Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 27 June 2008 (→definition(s)...: Source of 'ephebophilia'.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sexology and sexuality Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Old discussion

Also spelt ephebephilia - I'm not sure which is the prefered or most common spelling.

And doesn't it strictly mean attraction to adolescent boys? -- Daran 06:59, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

a) This spelling is the most used.

b) It is used in both ways. Often Christians refers only to homosexual ephebophilia. It is the same for hebephilia. Wildt 16:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You wrote that it was not seen as a paraphilia or disorder. Probably it was just not listed under the term you were looking for. Check . Get-back-world-respect 21:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(1) Check what? Adolescentism doesn't refer to epehebophilia, but to dressing like a teenager. The page doesn't say otherwise.

(2) E.g. John Money, who is mentioned on the site and coined the term (paraphilia), does not use paraphilia meaning a sexual disorder but just meaning sexual orientation.

(3) Why did you delete the part about ICD-10 and DSM-IV? Wildt 01:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(1) Check the link I provided as you apparently did. It is a dictionary of sexology written by a Pschology Ph.D. and covers ephebophilia as a chronophilia. Adolescentilism is defined as "the paraphilia of impersonating an adolescent and being treated as one by the partner. One of the stigmatic/eligibilic paraphilias" there. (2) Paraphilia is commonly used for sexual disorder, described in that way in our own article, defined as "a condition occurring in men and women of being compulsively responsive to and obligatively dependent upon an unusual and personally or socially unacceptable stimulus, perceived or in the imagery of fantasy, for optimal initiation and maintenance of erotosexual arousal and the facilitation or attainment of orgasm . Paraphilic imagery may be replayed in fantasy during solo masturbation or intercourse with a partner. In legal terminology, a paraphilia is a perversion or deviancy; and in the vernacular it is kinky or bizarre sex" on the page I linked to. (3) I deleted the misleading statement because it made believe ephebophilia was not seen as a paraphilia clinically, which is not the case. The articles we have do not have lists, and the web page has for Sexual Disorders not otherwise specified. Get-back-world-respect 00:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(1) I have never before heard that ephebophilia is a paraphilia NOS. It is not mentioned in DSM or ICD. If it were a disorder to like teenagegirls don't you think it would be listed (and not be NOS)?

(2) Ephebophilia is not a paraphilia, since it does not meet the general criteria (which are also listed on your site).

(3) If it was a disorder 20-50% of men would have it.

(4) If it was a disorder it would still require distress or impairment.Wildt 05:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) You read the site of the Ph.D. sexologist. Also note that pedophelia is defined as "Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)". People who feel attracted by 14 year olds are not automatically excluded, nor are people attracted to children in the process of puberty, and there is no clear line in between.

2) Proven wrong by the link of the Ph.D. sexologist. You can hold the opinion, you cannot claim it is "the truth". The behavenet site defines paraphilia as "mental disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving non-human objects, suffering or humiliation, children (Pedophilia) or other non-consenting person." Postpubescents includes those who are still children, and they are often non-consenting.

3) Other disorders like dyslexia, depression or alcoholism are very frequent, so that is not the question. I doubt that 20-50% have over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a postpubescent child or a non-consenting child. If 20-50% of the population answered they had once in their life felt aroused by a shoe it would not mean they were all fetishists.

4) So you cannot imagine that it causes distress and impairment to feel attracted to a child? To feel attracted to those you cannot reach consensus with because they are easily influenced by you and not mature enough to decide on their own or to understand the consequences? To feel attracted to those whom to have sex with is a crime? To feel attracted to those who will not remain as you like them for more than some years? Think about it. Get-back-world-respect 09:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is considered a paraphilia is based on moral and political grounds and not the result of research. Sexology is about sexual orientations and not about whether sexual acts are legally and morally acceptable. --Moonlight shadow 10:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just because you do not like it does not mean your private opinion is more important than sexologist studies like that of psychologist G.F. Pranzarone, Ph.D. Get-back-world-respect 17:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This not my personal opinon (See: Archives of sexual behavior vol. 31 no. 6 December 2002, Is pedophilia a mental disorder?). Whether an organisation of sexologists considers something as a paraphilia, is a political decision. You can not take the fact that someone classified ephebophilia as a paraphilia, as an argument to morally condemn it or legally prohibit it. It is the other way round. --Moonlight shadow 17:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be your personal opinion, which is not shared by the whole rest of the world. You seem to believe that when sexologists write something that goes along with what you like it is science, and when it does not fit with your personal preferences it is politically influenced propaganda. I do not morally condemn anyone because of sexual orientation, I condemn those who defend child abuse and those who do not search therapeutical help although they know that they have a sexual orientation that makes them potentially dangerous to themselves and others. Get-back-world-respect 21:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not consider it propaganda. There may be reasons for that a pedophile or ephebophile wants treatment. One argument for considering pedophilia a disorder was that such a therapy can be payed by the health insurance. This is a political consideration but not propaganda. So whether ephebophilia is considered a paraphilia does not say anything about ephebophilia itself.

It is not dangerous to fall in love with children at all. Thus not every pedophile needs therapy. There are/were also people (criminals?) who want to legalise certain drugs or abortion, so there is no reason, why this should be different for adult-child-sex. --Moonlight shadow 19:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The main argument why pedophiles need treatment is not it is paid by the insurance. The insurance pays it because they need it. They need it because when "over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a postpubescent child or a non-consenting child" mean that you are in danger of committing crimes, harming innocents. As many pedophiles are aware of this danger and have a bad conscience many suffer from depression, some even commit suicide. Therapy can help. The comparison with drugs is ill-matched as harming yourself by "broadening" your mind for some time does not necessarily mean you harm others. Smoking pot is not in itself directed towards driving under the influence of an illicit drug. Pedophelia's very nature makes pedophiles act on children, often in a harmful and therefore forbidden way. Get-back-world-respect 23:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find the sentence "From a biological point of view, ephebophilia is not considered a disorder or perversion" strange. The terms "disorder" and "perversion" come from psychology, not biology, as far as I know. Get-back-world-respect 23:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's meant to introduce the idea being expressed in the rest of the paragraph. Still, I see your point. What do you propose?

Acegikmo1 20:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just delete the sentence. As you rightly say, it is covered in what follows. Get-back-world-respect 00:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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-Misplaced Pages 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)

How old were Romeo and Juliet again? Should there be a mention of Shakespeare in this article as well? Or should it just be replaced entirely with a redirect to "Politically Correct" Zaphraud (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (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)

I agree that Lolita should be included for the above reasons in favour. Terrasidius (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2008 (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 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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)

awareness

on the bit "Some adolescents are unable to understand the physical, emotional, and social consequences of sexual activity..." I would say that most adults dont concern themselves fully with all those considerations, so its not that people cant understand, its that they choose not to think about the deeper ramifications. Terrasidius (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that just your opinion? One I don't agree with as it happens. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, no I only wanted to get my two pence in there :) But I do think that looking at the rising divorce rates, gradual fall of religious influence over (most) peoples private affairs and a more liberal attitude in society, in general, towards sex and related things that people are (generaly) alot more relaxed as far as asking themselves the big questions of their sexual, psychological and ethical motivations regarding their sex lives et cetera. -EDIT- and of course young people are alot more sophisticated about such things nowadays.Terrasidius (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Distinguish-pedophilia tag?

I agree with Flyer22. Ephebophilia is an uncommon term that is easily confused with pedophilia by laypeople. I think including the tag is relevant and would be helpful to readers.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That tag is a statement needing a source. Including the tag is implying there should be a distinction between attraction to "children" and attraction to people "ages 15-19". Making that statement without any references is not helpful — it is an unsourced claim to be removed.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not unsourced, not POV. Pedophilia isn't the same thing as ephebophilia. Otherwise I suppose all those people sexually attracted to a then 17-year-old Britney Spears are pedophiles?

Tweak to "prepubescent children". Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the word pedophile and the word ephebophile were invented by the same guy (Krafft-Ebing). It would be pretty bizarre to do that if he didn't intend for the words to be used differently.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, it is unsourced and as such it is pov. No matter who invented the word for what purpose, and who is attracted by whom, it still needs references. Adding that tag to the article is not NPOV — it needs references.

