This study attempted to measure cognitions about adult-child sex by approaching the issue from a perspective of moral attitudes. We assessed ratings regarding direct and indirect harmfulness, nonconsent, exploitation, and differences in adults' and children's sexualities based on a description of adult-child sex without apparent child discomfort among an online sample of 120 pedohebephilic and 89 nonpedohebephilic German-speaking men. The results showed that only 7.5% among pedohebephilic men had equal or less permissive attitudes than the average control, while 4.5% of nonpedohebephilic men had equal or more permissive attitudes than the average pedohebephilic man. Both groups did not, however, differ in their appraisal that children may suffer indirect harm via stigmatization. The findings also indicate that the moral perception of adult-child sex shows little differentiation among German-speaking laypeople. We discuss the relevance of these findings for clinical practice and propose ideas for subsequent research.

For some decades now in the West, there has been a growing social anxiety with regard to a phenomenon which has become known as child sexual abuse (CSA). This anxiety is fed by scientific theories whose cornerstone is the assessment of these experiences as necessarily harmful, due to their presumed serious consequences for the present and future lives of the minors involved in them. This principle, widely held by experts and laypersons alike, was also part and parcel of the danger presumably posed by Onanism, a phenomenon which occupied a similar position in society and medical science in the West during the eighteenth through twentieth centuries. The present work is a comparative review of these two hypotheses and the central objective was to compare the evolution and fundamental elements of the two hypotheses in light of what history tells us about Onanism theory. This comparative analysis will allow a critical look at the assumptions of the CSA hypothesis in order to make evident the similarities to the conceptual model that enabled the Onanism hypothesis in the past.

No abstract

This article is a critical review of the most common arguments in the specialized literature about the moral status of sexual relationships between adults and prepubescent children. The intent is to reveal how the usual ethical analysis of these experiences, done from a general sexual morality, with a Kantian and utilitarian basis, very clearly shows us the limits and contradictions of contemporary liberal morality regarding sexual matters. It leaves open the possibility that, under certain circumstances, these relationships may be morally admissible. Some shortcomings and contradictions in these liberal arguments suggest that it would be of interest to refer to other authors and ideas to value adult-child sex, approaches that are based on a specific sexual morality concerning the issue of sexual virtues and a more complex conception of human sexual desire. Some of the scientific implications of these moral issues are also discussed.

During the 20th century, erotic experiences between minors and adults occupied a position of increasing interest, both public as well as scientific. In this area of research, one of the most notable evolutions in how these experiences are treated has been the progressive disappearance and/or the intense redefinition of what earlier researchers called "participating victims," i.e., minors apparently interested in accepting and/or sustaining these relationships. The present work, through a comparative analysis of the literature, seeks to substantiate this transformation during the second third of the 20th century. It will also argue that this evolution can be fundamentally explained in terms of the intense emotional, moral, and ideological importance that is ascribed to these experiences in the rise of the current victimological paradigm. Finally, this study endeavors to contribute to the understanding of childhood and the scientific study of child sexuality as well as of these experiences with adults.

In the last decades of the twentieth century there was an unprecedented surge of anxieties and alarm over erotic experiences involving minors and adults, which has continued as a social and scientific discourse in which these relationships invariably are seen as abusive, harmful, and criminal. In this paper, the fundamental characteristics of this discourse, whose basis and pertinence are questioned, are analyzed for their possible iatrogenic effects; i.e., those induced by professional intervention, in four key areas of social reality: the erotic dimension of human beings, individual responsibility, the use of penal law as a mechanism of social control, and fostering better relations between the sexes and generations. Critical reflection on the social and professional handling of the problem includes the undesirable effects which such treatment may be producing.

This article is the continuation of a previous analysis of the usual arguments-lack of consent, exploitation and harmused to evaluate sexual experiences between adults and children from general moral principles. It has been suggested that those arguments were insufficient to condemn all adult-child sexual experiences, and that it would be of interest to study others that come from a specific sexual morality based on a more complex and transcendent conception of human eroticism and sexual conduct. This paper develops three different arguments against adult-child sex from this perspective, a view which, while not rejecting the Kantian and utilitarian approaches, complements and transforms them with a virtue ethic that questions not only the permissibility of certain acts but also their moral desirability under this frame of reference. This helps us to clarify the scientific discourse on adult-child sex and directs us to the importance of attending to the educational dimension of this moral problem.

To date, very little research has tackled whether pedophilic men's attitude towards adult-child sex depends on characteristics of the adult or the child involved in such acts. This study examines the effect of the child's gender (male vs. female) and physical maturity (pre-pubescent vs. early pubescent) on the moral evaluation of apparently noncoercive adult-child sex in a 2 × 2 factorial online vignette experiment. One hundred eighty-three English-speaking pedophilic men rated their agreement with moral arguments on the Immoral Sex Scale, as well as whether they believed this behavior to be typical for a child. The results revealed considerable inter-individual differences, with about one third showing restrictive moral attitudes. Contrary to our expectations, gender and physical maturity neither affected the perceived morality of the sexual act, nor beliefs about the representativeness of the child's behavior. However, when controlling for confounds, pedophilic men believed that boys were more likely to willingly engage in adult-child sex. Furthermore, participants with stronger liberal attitudes were found to be more likely to defend the sexual act, as were participants with a preferential interest in pre-pubescents. There was no link between attitudes towards adult-child sex and sexual offending, replicating the non-associations reported in previous community surveys.