Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Pedophile movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Revert

I reverted User:SloContributorSince2005's edits. This was because the last version was more encyclopedic and less preachy. For example, Slo's version of the article lead:

Although many pedophiles have in their life never acted on their sexual orientation, refraining themselves from committing crimes, and the great amount of child sexual abuse crimes is done by perpetrators that are otherwise "normal" fathers, mothers, or other relatives or friends or caregivers of the child, which the public opinion is not aware well enough, the activists of the modern childlove movement are lonely in their seeking of the wider acceptance of both their sexual orientation, which itself is not a crime, and of some forms of the adult-child sexual activities that are presently considered as child sexual abuse crime by greater majority of legislations and researchers.

The article lead should be defining what the childlove movement is, not jumping to something unrelated. Also, it has NPOV problems (for example, pedophilia is not considered by everyone to be a sexual orientation). 24.224.153.40 14:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you always making the all-or-nothing changes? Did you read all the sections or only the leading one? Why am I asking you this? Because the rest of sections I edited did make the article superior and more encyclopedic in comparison to the one you reverted article to. For example, the third party's (not only the self-proffessed objectives) description of the movement strategies by sociologist Mary DeYoung, which is far better then having only the old self-proffessed objectives of the movement. Or the history section (previously the origin section), which mentions the (positive) role of feminism (see: http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/dallam_02.htm) in showing that childred need protection not only from patriarchal power, but from pedophilic movement as well. . . You obviously did not notice a section on rejection of Rind et al was moved to another page?. . . These are my reasons why I am reverting the rest of sections to my previous edits except for the leading one where it probably was my premature conecession to the pedophiles that I have accepted their claims that their condition can be viewed as sexual orientation and not purely and simply pathological psychosexual developmental fixation. Yes, in a sense that the developmental fixation causes this "sexual orientation" as the consequence, that's why I conceded to it. Maybe I shouldn't. Because I believe that their condition primarily is pathological psychosexual developmental fixation and only secondarily an "orientation".

Incredibly POV and factually-inaccurate paragraph

The movement has been met with intense opposition. While some critics in the field of psychology have proposed declassifying pedophilia as a mental illness, the greater medical and scientific community continue to reject the movement's self-proclaimed definition of pedophilia as sexual orientation, and has also censured the movement's claims that sexual relations between children and adults are not inherently harmful, basing their rejections on scientific evidence which reputedly demonstrates children are cognitively and developmentally incapable to give an informed consent to any kind of sexual activities with adults as partners, and that all forms of such activities have more or less negative effects on children's further psychological development and are therefore defined as sexual abuse (see: Dallam, S. J. 2002).

I'd like a source for asserting something about the "the greater medical and scientific community". This is obviously true, but since this is an intensely heated issue, and its proponents argue against that idea, this claim should be sourced. The factually-inaccurate part is the last sentence, which sites Dallam (2002) as a source. If you actually read that paper, you'll see that it merely attempts to refute papers such as Rind et al. (1998) which purport to show statistics that child sexual abuse is not harmful in general. Dallam (2002) does not introduce any statistics of its own which show the opposite, so citing it as a source for the statement that "all forms of such activities have more or less negative effects on children's further psychological development" is a non-sequitur.

Pedophile Propaganda

This entire article is nothing but PR for child molestors. These people are criminals, end of story.

How can we be criminals if we don't do anything criminal? Most childlovers never molest children. I myself am pushing thirty, have never laid a hand on a boy in anything but friendship, and am intent to die as a virgin. Not because sex is ultimately wrong, but because this society is mad and would hurt the boy if it found out. If a person breaks a law, you can call him criminals. Otherwise, get real. Clayboy 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction, Clay: A childlover would never molest a child. A childlover, and the ideals behind pederasty, are that the child is in control of their mind and body. Thus, the child would be the one to make the decision as to what sexual encounters they choose to participate in; thus, it is not molestation, period. Ya almost had it right. :) --Rookiee 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Response

I don't want to start any kind of flaming war here. I am fundamently against pedophilia as I'm sure most are. But the point is, this article is not "PR for child molestors" as you say. The point is to show that a) there are groups and people out there whose opinions are not those of most of society, and b) that attraction does not equal pedophilia. If I think to myself "I'd sure love to rob this bank and have a million dollars", which I have done, surely that does not make me a bank robber? Since I would never do such a thing, and could never bring myself to a) take the risk of being sent to jail for doing so, and b) take other people's money etc, I wouldn't consider myself a bank robber. Surely the same consideration should be given here.

