Ephebophilia and Evolving Morality
Jonathan Rowe on May 18th 2006
Some people distinguish between pedophilia — the attraction to and/or behavior with prepubescent children, and ephebophilia — which involves post-pubescent but underaged actors. Personally, I’m of the mind that both activities are wrong for the same reason: They harm, or have the potential to greatly harm, the underaged actor involved. And that the younger the actor, the wronger it gets (and vice versa) and that our laws and social mores should reflect this.
On a related note, check out this interesting article by John Derbyshire, no social liberal, which contradicts the current moral sentiment of the National Review and Weekly Standard crowd in which Derb hangs. He seems to argue that ephebophilia (unlike pedophilia) is deeply rooted in human nature, that it is as natural and normal as natural and normal can be for adults to lust after post pubescent but underaged teens.
When a woman gets past her mid twenties, in fact, her probability of being raped drops off like a continental shelf. If you histogram the figures, you get a peak around ages 12-14… which is precisely the age Lolita was at the time of her affair with Humbert Humbert. As Razib noted, my own “15-20” estimate was slightly off. An upper limit of 24 would be more reasonable. The lower limit really doesn’t bear thinking about. (I have a 13-year-old daughter.)
Behind such sad numbers, and in the works of literary geniuses like Vladimir Nabokov, does the reality of human nature lie. It is all too much for our prim, sissified, feminized, swooning, emoting, mealy mouthed, litigation-whipped, “diversity”-terrorized, race-and-“gender”-panicked society. We shudder and turn away, or write an angry email. The America of 1958, with all its shortcomings, was saltier, wiser, closer to the flesh and the bone and the wet earth, less fearful of itself. (It was also, according to at least one scholarly study, happier.)
One of the first media sensations ever to impinge upon my consciousness was the visit to Britain by rock star Jerry Lee Lewis in May 1958, four months before Lolita’s American debut. This was supposed to be a concert tour, but 22-year-old Jerry had brought his wife Myra along, and the British press got wind of the fact that Myra was only 13. This wasn’t an unusual thing in the south of that time; Jerry himself had first been wed at 15 (when he already had a drinking problem). Myra was his third wife, and also his second cousin once removed. Back then country people grew up fast and close to their kin. Neither Jerry nor Myra could understand what the fuss was about. He: “I plumb married the girl, didn’t I?” She: “Back home you can marry at 10, if you can find a husband.” (This was not true, even in the south, though Myra likely believed it. She also, according to the British press, believed in Santa Claus.) It didn’t help that Jerry’s new record was titled High School Confidential.
How long ago it seems! Nowadays our kids are financially dependent on us into their mid-twenties, and can’t afford to leave home till they are 35. Marriage at 13? Good grief! And so, while Lolita met with a fair share of disapproval in 1958, and was denounced from many pulpits, I believe its reception would have been much more hostile if it appeared now.
On the issues of history and morality. My own understanding of the facts are (and please correct me if I am wrong), throughout most cultures including the West, and up until recently, no distinction was made between ephebophilia and pedophilia. Cultures followed the line nature draws between adult and child, which is puberty. After puberty, you are an adult ready for sex (provided it takes place within whatever social arrangements the society deems necessary for sex to occur, i.e., a marriage). The Jewish Bar and Bat Mitzvahs clearly remind us of this.
Yet, in our evolutionary state and for most of recorded history, people tended to die much younger and enter their vocational life much earlier. Back then, you really could be a young adult in your early teens and middle aged by your twenties.
Now people are living longer and longer; we don’t graduate high school until we are 18 and most of us don’t really start our adult lives, with all of its inherent responsibilities, until we are in our twenties.
Those are the historical facts; now onto the moral issues. Some argue that there are absolute transcendent moral facts, applicable to all times, everywhere (morality doesn’t evolve). Others argue that morality is entirely determined by history (morality evolves). And there are variations in between. To crudely characterize these moral views in political terms, the transcendent moral order theory is more associated with social conservatism; morality is historically determined, more with social liberalism. Although, the reverse can be true; there are social conservatives who do believe that morality is entirely historically determined and thus evolves (many are Burkean traditionalists who want it to evolve as slowly as possible). And there are social liberals who believe their morality — gay rights, equal treatment of women, etc. — is objectively true, and applicable to all times, everywhere. (I know leftist who make the theoretical case for this are probably rare; but certainly many social liberals act as though their morality is part of a transcendent moral order. And they love to judge past illiberal Western times by these present day moral standards.)
