This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haiduc (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 30 October 2008 (→Etymology section improved: kudos!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:06, 30 October 2008 by Haiduc (talk | contribs) (→Etymology section improved: kudos!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pederasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | LGBTQ+ studies B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
|
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Moved from article for proper discussion
To avoid any edit warring, I have moved some rather contentious edits here for the purpose of discussion:
Lolicon: some heterosexual men like girls between 10 to 16 years
why is the term pederasty only for men/boy relationships ? also some men look for adolescent girls between 10 and 16 (Lolicon) Why is so the term lolicon not also part of the term pederasty ? GLGermann (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do not know why, but the standard usage is restricted to males, historically as well as by definition. "Why" is an interesting question. Is it related to homophobia, is it designed to conflate the love of girls with the love of women, or is it simply not a distinction that lovers of women thought of making? Haiduc (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pederasty. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pederasty at the Reference desk. |
Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, thank you. Haiduc (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, yes, and relevant to a proper understanding of the subject which is bedevilled by the limitations and interpretations imposed upon the terminology. May I throw in this proposition: some 'heterosexual' men like boys between 10 and 16, i.e. they are (not uncommonly) heterosexual with adults, but attracted to adolescent boys even if they do not express this attraction sexually (possibly for legal reasons, or inhibition, or sublimation). Historically, the sexually versatile male is clearly identifiable: he was not restricted by definitions or identity in the same way as his modern counterpart who is expected to 'fit' a type or 'psychological profile', and as a result can suffer unnecessary conflict and self-doubt, occasionally assuaged by the convenient label, bisexual. The article itself is also bedevilled and indeed (more recently) vitiated by those who seek to impose personal views and prejudices (from the 21st century) on a subject of wide application through the ages. The historical view is of course essentially amoral and non-manipulatory, and ipso facto sometimes challenging and uncomfortable, and not at all respectful of conventions. Dominique (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit questions
I undid your (Jack-A-Roe) edits and added citation tags. There is no need to wholesale remove stuff, you can ask and wait for citations. If it doesn't happen then you can remove it. Likewise, in many edits you have done the same, why is that same edits warrant wholesale removal?
As for the link, it has historical documentary info. What is compelling to remove it? If you don't want to get to the main page for advocacy we can link to the history. Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- According to WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you want the information to stay in the article, you must provide references to support the information and its relationship to the topic of pederasty.
- The unsourced information has been in the article for years. There have been many discussions on this page indicating lack of sources, so people who are interested in finding the sources for that material have had plenty of chance to do so. If you think the information can be sourced, why don't you do some research and prove it?
- Some of the information that was removed links to other articles, stating that they are part of the so-called pederastic tradition, for example Sufism and dervishes - but neither of those articles even mentions the term, or describes any aspect of the practice. Therefore those statements are not only unreferenced in this article, they are not supported by the content of the other articles. Unless a reference is found, that information can't be used.
- Some of the information was removed because it is simply off-topic. For example, military sexual violation of children and child prostitution are not part of pederasty as described in this article, those topics are unrelated to any sort of mutual relationship between the participants that is the basis the article.
- The external link to androphile.org was removed because that website is self-published, ad-supported, does not reveal the names of the authors of the material, and does not state any of its references. You yourself have removed extensive numbers of external links, often without any explanation at all other than that there were "too many" for your taste. In this case, unlike those many that you have removed, there is a solid list of specific reasons that link can't be used. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh look, yet again we're in revert/rinse/repeat mode here. And again, I restate my clarion call: Why don't we start fresh, and build up this article a little at a time, based on consensus-only edits? We've certainly got a critical mass of involved editors here now. Supports/opposes? Clear concise explanations for why this is a bad idea? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? - brenneman 06:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly support your proposed method. But I should note that my time availability will be unpredictable over the next few months so I don't want to give the impression I can put in a lot of time on it. I would be willing to keep it watchlisted and help when I can. Aside from how much I can do, on a procedural basis, I think your idea to rebuild the article more directly based on sources, with step-by-step consensus would be an excellent approach. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Nandesuka (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Haiduc (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for this, and what's more, I see far more eagerness to remove material from the article than to build it up. I worry that if we went down to a stub, we'd stay there forever. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do understand why you'd have formed that opinion, and can only offer my best intentions. I'm open to hearing proposals that provide checks and balances... Some form of sunset clause, for example, where if the article doesn't come up to scratch after xx weeks following "reset" then it goes back to today's version? Just throwing out ideas here...
brenneman 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do understand why you'd have formed that opinion, and can only offer my best intentions. I'm open to hearing proposals that provide checks and balances... Some form of sunset clause, for example, where if the article doesn't come up to scratch after xx weeks following "reset" then it goes back to today's version? Just throwing out ideas here...
