Talk:Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Is it necessary to include a link to a self-proclaimed "Girl-Love" site?

Frankly, it seems like a thinly veiled pedophile page. I understand that it is not wikipedia policy to censor, and that's a good thing, but some warning might be given to explain the content of the site. I'm uncertain of its ubiquitous legality.

[edit] Pedophilia vs Child sexual abuse

A large number of these titles are about child sexual abuse rather than pedophilia. That is, they are about traumatic or disturbing sexual encounters by children with adults. We don't know, in many cases, whether the adults are pedophiles or situational offenders. It might be more correct to move the article to something like "Child sexual abuse in fiction" or "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction". -Will Beback 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your second option is better than your first one. Some of the books/movies listed here have nothing to do with child sexual abuse. In Death in Venice, for example, the man and the boy never even touched each other; the boy was pretty much unaware of the man's existence. Pais 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are mixed together. -Will Beback 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming the article Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in literature and film (too looong) was my first thought, but I figured it would upset some because a few of these works do not portray adult-child sex as abusive. I agree that Pedophilia in literature and film is inaccurate, though. 24.224.153.40 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Literature and film" can be summed up with "fiction" by omitting the few autobiographies. -Will Beback 19:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
So what it's coming down to is that "pedophilia" is inaccurate because most of the time we don't know the sexual orientation of the characters, and some of the sexual encounters could be seen as abusive by some. Hence, "child sexual abuse" is POV, and "pedophilia" is not accurate. I'm always in favor of calling a spade a spade. How about "Adult-child sexual relations in fiction"? It's value-neutral and descriptive of what we are ultimately talking about. Clayboy 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)~~
Not all of the relations are sexual, so that doesn't cut it either. -Will Beback 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we generalise it into "Adult-child relations in fiction" then? I suspect that is too general. "Adult-child romantic relations in fiction" perhaps? Ah, this is hopeless. Clayboy 21:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
If we go with any of these generalized titles then we should merge in Pederastic filmography, which covers similar ground. -Will Beback 21:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that the page name has been changed to ..in fiction, should we remove the non-fiction section? Pais 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi everyone...

child sexual abuse (of pre-pubescent or pubescent children)is usually a sub set of pedophilia. Pedophilia is the psychological condition and many pedophiles do not act on their feelings (e.g. Death in Venice etc). The book (and film) still have a pedophiole theme.

The many references I've listed (I've read all the books referenced, and seen about half the films) are primarily chosen to illustrate the many facets of pedophilia. I originally chose novels as a heading, but someone changed this to literature and this is a good word as fiction not an ideal word. Many books and films on this subject have a strong autobiographical content. And fiction misses out the movies.

There is overlap with pederastic filmography, though I think there is a meaningful distinction.

Surely the key thing in an encyclopaedia is that we should be signposting sourecs of information for researchers or casual browsers and not seek to delete things (like non-fiction references).

I think we should go back to pedophilia in literature and film or perhaps even Pedophilia in The Arts and then we could add paintings.poems etc.

Any thoughts???

Best wishes Tony Sandel

  • I agree, Tony. Pedophilia in literature and film is preferable to current title, in my opinion, for the reasons given. I wouldn't call itn Pedophilia in the arts until or unless it does include paintings etc., but anway that should be a separate article I guess. Also, I think, technically, it should be named "List of..." (Um, "List of pedophilia-themed novels", for instance, although that would mean throwing out all non-novels from the article). See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Herostratus 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree using 'Arts' is a long way off at the moment.

