The seven ages of sexual attractiveness

Neologophilia is a terrible disease that can wreak havoc on its victims, especially those who become trapped inside neologisms emanating from the warped minds of mad scientists.
It all started over a century ago with Richard Fridolin Joseph Freiherr Krafft von Festenberg auf Frohnberg, genannt von Ebing, a man apparently destined by an odd quirk of nominative determinism to become obsessed with strange names. For it was Krafft-Ebing, as he is usually known, who gave us the term “paedophilia erotica” and a whole lot of other new words for sexual “perversions”, now known as “paraphilias”. In more recent times the palm for linguistic inventiveness in the sexual field passed first to John Money and then to Ray Blanchard, who is still with us.
Money, for instance, dreamed up “formicophilia”, which translates roughly as “insect-love”. The insanity of thinking the world needs such a word might seem self-evident. On the other hand, a glance at the symptoms suggests otherwise, as does the case of a 10-year-old boy who was diagnosed as a formicophile. Beaten by his father for a sexual relationship with another boy, he focused instead on getting sexual satisfaction from having ants crawl over him. By adulthood he had graduated to getting his jollies from cockroaches crawling on his thighs and testicles, and snails on his nipples and penis.
So maybe we should not be too hard on the neologophiles, including Blanchard, who came up with the terms hebephilia and teleiophilia for sexual age-orientations. It’s not the terms themselves that count, necessarily, so much as what is done with them. Blanchard, for instance, is a highly-rated researcher whose experimental work distinguishing hebephilia from paedophilia is of considerable theoretical importance. Unfortunately, he massively blotted his copy book by trying to have hebephilia classified as a mental illness, which would make it easier for sex offenders to be kept locked up indefinitely under civil commitment laws until they are “cured”.
There is no such black mark against the name of the newest big-time word coiner on the block, Michael Seto. I know Dr Seto from the Sexnet forum. He absolutely does not agree with my radical views but he once very nobly expressed his appreciation of my “informative and thoughtful posts” after some of his professional colleagues had been grumbling about the presence on the invitation-only forum of a few non-academic activists like me.
Seto’s textbook Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention, published by the American Psychological Association, was by far the most authoritative guide to the research literature when it appeared in 2008. Now he has come up with an exciting new paper, “The Puzzle of Male Chronophilias”, thereby introducing us to another term of Money’s, chronophilia, an umbrella expression covering the various forms of sexual attraction to those within a particular age range, or stage of physical development.
What is exciting about it? Well, Seto unveiled the brand new term “mesophilia”. It hasn’t set the world ablaze but it did float journalist Jesse Singal’s boat. He wrote an article, “Being Into Middle-Aged People Is Probably a Sexual Orientation”, which neatly sums up both the meaning and the (as yet) rather shaky level of support for the idea. Seto merely wrote that “The existence and relative prevalence of mesophilia is hinted at by the relative popularity of the MILF (for ‘‘Moms I’d Like to Fuck’’) genre in pornography”, adding that DILF (with the expected meaning) is out there too.
Even BoyChat, straying from their usual focus, featured a lengthy thread on the topic after poster “Filip” (who must surely be the same Filip who has posted very informatively here) introduced it. As someone who makes the effort to do his own research, Filip commented acidly “It is interesting to see that sexual age preferences are born by writing an article and not by doing research…” But that didn’t stop him from seizing on an interesting thought: How many boys and girls are “mesophilic”?
But mesophilia is just an attention grabber. The really interesting aspect of Seto’s paper is its review of age attraction across the board, including how it is conceived, and the relative prevalence of attraction to the different ages/stages of life.
Shakespeare gave us the Seven Ages of Man. Seto nominates seven ages to which anyone might be sexually attracted, and names the desire: nepiophilia (infants/toddlers), paedophilia (prepubescent children), hebephilia (pubescent children), ephebophilia (postpubescent, sexually maturing adolescents), teleiophilia (young sexually mature adults, typically 20s and 30s), mesophilia (middle-aged adults, typically 40s and50s), and gerontophilia (elderly adults, typically 60s and older). See Table 1, which I have adapted from Seto’s own Table 1.
chronophilias-table-1
He is at pains to emphasise, though, that these labels are not meant to pigeon-hole us into neatly separate categories. Rather, we each have our own individual, idiosyncratic, pattern of sexual attraction: we might be hot for women and boys but indifferent to men and girls; or crazy for the smooth, hairless genitals of little boys and girls alike but distinctly turned off by the hirsute turn that comes to both sexes with puberty. A friend jokingly tells me he is bisexual, the two “sexes” being boys and men! He is in effect saying females of any age are so sexually uninteresting to him they might as well be a different species.
Seto speaks of us each occupying “blobs” in a multi-dimensional sexual space, a territorial concept which to my mind has much in common with Money’s “lovemaps”. Seto’s dimensions include not just the most obvious ones, the gender and age to which we are attracted, but also some far more exotic axes, such as human/animal, alive/not alive and forced/consensual. But age is both interesting and puzzling, so I’ll stick with it.
Starting with nepiophilia, Seto admits that not much is known about sexual attraction to infants or toddlers, but data held by the FBI indicate that few cases of active sexual involvement with such young children come to the attention of the authorities. Also, this sexual interest is rare as judged by child pornography content. Quayle and Jones (2011), we are told, found that only 1–2% of the more than 24,000 child pornography images in their analysis of a large police database depicted babies or toddlers. As for Seto’s own research, “Only 1% of our sample of 286 child pornography offenders had images of such young children compared to a third with images of prepubescent children and 20% with images of pubescent children (Seto &Eke, 2015).” We frequently encounter lurid claims in the media of “baby rape” images being discovered when a child porn ring is busted. Based on Seto’s figures, though, the strong suspicion must be that such claims often amount to no more than black propaganda.
The prevalences of paedophilia (with nepiophilia usually included by default) and hebephilia have been studied much more but the figures are hotly contested. I will return to these major categories of minor attraction, but a word first about ephebophilia, which, like nepiophilia, has been remarkably little researched. The first question to ask about this is why not? After all, while many women are known to find older men attractive (especially wealthy, high-status guys), men are notorious for trading in their wives and long-time lady friends for much younger females: the images that work best for advertisers when trying to grab men’s attention tend to be of young models, no older than early twenties and down to mid-teens. And as Filip pointed out in a comment here recently, studies have shown that the highest risk of sexual assault for females is when they are in their mid-to-late teens, which looks a reasonable indicator of maximum sexual attraction. Seto cites research putting the highest risk at 14-15, though these figures must include consensual “statutory” encounters, thereby artificially inflating the “assault” rate against minors. Either way, it is entirely possible that ephebophilia is even more common than teleiophilia, at least among males.
Or is it? Somewhat belatedly, I realise that I have been carrying at the back of my mind the traditional idea of the ephebe, which is of course the inspiration for the modern term ephebophilia. The Oxford Dictionary tells us an ephebe was “(In ancient Greece) a young man of 18-20 years undergoing military training”. Forget the male-only bit, and the military training. Just look at the age: 18-20. As we have seen, though, Seto defines ephebephilia as attraction to those aged approximately 15-17.
His rationale for this, reasonably enough, is that what distinguishes different age-attraction categories is not so much age itself as the size, shape and other physical characteristics that are typical of any particular age group, including visible primary and secondary sexual characteristics such as the appearance of  the genitals, size of breasts or testes, and development of pubic hair. Using the Tanner stages of physical development, Seto defines ephebophilia on the basis that it corresponds to Tanner Stage 4, whereas teleiophilia is Tanner Stage 5. You can check these stages for yourself, from the link. Personally, I would say there is not a great deal of difference between stages 4 and 5. The young people in both of these stages are clearly well past puberty, with extensive genital development, and female “ephebes” are quite full breasted. So it seems artificial to limit ephebophilia in the way proposed. It would make more sense to designate Tanner Stages 4 and 5 as the target of ephebophilia.
What we need, perhaps, is a different scale. Let’s call it the TOC Scale. Babies and toddlers are clearly a very different shape to older children, being typically much chubbier, with shorter limbs and relatively larger heads. So there should be TOC Stage 1 (nepiophilia). Then we would have prepubescent children as TOC 2 (paedophilia); pubescent as TOC 3 (hebephilia); sexually mature (nubile, typically ages 15-25) as TOC 4 (ephebophilia); then straight to dad bod and mum bod as TOC 5 (mesophilia); finally, elderly as TOC 6 (gerontophilia).
Filip might want to start TOC 4 a year earlier, after spotting a very important problem with Seto’s age scheme. He wrote that “Girls in Tanner stage 4 are 14.0 to 15.2 years according to one German study. According to that study 99% of the girls have reached the Tanner stage 4 with 16.8 years. So nearly no 17-year-olds are in Tanner stage 4. Most of the ‘typical men’ would probably prefer a 16- or a 17-year-old over a 30-year-old.”
In addition to being more realistic, the TOC Scale would stop obscuring the obvious truth that men, especially, are mainly attracted to youth. Not to prepubescent children though: we minor-attracted types should not exaggerate the prevalence of Kindness out of desperation to make ourselves feel normal or to claim that our tastes are not that different to the mainstream. I say this in the full knowledge that a lot of research (reviewed extensively in comments here and in papers by Filip Schuster and Philip Tromovitch: see below) show that around a quarter of all men, or even more, have a significant level of sexual attraction towards children. But this should not be allowed to obscure the fact that many among this 25% or so feel a more powerful degree of attraction to their preferred age/stage of attraction, which tends to be young but physically mature. [TOC adds, 11 Sept: Actually, I stand corrected. Filip has pointed out in a comment below that research has shown a quarter of men taking part as control group participants in lab studies show at least as much sexual arousal to depictions of children as to adults. TOC further adds 12 Sept: However, Filip now gives further information. If he is right, my original intuition may have been reasonably accurate after all. See below.]
Neither should researchers downplay the rarity of such desires in order to pathologise and Other us. With this in mind, I asked the researchers on Sexnet last year what would have happened if Blanchard had included a set of ephebophilic stimuli in a major paper of his on sexual attraction. Ray Blanchard replied in person.
“Just for the record, he said, “the phallometric stimuli were assembled by Kurt Freund long before I met him – long, in fact, before I ever thought of studying sexual behavior. My guess is that Freund did not include mid- or late-adolescent photographic models because his immediate agenda was clinical diagnosis. If my assumption is correct, he deliberately built this discontinuity into the stimulus set, in order to make the differentiation between teleiophiles vs. pedo- or hebephiles simpler… I suppose I could, in principle, have made the effort to add later adolescent models and middle-aged or elderly models to the stimulus set, and that might have strengthened my theoretical studies of erotic gender-age preferences. To a large extent, however, I used the modus operandi that Freund had taught me: Piggyback your research onto your clinical operation.”
This strikes me as an honest answer, and one that gives a real insight into how research projects, even those by such a careful and highly regarded scientist as Blanchard, tend to be cobbled together in ways that potentially allow convenience to trump accuracy. In this case, allowing their work to be influenced by clinical considerations has meant that both Freund and his protégé Blanchard have focused on issues predefined by society as problematic rather than on truly objective research. Their work has been led by the perceived need to fix the presumptively sick minds of their clinical patients, or at least to stop paedophiles and hebephiles from “offending”. The effect has been to emphasise the pre-declared abnormality of these often involuntary patients and simultaneously to misrepresent what constitutes normal male attraction: the very common male preference for youth, including freshly nubile teenagers, has been wiped out of consciousness by the simple act of not researching it.
chronophilias-figure-1
Figure 1 shows Seto’s view of the relative frequency of his “chronophilias”. The TOC Scale would define ephebophilia in a way that would put it at the top of the curve, reflecting men’s overwhelmingly common attraction to youth. Allen Frances, best known for producing DSM-IV, wrote that “Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters – our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction.”And as Filip noted here, the age of puberty is steadily getting lower, so the age to which adult males are attracted may also be falling.
On the other hand preferential paedophilia is probably rare. Some years ago Seto’s estimate was that up to 5% of the adult male population could be exclusive or preferential paedophiles. Now he tells us his best guess is that it is probably only 1%. He says his new, lower, figure is based on recent large Finnish and German surveys (Santtila et al., 2015).
I read the Santtila et al. study when it appeared last year. It is a complicated paper that I found difficult to interpret, so I asked about it on Sexnet. Mike Bailey, one of the top guys in the world on statistics in this field (he stoutly supported the controversial meta-analysis by Rind et al. 1998, showing that “CSA” causes little if any long-term harm even based on figures including coerced contacts) did not dispute Seto’s estimate but conceded that despite a large database, the Santtila et al. data “aren’t very good. … The truth is, it’s very hard to get good data on this.”
As for hebephilia, Seto reckons the figure is only “slightly higher” than the 1% for paedophilia. My guess – in the end we are all guessing – is that 1-3% seems about right for paedophilia but it looks crazy to claim hebephilia is not considerably higher bearing in mind Blanchard’s work, which shows that typically there is a smoothly curving gradient in the strength of sexual interest people feel between adjacent age categories. Thus those whose strongest sexual preference is ephebophilia have a lower, but still quite strong, attraction to those in the next age two groups, one a bit older, the other a bit younger. In this case the immediately younger category would be pubescent i.e. the hebephilia group. If there are thus a large number of people whose second preference is pubescents, it would seem odd to claim only a vanishingly small number whose strongest preference is for this physical stage of development. Phallometric testing of control samples of men also support the claim that preferential hebephilia is quite prevalent. See “Tromovitch sets a poser on prevalence” here at Heretic TOC and also “Every fifth boy and man is pedophilic or hebephilic” (Schuster, 2014). Schuster comes up with prevalence rates of 3% for paedophilia and 16% for hebephilia. These figures, carefully derived and explained, look more realistic to me than Seto’s, for which he does not set out a clear rationale.
Sorry to get bogged down in figures and technicalities and for the taxing length of this blog. I had hoped to go further as well, to a discussion of sexual orientation in its relation to identity politics. But that must wait until another time.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
103 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard

There is no “pubescent child.” Because children do not reach puberty, in general, those who are less than 9-10 years old.
The average age of menarche is 12 years. Therefore, it is already teleiophilia.
Hebefilia / Efebophilia would be between 10 and 12 years, as early stage of teleiophilia.
Puberty is responsible for adult sexuality. A woman who ovulates is highly attractive. Therefore, teleiophilia begins around age 12. The 12-year-old woman who ovulates is already “sexually mature adult.”
Just take the test by taking away the psychological influence of the puritan anglofera.
This graph is more real:comment image

Ellie Davis

Thank you for pointing out that about 16% were hebephilic. Testing like this seems like it could be important for court cases and even the patient themselves. Hopefully, judges and lawyers look into getting this type of test done. http://sfunit.com/phallometric-ppg-evaluations/

[…] one accepts doctors Michael Seto and Ray Blanchard’s categorisation of chronophilias (see The seven ages of sexual attractiveness at HereticTOC) we can postulate ages at which it is possible to first realise that one has a […]

[…] everyone that Filip has contributed some excellent comments here, especially in response to “The seven ages of sexual attractiveness” in September. In my view, his friend’s article below captures extremely well the […]

[…] none of the controversial chronophilias named by Michael Seto and discussed recently here in The seven ages of sexual attractiveness make it to the recognised lists of initials: paedophilia, nepiophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia […]

A.

