English
Français
Deutsch
Español
;
Sex between adults and children, what is wrong with that?;
Pedagogiek [NL];
29(1), 78 - 92
What (if anything) makes adult-child sex morally wrong? Two standard answers are given to this question.
- The first one (the harm argument) is that sexual contacts between adults and children are wrong because they likely are harmful to the child.
- The second one (the consent argument) localizes the wrong-making characteristic in the child’s inability to give valid consent to sex with adults.
Both standard arguments are explained and assessed. The upshot is that both arguments are sound, but only with respect to a particular subclass of sexual contacts between adults and children.
- The harm argument is effective only if the child is unwilling to participate in the sexual encounter, and
- the consent argument is successful only if the child’s parents did not give the adult permission to have sex with the child.
Consequently, both arguments fail if the child participates freely and the adult involved received parental permission. It will be argued that what makes these cases of adult-child sex morally wrong, or at least most of these cases, is the fact that if the parents had taken their role-responsibilities seriously, they would not have granted the adult permission to have sex with their child.
What (if anything) makes adult-child sex morally wrong? Two standard answers are given to this question.
- The first one (the harm argument) is that sexual contacts between adults and children are wrong because they likely are harmful to the child.
- The second one (the consent argument) localizes the wrong-making characteristic in the child’s inability to give valid consent to sex with adults.
Both standard arguments are explained and assessed. The upshot is that both arguments are sound, but only with respect to a particular subclass of sexual contacts between adults and children.
- The harm argument is effective only if the child is unwilling to participate in the sexual encounter, and
- the consent argument is successful only if the child’s parents did not give the adult permission to have sex with the child.
Consequently, both arguments fail if the child participates freely and the adult involved received parental permission. It will be argued that what makes these cases of adult-child sex morally wrong, or at least most of these cases, is the fact that if the parents had taken their role-responsibilities seriously, they would not have granted the adult permission to have sex with their child.
;
Protect The Children,
Jul 29 1999
Speech In The House Of Representatives, Thursday, July 29, 1999, condemning the Rind c.s. research reports.
Speech In The House Of Representatives, Thursday, July 29, 1999, condemning the Rind c.s. research reports.
;
Interrogating the Essential: Moral Baselines on Adult-Child Sex;
Thymos;
4(2), 149-167 ,
Oct 01 2010
In this paper I emphasize the multiple ways dominant moral and essentialist understandings feed into the wider regulatory norms and conventional thinking governing adult-child sexual relations. Clearly, researchers are not immune from the ascendant material and symbolic hegemony enjoyed by child sexual abuse (CSA) paradigms. Indeed the experience of the seven critical writers and researchers cited in the paper, coupled with the author's own experiences carrying out PhD research in this area, clearly reinforce this point. I contend that sociological and Foucauldian insights on age and sexual categorization can offer a helpful tool-kit for unpacking the contested claims from CSA survivors, child liber ationists, and the specific case of one respondent who resists victimological labelling of his sexual experiences with adults.
In this paper I emphasize the multiple ways dominant moral and essentialist understandings feed into the wider regulatory norms and conventional thinking governing adult-child sexual relations. Clearly, researchers are not immune from the ascendant material and symbolic hegemony enjoyed by child sexual abuse (CSA) paradigms. Indeed the experience of the seven critical writers and researchers cited in the paper, coupled with the author's own experiences carrying out PhD research in this area, clearly reinforce this point. I contend that sociological and Foucauldian insights on age and sexual categorization can offer a helpful tool-kit for unpacking the contested claims from CSA survivors, child liber ationists, and the specific case of one respondent who resists victimological labelling of his sexual experiences with adults.