Talk:Ephebophilia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Catholic sex abuse cases

The article should probably mention the controversy surrounding Catholic sex abuse cases, due to the fact that the USCCB's John Jay Report asserted that the pedophile priest problem was actually an ephebophile priest problem, and that many of the priests in question were gay. This perspective was re-affirmed recently by the Church's official delegate at the United Nations. [1] ADM (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If they were ephebophilic, that is a paraphilic disorder, so I'm unclear where being gay comes into it. Being gay is not a paraphilia, but a sexual identity. Were they attracted to adult men as well as adolescent boys? That would mean they were homosexual and ephebophilic. Being attracted to adolescent boys is not being gay. Mish (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mish, ephebophilia is not classified as a paraphilic disorder...well, not generally. The age/look of the boy matters when classifying what it is or may be. If it is a 14-year-old boy who clearly has no type of adult resonance to his face or one who could pass for a 12-year-old, then I am more inclined to think of an adult male being sexually attracted to that as having a mental or some type of paraphilic disorder. Although...ephebophilia stresses the point of 15 to 19 for its age range. But, if, for example, it is a man constantly going after 17-year-old boys, it is difficult to say that is exactly distinct from if he had been constantly going after legal adult 18-year-old males. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are mixed cases, perhaps some ephebophilic clergy are homosexual while some are not. In any case, many in the press and in the general public tend to conflate the concepts of gay identity and same-sex relations, which is why this was brought up publicly in the first place. Conservative bishops in the Catholic hierarchy have obviously taken advantage of this confusion and have made new rules against the ordination of seminarians with deeply-rooted attachments to the gay culture. ADM (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because the public conflate these things (supposedly), that does not mean we have to, especially when it is not accurate - he doesn't talk about 'mixed-cases' in the report, he talks about priests who are predominantly ephebophilic. It may be that homosexual priests have been punished because of the activities of these ephebophilic priests - although it may just be that in working on getting their house in order, JP2 & Ratzo realised that there were a lot of 'gay' priests (and monks and lesbian nuns) around that didn't really fit in with what people thought priests, monks and nuns were supposed to be doing, and started kicking them out.

• "The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males. Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

Interesting that this is not referred to as a sexual disorder, but as a 'sexual orientation minority'. Is it worth noting that 20% were alcoholics? But definitely no connection with being gay, rather 'a homosexual attraction to adolescent boys'. (odd phrasing, as a male sexual attraction to males is a homosexual attraction - I guess this is an example of why the APA recommends religious people stick to what they know rather than get involved in psychology). So, the context is that very few priests are ephebophiles in the Catholic church, and many of those that are are also alcoholics, and lots of religions have this problem, including Protestantism and Judaism. So, how would you propose phrasing this to accurately reflect the source? I see no justification for inserting anything about these priests being gay, as that is not in the source, and no point saying they were homosexual, as the way they are described (having a sexual orientation towards adolescent males) is already covered within the article's description, and there is nothing to suggest they had a homosexual sexual orientation towards adult males (i.e. were homosexual) as well as being ephebophiles, but simply towards adolescent boys in most cases. Mish (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement in that source is partly wrong anyway; ephebophilia is certainly not about the sexual attraction or preference for boys as young as 11. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to quote directly from the Guardian source, but rather I think a good thing to do would be to look back at the John Jay Report of 2004, where it seems that the term ephebophilia was first used in such a context. [2] Public commentators have interpreted the John Jay Report in a variety of ways, some liberal and some conservative, and one of these conservative interpretations was to claim that priest abuse scandal was related to the clergy's gay problem. [3] ADM (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds a bit like WP:OR. You cite the Guardian, but don't want to quote it, yet the distinction is explicit therein. I don't have access to the Routledge paper myself, but again, the abstract is clear this is about ephebophilia rather than paedophilia or homosexuality, and within the article you wikilink to or Catholic sex abuse cases there is no mention of any gay or homosexual connection. That leaves this rather bizarre website you cite, which I doubt could be taken as a WP:RS. It would seem that the best that could be said about the Catholic priest business in the context of this article is that most of the Catholic priests involved in this scandal were ephebophilic, and that certainly should be in there, but I don't see how it justifies the inclusion of Anti-gay propaganda. However, if you do find some reliable sources on this, I'd be more than happy to include it in that article instead. Mish (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was initially not quite sure what to do with this. I can tell you that the comments in the Guardian are so distorted as to almost be offensive. As has been pointed out, ephebophilia is not a gender-specific term and has nothing to do with seeking same-sex or opposite sex partners. That kind of angered me when I read that line. In addition, psychological science established as far back as the 1970s that the gender of the victim is completely unrelated to the adult's sexual identity and past sexual behavior with adults.(Groth and Birnbaum, 1978; Holmes 2002) There are straight, married men who molest boys.

I also have serious doubts about the statistics on the gender of the victims. In the general population, sexual abuse of minors is overwhelmingly adult male with female minor. But media basically ignores this, and it is more easily hidden or denied. Media loves to zero in on same-sex abuse cases because, well, let's face it: the US is still pretty homophobic and popular consciousness finds this all the more horrific.

Also, remember that ephebophilia, like pedophilia, is a preference for that age range, not a description of their actions. While it is a more accurate term for the Catholic abuse cases than pedophilia, no evidence has been offered that this was a ingrained preference and not a crime of opportunity. For example the John Jay Report claims that 59% were accused of only a single allegation.Legitimus (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Legitimus. As I stated above, they have the definition of ephebophilia somewhat wrong; it certainly is not about a sexual attraction or preference for boys as young as 11. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebephilia vs. ephebophilia

