| Revision as of 00:18, 14 July 2004 editZanthalon (talk | contribs)495 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:14, 14 July 2004 edit undoRmhermen (talk | contribs)Administrators62,561 edits cut and paste to rejoin disjointed discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| A little more to the article. | |||
| And the two have been made into one. | |||
| ---- | |||
| I know that this has been discussed before. However I still vote for integration with the article on ]. As with most terms there is no one and only definition of pedophilia. Just as heterosexuality and homosexuality it is not only about making love, but also falling in love. It depends on the individual pedophile, whether he considers sex important to him and morally acceptable. | |||
| Defining girllovers and boylovers as "non-sadistic" is not very specific either. I believe that most situational offenders are not sadistic, even if the sex is not fully consensual. --] 09:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Pedophilia seems something apart from boylover / girllover. I think the reason this article is so small is that no one has taken the time to build it up because of the nature of the topic. | |||
| :Anyone feeling adventerous and want to goto the Nambla website to research their arguements as to why man boy love should be accepted? :)--] 05:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :: This discussion should go to '']'' section "Motivation for outlawing sex with children", because not all offenders are pedophiles. What would you consider the difference between ] and girl/boy love? I think it is not acceptable to declare girl and boy lovers as good guys ''by definition''. Most pedophiles actually love children and do not want to harm them and in many cases do not perform sexual acts with children at all. However just like with heterosexuality and homosexuality there are a few rapists and sadists, although most cases of child sexual abuse by force (and also overall) are committed by situational offenders, who consider children acceptable victims rather than prefering them. The problem is that all these acts are blamed to pedophilia in the public perception and consensual acts are considered impossible. -- ] 09:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| -- | |||
| ''Some researchers have considered girllovers attracted to children not real pedophiles, because often they are not as fixated on their deviant ] as boylovers, and more often curable. Also boylovers more frequently relapse after treatment. Boylovers statistically prefer children a little older.'' | |||
| I took this section out for discussion here. This is quite a claim, I'd want the names of the major proponents of these ideas, and the counter arguements (science is very rarely one sided) as to this claim that homosexual pedophilia is more 'deviant' then heterosexual pedophilia. As well this term of 'curable' is more then a little vague, and suggests bias since I'd surmise that boy and girl lovers do not think they are in need of curing. --] 05:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : "Also boylovers more frequently relapse after treatment." This is already said in more detail in '']''. -- ] 09:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I cannot seem to find the relevant information in ] indicating that homosexual pedophiles are any less reponsive to treatment than heterosexual pedophiles. Give me one more hint? | |||
| ::: Sorry, I was not quite right. It actually does not give more details, when comparing girl lovers to boy lovers, but only says the same. At the beginning of section "Underage sex": "The probability is much higher for boylovers compared to girllovers." However it includes the percentage of delinquent pedophiles who relapse. --] 15:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| -- | |||
| Page Name: I think that this page needs to be either re-named "Boylovers and Girllovers" or that we need to stop the Girllover redirect and put real content there. Alternatively, we could use the generic term "Childlovers" as the page title and redirect both the "Girllover" and "Boylover" pages to it. | |||
| -- | |||
| This article has improved drastically since I commented on it last. Very good work to all involved! --] 14:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == boylover, pedophile, child molester == | |||
| These two paragraphs are flawed. However I can not fix easily them. | |||
| :The term ''boylover'' is taken as a contrast with the terms ''pedophile'' or '']''. Many boylovers consider ''pedophile'' to be the more general term; that is, all boylovers are pedophiles, but not all pedophiles are boylovers. This is because ''pedophile'' would also include girllovers and child molesters, whereas boylovers differentiate themselves from the former and distance themselves from the latter. | |||
| :A boylover is not a child molester. To assume that all boylovers are child molesters is equally fallacious as to assume that all heterosexuals are rapists. The fact that one expresses a sexual preference does not mean that that person is willing to break the law or harm others merely to achieve sexual gratification. Boylovers condemn child molesters and rapists of children as vehemently as any other sector of the population. | |||
| They try to make two many distinctions at once (boylover <-> girllover, ] and ] overlap). The term ''child molester'' is not used in the common way, but to refer only to those persons, who have sexual contacts to children in a way, that child lovers consider unacceptable. This should be made clear in the article. --] 19:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I have created a new page, ] that encompasses both boylovers and girllovers and redirected the boylover page to it. This is more accurate, rather than talking about girllove-specific issues on a boylove page. ] | |||
| == Regarding Research == | |||
| "Anyone feeling adventerous and want to goto the Nambla website to research their arguements as to why man boy love should be accepted?" | |||
| I'd recommend against taking NAMBLA's opinion as canonical for boylovers as a whole. They certainly are an organization of boylovers, and their point of view represents what SOME boylovers may believe, but they are by no means the "spokesmen" for the community as a whole. (Just the opposite; a large portion of the boylove community finds them... um... disagreeable.) | |||
| Part of the problem is that the whole specter of "child abuse" and its affiliated industry makes it difficult for boylovers to even DISCUSS their opinions on the topic without facing repercussions. It's one thing to say, "If you have sexual contact with a child, that is a crime and you will go to prison." It's quite another to say, "If you even EXPRESS an opinion about the issue that differs from what the child protection industry tells you it must be, you will be ostracized and probably sent to prison anyway (or locked up in an institution)." But that is the reality that many boylovers face. | |||
| Misplaced Pages, to my knowledge, tries to focus on the facts without the polemic; it's an encyclopedia, after all. But with this particular topic, it's almost impossible to separate the two. Just saying the dry statement, "Boylove is the romantic attraction between adult males and minor boys," starts the polemic. Saying, "Boylove is a disease/psychological disorder in which..." or "Boylove is the criminal molestation of..." is equally weighted. Is there any way at all to address this issue impartially? | |||
| If we want to research arguments as to why man-boy love should be accepted... first we would need an environment in which one could even ESPOUSE those arguments without immediately facing consequences. Is Misplaced Pages such an environment? | |||
| :Misplaced Pages seems to be an environment where people who want to help pedophiles by showing them how to deal with their paraphilia, i.e. psychological therapy, are unwelcome, and people who post links to them are treated as if they had a "conduct problem". At the same time, links to groups that advovate crimes are welcome. Please do not further use this discussion site since it is of a redirect and was inappropriately not moved with the article. ] 23:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since the individual involved in the moving has indicated that this discussion is still here, I imagine discussion is still open on it. Meantime, the idea that boylove represents a paraphilia which must be treated is in itself a political position which certainly has merit in itself, but is not the only possible position. Boylovers would argue that boylove is ''not'' a disease or disorder, and does not require treatment or therapy any more than heterosexuality or homosexuality does. Since the purpose of the ]-née-boylove site is to report impartially on the views of boylovers, in would seem then that article using that to make a case about need for treatment would be inappropriately pushing a political agenda. It seems much more logical to me to note the opposing point of view, link to the page which presents it (the ] page?) and make that case there. | |||
| :::This discussion is still here, but primarily for historical purposes. If you want your thoughts to be seen by more people, it is probably better to place them on either ] or ] as these are the pages that are being actively edited at this time. --] 00:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:14, 14 July 2004
Redirect to: