Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 5

message: A link to the Journal of the American Medical Association has been included in the references to this article. Firstly, I am not entirely certain that the article has been used as a source for the material in this article. Secondly, the link is not accessible without a password. Is there another place where the article in question can be accessed? If not, perhaps the link should be removed. --Zanthalon 03:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article contains medical claims, the response should be here also. Parenthetically, I'm beginning to believe this article might be merged into Pedophilia. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gedday Cecropia, i'd support merging although I'm not sure if it would be accepted at VfD. Erich 04:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: One of the reasons I'm moving toward merger is because the subject is highly subjective. It essentially contains the political and social goals of pedophiles without ever realistically saying what they actually expect to achieve, how they expect to achieve them, or how they deal with logical inconsistencies of their agenda. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: JAMA Article

message: It might be a good idea to postpone the merger of childlove movement and pedophilia until c.m. stablizes. That is, until staunch pedophilia opponents and "childlove" advocates and sympathizers can agree that the article is accurate and neutral.
We've only started this week, to change it from unabashed apologetics to "they say this, others disagree". These things take time. Don't worry, it will be finished before the paper edition is published... --Uncle Ed 18:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The article childlove movement is POV by definition. In Pedophilia (or child sexual abuse) you can much easier integrate a position like the one of Finkelhor: He considered the traditional arguments against adult-child-sex not convincing and unproven in 1979 and therefore used the idea of informed consent to judge such relationships. --Moonlight shadow 07:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the first time ever I agree with "Moon light shadow". The term "childlove" as used by pedophiles is anything but neutral. Great work pointing this out, Jim and Ed. Get-back-world-respect 17:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the term "childlove" points out that (nearly all) pedophiles fall in love with children. However this does not mean that there are not any problems in such a relationship. --Moonlight shadow 09:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there also be an article sheeplove because most sheep lovers fall in love with sheep? Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but it is just absurd what the proponents of boylove claim about "non-violent" "consensual" sex with children. By the way, "girllovers" are by no means as active on the internet. I really appreciate that this article does not support this extreme form of euphemism any longer and does no longer offend those who love their children without feeling sexually attracted. It is good to see that no one here engages in polemics from the other side like "the beasts should all be executed immediately". Therapy can help, and as long as they do not break the law pedophiles have as much a right to get help as any other group in need. Get-back-world-respect 13:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: American euphemism wouldn't use anything as straightforward as "sheeplover." It would be more like "woolfriend" or maybe "BoPeepians" -- Cecropia | Talk 17:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about underage sheeps? ;-) --Moonlight shadow 19:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger stratgy

message: I created Definitions of pedophilia, a short article differentiating "childlove" from "pedophilia". I think this will make the merge easier. --Uncle Ed 19:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, you are my hero until further notice for not using the non-word "merger". = ) Jeeves 03:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: On 3 August 2004, this article was nominated for deletion.  The decision was ambiguous.  Failing to reach a clear consensus, the decision currently defaults to KEEP.  There were some strong suggestions for future edits or mergers for this article (which may, of course, be carried out by any future reader/editor).  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Childlove movement</S> /Deletion_debate_archive for a record of the debate. Rossami 22:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  from VfD 

message: I think that this article presents an interesting documentation into the existence of movements whose stated goals is to have some specific practices that most of society considers "bad", "digusting" and harmful to others. Removing the said documentation won't make those people go away. I'm unsure about merging this into the main pedophilia article. The main pedophilia article documents some emotional and sexual urges and practices; this article documents some attempts at making these practices legal. This is the same difference as documenting homosexuality, and documenting movements which pushed for the legalization of homosexuality and the repealing of so-called sodomy laws (caveat: I'm not claiming pedophilia and homosexuality are closely related phenomena, just that they are practices that were at some points judged disgusting and immoral, up to the point of sentencing those who practiced them to very hard sentences). Documenting the existence of some movement does not imply condoning its stated goals. David.Monniaux 15:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: About possible deletion

message: Leaving aside the fact that this is a controversial subject, I'm concerned about the weasel words that are in this piece. We need clarification:
* "Many in the movement actively campaign against the idea that children are unable to properly consent to sex" - who exactly?
* "Many opponents of the childlove movement believe the term childlove to be a misnomer since they view any and all adult-child sexual contact to be abuse." - who exactly?
* In the section Terminology advocacy it says:
:*"Pedophiles in the childlove movement seek to avoid the stigma of the term "pedophile", which carries connotations of exploitation, perversion, and criminality. They promote the term "childlover" (as well as the terms "boylover" or "girllover") to replace the term "pedophile" due to its pejorative connotations. The term has been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet." - source of this information? How do we know this?
:*"These pedophiles often reject the words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" arguing..." - source of this information?!
:*"They argue that..." Who again? Source?
:*"They claim to support only "consensual" and "non-coercive" relationships with minors" Who? Source?
:*"Many of them have chosen a life of sexual abstinence" - source of information (in this case a study or report would do as I realise that outing a reformed pedophile would not be a good thing)
:*"Many ephebophiles object to the term "childlover" since they are attracted only to adolescents, whom they consider to be physically and emotionally adults rather than children" Source?
*"Most people who identify with the childlove movement believe that the movement should attempt to..." isn't this a very broad generalisation? How can one editor speak for the whole organisation? Where is the source of this information? Should this sentence be modified?
*"Those who advocate the legalization of intimate contacts with children claim..." - please provide a source. 
:*"They stress that they are interested in..." who are they?
:*"They claim that children are fully capable of expressing their desire" - who? We need to clarify who "they" are
:*"The argument follows" - whose argument?
:*"they assert that children can understand" - defined they
:*"They also fail to take into account the well-documented psychological damage that sexually intimate relationships have on children." - (disclaimer: I added this.) - who are "they"?
We need clarification here now that the Wikipedia majority has decided not to remove this page. 
Ta bu shi da yu 11:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean "that the Wikipedia majority has not decided to remove this page". Deciding not to do something is not the same as not deciding to do it. - Mark 13:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I meant was the majority of people who voted on VfD voted to keep this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the tally at the top of the deletion debate, only 21 out of 47 people voted to keep the article. How is that a majority? - Mark 05:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, this article is still here. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is still here because there was not a majority of votes in favour of deletion. It is votes for deletion, not votes to keep the article. A lack of majority in favour of deletion in this case does not translate to a majority in favour of keeping the article. Less than half of the voters wanted the article kept here. But, at the same time, less than half wanted the content deleted completely. - Mark 03:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand why an article should be censored/deleted just because a majority does not agree with its idea. Then since many are against communism should we remove the articles about communism from Wikipedia? I believe that a correct information is ONLY given when we do not let someone censor something just because he/she does not agree with it. (btw, is there a way to insert articles here without having to edit everything?)--Lucat 01:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with many of your points. The information in the article is mostly one or a few editors' generalizations based on their impressions, and the source material they've chosen to use. But I can answer a few questions: "The term has been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet". As for the term "boylove", we can know this by examining the history of Boychat. If this is not the place where the term was invented, it was certainly where it was popularized, and where the first open community of boylovers formed (and where the logo was designed, etc). As for the term "childlove", I don't think I have heard it before coming to this article. I think it may have been invented by Wikipedians in need of a generic title. "Many of them have chosen a life of sexual abstinence". This was my sentence (and it was later removed), based on empirical data on myself, the boylovers I know personally and the impression I get from the community at large. I acknowledge that it is no scientific fact, but with so little research going on, it's hard to find any. "These pedophiles often reject the words ...". Not my words, but I know for a fact that it's true in the community (I myself can seldom bring me to even utter the word around people), and it's the very reason the term "boylove" was invented in the first place. The rest of your objections are mostly "who are 'they'?" (for the most, I can say "certainly not I"). I'm not sure what you're after here. Names? Clayboy 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: No, not names. Only sources to studies so we can verify the facts in this article. That's why I emphasised the "They" bit. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: "Western society in general completely rejects all forms of pedophilia because they believe that children will be manipulated or coerced because of a power imbalance between them and the adults they are involved with. Despite this societal rejection, many pedophiles claim to understand this power imbalance, and have proposed an ethical framework that could allow acceptance of their desire for sexual interaction with children."
How many unproven assertions can we put in a single paragraph?
#Western society in general. Begging the quesion--this implies eastern cultures are not opposed. AFAIK, even socities such as Cambodia where children are the subject of sex tourism don't approve of it, whether or not they actively suppress it. Cultures that tolerate or encourage some sex play among children (as observed, among others, by Margaret Mead) do not allow that interaction between children and adults.
#because they believe that children will be manipulated or coerced because of a power imbalance between them and the adults they are involved with. Straw man--the power imbalance is only one aspect of social rejection of pedophilia. Others include emotional damage to children, the rights of parents, society's interest in the physical health of children, the immaturity of children to understand the consequences of forming sexual relations, and the incompetence of children to consent.
#an ethical framework. Self-referential nonsense. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow disagree that "Western society in general" implies that Eastern cultures are not opposed. It can be as well understood as a reservation from the author of the article. I myself would affirm that Western society in general disapproves of sexual contacts between adults and children; but I don't consider myself enough of an expert on the mores of the rest of the world to affirm anything about them. David.Monniaux 11:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost totally bulls**t paragarph