I was listening to Meditations and I came across a passage that stuck out.
#1
sculptors; he will see a kind of bloom and fresh beauty in an old woman or an old man; and he will be able to look with sober eyes on the seductive charm of his own slave boys. Book 3.2 (Penguin Classics edition; Translated with Notes by MARTIN HAMMOND)
I bolded the part that stood out to me. The translator provided a footnote for that part, referencing a different part of the book, which provided a degree of context. Out of curiosity, I looked up other translations of the book. These are the first few results from Google
#2
So will he be able to perceive the proper ripeness and beauty of old age, whether in man or woman: and whatsoever else it is that is beautiful and alluring in whatsoever is, with chaste and continent eyes he will soon find out and discern. ( Gutenberg.org version, Translator: Meric Casaubon)
#3
He’ll look calmly at the distinct beauty of old age in men, women, and at the loveliness of children. And other things like that will call out to him constantly—things unnoticed by others (Modern Library edition, A New Translation, with an Introduction, by Gregory Hays)
#4
With like pleasure will his chaste eyes behold <77> the maturity and grace of old age in man or woman, and the inviting charms of youth. (Liberty Fund. Translated by Francis Hutcheson and James Moor Edited and with an Introduction by James Moore and Michael Silverthorne )
#5
and in an old woman and an old man he will be able to see a certain maturity and comeliness; and the attractive loveliness of young persons he will be able to look on with chaste eyes; and many such things will present themselves, not pleasing to every man, but to him only who has become truly familiar with nature and her works. (MIT Classics Translated by George Long )
All of these version present, at least to a lay person, a VERY different interpretation of the passage. #1, #4 and #5 all make the attractiveness to youth seem sexual in nature, and #1 makes it the most explicit; #3 reads to me more paternalistic; and #2 makes no mention of young people at all, only the old! Additionally, #1 is the only one to mention the word "slave" which completely alters the perception for a modern reader.
So my question is two fold
So, the Greek reads
καὶ τὸ ἐν παισὶν ἐπαφρόδιτον τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ, σώφροσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὁρᾶν δυνήσεται· καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα οὐ παντὶ πιθανά, μόνῳ δὲ τῷ πρὸς τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὰ ταύτης ἔργα γνησίως ᾠκειωμένῳ προσπεσεῖται.
(One modern editor, Farquharson, thinks there's a lacuna before this bit, that is to say a bit of the text is missing, after the bit about 'fresh beauty in an old woman or an old man'. The editor of the Teubner critical edition, Joachim Dalfen, disagrees.)
The long and short of it is that you cannot trust all translations. The bit that Hammond translates as 'the seductive charm of his own slave boys', τὸ ἐν παισὶν ἐπαφρόδιτον τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ, is simply omitted by Casaubon -- presumably because he bowdlerised it.
The translations that bring out the sexual character of τὸ ἐπαφρόδιτον are correct to do so -- the word even includes 'Aphrodite' as part of it -- so there's absolutely no doubt about that.
The other matter is the meaning of παισίν. There is, in a sense, a genuine ambiguity over this word: if you take a look at the dictionary definitions, you'll see that they boil down to
I. in relation to Descent, child, whether son ...; or daughter ... ; of an adopted son; ... freq. in orators of legal issue ...
II. in relation to Age, child, boy or girl ...
III. in relation to Condition, slave, servant, man or maid (of all ages) ...
There are parallels with the use of 'boy' in modern American English. So you might imagine there's a certain leeway in how you interpret it here.
We can safely take it that the implication of sexual relations rule out the first meaning. παῖς always indicates a power imbalance, so whatever meaning we choose, the sexual relations are going to be non-consensual.
So are we looking at sexual assault on minors, or on enslaved people? Hutcheson-Moor and Long have opted to interpret the text as referring to minors.
Except that isn't the complete phrase. The full phrase is παισὶν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ, where τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ effectively means 'belonging to him'. That firmly indicates possession or ownership: it cannot mean 'children of other parents'. So, in light of that phrase, I'd say Hammond's translation is the only accurate rendition of the text.
On your second question -- how can you have confidence in an arbitrary translation of an ancient work, when translations vary so widely -- the answer is that you cannot. Checking out reviews in scholarly journals will help -- reviews that appear elsewhere will be basically useless for finding out about accuracy -- but even they may not pick up a case like this.