Talk:Pederasty/Archive 2

message: ::Then spoke the headmaster of Rugger,A most accomplished old bugger:"I spend half each nightWith a smooth catamite.My wife? I don't even hug 'er."
That's no proverb. It's a mildly amusing ditty.
TRiG 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English proverb? 

message: This edit, specifiying a date when pederasty became less common, "it was common in pre-Modern Japan until the Meiji restoration, in Mughal India until the British colonization, amongst the Aztecs prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and in China and Central Asia until the 1820s." needs a source.
: For the record, it used to say "until the early 20th century", but was changed by an anon. Clayboy 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Asia 

message: I am going to remove the Quranic verse reference since it is incorrect 50:24 indicates Surat Qaf Aya 24. Which approximates the meaning of sending stubborn non believer to hell. Check it yourself if you dont beleive me. I checked with other articles to see if Sura:Aya is how quran is referenced and it seems to be so.
:Added refs: (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19) Haiduc 03:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran reference 

message: "In those societies where pederasty is prevalent"
Why is this in the present tense? Are there societies where pederasty is prevalent now? If so perhaps an example could be given. If not, I'll change it to the past tense.
Anoni-mouse 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Present tense is used so as not to give the false impression that pederasty only happened in the past. Reports of its integration in Afghan and Pakistani culture are frequent and have been cited in the discussion on Central Asia (See Pederasty in the Islamic lands. Haiduc 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with this wording, it seems reasonable. Haiduc 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pederastic societys 

message: In this article a source provided for the claim of commonplace pederasty within the Persian Empire was Herodotus' "Histories," book 1, paragraph 135. The pertinent text as translated by A.D. Godley reads: 
"...and [the Persians'] luxurious practices are of all kinds, and all borrowed: the Greeks taught them pederasty. Every Persian marries many lawful wives, and keeps still more concubines."
The original text reads:
"...καὶ εὐπαθείας τε παντοδαπὰς πυνθανόμενοι ἐπιτηδεύουσι, καὶ δὴ καὶ ἀπ'  ̔Ελλήνων μαθόντες παισὶ μίσγονται. γαμέουσι δὲ ἕκαστος αὐτω̂ν πολλὰς μὲν κουριδίας γυναι̂κας, πολλῳ̂ δ' ἔτι πλευ̂νας παλλακὰς κτω̂νται."
I translate this as follows:
"...and [the Persians] adopted luxurious practices of all sorts; from the Greeks they learned to mingle with children. On the one hand, they each marry several woman, yet still keep even more concubines."
Paragraph 135 describes some examples of acculturation in Persian society in the fifth century BCE. While we can assume that to 'mingle' or mix with a child as meant by Herodotus would be in a sexually intimate way we cannot assume that this means man-boy love. The 'children' may very well be young concubine girls from Greece or Macedonia or a Persian satrapy. Either way, Mr Godley took liberty with his translation and the claims of pederasty are not asserted by Herodotus.
It is also suggested in this article that  "Athenaeus [states in Deipnosophistae] that the Persians also enjoyed the practice..." In fact, Athenaeus only cites Herodotus' writing on the matter and doesn't comment further. I was unable to find any other corroboration in regards to pederasty in Persia.
The information regarding Iran after the Islamic invasion is accurate. Please note that by this time the correct nomenclature is 'Iran' and not 'Persia.' --User:Aria Parsi_2.8.06
:The information is interesting, but I wonder whether you might be interpreting it too narrowly. Liddell-Scott, for παισ gives "II. Boy, youth, lad, girl, maiden;" Thus child is not restricted as to age to what we now see as "children" but includes the adolescent age depicted on vases, etc. As for your interpretation that Herodotus may have refered to girls, that does not make sense to me.  Why would the Persians need anyone to teach them to lie with girls?! And if the Greeks had anything to teach regarding relations with youths, it was pre-eminently their understanding of relations between men and boys that they evolved to a high level of sophistication. So I have to side with Godley on this one, his translation is the only one that makes sense under the circumstances. I appreciated your contributions to the article, by the way. Thank you for the clarifications. Haiduc 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Pederasty 

message: First of all, my apologies - I thought you deleted the intro, not seeing that most of it was moved to a different section. However, I have to absolutely disagree with both your changes. First of all, you misunderstand the sense of the section - when it argues that "pederasty was common" it does not say anything about whether it was common or not among the various peoples cited. It simply documents its presence in a large group of societies, thus making it common globally at that time (the Gauls and the Scythians will be included as soon as I track down the sources).
As for your imposition of a narrow sexological and mechanistic "definition" on a practice that has been varied and complex and dates back millennia, I am sorry but it is incorrect, inadequate, and absurd. That is why little can be said about pederasty without narrowing down the discussion to the instance discussed. Imagine if someone tried to impose a definition of marriage across the ages as "Marriage refers to sexual relations between an man and a woman (who is usually the passive partner)." Haiduc 11:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits were for NPOV, which this article, in its current form, does not adhere to and another editor has addressed why your intro is not NPOV. The article should begin with the standard dictionary definition of "pederasty" not an idealized, romanticized definition from ancient history. We're living in the modern world - modern definitions first. SouthernComfort 20:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits were not "NPOV" -- your edits tried to transform an encyclopedia article on pederasty as practiced in antiquity into an article about Pederasty in the modern world.  If you want to make edits to the latter, feel free.  But do not vandalize every article that includes the word pederasty so that the article becomes a tirade about how "some people" today use the word and view the ancient practice.  Corax 21:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful, Corax, in accusing others of vandalism which is a borderline personal attack - please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you disagree, I welcome the involvement of administrators. This article is not currently NPOV since it is not balanced by presenting the ancient Greek view of pederasty. Perhaps you should move the information in question to Pederasty in the ancient world. SouthernComfort 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  Commenting on how closely somebody's edits align with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is not a personal attack.  If it were, you yourself just made a personal attack against me.  Corax 06:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: SC, I'd like to think that I do not lecture you. Please let me know if I should step over the line. But I hope you will consider the thought that to start out an article on complex ancient cultural practices - ones that often were of a non-sexual nature - with a modern reductionistic description of sexual intercourse, would not be useful to that putative student of history for whom, as I have previously mentioned, I am compiling this group of articles. Or anyone. And please do not succumb to the temptation to bandy the "npov" tag since it is not useful. If you have particular objections and criticisms, please discuss them. Haiduc 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not remove the tag as we have not agreed upon anything. I have explained myself and my reasons for disputing this article, which is unbalanced. As such, it is indeed POV. As I have read further above, other editors seem to agree. SouthernComfort 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, as I have related above, I suggest moving much of this information to Pederasty in the ancient world. The article could use the shortening anyway. And what of critical assessments of pederasty? I see none included here. SouthernComfort 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by Southerncomfort 

message: The Baha'i Faith, which claims to be the fulfillment of all major religions and comes after Islam (the first of the two prophets claimed to be the 12th Imam of Shia Islam) also forbids pederasty. Indeed, it is the only mention of any type of homosexuality by Baha'u'llah. Here:
"We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 58)
and...
"The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 223)
I also would change the phrase "later picked up by Islam" by "later promulgated by Islam and, later still, by the Baha'i Faith" or something like that.
71.116.241.123 22:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Do you know what word was translated as "boys"? Was it "ghilman"? I will follow your suggestions. Haiduc 00:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but you can check here maybe: http://reference.bahai.org/en/ Look under Languages and search under Arabic for The Most Holy Book or the Kitab-i Aqdas. Thanks for making the changes. :) Do you think we could add a section like Islam has? You could just add my entire first post in as a subsection.
71.116.241.123 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The original word used in the arabic is is "Ghilmán", which is the plural form of the term "Ghúlám" which according to the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic is defined as: boy; youth, lad; slave; servant; waiter.  More information regarding the context of the use can be found at . -- Jeff3000 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add the Baha'i Faith after Islam 

message: The first section of this article (and every wikipedia article for that matter) should include the most common and basic definition of the article's subject.  In the case of this pederasty article, I've found no major dictionary that supports the definition stated on the wikipedia page.  Wikipedia should NOT be used as a tool for re-defining "controversial" terms.  In addition pederasty and pedophilia seem to be related on more that one level.  From my cursory analysis, pederasty refers to the act of anal intercourse with a child, while pedophilia refers to the condition of having a sexual preference for children.  There is no way that anyone with some semblance of NPOV can argue the terms are NOT related, other than the fact that one is a physical act and the other is a non-physical idea.
Perhaps people with an agenda could lay off the article for a few weeks and let others have some sort of say in the matter.  If an individual is unable to practice NPOV then let it happen by consensus.
J. Crocker 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed 

