Abstract
“Pedophile” and “ephebophile” are categorical labels for individuals who have in common a preferential sexual attraction to the attributes of children and adolescents, respectively. Given the multiplicity of human attributes, why are some individuals, who are attracted to certain human attributes, encumbered by labels such as “homosexual” or “pedophile” while other individuals, who are attracted to other human attributes, such as stature, skin complexion, or body shape, go unlabeled and therefore uncategorized? If all categories are arbitrary, why are some individuals, like “homosexuals” and “pedophiles,” labeled and others not?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feierman, J.R. (1990). Human Erotic Age Orientation: A Conclusion. In: Feierman, J.R. (eds) Pedophilia. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9682-6_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9682-6_23
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-9684-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-9682-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive