Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 49(4), October 1979 WHAT'S WRONG WITH SEX BETWEEN ADULTS AND CHILDREN? Ethics and the Problem of Sexual Abuse David Finkelhor, Ph.D. Family Violence Rereerch Program, University of New Hampthire, Durham, N-H. The belief that sex with adults causes harm to children is often offered as the most compelling argument against such relationships, and is the basis for much current concern about sexual abuse. This paper argues for the im- portance of a stronger ethical position, less dependent on an empirical pre- sumption that is not firmly established. It is suggested that basing the prohi- bition of adult-child sex on the premise that children are incapable of full and informed consent will provide a more solid and consistent approach to the problem. Although there is a widespread con- sensus that sex between adults and chil- dren is wrong, and therefore requires intervention, there is also a widespread confusion about why it is wrong and why it requires intervention. Essen- tially, those most concerned about sex- Curent research on the subject of sexual abuse indicates that a large number of children have sexual en- counters with adults.? After a long pe- riod of ignoring or denying it, the prob- Jem has finally established itself on the agenda of many mental health pro- fessionals. There is now a great ground- swell of interest in the problem, and of concern for studying it and finding ways to cope with it. In this rush to treatment, certain ethi- cal issues underlying the definition of the problem have been brushed aside. ually-abused children have not had to think through the moral issues, since the weight of traditional morality sup- ports their point of view. The intent of this paper is to criticize some of the more complacent argu- ments against sex between adults and Submitted to the Journal in February 1979, Research was supported by NIMH grant ROI-MH- 30939, 692 (0002-9432/79/040692-0600.75 ©1979 American Orthopsychiatrie Association, Ine.DAVID FINKELHOR children, and to suggest a sounder line of reasoning in support of such a pro- hibition. At the outset, it should be made clear what we are discussing. For purposes of this paper, “sex” refers to activities in- volving the genitals that are engaged in for the gratification of at least one per- son involved. Thus “sex” is not limited to intercourse. Second, “adult” refers to a person 18 or over, either related or not to the child; “child” means a pre- pubertal youngster. INADEQUATE ARGUMENTS ‘There are at least three “intuitive” arguments that are often made against the idea of sex between adults and chil- dren, none of which seems really ade- quate. The most simple argument says that such sex is intrinsically wrong. It is un- natural from a biological and psycho- logical point of view. For instance, a little girl’s vagina is too small to accept a mature male's penis. Further, the thought of such relations inspires an innate disgust in most people. As evi- dence, almost all societies either forbid or tightly regulate sexual contact be- tween the mature and immature, But as an argument against sex between adults and children, this approach is too cate- gorical. Many assertions of “intrinsic wrong” made about other sexual ta- boos, such as homosexuality, have been called into question in recent times. A second argument rejects adult-child sex because it entails a premature sex- alization of the child. From this point of view, childhood should be a time of relative immunity from sex, a time when the child enjoys freedom from this rather problematical aspect of life. ‘An adult approaching a child is seen 693 as drawing the youngster into a world the child is not ready for. For adults who find sex problematic, this is an at- tractive fantasy. But children are sex- ual; the asexuality of childhood is a myth. Most children are curious about scx. They explore sexuality with one another. In fact, when adults shield children from sex, it probably does more harm than good. A final, very common argument says that sexual encounters with adults are Glearly damaging to children. Children are frightened and disturbed by them. They are the source of sexual problems in later life. There is clinical evidence that this is true, at least in many cases, and this is probably the most popular argument against sex between adults and children, But there are at least two reasons why this is a rather weak argu: ment. For one thing, it is based on an em- pirical, not a moral, foundation, and an empirical foundation that is far from absolutely established. It is indisputable that some children are harmed by their childhood sexual encounters with adults, some severely so. But what per- centage? From clinical reports, we can- not tell. The number of cases that do not come to clinical attention is very large,? and it is possible that a majority of these children are not harmed: ¢ The unreliability of this line of argument will become increasingly ap- parent, as the ranks of those who claim to have had positive child-adult sex experiences become publicized. Inevita- bly, they will,S since our culture has maintained the unrealistic assumption that such relationships do not exist. Be- cause of some of the inherent difficulties of empirical research into this kind of question, it may be some time before694 a definitive scientific conclusion is reached. In the meantime, the argu- ment that sex between adults and chil- dren is bad solely on the empirical grounds that it harms the children will become more and more controversial Further, the idea that an experience causes harm is not sufficient in itself to earn condemnation. Compulsory edu- cation, divorce, even going to the doc- tor cause harm and trauma to an im- portant number of children. If sex be- tween children and adults is wrong, and if it merits serious condemnation in our moral hierarchy, then some additional criteria need to be introduced into the argument beside the possibility that it can cause harm. ‘THE ISSUE OF CONSENT As a society, we are moving toward a sexual ethic that holds that sex of all sorts between consenting persons should be permitted, but that in situations where a person does not consent, sex should be considered illegal and taboo. Rape, for example, is an act that is clearly criminal because it is done with- out the consent of one of the parties. But don't many children “consent” to sexual acts with adults? Sex between adults and children may often seem much less coercive than rape, because many children appear to consent pas sively or even to cooperate. If we say that sex is permissible where consent is present, doesn’t this legitimize much adult-child sex? ‘The key argument here is that chil- dren, by their nature, are incapable of truly consenting to sex with adults. Be- cause they are children, they cannot consent; they can never consent. For this reason, sex between an adult and a child cannot be sanctioned under our ADULT-CHILD SEX moral standard that requires that con- sent be present. To make this statement meaningful requires a more detailed discussion of what is meant by consent. For true consent to occur, two condi- tions must prevail. A person must know what it is that he or she is consenting to, and a person must be free to say yes or no. Behavioral scientists have recently had extensive encounters with both of these aspects of the consent issue. The ethics of research now demand that a research subject give “informed con- sent” to participation. Informed con- sent requires that a person really un- derstand what is likely to happen to him or her during and as a result of participation in the research. Thus, it has been decided that a researcher must give a complete description of research procedures, and also anticipate in a detailed way some of the possible dan. gers that participation might entail. Secondly, the current code in re- search with human subjects also de- mands that a research subject have true freedom to say yes or no. For example, it has been decided that such condi- tions do not prevail in the case of re- search on prisoners. Because they are not free, because the incentives toward participation are so artificially over- whelming in a prison, prisoners do not really have the freedom to say no to participation. For children, the problem seems fully analogous. Can children give informed consent to sex with adults? It is fairly evident that they cannot. For one thing, children lack the information that is necessary to make an “informed” de- cision about the matter. They are igno- rant about sex and sexual relationships. It is not only that they may be unfa-DAVID FINKELHOR miliar with the mechanics of sex and reproduction. More importantly, they are generally unaware of the social meanings of sexuality. For example, they are unlikely to be aware of the rules and regulations surrounding sex- ual intimacy, and what it is supposed to signify. They are probably unin- formed and inexperienced about what criteria to use in judging the accepta- bility of a sexual partner. They prob- ably do not know much about the “nat- ural history” of sexual relationships, what course they will take, And, finally, they have little way of knowing how other people are likely to react to the experience they are about to undertake, what likely consequences it will have for them in the future. They may know that they like the adult, that the physical sensations feel good, and on this basis may make a choice, But they lack the knowledge the adult has about sex and about what they are undertaking. This is some. thing that stems from the very fact of being a child and being inexperienced. In this sense, a child cannot give in- formed consent to sex with an adult. Further, a child does not have the freedom to say yes or no. This is true in a legal sense and also in a psychological sense. In a legal sense, a child is under the authority of an adult and has no free will. But in a more important psy- chological sense, children have a hard time saying no to adults. Adults con- trol all kinds of resources that are es- sential to them—food, money, freedom, etc. In this sense, the child is exactly like the prisoner who volunteers to be a research subject. The child has no free- dom in which to consider the choice. This is especially true when the adult propositioning the child (assuming the 695 adult even asks the child's consent, which rarely happens) is a parent, a relative, or another important figure in the child’s life, as is so often the case. Most children who cooperate in sex with an adult attest to this very thing. As one of my interviewees said, “He was my uncle. He told me what to do and I obeyed. I was taught to obey adults.” ‘Thus a child cannot, in a moral sense, consent to sex with an adult because a child is not truly free to say no. The basic proposition here is that adult-child sex is wrong because the fundamental conditions of consent can- not prevail in the relationship between an adult and a child. The proposition seems to be a great improvement over other arguments, particularly the argu- ment that such acts are wrong solely because they harm the child. It puts the argument on a moral, rather than an empirical, footing. Thus, even if someone could dem- onstrate many cases where children en- joyed such experiences and were not harmed by them, one could still argue that it was wrong because children could not consent. The wrong here is not contingent upon proof of a harm. ful outcome. An analogous situation is that of sex between therapists and patients. There may be many instances where patients benefit from sex with their therapist. But the argument that such sex is wrong does not hinge on the positive or nega- tive outcome. Rather, it lies in the fundamental asymmetry of the rela- tionship. A patient, I would argue, can- not freely consent to have sex with a therapist. The main consideration here is that, in the context of a therapeutic relationship, a patient is not really free to say yes or no. Even if the patient696 liked it, a moral wrong had been com- mitted. Child-adult sex is morally similar, with the addition that the child not only cannot freely consent, the child also cannot give informed consent. An adult patient probably is aware of the social significance of sexuality. A patient probably can foresee some of the conse- quences of sex with a therapist. A child, however, is likely to be unaware of both these elements, and is thus even less equipped to consent than would be the patient. SOME CAVEATS Much as this argument is an improve- ment over others, some objections might be raised. First, is the consent standard outlined really a good one for deter- mining legitimate and illegitimate sex- ual relationships for adults and for chil- dren? I have said that partners need to be informed of the meaning and consequences of their consent and be able freely to say yes or no. How many adult sexual encounters fully conform to this standard? The truth is that many adults are quite ignorant about sex. And many adult relationships occur under condi- tions in which one partner can hardly refuse. An obvious example of this last point is marriage. How many women are free to refuse the advances of their husbands, especially if he is the one earning all the money in the family? How free are prostitutes to refuse the business of their customers? How free is a secretary to refuse the attentions of her boss? There is an element of co- ercion present in all these situations, yet the only one we outlaw is prostitu- tion, and in that case it is hardly to protect the interest of the prostitute. ADULT-CHILD SEX If implicit coercion is present in many, if not most, sexual encounters in our society, what makes adult-child sex any different? Secondly, how much knowledge is present in most sexual encounters? Do adults know what they are agreeing to? Do they know what the consequences will be? Judging from the degree of tragedy and pain that seems to accom. pany so much sexual activity in our culture, I would judge that very im- perfect awareness of the consequences exists among most adult consentors. Finally, doesn’t this argument con- stitute a condemnation of all child sex- uality? If children cannot consent to sex because they lack knowledge about it, doesn’t this include sex among peers? Although not everyone would. agree, many, this author included, approve of sexual experimentation among ado- lescents. I also approve of sex play among prepubescent children. But these children do not have a very good un- derstanding of what they are getting involved in. If lack of knowledge makes adult-child sex wrong, doesn’t it also make child-child sex ‘wrong? ‘The crucial difference in adult-child sex is the combination of children’s lack of knowledge and lack of power. Chil- dren in relationships with adults are both uninformed and unable freely to say no. By contrast, in relationships with peers, children are uninformed, but at least there is no inherent power differential. While relationships be- tween adults often involve subtle co- ercion, adults have greater knowledge about the social meanings of sexuality, or at least they have accessibility to that knowledge. Thus, peer experiences among chi dren and among adults are not morallyDAVID FINKELHOR suspect because participants’ level of awareness is relatively mutual. It is where the ability to understand the situation is inherently unequal, and is compounded by a serious difference in power, that we draw the line. CONCLU! 1ON The empirical fact. that sex with adults often causes harm to children is widely offered as the most compel- ling argument against such behavior. This paper has argued that a stronger ethical argument exists against such be- havior, involving children’s incapacity to give true consent to sex with an adult. Such « distinction may seem to have an academic pallor to it. Many people engaged in work with sexually abused children may find it hard to see its relevance. Certainly, they do not need to be convinced that sexual abuse is wrong. There are, however, two important reasons for ethical clarity on this issue. One is to be able to explain convinc- ingly to victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse why drastic interference is being made in their private affairs. Adults who take sexual advantage of children are notorious for the justifica- tions they give and for their stubborn refusal to admit to any wrongdoing. "No harm was caused,” they often say. Although argument is unlikely to con- vince them, both they and their victims may benefit in the long run from being exposed clearly to the moral issue in- volved. 697 Secondly, ethical clarity on this issue is important for the benefit of society as a whole. In America today, sexual ethics are increasingly confused. Ta- boos have fallen by the wayside and new standards have not been artic ulated to replace the old. A sense of polarization exists; many people have the impression that one is either broadly in favor of sexual expression or broadly opposed. Moral confusion about sex is in part responsible for the occurrence of sexual abuse, as some people inter- pret the current sexual revolution as an exhortation that “all is permitted.” But concern about sexual abuse of children is not part of a Victorian re- surgence. It is compatible with the most progressive attitude toward sex- uality currently being voiced, a posi- tion that urges that consent be the sole standard by which the legitimacy of sexual acts be evaluated. Ethical clarity may help society move toward a more coherent outlook on sexual matters, and may serve to combat at least one sig- nificant source of sexual abuse. REFERENCES L.arkes, . 1978. The question of incest and the properties of a moral argument. Pre- sented to the Conference on Childhood Sex: ual Abuse, Chicago. 2. FINKELitoR, p. 1979, Sexually Vietimized Chil- dren, Free Press, New York. 3.6AGNON, J. 1968. Female child victims of sex offenses, Soc. Prob. 18:176-192. 4.tanmis, J. 1965. Experiences of 500 children with adult sexual deviates. Psych. Quart. Suppl. 30:91-109. 5. NoBILE, P. 1978. Incest: the last taboo, Pent: house (Jan.). For reprints: David Finkelhor, Family Violence Research Program, Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H. 03824