Social conservatives who believe in a transcendent moral order may complain that present conventional morality, especially sexual morality, seems to be evolving in the socially liberal direction and these changes have been, by in large, malign. Indeed, previously things like fornication, missing the Sabbath, homosexuality, contraception, miscegenation all violated conventional morality, (which was supposed to be based on transcendent moral truths); but now they don’t.
What’s interesting about ephebophilia is that, even though generally sexual morality, over the past 50 years or so (especially since the sexual revolution) has evolved in a more socially liberal direction, with ephebophlia, sexual morality is evolving in a more socially conservative direction.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but there is a marked upward drift in age of consent laws, which demonstrates that having consensual sex with underaged but post-pubescent teens is becoming less acceptable in our present, post-60s modern times. Anti-ephebophilia is truly novel and hence a “chic” notion.
And I personally support this change. As mentioned in the facts above, we are in a historically unique period of time where people are living and we are delaying childhood for much longer periods. Plus, recent studies I think have confirmed that brains continue to mature well after teen years and on into early twenties such that an adolescent seems to be a strange product of nature: fully biologically adult and yet still mentally and emotionally “kids.”
As I’ve mentioned before, even though I don’t approve of adults having sex with anyone under 18, I find it quite disturbing, Orwellian even, that we would call a consensual sex act between an adult and a post-pubescent mid or late teen “child rape” (which term connotes horrible evil). In a factual sense, this is not child rape; regardless of what “statutory rape” laws say, you cannot enact 2+2 = 5 into law. If we rather called adult/underaged teen sex, “improper sexual conduct with a minor,” I think we would more soberly react to the crimes, and not become hysterical about it when we think it may be occuring.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bench
You post pretty much sums up my feelings on pedophelia/ephebophelia. I do have one comment, though.
I’ve always wondered a bit about the whole “back in the day when people died at forty” talk. I know that average lifespans were much shorter in the past than they are today, but I’d not be surprised if that was largely a function of high infant-and-child mortality, rather than a reflection of how long a regular (reached adulthood) Joe would live before succumbing to “old age”.
Perhaps Positive Liberty’s resident historian will know.
Alan Scott is correct about the demographics. When as many as half of all children died before the age of five, an average lifespan of forty was only to be expected. The standard deviation, of course, was very high, and the mode lifespan was between zero and one years old.
All the same, Rowe is right about early marriage and adulthood, up to a point. Let me explain.
Among the European aristocracy of premodern times, marriage in the early teens and even younger was common for dynastic reasons, as the affairs of state often could not afford to wait until the children were grown up. Meanwhile, among those of middling and lower social station, marriage was often delayed until the man in question was wealthy enough to support a family — or until pregnancy forced the issue. It is a little-known fact, for instance, that as many as a third of births in early New England marriages arrived seven months or earlier into the union. Marriage ages could vary greatly among the middling and poorer classes, but the average was usually in the twenties, much as it is today. A key difference is that today we might be less inclined to counsel a pair of thirteen-year-olds to get married merely because the girl was pregnant. In those days, it would have been thought the only decent thing to do, even if they were too young to support themselves.
Among Europeans of all social stations, the boundaries between childhood and adulthood were a good deal fuzzier. Some have even postulated that, prior to the Renaissance, children were viewed as “little adults,” with most if not all of the legal and social responsibilities that were assigned to adults in their societies — and with clothing, manners, and habits that closely mirrored those of their elders. Philippe Aries championed this view, for example, adding that because children were lost so frequently, adults did not invest so much emotion in them, and childhood was far less sentimentalized during the era of high infant mortality.
Recently, however, historians of the medieval era (notably Barbara Hanawalt) have challenged this theory. While the legal and social boundaries may not have been so sharp, parents certainly did mourn their children tremendously — even though they did it more often — and childhood was nonetheless distinct from adulthood, even if it did involve more work and less play than it does nowadays.
Having taken a class from Barbara Hanawalt, I have to say I incline toward her view; fuzziness in a social concept does not mean that it doesn’t exist. (I also take Rowe’s view here, and I agree that sharpening the boundary does us all a lot of good. Making the law predictable and regular, even if it does exclude some extraordinary, Jerry-Lee-Lewis cases, promotes social stability and prevents abusive relationships.)
I am comforted by your discussion on ephebophilia. It is an issue not often spoken of responsibly or within a sociocultural context, and although I don’t have an extensive intellectual grasp of the subject I know how this sexually deviant behavior ruins the lives of its victims.
As a child, I hated the way old men would look at me or grope me when I was growing up, but as a progeny of a backwater city along the mexican border, I never reported such incidents to my parents. Where I grew up, this kind of behavior is common and brushed off by adults. “Just ignore him , he’s just a dirty old man.” I tried to forget for a long time.
Then I married a very wonderful man, who confessed to me 13 years into our marriage that he had been coerced when he was 11 to have sex with his babysitter for about a year . I always new there was something wrong with our sex life. He always seemed so ambivalent…so forced.
The breaking point for me was when it happened to my daughter. She is a beautiful girl who became troubled in her early teens. The therapist we sent her to coerced her into a 10 month long sexual relationship. When I found out, I did what I was supposed to do. I called the police. The two years since have been a rude awakening for me. My daughter has been described by our own attorney as sexually promiscuous and manipulative. I have been told in as many words that he will not go to jail for his crime. When I suggested therapy, the head of the sexual victim’s unit of the county attorney’s office said “that is insulting [to the perpetrator].” Two years after his crime, this man is still running a charter school in Arizona. He continues to live and work among teens virtually unhindered.
I can’t describe to you how sad I have been, but I am comforted by your discussion and I am resolved to do something about ephebophilia . I am a nurse currently attending graduate school. Once I have recieved my doctorate I intend to further research on this sexual compulsion and address this disorder within a sociocultural context.
From what I understand of Ancient Greek culture, there was indeed a difference between ephebophilia and pedophilia, so this is not completely a modern distinction without precedent in the West. While pedophilia was tolerated, ephebophilia was celebrated in Ancient Greece as a relationship between a youth coming into adolescence, usually 12-15 and an older youth or young man, 15-25. The relationship was intended ostensibly as a mentoring one; the older youth was exepected to instruct the “beloved” in the arts of war and love so the younger could assume the proper role of a warrior and husband (to a wife) later in life. Most evidence suggests that the sexual component to the relationship declined after both reached manhood; though it was expected that a life-long bond was formed. Part of the Greek assumption was that the best instructor in what it meant to “be a man”, to use our modern parlance, was in fact another man. It was the opposite of the rigid wall we have today between homosociality and homosexuality. The archetypal relationship is, of course, between Achilles and Patroclus. (Did the rage of Brad Pitt in “Troy” really make sense because his “cousin” had been killed?).
My understanding is that the concept of childhood as we currently conceive it, a period where one is shielded from the harsher realities of life, and innocence is an intrisic good which must be protected, came about during the Victorian period. I recall reading recently in “A Distant Mirror” about 14th century Europe a similar assertion that parents were very detached from their children. I suppose I can understand some level of detachment given the circumstances, but like Jason I believe parents probably still grieved significantly at the loss of a child.
As for the modern way we approach pre-majority sexual behavior, I think first of all our society is hysterical about it. Perhaps understandably as a (over)reaction to the indisputable loosening of sexual morality that has occurred, parents and the culture are fearful that this line will be crossed and thus are overreacting to it.
Regarding the late coming-of-age in our culture, I think experiences, particularly of the harsher realities of life, do a lot to shape one’s emotional maturity and I think, even if there are in fact biological differences between the brains of teenagers and say 20 year-olds, a 16 year-old of 1850 would probably be as mature as a 22, or even 24-year old today.
My mother was married at 16 to my father who was 22. They had been dating since she was 14. They are divorced now and never has my mother said that she felt “used” because of her relative lack of experience or wisdom at that age.
Looking at age-of-consent laws, some countries recognize that the “natural” age of consent, puberty, is the only non-arbitrary line that can be drawn, for example the Netherlands with its AOC of 12. (Unless that has changed in the last few years).
As a practical matter, I think that is far too young for children raised in our culture. Almost universally they will be lacking in the ability to make informed choices. In another culture, I might feel differently. Should 18 be the age? I would say that really depends on the 18 year-old. Does it really matter if it is two adolescents consenting , say a 16 year-old and an 18 year-old, like my grandparents, to a marriage rather than a 16 year-old and a 25 year-old? Why does the age of the partner have anything to do with the age one should be allowed to have sex legally? The answer offered is the manipulation of the younger by the older, that the younger has less intrinsic ability to resist the will of older, which I think is probably true. (Several states realize this and have “Romeo and Juliet” laws which prevent claims of statutory rape against the older partner provided he or she is within a certain number of years of the younger).
My main point is that once a person reaches the biological age which nature clearly intends to indicate is adulthood, pubescence, the burden is on society to explain why that person’s choices should be restricted. As a culture, defensibly I believe, we say our 12 year-olds are incapable of making informed decisions. Whether all 12 year-olds (or 14, or 16, or 18, whatever age you like) at all points in history, both past and future, were equally incapable is debatable (without resort to biological arguments that might for example say that we should all be restrained until we are 25; were you as sagacious at 18 as you are today?).
“Looking at age-of-consent laws, some countries recognize that the “natural” age of consent, puberty, is the only non-arbitrary line that can be drawn, for example the Netherlands with its AOC of 12. (Unless that has changed in the last few years).”
Isnt it fair to set an age of consent to sex with adults at puberty? Or at least to set a standard of sexual legality of actual COERCION into sex, as opposed to one of age alone, which is only empirically known to each actor and his mother? (If a sexual actor’s age is not known to his partner, how can the latter be held legally responsible for sexually abusing someone whose yearly age has been subjectively interpreted by legislatures as too young for sex?)
Also, when does a person become aware of a sexual act’s components and benefits? The answer is dependent on one’s knowledgeability; one’s place on a calendar merely loosely classifies one’s knowledgability. And yet one’s place on the calendar, i.e., numeric age, is the sole criterion in much of the world for permission to have sex with an “adult”, and the sole basis for irrational judgments like “child molester”, “rapist”, etc.
J.A.T.T.
“If a sexual actor’s age is not known to his partner, how can the latter be held legally responsible for sexually abusing someone whose yearly age has been subjectively interpreted by legislatures as too young for sex?)”
That’s a good point. In law school we learned that statutory rape laws were “strict liability” in terms of “intent.” (That is, even if you thought, in good faith, the actor was of age, it doesn’t matter; if it turns out they are underaged, you are screwed.)
The normal rule in criminal law is that you have to intend to do the crime, that is, “I know she is 14 and I want to have sex with her anyway.” If you don’t intend to do the crime but do the act anyway, you can use the defense of mistake of fact. That defense, it seems, is not available in statutory rape cases.
“Isnt it fair to set an age of consent to sex with adults at puberty?” The last two authors spend a worrisome amount of time ruminating over this question. It’s a given that
teenagers are sexually appealing. The scantily dressed cover girls all over the pages of magazines are a testament to the fact that people find teenagers sexy. Let me ask you this. Once that pie-eyed, my-little-pony-bedroom-decorating beauty opens her mouth, what normal middle aged man would go as far as to put his shriveling penis in that child? What does he use to decorate his room? What amount of nudity, begging, or “consent” would cause a sane person to spurn adult relationships to play at children?
Not to be flip A.S., because I think your general point is interesting, but what would make Anna Nicole Smith, an attractive young woman marry a 90-year old (or whatever it was), despite his presumably well shriveled penis? Well, despite what she might say about true love, I think it was probably about the money. Nevertheless it was her choice.
Was the 90-year old sick or insane to want or go after this woman? Many people might laugh or feel disgust at such behavior depending largely on one’s own level of lustful inclination versus priggishness, and thus sympathy or antipathy to a 90-year old’s urge to get one last nut with a hot young thing.
Was Anna Nicole an adult? I haven’t really seen her TV show more than once, but it seems like many people might classify her as something other than an emotionally mature adult.
I also find disturbing the idea of preying on a child, and the mindset of a pedophile I think is compulsive and deeply insecure. However, one person’s doe-like innocence is worldly sophistication to another. I know many people my age that I consider significantly more innocent and naive than I am, and I’m 31 years old. In fact, I think many times I can use that greater experience to manipulate the less experienced person to get what I want. Many people can and do this every day, we call it seduction. Should I feel guilt if I can seduce someone who is my age but clearly emotionally less mature than I am?
There are two separate issues here: 1) who can legitimately be seduced, and 2) does a person’s intrinsic sexuality, as attested by their pubesence give them some right to experience sexuality.
If it’s based purely on similar levels of sophistication, is it okay for two 14-year olds to engage in sex? Presumably, neither is taking advantage of the other, which seems to be the central thrust of your argument. I would argue the problem many people have is not actually pre-majority sex, but the idea that someone is coercing a minor to do something that they don’t want (or can’t understand the implications of) to do.
My second question: do we assume that people spring fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus at age 18 and are now full people capable of all choices and responbility for themselves (well, actually we do, but isn’t this not only arbitrary but irrational?)? Is there no process of development and maturation whereby one gains experience and sufficient knowledge? Don’t we just arbitrarily say that the average person should have acquired this knowledge at 18? Could it be we possibly do damage by suddenly switching our concept of a person, as the law does, from child to adult based on the change of one day?
(Side note: not all cultures do this, for example Italians have bambini, ragazzi and uomini or donne; children, young people and men/women. These aren’t only classification labels, we have those, but modes of address integrated into the culture, “ciao, ragazzo!”).
Reality suggests to me that beginning with puberty we begin to process and understand our sexual impulses; we each have varying levels of emotional maturity at different stages in our lives and thus can handle different levels of emotional and sexual engagement with another person. I believe a 15-year old on average is more emotionally and thus sexually mature than a 12-year old, and I believe an 18-year old is more mature than a 15-year old. I also believe a 21-year old is more mature than an 18-year old.
What’s the average level of emotional and sexual maturity at each of these ages in our culture? That’s really the point isn’t it? Age alone, absent the culture in which it is constructed, tells us little about the average person’s emotional, intellectual and mental development. I believe an 18-year old today and an 18-year old of even 50 years ago are significantly different beings in terms of maturity. (Maybe as J. Rowe’s new post suggests, we are drifting up in terms of AOC because we recognize this fact).
I think human beings are sexual beings; I think contrary to the popular norm that a certain amount of sexual experimentation with peers as one develops through pubesence is not only normal but healthy. I think that the whole “child predator” thing is so overblown and so local TV news that it’s almost impossible, even among intelligent, educated adults to have a conversation about pubescent sexuality without overblown comments and vast apologia stating one is really on the “right” side of the issue. For example, one has only to look at the comments posted here.
(I’m the same “Jeremy” that posted above.)
As much as you wish for the sake of your 13 year old daughter that society is changing the fact of the matter is that you can’t change what’s wired into human beings. Recently pubescent and youthful girls will always be the most coveted sexual objects. It’s well understood in modern society that 18 is the magic number at which it becomes okay to lust after an individual but innate sexual attraction knows no age boundaries.
Inevitably, these age restrictions create a tension in modern society that is quite possibly the reason for the alarming rates of sexual abuse & rape among young girls. There’s no good way to solve this problem by only focusing on age - sexual maturity varies drastically from one person to the next.
If anything, this problem is only becoming worse. As girls continue to develop woman like features at ages that are increasingly younger than the age of consent the rate of “sexual abuse” can only be expected to increase.
It is not quite true as you say that people live longer today. A few years, yes, but not as dramatic as statistics might lead you to believe. The reason why the life expectancy was around 40 in the Middle Ages is not because most people died before 40 - but because so many children died before the age of 5. If you made it to adulthood there was a good chance you would live to be 60, even 70.
As a victim of ephebophilia myself, I have come to believe that the NJ state laws for sexual conduct between an adult and a minor are actually quite reasonable. It was just a year ago that I was a victim of sexual assault by my high school music teacher. At the time, I truly believed that I was a willing and consensual party. I understood that I was more physically and mentally mature than girls my own age (16), but what I wasn’t aware of was that mental and physical maturity have nothing to do with it. One can be mentally mature enough to handle adult situations prudently, and physically mature enough to fill out lingerie, while still being vulnerable enough to be coerced into losing thier virginity to a sexual deviant.
It is understood that post-pubescent individuals are often quite attractive and sexually appealing. However, 25 year old men should know better than to take part in sexual acts with “hot” teenage girls who lack the life exerience necessary to put them on an equal playing field. Teenagers are sexual beings; they experiment. But sexual experiementation between two people with the same amount of life experience is much different then the sexual experimentation of two people separated by years of experience.
I am boggled by the amount of people who blame a teenage girl for “bringing it upon herself.” It is disgusting that some members of society expect a 16 year old girl to know better than a 25 year old male. In the end it comes down to this: What is worse? Having sex with a charming older man or an older man having sex with an inexperienced young female? Either way, the answer is the same: Any sexual relationship between two people of completely different levels of life experience is unacceptable. Thus, the responsibility should be placed on the adult.
” a 16 year-old of 1850 would probably be as mature as a 22, or even 24-year old today.”
=============
On what basis can you claim this? You say that this is “probably” the case? Why?
I simply cannot take this kind of assertion seriously without ANY evidence to back it up.
“I believe an 18-year old today and an 18-year old of even 50 years ago are significantly different beings in terms of maturity. (Maybe as J. Rowe’s new post suggests, we are drifting up in terms of AOC because we recognize this fact).
======================
Why on earth do you believe this? That just seems absurd and arbitrary.
Also, why do you think that sexual experimentation amongst teens isn’t healthy? You think contrary to that? What harm do you see in that?
Also, what evidence is there that men universally find pubescent adolescents sexually attractive? Certainly we are aware that some men do, as films like Lolita and American Beauty remind us. From my own experience, I am a 26 year old man and the youngest women I find attractive are about 16. Sometimes younger, but generally not.
At 25, I was hit on by a 15 year old girl who was high on ecstacy. Certainly she was sexy and I could have easily gotten her to have sex with me (and it would have been perfectly legal where I live), but I didn’t and I didn’t restrain myself for fear of legal problems (the age of consent where I live is 14). I don’t think that I am much of an exception.
I deal with women who are between 17 to 25 on a daily basis, most of whom I would consider my peers. I simply don’t find that most 17-19 year old women look like fully grown women to me. Yes, I do find some of them rather attractive, but I still prefer 20 - 25. I don’t think that I’m particularly unique in my sexual preferences. What evidence is there regarding the prevalence of ephebophilia?
There are a *lot* of assumptions that go into a conversation of this sort, and there are many, many variables that one must take into consideration before taking a stance in one direction or the other. It’s my understanding that ephebophilia is only used to describe those individuals who have an exclusive preference for pubescent teens, not simply an inclusive acceptance. There doesn’t seem to be all that much data readily available on the correlation between sex crimes involving pubescent minors and whether the perpetrators were sexually attracted exclusively to those young girls or whether they were, as is often the case in pre-pubescent sexual assaults, simply easier targets or the only targets when adult partners were unavailable to the attacker (I’m willing to bet that even at these ages, familial ties are common as well).
As a liberty issue, I’d say my concern lies in the balance of individual rights vs. the physical and mental well being of the adolescent, which I believe is the intention of AOC laws. There seems to be no need to set a state’s AOC to 14 unless there is adequate social desire to sexually interact with 14 year olds, it’s hard to classify something as a paraphilia when it is common enough to influence legislation. Biologically, humans are ready for sex, by in large, at puberty. AOC laws contend that there are certain emotional and intellectual benchmarks (though never actually specified) that need to be reached before one is competent to make their own sexual choices. Anecdotally, having gone to a large university for four years, I can say with some confidence, that in reality, this age would have to be well over 22. People in their late teens and early twenties make all sorts of absolutely abysmal sexual choices and involve themselves in very unhealthy relationships, clearly a failure of a static AOC. I’m curious if these laws aren’t simply lip service to cover another concern or concerns. I’ve never been asked to provide results of my and my prospective partner’s IQ tests or EQ tests before entering a relationship with another adult, I’m not entirely sure why we require the same of adolescents. This seems like a matter better addressed by responsible, comprehensive (read, not “abstinence-only”) sexual education classes in schools at ages early enough to prevent manipulative relationships. Just as there are 24 year olds not emotionally ready for sex, I’m sure (statistically, at least) there are 15 year olds who are. Using legislation to govern such a subjective matter seems irresponsible and dismissive of those who are hurt, favoring, rather, to focus on after-the-fact prosecution of the offender.
I recently found pictures on my boyfriends computer of young girls — not naked or in any sexual situations, but pictures none the less. The ages ranged from 13 and up. He also had what would be considered pretty typical pornography as well — Playboy stuff etc. When questioned about the young girls, he told me that a lot of men find young girls sexually attractive. He mentioned that their innocence is what is a turn on. How common is this? He also feels it is normal as long as you don’t do anything illegal — such as molesting or rape. I can could understand this to a point, but is it normal that men can be sexually attracted to girls as young as thirteen/twelve — who aren’t naked or in sexual situations? As far as I know he has never acted on this paraphilia — I did a criminal background check, and I asked him if he had ever done anything to anyone under 18 — not that that is reliable.
To me a thirteen year old is a little girl/boy. The pictures he had of the thirteen plus year olds had them dressed very girly/virginal. Flowers, lace, pinks, blues, lavenders etc. Is this really common? If it is, how does one get over the surprise of finding stuff like that?
[...] It was first Radley Balko’s blog that brought this from William Saletan from Slate to my attention. In it the human-nature pundit discusses how age-of-consent laws lock up young adults not yet capable of the emotional maturity to behave as we would like in their actions with those who are treated as adults by their biology but as children by the law (cue John Derbyshire on the difference between ephebophilia and pedophilia). As Balko notes, there is slim chance of the laws being changed to reflect this. There’s a reason the Simpsons’ line “Won’t somebody think of the children!?” sounds familiar. It is also the case, as Saletan admits, that there is no clear line for legislators to make that separates people into distinct groups. I have previously stated that I would like to see the young incarcerated merely because I dislike them (being young myself, armchair psychologists will likely call “projection”), but I do not mean this seriously. Part of being a libertarian is recognizing that public policy is not a fantasy story in which you may enact your whims, especially the more spiteful ones. I do not have much in the way of suggestions for dealing with the young, only gratitude that I am not responsible for any myself. [...]
liz and jonathan,how the fuck do you think that 25-year-old with autism, bipolar, adhd, ocd, anxiety disorder, depression all at the same time plus has been battling substance abuse problems since he was 12 until he was 21 is always going think about consequences or whether or not he is putting 16 or 17 year old “child” “at risk” of pregnancy or STD (by being taught into a habit to use condom all the time he sleeps with someone he makes this risk low, although he can’t be taught to pick partner reasonably and carefully), or that it could harm youth as a whole over thinking”i am in love” or “she is hot” or “i want sex now”. and if you want to deter those who are able to always put reasoning over emotions at the times they do something then make an example out somebody who has this capacity, not someone who makes judgements based on fairy tail love story over rules are rules and “it is wrong to break the rules” something being against the law does not make it wrong. smoking pot is ok, drinking underage is ok, prostitution is great. and idea that teen girls should keep their feet closed is bullshit because contraceptives and abortion is a solution to teen pregnancy and condoms are the solution to std and not every adult having sex with minor is not using condom some of them do and both are happy with it someone might be having sex with both 16 year olds and 22 year olds (since some non-mature 22 and even 25 year olds can be seen as girls (athough not little girls, neither 16 yos are always seen this way) rather mature women) because not every man likes somebody who looks like a mature woman, andrew. and it is prevalent for men to put beauty over mature looks as soon as she is developed ( as prevalent as not too), andrew. you are not the exception neither are those who i just mentioned (not including who i mentioned in begining. some teens are emotionally ready to be sexuallly active and i wish i had my first sex at 15 or 16 and i am still a virgin in my 20s i was ready to use condoms not to impregnate the girl and a i heard some women as well say they never regret being sexually active as teens. and i do not believe that someone can be judged just because he broke rules if he did not expect harm and many times adult doesn’t and some people would stay with her since in her 20s they see her as still a girls and by the time she is 30 they get used to her as a person as well as partner and stay with her forever even if she doesn’t become stripper, prostitute, actress or sex symbol. sex concent should not be seen likeamotherfuckinfatherfucking contract but rather as an act of out of control wilderness or an act of passion even if done by an adult since not every person who is legally and adult or even can discuss rationally is able to make an everyday life like a reasonable contract and not bunch of split decisions and can be irrational too when it comes to doing something and is not alway able to understand idea that you have to listen to this stupid government and some situations never fall within conventional wisdom and some street girls are already sexually active and slept with whole bunch of people before and adult anyway and this adult might not be always ” oh i aint’s messing with someone this young JUST BECAUSE it is against the law or JUST BECAUSE some girls of this age are not ready” and be in passion and can fall in love with someone who is cognitively unequal since he has no ability to follow social guidance and cannot stay in “his place” or follow the order or chose who he loves and fall in love because cognitive differences could be set aside by “i am in love with this hottie and i don’t care if she is 16 or 28″ and simply bring himself down to her level and do as she does just because he is in love and on a twilight zone rather than a i can chose my emotions zone
Sergey, that was painful to read, but I think I get your point. Basically, your attraction to another person doesn’t necessarily correspond to what the law says.
Well, that is one of the points in this article. The discussion asserts that ephebophilia only refers to those who are sexually attracted to pubescent people exclusively. It does not refer to the occasional attraction by someone with otherwise mainstream preferences.
It’s not specified by Liz if her abuser was exclusively attracted to young girls. Being a victim of an adult using coercion to prey upon her while the adult was an authority figure naturally influences her opinion in a negative direction.
Jonathon’s comments made no judgements. He was merely explaining a point of law that bears on the issue under discussion. He is not saying what you seem to think he is saying.
At any rate, here’s hoping the “Mail (hidden) (required)” thing above is truthful…
I’m fairly sure that I am affected by ephebophilia myself. I consider it a major problem which has influenced my social skills dramatically. Note that I have never acted on my desires, but I just don’t find the vast majority of socially acceptable parters (ie: my age) sexually attractive.
I don’t think this discussion would benefit from descriptions of what attributes I find stimulating, so I’ll skip that.
My question is… Is there any hope for changing my own tastes to something socially acceptable? I despair of being able to find a meaningful relationship, and it’s intellectually unacceptable to give in to my urges.
It took a long time to figure this out. I’m in my early 40’s. Perhaps becoming sexually active at an early age (13), and being very promiscuous until my mid-20’s cemented my image of an attractive sexual parter. That’s my only theory as to cause. But where’s the cure?
Look at this problem from the point of view from someone affected. It’s quite depressing.
Jm, your testimony got me to thinking: Perhaps unrestricted promiscuity at the ‘developmental ages’ of early/mid-puberty would foster result such as yours, where an individual has been sexually imprinted to go after pubescent individuals. This is speculation on my part, but maybe the AOC of 18+, when an individual tends to be adult in build, is looked upon my fawning “youngsters”, and this image becomes their take on a sexual partner, so that when they ‘come of age’ they are baselined at individuals of their now-legal age range. The AOC defines a target, so to speak, that a sexually-charged individual psychs themselves up for. However long this image of “Finally!” resides in the mind would depend on when they begin having those thoughts (which, in today’s media-based society, becomes lower and lower, even before someone realizes they’re conforming to the perception of sexuality (see: clothing fashion, songs and music videos, television and movies, and even the increased activity of older ‘children’)).
sergey’s poorly articulated dissertation makes me believe as many parents/guardians do (not that I really am one, nor do I hope to ever be): ‘Underagers’ don’t know if they’re ready for sexual activity (both the base action(s) and the bonds formed around such actions), even if they believe themselves to be ready. sergey asserts that condoms fully prevent STDs, which they are not ever claimed to do. Reducing the chances, yes, but they are not an end-all, and diseases can be passed through other means, depending on the diseases in question. It’s this false confidence that leads to such poor decisions on part of the individuals that hold such determinations. Proper education would help to clarifying various claims (likely instilled in a developing individual by malinformed peers or elders), but I believe that only a freedoms-stunting move or moves would be able to fully deter such unmatured people from, bluntly, fucking things up.
What’s more, there’s the matter of children born to these situations. Yes, abortion is an available measure, but there’s the expenses, financial and otherwise, especially on the frame of a semi-matured female, as well as the moal convictions of the parties involved, especially in the form of vindictive parents/guardians. What’s more, if the child is allowed to be born, there’s the stresses of nurturing it, and for a social environment wherein the majority are unresponsible individuals, this child will likely grow into another ‘problem’. For the sake of those not even conceived, the restrictions on underage sexual activities is necessary, for both the non-conceiveds’ lives (their conditions) and their livelihood (their rearing).
However, the stigma against such activity toward minors is detrimental to the impressionable, as they’ll form a malignant view toward sexuality (possibly on the whole), and might carry this view to the next generation, causing an ever-present disdain of sexuality of even the most instinctive kinds (such as thoughtless masturbation, like rubbing against the floor furniture), warping the views of human nature itself.
… Y’know, that entire last paragraph should be considered a worst-case scenario. The human sexual nature is fostered well enough to keep any permanent stigma on those less than traumatized by sexual activity. Still, I believe that the misinformation of sexual actions and the activities associated causes a problem for making responsible decisions, mostly stemming from unreasoned repression.
“Or maybe not, who knows? And that, as they say, is that.”
EDIT: “The human sexual nature is fostered well enough to keep any permanent stigma FROM those less than traumatized by sexual activity.”
Older men who zone in on teens have a problem. Most teens are very impressionable and easily impressed in their limited experience in life. In many ways, they are innocent and still figuring out who they are and what their dreams are. It’s easy to fall victim to men like this who pursue. These type of men offer gifts, attention, help; they listen to problems and slowly develop so called “trust”. They act like they “understand” these young girls and oftentimes use their spirituality to manipulate, impress and “help”, even going so far as claiming God directed them to “minister” to these troubled girls. These men don’t respect boundaries, themselves and the girls they zone in on. Men like this take advantage of the vulnerability of young girls. They gravitate toward troubled girls. These type of men are secretive about these relationships and almost never tell their friends and family about them. I think these men have serious emotional problems. They tend to have more “teen” friends than their own age group. I heard one man like this say he sees no difference in age groups, no difference between “male and female, Greek or gentile”….the whole bible view but his is twisted in order to justify his boundary breaking. People who have this disorder are never satiated. They need the easy attention of young girls because of their own image problems.
I have an extremely beautiful 15 year old daughter. I would HATE for some older man to be eyeballing her, texting her and calling, trying to be her friend and buddy, checking up on her to see how she’s doing. I’d be livid even if she were in her late teens. It disgusts me to know older men take have no problem ruining the lives of growing young girls and thinking they’re justified.
I will post more on this issue. This obsession needs to be addressed! I know a number of female students who have been victims of men like this. We need to warn our young ladies about men like this and report people who we know do these things.
I suggest to men like this to get help and find out what is going on before you end up in jail and ruining the lives of young women.
Responding to Dani
Did you ever get a reply? I’m in your same situation, He said he since he stopped drinking and drugging after attending AA that his compulsion would also stop.
It did not. When I found him out again after attending counseling, I left him.
I’m heart broken, and wonder if he is right, that all men feel the same.