From GMOGRADY48@msn.com Sun Mar 31 18:47:17 2002
Received: from mailscan5.cac.washington.edu (mailscan5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.14])
	by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with SMTP id g312lFDN166696
	for <classics@reallists.u.washington.edu>; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:47:15 -0800
Received: FROM mxu3.u.washington.edu BY mailscan5.cac.washington.edu ; Sun Mar 31 18:47:15 2002 -0800
Received: from cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com [207.46.181.77])
	by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with ESMTP id g312lEre029852
	for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:47:15 -0800
Received: from pavilion ([199.182.23.228]) by cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4617);
	 Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:45:54 -0800
Message-ID: <003b01c1d927$861416e0$e417b6c7@pavilion>
From: "GMOGRADY48" <GMOGRADY48@msn.com>
To: <classics@u.washington.edu>
References: <v04003a04b8cd5e9575bb@[207.207.116.56]>
Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever?
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:47:09 -0800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2002 02:45:55.0069 (UTC) FILETIME=[5840FAD0:01C1D927]

I'm afraid I've heard ephebophile in this very context a number of times
over past years.  I'm not sure what defense it is that one goes for fourteen
year olds rather than four year olds, and anyhow in the local (Northern
California cases) with which I have some familiarity the operative factors
have been access and a willingness to exercise a warped sense of power
rather than age or even gender.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lupher" <dlupher@ups.edu>
To: <classics@u.washington.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever?


> Michael Hendry wrote:
> >"*Word of the Week*  On *Meet the Press*, Father Donald Cozzens, author
of
> >The Changing Face of the Priesthood, clarified the categorization of
priests
> >accused of molesting young parishioners. Only one-third are pedophiles.
The
> >rest are *paedophiles*. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-adolescents;
> >*paedophiles* are attracted to adolescents."
> >
> >This has to be the most confusing nomenclature since "oral-aural
> >communication".  Some pundits have started using "ephebophile" for those
who
> >lust after adolescents, which is less confusing and has a good classical
> >pedigree.
>
> Is there any indication that Fr. Cozzens was deriving this daffy
> distinction from some other source, or is it his own deeply confused
> "contribution" to the language?
>
> By the way, if one wanted to create a fancy archaeoneologism for
> "foot-fetishist," would "podophile" serve?
>
> Further by the way, I have never heard "ephebophile" before.  Thanks
> (I guess).  And I rather like what I take to be its inevitable antonym,
> for someone who can't stand teenagers must be an "ephebophobe."  It has a
> nice ring to it, don't you think?  I plan to try it out on my household
> ephebes this evening.
>
> David Lupher
> Classics Dept.
> Univ. of Puget Sound
>
>
>


.