Category talk:Pedophilia

message: :moved to Talk:Child pornography -Willmcw 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Court Desisions (links)

message: I would like to create a subcategory for advocates of pedophilia/childlove. Suggestions??--Gbleem 19:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea, as pedophilia certainly has plenty of opponents. The world rarely hears from proponents, no less actual pedophiles. As long as the new section maintains a NPOV, I can't see any reason NOT to add it. Lindsay Ashford comes to mind, by the way. I learned of him only last week. What a brave soul he is! Zebruh 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have :category:pedophile organizations. Other than Ashford, who'd go in the advocate category? -Willmcw 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  for some reason it isn't listed under pedophilia. Is this a technical issue. Would pedophile advocacy be better to diffentiate it from anti child abuse groups? --Gbleem 20:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me as if :category:pedophile organizations is a subcategory of :category:pedophilia. -Willmcw 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have been some kind of glitch.--Gbleem 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophile advocate subcategory 

message: I noticed that an article I have contributed to, Pederasty, has been included in this category. I have my doubts about that, but I can't argue one way or another without some clear definition of the range of this topic. So I have tagged it "NPOV" until this is resolved. Haiduc 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have been over-enthusiastic in some categorizing. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, while pederasty theoretically involves pubescent boys. However takling a more careful read of the Pederasty article I see that it covers instances with boys who are as young as 12, or who are depicted without pubic hair. On that basis, it seems reasonable to consider them closely-enough related to have a categorization. -Willmcw 06:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could be said of child marriage, and the lack of pubic hair can extend into late adolescence for some, depending on nutrition and genetics. Take a look at Amor Vincit Omnia (I don't mean to corrupt you). There is a further issue, much more profound: you are projecting a minoritarian (not to say rare) disorder (one held by some to be innate, much like any other orientation) onto entire societies. Thus you seem to be using a kind of street-level logic but presenting it as academic discourse. It simply does not make sense and appears on its face to be a polemical tactic (though I am not accusing you, Willmcw, since I have no reson to assume you have an axe to grind - I just think you made an honest assumption, but one unwittingly influenced and informed by others who do have an axe to grind). The propaganda on this subject is so thick you can cut it with a knife. These are somewhat generalized arguments, but since a workable definition does not seem to be forthcoming here, it is impossible to be more precise, it is a bit like jousting with a cloud. So I will remove pederasty from the category until you can come up with a more plausible argument. (I was going to remove ephebophilia as well, but I see sanother has saved me the bother.) Haiduc 10:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are we talking about here? 

message: It doesnt seem to be pedophilia. --Mats33 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is family affair listed here?