Talk:Pederasty/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 2 Foucauldian allegation 3 The "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality": reliable source?? 4 comments by Margrave1206 5 "Three main subdivisions"? 6 Sexual Orientation 7 Pederasty article or what?? 8 References for Islamic world 9 This article confuses pederasty and sodomy 10 "Tryst between man and youth" japanese picture 11 LGBT banner 12 Pederasty in Ottomans 13 Proverbs and ditties 14 Pederasty 'is the primary form that male homosexuality has taken throughout human history' 15 Links 16 Pederasty applies to both genders? 17 Small POV Issue 18 confused... 19 Images 20 lead section 21 Precision before all else 22 Revision of Introduction 23 More on the intro 24 Confusion!! 25 Western Model 26 Problematic opening 27 Painful progress 28 "Pedo" and associated words meaning "boy"

The neutrality of this article needs to be looked at again. I find that the use of "" in a pejorative manner, as is done is this articel in several places and the over usage of the phrase "self proclaimed" and "so called" take away from the encyclopedic tone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzbek451 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Foucauldian allegation

The following text, "However, there are many social anthropologists, like philosopher Michel Foucault, who disagree and the topic, like many historical speculations in the field of anthropology, it is a matter of dispute. [1]" needs to be supported with a direct quote from Foucault rather than a vague allegation and a link to a paper inaccessible to most of our readers. If it turns out that it can be properly sourced it will be a very welcome addition to the article. Haiduc 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality": reliable source??

I happened to run across the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality on line (it is archived on a private website here). I'm not confident that the book can be considered a reliable source: its editor describes in a statement how it was withdrawn by its publisher after it was revealed that some of its "editors" were in fact pseudonyms (including the campy "Evelyn Gottone"). The editor presents his book going out of print as an act of political censorship by "leftists and feminists" - which only increases the impression that both he and his opponents have pretty big axes to grind.

Not only has it been withdrawn in what was apparently a mini-melodrama, its standards of scholarship are shaky. Very like Wikipedia, some of its entries include bibliographies and some simply leave them out.

The article on pederasty does have sources, some of whom rate a mention in WP's own Pedophile activism article: Frits Bernard, Theo Sandfort and so on - a pretty polemical crew whom we should not represent as neutral parties.

Can the statements sourced to the Encyclopedia at least be traced back to their origin with these fellows, so that their false appearance of encyclopedic neutrality is removed? That would go some way toward mitigating concerns about reliability and POV in this article.

DanB†DanD 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To expect contributors to the EoH, writing close to twenty years ago in a political climate even more corrosive and homophobic than that of today to put their academic careers on the line by writing under their own names is to not understand the dynamics of repression. And while you are entitled to your opinion, I find more reliable and authoritative that of Library Journal which asserts that: "Dynes (author of Homosexuality: A Research Guide, LJ 5/15/87) has put together a superb reference tool. The encyclopedia contains 770 articles providing a broad range of information useful to both scholar and layperson. Coverage includes historical, medical, psychological, sociological, and transcultural and transgeographical information in biographical, topical, and thematic entries." Also as far as I know, the only place where the EoH is cited here is in the opening, where there is a common-sensical description of the prevalence of pederasty in history. If you disagree with the statement why don't you come up with counterexamples? I certainly would not oppose a discussion on the topic, if you feel the statement is in error. Haiduc 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor did write under his own name, even in the terrifying world of 1990 when homosexuality dared not speak its name in universities and publishing houses. He wrote some articles under his own name, and some under pseudonyms, making it seem as if the encyclopedia had more contributors - and as if the articles on lesbian topics were written by a woman rather than by a man. Either there were no lesbian academics at that distant date, or there were none who cared to write for his encyclopedia - he writes of having had some trouble with "feminist activists."

Anyway, I don't think its necessary to "take a side" in this spat to see that it reflects badly on his encyclopedia as a source. I do have some concern about the way some articles simply don't cite sources at all, while those that do just give a bibliography without saying what comes from whom. This is less of a problem, of course, when all the sources express a common perspective, as the sources used for his "pederasty" article seem to.

Here are a couple of articles about the withdrawal of the encyclopedia (subscription, which I don't have, needed for all but the blurbs): Pseudonym or Hoax?, Editor of "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality" Apologizes,

You are correct that the review quoted on Amazon.com is good. However, that review's statement that each of the encyclopedia's articles includes a bibliography is factually mistaken.

DanB†DanD 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything supporting the contention that Dynes wrote the articles by "Gettone" and if Dynes had tenure and felt free to speak that was not true of many others then, as it is not true of many even today. It is easy to be sarcastic now when you have nothing to lose, but you only have the freedom you have today because educated and principled people had the balls to do research and to publish though they had everything to lose, and some of them chose the cloak of anonymity so their lives would not be destroyed. Let's not mock people because they refused to be martyrs.

I agree with you, however, that we should not engage Dynes' issues any further. That being said, is there an issue with the statement in question, or should we consider the matter closed? Haiduc 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes...I'm far too young to have known the horrors of being queer on campus in 1990 (or am I just too old to remember them? Well, never mind.)

I'll remove the reference and leave the paragraph as it is with a fact-tag. I'm sure you can quickly find another source. DanB†DanD 05:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you refuse to engage the argument of whether or not the statement is correct, and only insist on imposing your opinion of a work produced by scholars evidently more qualified than you to write about such things, I will have to disagree. Haiduc 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right that I have no idea if the statement is correct or not, because I haven't seen a reliable source that either supports or refutes it.

Can you respond to my reliability concerns about your source as follows:

1. The encyclopedia was withdrawn from publications due to questions of editorial ethics.
2. Many of its articles do not cite sources, greatly reducing the reliability of the work as a whole.
3. Those articles that do cite sources (including "pederasty") do not source particular statements, so the part you reference in the article cannot be individually traced to their origin and verified.
4. The sources cited by the pederasty article are polemicists, and if their POV is significant enough to be included, should not be presented as a neutral overview of the topic (the present place of the reference in the article).

Thanks DanB†DanD 05:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I simply do not accept your contention that academic disagreements over the ethics of anonymous publishing and the actions of a private for-profit corporation that found it in its financial interest to avoid a political battle reflect on the overall value of a work that has been as well received and highly decorated as the EoH has. In particular these concerns do not reflect on an article that is not involved in the main dispute - that of using opposite-sex pseudonyms. Furthermore, I do not see what your problem is with the statement in question, the accuracy of which is obvious to anyone with a modicum of information on historical matters. Do not make it seem as if we are to operate as virtual idiots, as citation-gathering machines.

Unfortunately it is not ignorance of the topic that you bring to the table, but your antagonism to pederasty, which you have made amply clear in the past. But pederasty is a very mixed bag. Just as modern homosexuality is a very mixed bag too, as I am sure you are aware without my having to go into detail. Perhaps that is because human nature is a mixed bag. But let's not use these articles to pursue our likes and dislikes, shall we?

You doubt that pederasty is the most frequent type of homosexuality? Bring proof. And please do not come here on a pedophile witchhunt, I am not interested in playing politics. Haiduc 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear your suggestion that I'm on a witch hunt. It's always easier to see other people's prejudices than one's own, so I hope you'll correct any biases in my editing.

Of course as you know, the idea that a statement must be proved not true before being removed from an article is the opposite of the way Wikipedia works. We are here to gather citations, mechanical though that process may sometimes feel.

However, you'll notice that I haven't removed any statement from the article - I have removed the unreliable source from a statement and asked you to find another.

If you really feel that the statement is an obvious piece of common knowledge, then it can stand without a citation. But I don't think that can be so - I'm pretty common, and it's not a piece of knowledge I possess.

DanB†DanD 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

comments by Margrave1206

This article is bias and corrupt. I find a great deal of this info to be false, and no more than a way to support someones agenda. What has gone wrong, why is so much of this article incorrect? How can unnatural be made natural without proof. As for the article it needs to be deleted. --Margrave1206 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article a picture gallery? Also why is the article bias? When you read it, one would think the editors would be pro-pederasrty. This needs work, please don't twist the facts.--Margrave1206 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who made this observation. When you check the profiles of some of the people doing the writing, you notice that some of them admit to being a "pedophile" or "boy lover" in their profiles. Yes, very twisted stuff indeed. These guys want to pretend that it's the same as homosexuality, but it's not. Pedophilia is considered an abnormal and deviant paraphilia according to the American Psychological Association. Homosexuality is considered a normal and variant sexual orientation. Two men of middle age in love is not the same thing as a 40-year-old man and a near prepubescent 12-year-old boy.69.87.182.28 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked through over a year's worth of the history log of this article, and none of "the people doing the writing" has anything about being a "pedophile" or a "boy lover" on their user pages. You may have looked at my user page, but I am not one of "the people doing the writing"; I just revert vandalism and have never added anything to this article. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and don't try to falsely discredit Wikipedia editors. Clayboy 11:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Three main subdivisions"?

You know what else? The (still disputed!) source for the first paragraph doesn't say anything about three subdivisions of homosexuality, just the frequency of pederasty. What is the source for this three-part organizational scheme? DanB†DanD 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Anthropology. See the ref I just added. It is good you asked, this is an improvement. The deletion of the other reference however is capricious and "above the sandals". Inexcusable. And while I am not blaming you I find it interesting that a troll and a sock descend upon this article in a single day. Wonder of wonders. Anyway, if I come here it is to write, not to engage in internet hanky-panky. Haiduc 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

A Pederast can be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual: See therefore th correct terminus Neoterophilie And for heterosexual/bisexual men who like young women between 14 and 21 we have for example the word Lolitakomplex 212.95.119.38 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty article or what??

This article needs to be deleted, not only does it use invalid sources, it is less an article, and more a way to push the same an agenda. Poor and bias I say. It is filled with personal ideas of what world history was like, instead of being fact it is a work of fiction. What is the point of the article? How much truth is in the article?? What is the article trying to say to the reader? Anyone can write a book filled with errors, yes? So is it a proper to use such as a source?