This article would become much more interesting and factual if it detailed who is actually using the term.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Assocation (JAMA), Fagan et al. (2002) said, "The word pedophilia comes from a term coined by Krafft-Ebing—pedophilia erotica—which literally means the erotic love of children...The term “ephebophilia” or “hebophilia”) has occasionally been used to denote an inordinately high sexual attraction to postpubescent adolescents" (p. 2459). Fagan, P. J., Wise, T. N., Schmidt, C. W. Jr., & Berlin, F. S. (2002). Pedophilia. Journal of the American Medical Assocation, 288, 2458-2465.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And who is saying "has occasionally been used to denote an inordinately high sexual attraction to postpubescent adolescents" should not be interpreted as paedophilia? Your reference above is just confirming that "someone" wants to make a distinction. What in the article, as it is now, is confirming this? Who is saying these two terms should not be confused with each other?

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are legitimate cultural and psychological constructions concerning the two attractions. That is why they are given separate articles. That is why we urge readers and editors not to confuse the concepts. We are not saying that there is no grey zone between them. forestPIG 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What "legitimate" constructions? Adding a tab saying they should not be confused, is saying there is no grey zone, to me. If there would be references in the article supporting this, it might be acceptable, but there are none.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic, psychological and etymological. Based on whether the object of desire has attained pubertal age.

What if we were to replace the tag (on both pages) with:

For attractions to (pre)pubescent youth see Pedophilia/Ephebophilia? forestPIG 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a tag that we could work on:

{{ otheruses4|topic|other topic|location }}

As in:

This article is about ephebophilia, an attraction to pubescent youth. For pedophilia, an attraction to prepubescent youth, see Pedophilia.

forestPIG 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not underlining the distinction should be made, and with this template Misplaced Pages is not taking a position. That's acceptable to me.

Just a note: Someone invented the word and derived it from Greek, so of course the word has an etymology. It is in use, so of course there are reasons to include it in an encyclopaedia. This does not make any specific interpretations "legitimate".

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 08:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not taking a position by stating that ephebophilia should not be confused with pedophilia. Misplaced Pages is simply relaying fact by stating that ephebophilia should not be confused with pedophilia. The article even makes this distinction, even though parts of this article need to be sourced. I do not see why the tag should not distinguish this as well. You act as though there is some debate about whether the definition of pedophilia should include a sexual attraction to teenagers. There isn't one, thus Misplaced Pages is not taking a side, but is rather clearing up confusion and ignorance some people have concerning what pedophilia truly is.

Either way, I do not largely object to ForesticPig having changed the tag to what he suggested above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no true grey zone

If there were a true grey zone, then the definition of pedophilia would also include mid to late teenagers; it does not. Saying that just because some people confuse the two or are too ignorant or lazy to distinguish between the meanings means these two might be the same thing is ludicrous. That's like saying that just because a few people may still believe the world is flat, we shouldn't clarify the fact that the world is round. Pedophilia is not just about if the person has hit puberty, but also how child-like they look, so maybe that is what you mean by "grey area". A person being sexually attracted to a 9-year-old girl who has just hit puberty is still called a pedophile due to her very much child-like appearance. The majority of mid to late teenagers, however, do not look like 9-year-olds.

The matter of the fact is...a person being sexually attracted to a 7-year-old is extremely different than being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old. And we should be clear about. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And source?

What source, besides the first one, in this article proves that ephebophilia is not the same as pedophilia? Reference #7 does, in which Dr. Frederick Berlin specifically states that they are not the same thing and talks about some people confusing the two anyway. He also notes how normal men find teenagers sexually attractive, which is quite different than finding prepubescent/pre adolescent children sexually attractive. That source and many others can be placed in the lead, further validating the difference between the two. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a grey zone. Just because there are terms making a clear-cut distinction, doesn't mean there aren't various opinions. It certainly does not make the inclusion of that template self-evident.

