Anthropological Data Regarding the Adaptiveness of Hebephilia

Abstract

It is well established that the great majority of human males are mostattractedsexually topersons inaparticularagerange(Blanchard et al., 2012). According to the category of persons who are most attractive sexually to them, five such preferences are commonly distinguished in adult men: pedophilia (prepubertal children in Tanner Stage 1, generally age 10 or younger), hebephilia (early pubertal children in Tanner Stages 2 and 3, generally ages 11 through 14), ephebophilia (late pubertal adolescents in Tanner Stage 4, generally ages 15 and 16), teleiophilia (adults in Tanner Stage 5, between the ages of physical maturity and physical decline), and gerontophilia (the elderly). One of these preferences (teleiophilia) and possibly a second (ephebophilia) are generally considered normophilic. Two of them (gerontophilia and pedophilia) are generally considered paraphilic.Theremainingpreference(hebephilia)isclassifieddifferently in major diagnostic systems. This difference in the classificationofhebephiliamaynotbeimmediatelyapparent,because themajordiagnosticsystemsalsousediagnosticlabelsdifferently. Twomajormedicalorganizationspublishcorporatelyauthored diagnostic manuals that include definitions of pedophilia: the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), and the World Health Organization, which publishes the ICD (InternationalStatisticalClassificationofDiseasesandRelatedHealth Problems). Their definitions of pedophilia are somewhat different. The DSM-IV-TR definition is embedded in its diagnostic CriterionA:‘‘Overaperiodofat least6 months,recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)’’(American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 572). The ICD-10 definition of pedophilia is‘‘A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age’’ (World Health Organization, 1992, p. 171). It can therefore be seen that the main difference between the ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR definitions is the inclusion of hebephiliaunder theheadingofpedophilia.Thesecondauthorof this letter (R.B.), a member of the Paraphilias Subworkgroup of the WorkGrouponSexualandGender IdentityDisorders forDSM5, proposed a diagnostic entity for DSM-5 that resembles the ICD-10 model, but with a different name: Pedohebephilic Disorder. In the original proposal (Blanchard, 2010a), this disorder would have three subtypes: pedophilic, hebephilic, and pedohebephilic. In the current version of the proposal, which is still under consideration, the name has been changed to Pedophilic Disorder, in order to harmonize the label as well as the content with its ICD-10 counterpart, and the subtypes have been changed to classic, hebephilic, and pedohebephilic. Franklin (2009) objected to the proposal to roll hebephilia into the diagnosis of Pedophilic Disorder in DSM-5 on the grounds that ‘‘such attractions are evolutionarily adaptive’’ (p. 319).Shedidnotexplainthisargumentanyfurther.Presumably, she meant something along the following lines: In the environmentofevolutionaryadaptedness,menwithasexualpreference for early pubescent females had greater reproductive success, eitherbecause theyacquiredfemalematesnear theonsetof their fecundity and thus prevented them from being impregnated by other men, or because they had more years in which to impregnatetheirmatesthemselves,orboth.AccordingtoFranklin,since hebephilia is of evolutionary design, it cannot be a mental disorder. Franklin’s hypothesis was probably intended to explain hebephiliaonlyinheterosexualmen,sincepubescentboyscannot R. Hames (&) Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0368, USA e-mail: rhames2@unl.edu