The problem seems to be the conflating of ephebophilia and hebephila. I've been through the sources I can access and tried to clarify this. The problem is that there is not firm source for what this is, as it is only a proposed diagnostic category, so the definition can vary according to who is describing it - and the maximum age also relates to age of consent. So, for girls, the upper limit is 16 years old, but for boys, in the case of same-sex, it is limited by the legal age of consent for males - which means that in the UK it would be the same as for girls (16), and an attraction for adolescent males over the age of consent is no more paraphilic than for girls - unless the adult involved is in a position of trust and/or authority (teacher, relative, priest, etc.) and the adolescent is under 18. It needs to be clear that this is not a formal diagnosis. Mish (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of any chronophilia term being defined by matters of law. It was my impression that it was matter of physical (and some might say mental) maturity. But you would be right in that is a poorly defined term all around because it is not standardized by any sort of governing body, such as the DSM or ICD.Legitimus (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it is between consenting adults it is between consenting adults - otherwise it makes no sense to have different definitions for male attraction to adolescent girls (14-16) and to adolescent boys (14-19). The whole thing is poorly defined, and different sources seem to define it slightly differently. I'm just trying to reflect the sources, and the one I cited on ethics seemed to pin it to the age of consent, which is a legal definition rather than medically defined. The whole thing gets bizarre - is a 21-year-old male's attraction for a fully-mature 19-year-old ephebophilia? What about a 17-year-old for a 15-year-old girlf who's got a baby from a previous boyfriend? How about a 20-year-old fully developed male for a 30-year-old undervirilised male who still looks like he's 18? Some of these fit the definition, but appear odd, while others don't but probably are more relevant. It is poorly defined because it is based on certain political attitudes about age, sex and gender. Mish (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Mish, I understand your concerns, and I have expressed similar concerns higher about this on this talk page. But you changed the lead to say that ephebophilia is the sexual preference for underage mid to late adolescents; that is not completely true. If you talk to sex researcher James Cantor, who has studied this more than any of us here and whose source we use in this article, he will tell you this. And of all the research I have done on pedophilia, what is in between, and this, I can also tell you that it is not about the age of consent, which is why I took that out of the lead. For example, in the way you give an example, I give the example of a 17 and 18-year-old. If we say the ephebophilia is the sexual preference for underage mid-to-late adolescents, are we saying that 17-year-olds typically look physically different age-wise than 18 and 19-year-olds and that a ephebophile will typically not go after them sexually? I can certainly say that 17-year-olds generally cannot be told apart from 18 and 19-year-olds. And the thing about a 21-year-old male's attraction for a fully-mature 19-year-old being ephebophilia, I brought up something similar to that before (higher on this talk page). But we have to remember that we are talking about the preference, not the attraction. A man being sexually attracted to a 19-year-old is, of course, not ephebophilia. And we are, of course, not talking about a 17-year-old being sexually attracted to a 15-year-old girl. We can specify ephebophilia as being an adult attraction, as we do for the Pedophilia article, although a 16-year-old with a sexual preference for prepubescent children can be classified as a pedophile. But classifying ephebophilia as being about the age of consent is doing more harm than good, in the same way that some people believe that any older adult (20 or older) who is sexual with someone even a year under the age of consent is a pedophile. Pedophilia is not based on the age of consent and neither is ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, we should always go with medical sources first on something like this, and the medical source that James Cantor provides says 15-19, which is also sourced lower in the article. If we are going to put some of how the law defines it, if they do define it, then that should go after what the medical sources say...like is done with the Pedophilia article. I also do not feel that we should specify ephebophilia as being about post-pubescents; there are plenty of 15-year-old boys and girls who are still pubescent, which is why, in truth, hebephilia and ephebophilia cross each other enough, though ephebophilia is distinct enough from it. And, yes, referring to epbebophilia as pedophilia is colloquial use...because it is a widespread improper use of the word. And as for ephebophilia rarely being considered a mental disorder, unless it affects the ephebophile's life in a destructive way, that is basically sourced lower in the article as well; this also makes it clear that ephebophilia is not a formal diagnosis. And by "rarely," we mean that it is not listed as a paraphilia or mental disorder in those two authorative medical sources...except for in certain cases. Though we could specify that in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I specified the lead to mention that it is an adult sexual preference, and to stress that it is about the sexual preference, not simply the attraction (though I worded it better than that, LOL). This should stop confusion right off the bat for people who would otherwise overlook the "preference" part and feel that a 30-year-old man sexually involved with a 19-year-old woman, for example, is an ephebophile. How do you feel about the lead now? Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to make clear that it is as an exclusive compulsion that makes it a paraphilia, and not applicable in individual cases. I need to take your word on the Blanchard and Cantor article - I can't access the ASB article in full (all I can access discusses hebephilia) which is why I have cited another source, which gives 14-19 for boys and 14-16 for girls. Colloquial is not the right word - because professionals, religious groups, politicians, and the media appear to use it this way - popular seems better, especially as there is no coded substance for ephebophilia, only a catch-all code that has allowed abusers to be treated, but not as paedophiles. Mish (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, it is not typically regarded as a paraphilia. The lead also makes it clear that it is an exclusive compulsion by stating it as a sexual preference. As I also stated before, chronophilias are not about the law/age of consent in actual definition and are rather more about the physical than anything else. You specify 14 to 16 for girls, when, really, 16-year-old girls look no physically different age-wise than 17 or 18-year-old girls, for example. And medical sources, such as ones provided by James Cantor, say that hebephilia typically covers 14-year-olds in addition to its younger ages. But I left your addition/source about that and boys ages 14-19 in after the medical source (which specifies it as 15 to 19), and I specified it as "sexual ethics." I am also not seeing how colloquial is the wrong word to use; I am not seeing any experts (who know what they are talking about) refer to ephebophilia as pedophilia. The fact that it is referred to as pedophilia in widespread use, despite being the wrong word to use, is exactly what colloquial covers. But I obliged you and left the word colloquially out. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is unclear - it is a label used for some people, but not a pathology, most professionals don't know about hebephilia, which gets confused with ephebophilia, but ephebophilia is not in DSM/ICD - so it is hard to see how it would be used as a diagnosis. It all sounds a bit WP:OR based around one or two psychs mining of Hirschfeld for new pathologies - if most professionals don't use it (not having a code for it). Until it gets in DSM, I'm not sure this even warrants an article on such thin sources. Mish (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ephebophilia not being well-defined is due to it being a confusing topic in general. For example, I have come across plenty of 17-year-old young men and women who easily look no physically different age-wise than 21-year-olds. I stress that often. It is no surprise that this indistinguishable look is often used by Hollywood when casting early 20-somethings as teenagers. All of that is why this is not considered a mental disorder and putting it as such in the DSM (though it is kind of there already, for specific circumstances) would be damaging (as in people being classified as suffering from this "mental disorder" in which many mid to late teenagers and early 20-somethings cannot be told apart age-wise). I currently have teenage siblings and have seen this type of indistinguishable look with not only myself when I was that age (I am female, by the way) but them and their friends as well, where a few male friends of my soon-to-be 17-year-old brother have full facial hair and can easily be mistaken for being in their early 20s. Thus, this always makes me ask why someone would continually go after a 16 or 17-year-old sexually, as Mark Foley did, when they can easily go after an 18-year-old who is not physically distinguishable in age from 16 and 17-year olds. Is it the perceived thrill in some cases? The "forbidden fruit" complex? The feeling that a 15 or 16-year-old can be manipulated easier than an 18-year-old? Sure, a lot of 15 and 16-year-olds can be told apart from early 20-somethings, but going after the ones who cannot when a legal adult who looks to be in the same age range as them is accessible is just plain confusing. But this topic being confusing does not mean that it does not deserve its own article or is not notable enough for one, in the same way that such does not apply to the Hebephilia article. The term ephebophilia is used by a lot of sex research professionals and psychologists, not one or two psychs. If it were not, then everything else regarding this matter would be classified as pedophilia; there being distinctions is why this article is needed. It is not original research. Most experts know what pedophilia truly means, and they do not put a sexual preference for teenagers into that category. Hebephilia is the term that often gets lost by some sex research professionals and psychologists; but the fact is hebephilia and ephebophilia are not the same thing...even though they do cross a little; both deserve their own articles.

My whole point of editing the lead recently was to make it clear that ephepbophilia does not mean a sexual preference for children as young as 11 or anywhere too close to that; it generally means a sexual preference for 15 to 19-year-olds, even though enough 14-year-olds cannot be told apart from 15-year-olds age-wise and no 19-year-old can be told apart from a 20-year-old age-wise (unless one looks significantly younger or older; confusing, huh?). But the term is saying "generally teenagers of this age range." The term, while not typically a pathology, is used by plenty of sex research professionals and psychologists. Your including 14 to 16 based on legal matters is simply something I objected to for the reasons I stated above; I feel that it confuses more than it helps, as if 17, 18, and 19 are off-limits. But at least it makes more sense in the context I put it in. I understand your frustration with this topic quite well; it has confused me since I started studying it, along with pedophilia, years ago at age 16 (though I was never confused by what pedophilia entailed). Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: James recently added the word colloquially back in. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic in hand

Right. So, back to the priests then (which set all this off). Were they fiddling with late adolescent youths or early pubescent children - and does it make them ephebophiles, hebephiles, or just plain old fashioned paedophiles? And if they were ephebophiles, does this need underlining that the problem with that was the age of the kids, or the relationhsip of authority and trust they were in? Was this about one-off opportunism, a 'preference' for late adolescent boys, and how does this get dealt with in this article? Is there a source that says they weren't ephobophiles, as all that we seem to have are sources that say they were - which may be wrong - but without a source to say that is wrong, how do we deal with that? Remember, this is not about what is true or false, right or wrong, but what can be gained from verifiable sources. The sources say what ephebophilia might be (based on recent hyping of work done nearly a century ago), but other sources use ephebophilia to describe something that may not tally with Blanchard & Co.'s revived-definition. Despite the Catholic church being run by a bunch of ignoramuses (no POV there!), their PR men have been cited saying this stuff - so I can see no good reason for keeping it out - even though the paedophiles they want to re-brand as homosexual ephebophiles are probably people with a hebephilic preference for early pubescent males. Mish (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good questions, Mish (though I am not sure I appreciate your tone of "Right," if you meant it the way I feel you might have meant it, LOL; I really have been studying these matters since age 16, as previously mentioned on the Pedophilia article talk page, but that is another topic). Anyway, from this new section you started, now I feel that I am even more confused about the "pedophile priests" matter, LOL. I am not for including it, mainly for the reasons you, Legitimus and I mentioned above. I mean, with 11-year-olds included in their definition of ephebophilia, it does not exactly belong in this article...unless we mention that some were ephebophiles. Though the term ephebophilia has been revived by "Blanchard & Co," it is stated not to be the same thing as hebephilia (although the term hebephilia was introduced in 1955). I get the feeling that you feel ephebophilia originally covered hebephilia when the term hebephilia did not exist. But even if that is the case, the two terms are stated to be different enough from each other now. If ephebophilia were to also mean pubescents as young as 11, then where does hebephilia fit in? Are we supposed to act like the term does not exist and that hebephilia and ephebophilia are the same thing? As I stated before, though they cross a bit, they are different. Yes, Wikipedia does stress verifiability more than truth, but we should also exercise common sense. Like was recently done on the Diablo Cody article when regarding Diablo's Personal life section. With other articles, though, when we know something is wrong or is shown to be wrong due to valid sources, I am not seeing why it should be included. We have plenty of reliable sources that call the priests pedophiles, but that information should not be in the Pedophilia article...clearly due to most, if not all, of these cases (according to sources) not having been those of pedophilia and it having had more to do with Child sexual abuse; that is why a link to it (Catholic sex abuse cases) is provided in the Pedophilia article instead of it being in that article's text. Not to mention that unless they are diagnosed as pedophiles, it does not belong in that article's text. There are also plenty of articles from reliable news sources that name statutory rape of teenagers (as it usually means) as pedophilia, but that does not mean we should include that in the Pedophilia article and name those cases as pedophilia. Why? Obviously because such cases are not truly about pedophilia, despite what the sources call it, and because of Wikipedia:Not News. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by 'right' or 'wrong' was in the vein of 'correct' or 'incorrect'. We rely on accuracy and reliability. If the source is reliable, and the circumstances notable, then we report it accurately, as what the source says, regardless of whether the source is true, false, right, wrong, correct, incorrect. We address the error in a source when it is addressed in another source. Maybe something needs to be inserted, with a link to the relevant article, and a footnote explaining the error - because this error seems to have come straight from one of the horse's mouths, and presumably was reported elsewhere. The footnote is unusual, but of we agree to having it, it would avoid having a misleading entry based on the error in the source. Mish (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean. I was definitely thinking that if we include something that is clearly false, such as a source calling a sexual attraction to an 11-year-old ephebophilia, then we need to point out why, with another source, this is incorrect. Though maybe that is not needed in this case, since the lead and Characteristics section specifies what ephebophilia is. If we include information on the Catholic sex abuse cases in this article, one of my concerns is us classifying them as ephebophiles or whatever else. How can we honestly classify them as pedophiles, hebephiles or ephebophiles? It is not as though they were officially diagnosed as either one. We could state that although they have largely been called pedophiles by the media, they are more characteristic of hebephiles and ephebophiles. These men going after the same type of boys sexually could have been more a matter of environment, as in the men being opportunistic rather than truly having a sexual preference for the boys. This is seen with some child sexual abuse cases, where not all people who have sexually abused prepubescent or early pubescent children who still looks pubescent are pedophiles; the Pedophilia article also touches on that. As an alternative, we could link to the Catholic sex abuse cases article in the See also section.

On a side note, I want to state that I doubt ephebophilia ever originally covered hebephilia. Ephebophila has always been defined as a sexual preference for mid to late adolescents. I do not see how the 11, 12, 13-year-old age group could be considered mid-to-late adolescent. Additionally, hebephilia is closer to pedophilia than it is to ephebophilia. Plenty of 11-year-old boys, for example, still have not hit puberty. The same goes for some 13-year-old boys (with a small number of girls included), which is why the Pedophilia article lists age 13 as the general cut-off point (having more to do with boys). Even when these boys and girls do hit puberty (as in just starting to evolve into adults), they do not look like they have and largely still resemble prepubescents. I have seen enough 13-year-old boys still look 11 myself. I highly doubt that a pedophile who usually goes after prepubescent boys of about age 9 is going to pass on going after a pubescent boy of age 11. Not much physical difference between the two boys age-wise. Pubic hair? If the 11-year-old has any, the pedophile could insist that the boy shave...if pubic or any other type of body hair resulting from puberty turns the pedophile "off" (which is the case for most, since this type of hair symbolizes adult characteristics). It is not until the boy significantly develops some adult physical features...that the pedophile may "quit" the boy and will usually start to look for a younger boy (of course one who is or looks prepubescent). Part of the reason the lead did not previously specify the age range of hebephilia as 11 to 14 is because there are many 11 and 12-year-olds who are still prepubescent. This is probably why the Hebephilia article does not currently specify the age range. I suggest us taking out the age range of hebephilia from the lead of this article, or at least tweak it in a way that it is clear that ages 11 and 12 are not off-limits to pedophiles in general. Most experts who study these sexual philias are still going to consider a man who typically goes after pubescent 11-year and 12-year-old boys for sexual gratification to be pedophiles (for the reasons I stated above); the Pedophilia article even states the early pubertal stage as pedophilia in its Diagnosis section. All of this is where the term hebephilia gets lost.

