Sex Crimes Blog
5/30/07
Age of Consent – Criminalizing teen sex
In previous posts I explored both our cultural obsession with and horror about sex. Together they have paradoxically generated great sexual freedom and draconian laws. In the most recent post I listed several (largely unintended) negative consequences of this situation. These may be summarized as follows.
1. Legal age of consent is out of sync with normal sexual development and adolescents are given conflicting and many confusing messages about sexual behavior. For example, they can generally consent to abortion and obtain birth control at age 12 but cannot consent to sex until 16 or 18 (depending on the state). As a result, many are being convicted of felonies for developmentally normal behaviors and having to register as sex offenders for the remainder of their lives.
2. Pre-pubescent children are being ostracized (and occasionally even criminalized) for sexual behavior that is often normal or at worst, an annoying means of attention seeking.
3. Mandatory child abuse reporting laws, originally designed to protect children have been expanded to identifying offenders, making it virtually impossible for them to enter treatment on their own initiative without first suffering severe legal consequences.
4. Under the guise of “protecting our communities,” without a shred of empirical support and in spite of significant empirical evidence to the contrary, sex offenders who served their sentences are being forced to leave their homes (and sometimes families) because they live too close to a schools, playgrounds or parks. In most instances destabilizing these men is patently unfair and in some cases it tends to make them more rather than less dangerous.
Today, we’ll examine the first of these consequences in greater detail.
Beginning with puberty (average age around 12), sexual thoughts and urges become increasingly stronger and more frequent. Exploring, expressing and learning to manage sexuality is one of the most important developmental tasks of the teenage years and occasional behavior based on poor judgment is obviously inevitable. But the age of consent, which varies somewhat from state to state, is out of sync with normal sexual development in every state. Consequently, adolescents are increasingly being charged with felonies for ordinary, consensual and developmentally normal behaviors. Consider the situation reported by Pamela Manson of the Salt Lake City Tribune
Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old Ogden girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.
The girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.
Clearly, normal adolescent sexual behaviors have been classified as illegal activities, often labeled “deviant” and therefore worthy of punishment and treatment.
Before we start labeling sexually active teens as deviant, it would be helpful to know what is considered “normal” sexual behavior for adolescents. The dictionary definition of “deviant” is:
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior. Or a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert]
According to the Child Trends Data Bank:
Age of Consent Laws were originally written to protect children from forced prostitution. Even 1890’s reformers recognized that prosecuting post-pubescent teenagers was not only senseless but undermined the intention of protective legislation (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_35/ai_88583554)
The Society (for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) concerned itself only with those under the age of sixteen years, arguing that by that age the onset of puberty would have occurred, bringing with it the physical strength and "higher intelligence and greater strength of will" that distinguished adults from children.
When campaigns by other purity reformers succeeded in raising the age of consent to eighteen years, Elbridge Gerry, the NYSPCC President, complained that the age was now set beyond the time when "a girl became a woman." Not only would it be impossible to obtain any convictions in cases that involved the sixteen and seventeen year old girls, he lamented, but the effort to prosecute such cases would undermine the legitimacy of the law, making it more difficult to win convictions in cases involving girls under the age of sixteen (late 19th Century).
But now these same laws are being used to criminalize virtually all teenage sexuality. One can certainly argue that engaging in sex is not good for teens because it risks unwanted pregnancy, STD’s, and social/emotional entanglements they may have difficulty managing. However for all the reasons Eldrige Gerry foresaw and some he didn’t, criminalizing the behavior is one of the worst possible strategies for protecting them. Do we REALLY want to prosecute the 14 year old Utah girl and make her into a life-long registered sex offender? Is she THAT dangerous?
Criminalizing normative teenage sexual behavior has the unfortunate outcome of placing sexually active teens on the same sex offender registry as predatory pedophiles. For example,18 year old Joshua Lunsford, the brother of Jessica Lunsford, for whom Jessica’s Laws are named, was recently arrested for “unlawful sexual conduct” with a 14 year old. If convicted, he will be required to register under the same laws as John Couey – his sister’s murderer.
