I guess I’m confused. Ive heard people argue that its either all mental disorder or it’s all not mental disorder. Ive never heard someone splitting the difference. How do you rationalize some pedophiles have a mental disorder and others do not? I’m using the colloquial term pedophile to cover all ages. I understand some are attracted based before/ during/ after puberty but to me i don’t see where the line should start/ end in terms of a mental disorder. It seems to me that if it was a mental disorder for some ages, it would be for the others. That just is what would make sense to me because in all cases the child/teen is under the legal age and in all cases acting on the sexual attraction would be rape/sexual assault.
In other words, i don’t understand the difference for why i should think some pedophiles should be less bad based on age? Why do pedophiles get to claim mental disorder but ephebophiles don’t get the same?
These are great questions and I hope you don’t mind the wall of text that’s going to follow. I want to warn anyone reading that the Wikipedia article for the Tanner scale necessarily includes pictures of sexual characteristics at various stages of development, and is therefore NSFW.
Pedophilia is currently defined as primary attraction towards prepubescent children, which are Tanner stage 1, typically age 13 or younger. The DSM-5 and ICD-11 both recognize it as a disorder and have similar, but differing diagnostic criteria.
Hebephilia is defined as primary attraction towards pubescent children, Tanner stages 2 and 3. It’s not recognized as a disorder, and there’s a lot of debate regarding it in the mental health field. Should it be its own disorder? Should it be considered a subset of pedophilia? Should it just be considered the same as pedophilia? Mental health is a soft science, so these kinds of discussions are how we arrive at diagnostic criteria.
Ephebophilia is defined as primary attraction towards adolescents, Tanner stages 4 and 5, which correspond to about age 15 and older. Attraction to such a person isn’t considered disordered as they’ve developed sexual characteristics which indicate physical adulthood and sexual maturity. This is the imporant distinction that separates it from pedophilia and hebephilia.
The most common age of consent in Europe is 14-16, but I don’t think that legality should dictate morality. I think it’s great that younger people have the opportunity to engage in sexual conduct with each other, but people much older than they are can easily coerce them, either with charm, money, a sense of authority, etc. An older person who habitually engages in sexual conduct with teenagers and young adults is, in my opinion, targeting them as people who are less powerful and easy to abuse.
I don’t think that any sexual abuser is more or less bad than another based on who they’re abusing or whether they have a recognized mental disorder. (In fact I would argue that anyone who engages in coersive or forceful sexual practices, including ephebophiles, has something wrong with their brain that makes them be a bad person.) Diagnosis of a disorder can help us understand motivation and develop prevention techniques, but it’s not an excuse for harming someone.
There’s a hidden implication that Epstien being a pedophile is worse than being an ephebophile, as if raping teenagers is somehow better than raping children. Insisting he is a pedophile plays into and reinforces this idea. I think it’s an unhealthy way to view sexual assault, both in how society sees survivors and how survivors see themselves.
I also think that demonizing pedophiles (meaning the term clinically and not people who have abused children) puts more children at risk. If someone feels the need to hide their disorder they’re much less likely to seek medical help, warn those around them, and recieve help in preventing harmful behavior. You can see the benefits of destigmatizing mental disorders in things like alcoholism or borderline personality disorder, where people are now much more likely to seek therapy than they were in the past. I would prefer that my neighbor were a non-offending pedophile attending regular treatment than a closeted pedophile who poses a serious risk to those around them. I would want them to reach out to me for help when they feel they’re about to harm someone rather than craft secret plans to go through with it. This cannot happen in a world where asking for help can ruin your life.
I appreciate the response and no i didn’t mind the wall of text, thank you. I’m still not sure i can say id agree on categorizing some as a disorder and others not. To me age of consent + age of majority are two important lines that must be crossed from a legality standpoint, so the pre/post puberty timeline doesn’t equate into my thinking at all.
But i do agree with you that legality shouldn’t dictate morality, and also agree on not demonizing pedophiles (clinical term) who haven’t abused children. It actually reminds me a bit of Alice in Borderland S3. There is a game where the hidden identity comes into play (S3E2). Ill share the overview below in a spoiler. it isn’t a perfect comparison because of how the game is set up, but it does make you think about the demonizing the hidden identity regardless of whether they did anything bad.
Tap for spoiler: If you don't want to watch the show but want to know the game
Basically the show is based on games where people die if they lose. In this game an unknown number of players out of ~100 are infected as a “zombie” in a card game. Zombies can win any card round by playing their zombie card (infinite use) , and that zombie card will infect the other player (giving them an infinite use zombie card). At the same time, every human also has a single use shotgun card which will quite literally blow the head off of a zombie player. There is also an unknown number of vaccine cards which can be used to cure 1 zombie (destroying their zombie card and making them human). The game is played over 20 rounds where each round you touch another player to challenge them for that round. At the end of the 20 rounds whichever side (humans vs zombies) has the most people wins. The losing side all die. So in this this case, under threat of death, telling someone you’re a zombie or infecting another player to be a zombie can potentially get you killed.
