At the moment we've collected 122 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 others, ranging from an anonymous remark on an Internet forum to stories based on extensive personal correspondence or conversations. 

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);
	that they can start even before the child is twelve years old;  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;
	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'.

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 ...

	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.
	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. Consensual 'pedophile' erotic contact is by definition based upon the consensual erotic activities that minors typically practice with themselves or other minors. With some exceptions, especially among young children, there will often be no penetration, but only kissing, caressing, petting, mutual or shared masturbation, or oral stimulation.
	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.
	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.
	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.

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.

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. 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 a really gifted musician for the fact that many or most musicians are (in comparison) mediocre. 

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.

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'.

Furthermore, any possible dissatisfaction is directly related to the taboo surrounding '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 abusive, because a 'pedophile' would in this view invariably take the risk of making a 'normal' love life for the child impossible.

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.

Consensual and positive, but immoral nonetheless?

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.