文献快递——论恋童癖的伦理道德(上)

文献快递——论恋童癖的伦理道德(上)

青铜之力安德青铜之力安德

最近,以许豪杰旧时网络言论被揭露为伊始的一系列事件将恋童癖这一话题推入了风口浪尖。在知乎上,在不少问题与回答中,许多人对如何评判恋童癖各抒己见。其中,许多常见的关于恋童癖的命题被提及,但尽我个人所知来说,内容并不详尽。Ole Martin Moen先生是奥斯陆大学的一名哲学学者,其在2015年发表在北欧应用伦理学( Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics )的论文 The ethics of pedophilia(恋童癖的伦理道德)对几个常见的命题进行了比较详细的讨论。本着为知乎上关于恋童癖的学术讨论添砖加瓦的思想,本人将其翻译成中文,以供大家参考,在更详细地了解前人经历了怎么样的思辨过程的同时,也看看能否激发我们新的想法,或是完善原本的理论体系。以下是论文翻译的上半部分。翻译工作已得到作者授权。本人英语水平有限,如有错误,请谅解。

文献原文地址

------------------------吾名分割线------------------------

恋童癖是个大麻烦。理由很简单,恋童癖关系中的性会给儿童带来伤害,而约五分之一的女童与十二分之一的男童曾受此遭遇(准确来说,根据参考文献,这个数据是女童19.7%和男童7.9%。原作者注)。

什么是恋童癖?根据世界卫生组织(WHO)的定义,恋童癖是“以未成年为对象获得性满足的一种性偏好。恋童癖性欲指向的范围一般是青春期以前或未发育的男童或女童。”本文对恋童癖的定义与该定义相同,但是如果把处于定义边缘的青少年也牵扯进来,问题会变得更为复杂。因此,本文暂且只将注意力放在相对清晰的,仅涉及到青春期前儿童的恋童癖关系。

Few things upset us more than pedophilia, and with good reason. Pedophilic sex harms children, and roughly one in five girls, and one in twelve boys, are victims of sexual abuse.
What is pedophilia? According to the World Health Organization, pedophilia is “sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” (WHO 2010). The discussion in this paper stays within the boundaries of WHO’s definition, but focuses on sexual preference for prepubertals. Sexual preference for prepubertals provides the clearest example of pedophilia, and by focusing on clear cases we can set aside, for the moment, the added complexities that arise in the borderline case of sexual preference for those who have entered puberty.

恋童癖其实比常人想象的更为普遍。在1989年的一次研究中, John Briere 与Marsha Runtz 调查了193个男性大学生。样本中9%的人报告说他们的性幻想中曾出现过儿童,5%进一步承认性幻想的同时还曾自慰。7%的人表示如果一定不会被发现、惩罚的话,他们有一定的可能会寻求与儿童的性关系。1996年, Kathy Smiljanich 与John Briere以279个学生为样本的研究也有类似的结果,并在结论中指出恋童癖的发生有极大的性别差异:大概八分之七的恋童者都是男性。目前(2015)来说,最新也是样本最全面的研究样本为531个男性学生,结果分别为:认为儿童对自己具有一定的性吸引力7%,在保证绝不会被发现时有可能寻求与儿童的性关系3%。元分析则表明,估计接近5%的男性一定程度上对儿童具有性兴趣。

Pedophilia is prevalent. In an influential 1989 study, John Briere and Marsha Runtz sampled 193 male college students, and found that 9% reported that they had had at least some (more than zero) sexual fantasies involving prepubertal children, 5% admitted to having atleast once masturbated to such fantasies, and 7% indicated at least some likelihood of seeking sexual contact with a child if they were certain that they would avoid detection and punishment (Briere & Runtz 1989). In 1996, Kathy Smiljanich and John Briere sampled 279 students, and arrived at a similar result. They also found that there is a significant gender discrepancy among pedophiles: roughly seven out of eight pedophiles are men (Briere & Smiljanich 1996). In the most recent and most comprehensive study to date, Kathryn BeckerBlease, Daniel Friend, and Jennifer J. Freyd sampled 531 male students, and found that 7% admitted to having some sexual attraction to children and that 3% would consider seeking sexual contact with a child if they were certain that no one would find out (Becker-Blease, Friend & Freyd 2006). Nathaniel McCognathy (1998) and Michael C. Seto (2009), in their respective meta-analyses, estimate that around 5% of men, or slightly less than that, are to some extent sexually attracted toprepubertal children.

恋童癖研究涉及许多学科,如心理学、精神病学、犯罪学。由于涉及到性道德问题,恋童癖也是伦理学家的关注点之一。遗憾的是,伦理学家很少关注恋童癖。这是很不幸的,因为伦理学家能对我们应该如何理解、评估、处置恋童癖做出很多有价值的讨论。我在这篇文章将尝试分三个部分全面地讨论恋童癖道德。

首先,我会论证恋童癖本身的道德状态。然后,我会延伸到成人-儿童性关系上去,讨论成人-儿童性关系有什么问题,以及在什么情况下,成人方应受谴责。最后,我会讨论非真实恋童癖材料的道德问题,这些材料包括虚构故事、电脑合成图片,我们应该怎么看待这些材料的生产、传播与被使用呢?总的来说,我认为,恋童癖的问题只在于其会对儿童造成伤害。除此之外,其他恋童癖的行为在道德上是没有问题的。在文章的结尾,我还会根据这个观点提出一些实践性的建议。

Pedophilia concerns many different disciplines, most obviously psychology, psychiatry, and criminology. It is also, however, a subarea of sexual ethics, and as such, a concern for thicists. Disappointingly, however, ethicists have given little attention to pedophilia. This is unfortunate, because ethicists can make valuable contributions to how pedophilia should be understood, assessed, and handled. My goal with this paper is to discuss the ethics of pedophilia somewhat comprehensively, beginning with a consideration of the ethical status of being a pedophile. I then proceed to discuss adult-child sex: What makes it wrong for an adult to seek sexual contact with a child, and under what conditions are the adults who do so blameworthy? Finally, I turn to the ethical status of producing, distributing, and enjoying fictional stories and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content. The overall approach I will defend is that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children are morally all right. I explore a number of practical implications of this view in the conclusion.

1

根据WHO的定义,只需要有性偏好,而不需要实际行动,便可以将一个人归类为恋童者。那么,仅仅对儿童有性偏好是不道德的吗?

在回答这个问题之前,我们首先需要明白道德评价功利评价精神病性评估是不同的。从功利的眼光来看,恋童癖很可能是不对的,因为一个人不恋童的话会比恋童更好:对他自己来说,恋童可能意味着失去正常性生活的权利,对儿童来说,则意味着他们有可能因这个人的实际行为受到严重的伤害。从精神病学的眼光来看,恋童癖也可能是不对的,因为这可能是一种精神疾病(当然,对此的探讨并不是本文的议题,译者注)。但作为恋童者这件事本身,即仅仅根据定义,“对儿童有性偏好”,从道德评价的角度上来看,是不对的吗?

道德评价的客体通常首先必须是可控的或者可选择的。如果某些事是我们所不能控制的,例如我们的基因型,那似乎只能说这是一种幸运,或者不幸;甚至,我们可以说这是常态的,或者说是病态的。但不管怎么样,它似乎不大可能成为我们到的评判的客体。

According to WHO’s definition (quoted above) a pedophile is someone who has a sexual preference for children. Note that a pedophile, according to this definition, need not ever have acted on his preference in order to qualify as a pedophile. Is it immoral to have a
sexual preference for children?
Before answering this, it is worth noting that a moral assessment of pedophilia is different from both an evaluative and a psychiatric assessment. Pedophilia might well be evaluatively bad in the sense that it would be better if a given person were not a pedophile. Being a pedophile is unfortunate for the pedophile himself, who will most likely not have a good sexual and romantic life, and for a number of children, who might be seriously harmed by his actions. Pedophilia might also be psychiatrically bad in the sense that it might be a mental disease. But is being a pedophile, in the sense of having a sexual preference for children, immoral?
For something to be subject to moral assessment, we usually assume that it must be something that, in some sense, we control or choose. If something is entirely outside of our control, such as our genetic makeup, it seems that though it might be more or less
fortunate, and perhaps more or less pathological, it is not properly subject to
moral assessment.


那么,恋童者能选择或者控制自己的性偏好吗?目前为止,并没有证据说明如此。虽然没有达成一致,但是研究者都倾向于认为童年受到的性虐待或者神经发展问题这一类不可控的因素导致了恋童癖。现象学研究也表明,大多数恋童者是发现,而非选择了自己的性偏好——通常是在十几岁的时候。如果将恋童者爱上成人与我们这些非恋童者爱上儿童相比,也没有证据表明前者比后者更容易。

另外,成为恋童者意味着极多的不利,因此难以置信,如果选择是自愿的话,为什么会有人选择成为恋童者。尽管我无法给出决定性证据,但是看起来,恋童癖更可能并非一种选择。因此,尽管恋童者的性偏好可能是既不幸又病态,但是仅仅有性偏好并不能是道德或者不道德的。

Do pedophiles choose or control their sexual preferences? Nothing indicates that they do. The competing scientific explanations of pedophilia are conditioning, childhood sexual abuse, and neurodevelopmental perturbations. In terms of phenomenology, pedophiles report that they discover their sexual preference (usually in their teens), not that they choose it (see Seto 2007). Once someone is a pedophile, moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that it is any easier for them to choose to be sexually attracted to adults than it is for those of us who are not pedophiles to choose to be sexually attracted to children. Being a pedophile is also highly disadvantageous, so it is also puzzling, on a more general level, why anyone would choose a pedophilic preference in the first place. Though this issue cannot be settled here, it seems most plausible that pedophiles do not choose their preferences, and that though their preferences might well be both unfortunate and pathological, the mere fact of having such preferences is neither moral nor immoral.

2

现在我们已经论证了作为一个恋童者本身并非不道德的。但如果恋童者还想与儿童发生性接触呢?这是一种行动,而行动就是道德评价的客体。认为成人试图与儿童发生性接触——即发展成人-儿童性关系——是不道德的的理由有许多,此处我们讨论最重要的两个:伤害说允诺说。

Even if we grant that it is not immoral to be a pedophile, it might still be immoral for pedophiles to seek sexual contact with children. To do so is an action, or a series of actions,
and actions are subject to moral assessment. Though there are several possible arguments as to why it is immoral for adults to seek sexual contact with children, let me here examine what I take to be the two central arguments: the harm argument and the consent argument.

2.1 伤害说

伤害说的推导很简单:成人-儿童性行为会给儿童带来严重伤害,而(只为了一个成人的性愉悦而)伤害儿童是不道德的,所以成人-儿童性行为是不道德的。

成人-儿童性行为是如何给儿童带来损害的呢?有两种不同形式的伤害:身体性伤害精神性伤害。幼童卷入入侵性性交甚至强奸的时候显然很容易受到身体损伤。这没什么好争论的,本文也赞同这个观点。本人想要进一步讨论的是精神性伤害。这比身体性伤害要复杂得多,但却是我们讨论所不能忽视的部分,因为事实有很多成人-儿童性行为并不涉及物理暴力或者入侵性性交。虽并非所有,但恋童癖的典型行为还是拥抱、爱抚和对生殖器玩弄。而且,入侵性行为大多是在那些儿童方快要进入青少年期的案例里出现的。我们很难说拥抱、爱抚、玩弄生殖器会给儿童对带来身体性伤害(个人觉得最后一点存疑——译者注)。由于那些不涉及物理暴力或者入侵性性交的成人-儿童性行为占了很大比例,如果我们要说这种关系也是有问题的,那我们就要证明成人-儿童性行为带来的至少一部分是精神性伤害。


The harm argument is a simple argument with two premises: An empirical premise, that adult-child sex seriously harms children, and a normative premise, that it is immoral to
seriously harm children (at least as long as the only justification is that it gives an adult sexual pleasure). In what ways does adult-child sex harm children?
Presumably, we can distinguish between two main forms of harm. On the one hand, there is bodily harm. If small children are penetrated, or otherwise raped, they have a significant chance of being physically harmed. So much is indeed uncontroversial, and I shall take this for granted in the rest of the paper. What I shall discuss in more detail is psychological harm. Psychological harm is more complex and more controversial than bodily harm, and it is also the kind of harm to which we must appeal if we seek to explain why most adult-child sex is harmful. The reason why is that most adult-child sex does not involve violence or penetration. Though there are many tragic counterexamples, the most characteristic pedophile activities are cuddling, caressing, and genital fondling, and when full intercourse takes place, it occurs most commonly when the child is well into adolescence (Howitt 1995). It seems hard to argue that cuddling, caressing, and fondling causes physical harm to children’s bodies, so if we think that these cases are problematic as well, then the harms to which we appeal must, at least in part, be psychological.

我们来看看那些探讨成人-儿童性行为给儿童带来精神性伤害的实证研究。其中一个大型的研究是美国国家药物滥用研究中心(National Institute of Drug Abuse)进行的,样本为1400个成年女性。结果表明,儿时受到的性虐待与药物滥用、酒精滥用、抑郁、广泛性焦虑显著相关。另一个研究则发现性虐待与诸如解离性身份认同障碍、创伤后应激障碍、边缘性人格障碍、进食障碍等大量心理障碍相关。元分析估计51%到79%曾遭受过性虐待的儿童出现了精神障碍的征状。由于受到伤害的概念比导致心理障碍还要广泛——即,导致精神障碍是受到伤害的子集,我们似乎可以肯定地说,成人-儿童性关系会带来精神性伤害了。

There are several studies on the psychological effects of adult-child sex on children. One of the largest studies, funded by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse, found that in a sample of 1,400 adult women, childhood sexual abuse was significantly correlated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, major depression, and general anxiety disorder (Zickler 2002). Other studies identify a strong correlation between sexual abuse and various psychological disorders such as dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, and various eating disorders. Meta-analyses estimate that between 51% and 79% of sexually abused children display symptoms of psychological disorders (see Hornor 2010). Presumably, psychological disorders, or symptoms thereof, constitute harm, and arguably, the threshold for being harmed is even lower than the threshold for having identifiable psychological disorders or symptoms of such disorders. As such, the evidence for the harmful psychological effects of adult-child sex seems solid.

但伤害论也有他的反对者。哲学家Robert Ehman提出了三个反对理由。

第一,Ehman首先质疑以上研究的有效性。他认为,这些研究使用的卷入成人-儿童性行为的儿童样本不具有代表性。研究从那些寻求医疗帮助或者法律援助的人中取样(病、罪样本),而Ehman认为,寻求医疗帮助或者法律援助,本身就意味着他们受到的影响比那些没有成为样本的人更大,不然他们就不会寻求援助。而卷入自愿且感觉良好的成人-儿童性关系中因而没有去寻找医疗或者法律援助的那部分人,就因为取样偏差在研究中被忽视了。

(取样偏差的确是恋童癖研究中的一个大问题。1984年荷兰 Sandlfort 的一项研究,选用非病非罪样本,由社区中的恋童者推荐自己的伴侣参加实验,而尽管推荐,儿童方参与实验也必须自愿,因此能被筛选参加研究的儿童必然处于极其健康的成人-儿童关系中。在这样的取样标准下,研究竟然在10-16岁,平均年龄13岁的男孩样本中得出了成人-儿童性关系对儿童有益的结论。这个研究的取样明显也是有偏的,与主流研究不同的是,它完全偏向另外一个方向,但也能说明主流研究取样存在一定的问题。不过取样偏差在恋童癖研究中的主要体现并不在儿童方上,而是在成人方上。早年的研究大多采用病、罪样本,将child molester儿童性侵者等同于pedophilia恋童者。虽然有的研究会同时测量样本的性取向作为补充,也只能保证样本没有取错,而不能说明样本没有取偏。近期有一种趋势有些研究者开始关注社区样本。有些研究对比社区恋童者样本、病罪的恋童者样本、无恋童癖的性侵儿童者,发现早期一些使用病、罪样本得出的关于恋童癖的结论,如神经发育受阻说,可能是错误的。但需要注意的是,由于恋童癖的污名化以及法律问题,想要非病、罪的恋童者参与研究,则必须保证被试的匿名性。一种常见的方法就是从网上招募匿名的恋童者。而网基心理学研究的效度仍然是存疑的。译者注。)


There are, however, arguments to the effect that these findings fail to show that adult-child sex is harmful. Robert Ehman, a philosopher who has defended adult-child sex, has advanced three such arguments. Let us consider these. Ehman’s first argument against the harmfulness of adult-child sex is that the available research has been conducted using a non-representative sample of children who have had sexual contact with adults. “Although there is a good deal of clinical data on the effects of adult-child sex on the children,” Ehman argues, “there is little in the way of controlled scientific research.” The children who are studied are those that have come to clinical and legal attention, which is problematic, because “[t]he people who come to clinical and legal attention are not necessarily a typical cross section of the relevant population. … [T]hey are apt to be more negatively affected than those who do not come to clinical attention.” Indeed, he argues, it is often “the negative effects [that] bring them to clinical attention in the first place.” Instances of adult-child sex that are voluntary and considered good by both parties, and thus result in neither criminal charges nor psychiatric treatment, “remain invisible to clinical observation” (Ehman 1984: 433)

第二,自证预言说。Ehman认为,成人-儿童性关系带来精神伤害仅仅——或者至少主要——是社会看待这种关系的方式导致的。这就像是一种自证预言(意指人会不自觉的按已知的预言来行事,最终令预言发生。对教师说某个学生具有潜力,因教师的看法改变而该生成绩变好就是一种经典的自证预言。译者注)。Ehman认为,成人-儿童性关系之所以有害,是因为社会文化通过贴上评价性强烈的标签的方式,使得关于这段关系的经验变得具有创伤性。如在评价成人-儿童性关系时,我们总是用“性虐待”(abuse)、“性侵犯”(assault)、“猥亵”(molestation)这样的词,这些词等本身就同于告诉卷入成人-儿童性关系的儿童他们被伤害了一样。因此,Ehman认为成人-儿童性关系带来的精神伤害具有文化依存性,并列举了用不同态度看待成人-儿童性关系的文化作为证据,如古希腊。

Ehman’s second argument is that adult-child sex is harmful only, or predominantly, because of society’s way of viewing and handling sexual contact between adults and children. The harm, he suggests, is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In Ehman’s view, adult-child sex is made traumatizing by a culture that labels it with strongly evaluative terms such as “abuse,” “assault,” and “molestation,” and which tells the child it has been scarred for life. The harms are culturally contingent. To support this view, Ehman points to places where adult-child sex were viewed and handled very differently, such as Ancient Greece (Ehman 1984: 435-436).

最后,儿童性欲说。Ehman的认为儿童也具有性欲。无论性别,儿童都具有能力并且有兴趣参与多种的性活动中。大多数儿童都曾至少从某种意义上参与过与其他儿童的性活动中。因此,Ehman认为,反对者必须证明成人-儿童在任何情况下都不能给儿童对来愉悦,否则我们就要持更开放的观点,认为儿童与成人间的性关系可以是双方自愿的。


Ehman’s final argument is that children are sexual beings: Children of both sexes are capable of and interested in various types of sexual experiences, and most children have at
some point engaged in sexual activities with other children. Because of this, Ehman takes it that the burden of proof rests on those who claim that a child’s sexual gratification may not, in any circumstances, come from sexual contact with an adult. If the burden of proof cannot be met, the argument goes, we should be open to the view that sexual contact between an adult and a child will sometimes be mutually desirable.

如何看待Ehman的观点呢?对于第一个观点,样本偏差,必须承认,的确有一部分的研究的样本采用了病、罪样本。但是并非所有的样本都具有这样的问题。举例来说,美国国家药物滥用研究所(National Institute of Drug Abuse)的研究的样本是非举证来源的,但仍然发现了成人-儿童性关系与心理问题间的显著相关。这是在Ehman提出他的观点之后才有的研究,情有可原,那只讨论Ehman发表文章前,即1984年前的研究呢?即使这样,Ehman的观点仍然是不成立的:即使有一定数量的未受伤害的儿童未被取样,我们也不清楚这群儿童数量有多少,而Ehman的论点想要成立,就必须接受其蕴含的这群儿童数量庞大的隐喻,但他自己并不能证明这群儿童数量究竟是多是少。另外,Ehman 认为未发声意味着没有受到伤害,然则我们也可以说,部分卷入成人-儿童性关系的儿童未发声,是因为害怕、羞愧,或因为不被相信,甚至更糟糕地,是因为其失去性命而永远不能再告诉世人真相了。总的来说,样本有偏这一论点的确指出了一部分研究的缺陷,但是仍不足以说明Ehman是对的——样本有偏不过提供了Ehman是对的的可能性。又因为更有代表性的研究得出了相似的结论,这个说法就显得更无力了。

