until the 1970s, English "public schools" were walled boarding schools, educating adolescent boys only" is not true. There were girls' public schools before the 1970s. 31.50.156.109 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

sophrosyne

"erotic friendships and moderate forms, known as Sophrosyne" No, it isn't known as that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.149.180 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I just added the unsigned template to this. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This article has serious and deep rooted problems

At a first glance the article looks okay, with many citation notes. But a closer examination reveals major problems. Check this out:

Page statistics

Note the ~50% authorship by Haiduc. It could be much higher; sometimes if someone else rephrases or reorganizes something, the system may think they wrote the material. Haiduc is a banned user. Why was he banned?

Administrators' noticeboard incident

And what was his writing like?

Successful AfD for "Historical pederastic relationships"

Note these quotes by other users, which seem to fit the present article as well:

"pederasty and pedophilia are considered synonymous in standard dictionaries and psychological texts. Some historians have differentiated the two but this is by no means universal. We now have a logic jump where a term which is used in some contexts (particualrly classical greece) is now splashed about willy nilly and attached to a whole heap of relationships across continents and times. I contend this violates WP:OR and WP:SOAP - hence is misinformation"

"the OR is in describing these relationships be a word (i.e pederasty) not used in the sources - the word itself is used in an attempt to distance and legitimise some pedophilic relationships (as well as some technically non-pedophilic but actually containing some of the same power differential and abuse characteristics) from pedophilia."

"I do not trust any of the information that the banned user has put into any articles, and this article was essentially their 'baby'. A quick look through finds very one sided opinions regarding the historical relations. Many of them use sources which are difficult to check (and there are concerns over misrepresentation of those sources) and seemingly ignore other sources which would cast the relationship in a different light. I don't necessarily have a problem with there being an article on this general subject, but it should be a clean start."

"None of his work is to be trusted; scratch the surface on any of it and it's rife with distortions."

"This article is downright awful, cobbling together whatever sources it can to advocate a point of view (see WP:SYN)."

"we literally can trust NONE of the sources given the fact that the creator and maintainer of the article is known to have widely misrepresented sources"

"Has been known to twist and misrepresent sources"

"consists of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which serve only to promote the idea that pederasty is a normal part of life."

And I just left out many more comments and specific examples of his misrepresentation!

A close look at many of the sources in this article reveals the same problems. Cherry picking is very likely. Some are foreign language or very old. Many are primary sources from ancient authors. And there are weird statements in the article even today, such as:

"According to Gorer, the main characteristic of homosexual pederasty is the age difference (either of generation or age-group) between the partners. In his study of native cultures pederasty appears typically as a passing stage in which the adolescent is the beloved of an older male, remains as such until he reaches a certain developmental threshold, after which he in turn takes on an adolescent beloved of his own. This model is judged by Gorer as socially viable, i.e. not likely to give rise to psychological discomfort or neuroses for all or most males. He adds that in many societies, pederasty has been the main subject of the arts and the main source of tender and elevated emotions."

Why is this psychoanalyst-anthropologist's ideas from 1966 (!) worth mentioning?

"most Greek men engaged in relations with both girls and boys"

A source from the 1970s when sexual orientation was thought to be learned, and doubtless cherry picked.

On and on it goes, but you should get the idea.

Frankly, given what people have said in the various AfDs, I think most of the article as it stands is untrustworthy.

I was emailing another editor with my concerns and suggested nominating this for AfD, since the topic may not be notable as a cross-cultural construct distinct from Ancient Greek practices, already well covered in pederasty in ancient Greece. They disagreed with deletion, but suggested significantly reducing the size of the article. If it did go to AfD I would vote delete, but right now I am learning towards making major cuts to this article.

Scholars spend entire careers studying the classics, so any cite directly to Plutarch, say, makes me really suspicious. Unlikely that whoever put it knows Ancient Greek and how to interpret the people who wrote in it. Statements relying on primary sources should be cut.

Other sources and their statements that make pederasty sound really common or well accepted should be cut due to likely being cherry picked.

Any statement with a source that can't be followed up on, like very old books or foreign language sources, should be cut.

Finally, due weight should be given to our modern understanding of adults pursuing adolescents for sex, since this article is about pederasty in general, not just history. Pedophilia advocates commonly use cultural relativism as an argument, explicitly or implicitly suggesting that because other cultures tolerated or supported pederasty, so should we. (They forget that this argument could be extended to genocide, slavery, rape of adults, human sacrifice, body mutilation, and more).