- I don't see the need for this, and what's more, I see far more eagerness to remove material from the article than to build it up. I worry that if we went down to a stub, we'd stay there forever. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Request for verification of source
The following sentence does not seem supported by the reference, so I've removed it from the article and request verification of the source:
While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys, exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women, and others rejecting relations with boys.
J.K. Dover, 'Greek Homosexuality, by Kenneth J. Dover; New York; Vintage Books, 1978. ISBN 0674362616
Google finds this excerpt about "pederasty" in the book:
...unwillingness to recognize behavioral disctinctions which were of great importance within that culture generates statements to the effect that 'homosexuality' tout court or 'pederasty' was forbidden by law in most Greek citites (Flaceliere, Marrou).
That appears not to support. Does anyone have a page number and quote from the book to show how it supports the text? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think this section demonstrates well a tendency among some of the editors here that I find very frustrating. The first quote that Jack-A-Roe has taken out is uncontroversial for anyone who has a basic knowledge of ancient Greek sexuality; if it appeared in a scholarly source, I'm not even sure it would require citation, because it's part of common knowledge about the topic. Since this is Misplaced Pages, there probably should be a citation, but this is hardly the kind of thing that needs to be removed from the article pending confirmation.
- Furthermore, it's not that surprising that the word "pederasty" isn't used that much in Dover's Greek Homosexuality", because he's using "homosexuality" in preference to "pederasty" (many classical scholars follow suit). Nevertheless, the Greeks themselves called it paiderasteia, and nearly everything Dover talks about is applicable to this article.
- The second quote is not well cited, but again is a point commonly made. Again, I don't see the urgent need to remove the text from the article and take it to the talk page. I would urge the editor who made these removals to, in his own words, "do some research". I suppose it's easier to take things out than to try and build up the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let's simplify and just look at the facts. You state it is " uncontroversial for anyone who has a basic knowledge of ancient Greek sexuality" that... "most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys,"
- Since it is uncontroversial, there must be many easily located references that would support that text. Would you please provide one? With proper sourcing, I would remove my objection without delay.
- I don't question that many ancient Greeks engaged in homosexual behavior; but I wouldn't write that in Misplaced Pages without a reference, and the word "most" makes it a much stronger claim - especially when the supporting footnote says that it was illegal in "most cities". It's one thing to leave unsourced material when it does not state the opposite of the footnote, but when the reference and the text disagree, the text should be removed until it can be sourced. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note that User:Haiduc reverted the edit I brought here for discussion, with no edit summary or other explanation: . He's welcome to disagree, but a blanket revert with no discussion is not a helpful form of collaboration. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the footnote (by which I assume you mean the second quote) more carefully. It does not state that homosexuality was illegal in most cities--it states that uninformed views about the nature of ancient Greek sexuality generate erroneous statements that homosexuality was illegal. There's no contradiction.
- As far as "easily located", this is a relative statement. For me, this requires a trip to the library, which is both time-consuming and inconvenient. May I ask why you aren't performing some of this research yourself? If you have a university library available, I suggest you get a copy of Dover's Greek Homosexuality. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- The quoted statement does not include the word "erroneous". But granted, it's a partial statement and it's hard to tell from the fragment what it means. I am not arguing that the text is wrong, only that it is questionable at this time. If it's uncontroversial, it must be in more than just that one book. If only one book makes the statement and no others support it, that's getting into the realm of controversial. WP:V specifies that the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores material, and specifies inclusion of page numbers when citing from books, so I requested verification of the source.. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Again, this is a spot where knowledge of the subject helps; there's really no doubt about what the footnote means. Furthermore, if the "one book" that says something is Dover, that wouldn't fall into the realm of controversial; Dover is the standard work on ancient Greek homosexuality. (A web search can establish this last fact easily.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Since the prior comment I've done some reading on this. I found that it's much more complex than the way it's stated in that sentence in the text, and that while Dover's work certainly occupies a central position, there are multiple interpretations and reviews of it and they don't all agree. I don't question that male same-sex relations were not unusual in ancient Greece or that they thought about those relations differently than in modern times; but for the qualifier "most", I've not yet found sources supporting that. If I had, I'd report them, I have nothing against the statement if it's accurate. But there is so much unsourced material in the dozen or so pederasty-related articles, it's necessary to start somewhere in making improvements. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Again, this is a spot where knowledge of the subject helps; there's really no doubt about what the footnote means. Furthermore, if the "one book" that says something is Dover, that wouldn't fall into the realm of controversial; Dover is the standard work on ancient Greek homosexuality. (A web search can establish this last fact easily.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Most" is supportable, from Dover himself, and other sources. There are a few scholars, among them T.K.Hubbard and Giulia Sissa, who argue that the eromenos/erastes relationship was common only among the aristocracy. But this is a minority viewpoint (perhaps prominent that it's worth reporting in this article, and definitely should be mentioned in Pederasty in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Reprotected
I've protected the article again. I'll continue to do so whenever I see the cycle of reversions starting over. - brenneman 03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, but just to be clear - I've made some edits, but none of them were reverts, and I had no intention to revert. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) PS. Actually, for transparency, after reviewing my edits, I think I did one revert yesterday and discussed it on the talk page - regarding a different part of the article and with a different editor. Anyway, I don't have any problem with the protection; I concur with slowing the process on this article so we can work in a more collaborative way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think you've made substantial edits to this article. Should you be the one to do the protection? (I am not questioning whether the article should be protected.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a fair question. I'll give my round-a-bout answer, and if there is consensus here that I shouldn't be doing it I'll hand off to another administrator.
- I don't think there would be disagreement that they way we've been proceding has been slow and painful. I've proposed (as an editor) another way forward.
- Recently as an adminstrator, when I've seen (via my watchlist) sub-optimal editing w/o commensurate discussion, I've been protecting the article. I've not looked at what state the article is in when doing so. Use of +sysop rights to "win" content disputes is of course a very bad thing. Now that I look, I see that I've locked the article in Haiduc's version... So I'm feeling somewhat safe that I've not done the wrong thing w.r.t. that. I've also chosen not to edit the article at all since I protected it, only using the talk page.
- I want the best thing for this article, as we all do. I believe that adminstrator attention is needed to get it. The advantage is that I'm here, another mop will probably not give the love and attention to this article that it needs.
- All that being said, I'm nothing if not open to input. Thank you Akhilleus for the opportunity to respond, now it's over to the crowd to decide.
- brenneman 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't even know the article had been unprotected before it was reprotected, otherwise I would have readded the sentence about Wilde's short story which was deleted a week or more ago for unintelligable reasons. The problem is that we do not get useful discussion on this page, for the simple reason that some editors do not seem primarily interested in improving the article but in simply deleting whatever they can. If we could develop genuine debate about how sections on ancient Greece, the Renaissance etc should be properly presented, then we could come up with stable and probably well sourced, informative text. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Paul Barlow is absolutely right in his comment about "editors" here deleting whatever they possibly can delete. It is blindingly obvious that the purpose is not to inform but too obscure, and that the article is being gutted. These well intentioned editors have gone as far (if not here then in related articles) as to delete discussions of pederastic rape with the nonsensical rationalization that it "does not fit the definition." I cannot imagine a more blatant example of using the letter of the law to pervert the spirit of the law. The whole exercise has descended to the level of an orgy of know-nothing prissiness that serves only as en ego-prop for the editors that have hijacked Misplaced Pages for their own personal satisfaction. If they did this to any other topic they would be out on their ear by now. Haiduc (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't even know the article had been unprotected before it was reprotected, otherwise I would have readded the sentence about Wilde's short story which was deleted a week or more ago for unintelligable reasons. The problem is that we do not get useful discussion on this page, for the simple reason that some editors do not seem primarily interested in improving the article but in simply deleting whatever they can. If we could develop genuine debate about how sections on ancient Greece, the Renaissance etc should be properly presented, then we could come up with stable and probably well sourced, informative text. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a fair question. I'll give my round-a-bout answer, and if there is consensus here that I shouldn't be doing it I'll hand off to another administrator.
Haiduc, I must complement you. Your turn of phrase " an orgy of know-nothing prissiness" is one of the funniest insults I've ever seen, congratulations!