[edit] child sexual abuse

If an author writes that a relationship is nonabusive, it is nonabusive (regardless of how things would play out in the flesh). Welcome to fiction! I think this article should be moved back. 24.224.153.40 00:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all are about pedophilia, and not all are about child sexual abuse. -Will Beback 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
All are about "pedophilia and adult-child sex," I believe. Not all are about "pedophilia and child sexual abuse." (For the reasons I said above -- it's fiction.) 24.224.153.40 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think that all are about pedophilia. "Mystic River" isn't. Is "Sleepers"? I don't think so. Both are about child sexual abuse. -Will Beback 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. I know that they're not all about pedophilia, but I don't think your move of "Pedophilia and adult-child sex in fiction" to "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction" was appropriate, because not all of these fictional novels describe the relationship as abusive. And "if an author writes that a relationship is nonabusive, it is nonabusive (regardless of how things would play out in the flesh)." 24.224.153.40 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Not all of them describe the perpetrators as pedophiles either, do they? Also, a relationship does not have to be described as abusive for it to be abusive. Novels often have imperfect narrators. -Will Beback 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Right. One wouldn't object to including (say) the Flashman novels in a list of "Novels with cowardly cads as protaganists" just because Flashman (the narrator) doesn't see himself as a cowardly cad (which he is), I wouldn't think. Herostratus 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)F
I'm not sure it's appropriate for us to judge that Flashman was a cowardly cad. 24.224.153.40 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Well if you mean Flashman in particular, OK, I haven't read the books so I don't really know. But if you mean that in general we should judge stuff on face value, I dunno. You'd have to categorize the Ku Klux Klan under "Community Self-Help Organizations" (or whatever they say they are) rather than "Racist Groups" and so forth... Herostratus 09:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe pedophilia covers all the examples of child sexual abuse in the works listed. Some pedophiles believe they do no harm, some victims encourage adults, other victims say they were not harmed. Pedophilia covers all situations where an adult is sexually attracted to a child, irrespective of whether the pedophile acted on his/her desires. It would not cover some instances of situational abusers. -Tony
If I write that I travelled to the moon on a giant pogo-stick, it could be included in "Travelling to the moon on a giant pogo stick in fiction," even if that can't happen outside a story. If I wrote a novel describing a sexual relationship between and adult and a child, and characterized it as nonabusive...
...we at least should not assume it's abusive. A book's world is spun by its author without regard for flesh-and-blood restrictions.
It's fictional. A book. Leave your real world at the door, please. 24.224.153.40 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think we'd create a special category of Travelling to the moon on a giant pogo stick in fiction, we'd simply list it as "fantasy fiction". -Will Beback 17:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm well. Thinking all this over, I think a pretty good case for "pedophilia and adult-child sex" has been made, to be honest. The argument that, if you have a novel where (say) an adult and a child have a love affair and everything is hunky-dory, it'd be a bit crusading to list that under "child sexual abuse" seems reasonable. Tough call. I wouldn't be too keen on listing a book by say Timothy Leary under "drug abuse". Speaking just for myself, intellectual honesty compels me to admit that I feel the arguments for the previous title have the upper hand. So if somebody wants to move it back, I personally won't object. Herostratus 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong focus on men and boys

Just out of curiousity, why is it that so much emphasis is based on male pedophilia, but female pedophilia is more or less glossed over?172.145.45.138 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See #Systematic bias in coverage. JayW 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean why there's a strong focus upon same-sex male paedophilia? That's most likely because, as Jan Schuijer, MA, wrote in the Journal of Homosexuality that during the 1950s and 1960s the paedophile movement in the Western industrialized nations, in order to become a seperate socio-political entity, had started to split more or less inofficially from the gay movement not because they had been expelled but because the paedophiles themselves had started to feel that their two issues (homosexuality and paedophilia) started to be assessed differently from each other by the public majority (in other words, the effects of secularizing Enlightenment started to weaken numinous homophobia even more while the numinous attitudes concerning adult-child sexual interactions were now increasingly aggrivated by that homophobia did not actually disappear but only had mostly been transformed and been increasingly projected upon adult-child interactions and desire for them so that in the end nothing more than a partly secularized repressive tolerance remained the public majority's attitude concerning homosexuality).
During the 1970s, this inofficial split met up with what back then seemed generous social effects of the sexual revolution and thus generating mixed outcomes, so publically emerging paedophile organizations in continental Western Europe of that era partly were genuine parts within homosexual organizations, while others were seperate socio-political entities that nonetheless were on mutually friendly terms with the generally larger homosexual organizations. It was then when single paedophile activists like Peter Schult started to publically support an official split between the gay movement and the paedophile movement, not out of any consideration for people attracted to children of the opposite sex but because of aforementioned structural differences in public perception of homosexuals and paedophiles, as well as the fact that paedophiles (in opposition to situational offenders) never desire to penetrate but on a sexual level exclusively seek a kind of comparably immature but always mutually approved and agreed-on acts of "sex play" also practiced by children among each other, a fact that had emerged by the increasing, let's call it "value-neutral" (which could be defined, basically, as distinguishing between situational and structured), scientific research into the mental phenomenon of paedophilia during the 1970s and partly the 1980s (beside Bernard, Brongersma, and Giese as more or less personally concerned activists who however are widely renowned in Dutch public, science, and jurisprudence, see for instance the, partly primary, partly secondary, and partly even tertiary works and papers of scientists personally and publically independent of the movement such as Bornemann, Sandfort, Lautmann, Baurmann, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, Bradford, Howells, Ingram, West, Amendt).
Since the 1950s Bernard with his Enclave kring and others had tried for decades to establish bi-friendly and hetero-friendly paedophile organizations but had always failed in that, all stable paedophile organizations were dominated by people, whether they were males or females, attracted to children of the same sex by far. Brongersma is one of the most famous activists who concluded from that repeatedly observed phenomenon that one ought not regard or speak of paedophilia as a heterosexual issue at all, no matter what sex(es) paedophiles might be attracted to concerning adult sex partners (whom they in contrary desire penetration with usually) beside their definite preference for children. Considering the low absolute numbers of any actual paedophiles (not to confuse with situational offenders) being attracted to children of the other sex as well as their low ratio in comparison to paedophiles attracted to children of the same sex, the conjectural question emerges whether most or even all of them in fact might be in denial due to homophobia internalized severely by socialization. --TlatoSMD, 01:52, 11 August 2006 (CEST)

[edit] "In fiction" < "In the Arts" ?

Does anyone think it would be useful to include related music? (such as Lolita by Elefant or "Boku wa Rorikon"?) JayW 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertolucci's 1900

In the movie 1900 (Novecento), there is a scene with two young boys (probably 12 yo) masturbating; I mean they are really masturbating in front of the camera. In some countries, this scene is considered as child porn.
There is also a second scene with a man raping an other boy (and this time it's totally fictional).
In the article, the movie is in the category "movie with a pedophile theme", but I think this should be in a category "pedophilic movie" too. Elias2 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was there a discussion of the name change

Also, what is wiki policy on series commas (i.e., "Pedo, ephebo, and child" or "Pedo, ephebo and child")? DanB DanD 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer that there is not a final comma before the "and" but this seems not to be common on the wiki. There is no style policy. Tomyumgoong 17:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Where/when was the name change discussed, though? It's a big change.DanB DanD 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the same question. Please explain the name-change. -Will Beback 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: WP:MOS#Serial_commas. -Will Beback 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion for name change and restructure is going on above. This change seems to have been unilateral? --Monotonehell 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I suggest a split for theatre

I don't normally think of "fiction" as including theatre, and the section is so short tucked away at the bottom of this long article that it sort of gets lost. Why not start a new page for plays?

Also, since it seems the name change was made without discussion, let's have it now. I don't like it: the new name is long and awkward, and anyway I think "ephebophilia" is a silly neologism for a made-up condition. On the other hand, I acknowledge that it's a widely used term on wiki. On the other other hand, almost all the kids whose ages are mentioned on the page are fourteen or younger: that's just plain old pedophilia by any definition, surely? DanB DanD 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -Will Beback 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, by the defintion of the APA, any child who is going through puberty is no longer a child, and therefore any attraction to them is that of an ephebophile. That is actually the correct definition.--69.250.243.197 11:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
'Correct' by whose definition? Convention on the Rights of the Child sets it at 18 years. Some dictionaries usualy speak to puberty while others skirt the issue by just saying "young human". There's no one agreed upon definition of a 'child'. I think there is a useful distinction between the two but as to where to set it is a matter of conjecture. Out of interest: recent brain science has discovered that the time at which a brain 'rewires' itself from child to adult is around the age of 25. I saw it on the BBC so it must be true ;) --Monotonehell 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that stuff on neurological changes in late adolescence/early adulthood is in the August issue of Scientific American as well. Some who isn't lazy should write up a summary for a bunch of these articles--I recently had an editor calmly assure me that a girl of twelve who has reached menarche is "physically mature in every way" (!!!)
Sorry, we're charging off-topic! DanB DanD 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
*Twitch* --Monotonehell 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CSA

The term "abuse" is used throughout this entire article, and this seems incredibly POV. In some of these fictional works, accounts of adult-child sex are portrayed in a positive light from the child's point of view. The word "abuse" in every example leads the reader to imagine these are all books about children being violently raped or molested against their wishes - very misleading.