Just look at the article as it is now:

1. Not to be confused with pedophilia.
2. In everyday English, the term pedophilia is also colloquially used to refer to attraction to adolescents.
3. This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.'
4. ...is common among adults of all sexual orientations.
5. Additionally, above "an inordinately high sexual attraction to postpubescent adolescents" was proposed as a definition. This is very different from #4.
6. And lastly, at the top of this talk page there is a box saying: ...consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

So, there is a need for a clarification rather than underlining a distinction at the top of the article.

Not accepting the distinction is not being "lazy and ignorant" — experts have been wrong in the past and consensus do change over time. English is not my first language, but apparently most people using this language do not make a distinction when they use the term paedophilia, so having the Ephebophilia article argue about it using that template is simply not NPOV.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 08:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not some true grey zone. You say experts have been wrong in the past? You do not have to be an expert to know that being sexually attracted to prepubescent children and being sexually attracted to teenagers (as long as the teenager has not just hit puberty) is not the same thing. Common sense should tell people that they are not the same thing. Age 7 does not look anything like age 17. To say that ephebophilia is the same as pedophilia is to completely ignore puberty and age, and the fact that a lot of teenagers easily look like adults. Therefore if being sexually attracted to teenagers is a mental disorder, it would mean that being sexually attracted to adults is a mental disorder as well. Because then how does it differ from being sexually attracted to adults? Pedophilia is to be sexually attracted to child-like bodies. Ephebophilia is to be mainly sexually attracted to younger adult bodies, which are what teenagers have. Most men have admitted to being sexually attracted to teenagers (one or more) at one point or another in their lives. Natalie Portman, for instance; there was a ticker men had counting down the days until she turned 18. The same for Lindsay Lohan and other teenage girls. Obviously, these men, which included some celebrities, were sexually attracted to these girls before they turned 18 and were not ashamed to admit their attraction to these girls. Do you honestly believe this would have been the case if these girls had been age 7? Would there have been a countdown until they turned 8? Of course not! Not unless these men were pedophiles. But, really, pedophiles would have been counting backwards, not up. Obviously, there is a difference. 7-year-olds look like children, plain and simple. Most 17-year-olds look like adults; they can easily lie about their age (I sure could) and say that they are 19 or 20. Why? Because most late teenagers look no physically different age-wise than early 20-somethings. It's the reason why so many early 20-somethings can easily portray mid to late teenagers in plays, television and film. At age 16/17, I certainly didn't look any different age-wise than my two 20-year-old friends. My sister, who is 19 about to be 20, certainly does not look any younger than me, enough to pinpoint that she is a teenager. Her or her friends. And at age 25 now, I look no older than my 18, 19 and 20-year-old friends and acquaintances.

Thus, to say that being sexually attracted to mid to late teenagers is pedophilia is like saying (if we are not counting 18 and 19-year-olds as teenagers) that if you are sexually attracted to a 17-year-old, you are pedophile and are suffering from a mental disorder. But if that person was just one year older, age 18, then you are perfectly normal. Do you know how idiotic that sounds?! 17 looks no physically different age-wise than age 18. Therefore, how in the hell could being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old be pedophilia and a mental disorder but being sexually attracted to an 18-year-old not be? This is why experts must distinguish between a sexual attraction to prepubescent children and a sexual attraction to teenagers. If they did not, then they would be deeming most of the human population pedophiles. The difference between prepubescent children and teenagers is also seen in our laws, such as age of consent. To say that a sexual attraction to teenagers is the same as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children is to say that America, for exmaple, is allowing pedophilia...considering that an adult having sex with 16 and 17-year-olds is perfectly legal in some states in America. America is obviously against pedophilia, so why then would it being allowing pedophilia by having age of consent be 16 or 17 if a sexual attraction to 16 or 17-year-olds is truly pedophilia? We certainly do not see age of consent for 6 and 7 year-olds. Clearly, there is a difference. A big difference. Why is it that Brad Pitt was never deemed a pedophile when he dated a then 17-year-old Juliette Lewis when he was in his late 20s? Could it be because she was 17 instead of 7? I bet. Otherwise, his career would have been over. I doubt the fact of his being a celebrity or not would have made a difference in his "dating" a 7-year-old to the public. Clearly, there is a difference. A big difference.

So all in all, yes, anyone who does not take the time to educate themselves on what pedophilia is and rather confuses it with ephebophilia is too ignorant or too lazy indeed. Even the popular show To Catch a Predator points out that those guys (at least most of them) are not pedophiles.

It does not matter if someone wants to call a sexual attraction to teenagers pedophilia. It is not. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. So having the Ephebophilia article argue about it using that template is NPOV. And, NPOV? Notice that this article and the Pedophilia article do not argue over whether or not a sexual attraction to teenagers is pedophilia. It does not because they are not the same thing, and it is fact that they are not the same thing. People who call a sexual attraction to teenagers pedophilia mostly do it because they are not educated on the matter of what pedophilia is, do not know the word ephebophilia, or know that most other people do not know or use the word ephebophilia. If there was some true debate over pedophilia not including a sexual attraction to teenagers in its definition, then I would agree with you that it is not NPOV to state that ephebophilia should not be confused with pedophilia. But it is a fact that ephebophilia should not be confused with pedophilia. They are not the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I know your opinions about all this. Opinions are fine. However, Misplaced Pages talk pages are not forums, so lets stay on-topic.

Per my previous posts here, there are different opinions on how to define "child" - you just mentioned US states having different views. Apparently people in general do not make that distinction simply because they don't necessarily accept it. Just because someone once defined a distinction does not mean a distinction should be made. If the article should say this there should be good arguments and sourced references. So, bring your references.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 08:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you bring your references. These are not opinions. These are facts. We have brought our references. References that do not include a sexual attraction to teenagers being pedophilia. And I am well aware that this is not a forum. Your acting as though a distinction should not be made is simply ludicrous. Thus I wanted to make my points...and did. I am completely staying on-topic. You are basically saying that if a person is sexually attracted to a 17-year-old, that is pedophilia and they are suffering from a mental disorder and that if you are sexually attracted to an 18-year-old, you are perfectly normal, even though 18 looks no physically different age-wise than 17 and 17 is perfectly legal in many countries against pedophilia. You are also acting as though there is no difference between a 7-year-old's physical appearance and a 17-year-old's physical appearance. How can a sexual attraction to prepubescent children possibly be the same as a sexual attraction to a mid to late teenagers, when one has the body and look of a child and the other has the body and often the look of an adult? How can a sexual attraction to teenagers be pedophilia when teenagers themselves can be pedophiles? Clearly, if a 17-year-old guy is sexually attracted to a 7-year-old, he has problems. What you are also implying is that if an 18-year-old guy has a 16-year-old girlfriend, then he is a pedophile, because one is an underage teenager and the other is a legal adult. Society states what is the age of consent. Pedophilia is not based on the age of consent. If so, then what if the age of consent were set at age 21 in most states, would that mean that being sexually attracted to people under 21 makes you a pedophile? You see the flaw in your logic? And the flaw in people's logic calling anyone who has sex with an underage teenager a pedophile? I am simply giving points, valid points that you cannot dispute. Valid points in which show that ephebophilia is clearly not the same as pedophilia. I mean, I suppose James Cameron was promoting pedophilia when he had the 17-year-old character Young Rose in 1997's Titanic be engaged to a 30-something Cal Hockley? And Katherine Brooks, with her cult lesbian film Loving Annabelle about the love affair between a 17-year-old girl and her 30-something female teacher? Yep, pedophilia. Laughable. I suppose all the lesbians who love that film are pedophiles and love it because it is a love story between a "child" and an adult? Still laughable.

We have references. The references define pedophilia as a sexual preference towards prepubescent children. The references define ephebophilia as a sexual preference towards mid to late adolescents. Clearly, if they meant the same thing, the definitions would not exlude the other. Your wanting the definitions to specifically say "pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to teenagers" or "ephebophilia is not a sexual attraction to prepubescent children" is like saying that the definition of murder should specifically state "someone who has not maliciously taken a life is not a murderer". But, regardless, we have references that state that pedophilia should not be confused with ephebophilia, like reference #7 mentioned above. Most people, if not all, when told what pedophilia is and what ephebophilia is understand and acknowledge the difference, even if they still sometimes use the word "pedophile" to describe an adult who has had sex with a teenager. They do not go into some large debate about these definitions and say, "Oh, no, forget what the definitions are, forget what very valid medical sources say, forget that I cannot tell a 17-year-old apart from an 18-year-old, thus forget common sense. It's all pedophilia. Yep. Because that's MY definition." Um, yes, that would be ignorance. That's like saying that no matter the definition of AIDS, "I am going to make up my own definition." Well, that is simply crazy. And you are simply wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, those who want to include information are supposed to produce references when required. If that distinction is important to you -- again -- please produce a reference!

I never said ephebophilia should be specifically defined as paedophilia in the article; I just want the note claiming it should be distinguished from it should be sourced and explained (i.e. "who says so?").

Having read that entire Frederick S. Berlin interview, I can't find anything in it supporting that "ephebophilia" should not be included into "paedophilia". The related quote is simply saying:

"Some men" does not exclude paedophilia! And it is very far from me being laughable because I want to see a reference for the distinction.

Besides, most of your contributions on this talk page are longer than the article -- please try to be more brief.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 23:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some nerve telling me to be brief. Why don't you try making sense about this? You keep keep telling us to bring references when we have. The definition of pedophilia does not include ephebophilia. The definition of ephebophilia does not include pedophilia. Your not being able to accept that fact is your problem. On Misplaced Pages, those who want to include information are supposed to produce references when required, and we have. I mean, Frederick S. Berlin (now reference #6), for example, specifically states:

If they meant the same thing, he would have specified that they do and would not have been clearing up that they are not the same thing. That whole part is about clearing up the fact that the media and some people confuse the two and that the two should not be confused. His saying that "some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder" is not his saying that ephebophilia is the same or even close to the same as pedophilia. Your asking for the definition of ephebophilia to specifically state that it does not include a sexual attraction to prepubescent children is like asking that the definition of serial killer specifically state that it does not mean killing one time. The fact that the definition of serial killer means someone who kills more than one person in an obsessed spree-like style (often with cooling-off periods) of course means that serial killing is not a one-time killing "event". Well, the fact that the definition of pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children and the definition of ephebophilia is the sexual preference for mid to late teenagers...means that they are not the same thing. If they were, the definitions would include each other. It's as simple as that. We have very valid references/sources saying what pedophilia is and what it is not, and it most certainly is not a sexual attraction to 17-year-olds. And considering that 19 is included in the teenager realm, it is even more clear to say that pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to late teenagers such as 18 and 19-year-olds, who are perfectly legal adults. References/sources can even be provided that state that pedophilia and ephebophilia should not be confused. Frederick S. Berlin is even one of those sources. It is not our job to state, "Wait, maybe somehow, just somehow these references are leaving another aspect of the definition out, even though all of the references so far specify the same thing." It is our job to simply go by the references. By the references making the distinction, which they do, since neither definition includes the other, we can distingush as well.

I do not know what game you are playing here, but I am done with it.

We have brought our references/sources...and they back up what everyone has stated in opposition to your statements on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

style, not content

The discussion above contains some good debating on content issues for this article and those issues do need to be resolved. Certainly, as Flyer22 stated, ephebophilia should not be confused with pedophilia, they are not the same thing and that needs to be clear in the article. But hatnotes are a style tag, not a content issue. According to WP:HAT, hatnotes are for disambiguation, not "see also" usage. According to WP:DISAMBIG, "Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article."

"Ephebophilia" and "pedophilia" are not the same word; disambiguation does not apply unless the two topics use the same word. The question of how the different-but-related topics of pedophilia and ephebophilia overlap, or don't overlap, needs to be addressed in the text of the article, not a style-based navigation tag. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The first use of hatnotes is "to provide disambiguation of closely related terms" - they're not the same word, they're not the identical concept, but I'd guess they are close enough that they are mixed in the popular imagination. {{distinguish}} might be a good way of linking the two more explicitly as a hatnote without being more explicit in the text itself (I would venture that hebephilia's lead does the best job of the 3 pages and is something worth repeating on all 3). The terms may not be spelled the same, but the definitions are close enough that I think they should be distinguished. A hatnote is one way, a discussion is another. I may know the difference, all the editors may know the difference, but someone just reading up on it may not and it is for them that the page is written. WLU (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are good points, however hatnotes are not a good method in this situation, and not needed. Ephebophilia and Hebephilia are not common terms, there is no wide usage. Most people who see them in Misplaced Pages will be seeing them for the first time. The terms are not well-defined and are used inconsistently even in the literature because they are recently-introduced terms. They aren't in any of the major dictionaries. There is no possibility of ambiguous searching, so no need for hatnotes. (I agree that a short explanation of the other terms would be appropriate in each article; in the pedophilia article, it should not go in the lead though, that would be a distraction from an already-complex topic).