What should we make of Ehman’s arguments? Regarding his first argument, the appeal to an unrepresentative sample, we must concede that it is problematic that many studies are concerned only with cases that are brought to clinical or legal attention. It is worth noting, however, that not all studies suffer from this problem; the US National Institute of Drug Abuse study, for example, relies on a non-forensic and presumably representative sample, and still finds a significant correlation between adult-child sex and psychological problems. Even if we focus exclusively on the studies that were available when Ehman published his paper (1984), however, it is still unclear how much Ehman’s argument really shows. Though he might have been right that a group of unharmed children escaped the researchers’ attention, nothing in Ehman’s argument tells us how large that group is. His argument is compatible with the unharmed group being very large, but it is just as compatible with it being very small. We must also take into account the potential underreporting of harmful sexual abuse, so Ehman cannot assume that all, or even most, unreported cases did not result in harm. Children might have failed to tell anyone due to fear or shame, due to few or no prospects of being believed, or, in the worst cases, due to not living to tell. As such, the unrepresentative sample argument, though it does point to a weakness in some of the research, does not show that Ehman is right; it merely allows for the possibility that he is, and since more representative studies also find similar correlations, his first argument is very much weakened.

我们再来看Ehman的第二个论点,自证预言。很难否认说文化可能影响儿童对成人-儿童性关系的心理反应。事实上,最近的心理学研究甚至提供了支持性证据:儿童性虐待的受害者通常不会立刻因创伤而出现心理问题;相反,当随后,有足够的时间反复地对记忆进行加工、检查,并且个体成长到有足够的认知能力充分了解这些事的意义后,心理问题才出现。既然损害是经过认知评估后才出现的,就有可能说明,主流文化的态度影响了儿童的反应。

但是,这也不能说明成人-儿童性关系没有问题。第一,即使Ehman是对的,成人-儿童性关系带来的精神损害具有文化依存性,这也不能丝毫影响儿童受到的伤害的真实性。也许因为社会规范是造成损害的一员,我们应该另外展开一场辩论来探讨这样的社会规范是否需要更变。但是在真的更变之前,成人-儿童性关系仍然真真切切地对儿童带来伤害,这些伤害并不会因为是社会态度造成的就少上或多上哪怕一分。第二,使用诸如“猥亵”、“性虐待”、“性侵”这样的带有强烈价值评判色彩的词并不足以能说明社会态度是精神伤害的原因。更可能的是,先因为成人-儿童性关系是有害的,我们才采用这样的词来形容。“强奸”(Rape)也不是一个中性概念,但这并不能说明强奸带来的伤害是自证预言的结果。第三,关于古希腊的例子,我们要注意,古希腊文化中盛行的是成年男子与青少年之间的性关系,而不是成年男子与青春期前儿童的性关系。更重要的是,古希腊文化接受一种活动并不能说明这种活动就是无害的。别忘记了古希腊还有奴隶制,同时还压迫女性。

(此处有诡辩的嫌疑。古希腊文化的看法的确可能是不对的。但是,Ehman是要通过在古希腊文化中由于文化的不同,成人-儿童性关系没有给儿童带来伤害,来说明这种伤害是文化依存性的。其目的是要说明伤害具有文化依存性,而不是说这种关系是正确的。古希腊文化本身是对是错并不影响什么,只要它是不同文化就行了。想要反驳这个看法,就要直接从上文这句话下手,要么反驳这不是一种成人-儿童性关系,要么举证说这种关系带来了伤害。作者指出说不是儿童而是青少年就足矣。大家认为呢?译者注)

What concerns Ehman’s second argument, the appeal to a self-fulfilling prophecy, it seems hard to deny that cultural attitudes influence children’s psychological reactions to adult-child
sex. In fact, this view has gained some recent support by the findings of Harvard psychologist Susan Clancy (2011), which indicate that victims of child sexual abuse typically do not suffer psychological problems because the abuse was traumatizing when it happened, but rather, that the abuse tends to become a problem later on when the memories are processed and examined, and the actions more fully understood. If much of the harm occurs only after conceptual evaluation, this might suggest an important role for cultural attitudes in determining children’s negative responses .
This is not, however, enough to save Ehman’s argument. First, even if Ehman is right that the harms areculturally contingent, this does not make the harms any less real, for presumably, a child’s suffering is just as bad when it is contingent on culture as when it is not. A child, moreover, cannot be held responsible for having internalized the norms of his or her society. Though Ehman is right that if the harms are culturally contingent, this raises the question of whether our norms can and should be changed, it still holds true that until or unless they are changed, adult-child sex causes harm to children. Second, the fact that we use strongly value-laden terms such as “molestation,” “abuse,” and “assault” does not show that our cultural attitudes cause the harms of adult-child sex through a self-fulfilling prophecy, for we might use strongly value-laden terms for the very reason that adult-child sex is harmful. “Rape” is not a neutral concept either, but that does not show that the harms of rape are the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Third, regarding the appeal to Ancient Greece, it should be pointed out that what was condoned in Ancient Greek culture was sexual relationships between men and teenagers, not between men and prepubertal children (see Nussbaum 1994). Moreover, the fact that a certain practice was accepted in Ancient Greece does not show that the practice was harmless. Consider, for example, slavery or the oppression of women.

