Abstract

Jeremy Bentham is becoming increasingly well-known for his defence of consensual male same-sex relationships on the grounds of an ‘all-comprehensive' sexual liberty. The question arises whether his defence of pæderasty, or ‘the love of boys', and hence of adult-child sexual relationships, on the same principle makes his defence of male same-sex relationships problematic. This paper investigates the extent to which, under Bentham's principle, adults would not be legally punished for having consensual sexual relationships with children, or rather with adolescents. It concludes that Bentham’s position in relation to sexual relationships between adult males and under-age females followed the provisions of the English law of his time, while his position in relation to sexual relationships between adult males and under-age males is little different from the provisions of the law of our own time. Bentham was, moreover, concerned about the reputational damage suffered by unmarried mothers, and hence recommended the decriminalizing of infanticide. In the post-Malthusian age, Bentham, like many of his contemporaries, had become concerned about the potential suffering caused by over-population. His aims in this respect would be met by the forms of contraception and abortion available today.