And, before some "witty" person responds, no I don't think we need an article on "people who imagine themselves as bank robbers" as opposed to an article on "bank robbers". I'm just saying. This article also deals with the movement itself, the ideas of openness etc etc. As someone posted upthread, what constitutes a pedophile changes the world over as ages of consent are raised and lowered in different countries (and even STATES in the U.S.!) all the time.

The age of consent goes down to 13 in some countries, and up to the 20s, according to that article!

I don't condone any of this, I'm just saying that there are shades here that support more than just a deletion and "My thoughts are right, these people are wrong" philosophy.

Daydream believer2 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia is the sexual and/or romantic attraction to children -- so attraction does equal pedophilia. If I were to say that a person cannot be gay unless he has sex with another man, people would say I were obviously wrong. By the same logic, a person can be pedophile and not have sex with children. Pedophilia is not an action, it is an attraction. Clayboy 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay - - feeling a little bit stupid! :p - - my intent was to state that attraction does not equal pedophilia as a crime. Which again, obviously comes with all sorts of shades, cause after all having child pornography is a crime etc etc. How about we just say I agree that the prejudices and biases of society as a whole against any kind of different opinion to the mainstream one means that this page will never truthfully be NPOV or anything like it? Good. Moving on. Daydream believer2 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the term "pedophilia as a crime", since pedophilia is not a legal term for any crime, I would most definitely agree with that -- just see my user page. Clayboy 18:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a state of being; a label. Pedophilia is in no way a crime, unless you're one of these guys. Blurring of "action" and "state of being" is easily conjured by those with anti-pedophilia sentiment. Also, since a crime and the immorality behind it are directly related, when a society deems any thought or action as "immoral" or socially innappropriate (even if it is based on a false premise such as sexual innocence), it becomes categorically "criminal". Homosexuality, differing religions, beliefs, etc., are all prime examples of how one group of people can become victims of an ignorant society, blind to reality, and the persecution of thought. --Rookiee 22:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blatent censorship

Excuse me, Will, but who the fuck are you to conduct yourself in such fashion where you set yourself as judge, jury, and executioner on page and issues such as this? Those forum links are informational sites where people can commune and discuss the issues of the Childlove Movement. you have NO RIGHT to remove these links simply on the basis that they're a "farm". You also have no right to claim yourself as the critic over which sites are "low quality" or "commercial", especially when they are non-profit organizations.

Admit it. You have a dire opposition to our position and you claim dominance over us simply because you do not like us. That is utterly irresponsible and I feel is grounds for official complaint and protest. --Rookiee 22:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, he has every right. We are not a discussion board. We are an encyclopedia. Go take your discussion somewhere else. We are not a forum for discussing issues. The only thing we really discuss on talk pages is the material. Feel free to raise an official complaint. I doubt it will get far. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

While we're admitting things, "rookiee", perhaps you should admit that there's a reason why people consider your position despicable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .

Merging with paedophilia

I don't think merging is a good idea since this article is about a political/social movement and not pedophilia itself. Such a merge would be akin to merging capital punishment with homicide. 60.234.208.238 07:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your analogy. I'd say it's more like merging social equality and the civil rights movement. In any case, I agree that they shouldn't be moved. One is a social movement, the other is a psychology term. Related no doubt, but not the same. Pedophilia has existed for a long long time, but, a childlove movement to accept adult-child relations has not. gren グレン 08:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If we want to keep separate the movement from the condition than we could move all of the movement related material to this article. Right now the two topics seem muddled. -Willmcw 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that'd require moving the NAMBLA page also? It's rather large on its own... · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but there's an advocacy section in Pedophilia. That might be moved over here, for example. -Willmcw 17:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete

I nominated the article for deletion, because it's obvious to me that as long as it's here, it will do nothing but discredit wikipedia. Pedophiles have their own sites to propagandize for their proclivities, let them do so with their own resources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .

You might do better by dropping the hostility and trying to engage people in discussion about such changes. There are people here, such as myself, that will back you up if I feel they are justified. Lone wolf editing, especially by an anon, is often doomed when done with emotion. Try getting an account and discussing the changes, and try be as civil as possible (see Wikipedia:Civility). People pay a lot more attention to you if you are polite (not saying you're impolite, just mentioning). --DanielCD 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Great idea... While you're at it, why don't you get rid of some other articles you think detract from wikipedia? How about This one? An article about something controversial is going to attract controversy - isn't that obvious? But an occasional press release dissing Wikipedia for publishing INFORMATION is not reason enough to get an article (and a reasonably good one at that) deleted. = Silent War = 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Child Porn

"Push for the decriminalization of child pornography possession" - Does this mean to say "simple posession", or to say the trade should be allowed, or trade and production, etc.? This should be clarified. I hope you mean simple posession, since I don't see how any kind of trade at all can be justified, and is rightly illegal and should stay so. --DanielCD 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Possession is possession, not trade and production, so I assume that's what it means. However, it's not entirely accurate; I have seen people argue that the production and distribution of pornographic material featuring children should be legalized. (Usually by hyperlibertarian pedophiles.) But of course the childlove movement is not a single entity and does not share a single opinion. As far as I have seen, most people who post on 'childlove' boards disagree with kiddie porn, even if they agree with adult/child sex (?), which I do understand, but there's lots of odd folks about...

As for justification, it is simply their belief that there is no difference between an adult and a child in the context of pornography. // paroxysm (n) 22:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying that, as simply as this is stated, possession may be interpreted in different ways. They may say possession, and I hear "possession" just as you say, but to them it might be interpreted as "possess and trade but not produce" or something else. I'd like to see a clarification such as "...decriminalization of child pornography possession, meaning possession by the individual with no trading or production." But the thing is, how do you get it without trading? It has to come from somewhere. Sorry, I'm just trying to make sense of this, and I think if I'm struggling with it, others will as well. --DanielCD 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, phrasing it like that would be sort of redundant; and not only that, but unfortunately the childlove movement doesn't have a spokesman, so we can't say that they want to do one thing or the other.

On trading: downloading child pornography is not considered "trading," just possession. A pedophile does not need to trade in order to obtain child pornography. One pedophile will presumably upload it some place, and he is distributing it; the other pedophile will download it, and, as long as he does not exchange pictures, he is not "trading" and can not be charged with distribution. // paroxysm (n) 03:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I think I might be making it more complicated than it actually is. --DanielCD 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like "possession and distribution" would cover it. -Willmcw 07:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't possibly see how they could want to include distribution. That would be so ludicrous as to totally undermine their position. --DanielCD 13:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider that not all child pornography creates victims. Several places now outlaw purely fictional child pornography, such as fictional written stories, computer-created imagery, and certain types of anime. Some also argue that most "real" child pornography is not violent or abusive in character, and that since children's apparence change quickly as they get older, no harm is done (I would not agree, but these are the arguments). Clayboy 16:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone here think that legalizing "possession and distribution" of child pornography should not be listed as a goal of some in the Childlove Movement? -Willmcw 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a goal of some of the childlove movement, so I don't see why not. // paroxysm (n) 22:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not unless they are psychotic. As far out on a limb as their position is, to push for distribution of KP is, to put it mildly, not a wise strategy. Distributing KP leads directly to further production, and, as I see it, to endorse distribution is to directly endorse production, which is without question immoral, illegal and a completely untenable position. But if that's their position...I don't know enough to say that. --DanielCD 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably best left at "possession". --DanielCD 22:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since these are "Self-professed objectives of the movement" we should be able to find sources for them. -Willmcw 22:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We're really all just flapping our jaws in the wind without sources. They must be out there. --DanielCD 22:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of source? An advocacy website, or would something like a GirlChat post be suffice? // paroxysm (n) 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know. I never knew such a movement existed before I read this article. I've heard of Nambla, but not any of the other stuff. As far as the looking I've done, it seems most sources are so riddled with emotional appeal as to be, at best, highly questionable. I'm going to try to do a little looking this evening and see what I can come up with. --DanielCD 22:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I found something: http://hfp.puellula.com/Manifesto.html#erotica

Emancipated youths, having the full rights of citizenship, shall be subject the same laws as adults regarding the production and distribution of erotic material that they have participated in.

