Talk:Pederasty

Moved from article for proper discussion

To avoid any edit warring, I have moved some rather contentious edits here for the purpose of discussion:

Merge with Child sexual abuse

Hello, although both terms are basicaly the same, and both pretty good articles from the references point of view, Child sexual abuse would be more precise and better referenced, so i would suggest to incorporate the info from Pederasty into Child sexual abuse, what do you think ?--Euroescritor (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to see that child sexual abuse was not mention a single time on the article, being such related term--Euroescritor (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I reverted you; I did so because these are different topics and are WP:Notable in their own right. You reverted me. I called your merge proposal silly. It is silly, and it will not succeed. Now I'm done discussing this matter with you, and will let others address you on it. In the meantime, as seen with this (adding a link to the See also section when that link is already in the article), you need to become more familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Child sexual abuse is clearly mentioned in the article; for starters, look at the WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's silly. Pederasty is not the same as child sexual abuse, for the simple reason there is no clear definition of either "child" or "abuse". We are dealing with culturally diverse practices over long periods of time in very diverse contexts. Is every sexual relationship between a youth and an older man "abuse"? Would we say that about the numerous instances of older men having young mistresses or wives? Paul B (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides the fact of being fairly rude with your editions, expressions and your negative to debate a fair subject (Flyer22). The subject it is comment the article Pederasty, Child abuse issues, so might be not so out of context here. Related the history context of pederasty, I would use as example, Slavery, 200 years ago, it would be called commerce of people, and we don't use that term, we use slavery. Paul, yes, every adult relationship with human being below the age of consent, it called child sexual abuse, and in very rare circumstances it's allowed below legal adulthood, in fact, the age difference it´s considered a mayor factor in determing a child sexu abuse, 5 years of difference below 12 years old children and 10 years in children above 12 years old. ( Browne A., Finkelhor D. Impact of Child Sexual Abuse: A Review of the Research ). And also, about my edit on "See also" adding child sex abuse, I didn´t considered to be out line, there's a straight line between pederasty and child sex abuse, ancient times or not.--Euroescritor (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your language is rather obscure. Slavery was called slavery (though, obviously, they did not use the English word). Your comment about the age of consent is both wrong and irrelevant. No one would reasonably consider a relationship between a 17 year old and an 18 year old to be "child sex abuse" even if the age of consent were 18. Nor is that how most jurisdictions deal with such matters. But even if they did, your point would be irrelevant. There was no such thing as an "age of consent" in ancient cultures, and even in recent times ages of consent were commonly as young as 12 (see age of consent). The concept of an age of consent for any homosexual relationship did not even exist until recently in many jurisdictions, since it was either illegal or not recognised at all in law. If a man can marry a girl at the age of 12 (which was commonplace throughout much of history) it is a double standard to codify otherwise identical male-male sexual relationships as "child sex abuse". In any case, as I said, the context varies. Such relationships are pederastic whether or not the youth is above whatever modern age of consent you happen to imagine is normative and then magically project back to ancient culture. The idea that the findings in the link you give can somehow be applied to wholly different cultures with radically different values and assumptions is frankly ludicrous. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

How is paedophilia anything to do with LBGT Issues?

Can you explain this please? twl 79.74.106.98 (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia by itself does not. Pederasty technically falls under male-on-male contact. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the merge tag should now be removed. Euroescritor has not responded for two weeks and no other editors have commented. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree this tag needs to be removed. Pederasty is not sexual abuse. What a bloody moronic prude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.109.44 (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Careful, IP. I don't think that the editor should be called "a bloody moronic prude." By that, I mean that adults having sex with pubescent or post-pubescent minors is obviously considered (and can be) abusive in some contexts. It depends on how young the younger person is, the law, and other things in some cases. Either way, Paul Barlow has now removed the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I apogolise for my personal attack. I was just angry at the time. I am sorry to whoever I offended - Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.109.44 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Objection

The description given to the Russian banyans as a place where men went to have sex with boys is not just POV but completely outrageous. Banyas were very social but were definitely not a place or sex. There should be more sources than some biased and obvioously delusional gay website. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a reasonable point. There's a whole article Banya (sauna) and it doesn't mention pederasty I don't think. Nor do its refs, such as this long article (admittedly of questionable reliability). There's a quite long article on Sauna which covers saunas throughout the world is too long to read, but nowhere contains the words "gay", "homosexual", "boy", or "pederasty", so probably not. On the other hand this could be something that occurred a lot but wasn't much documented on the grounds that people don't like to write down stuff like that.

And yeah that's not a very reliable source, since it called "gay.ru" and it's essentially a gay site, which fine, but its not a neutral scholarly journal (granted on this subject hard to find people who don't have an opinion I guess), but still... a site with an agenda, yes. That doesn't prove the cite is no good but its a red flag.

Really all they say are:

1. There was male prostitution at the banyans. (There's no cite for this, but they state it as a fact.)
2. There is a woodcut showing beardless youths offering somewhat personal services to (I assume naked) older men, such as helping them remove their boots and doing the beat-with-branches thing, which to them is sort of naturally going to imply erotic services for dessert. Maybe. But to the man who wears shoes the whole world is made of leather.

And they end with "Moscow's spas, staffed by beardless youths, may have been [emphasis added] sites of mutual male sexual relations long before the recorded instances of the nineteenth century, to which we will return" (although they don't return to it, at least on that page, that I saw), which is kind of weak tea.

It looks a bit academic and they offer the cites "(Biriukov 1991: 17; Rubinov 1990: 19)" which look fine and probably are, but there's no description of who Biriukov and Rubinov are or what their books are; in other words, the cites just point to empty air. Probably they are resolved somewhere else on the site, though.

All in all, not a very good source, I don't guess. If I was more interested I would drill down and find who Biriukov and Rubinov are and what they say, but I'm not so I won't. Leave it tagged for a few weeks/months and see if anybody else wants to do that, and if no one does, delete the statement, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections or corrections for over a month. Removed. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

re Afghanistan

An editor added this:

Information about the common occurrence of pederasty in modern Afghanistan is classified by the U.S. government. Soldiers have been instructed to not interfere. Those who have have been disciplined.

which I removed on the grounds that it's basically about child rape, or teen rape, or whatever ("From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base --'At night we can hear them screaming'"). Which is not exactly the same as pederasty. Not that I'm defending pederasty (I'm dead set against it), but "screaming victims" is not really what the article seems to be about. The harm of pederasty is more subtle. This is just rape, I guess. Maybe the passage belong in an article on child rape or the Afghan police or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion of non-consensual pederasty has no basis in evidence, ancient or modern. The information could be edited or presented in a different way I suppose. Evidence of classification of the information is only implied. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Inadequate grooming? User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of terms

I call your attention to the second paragraph in Wikipedia's "Ephebophilia" entry: In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents,[1][2] hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent children.[2][3] However, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development.[4] This could be because the media is unaware of other terms. I believe some version of this clarification of terms would be helpful in the articles on Pederasty and Pedophilia, as well. 71.210.132.74 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Jeff Moses