Hebephilia

[shinta|hikari]

I'm 21 one and I'd fuck a 16 year old ( legal here ) no problem, sounds like you're just being picky

I'm 25 and I'd fuck a... (oh wait, illegal here, and most other places too)

[XanBcoo]

He probably means his friend's funny jokes make him smile. You wouldn't get it because such a paragon of humor as yourself is too elevated to be amused by another's anecdotes.

I wasn't using a "mod voice", I'd rather read a genuinely funny story about his friend than a lazy description of it.

I guess what I meant in your language was, "cool story bro"


I'm 25 and I'd fuck a... (oh wait, illegal here, and most other places too)

Dude, we get it. You're a pedophile. Stop advertising it...

[rockmanj]

Well, it is a moot point now...It got canceled :\

[shinta|hikari]

Dude, we get it. You're a pedophile. Stop advertising it...

I'm not a pedophile.

[Xelbair]

It is called 'tender love', not pedophilia..

[Buffalobiian]

It's called Minicon.

[Archangel]

I'm 25 and I'd fuck a... (oh wait, illegal here, and most other places too)


I'm not a pedophile.

Sugooi monogatari Aniki

[darkshadow]

Did you just say "cool story bro"? God you are such a *expletive*.

[shinta|hikari]

I'm a lolicon (2D only) and hebephile, not a pedophile.

[enkoujin]

For the average population, they think that anyone who goes for members of the opposite sex lower than 16 years of age are pedophiles (unless they are 3-4 years older than the party). Most of this population will argue that anyone under the age of 18 are off-limits to adults (~20+).

If, strictly speaking, shinta|hikari is only interested in anime/manga girls, then it is safe to say that he is a borderline pedophile (couple steps away from being a danger to society). If his hebephilia is applicable to real-life girls, then he is, indeed, a pedophile. No if's, and's or but's.

[Buffalobiian]

If, strictly speaking, shinta|hikari is only interested in anime/manga girls, then it is safe to say that he is a borderline pedophile (couple steps away from being a danger to society). If his hebephilia is applicable to real-life girls, then he is, indeed, a pedophile. No if's, and's or but's.

Shinta's loliconism is applicable to anime/manga girls. His hebephilia is applicable to real-life. He's specifically stated that. And saying his attraction to prepubecent anime/manga girls makes him a borderline pedophile is like saying the love of killing people in video games make you a borderline murderer.


I'm a lolicon (2D only) and hebephile, not a pedophile.

I thought you said hebi (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5704/femaleorochimarubyferal.jpg)philia at first.

[enkoujin]

Shinta's loliconism is applicable to anime/manga girls. His hebephilia is applicable to real-life. He's specifically stated that. And saying his attraction to prepubecent anime/manga girls makes him a borderline pedophile is like saying the love of killing people in video games make you a borderline murderer.

You do have a point, but I think I still stand corrected.

If people can't differentiate between their hobbies/interests with real-life, then, in a sense, they are borderline murderers, pedophiles, etc.

It would take a lot of mental insanity to "break" someone into not being able discern reality and imaginary, which is why I would call this position as "borderline".

[Janice]

I'm a hebephile, not a pedophile.
That's not much better. Have you ever acted on your hebephilic desires?

[Buffalobiian]

That's not much better. Have you ever acted on your hebephilic desires?

Hebephilia is only illegal according to the rules of modern society. It's biologically sound (and arguably, desirable).

[Archangel]

Fucking weirdos

[Janice]

It's only "biologically sound" in the sense that its possible to get a ten year old girl pregnant. Actually doing so wouldn't be a good idea under any circumstance.

[Buffalobiian]

It would take a lot of mental insanity to "break" someone into not being able discern reality and imaginary, which is why I would call this position as "borderline".

If that's how you define "borderline", fair enough. Generally speaking, when people talk about borderlines, they're talking about something of the magnitude borderlines separating manga panels, not of the one that separates North/South Korea.


It's only "biologically sound" in the sense that its possible to get a ten year old girl pregnant. Actually doing so wouldn't be a good idea under any circumstance.

I don't see how it's good or bad from a reproduction point of view. Unless pregnancies at 10 have higher rates of miscarriages, deformities or still births etc, then I don't see how it's any better or worse than reproduction at 15, 20 or 25. I haven't looked this up, but if pregnancy is possible, I would imagine breast-feeding postbirth is also possible, so the baby won't starve neither.

Only argument that I see could have a solid backing to it would be the effect the weight of a child would have on a growing teenager's backbone - but that's hypothetical (unless you can find something to back it up), and when I remember the weight of backpacks we had to carry in highschool, insignificant.

To direct this back to my intentions, I don't see any problem with your claim that it "wouldn't be a good idea under any circumstance" - just that I wish to clarify that I don't believe it to be a "bad" idea neither.

[Janice]

I don't see how it's good or bad from a reproduction point of view. Unless pregnancies at 10 have higher rates of miscarriages, deformities or still births etc
Yes, yes, and yes. The chances of all these occuring are several times higher than in a sexually mature adult. One of the main reasons is that mothers-to-be who are still growing must split their nutritional intake with the baby, resulting in the baby (and the girl, to a lesser extent) becoming significantly malnourished. Often times the pelvic area is not fully formed which can cause complications, too. Things get even worse when the mother is in a third world country where proper nutrition and medical care is unavailable.

[rockmanj]

You do have a point, but I think I still stand corrected.

.

You do know that "I stand corrected" means the same as "You are totally right and I am not", don't you? And for the record, I think hebephilia is kind of weird, but as long as it is not acted on upon women under the age of 16 or so, it is not my business. It can be difficult to ignore one's urges.

[darkshadow]

You do know that "I stand corrected" means the same as "You are totally right and I am not", don't you? And for the record, I think hebephilia is kind of weird, but as long as it is not acted on upon women under the age of 16 or so, it is not my business. It can be difficult to ignore one's urges.

AFAIK hebephilia is "pubescent" -15. 16 and higher is ephebophilia.

[Sapphire]

I took Japanese literature and sexuality and it was all about how in the pre-Meiji period, old men buttsexed little boys all day long. So the little kids were "arguably desirable". How would you guys feel if you were buttsexed from 5 years old?

That's beside my point, though. I could write a thesis on the above topic.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

Early years of puberty aka 10-11 years old. I interact with kids this age and I assure you they're still KIDS, little babies, even if they have boobies. Who are these people who go "its ok be sexually attracted to them and want to bang them regardless of age as long as she has breasts"??? I maintain that almost all humans are fucking retarded until at least 17 years old and everything younger than that is a fucking little kid and having sex with them is no.

Why would anyone want to have sex with a little 11-12 year old girl, someone explain this to me?
-

[darkshadow]

The article you linked clearly says "generally" 11-14, don't downplay it to just 10-11; just because someone enters puberty at 10 doesn't mean most people do, that's why the entire range is important. Shinta might be more interested in the upper range than the lower range.

[Sapphire]

Oh, it's OK to want to put your dick in a 12 year old rather than an 11 year old then? My bad.

[darkshadow]

Oh it's OK to want to put your dick in a 17 year old rather than a fucking retarded 16 year old then? My bad; I wasn't aware a fucking retard goes to a mature genius in just a year.

Don't be silly Sapphi, that's not what I said.

[enkoujin]

Why would anyone want to have sex with a little 11-12 year old girl, someone explain this to me?
-

Forbidden concepts appeals the most to people (e.g. sex, pedophilia, science, witchcraft, illicit substances, etc.).

Methinks that people who do like girls this age just have a fetish for petite small-chested women, find that the act(s) with these children is adventurous (becoming desirable) and the need to cause "trauma" to children fill the void in their lives so that these people can forget about their stress or trauma they have experienced, lack of control/influence in their lives.

That or kids these days really need to be taught a "lesson" or two and their parents aren't going to be doing anything about their shitty attitudes. They're spoiled, too loud, obnoxious, think that the world revolves around them, stupid and try to dress seductively like adults because of pop culture influence.

That that or kids just float some boats. It can't be helped.


I don't see how it's good or bad from a reproduction point of view. Unless pregnancies at 10 have higher rates of miscarriages, deformities or still births etc, then I don't see how it's any better or worse than reproduction at 15, 20 or 25. I haven't looked this up, but if pregnancy is possible, I would imagine breast-feeding postbirth is also possible, so the baby won't starve neither.

Only argument that I see could have a solid backing to it would be the effect the weight of a child would have on a growing teenager's backbone - but that's hypothetical (unless you can find something to back it up), and when I remember the weight of backpacks we had to carry in highschool, insignificant.

To direct this back to my intentions, I don't see any problem with your claim that it "wouldn't be a good idea under any circumstance" - just that I wish to clarify that I don't believe it to be a "bad" idea neither.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Medical


...The worldwide incidence of premature birth and low birth weight is higher among adolescent mothers...

