被禁止的性行為與性暴力

成人與兒童的性接觸

對於像本教程這樣的普通教程，成人與兒童之間的性接觸是一個難度不小的選題。作為一門導論教程，在此留意到有一定實用價值的三個國際公約也許莫無裨益：

第一個聯合國權利公約已經同時得到了幾乎所有國家的批准，第二個聯合國權利公約獲得各個國家批准的情況也較樂觀。另一方面，因為歐盟委員會相對較新的這個決議書擴展了兒童期的定義而遭到抨擊。不過，這個決議書只是步早前的聯合國權利公約的後塵而已。當然，這三個文件都是這樣定義“兒童”的：“小於18周歲的每一個人”。

毋庸置疑，起草這些文件的作者是出於保護和也給予兒童個人權利的崇高願望的動機。但是，正如許多性學家和律師已經指出的那樣，在人類的性的方面，“為了青少年的利益”簡單地通過稱他們為兒童而否定他們這樣的權利是輕率的。法律把兒童期擴展到青春期之後，蓄意地忽視生物上的事實，一定會導致一些非常負面的後果。甚至，這個關於兒童的新定義，可能會終止對其它免於法律責任的十幾歲的青少年數量巨大的犯罪指控。例如，如果他們相互拍攝“淫穢的”照片或“為報酬”而發生性行為（可能也包括被邀請去拍攝類似的電影）就會違法[3]。此外，這個關於兒童的定義與許多國家的刑法相矛盾，這就更不要說現行的精神病診斷手冊了。

正如該舉例顯示的一樣，在如何定義“兒童”這一點上現今不存在普遍一致的意見，而且就青少年的性權利和性義務方面也不存在多數人一致同意的意見。現時不協調的觀點只不過反映了我們的社會對待青年人一直以來的矛盾心態。

Prohibited Sexual Behavior and Sexual Violence

Adult Sexual Contact with Children

Sexual contact between adults and children is a difficult topic for a general course like this. As an introduction, it may be useful to take note of three international conventions that are of some relevance here:

1. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990
2. UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, 2002
3. EU Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, 2003

The first of the UN conventions has, in the meantime, been ratified by almost all countries, and the second is well on its way. The relatively new EU Framework Decision, on the other hand, has come under attack for its extensive definition of childhood. However, it only follows the example of the preceding UN conventions. Indeed, all three texts define “child” as “every human being below the age of eighteen years”.
Undoubtedly, the authors of these documents were motivated by the noble wish to secure and extend important personal rights also to children. However, as many sexologists and lawyers have pointed out, in the sphere of human sexuality, it is unwise to deny such rights to adolescents “for their own good” by simply calling them children. The legal extension of childhood beyond puberty willfully disregards the biological facts and is bound to lead to some very negative unintended consequences. Indeed, the new definition is likely to end up criminalizing vast numbers of otherwise harmless teenagers. For example, they will break the law if they take “lascivious” photos of each other or have sexual intercourse “for remuneration”, which can include the invitation to a movie ¹. Moreover, the definition is in direct conflict with the criminal laws in many countries, to say nothing of current psychiatric handbooks.
As this example shows, there is no general agreement today on how to define a “child”, and there is no consensus about the sexual rights and duties of adolescents. The present inconsistent views merely reflect our society’s continuing ambivalence towards the young.

1. Helmut Graupner JD, “The 17-Year-Old Child: An Absurdity of the Late 20th Century”,
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, Vol. 16, Nr 2/3