Is part of the article is outlandish! So Christ is a cheerleader of pederasty now? I am not sure how a propaganda article is allowed to be on wiki. Why don't you re-write the worlds history and make every historical personage homosexual!

"However, an episode (Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10) in the Gospels, which recounts the healing of a "beloved slave," (it is this translation that leads to this argument, alternatives are "dear" or "valuable") has been read by some as supportive of male love. The centurion's servant healed by Jesus is thought to have been his beloved, and this narrative "may be fairly read as Jesus' acceptance of, and even collaboration in a pederastic relationship,"

--Margrave1206 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

References for Islamic world

The following paragraph has no references and is conjecture:

Islam has been another force shaping the ways in which same-sex love is understood and practiced in the Middle East. The valorization of youthful male beauty is found in the Qur'an itself: "And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls." (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19). Islamic jurisprudence generally considers that attraction towards beautiful youths is normal and natural. In order for any sexual act to be a punishable offense four witnesses were required.

The translation of the Quranic verse is inaccurate and misleading. I quote all three references from Yusuf Ali, the most popular, and arguably the most authoritative translation, as considered by the Muslim world.

52:24: "Round about them will serve, (Devoted) to them, Youths (handsome) as Pearls Well-guarded"

{Guarded refers to the protection of pearls from "deteriorating agencies" such as "gases, vapors, or acids.")

56:17: "Round about them will (serve) Youths of perpetual (freshness)." ("freshness" as opposed to mood changes, and refers to exceptional and energetic service. Not virginity.)

76:19: "And round about them Will (serve) youths Of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, Thou wouldst think them Scattered Pearls."

Moreover, no reference is quoted for the seemingly off-handed statement: "Islamic jurisprudence generally considers that attraction towards beautiful youths is normal and natural."

Not a regular editor of wikipedia articles, so I hope I'm not writing this in the wrong space. Moreover I don't know who to address the issue to. You're help is of course solicited and I hope this misinterprtation is corrected/removed. I'd also like to emphasize that the part of the article that I'm requesting editing/removal of is one that pertains to interpretation and, even then one that is not correctly referenced (at least in my reading). I don't have a problem with the observations and activities of specific people over time as evidenced by accurate history. All of your consideration is appreciated and am withholding editing till replies to this post arrive.

Malaise 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments, this sort of dialog is always helpful and benefits the articles. I have used an updated quotation in place of the incorrect one, and have provided a reference to the material on the universality of the attraction (modified to fit the source better). Haiduc 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I would also like to add that the reference material is generally weak. Moreover, taking certain quotes from the Quran out of context is simply dishonest. It suggests that Islam condones homosexual behavior and fantasy, none of which is true. You need to simply not include it in this article or come back with stronger references. It is too suggestive to go unnoticed as a deliberate attempt to mislead. MrblueX 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article confuses pederasty and sodomy

I have recently argued with Haiduc in the Leonardo and Michelangelo that he lightly applies the label of pederasty to all homosexual activity, whether real or imagined. The same applies here. The Catholic church from the time just before and after the institution of inquisition courts had a pattern of encouraging the prosecution of sodomy as immoral. The organization established in Florence prosecuted sodomy in general, of which pederasty is a subset. Homosexual activity was likely as common in the city of Florence as in Rome or other large European cities of that time. The article confuses pederasty with sodomy in that paragraph. The fact that other countries describe Italy as dandified does not prove that homosexual activity was more frequent there. German writers of the 1500-1700s often wrote strongly disparaging pieces about activities in Rome, which to them was the Sodom of the South. To them, all the catholic world was a pit of depravity.

Ultimately, I have to agree with the comments of some, that this article is often completed by editors that seem to want to find pederasty where there is none, and who despite the absence of evidence or evidence to the contrary, would make it appear commonplace. An example of the latter is the statement that Florence set up an organization to persecute sodomy. Such organizations were commonplace through all major European centers and countries. Such prosecutions were dealt against monks, crusading orders, cardinals in Rome, etc. By prosecutions, I mean prosecution of cases against homosexuals, not pederasts. Pederasty was not common in Florence, or more common than in other cities.

It could be said that pederasty did have a peak of detectable activity in Florence during the reign of Gian Gastone Medici, but he was considered a generally debauched and ineffectual ruler, the last of the Medici.

I recommend the article have extensive sections deleted. CARAVAGGISTI 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is written in ignorance of material collected and documented by Michael Rocke (Forbidden Friendships, Oxford University Press, 1996, passim), which is properly cited in the article. It documents pervasive, generalized pederastic practices throughout the male population of the period, as described in the article. Haiduc 12:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I completely agree. I think this article is tawdry and built on the looser fantasies of anti-intellectual historians who will take one line of Herotodus and build an entire civilization from it. Where is the line in Aristophanes' The Frogs where homosexuality/pederasty is aligned with Plato and considered an artsy perversion worthy only of a subset of looney outsiders? Where is the so-called proof of widespread Greek pederasty? It has never been found. It has been inferred casually from rare fragments. There has never been much left to prove how actual Greek life was. I have read the Herotodus -- imagine if one American history book was left to describe this country. What if it was Ann Coulter's? Or a President's? Or even a Yale professor with a terrible bias, whose work would later be castigated as emblematic of foolishness in the field? The whole thing is just ridiculous. You can't use fragments of literature to prove the history of a social movement or behavior. It is immoral and anti-intellectual. Mistertruffles 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am *removing* the "disputed POV" tag. Nothing above--in this section of debate at least--has pointed to a false citation or something without a citation. As far as Wikipedia entries go, this entry is bastioned by more scholarly references than most. As for those above who dispute the connection between "sodomy" and "pederasty", etc. ... note that this is and has been a debate in academic circles for decades, and I doubt whether any of the editors of this article (Haiduc included) is really going to satisfy all critics or solve the conundrum by way of this article. This will always be a "disputed topic", which does not suggest the same thing as an article worthy of a "disputed POV" tag. Perhaps you can busy yourselves with providing a sub-section of the entry that draws these claims into question (citing a range of real scholarship, of course). Hence, until someone comes up with a satisfactory and concrete complaint, I will keep removing that tag ... hourly, if need be. Cheers! Welland R 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pulled out: As for those above who dispute the connection between "sodomy" and "pederasty", etc. ... note that this is and has been a debate in academic circles for decades, and I doubt whether any of the editors of this article (Haiduc included) is really going to satisfy all critics or solve the conundrum

A Wikipedia article should not solve any conundrum. However, the article as it stands gives no indication that such a "debate in academic circles" exists. That omission is what creates its great, big, giant, glaring POV slant.

Of course the use of the meaningless term "sodomy" is unfortunate - but then I think "pederasty" itself is similarly vague.

P.S. Declaring your intention to revert a particular edit hourly is not very Wikipedian of you, as I'm sure you know. DanB†DanD 16:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, of course, leave any "POV tag" in place if the person who creates it is able to provide "specific" scholarly reasons for adding it. Personal preferences and viewpoints and complaints about current scholarship are not sufficient for it to appear. (It is certainly easier to complain about a "point of view" than to take the time to bastion an alternative perspective. So, Camp of Those Disputing How It Now Reads, it is your obligation to supply this "alternative perspective"). Welland R 13:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's everybody's obligation to provide the most balanced perspective they can. And - it looks like you're a newish user - do you get what I mean about the reverting? Short of vandalism, it doesn't matter if you think an edit is unjustified or plain old insane, Wikipedia policy forbids revert wars. If editors can't reach consensus they are supposed to ask for input from the wider community and if necessary from admins, not yoyo between two competing versions of an article, which makes Wikipedia look stupid. This is an easy rule to break when you are frustrated!

The fact is as Haiduc knows by now I'm the laziest editor on earth, but I'll check back here when and if I ever get myself down to the library. In the meantime, since it's you who brought up the "debate in academic circles for decades," perhaps you could add what you know of it. (See? Lazy!) DanB†DanD 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan, it would be great if you could contribute a section on the debate you are referring to - I would have no problem with it whatsoever as long as it was properly referenced. Whatever different perspective you can offer, it can only improve the article. Haiduc 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Tryst between man and youth" japanese picture

In this picture the "youth" is very clearly wearing female-only garb (flowery, pink, inside edge of sleeves open, very long sleeve, female haircut, female obi). I see no evidence that this is in fact supposed to be a male rather than a female. I suggest that it be swapped with an actual depiction of M/b sex in Japanese culture. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Miyagawa Isshō you will see a number of such "females". You will also notice that the haircut is similar to that of the man, with the difference that the boy, not having come of age and received the tonsure, still has his maegame (forelocks). Also, you will see the whole Miyagawa homoerotic series elsewhere on the net, here for example. As for boys wearing flowered robes, you will see more of that in that same collection. Haiduc 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT banner

The LGBT banner doesn't belong on this page. This isn't an article on gay rights. It's as inappropriate as someone placing a "sin" banner to indicate everything they think is immoral. 72.87.188.126 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem here is the use of the term banner. Perhaps "header" or "box" would be more appropriate, since this is not a political emblem as much as an academic tool. Pederasty is an important branch of queer studies, at least of those queer studies that extend back more than a hundred years or that address non-Western cultures. Haiduc 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On one hand, this is like placing rape under heterosexual studies. On the other, having a good deal of experience with the gay "community," the ideal of pederasty does permeate it. - MSTCrow 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The LGBT portal is very appropriate here. I know many homosexuals who focus on teens (not children) and cultivate successful, fulfilling relationships with teens. Teens are at the peak of male sexuality and attractiveness and there is nothing wrong with them being trained by a man in the ways of sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.152.162 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) There should be argument as to why the LGBT banner/header/box is here. I deny that pederasty is an important branch of queer studies. Modern LGBT history, of which was born the drive towards equality, has not focussed on the elevation of relationships between adults and adolescents or children, and it is this argument that has kept assocation of LGBT out of the sphere of NAMBLA. Whereas some gay men might form continued relationships with adolescents, this is a characteristic of those men and is as appropriate to the LGBT banner as adult men sleeping with adolescent girls would be to a heterosexual banner. That the global LGBT community how has more equality than it's had in modern history doesn't mean that pederasty naturally should expect acceptance by or equivalence within our community. Continued retention of the LGBT banner should require the assistance of the LGBT moderator. Enzedbrit 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using this or any page as a political soapbox. We have already been over this many times, pederasty is part of LGBT history -- as well as LGBT actuality as long as the relationships are law abiding, and vituperative attacks by some homosexuals against other homosexuals because of differences in their partner preferences and sexual behavior are pointless. Haiduc 03:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion page on this article. The argument that I am putting forward is to debate the inclusion of the LGBT banner and I have approached it from several angles, all of which are valid and none of which need be deemed to be from a political soapbox, even though the box as it stands is testiment to LGBT activism, which is very political. Pederasty is a practice embraced by people, a segment of whom are gay men. The LGBT banner represents a community that is characterised by attraction to the same sex, to both sexes or by being born in the gender contrary to what one should have been. Pederasty is sexual attraction to pre-adults and as such it does not fit in well with these guidelines.

All LGBT people should have the right to a valid opinion on this matter, whether they wish that a banner that represents their community and their struggle be associated with pederasty. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated how the LGBT banner can belong here and I welcome debate on this and the involvement of the LGBT moderator to act in that capacity. Enzedbrit 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place for any struggle, nor for tendentious interpretations of terms. Nor is it your place - or an appropriate place - to express disapproval of gay men and youths who fall in love with each other and enter into relationships sanctioned (approved) by the law. They are wholly embraced by the LGBT community, though individuals may differ. It is LGBT life, even if it is not LGBT politics. What else would you like to expunge from the LGBT universe in Wikipedia? I could bring up a number of distasteful and repulsive and illegal aspects of LGBT life - as I could about heterosexual life. Should we clean them up too, and prettify those preferences, so as to further political goals and struggles? Haiduc 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's beneficial for you to keep twisting my argument. My argument is that the LGBT banner should have no associations with topics that are periphery to the LGBT culture or minority sexual practices within that community. The LGBT banner, as detailed, represents the a community that is united in their sexuality. The association here is with a sexual practice. I think that I'm stating this very clearly. I do not deny my disapproval of this subject, but I am not expressing it here. I would find objection of the LGBT banner to any sexual pracice. I also bring you to task on your comment that pederastic relationships are wholly embraced by the LGBt community because that statement is a lie. What I am not doing is denying that LGBT people take part in pederastic relationships. What I am saying is that it is a large leap to declare that because we are having these relationships, that this means pederasty is an integral part of the study of us as a people and of our culture. Again, it's about sexuality, not sex, and if one is a pederist, in that they are attracted to adolescents, that being continually seeking the sexual advances of pre-adult males, then that may be homosexual in nature - same gender - but is a new preference altogether and should be classified as something unique, and separate from homosexuality and heterosexuality. Enzedbrit 06:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, I find your claims ludicrous. To suggest that pederasty has, historically, been nothing more than a set of "sexual practices" is merely to suggest that you are one of those whose knowledge-base would be best served by actually reading this Wikipedia entry. You will find that the entry reveals that pederasty has been, over a huge expanse of time and geographical space, a recognized "sexual relationship", and to claim it is merely a "practice" flies in the face of historical, aesthetic, and archaeological evidence (and a score of other areas of the humanities and social sciences besides). Pederasty has ever been (whether you wish to admit it or not) an aspect of the homosexual/homoerotic dynamic. It has also ever been an endeavor of "the current dynamic in power" (defined proverbially and a bit insultingly as the "vanilla gays") to rewrite the past ... and removing the LGBT banner would only serve to do so, for political purposes rather than accuracy (which the point I think Haiduc is trying to make). Besides, this continual "battle for the banner" has, by now, become banal (and should receive a designation as the most dim dispute to date ... god, I love alliteration!). As Shakespeare claimed, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" ... and an LGBT article without an LGBT banner would still be ... an LGBT article! Welland R 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that pederasty is not a sexual practice? If homosexuals are pederasts, then pederasty is a sexual practice. If they are committed pederasts, then they will continually seek their sexual fulfilment from adolescents. This is not LGBT. The political argument thus comes from you and Haiduc - you both are seeking general acceptance of pederasty through the inclusion of it into the LGBT sphere. The LGBT banner represents a very political entity, as I have stated, but I am not bringing politics into it. Nobody in the LGBT is fighting for the rights of pederasts to form pederastic relationships other than pederasts themselves. The LGBT community, that which is reflected by the banner detailing elements of our struggle, would have something to say about this. For that reason, I believe it should be opened to discussion, as I have stated. Perhaps it is this element of democracy that you find so repugnant when you criticise my 'politics'? Enzedbrit 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To claim that pederasty has denoted, historically at least, a "sexual relationship" necessarily suggests that it has encompassed "sexual practices"--while, on the other hand, your desire to dismiss it as merely a "sexual practice" does not. While masturbation is clearly a "sexual practice", it would be little more than a comic line to suggestion that one had a "sexual relationship" with one's hand :-) I also question your desire to impute motive to my and Haiduc's editorial concerns for historical and cultural accuracy (especially since, as a lesbian, I am curious what I could possibly gain from a contemporary advance of a "pederastic agenda". So, it was a silly assertion on your part). Historically speaking, your desire to remove pederasty from the LGBT sphere recalls the recent German call for posthumously removing Hitler's German citizenship ... hence altering future history books to claim that he was really Austrian. Historical revisionism is one of deadliest games in the academic sphere, and almost always has political or social rather than scientific or historical pressures behind it. Welland R 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Open whatever you please to whomsoever you see fit. You are the only one on the barricades here, to everyone's befuddlement. Speaking for myself, I am not seeking anything other than accuracy. Pederasty has already been widely and generally accepted, judging by the compassionate legislation which gives males almost everywhere the right to have love relationships with other males, starting in adolescence. There is nothing else to be sought by anyone, except perhaps, as Welland says, to have a certain subgroup of the gay community not distort this topic out of some self-serving zeal. Haiduc 01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. On this thread, there are two people for keeping the banner: you and Welland. That hardly constitutes 'everyone'. This is not an LGBT theme. Enzedbrit 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are the solitary political warrior trying hard to sell fiction as fact. Haiduc 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored again - and here is the explanation why: I am a member of "WikiProject LGBT studies", and it should be noted that there are 12 pages in the section of the category "Pages in category 'LGBT'" (besides the 21 subcategories in the "LGBT" category). One of those 12 sections is "Pederasty". The arguments here have been thoroughly debated, over time, and a decision has been reached by the members of "WikiProject LGBT studies": this project decided to keep the category "Pederasty". Therefore, it is not those editing the "Pederasty" article who are the principal deciding factor for whether or not this should be dubbed an "LGBT" article. The decision has already been made that this *is* an "LGBT" article ... and therefore I am restoring the tag, and will continue to restore it, as any good-standing member of "WikiProject LGBT studies" should. Those of you who wish this article to be removed from among the "LGBT" categories need to address your concerns with those at "WikiProject LGBT studies" instead of continually removing the tag from this article. Welland R 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I only just now discovered that you, Enzedbrit, recently joined "WikiProject LGBT studies". Well, perhaps you should raise the topic there. Cheers! Welland R 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, Enzedbrit, I am sorry you keep on trying to accomplish by force what should be decided by reason. If you'll let me, I'd like to point out that much of the problem may spring from your own associations with the colloquial sense of the word, i.e. child sexual abuse. But clearly pederasty, in the academic sense, is far more than that, and that is the sense in which it falls under the LGBT purview. Haiduc 02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty in Ottomans

I dont doubt that same sex relationships was not rare in many circles of the society in the ottomans but the current version of it in the article include some broad generalizations and non-existing silly dichotomies, such as: "The sexual doings of the Turks came under frequent criticism by their Christian neighbors."

it is not up to the religion and definitely not up to the ethnicity that pedastry do exist. I guess there is no need to mention that pedastry practiced by christians as well. In its current form this section doent look like a serious encyclopedical entry..And since it doesnt have a reference, i suggest the removal of the above cited sentence and rewriting some other parts of it, which are again quite over-generalizing.. --laertes d 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I cleaned up the section further. Haiduc 00:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proverbs and ditties

This material would be better placed in Wikiquote. While it may be illustrative of the topic, Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations or source material. -Will Beback · † · 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that with all the lists on "the ten thousand things", as the Chinese would say? :And, on a separate tack, what if the proverbs were worked into their respective sections, and at the same time a separate article was created, "List of ...."? Haiduc 02:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue, I suppose, is that this isn't a list of things, it's the things themselves. We may have a list of Sheryl Crowe songs, but we don't include the lyrics to the songs. We may have a list of important speeches, but we don't include the text of the speeches. So if you wanted to simply list the ditties and proverbs somewhere, that'd be different (though I doubt such a list would last long because they aren't particularly notable). Is there a problem with Wikiquote? It's a part of the overall project. We routinely move sets of quotes over there, even from famous people. -Will Beback · † · 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote is fine, my concern here is losing this additional perspective on a complex and controversial topic. The more angles you illuminate it from, the more you can see. How about folding in what can be placed in the respective sections, while also creating the wikiquote article you mentioned? Haiduc 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not enthusiastic because the article is already long. The article is just as long and has just as much content if the material is lumped together or spread out. It's not just a length issue though. Quotes, and even material like this, is very hard to make NPOV. (A side issue which may not matter is that modern translations of old ditties are probably copyrighted.)

For one of my earliest entries to Wikipedia was I did good primary research on the platform of a minor 19th century political party, which I added to the article verbatim. I was chagrined when another editor moved my entry and sent it over to Wikisource. But he was right. While the verbatim copy gave the exact flavor of the document, it was still a primary source and had a different place in the Wikimedia project. The point of Wikipedia is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Quoting sources verbatim can be original research.