Producing and distributing still images, videos, or other depictions of dependents that are either nude or engaged in sexual activity, either solo or with other persons, for commercical gain, shall be legal if the prior written consent of all participating dependents and their parents was obtained in advance, so long as no illegal activities are depicted or recorded and all participating dependents are compensated with a reasonable share of any profits.

Distribution and production for this guy. Does this source work? // paroxysm (n) 23:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You might say "possession... but at least one organization has called for a limited legalization of production and trade..." Something like that, and ref that page. I think that might work. A little silly, this position. There's nothing to stop parents who abuse their own kids here. BUt if that's what they want to push for... --DanielCD 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

External links, Pedosexual

I've removed a number of external links because they were effectively acting as a links directory. We don't need links to every 'boylove' website out there.

I also removed a whole wodge of unsourced comments from 'pedosexual' and have replaced it with a fairly bland statement; particularly objectionable were the 'some say.. others say' discussion of what the term meant. The Land 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The movement's motivation for using the term "pedosexual" can be found outlined here (yes, one might say it's an inherently POV term, depending on which side one takes).

I'm not that worried about the existence or nature of the term, but the way we covered it (and indeed that linked article) seem a lot like original research, which Wikipedia Is Not. The Land 14:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

While the linked article may be "original research", it is a reflection of how and why the community uses the term. If Wikipedia wants to cover this aspect of the term, it seems to me the linked article may provide a useful source. Clayboy 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR says: it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.. I think, in the circumstances, that link (or indeed any Wiki that doesn't cite its own sources) is not a 'third-party reputable publication', and so we need a stronger level of evidence to include it. The Land 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As per that definition and the articles for deletion discussion there must be third party documentation for the term childlove in order for this article to not be titled "Pedophilia Advocacy". Lotusduck 06:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

I haven't actually read the article in full detail, so I'm going through and doing some copyediting as I go. Some of the sentences read funny, possibly remants of past edit-wording wars, and I think the readability can use some improvement. Trying to be as neutral as possible, so talk to me if I do something that upsets someone for whatever reason and we'll see if we can fix it as nPOV as possible. --DanielCD 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

View on NAMBLA

I don't know whether the "childlove movement" has a negative view of NAMBLA and I don't care. But we can't just say it does. This would need to be sourced to some actual figures in the movement saying it. I've removed the paragraph in question until it is sourced. James James 03:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

PACM - Pedophiles Against Child Molestation - An organization dedicated to stopping and preventing child sexual abuse, by giving pedophiles truly helpful therapy to help them see (if they don't already) the harm that can come from molestation. Their member must vow to not engage in any illegal activities, or be ejected from the organization.
http://pacm.r8.org/ PACM forum - The community/therapy arm of P.A.C.M. (Pedophiles Against Child Molestation).

I'm not saying whether these are appropriate or not, I just want to consider a bit as to whether they show some of the diversity of views that make up all the small groups being lumped into one "movement". Perhaps they are a minority view, I don't know. But there may be some material here that should be considered so I want to leave these here a while to ponder a bit before totally dumping them.

BTW I haven't even looked at these links yet, but I'm interested to know if there are peds who are really as sincere as this sounds. --DanielCD 14:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why so many people seem to assume all pedophiles are devoid of morality. Of course there are pedophiles who are "as sincere as that sounds;" pedophiles are not a likeminded collective, and yes, there might even be a sane one here and there. Not everyone allows their urges cloud to their judgement. // paroxysm (n) 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Some other controversial pages have pro and con sections. It might not be a bad idea to do that here. --DanielCD 15:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that ...do these sites help give a better picture of the issue or not. Just like you say, there are a lot of misunderstandings, but perhaps we can help with that by trying to provide a really balanced article. I didn't mean to imply what I may have. Truth is, we don't have a lot of data on chaste pedophiles because the current atmosphere makes it very difficult to do research in this area. Why? The public and the government don't want research; they have a view they want accepted and don't like anyone messing it up with potential truths. Part of my interest here is finding the bits of truth in all the emotional nonsense to give the best picture possible. (I just wish I had more time to give to it).