Maybe there will be consensus for the hatnotes anyway. If so, {{distinguish}} is the only appropriate option because the definitions of these terms are not simple and cannot be summarized in a few words within a hat note. On pedophilia there has been endless arguing about the wording of the article lead, and the definition in particular, for years - not an exaggeration. So if there is a hatnote, stay away from definitions and let the article text handle that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Great points by you both. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm...spam a section to all three just below the lead containing referenced discussion of the distinctions between the three. Ideally reference the best definition of each, and a fourth reference saying that they're not well distinguished, often confused in both popular and scientific literature. Short, called ==Definition== and 6 sentences max:

A good imaginary reference would work, but if not then WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR may be appropriate (if consensus can be reached). Otherwise, a {{distinguish}} hatnote would be my next preference. Of course, this depends on how good the references I've cribbed from the pages, and the existence of my imaginary reference, are. WLU (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

definition(s)...

Actually, age will never (and probably should never) make a good distinction. Attractions probably follow the physical development of the kid's anatomy (which are rated in tanner stages).
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say any definition the reference(s) use is a good one, but my imaginary definitions use both ages and stages. And they whiten your teeth when you sleep. I mostly dumped it for my opinion and hoped that the more knowledgeable contributors would be able to fill in the blanks for me. Best would probably use tanner first and approximate ages but ultimately we're almost certain to be left culling what we can scrape together from sources. WLU (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states The term ephebophilia (sometimes confused with hebephilia) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to persons in late adolescence, ages 15-19. There are several problems with this. First, the qualifier of late adolescence, let alone the specific age range of 15-19, is commonly absent in contemporary medical and psychiatric literature on the subject. Ephebophilia is more typically construed to encompass sexual attraction to pubescents (or adolescents, but note that adolescence physically begins at the onset of puberty) in general rather than 15-19 year olds in particular. In some cases, the definition is more specific but still at odds with the one offered in the current Wiki article. For example, from the Glossary of the Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders (2003) : EPHEBOPHILIA. Sexual desire on the part of an adult for youths in the early stages of puberty, as distinct from prepubertal children. Clearly, youths in the early stages of puberty, especially girls, are considerably younger than 15-19. See Tanner, et al. An editor gave Psychopathia sexualis (1924) by Krafft-Ebing et al. for his or her source for the disputed definition. However, no specific chapter or page number is offered. I do not see anything in that book backing the definition in dispute.

With the above taken into consideration, the sometimes confused with hebephilia bit is also highly questionable. Confused? It is a fact that ephebophilia and hebephilia are often defined and used interchangeably or with considerable overlap. If we want any bit of that nature, stating sometimes confused with pedophilia instead might be more helpful.

