Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tai_Chung
"What is considered a "child" in this article? Is it teenagers or are they talking about pre-teens?"

The so-called "journalistic community" has a tough time differentiating pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent kids) from the attraction to sexually-developed but legislatively-underaged adolescents. To lump them all together is erroneous.

There was a thread here at FR back a few weeks in which someone posted the correct term for people who are sexually attracted to the sexually ripe but legally underaged - a type of behaviour far, far removed from pedophilia. Anyone have a link or remember the proper terminology?

The Roman Catholic Church, of late, has had ITS problems with "pederasty," sex between an adult male and an underaged male. Once again, wholly different from pedophilia OR hetero-but-underaged sex. No one seems to be able to get the term right.

Michael

9 posted on 04/16/2002 12:52:32 PM PDT by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Wright is right!
The term you are looking for is ephebophilia, defined as a recurrent, intense sexual interest in post-pubescent young people -- teen-agers.

It's probably a good thing that this term is coming to light as the link between ephebophilia becomes clearly documented in light of recent events in the news.

Or am I the only one noticing that the charges against those rogue priests show them overwhelmingly assaulting boys?

14 posted on 04/16/2002 1:04:33 PM PDT by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Wright is right!;Tai_Chung
"What is considered a "child" in this article? Is it teenagers or are they talking about pre-teens?"

The so-called "journalistic community" has a tough time differentiating pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent kids) from the attraction to sexually-developed but legislatively-underaged adolescents. To lump them all together is erroneous.

Erroneous or not, you'll note that we've now entered the definition game, which is bad news. Notice that between you, we've got two examples here: age-based and body-based definitions of what constitutes "pedophilia". (There's also the unnamed third option, "individual maturity.")

The only reason for doing that is to differentiate between "all right" and "not all right," and ultimately to lower the acceptable age limit for sexual relations.

Is pedophilia going mainstream? The bottom line answer is "yes."

21 posted on 04/16/2002 1:16:09 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Wright is right!
Why is it important to know all the proper terminology for each of the crimes against children or early teens?

I think that dividing the different terms in public discussion benefits more the criminals that want their behavior accepted. I am sure some forms of this depravity may have more public appeal than others. Just divide and normalize each, one at a time, seems to be SOP.

23 posted on 04/16/2002 1:20:28 PM PDT by scottiewottie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Wright is right!
Biologically any age past pubescence is naturally prepared for sex; many girls may not be fully grown and could have delivery problems though, but that is easily corrected medically.

The arguments against adolescent sex are mainly ones of pyschological preparedness and morality as it pertains to the culture in which such acts take place.

Since America has no culture but seems to be always in search of one, it might well be that such changes do lie in our future.

Of course, they said similar things about the nuclear holocaust that has yet to materialize...

74 posted on 03/10/2004 12:12:13 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson