Hebephilia

[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/ar...ge-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.

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 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.