Never heard of the Olsen twins. I saw a really rude t-shirt that referred to them, though. Something like “I f–cked the Olsen twins BEFORE they were famous!”. Now I GET it. Sick, actually. But I get it.
I saw somebody with that shirt on the MRT the other day.
Don’t forget to be a pedophile…by definition of the word. You’d need to be attracted to girls who were prepubescent. So if you are physically attracted to a voluptious 14 year old for example…you wouldn’t be a pedophile…you’d be normal. If you were to act on those impulses…then you’d be an immorale sick piece of shit with no regards to how your actions might effect the girl in later life. But I’m pretty sure masturbational fantasies are alright…but I could be wrong .
Technically, if your primary or strong attraction were in the pubescent range (like roughly 12-ish to immaturish 15) you’d be a hebephile (attraction to pubescent female) rather than normal. If on an extremely rare occasion you found youself slightly attracted to a particularly mature girl in this age range, you would not be considered psychologically abnormal. If you acted upon it, you’d be vermin and a criminal, of course.
…while if you even moderately often found yourself attracted to in the late or post-pubescent but still a legal minor range (roughly very mature 15 to 17.99; of course these #'s vary too much to count for much) you’d be considered psychologically normal (even though that would be too young for many men), but there’s of course no clear line between the two. Evolution and biology at work, nothing unusual. As you point out, attraction (based on biology) and action (based on vs. in violation of modern social norms) are two completely different things. And a very important distinction indeed!
As someone who used to teach a brief unit on this at a university, I commonly try to educate folks on the distinction between hebephilia (in the case of pubescent female stimuli, 13-15-ish) and ephebophilia (re: pubescent boys 13-15ish) on the one hand, and pedophilia on the other, simply because it’s such a common area of misunderstanding, as is the difference between attraction and action. In the latter case, with prepubescents, the terms are pedophile (attraction) vs. pederasty (child molester). They are NOT the same thing. Of course all pederasts are pedophiles. But there are certainly at least some pedophiles who do not act on their impulses. Society loathes them anyway (but as weird as it sounds, perhaps it should thank them for their restraint?).
I’d be careful with throwing that term hebephile around because different women have different body shapes and styles and a preference for a certain style does not make a man a pervert. That would come close to making a preference for Asian women, with their slim physiques and budding breasts that make them look several years younger than their Western counterparts, hebephilia. The 14 year old white girl can often look more ‘mature’ than the 25 year old Taiwanese woman. This complicates matters, no?
Newbies to Asia often mistake people’s ages very badly. I was once at a summer camp and one of the American women was talking to one of the Taiwanese co-teachers, and she made a remark about the Taiwanese girl’s age, “You’re what, like, 13?”
“No! I am 19!”
The problem is that terms like pedophile are what get “thrown around” carelessly, without proper definition. All these terms are the realm of sexual psychology, which is the academic rigor I was attempting to bring to the discussion.
I fail to see where anyone was saying anything remotely like that.
No, the definitions aren’t based at all in physique. They are very loosely age-based, referenced by necessity upon sexual maturity rather than chronological age, and the legal definitions (which are problematic from a psych perspective) are purely and inflexibly chronological and very poorly defined (e.g., pedophilia for anything under 18, which is patently absurd from the perspective of sexual psychology).
No one rational would accuse a man who was attracted to a 30-year-old Taiwanese woman who looked somewhat pubescent (we call it “neotenous”) of hebephilia. His attraction would be to a fully mature woman, completely psychologically normal and socially and legally appropriate; end of discussion. Now, if that same man’s preferences were primarily for pubescent girls (but he never acted upon it), but he was lucky enough to find a mature woman who looked like that and they lived happily ever after, then he would be a very lucky hebephile who found his socially and legally valid niche, end of story. There are probably quite a few of these around.
However, your points about differences in physical cues of maturity in different races are quite relevant. The brain, endocrine system, libido and resultant behavior are all attuned to perceived sexual maturity, rather than factual age. Translation: men’s glands will naturally respond in the same way to a 17-year-old of average sexual maturity, and a 15-year-old of unusually advanced sexual maturity. From an evolutionary, biological and psychological perspective, these are equivalent visual stimuli.
But our understanding of sexual and social maturity are, unlike other animals, largely socially based, and not purely visual or physical. If a man meets a 15-year-old girl here who doesn’t look physically distinguishable from an 18 year old, there are (or well should be) plenty of other cues as to her age and social, emotional and legal maturity which should more than suffice for him to make a rational, mature and responsible decision about his behavior toward her, regardless of what dreams he might have that night.
In short, no one’s throwing the term hebephile around to accuse folks who like petite, neotenous Asian women of anything; but nor does the ambiguity to which you refer excuse any man of socially and morally inappropriate behavior!!!
Wouldn’t a few thousand years of our own biology make all of us hebephiles? What I mean is since our main purpose in life genetically is to reproduce and considering the healthiest offspring come from the youngest mothers…In the past the normal age for someone to give birth would have been around 14. It’s only for the last few hundred years that this has changed. There are still cultures (aboriginal) where 12 or 13 is the normal age for marriage.
Just curious what your opinion would be on this Dragonbones.
[quote=“Mordeth”]Wouldn’t a few thousand years of our own biology make all of us hebephiles? What I mean is since our main purpose in life genetically is to reproduce and considering the healthiest offspring come from the youngest mothers…In the past the normal age for someone to give birth would have been around 14. It’s only for the last few hundred years that this has changed. There are still cultures (aboriginal) where 12 or 13 is the normal age for marriage.
Just curious what your opinion would be on this Dragonbones.[/quote]
This is in fact an excellent question, but one rarely publicly addressed because the biological facts run counter to modern social norms, inevitably resulting in squeamishness and closed-mindedness, preventing rational discussion of the issue.
Of course, from a biological, evolutionary perspective, most male animals (amongst which we men must number ourselves) are by necessity prone to be sexually attracted to females as soon as they are capable of physically producing children.
Thus hebephilia (and, to be fair, we have to add the flip side, ephebophilia for males or females attracted to pubescent males) are not at all in violation of natural, biologically driven desires. Modern social norms and legal restrictions make it difficult for some to understand this, but there it is, obvious biological fact – like a round earth, take it or leave it.
As such, these two propensities certainly deserve separate treatment from pedophilia, but in modern Western society the two are usually ignorantly confused. It is true that men who are sometimes attracted to 14- to 16-year-old girls (or boys) are NOT pedophiles, based on psychological and biological definitions. But we live in such a squeamish, reactionary, intolerant society, that to make such assertions, even if one is a respected academician, is likely to get one tarred and feathered. God forbid someone should question the Bible-thumping neo-nazi Federal Government
I was going to make a stupid joke but you totally killed the mood with all this intelligent stuff. :bravo:
I was going to make a stupid joke but you totally killed the mood with all this intelligent stuff. :bravo:[/quote]
Hmm…Well I wouldn’t date a 13-15 year old even if she wanted to date a 30 year old like me! Unless of course you know of one who does…you can PM me for my number.
I’ve never been much of one for picking up on moods .
I actually had a one on one student who was 14 or 15…she was very tall and attractive and she kept making advances at me…and the oddest thing was that her mother seemed to approve…or at the very least not object. I never did anything…and I’m proud of myself for having not. Even if she was willing at the time…with her lack of maturity…she might have grown to regret it. And that’s not how I want to be remembered.
But what if you add 10 years. Would it be right for a 40-year-old man to date a 23-year-old woman? What about a bigger gap like 18 and 45? Should a man date someone young enough to be his daughter?
What is “right”? Once both individuals are adults, shouldn’t “right” be defined based on whether there is mutual interest, respect, tenderness, and caring, rather than mere numerical age? There are some 18-year-old women out there who are more mature than some 45-year-old men, IMO. I’d say 45 YO men who habitually prey on the most immature 18 YOs they can find, in order to get laid then dump them, are just as much scum as any abusive hebephile. But if one was a very nice man and he happened to unwittingly fall in love with an 18 YO, and treat her well, and they were, well, right for each other, I personally can’t see how one could criticize that.
When 50/60-something old farts like Rod Stewart and Donald Trump are going out with 23 year old trophy girlfriends handpicked from lingerie catalogs, somehow “mutual interest, respect, tenderness, and caring” aren’t what come to mind. Older man/younger woman has been around for ages and will continue to go on. Those kind of women want the financial security and higher social status a successful older man brings to the table. Those kind of men want fresher meat…most women’s physical attractiveness dissipates rapidly after they hit a certain age, a sad but undeniable biological fact.
You can see this scenario played out on the beaches of Thailand every sex tourist season.
Absolutely, unequivocally, and without the slightest shadow of doubt YES!
Universal conclusions about other people you don’t even know are rarely logically sound. That’s the basis of prejudice.
Whilst I can’t disagree, that doesn’t mean that they’re not there in some of those cases. Yeah, four negatives in one sentence. :bouncy:
Those kind of women want the financial security and higher social status a successful older man brings to the table. Those kind of men want fresher meat…[/quote]
“Those kind”, besides being bad English , is a perfect example of bad logic and prejudice. If you had added “usually”, I would have had no objection, however.
But how do the young women dating older men who don’t have financial security or higher social status fit into your “logic”? What about older men who are dating a not-so-attractive younger girl? What if the relationship isn’t sexual anyway?
Might it not be that for open-minded people, personality, humor and friendship can be the basis of a relationship, regardless of age?
If you keep an open mind, you might see that some of those younger women aren’t money-grubbing ladder-climbers, and some of those older men aren’t colored wolves.
You can say all that in theory, but how often do you see that in real life?
Perhaps not so often, but it’s important to keep an open mind, no?
But what if you add 10 years. Would it be right for a 40-year-old man to date a 23-year-old woman? What about a bigger gap like 18 and 45? Should a man date someone young enough to be his daughter?[/quote]
That’s called Oedipus complex. But if it makes them both happy, why would it be wrong?
I wish my old men were rich… :s
Not to be too ANAL, or anything , but
OEDIPUS COMPLEX: The boyhood desire to sleep with the mother and to kill the father; closely related to fear of castration; see Freud’s 21st Introductory Lecture: [quote]You all know the Greek legend of King Oedipus, who was destined by fate to kill his father and take his mother to wife, who did everything possible to escape the oracle’s decree and punished himself by blinding when he learned that he had none the less unwittingly committed both these crimes" (16.330). According to Freud, Sophocles’ play, Oedipus Rex, illustrates a formative stage in each individual’s psychosexual development, when the young child transfers his love object from the breast (the oral phase) to the mother. At this time, the child desires the mother and resents (even secretly desires the murder) of the father. (The Oedipus complex is closely connected to the castration complex.) Such primal desires are, of course, quickly repressed but, even among the mentally sane, they will arise again in dreams or in literature. Among those individuals who do not progress properly into the genital phase, the Oedipus Complex, according to Freud, can still be playing out its psychdrama in various displaced, abnormal, and/or exaggerated ways. [/quote]
sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl … dipus.html
If you want a label, let’s call it…
Old Ox Eat Tender Grass.
Don’t they use it wider than that? I know where the term comes from but I think it’s also used in my case. At least they say I have it