Talk:Pederasty/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Whoa

Collapsing for the same reason as above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hold on, my watchlist is showing 32 changes to this article and 75 (!) changes to the talk page just today and its not even dinnertime. Let's curb our enthusiasm and slow down a little here. We're here for the long haul and it's more important to get things done right than done fast. This number of changes is hard for a human person to process and keep up with. It also would be consistent with a fabian strategy to wear down and confuse people watching the article, which I'm not saying that it demonstrates such a strategy but that it would be consistent with such a strategy, and in the end the result is the same. Or it would be consistent with fixing an article that was a mess from top to bottom and needed to be essentially rewritten. Assuming that's not the case, why not let's restore the article to its form as of a couple a days and let's lay out suggestions for individual improvements that we can discuss, look at, ponder, and try to reach some sort of general agreement or compromise on, here on the talk page, one at a time. Does this seem reasonable? Or something else, because I am getting overwhelmed here. Herostratus (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC) As noted in the section immediately above this one, I of course support restoring the Pederasty article to before Newmancbn's edits to it, or at least the removal of the pro-"adult-child sex" content he added. I will also respond to him in the aforementioned section about the validity or lack thereof regarding the Rind et al. study. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Agree with restoring it to version before Newmancbn's edits. Too many edits with few edit summaries and attempts to overwhelm the conversation here. Herostratus and Flyer22 do you think that it would be of any help to ask members of the wikiprojects that this article is part of to evaluate the edits? I hope that N can be persuaded to slow down or I fear another AN/I thread is in our future. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Alright then, per WP:BRD I've reverted to the version of 06:08, August 27, 2014‎, which is just prior to the flurry of edits, many (although not necessarily all) by or in response to Newmancbn. If there was any collateral damage to other's edits sorry, but probably necessary for the net gain. @Newmancbn: if you would be so kind as to lay out corrections and improvements you'd like to propose on the talk page this would be a better way going forward I think. A few at at a time, specific suggestions, and AAA-level sources would be most helpful I think. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @Herostratus:I propose at the least to restore the quotes by Jim Kepner, the then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, and the edits to age range that both Flyer22 and I collaborated on, and restoring the term 'boylove', cited in multiple studies throughout the article, a neutral term commonly used in both academic and casual settings, and by those people who have this 'boysexual' orientation. These are all cited here with quotes from peer reviewed mainstream academic journals. The Rind et al. study seems to have stirred a lot of controversy, and I'm in agreement with letting it wait for now, and I suggest shorting it to a brief mention and a see also hyperlink at the bottom of the page, since regardless of if its credibility is in fact disputed in scientific fields, it is quite relevant to the subject. Thank you everyone for your time and objective and compassionate contributions to this subject.@Jytdog:--Newmancbn (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Dag nab it Newmancbn you refactored your edits yet again. You can no longer claim that you did not know that you weren't supposed to do that. Do not add new things to an old edit. Also do not change items in an old edit by replacing them. Use the <s></s> strike though command to put a line through the way the item read before and put in the new next to it. I have had to remove more stuff than [[u|Flyer22}} did. F may need to check for stuff that should have remained. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC) N, your last set of edits here were totally inappropriate. Next, based on your edits that caused your topic ban I cannot accept your assertion that "boylove" is a neutral term used in any setting. I need other experienced editors to confirm or refute a statement like that. Rather than reprint the whole thing I will leave this link (BTW it violates wikipedia talk page rules in that you refactored an earlier edit, but that is not why I am linking to it) as the part in green has two problems for me. First, it seems that you are using the old saw of equating homosexuality with pederasty - they are not. and are even far from, the same thing. Second, and more importantly, you state "I am studying to be a hakham and I have encountered young men with this orientation in training for marriage guidance, in my tradition homosexuality or any orientation is not problematic. I discovered there was little information available for these people about their orientation, and they are usually demonized by christian and secular modern western society." This goes right to the heart of WP:NOT as you, in complete violation of WP:SOAPBOX are trying to turn this article into something that it is not meant to be. By all mean use your Facebook page or online chat rooms to state what is important to you, but do not use Wikipedia for that. As other editors have pointed out trying to support one POV in this article is as fraught with problems as your previous editing. Please do not use up the WP:ROPE that has been given up to now. MarnetteD|Talk 01:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @MarnetteD: Okay what does refractory mean? Sorry I don't understand it. Secondly, the term 'boylove' is very common in academic settings, I provided three papers that use the term. Thats why it was included. Also as far as soapboxing, I just wanted to state my background on this, I did not mean to present an argument for why it needs to be in the article, that was just what brought this topic to my attention. The reason why I want these things in the article is for scholarly accuracy. They are all real legitimate things that really exist in mainstream scholarship, and I posted the exact quotes from the papers, these academic information was unpublished here, thats why I added it. What do you think of the quoted studies? Does anyone object to the proposed revisions? I am an ubernerd and I love all things ancient and mediterranean especially when those things intersect with the modern world, which is separate from an interest in Judaism or human sexuality, and when I find out about facinating phenomenon that is scientific and an anthropological reality, I want the information to be widely known, thats my interest in wikipedia chiefly, I admit I have a special love for Israelite related articles, which this is not one, but really I am here because I am a geek.--Newmancbn (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC) All of the so called references that you added more than two hours after your first post in the section are "refactoring." Next three papers do not make anything "common." Next trying to add your background and study of what you think that the "ancients" believed is WP:SOAPBOXING. Love of any subject is wonderful but it seems to color everything that you try to add to WikiP articles and that WP:POV. Your desire to have your version of information widely known means that you also need to read and absorb WP:ADVOCACY because your advocacy in this situation is causing the same kind of problems here as it did in the past. MarnetteD|Talk 02:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @MarnetteD: I'm sorry I just don't understand why this is point of view or advocacy. Its not as though I am just making stuff up and writing it on wikipedia. Under modern expressions it only had a brief discussion of theological views, and that many condemn it in modern culture, there were no quotations from the gay community, which has not said much about pederasty, the most famous quote on this subject that is used over and over again, you can see many on google scholar, in papers on this subject is by Jim Kepner. I added that quote, and in the section on age ranges Flyer22 and I worked to make it better, and include a maximum range instead of just specific examples from cultures. I also added boylove because it is becoming widely used in discussions of pederasty in the modern world, since pederasty is a bit of an archaic word, and I gave quoted references from three academic papers using the term. The other additions were cited with quotes from studies as well. I understand that a dispute has been raised on the validity of Rind et al. which I'm fine with. What about these other additions though? Could you please explain how these three additions are unsuitable for wikipedia?--Newmancbn (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Note: We are allowed to alter our older posts. But some editors feel that it's better to re-sign the older post after it has been altered (by that, I mean update the time stamp) or strike through part of the older post and add new text beside it (like MarnetteD stated above), especially since updating the time stamp can be confusing and/or misleading since part of or most of the post was added before the updated time stamp. Also, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments, editors should be careful not to change their posts in a way that takes another editor's reply out of context. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks Flyer22 that is a good explanation of refactoring. Next, N if you chose not to see your stance as not being WP:ADVOCACY or WP:POV there is little I can do to help you. You didn't see it in the problematic editing that led to your previous topic ban either. Next, more than once you stated that the term "boylove" is "widely used" now you change it to "it is becoming widely used" - which is it. As I stated three papers isn't either one. The only thing I can offer is that your best bet is to get your theory of this published somewhere other than Wikipedia then get it widely supported by reputable journals and scholars. Then someone else can use it as a reference in this article. MarnetteD|Talk 04:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @MarnetteD: I'm sorry, but that isn't what I asked though. You just reiterated that my edits were advocacy, and have not explained why, what is wrong with the specific edits I made and their specific sources? Boylove is a term that has been widely used in the 20th century, and it appears may gradually be replacing the term pederasty in academic contexts or at least becoming a casual alternative to it.--Newmancbn (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I know "ignorance is bliss" but you have been given plenty of links to relevant policies. So now "boylove" has mutated into widely used in the 20th Century but is only just coming into wide use now in the 21st. No sourcing for any of these shows either the continuation of WP:ADVOCACY or WP:COMPETENCY problems. MarnetteD|Talk 06:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC) No @Newmancbn:,re what I gather you're trying to do here, e.g. "A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we'd better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks" and "In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity" and so on... no, we're not going to do that, and no, those are not good sources, and... no, just no. I'm am quite confident that you've been here before (either that, or you people think and write remarkably alike) but whatever. Just... don't post here anymore, your editing career on this article is over, and if you make any more posts you will be blocked and then you will have to make another account and start over and doesn't it get boring after awhile? It does for me, and you're never going to get anywhere here. It's a big world and there's lot of places to post stuff like that, so go do that. No need to reply, and best of luck in your future endeavors, Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @Herostratus:I'm sorry but I am totally confused about why either of the three suggestions are invalid. Lets forget boylove, I think its confusing to type, I'm tripping myself up. Suffice to say boylove is common term. Use demonstrated in three separate academic papers. Also Flyer22 helped me add 'boylove' to the opening article. Forget whatever else I said please. On the the other two, what is invalid about the quote from Jim Kepner appearing in modern forms? I thought it was relevant to modern expressions and views on pederasty. Also what is wrong with the expansion of the age ranges that Flyer22 and I both contributed to? These were never explicitly addressed or explained to me, could you please? Thank you again for your time and work.--Newmancbn (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I believe this is WP:POV, can I get a moderator here? This is a clear case of removing material from the article without proper cause, because "no, just no" which I don't think is a legitimate reason. I'm not from your civilization or your culture. I have an ancient levantine tradition that predates these notions, and they are not universal, other cultures and individuals have a different view, then that of modern western attitudes. Maybe the others having made as you claim the 'same edits' over and over might indicate this article is missing vital information. You want to remove these sources because they conflict with a modern western view of civilization, but I just don't think that is legitimate. This is an article on pederasty and all the relevant information on pederasty should be published here without censorship, even if you feel you are acting in good faith to protect the public from information you believe could harm them, it is our human right to know about it.--Newmancbn (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) As an aside, I think the reason this article should reflect all the viewpoints is especially because it is a sensitive topic, and I think the public should have access to all information and mainstream views, especially when it comes to controversial subjects, that involve a conflict between the well being of people groups which creates emotional and nonobjective reactions (in this case the well being of the lonely and shunned boys and men who have an attraction for each other, or engage in these relationships, and the well being of boys who can be harmed in relationships with men) all this creates for an emotional firestorm, and we must acknowledge it can be difficult to be absolutely objective, but we must be to further scientific and human knowledge.--Newmancbn (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC) And again you just added a new post next to an old one. As always you claim that the info you want added is "mainstream" when it is not. This whole post shows you have not read a single sentence in WP:ADVOCACY or at least have not chosen to understand it. All that come next is based on your unenlightened POV. MarnetteD|Talk 07:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Please can you or someone explain which of my edits is not mainstream? There is boylove, the age range section, and the modern expressions section. Here are my suggested citied edits. Could you please explain to me exactly what is wrong with them or their quoted sources?--Newmancbn (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Pederasty or paederasty (US: /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK: /ˈpiːdəræsti/), or boylove, Outline depicting development periods in preadolescence and adolescence usually spanning ages 9 to 22 Various cultures have practiced differing age ranges of pederasty; however, the spread has always been an age range for the younger partner that spans from pubescence and preadolescence to the end of adolescence. Puberty typically begins at age 10 or 11 for boys, and adolescence can continue until as late as 22, which generally covers the maximum diversity of age ranges found across cultures. Some queer rights activists disagree and feel that boylove is a acceptable in mutually reciprocal and non-coercive relationships, such Jim Kepner, then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, who observed, A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we'd better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman [and others]. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today. (There is, of course, dispute about the sexuality of some of these men on the list, but if, in fact, they were homosexual, they were also pederasts.) Who also stated, In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders . . . I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity . . . or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it.” He even claimed that, “And unlike girls or women forced into rape or traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones. First, you refactored this comment three times "again" - Do you not know how to use the "show preview" button? You continually conflate your POV as a reason to allow your WP:ADVOCACY to be inserted to an encyclopedic article. There is no censorship in this situation and your use of the term shows that you have read none of the links that various editors have been providing you for weeks now. MarnetteD|Talk 06:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @MarnetteD:I apologize, I just don't understand. Could you please explain to me source by source how each of the three suggestions are wrong? I just don't understand why these are not legitimate sources, or information not relevant to the article. Thank you for your time.--Newmancbn (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Nice bit or WP:WIKILAWYERING. It has been explained, more than once, before. There is no need for me to waste my time going over it again since you will plead the same ignorance. drop the stick was linked to in before. You didn't read it anymore than any of the other policy links given to you time and again. Ask others if you must but don't waste my time anymore. MarnetteD|Talk 06:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry but I am totally confused about why either of the three suggestions are invalid. Lets forget boylove, I think its confusing to type, I'm tripping myself up and sounding confusing. Suffice to say boylove is common term. Use demonstrated in three separate academic papers. Also Flyer22 helped me add 'boylove' to the opening article. Forget whatever else I said please. On the the other two, what is POV about the quote from Jim Kepner appearing in modern forms? I thought it was relevant to modern expressions and views on pederasty. Also what is wrong with the expansion of the age ranges that Flyer22 and I both contributed to? Thank you again for your time and work.--Newmancbn (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) References

