THE USUAL OBJECTIONS: THE CHILD CANNOT GIVE INFORMED CONSENT
BY EDWARD BRONGERSMA

Presented here is the second part of “The Usual Objections”, a section of “Negative Aspects of Man/Boy Relations: Presumed and Real”, the fourth chapter of Loving Boys, the encyclopaedic study of Greek love by the eminent Dutch lawyer, Edward Brongersma, of which the second volume (including this) was published by Global Academic Publishers in New York in 1990.

“The Child Cannot Give Informed Consent”

But already a new objection is being raised: the adult in having sex with the child places him in a situation over which he has no control and of which he cannot foresee the consequences.^[1]

This objection is rather surprising. First of all, in raising a child parents and others close to him are constantly bringing him into situations over which he has no control. They force him to make decisions or impose decisions upon him, often of the greatest importance for his future. There is the choice of school and professional instruction, of a job, of joining some youth group, music lessons, swimming classes, sports, hobbies. Can the child foresee the consequences of engaging these activities?^[2] Is he able to weigh advantages and disadvantages of baptism and confirmation, of going to the church, to confession, of being inculcated with a religion? Is the seven-year-old in command of the situation when he receives holy communion for the first time, or the twelve-year-old when he takes the oath on renewing his baptismal when he volunteers for years of military service, vows, or the sixteen-year-old or the twenty-year-old when he marries? If all these important things are accepted by society as a matter of course, why the sudden worry when sexual activity is concerned?

Abel et al.^[3] build their attack on children having sex with adults entirely upon this issue. Their conceit is to define “informed consent” in such a way that almost no form of human interaction could pass the test: complete understanding, awareness of community standards, knowledge of all possible consequences, participants of exactly equal power positions.

The objection that the child is put in a situation over which he has no control would only make sense if it could be contrasted with an adult entering into a sexual relationship entirely in control and aware of all possible consequences. This, however, can only happen if we limit our view of sex to its procreative aspect. Here there are very real rational considerations (contraception or not, and, if so, what form?) and predictable consequences. But all the other aspects of sexuality – as a source of pleasure, expression of love, uniting with primordial nature – are quite mysterious and not at all subject to rational argument. Even the most sensitive and intelligent adult will find himself lacking in real insight.^[4]

In man/boy relations, procreation, of course, is impossible, so only the other aspects are present. A child knows just as well as an adult whether some activity is pleasurable to him or not. A baby readily shows, if only by the expression on its face, whether he likes someone or finds him unsympathetic. And the experience of abandoning oneself to the primitive forces of nature might well be more clearly perceived by a young mind than by an older one.

And the consequences for the boy in engaging in a sexual activity? They will mostly be limited to the satisfaction of his sexual appetite, just as in masturbation, with the same feelings as an adult experiences. Moreover, one result could be that he feels increasing love for his partner, so it is an enriching experience. Another result could be loathing and disgust – a pity, but it is precisely through such experimentation that mankind gains understanding and learns how to avoid certain unpleasant situations in the future. Nothing is irrevocable here, nothing irremediable.

We are discussing – and this must constantly be kept in mind – the consequences of the sex per se. If later a boy is disturbed, to a greater or lesser degree, about his earlier sexual activity, it is never because the sex itself harmed him, but because it has collided with the ethical standards of the people about him. This collision with social morality will occupy us elsewhere in this chapter.

So I think we can dismiss the objection that a child cannot give informed consent. It is badly formulated and superficial. It is based upon sex-negative superstition, the conviction that any child has an underlying loathing of sexuality, that he is afraid of it and is then dragged along by the adult into an unknown domain where horror follows horror, from which there is no return. The psychiatrist De Levita, for example, in his blanket condemnation of all paedophile activities, proclaims that “children are taught to do disagreeable things with pleasure”.^[5] This learned man evidently is projecting his own feelings of sexual distaste upon the children. Quite without justification! In Chapter Three we saw how far removed this superstition is from reality. (Let us not raise the issue of the number of parents who discipline their children to do disagreeable things with pleasure. This seems to be considered damaging only where sex is involved!)

Continue to The Usual Objections: A World Where the Child Doesn't Yet Belong

^[1] Wolfenden Committee,The Wolfenden Report. New York: Stein & Day, 1963. Sect. 71. [Author’s note]

^[2] Campaign Against Public Morals, Paedophilia and Public Morals, London: CAPM, 1980, p. 26. [Author’s note]

^[3] Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V. & Cunningham-Rathner, J., “Perspectives on Pedophilia: 2. Complications, Consent, and Cognitions in Sex Between Children and Adults”,International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7, 1: 89-103, 1984. pp. 94-97. [Author’s note]

^[4]  O‘Carroll, T., Paedophilia – The Radical Case, London: Peter Owen, 1980, pp. 145, 170. [Author’s note]

^[5] Quoted by Sandfort, Th., De ervaringswereld van kinderen in pedofielerelaties, Doktoraalskriptie Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 1979, p. 138. [Author’s note]