Category talk:Pedophilia

Make sure you use the category correctly if you're going to use it. "Pedophilia" is supposed to be used about an attraction rather than about an act. Also, as Wiktionary notes, boylove and girllove refer to pedophilic love, so if anything boylove and girllove should be subcategories of pedophilia, except for the fact that pedophilia pertains solely to sexual attractions, desires, fantasies, etc. while "love" is broader. Boylove and girllove could arguably be subcategories of childlove, but there's no consensus for that. Leucosticte (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The basic principle here should be how the wiki self-identifies, not how others identify it. We may set up some process where there are outside judgments, but it's a huge can of worms. Above, L., you consider boylove and girllove as subcategories of pedophilia, but pedophilia is a defined psychiatric disorder, while boylove and girllove are not necessarily, in themselves, disorders. For example, "pedophilia" is "primary or exclusive." Boylove and girllove might not be. However, if the sites are for those who are truly pedophiles, then, sure.
 * Below, you seem to allow ChildWiki to be classified as pedophilia. Yet that is far from the declared purpose of the site. Yes, there are pages on the site that address social condemnation of pedophilia. But Wikipedia also has such pages. We would not categorize a site based on incidental pages. Now, if ChildWiki is really about pedophilia, say so!
 * My own opinion is that it's about something else. It's about Nathan Larson. We might, indeed, have a Category:Nathan Larson. That makes more sense than some of what is being brought here. It would include RationalWikiWikiWiki (Leucosticte iteration) and perhaps some other sites.
 * For others reading this, who might need a program to understand what's going on -- that's totally understandable! -- Nathan Larson, aka Leucosticte and other well-known names, is not a pedophile, as far as I've been able to tell from the evidence available, which is a lot, over the years. (I have been in communication with him since about 2007, including voice by phone. He nominated me for adminship on Wikipedia, when it was ridiculous, I only had about 500 edits. He nominated me again later, having dropped that account. It was still too soon, but even then I had 50% approval. He taught me a lot.)
 * He's a normal heterosexual, if somewhat introverted and isolated, not abnormally attracted to minors, and with no history of sexual offenses, and he's been subject to intense scrutiny.
 * What he does is create appearances that attract fanatics, and anyone who researches the topic of pedophilia and "anti-pedophile activism" and "pedophile activism" will discover that this is one very hot topic, "hot" being an understatement, with people who are willing to kill to pursue their beliefs, people willing to libel and to take huge legal risks for the cause, and people, then, a few, who are actual pedophiles, some nonviolent and not particularly dangerous, and others who are dangerous, as well as people generally interested in sexual liberation, who thus want to extend rights to others currently considered beyond the pale. Brongersma is an example of the latter. Not a pedophile, apparently (but I have not researched him in detail). And there are others who are strongly against active pedophilia, but who oppose the severe prosecution that has become the norm, arguing that this actually causes harm to children. Larson's interest is not necessarily sexual liberation as such, he is a libertarian, and a radical one, often seeking martyrdom in that cause. Thus he is really just as interested in the rights of children to carry weapons as he is in their sexual rights. And even more than rights, he is interested in debate.--Abd (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By that logic, shouldn't BoyWiki be in Category:Etenne? But we've never done things that way before. It might not be such a bad idea, although there could be a subcategory, Category:One-user wikis operated by Nathan Larson or something similar. Except for the fact that the occasional second user does drop by and write something. The problems you bring up, pertaining to pedophilia's clinical definition, probably make it useless as a category unless the site is about the clinical disorder.


 * I think that some of the users who have recently edited this wiki have expressed the concern that sites shouldn't be allowed to be listed here based on how they self-identify, but rather that the WikiIndex owners and/or community should make their own judgment. If it opens a can of worms, I guess that's just how it goes; then it ends up being up to the site owner and his sysops, or the mobocracy, or whatever, to make the judgment. I favor a Wikipedia-like approach of saying what the site says, and also saying what the critics say.


 * It's ridiculous that we even live in a society where the topic of whether someone is a pedophile comes up as being important in a venue like this (or Wikipedia, or similar places). It really is an . Leucosticte (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia as a perjorative term
Wikipedia defines "pedophilia" this way: ''Pedophilia [...] is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger; as a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents who are 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

WikiIndex is not an encyclopedia, and is not concerned with medical diagnoses. Categories here are used so that readers may find wikis of interest. WikiIndex cannot become a battleground over ideologies or social agendas.

Generally, wikis should be classified here as they would be classified. Or should we have Category:Stupid Narcissism? Might be fun.

If a wiki self-identifies as being about "Pedophilia," it may be so classified. Thus Evil-Unveiled belongs in the category. ChildWiki does not.

Where ChildWiki belongs is not so obvious. It includes pages relating to Boylove and girllove, but it's more about "child liberation," generally taking on all forms of what are seen as the oppression of children. A pedophilic or child/adult sexual agenda is ascribed to ChildWiki by outsiders.

Nevertheless ChildWiki should be considered adult content. It is not written by or for children. It is really a bliki, a collection of political essays using a wiki engine, but it has also collected many documents on issues of interest to the owner, which includes pages on girllove and boylove. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still a kid at heart, so that counts as "by children". What makes something "adult content"? As with Wikipedia, the law doesn't require that any sort of paywall or other means of age verification be put in place. Would Wikipedia count as "adult content", given that it covers a lot of the same topics, and has even more graphic images sometimes? Come to think of it, Dramatica doesn't have any warnings about porn either. It pretty much hits you with the PunishTube ads as soon as you surf there.


 * "WikiIndex cannot become a battleground over ideologies or social agendas." Is there a rule that says that somewhere? Of course it will become a battleground over these types of semantics, because unless we're going to avoid the matters at hand, when it comes to describing these wikis' content, we have to use one word or another, and any of these words will be emotionally charged and laden with connotations that favor one side or the other. People have already showed up and tried to say we should say "childrape" instead of "childlove". The winner of these debates, in terms of what content gets kept, ends up being whoever the site owners and his sysops want it to be.


 * On the other hand, you can put it in Category:Pedophilia, because pedophilia is one of the topics that the wiki addresses. However, it's not the only one, so there can be other categories as well. Leucosticte (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No way to win with terminology concerning this subject matter
After giving it further thought, it occurs to me that there's no way to win, when it comes to trying to find a one-word or even two- or third-word term for these phenomena. The only way to come up with an accurate description is to use about six or twelve words (e.g. "sexual relationships involving adults and non-adults") and that might be too cumbersome. See e.g. http://childwiki.net/wiki/Orthosexual or http://childwiki.net/wiki/Pedosexuality to get an idea of some of the complications and nuances involved. Leucosticte (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)