Am I a Hebephile/Ephebophile?!

Hello. I'm hoping to get some answers to my problem & hopefully some advice. I apologize ahead of time for making this so long. >.<

I'm an 18 year old female. I'm mostly attracted to younger guys & sometimes guys my age and older (but rarely).

I'll give you guys a bit of background info first:
As I hit puberty, I was only attracted towards older guys. Back then, the guys I used to like really weren't good enough for me (e.g. lying, manipulative, hurtful, etc.). I'm not sure if this might have affected my "type" of guy. Right now, I'm attracted to intelligent & calm dudes, unlike back then...

From the time I began high school, I lost my interest in older guys. Slowly, my attention turned towards younger guys. Since freshman year, I've always had classes with students younger than me, therefore I became used to them. I'm not sure if this might have affected my level of maturity. I still have friends my age, though, especially close friends. So, I know I'm not a loner, although I am introverted.

Anyways, as time went by, I realized that most of my crushes have been younger than me, except for a few who were my age. It started out as crushing on a guy 1 month younger than me when I was a freshman...

Now, as an 18 year old, I still find 14-19 year olds physically attractive. This disturbs me, as I know I shouldn't feel attracted towards someone 4 years younger than me, much less have sexual fantasies about one. To that extent, it sickens me - so I make myself feel sick.

I've come to realize that I'm attracted to younger guys on a physical, romantic, emotional & (rarely) sexual level. In contrast, my attraction towards older guys has become only a physical attraction now, which means that I can't see myself having an older boyfriend anymore.

I'd like to normalize my attractions towards guys, if that's possible. I would like to date someone my own age, but then again I wouldn't mind dating a younger guy. By "dating", I mean actual dates; not hook-ups or one night stands.

I find it disturbing that as I age (over the past 4 years), the age gap increases w/time; instead of decreasing and becoming attracted to guys my own age.

So, anyone have any suggestions or helpful advice/insight into this? Or ask any questions and/or add comments, & I'll reply. I'd really appreciate it.

***I would NEVER harm anyone, regardless of age, in a physical, mental, or sexual form of abuse. I find that sickening when someone abuses someone else for their own urges.***

Ibisco wrote:Now, as an 18 year old, I still find 14-19 year olds physically attractive. This disturbs me, as I know I shouldn't feel attracted towards someone 4 years younger than me, much less have sexual fantasies about one. To that extent, it sickens me - so I make myself feel sick.

Hello, I don't know how well I can help you but I just want to say that I honestly cannot find anything wrong in you. I think you are sexually as normal and healthy as a person can ever be. This is just my comment and my opinion but I bet that most people here think in the same way too.

(I myself am a male pedo (I'm 26) and I'm primarily attracted to 9-13 boys. I know my deviant desires are sick. But I'm going to learn to live with my deviant desires without doing anything bad or illegal.)

hi hun your , what you describe taking your age into consideration would put you into the socially normal excepted category , as you get older your desires will change over time . Most young men your age go out with younger girls and that's seen as the norm so why shouldn't a female be aloud to do the same

I can't help but think there is something else going on for you. When you say you "make yourself sick", what do you actually mean?

Ibisco wrote:Hello. I'm hoping to get some answers to my problem & hopefully some advice. I apologize ahead of time for making this so long. >.<

I'm an 18 year old female. I'm mostly attracted to younger guys & sometimes guys my age and older (but rarely).

I'll give you guys a bit of background info first:
As I hit puberty, I was only attracted towards older guys. Back then, the guys I used to like really weren't good enough for me (e.g. lying, manipulative, hurtful, etc.). I'm not sure if this might have affected my "type" of guy. Right now, I'm attracted to intelligent & calm dudes, unlike back then...

Then that proves you're not a paedophile?

Paedophile in psychology means attraction to pre-adolescents. If you're attracted by pubescent traits, it proves you're a normal sexually healthy heterosexual female.

And those younger guys are in your own age group so go for it, no one sane will mind and they'll be grateful.

From the time I began high school, I lost my interest in older guys. Slowly, my attention turned towards younger guys. Since freshman year, I've always had classes with students younger than me, therefore I became used to them. I'm not sure if this might have affected my level of maturity. I still have friends my age, though, especially close friends. So, I know I'm not a loner, although I am introverted.

You're introverted, you're attracted to intelligent and calm males, you feel attracted to people you know from school who are on your same wavelength (what does 'maturity' mean anyway? anyone know?)... what is wrong with this again? Its normal.

Anyways, as time went by, I realized that most of my crushes have been younger than me, except for a few who were my age. It started out as crushing on a guy 1 month younger than me when I was a freshman...

Lol!

Now, as an 18 year old, I still find 14-19 year olds physically attractive. This disturbs me, as I know I shouldn't feel attracted towards someone 4 years younger than me, much less have sexual fantasies about one. To that extent, it sickens me - so I make myself feel sick.

Why on earth should you not, its normal. Don't you think all eighteen year olds would sleep with a fourteen year old, depends on how hot he is. In fact there's something very wrong if they wouldn't, why miss out?

IRL isn't the internet where everyone wants to sleep with people just cause they're under some stupid age of consent, or wants to kill anyone who does. Especially if you're under 25 but then you'll become a cheetah (when your boyfriend's parents come in, that's how fast you'll have to run quick then ).

I've come to realize that I'm attracted to younger guys on a physical, romantic, emotional & (rarely) sexual level. In contrast, my attraction towards older guys has become only a physical attraction now, which means that I can't see myself having an older boyfriend anymore.

Sounds just like what the Japanese might call a moe crush, feeling soft on someone without acting on it.

I'd like to normalize my attractions towards guys, if that's possible. I would like to date someone my own age, but then again I wouldn't mind dating a younger guy. By "dating", I mean actual dates; not hook-ups or one night stands.

You're normal, and your wanting to have a relationship before sex is healthy. Do you know what the most destructive sexual behaviour actually is? Female slags with urban Sex and the City lifestyles, and you're not one of 'em.

Back like 100 years ago when sluts were shamed, single motherhood and STIs were a stigma and abortion was regarded as the homicide that it really is, no one would even consider what your feeling might be a sexual disorder, and no one would care if you acted on it (just so long as his family agreed to support you and the kid if you got knocked up, ie the potential costs of having sayex are greater for females than they are for males, so all females should be careful who they sleep with in case they end up pumped and dumped, or left pregnant). And no one back then would feel guilty about having totally normal sex urges like yours lol.

Who really has sexual freedom nowadays, except the kinds of people who spread diseases like HIV?

Don't feel guilt or act servile because of leftist $#%^ about 'not taking sexual advantage', or listen when family values ###$ forget the ages of consent are actually lowest in the most traditional states.

I find it disturbing that as I age (over the past 4 years), the age gap increases w/time; instead of decreasing and becoming attracted to guys my own age.

So, anyone have any suggestions or helpful advice/insight into this? Or ask any questions and/or add comments, & I'll reply. I'd really appreciate it.

***I would NEVER harm anyone, regardless of age, in a physical, mental, or sexual form of abuse. I find that sickening when someone abuses someone else for their own urges.***

Nothing wrong with ya. But be careful not to get arrested y'all.

Maupertuis wrote:Don't feel guilt or act servile because of leftist $#%^ about 'not taking sexual advantage'

How's that 'leftist'?

GinaSmith wrote:

Maupertuis wrote:Don't feel guilt or act servile because of leftist $#%^ about 'not taking sexual advantage'

How's that 'leftist'?

Because it relates to the care/harm moral impulse and the desire to avoid harm (Haidt calls this the "Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic" or WEIRD morality). Traditional (historically conservative) ethics is based most strongly on the bodily sanctity impulse. Avoiding harm does not rate very highly for truly traditional conservatives.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'bodily sanctity impulse'. Do you mean conservative philosophies have focused on a principle of sexual inviolability, thereby holding chastity and virginity (particularly on the part of women) and choice (particularly on the part of men) to be virtues? If so, this might place more emphasis on avoiding being the subject of sexual violation than it does on avoiding being the perpetrator of sexual violation, but that doesn't isolate conservativism from principles of 'not taking sexual advantage', and if the latter is the case then 'not taking sexual advantage' is not the exclusive domain of left-oriented philosophies. But maybe I'm misconstruing what you mean by 'bodily sanctity impulse'.

I suspect the assertion that 'avoiding harm does not rate very highly for truly traditional conservatives' may be a misinterpretation of Haidt, who does not argue that the causing of 'harm' (an unsatisfactorily vague term) is an absent or low-priority basis for moral judgement in conservative standpoints but rather that it is not the only basis for moral judgement, given that in (particularly religious) conservatives such judgements may also be informed by deontological moral principles. Furthermore, this binary opposition of conservatism and liberalism in Haidt seems simplistic and reductionist. Incidentally, liberalism and 'leftism' are not synonymous.

Yea, I was referring to the moral foundations theory.

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Moral foundation 6 is associated with the political right in an American context, but in other social or philosophical contexts like Thelema or ancient Rome, might be associated with very different attitudes to sexual behaviours. Nonetheless, there will always be a strong distinction between 'good sex' and 'bad sex' where this moral impulse is strongest. (For example Romans did many things the 'religious right' might disapprove of, but strongly disapproved of oral sex, which many religious girls in American society might see as 'clean' and compatible with virginity, simply because its non-vaginal. Yet an American virgin who gives oral sex and religious Romans who attended religious orgies, whilst disapproving of mouth-on-penis sex, would both have a strong sanctity/degradation impulse.)

And you're making a straw man of Haidt. Besides Haidt works on political psychology within an American context where left really does mean liberal, people such as communists and anarchists are very fringe there.

Its a myth, or at least an oversimplification, that traditional Europe actually glorified choice for men whilst punishing only promiscuous females - do you think the situation in Romeo and Juliet was unheard of in medieval England? The corollary of a society embracing the 'double standard' by protecting (and slut shaming) its daughters is that If a man is hedonistically promiscuous, he risks death.

A Native American writer commented on game recently by pointing out that his tribe has the same double standard as the west; that's why the hedonistic kind of promiscuous men with no interest in standing by their pregnant mates and offspring were chased out or killed by a coalition of 'alpha' warriors and 'beta' providers.

Maupertuis wrote:Yea, I was referring to the moral foundations theory.

Seems interesting enough. Looking at the website, they do bandy around terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' as though they're fixed, readily definable concepts, and it is very USA-centric. I'll reserve judgement, as I would have to study their ideas in detail to form an opinion.

Maupertuis wrote:Moral foundation 6 is associated with the political right in an American context,

Your original statement was 'leftist $#%^ about "not taking sexual advantage"'. If moral foundation 6 is associated with the political right in America and centres on 'disgust and contamination', 'religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way', and (in particular) 'the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants', then surely 'not taking sexual advantage' is a principle very much related to moral foundation 6 and by extension to the political right in America?

Maupertuis wrote:And you're making a straw man of Haidt.

If Haidt does not maintain a binary opposition between conservatism and liberalism then this would indeed be a straw man.

Maupertuis wrote:Besides Haidt works on political psychology within an American context where left really does mean liberal, people such as communists and anarchists are very fringe there.

Indeed. That renders his focus very narrow, however, and prevents us from making any sweeping statements about what constitutes leftist or conservative principles outside of the American context. After all, such terms expand well beyond the boundaries of US territories.

Maupertuis wrote:Its a myth, or at least an oversimplification, that traditional Europe actually glorified choice for men whilst punishing only promiscuous females [...] men with no interest in standing by their pregnant mates and offspring were chased out or killed by a coalition of 'alpha' warriors and 'beta' providers.

This is genuinely very interesting, but it doesn’t show how ‘not taking sexual advantage’ is leftist; in fact, it suggests quite the opposite.