The term CSA itself is controversial, since it makes the blanket assumption that any and all sex between a child and an adult is inherently abusive. It's fine that the term has its own Wikipedia page, since it is in common use - but should we really use such POV language in articles about fiction and literature? The assumption of harm (or "abuse") is a legal fiction, not a universal truth agreed upon by all. As a supposed victim of "child sexual abuse", I would never use that term because there was nothing whatsoever abusive about my experiences.

The term is meaningless outside of legal circles, extremely POV, and misleading to anyone seeking neutral/un-political info about fiction. -195.93.21.3 18:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with that assessment. From talking with parents and children, most adults do not see adult-child sex as abusive unless there is physical force or threats of physical force involved. The term 'child sexual abuse' is incrediblity point of view, and would be better served by being replaced with adult-child sexual relationships. --69.250.243.197 11:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all the posts indicating that "sexual abuse" is not an accurate description of a lot of fictional portrayals of adult-child sex interactions. Considering the whole issue has always been very controversial since the end of Hellenism (there might be a little societal change to that during the 1960s and 1970s however that went back to traditional attitudes pretty soon during the 1980s), I'd suppose we're mostly dealing with two different social or political agendas expressed in such works, either to one side or the other. After all, it takes a lot to actually publish any work that does not portray sexuality between children and adults as inherently maltreating, so there must be strong views conflicting with such a notion with those people doing so. As for the other side, intending to pass on the opposite approach, I suppose it's quite obvious those works are made and published in order to raise social and political awarement issues.
That's why I'd opt for sorting those works in two categories within this article, one portraying its events as positive, the other as negative, with those sub-sections that are already present, as we're dealing with conflicting agendas. Neutral accounts are very rare, especially in fiction. --TlatoSMD 01:38, 11 August (CEST)
Clearly some of these works depict abusive relationships. Some depict only the desires contact, not the actual event. The existing title encompasses those extremese and most of what is in between. I don't know what criteria or reference we could use to sort the books into one category or another. -Will Beback 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Simple: Are the sexual events themselves described as detrimental and the emotions as pathological, or not? That's not saying the medical or scientific issue would be that simple, it only means that the discourse itself about it as well as its common portrayal are structured that simplicistic and reductionist. Portrayals where "positive" forms of adult-child sex interactions and desire for them are contrasted with "negative" forms are just as simplicistic, usually, by simply copying both positions.
And I'm not opting for changing this article's title, only that the list its made of is divided into the suggested categories by keeping their current categories as sub-categories. --TlatoSMD 21:50, 11 August (CEST)
If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that Wikipedia editors read these books and make their own decisions about how the plot events are depicted. That would be a flagrant violation of WP:NOR. -Will Beback 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the solution is, other than using a more neutral term. At the moment the article is grossly misleading - a casual reader of Wikipedia will assume that every book is about a child being raped or held down and molested. This is patently not the case. This takes no account of the fictionalized cases presented in a neutral or positive light. CSA is a controversial term; the blanket assumption of abuse/harm is a legal fiction rather than a universally agreed fact. Many "victims" ourselves disagree with it. This list is made to look like a list of anti-pedophile themed literature, when in fact some of it may be the exact opposite. If this isn't breaking the NPOV policy then I don't know what is. -195.93.21.3 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. My personal opinion is that 195.93.31.3 is correct, the article title should be changed to "Pedophila and adult-child sex in fiction". I hate to disagree with Will, but the other side has the stronger argument in my opinion. The argument against the change is based at least partly on the idea that authors of works don't get to decide how their works are categorized. We wouldn't change (say) "Genocide in fiction" to "Human gene pool reform in fiction", for instance. It's strong argument. I just don't think it applies here. One of the overall POV pushing that we all as editors have to guard against is attempts, through terminology or other means, to use Wikipedia to try to normalize adult-child sex, which is a common POV-pushing theme that I often run into. However, in this case, we are talking about fiction. Sorry, Will. Herostratus 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Herostratus and 195.93.21.3 that the title and tone of the article are misleading, if not strongly POV. The argument of 195.93.21.3 is persuasive. -Neural 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (edit break)