This seriously needs an edit, but I'm quite willing to discuss the matter further first. PS: My apologies for putting this on top of the talk page. --SSovereign (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section immediately above this one - there's already a discussion and we'd welcome new conributions and sources. WLU (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. See, e.g., Feierman, J., ”Introduction” and “A Biosocial Overview,” in Feierman, J. (ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990a, pp. 1-68. Feierman, as is commonly the case, defines ephebophilia as sexual attraction to adolescents in general rather than 15-19 year olds in particular. SSovereign (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that these terms are often mixed up, i.e., a priest who fondled a 15 year old dubbed as a "pedophile priest." So let me highlight some real distinctions that the definitions must have if they are going to be at all meaningful. If pedophilia is to encompass ephebophilia, then it includes (for example) sexual attraction to 18 to 19 year old girls. In that case, pornography that is legal and mainstream in the U.S. commonly caters to pedophiles, pedophilic behavior is legal there and pedophilic attraction is simply normal. (I would argue that strong attraction to girls well under 18, but still pubescent, is normal. However, I use the example of 18 to 19 year old girls because I doubt many of you will deny that normals are strongly attracted to them.) On the other hand, the American Psychiatric Association defines pedophilia as entailing attraction to prepubescent children. Applied consistently, this would not include attraction to most girls aged 11 to 12 (girls become visibly pubescent in this range) and above as well as most boys aged 12 to 13 and above. This is consistent with definitions of ephebophilia that construe it as including attraction to pubescents/adolescents in general. This also prevents the ridiculous result of pedophilia including utterly normal attractions. SSovereign (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand on my earlier comment that this term is not well-defined: It might be best to combine this article with Hebephilia and indicate that they are recently coined terms with unclear meanings. There are no sources I've been able to find that clarify this, because each source that uses the terms, uses them in their own ways. These words are not in any of the major dictionaries, that's a big hint that they are neologisms. If you Google these terms, you will find a variety of definitions. Whatever we we write about these two terms must be specifically and directly attributed to particular authors, with careful avoidance of generalization, because there is no general usage, therefore defining the terms without attribution would be original research. I could be wrong, that's been known to happen now and then, but that's what this looks like so far. We don't have a range of dependable sources clearly defining them, and searches show contradictory definitions as we have already seen.

By the way, the article used Psychopathia Sexualis as a source for the 15-19 definition, however that book does not include either of the two terms. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points. I noted much the same regarding the misleading Psychopathia Sexualis reference. That jumped out at me, too. Added tag. SSovereign (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, SSovereign. I've always had a problem with pedophilia simply being defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, simply because I feel that it should always state prepubescent and preadolescent, given that an 8-year-old who has just hit puberty will still look 8. A pubertal 8-year-old girl would just be 8 with breasts and other pubertal anatomy. But would not a person intensely sexually attracted to an 8-year-old girl as that still be a pedophile? I mean, as I stated before, that 8-year-old girl would still look like a child, as opposed to most 16-year-old girls. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct that an 8 year old who has just hit puberty will still tend to look like a prepubescent. At the very beginning of puberty, there are scarcely any outward signs. I am not arguing that intense attraction to 8 year olds is typically non-pedophilic. However, by age 11-12 in girls puberty has typically progressed such that it is quite visible, e.g., breast budding and pubic hair. Research indicates that by 13-14, most girls have acquired waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs) favored by normal adults. By this age range they have typically hit menses and attained significant breast, areola and genital growth. There is research indicating that by before age 14, a girl has commonly already attained breast development to peak natural size (excluding extra growth related to pregnancy and the like). When it comes to pure sexual attractiveness, what do legally adult women have that these girls lack? Does it really make sense to lump attraction to a 13 year old girl (or even necessarily an 11-12 year old, considering the facts of visible pubertal development) with attraction to a 5 year old girl as both pedophilia? Not if you want the usage of pedophilia to hold up to empirical scrutiny. SSovereign (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You make some points similar to the ones I was making above to Raven in Orbit about how the sexual attraction to prepubescent children could not possibly be the same as the sexual attraction to teenagers.

Anyway, I just added a reference to the definition of ephebophilia to the lead, the source being Frederick S. Berlin. The problem is that he does not say "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to adolescents", and we all know that that is what the definition in this article should say. Why? Because if ephebophilia was simply the sexual attraction to adolescents, that would make most people ephebophiles. I mean, because really, what is the difference between being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old as opposed to an 18-year-old? Nothing, of course. It's just that 18 is more likely to be legal in reference to sexual intimacy. Not to mention, 18 is a legal adult.

If you find a valid reference to more accurately define the definition of ephebophilia in the lead, hurry up and add it, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychopathia Sexualis is, in fact, the correct source, but I suspect you might be looking at the wrong edition. That book came through multiple versions, as was common in those days. The version of Psychopathia Sexualis that was co-authored with Moll contains the term; it does not appear in the prior 1886 version, however.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics