Talk:Ephebophilia

Image for the article

Hey, Wlmg. I don't mind this removal. It's your edit summary that has me a bit confused. Do you mind clarifying what you mean by it? Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The figures on the pottery are not historical figures therefore there is no way to infer the ages of the figures. You kind of get into the area of original research to put the pic out there as illustrative of ephebophilia. While the younger figure might very well fit within the current definition's age range, one could also argue the opposite. --Wlmg (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the image but I agree this seems like original research unless the caption is made clear that the ages are unknown. If scholars agree that it is a man and a boy then maybe that's what we could state. Insomesia (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The image describes itself as being between an erastes and eromenos; this generally means an older man with his younger lover (generally an adolescent male). Googling that topic sheds a lot of light on it. But the image is more representative of Pederasty than ephebophilia, since the definition of ephebophilia is no longer restricted to male-male relationships and is generally defined in modern times as being primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to mid-to-late adolescents. The editor who added the image to this article was likely simply trying to show an adult-mid or late adolescent relationship, which is what the term "ephebophilia" concerns. But like I stated, it's not too representative of this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there is another image that would work? Insomesia (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as it's suitable, I don't oppose a different image. I don't have any ideas for one, however. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence

I have modified the following sentence, changing 'common' to 'the norm':

Because mid-to-late adolescents usually have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among men.

In the article cited, Berlin states that "most men can find adolescents sexually attractive". I feel that 'common' understates and therefore misrepresents Berlin's claim. 'Common' merely implies often found (a description which could equally apply if only one in three or one in four men were able to find adolescents sexually attractive), whereas 'the norm' implies typical (its etymology should not be taken as grounds for assuming my change is some normative assertion; I am contesting the relationship of the word 'common' to the prevalence suggested in the source cited). Gloriousgee (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I reverted and didn't realized you'd posted this; that was hasty of me. You do make a fair argument. My concern is exactly as you stated, that a lay-reader would see the word "norm" and assume this to mean "normative" and acceptable morally. I am not taking a strong stance on this however so I am curious what other editors think.Legitimus (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gloriousgee, Legitimus and I have both reverted you.[1][2] I somehow feel that "normal" is more misleading than "common" in this case, but I'm not too opposed to "normal" being used instead. As for other reasons we I reverted you: As you've shown above, the source states "most" and "men," which is why we I reverted you on "all" and "adults." Until a WP:Reliable source (preferably a scholarly one) is found using the words you used in this context, we should stick to what the source states about that. I realize that the text used "adults" before you showed up to this article, but that does not mean that it was right that it did. Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As seen, I struck out "we" in two parts in my above post because Legitimus actually had reverted the section back to its use of the word "adults," which I just now reverted. Flyer22 (talk)

I think we have to be clear that there is a difference between the normative sense of the word 'normal' and the phrase 'the norm' (I didn't use the word 'normal' by the way, though I see nothing moral or immoral about attraction in and of itself). They are distinct. I agree that some people do not possess sufficient acuity to know the difference, but I don't think an article that attempts to describe objectively should be swayed by the false assumptions a less astute reader might make. Even if we reject 'the norm', I still find 'common' to be misleading. Would it not be best to stick to the source and say 'most men'? At least this way the Wikipedia article sticks to the scientific pronouncement, and does not allow its description to be tainted by value judgements.

I can understand the need to find other scientific articles. However, that'll be a tall order given that the scientific community has never taken the term seriously. Even the inclusion of hebephilia (albeit as part of an overarching paedohebephilic disorder) was roundly rejected during the vote-casting on DSM-V. My personal interest in this regard is the preservation of the scientific ideal; attempts to play down the prevalence of ephebophilic attraction (not saying that anyone is trying to do so) reveal the insidious influence of (culturally relativistic) cultural narratives on scientific classifications (which pander to such narratives in order to bolster scientists' status and credibility). Aside from the fact that we already have a source (Berlin), it seems bizarre to me that one would have to seek further scientific sources to confirm the presence of what is surely the biological norm. Not only are girls and boys in mid to late adolescence perfectly fertile, but it's only a (relatively) recent phenomenon that sex and marriage at this age has been considered taboo. I know this is far from a perfect argument, but to me the cultural relativism here is so self-evident that I'd suggest the opposite needs to be done: we need to find sources that suggest a significant number of men don't find adolescents sexually attractive.

Being inexperienced at this editing thing, I'm not sure whether you get notified when comments are made, though I think you do if I make an edit. So on that basis alone I've edited the sentence in question to fit Berlin's statement exactly. Apologies if this seems overly insistent. :) Gloriousgee (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Legitimus and I know all about hebephilia and the "pedohebephilic disorder" proposal (later known as the "pedophilic disorder" proposal). As for "most men," it would be better if we went on more than just Fred Berlin's word for that. Until then, it is likely best to include "Fred Berlin states" with the aforementioned line. And there are definitely some scholarly sources on the term "ephebophilia," though it is often conflated with hebephilia and is also otherwise somewhat defined differently in different sources (part of which can already be seen with the lead).

As for notification, there is something called a WP:WATCHLIST. Anyone watching a Wikipedia article by using a WP:WATCHLIST will be able to see the latest edit(s) to that article and its talk page (and vice versa) by looking at that WP:WATCHLIST.

As for overly insistent... When the talk page discussion concerns including or excluding material, it is often best to wait until WP:CONSENSUS is formed there on that talk page regarding that. But being WP:BOLD and sticking to the source while you're at it, like you were in the case of adding "most men," is also fine. And, besides, Legitimus and I clearly were not too opposed to "normal" being added. Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Gloriousgee, I think it should be fairly easy to find sources questioning the legitimacy of "ephebophilia" as a medical phenomenon, rather than the norm. It cannot be overstated how recent the attitude is that sex with people under 18 is not only illegal but fundamentally psychologically deviant - Marilyn Monroe was 16 when she was married (which relationship was presumably consummated), as an alternative to being adopted. This whole debate seems like an unacceptable intrusion of politics and culture into the scientific sphere, and I'm sure this could be made more clear in the article. At least a little historical context on how what we now term "ephebophilia" has been the overwhelmingly dominant norm for all of human history up to about 60 years ago would serve as a good addition.

An even more thorough discussion could include a note on the distinction between a medical disorder or condition and a cultural norm that society imposes to protect adolescents and lead to better familial and social outcomes. 80.169.51.146 (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This article claims that most men are sexual perverts. The norm is that people are attracted to others of the same age. Middle-aged men are attracted to other middle-aged people, they do not find even young adults sexually attractive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.215.71 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. No, this article does not state that. I understand how you could get the "pervert" impression, however. As for the rest of what you stated: I take it by "same age," you don't mean "same exact age," considering that most people (judging by experience and various sources) are romantically/sexually with someone who is younger or older than them (often by a few or several years)? Further, I'm not sure what compelled you to state that middle-aged men don't find young adults sexually attractive. That is far from the truth, as evidenced by various research reports, popular culture, men in Hollywood often having much younger adult female romantic/sexual partners, and some middle-aged men stating on men websites such as AskMen.com how sexually attractive they find certain young adult women (in other words, media documents this as well). Also keep in mind that Wikipedia talk pages should not be used as forums. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, per my comment above about pointing out that the "most men" line is coming from Fred Berlin, I added in-text attribution for the Fred Berlin text of "most men" and elaborated on what he stated for better context/accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the term really refers to adult men who are primarily attracted to adolescent (i.e. post-pubescent) boys. This is to distinguish it from pederasty, which refers to men who are primarily attracted to pre-pubescent boys. Both are serious problems, as they result in otherwise ambivalent boys being pushed into the realm of homosexuality. This makes them ripe for exploitation and results in them becoming rent-boys. Trying to cast this term onto the general (but not exclusive) attraction of adult men for teenage girls is ridiculous. This is completely normal because youth is a sign of fertility in the heterosexual context. For gay men, childbearing is not a concern; hence the status of this as a paraphilia for them. Unfortunately, society is not willing to protect homosexual adolescent males with the same zeal that it protects heterosexual adolescent males and females; otherwise a lot of adult homosexual men would be spending time in prison.

Mental Vs. Psychological

There is a distinction made in the header for "mental" and "psychological" development; maybe I'm a neophyte, but it seems redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalashaska824 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the redundancy. Thanks for pointing it out; it was in the article for too long. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition

The article first states that ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. It states that it may be defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old. Then it states that it denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. I feel that the definition is very ambiguous. Primary or exclusive is something very different from preference. For instance if a man in general PREFER a 15 year old girl to one that is for instance 30, I feel that this is quite different from a primary or exclusive interest in this age group. A man might prefer a girl in this age group in general, but it might depend on her level of attractiveness. Maybe if she is not very attractive, he might prefer an older, but more attractive woman. --Vitzque (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We go by what the sources state, per WP:Verifiability, and the sources have slightly different definitions of ephebophilia, as the article clearly shows (noting "In sexual ethics" for the second definitional age range aspect) and you have clearly displayed above. "Primary or exclusive sexual interest" is not very different from "sexual preference." If someone has a primary sexual interest in an age group, that is a sexual preference for that age group...especially with regard to sexology. And the term sexual preference is also often taken to mean "exclusive sexual interest," which is why it's commonly used to refer to a person's sexual orientation...in place of the word sexual orientation; we don't use "sexual preference" for the initial definition of this article because "sexual preference" redirects to the Sexual orientation article (since it is so commonly used to mean sexual orientation and is not too viable as its own Wikipedia article) and because we want to be clear about the range of what sexual preference means in this case -- primary or exclusive. And like the lead (intro) of the Sexual orientation article notes, there can be problems with the term sexual preference. But again, we relay the different definitions that WP:Reliable sources report. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I just felt that primary interest and preference is very different. Primary interest seems to denote a much stronger fixation on this age group than preference. --Vitzque (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing more to state on the matter at this time, and, either way, not a lot of different things to state on it than what I mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That is because it is just a word like "cougar" or "sugar daddy". It has no scientific basis because it is just slang. People maybe use the term because they are not interested in scientific study. They just want people to believe that it is scientific. It is questionable as to whether hebophilia is a real word. In reality there is no reason for the word hebophilia to exist. Ebhebophilia is just a silly word added on top to try to make hebophilia seem more like a real word. A few non-scientific people may wish to think that these terms have any actual meaning. Science requires peer assessment so no actual scientist is daft enough to corroborate that such things exist. Laws are there to protect youngsters. Attraction to a minor above a certain age is not abnormal. Exclusive attraction to prepubescents is a condition called pedophilia. In other words, sexual infatuation with little kids is considered an abnormality.82.46.52.143 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You are the same editor from the #It should be clearly stated that this is pseudo science or it should be merged with ageism. Either that or please delete this nonsense. section below, now using a different IP. No need to repeat yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Age Range

I checked the third reference (Primoratz, Igor (1999). Ethics and Sex. New York: Routledge) but couldn't find any information regarding the age range given for what is considered Ephebophilia. I then changed the 14-16 age range given for females to 14-17, however it was immediately changed back even though the 14-16 numbers appear to be completely arbitrary.

Another issue is males are given an age range of 14-19. Shouldn't that top number be 17 or 18 (at most) since as far as I know people who are 18 and older are considered adults in most countries which would be considered teleiophilia (sexual attraction to adults).

Also why is there a three year difference in the maximum age number for males and females? Where does that information come from? No source is given. Ifinteger (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This, this and this are the edits Ifinteger is referring to, and they are in reference to the sexual ethics line that was in the article before I removed it minutes ago. The age ranges given for that line were added by a different editor years ago. I didn't see those specific age ranges in the source when looking at the book here hours earlier, so I removed the line. Neither the original line nor Ifinteger's edit seem supported by the source. With the way that the source tries to broaden the definition of ephebophilia to extend it to pedophilia, it's not a good source for this material anyway. As for what point should the ephebophilia age range be cut off at, it's arbitrary when it comes to ages 16-19 anyway, considering that many 16 to 19-year-olds cannot be distinguished physically age-wise, and certainly not many 18 to early 20-somethings can be distinguished physically age-wise. And the only reason that I didn't include "15" when stating "16 to 19-year-olds" is because the 15 mark is a bit more complicated (as also indicated by the topic of hebephilia), and many boys do take that extra year or two of growth to look as adult as their 16, 17, 18 or 19-year-old peer, far more often than girls need that extra year or two to look adult. So in that respect, distinguishing ephebophilia from teleiophilia can be arbitrary. But like the Ephebophilia article notes, ephebophilia is not about adults being capable of finding mid to late adolescents sexually attractive; it's about the primary or exclusive adult sexual attraction to that age group; ages 15-19 are mid to late adolescents, and that age range for ephebophilia is supported by a WP:Reliable source in the article (though, yes, ages 18 and 19, in addition to usually being considered adolescent ages by many people, are legal adult ages in most countries). Flyer22 (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Side note: As for this source in the Hebephilia article used to support the wording "mid-to-late pubescent aged individuals aged 14 to 16 (for girls) or 14 to 18 (for boys)" for a different definition of ephebophilia, that source clearly plagiarized material from the Ephebophilia article. Therefore, it and the text it is supporting should be removed from that article. A lot of books plagiarize from Wikipedia, which has, for example, been a big problem for WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Adolescence , and Epiphysis

There has been a great deal of study of when adolescence begins and ends. Biologically it ends with the conclusion of epiphysis. This is stated as fact in Wikipedia's Adolescence article and is therefore incontestable . A 17-year-old girl (despite all outward appearances) is not fully-grown in fact she has 208 bones as opposed to an adult's 206. So while the beginning of adolescence is quite variable the end is certainly not. That age is 19-20.[3] It is all downhill from there. --Wlmg (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wlmg is referring to this, this and this edit. Wlmg, like you stated, there has been "a great deal of study of when adolescence begins and ends." This is reflected in the Adolescence article, and is extensively reflected in a discussion at the Puberty article with cross-postings to WP:MED about the topic (mostly about puberty); following that, also see the "Age of first attraction" discussion there at the Puberty article (which is mostly about adolescence). As those instances show, there is no universal agreement among researchers concerning when adolescence begins or ends, though they generally agree that puberty is usually central to defining when adolescence has begun. I objected to "full-grown," because, like I stated in that second diff-link, the term legal "(as in legal adult) is more accurate tha[n] 'fully grown,' considering that so many 16-year-olds and up, especially females, are fully grown (puberty-wise anyway)." The vast majority of sources I have seen on the topic of biological adulthood base the matter far more on puberty in addition to other growth aspects than mostly on epiphysis (bone growth). And we all know that legal adulthood is not based on that matter. The human brain is not even fully developed until the early 20s (usually age 24 or 25), but people are obviously still considered adults long before then. I don't care too much that you added "full-grown" back, especially since you provided sound reasoning for having done so. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But I do object to adding 20 there in the first line, for the reasons I stated in this diff-link. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused....

I don't think this article makes it clear enough...it first states that it is simply an attraction "to adolescents", which infers male or female. But later on several times that "some authors" claim it refers specifically to attraction to male adolescents. Which is the more widely accepted view? The article seems to focus mostly on the male-male relationship, but if that is the exclusive meaning of the word, then what is it called when an older man has a preference for adolescent females? What about older women attracted to adolescent males? It does happen, I assure you. I think the article should state clearly whether the term is used normally to refer to both sexes, or whether the authors who claim it refers only to males represent a minority view or not..45Colt 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I have not been watching this article very closely but I see what you mean. I have always understood the term to be gender neutral. The source claiming the term is gender-specific appears to be Czech. While it's generally not advisable to discard sources merely for being from other languages or cultures, this article is as much about a word used in the English language as it is about the psychological concept. This would make a Czech source about the word's meaning inappropriate.Legitimus (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The term ephebophilia has sometimes been restricted to pederasty, while the term hebephilia has sometimes been restricted to male sexual attraction to pubescent or underage females. Those are the older definitions, which is partly why this edit was made at the Chronophilia article. Today, the gender-neutral definitions of the terms are the most common definitions of those terms. The Ephebophilia article is not mostly about male-male relationships. Yes, it currently has a pederasty image because of this edit, but it only focuses a little on pederasty, and that focus is because it is ideal to have an Etymology section, which the article currently has, if information is available on a word's etymology. Legitimus removed the Czech material, and, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, I don't mind that he did. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be clearly stated that this is pseudo science or it should be merged with ageism. Either that or please delete this nonsense.

This definition is clearly nonsense and does not actually exist. It certainly does not require a name anyway. The use of a name implies that it is pseudo science - it violates science because it defies common sense. No citations are required when the subject is a clear violation of common sense. Let me explain:

People are attracted to people because of their body shape. Some like small people and other like big people. Age is simply a number linked to the amount of time that has expired between now and when a person was born. It is irrelevant to sexual attraction unless someone has some form of fetish about knowing statistics.

Do people realise exactly how many people are being insulted by this bogus "condition"? There are girls in high school that are more "developed" and fuller in figure than many women in their 30s and 40s by the age of 13. You are suggesting that men have a "condition" because their slim wife just so happens to have small breasts and is 5 foot tall? You are opening up the mother of all cans of worms. You are insulting millions of people of both sexes. Should all short cute faced women be locked away because attraction to them would cause perversion??

I may as well stop here because hopefully I have made my point clear. Please clearly mark it so that people can see that it is sanctimonious, archaic and stupid.77.99.24.102 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This article doesn't even call ephebophilia a sexual perversion or a mental disorder, except for stating that "the preference can sometimes be diagnosed as a disorder if it results in dysfunction or exploitative behavior, under the DSM specification 309.2, "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified'." The article is clear that mid-to-late teenagers commonly look like adults, and that "most men can find persons in this age group sexually attractive, but that "of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it. Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do." Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is stating that some people (men especially) sexually prefer mid-to-late adolescents. Enough 15-year-olds, for example, do not look like 20-year-olds. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why give it a name then as if it is some kind of category? It needs no name. This is where the problem is arising. Heterosexual mammals are attracted to members of the opposite sex that are of child bearing/ producing age. I do not like the title hebophilia either but at least it has some form of sense to it.

I think that pubescent children have a certain, vague form of attraction - maybe it is that they have some form of potential. That is not unusual or unnatural... they are turning into adults. To have a fixation for pubescent children may be odd - but it is still attraction to bodily attributes that indicate child bearing ability (like breasts and larger hips). It is still not technically abnormal. It is just a preference in the same way as people have a preference for women like Shakira.

That was not an indication that I have that, so called, condition - but I still disagree that it needs a name. Ebhebophilia on the other hand is ridiculous because a vast amount (maybe even the majority!) of people (especially women) between 15 and 19 are indistinguishable from any other child bearing young person.

Take for example the idea of older women being referred to as cougars because they have strong attraction to much younger men. It still does not require any form of category - it is simply a preference. The objects of affection are child producing males and the woman has, for whatever reason, formed a preference to youth (what a big surprise... not). Cougar is still a slang word though - maybe made up by people who cannot bear anything that deviates from what they consider "normal".

I prefer petite women - the age is only relevant in regards to staying within the bounds of the law! I would not dream of taking advantage of someone because of their age and I would not break the law. This preference for smaller women, however, puts ME and a vast amount of other perfectly natural men into this insulting category.77.99.24.102 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As a side note - I actually agree that tougher sentences may be warranted for people who sexually assault minors. In other words, stronger than if they had have assaulted an adult. It still does not mean that there was any form of perversion. The offender most likely took advantage of the vulnerability. Also, preying on minors is irresponsible - it is not perversion though.

Yes, of course we are protective of our children. This still does not allow for the irrational notion that it was a form of perversion for the perp to take advantage of our child. If they were 15 (especially females) then the likelihood is that they DID look desirable. This was the reason why the perp went after them in the first place.77.99.24.102 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Back again... I need to solidify this even more.

Look at growth charts of females and take note of the age range from 13 to 20. You need to look at both weight and height. Now look at the variation of different lines and see how it is that a very large amount of fully growth females are far smaller then many of the girls when they are still even 13 and 14! All charts are all pretty much the same but here is a simple example (which may need to be removed if it is violating copyright) http://myria.com/wp-content/uploads/growth-chart-girls-myria-21.jpg.

People are attracted to body shapes - not the age. The age is just a statistic, a database variable. It is the body that forms an attraction - not the intellect.77.99.24.102 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

IP, it is not up to us Wikipedians to decide whether or not this sexual preference gets a name. The point is that it has a name, though this preference is sometimes conflated with hebephilia, and these two preferences overlap. And since these two preferences are WP:Notable, we can cover them here at Wikipedia. I have thought about merging hebephilia and ephebophilia, so that the article is titled Hebephilia and ephebophilia, but doing that would confuse things a lot. As for you stating that "Ebhebophilia on the other hand is ridiculous because a vast amount (maybe even the majority!) of people (especially women) between 15 and 19 are indistinguishable from any other child bearing young person.", as seen at Talk:Ephebophilia/Archive 1#"ages 15-19" in the lede? and downward, and at Talk:Ephebophilia/Archive 2, I (and others) have been clear that mid to late teenagers, especially 17 to 19-year-olds, are commonly physically indistinguishable from those who are 20 years old and older. And, of course, we know that 18 and 19-year-olds are usually legal adults. Like I noted in the "ages 15-19" discussion, "My main objection to stating the specific ages in the lead now is that I don't want people actually thinking that a sexual attraction or preference for even 18 and 19-year-olds could be labeled as a mental disorder. You know, since this article now says that in rare instances ephebophilia could be considered a mental disorder." I (and others) have been clear that people are attracted to the physical attributes, including how young the person's face looks, not to the age range. But then again, there are people who specifically seek out this age group because of how young they know the age group will look. While this age group is commonly physically indistinguishable from legal adults, they also commonly look younger than 20-somethings; well, the 15 and 16-year-olds at least. I now think it is better to include the age range, as to make the topic clearer to readers, including that we are not talking about hebephilia. This is despite the fact that the age ranges are a little bit arbitrary, given the partial overlap between hebephilia and ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

15 to 19 year olds are usually indistinguishable from people of any other age. Girls on average start puberty at about 10.5 and puberty lasts about 4 years average (but can be much less than that). It could be as long as 5 years but that is unusual. Do the math.

I looked at the citations for this - the definition is just used by a select number of quacks (most likely people with an agenda). The first citation is trash. The second citation is just about hebephilia which is actually a dubious word as I mentioned earlier. A large proportion of perfectly healthy men like smaller breasts and petite females. That study also used people who were convicted sex offenders - not the general public. The abstract said enough - I would not waste cash or time reading something that is clearly flawed and written by people trying to satisfy non-scientists with some made-up PC word.

I have read your (User:Flyer22) profile and it appears that you are someone with an agenda. Your support of this article is made apparent by your attitude. It is a taboo subject and people are quick to jump on the bandwagon of name calling (hence the anonymous comments). This is the problem with this article. It is fuelling the lynch-mob type trailer-park trash crowd who like to scream abuse at sex offenders and pretend that they have some form of "condition". In reality the perpetrators are simply malicious people taking advantage of vulnerable youngsters. The lynch mobs and stone throwers are usually just as much malcontents as the perpetrators of the crime. I do not condone sex offences but this definition is made for the lynch-mob people so it will attract those types of people.

I have an extremely pragmatic view of sexual offence and related issues. I will not rise to any nonsense - so do not bother. If you think that making up bogus, non-existent definitions is going to improve matters then you are sorely mistaken. Sex offences are what they are. It is very easy for you to stand on a pedestal and preach this nonsense because you have an army of pitchfork wielding red necks behind you waiting to catch a witch.

This definition is not science, it is not spiritual belief, it is not a religious term and it is not slang. It is not really anything at all. I highly doubt this page will get taken down because there are enough non-scientific people who would like to keep it because it makes it look real. It also satisfies those people who hate sugar daddies and other people who have a partner who is half their age or simply looks small.

I have seen the weird comments from youngsters who seem to think that it is natural for people to only be interested in people of their own age. What is strange is a 50 year old man having a sexual preference for 50 year old females. What is natural is a 50 year old man who has a sexual preference for young, pretty females... the type of girls you would find between the ages of 15-19 years of age. Irresponsible people try to get off with under-age girls, not perverts. If nature disturbs then maybe you should live in a box.Hypernator (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you are the IP I was talking to; that is, judging by the way you sign your username (with the signature right up against the post), and that this article is not a high-traffic article. Indeed, I do have an agenda when it comes to making sure that pedophiles, child sexual abusers and other pro-child sexual abusers don't skew Wikipedia's topics on pedophilia, child sexual abuse, age of consent and similar. And per WP:Child protection, it is Wikipedia's agenda as well. There is nothing you or anyone else can do about that. That stated, I have always distinguished between pedophiles and child sexual abusers, as well as sexual attraction to prepubescents vs. sexual attraction to mid-to-late teenagers, as my track record on Wikipedia shows. I define pedophilia in the medical sense (as a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children), and have often corrected people on and off Wikipedia with regard to applying the term pedophilia broadly. I have often pointed out that acting like sexual attraction to a 17-year-old, for example, is a mental disorder while sexual attraction to an 18-year-old is not is silly, since the two are physically indistinguishable, age-wise, and the age of consent and age of majority vary (after all, imagine how stupid it would be to state that a person has a mental disorder in one state or country but not in another). I have often pointed out that this is why it would be absurd to define pedophilia by age of consent and/or age of majority, in the way it is commonly defined by the media and general public. The archives I pointed to above show that, and so does this, this and this discussion from Talk:Pedophilia. As for the rest of what you stated, I won't even address you on that; it doesn't deserve a reply. You do need to educate yourself more, however. The next time a poster like you comes along, I will simply ignore you... That is, unless you WP:Disruptively edit the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You are promoting pseudo-science for the sole purpose of furthering your agenda and you are suggesting that I, an actual scientist, should educate myself? Educate myself in what exactly? I am not interested in your buzz words or the buzz words used by quacks like you. This is a non-existent condition that is being promoted by people with an agenda.

No one likes child sexual abuse but this is not a reason to lose objectivity and start making up stupid words that have no actual meaning or purpose. It just makes you look like an idiot whilst simultaneously making perfectly natural people think that there is something wrong with them. But of course - screw everyone else... "Think about the children!" (as stated by Rev. Lovejoy's wife in The Simpsons).

Thankfully for you this is a low traffic page. If you do not want further ridicule then you best hope it stays that way! What a joke.Hypernator (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Last reply to you on this matter: I am not promoting anything with regard to this topic. Clearly, you have not read or fully comprehended my comments on this topic, child sexual abuse, statutory rape, age of consent and similar. Never have I considered a 20-year-old engaging in sexual activity with a 17-year-old, for example, to be child sexual abuse (that is, unless the 17-year-old's mental capacity is diminished enough that he or she has the mind of a little kid); one should also keep Romeo and Juliet laws in mind. I do, however, consider a 20-year-old sexually interacting with a 7-year-old to be child sexual abuse. That's because it is child sexual abuse, plain and simple. There is a stark difference between a legal adult engaging in sexual activity with a post-pubescent teenager and a legal adult sexually interacting with a prepubescent child. If there were not, the age of consent would not be age 16 in the vast majority of the United States. Nowhere in the United States is the age of consent as low as age 7, for example. Or close to that low. And I've been explicitly clear with you above that ephebophilia is not listed as a mental disorder and/or paraphilia in the medical literature. That is, unless it's the opinion of one or a few psychologists, psychiatrists and/or sexologists (ones I do not yet know of).

I could not care less that you take an issue with me making sure that pedophiles, child sexual abusers and other pro-child sexual abusers don't skew Wikipedia's topics on pedophilia, child sexual abuse, age of consent and similar.

It is not up to me to keep or delete this article. If you want it deleted, which you clearly do, then take it to WP:Articles for deletion; see if you have luck there.

And while we're speaking of luck... Lucky for you, given your comments above, I am not interested in seeking action being taken to get your account blocked. Your latter comments violate the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks policies. And the final paragraph of your "15:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)" post could be interpreted by people as a breach of the WP:Child protection policy. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the "Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM–V" source (which is the second source you mentioned), it's about ephebophilia as well. You would know that if you read past the title. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are mentioning a lot of irrelevant stuff there for some reason. If you are petty enough to make a complaint because I referred to you as a quack then maybe it is because you feel you are a quack (but from the content that you have produced I somehow doubt that). Why would anyone care if an account got blocked? Your argument is so weak you want to get rid of the voice of reason on a technicality? Grow up please.

All that was relevant in the document that you mentioned is contained within the abstract. That is what abstracts are for. They are mulling over the idea as to whether the dubious word "hebephilia" should be used.

Anyone can make up a word and then bander it about enough to make it seem real. Just because real psychologists mention that a word is floating about does not make it a real peer assessed scientific term. The reason why you are using the word is because it sounds scientific. It sounds similar to other words.

Child -> pubescent -> Adult... those are the biological stages. We already know of pedophilia and the controversial word "hebephilia". You want to sneak in the nonsense word "ebhebophilia" just because a few deviants want to introduce a useless word for some strange reason. Sensible people will see you guys for what you are. Real science will prevail.Hypernator (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

...and no I will not bother trying to get it deleted. There would be no point. This is Wikipedia - people can put any old tripe they want on here as long as they have a convincing enough story behind it and some citations that nobody checks. I have said what needed to be said. At least people with some sense can see what a real scientist says on the matter.Hypernator (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unscientific use of term

The word "non-clinical" is not used in any given source. This is what the source where this word is supposedly used says:
_{"Q. Generally when you read or hear in the news about "pedophilia," aren't the media using the term to refer to anyone who is a minor?}

A. Yes. Generally, people use the term "pedophilia" to include ephebophilia. Most men can find adolescents attractive sexually, although, of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it. Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do.

According to the other sources the 'media' are incorrect. There is no scientific effidence that supports use of the term pedophilia to include ephebophilia. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And exactly why does the word non-clinical need to be in the source for it to be used in this context when the source is quite clearly talking about media use, which is, in fact, non-clinical use? That wording is certainly more supported than all the times you have added "unscientific way" to the article (as shown by looking at your contributions), including this latest edit of yours that I reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Followup note here. And when I made this edit, which led to my addition of "non-clinical", to stop the silly WP:Edit warring, I was very clear that the source does not only mean the media. The question has the word media in it, but Berlin replies more broadly than that; he states, "Yes. Generally, people use the term 'pedophilia' to include ephebophilia." He did not limit his reply to the media. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: The only reason I added "non-clinical sense" is because you were WP:Edit warring with more than just the 143.176.216.29 IP (see IP 68.148.103.235 in the second link of my "00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)" post) to add "in the media" and "unscientific way." Well, I've now changed the text to the "general public," which is certainly supported by the source. If you continue to add words not supported by the sources, or in a limiting way when the answer is broader than that, and if you keep WP:Edit warring, you will continue to be reverted. This article will then be WP:Semi-protected. And if you edit with a registered account while it's WP:Semi-protected, we will obviously then know your registered account. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You are accusing me of edit warring huh? Any proof of that? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the edit history, where you have been reverted by three editors thus far. And because of this, I will now be requesting WP:Semi-protection. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No I have not been reverted by three editors thus far. You however have reverted me twice now. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This, this and this show three different editors reverting you. This shows me reverting you a second time.

I do not feel like talking with you anymore, since, as noted at my talk page, you are a highly disruptive editor, one I've dealt with before. Flyer22 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to comment here because I suspect that the IP user genuinely does not understand that the version of the article that he/she objects to is a statement that the public (and the media) often misuses the term "pedophilia" for situations that are actually "ephebophilia" -- the article is not saying that it is OK to misuse the term, or that the term "pedophilia" should include situations that are actually "ephebophilia" -- only that this misuse is common. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ephebophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219190818/http://www.nvva.nl:80/rijzendezon/catalogs/c00137.htm to http://www.nvva.nl/rijzendezon/catalogs/c00137.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)