Anyone who missed our introductory article in this series click here. The full series is found here.

What the heck is hebephilia? At times it can be difficult to keep over 500 paraphilias straight, since so many of them run together. Heaven forbid that we confuse any of this — the spelling and/or the age brackets.

A recent post at BarbWire included this line:

Pedophilia…also spelled paedophilia; often confused with hebephilia, ephebophilia, and pederasty.

The efforts to break down common sense moral barriers is being chronicled on this website, and in an article published at BarbWire, “Promoting Pedophilia,” contributor Bill Muehlenberg writes:

Andrew Gilligan has written an important piece looking very closely at the attempt to make paedophilia fully normal and acceptable. He begins:

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Was this statement from some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties era of abusive celebrities or the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Was it made by an anonymous commenter on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made last July. It was made as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organizers, to key experts at a conference held by the University of Cambridge. Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Muehlenberg also notes this:

Says Gilligan, “After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated.”

That sure sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Let’s get to our paraphilias for today — today we’re lopping a few together for the sake of time.

These definitions are from our old friends at Wikipedia*:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents who are 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence (generally ages 15-19), and differs from pedophilia,which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (with the prepubescent age range extending to 13 for diagnostic criteria).

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. Some authors define ephebophilia as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys.

Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) “love of boys”, a compound derived from παῖς (pais) “child, boy” and ἐραστής (erastēs) “lover”.

It’s who they are, right? It’s about love, isn’t it?

That’s enough for today. As promised, click here to read through our important list of questions. Just fill in the blanks with today’s paraphilias and put on your thinking cap.

In the meantime, join us next when we’ll take a look at another paraphilia. If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

* Author’s note: The above definitions are now 3 years old — if you’d like to compare the 2013 versions with the 2017, I encourage you to do so. Wikipedia, with its Leftist bent, is always trying to refine and lessen the ridiculousness of all of the paraphilia’s definitions.

Up next: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Sports & Exhibitionism

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Charlottesville: A Return to the Topic of Identity Politics

---

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Google’s recent “doodle” announces to the world that Google is gaga over homosexuality-affirming propaganda for minors. Google’s doodle pokes a virtual rainbow-colored flag in the eye of Russian president Vladimir Putin for signing into law a bill that protects minors from homosexuality-affirming propaganda. A financial blockbuster of a company with roots in the country founded to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” pro-actively endorses the propagandizing of children while a corrupt totalitarian cockalorum opposes it. Curiouser and curiouser.

The fanciful notion that having “two mommies” is ontologically and morally indistinguishable from having a mother and a father is not a fact. Presenting that non-fact to, for example, five-year-olds in government schools is propaganda. And presenting this non-fact to children is not a loving act even if it “feels” good to “educators” who don’t think about or discuss the issue deeply.

The motive of the imperious Putin for signing into law Russia’s anti-propagandizing-to-minors bill may be to exploit moral beliefs he actually disdains in order to divide various and sundry constituencies around the world for his pernicious purposes, but a law that prohibits propagandizing to minors is not in itself pernicious.

Two people or two groups of people may have very different motives for pursuing the same goal. The fact that one person or group is motivated by hate and/or error doesn’t render the goal inherently evil or wrong. Some politicians may oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriage” because of their sincere (and true) belief that marriage has a nature fundamental to which is sexual complementarity. Other politicians may be motivated to oppose same-sex “marriage” by self-serving political ambition. The selfish motives of the politician who cares only about getting elected have no bearing on the soundness of the goal of opposing same-sex “marriage.” Only chuckleheads and Machiavellian political tacticians confuse motives and goals.

A defense of a law that seeks to prevent the exposure of minors to homosexuality-affirming dogma is not a defense of Putin, the cagey and cunning political animal.

Physical assaults on homosexuals, like physical assaults on any human being, are reprehensible and should be punished in accordance with laws prohibiting assault. But there is no evidence—to my knowledge, at least—that the legal prohibition of propagandizing to minors causes violence.

And here in the United States, there is no evidence to substantiate the related “progressive” claim that orthodox Christian doctrine and those who love Christ cause violence. The fact that hateful people may quote and misapply Scripture in defense of violent physical assaults or ugly verbal assaults on homosexuals no more means they’re Christians than the fact that someone quotes and misapplies Scripture in defense of same-sex “marriage” means they’re Christians. Humans have for hundreds of years abused Scripture for their own sinful ends.

Exposing minors to homosexuality-affirming propaganda is nowhere more troubling than in our public schools where neither children nor teachers are encouraged to study in depth all sides of issues related to homosexuality. Quite the contrary. Curricula and supplementary resources and activities are controlled by “progressive” dogma, the kind of dogma promulgated by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (Privately, “progressive” teachers actually scoff at the suggestion that there are sides other than theirs worthy of study.)

The propaganda begins in professional development opportunities for teachers in which teachers are never exposed to resources that dissent from the ideology of the “LGBTQ” community. GLSEN assumptions are treated as settled fact:

• There are no discussions of whether or in what ways homosexuality per se is analogous to race.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether government employees (i.e., teachers) have the ethical right to introduce homosexuality in early elementary school when many children have never heard of homosexuality, their parents object to both the age-inappropriateness and bias of the presentations, and when they’re too young to understand the nature of objections to homosexual acts.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether it is the right of educators to promote approval of homosexuality, which necessarily entails prior ontological and moral conclusions—conclusions that are shaped by subjects teachers were not hired to teach and for which they have no training.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether homosexual acts are objectively moral, and if not, what right do government employees have to promote the approval of immoral or possibly immoral acts.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether it’s the proper role of government employees to expose minors to every sexual phenomenon that can be found in the human community. For example, would it be proper for elementary school teachers to promote approval of polyamory since it exists and is on the rise? If not, why not?
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether disapproval of homosexual acts actually constitutes hatred of persons or causes violent acts.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether disapproval of racism, promiscuity, over-eating, plagiarism, and drug use constitutes hatred of racists, promiscuous students, obese students, plagiarists, and “druggies,” or of whether such disapproval may lead to physical or verbal assaults against them.
  
  
• There are no discussions of resources written by conservative scholars that affirm the idea that marriage is at its immutable core sexually complementary, even as teachers expose students to pro-same-sex “marriage” resources.
  
  
• There are no discussions of how schools define “safety” (i.e., as “emotional comfort”) and whether safety has any inherent connection to objective reality. 

Ask any conservative public school teachers if their colleagues or administrators ever present resources that challenge “progressive” ideas about homosexuality in professional development meetings. And ask them if they feel as free to express their moral and political beliefs in faculty meetings (or in the classroom) as their “progressive” colleagues do.

“Agents of change,” secure in their tenured positions in public schools, share a certain esprit de corps with totalitarian regimes. They all hatch plans sub rosa to control the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, those victims—I mean, students—happen to be other people’s minor children.

Until our publicly subsidized educators relinquish their white-knuckled grip on curricula with their de facto enforcement of censorship, perhaps we need an anti-propagandizing-to-minors law.

---

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.