At the time of its release, the book received mainstream reviews which were either scathingly dismissive, like Wilmers, or supportive of the author, if not entirely of the "radical case" he had set out. Sociologist Jeffrey Weeks described the book as "the most sustained advocacy" of "intergenerational sex", and stated that there were two powerful arguments against O'Carroll's views about the possibility of children consenting to sex: the feminist argument that "young people, especially young girls, do need protection from adult men in an exploitative and patriarchal society" and the argument that while adults are fully aware of the sexual connotations of their actions, young people are not, and that there is thus "an inherent and inevitable structural imbalance in awareness of the situation." In 2003, "The Guardian" described it as "a book justifying the behaviour of those who prey on children."