The ephebophile is attracted to someone who’s physically mature, but who isn’t necessarily mentally, emotionally, or socially mature.
If the mental/emotional/social immaturity is part of the attraction, this strikes me as unhealthy on the part of the ephebophile. If the attraction is purely physical, it’s perfectly normal to be physically attracted to someone who’s physically an adult. But if all you care about is the strictly physical attraction, you’re shallow.
The pedophile is attracted to someone who’s physically immature. (They’re almost certain to be mentally/emotionally/socially immature as well; these other kinds of immaturity may or may not be part of the attraction). This is not normal. Which does not, in and of itself, make it wrong; homosexuality isn’t the norm either.
In any of these cases, acting on said attraction is what’s reprehensible, with the degree of reprehensibility depending on the degree of mental/emotional immaturity of the immature person and on the degree to which the older person used his (or her) greater maturity, experience, and power to manipulate or take advantage of the younger person (as well as perhaps other factors).
Age-of-consent laws and other such rules and judgments are perhaps somewhat arbitrary, but they’re necessary unless someone invents a reliable maturity-ometer.
Since “pervert” is generally defined by society, if society calls someone a “pervert” for being attracted to prepubescents, then this definition does indeed have a “factual basis”.
jjimm: Point taken, but it fails to refute my position. Sure, if the word “pervert” is ‘generally defined by society,’ then it has a factual basis from that standpoint (however artificial).
But what I said was:
If you wish to contend that society is allowed to construct facts out of thin air, feel free to do so; but my point was that calling someone a “mentally ill pervert” doesn’t make them so…unless you’re contesting that it does…in which case, I would disagree with you.
I’d welcome a clarification on this (to fight MY ignorance, if no one else’s) but my understanding of the term is attraction to post-onset-of-puberty (exhibition of secondary characteristics) but below legal age of consent in that particular jurisdiction, thus making its categorization as a paraphilia ludicrous.
It’s a legal definition, not a medical one.
Mentally/emotionally/socially maturities don’t enter into it.
There’s no “artificiality” about it: that is how it is defined. As for “allowed” - by whom? Society is as society does. The assertion that a paedophile is “mentally ill”, I agree is debatable.
Having, I believe, discussed related matters in another thread a while back, I believe your thoughts on this matter to be very out of kilter with “the norm”, however artificial you think it. But I presume you agree with the coercion argument?
Anyway, this thread is about ephebophiles, not paedophiles.
My thought: ephebophilia (technically the attraction to teenage boys, though sometimes used in the generic, common-gender sense) and hebephelia (to teenage girls) is generally regarded as only mildly skeevy, not as in “castrate him and then lock him up for life anyways” evil as true pedophilia is regarded.
The logic behind age of consent, insofar as there is something in-forming the concept, fits with Thudlow’s point: It is unlikely that any physical harm will result to the younger partner in a consummated ephebophilic relationship (presuming normal development, no STDs, and no resulting pregnancy) – but there may be psychological harm from too-early relationships with an adult partner. (Same-age sexual relationships are not free from this either, but at least avoid any sense of dominance by the older partner.)
I think the sense is that many 16-year-olds might be able to form mature consent to enter into sexual relations – but there are more than a few not mature enough. And ranging downwards from there, the proportion of those who can consent in any meaningful way plummets. Note that this is not speaking of the ability to conceptualize engaging in sex – the typical 14-year-old boy is quite capable of grasping what a blowjob is, or what it would be like to fuck the college-age neighbor girl, and may be enthusiastic about either or both – but in being0un able to grasp the emotional consequences of engaging in such acts. Society protects that degree of innocence by age-of-consent laws.
I was using the term in the OP’s sense; I don’t know what the official correct definition is. And I was pointing out that someone who is below legal age may very well be physically mature but immature in other ways, but I didn’t mean to imply that these other sorts of immaturity were a factor in the definition of an ephebophile.
My bias reflects the concern others have mentioned, that kids in their early-to-mid teens run a pretty high risk, inversely proportional to age, of being emotionally incompetent to consent, even if, sometimes, they are deemed legally so. Also, the potential for exploitation by more sophisticated adults strikes me as likely being roughly proportional to age. Simply put, lack of maturity is a potential problem, and a great disparity in maturity/sophistication may leave the child ill-prepared to defend him/herself from emotional manipulation and other enticements (like, say, drugs or booze) that might be used to ply them. I can’t help it: There just seems to me to be something wrong with a middle-aged man who beds a 16-year-old. It gets considerably worse the close the kid gets to puberty. What, after all, beyond physical attributes, could be the nature of the attraction? While I certainly can understand the basic visual and physical response to lovely young bodies, trying to get a teenager in the sack does not at all strike me as picking on one my own size.