Over the past few days I've looked at the content of these lists. I must say there's quite a few works here that are arguably not CSA. Further there are a few works that are arguably neither pedophilia nor ephebophilia. This article has been up for AfD twice before (I think) so I'm not suggesting deletion again, BUT what needs to be done is define EXACTLY what this article's purpose is. I think this is also part of the problem with the naming. So I pose this question. What is this page's purpose? --Monotonehell 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with the name change (as long as it doesn't retain the weaselly "ephebophilia"), but I hate the idea of dividing the books into "pro" and "anti." -- there are many books on the list that would be misplaced in either category.
I also think that a separate page for girls (as well as a separate page for theatre) is a good idea. The present state of the page, with an acknowledged focus on boys but with girls lumped in as well, seems a little unencyclopedic, especially as female-directed pedophilia has been a more prominent theme in fiction.
DanB DanD 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that attempting a division on "pro" and "anti" is a POV nightmare. There are already books on ths list that do not contain Pedophilia, ephebophilia or child sexual abuse themes. Perhaps they should be removed? If we remove ephebophilia from the title there's possibly more works that must be removed from this list. On your point about a "separate page for girls", would we have four separate pages for books? AdultMale/ChildFemale, AdultMale/ChildMale, AdultFemale/ChildMale and AdultFemale/ChildFemale? Or simply one page where female children are involved with adults of both sexes and another for male children? Seems a very arbitary demarcation.
You also haven't addressed the question I asked. What is the purpose of this page? (Not only directed at you) For example what is the difference between this page and Category:Novels with a pedophile theme? --Monotonehell 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's really for Tony Sandel to say, as the page is his baby. Hey Tony!
(You know what, the names for the separate girl and boy pages would be so long and awkward that I withdraw the suggestion. We just need to correct the focus on boys, is all.)
DanB DanD 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking it really ought to be a category, because most of the title have articles of their own. If that were not true the mini-synopses would maybe be useful. I say: turn it into a category. Herostratus 06:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony speaks!!

Hi everyone. Can I make a few comments on the recent exchange of views here.

The focus is biased towards adult/boy relationships because these are the books I have read and the subject with which I am familiar. I have not read the adult/girl books. Therefore happy if there's a vote to split the article in two.

What's it for? It's trying to be a comprehensive resource pulling together all the works of literature on pedophilia. My first title was the simple 'pedophilia in literature', but successive edits have made it more complex. There have been lots of comments about what is or isn't pedophilia so we don't need to go there again. I have put links from the articles on each work so that anyone can enter the article then leave to view another work of literature.

I wanted to include fiction and non-fiction. The reason being that many 'fictional' works with pedophilia content are actually semiautobiographical. I also created the Category:Novels with a pedophile theme.

The reason we have a couple of lines of synopsis is again to guide users. I used to have several paragraphs at the start of the article but these were deleted.

I'm impressed at the amount of passion on this page, and it would be great if you guys who clearly know a lot about the subject would contribute to the resources on wikipedia with new material, references etc.

I try to keep a neutral POV. If you were to split into pro and anti views I think that would be a disaster. The pro category would be deleted I'm sure. As it is now, any user can click through to the article on each book where the neutral POV content does indicate the context of any abuse. I always indicate, for instance, if the child encouraged the relationship.

On ephebophilia: in the UK, it isn't even a word acknowledged by the country's leading dictionary. Paedophilia is an inclusive word and covers abusive and loving non-abusive relationships. Let's stick with it.

So please, friends, lets all ADD resources on the topic of pedophilia and not spend all our energies on making edits/re-edits etc.!!

) 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Book covers deleted

Aren't book covers one of the things specifically covered under "fair use"? Is it because the article isn't on any one of the books in particular that they weren't? DanB†DanD 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


The person who deleted them seems to be someone who deletes images on a regular basis. I've asked him/her what is the problem. Tony 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Possible new layout

Here is a possible layout for the article Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. I've taken inspiration from Oz Books which is listed as a model of excellence. What does everyone think? Tony 22:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Tony

