This paper aims to investigate how one could argue in favor of the controversial subject pedophilia, by examining how it is linguistically constructed and legitimatized in the texts by sexologists Bent Petersen and Preben Hertoft from the book ‘Forbrydelse uden offer’ and in the interview with Erling from ‘Reporterne 23-11-2015’. These texts are analyzed using discourse analysis and argument analysis in order to map out the general pro-pedophilic arguments. Additionally, this paper discusses how these general arguments can be viewed within an ethical context, based on the arguments from ’Forbrydelse uden offer’ and our transcription of ‘Reporterne’. Lastly, it concludes that the sexologists and Erling constructs a positive discourse about sexual relationships between children and adults, by using linguistic tools such as referencing, naming, indexicality, modality, presuppositions and semantic roles. Hereby they construct a reality where children are interested in and willingly consenting to sexual relationships with adults, and they argue that the sexual ethics related to this topic are manufactured by society. Also, it concludes that some arguments are easier to morally justify, for example whether it is morally acceptable to be a pedophile, whereas other arguments are morally harder to defend. It is discussed in which cases these pedophilic relationships are hurtful to children, and whether or not children can consent to such.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Humanistisk Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Vejledere||Sune Sønderberg Mortensen|