I don’t know. I was sexually active very early in life and have often aggressively pursued those who were older and of legal age. I’m not certain that those who were receptive to my advances should be considered perverts. I mean, how else could I have experienced those afternoon delights, if they had to consider themselves perverts for doing it.
I don’t think “ephebephilia” has either a legal or medical definition. I couldn’t find it in the DSM IV TR online , and the law doesn’t care what you want to do or why you want to do it. It only cares if at you least attempted it.I don’t believe ephebophilia is considered pathological in and of itself. The term is mainly used, as far as I can tell, to distinguish between those attracted to actual children and those attracted to adolescents, and perhaps in treatment for those who do have difficulty due to this preference.
My understanding of the term is different from yours , though. I understand ephebophilia to refer to an adult with an exclusive or primary attraction to post- pubescent adolescents ( which usually refers to those up to age 19), regardless of the age of consent in a particular jurisdiction. Not illegal if there’s no sexual activity with those below the age of consent, not pathological if it’s not causing any problems ( as it might to a high school teacher). But it’s not a person who is mostly attracted to adults with the odd adolescent mixed in. It’s the one who will usually or always prefer the physically mature 15 year old ( or 12 year old ) to the equally attractive 25 year old. And that is where mental/emotional/social maturities might enter into it.
I don’t think anyone can really grasp those consequences without engaging in the acts. You can’t explain an emotion to someone who hasn’t experienced it any more than you can explain color to a blind man.
read carefully what he says. He is not talking about actions, he is talking about sexual arousal. This depends on the object being of a particular kind rather than carrying out an act. Sexual arousal by a societal non-norm object (same sex, animal, physical object, situation, incorrect age, inappropriate relationship, inappropriate role etc.) is a supposed difference from the norm, but many people will admit to phantasising about such non-norm objects at some time with no intent to pursue them in real life. Thus far there are similarities between these- they are objects of phantasy and are thought processes available to anyone.
This disorder is characterized by either intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (typically age 13 or younger). To be considered for this diagnosis, the individual must be at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child.
I think the law is trying to define things that we are just not hard wired to do, and this causes a lot of confusion. The issue of age of consent, and parental notification of abortions fall into this, and it boils down to when does a person get to control and take responsibility for their sexuality.
You might be right about that. I always thought that once age-of-consent was reached, there were no objections to slap a label on. Always learning, I is.
This struck me a bit: if the person usually or always prefers the 15 year old (or 12 year old), then how is the 25 year old “equally attractive”? Maybe so to other people, but not to the one in question, surely.
sigh
Do you know how many times I (and others) have seen this tossed out as a dismissive criticism sans content on various subjects?
Pseudo Debate Excerpt:
Me [pseudoquote]: "You know, some of the arguments against pedophiles (‘they’re gross, they’re icky, they’re evil, they deserve to die!’) bear a disturbing resemblance to some of Fred Phelps’ arguments against gays (‘they’re gross, they’re icky, they’re evil, they deserve to die!’), or the Klan’s arguments against black guys with white girlfriends or vice versa (“they’re gross, they’re icky, they’re evil, they deserve to die!). What’s more, the rationale seems to be the same (‘We don’t approve of who they want to fuck, so THERE!’). Shouldn’t that tell us something about ourselves?”
Outraged poster [pseudoquote]: “Please tell me you didn’t just equate gays and pedophiles!!”
Even more outraged second poster [pseudoquote]: “How DARE you equate me with Fred Phelps!!”
Livid third poster [pseudoquote]: “You’re saying that a vote against racisim is a vote for kiddie-diddlers!”
Did I equate them? Of course not (they are, after all, “NOT THE SAME THINGS!!!” as critics would scream).
Did I observe a comparison between them, however? Yes, because there is a valid one (probably several). Pjen caught it; I’m not quite sure why you didn’t.
We seem to pathologize an attraction for being non-normal, and then use that pathologization as an excuse to per/prosecute said attraction. It’s happened with gay couples, it’s happened with interracial couples, it’s happening with adult/minor couples (even more so with adult/child couples). All that I’m wondering is why we can’t see a pattern here.
As I said before, there may be good reasons for our objections to such relationships, but the reasons that are given don’t seem very good to me. I touched (no pun intended) on the “it’s sick because they can’t reproduce” argument (which doesn’t really apply to the ephebophilia subject directly, I’ll admit–but ephebophilia is often called pedophila. Jay Leno just informed me last night that Mark Foley isn’t an alcoholic, he’s a gay pedophile. :rolleyes: Shoot, I remember hearing someone at work call Michael Douglas a pedophile because he married Katharine Zeta Jones), but there’s also the whole “it’s abuse because they can’t give informed consent” argument, which I think is also bogus, beacuse (whether with children or adolescents) there are tons of things that young people cannot give “informed consent” to that we impose upon them/allow them to do anyway. If we’re going to pick and choose sex as a bugaboo on some basis, we need a better reason than those two, IMHO.
I agree with you here. I think there’s a discrepancy between respecting a person’s right to their own sexuality (the right to say “NO!” or “YES!”) and the right of someone else to overrule that choice. To me, there seems to be a conflict there: if a minor/child says “NO!” then we are supposed to (nay, we are required to) respect their decision. However, if they say “YES!” then they are supposed to suddenly be unable to make an informed decision and we have to overrule them by saying “NO!” for them. Even we (as the adults in their lives who are charged with their well-being) have mysteriously lost our right to make an informed decision on their behalf…unless we say “NO!” too.
So, evidently, someone is able to make an informed decision about sex with a minor, but it doesn’t seem to be any minors, nor does it seem to be any adults. One has to wonder who exactly is qualified to make that decision if it isn’t any of us.
But whether it’s an observable manifestation of reality or merely a categorization of that manifestation to cater to prevailing prejudice can be an artifical distinction. We can recognize that (again, not to rile the “how DARE you bring race into this” cheerleaders) dark-skinned people are genetically the same species as light-skinned people (with their skin being an observable, yet negligeble variation), but to categorize them (as was once done) as “property” or 3/5 of a white man, or second-class citizen would be (to my mind, at least) an artificial distinction, and thus unjustified as a rationale for discrimination–especially where interbreeding is concerned.
Allowed by society, which often masquerades as a unified entity when in fact it’s a pluralistic multiplicity without the capacity to rationally cope with that condition.
On a case by case basis, of course. However, the question of whether paedophilia should be considered a mental illness in general is a different question. Personally, I haven’t seen an official (legal or medical) definition that convinces me the answer should be “yes”. People who are prejudiced against it (and thus taught to condemn it indiscriminately) would wholeheartedly espouse such a diagnosis however. I would thus far have to disagree with them.
This is probably true. I don’t seem to see eye to eye with what seems to be the majority; although in my defense, the majority may be silent. Of course, the majority could be wrong. Of course, I could be wrong. But yeah, “the norm” and I have some disagreements. I simply don’t find their arguments convincing (and it is not, as has been lobbed in my direction in the past, from any personal disenfranchisement…I also think the arguments against interracial and gay marriage are irrational and unsupported by reality, but that doesn’t make me a miscegenationist nor homosexual. I suppose one could argue that the “wrongness” of them is real because some people object to them, but I could argue that the “wrongness” of them is artificial, and probably have a more factually supported position. “Community/social standards” doesn’t just refer to people that agree with a particular position unless everyone shares it. Most people use the “Standards” argument to advance their own agenda with disregard for those who disagree. I find that a contradiction).
“Coercion Argument”? Not quite sure what you’re referring to, but if you mean “coercing minors/children into sex for the sole gratification of the other person is wrong,” then I would wholeheartedly agree, but I wouldn’t limit that statement to minors/children. I think it applies to everybody.
Actually, according to the title, it’s about the distinction between the two.
If I might, upon post-post review, I’d like to correct one point:
This dichotomy wasn’t the “artificial distinction” that I meant to point out.
It is the second option: “merely a categorization of that manifestation to cater to prevailing prejudice” that is the artificial distinction I was referring to.
Genetically, there is no reason why a black person and a white person cannot breed. But when society declares it off limits because whoever’s in charge finds it offensive, then there IS an artifical distinction between them.
Now I can’t decide if that clears my point up any, or not…I hope so, anyway.