It looks fine, Tony. There are other issues, of inappropriate generalization, which perhaps need to be tackled, however. Some of these stories seem to depict abuse, some of these stories, seem to depict pedophile relations, and some seem to depict neither. Until that is properly addressed there will be a certain lack of credibility. So perhaps we should also have boxes indicating what specifically the novel addresses. I would suggest three: 1. Pedophilia; 2. Lawful minor/adult relationships; 3. Child sexual abuse. Thus, a novel like Allan Stein would (according to your description, since I have not read it) have two out of three boxes checked, 2 and 3. Haiduc 12:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Sensible thinking, Haiduc. They all features pedophile behaviour so we don't need that specified (can do in intro) but we should have a check column for child sexual abuse - defined as unlawful. We don't need therefore to specify lawful minor/adult relationships. See new table. How do you, in a table, force a line break so that fiction is on one line and (young adults) on the next line?? Tony 12:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Tony
or we could use colours like [1] Tony 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Tony
I think we are heading in the right direction. Now, based on your description of Allan Stein it contains accounts of both abusive and non-abusive relationships, so that probably should be reflected in that column. Another comment, if you so not mind my meddling in style issues. I would avoid adjectives like "disgusting" or "vicious" not because these characters do not deserve it but because it is more effective to let the reader draw his own conclusions from an apt description. I would also avoid categorizing the criminals as "pedophiles," again so as not to belabor the obvious or appear programatic. For example: "Orphan boy Custis [age?] has been sexually abused over a period of time by Bob Motley [age?], who used to "own" him. Motley picked him up at a mall and made [forced him against his will?] him participate in pornographic movies, sometimes with other girls and boys as young as seven." I would also add a bit about where the book is going, "Custis begins to realize what has been done to him," whatever. Haiduc 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
See revised table, reflecting your suggestions. I think the sexual abuse column should be simple yes or no, but ambiguities can be reflected in the text. We need to design the table for other contributors and I won't have read all the books! BTW, in Allan Stein, the allegation was unfounded, but it gave the guy the idea and he then had sex with the boy...
Thank you, it reads better. I am still uncomfortable over the prominence given the sexual abuse category. Why should it have pre-eminence over "pedophilia" (not all relationships are pedophilic, obviously, since some boys are in their mid-teens) or over lawful relationships (which I hope you will not argue are "abuse"). I see also that there was a whole to-do over the title of the article, which also makes me a bit uncomfortable - it seems to beg the question. How would you feel about "Adult-minor erotic relationships in fiction"? This would span the whole gamut of age and legality and psychological conditions, without any use of loaded terms. There's room for pedophilia there, and child sexual abuse, and also relationships with minors that are neither illegal nor abusive. Comments?
On Allan Stein, if the first accusation was false, that is very significant and should be mentioned. How will you do this all if you have not read all the books? How about ISBNs? Haiduc 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've read all the books where I edit an article, but there are many books (eg adult/girl) which I have not read and that have been added by other Wikipedians. This list just has a few lines on each book: naturally the specific article of a booklf may have more info, though some I have written are little more than stubs.

