From GMOGRADY48@msn.com Sun Mar 31 19:05:31 2002 Received: from mailscan3.cac.washington.edu (mailscan3.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.15]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with SMTP id g3135UDN057176 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:30 -0800 Received: FROM mxu2.u.washington.edu BY mailscan3.cac.washington.edu ; Sun Mar 31 19:05:29 2002 -0800 Received: from cpimssmtpu10.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu10.email.msn.com [207.46.181.85]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with ESMTP id g3135TZB020089 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:29 -0800 Received: from pavilion ([199.182.23.228]) by cpimssmtpu10.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4617); Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:04:08 -0800 Message-ID: <002401c1d92a$12412e80$e417b6c7@pavilion> From: "GMOGRADY48" To: References: <003b01c1d927$861416e0$e417b6c7@pavilion> <00ac01c1d920$99142660$0e02140a@stv203f> Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever? Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:24 -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 03:04:09.0238 (UTC) FILETIME=[E46DEB60:01C1D929] Sorry, I was specifically referring to the abuse scandals in the Catholic church where issue is different because of the abuse of power and trust by the abuser and the unique vulnerability of the victims. (Having spent years teaching adolescents catechism and been involved in instructing potential converts in more recent years, I have a hightened awareness of the vulnerability and openness to abuse of the victims, which really is like nothing I ever encountered in "normal" college teaching.) So where is Normal Illinois? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janice Siegel" To: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever? > it's different in the same way that infanticide is different from murder (is > there a specific word for killing an adolescent?), but even more > specifically. The official charge and punishment on the books might be > similar, but the moral connotations are different. Of course, the > distinction between pedophile and ephebophile, or whatever, is one between > degrees of innocence of the victim - all are children, but I couldn't > suggest which crime is lesser. They are equally horrific, but for different > reasons because of the state of development of the child thus violated. > > Janice Siegel > Assistant Professor of Classics > Illinois State University > Department of Foreign Languages > Box 4300 > Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 > > office phone: 309-438-3583 > cell phone: 309-287-3189 > fax: 309-438-8038 > jfsiege@ilstu.edu > http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics > http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics2 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "GMOGRADY48" > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 9:47 PM > Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever? > > > > 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" > > To: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .