User:Lionelt spends most of his time on WP ineffectually attempting to get LGBT -related articles deleted, and generally supporting "traditional marriage". Just recently, he's been on a bit of a tear recategorizing articles into "pederasty", "modern pederasty", and "Victorian pederasty". These categories were created, of course, by renowned pederasty, um, scholar Haiduc.

I noticed this when Lionelt dropped this note on the talk page of Kevin O'Keeffe:
Note the link to Benjiboi's contributions. Now there's a new player in the form of User:Cat clean, who popped up as soon as Lionelt touched the article on Harry Hay. I wonder if this might be the reincarnation of anyone we know?

Sigh. We haven't even worked out what to do about Greek love yet to turn it into a proper discussion of how the term has been used by different group over time rather than Haiduc's careful quoting of convicted stamp collectors. The problem is that the fanatics, whether born again bigots or self-justifying "Greek lovers" are rather more motivated to edit things than those who haven't a horse to ride.

Ah, is step one what this is all about?

I don't think so. A dictionary records the meanings. An encyclopedia can discuss the different ideologies that have underlain the use of the term. Many of the users have used the term as an ideological justification for what they want to do now. Others have used it as a euphemism. The various twists and turns on whether the term has been used to describe a sexual act or a relationship, whether it is used in specifically age-structured cases or not, whether out of prudery or self-interested ideology, are legitimate areas for sociological exploration.

Mod Note: I changed "Pederasts" in thread title to "Pedophiles." I do this knowing the WP article cautions "not to be confused with 'Pedophilia.'" "Pederast" is a term of advocacy in favor of pedophiles. I am certain the thread creator was only using the title of the article and not engaging in any such advocacy.

It's one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia (a lesser weakness but still a real one) that it does often veer towards being a dictionary. That's what Wiktionary is supposed to be for, and it's annoying when it isn't. But pedophiles are very clever at using words to cover up what they are doing. The use of the term "pederasty" is a complete red herring. A pedophile is an adult who has sex, or seeks to do so, with someone under the age of consent. The youngster may be 8 or 15 - no difference, it's still illegal and reprehensible.

I wouldn't say no difference. One's a second degree felony, the other's a life felony. But yeah, they're both felonies.

Now this is where a dictionary could come in useful. Approximately a third of a century ago I did a term or two of Greek. I distinctly remember the teacher complaining about how the correct term "Pederast" was being supplanted by "P(a)edophile". He being a classics scholar knew that the "erast" comes from "Eros" meaning sexual love while "phile" describes something much more cerebral. After all philosophers don't get sexually aroused when discussing logic or metaphysics. (Okay most don't. I'm not sure about them all.) This would have been about the time that groups such as the Paedophile Information Exchange were getting themselves known. So the teacher was criticising them for the use of a euphemism to cover up their real intent. PIE and co have been so succesful in their campaign to redefine the terminilogy that now the older term is seen as the euphemism.

Wrong. "Pederast" is a sub-set of "Pedophile" in which the victim is an older child. In fact if possible they try to stay away from the word "child" altogether. The intent to try and argue that the pederast is less depraved than the pedophile when in fact a pederast is a type of pedophile as they also have child victims. BTW I hope you don't swallow that "Greek pederasty's various forms were the subject of philosophic debates in which the carnal type was unfavorably compared with erotic yet spiritual and moderate forms." That sentence needs to be removed from the article. This is only present to put a favorable spin on the pedophile's seduction of the child victim. To allow the use of "Pederast" at all is to accept a kind of mitigation.

We were taught (whether it is true is another matter) that the Greeks did have a different concept of love, and that they meant platonic relationships and neither of the terms are applicable to that concept.

Pederast is defined in many dictionaries as "sodomy with a boy".

Paedophilia is defined as "sexual love with a child"

Neither are a good thing and modern behaviour defined in those terms cannot be justified simply by claiming that the Greeks thought it was OK so it must be OK. They weren't averse to leaving babies on mountains, but we don't seem to think that child abuse is justified because the Spartans were a bit whacky in their child care philosophy.

Things seem to be ramping up a bit. Lionelt has created a FAQ for the WP NAMBLA article:

Can't we just label these people rapists and be done with it?

That's what they are. Pedophile has creepy overtones but isn't reviled as rapist is. If you are buggering a child, you are a rapist. If you are defending the buggering of children, you are a rape apologist.

Those "people" (fuckos, sickos, those who should be annihilated, whatever you want to label the scum) hide behind the term "love" when they really mean forced sex with someone that lacks the intellect and physical ability to defend themselves.

Just redirect all of those pages to "Rape" and be done with it.



P.S. Cat Clean isn't Haiduc as Haiduc added LGBT and Pederasty tags to people who were clearly not pederasts or not claimed to be one via a reliable source. Cat Clean is removing such tags, so he recognizes that Pederasty is not a good thing.

At the risk of being off-topic, it's interesting to note that "Haiduc" is Romanian for "Outlaw."

heh

I don't suspect Cat clean of being Haiduc, for the same reason you cite.

Lionelt is a Christian conservative, as evidenced by their editing. Their new interest in paedophilia-related topics is likely a means to associate paedophilia with homosexuality and vice versa. Although I am sure Lionelt is not an advocate of paedophilia, they are taking up the work of Haiduc. Hence the title of this thread.

I've noted before the irony that both NAMBLA and the Christian right strive to do this.

Well, they have a significant demographic overlap.