Anyway, do we include information about the Catholic sex abuse cases in this article and state that although these men have largely been called pedophiles by the media, they are more characteristic of hebephiles and ephebophiles? Or do we simply include a link to the Catholic sex abuse cases article in the See also section? Do we not include this information at all? Other ideas perhaps? Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A brief comment which explains the problem, with a link to that article, I'd say. My own view is this is all smoke-and-mirrors trying to occlude the problem of priests fiddling with kids. The way this has gone - they aren't paedophiles, because the kids were of a certain age, so they got called ephebophiles, but that is wrong because the kids were younger - and they never got called what they were (hebephiles), so they can't be sourced as that. Hey presto, all of sudden they've disappeared (just like they did in real life). This group of psychs is quite good at that - fiddling with terminology in a way that makes people disappear. They've been doing it with intersex and transsexualism too - in one situation they make abusers into victims, and have them disappear, or they turn victims into abusers and make them disappear, and use paraphilia to make people appear similar to abusers who are not. I'm not certain we need to be working so hard to support this group in this, especially in this area, because as you say, for most people these three types of child-abuser are all paedophiles, whatever some bishop says, and I'm not sure we have to sanitise that by following his approach of shifting the blame onto homosexuals via a misapplication of the term 'ephebophile' Mish (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mish, you mean sex researchers in general when you mention making groups of people disappear? I can understand your frustration about the intersex and transsexualism topics, but I feel that it is understandable that the term hebephilia gets lost as much as it does (for the reasons I have stated). In this case, however, if these priests mainly went after kids at least two or three years younger the typical age range for ephebophilia, then I definitely agree with you that the source is trying to make it seem as though these men are distinct from pedophiles (as if they are better than pedophiles, as in close to normal). As I stated above, going after 11, 12, and 13-year-old boys sexually is not really all that distinct from pedophilia; it is pedophilia in most cases if a continuous thing. If the source knows about ephebophilia, then how do they not know about the term hebephilia? Is hebephilia really all that lost to them, or did they simply decide to go with the term ephebophilia as to better shift the blame onto homosexuality? I am not sure how much of the general public actually believes that people targeting 15 to 17-year-olds sexually are pedophiles, no matter how much they refer to it as pedophilia, but continuously going after children as young as 11 for sexual gratification is almost always believed to be actual pedophilia...by both the general public and experts. I ask, though, do we know how old most of these boys were? I remember them being referred to as teenagers in the past. Is it not true that some were teenagers? If some were at least 15, then some of the men may, in fact, be ephebophiles. And, really, I am not sure whether this was the case of any sexual philia, which is what I basically already stated earlier. As I stated then, it could have been an opportunist thing rather than most of these men having a sexual preference for boys this young.

Do you want to try and tackle this in this article? Or would you rather I do it? Do we both work on it together? I still do not feel it really needs to be in this article's text, though, and that a link to that topic in the See also section will suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can do it if you can be bothered - I can't be, as I'm having second thoughts about whether it needs to be in the article on the basis of report detailing the misapplication of the term by a priest. As you say, we don't know the frequency, age-range, etc., other than what we have been told by people who have shown themselves to be more interested in limiting the damage to their religious multinational corporation than facts about the situation.

BTW. I've tagged the sentence about 'colloquially' - as this is different from what is in the text, and the lead is meant to summarise text. To have the text describe one thing:-

• Researchers state that hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on pubescents, has not come into widespread use, even among professionals who work with sex offenders, and may have been confused with the term ephebophilia, "which denotes men who prefer adolescents around 15–19 years of age".

and the lead something else:

• However, the term pedophilia has colloquially been used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical, mental, or psychological development.

Doesn't help to disentangle the confusion ordinary people might have when encountering these words (I realise that according to a recent survey physicians in the USA do refer to this resource in aiding diagnosis - many readers will be using this as an encyclopedia, not a diagnostic manual). The reliance of ephebophilia on hebephilia and paedophilia just to explain it suggests to me it might be simpler merging the two articles (hebe & ephebo) into one, as they are usually located together in the sources cited - and rename the article Ephebophilia and hebephilia. Mish (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am likely not going to add the Catholic sex abuse cases information to this article. I am simply going to link to it in the See also section. As for the term colloquially, I went ahead and changed it back to "commonly"; but it means the same thing to me in this case. Just because the terms hebephilia and ephebophilia are not used as much as the term pedophilia does not mean that the term pedophilia has not colloquially been used to refer to these terms. I consider it colloquial use because the term is widely applied incorrectly in these cases. It is not much different to me than people thinking that the term gender always means the same thing as biological sex.

Merging the hebephilia and ephebophilia articles? That has been brought up before (though I cannot remember exactly where), but I feel that it is a bad idea due to my feeling that it will lead to more confusion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever we say, the sentence still needs a source. We know that priests and journalists, and thus the general public, call it one thing - and at least some psychs call it other things - but it should have source that backs this up, otherwise it is WP:OR. Mish (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not original research that the term pedophilia has commonly been used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent. To me, and I am not trying to be funny here, sourcing that is like sourcing that the sky is blue. Common sense things such as that do not really need sources. Additionally, if something is already sourced and mentioned lower in the article, the same mention does not really need to be sourced in the lead. The lead, as you know, is just to summarize what the article already covers. But even though I feel that it does not need to be sourced and since mention of it is not lower in this article, I went ahead and added a source to the "pedophilia has commonly been used to refer to" part, a source that is already in the article (though that source also ignores the term hebephilia). Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, that statement wasn't elsewhere in the article, and we can take nothing for granted - as you can see, the source says "generally", to which I'd say "commonly" is pretty close to (although by all means replace by "generally" if desired. Mish (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)If it can't be worked into the article, and based on all the "uncertainty" above, leave it out of the See also so we are not "endorsing" some connection. I have no idea or opinion about working it into the main article, especially after reading everything above. Good luck...--Tom (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Various term meanings

Discussion moved from User talk:ŠJů#The Ephebophilia article. --ŠJů (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, ŠJů. I changed the first part of the lead of this article back to before your edit, but I left in your addition about some authors using the term "ephebophilia" to only refer to a sexual preference of pubescent and adolescent boys. The reason I altered your change is because an "erotic preference of young people" is not very descriptive and could cover a wide range of "erotic preferences," and because the lead of this article has been extensively discussed/debated on the talk page; hebephilia has also been discussed there. From what I know, the term ephebophilia should be specified as a sexual preference first, and Wikipedia wants us to describe exactly what it is first. Fellow Wikipedia editor and sex researcher James Cantor, who has helped revive the term, has helped to define this article's lead; he has weighed in quite a deal about it on the talk page as well, and says that the term generally refers to the adult sexual preference for 15 to 19-year-olds. He has never mentioned that it usually refers to the adult sexual preference for pubescent and post-pubescent boys. When I suggested he weigh in on a user talk page about whether or not ephebophilia is the adult male sexual preference for pubescent and post-pubescent boys, he did not; that told me that the user arguing for that definition was considered wrong by Cantor. And we do know, after all, that there are researchers who use the term to refer to the adult sexual preference for pubescent and post-pubescent girls as well. Cantor's work (research) is open for everyone to see, and I trust him. But I am willing to discuss this on the talk page.

As for hebephilia only referring to a sexual preference for pubescent girls, I would not say that is always the case...though it may be the usual case. You may want to add something about that to the Hebephilia article's lead. But it might be best to bring that up on the talk page of that article first as well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The terminology in this field is very variable evidently. Almost every notable researcher or institution have their own specific terminology. For example, Kurt Freund and some of his fellows seldom used the phrase "sexual orientation" and use systematically rather "erotic preference" instead, because the term "sexuality" is essentially bundled with the sexual dichotomy rather than with the attraction itself, which is in case of erotic age-preference unadequate and misguided. Terms as ephepobhilia or hebephilia have evidently very unsteady meaning and Wikipedia isn"t a suitable instrument to enforce only one meaning as the only right one and all others as contingent.

The European scientific tradition (including Magnus Hirschfeld, see de:Ephebophilie, and the originally European Kurt Freund which led an important Canadian reserach workplace) uses generally the terms "ephebophilia" and "hebephilia" is those meanings which I have included in the articles. Also hepephilia is generally used for attraction to girls. Maybe, its because the European continental scholarship has a continuity with the classical erudition, in which the Greek word "ephebos" is unequivocal and it would be to very bizarre to involve girls under it.

All definitions should be mentioned, but they should be referenced more precisely in articles than they are now. Page numbers and relevant textual citations should be referred, not only the book title.

My knowledge of English language isn't very profound, that's why I will not implement some more extensive reworking, but your version is very unbalanced, incomplete and misguided, in my (and European) view. --ŠJů (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The end of moved discussion part. --ŠJů (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to peruse the whole discussion above at once. Though I'm not able to judge the credibility of James Cantor's claims and erudition, I'm convinced that Magnus Hirschfeld, Kurt Freund and maybe probably also Aleš Kolářský are more relevant and experienced specialists. A researcher who works in Toronto (maybe, in the laboratory founded by Freund and named after him?) would have to know Freund's theories and terminology at least. The homepage of James Cantor appears to me that he too little worries about the precise and consistent definitions: he appears to be mixing people with the authentic paedophilic erotic preference with some sample of criminalized child sex-abusers (the basic distinction between those two phenomena was the fundamental reason why Krafft-Ebing introduced the new term of "paedophilia erotica" in point of fact) and the annotation of his research indicates that the research of his team has very shabby starting points. But its only my layman's impression, fortunately I'm not intended to criticise them officially. The fundamental requirement is that Wikipedia shouldn't be an instrument to superordination of one conception and suppression of others but NPOV should be thoroughly adhered. --ŠJů (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not forget that it is not just Cantor who has revived the term ephebophilia; the lead mentions "more recently revived by Ray Blanchard." Both of these men appear very credible to me, and their team includes others as well. But it is not just their team defining ephebophilia as the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents. And we do present different meanings of the term in the lead, including the one you included about pubescent and post-pubescent boys, but the general definition should go first in this case. If this preference was listed as a mental disorder by the medical community, then we would include that definition first. But the general definition, from what I have studied and seen of this term, is that it is the sexual preference for post-pubescent adolescents...usually referring to people halfway or completely done with puberty. Some sources, besides or instead of saying "post-pubescent," simply say the sexual preference for teenagers, or mid-to-late adolescents...similar to these online medical or popular press sources -- [4][5][6][7] -- but its definition is most definitely usually separated from "early pubescent." To simply leave it defined as a sexual preference for "young people" tells us nothing really. Prepubescents to 20-somethings are considered young people, for instance, and we know that ephebophilia is distinct from pedophilia. It does not seem as distinct from pedophilia (or hebephilia), however, if we are naming it as a sexual or erotic preference for pubescents right off the bat. I say that because the clinical definition of pedophilia can extend to early pubescent boys -- pubescent 13-year-old boys who still look prepubescent, for example. Other than the hatnote, it is also not a good idea to start the definition off simply as "a sexual preference for adolescents," considering that the definition of "adolescence" varies; some sources define it as young as 10 or 11, and pedophilia certainly includes those ages. Therefore, summarizing ephebophilia as a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents seems to be the more accurate definition (in my view)...and the one we should start with first, as to not confuse people by the other definitions further and to show that there is a medical distinction between it and pedophilia/hebephilia (though hebephilia, as applied to girls and boys, sometimes crosses with ephebophilia...especially in the case of pubescent boys). Hebephilia may usually refer to girls (which definitely appears more accurate, considering that early pubescent boys often still look prepubescent), but it does not always. And we must also remember post-pubescent girls. If hebephilia generally refers to pubescent girls and ephebophilia generally refers to pubescent and post-pubescent boys, where does that leave the sexual preference for post-pubescent girls? Just something not to be defined, since girls physically mature faster than boys anyway?

Regarding "sexual" versus "erotic," I feel that "erotic" does not define this preference as specifically as it should be defined. Ephebophilia is a sexual preference, and it seems more accurate to describe it as one, as we do for pedophilia and hebephilia. It is not simply an attraction, though some sources use the word "attraction" instead of "preference," or else any man who finds a 16-year-old boy or girl sexually attractive would be considered an ephebophile.

We could start off the lead of this article similar to how we used to have the Pedophilia article lead formatted, by stating that term has various definitions, and then lead into the definitions that way. But I still feel that it is best/more helpful if we first say that the term generally refers to a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents. And I feel that it is best that we do not add any more definitions to the lead, as to not confuse the heck out of people. I do not see what is "very unbalanced, incomplete and misguided" about the current lead, but I am willing to compromise with you on that...as I started off doing.

I will ask Cantor to weigh in on this. The other usual editor of this article, Legitimus, I believe still has it on his watchlist and already knows about this discussion...or at least will. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not able to a fully precise and detailed discussion in English, because I'm by far not proficient in English, and in the topic itself, I'm rather a learned layman than a real specialist. That is why I'm able to bring in my comments but not to be a full-valued participant here. I go try to draw up my comments:

• there exist very few "general definitions" on this topic. Maybe none. Every famous specialist had (or have) his own definitions and terminology - Krafft-Ebing, Hirschfeld, Money, Freund, Blanchard, also Plato... The DSM or ICD involve perhaps some definitions but those are strictly cramped by the purpose of such manuals and their paradigm: they can anything describe only as a disorder, not as an objective phenomenon in all its aspects. Every psychologic school has different point of view, forensic psychology or psychiatry or sexology has different view than an independent theoretical cogitation and research, and all represive and emancipatory and mob movements also have their influence to researchs and science, also anthropological views should be acknowledged. Wikipedia should describe all relevant views (in relation to their protagonists) as exactly and broadly as possible. Wikipedia shouldn't try to create some own "general definitons" or to destine which of them should be chosen as the "general". Blanchard's definitions are relevant, but not general. Every individual reserarch or theory need to create some specific definitions but this don't mean that such definitions are general.
• erotic (or sexual) "orientations" are complexes which never vere (and hardly can be) essentialy described. All definitions and boundary-lines are arbitrary or purpose-built. The real phenomena are fuzzy, diffusive, blending. Their essential manifestations are non-measurable, not exactly describable. That's the next reason why "general definitions" cannot be found. Btw, mid-late adolescents are generally attractive for adolescentophiles just as for pedophiles and andro/gyno-philes. In my view, typical pedophiles have the main range of their interests from 5 to 15 (the absolute statistical ideal can be ca 9 for some of them, ca 12 for others etc.), typical adolescentophile from 11 to 25, let's say, and typical teleiophile from 13 ad mortem (with many individual variations). An considerable overlap is evident. Every researcher and every research can chose his (their) own single-purpose definitions. Wikipedia should describe all the most known and most relevant definitions and terms in relation to their origin.
• As i wrote already, the word "sexual" is bundled with the sexual dichotomy. Moreover, this word confused several variuos aspects (meanings) to one mishmash: "relating to sexual dichotomy (diverzity)", "relating to orgasmic activities", "relating to procreation" and "relating to erotic feelings, attraction and love". Richard von Krafft-Ebing entitled his book "Psychopathia sexualis", but the new discovered complex was named by him "paedophilia erotica", not "peadophilia sexualis". In my view (and in Ebing's and Freund's view as well] is just the word "erotic" in this meaning more exact and fitting. As well IASHS mentioned sexology and erotology as two different fields. The word sexual is too vague and too joined with the binary model. (Also Michel Foucault's comparison between "sexual science" and "erotic art" can display some next paradigmatic differences.) I personally feel the word "sexual" in this context as a little dilettante. But I am alive that both words (sexual and erotic) have too many gutter connotations and the authentic (scholarly or classical) meanings are lost and covered in the common language.
• The article Pedophilia is also in bad condition. I have read parts of Krafft-Ebings "Psychopathia sexualis" in German and the reproduction of his claims seems markedly anachronistic misrepresented to me. Even it appears to me that this article was formerly in many parts better than it is now and that some important information disappeared, some reasonable formulations were replaced by more problematic and some parts don't keep to the point and confuse various matters together, some very doubtful hypotheses and claims are presented as facts etc. and markedly many links of such claims refers to Blanchard and his fellows (including Cantor) only. I will not try to repair it, but this article isn't a good model to following. I suspect that somebody changed this article to endorse his own POV only.

--ŠJů (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not trying to create some own "general definition." As I stated before, the term is generally used to refer to a sexual preference for teenagers/mid-to-late adolescents/post-pubescents. I gave a few online sources to partly demonstrate that and to show the rationale behind distinguishing it from a sexual preference for younger individuals. I must also disagree with you about typical pedophiles. Typical/true pedophiles do not have a "main range" of sexual interest in 5 to 15-year-olds...unless the 14 to 15-year-olds look prepubescent. 14 to 15-year-old girls usually do not look prepubescent, and therefore it is the prepubescent-looking boys of that age group a true pedophile may go after. All definitions and boundary-lines are not arbitrary or purpose-built. As someone who has extensively studied pedophilia, I can tell you that a true pedophile is significantly "turned off" by the idea of being sexually intimate with someone who is adult-looking (either significantly semi adult-looking or fully adult-looking). They have a sexual preference for prepubescent children, as various reliable sources verify. This is not something that was simply structured; it is simply how it is. There is no significant overlap of pedophilia with ephebophilia...unless you define ephebophilia as referring to early pubescents who still look prepubescent. I also point out that I did not once say "sexual orientation" in this discussion. I said "sexual preference." They are not necessarily the same thing. Sure, the term sexual preference currently redirects to the Sexual orientation article, but that is because of laziness in creating the Sexual preference article and because the two terms are often used interchangeably. This is why I unlinked sexual preference in the Pedophilia article. "Sexual" is too vague in your view? "Erotic" is too vague in my view. "Sexual preference" is extremely descriptive and pretty much covers a wide range of things...such as erotic fantasies, romantic fantasies/feelings, primary sexual preference.

Yes, Wikipedia should describe all the most known and most relevant definitions and terms in relation to their origin, but that does not mean that they should all be in the lead when they are this complicated. In the case of the Pedophilia article, it was needed to include all those definitions in the lead...since people often misuse that term. But with this article, we can create a Definitions section if you want to get into all the ways this term may be applied because of certain researchers/circumstances. The lead should summarize the article, per Wikipedia:Lead section. And in summarizing the term ephebophilia, it generally refers to mid-to-late adolescents. If we do not give a clear understanding of this term first, we leave our readers feeling that this term is generally applied to 10 to 19-year-olds and largely undefined. I must say that if we do that, we would be misrepresenting this term in full. While the age range for it varies, it is typically attributed to a sexual preference for mid to post pubescents; generally teenagers who are no longer in their early pubertal state or those who are done with puberty. It is not generally used to refer to 10-year-old adolescent pubescents; pedophilia and hebephilia are, yes, but not ephebophilia. And on the subject ephebophilia only referring to pubescent and post-pubescent boys in some contexts... If you include 10 and 11-year-olds, I am not getting how ephebophilia can refer to a sexual preference for both pubescent and post-pubescent boys. That age range is too wide. A pubescent 11-year-old boy's physical development, for instance, is extremely different than that of a post-pubescent 17-year-old boy/man (unless some unusual physical maturity defect has afflicted one of them), and therefore the attraction/preference to either is very different. They cannot both be ephebophilia, in my analysis. But even so, I have left your addition of "pubescent and adolescent boys" in the lead because it is sourced.

The article Pedophilia is in bad condition? Not in my view. We name the medical definition first, which is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. And then we go into the other ways the term is defined/used. The article was actually worse off, sometimes afflicted by pedophiles editing it, before myself and the others (the other now usual editors of it) fixed it up. We make a point not to confuse various matters together, or to have "very doubtful hypotheses and claims" presented as facts. But I welcome you to that talk page to go over what you feel are the problematic parts of that article.

The current lead of this article (Ephebophilia) is not too different than the way you altered it...except that it excludes first defining ephebophilia as the "erotic preference of young people." My reasons for not defining the term that way are given above, of course. From the sources in this article, it is clear that the term generally refers to teenagers above 13. Thus, I am not getting your problem with the current lead. Your English is fine, as far as communicating with us goes. I just am not getting your reasoning for not having the term generally refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I received from Flyer22 the note on my talkpage about this discussion. The lede does not seem too bad to me. Before saying anything else, I thought these (minor) clarifications might be helpful to the discussion:

• Kurt Freund, Ray Blanchard, and I all come from pretty much the same academic tradition. Blanchard was a student (and then colleague) of Freund's, and I was a student (and then colleague) of Blanchard's after that. (In fact, I do my work in what is now named the Kurt Freund Laboratory.) Although no one agrees always with his predecessors, we generally use the same terms the same ways (but we are human). Freund adopted the language that was introduced by Krafft-Ebing, but Krafft-Ebing did not write in English. (Although Krafft-Ebing's works were later translated, Freund was able to read the originals.)
• Between Freund, Blanchard, and me, we have probably published the majority of the scientific literature on hebephilia. So, our use has some weight, but we have little claim to the last word.
• There is more than one source that can be legitimately called an RS for the definitions of the age-related terms, but reasonable debate can be had over which might be the most official. Pedophilia is in the DSM, which is often used as RS Number One, but very many people use the term interchangeably (but incorrectly, in my view) with child molester. (Coincidentally, Dan Savage's column last week had comments from me on this topic. For what it's worth: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3347526)
• The proposals for the next version of the DSM (DSM5) have just come out (http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx). Blanchard is the chair of the subgroup writing the proposed criteria for the paraphilias section, and hebephilia has been included, defining it as the sexual preference for pubescent children (male or female) "generallly" ages 11-14. For emphasis, the dsm5 proposals are only proposals at this point.
• Ephebophilia has been written about very little. I am not aware of much movement to call it a diagnosis or disorder in an RS. Because there is little scientific literature on it, the body of RS's on it are much more influenced by the looser definitions used in non-scientific sources (mostly historical, even ancient).
• Scientists today (and probably for most of the 20th cent) use all of the age-preferences terms (pedo-, hebe-, ephebo-, teleio-, and gerontophilia) regardless of the sex. It's the classical (ancient Greek) texts that appear to have used ephebo- for males only. I am not aware of any contemporary references to hebephilia that are specific to female children.
• It is indeed true that Freund (et al.) often use the term "erotic preference" instead of "sexual orientation." Because the term sexual orientation is used so ubiquitously to refer to which sex one is attracted to, it made confusing the idea that it should instead refer instead to the kinds of person you want sex with. So, the term erotic preference (as Freund et al used it) would include both a sex (M/F) dimention (traditional sexual orientation) and an age (old/young) dimention (age preference).
• I know that my work personally is not exactly the topic of discussion, but I do like to think that I have accurately distinguished pedophilia from child molestation in my writings. Sometimes, I am discussing a sample of carefully selected pedophilic men, and sometimes, I am discussing a sample of molesters. (Of course, I am also sometimes discussing a sample of molesters all of whom are also pedophiles.) If anyone can name a specific instance where I might have slipped in my language, do please let me know; it would be important to me to correct myself.
• Finally, again just to set the record straight, I'm not sure that I (or Blanchard) did anything to revive ephebophilia. In fact, I can think of only a single article where we used the term at all. Any reviving of would probably be a side-effect of our work on other other age-preferences (and, I will wager, folks wanting to find another term in order to further distance themselves from pedophilia and hebephilia--I have read this frequently in the context of Catholic Church child abuse cases).

So, I guess what I am saying is that the uses of these terms vary in the "maturity" and therefore in their stability. The most stringent definitions are those in the scientific literature (although they too vary a bit), and (of course) that is my own suggestion for how they be used here. Most WP readers, however, will be running into the words in places other than in the scientific literature, and I don't see any reason why readers can't be given an appropriate, "In sexology, ephebophilia refers to...In classical literature, however, there are references to ephebophilia as..."
I hope that is helpful.— James Cantor (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, James. Your expertise is much appreciated. I just responded to ŠJů's most recent comment above. I admit that I have more expertise in the subject of pedophilia than in hebephilia or ephebophilia, but, like you have stated, the terms hebephilia and ephebophilia have not been studied to the same extent as pedophilia has been by the medical community. I also am not aware of much movement to call ephebophilia a diagnosis or disorder; I believe there is no strong movement there because it would be an extremely dangerous road to venture, taking into account the large number of mid to late teenagers who are physically indistinguishable age-wise from early 20-somethings. Talk of how these two age groups closely resemble each other has even erupted in forums about 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom; I believe it is because some people are truly not aware of how "grown-up" 16 and 17-year-olds can look...or how some are already post-pubescent (as in completely done with puberty).

But as for this article's lead, some other editor altered it to say "recently revived by Ray Blanchard" months ago. Since you did not object to that wording, I left it in. I will go ahead and change it to "recently revisited" now, though. But the lead is sort of already in the way you suggested it be altered in order to compromise with ŠJů. However, you are suggesting that we start off saying that it has various definitions and then lead in with the different definitions (as I mentioned above)? Does this mean you are for us saying "In sexology, ephebophilia generally refers to a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents (typically ages 15 to 19)," then follow that up with how is it defined in sexual ethics, and then mention that it is defined as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent male boys in ancient Greek? If so, what do you think of this, ŠJů? Yes, the "sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent male boys" part would be designated to the line about ancient Greek, but this is more in line with what James Cantor has just stated above. He also said that he, Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard generally use the same terms pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia in the same ways. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for wide answers. However, I'm not able to peruse all scientifically literature related to this topic. But I'm sure that the Czech psychologist Aleš Kolářský is a sexologist and that he is a witness of Kurt Freund's early working in Prague and his colleague or student here. Kolářský published many scholarly articles and some books about sexology diagnostics and he is perceived as an authentic witness and popularisator of Freund's concepts here in Czech Republic. And he systematically uses the words "adolescentofilie" (for both gender), "hebefilie" for girls and "efebofilie" for boys (in Czech language) in meanings which are mentioned above and repeatedly referred that Freund used for the more precise age differentiation the Roman numeral I, II and III. Maybe, it's only word of mouth and Freud personally didn't published such classification, but I have no reason to suspect Kolářský of lying about Freund. It is possible that Freund changed his terminology past his emigration to Canada and that his adapted it to some American (Canadian) one. However also the this year's Antropological Dictionary by Brno Masaryk's University stated in entries of "hebefilie" and "efébofilie" this meaning. And tha article at German Wikipedia stated that the word "efebofilia" was coined in 1906 by Magnus Hirschfeld for the (homosexual) attraction to boys from puberty (I don't know whether Hirschfeld meaned including or excluding puberty) to ca 20 years of age (and I have no reason to disbelieve this citation).

I don't know how wide-spread is which of those meanings. But I'm sure that Magnus Hirschfeld and Aleš Kolářský can be considered sexologists and that those meanings are used also in scholarly sexology texts. As I repeatedly mentioned above, I propose to beware of any kind of generalization or absolutization. We should to adduce all existing meanings in a way: this scientist defined ephebophilia this way in this his study from this year, other scientist or study defined it this way in this year, etc. Evidently both of those meanings are used in sexologic scholarly context. Evidently the meanings were changing and are changing and varying all the time. As far as we use some "general definition", it need to include the whole scale of used meanings, not only one of them. We should describe all differences, all changes, whole evolution and variability of the terminology.

Sorry I'm not able to answer all your objections at once. Often it is difficult to make understood each other in native language, all the more through some language, cultural and mentality barriers. I was convinced that Freund (also as Kolářský) consider as the fundamental manifestation of some erotic orientations (both - various orientations itself and various courtship stage succession disorders) the socalled proceptive symptoms (btw, also the word "proceptive" is too prejudicial and misrepresenting for such symptoms itself, which have only such "purposes" which we assign to them affected by our paradigmatic insularity). And many exprets need to see that every orientation has far more effects than "to want to have sex": even this effect is neither specific nor necessary. Every kind of orientation (regardless of its embodiment or omission in some nosological list) can motivate and faciliate many healthy ways of behaviour and many pathologic ways. I think, it's very incompetent to reduce or distort the essence of whatever erotic (sexual) orientation to "the kinds of person you want sex with". Orientation is not reducable to "admire to eat a canary". There are many and many ways of socializing and canalization of such feelings. But my private opinions aren't relevant in relation to the article. This all was manytimes well described from many points of view. The article should go out from all relevant published concepts and all relevant known approachs should be described in it. However, many articles worsened in last years markedly, though they never were and never will and can be perfect. --ŠJů (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ŠJů, I am not sure what else to state on this matter. We can include all existing meanings, but as I stated before, it does not all have to be in the lead. And in this case, I feel that it should not all be. Wikipedia articles often have Definition sections to address all meanings of a term and the different ways that particular term is used. We can address the most relevant ways the term is used in the lead...which is what we have already done...but putting "this scientist defined ephebophilia this way in his study from this year, other scientists or studies defined it this way in this year, etc." should not go in the lead; that is what I am saying. The lead should not confuse people about this term. Ephebophilia is not so undefined that we need to lead people to think that it is generally defined in any way one prefers. It is not generally defined as referring to a sexual preference for individuals under 13; if it were, the term really would not be needed...because pedophilia and hebephilia really take care of that. Yes, I know that you view hebephilia as generally referring to girls and ephebophilia as generally referring to boys, but still... Clearly, hebephilia can also refer to boys, and ephebophilia can also refer to girls. Age group-wise, we should not lead people to believe that hebephilia and ephebophilia are generally the same thing. If both generally refer to the sexual preference for pubescents, then what of the sexual preference for people who are close to/are post-pubescent (other than teleiophilia, which usually refers to the romantic/sexual attraction to those who have been post-pubescent for far longer)?

If you have a proposed version for the lead already worked out in your head, I welcome you to present that version here on the talk page so that we can work on it together. But I ask that you take what James and I have stated into consideration. Flyer22 (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Legalities

I see and appreciate the rich scientific discussion others are having on this concept. In the first section this sentence, "Acting upon ephebophilic preference can be illegal, for example, when the adolescent is below the legal age of consent (e.g. statutory rape)" is too broad. In approximately 50% of the states in the US and in many other countries, it would be illegal to act upon this preference (ages of consent 17-18). There are no states in the US where it is legal if the minor is 15 years of age. Therefore, "can be illegal" should be reworded or some addition is needed. A discussion could also be neccessary of the "close in age" rules that apply to sexual contact with a minor. The sum of this article also appears to romanticize the concept of being attracted to minors who are in their mid to late teens. Missing also is a discussion of the sheer amount of porn that depicts teenage girls.

I doubt the term Ephebophilia would be used or even necessary when talking about attraction to mid to late teenagers unless the person attracted is substantially older.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhornet1010 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Legality is a tricky subject for this article because it is only a side issue and because it is extremely complicated for the age group in question. The main focus really is supposed to be about a person having a primary attraction to this age group at the exclusion of available adult partners. Therefore, it is best to leave it as simple as possible, and allow the age of consent articles to take up that slack.Legitimus (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To add on to Legitimus's statement: I don't see how this article "appears to romanticize the concept of being attracted to minors who are in their mid to late teens." Unless you mean how it mentions the fact that it's common for older adults (more so men) to be sexually attracted to this age group, which is true when considering how adult some in the age group can look. As for the age of consent issue, I can understand your point. But the age of consent is 16 in plenty of US states and elsewhere as well, so that leaves 15 and under that is more so illegal. I get the feeling that you want us to state "is usually illegal." If so, how true is that when taking into account that 16 and 17 are legal in enough US states and countries, and 18-19 are almost always legal? We obviously can't state "is illegal"...unless we reword the line to "Acting upon ephebophilic preference is illegal when the adolescent is below the legal age of consent (e.g. statutory rape)." But then we'd have to mention other ways it can be illegal.

As for "close in age" rules, this article is not about teenagers being attracted to teenagers or early 20-somethings preferring someone not that much younger than themselves. Like you stated, "I doubt the term Ephebophilia would be used or even necessary when talking about attraction to mid to late teenagers unless the person attracted is substantially older." Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, age of consent in approximately 50% of the states in the US is 17-18 years of age and there are no states that have 15 as an age of consent. Therefore, it seems apparent that for the age group defined, 15-18 years, it would usually be illegal - although that is not the best wording (GreenHornet)

Thank you. And, I think you are making that very point should be made more upfront and explicit. As I remember it's not.(GreenHornet)

GreenHornet, you say, "age of consent in approximately 50% of the states in the US is 17-18 years of age and there are no states that have 15 as an age of consent." But according to Ages of consent in North America#State laws, "Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16." It says 16 is the most common. You must also remember that the age of consent is as low as age 15 in some other countries. Therefore, I am still presented with the wording difficulty I stated above. And 18? That is hardly ever illegal. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Acting upon ephebophilic preference is illegal when the adolescent is below the legal age of consent (e.g. statutory rape)." But then we'd have to mention other ways it can be illegal.

I would prefer that phrasing. Other ways such relations can be illegal should be left to the sexual assault and rape articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.141.65 (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change the lead to that as a compromise with you. I disagree that other ways this type of relationship can be illegal should be left to the Sexual assault and Rape articles, though. It should be noted in this article. If we are going to mention one way, we should mention others. I think the only other way such a relationship is illegal is when even though the younger person is a legal adult, it is seen as an abuse of power on the part of the older person (such as student-teacher relationships). I'm not sure about that being illegal, however. One can get in trouble for it, by the school, for example, but I'm wondering what limits the law gives on it. In any case, this is the other reason we used "can be"...because there is, or may be, more than one way that ephebophilic relationships can be illegal. But like I stated, I'll go ahead and reword the lead to my alternate proposal for now. Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Article has a problem regarding the term's source

MarionTheLibrarian removed the following sentence and reference from the article in this edit, creating confusion, at least for me. The information is not provided for blame but rather to try to figure out why the removal was done, such as by looking at the editing and/or contacting the editor.

Despite this classical etymology it is a term of modern coinage, created by [[Germany|German]] scientist [[Magnus Hirschfeld]] in 1906.<ref>Hirschfeld, M.: ''Vom Wesen der Liebe. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Lösung der Frage der Bisexualität'' ("On the nature of love, including a contribution on the solution of the bisexuality problem"), Verlag Max Spohr, Leipzig 1906</ref>

The reason there is confusion is that the article still contains the sentence below.

It has been used by Dutch psychologist Frits Bernard as far back as 1950, reprinted in 1960 in the gay support magazine Vriendschap under the pseudonym Victor Servatius, also crediting it to Hirschfeld though giving no exact date.

The sentence above uses the name "Hirschfeld", without even a first name, as though readers know who he is. However, the current form of the article does not mention him anywhere except in this sentence. If there is no controversy surrounding the origin of the term, and its removal suggests there might be, I suggest that the first sentence and its reference simply be returned to the article. Otherwise, I have no suggestions on what to do, as I cannot work on the article at this time. I just wanted to make sure that others are aware of the problem. -- Kjkolb (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Kjkolb. I'm MarionTheLibrarian. (I used that name for my first few months on WP before deciding to edit under my real name.)

I deleted the German-language reference only in deference to the English-language reference, in accordance with what my reading of WP:V, as I put in the diff comment. I think your new edit does indeed clarify who Hirschfeld is, and I would have no problem if you also wanted to re-add the original German cite. Although the general topic around sexual orientations towards youth is controversial, the origin of this particular word is much less so.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you very much for your reply. -- Kjkolb (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo

This photo for the article is meant to be innocent however, logic would suggest it is inappropriate and potentially a misrepresentation of what that artwork actually signifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.190.215 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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.[8][9] 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).

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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Actually, the term really refers to adult men who are primarily attracted to adolescent (i.e. post-pubescent) boys, and no amount of political correctness will change this. 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 homosexuality. This makes them ripe for exploitation and results in many of them becoming rent-boys, which is horrible. Trying to cast this term onto the general (but not exclusive) attraction of adult men for adolescent females is ridiculous, and reeks of political correctness and junk science. That sort of attraction is completely normal because youthful appearance in females has been a sign of fertility for hundreds of thousands of years in the heterosexual context; indeed this instinct has been bred into us. For gay men, fertility is not a concern; hence the status of a primary or exclusive attraction to youth as a paraphilia for them. Unfortunately, society is not willing to protect homosexual adolescent males with the same zealousness with which protects adolescent females; otherwise a lot of adult homosexual men would be spending time in prison. Recall how the police treated Jeffrey Dahmer's victims as participants in a mere lover's tiff between two gay lovers - this despite obvious signs of violence and abuse. This applies equally to lesbians, who often exploit confused teenage girls. This is utterly bigoted and discriminatory. Hopefully, society will one day provide homosexual adolescents with the same degree of protection it affords heterosexual adolescents.Arlesd (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.