The general rule of thumb on biographies is that nobody raises objections to five quotations but more than that are excessive. Could we move the entire list to Wikiquote/source, and also leave up to five representative entries here? -Will Beback · † · 10:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a more than reasonable compromise. Haiduc 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty 'is the primary form that male homosexuality has taken throughout human history'

I removed that sentence because it is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. The given source is only concerned with ancient Greece, and the one sentence that supports the claim is quoted out of context. Furthermore, the source is of unclear provenience: yes, it's on the web site of one of the most respected universities in Germany, but where is it from? From a scientific journal? Or is it just a student's paper? What about its peer-review status? Chrisahn 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you find extraordinary about the claim, and why? Haiduc 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

- I've never heard it before

- it isn't true today

- it wasn't true throughout the twentieth century when homosexuality started to come into the open in the western world

- I've never seen evidence that it is true for earlier times when homosexuality was less visible

- it would imply that homosexuals are very different from heterosexuals, who predominantly choose mates their own age

Pederasty may have been the primary form of male homosexuality in ancient Greece - but in other times and places? I see no reason to believe that. Chrisahn 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will answer them in sequence:

1. Not a reflection on the topic
2. Article sets out a historical view
3. Idem
4. What evidence do you have that egalitarian relations were prevalent worldwide before the 20th c?
5. Personal interpretation, debatable and not encyclopedic
6. Ancient Greece, Middle East, Europe up to 100 years ago, Japan, Korea, China, Central Asia.
7. The provenance of the quote is legitimate, and its author authoritative. The sense of the sentence is clearly as originally interpreted, since the sentence shifts from the Greeks to the moderns, and since your interpretation would make the sentence redundant. Haiduc 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's my rebuttal:

1. I say the claim is extraordinary. You say it isn't. That's the topic. If the claim was 'ordinary', I probably would have heard it before. I haven't. That's an indication that it's 'not ordinary'.
2. If someone claims that X was true 'throughout history', but I can show that X is not true today, the claim loses some of its credibility.
3. If someone claims that X was true 'throughout history', but I can show that X was not true throughout a considerable period of time, the claim loses some of its credibility.
4. The burden of evidence is on you, not on me. You are making a claim, I simply doubt that claim. So the question is: What evidence do you have that pederastic relations were prevalent worldwide before the 20th century? See Wikipedia:Verifiability: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
5. Where's the personal interpretation? That heterosexuals predominantly choose mates their own age and have done so throughout history? That's pretty obvious, I would say. If homosexuals have predominantly chosen mates of a very different age, there's a big difference between homo- and heterosexuals. But I admit that this is not the strongest of my points. It might be called 'original research'.
6. Ancient Greece, Middle East, Europe up to 100 years ago, Japan, Korea, China, Central Asia. - With the appropriate sources, a sentence like 'pederasty was/is a common form of male homesexuality in many times and cultures' could probably be defended. But your sentence made a much, much stronger claim.
7. The source calls itself 'a free electronic encyclopedia', which is usually not a reliable source. It is based on a book though, and if the article in question was contained in the book, things may be different. The author of the particular article about ancient Greece, William A. Percy, is indeed a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field (quoting Wikipedia:Verifiability), so he could probably be considered a reliable source even if the article was self-published. So, yes, I would say the source is reliable. But...
8. ...but I just realized that the quote from the article is irrelevant to the point we are discussing here. Your claim was: [Pederasty] is the primary form that male homosexuality has taken throughout human history. Percy writes: A proper understanding of Greek history should help to discredit homophobia as such and even the especially virulent hatred of homosexual pederasty, its most persecuted but historically most prevalent variation. What does that sentence really mean? He is saying is that homosexual pederasty (as opposed to heterosexual pederasty) was the historically most prevalent (and most persecuted) variation of pederasty. He does not say that pederasty was the historically most prevalent variation of homosexuality.

So it doesn't even matter if the source is reliable or not. If you find other sources, I wouldn't mind a resonable sentence about the prevalence of pederasty in male homosexuality throughout history. But the original sentence is much too strong. Chrisahn 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the sentence Before the 20th century, relationships with a more or less pederastic element were the usual pattern of male same-sex love. It is a very broad claim as well and not backed by a reliable source. Chrisahn 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Chrisahn, I have replaced the content you have recently deleted since our discussion here is not concluded and it seems in appropriate to act as if you have prevailed in your argument, which you have not.

As for your repetition of your claims, let me simply say that your position is groundless for a variety of reasons. You are claiming that your ignorance of the subject is a basis for challenging properly sourced material. You are also challenging a text that is supported by an eminent scholar (Haeberle, the current editor of the encyclopedia), written by another eminent scholar, and hosted on the website of an eminent university. Finally, you have taken a simple English text and have misunderstood its obvious and clear meaning.

None of these is a valid premise for Wikipedia work. Please restore the material which you inappropriately deleted. Haiduc 11:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about Before the 20th century... basically makes the same claim as the other one, and it lacks sources as well. I also note that it contained the word 'possibly' when it was originally written by you, but later you removed that word, without giving a reason. But I'll grant you that I probably shouldn't have deleted the sentence before we finish this discussion.

Actually, you have taken a not very simple English text and have misunderstood its not very obvious or clear meaning. Let's take it apart word by word. The relevant part is its ... historically most prevalent variation. What does the word 'it' refer to? The main sentence is A proper understanding of Greek history should help to discredit homophobia as such and even the especially virulent hatred of homosexual pederasty. The 'it' could refer to homophobia, hatred, or pederasty. It wouldn't make sense if 'it' referred to homophobia or hatred, so it can only refer to pederasty. In other words, Percy writes about ...homosexual pederasty, pederasty's historically most prevalent variation. Percy simply does not talk about homosexuality in general here. Chrisahn 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Percy starts out by speaking about homophobia in general and then focuses in on that aspect of homophobia which targets homosexual pederasty. Thus we are here talking about modern homophobia, since we are in the present tense and the understanding he recommends is a modern day understanding. So we are no longer talking about the Greeks, as you originally indicated.

Percy has no need to put pederasty in a heterosexual context since 1. it does not exist and 2. he is only discussing homosexuality, thus the meaning as originally interpreted is the only one that makes sense.

Since you are the one challenging a common sense interpretation of a historically sensible declaration, the burden of proof should be upon you to contact Percy and ask him to clarify to you the meaning of his words. But if you will not, I will. Haiduc 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already started to write an email to Percy, I hope I'll find the time to finish it today.

As for the burden of proof, again: see Wikipedia:Verifiability: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Heterosexual pederasty does not exist? The article on pederasty of a well-known online encyclopedia does not say so. :-) It just says 'generally between males'. Chrisahn 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you will be so kind as to copy the exchange here, that will be fine. Let's hope he answers. Haiduc 11:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added the question to Dr. Percy's talk page: User_talk:William_percy#Pederasty.2C_Greeks.2C_Homosexuality. I also sent him an email since he does not seem to use his Wikipedia account regularly. I'm looking forward to his answer. Chrisahn 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

• Rendered as 'age-structured homosexuality', it is, along with [Two-Spirit|gender-structured relations] and [gay community|egalitarian relations], regarded as one of the three main subdivisions of homosexuality proposed by anthropologists.[Theo Sandfort e.a. (eds) Lesbian and Gay Studies, London/NY, Routledge, 2000[2] ]

I just reverted an edit which restored these wikilinks. "Two-Spirit" is not a synonym for "gender-structured relations", and "gay community" isn't a synonym for "egalitarian relations". If we want to link to those articles let's do so more openly. "Easter egg" links, which take readers to surprising articles, are misleading and don't help readers. See Wikipedia:Piped link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have to look for better links for those two (the present ones are not quite it either) but all that aside, please restore the LGBT banner. We do not need to wade into that bit of politics again. Haiduc 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty applies to both genders?

Someone told me that pederasty can apply to women, but all other definitions say otherwise. What's the term for pederastic women? (heterosexual or homosexual)

</wtf> Mr. Raptor 05:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You might try "sapphic" though there is no consensus. Haiduc 10:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Small POV Issue

I might be making a big deal of out nothing, a lot of this article is very well written from an objective standpoint, but there is one bit that sort of sticks out to me as oddly less-than-objectively written.

"Presently, no society is openly making use of liminal same-sex love — relations with young people on the threshold of becoming adults — to further social goals, despite their lawful status in countries granting erotic emancipation to adolescents in their mid-teens.”

"Despite?" Does pederasty being lawfully available mean that societies should be "making use" of it, as this statement seems to imply? Must pederastic relationships be "used" by societies simply because they're legal? I don't see anything encyclopedic about this sort of wording. Perhaps it should be looked at more carefully? The lack of pederasty as a social mechanism today isn't "despite" of anything. It is simply no longer a social mechanism.

I looked at that again and I see no implication that societies should do anything. The implication is simply that the territory is open but remains unoccupied, the same way one might talk about the seacoast of a country that was once inhabited but presently is deserted. Haiduc 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Haiduc: "Eros in the true sense is at the heart of the pedagogical relationship" writes some guy in The American Scholar. DanB†DanD 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dare I suggest that the 'pedagogical eros' is still alive (if not entirely 'well') in British independent (read:public) boys' schools in England? 'Greek love' survives - if somewhat battered or confused - as our erstwhile enquiry now pursues. Dominique 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I should apologize - I was misusing the talk page and being flip.

