Hello, I believe this requires in depth examination.

Moving from the Jules Verne discussion, it seems the pederasty article in general has had quite some obvious pedophile activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty

The pro pederasts seem largely to be pro pedophile. They use the same sort of arguments throughout, and judging by how the article was last week, the pederasty seems to be an actual refuge for pedophiles looking for ways to normalize the idea.

The editor: AnotherSolipsist was blocked indefinitely due to being a self identified pedophile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnotherSolipsist

His supporting editors seem to be Haiduc,

Jeffpw
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036273

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222034042

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036221

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222036472

amongst others


Then there seems to be a revenge block, this time towards one of the key editors cleaning up the pro-pederasty article, and surprise surprise, coming straight from FT2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phd...blocking_by_FT2

It really does seem to me as though there is huge resistance to any cleanup of pro-pedophile pro-pederasty, pro-crank articles.

There's a lot more to look into

Docknell

That's incredible. I am going out now, but just to say I noticed on one of the paedo pages that they weren't going to bother with reverting the edits, but were going to take the complaint elsewhere. Unbelievable. How can FT2 be doing this in view of what is happening elsewhere?????

Add this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phd...blocking_by_FT2
…and this…
http://bp3.blogger.com/_CPjfQwJ6uYk/SGdDls...h/FT2+Block.png
…to this…

…and what do you have?

Other problems with the Pederasty article:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=110189

Well pederasty, if I understand it correctly, if an adult man and a male who was a teenager, I guess 15.

Look at the arrest history in the NAMLBA article. Ages: 12, 11, 6, 7-9. The only charge for someone who had hit puberty was a 14 year old girl.

So if you send a bunch of pedos into the pederasty article, they'll say "The ancient greeks thought molesting 6 year old boys was normal". Pederasty could still be legal and accepted if they upped the age only a couple years to 16-18--whatever the age of consent is generally is. Like a 40 year old and an 18 year old, like a gay version of The Graduate.

But people on wikipedia are going and trying to make it seem like it was an accepted social behavior to molest 8 year olds.

I have left this message on FT2's talk page. Reproduced here in case of oversighting.

When did you change account names?

They re both legitimate accounts, look at the user pages. Each states that one is a sock of the other, to avoid confusion.

In case of confusion, I am not Phdarts. I am Peter Damian (who does philosophy) and Hinnibilis (Tuscan villas and, now, pederasty).

Oh Peter, you really have no fear of wikideath, do you? It would be admirable in a way, if it doesn't just lead to a block and then we'll be deprived of your comments there again.

Here's a good talk quote:




See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pederastic_couples

Not a single man sexing up anyone before puberty.


You can thank NAMBLA and Chris Hansen for confusing people of what is a pre and what is post puberty.


I also now after reading it will never think the same way about Oscar Wilde references on Uncyclopedia.

This is interesting. According to Thatcher, the only result coming back is that the editor may be HeadleyDown, but its not conclusive at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222455553

Actually, judging by the way FT2 has conflated the huge range of global IPs on the HeadleyDown article, a wide range of people in the could world simultaneously be HeadleyDown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

Does the editor in question seem to be "a reincarnator who specializes in massive sneaky pov vandalism with multiple sock/meatpuppets (around 50 - 80 over some 3 years, often 3 - 10 at a time on multiple articles" ???

It just looks like more of FT2's "catch anything that I don't like" sort of strategies. Anyone who doesn't like NLP, zoophilia, pedophilia etc - beware.

Docknell

Please. Could we all remember that we are dealing with a website whose Deputy Director is a known public advocate of pro-pedophilia positions? What do you all expect?

A fish rots from the head down.

My candidacy for the Board of Trustees was based on exposing these problems and sweeping them out of the system. I came in last place out of 15 candidates.

Message received?

Greg

Wikipedia: An encyclopedia specializing in topics relating to pedophilia written by pedophiles who are permitted to conceal their identities while working with children at their sides and all the while granted immunity by an act of the US Congress.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well I'm going to assume good faith and assume that the editor Phdarts is actually HeadleyDown

So the editor went onto the pederasty article and started placing edits that were warred over onto the talkpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...oper_discussion

Which was of course replied to by some editors (such as the banned pedophile, Haiduc and others) as homophobic propaganda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...obic_propaganda

Phdarts also requested a wikiquette so as to improve discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty#Wikiquette_alert

And when the wikiquette editor passed on the matter (though gave reasonable apologies;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221430380

Phdarts then ran an RFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...c_propaganda.3F

Which seems to have been totally ignored by those making accusations of homophobia


Keep in mind, that said Phdarts was also adding new peer reviewed information that states homosexuality is mutually exclusive to pederasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222263686

Which has since been removed by the editor who was collaborating with the self identified pedophile (Haiduc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222440622

I would say that Wikipedia basically sucks

If wikipedians ever get the pederasty articles in majority oriented order, I (and I am sure many people) will be totally surprised.

Basically its not going to happen because wikipedians protect pedophiles

There may be a token banning whenever one is stupid enough to name themself as a pedophile, but the rest will simply keep shtum as a result, and continue with the POV push.

So whether by design or stupidity, pedophiles will still revel with glee in wikipedia.

If you lived next door to John Wayne Gacy while he was active in Chicago and you thought something was a miss with his activities would you engage him in endless chats? Would you creep around the crawl space under his house? Or maybe you should just call the police?

Its just amazing. And the whitewash is being poured on by the bucketload by the pro pedophiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222474746

A vicious attack on the pederasty article? Does he mean all that horrid wikiquette, majority view, and RFC stuff?

And of course no mention at all of the self-identified pedophile he works with and protects.

Incredible stuff! It would seem to me to be completely reasonable to conclude that a major NAMBLA promotion drive is actually on Wikipedia.

Still, at least some people know exactly who the pro pedos are. The trouble is, some adimins are protecting them, and the rest either don't give a toss or can't do anything about it anyway.

I was aware this editor was probably a sock of Headley down. But I never really understood why he was banned in the first place, except for his excellent work on NLP-related subjects (FT's specialism) and on Zoophilia, of course. His editing on both was exceptional except, of course, contrary to received views (FT2's) on the subject.



They have completely removed the new definition I provided and have replaced it with nonsense like



It is impossible to edit against such a crowd. At least before I had the support of two people, now both have been blocked. What they have written is nonsense.



Look I happen to be an expert on at least part of this subject, and you are blocking, Ryan. What exactly is your level of expertise here? I am 'campaigning' against FT2 because he has blocked another editor who in my view was pretty good, at least here (I can't speak for what he has done elsewhere).

You came last, eh? sigh. You got my vote. And yes it is indeed well known that EM has been doing just the same as the 101 PPA socks who wikipedia fail to address. This may come out one day, decent thinking people do not advocate pedophilia



Ryan has experience in mediating the pedophile article disputes.

So you only lost becasuse all the paedophiles and pro-paedophiles voted against you?

As you may have seen, I have now been blocked, for making the comments I made on THIS thread. Utterly unbelievable.

A statement from Thatcher:

Itaqallah, one of Wikipedia's best editors of Islam-related subjects, has arrived on the scene and identified - suprise - serious misrepresentations of Islamic history and law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222464582
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty#Sourcing

For example, this completely unsourced gem:

It is a very common tactic of sexual identity movements to state that in other cultures, such-and-such behavior was celebrated. Social conservatives, their usual opponents, are rarely knowledgeable about or interested in cultural anthropology and the like, and often allow such claims to stand unchallenged. Put them under a microscope, and they're very often falsehoods built upon some small grain of truth.

The article does not need, in my opinion, psychologists fighting over whether pederasty is healthy or normal, or other value-judgment type edits. It very much needs vetting of the wishful thinking its authors have imposed upon other cultures and upon classical antiquity.

Someone has, for example, completely mangled this source…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#Australasia
http://books.google.com/books?id=mlFp0nFhv...=result#PPR5,M1
…conflating several papers about completely different cultures (Vanuatu and New Guinea highlands, for example) and misattributing work of their various authors to its editor, Herdt.

"Many native cultures…" is always a red flag in this respect.

Yes, Yehudi, you are exactly correct. Perfect assessment of the situation! My, you're good! Keep up the good work here on Wikipedia Review, reviewing Wikipedia with such sagacity.

Perhaps I'd better interpret this for people. Greg says "My candidacy for the Board of Trustees was based on exposing these problems and sweeping them out of the system. I came in last place out of 15 candidates." This is of course a strong hint that he came bottom because people didn't want these problems exposed. Yehudi is shocked by this. Greg responds with what he presumably imagines is smart irony. (It isn't, but let's not disillusion him.) He knows that nobody will do other than fawn on him because he once gave some money towards the upkeep of the site.

"...Cunnilingus, Pederasty; Father, why do those words sound so nasty?"
-- "Sodomy", from the soundtrack of the musical Hair

Guy, you're spot on! You've hit the bulls-eye, once again. Is there no limit to your wondrous accuracy and ability to crystallize complex scenarios into digestible pieces? You do such glorious things for this site, moving threads, correcting formatting in posts. Man, I owe you a case of beer!

I wish even a quarter of my posts to this site were as enlightening and thought-provoking as yours always are! Thank you! ! ! !

Even AerLingus sounds nasty to me, but I assume it's just an Irish mile-high club of some kind.

We had a boy in our school whose parents were always urging to masticate more. And their daughter's pulchritude was well-known. But what can you do.

Back on topic…
Why is Haiduc using a professor of English, known as a pioneer of gay studies, for sweeping and palpably biased statements about Greek and Roman history?


And that's the part that's sourced!

Then you have unsourced statements such as:

It's clear that Haiduc is a pretty opinionated fellow, and does not respect Wikipedia's source policies.

The effort to actually make sensible edits out of obvious sexual abuse promotion on the pederasty article is utterly pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222496698

"I think it would be a goodness to have knowledgeable editors look at the issue of pro-pederasty edits, who can edit reasonably, use sources correctly, not simply be a reactionary reverter, and not use sockpuppets. That won't be me, I'm afraid. I know almost nothing about the topic,"


Thatcher is basically gloating. Editors who decide to do something about pedophilia pushing articles are punished, and editors who collaborate with known pedophiles are left to freely carry on the obvious promotion.

Their main intervention; If you disagree with FT2, you will be blocked or banned.

Its all too convenient. Only when a pedophile gets banned does anyone take any notice. Then revenge, an admins trump up any method they can to make sure the edits the pedophile made get restored into the article and protected by any other pedophile who is carefull enough not to state they are a pedophile. They can make as many classic NAMBLA statements as they like in discussion, with no admin ever thinking twice about it, and no reversions to obvious unsourced propedo POV.

Any mention of scrutiny of the pederasty article is pure whitewash by admins. They will never follow through and they never intend to.

The fact that they only block pedophiles who obviously state they are pedos is proof enough that admin just want to keep them working quietly on their pro pedo articles. They are not blocking pedophiles per se, they are only blocking pedophiles who bring the obvious fact that wikipedia is pedo ridden into the ambit of journalists who can report on the matter.

The message is "all pedophile promotors, keep your heads down and do your work, and we will punish any editor who disagrees with your paraphile admin friends"

Thank you also for that. Yes, it also irritates me that the debate always revolves around modern science. The real question is whether the history is being treated correctly. It is very difficult to make judgments given that all the historical sources are biased in some way. The best we can say is that, just as it is hard today to understand how society really thinks about sex, it is a million times harder when we go back 2,000 years.

Sure, disagreement on whether it is harmful or not is not at all necessary. Its easy enough just to plonk a section in there on differences of opinion, and quote those views. Thats clearly what Haiduc and the self-proclaimed pedophile were trying to get rid of.

Actually it looks like the psychology opinions are mostly on pederasty's distinct nature from homosexuality. Some say they are related (of course pederasty is technically "homosexual pedophilia"), other say "but they are mutually exclusive". Attraction for adolescents dies when they get too muscularly toned and manly for pederasts (and they then get ditched). At that point they start to look more attractive to normal homosexuals (at which point they can have lifelong and legal relationships).

And of course, the relative views should be presented on what all the major historians think. Again I think that really is just a matter of stating what it states. And again, its what the pedophiles seem to have been trying to kick out (with the accusation of homophobia as pretend motivation)

It looks on the discussion page as if the pedophiles were just making tons of excuses and accusations, and the other editors (some of whom may have been anti-pedophile) were saying all relevant sourced views can be presented.

Basically ditch the pedophiles. The normal editors can cope with any anti-pedophile editor who tries to push it too far.

Of course, the opposite happened in this case, thanks to FT2 and other likely interested parties.

The problem is that so little work has been done on this, by any historians. The issue has been largely ignored by all historians, for obvious reasons. More recently 'queer studies' has picked it up. Very much from the angle of, it was something celebrated by ancient cultures, but repressive Christian morality turned it into something taboo.

Completely ignores the fact that, in its formative period, Christian philosophy was much more influenced by Plato than by Aristotle. Plato's view, of course, was that the material body is something evil and to be turned away from and rejected and fought against. We should turn our view towards the eternal and unchangeable, i.e. the Forms. The whole idea of modern sexual identity politics would have been anathema to Plato.

Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth. What did this mean?

Not what Haiduc & co take it to mean. According to the account given by Plato, which of course cannot be regarded as entirely NPOV, the corruption charge concerns Socrates' refusal to recognise the gods of the Athenian state. See here

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

SOCRATES: I have shown, Athenians, as I was saying, that Meletus has no care at all, great or small, about the matter. But still I should like to know, Meletus, in what I am affirmed to corrupt the young. I suppose you mean, as I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead. These are the lessons which corrupt the youth, as you say.

MELETUS: Yes, that I say emphatically.

However, this seems unlikely given that other writers such as Aristophanes who represented the gods in various obscene ways, was not prosecuted for corruption or impiety.

Why thank you Greg, *blush*.

I'm most grateful for your offer of a case of beer, but as you know, I'm a teetotaller.

I suppose it means that Athens, like Wikipedia, didn't embrace Due Process, either.

Joan of Arc was also charged with perverting children. No due process there, either. Really, you should read For the children. We all love children and pie. But we need to be constantly on guard against anybody advancing their agendas on the basis that some child or other will see something or other they shouldn't. Or that somewhere along the line, this [whatever thingy] will make some child-molester's job easier.

The function of technology is to make jobs easier. All jobs. Good jobs, evil jobs, in-between jobs. Be ever on your guard against arguments that some neutral form of power is to be surpressed because it allows evil people more power.

What we usually do when a new form of power becomes available, and somebody misuses it, is instead of outlawing it completely,we slow it down, control it, and license it only to people who've passed a knowledge test and can show ID. If you don't do that, bad things happen with automobiles, firearms, airplanes, radioisotopes, explosives, and so on. It may be that we're beginning to come to some of that those same lessons about computers and software, which after all, only represent raw power, neither intrinsically good or evil.

I know that people are used to creating and running a botnet with less external social vigiliance than they're have to undergo in buying a pistol or a stick of dynamite (both of which you can still do in the US, BTW). But perhaps it shouldn't be that way. Think of all the problems we were promised at Y2K which never happened. Okay, so that was premature. But those things CAN increasingly happen if the internet goes down. You CAN kill somebody with a botnet attack on social infrastructure. If it hasn't been done yet, it will eventually.

M

PS. Something needs to be said here about "porn," since that's also being discussed here. Now that porn has become completely uncontrollable, we're starting to get some people noticing the sour grapes aspect of it. Porn isn't interesting to children, and by the time the mature enough that (some of it) is interesting, they're not children any more (almost by defintion). So it's sort of self-regulating, insofar as corruption of children. In this sense, porn is NOT at all like pedophilia, in which the intrinsically uninterested person is often coerced by the interested one.

Child porn is an issue relevant to pederasty. Of course those men interested in having or imagining sexual relations with children will do their best to gain access to child pornography, and according to the research, will often take part in its production, and will of course fund it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederast...hild_abuse_page

Of course, editors there, such as the self-identified pedophile AnotherSolipsist, and Haiduc, have done their best to keep the obvious issue out of the article.

Its similar to issues in zoophilia, which no doubt FT2 will know about, which involves a dismissal of duty of care over animals, exploitation in general and physical abuse.

When a consenting adult creates pornography for other consenting adults, then its a simple issue of rights of expression

When children and animals are used for pornography, its simple abuse and exploitation.

Editors such as FT2 are creating lists of "villainous sockpuppets" from editors who really do care about clearly representing such matters. Its not just about IP blocking. IP is only one source of support for crank admin's POV push. The sockdetector team largely support FT2 and similar. And of course so-called sock masters are supposed to be jetting around the world like J Bond or something, with all the extra IPs. If the IP doesn't work for the crank admin, they will just suppose their hated editor is the same and conflate them with all and sundry abusers all the same.

Nothing will be done about this, because admins either want to suppress such information, or they just don't give a toss. Its not a matter of expertise. The info is all there, getting suppressed by Haiduc, Jeffpw, AnotherSolipsist and co.

Check it out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty

No, they use Transatlantic Shh tunnels.

FT2's sockpuppet identification criteria are entirely without merit, and his identifications should be ignored:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=110399
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=70624

Here is what passes for a reliable source on Pederasty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222643799
"Queer Journal."

The pederasty article is now back to its original state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

including the claim that



I.e. the Judaeo-Christian tradition is obviously the ultimate source of homophobia in the west. Before that, when humankind was in its blessed pre-Fall state, pretty much all societies approved and condoned this, then along came the Devil in the form of the Spanish inquisition and other Christian stuff and lo they were cast from Eden.

Actually that sentence is bad and wrong on many levels. The 1066 style, implying causal connections were there are none, the ignoring of a multitude of sources showing that pederasty was taboo in nearly all pre-Christian societies, the very odd logic connecting the 'Roman era suppression' bit with the 'growing Christian movements' bit.

This is an offence against good writing more than anything else. SOFIXIT? SOGETBLOCKED!

[edit] The reference gives Crompton, which is a somewhat biased source, but even Crompton would not have written anything quite so crass and stupid as that.

* Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, pp32-48, pp136-149

Yeah, because after a night of tender passion with the family donkey, you then find it really hard to pack 3 or 4 times its body weight in "cargo" onto its back, and then drive it to town a mere ten miles away, and it really upsets you to have your ex-lover skinned and have its bones boiled down for glue when it dies after a few years labour.

Damn, injuring an animals self esteem by shagging it is far more terrible than working it to death (which habitually includes the use of goads and whips, etc.) I suppose


(This is not to say that I condone beastiality in any way, but mans abuse of animals is not limited - or even exampled worst by - engaging in sexual relations with them.)

Yes, thats a common pro-zoophile argument.

And a NAMBLA argument

It sidesteps the duty of care issue. Its not just about killing/damaging children or animals. Duty of care is more relevant to making sure there are no infant brothels, boy brothels, and animal brothels set up for pedophiles, pederasts, and zoophiles. A farmer could probably make a bit of money on the side by providing more of such an "entertainment" value to his flock. And from a zoophile perspective, he would actually be "tending his flock" in such a "loving" way. It would be a serious abuse.

And of course, the child porn, animal porn issues are relevant to duty of care also.

Actually, duty of care is sidestepped on WP in general.

MyDonkeyBiz.com, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Tu quoque is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.

Tu quoque is Latin for modern English "PotKettleBlack."

I did not know that.


While I agree that there should be a duty of care toward the child, I had not previously commented upon that aspect - and nor do I intend to now.

The duty of care in relation to animals, however, regarding bestiality is as relevant as the duty of care to animals being sent off to slaughter - it is the intended "consumer" that is being protected. In the case of bestiality the duty of care is to society in that such practitioners are noted as acting beyond what might be considered acceptable. While sex need not be preoccupied with procreation, which allows us all those delightful pleasures we may indulge in ourselves or with partners, it pretty much needs the informed consent of any other party participating - and that is not possible with the rest of the animal kingdom. On that simple basis bestiality is wrong, and our duty of care to the animal is secondary (or even negligible) to the duty of care to human society.

That is to say, I once ate one of Bambi's cousins. Delicious!

So screwing an animal requires its informed consent (which you're not going to get), but castrating it, artificially inseminiating it, cutting its throat, or blowing its lungs or brains out with a rifle, does not?

Okay. I just could not resist Devil's Advocacy there.

You know what I think? I think the basic reason you think Bambi-blasting for fun (when you could have had soy burgers) is okay, but are incensed about Bambi-boning for fun, is mainly because your society says it ought to be that way. Not because it particularly makes any rational sense. Actually, it doesn't make any rational sense.

And let me add that I have not the slightest interest in sex with animals. However, I do like clear thinking, when I can get it.

Errm... I know you mentioned soy burgers, but...

Humans have at least some difficulty (you have to admit) thriving and living a healthy life without the complex proteins provided in fish, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, lobster, etc.

Humans have absolutely no difficulty at all thriving and living a healthy life without boning a donkey.

Sorry, Milton. There's at least some rational sense in the argument you attempt to squash above.

Sure, these paraphilia articles sometimes contain a few ethical debates in them. But the real problem is people not doing anything about the blindingly obvious POV pushing there. The long term crank editors and admins, such as FT2 tend to persistently push their pro-view, such as restoring a huge section of OR that tries to dissociate zoophilia from illegal behavior (FT2’s view that bona fide research is actually mis citation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=89948995

Which was mostly written and started off as a section by FT2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53428141

And of course, putting his foot in it by using a sockpuppet that he was using on the NLP article to restore his preferred pro-zoo research

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53385053

The same sort of problems are reflected on the pederasty article in material deletions by self-identified pedophile AnotherSolipsist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221183700

and Haiduc

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=221069536

Basically, when admins gather round and protect one of their own by saying people are falsely accusing them of bestiality or pederasty, when they are “only making edits”, the onlookers crack up with mirth. To quote a well known soldier “Its ballbouncingly funny”. The only other reaction is to be repressed and depressed.

We don’t need to go into the sort of complexities that FT2 is alluding to here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222917055


, when the facts of the matter can be seen all over the fringe pusher’s need to push POV and boot those who apply science and good research to clarify POV (eg, OM, edits by Phdarts, etc). The pushers will set the whole situation up to deter the clarification of their distortions.

So far, admins and arbs seem to have only supported such distortion.

Not drop dead, fine, but thrive?

As I've said earlier, I don't agree with the recentist "criminalogical/psychological" approach to balancing out these articles. Psychology, after all, being not too much more of a science than NLP itself, mostly value-laden opinion dressed up in obscurantist jargon. Pointing out that it is a crime now in certain places is perfectly legitimate, but not a big deal in the scheme of history. More useful would be to scour the advocacy and remove all non-neutral language and poorly-sourced or unsourced claims, as well as irrelevant apologism. It really doesn't matter if some people think it's alright, and I can pretty much guarantee that these studies hailing the purported benefits of zoophilia/pedrasty etc. are not published in reliable sources (or are reliable sources taken horribly out of context - notice the bait-n-switch FT2 used to source zoosexuality to Jonathan Balcombe). Someone was using "queer journal" on pederasty, there is at least one journal for pedophilia published in the Netherlands, etc. - the solution is to identify these correctly as partisan sources, not reputable academic scholarship, and toss them aside.