From a study of sex work in Indonesia:
“For prostitutes in the late teens to early 20s, the price of sex was similar; for prostitutes in the early 20s to early 30s, the price of sex rapidly decreased and then stabilized. The value of peak age was substantial: the price attached to sex with prostitutes of peak age was more than twice that for prostitutes in their late 30s. The revealed preferences regarding women’s ages are consistent with the self-reported preferences.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291424427_Men's_Revealed_Preferences_Regarding_Women's_Ages_Evidence_from_Prostitution
The question does arise of wear and tear. What kind of life were these women living? Were they high-end sex workers or were they walking the streets? A well-heeled modern first-worlder with an indoor job who takes reasonable exercise and doesn’t smoke or use tanning beds or eat nothing but junk or have the misfortune to get really sick early on probably looks youngish longer than humans at any other time or in any other place. In any case, though, I’m reminded of the interview with the sex worker in Studs Terkel’s Working. Men want 18-year-olds, she says: well, actually, they want younger, but they’re scared. They always answer 18, says Nabokov in Lolita.
A large Finnish study published in Evolution and Human Behaviour found that men most commonly gave 24-25, or round about peak female fertility, as the hottest age — even if they themselves were in their late teens, which seems to weaken the argument that this age was given for PC reasons. But then, it’s not exactly very sunny in Finland and the welfare state is one of the best in the world. People age slowly.
Self-reports aren’t the best way of finding out what people really fancy but they are, at least, a nice supplement. I’ve already mentioned I have a large collection of the stated AOAs of BLs and GLs. Two interesting things jump out from that collection. One, nepiophilia seems WAY more common in GLs than in BLs. Two, quite a few GLs not only are not exclusive, but, even if still fairly young themselves, have very wide AOAs, with upper limits perhaps quite a lot higher than those of many typical men. Examples: 3-60; 4-60; 7-55; 8/9-50; 9-55, best 11-19. Two guys made the interesting statement that within their AOA they had no age preference: all the ages could be equally attractive. One of these liked girls and women 2/3-late 30s+, another girls and women from 5 through 30 or 35.

A.

Interesting study (I found the right link 😉 ) and good that they used Bulgarians to replicate the British data. I haven’t the first idea about Indonesian culture but I wonder if admitting attraction to adolescents isn’t more socially acceptable over there, despite the AOC being higher than it is in many European countries.
There was also a study which found that divorce rates were higher than average among male secondary school and university teachers, but not male primary school teachers. The researchers suggested, very plausibly, that being around hot 18-year-olds all the time often makes men dissatisfied with their aging wives.
I mentioned my AOA collection in a comment on ‘Latin lovers and British bum bandits’ back in May. I think I was making a point about its being apparently quite common for an exclusive CL to stay attracted to a particular beloved child as the child grows up, and surmising that the same thing happens in many long-term adult partnerships. I know I’m not the first to have noticed the greater incidence of heterosexual nepiophilia. I’m certain I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere. I think it was at some point even on Wikipedia before they overhauled the chronophilia articles.
The study in which 25% of the subjects’ arousal to paedophilic stimuli equalled or exceeded arousal to teleiophilic stimuli found that “pedophilic and adult heterosexual arousal were positively correlated, particularly in the physiological data” which may go some way towards explaining those very wide AOAs I mentioned above.
There’s also the question of gravidity and parity — once a woman’s carried a pregnancy to term, had a baby and breastfed, many parts of her body won’t go back to the way they were before. This can be quite obvious through clothes, e.g. the dreaded spare tyre and sagging tits. The ideal, evolutionarily speaking, should be a woman who is highly fertile but nulliparous, and that’s what a taut body with secondary sexual characteristics signals. And with freely available contraception and later childbearing…

A.

Oh dear, sorry for the inconvenience!
I always try to remember also that the poor old norms are often a lot worse than us at judging age. Some years ago a friend of mine had a one-night stand and as they were chatting amicably over breakfast it emerged that he thought she was 20 and she thought he was 24. In fact she was 27 and he 19. Both were a bit shocked at this and practically bolted in opposite directions! She’s always looked about the age she is, in my estimation. Sometimes the things that immediately catch an MAPs attention, like skin texture say, don’t register as much with a teleiophile. I think anyway.

A.

Further data kindly provided by the Donald, with such impeccable timing that he might have been keeping up with developments on this blog: 24 is hot, a 10-year-old girl will be datable in 10 more years, naked beauty pageant contestants 15-19 are well worth walking in on, 35 is check-out time.
More wide GL AOAs dug out of my collection: 8-60; 6-66, can be 4-70, 9-14 ideal; 2-90s [!!!!!], mainly 6-12; 11-70 or occasionally older or as young as 9, no particular age preference, a 12-year-old girl and a 66-year-old woman can be equally attractive, also trans women and a very few men are attractive.

Miguel

“a 12-year-old girl and a 66-year-old woman can be equally attractive”
Does not make sense. Because a 12-year-old woman is at the age of having ovulations. Very different from the 66-year-old woman who is in menopause and old age.
A 12-year-old woman is in her early fertility, with her oocytes as fresh as those of older women. Therefore, it is expected to be highly attractive. More attractive than women over 20.

sean

LOL, somehow ended up on this page…
Just to comment that male preference for nulliparous females as sexual partners is highly unusual among primates. Most, including all other hominids (ie, great apes) prefer to mate with older females who have already borne young.
I suspect that human preference for pre-reproductive mates has something to do with our relatively monogamous habit, which is also relatively unusual in hominids. Orang-utans are monogamous, but also solitary whereas humans are social. Commitment to child rearing puts a premium on confidence in paternity. This is the driver of mate guarding in our and other species and the driver for the preference for virgin brides in most of our traditional societies.
And speaking of ‘seeing’, human sexual attraction is strongly influenced by an emphasis on visual over olfactory sexual signals and also our upright habit, which puts the genitals on display (in the EEA* at least). Our pubic hair is clearly selected for as a visual signal of sexual maturity, so it makes sense to ask why we need this signal when other hominids don’t.
Perhaps its so we can choose mates who have not yet reached this stage of development.
*Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness

sean

…some more musings on this subject:
Worth mentioning that human breasts are also a visual signal of secondary sexual development. The mammary glands of most primates pretty much disappear when not lactating.
Regarding the age of puberty getting earlier, it seems this is actually a return to an age more typical for our species.
The key trigger for pubertal development post adrenarche ( the age when kids get freckles, about 4-7) is accumulated body fat. It’s easy enough to see why modern kids might be developing earlier given that fact.
(As an aside, the introduction of agriculture has had an almost entirely negative effect on average human well being, physically, psychologically, politically and environmentally. What it has done is introduce inequality, political hierarchy and concentration of resources. There probably would not have been a Rennaiscance or a Space Race without agriculture, but nor would there have been WW1, WW2 or ISIS. In our post agricultural age, kids are much fatter.)
Another less publicised reason for earlier puberty in girls is research that shows that girls living with an unrelated adult male experience menarche significantly earler (eg, see https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/8967/thesis_fulltext.pdf). In the west, far more girls are now raised in household’s absent of their biological father than in any time in recent history, and there is usually or often a step dad or a procession of mum’s boyfriends.
I’ve also been intrigued by the fact that a girl’s clitoris grows to its adult size, relative to body size, at adrenarche, while the penis doesn’t grow til puberty. I wonder if these facts combined suggest a very early, even prepubertal sexual debut for girls in the evolutionary environment.
Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. Such child marriages are still common in parts of the middle east and one has to wonder if they have a basis in our innate mating patterns.
I am not in favour of child marriage, by the way. Not everything our ancestors did was an improvement on our current practices. Rape and cannibalism were also probably much more common then than they are now.
However, as a girl lover, I’m acutely aware that some little girls are very romantic and flirtatious and readily bond with men they like who take an interest in them.
I often wonder how this compares with the experience of boy lovers. Is homosexual attraction analogous to heterosexual, with the romantic/sexual partner acting as a kind of cipher for a biologically ‘normal’ reproductive partner, or is it a completely different dynamic? In other species, most homosexual behaviour is entirely distinct and clearly has adaptive functions of its own, so I expect the same is true of humans.
So then, are men’s relationships with boys more like a homosexual version of men’s relationships with girls, or are they more like men’s relationships with older male partners? Little boys look more like little girls than they look like adult men, so what does this suggest? Also, it makes little reproductive difference if a homosexual partner is not yet sexually mature, while a little girl will eventually become fertile, so is girl love more like boy love or more like child marriage?
I expect boy love has much to do with mentoring and age graded socialization, as in ancient Greece. For the record, my relationships with girls are a lot like mentoring too. I don’t play up the romantic aspect, in fact I down play it, but its there all the same. What gives me the most pleasure is seeing a little girl friend growing in strength and confidence and knowing I’ve helped her do it.
Perhaps in the late pleistocene I would have also taken pleasure in introducing her to sex as she got older and eventually getting her pregnant. Nowadays I practice saying goodbye when she realises I’m just a grumpy old git who likes her, but I still get a lot of pleasure out of meeting my grown up lgf’s years later, with boyfriends and husbands in tow.

sean

You mean organize my thoughts? OMG!

