
Hebephile, a newly proposed diagnostic classification in which people display a sexual preference for children at the cusp of puberty, between the ages of, roughly, 11 to 14 years of age. Pedophiles, in contrast, show a sexual preference for clearly prepubescent children. There are also ephebophiles (from ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek), who are mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds; teleiophiles (from teleios, meaning, “full grown” in Greek), who prefer those 17 years of age or older); and even the very rare gerontophile (from gerontos, meaning “old man” in Greek), someone whose sexual preference is for the elderly. So although child sex offenders are often lumped into the single classification of pedophilia, biologically speaking it’s a rather complicated affair. Some have even proposed an additional subcategory of pedophilia, “infantophilia,” to distinguish those individuals most intensely attracted to children below six years of age.
Based on this classification scheme of erotic age orientations, even the world’s best-known fictitious “pedophile,” Humbert Humbert from Nabokov’s masterpiece, Lolita, would more properly be considered a hebephile. (Likewise the protagonist from Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, a work that I’ve always viewed as something of the “gay Lolita”).
Why most "pedophiles" aren’t really pedophiles, technically speaking | Scientific American
The meaning of the word "Pedophile" was manipulatively changed and distorted. Pedophile is a clearly defined scientific term meaning an adult that has attraction to pre-pubertal children.
We are discussing grammar, semantics, and politics of language manipulation here.
We are not defending or condoning pedophile activities.
Correct Terminology
Hebephiles, Ephebophiles, Teleiophile were grouped into the "pedophile" group. So a "worse label’ can be attached to a sexual offender. An "adolescent lover" who had a 17 year old girlfriend is called "child lover" (or rather, in a second step of vilification, child rapist). Sure helps to secure longer jail terms and to get the population angry. This is exactly identical to the manipulation that extended the word "child" from under 12 or under 14, to under 18, admittedly for the purpose of enforcing child protection laws for adolescents.
Additionally, child mutilators and murderers are usually called "pedophiles" in the press. Killing children has nothing to do with "child lovers" or sexual attraction for children.
Brooke Shields re-victimized constantly?
Thus someone gets arrested for possession of Brooke Shields 15 year photos , falsely called a pedophile, and the average Joe thinks he is a baby murderer. Note that the bikini photo of a 15 year-old becomes child pornography in case one collects the photo for sexual arousal (Copine level 4).
According to child porn persecution theory, "children" (under 18) get re-victimized whenever someone looks at their depictions.. We prevented the re-victimization of Brooke Shields through the first 10 year old photo by putting black bars at all private parts. Add to this the famous Brooke Shields movies (Blue Lagoon, …) , one can see that Brooke Shields constantly gets re-victimized thousands of times per day by people who watch these movies with an impure mind.
Infantophiles
Of course, Infant abusers can be labelled with a stronger label then "pedophile". Those attracted to 17 year olds are more ostracised by the incorrect application of the name "pedophile" or child lover, then by "teleiophile", late adolescent lover. To reach the maximum vilification, the word "infantophile" is now, correctly, created. It is undesirable that perverts that mess with infants can hide behind the word "pedophile", which could mean attraction to 9 year olds.
We are discussing grammar, semantics, and politics of language manipulation here. We are not defending or condoning pedophile activities.
There are also law abiding pedophiles who declaredly do not act upon their attraction. These, in spite of being accused merely of thought crimes, are in danger of being hurt by angy pedophile vigilantes.
Other Language manipulation ("rape", "consent")
Human-Stupidity has assailed the manipulative distortion of language is very common in the service of criminalizing adolescent sexuality. The meaning of "rape" and "consent" have been manipulatively changed, just like "pedophile" and "child".



#1 by Roger Plumrose on 06:17 PM - 06:17 PM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
2
The whole medicalization of mens’ attraction to adolescent girls is just a joke. Take a look at what sells the most in the sex industries: TEENAGE GIRLS. SCHOOLGIRLS. LOLITAS. JAILBAIT.
Sexual preferences for adolescent girls are clearly the norm for men not sexual disorders or so called “paraphilias”
#2 by JG on 08:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
#3 by Alan Vaughn on 09:24 AM - 09:24 AM
Like or Dislike:
3
2
@Roger Plumrose…
That’s always been the case for as long as I can remember… So I guess all men have always been “paedophiles” and always will be?
Let’s face it any female over about 25 generally doesn’t stir things up inside us anywhere near as much as the sight of a a nubile, firm and young teen body does, especially when ‘gift wrapped’ in something fitting her age like a school uniform to make it even one level more ‘tantalizing’…
So now being a normal red blooded male attracted to what’s depicted in publications that are sold more than any other publications that the ‘erotica industry’ has to offer, has effectively been degraded to the lowest form of life in present day industrialized society: a ‘Paepdophile’!
This must surely mean too that most, if not all of the male persecuters and paedophile witch-hunters are hypocrites, thus could be one of the main reasons for the existence of the current paedo-hysteria?
The ones making all the fuss actually feel guilty and are even afraid their little ‘kink’ (of being what was once ‘normal’) might eventually be discovered. So they make all this noise saying how much they hate paedos etc., in a sort of childish effort to hide the truth about themselves, because they now think there’s something wrong or ‘perverted’ about what truly wets their sexual appetites…
#4 by asdfg on 01:14 AM - 01:14 AM
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
#5 by Jack on 12:11 AM - 12:11 AM
Like or Dislike:
0
0
look, if thier (they’re? their? fuck I don’t know) sexual attraction would cause physical harm, and they act on it then they don’t get respect. Maybe some pity.
Of course, post puberty is the time nature says ‘go’. Hence the old adage ‘If there’s grass on the field play ball.’
It’s not that hard to understand people.
#6 by simplejack on 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@jack: Children have a sexuality too. The myth that children dont have sexual feelings or are not sexual beings is very recent.
“Of course, post puberty is the time nature says ‘go’.”
Nature also says that homosexuality is wrong, because ist non-reproductive…
#7 by MRDA on 11:18 AM - 11:18 AM
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Last time I checked, nature had no voice to say anything.
#8 by rookey on 06:33 AM - 06:33 AM
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I asked myself whether I’m a pedophile or not, but but then after searching the web, I found the following article to be pretty helpful to separate one from the other:
pedophile obsessiona thoughts / worrying of being a pedophile:
http://www.counseling-office.com/pt-blog/pedophile-symptoms/
It basically contains a pretty detailed description of how to differentiate pedophile obsessional thoughts from real pedophilia.
Maybe its’ of help for someone else as well.
Anyhow, good to see I’m not alone who gets his brain messed up with teh terminology!
#9 by T on 12:46 AM - 12:46 AM
Like or Dislike:
2
3
All thies people commenting are pedafiles .
#10 by Alan Vaughn on 04:54 AM - 04:54 AM
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@T
Actually all THESE people commenting here are PAEDOPHILES and are apparently slightly more intelligent than some paedophile haters, because they can at least correctly spell simple English words.
#11 by O on 12:02 PM - 12:02 PM
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“attraction to infants is a serious sexual aberration”
… And attraction to teens is not? Attraction to infants/toddlers is just another natural aspect of human sexuality.
#12 by admin on 05:09 PM - 05:09 PM
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I might be mistaken. Sexual attractions towards toddlers might be not so uncommon. I recently read that single mothers often have sexual feelings towards their toddler sons. So it is not sleazy men, but young mothers who get sexual attraction towards infants.
But these are rumors I read. Anyone has any serious research about this? Or maybe such research gets repressed for not being politically correct.
#13 by Dr Seuss on 05:20 PM - 05:20 PM
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I don’t think that’s real infantophilia. I think a lot of women just get turned on by having babies suck their boobies.
#14 by Irony on 05:19 AM - 05:19 AM
Like or Dislike:
1
0
The irony here is that pedophiles are treated EXACTLY now as Gays were not too long ago. Death threats, “no mercy” for the person, would laugh if they died, etc, ALL the same. Hopefully, the next generation won’t be full of ignorant idiots like you guys, who treat us like inhuman freaks and call it parenting or protecting. So to that, fuck you. Fuck you all.
#15 by Truth be told on 04:10 PM - 04:10 PM
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Woooow. I love how people are doing something so wrong and yet try to justify their actions with “we’re people too” and “studies have shown” or “well teenage girls, etc. or being sold in the sex industries”. You are all disgusting, or you even human? How can you have any sexual urges towards infants, INFANTS regardless children? That’s just sick. It’s a baby, he/she are just like newborn. And then children? They are kids. Kids! They do not have sexual urges too they can’t even care for themselves and for you to try to do anything to them? Unless you yourself were raped as a child (or baby) then I can understand. Because that has been proven that children who were forced to have sex will most likely end up becoming a pedophile themselves. But, if not… You’re disgusting filthy creatures. Next thing you know it’ll be okay to sleep w animals. And if anytime in the future THIS ^^^^^ is okay… I may just have to commit suicide because that’s sick. I hope you explain how “okay” this is to police officers when you’re caught and arrested.
#16 by admin on 03:47 AM - 03:47 AM
Like or Dislike:
0
0
We don’t disagree. We are not promoting child sex or impunity.
We are talking about the DEFINITION of pedophilia, infantophilia, … We bemoan the fact that our language gets so distorted that those attracted to 17 year olds (Hebephiles, which we consider quite normal), on purpose get confused with those attracted to 8 year olds (pedophiles). To confuse you further, it seems that those who play in sexual ways with infants are mostly women. Now how much damage is done when mom fondles or licks her baby in sexual ways? Let science do the research in unbiased ways. Without censoring science if the results are not exactly how we wish they were.
Promoting scientific research about murder, riots, wars does not mean condoning such acts.