consider the utility of this mapping and set out key issues for further consideration that have been raised in the process. THE CONTEXT OF PAEDOPHILIA The problematic binary distinction between adult and child, and the underlying issue of the construction of childhood (e.g. Kitzinger, 1990), looms large in our interrogations of paedophilia. Crises of representation in academic writing alert us to the problematic nature of terms such as child (Griffin, 1993). The concept of childhood varies in meaning across different times and places. As such, historical and cultural variation in understandings of adult/child sexual relations might therefore be anticipated. However, such variation can be obscured by the normalisation and assumed universality of contemporary (Westernised) definitions of transgressive phenomena such as paedophilia. Howitt (1998) has pointed to the differences’ in sociological, and ‘substantial biological definitions of paedophilia, with Western societal definitions of childhood being based on dates, milestones marking progress into adulthood’ (17) which may not ‘arbitrary correspond to biological change. Similarly, Green (2002) points to the problematic use of puberty as the marker for clinical definitions, such as those discussed below, as it fails to take into account the mental development of the child, and does not reflect the intra- and variation of puberty itself. This is also noted by Weeks (1985), who argues that whilst puberty is the obvious line, change does not necessarily coincide with ‘physiological social or subjective changes’ (230). Problems of assuming universality and standardisation of variable markers such as puberty are further challenged by the of exotic examples that are regularly mobilised to illustrate the particularity of our current understandings of paedophilia. These include, for
consider the utility of this mapping and set out key issues for further consideration that have been raised in the process. THE CONTEXT OF PAEDOPHILIA The problematic binary distinction between adult and child, and the underlying issue of the construction of childhood (e.g. Kitzinger, 1990), looms large in our interrogations of paedophilia. Crises of representation in academic writing alert us to the problematic nature of terms such as child (Griffin, 1993). The concept of childhood varies in meaning across different times and places. As such, historical and cultural variation in understandings of adult/child sexual relations might therefore be anticipated. However, such variation can be obscured by the normalisation and assumed universality of contemporary (Westernised) definitions of transgressive phenomena such as paedophilia. Howitt (1998) has pointed to the ‘substantial differences’ in sociological, and biological definitions of paedophilia, with Western societal definitions of childhood being based on ‘arbitrary dates, milestones marking progress into adulthood’ (17) which may not correspond to biological change. Similarly, Green (2002) points to the problematic use of puberty as the marker for clinical definitions, such as those discussed below, as it fails to take into account the mental development of the child, and does not reflect the intra- and variation of puberty itself. This is also noted by Weeks (1985), who argues that whilst puberty is the obvious line, ‘physiological change does not necessarily coincide with social or subjective changes’ (230). Problems of assuming universality and standardisation of variable markers such as puberty are further challenged by the of exotic examples that are regularly mobilised to illustrate the particularity of our current understandings of paedophilia. These include, for
Article%20Definitions%20SLS%20final%20version.docx