In the meantime, I believe the tags I put up should remain as a warning to the over 1,000 readers per day this page gets. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'm the editor Crossroads1 was in discussion with about this article. His tags are understandable. The Pederasty in ancient Greece article is where "pederasty" could redirect to if this article were deleted, but a general Pederasty article is useful. Crossroads1, I think that you should cut any WP:Synthesis or likely WP:Synthesis you find. As you know, I agree that the article needs significant reduction. You can significantly reduce the size of the article and make it so that it points to any related articles it should point to. We can employ WP:Summary style. If any of the "post-classical and modern forms" are not specifically about pederasty, it's synthesis and should be cut. Pederasty is mainly discussed in the context of ancient Greece, and, to a lesser extent, ancient Rome. And what this article currently calls "modern expressions" isn't what today's society calls pederasty, not usually anyway. But, considering what sources are available on the comparisons, it can be WP:Due to include some material on child sexual abuse and statutory rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am so glad that someone is finally bringing to light the problems that this article has. I have been observing it, and other articles like it for a long time but have been a little bit scared to actually speak up due to potential backlash. This article is agenda ridden and distorts sources to support its point of view. It is sad to think that many people and organizations have probably been seriously misled by it. Also, this is just one of the many articles on Wikipedia that are related to this subject that were heavily influenced by banned users who had very obvious agendas, and sympathetic views towards the subject matter. I think major cuts to this article should be in order, and if it was taken to AfD I would probably vote for it to be deleted. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Crossroads1. AfD isn't really for articles that should exist, but another way to achieve a clean start is to reduce the article to a tiny stub and re-build it from scratch. Given >50% text from a user about which there are serious concerns about accuracy and neutrality, I would support such a drastic step. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we have 4 out of 4 commenters in favor of major reductions and using it mainly to point to other articles. I will begin work. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "pederasty and pedophilia are considered synonymous in standard dictionaries and psychological texts" quote above, I haven't seen that be the case. As many know, I'm well-versed on the topic of pedophilia. And so I appreciate that the difference between pederasty and pedophilia was pointed out in that AfD. Like I stated above on the talk page, in the section asking what is the difference, pederasty was a cultural matter that was restricted to men and boys and did not focus on prepubescents. Pedophilia is a psychiatric condition and focuses on prepubescents and not just boys with men. It, however, is the case that a number of pedophiles and hebephiles try to justify their sexual attraction and/or child sexual abuse by pointing to ancient Greek pederasty culture.

As for the cutting thus far, you said this is synthesis. Is the source misrepresented? And as for this, it makes sense to include different definitions, especially when sources conflict. The age range is important because different sources have given different age ranges, and we know that, for the boys, some definitions extend to the late teens (past puberty) or very early 20s. It doesn't mean we should include all of the definitional material that was here. But we should keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. I understand cutting material because the main writer of the article is untrustworthy, but, if we can access any of the sources, it's best to check and see if the text is supported by the sources in some cases. And by "some cases," I mean cases that look like we should retain the material per WP:Preserve. Preserving information doesn't mean we should preserve the exact text that was there. We can preserve material and rewrite it. Or transfer material from another article, as in this case.

As for "Today, pubescents are not considered capable of giving meaningful consent to sexual acts with adults. Such acts are usually classified as a form of child sexual abuse.", I have to point out that the "pubescents are not considered capable of giving meaningful consent to sexual acts with adults" aspect is not the case across the world. We see this with age of consent. That's why the lead previously stated, "In most countries today, the local age of consent determines whether or not a person is considered legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and whether such contact is abusive to the young person, under the law." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right that pederasty and pedophilia are not the same. That commenter is nevertheless correct that they are not as distinguished as Haiduc wanted them to be. Taking such a nebulous concept and applying them across cultures as he did is inappropriate, even if some scholars here and there use the word (but most of them most of the time do not). I do hope to mention in the final article that historical pederasty has been pointed to by pedophiles as justification. I have one source for that, but if you know of others please share.

