This is a restored post from my WordPress. Originally posted on November 30, 2021. I still agree with everything I said here.
If you spent at least some time in the map community, you probably saw this image at least once.
Sometimes it is used as an argument that being a hebephile is actually “normal”, sometimes it is used against teleio standards of beauty. Many people intuitively understand that something is wrong here, but lack information to argue about it, because the study is not easily available. I managed to access it, though, and you can access it too by following this link:
This study consisted of sessions with 80 male volunteers who reported being attracted to adult women. 16 of them (20%) also reported being attracted to children. During these sessions they were presented images of nude prepubescent girls, clothed prepubescent girls, and nude adult women. They were also given audio tapes where an adult man narrated stories about willing sex with a woman, willing sex with a little girl, rape of a little girl, nonsexual violence against a little girl. Before listening, the men were told that the girl in the narration is below the age of 12. During viewing the images and listening to the stories, the men had their level of arousal measured. Contrast (nonsexual and nonviolent) images and tapes were also given, for comparison.
These are the results the study brought – the graph basically measures the average degree of arousal to each stimuli.
“The most arousing slide for 72 subjects was one of the adult female slides and for 8 subjects was one of the female child slides.
<…>
The current results suggest that sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli occurs among a sizable minority of normal men who report no pedophilic behavior and is not necessarily associated with pedophilic behavior. Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20% of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25% exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.
<…>
Physiological sexual arousal in response to adult heterosexual stimuli was highly positively correlated with sexual arousal to pedophilic and contrast stimuli. As in previous studies, correlations of penile responses between stimulus categories often exceeded within-stimulus category correlations (Hall, 1989; Hall et al., 1988). Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal.”
Most men were at least somewhat aroused by all material given (including nonsexual), but only around 26% showed a preference for children, which is close to the 20% that stated having attractions towards children. The researchers think that presence of arousal is also heavily correlated with how likely the person is to get aroused in general, not necessarily only attractions.
So, not only there isn’t anything about attractiveness of girls aged 12-18, most participants still turned out to strongly prefer older women. Which is in line with how Dr Seto attempts to present the distribution of age attractions in his work “The puzzle of male chronophilias”.
I do not know who made the graph I started this article with, but it is not related to the study it attempts to cite anyhow. Teleiophilia and ephebophilia, not hebephilia, are the most widespread chronophilias.
2023 commentary: now I know that this picture falls in line with a general desire of mostly (but not exclusively) cisgender heterosexual male hebephiles to present themselves as actually normal and to accuse adult-attracted men of being in denial. This point of view also has a heavy overlap with hate towards feminism and a belief that politically active adult women are corrupted and unfit for relationships.
Leave a Reply