Difference between revisions of "Talk:paedophilia"

Revision as of 11:40, 1 September 2009

Spelling

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

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

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.

Typical, so fucking typical, ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE ZOMFG "THE EVIL PEDOS MURDER LITTLE CHILDREN'S SOULS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE EVIL PEDOS ARE WORSE THAN THE NAZIS B:AH NBLAH BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH. IF THEY HAVE SEX A MINUTE BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON THEIR 18th BIRTHDAY THEY WILL BE SCARED FOR LIFE. You blast this propagnada left right and center and even anarchists are eventually going to be be brainwashed by it. You Anti Pedophile crusaders don't care about children all you do is won't to persecute pedophiles. Fine delete it. But no matter what it may seem there are always at least two sides every argument and most people have only heard one.