我对自证预言部分的回应可以在第三部分进一步体现。必须承认,某种意义上,儿童是有性欲的。那么姑且就此认为反对成人-儿童性关系者需要承担举证责任吧。儿童有性欲,但是儿童的性不一定与成人相同。通过指出成人和儿童之间的不同,我们可以解释为什么成人-儿童性关系对儿童方有害。成人与儿童的性有什么不同呢?第一,正如 Ben Piecker 和 Jan Steutel 所说,尽管儿童也有性欲,但是儿童的性与成人的性绝不相同,两者参与性活动的目的也不相同。

比如说,在肌肤相亲之中,儿童相要得到的不是性满足,而是情感满足。即使有时候儿童在肌肤相亲中带有性的目的——这的确存在,自慰的儿童可以感觉到愉快——他们对性的概念也不尽相同。儿童虽然能体验到自身身体的性愉悦,也会体现出对他人身体的好奇,但是对他们而言,他人的身体并没有性吸引力。

另外,从 不同目的 这一角度延伸开来说,成人与儿童在知识与权力上是不平等的。从权力上来说,正如David Finkelhor所记载的,“成人控制了儿童生活中几乎所有重要资源——食物、钱、自由,等等等等”;从知识上来说,成人懂得更多,儿童也因此倾向于相信成人的话,其结果就是,当成人提出性邀约的时候,儿童很难说不。如果成人在已经获得了儿童的信任的情况下再三请求就更加了。尽管对成人方来说,其本意可能没有这么强烈,但是对儿童方来说,这种邀约的压力是压倒性的。

最后,儿童的经验世界更加脆弱,因此,成人方的侵入性性行为以及儿童对成人的信任破裂可能对儿童对自己与他人身体的看法产生重大影响。

性目的权力知识以及脆弱性上的差异,决定了儿童虽然有性欲,成人-儿童的性关系仍然对儿童有害。

Our response to the self-fulfilling prophecy argument is given further strength by how we may respond to Ehman’s last argument, the appeal to children’s sexuality. Here I think we must concede that children are, in some sense, sexual beings, and for the sake of the argument, let us also concede that this places the burden of proof on those who claim that there should not be any sexual contact between adults and children. Placing a burden, however, is not the same as settling a case, for the question then becomes whether the burden can be satisfied. To satisfy the burden, we would need to point to a difference, or a range of differences, between adults and children that explains why sexual contact between them harms children. There are, I think, several differences that can play this explanatory role. One difference, pointed out by Ben Piecker and Jan Steutel, is that although children are sexual beings in one respect, child and adult sexualities are importantly different, and children and adults have different aims in sexual engagement. For one, children might often seek nothing sexual at all in physical intimacy with an adult, but rather, seek confirmation and affection. Moreover, even in cases where the child’s motivation for physical intimacy is in some sense sexual (presumably, a child can find genital fondling pleasant), the aims in sexual involvement are still different, for though children can experience sexual pleasure, and can be curious about others’ bodies, they do not feel sexually attracted to others and desire others’ bodies the way adults do (Piecker & Steutel 1997: 332-338). In addition to having different aims, there is also an asymmetry of power and knowledge between children and adults. On the one hand, David Finkelhor observes, “adults control all kinds of resources that are essential to [children] – food, money, freedom, etc.” (Finkelhor 1979: 693). On the other hand, adults are more knowledgeable than children and children tend to trust adults. For these reasons, it might be very hard for a child to say no to an approaching adult, especially if the adult insists and has already gained the child’s trust. Presumably, the pressure can be overwhelming even if the adult does not intend it this way. Finally, children are vulnerable, so a bodily invasion and a breach of trust might cause significant difficulties for how children perceive their own bodies and how they perceive adults. Differences in aims, power, knowledge, and vulnerability seem to come far in explaining why, in spite of the fact that children are sexual beings, adult-child sex harms children.

需要注意的是,虽然这些差异在成人-儿童性关系中是常见的,但是我们仍然只描述了部分(即使是大部分)成人-儿童性关系中的元素。若我们的反对理由是基于这些差异的话,我们就要承认在有些个例中,儿童并没有受到伤害——如果在这些个例中我们所说的性目的、权力、知识、脆弱性没有起作用,或者至少没有以有害的方式作用的话。甚至,有些很特别的例子里,孩子不但没有受到伤害,甚至在成年后回溯性地将这段关系视作是正性的。我之所以这样说,是有实证性研究证据支持的。在 Rind 等人的一个著名的涉及59个研究的元分析中,研究者不但关注儿童有没有受到伤害,还留意是否报告有正性经验。研究发现,曾在童年卷入成人-儿童性关系大学生中,有一小部分回忆认为这段经验是正性的。研究者还发现个体所受心理伤害的程度与个体在回忆中是否认为双方自愿,两者之间关系密切。

Importantly, however, by pointing to differences in aims, power, knowledge, and vulnerability, we are pointing to often present but still contingent features of relationships between children and adults. As long as our argument rests on an appeal to such differences, we must concede that it possible that in some cases children are not harmed by adult-child sex. There might be special cases where differences in aims, power, knowledge, and vulnerability do not come into play, or do not do so in a harmful manner. Indeed, we must concede that, in exceptional cases, the child might not only fail to be harmed but might also, retrospectively, view the incident positively. This conclusion is backed up by empirical findings. In an influential meta-analysis of 59 studies, Rind, Tromovitch & Bauserman (1995) looked not merely for harm or lack of harm, but also for reports of positive experiences, and found that a minority of college students who had had sexual contact with an adult when they were children, retrospectively described this experience as positive. Rind also found that the extent of psychological damage depended heavily on whether or not the incident(s) were retrospectively described as “consensual.”

美国国会曾因此谴责Rind,认为他为恋童者组织提供了合理化成人-儿童性关系的证据。这个说法其实是站不住脚的。毕竟,在承认显著伤害才是主流的前提下,有部分孩子没有受到伤害,而仅有更少部分受益这一说法,也不能改变我们对成人-儿童性关系的原本预期。如果要打个比方的话,让儿童卷入与成人的性关系就像给儿童吸服一次硬性毒品(拥有成瘾性的毒品,与软性毒品相对。译者注)一样,即使部分孩子并没有因此成瘾,甚至少部分孩子随后还认为吸服毒品这一体验不错,但仍不能否认,我们应预期这一行为是有害的,甚至在某些情况下时毁灭性的。

Rind’s study was condemned by the US Congress for providing material that could be used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities. It is doubtful, however, if Rind’s findings give pedophile organizations what they want. After all, granted the significant harms that often occur, the fact that some children are not harmed—and that a minority reports that their sexual experiences were positive—fails to establish that harm is not expected to result from adult-child sex. A useful parallel to engaging in adult-child sex might be that of giving children hard drugs. Even if we concede that giving children hard drugs might sometimes end well, and even if we discovered that a minority later on reported that being given hard drugs was in sum a positive experience, it will still be true that harm should be expected and that, in some cases, devastating harm will be the result.

这样看来,我们要改一下措辞了。不是有害,而是有风险。于是原来的表达“成人-儿童性行为会给儿童带来严重伤害,而(只为了一个成人的性愉悦而)伤害儿童是不道德的,所以成人-儿童性关系是不道德的。”就变成了“成人-儿童性关系会使儿童暴露在受伤害的高风险环境中,而社会规范认为使儿童暴露于受伤的高风险环境是不道德的(除非是为了某些更重要的目的),因此成人-儿童性关系是不道德的。”

It therefore seems that we should reformulate the harm argument in terms of risk of harm. The empirical premise, on this variant of the argument, is that adult-child sex exposes children to a high risk of being seriously harmed; the normative premise is that it is morally wrong to expose children to a high risk of being seriously harmed (absent very strong overriding reasons to the contrary). If we accept both of these premises, as it seems that we should, we have a sound argument as to why it is wrong to engage in adult-child sex.

------------------------吾名分割线------------------------

至此,作者已经论述了伤害论与允诺论中的前者,结论为因为恋童癖关系会使儿童处于创伤的高风险中,因而应该禁止。

看文章不单只要消化,也要产生些新的东西。在末尾,我想提出两个问题供大家讨论。

第一,文章中提到的,精神伤害的文化依存性问题。成人-儿童性关系对儿童在日后造成的精神伤害具有文化依存性吗?是文化影响造成的吗?如果回答是“是”的话,伤害又是通过什么方式造成的呢?是自证预言还是其他呢?

讨论这个问题并不是没有意义的。台湾哲学学者朱家安曾经在TEDx中谈论同志婚姻中的领养问题时提到过:有反对者认为同性伴侣的小孩处境维艰,因此应该禁止同性伴侣领养小孩;而事实上,同性伴侣的小孩的困难是社会氛围对同志不友善造成的,因此,真正、更公平的解决方法应该是改变社会氛围,而不是禁止领养。

类似的逻辑也可以用在这里。现阶段来说,由于伤害的实质性,我们当然要暂时禁止恋童癖关系,但是如果伤害是文化影响造成的,从长远的眼光来说,真正的解决方法就应该是改变文化氛围。

所以,尽管文化依存性并不影响伤害的实质存在,但是对文化依存论的讨论仍然充满意义。

第二,作者指出,并不是所有的恋童癖关系中,儿童都会受到伤害。什么决定了事件是否会发生呢?是上帝投了骰子之后,随机地抓取一部分儿童受难,而放过了另外一部分,这是一个随机事件吗?还是可能是孩子的成长环境中的什么因素、孩子的什么性格、这段关系的什么特性,导致了一部分儿童受难,而另一部分拥有不同特性的孩子就幸免于难呢?后者似乎更能让人信服。事实上,很多看似随机的事件其实都是涉及因素太过复杂的结果。但是复杂本身并不能阻挡我们求知的道路,尽管很多时候因为社会资源的不足我们必须在不是刃尖的地方做出牺牲。

如果这不是一个随机事件,而是这段关系的什么特性导致了儿童是否受到精神损害,那就意味着我们可以作出类的区分。有恶性的恋童癖关系,也有非恶性的恋童癖关系,不能一概而论之。

事实上,我们在讨论恋童癖这个话题的时候,常常是将其当做单一的概念来理解,进而因为不同人有不同的理解,而产生意见的分歧。这我觉得是可以理解的,原因在于对大多数人而言,恋童癖仍然是一个陌生的词。我们在理解不那么熟悉的事物的时候,由于信息不足,往往都通过刻板印象的方式减少思维负荷,使理解更为容易。通过这种方法,我们当然更快地学习了关于恋童癖的内容,但是我们也不应满足于此,因为我们仅仅掌握了单一的印象,而我们可以通过掌握更多的信息对概念进行细分。就好比对小二学生来说,数学意味着加减乘除,而如果问到我们,我们首先会把数学分为代数与几何。

混淆并非只会出自于概念的内部。一种常见的错误就是混淆猥亵儿童者(CHild Molester)与恋童者(Pedophilia)。就拿最近的例子来说, 南京地铁事件中的男子在公众场合中猥亵儿童确认无疑,但尚未有证据表明其是恋童者,即性欲指向主要为儿童者;而对许豪杰材料进行分析我们可以说他很可能是一名同性恋恋童者,但相反,尽管其有部分行为违法甚至犯罪,目前并未有他接触性犯罪,即猥亵儿童的证据。而许多人仍是将两者一概论之。

进而,同样由于不熟悉,我们同样很容易将个人行为类化,或相反,

扯远了,说这么多,我只是想表达,我们在讨论中要时刻记住,其一,恋童癖并不是一个单一的概念,其二,如果我们只掌握了这个概念的一部分,而且是不同部分,我们在讨论的时候可能双方说的根本不是同一件事,因而驴头不搭马嘴。因此,厘清这个概念很重要,因为它是讨论的前提。离开它,讨论就没有意义。

我们总是在特定的语境下讨论问题。很难想象许豪杰问题下的某些评论、音芙:如何看待微博上#南京南站小女孩被猥亵#事件?下的回答会以同样的语气出现在恋童者的殇,何时休?恋童之殇,何时休?如何跟小萝莉搭讪?被掰弯是一种怎样的体验?林旭旸:我是恋童癖 我该怎么办?之类的问题下面。

顺带一提,各种百科之中一种常见的分类方法是将恋童者分为固定型、回归型、攻击型。这可能在犯罪心理学与精神病理学的领域存在意义,但是就我个人的经验来看,这种分类方法,指导意义不大。

接下文文献快递——论恋童癖的伦理道德(中)

(题图出自恋童癖主题电影《密室禁脔》(又名《米夏尔》),侵删)

参考文献

Becker-Blease, K., Friend, D., Freyd, J. J. (2006) Child Sex Abuse Perpetrators Among Male

University Students. Presentation at 22nd Annual Meeting of the International Society for

Traumatic Stress Studies, Hollywood; CA. November 4-7.

Benatar, D. (2002) Two Views of Sexual Ethics: Promiscuity, Pedophilia, and Rape. Public

Affairs Quarterly, 16 (3), p. 191–201.

Briere, J., Smiljanich, K. (1996) Self-reported Sexual Interest in Children: Sex Differences and Psychosocial Correlates in a University Sample. Violence and Victims, 11(1), p. 39-50.

Briere, J., Runtz, M. (1989) University Males’ Sexual Interest in Children: Predicting Potential

Indices of ‘Pedophilia’ in a Non-Forensic Sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13 (1), p. 65–

75.

Clancy, S. A. (2011) The Trauma Myth. New York: Basic Books, 2011.

Diamond, M., Uchiyama, A. (1999) Pornography, Rape, and Sex Crimes in Japan.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22 (1), pp. 1–22.

Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., Weiss, P. (2011) Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech

Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40 (5), pp. 1037–43.

Ehman, R. (1984) Adult-Child Sex. In: Philosophy of Sex, 2nd ed., Robert Baker & Fredrick

Elliston (eds.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Endrass J. et.al. (2009) The Consumption of Internet Child Pornography and Violent and Sex

Offending. BMC Psychiatry 43 (9) p. 1-7.

Finkelhor, D. (1979) What’s Wrong With Sex Between Adults and Children? American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry 49 (4), pp. 692–697.

Green, R. (2002) Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31 (6) pp. 467- 471.

Hornor, G. (2010) Child sexual abuse: Consequences and implications. Journal of Pediatric

Health Care, 24 (6) p. 358–364.

Howitt, D. (1995a) Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children. Chichester, Wiley.

Howitt, D. (1995b) “Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic?”, British Journal of

Medical Psychology, Vol. 68, No. 1, 1995, p. 17.

Kershnar, S. (2001) The Moral Status of Harmless Adult-Child Sex. Public Affairs Quarterly,

15 (2), p. 111-32.

Luck, M. (1999) The Gamer’s Dilemma: An Analysis of the Arguments for the Moral Distinction between Virtual Murder and Virtual Paedophilia. Ethics and Information Technology 11 (1), p. 31–36.

McConaghy, N. (1998) Pedophilia: A Report of the Evidence. Australian and New Zealand

Journal of Psychiatry, 32, p. 252-265.

Nussbaum, M. (1994) Platonic Love and Colorado Law: The Relevance of Ancient Greek

Norms to Modern Sexual Controversies. Virginia Law Review 80 (7), 1994, pp. 1515-651.

Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Forns, M., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2009) The Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse in Community and Student Samples: A Meta-analysis”. Clinical Psychology Review, 29 (4), p. 328-338.

Primoratz, I. (1999) Pedophilia. Public Affairs Quarterly, 13 (1), p. 99–110.

Riegel, D. (2004) Effects on Boy-Attracted Pedosexual Males of Viewing Boy Erotica. Archives of Sexual Behavior 33 (4), 2004, p. 321-323.

Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., Bauserman, R. (1998) A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed

Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin 124 (1) pp.

22-53.

Seto, M. C. (2007) Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2007).

Seto, M. C. (2009) Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, p. 391-407.

Spiecker, B. & Steutel J. (1997) Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity. Journal of Moral

Education 26 (3) p. 331–342

World Health Organization (2010) Paedophilia. International Statistical Classification of

Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) Version for 2010, Section

F65.4.

Wilson, G. D., Cox, D. N. (1983) The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society. London: Peter Owen.

Zickler, P. (2002) Childhood Sex Abuse Increases Risk for Drug Dependence in Adult

Women. National Institute of Drug Abuse Notes 17 (1).

文章被以下专栏收录
11 条评论
推荐阅读