Talk:Ephebophilia

This son of a bitch is fulla crap. He bases his designation of adult attraction to minors as a disorder is based on ONE article that he continally harps on!! Allow me to quote straight from Wikipedia's article on Pedophilia:

"Ephebophilia, also known as hebephilia, is the condition of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to adolescents. These terms are used in contrast with pedophilia; however, in jurisdictions where the legal age of consent is higher (like USA and Britain), pedophilia is sometimes used more broadly in a non-medical sense to describe both ephebophilia and attraction to younger children; in effect, any person younger than the legal age of consent. Ephebophilia does not have broad academic acceptance as constituting a paraphilia."

AND- if that's not proof enough for you, here's an article that cites a Sex Researcher who has a different view:

http://www.femmerotic.com/wordsamps/nonficsamp2.html

External links

May I ask why we an external link "Catholics United for the Faith - Sex abuse position paper" that reads "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial." is appropriate here, but a link to an organization that helps people with chronophilia by encouraging them to seek psychological treatment is not? Get-back-world-respect 00:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

adolescentilism

This term refers to someone who pretends to be an adolescent, not to someone who is attracted to them. Not a synonym, so I removed it. Isomorphic 05:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikimedia 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)

We must also guard against those who are too emotive and overtly counter-ephebophile to neutrally edit or contribute to these articles. These individuals should also be added to such a list. --Oldak Quill 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

What about women's attraction to adolescent boys? Is it common? The article concentrates on men and girls for some reason. Paranoid 00:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good point. My guess is that the studies cited have only been conducted on males. Also, I noticed that you added something to the article about Japan: "sexual relations with teenage girls are...often illegal". I may be wrong, but isn't the age of consent in Tokyo 12?

Acegikmo1 04:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The national age of consent is 13, but most local prefectures have higher ages of consentNik42 01:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sexual desire of a female adult for an adolescent male is not overly well documented, with the possible societal cause whereby (pre-)adolescent males often may not believe that it is culturally wrong to be sexually active with an older female and may rather interpret it as a status symbol or something to be sought out rather than reported or guarded against. Calosiad 10:40 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

A study on human male preferences showed that all males in the study from 7 years and up preferred the faces of 17-year-old girls. - Over what?

Presumably, over faces of older females.

That's a big presumption. Without additional specificity, one must assume the preference was over all other faces.--not logged in 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In Japanese society the attraction towards teenage girls (high-school students) is a widespread cultural phenomenon. The manifestations of such attraction, such as school uniform fetishes and sexual relations with teenage girls are more tolerated by society than in the West, but are often illegal. - Is this reality, or just a stereotype? It sounds like just a stereotype to me, especially since the rest of the article talks about how attraction towards teenage girls is (supposedly) a universal phenomenon.

These are facts, so I suppose it's reality, not just a stereotype. There are many things in Japan related to teenage girls as a sexual fetish that are unheard of in the West. This is not a judgement, this is just an observation. Despite the fact that attraction towards teenage girls is an international phenomenon, some of its manifestations can be found only in Japan (and perhaps neighbouring countries with similar cultures). Paranoid 20:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this article needs some major cleanup. -Branddobbe 21:41, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Be bold in cleaning it. Though I don't really think this article is in particularly bad shape.... Paranoid 20:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed section

Some argue that only men who consistently prefer prepubescent girls are practicing an unsound reproductive strategy (pedophilia), while men who prefer postpubescent girls may practice a very sound reproductive strategy (Ephebophilia). Sociobiological research shows that all primate males prefer young females. A study on human male preferences showed that all males in the study from 7 years and up preferred the faces of 17-year-old girls.

Who argue this? What study? The argument doesn't really belong in the elucidation of this article, but in an elaboration on social norms and sexual behavior -- perhaps its own section in sexual activity. +sj+ 11:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History

A fuller discussion of this subject, appropriate in this article, would acknowledge that this (in a heterosexual context) has only recently been viewed as abnormal or deviant, it being common in the Middle Ages, for instance, for much older men to marry young damosels. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Cultural norms?

On the topic of Brazil, I've noticed some fishy (at least to my eyes) examples there. I'm looking on Google right now, and Daniella Sarahyba did indeed date Marcio Garcia, with the obvious big age difference. But Sarahyba would be 13 as of 1999.

