Talk:Ephebophilia (Sexuality)

What is this?

This is all one sentence:

...the term pedophilia is commonly and mistakenly used today by the general public and the media in the West (including entertainment and social media) to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent and/or even age of majority, regardless of their level of physical and mental development (thus spreading and increasing not only mis/disinformation but especially ageism and, in the case of males, misandry, both already present at concerning levels in the modern-day liberal-globalist and "woke" West). While acts of pedophilia are generally persecuted and prosecuted by law, ephebophilia ones are only if the individual is under the state or local age of consent (the average age of consent in USA and North America is 16, same for the rest of the mainly English-speaking countries and Europe).

As is this:

While liberals and leftists are open advocates for the normalization and legalization of pedophilia (sexual attraction to prepubescents), they use ephebophilia or alleged cases of ephebophilia from non-leftist persons (even legal cases and especially if the target is male), very often also in fiction (including non-American fiction, like Japanese and Korean, so going full imperialistic and puritan on Asian countries and people and exposing even more their hypocrisy and double standards) to condemn pedophilia and create more confusion between pedophilia and ephebophilia when the occasion advantages them politically and their agenda, thus invalidating the fight against actual pedophilia, then they proceed with their open pro-pedophilia propaganda and agenda (from the legalization and acceptation of pedophilia as a natural sexual orientation and not a deviation and disturb as officially and scientifically classified, to the promotion of puberty blockers and normalization of grooming children, present also in the form of propaganda in current Western woke "entertainment").

Leaving aside comment on anti-Puritan bigotry, this stream of consciousness has no citations.

Suggestions: Move to Essay space or Delete as parody. RobS^Z+ 19:31, July 28, 2022 (EDT)

Could you please remove the "Essay" now that the article has been provided with citations and sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] [[User talk:|(talk)]]

It's in the process of review. RobS^Z+ 12:39, July 29, 2022 (EDT)

By the way, I replaced puritan with the more appropriate neo-puritan (typical of liberals, leftists, SJWs/wokesters, feminists and fake conservatives on Telegram and Twitter). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]

Is this largely a cut and paste from other wikis? If so, where? (that won't necessarily disqualify it from being a mainspace article). Thanks. RobS^Z+ 18:20, July 29, 2022 (EDT)

Also, Please begin signing your comments with four tildes. Thank you. RobS^Z+ 18:25, July 29, 2022 (EDT)

Comment: Having reread the final paragraph three times in the Introductory section (posted above as the second illustration of stream of consciousness), it makes no sense to me. Call me an idiot. And it has no citations. RobS^Z+ 15:50, July 30, 2022 (EDT)

Again, what has been cut n pasted from Wikipedia? RobS^Z+ 17:47, August 2, 2022 (EDT)

Third time: what has been cut n pasted from Wikipedia into this Mainspace? RobS^Z+ 23:54, August 3, 2022 (EDT)

Why aren't you writing to me on the deletion talk page? I left a lot of messages. I even wrote to you on your own talk page without getting any response. Anyway, only the sources are taken from Wikipedia directly (I don't certainly think that's problematic or a crime), the other things are taken from different sites and basic online encyclopedias on the topic that use the same writing of Wikipedia or viceversa (I don't know who started first), but as you can see are also a little edited. Anyway, I agree to remove the last part regarding leftists/liberals double standards and fake accounts on Telegram and Twitter, that's just original research, if it helps to remove the deletion request and the Essay category, but the rest has no valid reason to to be removed or to justify the radical delete of an entire page, they're not violating any rule. Plus, would you stop adding useless and senseless categories to the page? "Pseudoscience" (???)? Seriously? There's nothing "pseudo" here, it's ridiculous! Thank you. User:Republiproud

This is the appropriate page to keep record of discussion for Mainspace changes. The AFD page is for Keep/Merge/Delete discussions. My talk page is for notifications and other unrelated matters.

Examining the first three external links yields this:

Footnote 1 and 2 are redundant. The underlying source link says: The term pedophilia denotes the erotic preference for prepubescent children. The term hebephilia has been proposed to denote the erotic preference for pubescent children (roughly, ages 11 or 12–14), but it has not become widely used.

Footnote 3 has no relationship to the article or underlying argument the article proposes that I can see.

Now, this article page evidently tries to make a distinction between ephebophilia and pedophilia by claiming pedophilia denotes an act, whereas ephebophilia is simply a desire (based upon "objectively recorded penile responses"). But the same source link defines pedophilia as a "preference" or desire without having to commit an act. RobS^Z+ 13:21, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

Also the article about pedophilia tries to distinguish the two words. Actually, it is stated more times in the article page that pedophilia denotes the mere sexual attraction and that ACTS of pedophilia are persecuted and prosecuted by law. There's also the Legality section explaining within what bounds ephebophilia remains legal. Why don't you edit and correct what you think needs to be corrected and then I examine what you edited out was worth and right to be removed? This way may get things easier. And I remove the original research. What do you say? User:Republiproud

"ACTS of pedophilia are persecuted" Huh? Possession of pedophile porno on one's computer are "persecuted" too, I suppose, without committing an act. RobS^Z+ 16:42, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

Possession, acquisition/purchase/buying, sale and distribution of pedophile porno IS considered an act of pedophilia in fact. User:Republiproud

Are we at least getting somewhere? User:Republiproud

Are these the things for you are proposing an entire page to be radically deleted? Couldn't you simply edit the parts you deem problematic and then discuss them? You had to ask for the deletion of an entire page? And you are even categorizing it as "PSEUDOSCIENCE". Sounds quite unnecessary and exaggerrated, don't you think? User:Republiproud

I'm not a expert in the field, nor desire to pretend to be. But even the source link says this: "The term pedophilia denotes the erotic preference for prepubescent children. The term hebephilia has been proposed to denote the erotic preference for pubescent children (roughly, ages 11 or 12–14), but it has not become widely used. The present study sought to validate the concept of hebephilia by examining the agreement between self-reported sexual interests and objectively recorded penile responses in the laboratory. The participants were 881 men who were referred for clinical assessment because of paraphilic, criminal, or otherwise problematic sexual behavior.'

So is this what passes for modern "scientific" research (probably with government funds)? Showing criminals in a laboratory setting pictures of 15-year-old girls in bikinis and asking them if they have an "objective penile response"? Then passing it off of as a normal response to the non-criminal population? RobS^Z+ 17:38, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

How do we even know these scientific tests were performed on men? Participants may have been people who identify as men and use he/him pronouns (under the threat of discrimination lawsuits if they are excluded from participating). Don't you think that may skew objective scientific reporting? RobS^Z+ 17:51, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

As I said, edit the part that you think should be edited or corrected, then we'll see, ok? User:Republiproud

I'm not sure where to begin. The original version was cut n pasted from Wikipedia, and nobody has dared to correct it now as of yet. It's only been added to with more pseudoscience which Wikipedia itself probably would cut out. That's why I nominated it for deletion.

If it were to be deleted, then some editor possibly could start over with a more fair rendering (I'm basing this judgment on what I consider my own personal understanding what the term means, not being an expert, having no direct interest or understanding, and only reading what has been presented here and in Wikipedia). RobS^Z+ 19:03, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

And a reminder, it has to follow CP family friendly guidelines. I understand the term to mean that it is not uncommon for adults to be sexually attracted to adolescents, without acting on that impulse, which is not a crime or mental disturbance. That definition seems simple enough. RobS^Z+ 19:06, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

When an adult crosses over that line of thought-impulses to action, ephebophilia becomes pedophilia, under the law. Yes, there are distinctions between legal terminology and scientific/medical terminology, such as "insanity", which is a legal term and not a medical/psychiatric term. My suggestion is we stick with legal definitions and leave out most, if not all the pseudoscientific justifications for the thought processes that become behavior and criminal acts. RobS^Z+ 19:23, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

DSM 5 has no definition for insanity. That does not mean that is does not exist nor has consequences in the real world. RobS^Z+ 19:33, August 4, 2022 (EDT)

First, I already explained to you that I didn't took it directly from Wikipedia except for the sources, many encyclopedias and sites online use Wikipedia definitions or viceversa. Second, pedophilia is ONLY attraction to PREPUBESCENT children, and no matter what line of action you cross, it's still and will always be ephebophilia, and doesn't exist the crime of pedophilia in any juridical order or legal system, since it's a medical and psychiatrist term, only the crime of sexual abuse of minors under *local age of consent* (in other cases, if the victim is prepubescent, "caused by pedophilia"). You can't change the definition of a term like a leftist and deciding to delete it and twist it or even deciding that is suddenly "pseudoscientific" just because doesn't fit your feelings and narrative. To cite Ben Shapiro, "facts don't care about your feelings", just I doubt care of family friendly guidelines, especially considering that this is a topic in which is impossible to stay family friendly, It's even written already much "family friendly" considering the topic, I mean, we're talking about sexuality and sexual preferences/orientations here. How can you be "family friendly" on this? This is an encyclopedia, not a fairytales book. I'm sorry, but you're not giving me any valid reasons, the exact opposite, and I'm gonna have to ask you again to bring the page as it was before, an ordinary article page with no deletion request or "Essay" categorizing, because the reasons you've given me are not valid to justify that and I understand that all this is based just on personal feelings, opinions and impressions, not facts. Plus, if you even admit you're not an expert and don't know enough of the field, why are you still continuing this discussion and creating problems? User:Republiproud

Well, good. I deleted the page. You can start it over without cut n pastes from Wikipedia. Good luck. You should read our family friendly guidelines before you proceed. God bless you. RobS^Z+ 22:34, August 5, 2022 (EDT)

Oh, and see if you can avoid your puritan boogeyman in your scientific research. Thanks. RobS^Z+ 01:15, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

More cut n paste

Republiproud: Looks like you misunderstood. This is still a cut n paste from elsewhere which you've three times now refused to identify where. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 19:25, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

It's not! I have a personal archive. Why can't you leave me work in peace? Bring me from where would I merely copied and pasted all this, I'm sweating and tired! I spent almost all the day here and I'm pretty nervous too! And I didn't refuse the previous time to "identify where", you simply didn't believe me, that's different! Now please, stop! User:Republiproud

Oh, you wrote the Template you cut and pasted here in your personal Archive. I see. You also claim pedophilia is "persecuted", and "In some conservative cultures and countries, it is considered normal for adults to include adolescents among their sexual interests," and an adult having sex with a 15-year-old is a perfectly normal and natural thing.

Your stream of consciousness responses on the Talk make about as much sense as your Essay writing. Perhaps this should be moved back to Essay space. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 19:44, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

I wrote wrongly a template, so? What's your point? I was going to add an image but I changed my mind and I was even putting it in the wrong place! Again, I spent all day here! This is not an essay! Stop ruining my work, this is an abuse of power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]

• Conservapedia:Commandments #3: Any content you create or change (including edits, new pages, images and links) must be informative, family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language."

I just don't see how your efforts to scientifically prove adults having sex with minors is a natural and normal thing. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 19:52, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

I don't know how to make it family friendly. I try, but just like the last time you're not helping me. And I don't see even what's so unscientific. This is psychology. It's just facts, I can't do much about it, it's not easy to make it "family friendly". Even the legality section is not good to you. My brain is smoking. Why can't we have another opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]

(ec) I do. I'll just delete the whole damn thing again and insure against its recreation unless you make the effort to get up to speed about what Conservapedia's mission is. You want another opinion? Fine. Go ask for one.

Your brain is smoking or you're smoking something for your brain? RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 20:00, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

The first one. And please, don't do it! PLEASE, STOP! I'M TRYING MY BEST! DON'T! I WORKED ALL THE DAY ON IT! PLEASE! Just tell me what I wrote wrong and needs to be edited out and rewritten. And what did I ask so bad? I simply wanted the opinion from another Administrator, that's all. And the Commandments say that I should validate my content with sources, and that's what I did. This is my work. Family friendly doesn't mean no insults, no bad words and no trolling? User:Republiproud

Go ask. Conservapedia content must be family friendly. Conservapedia is not a haven for Wikipedia trolls and "experts". A Mainspace article that informs 15 year olds that it perfectly normal and natural for adults to have sex with 15 year olds is not family friendly. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 20:10, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

I removed "sexual" where I saw it and removed the part that starts with "While...prosecuted...", did it right? Just tell me. User:Republiproud

I don't know; it'll be reviewed later while I ask for more opinions on the subject. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 20:16, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

I didn't say it is "perfectly normal" (I didn't even use the word "perfectly"), and I'm not a Wikipedia troll, Wikipedia is a bunch of fascists and commies. I simply said what was considered normal and socially acceptable in one part of the world and what is still that in other parts of the world, that's all. And blame the law and the psychology, psychiatry and sexology associations, the ancient academics (who were also known ephebophiles) and the law/s, not me. I simply write and report facts. User:Republiproud

Your own source that you key all this stuff off of says: "The term hebephilia has been proposed to denote the erotic preference for pubescent children (roughly, ages 11 or 12–14), but it has not become widely used."

Number 1: the terms don't even agree with the subject matter; Number 2: your use of the term "ephebophiles" in the above sentence hardly has any basis in science or fact. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 20:29, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

Just because some quack wrote about "ephebophilia" in 1890, a term that did not catch on, is not science or scholarship. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 20:31, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

Rahman

You need to put that back in. Let's not hide the fact that homosexual child molestation has a long history and is still practiced in many cultures. Without it, the article is unbalanced and seems to justify the modern practice in Western cultures. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 16:16, August 10, 2022 (EDT)