However... leaving aside the contentious tone of your comment, and addressing the content, I don't understand what you mean by "delete discussions of pederastic rape with the nonsensical rationalization that it 'does not fit the definition.' " - according to the article, pederasty is a mutually affectionate relationship; or at least, mutually beneficial, in terms of status and mentorship. If that's the definition, then a military victor raping a boy is not "pederasty", it's just rape. Similarly, the purchase of the prostitution services of a youth is not "pederasty", it's just "child prostitution", or simply "prostitution", depending on the age of the prostitute. If "pederastic rape" is included in the definition of "pederasty", then the definition would need to be expanded beyond consensuality. Previously, you've indicated that's not your idea of the definition and that the mutual aspect is central. So, please clarify - what is the definition, as you see it? Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jack, that is sophistry. A topic includes elements which are antinominal to it. A discussion of marriage is incomplete without a look at domestic violence, even though that is certainly not part of the definition of the custom. Likewise, we would not exclude cases of domestic violence merely because they were in the context of cohabiting couples. So let's not use protestations of orthodoxy as a cover for the opinion-driven demolition of an article. Haiduc (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
PoMo > CSA criticism_CSA_criticism-2008-09-17T15:01:00.000Z">
We should be looking to remove the assertion that the CSA angle is supported by PoMo theories of power. Such theories (Foucault included) tend to subvert top-down approaches such as CSA. forestPIG 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)_CSA_criticism"> _CSA_criticism">
Pederasty Among Primitives
For the references section. The correct link should be:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2086628 forestPIG 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Etymology section
The "Etymology" section had a number of serious problems that I have corrected.
First, there was a quote attributed to the Concise OED that, as near as I can tell, was at best in error or at worst fabricated. I corrected the definition.
Second, the section was presented backwards, first presenting definitions from specialist sources and only then presenting the general definitions later. I reversed the order.
Thirdly, the text surrounding all of these definitions was not even remotely written from a neutral point of view; it seemed to promote some of the fringe definitions and denigrate the dictionary definitions. I tried to make the text more neutral.
Lastly, one of the sources, William Percy's Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, is generally speaking not an acceptable academic source, being tainted by its association with a fraud scandal. There is a second edition of the encyclopedia that does not suffer from this taint, and it's likely that it has a similar definition. I did not touch this for now, but we should work to replace the fraud-tainted source with a reference to a source with an unstained reputation. Nandesuka (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your aggressive logos here notwithstanding, the version as amended now approaches a neutral tone and is provisionally acceptable. The OED quote was simply what was there when last I checked. Haiduc (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit to say the OED offers two definitions is incorrect; that is a single definition with two explanatory clauses. When the OED provides different definitions, it numbers / enumerates them separately, or else joins them with a connector, such as "also."
- "Restrictive", regarding the concise OED, smacks of a value judgement, and is thus not NPOV. I suggest "terse" as a better term than either "restrictive" or "direct". Nandesuka (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- We can always say that the OED indicates two uses, one general and the other specific. I disagree with "terse," we can leave the text to speak for itself. Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- The OED is perfectly capable of enumerating uses when they intend to. Why in the world would we fabricate a second definition when they chose to provide only one? Regarding the other issue, "Terse" is a descriptive attribute of a sentence. "Restrictive" is a comment on the semantics and meaning of the definition. My $0.02. Anyone else want to chime in? Nandesuka (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- The guide to OED entries makes it quite clear that describing these as two different definitions is a misrepresentation:
- We can always say that the OED indicates two uses, one general and the other specific. I disagree with "terse," we can leave the text to speak for itself. Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
While the headword section of an entry defines the form of a headword, the sense section explains the headword's meaning. The sense section consists of one or more definitions, each with its paragraph of illustrative quotations, arranged chronologically. Some words, especially those that have existed for centuries, have acquired many meanings. Because of this, the sense section for some entries is quite extensive.
... Senses, or meanings, are ordered according to a structure resembling a family tree, so that the development of one meaning from another can be plotted. The individual meanings are numbered within this structure for ease of reference.
