PRD: On the subject of 'consent', there is an excellent and useful overview of the subject of children and 'consent' in [this book] which, according to the newspaper reviews, concludes that "...beyond any doubt, many children, even young ones, Child Abuse & Neglect digest information and make decisions about themselves and their bodies as well as most adults." If her findings become accepted, then we have a ready-made and authoritative argument against those who hold that children 'don't know what they're getting into', and thus Child Abuse & Neglectnot legally consent to loving intimate relationships with older people.
München: "Ein Erwachsener und ein Kind lieben einander; das Kind hat die spielerische Phantasie, mit dem Erwachsenen die Mutterrolle zu spielen. Dieses Spiel mag auch erotische Formen annehmen, bleibt aber nach wie vor auf dem Zärtlichkeitsnieveau. Nicht so bei pathologisch veranlagten Erwachsenen, besonders wenn sie durch sonstiges Unglück oder durch den Genuß betäubender Mittel in ihrem Gleichgewicht und ihrer Selbstkontrolle gestört sind. Sie verwechseln die Spielereien der Kinder mit den Wünschen einer sexuell reifen Person oder lassen sich, ohne Rücksicht auf die Folgen, zu Sexualkontakten hinreißen." (S. 308) Welche negativen Folgen dies mit sich bringt, ist Thema des viel zitierten psychoanalytischen Grundlagentextes. Nicht auf Ferenczi können sich aber jene berufen, die alle Pädophile schlichtweg als pathologisch veranlagt erklären und die Sprachverwirrung bei jeder pädosexuellen Beziehung unterstellen.
DD: In de sociologie is men 'normaal' steeds meer als cultuur-afhankelijk in plaats van normatief gaan bekijken, in het bijzonder in de sexualiteit. Dit geldt bijvoorbeeld voor homosexualiteit, maar niet voor verkrachting: Er is een nieuwe, liberale ethiek, die uitgaat van het principe dat je mensen moet laten doen wat ze willen, zolang ze maar geen inbreuk maken op de rechten van anderen. Ook pedofilie wordt vanuit dat standpunt nog steeds niet geaccepteerd, maar is dat wel terecht? De twee belangrijkste argumenten tegen pedofilie (verleiding en uitbuiting) worden gewogen en te licht bevonden.
In our society adults who are guilty of having sex with prepubescent children often have a paedophile disposition. This paper first criticises the justifications that are given by paedophiles for having sex with children. Part of this criticism is a brief analysis of "sexual desire" and "erotic". Next, the question is raised whether paedophile activities can ever be morally permissible. Using the principles of mutual consent and non-exploitation as touchstone, the question is answered in the negative. Finally, it is examined whether paedophile desires can be regarded as perverse. In order to deal with this issue a moral conception of perversions is proposed.
Conclusions: In our analysis of sexual identity we have made a distinction between the central and the normative component, between our basic sexual drives and our normative beliefs about them. We argued that occurrent conflicts between these two components of our sexual identity give some confirmation for the harmony thesis, but only if the thesis is regarded as a conception of full or perfect virtuousness. As long as our sexual likes and dislikes are not in harmony with our practical judgments, we will not consider ourselves fully virtuous. Moreover, occurrent conflicts between the central and normative part of sexual identity seem to disconfirm the reponsibility thesis. Because our basic sexual preferences are resistent to transformation attempts, we can hardly be held responsible for having them. Even sophisticated psychological and pharmacological treatment is not successful in changing our sexual orientation.
A somewhat disquieting conclusion of our analysis is that virtuousness is at least partly a matter of luck. Whether or not our basic sexual preferences meet the standards of virtuousness cannot be attributed to our own agency. If they are virtuous, luck is on our side, but if they are not, like in case of our homosexual pedophile, it's simply a matter of having bad luck.
The title of our paper is "The good, the bad, and the pedophile." The good, of course, is the virtuous person, whose emotional life was the focus of our analysis. The pedophile is one who, as we have seen, can be virtuous in some sense, though not in any full sense. But who is the bad? We think that a pedophile may or even should be blamed for not controlling his sexual urges under certain circumstances. And there are perhaps good reasons, as many people think, to consider a pedophile who indulges in sex with children as morally bad. But one consequence of our analysis is that blaming persons for being a pedophile, as many people do, may be just as bad.