Difference between revisions of "Talk:paedophilia"

Latest revision as of 05:08, 29 April 2015

Links to Pro-pedo[philia research[edit]

Hello everyone. Just in case anyone is interested, I have gatherd up some links on the web which link to research on pedophilia that is nutiral of pro. check them out here:

• https://www.newgon.com/wiki/Research
• http://www.b4uact.org/?page_id=542
• https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/articles.htm
• https://www.ipce.info/library
• http://web.archive.org/web/20071219212649/http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/lib/index.html
• http://web.archive.org/web/20051017023247/http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/science/bias.html
• http://www.nambla.org/self.html
• http://www.nambla.org/anthro.html
• http://www.nambla.org/sciences.html
• http://www.nambla.org/psychol.html
• https://www.boywiki.org/en/Dares_to_Speak:_Historical_and_Contemporary_Perspectives_on_Boy-Love_(book)
• https://www.boywiki.org/en/Paidika:_The_Journal_of_Paedophilia
• http://exitinterview.biz/rarities/paidfull.htm
• https://www.boywiki.org/en/Scientific_literature
• http://www.sexarchive.info/BIB/EOH/index.htm
• https://www.boywiki.org/en/Research_(books)

Mrchair 05:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

I really think that the proper spelling should be dominant. Once again, etymologically it is dominant, as well as with the respect to the number of regions which say it like that. User:Beta m/sig

I see that now paedophilia is spelled correctly by using only pure Latin ENGLISH/US letters. Weird stuff like Æ, Œ, Þ, Ð, etc... are used in Nordic/Viking alphabets, but not in modern ordinary English alphabet. At least someone corrected this. 91.94.249.58 17:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reason why i've reverted[edit]

User:Feighnt has posted a rant, which while not anti-anarchist in any way, has nothing to do with the article. May i suggest some sort of blog to express his (i assume it's a male, since i rarely see females do this) opinions.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2007 December 6 14:07 _(UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

I really think that articles should be written neutral which is in this article not the case.

"While pedophiles have made great contributions to past societies, their influence is often ignored or their attraction to children is greatly played down."

First of all there is never THE pedophile, THE anarchist, and secondly if you made achievements it has nothing to do with you sexual orientation. This is the same like saying a group of humans is better or worse than the others.

"One of the dearest fantasy held in the paedophile sub-culture is that of the fantasy island - the secluded island community where paedophiles and children roam free, enjoying total sexual freedom. The idea behind this fantasy is the suggestion that away from the oppressive teachings of these organised religions, those who feel a sexual attraction towards the pre-pubescent can indulge their basest desires and, in doing so, also achieve some form of enlightenment..."

Everyone can think what he wants. And this is good. But it is also clear that pre-pubescent children are not always able to say whether they like something or not or regret later what they did, especially it it affects sexuality. This is why the age of consent exists. Off course some laws about sexuality are sometimes religious motivated, but pre-pubescent children should be protected. If two pre-pubescent decide to have sexual contact it is their decision, but sexuality with elder persons is different.

All in all I think the article should be much more neutral. --Lin 12:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

While I accept that this article is a bit biased, the last thing I would want to see is this resemble the Wikipedia article with its 'all children who have sex with adults are victims' dogma which feeds the capitalist child sex abuse and prison industries, which lines the pockets of therapists, lawyers etc. I believe the issue of whether to have and if so what the age of consent should be should be decided by anarchist communities. After all if there were no culture of stigma, guilt and shame towards such relationships for a child to internalize would they grow up feeling that they are victims? 77.222.131.40 23:34 , 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"One of the dearest fantasy held in the paedophile sub-culture is that of the fantasy island - the secluded island community where paedophiles and children roam free, enjoying total sexual freedom. The idea behind this fantasy is the suggestion that away from the oppressive teachings of these organised religions, those who feel a sexual attraction towards the pre-pubescent can indulge their basest desires and, in doing so, also achieve some form of enlightenment..."

I still don't know how paedohiles come to the conclusion that there is only one child who has the same fantasies as they have towards them? Where are the pre-pubescent children who scream for such a sexual freedom like it is written in the quote above? Did you ever met as adult a pre-pubescent who tried to start to have any kind of sexual contact with you? It's the same arrogant behavior adults usually show, if they claim they would know what's the best for children... It's always written from the standpoint of paedophiles (adults!) but never from the standpoint of the pre-pubescent. What they don't recognise is that children's sexuality is different to adult's sexuality. Last but not least I doubt that there could be an equal sexual relationship between adults and pre-pubescents, because pre-pubescents are dependend from adults. Children learn from, are affected by and orientate theirself on adults, this fact would also not change in an anarchist society, it has just natural reasons...

I tend to delete this article, I cannot see the relevance of the topic for an anarchist encyclopedia. But if someone has reasons why the anarchopedia needs an article about paedophelia, rewrite this article, as it is now it's not an anarchistic article but just the standpoint of paedophiles.

--Maly Krtek 11:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Being a casual reader of this encyclopedia I'm not sure I should dive into this discussion, but anyway. I don't understand why an encyclopedia with a political theme should have an article about pedophilia (or similar articles like LS Studio) at all. There are no articles about poison dart frogs for instance, a very interesting subject but not related to anarchism, politics or social affairs. You can be an advocate of free speech without hosting other peoples unrelated ideas. I'm sure they are perfectly capable of making their own wikis, as a matter of fact they already did. --Spanish Mole 14:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Would an article on pedophile activism, especially its largely historical association with anarchism be more appropriate? That is of course if this a matter of relevance and not censorship for 'moral reasons'. In relation to above question, positive (and neutral) testimonies from adults and young people who engaged in sexual relationships with an adult when they were children can be found on the internet, although I would prefer not to give any links on a especially on a public site but can be found through a Google search. There are also a number of academic papers on this subject available online. 87.118.106.144 2:27 , 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine what is more bizarre here, the fact that an article posted on what is supposedly an anarchist encyclopaedia has no sense whatsoever for the power differentials between child rapists and those they prey on (hint: the child "has sex with" the paedophile oly in the paedophile's mind) or that it's somehow "capitalist propaganda" to suggest that sexual abuse is sexual abuse. First of all, for centuries, the culture took very much the same attitude as the writer of this article (and of its staunchest advocate her): namely, that a man had the absolute right to do whatever he wanted - sexually or otherwise - to the members of his household, including his children. It is only recently that victims of sexual violence, be it rape of an adult woman or of a small child, are not stigmatised as liars when they say what was done to them. The descriptions here remind me above all of the interviews researchers have done with serial rapists - they actually manage to convince themselves that the women they rape (no matter how fiercly they resist) wanted it, enjoyed it, and in fact were asking for it.

Would we accept an article about slavery that talks about how "many Negroes actually enjoyed field work and were disappointed by Emancipation" or about women's rights that claims that women actually prefer to be chattel? Perhaps an article about Shoah denial that doesn't point out that Shoah deniers are complete frauds? One hopes that the problem is obvious here as well. It's hard to see how there's any discussion at all.

--Elise 11:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

When I hear this sort of thing, I do have to wonder if the person saying it has ever, ever even so much as made the fleeting acquaintance of someone who was sexually abused as a child (not as an adolescent - which would be ephebophilia, anyway). It's somewhat harder to act as if this is a harmless romp on "Fantasy Island" when you look at it from the perspective of those who know paedophiles best, i.e., the people whose lives they ruin. We're talking about rape here. Let's just be clear about that. We are talking about something that is done to someone who has no other option but to accept it.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors of the same sort that victims of other forms of abuse are amply familiar with. From the abuser's point of view, there's rarely anything wrong with what's going on. They often even convince themselves that the victim enjoys it, wants it. It's not about someone being "Evil", if that term means knowingly and intentionally doing harm. The intention doesn't matter. The harm doesn't cease to exist just beacuse the person who causes it is unaware of it. Regardless of whether someone commits a rape with the intention of torturing and psychologically destroying a person or in the delusional belief that the victim wants it despite all resistance and other evidence to the contrary. What goes on in the head of the perpetrator is irrelevant - what matters is the harm done, and the harm is real.

The sexual abuse of children did not become harmful only when society (fairly recently) decided that there was something wrong with it. Society was forced to recognise the harm that was done by those who had been harmed by it and had that harm denied, minimised, or dismissed, just as with any other abuse of power.

The article in question deals with the issue of child sexual abuse from the delusional perspective of the abusers (whether or not they have convinced themselves that they are not doing harm) without even a perfunctory nod to the fact that those who, as children, have spent time at the tender mercies of a paedophile, tend to see the experience differently.

Would we accept an article about rape (which this is) that said that there really was no rape. "People who were involved in "rape" often made wonderful contributions to society, and the fact is that the women have been brainwashed by feminists into thinking they didn't want it when they really loved it." Would we?

Or would it suffice to attach the label "capitalist" to that, as well, in order to shut off any normal thought processes?

--Elise 7:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PPOV material[edit]

I just removed pro point of view material featured in this article. It has been proposed it could be used in a rewritten article to exemplify the rhetoric used by pro-peadophilia activists. The removed material is available in the history for anyone wishing to do such a rewrite. --Spanish Mole 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)