In truth...thank you for pointing that out Paroxysm. It's always refreshing to have unconscious assumptions brought to light. --DanielCD 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You're extremely reasonable. I was about to add, "especially considering you're not even a pedophile," but then I caught myself and realized I was assuming based on a stereotype of normophilic people myself. I guess everyone does it sometimes... anyway, thank you for not mindlessly following social taboos. // paroxysm (n) 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As my history with women will gladly testify, I'm not in any way a pedophile...and they can tesyify to that (especially the one who hates my guts!) I have two kids of my own who watch too much TV but NEVER go on the Internet unsupervised (in the dining area where the screen can always be seen). Too many freaking parents think the government should raise their children, protect them, and run their minds for them. People don't want to take responsibility for anything anyore.

But really, I'm more of a nit-picker and a free-speech nut. (I'm a person with opinions too strong for my own good). I've had a history of getting involved in controversial stuff (I've had to swear myself away from the Creation/evolution articles), and apparently I haven't learned my lesson yet (stick to the rocks, and plants, and flowers...) --DanielCD 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"I'm interested to know if there are peds who are really as sincere as this sounds." there sure are! I'm one of 'em. do these sites help give a better picture of the issue or not PACM are a pedophile organisation, and through their activities, show that not all pedophiles are malicious like the stereotype. I think that they're a good example of the childlove movement in action. = Silent War = 08:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What activities? I looked at the PACM website: It has nothing but a manifesto and a forum with only 47 members and no posts in a year. I couldn't find a single webpage that showed solidarity by linking to their symbol, and very few that linked to the page at all. Their existence seems negligible. Did I miss something? -09:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This and the most recent edits about bloggers seem to amount to "the movement is web and computer literate". There are plenty of reputable news agencies still acting like someone having a blog or a livejournal is a big deal, so maybe you can reference one of them. Certainly news agencies overplay the significance of blogs. Anyway, that last edit could be something more concrete like naming prominent pedophiles with blogs that attempt to humanize their attraction. Lotusduck 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Humanize? You mean justify? --DanielCD 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The most recent edit includes the sentance " to show a more human aspect"- thus, humanize. Of course, me and silent war are both using the word as though human is synonymous with humane. So maybe the most recent addition needs to be edited in more than one way. Lotusduck 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I'm wondering, would it be too hostile for me to revert Silents' edits? They aren't wrong per se, they just haven't been proven notable or important, just the way if I put up a hundred thousand posters all around town every month, it wouldn't neccessarily be notable, although it concievably could be, depending on the reactions of notable organizations etcetera. Same with a group of people having blogs in order to produce some desired effect. Not neccesarily notable. But yeah, would that be hostile? I'm not especially fond of being reverted myself. Lotusduck 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the blogs...well, it seems most of this stuff solely consists of websites and blogs. I need to re-read the article to properly answer. --DanielCD 20:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually...I think the whole thing needs a re-write. It's like a bunch of junk thrown in the closet and then quickly slamming the door so it doesn't fall out. There's a rough organization, but I think it needs to be re-thought out, and I don't think that's going to be possible with so many people editing. I might consider working with it if a special project was made, and we could pool research and come up with a core outline that makes sense. I dunno if I'm up to that though. This material gets to be kind of a drag. --DanielCD 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with a rewrite - separate some parts of the article into a new one, even? Maybe put all the stuff about the skepticism in an article pedophilia advocacy counter-movement or something. As for notable blogs, I'd cite Lindsay Ashford's one, but his site's having a bit of financial trouble at the moment. My own one's only two months old, but has received over a hundred unique hits in the 4 days since I installed a hit counter. It's hardly google, but it's a start... = Silent War = 05:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)