message: I'm disgusted that this is linked to the GLBT movement at all, or to GLBT themes.  Paedophiles, child molesters, any form of sex with underage children is not symbolic of the GLBT community or the goals of our community.  Paedophiles are outcasts and should remain so.  I want a consensus to have the article's link with the GLBT community severed. It is as offensive and presumptuous as linking racism with 'white' people. Enzedbrit 01:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pederasty does not necessarily involve underage children any more than heterosexuality mandates marriage with twelve year old girls. To say nothing about paedophilia, which is altogether out of the discussion. So while I agree with your position on underage sex I am not quite sure what to make of it in this context, which deals - by and large - with relationships which either were lawful in their time, or would be lawful in most jurisdictions today. Haiduc 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The throw away game.  Someone is appealing at 16, turns 18, move onto a younger squire.  It's sick in my eyes and in the eyes of many more.  Sex with young people - old men tupping teenagers - if that's what they want to do and they can find someone willing to give it up, then that's their business, but don't link it to the GLBT rights movement or GLBT culture.  That is my point.  Linking this practice to somehow be an element of the GLBT culture would repulse most of that community.  Lots of gay men enjoy anal fisting - do we also link that to the GLBT rights movement?  Our community hasn't fought and continues to fight to legitimise paedophilia, pederasty, any of it.  Nor would I link marriage or sex between men and underage girls as systemic of, or linkable to, the heterosexual community. Enzedbrit 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically such relationships usually turned into life-long friendships, and your attempt to reduce love affairs to sexual manipulations is dishonest and manipulative itself. Nor is it our place here to besmirch men and disempower youths in law-abiding relationships with each other simply because our erotic fancies lie elsewhere. And there would be neither a GLBT rights movement and certainly no GLBT culture (unless you call parading half naked in leather or miniskirts "culture") if not for the pederastic tradition. And certainly a lot of effort was spent by the gay community in the UK gaining 16 year olds sexual emancipation, not that long ago - how short our memories are when we are busy insulting others while claiming ourselves to be offended. Let's not use the Wikipedia to perpetuate a historic lie, shall we? "Our struggle" is not one to distort the past, I hope. Haiduc 10:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can voice my opinion here as I am not influencing the article in question, although I have removed pederasty as a GLBT subcategory.  There most certainly would have been a GLBT rights movement without the pederastic tradition.  To suggest the opposite really is insulting and yes, that does offend me.  I can not only think to my own involvement in the GLBT rights movement and that concerning the civil union debate in NZ, but also surrounding the GLBT organisations of which I am a member and have been involved here too.  If you wish to struggle for the rights of pederasts, then you must expect to do it freed from the scope of somehow being a part of the wider Queer rights movement.  You're on your own.  As for summarising GLBT culture with cross-dressing or leather fetish, then I at least forgive you for also presuming pederasty as part of the GLBT movement.  To my recollection, and correct me if I'm wrong, the lowering of the age of consent to 16 was to equalise the homosexual age of consent with heterosexuals.  Do not please presume that this was to allow old men to get their paws on young boys for the purpose of carnal pleasure only to then form 'a life-long friendship', but rather for equality of GLBT people in the eyes of the law.  Enzedbrit 21:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How hypocrite. If the GLBT people in Britain only wanted equality then they could have asked to set the hetero AoC-law up to 18 years instead of lowering the homo one. Fulcher 12:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could have but that would never have gone through and homosexual equality would have suffered a major set-back. Besides, it is not the desire of most GLBT people to secure our rights by robbing others of those they already have. So I fail to see hypocricy. If you want to fiddle with kiddies, do it in your own movement. You'll get no help from any legitimate GLBT organisation. Enzedbrit 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not politicize the discussion here with gratuitous insults. You are free to think what you will, but your edits "in defense of the LGBT movement" are distorting scientific and historical facts. We are not here to defend or attack anything or anyone. It is a fact that, right or wrong, egalitarian relationships were ridiculed and marginalized even in homophilic societies, such as Greece or Japan or the Muslim world. It is a fine thing that this previously repressed group has attained a measure of freedom, but fiddling with historical details to suit your wishes is not a good use of that freedom. If you would like to impose your own contrary opinion on this article, or any others, you will have to provide references for your novel interpretation. Haiduc 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to GLBT movement

message: To my eyes, pretty much the entire section on ancient Greeks appears to be derived directly from Plato's Symposium. However, the way it reads, it gives the impression Plato is only one voice in a debate among various people--when what you describe is pretty much identical to the debate Plato wrote all the parts for, and which he guided to a very specific conclusion.
Are there other sources? I don't see them in your references, and I'm not well-read enough to guess who they would be. Aristophanes includes sexual jibes in his satire of Socrates in The Clouds--is that substantive enough to be mentioned? And if not him, who? Xenophon? Who are the people in this debate, aside from Plato's characters? (I may simply not be well-read enough to know)
Last, I think that saying Plato thought pederastic relationships should "stop short of sodomy" is just wrong (in fact I'm going to change it myself). Sodomy is a vague, culturally loaded word to use for anal sex in the first place, and in the second place Plato never says "Make out with your eromenos but don't fuck him in the ass" or "a little sex is okay, but not too much." He says that sexuality should be transcended completely and subsumed into abstract love of virtue. 
And anyway, as I understand it, the Greeks are believed to have practiced intercrural rather than anal sex.
DanB DanD 05:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One does not become "europroktos" from intercrural sex alone. And I would like to refer you to Pederasty in ancient Greece for a better-annotated discussion of the topic. What has been left here is only a brief synopsis. Your point on sodomy is well taken, and your solution aptly worded, thank you. Haiduc 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plato and "sodomy"

message: The rule of thumb in sociology of sex is that in any military society (from Sparta, to Sepoys, to Russian pre-Czarist army, to German  NSDAP) "the pitcher" is not considered homosexual at all (this is mirrored somewhat in incarcerated populations), and even a single incidence of assuming the feminine stance caused automatic loss of status, rendering a penetrated subject permanently "female". Eventually "the catchers" are permitted more egalitarian sexual practices, but only amongst themselves. Burton has some nice passages apropos the Sepoys, and Hubermann has a fascinating study of Soviet era camp-whores, off the bat.
Galassi 
::FYI, Galassi is a sockpuppet of perma-banned user:Primetime. -Will Beback 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that, I am not surprised. Haiduc 02:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am removing the text and posting it below while we discuss. There are several problems that I see with it. First of all it reduces relations that reportedly were multidimensional human relations (whether you look at the Greeks, the Japanese or the Muslims, etc.) to the level of interactions between bacteria (viz. "penetratee"). Then it confirms that de-humanization by claiming that the youths were treated as "subhuman". And finally it is logically fallacious ("a" therefore "x") since in no way does it show why relations with putative subhumans should be chaste. Finally, it is a novel theory encountered nowhere in the literature I have come across. So until Galassa can substantiate this material I think we need to hold it at arm's length.
"It is also important to note that in any military society where pederasty is prevalent a penetratee is accorded subhuman status, so from a sociological standpoint pederasty practiced in ancient Greece was in all likelihood chaste, unless perpetrated upon slaves or captives." Haiduc 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Subhuman penetratees" -- Accuracy?

message: It must be pointed out, in the interests of clarity and truthfullness, that the teachings of the religion of Islam strongly and forcefully forbid and condem any and all forms of sexual activity between the same sex, irrespective of their age or age difference.
In the Islamic holy book, The Qur'an, Allah (God) states:
We also (sent) (the prophet) Lot: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?  For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."  (Al A'raf 7:80-81)
"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"  (Al Shu'ara' 26:165-166).
Islamic jurisprudence is based upon the Qur'an and the Prophet's teachings and does not permit or consider sexual activity between males as either normal or natural, infact it is a punishable crime.
The 3 verses (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19), that refer to youth in heaven do not allude nor paint a scence of pederasty, but rather illustrate to the reader that all things in heaven are full of beauty, purity, youth and are of incorruptible conditions. 
Furthermore, these 3 verses are not about pederasty, since there shall be no old or "mature of age" human inhabitants in heaven, as God will admit the people to heaven restored to their youthfull healthy selfs. This is illustrated in the hadith recorded by al-Tirmindhi that states:
An old woman came to see the Prophet and asked him to pray for her that she might go to Paradise. He replied, "No old woman will enter Paradise!" She was grieved and began crying. He told his companions to tell her "that the old woman would go to Paradise, but as a young girl".
It is important to always defrenciate between what a religion (any religion) teaches and what a people do, and this is the reason for my adding this to the post.
:yeah, I think ascribing tolerance to "Islamic jurisprudence" is a bit much, especially considering the executions that continue to go on.
:DanB DanD 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISLAM 

message: I'm thinking specifically of the changing definition of sodomy over the years.
TRiG 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Useful Information Here? 

message: Readers may be interested to know that the term 'pederasty' in modern Greek is equivalent to the term 'pedophilia'. Actually there is no term for what I read as the English definition of 'pederasty' in Modern Greek! Source: . The other term ('pedophilia') does not exist in modern Greek (browse for it here). In view of that, I think there may be a need for proper mentioning of this, since the meaning of the Greek term is definitely altered in English. Most native users of Greek, regardless of their good level in English, are likely to confuse those two terms. This was also noted in the categorization debate over at Talk:Alexander the Great (). •NikoSilver• 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Pederasty in Greek