Or, ponder the fate of Genalow Wilson, who at age 17 had consensual oral sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. For this “felony” he is presently serving 10 years without possibility of parole in a Georgia prison.
What makes this case more absurd is that if Mr. Wilson and the young woman had sexual intercourse, he would have been guilty only of a misdemeanor and not required to register as a sex offender, thanks to a provision in the law meant to avoid just this type of draconian punishment for consensual youthful indiscretions, the “Romeo and Juliet” exception. (Free Genalow Wilson)
As Wilson's trial was unfolding, a 27- year old teacher was being found guilty just down the hall with a 17 year old student the kind of crime for which child molestation statues were written.She got three years of probation and 90 days in jail. http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/60572.html
Our culture sensationalizes sex for profit … whether we are selling clothing, toys television shows or 24/7 infotainment. One problem with this is that it’s a kind of “addiction”. Over time we become increasingly numbed to content that once excited us, so we demand more and better. Maintaining viewer interest requires the media to constantly find new things to alarm us. The end result has been moral panic about all sexual misbehavior. (If we were meth addicts instead of sexual infotainment addicts, we’d be “tweaking” at this point.)
Moral panics have been described as a condition, episode, person or group of persons, which emerge to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests. These threats are designed in a sensationalized fashion by the media as well as other agents of social control, including politicians, law enforcement and religious leaders, with the intention of establishing meaningful parameters for acceptable societal behavior.)
Moral panics then, are those processes whereby members of a society and culture become 'morally sensitized' to the challenges and menaces posed to 'their' accepted values and ways of life, by the activities of groups defined as deviant. The process underscores the importance of the mass media in providing, maintaining and 'policing' the available frameworks and definitions of deviance, which structure both public awareness of, and attitudes towards, social problems."
So who are WE in the matter? We have become complacent and satisfied with expressing our outrage without exploring how we contribute to it. Advertisers use sex to sell products because WE buy more them when they do. We watch “To Catch a Predator” and feel comforted to know that Chris Hanson and Perverted Justice have already exposed 200 potential child abusers. But the producers don’t ask us to consider what it says about human nature that so many men, even with the notoriety of the show, will seek out a sexual encounter with a teen. The audience would probably shrink away with the first mention that male sexual interest in teenage girls is normal or that research does not support that teens are always harmed by sexual experiences with an adult.
Movie legend Kirk Douglas became a willing victim of statutory rape when he lost his virginity to a school teacher aged just 15. In his forthcoming autobiography LET'S FACE IT - 90 YEARS OF LIVING, LOVING AND LEARNING, the veteran actor confesses he didn't realise (sic) his lover could face prison for their affair, but still doesn't regret a thing. Recalling the tryst he writes, "I had been a ragamuffin kid of 15 coping with a neighbourhood (sic) filled with gangs... Under her guidance I became a different person. I am eternally grateful. "By today's standards she would have gone to jail. I had no idea we were doing something wrong. Did she?"
But that conversation is not popular and not widely engaged in, at least openly. The blueprint for ”To Catch a Predator”, for the politics around sexual crimes, for the exceedingly harsh penalties for sexual misbehavior is in the message that it we need to watch out for “them” not “us.”. As long as we language the dialogue in this fashion we will continue down the path of creating more victims than we protect. Just ask Genalaw Wilson, Josh Lundsford, and a 14-year old girl in Utah who we are "protecting" by withholding her name while ruining her life.