I think the yes/no box for sexual abuse is a bit POV and OR. DanB†DanD 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it can be POV if the adult/child sexual activity (in the setting - i.e. time/country - of the novel/biography etc) is unlawful. It is then by definition sexual abuse. It may or may not be harmful. It may be consensual. I don't think listing a category is OR is we are not drawing origianl conclusions. All we would be doing is indicating books with no (or not proven) sexual abuse. Quite a few books in the list have no abuse including Death in Venice, Flannelled Fool, An Honorable Profession, The Man without a Face, The Moralist, Secret Friendships, What Happened to Mr. Forster? It might be better to mention this in the text however. Would that be better than a column? Tony 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Tony
I have to agree with you, Tony, that we have to guide ourselves by the prevailing laws in order to determine whether a given relationship was officially abusive or not. However, as you also point out, a number of relationships covered here do not fall under the rubric of CSA or of pedophilia. So where does that leave us as far as the title of this article goes? I did not answer my comments in the last message. Haiduc 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
At present, the child sexual abuse article (I was a main framer of the opening paragraphs), does not define CSA in terms of local statutes. Laws against sex with children don't normally use the word "abuse" -- it's not a legal term or a crime as such. We followed the APA and the The United Nations Secretary General’s Study on Violence Against Children in saying "Child sexual abuse is the sexual assault of a minor or ... sexual activity between a minor and an older person in which the dominant position of the older person is used to coerce or exploit the younger." We then note that this is usually illegal. So simply saying "Well, this book about sex with a 17-year-old is set in New York and that one is set in New Jersey, so the first one has CSA and the second one doesn't" would, in addition to being silly, not match Wikipedia's present definition of CSA.
Of course, there's no reason why that article's language should necessarily carry the day, but we did work pretty hard on hashing out the definition a couple months back, and it would be nice if Wikipedia were consistent. DanB†DanD 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish it were that simple. First of all, I would guess that CSA as defined by the APA and the UN is illegal everywhere, so that even if a minor is seventeen years old and in New York State, and the relationship is between, say, a teacher (thus a person in a demonstrably dominant position) and a student, it would be illegal. I think the same applies to the UK, where otherwise the limit is sixteen. However. The impression I get over here is that someone has taken it upon themselves to "define" as CSA even relationships otherwise legal and consensual. I hope I am mistaken, I have not delved into this whole suite of articles at all. But if we have taken it upon ourselves to draw such conclusions, then we have ventured into drawing moral and ethical conclusions we have no right to. Different people live by different rules, and if we are to report fairly then we have to abide by their individual differences, not apply an arbitrary yardstick to them all. Quite frankly, this is a morass that will be impossible to resolve, which is why it is far better to put everything under a neutral title and let readers make up their minds. Horrible behaviors do not need to be underlined as horrible, it is obvious enough. And neutral or positive relationships certainly do not need to be branded by us, to boot, with anybody's tar brush. Haiduc 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we worked pretty hard at sourcing that definition -- it's not the opinion of Wikipedia editors, it's a distillation of the judgment of the most global and authoritative sources we could find. The U.N. report specifically addressed the case of sexual violence or exploitation that is considered normal in local culture or not prosecuted under local law, and they do nevertheless class it as abuse under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of a Child (which every U.N. member other than the U.S.A. has endorsed).
I think if you read up a bit, you'll find although most governments have laws to prevent and punish abuse, there is no legal definition of "abuse" as a concept. The definitions that do exist use moral and psychological language that is not easily quantified. DanB†DanD 00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that many practices locally sanctioned, like female circumcision, would be classed as abuse. But until I see a proper citation for authoritative condemnation as abusive of relationships lawful in their respective countries (the example of a British male couple, 16 and 22, is a useful example) I will not be persuaded that we have licence here to impose a moral judgement on our readers. And especially because such things are not easily quantified we should know our place and use neutral language. We do not need any more McMartin type debacles. Haiduc 00:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this conversation has become a little muddled.
I agree that editors should not exercise their private moral judgment in editing Wikipedia. That's why I think the yes/no box for abuse is a bad idea.
Who's McMartin?
[a moment later:] I have now googled McMartin. Don't be silly.
DanB†DanD 00:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So let's figure out what we agree on and what we don't. We both agree that the "Sex abuse" column is a bad idea. You think the present title is perfectly fine and I think it should read "Adult-child erotic relations in fiction". And you would like to label all relations between individuals over eighteen and individuals under eighteen as abusive, based on your reading of the UN paper and your reading of the APA position, while I think we should stay out of that morass altogether and use neutral terminology. Have I got it right? Haiduc 01:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I've taken out the yes/no column. I am not at all happy with adult/minor or 'erotic relations'. Erotic is a charged word and we should steer well clear. Please, let's not debate the title of the article yet again! You're right about the word 'abuse' in a legal context (see [[2]]) in the UK. But in reality, all I wanted to suggest was using a Wikitable to present the material we have already as a clearer resource for Wikpedians looking up the topic of pedophilia in literature. No more.... 17:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Tony


[edit] We do not have a right to inflict judgemental labels on the literature

I will not proceed any further unless others also agree that this is an inappropriate categorization for the works discussed here. I am not here to tilt at windmills. However, I will go on record as being of the opinion that this mis-titling is an unjustified imposition of a personal point of view upon a varied collection of creative works which includes many which either do not belong at all or which would be better served by a less judgemental nomenclature.

