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:

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

--I would also suggest a careful wording of the first section. I changed it to highlight the potential unhealthy use of this page as a rationale for child abuse. I think it is absolutely essential to discuss the historical and cultural acceptance and understanding of pederasty. However, unless the article immediately highlights the contemporary understanding of pederasty as an abusive behavior, the article softens the harm caused from sexual relationships between children and adults. Also, Homosexuality and Pedophilia are often incorrectly linked, and this article sounds as though it is equating the two. I wouldn't want a platform with as much importance and power as Wikipedia to contain an article that both covertly rationalizes child abuse, and incorrectly connects sexual and emotional intimacy between two adult male, consenting adults and that abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norabur (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Norabur, your edit was incorrect, which is why I reverted. Read WP:Original research and WP:Advocacy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Norabur, followup edits here and here. I understand where you are coming from, but 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) 02:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

sophrosyne

"erotic friendships and moderate forms, known as Sophrosyne" No, it isn't known as that.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pederasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025055956/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/CDS.HTM to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/CDS.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008112741/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pederasty.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pederasty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318040244/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/1-6-1-2-13.html to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/1-6-1-2-13.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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)