I'm not sure WP:Preserve applies much here. That seems to be about preserving material that is essentially good but needs work. As explained above, I think a degree of remove-with-prejudice is warranted here because most of it was written by a pro-pedophilia/hebephilia account. Even if a source is presented accurately, there is a good chance it is cherry picked, ignoring other or more recent scholarship. Regarding this, I have now checked the source. It does not support the first sentence at all, nor does it use the word pederasty. In context, the author seems to explain the phenomenon mainly in terms of either homosexuality in the modern sense, or primarily as being from some men who are mostly heterosexual but turn to males as a substitute or as "variety", often involving dominance. So it is synthesis. And this is on top of the fact that we do not know what other scholars say and how common they make it sound. And as for this, that too is problematic for the same reasons I have mentioned. For example, what it says about Greece ignores more recent scholarship by James N. Davidson, reviewed here. (I will probably add reference to his work to the article down the road if appropriate.)

I am aware that age of consent varies around the world. In many places it is rather low, though often for homosexuality it is higher or even banned outright. My statement referred more to what medical and legal professionals think about the matter than legislatures, foreign autocracies, etc. At any rate, the lead will be re-rewritten later when the dust settles on the article body. The main aim right now is to get rid of the misleading junk. And I am not overly committed to what I put in, so when I remove the under construction tag, you are welcome to change things. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand your points. Thanks for checking on this piece. I'll see about providing sourcing for the "try to justify their sexual attraction and/or child sexual abuse by pointing to ancient Greek pederasty culture" aspect, if you don't get around to it first. As for age range, I still think that is important to include, not only because it existed, but because of some sources giving different age ranges. Again, I'm not saying we should restore what was there. And the age of consent aspect should be better presented in the lead. But you're right about focusing more so on the lower article first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the source and scrolling up (past that initial page), I can see what the editor who added it was going for. Not sure if the banned editor added it. The source is speaking of pederasty, but I understand wanting to stick to the sources that explicitly state "pederasty." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to offer my thanks to everyone for all your work clearing this up. I never really read this article closely and so hadn't realized how many problem it had.Legitimus (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: With this edit, I re-added the previous wording on age of consent and the medical aspect. I then changed the text to this to mention both child sexual abuse and statutory rape in the lead. Statutory rape is mentioned lower in the article and should be in the lead as well. Plus, it is sometimes distinguished from child sexual abuse, especially in the case of those who are close in age. The lead obviously needs more expansion on pederasty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Followup edit here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"Age of consent laws exist because minors are considered incapable of meaningfully consenting..."

This sentence cites quotations from two sources, but neither quotation actually substantiates it.

The 1st source: "Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse". This source does not offer a "because" reason in response to the question of why the laws exist, as the current wording of the sentence implies. It provides a description of what the laws entail legally.

The 2nd source: "Age of consent laws render teenagers below a certain age incapable of consent to sexual activity...The justification usually put forward for age of consent laws is the protection of young persons from sexual exploitation by adults". This source puts forth a justification for why age of consent laws exist, but it's not "[incapability of meaningful consent]". It's "protection of young persons from sexual exploitation by adults". Again, the first part of the quotation, "Age of consent laws render teenagers below a certain age incapable of consent" is not an explanation for why they exist, it's a description of a legal fact.

— Ruyter (talk • edits) 10:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretations. I think the present statements are a perfectly acceptable use of our own words per WP:COPYPASTE. Addressing how each supports it:

The quote, emphasis added: Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Not 'statutory rape laws make the person legally incapable'. The premise, the rationale, is that they are incapable, in the legal sense, of consenting. Consent, in the legal sense, must be meaningful, not under duress. Put another way: the premise is that any seeming consent they give is invalid - i.e., not meaningful.

Second quote, emphasis added: Age of consent laws render teenagers below a certain age incapable of consent to sexual activity...The justification usually put forward for age of consent laws is the protection of young persons from sexual exploitation by adults. In other words, the reason is that below that age it is felt they need to be shielded from sexual activity with an adult, which would be exploitation. That exploitation holds true even if they seem to consent - the consent is not valid or meaningful. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads1, Ruyter. I'm not understanding your objection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Modern sexual abusers who prefer boys may describe themselves as "boy lovers"

Ruyter, regarding this, which you removed three times now, why do you feel that we should not retain the "Modern sexual abusers that prefer boys may describe themselves as 'boy lovers,' and appeal to practices in Ancient Greece as justification." sentence?