(emphasis added). Nandesuka (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the OED is perfectly capable of enumerating usages, and they do. Why, however, are you so quick to allege "fabricated quotes" without even bothering to check properly. It's a tactic that creates a wholly offensive atmosphere. The quotation you removed was "Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy"; since that's a rather negative characterisation, I can't imagine why Haiduc - the implicit subject of your accusation - would have "fabricated" it, can you? However, for your infornmation, here is the full 1989 version of the definition, which they have since revised. The revised version can also be accessed from the OED website. Paul B (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- What is "fabricated" in context, above, was Haiduc's suggestion that the OED definition is in fact "two definitions". On this talk page I indicated that I wasn't sure whether the concise OED definition was fabricated or not. I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell because the reference was incorrect, leading to a completely different definition. This sort of thing has happened innumerable times: I check a reference, and it says something completely different from what it is purported to say. I'm beyond trying to guess whether it's on purpose or not. Nandesuka (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your "why" question, I can't speculate, but it's worth noting that our text introducing that quote was "Some borrow the terminology of religious discourse...", which, frankly, seems like an egregious violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Nandesuka (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the two formulations offered by the OED are synonymous? Haiduc (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm stating that if the OED intended that entry to contain two definitions, it would contain two definitions instead of one. Your argument isn't with me. It's with Oxford. Good luck with that. Nandesuka (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Answer the question, instead of forcefully inserting your false statement into the article. Haiduc (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I refuse to tell you whether or not I am still beating my wife. If you have a problem with the OED's guide on how to read an entry, which I linked to earlier, take it up with them. There is simply no ambiguity here. If the OED wanted to provide two definitions, they would have provided two definitions. When the OED provides multiple definitions, they are numbered. Always. Without fail. If you want to argue that in this one case, for some reason, they went against their conventions, you are sailing against the wind Nandesuka (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Answer the question, instead of forcefully inserting your false statement into the article. Haiduc (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- So, instead of acknowledging that there are two formulations, with two very separate meanings, you refuse to discuss it and resort to edit warring, and to falsely claiming that you are making the edits on the basis of "consensus." But you are the ONLY one to hold that view - that consensus exists only in your head. So what we are seeing now is the face of Nandesukapedia, a project in which the paramount good is for Nandesuka to win an argument, at any cost to the integrity of the encyclopedia or to the form in which we resolve our differences. What a wonderful thing it must be to be an administrator with friends in all the right places, so you can say and do what you want and revert edits as many times as you want, with complete immunity. Considering the amount of time you spend here, you must be getting a lot out of it, it must be a profoundly satisfying and self-affirming experience for you. How nice. Haiduc (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
OED definitions in full (1989 ed)
Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy.
1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage (1614) 293 He telleth of their Pæderastie, that they buy Boyes at an hundred or two hundred duckats, and mew them vp for their filthie lust. 1752 HUME Ess. & Treat. (1777) II. 382 Solon's law forbid pæderasty to slaves. 1788 GIBBON Decl. & F. (1846) IV. 233 The same penalties were inflicted on the passive and active guilt of paederasty. 1869 RAWLINSON Anc. Hist. 529 Hence the laws against infanticide, against adultery, against pæderasty. So pæderast , pæderastist, a sodomite; pæderastic a. , pertaining to or practising sodomy; hence pæderastically adv.
1730-6 BAILEY (folio), *Pederast.., a Sodomite, a buggerer. 1738 WARBURTON Div. Legat. I. 171 As the detestable Pæderasts of after Ages scandalized the godlike Socrates. 1925 R. FRY Let. 7 Sept. (1972) II. 581 We had a long talk on the tyranny of the Paederasts and Sapphists. 1935 E. E. CUMMINGS Let. 2 Jan. (1969) 131 Scientists are of course pederasts, as we neither know nor care; & unnaturally enough this natural history museum is a temple or cathedral of the scientific spirit. 1963 A. HERON Towards Quaker View of Sex 69 Socially the paederast is the most isolated of homosexuals. 1969 Listener 14 Aug. 205/3 A divorced woman on the throne of the House of Windsor would be a pretty big feather in the cap of that bunch of rootless intellectuals, alien Jews and international pederasts who call themselves the Labour Party. 1971 P. QUENNELL Marcel Proust 11 The sense of his own separateness, as a paederast who loved women,..and a sick man..intensified his gift of observation.
of Pederastice, a kinde of harlatry, not to be recited.]
1704 SWIFT T. Tub Pref., There is first the *pæderastic school with French and Italian masters. 1864 tr. Gaspar's Hand-bk. Forensic Med. III. 333 note, Dohrn..has observed this appearance in his old pæderastic hospitallers.
Ibid. 332 A boy alleged to have been abused *pæderastically.
1684 T. GODDARD Plato's Demon 29 The little respect which he had for that Sex, and great love for the other, which made him so great a *Pæderastist
Categories: