[Oliver_W]

Something that irks me is when people seem to differentiate between ephebiphillia and "proper" paedophillia. A child is a child, even if they are a teenager...

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Something that irks me is when people seem to differentiate between ephebiphillia and "proper" paedophillia. A child is a child, even if they are a teenager...

Oh god, I know what you mean, it's sickening. There's no degrees to it, a child is a child and it's abuse. Underage is underage.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Something that irks me is when people seem to differentiate between ephebiphillia and "proper" paedophillia. A child is a child, even if they are a teenager...

There -is- a psychological difference though. The issue of consent is obviously no different and people who abuse teenagers are no less morally abhorrent than those who abuse children, it's not so much a difference in moral severity, but there is a difference in motivation. Past the point of puberty is "biological adulthood" - so (for example) animals would consider that the point of distinction, and also humans pre-civilisation would have been sexually active in the early teens. As a (supposedly) civilized species we understand that a child is NOT an adult at that simple biological marker, up until the age of consent.

In psychological terms it's an important distinction though, because animals and cave-people would instinctually not be sexually interested in pre-pubescent children before the age of sexual maturity, with morals taken completely out of the equation. In fact, it's that distinction that makes paedophilia quite clearly "abnormal psychology".

It's easiest to illustrate if you go to the close-in-age teens range. A 19 year old who is attracted to a 15 year old is clearly not psychologically "a paedophile". However he has a MORAL imperative to leave said 15 year old the **** alone.