Salem21

NSPCC…National society for PC cunts!

Salem21

Jonathan….I’m not sure if you have noticed, But most people who comment on here Including myself, are not just pro minor/minor sex but pro child/adult sex; And when I say ‘sex’ that may or may not involve coitus depending on the age of the child.

Order

Children are like pokemons magically evolve in Adults at level 18 (or 21 on some pokemon games).

Salem21

Kids also indulge in the game of ‘Parkour’ which is highly risky, But very exhilarating.

Miguel

Child is the one who has not reached puberty (usually people under 9 years of age).
Puberty is the beginning of adulthood. Our species enters puberty to reproduce itself. Hence, appearing the secondary (adult) characters of sexuality and pheromones are released.

Order

Psychiatry is a science, a science of legal fraud, friend!
Awards for Best Invention of Psychiatry:
Adolescence – a fictional stage of life to allow repressive laws and behaviors up to 18 or 21 (check your local age)
Hebephilia, Ephebophilia – natural human behavior just become rare attraction
Pedophilia – you just turned one by a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger) – AKA I no have any idea of Biology
The DMS – a book on myths, prejudices and beliefs turned into science
Psychology – Psychiatry for dummies
Mental illness – any behavior opposed to society
Psychiatric Center – concentration camp for any with “any behavior opposed to society”
Psychiatric drugs – legal drugs
… And Psychiatry itself – a religion of moral losers just turned into moral champions
If you want to nominate more awards, comment here!
See more about this “science”:
https://www.boywiki.org/en/Psychiatry:_An_Industry_of_Death_(film)
https://www.boywiki.org/en/The_DSM:_Psychiatry%27s_Deadliest_Scam_(film)

Filip

I would love to read a longer article from you about sexual age preferences which shows the truth in this issue.

feinmann0

Watching the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual: Psychiatry’s Deadliest Scam video makes me realise how much the mental disorder of Paedophilia has contributed to the success of so many industries: Pharmaceutical, Journalism, Legal Services, Sexual Abuse, Psychiatry, Social Work, False Allegations, Law Enforcement, Prison Service, to name but a few. Kind of makes me proud to be minor-attracted.

Order

Also they can see ‘child sexual abuse images’ (like Seto &co.) and ‘bad touching’ children and not go to jail and not be labeled as sex offenders, a true pedophile ring, but the weird and dangerous is me for love pubescent women or you for love boys, go figure!

Order

Photo of bathing suits meet all the requirements to be considered child pornography.
‘Every image of a child is child sexual abuse image, naked or not’
This I believe is placed on every pages of NSPCC. even yourself was convicted by photos of the same type would normally use Seto. Teens and children are unable to consent a relationship or send nude pics of themselves but not their pics to being used to make sexual testings or receive aberrant therapy for alleged abuses. Nor are images of abuse dead children? that these people care about children? They are just a bunch of new Puritans, bah.

stephen6000

‘Every image of a child is child sexual abuse image, naked or not’.
Now, come on! I know the NSPCC are fairly deluded on this topic, but surely that’s not an exact quote, is it?

Dissident

I think he may have been attempting to paraphrase the oft-heard statement that any image of a child, naked or not, who may be perceived as being in a “suggestive pose” or being scantily clad in a court of law, could be viewed as CP if found in the possession of a MAP.

stephen6000

Yes, I think that is probably what he meant and I’m sorry if I seemed to over-react.. But paraphrases should not appear in quotation marks, otherwise a false impression is given.

Salem21

Maybe he was referring to the NSPCC slogan…”every time an image of a child being abused is viewed, the child is abused over and over again, I know, its voodoo logic, But that’s been banded around by the likes of them and various feminists more times that I can remember.

Filip

Ray Blanchard and others published 2010 a phallometric study (“Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial of Sildenafil in Phallometric Testing”) and wrote:
“The visual stimuli included images of nude pubescent and prepubescent boys and girls. These models were photographed circa 1970 after their parents signed written consent forms granting permission for the pictures to be used in clinical and research activities involving penile plethysmography at our institution. These stimuli have been used in over 10,000 phallometric tests in our laboratory. No child or adolescent model has ever returned as an adult requesting the removal of their photos from the phallometric protocol.”

Order

So that children can not consent, but parents if? now if someone did that would end up in jail.
What a moral character has the pedophile movement… if have any.. movement, besides the fact that I defend you, is normal, is needed to be the new gay and be accepted by a pseudoscience that has millions (including pedophiles like you) now in a psychiatric locked up for life, but your are in holiday Tom, happy holiday!! there should be no psychiatrists there. Continue being a part of the farce, I not.
Scientists he says…

PaedoBusters!

If there’s a strange guy in you neighborhood
Who you gonna call? (paedobusters)
If there’s something weird with a kid
And that touch don’t look good
Who you gonna call? (paedobusters)
I ain’t afraid of no nonce
I ain’t afraid of no nonce
If you’re seeing paedos running through your child
Who you gonna call? (paedobusters)
An invisible man
Sleeping in your kid’s bed
Who you gonna call? (paedobusters)
I ain’t afraid of no nonce
I ain’t afraid of no nonce
Who you gonna call? (paedobusters)
If you’re all alone
Pick up the phone
And call paedobusters
I ain’t afraid of no nonce
I hear it likes the little girls
I ain’t afraid of no nonce
Yeah yeah yeah yeah
Who ya gonna call? (paedobusters)
If you’ve had a dose of a freaky baby rapist
You better call, paedobusters
Lemme tell…

Sugarboy

Funny, thank you! However, some amendments are still needed. For example, it should read:
If you’ve had a dose of a freaky baby rapist
You better call, heterobusters

since heteros, as you certainly know, are the primarily responsible for that kind of delights. Your turn for the next correction…

leonard sisyphus mann

I got the same posted to my blog but didn’t approve it, mainly because it’s so embarassingly lame rather than out of any outrage (it’s SO mild it’s almost teasing and affectionate! no lingering, graphic and loving descriptions of torture and murder..!?).
I hate to think that whoever wrote it spent any time over it, or, god forbid, felt proud of it. The fact that he or she (or it) has posted it to more than one blog suggests that they do feel proud of it. But the fact is that the words don’t fit the tune and the rhythm has been shifted all over the place. Its author is neither a musician or a poet.
Anyway, speaking purely for myself and my blog (ConsentingAdultsHumans), if there are any knee-jerk haters of paedophiles out there that are capable of writing something witty, civilised, intelligent, perceptive, inventive and challenging, I’d consider publishing it on my blog – but it would have to show signs of having considered and addressed the issues, arguments and evidence presented on my blog, and blogs such as Heretic TOC.
I’m not going to hold my breath though…

Christian

I also got on Agapeta that same comment by PaedoBusters! and I trashed it. I have strict written rules for appropriate commenting. I also keep a file about trolls. They sometimes change name, but still have the same IP, from which one can find their country, region and even internet provider.

SonofSapphocidaire

Oh, you think I am a troll? Hmm… NO! I AM NOT! And you may think you are GENIUS for knowing my details, but I DON’T EVEN BOTHER using tor these days. I mean,.. Jesus… I could use tor. It isn’t difficult, you know. I just can’t be bothered to click on the browser. And I use library computers, so don’t think you know all about me.

girllover

I can do bad parodies too.
If there’s some deranged troll writing on your blog
Who you gonna fault? (His momma!)
If he hasn’t showered in days
and smells like dog
Who you gonna fault? (His momma!)
I aint amused by his post
I aint amused by his post
If he has no brain inside of that head
Who you gonna fault? (His momma!)
If he’s eating Cheetos
While typing on his bed
Who you gonna fault? (His momma!)
I aint amused by his post
I aint amused by his post
Who you gonna fault? (His momma!)
If he’s fully grown
and still lives at home
you can blame his momma!
I aint amused by his post
I hear he thinks it’s good
I aint amused by his post
Blah blah blah blah
If you had enough of his stupid ass post baby
You better call his, mamma!
Lemme tell…

jpmeadows

“For it was Krafft-Ebing, as he is usually known, who gave us the term “paedophilia erotica” and a whole lot of other new words for sexual “perversions”, now known as “paraphilias”.”
Hi Tom, I appreciate the time and effort that you have spent on writing and researching your posts, I wish I had such drive and energy to do likewise. On this occasion, however, I am motivated. Not so much in how the nuances of translating subjective desires and emotions into objective classifications, but by the original observation that social scientists / psychologists (such as Seto) seem fixated on coining new words; and all suffixed -philia.
Let me first ask; does the word ‘neologophilia’ (the first word in the article) translate to mean; “an abnormal sexual attraction to formulate new words”? Or, alternatively, should we be concerned about a ‘bibliophile’ in case he/she is spending too much time ensconced with a first edition ‘David Copperfield’? Or maybe an oenophile’s obsessing over a firkin of burgundy.
The point being that -philia does not imbue the prefixed part of a word with any sexual inferences, whether attraction or orientation. A point that should have been clear when referencing Krafft-Ebing’s seminal work. He (it) does not introduce the term ‘paedophilia’ to describe a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, he introduced the term ‘paedophilia erotica’. Admittedly, he did (7 times) abbreviate the term for brevity, as he has a right to do after it’s initial mention, but it is others who have since bastardized the term which I now feel generally obliged to accept as a colloquialism (despite it now being accepted as an “official” scientific term; in DSM-5 etc).
To me, calling ‘paedophilia erotica’ just ‘paedophilia’ is a bit like calling ‘fire suppressant’ just ‘fire’ or ‘stain remover’ just ‘stain’. The ‘erotica’ part of this equation is important, as it defines the ‘paedophilia’, and vice-versa.
Etymologically speaking, philia is derived from one of many words that the Ancient Greeks used meaning love. In this case it was more akin to what might be termed now as comradery, or “brotherly” love, certainly not sexual, and very much relates to those who profess a concern for the care and welfare of those their philic interest is directed at. I therefore submit that paedophilia would better describe those who feel or express a sense of duty to care and protect children; whether parents, guardians, teachers, paediatric doctors/nurses, foster & care professionals or self-described child protection advocates.
Occasionally, I have heard the term ‘paedosexual’ used. Most notably in an episode of the American TV series: “Law & Order SVU” (“The most heinous crimes…”). This would strike me as, logically, the most appropriate term to describe sexual attraction/orientation toward prepubescents (along with hebesexual, mesosexual, ephebesexual, etc.) Clearly this cannot be seen as unprecedented; homosexual and heterosexual having commonly been used to describe people’s adult peer-centric SEXUAL inclinations long before. (This despite many homosexuals who would rather diminish the sexual aspect of their relationship and would undoubtedly much favour being called ‘homophiles’.)
At primary school my teacher was once asked what a necrophile was. He responded by telling us it was a person who was interested in dead things. I thus put it to him that that would describe a taxidermist. He agreed it could, and he was correct; it could.
I find it strange that there are so few, if any, who question this, when to me it seems such an obvious discrepancy. It puts me in mind of the little child who was the only one who would point out that the Emperor was stark-naked. Which is somewhat ironic when you think about it.

jpmeadows

Thanks Tom, I appreciate your feedback. Just one thing in response to yours:
“…a freshly discovered sexual “perversion” (or paraPHILIA!)”
This is another example that helps to support my argument; PARAphilia.
Para-, as a prefix, is variously interpreted as; “beside”, “adjacent”, “beyond” or “distinct from”. Regardless of the precision of the translation, sexual “perversion” is basically represented in its Greek format as something that is beside, adjacent to, beyond or distinct from philia. Or, put another way, “NOTphilia!” (Not a genuinely philic example at least.)
Btw, apologies for delay in replying; erudite perhaps, but certainly lacking (and possibly at the expense of) expeditiousness.

Filip

It is strange that current sexual science uses the word paedoPHILIA but shows really zero interest in the LOVE between children and adults. Sexual scientists generally use the word homoSEXUAL and not the word homoPHILIA and they should use the word paedoSEXUAL instead of paedoPHILIA too. As the word homosexual is used for people of all ages (children can be homosexual and often are) the word paedosexual should be used for people of all ages (most children are paedosexual in the sense that they are at least a little bit sexually attracted by other children). This way we could say that nearly everbody is paedosexual at least a little bit at least in some parts of his life. And this way the stigmatisation because of the word pedophile would be reduced largly. I hope such a change will come in the future.

Christian

I discuss this teminology problem in my article Components of Love (https://agapeta.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/components-of-love/), where I compare eros, storge and philia. The correct Greek-based suffix for erotic attraction should be “-erasty”. But in Krafft-Ebing’s time, the word “paederasty” was already taken to designate male homosexuality. So he had to coin something new, “paedophilia erotica”.
About the ever-lower ages of puberty. This should imply that the so-called “adolescent crisis”, that is, the revolt of teenagers against their artificial infantilization (cf. Robert Epstein), should come earlier. Thus kids would fight for their rights at ever younger ages, and this is good news for MAPs.

Anon

Hi. A question: These academics use child pornography (AKA child sexual abuse images) for their Phallometric testing? If so, how this academics are not accused of criminal possession and distribution of child pornography (AKA child sexual abuse images)? children are being abused and used for sexual purposes (measurement of phallus).
A concerned person.

Salem21

As mentioned, Overlap is an important point, For example, I remember one kid of 14 who, like his farther, Had dark visible hair all over his body (if you see them in shorts, it a good guess) Sorry had to throw in that disclaimer, Blame it on the hysterical times!
But then another 16yo lad, totally hairless (yummy) certainly arouses the pederast in me!

Edward

Another most interesting and informative post from you, TOC. As you say, we are all guessing, and I agree with Filip that people are not honest in these surveys. My guess after nearly a lifetime of living with it is that at least 3% of adult males are exclusively or predominantly sexually attracted to prepubescents, and very many more are partly so but would never submit to phallometric testing!

Filip

Edward with prepubescents do you mean children in Tanner Stage 1 or children before menarche/spermarche or how do you define the word prepubescent? I just ask to understand your 3%-guess better.

Edward

The nearest is Tanner 1, but I’m thinking of appearance and behaviour that is childlike, and before secondary sexual characteristics become evident.

bjmuirhead

I am laughing, if not out loud, then quietly within myself. Both of my wives were mesophiles, clearly. And I thought they just both liked me.
Anyway, it must be time to look for a gerontophile… I wonder where they hide? And will they like me? Or will it be my aging wrinkled white flesh?
My apologies, but the seriousness of the discussion required an injection of silly.

Order

How much nepiopedohebephebophiles like psychiatrists, I see! just 3 years ago shrinks mantain that MAPs were mental deraged subhuman, but nothing happens, as Himmler said to a Jew before the end of the IIWW, the past is past.
This job of measuring phalluses is nice.. hey Tom, where I have to ask job application? It seems very ‘scientific’, better than the E-Meter!

Filip

Hello Tom,
excellent article and really excellent proposal to give “ephebophilia” the age range 15 to 25 years. I guess that on the long run your view/proposal and not Michael C. Setos view/proposal about the age-range of “ephebophilia” will be established in sexual science.
2010 Ray Blanchard et al. published the phallometric study “Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial of Sildenafil in Phallometric Testing”. 6 of the 22 “normal” men (= 27 %) who participated voluntary showed much more sexual arousal to prepubescents or pubescents than to adults (when not taking viagra during the study). But (as the article says): “All participants had indicated an erotic preference for adults at the outset of the study.” We don´t know: Did those six men know of their preference for minors and did they lie to the scientists? Or were they not aware of their sexual preference for minors? Or is the phallometric method unscientific and a big lie? After reading a lot of literature I don´t know the answers to these questions.
“Schuster comes up with prevalence rates of 3% for paedophilia and 16% for hebephilia. These figures, carefully derived and explained, look more realistic to me than Seto’s, for which he does not set out a clear rationale.”
From my point of view Seto sets out a clear rationale: The results of community surveys. In the German “MIKADO”-study with about 9.000 men 5.5 % reported at least a slight sexual interest in children below 13 years, just 0,1 % reported more sexual fantasies with children below 13 years than to adults and 0,6 % reported that they thought about getting help because of their sexual interest in children. Seto seems to believe in such results. I am much more skeptic. We just don´t know how many per cent of men kept their secret for themselves and did not participate in the study or did not give honest answers. In the study “Paraphilic Interests: An Examination of Sex Differences in a Nonclinical Sample” from 2014 only 3 of 305 men from Canada (=0,6 %) conceded the slightest sexual arousal because of 12- to 14-year-olds. This can not be the truth. People are not honest in these surveys.
Your “TOC scale” gives “mesophilia” the age range 26 to 59 years which is really a HUGE age range. And: Most of the 26-year-old women are VERY hot for men while most of the 59 year-old-women are probably not at all sexually attractive for men. Maybe as Money wrote in the book “Pedophilia. Biosocial Dimensions” we should distinguish between “thirtyphiles” (men mostly attracted by women in their thirties) , “fourtyphiles”, “fiftyphiles”, …
Do you know Tom if Seto was the first author who wrote that the sexual age preferences of men show a normal distribution? Never read that before.
“I say this in the full knowledge that a lot of research (reviewed extensively in comments here and in papers by Filip Schuster and Philip Tromovitch: see below) show that around a quarter of all men, or even more, have a significant level of sexual attraction towards children. But this should not be allowed to obscure the fact that many among this 25% or so feel a more powerful degree of attraction to their preferredage/stage of attraction, which tends to be young but physically mature.”
According to the mean value of the ten relevant phallometric studies with “normal” men from the community 25 % of men show bigger or equal (!) sexual arousal to children up to 13 years than to young adults. According to the mean value of five of these ten studies 24 % of men show bigger (!) sexual arousal to children than to young adults 18 years and older. It may be the truth but I don´t understand how do you know Tom that as you write ” many among this 25% or so feel a more powerful degree of attraction to their preferred age/stage of attraction, which tends to be young but physically mature.” From my point of view the phallometric studies say something else: The phallometric studies say that these about 25 % of men are more sexually aroused by (pre-) pubescents than by adults 18 years and older. In the phallometric study described in the dissertation of Byrne (“The reliability and validity of less explicit audio and “clothed” visual penile plethysmograph stimuli with child molesters and nonoffenders”) 34 % of men were more sexually aroused by preschool or elementary children than by “teens” or “adults”. But as you wrote Tom it is really bad that normally teenager-stimuli are not used in these phallometric studies. And the reliability and the sensitivity and the specificity of the phallometric method is not proven so we have to be careful with these results.
I don´t understand why Seto and you Tom label persons in Tanner Stage 4 as postpubescent. Those minors are in the process of puberty. Ray Blanchard wrote 2013: “Early pubertal children are children in Tanner Stages 2 and 3, which correspond generally to ages 11 through 14 years.” – “ephebophilia (late pubertal adolescents in Tanner Stage 4, generally ages 15 and 16)”. If the Tanner Stages 2 and 3 are early puberty then the Tanner Stage 4 can not be postpubertal. From my point of view it makes sense to label Tanner Stage 5 as postpubescent.
Have a nice day
Filip

Filip

“I don’t think phallometry is fraudulent”
Michael C. Seto, James M. Cantor and others wrote in the article “Age Diversity Among Victims of Hebephilic Sexual Offenders” about the phallometric method: “The sensitivity of the procedure was recently investigated and found to be 70% for hebephilia”. Let´s have a look at this claim. The origin of that 70%-value is the publication “Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for hebephilia”. In this study they phallometrically tested 20 men who had sexual contacts with five or more minors 11 to 14 years old and maybe sexual contacts with 15-/16-year olds, but no sexual contacts with younger children and no sexual contacts with adults (as far as they knew). The phallometric method diagnosed 70 % of these 20 men as “hebephilic”. That´s why James M. Cantor wrote in this article: “the phallometric test detected hebephilia with a sensitivity (…) of 70.0%”. But this sentence is wrong and unscientific. First of all we don´t know for sure how many of these 20 men were really “hebephilic”. Maybe some of them generally preferred teenagers or adults over pubescents. So we don´t know for sure which of these diagnoses were right and which of these diagnoses were wrong. And secondly are men with sexual contacts with five or more pubescents and no sexual contacts with younger children or adults a very special group and probably much easier to detect phallometricallly as “hebephilic” than other men. So the sentence from the beginning “The sensitivity of the procedure was recently investigated and found to be 70% for hebephilia” is at least dubious.

Dissident

We may say they are repressing their true feelings or are “in denial”; but words like “desire”, “preference” and “attraction” are all somewhat ambiguous, and what is meant by them depends on whether all aspects of “desire” etc are being taken into consideration or whether we are attempting to impose a reduced, minimal, “pure” interpretation.
As you importantly noted here, Tom, there is a big difference between sexual preference and sexual behavior. The first does not necessarily predict what the second will be, and I think we Kind people know that better than anyone, as LGBT people of previous eras once did too.
There are just too many factors in addition to mere desire on any level that affects sexual choices: legality, personal moral beliefs, and cultural mores all affect the choices we make in partners. For instance, my romantic choices have certainly been markedly different in the world we live in compared to what they would be in a world where younger people had their full civil rights. While I most certainly do acknowledge legality in my choices, I have been less concerned with cultural mores: I will not hesitate to date an 18-21-year-old woman whom I am attracted to on all levels if she shares that interest in me and we enjoy each others’ romantic and social company and she happens to be a good, clinically sane person. However, there are many young people who will avoid dating much older individuals even if they happen to find one or more they meet attractive on all levels because they do not want to deal with the social stigma attached to it, including extreme disapproval from family and friends. Or, as one 19-year-old woman once told me, she would “feel weird” if she dated a much older man.
I think the same is often true for older people who meet a younger person of legal age whom they share a mutual attraction with; their friends and family would find the choice “immoral” and they do not want to deal with that. They are also likely to have integrated that moralizing opinion in their own personal set of ethics, due to having been raised to believe that all of their lives. In either of the above cases, if their usual preferences are for people in their own general age group, then the more they can afford to make the choice of avoiding romantic liaisons with people outside their age group despite both being legally allowed to make the choice, and the less likely they will be to look “outside the box” in terms of forming their personal code of ethics.
So yes, how these socio-political factors work together to affect sexual behavior in any given society above and beyond actual preferences should be considered and investigated. Until that happens, we cannot have the full picture.

Filip

Very interesting Tom.
The basic result of these phallometric studies is that about 25 % of men show bigger sexual arousal to children than to adults. That is the mean value of all (5) studies who tried to find out how many percent of men show bigger sexual arousal to children than to adults (the exact mean value of these five studies is 23,7 %). But that does not mean that 25 % of men have a “pedophilic” or “hebephilic” age preference. Because probably lots of men have an “ephebophilic” preference (let´s say for a moment biggest sexual arousal for 15- to 17-years-old) and some of them were probably misdiagnosed in these studies as “pedophilic” or “hebephilic”. In 9 of 10 of the relevant phallometric studies no teenager stimuli were used. Some men in these ten phallometric studies may be more sexually aroused by 12-13-14-year-olds than by 20-year-olds but nevertheless they have an “ephebophilic” and not a “pedophilic” or “hebephilic” preference. So a part of that 25 %-result (to be exact 23,7 %) has to be subtracted because of the “ephebophilic” men. I would still guess and say that according to these ten phallometric studies about 3 % of men are “pedophilic” and about 15 % are “hebephilic”. But as I wrote I am not sure anymore if phallometry gives us true values.

Miguel

The average age of menarche is 12 years! Puberty begins around age 9.
Of course a 12 year old woman is very attractive to sex. The fact that man does not fantasize does not mean that he is not attracted.
Women of 12 years are more attractive than women over 20, because they are with their youngest oocytes.

Dissident

Awesome article, Tom! A few things here:
As someone who makes the effort to do his own research, Filip commented acidly “It is interesting to see that sexual age preferences are born by writing an article and not by doing research…”
I have no intention of being catty by saying this, but… seriously?? And the categorization of what Seto has christened “mesophilia” is on shaky ground? I must duly protest that the existence of mesophilia (I’m glad we finally have a name for it!) is in any way a matter of mere conjecture, and I have always found it, well, odd that some within the Kind community could readily accept the existence of gerontophilia (a preference by younger people for elderly people, as defined by Seto), but could never get around the idea of a term identifying a younger person with a preference for significantly older individuals who are in the age range of their parents, rather than their grandparents; and that no scientific name was ever decided on for it (such an attempt was made by me in the past on GC, but that’s a whole other topic that would make this comment far too long if I went into it in-depth here).
It’s about time, I say! And this is why: MAPs have met numerous girls with a preference for older adults in the middle-aged rather than elderly age range who used to visit us on the forums before age restrictions on participation had to be tightened (several were confirmed NOT to be cops, vigilantes, or posers, I should add), and they were considerably more common than what Seto categorizes as true gerontophiles (i.e., with a preference for the elderly, as opposed to older adults who were closer to middle-aged). Not only that, but I have personally met and even dated several younger women of legal age who were what Seto would call mesophiles, and there are actually a few specialized legal personals dating sites which cater to legal mesophiliac relationships (I actually discussed them here not too long ago). So I do not think the existence of that as a distinct preference or categorization should have ever been in doubt!
I think, as you speculated, Tom, the “MILF” phenomenon in pornography and as a pop cultural meme definitely hints towards the reality of mesophilia. I honestly wonder if Filip’s expression of doubt–if his remark about Seto’s research wasn’t simply intended as an ironic jab at his research methodology in a general sense–could be due to personal bias. I understand Seto’s research methodology clearly had some errors in need of being pointed out, but I certainly do not think his identification of mesophilia was among those errors. Again, I’m not trying to be antagonistic or snippy here, but I’m just sayin’.
With your Kind permission (yes, pun intended!), I think we should adopt the term “mesophilia” and use it as Seto intended, not only because it’s just logical, but also because it’s appearance in an academic paper gives it a degree of “official-ness.” I certainly do not think the term should be avoided simply out of a general disagreement with some of Seto’s conclusions or methodologies.
Btw, Tom, I really did prefer the TOC Scale to the one used by Seto. I hope it becomes regularly quoted here, and elsewhere! 🙂
Sorry to get bogged down in figures and technicalities and for the taxing length of this blog. I had hoped to go further as well, to a discussion of sexual orientation in its relation to identity politics. But that must wait until another time.
One thing I hope to convince you of in time, Tom: the contention that longer essays are a bad thing is an opinion, not a fact, as some–including myself–prefer longer essays that do full justice to a topic. That’s my way of saying you certainly owe me specifically no apology for the length of this article, as it was most excellent and informative 🙂
As for your proposed topic of dealing with sexual orientation in relation to identity politics, that sounds most interesting, and I sincerely hope “another time” will be next time!

Dissident

Thank you for pointing that accidental deletion out, Tom! I hereby apologize to Filip, and instead thank you for saying what he actually said 🙂
I’m glad you likewise accept that mesophilia is a distinct attraction that has strangely gotten little research in the past, and that we now do seem to have an “official” name for it!

Elron

Adults attracted to other adults don’t practice love. Their relationships consist of: 1) brief, sordid and impersonal meetings or 2) longer arrangements punctuated by dramatic tirades, discords, jealousies and frequent infidelity. It could hardly be otherwise since the tone is made up of suspicion and hate, producing a darling sweetness interspersed with petty peevishness. Their “love” turns to deep contempt eventually.
Therefore, the sexual pervert (and by this term, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation against natural attraction of mature people to young people, such as gerontophiles, mesophiles pornography perverts, social sexual attraction to legal adults, etc.) is actually quite ill physically.

HebeOrder!!

Well, you know that this entry would provoke me, right? Ok,
do not worry, I will not lower myself to their contempt and academic pedantry of certain ‘scientifics’. This goes for all these alleged ‘scientists’, and for those who still believe in the alleged ‘science’ of Psychiatry and Psichology:
They do not want a new experimental subject? here’s a hebephile, one of these abnormal 2% and evolutionary misfits. Doctor Zaius, you want to know why I attracted to girls aged 14? sorry for my bad english:
I like them for how they make me feel good and dear
I like them for how they smile at me and stare at me
I like when they like that I treat them as equals
I like for each dimple having on their faces
I like when they tell me they learn more with me than with their parents and in high school
I like it when they tell me they feel like women and full persons with me, and not like big children as ye are doing for more than 100 years, scoundrels.
And they like me too, and they like other many adult men and women too, because pubescent girls and boys madly want us.
And yes, I like their breasts, their body, their mouth, their all, yes.. I love their ‘pubic hair’, pubescent girls can have children? what a plus! but is not about that, it’s about to be attracted to their way of being, all of you you care only about physical attraction, and only this you have it in mind because you do not know what is ‘love’ even with your mediocre adults in your mediocre relationships, poor guys… their are so empty inside and more their ‘science’…
You do not even know why I’m ‘hebephile’ not even know why you’re teleiophile or ‘mesophile’ You think to just measure a few phalluses going to know why?
Hebephilia is not a disorder just because we can procreate with pubescents, but because young adults at puberty need us, loving mature adults, not psychologists or junk science.
To talk about evolutionary misfits: Teleiophiles and ‘mesophiles’, they are not even necessary to procreate the species. They are worthless but to fill the world of jealousy, murder, rape, pornography, child murder, domestic abuse and moral squalor. What a evolutionary misfits!
And I have great sorrow to see how people can estimate psychiatry and psychology and their weird show, even people suffering junk science of these professional quacks.
By the way, a failure on the chart, children are prepubescent only, pubescents are young adults, perhaps the original author Sr. Zaius should stop playing Candy Crush and study some biology, or hang out (just talk, teleioman) with a girl aged 14, at least they do not have an aberrated personality like many psychiatrics.

Christian

To me it looks weird to put ages 3 and 10 in the same erotic category. I see a 3yo as a near-toddler and a 10yo as a preteen. Thus category 2 is much too wide. Next, how do you label people whose preferred ages cross two categories, for instance someone who prefers girls aged between 9 and 12? Finally, how does one characterise someone who feels different forms of love for different ages? For instance, gentle affection for a 5yo, romantic love for a 9yo and sexual love for a 13yo?
The ancient Greeks had no words for erotic gender or age preferences, although they noticed that various people had various preferences: they just did not make categories about that. They had however a name for “pervert”, kinaidos (in Latin cinaedus), it rather meant a man who does not behave as a man in sex, for instance who gets sodomised. See for instance “The Myth of the Heterosexual: Anthropology and Sexuality for Classicists” by Holt N. Parker in Arethusa, Vol. 34, No. 3, Fall 2001, pp. 313-362, DOI: 10.1353/are.2001.0016
Personally, I have another classification, with “sex fetishists”, “poets”, and ordinary people (including scientist) in between. For instance Ruskin loving 9yo Rose Latouche has the same orientation as himself loving her at age 17, he is a “poet”, while those obsessed with sexy scantily clothed pin-ups are “fetishists”, whatever the age of pin-ups (little girls or women).

Dissident

To me it looks weird to put ages 3 and 10 in the same erotic category. I see a 3yo as a near-toddler and a 10yo as a preteen. Thus category 2 is much too wide.
Agreed! Many girls start menarche as young as 10, and I can actually see many 10-year-olds would fall into the preferential “radar” of a hebephile, so I can actually see them as pubescent rather than pre-teen. On the other hand, I think 3-year-olds are still closer to the nepiophile range. Moreover, girls as young as 8 can fall into the hebephiliac range these days, since the age for onset of puberty has been decreasing over the past few decades.
As for fetishists, I definitely think that is a distinct category, basically for when the interest is primarily sexual, with no other components.

feinmann0

“Adults at 12? Trends in puberty and their public health consequences”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465479/

Salem21

The last bit was interesting
” In the short term, however, responding to earlier puberty means moving away from societal attitudes that equate protecting children with regarding them as firmly ensconced in childhood long after their physical journey into adulthood has begun. Such pretence, however well intentioned, simply denies them the vital information they require to complete this transition without damaging their health”….yes indeed!

Christian

Let us say: nepio 1-3, paedo 4-8, hebe 9-13, ephebo 14-17, approximately, with individual variations +/-1 according to physical and sexual maturation.

Order

There is a real difference between a 13yo and a 14yo women besides just than 4 details? someone who generally likes 13yo women will be interested in a 9yo girl who is neither almost a little woman?
I know you love ancient Greek terms, but forget the ‘philias’ really here in XXI century everyone is better to just be ‘attracted to X’, all is in my unacademic ignorance:
infant 0-4
children 5-11
young adult 12/13-15 plus 16
mature adult 16/17-60
older adult 60+
Note: I know I use my nick is a condemnation of ostracism, is what happens to those who dissent from dissidents (none in particular people who support the same 99% of things of society but except the Anti-MAP legislation/prejudice).

Dissident

This chart is much better! Though I would extend hebephilia up to at least 14, possibly 15.

Jonathan

(reply to Dissident’s comment of Sept. 9)
From my “observations” (i.e. something that falls slightly short of actual scientific research) child fetishists are the majority today who actually engage with children sexually. This leads me to believe that these are predominantly “nons”, as child lovers would include at least some emotional involvement in a relationship.

SonofSapphocidaire

And how the sodding fuck, can you know? Or do you SERIOUSLY believe anything of the reports of the CUNT journalists?

Jonathan

I did say from my “observations”, and not from my conjecture.

Dissident

Is it just me, or does Sons’ choice of expletives and pejoratives clearly identify him as being from the U.K.? 🙂

SonofSapphocidaire

And how the sodding fuck, can you know where I am from? Or do you SERIOUSLY believe anything of the reports of the CUNT journalists of my home?

SonofSapphocidaire

I NEVER wrote this comment, right here.

Christian

Email me Dissy (at the address indicated on my site), I can answer your question.

SonofSapphocidaire

How do YOU know where I live? Maybe I’m one of those Brahmins just got off the boat. But, I didn’t write that previous comment by me.

SonofSapphocidaire

About me? Information about me?

Filip

Hello Jonathan, according to the mean value of nine empirical studies 67 % of the cases of “child sexual abuse” are done by minors and not by adults. And children more often have sex with other minors than with adults. Are those minors who engage in sex with other minors child fetishists? I see no studies that show that. Sometimes it will be true, but not generally. Minors have a natural tendency to want to have sex with other persons. Kinsey believed that boys reach the maximum of their sexual energy with about 13,5 years and this might be true. The scientists and the media always report about the “pedophiles”, but the “pedophilic” men are only responsible for about 1 % of the cases of “child sexual abuse”. If someone views consensual sex of children with other children as “sexual abuse” then the “pedophilic” men are only responsible for maybe 0,1 % of the cases of “child sexual abuse”.

feinmann0

So, if the onset of puberty is two years earlier than a few decades ago, then the figure of 13.5 for the ‘maximum of their sexual energy’ needs to be revised downwards.
I think it was Tom who commented in a previous blog that in his day, boys were always in each others pants. This is my recollection too, in my case between the ages of 8 and 11. In a class of about sixteen boys, four of us indulged in ‘sexual abuse’ whenever the opportunity presented itself. Of course, none of us would have thought of it in such negative terms; quite the opposite – intensely pleasurable would have been more accurate.

Daniel Cortez

As a gay man I resent the idea that I must therefore be inclined to paedophilia. There is good evidence that pre-pubertal kids, especially girls, can be hurt by being persuaded into sex acts they feel guilty about afterwards. Sex contacts with mature adolescents who are legally minors should not be confused with paedophilia. .

leonard sisyphus mann

“As a gay man I resent the idea that I must therefore be inclined to paedophilia.”
I can find nothing in feinmann0’s comment that implies that gay men are ‘inclined to paedophilia’. All he seems to be saying is that, in his experience, boys between the ages of 8 and 11 are rather keen to engage in sexual activities with each other. You have over-extended his proposition beyond the horizon and out of sight.
“There is good evidence that pre-pubertal kids, especially girls, can be hurt by being persuaded into sex acts they feel guilty about afterwards.”
Well, at least you acknowledge that any hurt is caused by feelings of guilt afterwards. However it is clear from feinmann0’s comment that he and his friends experienced no such guilt.
I’d suggest that if what you say is true, society should focus its efforts on identifying those attitudes and institutions that generate this guilt, with a view to reducing or entirely eliminating it.
“…by being persuaded into sex acts…”
Your use of the word ‘persuaded’ is dishonest. Try the same verb in a sentence about gay men:
“If a gay man can persuade another man into having sex with him…”
I hope this comes across as wrong to you as your use of ‘persuaded’ did to me.
By using the word ‘persuade’ you shunt a truck-load of assumptions into your sentence, all of them false: that they always have to be coerced or manipulated into engaging in sensual or sexual acts, that they never initiate intimacy, that they are always reluctant, that they can have no sexual or sensual or romantic feelings…

feinmann0

Yup LSM, I think you have nailed Daniel Cortez’s disingenuousness, or was it just his stereotypical run-of-the-mill post-Stonewall gay treachery? In fact, I hadn’t twigged that his comment was in response to mine. If it was, I concur with you: his comment is way off-beam. My sole intention was to relate some of my boyhood experiences, albeit taking place in a gentler world where stranger danger was a virtual unknown, and when playing with the genitals of an eager young friend was one of the few pleasant distractions in a world largely devoid of entertainment and in a world full of turned blind eyes.

Filip

“So, if the onset of puberty is two years earlier than a few decades ago, then the figure of 13.5 for the ‘maximum of their sexual energy’ needs to be revised downwards.”
Don´t think so because it seems the maximum of the sexual energy of boys is somehow related to age at spermarche (first ejaculation) and it seems the mean age of spermarche today is not much earlier than in the time of Kinsey. Only the mean age of the onset of puberty defined as Tanner Stage 2 decreased several years. In one subsample of the Kinsey-study the mean age of spermarche was 13,1 years which is quiet similar to today (see “Masturbation as a Marker of Sexual Development: Two Studies 50 Years Apart”).

feinmann0

Thanks for the info/stats Filip!
It seems counterintuitive to me to have the onset of puberty age descending inexorably in both boys and girls, to have in the case of girls the “age of menarche … steadily decreasing since the mid-19th century”, but to have the mean age of spermarche resolutely static in boys – at least since Kinsey’s day.
I guess that an absence of statistical data (due to the potentially ‘sensitive’ nature of sex-related research in children), may obscure our view of the facts.

Jonathan

I was only referring to fully grown up(and hairy) adults, and certainly not “minors” who do seem to have a better means of interacting with children.
And as far as I can tell, these hairy adults are simply using children for their own selfish gratification. Looking at the world through dark glasses, this is what I see.

Salem21

Who are you to decide that a sexual relationship is one sided and based just on ‘selfish gratification’ judging only on the age differences; Anyhow a selfish act is not necessarily a bad thing if its enjoyed by both. Are not all people self-serving to some extent?

Elron

Interesting, and since you speak of the subject of selfish gratification, in my extensive knowledge of teleiophiles (and variations like mesophiles) they are characterized by promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices as well as given to free love, easy marriage and quick divorce and other undesirable activities, since relationships between adults are non-survival and not to have a well ordered system for the creation and upbringing of sane children like older adults and young (juvenile) couples. Such adult-attracted sexual perverts specially, mesophiles, engaged in irregular evolutionary practices which do anything but tend toward the creation of “normal” sexual misfits (the most dangerous) and efforts which tend not towards enjoyment, the creation of a sane mentoring-type relationship and the creation of children, but toward the pollution and derangement of sex itself so as to make it as repulsive as possible to others and so to inhibit natural interest for nubile girls.

Jonathan

I was only thinking of adult-child sexual interactions. Child-child sexuality is, to me, a separate thing.. And when I say ‘child fetishist’ i mean for you to infer that’s a non-pedo.

103
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top