However, the Greek love article is looking so much better than when I last looked at it. DanB†DanD 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know that we need to be so very correct. I actually enjoyed the article, it brought back memories. So, thank you for the link. There was a recent play (and movie), "The History Boys", that expressed a similar - if more eroticized - notion, to the dismay and confusion of reviewers. 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That is encouraging. Do say more (on the GL talk page) if you have time to look at the detail - with two major (independent) expansions, there is some overlapping, overweighting and a small hint of conflicting agendas. Interesting times ahead, I venture! Dominique 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original commentator. The sentence in question is a very odd one which suggests that the reader might naturally have expected societies to be "making use" of "liminal same-sex love" where such love is legal. If you don't see why this sentence is either non-NPOV or irrelevant to the article, consider what it would read like if it was about foot fetishism rather than pederasty. 81.168.47.122 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

confused...

Is pederasty relations between an adult fe/male and a child/youth OR relations between persons of significant age difference - I suppose what I am asking is whether or not the younger of the two has to be under 18 for it to be considered pederasty?? Is it the same as paedophilia? The article is extremely confusing.

It seems pretty clear that we are talking about same-sex relations. Secondly, it is not so much the magnitude of the age difference that is significant but spanning of the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. Thus a relationship between a thirty year old and a seventy year old would not be, strictly speaking, pederastic (though it may have elements of it) but a relationship between a sixteen year old and a twenty year old quite likely would. It is not the same as paedophilia in the clinical sense of the term, since the current DSM definition of paedophilia entails protracted sexual contact with a person thirteen or under, while pederastic relations typically involve youths from their early to their late teens. Haiduc 08:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Says who? This is the sane as paedophilia. Just as a 21-year-old heterosexual man who has sex with a a girl under the age of 17 is considered statutory rape. Paedophilia is a mental illness, it's not the same as homosexual between two concenting ADULTS. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Says who?" well thats a nice way to deal with an opinion you don't happen to agree with. A 21yr old man having sex with a 17yr old girl, would be considered to be totally legal in many countries. Don't assume that having sex with a 15,16 or 17yr old is illegal, it might be in your nation/city/trailer park but the law and attitude towards teenage sex, is very different in many many nations. (excuse the trailer park comment, I just couldn't help myself)Sennen goroshi 13:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Should the image Amor Vincit Omnia (Love Conquers All) be removed? It does feature nudity. 128.122.89.86 05:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any systemic objection to nudity in Wikipedia. As long as no laws are broken, editors can make use of nude images. Also, this one is purely artistic, widely available, well known, and of a certain age so we no longer have to be concerned about what the boy would think of the exposure. Haiduc 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

lead section

Why template in lead section? Please see WP:LEAD, image is preferred, and not template. There cant be special exemptions for specific wikiproject. Lara_bran 04:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to a specific section of WP:LEAD which says the template needs to be moved. I cannot seem to find it. Until such time, please discuss the changes you wish to make and not simply repeatedly make them without discussing them. The LGBT template is very useful, shows that the article is part of a series of core articles related to our project. Many readers don't understand that, and the template helps to clarify. Jeffpw 04:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of template in WP:LEAD, only image is mentioned. That is a navigation template and its place is at bottom, in "See also" section WP:NAV. Also how a policy is project specific, i simply cant understand. It is very obvious, no need of discussion in talk page at all. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Many project pages have the template. This is one of them. Part of the LBGT project. Jeeny ^(talk) 04:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left template at top for now, but moved image up. Its nothing to do with projects, it should be in policy to keep navigation template in lead. Lara_bran 04:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your whims about policy and what actual policy is, are two different things, Lara. Once again, please point me to the section of WP:LEAD which says an image needs to be in the lead. I am well acquainted with that page and do not recall it. It seems as if you're simply throwing a WP page out in hopes that you will not be challenged. Until you can show actual policy supporting you, I am forced to believe it is just your personal preference. In any event, WP:LEAD is a guideline, and not actual policy. Jeffpw 04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also to show a different project's article see here. The project decides where the template should be. Join the project and discuss changes there. Jeeny ^(talk) 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has sufficient no. of images, unlike you pointed article, but please spare me i dont go through wikiprojects. You include such things in policy or guidelines, then i will sure follow. See WP:NAV, navigation templates should be placed in see also section or at bottommost. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara, you continue to point people to other pages which do not support what you are trying to do. Perhaps you should spend time actually reading policy pages (and WP:NAV is not a policy page) before you disrupt various articles with your edits. I have already warned you on your talk page about this. Jeffpw 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Lara, since you mentioned that this article has many images, that's all reason there does not need to be one in the lead. That is not part of the criteria. Now, you say you are not into Wikiprojects, that's fine. But don't mess with articles that have a clear consensus with individual projects, and how to lay them out. Please listen to those involved, and know the project more than you do. I've had issues such as yours, but I listened to others and did more research of the project. I also objected to the template being in the article at all. But, with feedback from those in the project helped me understand. I hope you choose to co-operate, rather than make things the way you think they should, or want, them to be. Cheers. Jeeny ^(talk) 05:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See guideline for lead section images, Wp:mos#Images. Quoted policy:"Start the article with a right-aligned image." "Use common sense" is a policy, i just cant think anything other than "navigation should be at bottom" is a common sense. When there is consensus for policy, individual article consensus doesn't matter, since its just matter of time more editors will see this article. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "use common sense" is the clincher. This template is not a navigation template pe se, even though it does have links, it is, though, a project template, and is on the right side of the article. This article belongs to the project. Jeeny ^(talk) 05:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You did not reply to my WP:MOS quote. There is nothing called "project template", its a navigation template. You can put a portalpar, if it 'belongs' to project. Such a nice image we have, that suits very well in lead. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, the very first sentence in that "general guideline" says; "Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to. This can be, and I believe is, one those "compelling reasons", as it is part of a project. But, since you are not interested in "projects" then please be considerate to those who work very hard on the projects and that project's guidelines. Thanks. Jeeny ^(talk) 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) There is a portal bar, Lara. The template was designed by our project and is our project template. We have others, but this is definitely one. Further, you seem confused on the difference between style and guidelines. Please familiarize yourself before continuing this disruptive discussion and wikilawyering. Lastly, your message to me on my talk page indicates you plan to continue edit warring this after a period of 24 hours. I strongly advise against it, as you will be blocked. Jeffpw 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood your warning in my talk page, and i know you wont hesitate to maximum possible as you mentioned in my talk page, and so i do. But image in lead is very essential in this article. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that a lead image is essential to this article. Jeeny ^(talk) 05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreasoned comments like above have no value in wikipedia. I am openminded but please dont use wikipedia to "advertise" your interests. Please give due weightage to things. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. One thing though, I do not use Wikipedia to "advertise" anything. I don't even like this subject. So there. "Weightage" is not a word. I guess you mean undue weight? Jeeny ^(talk) 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The template in the main Homosexuality article was at the top, the last time Ilooked. That seems to be the general rule. We should do here what is done everywhere else. Haiduc 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"That seems to be the general rule", joke. I will wait for at least one more editor on my side, those who tried to remove template instead of moving it down. So many nice images in the article, but no image in lead looks reasonable only under ego considerations of a wikiproject to me and nothing else. Also i am too irritated by exessive crossposting, maybe even irc chat canvassing, which i feel is a sin, by "your" wikiproject, bye for now. Lara_bran 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Precision before all else

I have no idea where you got the idea that erotic means "sexually expressed". But to make a long story short, see here: "Pederasty (or Greek Paederasteia) is the erotic relationship between an adult male and a boy, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection."

You might also look at Eroticism which discusses afeeling and not necessarily an action. Haiduc 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I do wish editors would look in the talk pages (including archives) before they make changes to material that has been hammered out long ago. Below see some relevent quotes on this one word subject, taken from the archives:

The very word pederasty traces its root back to the two ancient Greek words "paid" and "eros," meaning "boy" and "erotic love."

By pederasty we mean what the Greeks meant: a consensual, homoerotic relationship between adolescent and adult males. <sm>Vernon Provencal's "Glukus Himeros: Pederastic Influence on the Myth of Ganymede," in Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, ed. B. C. Verstraete and V. Provencal, Harrington Park Press, 2005, N1 p.128<sm/>

This word change has also been discussed on Haiduc's talk page by several editors, among them me last year. I had removed the word erotic in 2006, but after discussion with Haiduc to its reinsertion. I have thus reinserted it now. Jeffpw 07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that decision. The editor who started this topic up again[3] with the removal of the word "erotic" had it wrong as well anyway...since pederasty usually does not mean pedophilia. Flyer22 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The introductory sentence, however, might still be improved: there is a suggestion of 'speculation' in the use of the word "can", and the phrase "wide range of erotic practices" seems premature i.e. in advance of a clear definition of the term. The section 'Etymology and Usage' offers such a definition which may possibly inspire a more encyclopedic opening for this excellent and informative article. The difficulty of shaping the opening is not assisted by the following (perhaps required) formulaic statement about "age-structured relations" and the three anthropogical "categories", which is of course rational in itself, but imposes a kind of retrospective restraint on the language of the introduction. Dominique 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

After doing more research, I see that 'erotic' is correct, and I also agree with Dominique. Jeeny ^(talk) 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominique, you have a way with words. Reminds me of someone in my family. I definitely feel that you should write the introductory sentence of this article, if not the entire lead. Flyer22 00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I shall give the matter further thought, but in the meantime, it would be helpful to have some feedback from those who have made substantial contributions to the article e.g. Haiduc, who has both literary expertise and an overview of the subject. Dominique 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are very kind. I am like that folktale ferryman, who can't wait to put the oars in another's hands. Haiduc 00:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am preparing a draft. Meanwhile, I am glad to see Hyacinthe has been resurrected.Dominique 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Introduction

As discussed, I have provided an alternative introduction to the article, which is really a different approach rather than an improvement on the immediately preceding one. First of all, it is longer: I felt that an article of such substance and complexity deserves a more extended introduction, which has in fact turned out to be something resembling an ‘abstract’. This could be useful for those readers new to the subject since they will have a summary perspective on the detail to follow: historical, philosophical and contemporary. I have retained the reference to homosexual ‘subdivisions’ but have stressed the limitations of this formula. I note that there has been some previous disquiet in the talk pages about this approach, and indeed about the LGBT banner, but I believe this introduction maintains neutrality despite discreetly raising some questions which may accord to some extent with the thinking of those uncomfortable with the previous unelaborated version. I believe it is right to set out problems and controversies in treating of such a topic at the beginning (while avoiding POV), which may help in retaining the (qualified) tolerance of sceptical readers.

The initial sentence is a simple statement of meaning amplified by what follows. Comments and criticisms are expected and welcome. Links and supporting references can be added.

Dominique 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well done, Dominique. I think it's well written, NPOV, and certainly summarizes the article. If I could make one small criticism, it's that the opening needs some references to support the assertions. This article seems to attract people who wish to revert every addition that is not multiply sourced (OK, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but you get my point). If you could add some inline citations, it would go a long way to assuaging those concerns. Jeffpw 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comment. Of course the ink is not quite dry on the page, but I take the point about sourcing without too much delay. The essential points are covered in the body of the article, and I had thought simply to redirect the reader to specific locations where references are already established (as already with Etymology ), but it may be better to duplicate. One or two points in any case need reinforcing e.g. sexual 'identity' and the dominant form of male love reference. Please do add any further thoughts. Dominique 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured that was the main reason you added the "see Etymology and usage below" part to the lead of this article. Flyer22 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I could not resist kneading the dough of the first paragraph. Here are my various ratinales:

1. "Widespread" - I would hate to claim, especially in the intro, that the approval was universal and absolute. Rather it was qualified and selective.
2. "Erotic" - While some modern observers have described the relationship in terms of a crude sexual bargain, that is not supported by the original texts and is a view certainly not held by many important students of the phenomenon (James Davidson, Hubbard, Percy, etc.) After all, why all the bother to court a boy if it was not reciprocity that was sought - had it been simply a tit for tat, they would surely have held auctions!
3. "Anti-homosexual" - I do not think you can make an argument that AoC laws have been relaxed. With one or two exceptions, they have never been stricter. It is just that now boys, as well as girls, are covered by them.
4. "Often criticized" - While the previous formulation would certainly hold true of most American states, the same is not necessarily true in other countries: witness the UK tv show "Queers as Folk" which included a fifteen year old boy among the protagonists.

As for the second paragraph, I would challenge your use of "homosexual" since the term in no way presumes orientation. It is as if you were fighting a nonexistent opponent. There are other issues which come to mind, but I think it would be worthwhile to discuss the previous points first, if you are so inclined. Haiduc 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic description in lead by a newbie. Etymology is different from definition. This rather hides proper info from the reader. Also he messed up all things in a single edit, which should have been split into many edits. Also images being deleted which looks like a conspiracy, by somebody, since it is in commons, we cant trace who nominated for deletion. Lara_bran 08:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted you, Lara_Bran, as the intro is being written with consensus. No less than 4 contributers to this article have stated that the intro, while not yet complete, is in good shape and getting better. Your "contributions" to this article have done nothing to improve it, and have made a lot of extra work for others. Please discuss further changes here before you implement them. Further, a quick check of the history shows Zeus_abducting_Ganymede_-_Roman_Mosaic.jpg was deleted from commons by admin Majorly due to a copyright violation. If you have further questions, please take them up with him. I see from your talk page that you are taking a wikibreak at the moment. I hope you use the time to contemplate what you have been doing here up until now, and perhaps rethink the direction that your editing will take in the future. Jeffpw 08:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely against our policy. Pederasty is not limited to greek, as of now, so reverting back to old definition is correct to follow. Also another image i had given source 2 days before deletion, but still deleted as lack of source which is clear conspiracy. Lara_bran 08:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OH NO! this new user changed image name and i thought image was deleted. So im reverting to version before him and add back lead that already got so called consensus. Lara_bran 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GOTCHA! User:Dominique Blanc had sneakily vandalized 2 cited urls(maybe to remove sentences later as uncited) while saying he is expanding lead section. He was issued warning, and if he does not respond, all his edits to wikipedia should be reverted. I caught this while i thought an image got deleted. Waiting for that user's reply Lara_bran 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara_Bran, please re-read the guideline about assuming good faith. Unless you have actual proof that Dominique changed the URL for malpurpose, you'd best not throw accusations like that around. I further find it a bit hysterical to say that all of his or her edits to this project should be reverted due to one possible bad edit. After all, you've made dozens of edits others here have termed outright vandalism. Should we then reverse every contribution you've made here, irrespective of whether they were positive or negative? Jeffpw 10:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing urls is his business, see other edits i and some other user quoted in his talk page. Tell me, how can urls change by themselves while he is editing article? Also he removed ISBNs just to distract us from his url edits. I have posted in WP:ANI, you may wish to reply there. Lara_bran 11:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While I peacefully slept (GMT time sector), there appears to have been some drama. First of all, thanks to Jeffpw for his authoritative intervention. The trouble is that assumptions about the character of fellow-editors who are largely anonymous and unknown personally within the group are too easily made. I tend to base my own judgements on the quality of their work and their reactions, as expressed in the talk pages, to genuine contributions by others: there are clearly excellent minds at work here, and I do my best to maintain the standards they set before presuming to change or elaborate their work. Haiduc, your tweaks are largely fine, but I am not entirely comfortable with the last. 'Queer as folk' is a cult (gay) movie; the presence of a 15 yr old (at the beginning) in no way reflects the tolerance of society at large. Outside schools, there is no way in the UK for example, that adults can befriend or even talk to youngsters outside a family situation without attracting unfavourable public reaction, or even arrest. The media is relentless in its continuous playing on the 'paedophile' theme, and 'health and safety' rules dominate all professional contacts with under-age persons. I shall think about the 'homosexual' question - I understand the points you make - and get back to you. Meanwhile - if all is calm - I shall insert the promised refs, hopefully without any further inadvertent disturbance of existing ones. Dominique 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara bran, the approximately 26th sockpuppet of a banned user, has himself been banned. So we will be able to move forward a lot more productively now. Happy editing, folks. Jeffpw 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good news. And thanks again. It would be helpful if I could glean some information about the URL and ISBN deletions: I checked the WP Guidelines, Editing, but couldn't find any caveats or troubleshooting advice about this problem. Dominique 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More on the intro

To continue with the critique I started a little while ago, I will copy the rest of the intro below.

As a phenomenon, pederasty resists formal classification. For example, the definition of an ‘age-structured homosexuality’ proposed by anthropologists^[1] - as one of three subdivisions of homosexuality along with egalitarian (androphilic) and gender-structured relations - while convenient, raises certain difficulties. Firstly, there is a more tenuous correspondence between the concept of sexual identity (as a determined ‘orientation’) and sexual behavior as applied to the partners within a pederastic relationship than is the case with respect to the other two ‘homosexual’ categories.

This brings us back to my earlier objection to the use of "homosexuality" in the restrictive sense. Just like a jail tryst between two men is a homosexual act, even though the two if free would prefer women, so pederasty is a homosexual practice even though one or both partners has or will have relations with the opposite sex. If we are to take your new approach, we would do well to base our discussion on examples of both views, rather than favoring one over the other. If I have so far focused primarily on the anthropological view it is because it is a scientific treatment of the topic, but that does not prevent us from featuring opposing views, as long as documented.

A more fundamental distinction can be made in terms of social impact and indeed visibility: pederasty is a hidden practice in marked contrast to the emergence in modern times of a publicly avowed homosexual culture.

A much too premature sally into modern constructs, with nary a nod to all the other instances of normative pederasty worldwide. It makes it seems as if the Greeks were a quaint historical aberration of little relevance to modern times.

The ‘homosexual’ as a type or character is of course a modern concept.

Not at all an open and shut case. Plato, Apuleius, and others have been cited to contest that.

Such divergences viewed within an historical perspective are telling: in other times and cultures, pederastic love was the predominant face of male love - ancient Greece had no monopoly of this phenomenon - all of which gives credence to the idea of an autonomous principle rather than a variant of an inclusive or shared designation.

Here you begin to redeem yourself, though no sin at all is better than one expiated. I like the idea and phrasing of "autonomous principle" but we will be asked to support that with citations. Any leads? The end will give pause to any but the most versed in arcane speech.

The subject is remarkable for a dearth of impartial research or in-depth consideration free of the moral and legal restrictions which continue to preclude a wider discussion and dissemination of ideas. Sympathetic or even disinterested views expressed publicly receive short shrift, hence the growing body of anonymous research and information as in the present context.

Can't argue with that, though the end reminds me of Central American music, with its imprecations of "Cumbia!" and "Merengue!"

Don't mind me too much, I am glad to have new inspiration here and look forward to see you and others building on what has been laid out so far. In what regards the intro, I think we should be as general and inclusive as possible, as well as somewhat terse. Three medium-lengths paras are the recommended form, if I am not mistaken. Haiduc 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Substantive reply

This is excellent, and it may surprise you to know that I agree with all of what you say. I was not entirely happy with my form of expression with regard to the criticism of the ‘anthropological’ view, beginning with the sentence ‘Firstly there is a more tenuous correspondence….’ I had already drafted a more extended response to your original critique, and if you’ll forgive the screed, I’ll attach it here, as a prelude to the 'fugue' to follow:

I think the problem with the ‘subdivisions’ – although I don’t repudiate them - is that while they share the basic premise of being male to male relationships, they have little if anything else in common. Interestingly, Gide writing in 1918, formulated much the same typology (three labels: pederast, ‘sodomite’ and ‘invert’) and deplored the failure of people to ‘find out what is being discussed. Before discussing, one ought always to define.’ The identity factor is another matter, but is related to the differentiation of the ‘types’ and the way they see themselves: in this respect, pederasts can be distinguished from the other two categories, not just by ‘sexual choice of partner or orientation’ but by complex psychological factors related to the age difference and the inherent conflicts and ambiguities involved in dealing with a child (in legal terms) who may return the affection and enjoy the sex, but may also be emotionally immature and almost certainly dependent. There is also the factor of concealment of the relationship due to social taboos. Incidentally, I added the parenthesis about orientation as an after-thought, so I would be happy to remove it. I am also conscious of opening up a ‘controversy’ in an introduction, but of course the whole topic is controversial, and even paradoxical, at least to the general reader. And it is the general (intelligent) reader who has to be placated or attracted at the outset if he is continue, so an early discursive approach may be more interesting than a flat statement of scientific conclusion (more mechanical, less human), even when qualified.

Sexual identity is complex and little understood, as the best social scientists are quick to admit. (I have found Alex van Naerssen particularly helpful). But what is inescapable if one stands back from all the analysis, is the immensity of the pederastic ‘phenomenon’ when viewed from a distant historical perspective. In spite of the paradoxes, imbalances, and all the rest, the force within certain cultures is awe-inspiring, and a powerful argument against the social ills of our modern world…

The inspiration began to flag as I tailed off into idealistic rhetoric, until I came across a reference which seemed to offer a way forward coincidentally consistent with the (not entirely confident) direction of my thought viz. What Do Different Cultures Tell Us About Sexual Orientation –from the book My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead.
Extract

This is clear, scientific and easy to read, so I will spare you a summary. (Perhaps you know it?) The essential force of the thesis is that there are three broad historical categories of homosexuality i.e. The Greek model, the Melanesian model, and the Western model. What is immediately helpful to my instinctive mind-cast is the clear exposition that the first two ‘pederastic’ models (though very different) represent the norm, while the Western model is considered as ‘unprecedented’. (I think you know this!) Just to give you a taste:

The Western male homosexual model is of comparatively recent origin and is quite different from either the Greek or Melanesian models, which institutionalized pederasty. The Western model is characterized by exclusive homosexuality between adults, usually of approximately equal status, and an insistence that the behavior is intrinsic. It is also highly politicized. The first intimations of the Western model appear to have been adult homosexual networks in cities in France in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; for lesbians, some records date from the late 1700s. Homosexual relations between adults do occur in the historical record before that time, but the new element in the Western model is the relative absence of bisexuality and pederasty.
The Western model tends to encourage promiscuity in males (AIDS has partially restrained this). A small subset of the male culture encourages a “monogamous” relationship with another adult, though usually with substantial amounts of “recreational sex” on the side. Bisexuality is often viewed as latent homosexuality; there is strong pressure to make a choice to be exclusively homosexual. The usual historical homosexual erotic attraction has been toward young boys, but there appears to be little of that among the modern gay community. However, there is significant interest in young post-pubertal teenagers, as far as is possible in Western countries, which universally proscribe it.

Bisexuality (my italics above) of course is subject to interpretation, but the ‘swing both ways’ modern concept is totally different from the structured bisexuality of the pederastic cultures.

To return to our intro, my difficulty was how to express what I felt was the essential difference between ‘egalitarian’/ ‘transgender’ taken together, and subdivision 3. I was inclined to treat the historically defining characteristic of the last i.e. as the predominant form, as a separate issue, and had already realized that this was in fact the fundamental flaw in the grouping as stated. One of course has to make the distinction between adult relationships which have occurred throughout history, and the phenomenon of the modern ‘gay’ movement. I agree that the intro cannot be too long or discursive – it may be that some of these questions, particularly ‘identity’, can be examined in the body of the article – but I think as you suggest there is room for both views i.e. the broad historical one, and the more particular (re the original anthropological statement), especially if we can make clear the ‘divide’ e.g. pederasty as the normative practice but suppressed in modern times.

Another useful study by Bruce Rind is ‘Biased use of cross-cultural and historical perspectives on male homosexuality in human sexuality textbooks’ which is a critique of the work of specialists e.g. Masters, Johnson et al, Sandford and others (publ in Journal of Sex Research 1998). This also testifies to the phenomenon of the gay movement:

These reviews have concluded that the "gay" pattern in the modern West, which involves egalitarian relations between men whose sexual interests and behaviors are generally restricted to other adult men, has rarely appeared as a pattern in other times and places. Gregersen (1983) concluded that the Western homosexual pattern "is quite exceptional from a cross-cultural point of view and seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon" (p. 297). Herdt (1987) noted that the "Gay Movement is a totally new social phenomenon" (p. 204). Adam (1985) concluded that the current structure of the gay world shows a radical break with cross-cultural forms and merits its own analysis. The reviews further indicate that, outside Western culture, boyhood sexual involvements with other males, both peers and elders, are well within the range of normal experience. Adam concluded from the cross-cultural data that there is "a special propensity for homosexual relations among unmarried male youths" (p. 20). Finally, the data indicate that transgenerational homosexuality (i.e., man-boy sex) has been the most common form of same-sex relationship in which adult males cross-culturally and historically have been involved (Herdt, 1995).

(My bold highlighting)

The experts – even the ‘important students’ you mentioned before – are of course not infallible (and would not claim to be), but I believe that the work of some ‘gay scholars’ can be redolent of personal agenda, or over-emphasis of a personal historical predilection, for instance. I would certainly exclude Percy from such a charge. I have previously expressed reservations about Crompton (whose ‘H & Civ’ I have just acquired) and have some questions about Davidson (I quote a passage from the latter for your inspection on the Gk love talk page).

Is there enough to argue a case for the ‘autonomous principle? I would say, yes, though I see it as requiring both historical and socio-psychological input (I have more lines to follow). The ‘arcane’ language point – I plead guilty! Too long at the desk trying to squeeze too much meaning into too little space – at least you avoided applying the epithet ‘sesquipedalian’ on this occasion.

I do hope you’ll be able to assist further with all of this: like you, I want to get it right, so at the risk of flooding you out, it is probably better to set out the material approach in advance.

Dominique 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusion!!

As a reader who went to this site simply with the intention to learn about pederasty, not to edit, I'd say this article is WAY too messy. I still haven't the faintest idea what the whole thing is about, as even the introduction is too complicated to read in less than like ten minutes... of course, I can't force anyone to do anything, and I won't be too loud about it as I haven't been able to understand what the whole thing is even about, but I personally think the introduction part should be cut down and perhaps be made a little less....full of really complicated words... Also, somebody should proofread this article a little better... there's a couple grammatical errors around! 77.106.153.32 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Nizingur

Your comment is helpful. If you look at the discussion pages, you will see that the introduction has recently been the subject of debate, and is in fact in the process of being clarified and improved. New references have come to hand which will make this task easier. To do the job properly - as any respectable editor will tell you - needs time and thought. I suggest you check back within a few days when the present introduction will hopefully be more to your liking. Incidentally I would be interested to know how you came by the word i.e. pederasty? Dominique 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Model

So until 'recently', homosexuality was pretty much pederasty? What tripe! This article goes against principles of gay and lesbian activism and striving for legitimacy. This ain't worthy of the LGBT banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.77.231 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The passage discussed needs to be changed. It implies that homosexuality as a relationship between consenting adults is "modern". Thus this article states that homosexuality was pederastic until "modern times". The idea that homosexual relationships is a 'western' convention and is fairly new is incorrect and further increases the controversy of this article. Who is going to change it? I shall if nobody else does. Enzedbrit (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article should not imply that adult/adult relationships were unheard of, just that in the past they were not the standard form of same-sex relationships, the way they are now. Do you have any counter-examples which are anything other than exceptions to that rule? Haiduc (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic opening

It just struck me that there is a problem of order here. If we were beginning an article about "Food" we would not open it with an excursion into Old High German, and an implication that food comes to us from the Indo-European tribes. What we are addressing is a practice, one that is universal. Though I like the stylistic device of progressing from the specific to the general, I think we should be more prosaic and reverse that, to follow the common-sensical expectations of the average reader. Haiduc 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that we were doubling up on the etymology factor (since that happens later), though the word itself will be 'alien' to the average reader lacking access to a dictionary - which is likely in any case to place derivation before meaning for any word incl. 'Food' (OE, according to my Shorter Oxford). Here it is enough to give the meaning, since the Greek usage follows immediately - the simple translation of the word is not likely to confuse the reader, and it is of course a meaning which also applies outside the Greek usage. I note that for 'pedophilia' the WP definition is the generally understood meaning of 'sexual attraction to children' i.e. the practice, but this is an already 'tainted' word in the public mind. I note also that there has been heated argument about the definition of pederasty before; in terms of 'practice', my position is that 'erotic bonding' is fine at the outset - reference to various 'practices' can follow, as in fact they do. Possibly, the first two sentences could combine... am I right in thinking that this very particular point does not mean that you have nothing else to say about the larger changes? And what about the picture - has Hyacinth

been demoted again? Dominique 00:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not thinking about anything else, just reacting to the Hellenization of the discourse. I just took a quick look at Democracy. It is a good reatment of a topic (such as ours) that has a Greek name but has nothing to do with Greece, in the final analysis. At this stage in the article we are pre-verbal and pre-historical, so to speak.

If I might suggest just the briefest etymological mention (see Temple), a removal of "child" since we are discussing youths in adolescence, and all discussion of history put off until the rough framework has been established. I have not been paying too much attention to the push-pull with the LGBT box and images, perhaps Hyacinthos fell by the wayside unnoticed. I am indifferent to his inclusion there, and almost feel that the less we focus (in the intro) on this or that tradition the better off we are. Haiduc 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and have made some amendments. 'Emotional' I added to cover non-sexual, Platonic forms (I don't like 'non-erotic' or chaste, for instance), though the 'emotional' variety probably had/has a sublimated erotic ingredient. Dominique 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my tweaks:

1. "emotional" is misleading, parents and siblings can have an emotional bond, but for it to be pederastic the beauty of the boy has to come into play. One could argue that the father's bond to the son is subliminally pederastic, but I think that there might be a dearth of sources for that one.
2. "sexual" is also misleading, since the Athenians, while praising pederasty, had very strong reservations about copulation. Dover and Keuls notwithstanding, this was not a culture of penetration (unlike modern homosexuality).

I am tearing out my hair over the second paragraph, and I can find no good solution to the problems it raises.

• It is not at all clear that the greatest flowering of pederasty was in Classical Greece. An equal acme may well have been reached - or surpassed - by the Japanese.
• "Sexual pederasty" is confusing. Are we talking about fondling the boy (which few in antiquity criticized) or buggering him (which was roundly condemned by numerous sources, both within and without the pederastic culture, including some eminent pederasts).
• "Post-Classical;" I would add "pre-classical" to that also, witness that fable by Aesop (Zeus and Shame) attacking buggering.
• "Erotic relations are seen as exploitive;" Again, are we taking about copulating with fourteen year olds only to dump them the next day, or mutual love affairs with boys of legal age?
• "Adult partners running risks;" OK, but so do heterosexuals on the prowl for jail bait. What is specific to pederasty in that?! Haiduc 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: I have taken account of the above in further amending the text. My thoughts are:

• Attraction to beauty/youth can be non-sexual. ‘Emotional’ is a pretty general expression – I recall reading somewhere that ‘teachers are not supposed to have emotional or sexual relationships with their pupils’; these words can operate at different levels. And the Platonic level should find some acknowledgement – as it does in other WP Pederasty articles - though not necessarily at the outset, but I see this is treated in ‘The Greeks’ section anyway. ‘Pederasty in ancient Greece’ offers a similar initial description: “a relationship and bond between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family”, though without the ‘erotic’, which we have to include since our field is broader. I have inserted: ‘an intimate or erotic relationship’ or it could be, to extend slightly the above option, ‘an intimate relationship or erotic bond’? (Looking back, I wasn’t too keen on the original list of all ‘options’ which sounded rather too text-bookish.) I feel the perfect solution is but elusive.

• ‘Sexual’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘penetrating’, but ‘pederasty’ on its own will do. The Greek variety seems to embody all the best features, but the ‘flowering’ expression can be softened (as currently). A more prosaic option could be: “From the time of its establishment as an institutionalized practice…” The mention of Athens I thought might provoke interest especially as the linked article gives a clear and simply stated account (in the intro) of Athenian pederasty.

• ‘Post-classical’ – I refer here to the repressive edicts e.g. 4rd century (Constantine) or large-scale movements directed against homosexuality in general in the Middle Ages and beyond, which means – if pederasty was the main form – the reference is valid (and qualified by ‘particularly’). Even during the Renaissance, the pederasts did not have an easy ride! In every era, there were dissenters and individual opinions, but the general point is that ‘boy-love’ flourished in the earlier periods, and declined (at least publicly) in the later periods, this being largely through fear of punitive consequences. However, the term could simply be deleted.

• The argument against pederasty as a predominant practice, by the way, is largely sustained by similar methodology i.e. producing evidence of exceptions to the general practice, in this case multiple references to same-sex adult couples. Of course, one finds adult male love everywhere – even in classical Greece, though what is not made clear is that ‘philia’ between men was not necessarily sexual, and pederasty in the strict sense could flower into an extended and intense non-sexual friendship as the boy grew up.

• ‘Exploitive’ can be omitted, although one reads it in the Press often enough along with ‘pervert’, ‘victim’ etc. The age-of-consent is generally (US and Europe) around 16 which excludes the 12 to 15 age-group which appears to be the main Achilles heel of those falling foul of the law. ‘Draconian’ comes to mind when you read about convictions of seventy-year old males based on contacts that have come to light 40 years after the event (the middle-age ‘victims’ having been encouraged to bring charges often on the expectation of generous compensation), and also convictions for ‘offences’ committed overseas. Nowadays, 16-18 year olds are often physically mature – even beyond adolescence - and are consequently possibly of more interest to ‘gays’ with a predilection for younger men. That said, age categories are less important for many than the physical attributes (within certain limits).

• Hetero ‘jail bait’ – I think we can only deal with ‘boys’ in a pederasty context. Under-age man-girl relationships in any case are not parallel, and most of the convictions in this category that one reads about are ‘pedophilic’ cases, i.e. involving pre-12 year olds. Dominique 14:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We are only dealing with boys. I was only throwing that in as an example, that not only pederasts but everyone is subject to the same law. It is as if we had an article about black people and we were discussing crime and said that when black people commit robberies they have to go to jail. OK. So does everyone else. I know where you are coming from, but I do not think it is encyclopedic to emulate the mentality of the street, or yellow journalism. The instinctive, prejudiced reaction may well be, "Pederasty?! Everyone knows that's illegal." But a neutral description of the situation is, "No, not as long as you don't break any laws." The negative projections circulating among the public probably should be mentioned, but that would fit better in the "Modern pederasty" article. Haiduc 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your logic may be questionable, but I accept the appropriateness of neutral language, and have amended accordingly. One had to make some passing reference to modern 'repression' in the context. On the question of legality, do you happen to know the GLBT position on consent and the law? Re para 3/4, it looks as if the misconstrued (by some readers) absence of adult relations in former times will have to be addressed. Dominique 11:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The GLBT position?! As far as I remember, the Gay organizations in the UK were pushing for the lowering of the age of consent to sixteen, and I am not aware of any gay group in any country where the AoC is lower than eighteen, agitating to raise to eighteen or higher.

As for AoCs in Europe, they tend to be between fourteen and sixteen, with excursions in both directions. If anyone is closed out it is the pedophile rather than the pederast.

I appreciated your remark about adult philia being nonsexual and pederasty maturing into strong friendship. Though the former may be a bit hard to argue, the latter is a recurrent theme in many of the original sources.

As for "post-Classical" I would suggest to changing it to "late antiquity" since the Hellenistic period was another time of widespread pederasty. Haiduc 13:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Painful progress

Latest amendments betray a distinctive style, attributable immediately! It does, however, sound a bit complicated or condensed especially the second sentence which packs in about two thousand years’ worth of human endeavour and suffering. ‘Critics’ – you mean Plato and Xenophon? ‘Devalued carnal relations’: or highlighted spiritual aspects? ‘Giving rise to a pederastic philosophy and art ’ – which philosophy and which art? Excuse my ignorance! ‘Foundation of later repression’ – Christian bigotry had something to do with it, surely? ‘Western ambit’ – unusual expression, I think. The guidelines I was trying to follow were basically: not too long, or too inclusive, or too ‘Hellenic’, and reader-friendly.

Version (Nov 5) was simpler if imperfect. This latest version has flow and style, but is perhaps overwhelming. Do I understand the thought? – Plato et al saw a higher virtue in a ‘purer’ pederasty expressed in philosophy and art (not clear), their views later interpreted as a precursor of Christian doctrine vis-a-vis sexuality and chastity, which lay behind the extremism and horrific repression of homosexuality in later times. Too intense for an intro, I trow. Dominique 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd never notice. I was trying to address a number of issues, and this formulation seemed the best way to preserve the substance of your approach, while avoiding assertions that seemed misleading. Such as:

It stated Established as an institutionalized practice in the Athens of 5th century BC. But it was established on the mainland in the sixth c., and not only in Athens, and it had been established and institutionalized in Crete since remote Minoan times.

from Late Antiquity suffered periodic repression and condemnation. Aesop criticized it in the sixth c., Plato in the 5th, and Aeschines in the 4th.

adult erotic relations with boys are generally subject to social and legal sanctions. I know we have different views on this (of the half-full- / half-empty-cup type), but the numbers speak for themselves - the law is no obstacle, only a partial limit, same as it functions for heterosexual relationships. Public disapproval is another matter. The "bad opinion of the street," Paul Goodman called it.

So much for the subtractions. As for the additions, I am not wedded to them, please do as you see fit. My intention was to take a long-distance view, to ask myself what were the irreducible aspects of the institution. I would vote for love&desire (sic), paideia, arete, martial training, friendship. Sex, not so much. That all this happened within a container made up of religion, law, tradition, philosophy and art is also in the picture. And as for Christian persecution, it certainly stole a page from Plato's "para physin" and his road map in the Laws. But we need not get into that in the intro if you think it too much. And certainly do not hesitate to blanch any purple prose, should you come upon it. Haiduc 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The additions are largely covered in the body of the article (and others), so references are preferable to trying to solve the problem of 'not leaving anything out.' I respect your knowledge of the history and comparative cultures involved, so I am not anxious to do too much damage. I will be absent for a day or two, but will rejoin the fray especially if I come upon a felicitous solution. Re para 2, it's that second sentence that is challenging and bothersome in its present form. Sentence 1 could start simply 'In the West' or even 'in the Mediterranean world'? Will keep gnawing the text. Dominique 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some textual sacrifice was needed to accommodate the current 'solution' which sets out the basics i.e. mention the Greeks, but not too much, the suppression similarly, and today. Crompton's study highlights the 'persecution' which is not generally known in its full extent (through the ages) and ferocity - very important when seeking to explain the 'survival' argument and the paradoxical struggle for acceptance (of pederasty) today. He does not wholly subscribe to Platonic theory having much to do with the appalling repression across the centuries. Also I will make a slight softening of the initial statement on 'predominant form of male love' (para 3). Dominique 12:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Pedo" and associated words meaning "boy"

This article states that the first root word for "pederasty", paed (assuming this is the same root as pedo) means "boy" in Greek. This statement contradicts the articles pedo and pedophile, which state that it means "child". I also believe that paed means child, as I have never heard the boy meaning before. Was "child" the same as "boy" in Ancient Greek, and if so, why doesn't the article say this? Please remember to give sources for boy and child, preferably online. --User:Iambus^৹ | talk 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you will see that "pais" will be translated as "boy" when appropriate, while elsewhere "girl" or "child" could well be correct renditions. For example, "pais kalos" on a vase should be (and is) rendered "the boy is beautiful" since "kalos" is masculine and "child" would be ridiculous in light of the usually well developed physique of the youth depicted. If the inscription read "pais kale" then the correct translation would be "the girl is beautiful." I will reference and elaborate a bit. Haiduc (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.