Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

JAMA Article

A link to the Journal of the American Medical Association has been included in the references to this article. Firstly, I am not entirely certain that the article has been used as a source for the material in this article. Secondly, the link is not accessible without a password. Is there another place where the article in question can be accessed? If not, perhaps the link should be removed. --Zanthalon 03:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

passwords are free and paper journal is available in almost every universtity or hospital library in the world. There are lots and lots of juicy quotes in this article... should I start inserting them? Erich 03:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am aware of some of the content of the article. I would suggest, however, that the information in it is relevant to the pedophilia article rather than this one, since that is where a discussion of the clinical definition of pedophilia takes place. --Zanthalon 03:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since this article contains medical claims, the response should be here also. Parenthetically, I'm beginning to believe this article might be merged into Pedophilia. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gedday Cecropia, i'd support merging although I'm not sure if it would be accepted at VfD. Erich 04:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'm moving toward merger is because the subject is highly subjective. It essentially contains the political and social goals of pedophiles without ever realistically saying what they actually expect to achieve, how they expect to achieve them, or how they deal with logical inconsistencies of their agenda. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merger stratgy

It might be a good idea to postpone the merger of childlove movement and pedophilia until c.m. stablizes. That is, until staunch pedophilia opponents and "childlove" advocates and sympathizers can agree that the article is accurate and neutral.

We've only started this week, to change it from unabashed apologetics to "they say this, others disagree". These things take time. Don't worry, it will be finished before the paper edition is published... --Uncle Ed 18:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The article childlove movement is POV by definition. In Pedophilia (or child sexual abuse) you can much easier integrate a position like the one of Finkelhor: He considered the traditional arguments against adult-child-sex not convincing and unproven in 1979 and therefore used the idea of informed consent to judge such relationships. --Moonlight shadow 07:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probably the first time ever I agree with "Moon light shadow". The term "childlove" as used by pedophiles is anything but neutral. Great work pointing this out, Jim and Ed. Get-back-world-respect 17:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the term "childlove" points out that (nearly all) pedophiles fall in love with children. However this does not mean that there are not any problems in such a relationship. --Moonlight shadow 09:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should there also be an article sheeplove because most sheep lovers fall in love with sheep? Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but it is just absurd what the proponents of boylove claim about "non-violent" "consensual" sex with children. By the way, "girllovers" are by no means as active on the internet. I really appreciate that this article does not support this extreme form of euphemism any longer and does no longer offend those who love their children without feeling sexually attracted. It is good to see that no one here engages in polemics from the other side like "the beasts should all be executed immediately". Therapy can help, and as long as they do not break the law pedophiles have as much a right to get help as any other group in need. Get-back-world-respect 13:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

American euphemism wouldn't use anything as straightforward as "sheeplover." It would be more like "woolfriend" or maybe "BoPeepians" -- Cecropia | Talk 17:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about underage sheeps? ;-) --Moonlight shadow 19:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krumme 13

"revert to last version by Cecropia; group consists of convicts, link is informative, crooked better translation than odd because it has the same connotation of illegality + same image"

The fact that the group consists of convicts does not mean that the purpose of the group is to encourage or even perform illegal acts. Krumme 13 tried to become a registered association (de:eingetragener Verein), which is quite unusual for criminal organisations, isn't it?

Its reasonable to assume that the "connotation of illegality" was not intended. And the English connotation of "odd" is not entirely positive, too.

After all Krumme 13 seems to be a one-man show right now, that focuses on public relations. --Moonlight shadow 09:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not only did the group consist of convicts, two of its leaders where found guilty of dealing with child pornography after they had tried to become a registered organization. Maybe they aimed at tax benefits because they thought their activities should be considered in the interest of the society? Get-back-world-respect 13:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you refer to the case about the "Stefan-Text"? This lawsuit is still in progress and an acquittal is quite possible. --Moonlight shadow 19:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moonlight shadow, as you recently wrote in the German wikipedia about your love to young ladies I am aware that you are better informed about some aspects of the pedophilia related articles than I am. I would however appreciate if you could just leave them and get treatment rather than post your propaganda in encyclopedias.

Krumme 13 founder Gieseking had to spend at least a year in prison because he dealt with child pornography. Next to 50 floppy disks and 150 videos the police found 1000 stickers "lovely children - childlove". [1] Get-back-world-respect 23:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must have missed the rule of Wikipedia that says that pedophiles are not allowed here. You claim that the group Krumme 13 has a criminal purpose. Mr. Gieseking was convicted of dealing with child porn. Now this makes any group that he founds illegal?? I can not follow you.

The article claims: "Gieseking, who contends sex is good for children, heads a Hamburg-based group called Krumme 13 (the crooked 13) that visits paedophiles in jail and encourages them to continue the practise after release." However AFAIK the group Krumme 13 and Mr. Gieseking have never been charged for encouraging criminal activity. --Moonlight shadow 08:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is true that Krumme 13 encourages convicted pedophiles to continue their pedophilic activities after release, and those activities are criminal, than the organization has a criminal purpose. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If there had been such activities, then the group certainly would have been charged for them. However Krumme 13 could not even start supporting convicted pedophiles because of several campaigns against the group. --Moonlight shadow 10:11, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gieseking spent a year in prison for dealing with child porn and has been in conflict with the law in several occasions. The group was not allowed to register, so it cannot be convicted of anything. Pedophiles shall feel free to use and contribute to wikipedia. They are by no means free to abuse wikipedia as a propaganda platform downplaying the harm of child sexual abuse. Get-back-world-respect 11:32, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the German terror group Rote Armee Fraktion was not registered, too. Fondation of and membership in a criminal organisation are illegal. Why is Krumme 13 responsible for illegal activities of Mr. Gieseking, before it was founded? Many claims in the linked article [2] are wrong (maybe it uses German yellow press as it sources), e. g.: "Judges said the offending 'autobiographical' paedophile text, ostensibly by an 11-year-old boy describing his first 'voluntary' sexual experience, with a 30-year-old man, was clearly pornographic."

In fact it is controversial, whether the text is pornographic. The lower court said that the pedophile context of the website made it become pornographic, while the German magazine Gigi has published the text without any problems. --Moonlight shadow 08:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you know of any honourable members of Krumme 13 who have been to prison although they were innocent and who really help pedophiles by showing them how to get a therapy you may write that. What we know up to now is that they are a group of convicted criminals and that the founder and at least one other member engaged in the trade of child pornography. Not just texts, which you may regard as much less pornographic than what you usually read, the police found tons of videos. Get-back-world-respect 13:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Terminology

I created Definitions of pedophilia, a short article differentiating "childlove" from "pedophilia". I think this will make the merge easier. --Uncle Ed 19:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed, you are my hero until further notice for not using the non-word "merger". = ) Jeeves 03:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from VfD

On 3 August 2004, this article was nominated for deletion. The decision was ambiguous. Failing to reach a clear consensus, the decision currently defaults to KEEP. There were some strong suggestions for future edits or mergers for this article (which may, of course, be carried out by any future reader/editor). See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Childlove movement /Deletion_debate_archive for a record of the debate. Rossami 22:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) updated by Cecropia | Talk 23:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About possible deletion

I think that this article presents an interesting documentation into the existence of movements whose stated goals is to have some specific practices that most of society considers "bad", "digusting" and harmful to others. Removing the said documentation won't make those people go away. I'm unsure about merging this into the main pedophilia article. The main pedophilia article documents some emotional and sexual urges and practices; this article documents some attempts at making these practices legal. This is the same difference as documenting homosexuality, and documenting movements which pushed for the legalization of homosexuality and the repealing of so-called sodomy laws (caveat: I'm not claiming pedophilia and homosexuality are closely related phenomena, just that they are practices that were at some points judged disgusting and immoral, up to the point of sentencing those who practiced them to very hard sentences). Documenting the existence of some movement does not imply condoning its stated goals. David.Monniaux 15:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Weasel words

Leaving aside the fact that this is a controversial subject, I'm concerned about the weasel words that are in this piece. We need clarification:

• "Many in the movement actively campaign against the idea that children are unable to properly consent to sex" - who exactly?
• "Many opponents of the childlove movement believe the term childlove to be a misnomer since they view any and all adult-child sexual contact to be abuse." - who exactly?
• In the section Terminology advocacy it says:

• "Pedophiles in the childlove movement seek to avoid the stigma of the term "pedophile", which carries connotations of exploitation, perversion, and criminality. They promote the term "childlover" (as well as the terms "boylover" or "girllover") to replace the term "pedophile" due to its pejorative connotations. The term has been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet." - source of this information? How do we know this?
• "These pedophiles often reject the words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" arguing..." - source of this information?!
• "They argue that..." Who again? Source?
• "They claim to support only "consensual" and "non-coercive" relationships with minors" Who? Source?
• "Many of them have chosen a life of sexual abstinence" - source of information (in this case a study or report would do as I realise that outing a reformed pedophile would not be a good thing)
• "Many ephebophiles object to the term "childlover" since they are attracted only to adolescents, whom they consider to be physically and emotionally adults rather than children" Source?

• "Most people who identify with the childlove movement believe that the movement should attempt to..." isn't this a very broad generalisation? How can one editor speak for the whole organisation? Where is the source of this information? Should this sentence be modified?
• "Those who advocate the legalization of intimate contacts with children claim..." - please provide a source.

• "They stress that they are interested in..." who are they?
• "They claim that children are fully capable of expressing their desire" - who? We need to clarify who "they" are
• "The argument follows" - whose argument?
• "they assert that children can understand" - defined they
• "They also fail to take into account the well-documented psychological damage that sexually intimate relationships have on children." - (disclaimer: I added this.) - who are "they"?

We need clarification here now that the Wikipedia majority has decided not to remove this page.

Ta bu shi da yu 11:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you mean "that the Wikipedia majority has not decided to remove this page". Deciding not to do something is not the same as not deciding to do it. - Mark 13:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was the majority of people who voted on VfD voted to keep this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the tally at the top of the deletion debate, only 21 out of 47 people voted to keep the article. How is that a majority? - Mark 05:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And yet, this article is still here. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is still here because there was not a majority of votes in favour of deletion. It is votes for deletion, not votes to keep the article. A lack of majority in favour of deletion in this case does not translate to a majority in favour of keeping the article. Less than half of the voters wanted the article kept here. But, at the same time, less than half wanted the content deleted completely. - Mark 03:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand why an article should be censored/deleted just because a majority does not agree with its idea. Then since many are against communism should we remove the articles about communism from Wikipedia? I believe that a correct information is ONLY given when we do not let someone censor something just because he/she does not agree with it. (btw, is there a way to insert articles here without having to edit everything?)--Lucat 01:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points. The information in the article is mostly one or a few editors' generalizations based on their impressions, and the source material they've chosen to use. But I can answer a few questions: "The term has been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet". As for the term "boylove", we can know this by examining the history of Boychat. If this is not the place where the term was invented, it was certainly where it was popularized, and where the first open community of boylovers formed (and where the logo was designed, etc). As for the term "childlove", I don't think I have heard it before coming to this article. I think it may have been invented by Wikipedians in need of a generic title. "Many of them have chosen a life of sexual abstinence". This was my sentence (and it was later removed), based on empirical data on myself, the boylovers I know personally and the impression I get from the community at large. I acknowledge that it is no scientific fact, but with so little research going on, it's hard to find any. "These pedophiles often reject the words ...". Not my words, but I know for a fact that it's true in the community (I myself can seldom bring me to even utter the word around people), and it's the very reason the term "boylove" was invented in the first place. The rest of your objections are mostly "who are 'they'?" (for the most, I can say "certainly not I"). I'm not sure what you're after here. Names? Clayboy 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, not names. Only sources to studies so we can verify the facts in this article. That's why I emphasised the "They" bit. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Almost totally bulls**t paragarph

"Western society in general completely rejects all forms of pedophilia because they believe that children will be manipulated or coerced because of a power imbalance between them and the adults they are involved with. Despite this societal rejection, many pedophiles claim to understand this power imbalance, and have proposed an ethical framework that could allow acceptance of their desire for sexual interaction with children."

How many unproven assertions can we put in a single paragraph?

1. Western society in general. Begging the quesion--this implies eastern cultures are not opposed. AFAIK, even socities such as Cambodia where children are the subject of sex tourism don't approve of it, whether or not they actively suppress it. Cultures that tolerate or encourage some sex play among children (as observed, among others, by Margaret Mead) do not allow that interaction between children and adults.
2. because they believe that children will be manipulated or coerced because of a power imbalance between them and the adults they are involved with. Straw man--the power imbalance is only one aspect of social rejection of pedophilia. Others include emotional damage to children, the rights of parents, society's interest in the physical health of children, the immaturity of children to understand the consequences of forming sexual relations, and the incompetence of children to consent.
3. an ethical framework. Self-referential nonsense. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Whoever you are (you didn't sign this) I've no problem with someone removing it - I modified it before to make the best of a very bad job. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• P.S. Those are good edits, though I'm sure they'll be altered by someone who claims it's POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I somehow disagree that "Western society in general" implies that Eastern cultures are not opposed. It can be as well understood as a reservation from the author of the article. I myself would affirm that Western society in general disapproves of sexual contacts between adults and children; but I don't consider myself enough of an expert on the mores of the rest of the world to affirm anything about them. David.Monniaux 11:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Western Societies vs. World's Cultures

Cecropia changed the sentence stating that "western societies" reject idea of pedophilia to say that "world's cultures" reject it. My fist impulse was to restore that phrase to its original status, but maybe i'm just wrong. Can someone please provide examples of non-european contries actively rejecting adult-child sexual relationship before western conquests have began. And please don't confuse lack of active welcoming of such relationships for rejection of it. Beta m 09:53, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Considering that most world societies are not now accepting of adult-prepubsecent child sexual relationships, I think we would need to demonstrate the positive that these relationships were accepted before western influence. Even if pre-modern societies are found that accepted such relationships, this does not negate the fact that current societies almost universally reject it.

Looking at this from another perspective, it is too common to use "western societies reject...", "western socities assert..." and such phrases as implicit indications that the issue being discussed is warped by western cultural prejudice. Frankly, the western cultural background of many scholars who claim to speak for other cultures sometimes causes them to come to incorrect conclusions. One that comes to mind is the concept that pre-modern cultures of Pacific islanders are "natural" in their views of sexuality and unfettered by Western "hang-ups." But this is not necessarily so. Some cultures where women ordinarily bare their breasts (a common indicator to some of sexual openness) have a prohibition on revealing any part of their lower bodies in public, sometimes including their ankles. IIRC, one of the cultures where Margaret Meade noted sex play among children concurrently had a stronger cult of virginity than most western cultures. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you are saying is almost like what many religious groups claim. "We don't need to prove that god exists," they say, "You try to prove that he doesn't". Well it's absolutely impossible to prove the negative. I can't prove that i'm a cammel. I can say that i don't have a hump, but you will just reply that i can be a crippled cammel. I can say that my DNA is that of a human, and you will say that cammels might have evolved into tricking DNA tests. Therefore, it would be futile for me to argue that at least some societies do not reject adult-child sex. I can't actually even give an example. I'm just asking for sources about this world-wide belief that you have asserted.

And i didn't see any relevance of the baring breasts example... although i agree with you, i don't see the point. Beta m 10:52, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

I'm from India (not a western culture) and I can definitively say that sexual relationships between young kids and adults in modern day India are both societally frowned upon and totally illegal. There was the case in Mumbai a few months (years?) ago where a British couple took sexually suggestive pictures of young boys (8-12 yrs old) living in an orphanage that they ran. The pictures leaked out and caused a major uproar in the country. Whether India's current frowning upon paedophilia is imported from European colonialism or has been with us for centuries I don't know though. I have heard though (don't ask me for proof) that in the Tibetian monasteries of old, the older monks used to sodomoze the younger trainee monks routinely. Again, whether this was officially "approved" or just ignored for the sake of practical matters like it is in Cambodia today I don't know. In either case this is a possible avenue of research to pursue if you can find appropriate source material. Qwertyca 23:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

India is an Eastern culture in a geographic sense only, why else do you think it is called "the indoeuropean world"--hindi words can be traced easily to their english equivalents. Until you start looking at the Semitic world and the far east, you not it the right location. Moreover, nearly every government in asia is built along european designs, and likewise incorporate european moralities, agendas, and pruderies... and one of the first orders of business in such organizations is to "tow the line" for a sense of belonging and togetherness with foreign powers. Given this, the only way to know for sure is to look at the policies and practices that existed before the influence of outside forces. Now, combine this with a few other items like a) the definitions (plural) of the word "pedophile"; b) the argument behind "age of consent"; c) marriage practices in absence of regulation from governments; d) the history of laws governing marriage and sexual activity; e) the doctrine of original sin; f) basic reproductive psychology; g) and lastly, what ordinary people (not fringe elements) actually do when not under the surveillance of whatever authority figure is dictating their behavior. Sweetfreek 9 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Calling it like it is

At somepoint we need to make sure that pure weasel words and fluff does not disguise the exact nature of what is going on here. Here is an example: 'Ashford also stresses that childlove is "an emotional and spiritual attraction to young children that transcends a simply physical or sexual attraction to them."'

Is Ashford implying that if I have an emotional or spiritual attachment to children I am a 'childlover'. I think that would include most parents, kindergarten teachers, in fact most people. Either Ashford is talking crap here, or the quote is crap. Or, I'm afraid more likely, someone here is simply waging a slow but deliberate campaign to persuade people that something is other than it is. I suggest that throughout these articles we take a terminological stand - we refer to members of the 'childlove movement' as "people who want to have sex with children". It's clear, its accurate, it's factual, its non-emotive, it's inclusive of those who desire it but don't practice. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that you want to impose your belief. It seems to me that you want to censor a piece of information just because you do not agree with it. I do not agree with what you said, i believe that you are generalizing and want to persecute a group of persons who, beside liking children (if this is a fault), never did anything wrong in their life. I do not know why you want this, maybe it is because of your religious beliefs, maybe it is because you came in contact with someone in your past who tried, against your will, to have sex with you... this doesn't mattert to me... what i see here is someone who wants a perfectly fine article raped to show your disrespect and personal hate for this group of people. --Lucat 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're on the right track, in that Ashford and others are using an old rhetorical ploy, layering an argument with additional issues to dilute the main issue. It would be shorter and more accurate to simply say "pedophiles" than "people who want to have sex with children." If we need a longer phrase ""people who want sexual access to children" would be more appropriate, since people can argue endlessly over the meaning of "have sex." -- Cecropia | Talk 17:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, great, that will be totally npov. Why not afterwards go and substitue every time the word homosexual come up with something like "people who want to use ass for sex". And than communist for "red flag waving totalitarians". There are words like "boylover" and "girllover" whether you like it or not, abviously it would be stupid to make two separate articles for them, so somebody made one and called it Childlove movement... if you disagree with what it stands for, find the sources and make a huge Arguments against section, where you will say that the better would be to use long phrases or misrepresentations than actual words... Beta m 11:02, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

It is not clear, it is not factual, it is emotive. But most of all, it is your agenda. As a boylover, I do specifically not want to have sex with children, because I love them and therefore want to protect and befriend them rather than harm them. I may desire intimacy since my attraction to them is also sexual, but I want sex with them about as much as the average heterosexual man wants to rape a woman. Clayboy 00:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dont really see anything wrong with that particular quote it's saying what an advocate of the movement claims it is, not what it is. I dont think it is our job to state that someone is talking crap, (even though he is) let the reader decide that. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:41, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

For the benefit of non paedophiles, I'd like to try to explain my view on this point. I admit my initial attraction to a boy is sexual in nature. I think most human attractions are initially sexual in nature. Because I am sexually attracted to a boy does not mean I am going to do my utmost to actually involve him in some sort of sexual activity. As with any "normal" adult heterosexual relationship, the relationsip between myself and the boy develop through stages, and often as with other relationships, the boy I am interested in will reject my advances in the early stages. If he responds positively, the relationship will ultimately develop into something very akin to the traditional (but now rarely practised) godfather/godson relationship where I take on a positive nuturing and educating role, not a sexual lover role. I have yet to meet a prepubescent boy who was genuinely interested in having a sexual relationship. There is often physical, but not sexual intimacy in these relationships. Unfortunately, so many fathers today seem incapable of being physically intimate with their sons, and most boys do need that. If they don't get it from Dad, they will seek it elsewhere, and in the process, leave themselves vulnerable to those who would do them harm. Even if there were no age of consent laws, I can't imagine myself, and most boylovers I know, attempting to engage a prepubescent boy in a sexual relationship as that would devalue the nurturing aspect of the relationship.