ABSTRACT
Three critiques of Theo Sandfort’s research on manboy sexual relationships in the Netherlands are examined and evaluated. Three types of criticisms – methodological, speculative, and moral – are identified. Specific criticisms of the study are evaluated on the basis of their validity and, where appropriate, their underlying assumptions. It is argued that moral condemnation of such relationships, combined with a prevailing ideology of boy “victims” and adult “perpetrators,” results in efforts by Sandfort’s critics to attack and discredit his research rather than evaluate it objectively.
