Media AVP again - Male & Female Paedophiles.

Woman 'had an eight-month sexual relationship with son, 11, of family friend'

 

 

 

 



 

"A 35-year-old woman has been charged with 20 counts of rape and sodomy after she allegedly had an eight-month sexual relationship with an 11-year-old boy, it emerged today."

The media, (rightly or wrongly), describes anyone who sexually assaults or sexually abuses children under the age of consent as a paedophile. Ignoring the literal translation - which we all know, relates to pre-pubescent children - I have no issues with this.

One thing I do have an issue with, is the different way in which male and female paedophiles are reported in the media.

If the above story related to a male, rather than a female, you can be sure that the article would be peppered with such words such as pervert, paedophile, monster, vile etc. However, as is usual with the reporting of females who sexually abuse children, the described crime is lessened greatly by the way that the media refuse to describe women who abuse children as paedophiles.

Instead, as per this story, the descriptions include such blatant AVP as having an "eight month sexual relationship", having a "close relationship", and "she and the victim had been sexually active".

Why is it so hard, for the media, and indeed society as a whole, to make the connection between females who sexually abuse and rape children, and paedophilia?

Paedophiles are paedophiles, full stop.

There is not (or there shouldn't be) any distinction in offenders, between ages, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or anything else. Paedophiles are paedophiles. It should not matter a jot whether they are male, female, young, old, black, white, rich, poor, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

By reporting in this way, the media immediately lessens the crime (a "sexual relationship" ... with an eleven year old.... seriously - wtf?) which therefore makes the impact has on the victim seem far less of an ordeal than if the offender had been a male.

It is about time that no matter who commits this vile offence, the prejudice that is made against victims in this way is stopped, and ALL offenders and their vile crimes are described the same, and that is as paedophiles and paedophile crimes. The crime is exactly the same, the impact on victims and their families and friends are exactly the same, so there should be no distinction between them

"Words are powerful. Be careful how you use them because once you have pronounced them, you cannot remove the scar they leave behind."   Vashti Quiroz-Vega

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 3 - "Affairs"

A brief posting tonight, on another way the media downplays the crime of child abuse.

Definition of affair by The Free Dictionary

"A romantic and sexual relationship, sometimes one of brief duration, between two people who are not married to each other."

 

Teacher jailed for affair with schoolgirl

 

 

 

The age of consent in the UK is 16 (Age of consent).

 

Call me picky, but when I think of the word "affair", I think of an extra-marital sexual relationship between 2 adults who are not married to each other (one or both being married to other people).

 

The key word here, being adults.

 

Not children.

 

If someone has unlawful sex (rape) with a child, it is classed as "sexual assault - it's a criminal offence".

 

Not an affair.

 

In the above story, the "affair" began when the girl was 14.

 

So still a child.

 

This way of reporting is another inaccurate and prejudicial term that is extensively used by media worldwide.

 

Why is this so often described as an "affair" by the media, instead of what it actually is - "Sexual Assault"?

 

What do victims think when their lives have been ruined by sexual assaults by adults, seeing their abuse being downplayed and trivialised in the media, by having it described as merely "having an affair"?

 

"Accuracy of language is one of the bulwarks of truth" - Anna Jameson.

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 1, "Indecent Images Of Children - a follow up"

Following my first post, (Media Prejudice), now that we all know that images and films of child abuse and child rape should never be referred to as any sort of "porn", the question now is what exactly should they be called?

Legally (in the UK and Jersey at least) they are referred to "Indecent Photographs of Children" (Protection of Children Act 1978, UK Sexual Offences act 2003, and Protection of Children Jersey Law),  so if we want to be 100% accurate, we should always be using this term. However these laws only relate to the UK and Jersey - there is a big world out there, a world that in many places uses the term "child porn" not only in it's media, but in it's laws as well.

From a personal perspective, as these images and films depict either the sexual exploitation (at the lower end of the copine scale), or actual sexual abuse (mid to high end of this scale), I would use the term "child abuse images". This term covers both ends of the scale, actual abuse and abuse of privacy of the child. Whilst some images may not portray actual abuse, having a collection of images in the lower end of the copine scale for self-gratification and distribution by paedophiles would be considered in itself a type of abuse for the vast majority of people - especially if your image was in amongst such a collection.

Calling these "child abuse images" (shortened to "child abuse pics") would also help the media in another way. A lot of the replies I have received, particularly from the BBC, state that they only have a certain number of characters that can be used in a headline and "indecent images of children" simply would not fit, meaning that they prefer to use "child porn". Whilst personally I think that this is just a poor excuse, calling them "child abuse pics" is a much shorter and snappier way of describing this crime.

My challenge ( to the UK at least to start with) is to stop using this phrase. People have been highlighting this for years now, and so far it falls on deaf ears in far too many cases. Listen and try to understand views like this. Listen not only to people like myself who have not had to live through this hideous crime, but from actual victims of this crime who have had to grow up being re-abused continually by seeing their abuse described as "pornography" by prejudicial UK media organisations.

Child abuse is exactly what it says... child abuse, and a visual recording of this should be described the same.

Not Pornography.