Notes on life, art, photography and technology, by a Danish dropout bohemian.
When you drink the water, remember the river.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Ephebophilia
Interesting article calling for reason in the current storm of hysteria regarding age.
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Jeroen, I agree. 17-18 year olds are like a blueprint for a woman, not the real thing. Yet. Pretty, yes, but as you say, blank and therefore not very interesting.
I agree. But notice two thing: 1: It's an average, not a law. 2: It's only talking about physical attraction, not who you'd want to live with.
I lived in Denmark for 40 years, where it is legal to bed a 15-year-old, but I never did. They can be astoundingly pretty, but they are not that interesting.
But the point is that to make that attraction illegal, by for instance make pictures illegal, is insanity which only causes more neuroses because you can't suppress attraction.
I haven't read any others, but I could imagine so, for this one got a little weird a couple of places, like the "perfect wife" bit and claiming that any sex at all between a child and an adult is *always* damaging, which statistically is just not true.
"I'm often physically attracted to younger girls. The fact that they're immature -- which they obviously would be, at age 15/16/17 -- seems to me like the perfect prevention."
I'd normally have a lot more to say (had I read the article already), but I think our friend Bram here has just summed a whole lot in very few words. This mirrors my beliefs to an extraordinary extent.
Come to think of it, I've already expressed most of what I had to say about children / teens and sexuality / attraction. We just need Eolake to give us back the link to this slightly ancient thread. (Hint, hint!) ;-)
One of my 'soapbox sunjects' for many years in newsgroups until the intelligent departed and left them to the closed minds who instantly issue death threats to anyone admitting they LIKE young girls.
Notice LIKE..not lust after!
As I said one time..I read a lot..therefore I am considered to bean intellectual.
I grow things, therefore I am considered to be a gardener.
I fix many things, therefore I am considered to be self sufficient.
And because of my dress and manners in a social setting, I am considered to be a Gentleman.
BUT..the instant I say I LIKE young women..consideration goes out the window, and I am BRANDED a pervert or even worse..a pedophile!..WHY?
Simply because I am honest about natural feelings?
"death threats to anyone admitting they LIKE young girls" I litterally and officially LOVE a 2 year old boy. No lust, just love. And I'm loved back, too. Should I be executed for being buddies with my brother's son?
Okay, I'm being sarcastic here. But if you've seen the awesome film "The Man Without a Face", you'll know what I mean. Even pure innocent love is looked upon with suspicion these days. And I'm sure ain't nothing better than the complete anarchy of a hysterical witch hunt to give tranquil opportunities to the REAL abusers. Nothing (practically) saddens me more than a good cause being badly defended.
"I am considered to be an intellectual." Funny thing. In Med School, one of my most admired teachers had nicknamed me "Philosopher". My brothers prefer to call me "Brainy Smurf". ;-)
This whole situation frustrates me. It frustrates me because I can't figure out how to "beat" my own desire for experiences I can't get.
It isn't, exactly, that I find myself biologically attracted to women in any manner that my society would disapprove of. It isn't, exactly, that I find myself biologically attracted to "younger" or "younger looking" women, even. In fact, it isn't even that I find myself ATTRACTED to ANYTHING that the group-think out there approves or disapproves of. The OBJECT of my desire isn't what society dislikes.
For me, it's simply, that group-think disapproves of me being attracted at all. The discussion, I think, at least in society at large (if not in this particular thread) should be one of why we criminalize male desire. I often feel that "all my life" I've been considered evil merely for being a NORMAL ADULT HUMAN MALE HETEROSEXUAL. (Thank goodness I'm not homosexual! Golly would that be difficult ... different issue ...)
I guess this isn't news. But I thought I'd suggest the novel idea, that this supposed "ephebophilia" issue isn't really one of people getting involved with 17-year-old girls. It's really instead, an issue of MALES getting involved with ... well ... anyone.
On a less frame-bending slant, I do agree with Jeroen Stout who said he felt "generalised" by the article. I too find "ephebos" less than interesting. I even prefer the bodies of women slightly older than that (as long as the women have maintained an ideal body weight; which is probably another part of the conundrum, we Westerners stuck with women who RUIN by means of obesity their ability to attract males MUCH TOO EARLY in their maturities).
Mostly, I prefer a body of a 24-year-old who has danced all her life and never eaten a Big Mac, and a mind of a 64-year-old who has read a lot of philosophy. Does this make me an "ephebophile" or simply someone who thinks that MOST 24-year-olds in the developed west have managed to make themselves look forty by getting bloated?
Look, it's biological. It won't go away. I'm tired of "society" telling me I need to "improve" on my internal workings. I'm working quite well as it goes, thank you very much. To get the workings to go about in a happy manner that makes me feel fulfilled, in this current climate, I am relegated to loneliness or smarmy experiences such as strip clubs and internet porn. Which simply isn't enough ...
If anyone has a solution to this issue, I'd be delighted to hear it. I want to know, less, about the article and "ephebophilia," and more about how to "beat" the current system so I can be happy instead. Your suggestions welcome ...
"How is male desire criminalized?" Well, in my experience growing up in the USA (I'm now 40, you do the math), the process by which I "learned" what was OK or not OK to "want" was very politically correct.
Women at my college were encouraged to "explore their sexuality" and female masturbation was considered an "empowering" experience by which they "got in touch with" their inner sevles. Males, on the other hand, were told that sexuality was "inappropriate" unless it took place in a committed long-term relationship, that desiring a woman without knowing her character was "shallow," and that interest in male masturbation made the "perpetrator" a "loser who couldn't get a date."
I was accused tried and convicted in absentia of date rape. My name was written up on a medical department bulletin board as an "evil" man, because for some reason a woman WHOM I HAD NEVER MET felt I had spurned her advances, so in order to get back at me she ruined my opportunity to date ANY other female who might see my name or acquiesce to the medical department's suggestions. The implication was, that a female accusation of any male's wrongdoing sexually would be inherently accurate (regardless of reality, facts, or truth) and that, therefore, any male could be made into a criminal merely by virtue of his gender and the "known" sexual predatoriness of males.
Et cetera. Did you want to hear more? I have anecdotes about the manner in which we treat men's desire to have sex as somehow shallow, or ciminal, or evil, or only to be used when in a context of the things that define a relationship according to (not what men or mutual consent might suggest) what heterosexual women, alone, want. And so forth.
I thought it was a given, that in the Puritanical west, the idea is that men need to be "controlled" by their very nature. I find this inherent assumption, that I am "born evil" especially in matters sexual, to be very damaging to my sexual self-esteem.
There are of course counter-examples, too. We post nearly nude young women on billboards in ads for products all over the place. Sex sells. Women who have early or extra-relationship sex are considered "sluts" while men engaging in the same acts are considered "studs." Basically, we criminalize ANY activity we can think up that's sexual, but also laud it.
"For me, it's simply, that group-think disapproves of me being attracted at all." Well, that's Puritans for you and me. "Pleasure is evil, desire is bad, attraction is wrong." :-( The God who put them in us must've been a real sicko pervert, if you believe such theories! I'm beginning to understand atheists. Non-belief brings you considerable moral freedom, binding you only to Law and your conscience. Very anti-neurotic.
"I'd suggest the novel idea, that this supposed "ephebophilia" issue isn't really one of people getting involved with 17-year-old girls. It's really instead, an issue of MALES getting involved with ... well ... anyone." Well, of course, for obvious reasons, when an older WOMAN does something with a boy below 18, it's much less unlikely for it to be forced rape. In theory...
"I was accused tried and convicted in absentia of date rape." Overzealous Justice. You heard of the Outreaux Affair in France? Four actual criminals, but 13 innocents condemned too, jailed, and socially destroyed. The judge is still completely unapologetic. Also, one school teacher (still in France) was accused by a student, and hysteria ensued. He committed suicide. Later on, the teen confessed he had made a false accusation to get even at his teacher for some silly conflict. I'm all for giving firm justice. But presumption of innocence is based on a very essential -and often forgotten- principle : when in doubt, it's better to let a guilty person go unpunished than to wrong an innocent. We doctors call it "primum non nocere": first of all to cause no harm. "Reasonable presumption" fells very unreasonable in its principle, and has been proved wrong many, many times.
I must agree with you, FI : while a lot of progress still has to be made regarding the sad primitiveness of many "typical" males, you can never correct one extreme with another, and condemn a whole gender / species / religion for the much hyped faults of some of them. Today's "politically correct" U.S. society tends to bury its secret guilt for centuries of misogyny under the convenient alibi of all-out anti-male racism. And, once again, in the anarchy ensuing, the real wrong-doers are getting lost in the crowd! Why doesn't Israel send a nuke on Germany for the Holocaust, too? Perhaps because they aren't THIS blindly dumb. Alas, the typical Puritan embraces the attitude that by criticizing every possible fault, he/she will become a perfect saint. :-(
"We post nearly nude young women on billboards in ads for products all over the place. Sex sells." Offer and demand. Put a fierce control on a natural product, or need, or instinct, and automatically there's money to be made from the artificial monopole. If innocent nudity was common and un-special, advertizers (and all the big money-makers behind them) would be very upset. You draw the conclusions...
In Iran, women are supposed to wear the veil. But the law there permits the "convenience marriage" (zawaj al'mutaah). Basically, a limited-time wedding contract, lasting from one hour to over a month. Does anybody really believe this is more than an excuse for state-controlled prostitution? (I'd better stop, I smell a death Fatwa approaching. It's Quran-based, after all.) In theory, if a child is born from it, the man automatically adopts it as his own, and a "safety period" is mandatory for the woman. Guess how things go in REALITY... Originally, I think it was meant so the traveling men could... "fulfill some understandable basic needs", in a "morally-permitted" way. No comment.
Women who have early or extra-relationship sex are considered "sluts" while men engaging in the same acts are considered "studs." Hey, Final Identity, you never told me you lived in Lebanon! :-/
I think today's USA are promoting "Afraidophilia".
11 comments:
Jeroen, I agree. 17-18 year olds are like a blueprint for a woman, not the real thing. Yet. Pretty, yes, but as you say, blank and therefore not very interesting.
I agree.
But notice two thing:
1: It's an average, not a law.
2: It's only talking about physical attraction, not who you'd want to live with.
I lived in Denmark for 40 years, where it is legal to bed a 15-year-old, but I never did. They can be astoundingly pretty, but they are not that interesting.
But the point is that to make that attraction illegal, by for instance make pictures illegal, is insanity which only causes more neuroses because you can't suppress attraction.
I haven't read any others, but I could imagine so, for this one got a little weird a couple of places, like the "perfect wife" bit and claiming that any sex at all between a child and an adult is *always* damaging, which statistically is just not true.
"I'm often physically attracted to younger girls. The fact that they're immature -- which they obviously would be, at age 15/16/17 -- seems to me like the perfect prevention."
I'd normally have a lot more to say (had I read the article already), but I think our friend Bram here has just summed a whole lot in very few words. This mirrors my beliefs to an extraordinary extent.
Come to think of it, I've already expressed most of what I had to say about children / teens and sexuality / attraction. We just need Eolake to give us back the link to this slightly ancient thread. (Hint, hint!) ;-)
Okay, so I'm in a lazy day, sue me!
One of my 'soapbox sunjects' for many years in newsgroups until the intelligent departed and left them to the closed minds who instantly issue death threats to anyone admitting they LIKE young girls.
Notice LIKE..not lust after!
As I said one time..I read a lot..therefore I am considered to bean intellectual.
I grow things, therefore I am considered to be a gardener.
I fix many things, therefore I am considered to be self sufficient.
And because of my dress and manners in a social setting, I am considered to be a Gentleman.
BUT..the instant I say I LIKE young women..consideration goes out the window, and I am BRANDED a pervert or even worse..a pedophile!..WHY?
Simply because I am honest about natural feelings?
"death threats to anyone admitting they LIKE young girls"
I litterally and officially LOVE a 2 year old boy. No lust, just love. And I'm loved back, too. Should I be executed for being buddies with my brother's son?
Okay, I'm being sarcastic here. But if you've seen the awesome film "The Man Without a Face", you'll know what I mean. Even pure innocent love is looked upon with suspicion these days. And I'm sure ain't nothing better than the complete anarchy of a hysterical witch hunt to give tranquil opportunities to the REAL abusers.
Nothing (practically) saddens me more than a good cause being badly defended.
"I am considered to be an intellectual."
Funny thing. In Med School, one of my most admired teachers had nicknamed me "Philosopher".
My brothers prefer to call me "Brainy Smurf". ;-)
This whole situation frustrates me. It frustrates me because I can't figure out how to "beat" my own desire for experiences I can't get.
It isn't, exactly, that I find myself biologically attracted to women in any manner that my society would disapprove of. It isn't, exactly, that I find myself biologically attracted to "younger" or "younger looking" women, even. In fact, it isn't even that I find myself ATTRACTED to ANYTHING that the group-think out there approves or disapproves of. The OBJECT of my desire isn't what society dislikes.
For me, it's simply, that group-think disapproves of me being attracted at all. The discussion, I think, at least in society at large (if not in this particular thread) should be one of why we criminalize male desire. I often feel that "all my life" I've been considered evil merely for being a NORMAL ADULT HUMAN MALE HETEROSEXUAL. (Thank goodness I'm not homosexual! Golly would that be difficult ... different issue ...)
I guess this isn't news. But I thought I'd suggest the novel idea, that this supposed "ephebophilia" issue isn't really one of people getting involved with 17-year-old girls. It's really instead, an issue of MALES getting involved with ... well ... anyone.
On a less frame-bending slant, I do agree with Jeroen Stout who said he felt "generalised" by the article. I too find "ephebos" less than interesting. I even prefer the bodies of women slightly older than that (as long as the women have maintained an ideal body weight; which is probably another part of the conundrum, we Westerners stuck with women who RUIN by means of obesity their ability to attract males MUCH TOO EARLY in their maturities).
Mostly, I prefer a body of a 24-year-old who has danced all her life and never eaten a Big Mac, and a mind of a 64-year-old who has read a lot of philosophy. Does this make me an "ephebophile" or simply someone who thinks that MOST 24-year-olds in the developed west have managed to make themselves look forty by getting bloated?
Look, it's biological. It won't go away. I'm tired of "society" telling me I need to "improve" on my internal workings. I'm working quite well as it goes, thank you very much. To get the workings to go about in a happy manner that makes me feel fulfilled, in this current climate, I am relegated to loneliness or smarmy experiences such as strip clubs and internet porn. Which simply isn't enough ...
If anyone has a solution to this issue, I'd be delighted to hear it. I want to know, less, about the article and "ephebophilia," and more about how to "beat" the current system so I can be happy instead. Your suggestions welcome ...
How is male desire criminalized?
"How is male desire criminalized?" Well, in my experience growing up in the USA (I'm now 40, you do the math), the process by which I "learned" what was OK or not OK to "want" was very politically correct.
Women at my college were encouraged to "explore their sexuality" and female masturbation was considered an "empowering" experience by which they "got in touch with" their inner sevles. Males, on the other hand, were told that sexuality was "inappropriate" unless it took place in a committed long-term relationship, that desiring a woman without knowing her character was "shallow," and that interest in male masturbation made the "perpetrator" a "loser who couldn't get a date."
I was accused tried and convicted in absentia of date rape. My name was written up on a medical department bulletin board as an "evil" man, because for some reason a woman WHOM I HAD NEVER MET felt I had spurned her advances, so in order to get back at me she ruined my opportunity to date ANY other female who might see my name or acquiesce to the medical department's suggestions. The implication was, that a female accusation of any male's wrongdoing sexually would be inherently accurate (regardless of reality, facts, or truth) and that, therefore, any male could be made into a criminal merely by virtue of his gender and the "known" sexual predatoriness of males.
