Ames M A, Houston D A
Indiana University, Bloomington 47401.
Arch Sex Behav. 1990 Aug;19(4):333-42. doi: 10.1007/BF01541928.
Although there is substantial evidence in the historical and anthropological record of the sexual use of children by adults, surprisingly little is known about the etiology of pedophilia or its relation to other forms of sexual aggression. After briefly reviewing the research on pedophilia, we argue that one major difficulty in conducting or interpreting such research lies in the different definitions "pedophilia" has received. Most important, much of the research has accepted a legal definition of pedophilia, treating all offenders convicted of "child molestation" as pedophiles, regardless of the age or appearance of the victim. We argue that a distinction should be made between biological children and sociolegal children. Laws governing child molestation reflect sociolegal childhood, regardless of its discrepancy with biological childhood. "True" pedophiles should be identified by their preference for biological children. By using legal classifications, researchers may well be confusing two distinct types of offenders, child molesters and rapists, and confounding attempts to understand pedophilia.
尽管在历史和人类学记录中有大量关于成年人对儿童进行性侵犯的证据,但令人惊讶的是,我们对恋童癖的病因及其与其他形式性侵犯的关系知之甚少。在简要回顾了关于恋童癖的研究后,我们认为进行或解释此类研究的一个主要困难在于“恋童癖”所得到的不同定义。最重要的是,许多研究采用了恋童癖的法律定义,将所有被判“猥亵儿童”罪的罪犯都视为恋童癖者,而不管受害者的年龄或外貌如何。我们认为应该区分生理意义上的儿童和社会法律意义上的儿童。关于猥亵儿童的法律反映的是社会法律意义上的童年,而不论其与生理意义上的童年是否存在差异。“真正的”恋童癖者应以其对生理意义上儿童的偏好来界定。通过使用法律分类,研究人员很可能混淆了两种不同类型的罪犯,即猥亵儿童者和强奸犯,从而干扰了对恋童癖的理解。