Male Intergenerational Intimacy

Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives

Alex Van Naerssen,Theo Sandfort

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317992066
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Law Theory & Practice
• Index: Law

This groundbreaking book presents new historical, legal, sociological, psychological, and cross-disciplinary research on male intergenerational intimacy. Experts thoroughly document and further the discussion about this area of research through historical and ethnological examples from different times and places, and aim to clarify how controversies about the subject have evolved in modern Western society. The editors of Male Intergenerational Intimacy have solicited original research and literature reviews which do not digress into emotional arguments for or against intergenerational intimacy but instead aim to establish the basics for a research-based scholarship.The contributors address the implications of intergenerational intimacy on a variety of levels--from friendship and companionship through sexual dimensions--and further analyze personal accounts to illustrate how individuals involved in intergenerational intimacy understand themselves and how they construct their concepts of intimacy and sexual identity. Contributors also deal with intergenerational intimacy behaviors that require counseling, treatment, and psychotherapeutic interventions from a positive approach. Finally, separate chapters deal with criminology issues and penal codes as they relate to the subject area.

Tolerance at Arm’s Length: The Dutch Experience

Jan Schuijer, MA

Netherlands

Jan Schuijer has a M A in economics and is a member of the Committee on Legislation of the Netherlands Society for Gay Integration COC. Correspondence may be sent to the author at Mozartlaan 73, 7522 HL Enschede, Netherlands.

SUMMARY. With respect to pedophilia and the age of consent, the Netherlands warrants special attention. Although pedophilia is not as widely accepted in the Netherlands as sometimes is supposed, developments in the judicial practice showed a growing reservedness. These developments are a spin-off of related developments in Dutch society. The tolerance in the Dutch society has roots that go far back in history and is also a consequence of the way this society is structured. The social changes of the sixties and seventies resulted in a “tolerance at arm’s length” for pedophiles, which proved to be deceptive when the Dutch government proposed to lower the age of consent in 1985. It resulted in a vehement public outcry. The prevailing sex laws have been the prime target of protagonists of pedophile emancipation. Around 1960, organized as a group, they started to undertake several activities. In the course of their existence, they came to redefine the issue of pedophilia as one of youth emancipation.

MYTHS AND FACTS

This article is devoted to the developments in The Netherlands concerning pedophilia and the age of consent. The Netherlands warrants attention with respect to these issues if only to disentangle myths from facts. The Dutch have a reputation for being tolerant, although this view is probably held more widely outside than inside The Netherlands.¹ It has even been asserted that the Dutch are over-permissive, not least with respect to the aforementioned issues. In the United States, the makers of NBC’s “Silent Shame” frowned upon the alleged legalization of child pornography in The Netherlands. The Spartacus Publishing Company of Amsterdam, often seen as the main inciter of boy prostitution in Southeast Asia, has come under attack from such organizations as Terre des Hommes and the United Nations. The mirror image of this indignation can be found in exhilarating notes on the Dutch situation in publications like the one by Tom O’CarroIl, former chairman of the British Paedophile Information Exchange. He detects a “warm glow” radiating from the opposite side of the North Sea, as compared with only “a few glimmers of encouragement” in North America.²

However, the impression this might convey, namely that pedophilia is an accepted phenomenon in The Netherlands, is largely mistaken, as is demonstrated by the results of an inquiry into Dutch sentiments on the subject shown in Table 1. Although the survey dates from 1976, it is unlikely that public support for sex below the legal age of consent has grown much, if at all, in the meantime. According to a TV poll, which was taken in 1985, only 13 percent of the population supported a lowering of the age of consent from the present 16 to 12. So when the above-mentioned allegations were made, the Dutch advocates of freedom for intergenerational sex had in fact failed to ensure a solid social base for their demands. At that same time, however, they could be relatively satisfied by developments in another area: the practice of the judiciary. A statistical study of prosecution and conviction of sexual offenses in The Netherlands concluded in 1982: “The public at large, the police and the judiciary appear to be increasingly tolerant, especially of public exhibitionism and sexual contacts with minors.”³ Although this is presently untrue with respect to “the public at large,” it is a fact that the number of convictions for sex with a minor under 16 (excluding dependency relations) came down from 10.7 to 0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants between 1950 and 1982, i.e., by 93 percent. Over the same period, the number of convictions for rape rose six-fold: from 0.25 to 1.5 per 100,000. Since 1982 the downward trend has been reversed as far as sex with children is concerned, but the 1.4 convictions per 100,000 in 1988 are still far below the numbers reached during the ‘50s. Public prosecutors in The Netherlands can refrain from prosecuting if this is in the general interest, and they often do so. Their emphasis has markedly shifted from prosecuting “indecencies” like exhibitionism and pornography to protecting people’s sexual self-determination. The aforementioned statistics, like the ones in Table 2, reflect the social drive toward sexual liberation, in which the denunciation of the role of the state as moralist is a major element. Its heyday was the ‘60s and ‘70s and it could be argued that advocates of pedophilia merely jumped on the bandwagon. When they started their public campaign in the mid ‘70s, the number of convictions for sex below the age of consent had already declined to about 1.5 per 100,000 per year.

Table 1. Sentiments of the Dutch Population with Respect to Pedophilia

Suppose that someone you know appears to like romping with children and to fondle and caress them sexually.

	Yes (%)	No (%)	Don’t Know (%)
Would you still want to have any contact with them?	29	60	10
Would you want to work with them, e.g., as a colleague?	26	64	9
Would you allow them to visit you regularly as a friend?	24	62	12
Would you want them to be your neighbor?	38	44	17
Would you want to discuss your concerns and problems with them?	23	69	8
Suppose you have children, would you allow them to take care of them, e.g., as a teacher?	13	77	9
Would you allow them to look after your children, e.g., as a baby-sitter?	4	89	5

Source: G. Nijhof (1978): poll taken in 1976.

These juridical developments have not been translated into legalization. Sexual contact with a person under 16 remains entirely illegal. In 1985, after first presenting a bill that would have legalized non-coercive contacts with children between 12 and 16 and then meeting with immediate and strong opposition, the Minister of Justice had to retrace his steps hastily. This may in part have been due to his clumsy presentation of the proposal, suggesting a far more extensive decriminalization than the bill actually provided for. But the event was indicative of the nature of Dutch tolerance vis-a-vis adult/child sex. The issue is debatable, and this fits into the tradition of allowing great freedom in the expression of opinions that diverge from the mainstream. When it comes to acting, however, it will appear that the scope for social and legal change is not much larger than it is in the rest of the western world. To put the situation of pedophilia in The Netherlands in a nutshell: The sexual contacts themselves, or a substantial decriminalization, are usually not accepted, but the impulse to bar a free discussion of the issue is considerably less powerful than in most European countries and in North America. This greater open-mindedness has left some impact on prosecutorial policy in the sense that this policy has for years been less uncivilized than elsewhere.

Obviously this phenomenon cannot be explained when looked upon in isolation. It is a spin-off of related developments. First, there is the strongly increased openness regarding sexual matters, youth sexuality included. Whether teenagers may have sex with their peers is hardly an issue. Sexual ignorance among Dutch teenagers is comparatively small, witness the fact that the incidence of teenage abortions is among the lowest in Europe and only one-ninth that of the United States.⁴ Second, the country has a large and influential gay rights movement, led by the 7,000 member Netherlands Society for Gay Integration (COC), which has succeeded in making the general public accustomed to the existence of alternative sexual preferences and lifestyles. Third, discrimination of minorities is actively fought against, both by the authorities and a multitude of private organizations. Since 1983 the Constitution has provided for a general prohibition of discrimination. Fourth, the penal system has traditionally been liberal (without leading to excessive crime rates), meaning that a high percentage of cases are not prosecuted and the punishments are relatively light. Grass root sentiments do not easily creep into the criminal procedure: judges and prosecutors are not elected and juries do not exist. Last, but not least, the news media allow a great variety of views to be heard. The broadcasting system is geared to that purpose, while The Netherlands is not flooded with the kind of gutter press that so effectively helped eradicate Tom O’Carroll’s PIE in Britain.

Table 2. Shifts in the Relative Frequency of Convictions for Categories of Sexual Offenses Since 1950 (percentage of convictions)

	1950	1975	1982	1987
Public Exibitionism/Sex With a Child	84	51	28	32
Sexual Assault/Rape	5	31	60	50
Other Sexual Offenses	11	18	12	17
Total	100	100	100	100

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics: adapted by J. Frenken in: J. Frenken and J. Doomen (1984): 1987 figures from the author.

The remainder of this article on the Dutch experience with pedophilia will successively focus on historical aspects, the recent state of affairs, the legal situation, the advocates of pedophilia, their activities and ideology and prospects for the near future. As said, pedophilia should not be observed in isolation. Hence the survey will depict pedophile emancipation against the background of related social developments.

THE ROOTS OF TOLERANCE

“All people in The Netherlands are treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on account of religion, philosophy of life, political conviction, race, sex, or on whatever ground is not allowed.” Since 1983 this has stood in the first section of The Netherlands Constitution. The legislature considered this all-encompassing equal rights stipulation as the crown on the list of civil rights that make up the Constitution’s first chapter. It can also be seen as the culminating point of a long-lasting process in which tolerance and the principle of non-discrimination were translated in concrete legislation. It began with the declaration of a limited freedom of religion guarantee under the Treaty on the Union of Utrecht (1579). This treaty, under which the provinces of the Northern Netherlands joined to combat the Spanish Empire of which they then were a part laid the foundations of the independent state of The Netherlands as it exists today. Tolerance and moderation seemed almost natural ideals in a country that gained its independence fighting the Spanish Inquisition.

Kossmann sums up the main features of the socio-political situation in the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (i.e., seven largely independent provinces), which existed between 1588 and 1795.⁵ First, there was freedom of conscience and religion. Public profession of non-protestant religions was prohibited, but religious meetings indoors were not restricted. Second, church and state were strictly separated and the rulers often turned a deaf ear to the demands of orthodox preachers. Third, The Netherlands at the time hardly constituted a nation. It was a melting-pot of different cultures and religions which lived together almost without a central authority that could impose binding laws with respect to personal behavior. Finally, the ruling class of merchants simply had no advantage in fighting tolerance, as this would have seriously undermined the political stability that made commerce and trade flourish. Enlightened self-interest made them liberal and this situation prevailed until, by the end of the nineteenth century, they had to cede power to the emerging religious political parties.

Liberalism was not enough to prevent discrimination e...