Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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.

Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia such an environment?

Wikipedia 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. Get-back-world-respect 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 childlove-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 pedophilia 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 Talk:Pedophilia or Talk:Childlover as these are the pages that are being actively edited at this time. --Zanthalon 00:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, but none of this answers the question: how do we propose to get legitimate opinions outlining the arguments of actual boylovers (if we want to report accurately on these arguments) if we use NAMBLA as our reference and don't make an effort to solicit actual opinions in an environment where they won't be immediately attacked?

Another issue marginally related to research: was the decision to combine the "boylove" and "girllove" pages based on convenience with regards to Wikipedia, or on an actual research among boylovers and girllovers which reveal that we're dealing with qualitatively identical phenomena? If so, perhaps that should be addressed: similarities and differences between boylovers and girllovers. Otherwise, it might seem like an arbitrary political call on the part of the authors, somewhat akin to having only one page for Baptists and Presbyterians because they're all Christians, you know. (This may be part of a larger concern of mine: this whole article presents the childlove "movement" as some unified, sequential thing. It's not; there's no steering committee. It's fractured, with dozens of little groups often even at loggerheads with each other. The "CLogo" is a good example; a substantial number of boylovers are more than just uncomfortable with it; they're downright offended by it. Boylovers do not wish to be lumped in with girllovers on the whole, and any article which treats them jointly should probably highlight that fact.) But those points shouldn't be taken on my say-so; they should actually be investigated, researched with the groups themselves.

Hi. I would disagree with your presumption that NAMBLA is the primary reference for this article. The article cites NAMBLA as just one of many organisations that has been involved in the pedophile movement over the last thirty years. Indeed, if you look at the references of the article, you will not find NAMBLA mentioned at all.

I agree that boylovers and girllovers have a number of different issues. Originally, there was only a boylover page and the girllover page was redirected to the boylover page. The reason for changing this to a childlove page was not to suggest that boylove and girllove are identical, but to present the common arguments of the two in a single place. I do not think that at this time there is support for having an exhaustive discussion of every nuance of the child love community. If boylovers and girllovers each fight for their own page, what comes next? Separate pages for TBLs, LBLs, TGLs and LGLs? After that, the nepiophiles will come demanding their own page as well. If you think that these distinctions are necessary, feel free to sign up and start editing. Wikipedia is open to all comers.

Once again, I do not think that this article attempts to show that there is a single unified movement. What it does attempt to do is to point out the significant events and organizations that make up this movement.

You are right that there should be perhaps a greater mention that boylovers do not wish to be 'lumped together' with girllovers. Why not try to work this language in yourself.

No, I fully understand that not everybody likes the CLogo. I understand that many do not like it all and may even be offended by it. At the same time, however, it is supported by some people and deserves some mention in this article. --Zanthalon 04:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry... I didn't mean to imply that I thought NAMBLA was the primary source; rather, that was a response to a comment on the page by someone who suggested we should go talk to NAMBLA to get a boylover perspective. I was just trying to say, don't stop there... the community's not that simple...

I also agree that there's no support for a page on every possible flavor of childlover, but I would think that the limiting factor would be the actual constituencies which the community possesses. For example, there are very clear boylove communities and girllove communities, both in the real world and on the Internet. But LBLs, for example, tend not to have their own communities; rather, they are more like factions or interest groups within the boylover community. Should LBLs become a political force on their own, with their own communities, websites, and agenda, then at that point, why not have their own page? They've established an independent enough identity to warrant it.

It is, in part, my anal retentive nature that spurs these comments. I believe the articles should reflect the reality of what is out there. It is not (to my understanding) the purpose of Wikipedia to judge or evaluate these communities; simply to accurately report their existence, their beliefs, their organization (or lack thereof) and their history. Value judgments about them are for other discussion boards.

Which is why I keep coming back to: what's the actual research here? What are the sources? Would boylovers be in agreement with (just for an example) a page combined with girllovers? Would girllovers? When we mention (again, purely for example) NAMBLA, do we mention that they have a questionable reputation even within the boylove community? And by asking these questions, I'm not implying that it's not so; it may very well be that the answer is, yes, someone's already checked that. At which point, my response is, "Cool."

I was considering registering, but it seems like overkill just for me to become a one-trick pony on this issue...

(I did make one change: "condition" to "sexual preference" in the Symbols section. Truth is, I'm not convinced that "sexual preference" is a sufficiently neutral term; maybe you can help me come up with a better one; but I am convinced that "condition" is very value-laden, implying an illness or psychological condition.)

The "Criminality" of "Childlove"

GBWR: You seem insistent on including a clause in the beginning of this article that 'childlove' is a euphemism of 'criminals justifying criminality.' Please show us your proof of childlovers being criminals. Research I have already cited shows that most childlovers do not actually act on their attraction. Ergo, most childlovers are not criminals. I am open to the idea of including language about euphemisms into the article, but not in such a manner that suggests that all childlovers are criminals and not in a pejorative fashion. --Zanthalon 03:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This requires definition. Is a "childlover" different from a pedophile? If so, what essentially makes a "childover" different from a pedophile in terms a layman could understand? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that this is addressed in the first three paragraphs of the article. But to recap: Technically, a childlover is a pedophile. Many pedophiles have adopted the term childlover (or boylover or girllover) because society equates the term pedophile with child molester. Being a pedophile, however, does not mean that a person has acted on the attraction they have to young children. Therefore, being a pedophile is not tantamount to being a criminal. For this reason, I object to GBWR's comment that childlove is a euphemism of childlovers justifying criminality. --Zanthalon 04:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But therein we have an important rhetorical distinction on which a large part of the legitimacy of declaring oneself a "childlover" lies. You said: "Being a pedophile, however, does not mean that a person has acted on the attraction they have to young children." Before we get to the therefore: Does being a "childlover" mean that a person has not acted or would would not act on the attraction they have to young children"? -- Cecropia | Talk 05:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant term is already defined. The term "criminal" refers to someone who has committed a crime. So, in order to apply the word "criminal" to any person or group of people, one would have to demonstrate that a crime has been committed. The burden of proof, in this case, lies on the one using the defined term. The word "childlover" doesn't have to be different from "pedophile" (though many would argue that it is). One can be a childlover, a pedophile, an ephebophile, or sexually attracted to green Volkswagen Beetles... and if one hasn't committed a crime, one is not a criminal. (From the one-trick pony.) Marlais

Not having acted as a criminal does not mean not having argued in favour of crimes. Get-back-world-respect 12:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Granted. But that still doesn't make one a criminal. Arguing about the law, demonstrating against laws one feels are unjust, advocating changes in the law, and even being an activist in getting laws reconsidered... none of these things are crimes. Therefore the simple fact that pedophiles wish the law were different, and may argue that the law should be different, still does not meet the definition of "criminal." The label is inappropriate. Your own comment seems to acknowledge this ("Not having acted as a criminal...," italics added), so let's not try to imply it. Marlais

How about saying "It is widely seen as a euphemism, used by paedophiles to advance their views (esp. on social, political and legal issues) without the stigma attached to paedophilia." Euphemism needs to be in the introduction, and it has almost the same content as "criminals justifying criminality" but much more NPOV and not logically flawed.pir 15:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It comes down to accuracy. Implying criminality is completely inaccurate (especially without any credible evidence of a criminal act), so that's out from the beginning. Your reworking has a couple of different difficulties, however, which should be addressed in we want any claim of an NPOV article.

First of all, the use of the passive voice is almost always a red flag for evasion of accuracy. When one says, "It is widely seen..." the true researcher's question should be, "Widely seen by whom? Who are these people doing the wide seeing? Exactly how wide is it? What evidence do these anonymous, unnumbered people use to defend their wide view?" It is easy to start a sentence with, "Everyone knows that..." but it is also intellectually lazy and overwhelmingly inaccurate. If we are going to forward a value judgment, then it needs to be attributed and documented; if it is not, then the author is merely trying to be slick.

Second of all, is it true that "childlovers" use this term as a euphism to advance their views? It may very well be a euphimism, but is that their stated purpose? The problem with trying to speak for a group is that the group is accessible and capable of stating their own positions. Do they state their position as using the euphimism in order to "advance their views"? Or do they state another purpose for using the euphism, or perhaps even disagree that it is a euphimism at all but instead a term which they define to make a clear distinction between two concepts? These aren't things we as the authors can speculate on and decide for them--especially when dealing with a concept on which the authors themselves admit to bias. Instead, they must be investigated, and supported with quotes, citations, references... all those things which make a good article, you know. Marlais

It is correct that they should not be called criminals as many do not become criminals. It is however necessary to point out what the danger is: the crime of abuse. We are not writing about something that is stigmatized for obscure reasons, we write about a crime that can drive children into depression and suicide. The introduction needs to address that the term "childlove" is only used by a small minority and that the overwhelming majority of the societies has a view very sceptical of pedophelia. The point is not whether "childlovers" do or do not advance their views. Here they - or the ones defending the term - clearly do. The point is that this is the perception of many. Of course those who call themselves do not see it as a euphemism, that is why they made it up. That is clear from the introduction. Please sign your statements. Get-back-world-respect 18:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the word crime or criminal does not need to be in the introduction. First of all there is nothing criminal about being a paedophile or "child-lover" per se - people are not criminal because of who they are but because of what they do, I think we have established that point. Secondly, there is universal consensus that child abuse is a crime, no need to emphasise that. Thirdly, I think that this a very good article because it allows readers some understanding of how paedophiles see themselves. I have often wondered about this, and I believe it is very important to understand how they see themselves if our society is to come up with more effective approaches towards dealing with them. To immediately condemn paedophiles kind of destroys that. Of course we need to get the wording right and draw a clear line between explaining paedophiles' views and being apologists for those who commit one of the most damageing and inhumane crimes. IMO the article does that very well, without mentioning the word crime or criminal in the introduction.pir 19:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've registered an identity here largely for accountability on my comments, although really, this is about the only issue I'm addressing (hence my references to myself as a "one-trick pony"). Hope that helps. Now, if as, as you say, the introduction needs to addres that "the term 'childlove' is only used by a small minority and that the overwhelming majority of the societies has a very skeptical view of pedophelia [sic]," how about saying something more like:

"The term 'childlove' is only used by a small minority and the overwhelming majority of the societies has a very skeptical view of pedophilia."

Now we'd be saying exactly what you wish to say without using such value-laden terms. (Of course, we do run into a couple of accuracy issues, such as what exactly consititues an "overwhelming majority" of societies: which societies are they, and what percentage do the constitute of all societies? Do you mean all societies over time, or just the ones that happen to exist at this moment, i.e., is the statement historically accurate as well? Are there exceptions, and if so, what are they? On what basis do these overwhelming societies base their views? and so on. But those are questions that a little bit of good research should be able to address adequately.) Marlais

The very fact that sex with children, which is advocated by many self-proclaimed "childlovers", is a crime in most countries shows most clearly that the overwhelming majority in most societies are highly critical of the term, that is why it needs to be in the introduction. Get-back-world-respect 19:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. I thought your wording which I cited above to express that position with a much higher degree of accuracy and neutrality as well. I'd happily support changing the current wording to your words above.

I do think it's an interesting sub-discussion that sex with children was not a crime in most countries of the world up until the last twenty-five years or so, as the United States became more aggressive in exporting its influence. And in many countries (such as the one I call home), those laws are largely considered concessions to U.S. influence, and not taken terribly seriously (except, of course, when it's a U.S. citizen in violation of them, when they are taken very seriously indeed). There are several interesting studies on that, especially in Latin America, but they fall well outside the scope of this article. We'll have to leave the historical perspective to someone actually interested in doing the research.

So can we agree, then, that the objection in the introduction can best be worded as, "The term 'childlove' is only used by a small minority and the overwhelming majority of the societies has a very skeptical view of pedophilia"? Marlais

Sceptical is another euphemism, it has to be noted that sex with children is a crime.

Apart from that I would like to know why you used an I.P. address that seems to be related to hacking. Get-back-world-respect 20:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ad hominem. Does my IP matter, or instead the content of my comments? Marlais

Ad hominem would be if I said "Your IP address proves you are a hacking child molester." Asking why you used an IP address that seems to be related to hacking is nothing wrong. Get-back-world-respect 20:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ad hominem in the sense that it is personal. My IP address is of no relevance to you or this discussion. The content of my comments is. Marlais

If you are using a hacked IP deliberately it shows you are a criminal or have at least something to hide. If you are being hacked you should be glad someone warns you. Get-back-world-respect 20:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your warning. But again, the fact that you bring it up in the context of this discussion (especially when you obviously had no trouble finding my personal page) suggests you are trying to say something about me independent of the content of my comments. Even if I am all three--using a hacked IP, and criminal, and a person with something to hide--my comments here stand alone. So how about we agree to keep all further discussion about my mysterious IP and my questionable character on my user page, and use this page for discussion about the childlover article? Marlais 21:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just find interesting to note that this is the first topic I see whose discussion is dominated by users who seem to be solely interested in this one topic, who twist it in an extreme partisan way very distant from the commonly help opinion, they oppose the addition of external links that would not get close to balancing the articles, they are supported by anons and newly created accounts that are solely interested in this very topic, one chooses a very uncommon place for the very first edit, a request for comment on user conduct, and a scientific journal article is singled out which is thought to support the "boylovers'" view, so they make up an article with a completely inappropriate title, the first author's name. Sorry if you take offense at being the one user whose IP address seems to be involved in a hack, never encountered any such thing before. Get-back-world-respect 22:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

better use of 'euphemism' ?

It is widely seen as a euphemism of criminals justifying criminality.

maybe change this to the grammatical and less redundant:

It is seen by some as a euphemism for justifying criminal activity.

"by some" is more npov than "widely"... as for 'criminal', even if most self-professed childlovers don't engage in acts considered criminal by their society, some presumably do. +sj+ 18:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I missed pir's contribution above. I like that best. +sj+

"as for 'criminal', even if most self-professed childlovers don't engage in acts considered criminal by their society, some presumably do."

That's a logical fallacy. Even if most people claiming to be anti-childlovers don't engage in acts considered criminal by their society, some presumably do. Therefore, it is seen by some that professing anti-childlover views is a euphimism for justifying criminality? It doesn't make sense. Stick to facts. If it is "seen by some," who are those some? Do they have names? Do they write articles? Do they do research? And if "some" redheads commit crimes, does that mean that redheadedness is a precursor to criminality? Marlais

The logical fallacy is yours. Professing "childlovers" views is not a euphemism, the term is the euphemism. Furthermore, the crimes presumably committed by those critical of the term "childlover" are most likely unrelated to there being critical of the term, while the very distintion between pedophiles abusing children and "childlovers" many of whom advocate sex with children which are widely considered abuse makes the term a euphemism. Get-back-world-respect 19:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's use a more accurate analogy, then. Some homosexuals, in violation of the laws of their jurisdiction, have nonetheless gotten married, somehow convincing local officials to go along with them (organized crime, it seems). And that act is committed as a direct consequence of their being homosexual, and advocating changes in the laws regarding homosexuality. Would it then be accurate to say that homosexuality itself is in fact a term used to justify criminal activity? (This is further complicated by the result that some of these homosexuals have even succeeded in getting their local laws changed as a consequence of this activism, making what was once a crime no longer so.)

It becomes semantically fuzzy when one says, "Advocating sex with children." Does that mean that the pedophiles are advocating illegal sex with children in their current jurisdictions regardless of the law? Or are they advocating changes in the law regarding sex with children? And independent of the answer to that... does the fact that some self-proclaimed childlovers might even advocate criminal sex with children (though I've come across very few of those) serve as grounds to then label all childlovers as such advocates? Marlais

They are advocating what is considered child abuse and a crime. A less far-fetched analogy would be people forming the North American Man Boy Crack Dealing Association, advocating the legalization of crack selling to minors in an attempt to fight for childrens' right of free development of the mind. Get-back-world-respect 20:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And believe it or not, such an organization as that would be nothing criminal as long as they didn't commit the actual crime of selling crack, to minors or otherwise. And it gives the free marketplace of ideas a chance to evaluate and propose legislation as seems necessary. The advocating of ideas--even criminal ones--is not in itself criminal. Marlais

That was not the point as was shown some statements before. The point is that the label of "boylove" to hide the real interest crack-dealers would be a shameless euphemism. Get-back-world-respect 21:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The whole continious argumentation is unnecessary. It is clear as daylight that the pages are being censored because of the (anti)views of some, period. I mean, look at the giant fallacies: 'childlove is an euphemism used by criminals?' with the argumentation that because some may act in an illegal way, it should be considered an euphemism for criminal behaviour. Come on... if one would use that reasoning consistently, then every word used by a group where some members might engage in an illegal way should be deemed an euphimism. In many parts of the world, homosexuality is still illegal, thus some engage in illegal behaviour; should we consider homosexuality an euphemism of illegal behaviour, then? This reasoning is so farfetched from any standpoint of NPOV, I'm amazed anyone would claim it's not biased.

The above discussion shows this cleary: maybe the word 'childlover' is deemed an euphemism by those that oppose it, but it certainly is not deemed so by the childlovers themselves. If it's impossible to come to an agreement on this, why not simply say the above? If you say that people that are anti consider it to be an euphimism, while childlovers and their symphatisers feel it accurately describes their feelings and movement, then you are going to get as close to NPOV as you are ever going to get. Many 'passionate' people here seem to forget a wikipedia is for giving information as neutral as possible; if you can't come to a consensus (as is the case with some other articles that are in dispute) it is most fair to show the views of both sides. It is intellectually unfair to censor a page because one disagrees with the views expressed therin; if you feel so strongly about it, give valid counterarguments ASIDE the arguments that the others give, but do not try to muffle their views based on one's own bias, nomatter how strongly you feel they are wrong.

Title change

I changed the title and altered the opening paragraph to better conform to Wiki convention, be more descriptive and NPOV.

A problem with the previous emphasis in the title was that Childlover is a descriptive term, whereby a group wants to replace a commonly used term for another for whatever reason. cf. Negro->Black (or Afro-American)->African American in the U.S. context over approximately a 40-year span.

Childlove movement, OTOH, describes what the article is actually about, a movement of an existing group of people one of whose objectives is lingusitic change. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

excellent way to help solve the problem. pir 22:42, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image

Am I the only one who finds the Clogo image really sickening? Text I can deal with, but this image is a bit too much. The doll looks spooky and especially the way that the guy who's holding her is in the dark with just the hands visible give me the creeps. It's depraved. I'm almost always opposed to censorship, but I'll make an exception for paedophilia. If no-one objects, I'll remove it in a day or so.pir 23:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I 0bject. The image is from their own brochure, it is not pornographic, and it illustrates a group prominently mentioned in the article. If that image has to go, it begs the question of whether the article needs to go, too. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:17, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think there's a huge difference between how image and text in the way they affect people? And what exactly does it say about Clogo? pir 23:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly there's a difference. Why is the article about Abu Ghraib full of a gratuitous plethora of images in addition to the textual description? This image is germane to what is being discussed. The article is full of equivocation. This picture is worth a thousand equivocations. I don't understand your second question. What does the pic say about Clogo? Or about the contents of the brochure?

How about the clogo butterfly on the opposite corner of the brochure? It is a well known logo that is used by a number of groups. There is even a collection of images [1]. --Moonlight shadow 08:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Abu Ghraib pictures are documentary evidence, so it's clear what they add to the article. This picture was taken for a propaganda purpose: to further the aims of the "childlove" movement, probably to illustrate the situation which paedophile feel they are in (I'd say: in the dark, having their hands on children, but wanting to come out and have their urges accepted by society). Still I feel that this image is full of messages which I can't really put my finger on but which I find disturbing. So what does this image add to the article? In my view it adds a propaganda message. I think this is a very good article, and I think it is important to hear what the "childlove" movement has to say, but I find this image problematic. I'd much prefer to replace these images by the Clogo butterfly. On the other hand, if I'm the only one who objects to it, leave it as it is, I don't want to impose myself here. pir 11:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So we can allow them to spread their twisted views in articles, but when it comes to sickening pictures they get banned? I would be glad if the picture went together with all the other crap the "childlovers" brought. But great idea about a butterfly. How about another picture of a young lad: "I was abused, but so regardfully!"? Get-back-world-respect 11:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we started to remove articles because they give voice to twisted views, I'd like the Nazi, Republican, neo-concervative, Stalinism, anti-Semitism, capitalism etc. articles to be removed. Other people would want to remove other articles. Why don't we do that ? because an encyclopedia is about making available as much information as possible. Then you can deal with problems by debate based on sound information. As opposed to debate based on propaganda or censorship of certain groups' views. I don't know what you think GBWR, but it seems to me that our society is not dealing with paedophilia in an effective way. It is a huge problem, with apparently 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 or 20 boys being sexually abused, in 70-90% of cases by someone they are close to and who they trust. About 80% of child sexual abuse is never reported. The legal system, moral condemnation, hysterical campaigns in the mass media don't do anything (or very little) to solve this problem, because that requires the co-operation of paedophiles. That's why it is extremely important for paedophiles' "twisted views" to be heard. Of course this has to happen in a sensitive way. The more I think about it the more I come to realise that my real objection to the images is that I think they are manipulative in ways that are not clear to the reader.pir 11:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)