Talk:Pederasty

If I'm allowed to join the discussion, I believe you are right, Crossroads, when you speak about undue weight, as the paragraph in the map added by Geno seemed too large and detailed to me. However, I think such theory might deserve a mention in the article, and I would be comfortable with a smaller description in the image. Moreover, judging the value of theories (or their possible defaming of cultures and et caetera) is not our job, but the job of those who write the sources we utilize, and I consider it certainly wrong to base our decisions on it. Creador de Mundos (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As editors we do need to determine what has

WP:Fringe for inclusion. And it doesn't matter that Burton considered himself scientific. Its not like Burton could have done a true scientific study on the matter anyway, with careful surveying, statistics, etc. 19th century science was wrong about many things, and especially in the case of things like scientific racism

. We know that back then Europeans often saw other cultures through a highly distorted lens, and this includes thinking that various "perversions" were common amongst them.

Here is just one source of many showing the modern view. It is a review article of research on sexual orientation, including cross-culturally. They conclude, We expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) and that only a minority of individuals are sexually predisposed (whether exclusively or non-exclusively) to the same sex. Burton was wrong about the prevalence of this practice. And needless to say, he was wrong about climate having anything to do with human sexuality. We should not be using him or a fancy map derived from his statements here, as it lends authority to fringe and wrong ideas. And we would all the more err on the side of not including it if it involves tying half the world's cultures to a widely reviled practice. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for this material to be added to the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes/Citations

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3149/jms.0902.183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilh758 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First problem is that source is already in the article. It's footnote 14, and literally in the same paragraph you edited. You added it twice. Second, you appear to not have read the source in it's entirety and are instead jumping to conclusions based on the bit of abstract you read. You quoted part of it while leaving out important context preceding it "the question has yet to be raised -". This changes the meaning the of the quote. Bloch is asking the question in the abstract, and the body text of the article answers it. In the conclusion section of the paper, it states the following as the opening volley: "We should not be afraid to call Greek pederasty a form of child abuse. This was not sex between consenting adults, or even between two children discovering their sexuality in their own way and at their own pace, but the deliberate use of a child by an adult for the sexual gratification of the adult." I don't know how more explicit a paper needs to be.Legitimus (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the section heading for

WP:BLP reasons. Yes, even the abstract when read in full is quite clear that she is critical of other writers for not condemning the practice enough. Indeed, some have said some sketchy things. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The dictionary definition of pederasty is of the act and not confined to ancient cultures, I think that should be made clear even if the editors For this article which to keep the subject matter strictly to when the exact term has been used. Dakinijones (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not fair to only put these two examples I think from West Asia to Africa and the Americas because life expectancy was so low it was obvious at that time pederasty was happening and also to girls since they were married off as soon as their first menstrual cycle. So we just can't say it was a specific homosexual thing but rather common due to people dying at age 35 to 40 unlike now people can even age to 100. Nlivataye (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should continue to summarize the "Modern view" section in the lead. Word0151 either disagrees or thinks the summary should be changed somehow. Word, could you tell use more about your objections? Is there a way to rephrase rather than remove? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in Britain all my life, and I've never heard it pronounced with an "iː" before, so I did some research. Credible sources on British English (as used) ^{[1] [2]} suggest there doesn't seem to be much difference between our pronunciation and the American one, apart from maybe a minor stress difference.

The only source I can find that uses "piːdə-" is an entry in Merriam-Webster's (anecdotally, a poor source for Commonwealth English), and even that doesn't use the IPA.

(Note: I imagine this is where the error comes from, the initial edit in 2009 also uses the exact same non-IPA respelling system).

The greek root παιδε is sometimes pronounced "piːdə" in the UK for words like "Paedophile" -- I can definitely see someone making a generalisation that, therefore, every word with that root must have a separate British pronunciation.

Funnily enough, other Wikiprojects (and Wiktionary) just list both as valid British pronunciations? ^[3] I don't know. I don't think there's enough evidence to warrant a separation, but there could be something I'm ignoring/that I've missed.