This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is Ephebophilia morally wrong?

Scroll to see replies

I don't think it's wrong. But personally I would find it more acceptable to be looking at people 16+, purely due to the age of consent. I'm 18, my Fiancé is 30, and we've been together almost 2 years...so no I don't think it's wrong :smile:

Reply 21

Hedger

Redemption

Did you read the thread? No.

I asked would you consider it morally wrong if a twenty one year old started having a sexual relationship with a 13/14 year old.

I'm not going to quote and respond anymore for people who cba to read. I don't mind.

Just share your thoughts.

Your example could have been worded a lot better.

So you want to **** a 12 year old then? How old are you exactly? Good for you like, but it's definately wrong ;yes;

Reply 22

falls_whisper

No... but depends on the circumstances surrounding the "relationship". Besides, if it's only attraction then fair enough. Everyone fantasizes, but doesn't mean action must be taken. Japanese culture certainly seems to play upon the whole middle-aged men lusting after middle/high-school girls.

Reply 23

eMJaaay♥

I don't think its morally wrong at all...though obviously what the society labels as deviant is different in each cultures...like in some third world countries its perfectly socially acceptable for a man to get involved and marry a girl significantly younger than him and while its not illegal in the UK, alot of negative labels are attached to it and society in general does tend to look down on men and women dating someone significantly younger than them...and they get called names such as cradle snatches, toy boy lover, etc, etc

I guess its kinda hard to come to a universal definition of what is morally right or wrong due to the diversification of sexual feelings, activity and fantasies :s-smilie:

Reply 24

d123

I think in general it depends on the ages. Above 16 I'd say whatever, it's legal, so long as the adult isn't taking advantage then its up to the teenager involved. While it would be strange if say, a 16 year old was having an affair with a 50 year old, there's nothing illegal about it.
If its under 16 it depends on a number of factors; the age gap (I think 14 year old with 18 year old is better than 14 year old with 40 year old, for obvious reasons), the maturity of the people involved, and the extent of the relationship (basically, if they are having sex or not)

In the example given, I'd say it's unlikely a 13 year old is mature enough to have sex, particularly with a 21 year old. It would depend on the individuals involved, but regardless of whether it's morally wrong, it is illegal, and I think the 21 year old would be unwise to get involved. It also sounds a little pervy, not saying it would be, just that it could be perceived as that. However, its a hypothetical situation, so my hypothetical answer would be that (judging purely on the information given) it is not necessarily morally wrong (though I'm not quite sure on that, seeing as she's 13 so is clearly too young to be having sex), just inadvisable on the part of the 21 year old especially.

Reply 25

HeatherChandler

OP, you should change the title to "Is *****ing 13 year olds wrong?". I think when the word ends with "philia" it's more about being attracted to them than actually banging them, so it can't really be considered morally wrong. It's like with paedos. They don't neccessarily rape children.

Reply 26

sdt

Redemption

Why does the parent have any say at all?

I guess it's a lot to give to the very people who spent a good decade or two and a few hundred £k raising their kids, amirite :rolleyes:

? I'm pretty sure most fathers wouldn't take kindly to seeing a 25 year old bloke wooing their 13 year old daughter.

There's also the issue of age of consent.

Reply 27

Hedger

Cereal Killer II

I guess it's a lot to give to the very people who spent a good decade or two and a few hundred £k raising their kids, amirite :rolleyes:

? I'm pretty sure most fathers wouldn't take kindly to seeing a 25 year old bloke wooing their 13 year old daughter.

There's also the issue of age of consent.

Yup. Starting to get the feeling the OP hasn't got an arguement(little anti-social as well, judging from the way he replies)?

Reply 28

sdt

I think he just wants to shag a 12 year old :rofl:

Back in the day, we used to get sent to the pits, girls would be married off. These rapscallions of today, they've got it good.

Reply 29

eMJaaay♥

OP never said anything about him having such feelings :s-smilie:

he was just asking everyone's opinions on whether or not they see it as morally wrong or not?

Reply 30

sdt

eMJaaay&#9829

OP never said anything about him having such feelings :s-smilie:

he was just asking everyone's opinions on whether or not they see it as morally wrong or not?

Mhmm. Dr Freud puts his reading specs on -

A generic TSR university student of age twenty one desires to start a sexual relationship with another generic younger student of age thirteen.

OP's Profile

I'm Joseph. I'm twenty. I study, as you can see below, PPE at York.

There's nothing wrong with the feelings themselves - acting upon them is a different story.

Reply 31

Psyk

There is nothing morally wrong about any sort of attraction to any one or any thing. So clearly that means ephebophilia itself is not morally wrong.

As for whether a sexual relationship is wrong, I don't think it necessarily is in the same way that a relationship between two 18 year olds isn't always morally right. But chances are there's going to be something dodgy going on if a 21 year old is dating a 13 year old. More likely than not the 21 year old is taking advantage in some way or another. If they really are genuine then they can just keep it in their pants for a few years. So I think there's a good reason to have an age of consent.

Reply 32

allymcb2

generalebriety

I don't see anything "morally wrong" with this hypothetical situation; on the other hand, I don't know many 13-year-old girls who are ready to have a relationship (even if girls do mature earlier than boys, they don't mature THAT early). Also, they of course shouldn't break any laws. So yeah, a relationship in this hypothetical situation would work, I just seriously doubt it would be at all a meaningful relationship (no sex, and neither person is mature enough to want much more out of a relationship; no going out with friends for obvious reasons of clashes of interest, and so on). It'd be a friendship that was rather generously called a relationship. So, it's a silly hypothetical situation, because it doesn't happen.

My sister had meaningful relationships when she was 13. She is bright, and very very socially mature and more than capable of enjoying a romantic relationship. I really don't see what the problem is. Her then BF was 17, but she was frequently asked out by much older men, whom she turned down because of the difficulty of not having the same amount of freedom as them and probably because she didn't think they were worth the hassle of how friends/family would react. So it is certainly possible, and not particularly unhealthy.

Reply 33

eMJaaay♥

Cereal Killer II

Mhmm. Dr Freud puts his reading specs on -

:wink:

There's nothing wrong with the feelings themselves - acting upon them is a different story.

Loool c'mon now! But yeah I defo agree in the case of pedophilia but I don't think ephebophilia is wrong but maybe I'm being biased :p:

What about a 21 year old female dating a 13 year old male??? I'm inclined to think that people would treat the 21 year old male as being more deviant than the female? Wonder why that is ...

Reply 34

generalebriety

allymcb2

I'm surprised; still, you said it yourself, she appreciated the hassle of having relationships at that age when they're so limited. Fair enough, then I will concede to some exceptions in terms of maturity, though there's plenty of people who'd say relationships weren't meaningful without (a) sex, and/or (b) the ability to carry on with your life in the normal way (e.g. going out drinking for older boys, staying in playing with friends for younger girls). I think, for the vast majority of people, such relationships would be so restricted as to be meaningless. Perhaps your sister is an exception. :smile:

Reply 35

generalebriety

eMJaaay&#9829

Loool c'mon now! But yeah I defo agree in the case of pedophilia but I don't think ephebophilia is wrong but maybe I'm being biased :p:

What about a 21 year old female dating a 13 year old male??? I'm inclined to think that people would treat the 21 year old male as being more deviant than the female? Wonder why that is ...

Why do you say that? I wouldn't treat them any differently. Then again, I wouldn't treat either of them 'badly' unless I had reason to, and simply "going out" with a 13-year-old - to whatever extent that can happen - wouldn't be sufficient reason.

For what it's worth, I'd go down to the age of 17, or 16 at a push (being 19 myself); this isn't some arbitrary imposed standard, it's simply because I've never met a 15-year-old who'd ever be mature enough for me to consider going out with, but I've met plenty of 17-year-olds, and 16 is a sort of boundary case. It's all down to personal standards and, to an extent, tastes.

Reply 36

allymcb2

generalebriety

She was able to snuggle up watching DVDs with him-they had a joint sex and the city box set, go shopping with him, go to the cinema with him, go out for dinner with him, out for lunch etc and she was allowed to go and watch his band play. They still socialised with their own friends. Most of the people I know don't go out clubbing with their boyfriends unless they were friends before they met-they do that with their own friends normally, and most boys wouldn't want their gf cramping their lads night anyway, so it worked out fine. I think she had long since grown out of "playing"-she usually goes out for pizza with friends.

I don't believe in sex before marriage, so I find the idea that a relationship cannot be meaningful without sex quite repulsive- and also applicalbe to a lot of relationships between adults. Similarly, I dated a guy who was 24, didn't drink, and would rarely be interested in clubbing as he had been there, done that at university, so the no-drinking thing doesn't only apply to people under age either.

Reply 37

Profesh

generalebriety

Oh, you did? Well, I'm not getting into this discussion; if I give any potential legal, psychological or medical reason why, you'll just come back at me with "yes, but what if?".

No, there's nothing morally wrong about a sexual relationship if she's sexually mature, physically mature, psychologically mature, and has a strong mind; you don't find 13-year-old girls like that, though. That's why it's illegal and considered immoral.

Actually, I think that barely one in twenty of all the people I know could reasonably be regarded as such. Though that's arguably beside the point anyway:

Original post by me

Ok can we try and avoid the "OMG its so wrong" comments and try and have a rational discussion. Its hard to have such a discussion about paedophilia as typically people will greet any talk of it with immediate condemnation. So please try and think about the issues before posting.

I of course think that child molestation is a terrible crime that should be punished accordingly. It abuses a childs innocence and causes great harm and suffering.

My issue is with paedophilia as purely a sexual orientation. I find it hard to understand why paedophilia elicits such hatred, disgust and moral condemnation when it is thought of as purely a sexual orientation that is not acted upon. Surely paedophilia is only wrong if/when it results in damage to children? Surely that's why its bad? It is not bad because it is a "disease" or because it is "unnatural" or because it is just evil. You realise that these are exactly the same arguments made against homosexuals 30 years ago (well and still are). And just a science has shown that homosexuality is not a disease, science also indicates that paedophilia is not a mental illness, disability or psychological problem (although it has been studied far too little). Paedophilia is probably the result of a combination of genetic, social and environmental causes like every other sexual inclination and indeed most things in life. As a result, paedophilia is not a choice. Its not as if all paedophiles are these evil people who one day wake up and decide they want to have "evil desires". No, they have uncontrollable and no doubt passionate desires in the same way that a homosexual would, or indeed a heterosexual would. Just like you can't "cure" homosexuality, the evidence also shows that you can't "cure" paedophilia. There's nothing to cure. Its just a different sexual inclination. BUT this sexual inclination can (note can- not always does) lead to terrible acts and it is these acts that are so evil, not paedophilia itself, in my opinion. Perhaps we can say that child molestation is evil whereas paedophilia is not.

No doubt many people will disagree with me, but hey remember its just an opinion. But the arguments against paedophilia do remind me of the arguments against homosexuality- which, (hopefully) most of us no longer view as an unnatural, evil, sin. I think people need to remember that just because they feel that something is wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. I, personally find it incomprehensible how one can find young children sexually attractive- that DOES NOT mean that I automatically hold that it is wrong. In exactly the same way I don't comprehend homosexuality- it is "icky", "unnatural" or even just weird to me. But so what? That doesnt mean its wrong- just different. Intuition should never be used as a guide to morality in my opinion.

Well, duh. Paedophilia is inherently no more or less demonstrably 'evil' than homosexuality.

this is an inherently abusive act and will always cause harm

Inherently abusive? Only insofar as our concept of 'abuse' inheres within the strict, legislative parameters of black-letter 'consent'. Indeed, it is trite that most such victims of abuse (albeit which consists purely in intercourse, as opposed to anything necessarily vindictive) only manifest 'trauma' once their perception of the world has been adequately coloured [tainted] by moral consensus, hence the ensuing (and oddly subsequent) 'harm' removed to so preposterous a degree causatively from its appertaining act. Transposed to an 'Adam and Eve' scenario, where nobody exists to impute to them the (essentially, quite arbitrary) notion that sex is not a legitimate expression of a parent's affection for their child (particularly where said 'child' is approaching the putative threshhold of adolescence, such that physical disfigurement is no longer inevitable): whither harm? In fact, it seems to me that the 'harm' occurs when society presumes to undermine an individual's self-determination and inform them that they have, notwithstanding any prior sentiment to the contrary, been 'victimised'.

What you are advocating is, basically, moral dogma; albeit one whose net benefit to our society (and our children) vindicates the abject fallacy of a moral continuum that it is predicated upon.

Setting aside the rather disgusting prolixity of my argument, what do you make of that as a proposition?

Reply 38

allymcb2

Profesh

Actually, I think that barely one in twenty of all the people I know could reasonably be regarded as such. Though that's arguably beside the point anyway:

Setting aside the rather disgusting prolixity of my argument, what do you make of that as a proposition?

Ignoring the black letter law distinction between paedophilia and non-paedophilia, and taking an extreme example of, say, a 1 year old. Do you not accept that desiring to do something to the body of someone who has no capacity to consent to it is inherantly wrong?

Reply 39

username186742

at 13 she's still a child thats where the problem comes in, yes she may think she's mature enough but she wont be people grow up and realise their mistakes, the 21 year old would be having a sexual relationship with a CHILD!! and of course that is morally wrong