Hebephilia

[Buffalobiian]

I'm assuming you are referring to Xan and not myself.

No, you. I didn't really get you at some points. Like the Galileo or the German p.o.v.'s, involving entirely different situations with no valid points to them at all.

Point of the holocaust example: look at the shit that can happen when you fail to challenge society's views.
Point of the Galileo example: What's "right" and "wrong" isn't set in stone, nor should it be set strictly by society's standards.

Summary point: Challenging society's "right" and "wrong" instead of swallowing it doesn't mean you have a mental condition.

This was exactly my goal. Buff did the same so I decided to return the favor.

I used examples to illustrate a point. See above.

My point exactly. Pedophilia is already a mental disorder so why wait for an official public medical definition for hebe- and ephebophilia?

See Kraco's reply before yours.

About my argument; the definition of pedophilia's mental illness stems from society's ethics and morals. Therefore the example of my vision of the individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness. I'm sorry if it came off wrong.

Allow me to use an example:
Some people are raised in countries which are dominated by a certain religion (Muslim countries for example). They're raised with, and expected to follow society's laws. One such law is that women are required to wear the Hijab in public places.

So since she's raised and bred with such and ideal within her society, she's got a mental condition if she wants (not DO, but WANT) to take it off and not wear it again?

This example is not off-topic and is a direct application for " individual failing to understand the rationale and/or apply these specific ethics and morals (assuming the individual was raised with them) is to be diagnosed with a mental illness."

Biologically it makes zero sense to try to breed with a partner not physiologically ready to produce offspring. Thus, it's exceedingly easy to label it, scientifically so, a mental disorder. However, once the partner is biologically ready to reproduce, it becomes a more muddy subject dependent on ethics. It's only due to ethics that the legal marriage age climbed up to 18. I could see hebephilia labeled a disorder these days, but with ephebophilia it's never going to happen. Just the differing ages of consent between countries (or even states) alone would make it laughable.

True, but it still doesn't remove the fact that the label was based on morals and ethics, subjects we all can change overtime. Even ephebophilia can be labeled a mental disorder if there are sufficient people sharing that same vision.

What is this "label"? The label of something being a mental condition?

What you basically said up there was "if enough people thought ephebophilia was a mental disorder, then it would be a mental disorder". Of course that's true. It's as true as saying if enough people believed the earth was flat, the earth is flat. That's how "true" things are from a social perspective.

..my reply:

- You said you believe hebephilia to be the same case as "homophiles" (homosexuals?) in that their brain structure is different. You have not backed this up with a source. As such, coming to the conclusion that it's a mental condition in such a manner is only valid for your personal definition of a mental condition and not necessarily applicable for others who "believe" differently. If you had facts to support this, that would be another manner.

That's what I'm basing it on, my morals and ethics, as pedophilia is based on the morals and ethics of society.
To reply to the subject of homophiles having different brain structure, read on to my reply to UChessmaster.

I never said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about homosexuals having different brain structures or patterns. I said you didn't have anything to back up your claim about hebephiles having different brain structures or patterns.

You said that "homophiles" have different brain structures. I believe hebephiles to also be the same." <- 2nd sentence is not based on any evidence other than you "guessing". THAT is what I was talking about.

Just to be clear: Only hebe- and ephebophilia will probably be decided "mental disorders" based on ethics and morals, as pedophilia already is. I take this manner of defining and use it myself to label the rest likewise, based on my ethics and morals. Whether it’s officially stated as a mental disorder is something else.

in my opinion (which is not based on research or facts) you have a mental disorder if you have any of the three philia's, simply because I think it's unnatural for an adult to fuck minors. There's a reason why we're adults and they're minors. You protect children from adult situations, especially this one, for their benefit.

. Whether society agrees with me or not, I will always label it a mental disorder since the decisions for these philia's till now are not based on medical grounds but on a majority of ethics and morals.

Summary: I (KE) will label these following philias (pedo, hebe, ephebo) as a mental condition because I think they are wrong. I will continue to think this way regardless of whether society does or not, and regardless of whether the wider definition and diagnosis for "mental condition" changes conforms.

Did I get that right? If so, then I must tell you that hebephilia not only becomes a "mental condition" "by your books" (ie they fit the requirements for a mental condition), but that it may also be the case that hebephilia is a "mental condition" "by your own definition of a mental condition".

Personal ethics and morals are based on your own sense of right and wrong

No, KE. Morals are personal. Ethics are social.

It already is for myself and it should be for others, yes. As I said before, pedophilia was decided a mental disorder based on morals and ethics. Hebephilia is on debate whether it should or should not (be a mental disorder) but will probably also be decided in such a manner.
So I think of hebephilia and ephebophilia being mental disorders (and will always see it that way) simply because (again) I think it's wrong. And "I" can become "we".

Again, morals are personal. Ethics are decided upon by the wider society. "I" certainly can become "we", but until that happens, it remains as "I". ie, you.

A certain feeling of off-limits should already be present within these "preferences".

Whether this feeling "should" or "shouldn't" be present was again, something you yourself came up with.

I was rather being skeptical of you really comparing the two "wrongs" this way. You can turn a right into a wrong proven by facts or you can feel something to be wrong. The latter is what I was implying.

In that case, you mean "wrong" to be something that is different from yourself and/or something that you dislike?

Like how "black" people felt "wrong" to "white people"?

See above regarding you basing right and wrong on your own personal (and at times groundless) beliefs.

I don't see how it's groundless if I think it's a mental disorder based on me finding it not natural and having it fight my sense of right for neither the adult nor, especially, the minor for several reasons.

"Groundless" was referring to the fact that you believed hebephiles to have different brain structures, which so far is unfounded. Thereby, groundless. Note that I did not say ALL your beliefs were groundless.

This issue came up due to you defining Hebephilia as a mental disorder when mental disorders are not decided by you, but society as a whole. Putting it into "KE's own definition of mental disorders - anything that I find to be wrong", is another matter. So far, however, it has not been clear that you are using the term "mental disorder" under your own rules.

No, you. I didn't really get you at some points. Like the Galileo or the German p.o.v.'s, involving entirely different situations with no valid points to them at all.

You really like putting words into other people mouths.

I made the assumption because you addressed nearly all of my post. By addressing what I said without saying "I don't get you", I assume you "get" me.

I (try) not to put words into people's mouths, I don't think I've done so thus far. By saying what I said (that I'm assuming youre talking about Xan), I'm letting you know that I'm basing myself on an assumption, and allowing you to tell me whether that assumption was right or wrong.

It's the same as saying "I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I think you're talking about Xan".





And something to think about again: Society once condemned and burned people for being lefties. Not-too-long-ago, schools forced students to write with their right hands, even if they were left-handed. Is it a mental condition to then want to write with your left hand?

And so, according to what you wrote before, you can think of it as a mental condition because society used to decide on that based on majority belief?