I guess I’m confused. Ive heard people argue that its either all mental disorder or it’s all not mental disorder. Ive never heard someone splitting the difference. How do you rationalize some pedophiles have a mental disorder and others do not? I’m using the colloquial term pedophile to cover all ages. I understand some are attracted based before/ during/ after puberty but to me i don’t see where the line should start/ end in terms of a mental disorder. It seems to me that if it was a mental disorder for some ages, it would be for the others. That just is what would make sense to me because in all cases the child/teen is under the legal age and in all cases acting on the sexual attraction would be rape/sexual assault.
In other words, i don’t understand the difference for why i should think some pedophiles should be less bad based on age? Why do pedophiles get to claim mental disorder but ephebophiles don’t get the same?
These are great questions and I hope you don’t mind the wall of text that’s going to follow. I want to warn anyone reading that the Wikipedia article for the Tanner scale necessarily includes pictures of sexual characteristics at various stages of development, and is therefore NSFW.
Pedophilia is currently defined as primary attraction towards prepubescent children, which are Tanner stage 1, typically age 13 or younger. The DSM-5 and ICD-11 both recognize it as a disorder and have similar, but differing diagnostic criteria.
Hebephilia is defined as primary attraction towards pubescent children, Tanner stages 2 and 3. It’s not recognized as a disorder, and there’s a lot of debate regarding it in the mental health field. Should it be its own disorder? Should it be considered a subset of pedophilia? Should it just be considered the same as pedophilia? Mental health is a soft science, so these kinds of discussions are how we arrive at diagnostic criteria.
Ephebophilia is defined as primary attraction towards adolescents, Tanner stages 4 and 5, which correspond to about age 15 and older. Attraction to such a person isn’t considered disordered as they’ve developed sexual characteristics which indicate physical adulthood and sexual maturity. This is the imporant distinction that separates it from pedophilia and hebephilia.
The most common age of consent in Europe is 14-16, but I don’t think that legality should dictate morality. I think it’s great that younger people have the opportunity to engage in sexual conduct with each other, but people much older than they are can easily coerce them, either with charm, money, a sense of authority, etc. An older person who habitually engages in sexual conduct with teenagers and young adults is, in my opinion, targeting them as people who are less powerful and easy to abuse.
I don’t think that any sexual abuser is more or less bad than another based on who they’re abusing or whether they have a recognized mental disorder. (In fact I would argue that anyone who engages in coersive or forceful sexual practices, including ephebophiles, has something wrong with their brain that makes them be a bad person.) Diagnosis of a disorder can help us understand motivation and develop prevention techniques, but it’s not an excuse for harming someone.
There’s a hidden implication that Epstien being a pedophile is worse than being an ephebophile, as if raping teenagers is somehow better than raping children. Insisting he is a pedophile plays into and reinforces this idea. I think it’s an unhealthy way to view sexual assault, both in how society sees survivors and how survivors see themselves.
I also think that demonizing pedophiles (meaning the term clinically and not people who have abused children) puts more children at risk. If someone feels the need to hide their disorder they’re much less likely to seek medical help, warn those around them, and recieve help in preventing harmful behavior. You can see the benefits of destigmatizing mental disorders in things like alcoholism or borderline personality disorder, where people are now much more likely to seek therapy than they were in the past. I would prefer that my neighbor were a non-offending pedophile attending regular treatment than a closeted pedophile who poses a serious risk to those around them. I would want them to reach out to me for help when they feel they’re about to harm someone rather than craft secret plans to go through with it. This cannot happen in a world where asking for help can ruin your life.
I appreciate the response and no i didn’t mind the wall of text, thank you. I’m still not sure i can say id agree on categorizing some as a disorder and others not. To me age of consent + age of majority are two important lines that must be crossed from a legality standpoint, so the pre/post puberty timeline doesn’t equate into my thinking at all.
But i do agree with you that legality shouldn’t dictate morality, and also agree on not demonizing pedophiles (clinical term) who haven’t abused children. It actually reminds me a bit of Alice in Borderland S3. There is a game where the hidden identity comes into play (S3E2). Ill share the overview below in a spoiler. it isn’t a perfect comparison because of how the game is set up, but it does make you think about the demonizing the hidden identity regardless of whether they did anything bad.
Tap for spoiler: If you don't want to watch the show but want to know the game
Basically the show is based on games where people die if they lose. In this game an unknown number of players out of ~100 are infected as a “zombie” in a card game. Zombies can win any card round by playing their zombie card (infinite use) , and that zombie card will infect the other player (giving them an infinite use zombie card). At the same time, every human also has a single use shotgun card which will quite literally blow the head off of a zombie player. There is also an unknown number of vaccine cards which can be used to cure 1 zombie (destroying their zombie card and making them human). The game is played over 20 rounds where each round you touch another player to challenge them for that round. At the end of the 20 rounds whichever side (humans vs zombies) has the most people wins. The losing side all die. So in this this case, under threat of death, telling someone you’re a zombie or infecting another player to be a zombie can potentially get you killed.