Et cetera. Did you want to hear more? I have anecdotes about the manner in which we treat men's desire to have sex as somehow shallow, or ciminal, or evil, or only to be used when in a context of the things that define a relationship according to (not what men or mutual consent might suggest) what heterosexual women, alone, want. And so forth.
I thought it was a given, that in the Puritanical west, the idea is that men need to be "controlled" by their very nature. I find this inherent assumption, that I am "born evil" especially in matters sexual, to be very damaging to my sexual self-esteem.
There are of course counter-examples, too. We post nearly nude young women on billboards in ads for products all over the place. Sex sells. Women who have early or extra-relationship sex are considered "sluts" while men engaging in the same acts are considered "studs." Basically, we criminalize ANY activity we can think up that's sexual, but also laud it.
"For me, it's simply, that group-think disapproves of me being attracted at all."
Well, that's Puritans for you and me. "Pleasure is evil, desire is bad, attraction is wrong." :-(
The God who put them in us must've been a real sicko pervert, if you believe such theories!
I'm beginning to understand atheists. Non-belief brings you considerable moral freedom, binding you only to Law and your conscience. Very anti-neurotic.
"I'd suggest the novel idea, that this supposed "ephebophilia" issue isn't really one of people getting involved with 17-year-old girls. It's really instead, an issue of MALES getting involved with ... well ... anyone."
Well, of course, for obvious reasons, when an older WOMAN does something with a boy below 18, it's much less unlikely for it to be forced rape. In theory...
"I was accused tried and convicted in absentia of date rape."
Overzealous Justice. You heard of the Outreaux Affair in France? Four actual criminals, but 13 innocents condemned too, jailed, and socially destroyed. The judge is still completely unapologetic.
Also, one school teacher (still in France) was accused by a student, and hysteria ensued. He committed suicide. Later on, the teen confessed he had made a false accusation to get even at his teacher for some silly conflict.
I'm all for giving firm justice. But presumption of innocence is based on a very essential -and often forgotten- principle : when in doubt, it's better to let a guilty person go unpunished than to wrong an innocent. We doctors call it "primum non nocere": first of all to cause no harm. "Reasonable presumption" fells very unreasonable in its principle, and has been proved wrong many, many times.
I must agree with you, FI : while a lot of progress still has to be made regarding the sad primitiveness of many "typical" males, you can never correct one extreme with another, and condemn a whole gender / species / religion for the much hyped faults of some of them.
Today's "politically correct" U.S. society tends to bury its secret guilt for centuries of misogyny under the convenient alibi of all-out anti-male racism. And, once again, in the anarchy ensuing, the real wrong-doers are getting lost in the crowd! Why doesn't Israel send a nuke on Germany for the Holocaust, too? Perhaps because they aren't THIS blindly dumb.
Alas, the typical Puritan embraces the attitude that by criticizing every possible fault, he/she will become a perfect saint. :-(
"We post nearly nude young women on billboards in ads for products all over the place. Sex sells."
Offer and demand. Put a fierce control on a natural product, or need, or instinct, and automatically there's money to be made from the artificial monopole.
If innocent nudity was common and un-special, advertizers (and all the big money-makers behind them) would be very upset. You draw the conclusions...
In Iran, women are supposed to wear the veil. But the law there permits the "convenience marriage" (zawaj al'mutaah). Basically, a limited-time wedding contract, lasting from one hour to over a month. Does anybody really believe this is more than an excuse for state-controlled prostitution? (I'd better stop, I smell a death Fatwa approaching. It's Quran-based, after all.)
In theory, if a child is born from it, the man automatically adopts it as his own, and a "safety period" is mandatory for the woman. Guess how things go in REALITY...
Originally, I think it was meant so the traveling men could... "fulfill some understandable basic needs", in a "morally-permitted" way. No comment.
Women who have early or extra-relationship sex are considered "sluts" while men engaging in the same acts are considered "studs."
Hey, Final Identity, you never told me you lived in Lebanon! :-/
I think today's USA are promoting "Afraidophilia".
Post a Comment