I have a hunch that they met much later than 1999, but I can't confirm this. There are no English articles out there that state this "age gap" between the two up front and are non-Wikipedia related, and the rest of the articles are written in Portugese, which I can't read. So if any of you out there who can, could you check the facts on the Brazil section? --Bash 03:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Brazil

There were no sources at all for any of the claims about Brazil. Please feel free to re-add them if a source (newspaper article, etc.) could be added. I've left in the claim about cultural norms in Brazil but have tagged this article as needing better sources. --Joshua 17:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't vandalise my user page just because you don't like my edit. If you feel that Brazilian ephebophilia is "totally true", then please make an appropriate edit with appropriate sources. --Joshua

loli and shota-con

Bold textLolicon and shotacon frequently reffer to pedophilia. The wikipedia loli article describes it as an attraction to prepubescent girls and has a picture of one, and the shota-con article seems to suggest this as well. Lotusduck 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Lolicon says "prepubescent" and "8-13", shota-con similarly says prepubescent. Lolicon in america especially refers to pedophilia. Please explain how it refers to ephebophilia. Lotusduck 00:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cause that is what it said in the lead. I'll defer to your expertise. -00:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah thanks. It is confusing because Nabokovs lolita is post pubescent and gothic lolita is something else entirely. Maybe I'll try and change the other article. Lotusduck 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Lolita" may have a different meaning in Japan than in the West. -Will Beback 01:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably 'lolicon' refers to the late stages of pedophilia and the early stages of hebephilia on average, best to say it addresses both since both are fetishes, and even with the older girls they tend to be look youthful. It definately doesn't include nepiophilia though, a separate word called 'toddlerkon' addresses that fetish. Tyciol 12:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Asian society

"In Asian society, the attraction towards young girls is a widespread cultural phenomenon." strikes me as absurd; to group cultures from Arabia to India to Thailand to the Yupiks in northeastern Russia to China and to Japan as one group is impossible. (Not to mention that word Asian often means different things in American and British English.)--Prosfilaes 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Main Article Sounds Quite "American"

I wish not to offend my American sisters and brothers, but this article attempts to skate a fine line of trying to be impartial, but failing with the hints that "Ephebophilia" is a psychological disorder when largely it is not. I could so tell this article was written by and for Americans, as it mentions some puritanistic obsessive views as normal piece of the debate, as if their extreme views are that of a huge moderate social group.

Pedophilia is a serious psychological disorder, and is completely unrelated to Ephebophilia.

Leave it to arrogant Homo Sapiens, to see humans as separate of animals, especially in terms of the distinction between sexual maturity and bodily maturity. When it comes to studying reproductive behavior of other species, sexual maturity and adulthood is seen as one and the same. Enter some obsessive social conservatives to make a quasi-scientific debate out of this. Interesting how Western Europe, and even to a lesser extent, Canada largely looks at this as hardly a note of contention. If only everyone should start seeing nature as an ally and not the enemy.

C'est la vie.

I agree totally with the former opinion. If one reads biographies of many notable people; you will find many examples about succesfull romantic relationships with a adolescent outside United States. You would regard Gabriel García Marquez or Antonio Machado, who knew their future wifes when the former was 13 years old or the later 15 years old, as abnormal?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.25.133.121 (talk) 15:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Lolita

I don't think Lolita should be used as an example. She was 12 in the novel and hence pre-pubescent. Lolita would fit better under pedophilia.

No "hence" about it. Even at the 50th percentile, Lolita at 12 would have been entering the later stages of puberty. At the 3rd percentile, Lolita would have been physically mature in all aspects. Having not read Lolita, I don't know what the case was.--Prosfilaes 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful statistics. Skinnyweed 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A twelve-year-old who has begun menstruating is hardly "physically mature in all aspects."

3% of the Caucasian population are at the end of puberty by all the standard indicators by 11 years and four months, at a stage achieved by the average Cacucasian girl at 15. That's physically mature, and definitely in the ephebophilia range. See the puberty article.--Prosfilaes 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Um.

Twelve-year-olds are short?

You are delusional?

Ignoring the personal insult, the rate of height growth is declining by the time of menarche and girls that reach menarche have on average another two inches to grow. If their adult height will be 5'6, not uncommon, they'll be as tall as the average adult female at twelve.--Prosfilaes 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

...

...

...

DanB DanD 00:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, zany menarche-fixations aside, Humbert defines the range of his attraction in the book: girls from age nine to age fourteen.

I've replaced Lolita with Marguerite Duras's The Lover. Good idea?

DanB DanD 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Lolita should be included in the page because her name is pretty much synonymous with this sort of fixation. Her character in the book was already pubescent, though of course not fully so. But Humbert's attraction was based on that. He was obsessed with her emerging womanhood, rather than the premature time before, or the corrupted time after. As DanD noted, his fixation was on girls age nine to fourteen, which is just a little higher than the thelarche when breasts begin to grow and is about the exact range for the menarche. At the age of 12 Lolita was easily in the middle of adolescence and is hence a good example of the object of an ephebophile's love.

Freagul 09:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pathological, probably, but not for this reason

In regards to:

Others argue that a consistent preference for adolescents is merely normal attraction to individuals at or near the peak of their sexual capability, and reflects a biologically normal reproductive strategy [citation needed](in contrast to a preference for pre-pubescents, which does not and is therefore pathological).

There are a couple problems with this. For one thing, it doesn't say who argues which is bad form in itself (I cringe when I see the phrase "some argue" in wikipedia without attribution). And for another, whoever it is that argues this probably isn't much of an authority because they apparently don't know much about what makes something a pathology. Whether something is pathological or not has nothing to do with reproductive stratagies. The only people who think this are people that know the a bare smidgling of evolutionary theory (something about "survival of the fittest"), but neglected the important stuff that actually makes one understand where its applicable and where its beyond its scope. Pathology has nothing to do with reproductive strategeies. For illustration: a male wearing a condom while having sex with a female is not a good reproductive strategy, nor is homosexuality, but these behaviors are certainly not pathological. As a matter of fact, some behaviors that are great reproductive strategies would be deemed pathological by most people. (Ghengis Khan raping thousands of women; or men who move around impregnatating women after promises of marriage after which they skip town to do it again).

It doesn't matter if our biological drives make a certain type of sexual attraction "normal" within a biological framework. That has nothing to do with whether it is considered pathological or acceptable by society. What DOES determine that is cultural norms. And in our society, for better or worse (probably better--for ephebophilia I mean, obviously for pedophilia--IMHO, but thats irrelevant) has normalized to deeming it wrong.

Anyhow, I'm removing the material, until the argument is attributed to a published source. (but even then, it would be iffy because the person making the argument would probably not be much of an authority, but as long as its attributed to an important author--theres no dirth of important authors with very little understanding of what makes something pathological--it'd have to be grudgingly accepted as "an argument" I suppose)Brentt 18:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the material due to its being unsourced, but I absolutely reject the notion that pathology is something that can be determined by political fiat. Going by this reasoning, criticism of government is pathological because in Soviet Russia government critics were judged shizophrenic and interned in mental hospitals. Or, a behavior is pathological up to the border but no longer pathological in the neighboring country. Haiduc 11:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

lets continue this on our talk pages. Brentt 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pathology is a medical term. For something to be pathological means that it is related to a disease, in this case, one would assume a mental illness. In this respect, it would be wrong to call Ephebophilia a pathological condition because it diverges from a cultural norm. If one is going to use the term pathological in its non-medical sense of "diverging from normal", one should point out that they are not using it in the medical sense, and allow that Ephebophilia has not been divergent in all cultures, nor over the course of history. --nli

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.175.67.48 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

If we're gonna remove that because it's unsourced then theres a whole lot of other things in that article that are unsourced that need removing.

69.30.182.166

$0.02: Pathological means leading to the disease or death of the organism. It applies to individuals, not species. Bad reproductive strategies may be bad for survival, but they're not pathological unless they also tend to kill the individuals of the species. Imho.Eaglizard (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that an individual is not pathological unless their pathology leads to their death...considering that pathological can also mean relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual and compulsive. Either way, the above debated text has been removed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amant.jpg

Image:Amant.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)