Merge with Child sexual abuse

Hello, although both terms are basicaly the same, and both pretty good articles from the references point of view, Child sexual abuse would be more precise and better referenced, so i would suggest to incorporate the info from Pederasty into Child sexual abuse, what do you think ?--Euroescritor (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to see that child sexual abuse was not mention a single time on the article, being such related term--Euroescritor (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I reverted you; I did so because these are different topics and are WP:Notable in their own right. You reverted me. I called your merge proposal silly. It is silly, and it will not succeed. Now I'm done discussing this matter with you, and will let others address you on it. In the meantime, as seen with this (adding a link to the See also section when that link is already in the article), you need to become more familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Child sexual abuse is clearly mentioned in the article; for starters, look at the WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's silly. Pederasty is not the same as child sexual abuse, for the simple reason there is no clear definition of either "child" or "abuse". We are dealing with culturally diverse practices over long periods of time in very diverse contexts. Is every sexual relationship between a youth and an older man "abuse"? Would we say that about the numerous instances of older men having young mistresses or wives? Paul B (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides the fact of being fairly rude with your editions, expressions and your negative to debate a fair subject (Flyer22). The subject it is comment the article Pederasty, Child abuse issues, so might be not so out of context here. Related the history context of pederasty, I would use as example, Slavery, 200 years ago, it would be called commerce of people, and we don't use that term, we use slavery. Paul, yes, every adult relationship with human being below the age of consent, it called child sexual abuse, and in very rare circumstances it's allowed below legal adulthood, in fact, the age difference it´s considered a mayor factor in determing a child sexu abuse, 5 years of difference below 12 years old children and 10 years in children above 12 years old. ( Browne A., Finkelhor D. Impact of Child Sexual Abuse: A Review of the Research ). And also, about my edit on "See also" adding child sex abuse, I didn´t considered to be out line, there's a straight line between pederasty and child sex abuse, ancient times or not.--Euroescritor (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your language is rather obscure. Slavery was called slavery (though, obviously, they did not use the English word). Your comment about the age of consent is both wrong and irrelevant. No one would reasonably consider a relationship between a 17 year old and an 18 year old to be "child sex abuse" even if the age of consent were 18. Nor is that how most jurisdictions deal with such matters. But even if they did, your point would be irrelevant. There was no such thing as an "age of consent" in ancient cultures, and even in recent times ages of consent were commonly as young as 12 (see age of consent). The concept of an age of consent for any homosexual relationship did not even exist until recently in many jurisdictions, since it was either illegal or not recognised at all in law. If a man can marry a girl at the age of 12 (which was commonplace throughout much of history) it is a double standard to codify otherwise identical male-male sexual relationships as "child sex abuse". In any case, as I said, the context varies. Such relationships are pederastic whether or not the youth is above whatever modern age of consent you happen to imagine is normative and then magically project back to ancient culture. The idea that the findings in the link you give can somehow be applied to wholly different cultures with radically different values and assumptions is frankly ludicrous. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

How is paedophilia anything to do with LBGT Issues?

Can you explain this please? twl 79.74.106.98 (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia by itself does not. Pederasty technically falls under male-on-male contact. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the merge tag should now be removed. Euroescritor has not responded for two weeks and no other editors have commented. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree this tag needs to be removed. Pederasty is not sexual abuse. What a bloody moronic prude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.109.44 (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Careful, IP. I don't think that the editor should be called "a bloody moronic prude." By that, I mean that adults having sex with pubescent or post-pubescent minors is obviously considered (and can be) abusive in some contexts. It depends on how young the younger person is, the law, and other things in some cases. Either way, Paul Barlow has now removed the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I apogolise for my personal attack. I was just angry at the time. I am sorry to whoever I offended - Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.109.44 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Objection

The description given to the Russian banyans as a place where men went to have sex with boys is not just POV but completely outrageous. Banyas were very social but were definitely not a place or sex. There should be more sources than some biased and obvioously delusional gay website. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a reasonable point. There's a whole article Banya (sauna) and it doesn't mention pederasty I don't think. Nor do its refs, such as this long article (admittedly of questionable reliability). There's a quite long article on Sauna which covers saunas throughout the world is too long to read, but nowhere contains the words "gay", "homosexual", "boy", or "pederasty", so probably not. On the other hand this could be something that occurred a lot but wasn't much documented on the grounds that people don't like to write down stuff like that.

And yeah that's not a very reliable source, since it called "gay.ru" and it's essentially a gay site, which fine, but its not a neutral scholarly journal (granted on this subject hard to find people who don't have an opinion I guess), but still... a site with an agenda, yes. That doesn't prove the cite is no good but its a red flag.

Really all they say are:

1. There was male prostitution at the banyans. (There's no cite for this, but they state it as a fact.)
2. There is a woodcut showing beardless youths offering somewhat personal services to (I assume naked) older men, such as helping them remove their boots and doing the beat-with-branches thing, which to them is sort of naturally going to imply erotic services for dessert. Maybe. But to the man who wears shoes the whole world is made of leather.

And they end with "Moscow's spas, staffed by beardless youths, may have been [emphasis added] sites of mutual male sexual relations long before the recorded instances of the nineteenth century, to which we will return" (although they don't return to it, at least on that page, that I saw), which is kind of weak tea.

It looks a bit academic and they offer the cites "(Biriukov 1991: 17; Rubinov 1990: 19)" which look fine and probably are, but there's no description of who Biriukov and Rubinov are or what their books are; in other words, the cites just point to empty air. Probably they are resolved somewhere else on the site, though.

All in all, not a very good source, I don't guess. If I was more interested I would drill down and find who Biriukov and Rubinov are and what they say, but I'm not so I won't. Leave it tagged for a few weeks/months and see if anybody else wants to do that, and if no one does, delete the statement, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections or corrections for over a month. Removed. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

re Afghanistan

An editor added this:

Information about the common occurrence of pederasty in modern Afghanistan is classified by the U.S. government. Soldiers have been instructed to not interfere. Those who have have been disciplined.

which I removed on the grounds that it's basically about child rape, or teen rape, or whatever ("From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base --'At night we can hear them screaming'"). Which is not exactly the same as pederasty. Not that I'm defending pederasty (I'm dead set against it), but "screaming victims" is not really what the article seems to be about. The harm of pederasty is more subtle. This is just rape, I guess. Maybe the passage belong in an article on child rape or the Afghan police or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion of non-consensual pederasty has no basis in evidence, ancient or modern. The information could be edited or presented in a different way I suppose. Evidence of classification of the information is only implied. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Inadequate grooming? User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

pederasty & islam (sharia law)

how come theres not reference to islam?

pc much? O.o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.71.67 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pederasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718095811/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_35/ai_53390357/pg_1 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_35/ai_53390357/pg_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of terms

I call your attention to the second paragraph in Wikipedia's "Ephebophilia" entry: In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents,[1][2] hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent children.[2][3] However, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development.[4] This could be because the media is unaware of other terms. I believe some version of this clarification of terms would be helpful in the articles on Pederasty and Pedophilia, as well. 71.210.132.74 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Jeff Moses

--I would also suggest a careful wording of the first section. I changed it to highlight the potential unhealthy use of this page as a rationale for child abuse. I think it is absolutely essential to discuss the historical and cultural acceptance and understanding of pederasty. However, unless the article immediately highlights the contemporary understanding of pederasty as an abusive behavior, the article softens the harm caused from sexual relationships between children and adults. Also, Homosexuality and Pedophilia are often incorrectly linked, and this article sounds as though it is equating the two. I wouldn't want a platform with as much importance and power as Wikipedia to contain an article that both covertly rationalizes child abuse, and incorrectly connects sexual and emotional intimacy between two adult male, consenting adults and that abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norabur (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Norabur, your edit was incorrect, which is why I reverted. Read WP:Original research and WP:Advocacy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Norabur, followup edits here and here. I understand where you are coming from, but pederasty is not pedophilia. Is it child sexual abuse? In many contexts today, yes. But the topic is mainly historical. You might be interested in reading this discussion I had with other editors on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pederasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025055956/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/CDS.HTM to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/CDS.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008112741/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pederasty.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pederasty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318040244/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/1-6-1-2-13.html to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/1-6-1-2-13.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)