Talk:Ephebophilia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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.[1] 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)

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/20070928081916/http://www.ihlia.nl/documents/pdflib/Vriendschap/1960/1960-04.pdf to http://www.ihlia.nl/documents/pdflib/Vriendschap/1960/1960-04.pdf

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) 23:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The difference between hebephiles or ephebophiles and typical heterosexual men?

As has frequently been mentioned before here in old talk page discussions, typical heterosexual men appear to have an intense sexual attraction to (and also sexual interest in) teenagers – possibly even more intense than to fully adult women at age 20 and older. See also Bruch and Newman 2018, which points in the same direction. One could extrapolate the curve and conclude that the peak age of attraction might actually be even younger – 13/14 has been suggested. Wouldn't this make most heterosexual men ephebophiles or even hebephiles?

It seems to me that this is not necessarily the case, probably not the case at all, and there could still be a distinctive difference: interest in older women wanes quickly for ephebophiles and especially hebephiles, and they are rather put off by signs of maturity such as thick thighs (as mentioned in the discussion before), while the decline – as seemingly indicated by the moderate steepness of the curve in Fig. 2 (see top left) in the linked study – is much less pronounced in typical heterosexual men, who still find typical women in their 20s highly attractive. In contrast, ephebophiles and even more so hebephiles – as my understanding goes – find most women in their 20s completely uninteresting and too mature, even far too mature. I find this quite plausible. It's also difficult to imagine that most heterosexual men just settle with fully adult women because teenagers are not available to them, and in reality are practically not sexually interested in these women at all. (After all, prostitutes sought out by heterosexual men are typically in their 20s and not teenagers, even if they're legal age. If most heterosexual men were ephebophiles, let alone hebephiles, prostitutes at 18 and 19 would be in even more intense demand and prostitutes in their 20s would find it considerably harder to find clients. The same is true for other sex work, and for porn, which isn't overwhelmingly teenie porn. And even if many/most men do seek out teenage-themed content more than anything else online, that might be because it is more exciting and harder to get elsewhere, not necessarily because they are practically only attracted to teenagers.) Rather, a true ephebophile would presumably find it difficult to even settle for an older woman, and would prefer to stay single. Is my reasoning here correct? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your logic makes sense if ephebophilia exists, but there is no evidence for that. Consider fewer categories and things fall into place. HughGardner (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, some psychologists have argued that attraction to younger fertile women is due to evolutionary biology (need to reproduce), but I think the point is that society today expects older men to have a life partner around their age, because of their similar level of shared life experiences; there was even a 2012 documentary made on the subject of attraction to younger females by a Dutch filmmaker, Jan-Willem Breure that caused lots of public debate. Of course, most average middle-aged men, for example, might have some level of biological or instinctual attraction to a much younger woman around the age of 18 or 19 walking past them on the streets, that much might be true enough, but that does NOT mean they would make ideal partners, or that it is best or healthy to usually act on such desires. Even if an older man has a series of physical affairs with an 18-year-old girl, for example, if they do not share similar levels of life experiences, then their relationship is not very likely to last, and is likely to remain only physical, not anything emotionally deeper, necessarily. TiffanyMeyers243 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sexual attraction and choosing a mate are not always the same thing. When sailors go to a brothel in Bangkok they do not consider which woman will be the best mother for their children. HughGardner (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no real evidence

A few proposals to improve the Ephebophilia page:

1. instead of citing Blanchard, whose text just cites Kraft-Ebing, we should cite Kraft-Ebing directly. Readers should also know that Kraft-Ebing was a German physician writing 100 years ago.

2. one very important fact is that since Kraft-Ebing wrote about ephebophilia in 1924 no research has ever shown his ideas to be correct. Uncritically repeating a vague assertion from 100 years ago, when no other scientist has ever confirmed his ideas is a disservice to Wikipedia users.

3. almost everyone who writes about ephebophilia cites Dr Michael Seto, but everyone omits the fact that Seto has no evidence for its existence. Seto's work is much more recent. He assumes that ephebophilia is real, and says it's age of attraction is 15-17 (not 15-19 as the 100 year old work of Kraft-Ebing states). Seto does not claim to have any evidence to show ephebophilia really exists.

4. it is misleading to publish information about ephebophilia as if it is established scientific fact. There's more evidence for the existence of the Yeti than for ephebophilia. The total lack of science behind this concept should be made clear to Wikipedia users.

HughGardner (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all this. Blanchard is a pseudoscientist, and an ephebophile is just a pedophile with a thesaurus. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Add needed

In the section about "Etymology and definitions" at the end, where it's said "Although ephebophilia is not a psychiatric diagnosis, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public and the media to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development", should be added also that is also used by general public to refer to any person under the age of majority, not only the age of consent. So, "Although ephebophilia is not a psychiatric diagnosis, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public and the media to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent and even the local age of majority, regardless of their level of physical or mental development." 151.36.12.92 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction with another article

Why it is written that to be considered ephebophilia the minimum age must be at least 15 but the article about pedophilia states that to be considered pedophilia the boy or girl must be under 16? Isn't this a contradiction? 151.36.77.13 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The pedophilia article says in its first few sentences that the the maximum age is 13, not 16. A minimum age of 16 is used for diagnostic purposes of the perpetrator, rather than the age they are attracted to.Legitimus (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Minor Attracted Person" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Minor Attracted Person and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 9#Minor Attracted Person until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 12:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Stats needed

This could use some estimates of prevalence, fuzzy as the definition may be. -- Beland (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Ephebo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ephebo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 25 § Ephebo until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)