Discussion

	[Introduction]
	Findings
	Important ethical criteria
	A role for the parents or care-takers
	Consensual relationships and their interpretation
	Negative consequences of consensual relationships?
	Consensual and positive, but immoral nonetheless?

At the moment we've collected 133 cases of relationships and loose contacts. Obviously, the number is rather arbitrary and if we consider the contemporary taboos concerning the subject, it is clear that the real number of consensual and positive relationships and contacts must be a lot higher than what gets published.

Sometimes, critics claim all of these cases are unreliable, i.e. that at the most they represent the twisted attempt of a small subgroup of abuse victims to rationalize their inherently traumatic experiences.

However, this does not explain the fact that positive experiences are reported by persons who clearly seem happy with their adult lives and successful from both a societal and a creative perspective as well. I got in touch personally with some of these respondents and based on my own impressions, I really cannot believe they are simply fooling themselves.

An even nastier accusation reads that the cases are made up by 'lying pedophiles'. As convenient as this thesis may seem to opponents of the phenomenon of consensual relationships with minors, it certainly cannot be taken seriously in the large majority of the cases.

For one thing, if it were true, all these people, including well-known personalities such as Kirk Douglas, should really be 'pedophiles'. Also, I've met several of the subjects (digitally or in person) and I'm certain that they are sincere. The same goes for subjects who were approached by reliable researchers, rather than the other way around.

More generally, what I've never understood about the charge of fraud is that in my view, a real 'predator' would not be concerned with rational arguments for the emancipation of defensible relationships. What he (or she) is mainly interested in is getting sexual contact with minors and his strategy is covering up his intentions.

All the people who are nowadays coming out with regard to their 'uncommon' feelings for children or teenagers are not only very brave but they clearly show an intention to remain ethically sound.

Opponents may consider this psychiatrically disturbed or naive, but (consciously) making up fictitious retrospective stories of positive relationships of others simply does not seem to fit in the psychological profile of such persons. Rationalization of one's own feelings is one thing, but outright, conscious fraud is quite another.

What truly needs to be explained is why some critics feel the need to discount all positive stories out of hand, whereas they never manifest any similar inclination while evaluating reports of negative experiences. It strikes me as very arbitrary and unfair, and therefore also as irrational. In any other context the a priori rejection of cases would count as dogmatic and closed-minded.

I recognize the fact that some of these accounts are better documented than other stories, ranging from an anonymous remark on an Internet forum to stories based on extensive personal correspondence or conversations.

Findings

However, in my view, the main things that all of these cases taken together clearly seem to demonstrate are simply

that there really exist consensual and harmless erotic relationships between children and adults;

that many of them involve friendship, affection and personal love, the erotic side being just one among many aspects of a sincere, affectionate relationship (platonic friendships demonstrate that a physical erotic aspect may even be absent altogether);
other aspects being, for example: emotional intimacy and support, play, cultural activities, and intellectual stimulation;

that they can start even before the child is twelve years old (in about a third of the cases presented here the child was younger than twelve when the relationship started).
This is only surprising for scholars who actually think that tenderness, erotic feelings, falling in love, or amorous relationships are essentially absent before puberty. It is important to realize that puberty merely influences these phenomena rather than creating them. How else could we explain romances between two prepubescent children, or masturbation and sex play in primary school children and toddlers?

That some of these friendships persist after the minor has grown up, usually in a platonic form, but sometimes even as an erotic partnership between adults;

that the children involved can be both boys and girls - This confirms earlier findings such as those of Leahy. It is simply not true that positive relationships almost exclusively involve boys.

that society's negative views and interventions often lead to stress on the part of the younger partner; and

that a consensual and horizontal friendship between an adult and a minor, outside the context of family bonds, can remain wholly platonic.

This means that consensual 'pedophile' relationships should be judged on their own individual merits rather than on the basis of the sex or age of the child.

What these cases do not imply is that from now on any specific relationship should be unconditionally accepted by the child's caretakers. We know from these cases that many 'pedophile' or intergenerational relationships with minors are voluntary, consensual, and harmless, but we should not accept any individual relationship before we have checked whether it belongs in this category or really amounts to abuse.

This kind of differentiation is one of the cornerstones of the ethically responsible emancipation of voluntary and harmless 'pedophilia'.

Some readers may wonder why I do not use statistics to analyze how often the psychological effects of these experiences are negative, neutral or positive. The reason is easy to understand: I've limited myself exclusively to cases in which the respondents themselves report that any noteworthy form of (inherent, non-external) harm was entirely absent.

This collection does not intend to explore if some cases of alleged abuse are, as such, harmless, and if so, what percentage falls in this category, but if there are any cases of voluntary relationships without (inherent) negative repercussions.

In other words, it does not start from the overly undifferentiated, conventional concepts of 'sexual abuse' or 'pedophile encounters', but specifically from relationships and contacts that were consensual from the minor's perspective.

Therefore, questions such as: "Are boys and older children less likely to be psychologically harmed by 'abuse' than girls or preteens?", really do not apply here.

The existence of positive memories of relationships between adults and children can hardly be doubted anymore, and this enduringly raises the issue of sound criteria for morally acceptable relationships. Based on the writings of other authors such as Dr. Frans Gieles and Dr. Frank van Ree, and my own thoughts, I have reached the following brief version of ...

Important ethical criteria

	1. Both the adult and child (or teenager) want to have a relationship with each other and experience the relationship as positive. The minor should be able to withdraw from the relationship at any moment. The adult should also make it clear that any sexual contact should be intrinsically desired by the minor, rather than being just a favor to the adult. Margaux Fragoso's book Tiger, Tiger describes a relationship in which the adult clearly did not respect this basic principle.
	2. In case of erotic contact, there must not be any form of physical harm or unwanted pregnancy.
	3. Personal boundaries of minors ought to be respected and any possible erotic contact must be completely consensual. In case of doubt about the child's wishes (e.g., because these have not been clearly expressed yet), the adult should simply refrain from any erotic contact. The initiative for such contact should generally lie with the child or teenager. This ensures that any possible erotic contact will be based on the child's own wishes and over-all personality. Of course, there should not be any signs of manipulation or brainwashing by the adult. Consensual 'pedophile' erotic contact is by definition based upon the consensual erotic activities that minors typically practice with themselves or other minors. Especially in relationships with young children, normally there will be no penetration, but only kissing, caressing, petting, mutual manual stimulation, shared masturbation, or oral stimulation, with only rare exceptions.
	4. The adult must be honest about the nature and extent of his or her feelings and affection for the child or teenager. The minor should be made generally aware of what he or she can expect from the adult and from the relationship to prevent painful disappointments and feelings of being betrayed by the adult. The adult should analyze the nature of the feelings of the minor and find out whether they match his or her own wishes and intentions.
	5. The adult must in general respect the child's personality, activities, and wishes, and the minor's personal, social or relational freedom should not in any way be limited by the adult.
	6. In case the child or teenager has a relatively good relationship with his or her parents or care-takers, they ought to be fully informed about the relationship. Important parental decisions about the relationship should be respected. The adult should also make sure that the relationship does not negatively affect the emotional bond between the child and the parents. More generally, important boundaries set by societal, religious, and cultural taboos, and the law should not be crossed, as long as this might create a scandal or negatively affect the child's self-perception or perception of the relationship. In general, any adult who feels attracted to a minor should realize that it may take quite some time (perhaps decades) to change the dominant perception of voluntary and harmless relationships, and always act accordingly.
	7. The adult should not spoil the child too much but rather support a positive development of his or her self-esteem and self-control, personal talents and potential, social skills, and a moral, pro-social attitude. Sexuality should not replace other emotional or relational needs and the frequency of erotic contacts should be moderate to avoid so-called sexual addiction.
	8. The adult should make the minor aware of the existence of real child abuse and warn him or her of non-consensual sex.
	9. Not only should relationships be accepted by (benevolent) care-takers and relatives of the minor, but children should also be protected against avoidable negative reactions of bullies and narrow-minded neighbors. This implies a basic level of discretion about the relationship, although such discretion ought not to lead to 'secrets' towards other adults with whom the minor has a close emotional bond.
	10. Relationships should never be ended abruptly and the adult should always try to stay in touch as long as the minor needs this. A possible example of what should be prevented can be seen in a tender relationship, Dutch gay choreographer, dancer and writer Rudi van Dantzig engaged in with a Canadian soldier, when he was a young teenager. The story has become famous because of the film For a Lost Soldier, based on Von Dantzig's book Voor een verloren soldaat. After the war, the soldier did not get in touch with the boy anymore, which caused young Van Dantzig a lot of heartache. In general, affectionate erotic relationships deserve to be continued platonically after the erotic part would have ended.

Only relationships that meet these criteria deserve one's respect and protection.

A role for the parents or care-takers

Ideally, the parents or care-takers have an important role to play during a close intergenerational relationship of their child.

By communicating with their child, they could regularly check (in a relaxed, non-directive way) whether the relationship and its possible erotic aspects really match the child's wishes and expectations and whether the adult adequately respects the child's boundaries.

(This is more than just a utopian fantasy. In the Netherlands, there used to be a liberal climate surrounding pedophilia that enabled some parents to consent to their child's relationship and monitor its development.)

More in general, they could also explore the adult's personality and integrity and make sure he or she has no (relevant) criminal record or reputation as a rapist.

Thus, their awareness of criteria for positive and safe relationships will certainly not lead to an increase of real abuse, but rather prevent potential adult partners who have good intentions but unfortunately lack basic empathic skills from endangering the minor's well-being.

Furthermore, decriminalization of positive relationships will generally lead to more openness between parents or care-takers and minors about such relationships, but also about sexual abuse, and this, in turn, will be discouraging to real child-molesters and dangerous psychopaths.

To ensure the child's safety, it could be a good idea, in case of doubts about the adult's intentions, to allow any possible erotic activity only after a period of months of exclusively platonic contact.

This may also be important because it familiarizes the minor with what can be expected from the adult and prevents unrealistic dreams about the relationship.

Consensual relationships and their interpretation

I'm aware that at present the negative general perception of consensual 'pedophile' relationships precludes most people from believing that consensual relationships even exist.

This is reflected in the liberal or humanistic debate about 'pedophilia' that increasingly seems to focus on the personal integrity of individual (abstaining) adults or on effective therapies for child molesters, rather than on the integrity and quality of consensual relationships.

From a moral standpoint, this inevitably means that, for the time being, it is, in general, not a good idea (for an adult) to engage in consensual 'pedophile' relationships with minors.

Many - or even most - consensual relationships will inevitably end up being re-interpreted as abuse, which may have damaging psychological consequences for the (former) child or teenager, in terms of confusion and guilt.

In my view, the intellectual climate first needs to be changed before it becomes morally sound again to have an intergenerational relationship with a minor. Sadly, this mostly holds even for platonic relationships, with the possible exception of platonic friendships that are totally and unambiguously accepted by the child's parents or caretakers and social environment at large.

Negative consequences of consensual relationships?

It is sometimes claimed that it would be immoral to engage in consensual 'pedophile' relationships even if they were completely legalized and accepted by the minor's personal social environment. Even granting the validity of the kind of evidence presented in this book, it would still remain unclear exactly what consensual relationships might lead to negative consequences in the long run.

This collection seems to establish clearly that neither the minor's sex and age nor sexual contact as such are the direct source of any potential problems in the future. Taking the existence of harmful consensual relationships seriously, this implies the possible harm must be caused by other factors.

We already mentioned the phenomenon of what is sometimes called secondary victimization, i.e. a negative social re-interpretation of the relationship in terms of abuse. Also, some seemingly consensual relationships may not be consensual in certain important respects, such as the onset, frequency, or specific types of sexual contact. This may be caused by miscommunication and insufficient knowledge of the minor's development and personality. Herein lies a task for parents or other caretakers in that they should check in an open, unprejudiced manner if the minor really wants the relationship and its possible erotic aspects.

Special care should in this respect be given to children with psychiatric or developmental problems, to prevent confusion.

However, in the context of direct consequences of real consensual relationships, the two main problems I can think of are

misunderstandings about the intentions of the adult partner (e.g. about the duration of the physical aspects of the relationship - the minor would want the sexual bond to last, while the adult would not), and

confusion in the former minor about his or her sexual identity.

The first problem is covered by the fourth ethical criterion.
The second problem is mainly related to specific same-sex 'pedophile' relationships in which the younger partner would not possess a gay orientation as an adult and would feel insecure about his or her adult sexuality. The solution to this problem obviously consists of a greater societal acceptance of homosexual feelings, phases, and experiments and is in this respect related to gay emancipation.

Some authors seem to think that a third problem might especially arise when a relationship was exceptionally positive. The former minor might become dissatisfied when it turns out to be difficult to find a new relationship of comparable quality. Something like this has been claimed by Ted van Lieshout, the Dutch author of Zeer kleine liefde.

(Please note that this claim concerns the consequences of well-balanced 'pedophile' relationships, and not just of one-sided, overly sexual relationships that might indeed lead to insatiable sexual desires; see the seventh ethical criterion.)

However, in my view, this cannot at all serve as an argument against the 'pedophile' relationship, but only against the normal way many adults apparently relate to each other. To blame this on the 'pedophile' relationship is a bit like blaming an outstanding musician for the fact that many or most musicians are (in comparison) mediocre.

At the most, the emancipation of positive, consensual relationships ought to go hand in hand with the promotion of good relationships between adults, as part of a more general relational or love 'revolution'.

Furthermore, any possible dissatisfaction is directly related to the taboo on 'pedophile' relationships in that the former minor may find it difficult to be open about what he or she is missing in relationships with other adults.

Nowadays, if this issue is at all discussed, it is mostly regarded as a negative consequence of the 'pedophile' relationship itself. Even to the extent that any positive relationship should really be considered abuse, because a 'pedophile' would in this view invariably take the risk of making a 'normal' love life for the child impossible.

Some also claim that a positive pedophile relationship may lead to a general preference for older partners, as if such an alleged preference would be inherently problematic.

Others even believe that the relationally experienced minor will end up being less attractive than average to potential partners of the same generation. This is odd, because quite a lot of candidates will find an experienced lover more rather than less appealing.

Although the quality of a positive, consensual 'pedophile' relationship could be successfully approached as a general standard for affection or sexuality, even such a relationship is still usually regarded as an undesirable, abnormal interference by an adult in the life of a vulnerable child. I have the impression that some scholars welcome any possible complications after the relationship, as long as they can use them as an argument against consensual 'pedophilia'.

Many things in society ought to change, but something positive deserves to be protected.

In general, I think that there are no inevitable negative consequences of consensual relationships, as long as the adult is aware of the larger societal context and sticks to the ethical criteria mentioned above. In other words, in my view there is no reason to suppose that any really consensual, morally sound relationship within a safe, accepting environment could have serious negative consequences.

Of course, as a researcher, I remain open to possible other complications that I wouldn't have covered yet, but as it stands, my analysis seems pretty exhaustive. Critics ought to be aware that there really are harmless consensual relationships between minors and adults and that a constructive approach implies making such relationships possible rather than simply ignoring their existence.

Consensual and positive, but immoral nonetheless?

Some critics of consensual and harmless 'pedophile' relationships acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, but they still hold that such relationships ought to remain completely illegal.

In their view, any type of 'pedophile' relationship is by its very nature immoral, because it would always involve a violation of the minor's integrity. Sometimes, they go as far as claiming that personal experiences should never be the sole or ultimate touchstone of the moral acceptability of a certain practice.

They may even compare former minors who have positive memories with a 'pedophile' relationship to individual (former) slaves who - due to a benevolent 'master' - had relatively good experiences with slavery. In other words, it would be so obvious that such relationships are inherently morally wrong, that no positive experiences can ever change this.

However, this comparison is invalid. Slavery is indeed a great evil, because it robs people of their personal freedom and this cannot be changed by the fact that certain individual slaves experienced their lives as relatively pleasant. In the case of (truly) consensual intergenerational relationships with minors, it is by definition out of the question that the children or teenagers involved would lose their freedom during the relationship. To be more precise, in this respect such relationships amount to an expression of the minor's individual freedom.

Only from a conservative, closed-minded outlook on life and human values may it seem obvious that some phenomena which are consensual and psychologically harmless should still continue to be regarded as immoral. Starting from any other approach, personal experiences are obviously more important than prejudices and caricatures.