Pedophile vs. Ephebophile: What's the difference?

Great Debates
1

Well, obviously, the difference, technically speaking, is the ephebophile is attracted to the post-pubescent, and the pedophile the pre-pubescent. There are likely to be significant neurological and psychological differences, in addition to the more obvious sings of endocrinological difference, between either’s object of affection.

So there are at least a few of the concrete qualities dilineating the pedophile from the ephebophile. I think what we’re generally interested in is the question of propriety. Is there, or should there be, any substantial difference, in terms of ethics, between a man who engages in sexual activity with a boy who is 10 and a boy who is 13? 16? 17? Is puberty really a good delineator? Is the age of 18 any better? In light of the whole Foley scandal, and the constant reminder that “pedophile” is not likely to be an accurate description of the man, I do wonder what it is we’re dealing with. Is it a problem of paraphilia? Is it limited to workplace ethics and other codes of conduct, and hence no true impropriety would have occurred if boys Foley might have approached were casual aquaintances rather than low-level interns?

I tend to think that mature men and women having sex with minors, even sexually-developed minors, is an arrangement fraught with risk of abuse. It’s one thing for a 19-year-old to be sleeping with a 16-year-old. It seems to me quite another when the elder could be the younger’s parent or grandparent. Somehow that crosses a line in my mind, though I confess I’m not good at articulating it, and I wonder why the laws we have about age-of-consent and the definition of minor are mostly silent on the entire issue. I assume what Mr. Foley did was wrong not only in the realm of workplace ethics, but in the realm of sexual abuse. But others might strongly disagree with that assessment, and I’m interested in an honest debate on the subject. I just don’t know any other way to resolve my own questions on the matter.

2

Go to a Google Search on Images of Tracy Lords. (Warning I have "Moderately Safe Search on, so YMMV!)

I am sure that you can find an image of Ms Lords during the height of her Porno career when she was just 17. If you are a normal red blooded hetero man, you *should * find that image sexually exciting. It may be illegal, but it’s perfectly normal.

Then, find an image of a 6-11yo girl in a bathing suit. If you find that image sexually arousing, you are a mentally ill pervert; and need help, if not locking up.

That’s the difference, OK?

3

If you want honest debate, why’d you start this in the Pit?

Anyway, I think there is a huge difference between being attracted to 9 year olds and being attracted to 17 year olds, and there should be a legal distinction. The problem, of course, is that we’re dealing with a continuum, and laws have to be made with specific ages explicitly listed.

Nothing magically happens when someone turns 18 ( or 17 or 16), but we generally recoginze certain levels of responsibilty as teenagers get older. !6 year olds can drive and be tried as an adult for certain crimes. I have no problem with laws that make it a lesser offense (but still an offense) to solicit or have sex with a minor if the minor is 16 years old or older. I’ll let the professional psychologists tell us if the behavioral mechanism is different when pre-pubescent children are invloved. I would assume it has more to do with control than sex, but what do I know?

4

Because I’m a nitwit.

Mods! Heeellllp!

5

I get what you’re saying, but I think we already understand the primal nature of the beast. The practical issue is what should I do with that 17-year-old when she’s right in front of me?

6

Yep, you’re a nitwit. I just wanted to get that in before this thread is moved to GD. :stuck_out_tongue:

7

The answer is: ignore your body and obey the law.

And in the case that the law says it’s OK, as it would here in the UK, have a long hard look at yourself, and be prepared to risk the opprobrium of society by being thought of as a creep and a perv.

8

Indeed. And why, do you think?

9

And now that the thread has been moved into Great Debates, the insults, (even humorous), will be held in abeyance, just to avoid any ill feelings or hijhacks.

[ /Moderating - after the move ]

10

Thanks, tom! Insults off, though I still feel like a doofus.

11

Court her, with no sex and then marry her (in many states, IANAL, YMMV) After you get married, you can have sex. IANAL.

If you don’t want to marry her, then wait a year.

You are allowed to think she is sexy without being thought a pedophile. You are not allowed to act on it without certain legal problems- unless of course, you get married (I think the age to marry- with parental consent -is as low as 15 in some states?? :confused: )

12

Well in some states and in UK you could ask her out, spend some time together, then ask her to marry you. If she is mature for her age she might even do the same for you. In other places marriage at that age would be illegal.

13

Because That’s The Way It Is. I don’t make the rules.

There’s another GD fairly pertinent to this this at the moment.

14

And what if you are 16 ? Are you both creeps and pervs ? If you have sex, should you both be jailed ?

15

I made the assumption, based on Loopydude’s phrasing of the question, that he was older than the 17-year-old he alluded to.

Over here in the UK, if you’re both 16, you can bang away like a shithouse door when cholera’s in town, with very little opprobrium at all. In countries where it’s against the law, I’d say be a bit careful.

16

Insulting oneself is, as far as I know, permitted in every Forum.

17

You guys do realize that in a heck of a lot of places it’s legal to sleep with a 17-year-old?

18

Indeed, and I’ll stick to my answer as given in that thread.

19

Neither creeps nor pervs, and you should consult you local laws to see if it is illegal. However, even if legal it still may not be the wise thing to do as you are likely not mature enough to consider all the consequences.

20

I don’t have the current DSM at hand, but from what I understand, your basic distinction stands: both pedophiles and ephebophiles are attracted to “underage” people (which is a matter of political jurisdiction–making the transgression of it an entirely artificial “illness”–which is pretty stupid, really), with puberty/secondary sexual characteristics being the difference between the former and the latter.

Most people would probably say an unreserved “YES!” to your first question. My “yes” might be a lot more reserved, as I don’t believe that age is ultimately any better of a standard of appropriateness than eye color or shoe size. It seems more of an excuse to complain than anything else. It depends too much on the individuals involved.

This is a good question (some cultures say “yes,” btw), as one of the theses for condemning sex with pre-pubescent children is that they can’t reproduce, and therefore it’s an abomination of the worst kind.

But lots of people can’t reproduce: post-menopausal women, post-hysterectomy women, post-vasectomy men, gay couples (at least with each other). Calling the sexual attraction in those relationships sick and wrong is mostly recognised as incorrect, so clearly “it’s wrong because they can’t reproduce” isn’t a valid argument against sexual interest in prepubescents (there may be one, but that ain’t it).

Well, then…thanks for dictating to the rest of us. It’s so nice to know that SOMEONE has enough sense to have a valid opinion, since nobody else does, and all…Oh, and being judgmental probably isn’t wrong unless someone other than you engages in it, yes?

Look (in all seriousness): there seem to be at least two components to sexual attraction: reproductive drive, and physical gratification. Given the prolifery of birth controlly things (pills, RU-486, condoms, etc.), it’s pretty clear that reproduction (while sometimes a desired outcome) is not generally the purpose of physical contact.

The main point of sexual contact is (hopefully mutual) physical gratification. This does not require a partner of opposite gender any more than it requires a partner posessed of reproductive viability. The contention that being sexually aroused by a child is a sign of being a “mentally ill pervert” may be popular, but it doesn’t have any factual basis. Those people don’t “need help, if not locking up,” any more than gay people do, or interracial couples do.

The fact that YOU don’t approve of them isn’t their fault, and not their obligation to accommodate.