Never a good thing. The rest of the passages talk about childbirths in developing countries, but you're looking at financial, psychological and career burdens on the mother once they grow up in the developing world (average of ~$300,000 to raise a child these days - plus or minus a couple hundred thousand).

As for what Janice was implying, I believe she was referring to moral standards. Many deviations and such around the Gaussian Curve, but you [and your "wife"] will be condemned by at least 80% of society should one wed and impregnate her at an early age.


You do know that "I stand corrected" means the same as "You are totally right and I am not", don't you?

I do now. My apologies about the wording, I mean "Buffalobiian's argument is valid and plausible, but I think I'm still right.". Thank you for correcting me.

[Kraco]

This is rather interesting from a biological point of view, even if I never really found this topic overly interesting otherwise before reading these posts. Normally when an animal starts to experience sexual drive, it's a signal from the body that it's ready to reproduce. This is especially true for females; males seem to experience immature sexual drive that leads nowhere from what I've seen in documentaries, although that's partially due to females not yet finding them prospective partners or they have no chances against alphas.

So, why do human females, then, become sexually receptive if their bodies are too immature to reproduct? It seems rather unlikely it'd be due to the human intelligence supposedly being capable of controlling the instincts. The only explanation, aside from conspiracy theories against chemical industry, would be that it has been worth the risk during the earlier eras when life expectancy was very low.

To stay more on topic, this whole hebephilia is then an instinct to be able to produce as many offspring as possible before you get eaten by a pack of lions.

[Buffalobiian]

Yes, yes, and yes. The chances of all these occuring are several times higher than in a sexually mature adult. One of the main reasons is that mothers-to-be who are still growing must split their nutritional intake with the baby, resulting in the baby (and the girl, to a lesser extent) becoming significantly malnourished. Often times the pelvic area is not fully formed which can cause complications, too. Things get even worse when the mother is in a third world country where proper nutrition and medical care is unavailable.

Oh really? This article (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2135024) came from wiki's reference list, and shows that while there may be some difference between baby/mother's health of teens vs older women, it's certainly doesn't read as if it was several times higher. Furthermore, they attribute much of the difference to socioeconomic, educational and medical-aid differences. Poor eating habbits, seeking prenatal aid and all are what's largely responsible for these differences in statistics, as opposed to a true biological incompetence for bearing a child.

Underdeveloped pelvic bone structure seems to be one that holds its ground, but that's pretty much taken care of with C-sections in developed worlds.


I took Japanese literature and sexuality and it was all about how in the pre-Meiji period, old men buttsexed little boys all day long. So the little kids were "arguably desirable". How would you guys feel if you were buttsexed from 5 years old?

lol. You've got a funny habbit of connecting two different dots together Sapphi.

Firstly, what you're talking about here isn't whether 5 year olds would like to have sex. What you're asking is whether 5 year olds would like to get RAPED.

Two very different things.

We're talking about the sexual attraction to 11-14 year olds. Not the RAPING of 11-14 year olds.

To answer your question of "How would you guys feel if you were buttsexed from 5 years old?" - I won't like it. I wouldn't have liked it when I was 5, I don't think I would like it now, and I don't think I would like it when I'm 50.

Because I don't like to get buttsexed.


Early years of puberty aka 10-11 years old. I interact with kids this age and I assure you they're still KIDS, little babies, even if they have boobies. Who are these people who go "its ok be sexually attracted to them and want to bang them regardless of age as long as she has breasts"??? I maintain that almost all humans are fucking retarded until at least 17 years old and everything younger than that is a fucking little kid and having sex with them is no.

That post makes it sound like you're discriminating against the mentally retarded. Last time I heard, I wasn't restricted to only wanting to bang people of a certain level of mental maturity.

If we were to follow your logic, then the age of consent should be based on someone's mental age rather than their physical age. Sound right to you?

I believe a re-clarification of the definition of Hebephilia is in order.

It's the sexual preference for 11-14 year olds. Not the act of having intercourse (consensual or not) with them. Some of you seem like you're mistaking Hebephilia for rape in both the consensual sense and the statutory sense.


Why would anyone want to have sex with a little 11-12 year old girl, someone explain this to me?

Why would anyone want to drink beer?

How could I explain to you that some of us like our juicy, tender, "just right" rare steaks and not some dry, hard, well-done piece of shoe?

I think you get my point.

DS has hit the point already regarding the importance of the age bracket instead of a certain age. When the argument mentions 10 year olds, they are imagining a typical 10 year old, and not the early blooming ones.

@enjoukin re: liking obscure taboos. It's true for some. I believe Shinta just likes them the way they are, regardless of whether society accepts them. I doubt he'd like them any less if Hebephilia came under mainstream acceptance.


The rest of the passages talk about childbirths in developing countries, but you're looking at financial, psychological and career burdens on the mother once they grow up in the developing world (average of ~$300,000 to raise a child these days - plus or minus a couple hundred thousand).

The hardships of raising a child when you're not financially or psychologically prepared is indeed hard. I would like to clarify that I never denied that.

I should also add that it would also apply then, to having sex with a bum.


And some food for thought:

1) Homo-sex isn't "biologically sound".
2) Condoms are a great.

[Archangel]

It's amazing that i'm the first one to bring this up but... will some mod or admin move this shit to its own thread? It has NOTHING to do with the thread at all.

[shinta|hikari]

To keep this on topic, though I would have still said it anyway, everything Buff has said made me smile today.

Seriously. Every response I wanted to make, he made ahead of me, either exactly how I wanted to say it or better.

[Sapphire]

It's the sexual preference for 11-14 year olds. Not the act of having intercourse (consensual or not) with them. Some of you seem like you're mistaking Hebephilia for rape in both the consensual sense and the statutory sense.


Sexual preference means you want to have sex with them. It means that rather than have sex with an adult, you'd rather have sex with a child aka 11-14 years old. (OMG maybe the ten year old has boobs, it makes NO difference to me. A 10 year old is still mentally a child.) I'm asking WHY you would want to do that despite the fact that he's/she's mentally a child. I'm not asking why you DID do that. I'm asking WHY you would want to.

PS - I do not condone having sex with mentally retarded people who are mentally children and have no comprehension of what sex even is or what's going on around them. Physically retarded? Sure. Mentally able people having sex with the mentally retarded? No.



That post makes it sound like you're discriminating against the mentally retarded. Last time I heard, I wasn't restricted to only wanting to bang people of a certain level of mental maturity.
Maybe you're trying to be smart, but this post makes it seem like not having sex with mentally retarded people and not having sex with children is discriminating against them. (AKA you give negative connotations for doing this). If so, you disgust me.

[darkshadow]

He's talking about mental maturity, not wether they are children or not. But I guess it does seem like that because you believe 16 year olds are fucking retards while 17 year olds aren't; which is technically still a child.

[Sapphire]

He's talking about mental maturity, not wether they are children or not. But I guess it does seem like that because you believe 16 year olds are fucking retards while 17 year olds aren't; which is technically still a child.

I was being facetious, obviously. So do you think it's OK to have sex with a 10 year old as long as they seem "mentally and physically mature"? I'm sorry, do you think it's OK to want to have sex with them.

[darkshadow]

Well no I don't, but if I would look at it from a pure biological sense and the 10 year old is mentally and physically mature, then what kind of negative implications could it have that would any different for mentally and physically mature 17 year old?

Btw why do you keep pulling it down to 10 year old? That's arguably -not- hebephilia. Stop trying to empower your point with a skewed example.

[Sapphire]

Well no I don't, but if I would look at it from a pure biological sense and the 10 year old is mentally and physically mature, then what kind of negative implications could it have that would any different for mentally and physically mature 17 year old?

One is nearly an adult and one is a child. We're talking about different (psychological, emotional, etc.) realms here.



Btw why do you keep pulling it down to 10 year old? That's arguably -not- hebephilia. Stop trying to empower your point with a skewed example.

I don't really see a significant difference between 10 and 13. There IS however a significant difference between 10/13 and 17 (different realms, as stated earlier).

[darkshadow]

No we aren't, maturity is nothing more than physical and mental characteristics, if an individual is mentally and physically mature then there should be no diference. This is what you asked.

[Sapphire]

No we aren't, maturity is nothing more than physical and mental characteristics, if an individual is mentally and physically mature then there should be no diference. This is what you asked.

And how many 10 year olds do you see with the mind of a young adult/adult (despite having breasts)?

[Janice]

Oh really? This article (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2135024) came from wiki's reference list, and shows that while there may be some difference between baby/mother's health of teens vs older women, it's certainly doesn't read as if it was several times higher.

I'm at work and can't be researching things like hebephilia, but I just copied this from wikipedia:

"The World Health Organization estimates that the risk of death following pregnancy is twice as great for women between 15 and 19 years than for those between the ages of 20 and 24. The maternal mortality rate can be up to five times higher for girls aged between 10 and 14 than for women of about twenty years of age."

I believe this is referring to an undeveloped country, but I'm not sure. Anyway, for those of you who actually believe sex with ten year olds is okay and/or desire it: you're mentally ill and need to get help.

[darkshadow]

This is going off tangent, that is not what Buff's point was about; we never said anything about 10 year olds being mental adults.



I don't really see a significant difference between 10 and 13. There IS however a significant difference between 10/13 and 17 (different realms, as stated earlier).

Then why do you see difference between 17 and 16? The difference has to be pretty significant if you draw the line there.

[Buffalobiian]

Sexual preference means you want to have sex with them. It means that rather than have sex with an adult, you'd rather have sex with a child aka 11-14 years old. (OMG maybe the ten year old has boobs, it makes NO difference to me. A 10 year old is still mentally a child.)

I know what sexual preferece means. I defined it again since your old-men-likes-little-children story sounded like we'll force our desires onto them. Hence my emphasis on preference.


I'm asking WHY you would want to do that despite the fact that he's/she's mentally a child. I'm not asking why you DID do that. I'm asking WHY you would want to.

And then I gave examples of things where people have different preferences, "just because".

I don't know how to put it any more plainly. Perhaps we could start by answering a question of my own:

"What's wrong with having sex with people of lesser mental maturity?"


Maybe you're trying to be smart, but this post makes it seem like not having sex with mentally retarded people and not having sex with children is discriminating against them. (AKA you give negative connotations for doing this). If so, you disgust me.

What DS said.

Let's string this from start to finish to get the whole picture.


I maintain that almost all humans are fucking retarded until at least 17 years old and everything younger than that is a fucking little kid and having sex with them is no.

From this, you can draw that in your books, someone who is fucking retarded is mentally like a little kid, and therefore should not be fucked.

Is the reverse true? That little kids are fucking retarded, and should not be fucked?


That post makes it sound like you're discriminating against the mentally retarded. Last time I heard, I wasn't restricted to only wanting to bang people of a certain level of mental maturity.
Maybe you're trying to be smart, but this post makes it seem like not having sex with mentally retarded people and not having sex with children is discriminating against them. (AKA you give negative connotations for doing this). If so, you disgust me.

By saying we should not fuck the mentally retarded, it effectively means that the mentally retarded should not be fucked. That they should not have sex.

Is that... not (unfairly) discriminating?

It's one thing to keep it as a personal preference, but when you project it onto others as if it's some sort of standard..

[Lucifus]

Shinta's all well and good and the net. But all these lolicon people are weirdo's.

[Sapphire]

random shit, if 17 is ok, why not 10/the mentally retarded, etc "

So since you're randomly nitpicking random shit in my posts without saying anything of value whatsoever, I'm assuming you disagree with me. Sounds like you think wanting to have sex with 10 year olds is OK.

-


I'm asking WHY you would want to do that despite the fact that he's/she's mentally a child. I'm not asking why you DID do that. I'm asking WHY you would want to.


"What's wrong with having sex with people of lesser mental maturity?"

:eek:

[Board of Command]

Kids these days...

[darkshadow]

Did you even read any of his posts? Buff never mentioned anything about 17 year olds, we adressed pretty much every off tangent thing you presented, but you still want to make this about having sex with 10 year olds for some reason; that is not hebephilia, regardless of how you feel about it.

[Sapphire]

Okay, 11. Makes no difference to my point.

[Munsu]

In general I really don't give a shit about underage sex, I think it's been blown out of proportion by social-political pressures. I mean, I don't give a shit about these teachers having sex with their students for example. For all intents and purposes, these students are living the dream. I had a some hot teachers in my school, and would have surely would've loved to have had sex with them.

But the other side of it is that the greater good is to protect the children first and foremost, so a line has to be drawn arbitrarily somewhere, particularly when young people are easier to manipulate.

In all, I don't give a shit about age difference in people having a consensual sexual relationship.

But when you compare it with people in college of legal age for example, it's clear that even at that age people don't have the maturity to make the right choices, yet it's legal for them to have sex as they see fit regardless of consequences. Which is in part why I can't give that much credence to the idea of teenagers having sex incapable of making a decision for themselves about wanting to have sex or not with a particular person.

I just prefer to see things in a case to case basis before judging based on generalizations. What about the low self-esteemed teacher that gets seduced by a student to get a better grade? Who's in the wrong here? What about that hot teacher you fantasize about and have a crush on them, and then you make a move on them and they can't resist you? Who's really in the wrong there and who's the person getting harmed? Regardless of age, people are susceptible to manipulation and bad choices.

Important clarification abuse, rape, and consensual sex are not the same thing. Social-political pressures have tried to make the synonymous to one another, but they aren't.

Also, Doug Hutchinson. Weird, strange, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. In all, I just don't give a shit.

Anyways, this content is quite borderline, depending on how the discussion continues I might be forced to lock it so think carefully about what you're posting. I don't have time to read the whole thread at the moment, but you guys have been warned.

[darkshadow]

I think it's fair to say /thread? I have nothing more to add.
That aside, I don't see what in the rules say we can't discuss this sort of "social taboo". Especially seeing how 99% of the posters here have no interest in hebephilia.

[Munsu]

Who said anything about rules against discussion of social taboos? I just don't want someone like say you to come and mention, "I just fucked a 12 year old, how great I am" for example.

Thanks.

[darkshadow]

Oh ok, right.

[Sapphire]

Who said anything about rules against discussion of social taboos? I just don't want someone like say you to come and mention, "I just fucked a 12 year old, how great I am" for example.

Thanks.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLOLOLOL

Edit: To add something useful to this post, if it's technically legal to have sex with a 12 year old in the posters county, is it still a delete worthy post?

[Munsu]

Hmm, I would say so considering that this is a site hosted in the US if not mistaken, morality/ethics aside. I don't know to tell the truth. But I'd rather avoid that type of discussion. Leaving it in a hypothetical scenario works better for everyone involved.

[Edort4]

Here are my 2 cents on this. This all I remember from a documental I show on tv years ago. It basically said that evolution made the hominidid branch to be able to reproduce early because of life expectancy above all, the female ones was very low. The pregnancy is quite large (5% of childbearing age) and usually only have 1 birth at a time.

Evolution took a lot more time than reasoning did to change its procedures. Shielding in the excuse that biology somehow supports the lower of age for legal sexual acts is imho immoral. I dont think that people who approve of it would so willing to approve that 13-14 year boys violently fight each (sometimes to dead) for the alpha male position. This and many other "habits" were taken rid of thousands of years ago thanks to reasoning.

Also this isnt in anyway an argument and its just an anecdote. When I was 14 I had a romantic crush with a girl of my same age. That summer I was told by a mutual friend that spent hollidays at her town that this girl started dating a 19 year old guy (with the ussual intercourse). At the beging of the next school year I saw her and I was shocked. She changed completely, she was smoking, dressing quite seductively (what wrongly addessed here as slutty), she started skipping classes and having problems with the teachers and not talking with her previous same age female friends. Next year she left school and I was told that she was into drugs and having some problems. Luckly for her she took up studies again and graduated losing just 1 year. So my experience as an observer with this issues wasnt a nice one.

[Munsu]

So Edort, if that person hadn't had sex with a 19 year old she would have not have had the rest of her problems? Seems to me that this person was simply a person that on the wrong side of tracks regardless of her sexual situation.

Seems to me like blaming sex for anyone's problems is a bit irresponsible.

[Assertn]

"I want to pull out your slug and harvest your genetic material." :3

[Buffalobiian]

Evolution took a lot more time than reasoning did to change its procedures. Shielding in the excuse that biology somehow supports the lower of age for legal sexual acts is imho immoral. I dont think that people who approve of it would so willing to approve that 13-14 year boys violently fight each (sometimes to dead) for the alpha male position. This and many other "habits" were taken rid of thousands of years ago thanks to reasoning.

If wer're to talk about evolution, then we have to understand where we're evolving from.

Firstly, our closest genetic relatives, the common chimpanzees and the gorillas, perfer display/intimidation over actual attacks. They also understand their own little social structures and become subordinate to the alpha male more commonly than to challenge them.

And it's not entirely genetically inherent neither. For example:

"Which brings up the question: What might another chimp -- one who had been raised differently -- make of all of this? "Moe hasn't ever been around violence," Davis is saying. During the terrible minutes of the attack she remembers catching sight of Moe. He was frozen, she says, unable to scream."


Taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301819_5.html



The idea of displaying your prowess to attract mates may be a genetic trait, but not the idea that you need to beat them to death to show it.


Regarding the "people who support this are imho immoral" part, I must say that I've never said whether this was morally right or not. Morals are something you come up with for yourself on a personal level. It's Ethics that is taken by society as a whole that should be applied to every group or individual.





random shit, if 17 is ok, why not 10/the mentally retarded, etc "So since you're randomly nitpicking random shit in my posts without saying anything of value whatsoever, I'm assuming you disagree with me. Sounds like you think wanting to have sex with 10 year olds is OK.


... okay....


I don't even know what you're responding to here since there's no direct quote, nor does your paraphrasing sound like anything I've said.



If you believe I'm "nitpicking" (which I define as "finding flaws in someone's argument that is beside the main point"), then direct me to what I should be rebutting if I am to challenge your post.

PS: Before you direct me to rebutt and opinion you have stated, let me say that opinions or points are backed by data or examples to make it valid. To attack such data and examples, either for their integrity or relevance to the opinion, is to attack and question the foundations of that opinion. That's not nitpicking.


"I want to pull out your slug and harvest your genetic material." :3

/me hands over my blood and faeces sample on a plate. :)

[Sapphire]

If you believe I'm "nitpicking" (which I define as "finding flaws in someone's argument that is beside the main point"), then direct me to what I should be rebutting if I am to challenge your post.

PS: Before you direct me to rebutt and opinion you have stated, let me say that opinions or points are backed by data or examples to make it valid. To attack such data and examples, either for their integrity or relevance to the opinion, is to attack and question the foundations of that opinion. That's not nitpicking.


The point is you're nitpicking about random shit in response to the fact that having sex with 10 year olds/little kids is wrong, while at the same time saying nothing of value, then saying, "why not have sex with people of lesser mental maturity?". Once it gets to that point I can't say I think arguing with you is worth it.

I'm not about to get into a tangential argument about why you shouldn't have sex with children. The very fact that you're arguing against that speaks volumes.

[Buffalobiian]

The point is you're nitpicking about random shit in response to the fact that having sex with 10 year olds/little kids is wrong, while at the same time saying nothing of value, then saying, "why not have sex with people of lesser mental maturity?". Once it gets to that point I can't say I think arguing with you is worth it.

If you read my post, I was replying to your question "Someone tell me why you would want to have sex with a kid".

I then listed a whole lot of things which have no real reason other just pure personal preference. Then you insisted that I didn't write anything of substance about telling you why someone would like it.

I then told you I didn't know how to put it, so then reversed it and asked why you wouldn't like it, and see if you could extrapolate on that. So far, you've come up with "They're kids, so it's a no no."

And if you really insist that my replies were "nothing of value", I'd ask you to back claim up.

[Sapphire]

You'll just have to take my word for it. Getting pulled into an argument of trying to convince you why having sex with children is wrong doesn't seem like an appropriate investment of my time.
-
PS : I may come back and officially argue against this at a later point in time, though. Admittedly the topic is a bit too icky for me at the moment.

[XanBcoo]

You'll just have to take my word for it. Getting pulled into an argument of trying to convince you why having sex with children is wrong doesn't seem like an appropriate investment of my time.
I've been in England for 3 weeks, so I missed this entire thread. Now that I read through it, the above covers my sentiments.

If you don't understand basic concepts like consent and coercion, then you're as childish and immature as the 10 year old you're fucking and not worth arguing with.

[Buffalobiian]

If you don't understand basic concepts like consent and coercion, then you're as childish and immature as the 10 year old you're fucking and not worth arguing with.

At what point did we say or show that we didn't understand those two concepts?

[Killa-Eyez]

In agreement with the above (Xan and Sapph's post, thanx Buff), let me elaborate.

2 points;

-As soon as girls start menstruating, they are able to conceive. That's a fact from a pure biological point.

-Today's society have taught us general ethics as to, as adults, not have sex with minors to provide them with enough time to grow mentally and physically.

Adults with a sexual preference for minors have a mental illness that stems from an incompetence to understand/apply society's ethics. Some are born with this, some develop this. Today's ethics are different from those of a century ago and those to the century before that, etc. but we are constantly evolving and moving towards improvement as a society.

Some find it arousing to have sex with a partner of less mental maturity (to a certain extent) while others prefer them more mature. It's a preference.
Alternately; pedo-, hebe- and ephebophilia are all considered psychological disorders in my book, although wiki states this only about pedophilia, oddly enough. With that moral-based statement, yes, by our ethical standards and my moral grounds you are indeed a freaking retard to want to have sex with under aged kids (with a minimum of 2 years younger than you). For me, the same goes for homophiles (excluding girls, for pure sexual purposes :p), but at least they have their maturity.

Yet next to all that loathe and disgust, I'm forced to accept them and thus I respect them in such a manner that they're humans too and that we all have our issues we need help/to deal with.

That said, I understand both Sapph's icky attitude and Buff's scientific reasoning, but this topic for me ends here. Unlike Terracosmo's flippant, -of yore-, bisexual adventures, this tends to get a bit too serious.

What's wrong is wrong for a reason. Get with it or follow consequences.

[Kraco]

... a mental illness that stems from an incompetence to understand/apply society's ethics.

Haha, that's a really funny statement. Although I don't condone having sex with or exposing to sexual situations individuals below the limit stated by the law (in Western countries, anyway), it's still outrageous to say people who don't agree with the society's ethics have automatically a mental illness. Even the common ethics of today were revolutionary a little while ago, just like you said yourself. So, a person 100 years ago (in many Western countries) would have had a mental illness for thinking men and women are (politically, socially) equal? According to your logic a grand portion of the citizens of the USA have a mental illness because they either accept or reject capital punishment, opposing the laws of their particular state?

I'd say pedophilia is a mental illness condition, the rest are just preferences that should be suppressed by the individual (just like they mostly are).

[Killa-Eyez]

I'd still say there's something wrong with you, even if you do suppress the urges. It's not natural for a grown up to treat kids like that. It messes them up, no matter what. So thinking in such way should already be a big no and if it's not, it's that failure of comprehension that leads me to believe a mental disorder is at hand (considering this individual to be raised under normal circumstances).

I don't consider people having sex with animals mentally in order. Like homophiles are "considered" normal human beings yet differ in parts of the brain with others, I believe this case to be the same. It's a mental condition. Whether it's accepted by society or not is a different story.

I base some of my morals on society's ethics and some not, but this is one I fully support.

[XanBcoo]

At what point did we say or show that we didn't understand those two concepts?
Please...


It's the sexual preference for 11-14 year olds. Not the act of having intercourse (consensual or not) with them. Some of you seem like you're mistaking Hebephilia for rape in both the consensual sense and the statutory sense.



By saying we should not fuck the mentally retarded, it effectively means that the mentally retarded should not be fucked. That they should not have sex.

Is that... not (unfairly) discriminating?

I understand that your argument in this thread hasn't been about the ethics of having sex with children, I was just addressing those points. I am quite sure you agree.

[Buffalobiian]

I don't consider people having sex with animals mentally in order. Like homophiles are "considered" normal human beings yet differ in parts of the brain with others, I believe this case to be the same. It's a mental condition. Whether it's accepted by society or not is a different story.

Wait.. so you go and define "mental disorder" by yourself rather than following medical definitions?


Adults with a sexual preference for minors have a mental illness that stems from an incompetence to understand/apply society's ethics.

Any German who thought differently about the Holocaust would be considered mentally ill and be put into concentration camps too? No wonder Hitler got that all going so smoothly.


What's wrong is wrong for a reason. Get with it or follow consequences.

Galileo was "wrong" about the Earth orbiting the sun. I suppose he had a mental disorder too.

@Xan: I have no idea what you're talking about now.

[enkoujin]

There's a difference in all of this and that is having sex with animals and children is not an idea that should be brought back because it was an idea of the past (rather than say, stem cell research, which is innovative and new).

There were many examples of people back in the 17th century (and before) who actively participated in hebephilia and society has progressively learned to move away from those taboo practices. Hell, one of Canada's founding fathers, Samuel de Champlain, married a twelve year-old girl and had to consummate her two years later, but you don't see many Canadians here wedding pre-pubescent girls.

Hebephilia isn't anything new that society nor its individuals should be pioneering. It's something the general populace has condemned and it will keep doing so long as humans have faith and/or morals - just like medieval medicine, quartering capital punishment, using leeches to "cure" diseases, the Miasma theory, racism and genocide.

[DarthEnderX]

For the average population, they think that anyone who goes for members of the opposite sex lower than 16 years of age are pedophiles (unless they are 3-4 years older than the party). Most of this population will argue that anyone under the age of 18 are off-limits to adults (~20+).The reminds me of a Demotivational poster I saw.

It was one of those embedded chain ones that went.

[Congratulations, you are now a pedophile]
[[Actually, it's ephebophilia, pedophiles lust for prepubescencts]]
[[[The only ones who know that, are pedophiles and ephebophiles]]]

[Buffalobiian]

There's a difference in all of this and that is having sex with animals and children is not an idea that should be brought back because it was an idea of the past (rather than say, stem cell research, which is innovative and new).

There were many examples of people back in the 17th century (and before) who actively participated in hebephilia and society has progressively learned to move away from those taboo practices. Hell, one of Canada's founding fathers, Samuel de Champlain, married a twelve year-old girl and had to consummate her two years later, but you don't see many Canadians here wedding pre-pubescent girls.

Hebephilia isn't anything new that society nor its individuals should be pioneering. It's something the general populace has condemned and it will keep doing so long as humans have faith and/or morals - just like medieval medicine, quartering capital punishment, using leeches to "cure" diseases, the Miasma theory, racism and genocide.

Once again I must remind everyone that Hebiphilia is about preference. No one's talking about bringing it back. No one's talking about legalising it. No one's saying that their neighbour should adopt it (unlike the other camp).

It's about Shinta having a 20 year old wife but thinking "boy wouldn't it be nice if she was 12 again".

[Munsu]

And this reminds me of those tests where they take straight men, put a gay film and the majority of them show signs of arousal.

[enkoujin]

Maybe this thread should be locked.

This topic is so controversial and anger-inducing that it is easy for one to derail off-topic (such as myself there) and go off a tangent to talk, not about the original topic of preferences, but the impurities of the taboo and the effects and causes of actually committing the act than to think about it.

Restating opinion:

If you want to yank it, you can spank to it privately in your own residence or mind. Just make sure you're not actually doing the forbidden act with someone else or involving anyone else in one's fantasies (or actively advocating/supporting the act with donations or products).

[Sapphire]

No one is flaming. The thread goes on!

[Edort4]

Some one should flame for the mental hygiene of this forums. Reading things like: hey we aint talking about raping them is just that "I wish my wife was 12", totally normal, just average thinking. Involution is too much for me.

[Ryllharu]

On principle alone, this thread should be locked. This is not the kind of thread you want on a forum, no matter how maturely it has been discussed so far.

[dragonrage]

I agree. Is this what gotwoot has become or what these forums are for. The validation of perversions involving minors?

[Killa-Eyez]

Wait.. so you go and define "mental disorder" by yourself rather than following medical definitions?
Well, can you explain to me why pedophilia is, and hebe- and ephebophilia aren't mental disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder)? Better yet, can those medical scientist?

Hebephilia being a disorder is an ongoing debate (says wiki) suggesting the definitions of chronophilia's mental disorders are probably decided by ethics and morals (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm#5). There goes your medical definition.


Any German who thought differently about the Holocaust would be considered mentally ill and be put into concentration camps too? No wonder Hitler got that all going so smoothly.

If me labeling something a mental illness is the same as brainwashing someone to believe it to be, then the ones mentally ill were Hitler and his followers (I'm sorry if I'm being extravagant).

If an adult can't help him-/herself constantly wanting to have sex with minors, in my book you have a mental disorder. No matter the situation, it'll never benefit the underaged. If you don't get that; fuck a medical definition, you're coo-coo in the head. If you do get it, you're still loco, but hopefully won't act on it and will seek help.


Galileo was "wrong" about the Earth orbiting the sun. I suppose he had a mental disorder too.

LOL... really?


I have no idea what you're talking about now.

Likewise.


Once again I must remind everyone that Hebiphilia is about preference. No one's talking about bringing it back. No one's talking about legalising it. No one's saying that their neighbour should adopt it (unlike the other camp).

It's about Shinta having a 20 year old wife but thinking "boy wouldn't it be nice if she was 12 again".

Which is wrong.

[fireheart]

If me labeling something a mental illness is the same as brainwashing someone to believe it to be, then the ones mentally ill were Hitler and his followers (I'm sorry if I'm being extravagant).

I think your going off here and addressing something completely different, their point is that if everyone understands/apply society's ethics we'd still believe all those things since we wouldn't challenge them, black people would probably still be slaves and women inferior to men, it was after all part of society's ethics long ago but it got changed that doesn't mean people who disagree with society's ethics are mentally ill. Also going by your argument you yourself have a mental illness since you don't base all your morals on society's ethics only some and by default probably means everyone has a mental illness and we're all screwed up in the head. Also funny enough if we didn't challenge society's ethics we'd probably still be having sex with minors.

[Kraco]

Well, can you explain to me why pedophilia is, and hebe- and ephebophilia aren't mental disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder)? Better yet, can those medical scientist?


Biologically it makes zero sense to try to breed with a partner not physiologically ready to produce offspring. Thus, it's exceedingly easy to label it, scientifically so, a mental disorder. However, once the partner is biologically ready to reproduce, it becomes a more muddy subject dependent on ethics. It's only due to ethics that the legal marriage age climbed up to 18. I could see hebephilia labeled a disorder these days, but with ephebophilia it's never going to happen. Just the differing ages of consent between countries (or even states) alone would make it laughable.

[Buffalobiian]

I agree. Is this what gotwoot has become or what these forums are for. The validation of perversions involving minors?

Suggestions on the grounds that this forum may be shut down due to possible violations of US laws is something worth considering. Your idea, I wouldn't. These forums are for discussing. It ranges from anime, manga and how police exercise their rights to what I eat everyday and why Assertn has so many posts. I believe Bud has already pointed out that he may lock this thread depending on how far towards the line this thread travels. but if you're complaining because you don't want to read this - don't read this.

@KE: Let's revisit.




I don't consider people having sex with animals mentally in order. Like homophiles are "considered" normal human beings yet differ in parts of the brain with others, I believe this case to be the same. It's a mental condition. Whether it's accepted by society or not is a different story.

Wait.. so you go and define "mental disorder" by yourself rather than following medical definitions?

Well, can you explain to me why pedophilia is, and hebe- and ephebophilia aren't mental disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder)? Better yet, can those medical scientist?

Hebephilia being a disorder is an ongoing debate (says wiki) suggesting the definitions of chronophilia's mental disorders are probably decided by ethics and morals (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm#5). There goes your medical definition.

That's the whole package. As for my reply:


[quote=KE]I don't consider people having sex with animals mentally in order. Like homophiles are "considered" normal human beings yet differ in parts of the brain with others, I believe this case to be the same. It's a mental condition.

- You said you believe hebephilia to be the same case as "homophiles" (homosexuals?) in that their brain structure is different. You have not backed this up with a source. As such, coming to the conclusion that it's a mental condition in such a manner is only valid for your personal definition of a mental condition and not necessarily applicable for others who "believe" differently. If you had facts to support this, that would be another manner.


Hebephilia being a disorder is an ongoing debate (says wiki) suggesting the definitions of chronophilia's mental disorders are probably decided by ethics and morals (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm#5). There goes your medical definition.

-Firstly, you just said that Hebephilia being a disorder is an ongoing debate, which contradicts your statement before that "It is a mental disorder."

-Next, you stated that the definitions of mental disorders are probably decided by ethics and morals. But, you stated earlier: "It's a mental condition. Whether it's accepted by society or not is a different story.".

Putting the two pieces together, you have contradicted yourself by saying that the definitions of a medical disorder are influenced and decided by ethics and morals, but then stated that Hebephilia is a mental condition whether or not it's accepted by society. The only way you have not contradicted yourself is if you also believe that ethics and morals are not dependant upon society..

All in all, it boils down to you believing Hebephilia being a mental condition because you think it is.


Well, can you explain to me why pedophilia is, and hebe- and ephebophilia aren't mental disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder)? Better yet, can those medical scientist?

Kraco did that quite well.


If me labeling something a mental illness is the same as brainwashing someone to believe it to be, then the ones mentally ill were Hitler and his followers (I'm sorry if I'm being extravagant).

@Fireheart: couldn't have said it better.


No matter the situation, it'll never benefit the underaged.

What does benefiting your partner have anything to do with sexual preference?


What's wrong is wrong for a reason. Get with it or follow consequences.

Galileo was "wrong" about the Earth orbiting the sun. I suppose he had a mental disorder too.

LOL... really?

What are you trying to say here? That Galileo was wrong? Or not?


Once again I must remind everyone that Hebiphilia is about preference. No one's talking about bringing it back. No one's talking about legalising it. No one's saying that their neighbour should adopt it (unlike the other camp).

It's about Shinta having a 20 year old wife but thinking "boy wouldn't it be nice if she was 12 again".
Which is wrong.

See above regarding you basing right and wrong on your own personal (and at times groundless) beliefs.


@Xan: I have no idea what you're talking about now.

Likewise

I'm assuming you are referring to Xan and not myself.

[UChessmaster]

Wait, homosexuality is a mental condition because the brain has a different structure? that`s new to me.

As much as i`d like to debate about it, i`m going to go with what i was teached, there`s a book called DSM-IV that list all of mental "condition", that`s as far as i go.

[Killa-Eyez]

I think your going off here and addressing something completely different.

This was exactly my goal. Buff did the same so I decided to return the favor.


Their point is that if everyone understands/apply society's ethics we'd still believe all those things since we wouldn't challenge them, black people would probably still be slaves and women inferior to men, it was after all part of society's ethics long ago but it got changed that doesn't mean people who disagree with society's ethics are mentally ill. Also going by your argument you yourself have a mental illness since you don't base all your morals on society's ethics only some and by default probably means everyone has a mental illness and we're all screwed up in the head. Also funny enough if we didn't challenge society's ethics we'd probably still be having sex with minors.

My point exactly. Pedophilia is already a mental disorder so why wait for an official public medical definition for hebe- and ephebophilia? Let's challenge society's ethics and massively decide they are mental disorders.
About my argument; the definition of pedophilia's mental illness stems from society's ethics and morals. Therefore the example of my vision of the individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness. I'm sorry if it came off wrong.


Biologically it makes zero sense to try to breed with a partner not physiologically ready to produce offspring. Thus, it's exceedingly easy to label it, scientifically so, a mental disorder. However, once the partner is biologically ready to reproduce, it becomes a more muddy subject dependent on ethics. It's only due to ethics that the legal marriage age climbed up to 18. I could see hebephilia labeled a disorder these days, but with ephebophilia it's never going to happen. Just the differing ages of consent between countries (or even states) alone would make it laughable.

True, but it still doesn't remove the fact that the label was based on morals and ethics, subjects we all can change overtime. Even ephebophilia can be labeled a mental disorder if there are sufficient people sharing that same vision.


..my reply:

- You said you believe hebephilia to be the same case as "homophiles" (homosexuals?) in that their brain structure is different. You have not backed this up with a source. As such, coming to the conclusion that it's a mental condition in such a manner is only valid for your personal definition of a mental condition and not necessarily applicable for others who "believe" differently. If you had facts to support this, that would be another manner.

That's what I'm basing it on, my morals and ethics, as pedophilia is based on the morals and ethics of society.
To reply to the subject of homophiles having different brain structure, read on to my reply to UChessmaster.


-Firstly, you just said that Hebephilia being a disorder is an ongoing debate, which contradicts your statement before that "It is a mental disorder."

Again, in my book it is.


-Next, you stated that the definitions of mental disorders are probably decided by ethics and morals. But, you stated earlier: "It's a mental condition. Whether it's accepted by society or not is a different story.".

Just to be clear: Only hebe- and ephebophilia will probably be decided "mental disorders" based on ethics and morals, as pedophilia already is. I take this manner of defining and use it myself to label the rest likewise, based on my ethics and morals. Whether it’s officially stated as a mental disorder is something else.


Putting the two pieces together, you have contradicted yourself by saying that the definitions of a medical disorder are influenced and decided by ethics and morals, but then stated that Hebephilia is a mental condition whether or not it's accepted by society.

Not a but these mental disorders (pedo-, hebe- and ehpebophilia).
And yes, in my opinion (which is not based on research or facts) you have a mental disorder if you have any of the three philia's, simply because I think it's unnatural for an adult to fuck minors. There's a reason why we're adults and they're minors. You protect children from adult situations, especially this one, for their benefit.


The only way you have not contradicted yourself is if you also believe that ethics and morals are not dependant upon society.

Sometimes, yes. Not necessarily. Personal ethics and morals are based on your own sense of right and wrong. Whether society agrees with me or not, I will always label it a mental disorder since the decisions for these philia's till now are not based on medical grounds but on a majority of ethics and morals. After it being socially wrong, extended research followed only to make it official in both legal and biological terms.


All in all, it boils down to you believing Hebephilia being a mental condition because you think it is.

It already is for myself and it should be for others, yes. As I said before, pedophilia was decided a mental disorder based on morals and ethics. Hebephilia is on debate whether it should or should not (be a mental disorder) but will probably also be decided in such a manner.
So I think of hebephilia and ephebophilia being mental disorders (and will always see it that way) simply because (again) I think it's wrong. And "I" can become "we".


What does benefiting your partner have anything to do with sexual preference?

A certain feeling of off-limits should already be present within these "preferences". A feeling of disgust and going against nature even. It off course has nothing to do with the preference but the preference shouldn't be there in the first place. It should simply never "come up".


What are you trying to say here? That Galileo was wrong? Or not?

I was rather being skeptical of you really comparing the two "wrongs" this way. You can turn a right into a wrong proven by facts or you can feel something to be wrong. The latter is what I was implying.


See above regarding you basing right and wrong on your own personal (and at times groundless) beliefs.

I don't see how it's groundless if I think it's a mental disorder based on me finding it not natural and having it fight my sense of right for neither the adult nor, especially, the minor for several reasons. Reasons I think you yourself can come up with, Buff.
It’s a ground based on my beliefs.


I'm assuming you are referring to Xan and not myself.

No, you. I didn't really get you at some points. Like the Galileo or the German p.o.v.'s, involving entirely different situations with no valid points to them at all.

You really like putting words into other people mouths.


Wait, homosexuality is a mental condition because the brain has a different structure? that`s new to me.

I'm not sure if it was the actual structure being different or parts of the brain being differently active compared to heterophiles. I believe this was also tested with serial killers. I saw it on Discovery Channel once.

[Buffalobiian]

I'm assuming you are referring to Xan and not myself.

No, you. I didn't really get you at some points. Like the Galileo or the German p.o.v.'s, involving entirely different situations with no valid points to them at all.

Point of the holocaust example: look at the shit that can happen when you fail to challenge society's views.
Point of the Galileo example: What's "right" and "wrong" isn't set in stone, nor should it be set strictly by society's standards.

Summary point: Challenging society's "right" and "wrong" instead of swallowing it doesn't mean you have a mental condition.


This was exactly my goal. Buff did the same so I decided to return the favor.

I used examples to illustrate a point. See above.


My point exactly. Pedophilia is already a mental disorder so why wait for an official public medical definition for hebe- and ephebophilia?

See Kraco's reply before yours. (http://forums.gotwoot.net/showthread.php/20041-Hebephilia?p=494434&viewfull=1#post494434)


About my argument; the definition of pedophilia's mental illness stems from society's ethics and morals. Therefore the example of my vision of the individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness. I'm sorry if it came off wrong.

Allow me to use an example:
Some people are raised in countries which are dominated by a certain religion (Muslim countries for example). They're raised with, and expected to follow society's laws. One such law is that women are required to wear the Hijab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab) in public places.

So since she's raised and bred with such and ideal within her society, she's got a mental condition if she wants (not DO, but WANT) to take it off and not wear it again?

This example is not off-topic and is a direct application for " individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness."


Biologically it makes zero sense to try to breed with a partner not physiologically ready to produce offspring. Thus, it's exceedingly easy to label it, scientifically so, a mental disorder. However, once the partner is biologically ready to reproduce, it becomes a more muddy subject dependent on ethics. It's only due to ethics that the legal marriage age climbed up to 18. I could see hebephilia labeled a disorder these days, but with ephebophilia it's never going to happen. Just the differing ages of consent between countries (or even states) alone would make it laughable.
True, but it still doesn't remove the fact that the label was based on morals and ethics, subjects we all can change overtime. Even ephebophilia can be labeled a mental disorder if there are sufficient people sharing that same vision.

What is this "label"? The label of something being a mental condition?

What you basically said up there was "if enough people thought ephebophilia was a mental disorder, then it would be a mental disorder". Of course that's true. It's as true as saying if enough people believed the earth was flat, the earth is flat. That's how "true" things are from a social perspective.


..my reply:

- You said you believe hebephilia to be the same case as "homophiles" (homosexuals?) in that their brain structure is different. You have not backed this up with a source. As such, coming to the conclusion that it's a mental condition in such a manner is only valid for your personal definition of a mental condition and not necessarily applicable for others who "believe" differently. If you had facts to support this, that would be another manner.
That's what I'm basing it on, my morals and ethics, as pedophilia is based on the morals and ethics of society.
To reply to the subject of homophiles having different brain structure, read on to my reply to UChessmaster.

I never said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about homosexuals having different brain structures or patterns. I said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about hebephiles having different brain structures or patterns.

You said that "homophiles" have different brain structures. I believe hebephiles to also be the same." <- 2nd sentence is not based on any evidence other than you "guessing". THAT is what I was talking about.


Just to be clear: Only hebe- and ephebophilia will probably be decided "mental disorders" based on ethics and morals, as pedophilia already is. I take this manner of defining and use it myself to label the rest likewise, based on my ethics and morals. Whether it’s officially stated as a mental disorder is something else.


in my opinion (which is not based on research or facts) you have a mental disorder if you have any of the three philia's, simply because I think it's unnatural for an adult to fuck minors. There's a reason why we're adults and they're minors. You protect children from adult situations, especially this one, for their benefit.


. Whether society agrees with me or not, I will always label it a mental disorder since the decisions for these philia's till now are not based on medical grounds but on a majority of ethics and morals.

Summary: I (KE) will label these following philias (pedo, hebe, ephebo) as a mental condition because I think they are wrong. I will continue to think this way regardless of whether society does or not, and regardless of whether the wider definition and diagnosis for "mental condition" changes conforms.

Did I get that right? If so, then I must tell you that hebephilia not only becomes a "mental condition" "by your books" (ie they fit the requirements for a mental condition), but that it may also be the case that hebephilia is a "mental condition" "by your own definition of a mental condition".



Personal ethics and morals are based on your own sense of right and wrong
No, KE. Morals are personal. Ethics are social.


It already is for myself and it should be for others, yes. As I said before, pedophilia was decided a mental disorder based on morals and ethics. Hebephilia is on debate whether it should or should not (be a mental disorder) but will probably also be decided in such a manner.
So I think of hebephilia and ephebophilia being mental disorders (and will always see it that way) simply because (again) I think it's wrong. And "I" can become "we".

Again, morals are personal. Ethics are decided upon by the wider society. "I" certainly can become "we", but until that happens, it remains as "I". ie, you.


A certain feeling of off-limits should already be present within these "preferences".
Whether this feeling "should" or "shouldn't" be present was again, something you yourself came up with.


I was rather being skeptical of you really comparing the two "wrongs" this way. You can turn a right into a wrong proven by facts or you can feel something to be wrong. The latter is what I was implying.

In that case, you mean "wrong" to be something that is different from yourself and/or something that you dislike?

Like how "black" people felt "wrong" to "white people"?


See above regarding you basing right and wrong on your own personal (and at times groundless) beliefs.
I don't see how it's groundless if I think it's a mental disorder based on me finding it not natural and having it fight my sense of right for neither the adult nor, especially, the minor for several reasons.

"Groundless" was referring to the fact that you believed hebephiles to have different brain structures, which so far is unfounded. Thereby, groundless. Note that I did not say ALL your beliefs were groundless.

This issue came up due to you defining Hebephilia as a mental disorder when mental disorders are not decided by you, but society as a whole. Putting it into "KE's own definition of mental disorders - anything that I find to be wrong", is another matter. So far, however, it has not been clear that you are using the term "mental disorder" under your own rules.


No, you. I didn't really get you at some points. Like the Galileo or the German p.o.v.'s, involving entirely different situations with no valid points to them at all.

You really like putting words into other people mouths.

I made the assumption because you addressed nearly all of my post. By addressing what I said without saying "I don't get you", I assume you "get" me.

I (try) not to put words into people's mouths, I don't think I've done so thus far. By saying what I said (that I'm assuming youre talking about Xan), I'm letting you know that I'm basing myself on an assumption, and allowing you to tell me whether that assumption was right or wrong.

It's the same as saying "I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I think you're talking about Xan".





And something to think about again: Society once condemned and burned people for being lefties. Not-too-long-ago, schools forced students to write with their right hands, even if they were left-handed. Is it a mental condition to then want to write with your left hand?

And so, according to what you wrote before, you can think of it as a mental condition because society used to decide on that based on majority belief?

[fireheart]

About my argument; the definition of pedophilia's mental illness stems from society's ethics and morals. Therefore the example of my vision of the individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness. I'm sorry if it came off wrong.

Once again I think their point is that in that case you have to follow everything society's ethics dictate and that's the weird part in your argument since you admitted that you don't. You didn't say anything about challenging them just that if you fail to understand/apply these things then you have a disorder (I know you said illness but I'm going with disorder in the post) and in that case I can without a doubt say I have a mental disorder because I don't understand nor apply all of society's ethics. Or does this just apply to some ethics and not all of them?

For example society's ethics dictates that we should help people in need, call 911 when we see crime etc. Most people don't do this, they walk away pretending they didn't see nor hear anything, does this mean they have a mental disorder?


Even ephebophilia can be labeled a mental disorder if there are sufficient people sharing that same vision..

By your definition I once again have a mental disorder because when I was 22 I dated a 19 year old and according to wiki ephebophilia covers up to 19 coupled with your no more than 2 years difference. Would I date a 19 year old now? Probably not but seeing as I did at that point I clearly suffer from a mental disorder even though I could have legally married her for over a year. Anyway point is seeing as ephebophilia covers up to over 18 I think it's going to be hard to make it a mental disorder.


Biologically it makes zero sense to try to breed with a partner not physiologically ready to produce offspring. Thus, it's exceedingly easy to label it, scientifically so, a mental disorder. However, once the partner is biologically ready to reproduce, it becomes a more muddy subject dependent on ethics.


True


and going against nature even

You might want to think that last line through a bit more, since you seem to agree with the biological view but that our ethics dictate something else so when speaking of nature it doesn't really go against it.


And something to think about again: Society once condemned and burned people for being lefties. Not-too-long-ago, schools forced students to write with their right hands, even if they were left-handed. Is it a mental condition to then want to write with your left hand?

I wouldn't call it a mental condition but isn't it still caused by the fact that the brain is a bit different from the majority of people. Since usually it's the left side of the brain that handles that however in the case of lefties it's the right side.


Personally I think hebephilia is wrong simply because much like Sapphire said kids are kids and should be allowed to stay kids while they can, they can have as much sex as they want later on anyway. Though I find ephebophilia to be more of a gray zone seeing as at least here by the time they hit 15 they're legally allowed to have sex though generally it's 16.

[Buffalobiian]

I wouldn't call it a mental condition but isn't it still caused by the fact that the brain is a bit different from the majority of people. Since usually it's the left side of the brain that handles that however in the case of lefties it's the right side.

From memory, I think there is, yes. All the better (for the purpose of illustrating my point) that there is, but it doesn't really matter.

[UChessmaster]

I'm not sure if it was the actual structure being different or parts of the brain being differently active compared to heterophiles. I believe this was also tested with serial killers. I saw it on Discovery Channel once.

It`s different as in, male gay brain is a bit more female-ish in structure and vice versa, serial killers brains is also different, but not in the same way obviously.

[Buffalobiian]

It`s different as in, male gay brain is a bit more female-ish in structure and vice versa, serial killers brains is also different, but not in the same way obviously.

Their brains resembles that of a crocodile. :P

Just taking the chance to link this for anyone interested in the topic: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

Note: not posted to support or retort any argument in particular.

[UChessmaster]

Their brains resembles that of a crocodile. :P

That`s not what i found http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7988.html/

[Buffalobiian]

That`s not what i found http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7988.html/

I was talking about the brain of serial killers.. >_>

And I was joking (just setting the record straight).

[UChessmaster]

oh... ok lol

[Killa-Eyez]

Point of the holocaust example: look at the shit that can happen when you fail to challenge society's views.

Not the same. These were the doings of a seriously disturbed man which had incomparable influence, powerful persuasiveness and loyal followers. It's like a pedophile taking advantage of a child's trust. Hence the aforementioned brainwashing example. I think propaganda is the correct term. If people thought differently about Hitler's views then they weren't as strongly influenced (brainwashed) by his methods.


Point of the Galileo example: What's "right" and "wrong" isn't set in stone, nor should it be set strictly by society's standards.

It shouldn't, but that's not the case. Look at pedophilia. And to justify someone's idea of something being wrong, one can persuade others to share the same vision. Again, every person has their own sense of right and wrong on which they can base morals and ethics. If an individual does not possess these senses and cannot understand why they shouldn't fuck minors, they've got some serious mental issues, imho. I know it's different to act out on them but having any thoughts or fantasies about it strongly suggests (for me) they have a mental disorder.


Summary point: Challenging society's "right" and "wrong" instead of swallowing it doesn't mean you have a mental condition.

In general, true. But I was talking about these specific morals and ethics that formed the base of the decision of pedophilia being a mental disorder. Hebephilia is a similar case so the same can be said about it; it can be labeled a mental disorder once society decides it to be (which I think already happened since debate is ongoing between medical researchers). I took the liberty to label it that way for myself and I'm sure many others can see it the same way.


I used examples to illustrate a point. See above.

Incorrect examples. But I got your point. The thing is, your points are valid in many other situations but in this one they prove insignificant since the consideration of pedophilia being a mental disorder is based on morals and ethics. This does not mean each mental disorder is labeled in the same manner. I'm talking about this specific situation.


See Kraco's reply before yours. (http://forums.gotwoot.net/showthread.php/20041-Hebephilia?p=494434&viewfull=1#post494434)

In hebephilia and ephebophilia's case I can already see the immoral actions and unjust being applied to a child, no doctor needed. So I already consider them being the same as pedophilia (a mental disorder). If you agree with Kraco's post you agree with him on hebephilia to be labeled a mental disorder but not ephebophilia. I used the 2 year limit myself which means that if you're three years older you'll get a frown from me. The medical limit is 5 years. I'd have ephebophilia lead to age 17 being a mental disorder since this gives them enough time to grow phyisically and especially mentally. If you're at least 5 years older I think it will show too big of a difference in mental state and will risk rendering kids mental growth.


Allow me to use an example:
Some people are raised in countries which are dominated by a certain religion (Muslim countries for example). They're raised with, and expected to follow society's laws. One such law is that women are required to wear the Hijab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab) in public places.

So since she's raised and bred with such and ideal within her society, she's got a mental condition if she wants (not DO, but WANT) to take it off and not wear it again?

I don't see how that's harmful to a minor, so no. Funny way to put things. It's like you don't understand me, but it doesn't limit you to put words in my mouth. Furthermore this is based on religion and not on society's ethics and morals.


This example is not off-topic and is a direct application for " individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness."

Noticed that I inserted the word specific? This word directs to the same ethics and morals that decided pedophilia to be a mental disorder. If you cannot understand and/or apply these specific senses of right and wrong then in my eyes you have a mental disorder.


What is this "label"? The label of something being a mental condition?

Yes.


What you basically said up there was "if enough people thought ephebophilia was a mental disorder, then it would be a mental disorder". Of course that's true. It's as true as saying if enough people believed the earth was flat, the earth is flat. That's how "true" things are from a social perspective.

True. Yet the (back then) fact of the earth being flat has been proven to be wrong. Again, you can feel something to be wrong in which off course you can be proven otherwise by research and facts. This has not yet been done since the decisions of these philia's being mental disorders aren't based on medical grounds but a majority in votes of differential ethics and morals. Like homophile was once a mental disorder but got voted out.


I never said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about homosexuals having different brain structures or patterns. I said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about hebephiles having different brain structures or patterns.

You said that "homophiles" have different brain structures. I believe hebephiles to also be the same." <- 2nd sentence is not based on any evidence other than you "guessing". THAT is what I was talking about.

Okay. Then yes, it is guessing. That's why I used the words "I believe". I haven't based this belief on facts or research but have a hunch hebephilia does have a significant difference in structure or patterns compared to non-hebephiles, like pedophiles.


Summary: I (KE) will label these following philias (pedo, hebe, ephebo) as a mental condition because I think they are wrong. I will continue to think this way regardless of whether society does or not, and regardless of whether the wider definition and diagnosis for "mental condition" changes conforms. Did I get that right?

Somewhat, yes. I will keep thinking this way as I'm pretty certain they will all prove to be mental disorders. If after research it is proven not to be a mental disorder I'll stand corrected and stop using the term in relation to said philia. But in my mind they'll always be wrong and labeled as "mental disorders" as these disorders can be voted in and out the DSM-IV sheets which defies the credibility of these so called "medical grounds" anyway.


If so, then I must tell you that hebephilia not only becomes a "mental condition" "by your books" (ie they fit the requirements for a mental condition), but that it may also be the case that hebephilia is a "mental condition" "by your own definition of a mental condition".

Yup. Totally correct. Btw, maybe I used the wrong idiom but with "by my books" I'm referring to what I find to be right or wrong (i.e. my opinion), not necessarily material that actually comes out of literature. So in my eyes you said the same thing twice just now. It already is a mental disorder to me.


No, KE. Morals are personal. Ethics are social.

I was rather talking about the selection of morals and ethics you abide by, based on what you define as right or wrong, to be personal (a preference, if you will).


Again, morals are personal. Ethics are decided upon by the wider society.

I'll humour you, since this is not on-topic and doesn't add to the discussion at hand.


Whether this feeling "should" or "shouldn't" be present was again, something you yourself came up with.

Which, I take, you do not agree with?
I'm just practical in my ways, I don't base everything on other peoples opinion. I decide for myself things to be right or wrong. What is "right" or "wrong" (as a noun)? What is "good" or "bad"? What is "normal" or "crazy"? Things that are all based on opinions. I think you have a problem with me sharing my opinion on this subject because you keep pointing out obvious statements, like the above.
Yes, I do think people should share the same vision (mine) in this matter.


In that case, you mean "wrong" to be something that is different from yourself and/or something that you dislike?

Like how "black" people felt "wrong" to "white people"?

I mean "wrong" as in something to be immoral to my senses. How do you know that black people felt "wrong" to white people? You might have had history class but you weren't there, were you? Stop making up these ridiculous examples for your exaggerated suggestions.


"Groundless" was referring to the fact that you believed hebephiles to have different brain structures, which so far is unfounded. Thereby, groundless. Note that I did not say ALL your beliefs were groundless.

Yeah, we covered that.


This issue came up due to you defining Hebephilia as a mental disorder when mental disorders are not decided by you, but society as a whole. Putting it into "KE's own definition of mental disorders - anything that I find to be wrong", is another matter. So far, however, it has not been clear that you are using the term "mental disorder" under your own rules.

I consider it a mental disorder based on the manner it was decided for pedophilia. My own definition of mental disorders equaling anything that I find to be wrong is another case of you misinterpreting me and putting words in my mouth.
ONLY in this case I find people who do not understand the rationale and/or apply the morals and ethics that decided it to be a mental disorder, to have a mental disorder. Simply because as an adult thinking about fucking someone else's 11 - 14 y/o child is sickening and "wrong" (immoral) to me.


I made the assumption because you addressed nearly all of my post. By addressing what I said without saying "I don't get you", I assume you "get" me.

I removed Xan's name from that phrase and wouldn't quote it unless it was a message already posted. It was simply a statement of yours I used in return, in relation to the silly examples you posted.


I (try) not to put words into people's mouths, I don't think I've done so thus far. By saying what I said (that I'm assuming youre talking about Xan), I'm letting you know that I'm basing myself on an assumption, and allowing you to tell me whether that assumption was right or wrong.

It's the same as saying "I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I think you're talking about Xan".

It was not directed towards your misinterpretation of me messaging to Xan, but to your overall assumptions and theories of how you think I think.
And you have been putting words in my mouth, thus far. Read for yourself.


And something to think about again: Society once condemned and burned people for being lefties. Not-too-long-ago, schools forced students to write with their right hands, even if they were left-handed. Is it a mental condition to then want to write with your left hand?

It's the same thing all over again. Check my reply to your example of wearing a Hijab.


And so, according to what you wrote before, you can think of it as a mental condition because society used to decide on that based on majority belief?

It's rather about the rationale behind those beliefs. Like you could fuck up and scar a kid for life if you'd fuck them while people who are lefties are just people who are lefties. Some decisions based on beliefs were not so well-grounded and some are. The one about pedophilia is.


Once again I think their point is that in that case you have to follow everything society's ethics dictate and that's the weird part in your argument since you admitted that you don't. You didn't say anything about challenging them just that if you fail to understand/apply these things then you have a disorder (I know you said illness but I'm going with disorder in the post) and in that case I can without a doubt say I have a mental disorder because I don't understand nor apply all of society's ethics. Or does this just apply to some ethics and not all of them?

You just answered your own question by asking it. As I said to Buff, some morals and ethics are not so well-grounded while others are. I have faith in you.


For example society's ethics dictates that we should help people in need, call 911 when we see crime etc. Most people don't do this, they walk away pretending they didn't see nor hear anything, does this mean they have a mental disorder?

There goes my faith. Now you're being just as ignorant as Buff is, suggesting the same things as he is. Be additional, not repetitive.
Check my reply to Buff.


By your definition I once again have a mental disorder because when I was 22 I dated a 19 year old and according to wiki ephebophilia covers up to 19 coupled with your no more than 2 years difference. Would I date a 19 year old now? Probably not but seeing as I did at that point I clearly suffer from a mental disorder even though I could have legally married her for over a year.

I think 19 is a fine age to start a grown up life. Again, check my reply to Buff.


Anyway point is seeing as ephebophilia covers up to over 18 I think it's going to be hard to make it a mental disorder.

That's why I'm suggesting it to be limited to age 17. Once more, check my reply to Buff.


You might want to think that last line through a bit more, since you seem to agree with the biological view but that our ethics dictate something else so when speaking of nature it doesn't really go against it.

I'm sorry, will human nature suffice?


Personally I think hebephilia is wrong simply because much like Sapphire said kids are kids and should be allowed to stay kids while they can, they can have as much sex as they want later on anyway. Though I find ephebophilia to be more of a gray zone seeing as at least here by the time they hit 15 they're legally allowed to have sex though generally it's 16.

My faith in you has been partially restored again (depending on those having sex with 15 - 16 y/o's to be inside the 5, -preferably 2- years limit).


I wouldn't call it a mental condition but isn't it still caused by the fact that the brain is a bit different from the majority of people. Since usually it's the left side of the brain that handles that however in the case of lefties it's the right side.

From memory, I think there is, yes. All the better (for the purpose of illustrating my point) that there is, but it doesn't really matter.

I'd call it a mental condition, sure. Is it a mental illnes or disorder? No.


It`s different as in, male gay brain is a bit more female-ish in structure and vice versa, serial killers brains is also different, but not in the same way obviously.

Precisely what I thought.