Talk:Pederasty in the modern world

message: The article cannot both portray pederasty as a practice whose allegedly universal abusive nature is subject to widespread dispute, then proceed in the "criticisms" section to push the POV that pederasty is abusive by dubbing pederastic acts as "abuse" and "child molestation."  This is an encyclopedia, guys and girls, not a personal advocacy web page.  Stick to the facts. Corax 05:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big-time POV Problems

message: The DSM IV criteria for diagnosing pedophilia reads in part: "Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger)."
Notice that "prepubescent child" is clearly specified as the criterion, not any specific age, and that "13 or under" is used only to give a general idea of the age range of prepubescent children.  Rendering in the second paragraph the definition of pedophilia as "an attraction to children under the age of 13" is thus inaccurate.  Not only does it fail to identify the key criterion laid down in DSM IV -- that of prepubescence -- but it wrong implies that the age of 13 enjoys some sort of status as an official age below which youngsters only attract pedophiles, and above which youngsters no longer attract pedophiles. Corax 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSMIV definition of pedophilia 

message: I think that this entire page should be done away with. It is just trying to hide the real truth about pedophiles by call it, pederastic love. Khalif 14:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy to say. Much harder to discuss individual issues in order to resolve disputes in a constructive fashion. Haiduc 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to break this to tyou, but this page isn't about pedophilia or pedophiles.  It's obvious by this post that you either haven't read or haven't undrestood the content of an article whose deletion you're calling for.  How embarrassing. Corax 15:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eliminating pages on subjects which we don't like runs completely counter to the idea of Wikipedia. The goal should be to handle these topics in an NPOV fashion. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong

message: Keith, this version resolves some problems I see with your previous suggestion:
In the past century, the term pederasty has seen a number of different uses. In the classic and academic sense, it refers to the erotic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent boy. Such relationships may be sexually expressed or not, consensual or nonconsensual, sentimental or commercial, and their legality will vary depending on local age of consent laws and prohibitions on homosexuality. The term can also be employed of the attraction of the man to the boy, whether or not reciprocated. See Definitions below
Pederasty is contrasted with the other two forms of male homosexuality, androphilia and gender-structured relations, which are currently prevalent in modern industrialized societies. It is generally not used of lesbian relations.
The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with prepubescent or underage children of either sex. See Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse and Statutory rape
An alternative use has been to describe anal intercourse with either males or females, regardless of age. See sodomy and anal intercourse
Then I'd like to take the definitions presently in the intro and combine them with the dictionary definitions you brought up, as well as with the material from that French page, and lay out - in a separate section - what the "state of the art" is. Haiduc 16:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good, except in one portion.  The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with prepubescent or underage children of either sex.  I believe this sentence misleadingly implies that pederasty is often used to refer ONLY to pedophilic acts, to the exclusion of sexual activity with teenage males.  The current revision makes clear that the common usage of "pederast" denotes sexual interaction between a man and another male of any age under the age of consent.  I believe this subtlety should be preserved in whatever revision is decided upon. Corax 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "underage youths" instead of "underage children" do it? Haiduc 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "youths of any age under the age of consent"?  Corax 05:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. How's this: "The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with prepubescent or older underage minors of either sex. See Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse and Statutory rape" Haiduc 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why you're so adamant about including "prepubescent" in the definition at all.  The common usage defintion of pederasty does not make a distinction between pubescents/adolescents and prepubescents, so I don't see why there's any need to do anything more than say "minors of any age under the age of consent." Rattling off a list of the stages of sexual development that those ages encompass is redundant and unnecessary. Moreover, it shifts the focus away from where it should be -- which is the legality of the act, and not the sexual development of the younger partner.  Corax 00:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You have a point. "The term has also been used, at times in legal parlance, to refer to relations with minors below the age of consent regardless of sex or age. See Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse and Statutory rape" Haiduc 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is acceptable. Corax 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New intro hashout

message: Nearly half of this section is devoted to the Rind, et al. study. Although it is appropriate to cite this study in this section, and to discuss the results of the study, it is not appropropriate to omit the criticisms and controversy associated with the study. The study provoked statements by the APA saying that pederasty is harmful, and the study suffered both scientific and political criticisms following its publication (see the article on the Rind, et al. study). There are clearly conflicting views about the merit of the study and its findings, and the critical views have been expressed in verifiable sources. The WP:NPOV policy states: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." By omitting the criticisms of this study, the section does not fairly present the conflicting views associated with the study, and thereby adopts a POV that the findings are relevant but the criticisms are not relevant. The omission of the criticisms associated with this study is a violation of the NPOV policy. Drop the study altogether or present both sides of the conflict about the merit of the study and its findings. Kelly 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV on Advocacy of pederasty

message: :Image:QAF1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:QAF1.jpg

message: I'm going to be in the process of merging all the notes (academic and whatever) into a single notes set, all using the ref tags.  First, it's too complicated having different references formats on the same page and second, the academic splitting of notes is largely irrelevant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting of the notes 

message: Regarding this edit: --the cite is from 1980, so it cannot be used to verify any claims about "being in effect for 19 years," obviously, as that is a logical/temporal impossibility. I searched for another ref to verify the claim, and di not find one. I did find a ref for the resolution itself, so I added that. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take the same approach as with the other material that needs to be cited, a tag. Haiduc (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NOW

message: I think this should be moved to the age of consent article; let me check if it is already there/wanted to preserve just in case. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: age of consent