Tony, your accusation that "erotic" is a charged term is odd here. All of these terms are charged terms. Nevertheless we are obligated to seek a neutral and accurate mode of presenting what otherwise is very useful information. Haiduc 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just leave the article as it is. Life's too short. I won't convert everything to a table. If any Wikipedian wants to write another article with the title etc that you suggest, do please do so. I do not use 'judgemental labels' and maintain a neutral POV. Tony 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Britten's children

Copied from Talk:Britten’s Children

Bluewave and Tony wonder idf there are any other views on this:

Bridcut uses the term "paedocrat". This article labelled Britten as a paedophile. This is a highly charged term with several meanings. It has a very strict literal meaning of one one who is sexually attracted to children (which is undeniably true of Britten). It is also seen in contexts such as "he is a convicted paedophile" (seen in the The Times recently). Thus the term is used in the media, to mean a criminal act (which the book does not accuse Britten of performing). The book treads a very careful line (and the author has done a brilliant job in doing so): this article must respect that. Bluewave 19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I don't recall the use of the word paedocrat, but I've added a new para taken from p 237. Tony 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony I took out the paedophile phrase from the sentence "Bridcut provides ample proof that Britten was sexually attracted to young boys, in other words a paedophile, but is similarly able to show that it is unlikely that Britten ever stepped over the line of propriety and molested any of the boys." If the term "paedophile" is used in its strictest sense, then it is simply a restatement of the earlier phrase "Britten was sexually attracted to young boys". However, the term is sensationalist (something which Bridcut studiously avoided) and is used in the media to imply criminal behaviour (which Bridcut does not suggest). Bluewave 10:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bridcut did avoid labouring the fact, but he did mention it (as per the quotation) and in a summary of the book I think it is fair to put it in. Is it not important to recognise that Britten was a paedophile, but that some/many paedophiles are not the predatory types portrayeed by the media? An encyclopaedia should be free to use words in their correct context. In English Law, the words paedophile and paedophilia never appear as offences. It is a condition; it is not illegal. I have not reverted your edit at this stage as we may get some other Wikipedians adding to the debate and let's wait to hear what they say... Tony 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Tony

OK. Fair point. Happy to get other views. Bluewave 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the title

The title for this article doesn't accurately reflect the contents. I'd suggest Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in literature to fit the conventions that seem to have been formed with "... in film", "... in theatre", and "... in music". I saw some discussion earlier in the talk page about including/not including biography, so I don't want to rename if that discussion is still active at all. Comments? —Seqsea (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We had this title some months ago and it was my orginal choice. I will be splitting off boy-related and girl-related content when I have time so the new titles might be Pedophilia and child sexual abuse of boys in literature Pedophilia and child sexual abuse of girls in literature Tony 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Tony

Books on Pedophilia and child sexual abuse
Cover Title Author Year Genre Adult Child
33 Snowfish Adam Rapp 2003 Fiction (young adults) Male Boy, age 11
11-year-old orphan boy Custis has been sexually abused over a period of time by Bob Motley, a serial child-abuser who used to "own" him. Motley picked him up at a mall and made him participate in pornographic movies, sometimes with other girls and boys as young as 7.
The Abomination Paul Golding 2000 Fiction Male Boy, age 9-15
James Moore is first seduced at a 1950s Prep school by a master, Mr Wolfe, at age 9. The boy, however, encourages the master in his advances. From age 13 to 15 he is abused by his English public school music teacher Dr Fox, and the experience is not pleasant.
All American Boy William J Mann 2006 Fiction Male Boy, age 14
Wally day is in denial about the rent-boys he uses. Returning home after 20 years, he relives his past and meets Zandy, the man who loved him when he was aged 14 and the man who was branded a child sex abuser and sent to jail.
Allan Stein Matthew Stadler 1999 Fiction Male Boy, age 15
After losing his high school teaching job over an accusation of sexual abuse, a writer assumes a false identity and seduces another boy in France, 15-year-old Stéphane. After two weeks, the writer succeeds in making Stéphane his lover, and the two run off together to the South of France.
Avoidance Michael Lowenthal 2002 Fiction Male Boy, age 14
Jeremy becomes infatuated with Max at summer camp. When Max confides in him that he has been molested by the camp director, Jeremy realises just how close he came to actually committing the same crime.
Billy Whitley Strieber 1990 Fiction Male Boy, age 12
The story of the abduction of Billy Neary by Barton Royal, a man who abducts, tortures and kills pubescent boys. Barton’s psychotic behaviour switches between extreme violence and interludes of self-delusion when he imagines that Billy could love him.
Boy O'Boy Brian Doyle 2002 Fiction Male Boy, age 11
Martin O’Boy and his friend Billy are molested by a church organist.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/d/Talk%7EPedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_fiction_8742.html"