Hebephile, a newly proposed diagnostic classification in which people display a sexual preference for children at the cusp of puberty, between the ages of, roughly, 11 to 14 years of age. Pedophiles, in contrast, show a sexual preference for clearly prepubescent children. There are also ephebophiles (from ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek), who are mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds; teleiophiles (from teleios, meaning, “full grown” in Greek), who prefer those 17 years of age or older); and even the very rare gerontophile (from gerontos, meaning “old man” in Greek), someone whose sexual preference is for the elderly. So although child sex offenders are often lumped into the single classification of pedophilia, biologically speaking it’s a rather complicated affair. Some have even proposed an additional subcategory of pedophilia, “infantophilia,” to distinguish those individuals most intensely attracted to children below six years of age.
Based on this classification scheme of erotic age orientations, even the world’s best-known fictitious “pedophile,” Humbert Humbert from Nabokov’s masterpiece, Lolita, would more properly be considered a hebephile. (Likewise the protagonist from Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, a work that I’ve always viewed as something of the “gay Lolita”).
Why most "pedophiles" aren’t really pedophiles, technically speaking | Scientific American
The meaning of the word "Pedophile" was manipulatively changed and distorted. Pedophile is a clearly defined scientific term meaning an adult that has attraction to pre-pubertal children.
We are discussing grammar, semantics, and politics of language manipulation here.
We are not defending or condoning pedophile activities.
Correct Terminology
Hebephiles, Ephebophiles, Teleiophile were grouped into the "pedophile" group. So a "worse label’ can be attached to a sexual offender. An "adolescent lover" who had a 17 year old girlfriend is called "child lover" (or rather, in a second step of vilification, child rapist). Sure helps to secure longer jail terms and to get the population angry. This is exactly identical to the manipulation that extended the word "child" from under 12 or under 14, to under 18, admittedly for the purpose of enforcing child protection laws for adolescents.
Additionally, child mutilators and murderers are usually called "pedophiles" in the press. Killing children has nothing to do with "child lovers" or sexual attraction for children.
Brooke Shields re-victimized constantly?
Thus someone gets arrested for possession of Brooke Shields 15 year photos , falsely called a pedophile, and the average Joe thinks he is a baby murderer. Note that the bikini photo of a 15 year-old becomes child pornography in case one collects the photo for sexual arousal (Copine level 4).
According to child porn persecution theory, "children" (under 18) get re-victimized whenever someone looks at their depictions.. We prevented the re-victimization of Brooke Shields through the first 10 year old photo by putting black bars at all private parts. Add to this the famous Brooke Shields movies (Blue Lagoon, …) , one can see that Brooke Shields constantly gets re-victimized thousands of times per day by people who watch these movies with an impure mind.
Infantophiles
Of course, Infant abusers can be labelled with a stronger label then "pedophile". Those attracted to 17 year olds are more ostracised by the incorrect application of the name "pedophile" or child lover, then by "teleiophile", late adolescent lover. To reach the maximum vilification, the word "infantophile" is now, correctly, created. It is undesirable that perverts that mess with infants can hide behind the word "pedophile", which could mean attraction to 9 year olds.
We are discussing grammar, semantics, and politics of language manipulation here. We are not defending or condoning pedophile activities.
There are also law abiding pedophiles who declaredly do not act upon their attraction. These, in spite of being accused merely of thought crimes, are in danger of being hurt by angy pedophile vigilantes.
Other Language manipulation ("rape", "consent")
Human-Stupidity has assailed the manipulative distortion of language is very common in the service of criminalizing adolescent sexuality. The meaning of "rape" and "consent" have been manipulatively changed, just like "pedophile" and "child".
‘Ephebe’ referred to an 18- to 20-year-old boy (in military training), not a 15- to 16-year-old one. And the word doesn’t mean ‘one arrived at puberty’, it means ‘near to early manhood’.
First of all, what is the hypothesis? That in the past or even today in some societies older men married 12-15 years old girls? That some older men find 12-15 years old girls sexually attractive?
Or is the hypothesis that it is ok today and in the society Human Stupidity lives for older men to have sex with 12-15 years old girls?
First of all I oppose language manipulation and use WRONG terminology to wrongly use for sex with 17 year olds the same term as for sex with 8 year olds.
The other statement is that research has shown that no damage can be found for most underage sex under most normal conditions. Read the research. It has happened before and is happening now in many societies.
If this is made illegal, one must not lie to say that heavy damage has been shown.
But I refrain from giving legislative advice, if politicians honestly can say it does not do much harm but we want to give draconian punishment, so be it. I am against lies, and repression and falsification of research.
It is like the prohibition of dog meat and horse meat. Not damaging, but it is against our feelings to eat our best friends. But, the punishment is not as high as for murder.
Yes, this is similar to the way the word ‘child’ or ‘baby’ is used to refer to a still-enwombed fetus, embryo, or blastosphere, in order to pretend that abortion is murder.
Adolescent/teen marriage is not child marriage.
Porn adolescent/teen is not child pornography.
Child is one who has not reached puberty (people under the age of 9). adolescent/teen is entered puberty (generally greater than 9 years old, with breast bud). And adult is who reached the reproductive capacity (usually older than 11 years old).
12 years old is the average age of menarche.
Pedophilia is the primary attraction for those who do not hit puberty (people under the age of 9). It paraphilia or disease because it is unusual to have primary sexual attraction to those who do not hit puberty because puberty is largely responsible for sexual attraction. Therefore, “normal” people have primary attraction for those who hit puberty (generally greater than 9 years old).
The majority of nature is puberty, because the goal of puberty is the reproduction of the species. So it is a big mistake to associate pedophilia adolescents.
People enter puberty to play, then one should be sexually attracted to make reproduction possible. So it is an error to extend the concept word for pedophilia abrangir adolescents. It is a mistake to say that pedophilia is attracted to “minor” because every healthy human being has sexual attraction to adolescents because they are pubescent and puberty is responsible for the attraction, seeking the reproduction of the species.
Child does not make child.
Adolescence is not part of childhood.
Adolescence is part of adulthood!
It is an abomination to call adolescents|adults of “children”.
Jewish tradition considers adult people over 12 years (woman) and 13 years (men).
The Catholic Church used the age of 7 years old, the age of reason, to consider a valid marriage and to recommend the confession.
The UN classifies child as anyone under 10 years of age and adolescent as someone between 10 and 20 years old.
But, unfortunately, the UN also use the word “child” as a synonym for “minor” (usually under 18).
Yes i suppose a sexual deviant pedophile would try to classify it to excuse their disgusting behavior.
So, instead of offering a valid criticism, you are using a logical fallacy to suggest that people are clarifying the term and opposing widely applying the term “pedophile” in order to justify behaviour?
You have nothing to add, so what you’re doing is slinging mud, by suggesting that anyone who might even suggest that attraction to adolescents might be normal is morally deranged.
How about adding something of substance?
Interesting, I was searching gerontophile and I came across this article. The word first came up in a conversion with a fellow student as she admitted to me that she is also attracted to older men.
Some background about me:
My former self confirmed bachelor Husband of almost 1 year now; is 25 years older than I am, I’m 22. I started having feelings for him when I was 14. Well started as a crush really. He resisted my advances up until 3-4 years ago. He and my father became friends when I was 12. Dad claimed he knew I was “crazy about him from the get go” so when we announced we were dating and then engaged it didn’t surprise him in the least and was happy for us. Before someone says it, NO he did not “Groom me”. He did nothing that could be considered to win me over other than just being himself. Quite the opposite really, he was always well reserved and behaved around me when I was a teen. Even if we were alone together.
Anyway, I never thought a label could be applied to me. I mean really? A gerontophile? He’s already admitted to me that he started to feel an attraction for me when I started flirting with him when I was 14. Does that make him a Hebephile? I think not. Honestly, I hate the labels. For the feminazis who give us women a bad name ~ Love is love. How I feel is how I feel. Love knows no boundaries.
Gerontophiles are attracted to really old pension age people, not teens attracted to middle age partners. Good luck with your marriage.
Other couples don’t resist for decades, rather follow their natural instincts and then get mercilessly separated by long term prison terms for the male lover.
We love to categorise. Box-up. Pidgeon-hole. Nothing worth thinking about is ever easy – only things that matter to me is you are happy with him, and he wasnt a predator. It’s not easy, because we are all diffferent.
I can think of a lot worse things that happen every day on this planet than (for example) a 28 year old british teacher running off to France with his 16yo pupil.
Out of order? Yup
Deriliction of duty? Mhhm
Actual harm done on either side?
Only when the judge sentenced the teacher to a couple of years in jail.
Philosophers hat on now – does harm have to be intended, or percieved? Or neither or both?
Well said. Just posted my own response – THEN started reading through what other people said.
Each and every scenario is unique – I know people old enough to be grandparents who act like children.
You DEFINITELY need to be on guard for predators, and there for sure is some vague age limit/age gap.
Your story is perfectly fine – if you were writing this when you were 12-16, then we’d probly have something to think about. You’re 22, says it all – who could argue you arent an adult now?
Nothing is as simple as it seems when it comes to human beings folks.
Sssh. You need to understand that Mr. Plumrose is not just one man, he is EVERY man on the planet
@BubbaHotep
Why do you assume attraction has to be mutual?
Does it follow that fat people are only attracted to other fat people? That ugly people are only attracted to other ugly people?
There are still patently obvious reasons why older men would be hardwired to prefer teenage girls, even if pulling those teenage girls would be harder than reproducing with their own age group.
65 year old men still prefer looking at naked 21 year old women to naked 65 year old women, and this isn’t disproven by the fact that 21 year old women prefer 21 year old men to 65 year old men.
All right, you win, fairplay
If hebephilia were a natural state rooted in biology, then it would also hold
true that 14 year old girls are, without provacation, attracted to much older
men. Until 8th graders replace their J Bieber posters with those of George
Clooney, I can’t see this becoming an acceptable premise
Don’t 35 year old singers attract some young girls?
Read about the Rock stars in the 1960ies and 70ies. They were all surrounded by young groupies.
And among hunter gatherers, older tribal leaders frequently get young girls as second or third wives
Today’s brainwashing made such relationships very illegal, so they happen less frequently. Older men avoid young girls like the plague, knowing that they are “jail bait”.
You say that “Parents should take care of adolescent sexuality, not judges.” .. This assumes that the parents are rational beings. What if the parents are gay rapists and infant molesters and allow the child to become one too? Or if the parents are Islam Sharia law followers, or right wing christian nuts, or Mormons, or other influenced by other such retardation? I have little faith in parents, as much faith as I do in the government.
Having faith that government
is more fit to make desicions for your family. Is a very sad comment to read. So what if the judges and government, decided that kids should breed as soon as their old enough. Would you still think the govermment has the answers? The situations you described, Happen now, with government control.
One of the reasons kids are having sex at 10 11 years old. Is because our government, has decided that they should teach kids how to have sex. Instead of what they taught us. Now they are encouraging kids to experiment, with different types of sex acts.
In 5th grade, they are giving books to the kids. Thst teach how to use a vaginal condoms. Saying they are better then regular condoms. Because you only need one, to have sex with multiple partners. They image in the book I saw. Has an illustration on how to insert the vaginal condom into the rectum. Tbe image was of a young boy inserting it into his rectum. Saying that now he is ready for anal sex. Agian the exuded the benefits of this condom over a regular one. For using with multiple partners.
I’m sorry. But you are so wrong and are the reason kids are being subjected to this depravity at a young age.
If you teach your children homosexuality is wrong. And they repeat that in school. You are likely to at tbe very least, be called in for a parent confrenss. If you don’t fall in lune. You will be visited by your local C.P.S., and accused of teaching your kids hate. And that is considered child abuss.
If you want government deciding what is best for your kids. I suggest moving to Europe. I hear the UK is a good place for big brother to watch out for you.
But as for me. I will fight for the rights of parents to raise their families as they see fit.
We didn’t grow from a new country, in only 200 years, to the worlds richest strongest nation this world has known. By letting government decide what is the best way to raise a family.
In fact. When the government started to really turn into busybodies. Is about the time we started noticing more and more kids, acting like morons in public. Now days kids are so out of control, because parents are afraid to discipline their kids. Because the government says they can’t punish them. That that is wrong.
Sorry but we are seeing your utopia unfold. And it is destroying this country. We are raising a bunch of cry babies, that are becoming more and more dependent on the nanny government. Time for that to end. And parents retake control of their kids.
“If hebephilia were a natural state rooted in biology”…
There is a real simple explanation for the biological wiring here. Men know that women have a very short period in which they can create a healthy baby. So men, especially 18-20 year olds, aren’t exactly going to marry or have a girlfriend that is 25 years old or even 20 years old as the time the woman has in order to make a baby is very short.
Therefore, 18 year olds tend to want to find a younger girl, and 25 year olds tend to want to find a younger girl. Whether it is 2 years younger or 1 year, or even a 35 year old dating a 10 year younger girl at 25, the biology and evolution drive here is extremely obvious. A man will try to find a woman younger than him, it’s as simple as that. If an 18 year old dates a 17 year old he is likely doing it because of some biological drive to beat the baby clock. If he makes the mistake of dating someone who is the same age as him he has less time to beat the biological baby clock.
Yes a woman can have a baby when she is older, but there is serious risk of the baby becoming unhealthy at birth with diseases. So when an 18 year old wants to date a 16 year old or 17 year old it is likely a biological drive. Now, when a 65 year old man attempts to date a 16 year old this could even be a desperate attempt for the man to spread his biology further, disgusting as it is. There is serious risk with older men having children, so biology should shut down a man after he’s 40 or 35 too as the sperm generated become more prone to disease. Probably why cancer kills men or they have heart attacks… evolution being nasty to humanity, trying to make healthier children by killing off men that are no good for producing babies any more.
Let’s face it any female under about 16 generally doesn’t stir things up inside us anywhere near as much as the sight of a fully developed body does
I’ve seen some very endowed 14 year olds. The likes of which have DDs. You’d easily mistake her for an older girl and then you’d probably feel uncomfortable when you learned her actual age.
I wouldn’t say it’s natural to be attracted to pre-pubescent females.
We’re hardwired to seek out people with certain physical qualities which signify their sexual maturity
I as well will testify that children have sexual urges, because i did. When i was 5 i openly declared my love for a classmate and began spending a lot of time with her and we would frequently kiss, she would initiate the kissing most of the time. My first sexual encounter was when i was 7, i asked my baby sitter to give head and she did, she was 14. so not only was attracted to my own age category but older generations as well, having dreams of relationships with them and even making those relationships happen.
FGM-infibulation in Somalia is far worse than sex between adults and teenagers.
Woooow. I love how people are doing something so wrong and yet try to justify their actions with “we’re people too” and “studies have shown” or “well teenage girls, etc. or being sold in the sex industries”. You are all disgusting, or you even human? How can you have any sexual urges towards infants, INFANTS regardless children? That’s just sick. It’s a baby, he/she are just like newborn. And then children? They are kids. Kids! They do not have sexual urges too they can’t even care for themselves and for you to try to do anything to them? Unless you yourself were raped as a child (or baby) then I can understand. Because that has been proven that children who were forced to have sex will most likely end up becoming a pedophile themselves. But, if not… You’re disgusting filthy creatures. Next thing you know it’ll be okay to sleep w animals. And if anytime in the future THIS ^^^^^ is okay… I may just have to commit suicide because that’s sick. I hope you explain how “okay” this is to police officers when you’re caught and arrested.
We don’t disagree. We are not promoting child sex or impunity.
We are talking about the DEFINITION of pedophilia, infantophilia, … We bemoan the fact that our language gets so distorted that those attracted to 17 year olds (Hebephiles, which we consider quite normal), on purpose get confused with those attracted to 8 year olds (pedophiles). To confuse you further, it seems that those who play in sexual ways with infants are mostly women. Now how much damage is done when mom fondles or licks her baby in sexual ways? Let science do the research in unbiased ways. Without censoring science if the results are not exactly how we wish they were.
Promoting scientific research about murder, riots, wars does not mean condoning such acts.
Hebephilia(10-13 or the 2nd and 3rd stage of puberty) is not normal.
there’s several historic occurrences of what you’re saying isn’t normal. If that’s not normal, then mirrors aren’t real.
Who says it’s wrong? The law? Society? Has it been given a fair scientific trial to see if it’s actually harmful, or as harmful as is commonly implied? Excuse me if I don’t believe you when you declare something wrong. I need to see some evidence first.
Children do have sexual urges. I can remember having such feelings from the time I was a toddler, literally while potty training. And I never had any sexual contact with anybody.
If children who have sex with adults become pedophiles, then we should be overrun with female pedophiles, since most men prefer the opposite sex.
Finally, it already IS LEGAL in most places for people to have sex with animals. Zoophiles do this all the time and rarely do we hear anything about it because it just doesn’t get the same attention as pedophilia.
Commenter said “Who says it’s wrong? The law? Society? Has it been given a fair scientific trial to see if it’s actually harmful, or as harmful as is commonly implied”
The “who” you are asking about, is the frontal lobes of children. Brain science says it is wrong (or will say it is wrong) because children are not capable of making decisions regarding sex at such ages due to their frontal lobes not being fully developed. Every child develops at a different rate, some mature faster than others, so drawing the line at age 21 or age 18 is just a generalization. There may be a 17 year old man or girl who is more mature than a 19 year old. However at age 12, 13, age 7, even age 16 the teen may not be fully developed enough in the frontal lobe and other sections of the brain to make an informed decision.
Heck, even 25 year old girls are probably not mature enough to deal with sex… likely never. Just look at the crazy stalker woman who can’t get over an old boyfriend and is still chasing him in her 30’s.. she’s a mental nutcase probably not mature enough ever to have sex, and shouldn’t have done so.
Saying that “even 25 year old girls are probably not mature enough to deal with sex” is one of the stupidest things that I have ever read.
Just because some 25 year olds do stupid things doesn’t mean that 25 year old women can’t “deal with sex.”
If 25 year old women are not mature enough to deal with sex then how is humanity supposed to reproduce?
you are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist.there is no connection with early sex and a change of orientation.
you can now commit suicide, there’s women advocating for sleeping with their beasts (pets).
Don’t seriously kill yourself, but don’t make the promise that you will in such a case as it’s already happening.
I also wouldn’t use the police argument as they only enforce the laws that are set. One day it could be completely legal for all the things you’re saying are wrong… what will you do then? Tell the police who now have to be ok with it?
The irony here is that pedophiles are treated EXACTLY now as Gays were not too long ago. Death threats, “no mercy” for the person, would laugh if they died, etc, ALL the same. Hopefully, the next generation won’t be full of ignorant idiots like you guys, who treat us like inhuman freaks and call it parenting or protecting. So to that, fuck you. Fuck you all.
Pervert..
“attraction to infants is a serious sexual aberration”
… And attraction to teens is not? Attraction to infants/toddlers is just another natural aspect of human sexuality.
I might be mistaken. Sexual attractions towards toddlers might be not so uncommon. I recently read that single mothers often have sexual feelings towards their toddler sons. So it is not sleazy men, but young mothers who get sexual attraction towards infants.
But these are rumors I read. Anyone has any serious research about this? Or maybe such research gets repressed for not being politically correct.
I don’t think that’s real infantophilia. I think a lot of women just get turned on by having babies suck their boobies. 🙂
you don’t want to actually know. I’m sorry, but you really don’t.
” Sexual attractions towards toddlers might be not so uncommon”. It’s more common than you think, because a lot of sick gay rapists or child molesters in general, go unreported. The children don’t understand what is happening and are manipulated and lied to, tricked into the acts. Their frontal lobes are not fully developed and they don’t have the ability to understand what they are getting into.
@T
Actually all THESE people commenting here are PAEDOPHILES and are apparently slightly more intelligent than some paedophile haters, because they can at least correctly spell simple English words.
All thies people commenting are pedafiles .
I asked myself whether I’m a pedophile or not, but but then after searching the web, I found the following article to be pretty helpful to separate one from the other:
pedophile obsessiona thoughts / worrying of being a pedophile:
http://www.counseling-office.com/pt-blog/pedophile-symptoms/
It basically contains a pretty detailed description of how to differentiate pedophile obsessional thoughts from real pedophilia.
Maybe its’ of help for someone else as well.
Anyhow, good to see I’m not alone who gets his brain messed up with teh terminology!
@jack: Children have a sexuality too. The myth that children dont have sexual feelings or are not sexual beings is very recent.
“Of course, post puberty is the time nature says ‘go’.”
Nature also says that homosexuality is wrong, because ist non-reproductive…
Last time I checked, nature had no voice to say anything.
@simpleJack
I agree that pre-pubescent perhaps have a sexuality, but Jack’s point relates to sexual attraction.
Nature clearly intends us to find females attractive from the point of puberty, otherwise they would not be capable of giving birth, as well as sending out corresponding signals of sexual attractiveness and availability (growing breasts, pubic hair etc).
It could be argued from an evolutionary perspective that it is normal also to find girls a little way below puberty (not much) sexually attractive, given the tremendous evolutionary advantage a man has in securing a girl who has not been impregnated before.
Nature does not say that homosexuality is wrong. Nature does not say that anything is wrong or right. The argument is whether attraction to teenagers is a perversion in the sense of not being normal or natural.
BTW, there is an evolutionary argument that homosexuality is reproductive in terms of the genes rather than the individual – obviously homosexual genes have survived….
“Of course, Infant abusers can be labelled with a stronger label then “pedophile”. Those attracted to 17 year olds are more ostracised by the incorrect application of the name “pedophile” or child lover, then by “teleiophile”, late adolescent lover. To reach the maximum vilification, the word “infantophile” is now, correctly, created. It is undesirable that perverts that mess with infants can hide behind the word “pedophile”, which could mean attraction to 9 year olds”
Are you fucking kidding? Do you suffer from retardation? Not all nepiophiles rape children, biggot. Not all of them are rapists or perverts.
Nepiophiles are human beings just like any other. They are no more pervert than any normal heterosexual man.
Fucking biggot, learn to respect people for their attraction, even if they are attracted to babies.
look, if thier (they’re? their? fuck I don’t know) sexual attraction would cause physical harm, and they act on it then they don’t get respect. Maybe some pity.
Of course, post puberty is the time nature says ‘go’. Hence the old adage ‘If there’s grass on the field play ball.’
It’s not that hard to understand people.
I am much agreeing with the prevention of the re-victimization of Brooke Shields. Many men were engaged with the attraction to women with the desire to have sex. Men even have attraction to the younger ages. Seeing the depiction of the 15 year old covered with bars in her private parts, do really mean something. For me, as I look at it and as a woman, it is to stop being so aggressive on having sex to girls especially to the younger age. But the first comment above has a point. The sex industries today are consists of teenage girls which is really should be an alert nowadays that mostly girls also desires to have sex. And the sex industry really contains younger and younger ages of girls. It’s really sad to know such things like this.
@Roger Plumrose…
That’s always been the case for as long as I can remember… So I guess all men have always been “paedophiles” and always will be?
Let’s face it any female over about 25 generally doesn’t stir things up inside us anywhere near as much as the sight of a a nubile, firm and young teen body does, especially when ‘gift wrapped’ in something fitting her age like a school uniform to make it even one level more ‘tantalizing’…
So now being a normal red blooded male attracted to what’s depicted in publications that are sold more than any other publications that the ‘erotica industry’ has to offer, has effectively been degraded to the lowest form of life in present day industrialized society: a ‘Paepdophile’!
This must surely mean too that most, if not all of the male persecuters and paedophile witch-hunters are hypocrites, thus could be one of the main reasons for the existence of the current paedo-hysteria?
The ones making all the fuss actually feel guilty and are even afraid their little ‘kink’ (of being what was once ‘normal’) might eventually be discovered. So they make all this noise saying how much they hate paedos etc., in a sort of childish effort to hide the truth about themselves, because they now think there’s something wrong or ‘perverted’ about what truly wets their sexual appetites…
“Let’s face it any female over about 25 generally doesn’t stir things up inside us anywhere near as much as the sight of a a nubile, firm and young teen body does”
Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.
It is easy to do research on attractiveness. You can read books and research by David Buss, for example, to check what age women men prefer as mates. Observe the mate selection of men that are powerful and attractive and can choose among many willing women.
Nowadays most men don’t have the courage to pick much younger women, as this is shunned and criminalized. But Cougars who like much younger boys are empowered women.
Do you people really need pseudoscience to tell you who to date?
The whole medicalization of mens’ attraction to adolescent girls is just a joke. Take a look at what sells the most in the sex industries: TEENAGE GIRLS. SCHOOLGIRLS. LOLITAS. JAILBAIT.
Sexual preferences for adolescent girls are clearly the norm for men not sexual disorders or so called “paraphilias”
No need to specify that you’re against pedophilia in this article. It creates a feeling of insecurity, as is the article didn’t speak for itself. Exactly what the feminists plays on: guilt, word deformation.
As for teenage attraction, Mr Plumrose, many men prefer 30-40 yrs old women to teenagers. But a woman likes to look young and for this reason buy more into teenage products.
There is a difference in preferring adolescents and still liking adults(which is not a paraphilia),and being attracted only to adolescents to the point of being incapable of sexual interaction with adults(which is a paraphilia).The latter condition is a disorder because someone with that inclination can not have sexual relations at all in the present day society.This usually leads to further mental health complications.Often an ephebophile will have intense attraction to adolescents,but feel disgust at even having sex with a 25 year old.Also they will never have romantic feelings or fall in love with an adult.
The problem there is that you might be arguing in a circle. The exclusive love of adolescents is a disorder (perverse) because the exclusive love of adolescents is a disorder (illegal).
And what about those men (if there are any) who prefer adolescents, but decide that they will not have sex with over 18s through a moral principle (because they interpret the criminalization of sex with adolescents as a form of societal co-ercion, or rape – effectively trying to force men to have sex with over 18s)?
“Sexual preferences for adolescent girls are clearly the norm for men ”
It’s cute when people try to pass off their personal preferences as fact. And by cute I mean fucking retarded and vile.
Have you heard of unbiased, peer reviewed academic research?
Take genealogy, history. Take the Bible and the Koran: All over history, men have married 15 year olds, 12 year olds, as the norm. Check anthropology: at what age do women in Hunter-Gatherer societies marry? And what age men do these women prefer? 12 year old boys or over 20 or over 30 year old powerful experienced men?
Then look at Charlie Chaplin. Rock stars in the 1970’s. Hugh Hefner. Men who get admired by adolescent girls.
Then check psychology: Show men the photos or video clips of 15 year old girls, tell them they are 19 (to overcome the ingrained fear of jail bait). See if they are interested or if they find these girls repulsive. You can even check with contraptions that measure penile growth, excitement.
This is how one does science. Your knee jerk reaction can not change past history.
Sadly, through feminist world dominance, feelings like yours did change the history of the last 50 years and of I dont know how many years ahead.
But, as long as it does not become criminalized, a few people like me will insist on telling the truth.
If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians.
David Buss is a psychology professor who researches evolutionary psychology about mate selection. His research does not support this fool.
In a study of penile tumescence, men were found most aroused by pictures of young adult females
You said “Take a look at what sells the most in the sex industries”. What sells the most is big or medium breasts, which means men are attracted to fully developed women. If that woman happens to be 19 and young , it’s still fully developed. You rarely see porn advertising “flat chested woman” which is what a pedophile would be attracted to.