English
Français
Deutsch
Español
;
The ethics of pedophilia;
Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics ;
9(1), 111-124
Pedophilia is bad. But how bad is it? And in what ways, and for what reasons, is it bad? This is a thorny issue, and sadly, one seldom discussed by ethicists. I argue in this article that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilia itself, as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally all right. I further argue that the aim of our social and legal treatment of pedophilia should be to minimize harm to children, and that current practices are often counterproductive in this respect.
Pedophilia is bad. But how bad is it? And in what ways, and for what reasons, is it bad? This is a thorny issue, and sadly, one seldom discussed by ethicists. I argue in this article that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilia itself, as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally all right. I further argue that the aim of our social and legal treatment of pedophilia should be to minimize harm to children, and that current practices are often counterproductive in this respect.
;
Forget the four percent - Remember the one percent,
Aug 08 2017
Now and then, I have said that the research of Rind c.s. should prove that a sexual experience during childhood in only four percent should result in lasting harm, and only for girls and only for cases of incest and force. This is not correct.
I discovered this in a shock after someone said that this was only one percent. In my text to correct this into 4%, I wanted to place a link to this cipher in Rind’s meta-analysis. This 4% cannot be found there! ...
The 1% can be found in Rind’s meta=analysis, but this cipher has another meaning.
... Explanation ... Snakes in the grass ... Contemplation ...
Now and then, I have said that the research of Rind c.s. should prove that a sexual experience during childhood in only four percent should result in lasting harm, and only for girls and only for cases of incest and force. This is not correct.
I discovered this in a shock after someone said that this was only one percent. In my text to correct this into 4%, I wanted to place a link to this cipher in Rind’s meta-analysis. This 4% cannot be found there! ...
The 1% can be found in Rind’s meta=analysis, but this cipher has another meaning.
... Explanation ... Snakes in the grass ... Contemplation ...
;
Bemerkungen zur strafrechtlichen Behandlung der Pädosexualität
Gewaltlos pädosexuelle Begegnungen und Beziehungen sind, trotz der im letzten Absatz erhobenen kritischen Einwände, nichts Monströses. [...]
Die Pönalisierung verstärkt ferner die Schuldgefühle der Erwachsenen, mit denen sich das Kind identifiziert. Unbestreitbar führt das zu zusätzlichen psychischen Belastungen der Kinder, die eine sexuelle Beziehung mit einem Erwachsenen haben.
* Russian translation added.
Gewaltlos pädosexuelle Begegnungen und Beziehungen sind, trotz der im letzten Absatz erhobenen kritischen Einwände, nichts Monströses. [...]
Die Pönalisierung verstärkt ferner die Schuldgefühle der Erwachsenen, mit denen sich das Kind identifiziert. Unbestreitbar führt das zu zusätzlichen psychischen Belastungen der Kinder, die eine sexuelle Beziehung mit einem Erwachsenen haben.
* Russian translation added.
;
Harmful to Minors;
304 pp.
In the book, Levine lambastes US laws concerning child pornography, statutory rape, and abortion for minors using a variety of studies and interviews with teenagers and adults alike (see Acknowledgments). Levine also analyzes abstinence-only sex education, which Levine considers counter-productive and dangerous.
The book also examines the terms "harmful to minors" and "indecency," which Levine considers to be umbrella terms for censorship, ...
In the book, Levine lambastes US laws concerning child pornography, statutory rape, and abortion for minors using a variety of studies and interviews with teenagers and adults alike (see Acknowledgments). Levine also analyzes abstinence-only sex education, which Levine considers counter-productive and dangerous.
The book also examines the terms "harmful to minors" and "indecency," which Levine considers to be umbrella terms for censorship, ...