It's relevant, and can be supported by other sources, such as this 2011 "Paedophiles in Society: Reflecting on Sexuality, Abuse and Hope" source, from Springer Publishing, page 68, which states, "The term 'pederasty' comes from two Greek words, paides (boy) and erasteio (to love or long for) and therefore is used to relate only to situations in which adult men are sexually attracted to young boys, with the synonym 'boy-lover' also being used in place of 'pederast'." This 2000 "Male Victims of Sexual Assault" source, from Oxford University Press, page 24, speaking of pedophiles, states, "The idea that the patronage of an older male lover is beneficial to the social development of an adolescent boy echoes the traditions of ancient Greece." This 2005 "Readings in Deviant Behavior" source, from Allyn and Bacon, page 274, speaks of unrepentant pedophiles referring to themselves as "boy lovers." This 2010 "Forensic Nursing Science - E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 424, states, "There are child sex offenders who willingly describe themselves as boy lovers, girl lovers, child lovers, and pedophiles but will adamantly argue that they are not predators." This 2013 "Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader" source, from Routledge, page 320, states, "Paedophile activists themselves who have found it necessary to adopt one or other (and sometimes both) of two types of legitimation. The first, the 'Greek love', legitimation basically argues for the pedagogic value of adult-child relations, between males. It suggests -- relying on a mythologized version of ancient Greek practices -- that in the passage from childhood dependence to adult responsibilities the guidance, sexual and moral, of a caring man is invaluable."

Now, given the description in the "About this book" section of the "Paedophiles in Society: Reflecting on Sexuality, Abuse and Hope" source, one may question using that source. But the point is that some male child sexual abusers (pedophiles and non-pedophiles) and statutory rapists refer to themselves as "boy lovers" not only because they prefer that term to another term that may be used to describe them, but also because they argue that an adult male being sexual with an underage boy is not problematic because the Ancient Greeks did it. One flaw in the arguments by pedophiles, however, is the fact that pederasty was not about prepubescents in Ancient Greece, at least not usually. Something about modern sexual abusers who prefer boys describing themselves as "boy lovers," and appealing to practices in Ancient Greece as justification should be in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these sources. I'll be using them.

At the risk of going off-topic, I'd like to add on to Flyer's comment that much sexual abuse does consist of adult-pubescent/adolescent contact, even though that's not technically pedophilia. So, I agree with those who say that ancient Greek pederasty likely was sexually abusive in many cases, even though the boy was pubescent. (If the boy was older, had sufficient agency, and was what we would now call bisexual or gay, then there likely wouldn't have been an issue. There is debate among scholars as to the actual nature of Greek pederasty.) The ancient Greeks and Romans and other cultures did all sorts of things that we now consider evil, like slavery, gross misogyny, etc. So, that's another flaw in the arguments of sexual abusers - the fact that ancient cultures practiced or allowed something is in no way whatsoever an argument that we should do so. The opposite if anything. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see any of the sources you quoted supporting the view that "not only because they prefer that term to another term that may be used to describe them, but also because they argue that an adult male being sexual with an underage boy is not problematic because the Ancient Greeks did it". None of the sources you used link the term "boy lover" and the practices of the Ancient Greeks together.

No source that you quoted, or the one currently in use, uses the term "sexual abuser" to describe people who call themselves "boy lovers". They use "pedophile" in the case of existing source (which is probably the general meaning that including hebephiles) or "child sex offender" in the case of Forensic Nursing Science - E-Book.

The source currently used in the article, Propagandizing pederasty, doesn't support the view that pedophiles "appeal to the practices of Ancient Greece as justification" [...for what? it's an incomplete sentence] I don't have access to Male Victims of Sexual Assault to see the wider context of that quote, but taken together with the quote from Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader, it would support the statement that some pedophiles or hebephiles appeal to the practices of Ancient Greece while arguing that adult-adolescent/child relations are beneficial for the social/personal development of the boy. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 09:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't state that any of the sources say "not only because they prefer that term to another term that may be used to describe them, but also because they argue that an adult male being sexual with an underage boy is not problematic because the Ancient Greeks did it'." As for your statement that "none of the sources [I] used link the term 'boy lover' and the practices of the Ancient Greeks together." That is false. The "Paedophiles in Society: Reflecting on Sexuality, Abuse and Hope" source clearly states, "The term 'pederasty' comes from two Greek words, paides (boy) and erasteio (to love or long for) and therefore is used to relate only to situations in which adult men are sexually attracted to young boys, with the synonym 'boy-lover' also being used in place of 'pederast'." That is clearly linking the term boy lover and the practices of the Ancient Greeks together. As for your statement that "no source that [I] quoted, or the one currently in use, uses the term 'sexual abuser' to describe people who call themselves 'boy lovers'." That is false. The "Forensic Nursing Science - E-Book" source clearly states, "There are child sex offenders who willingly describe themselves as boy lovers, girl lovers, child lovers, and pedophiles but will adamantly argue that they are not predators." The term child sex offender is synonymous with child sexual abuser. That is why it redirects to the Child sexual abuse article. The two terms being synonymous is evident throughout the child sexual abuse literature. So I'm not going to sit here and provide sources showing they are synonymous. How you are trying to distinguishing these terms, or act as though words have no synonyms, makes no sense.

Regardless of what the source currently in use states, there is more than enough here on this talk page to relay the origin of the term boy lover and that some pedophiles and child sexual abusers use the term and why. We should not state "hebephile" unless a reliable source does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I accept that the two terms are generally used synonymously. In at least one case there seems to be a distinction, though, see relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse. One would gain the sense that the viewing of child pornography is a child sex offense, but not child sexual abuse (otherwise that article wouldn't make sense)(?) I agree that hebephile shouldn't be used. Would you support changing "sexual abuser" to "Pedophiles and child sexual offenders", with citations to the source currently in use (to support pedophile) and Forensic nursing science (to support child sex offender)? — Ruyter (talk • edits) 08:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I can obviously see that you struck through your comment, but I still feel the need to state that viewing child pornography (as opposed to simulated child pornography not featuring real children) is child sexual abuse. This is for reasons stated by me and Legitimus at Talk:Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse. A person who didn't film, produce, or sell that pornography, but is enjoying it, may think they are not being abusive, but they are. Child pornography is an aspect of child sexual abuse, and people obviously face legal trouble for possessing child pornography. And as for child sexual abuse and child sexual offense, I was clearly speaking of the wordings child sexual abuser and child sex offender. Of course, the words abuse and offense may be used differently. For example, one would state "He committed a child sexual offense.", but not "He committed a child sexual abuse." Grammar and stuff. But child sexual abuser and child sex offender are not used differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

On top of what Flyer said, Ruyter, your statement that it would support the statement that some pedophiles or hebephiles appeal to the practices of Ancient Greece while arguing that adult-adolescent/child relations are beneficial for the social/personal development of the boy is essentially equivalent to part of the text you are objecting to, that says Modern sexual abusers that prefer boys may...appeal to practices in Ancient Greece as justification. Technically some pedophiles and hebephiles don't offend, but those are not the people the sources are talking about. And the point about the term "boy lovers" and the point about justifying themselves on the basis of the Greeks are separate from each other. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

They definitely aren't equivalent. Given the length that the lead of pedophilia goes to distinguish pedophiles and sexual abusers, I'm not sure why we would be using that term here when it's not even used in the source.

I don't think that "those are not the people the sources are talking about" is justified; the people described in Propagandizing pederasty, the source currently used, were members of "usenet discussion group".

Given that both sources given by Flyer pertaining to the "appeal to Ancient Greek practices" agree on the immediate context of those appeals, that is to say, arguments by pedophiles for the pedagogical/developmental aspect of pederastic relationships, I'm not sure why that would not be added. In any case, to reaffirm, the current source doesn't support the view that [either "pedophiles" or "sexual abusers"] justify [something] via Ancient Greek practices. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 08:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I won't be editing further here. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 17:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why Ruyter stopped editing, and struck through the comments... TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

More than legal and psychology experts

IP, please stop edit warring and trying to add the words "by legal and psychology experts". [1] As Acroterian told you on your talk page, The reference describes a much broader consensus than just legal and psychological experts. Per WP:BRD, you should discuss here. You are reminding me of a previous IP editor, who argued similarly to you and got themselves blocked temporarily for edit warring. It will likely be longer a second time. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"The reference describes a much broader consensus than just legal and psychological experts." This is incorrect. If you carefully read the citations you will see that this is not the case. The word "considered" without indicating who is doing the considering is a weasel word and against Wikipedia policy. --2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The references are simply describing the rationale behind the laws. This rationale is held by experts in many fields, as well as by the legislators who make the laws, and the people who elect them. This is how it has been for centuries. The sources make all this clear. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pedophilia

As seen here and here, Naddruf added Category:Pedophilia to the article. I reverted, stating, "Not the same thing. Should be discussed on the talk page." I then reverted myself, stating, "Then again, there is [a] relationship between pederasty and pedophile activists. This can be expanded on in the article So restoring category for now. Anyone else is free to revert me." By "a relationship", I mean that there are modern-day men with a sexual interest in pubescent or older adolescent boys who identify as being pederastic and who also support men being sexual with prepubescent boys (or girls). Some pedophiles identify as pederastic; they use the term "pederasty" because they find it preferable to "pedophilia." They don't want to be referred to as pedophiles. Also, both groups sometimes refer to themselves as "boy lovers" as a play on ancient Greek practices. So, although pedophilia and pederasty are not the same thing (as has been discussed times before, including recently), there is an argument for including this article in the pedophilia category. We even have the List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations article that discusses these two groups together. On the other hand, this further conflates pedophilia and pederasty, adding to confusion, and it gives a lot of weight to the modern-day developments since the term pederasty/topic is primarily about ancient Greek practices (practices that are not about pedophilia since the practices were not focused on prepubescents and were focused solely on boys). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to keep this article in the pedophilia category. If it's removed, it's removed. I started this discussion for others to weigh in and/or debate it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What makes you say that ancient Greek pederasty could not be classified as pedophilia? Is it the age included? It seems that some may have been prepubescent, and if not it may be hebephilia, a term which is rarely used. In any case they were sexually interested in children or they would not have had such a relationship.

The point of categories is to help connect related content. So if someone wants to learn more about topics related to pedophilia, it would help if pederasty was in this category. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Naddruf, you asked, "What makes you say that ancient Greek pederasty could not be classified as pedophilia?" The literature. The literature on pederasty. The literature on pedophilia. The literature on pederasty, with some of it being seen in this article, is about men engaging in sexual activity with pubescent and older adolescent boys. Not prepubescent children. The adoption of "pederasty" to mean pedophilia, and pedophiles calling themselves pederastic, is a modern-day development. We don't go by "it seems that some may have been prepubescent"; we go by what the literature states and with WP:Due weight. As noted in this section of the article, there were age restrictions. A man being sexual with a prepubescent boy was off-limits (at least in a number of jurisdictions). Also, pedophilia and hebephilia are about sexual attractions (what goes on in the mind); they are about primary or exclusive sexual attractions. Although the attractions can (and often do) lead to child sexual abuse, they are not the same thing as child sexual abuse. A person can be a pedophile and not a child sexual abuser, and a person can be a child sexual abuser and not a pedophile. A man showing a sexual interest in a pubescent doesn't automatically make the man a hebephile. Experts such as Ray Blanchard and James Cantor have been clear that the man would need to have a sexual preference for pubescents to be a hebephile. When it comes to ancient Greek and ancient Rome, we do not know if the pederastic men had a sexual preference for pubescent boys, but it's very unlikely that the vast majority of the men (pederastic or otherwise) sexually preferred pubescent boys.

I know the point of categories, and I made an argument for including this article in the pedophilia category. I also made an argument for excluding it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the pedophilia category per your own argument for it being included in the category. Also, if we go by what you're saying, wouldn't pederasty just be a form of pedophilia? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't pederasty just be a form of pedophilia? Eh? No. And nothing I stated relayed or implied that. And neither does the research. Pedophilia is about prepubescents. The research/experts are clear on that. And I'm not going to sit here and debate it. I could ping James Cantor to weigh in, but I'd rather not waste his time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Same goes for pinging Legitimus, who already watches this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Woops. Yup, looks like you're right about that. Sorry, I didn't read what you said with as much focus as I should have. I skimmed over it. But I still think that the argument that you made above for this article to be included in the pedophilia category is strong enough. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sergei zavorotko, regarding this? You might want to read what is stated above in this section and make your case here in this section for excluding the category; you could simply echo one of the arguments I made above. And do keep in mind what I stated with this comment. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Pederasty in the modern world" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pederasty in the modern world. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Pederasty in the modern world until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)