5/9/07
Whoopee and Whoa collide
Like two speeding trains on parallel tracks, sexual liberation and child sexual abuse made their way into public consciousness some 30 odd years ago. Fueled by cultural excess, they stopped at stations along the way, were supported by the media, glamorized by the rich and famous, and shared content and emotion. Each bolstered and incited the other to move faster, go further and not look to the dangers ahead. Their passengers were largely the Baby Boomers, some 70 million who had come of age. The landscape was social change. … Civil rights, women’s rights, legalized abortion, single parenthood, birth control pills, and soaring substance use and abuse. We wanted freedom. We wanted to indulge our ever increasing appetites for new and varied stimuli. We acknowledged the problem of child sexual abuse and supported ever increasing media attention to the issue. We expanded the definition of “vulnerable child” and crafted mandatory child abuse reporting laws to protect them (not catch predators). We continued to consume sexual material with gusto, blurring the lines of acceptability while at the same time raging against those who crossed the line.
“The media have probably broken more visual taboos in the last two decades than were overturned in the previous half century, not only raising the transgression ante but accelerating the pace of change. First underwear went public, then bodies, then simulated sex, frontal nudity, male nudity -- shifts so frequent and rapid that nakedness inexorably became clichéd. Popular culture tends to repeat whatever looks financially successful; like films themselves, sexual images keep having sequels.” (1995 New York Times article “Photography View; testing the limits in a Culture of Excess”)
In our culture of excess, it was insufficient to merely inform the public that approximately one in four girls and one in seven boys had experienced unwanted sexual touch by the time they were 18. More is better. We created a new mental health diagnosis; “sexual abuse of a child” (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). We discovered - but never substantiated - satanic abuse, recovered memories, and conspiracies of sexual predators infiltrating pre- schools.
Along another track however, due to cross paths with these liberalizing sexual trends, came another train fueled by perceived lack of respect for authority, Supreme Court decisions to end prayer in school and legalized abortion and the soaring crime rate, and it raced to meet its challenger.
Doubling
the conviction rate in this country," said Nixon "would do far more
to cure crime in
America than quadrupling the funds for Mr.
Humphrey's war on poverty." (September 1968 Time
Magazine )"
Seemingly in conflict with liberalism, the punitive trend is in fact integral to the overall culture. In a society obsessed with personal freedom and sexual liberation but also driven by Judeo-Christian guilt, we can indulge our adolescent excesses as long as we mete out equal measures of punishment. Government, the parent will be “tough on crime.” We can challenge and defy sexual taboos, as long as we punish the worst transgressors. “Tough on Crime” will become a political Holy Grail and a legislative addiction. We will expand laws, increase prison populations and forget about prevention.
The expansion of sex offender laws along with harsher sentences for sexual offenders DO contribute to the decline in child sexual abuse
Among explanations for the general decline in crime during the 1990s, the large increase in the incarceration of offenders has received the most extensive empirical support. Although detailed data are insufficient to conduct a careful analysis of the possible impact of incarceration on sexual abuse, the overall pattern is certainly consistent with the idea that increased incarceration played a part in a true decline. (Explanations for the decline in child sexual abuse cases)
However, there are also disastrous consequences. For instance:
In future posts I will expand on these and other issues and explore how they integrate with out cultural sexual obsession.
4/29/07
Selling sex to children and selling sexy children
Previous entries discussed social tension and psychological confusion created by sexualizing children while at the same time asserting that children are sexually innocent and that any adult sexual interest in children is deviant. Media and advertisers capitalize on this tension, marketing sexy children, selling sex to children and combining sex with violence in children’s programs, music and video games. Modern technology provides easy access to sexualized images of children while increasing many individuals’ desire to view these images.
This simmering tension periodically rises to a boiling point, subsides somewhat, then boils over again at the next opportunity. Remember the Janet Jackson’s breast? How many of us decried the exposure while watching the revealing clip over and over and over? We can buy videos of young and fresh “Girls Gone Wild” exposing their breasts for the fun of it
America's hottest girls and most extreme sports… The ULTIMATE RUSH is an adrenaline-rush like no other! From Seasoned veterans to Hot & Naked Amateurs attempting death-defying thrills”
But former Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped appearing for news conferences at the Justice Department’s "Spirit of Justice" statue (a female figure, with her right breast completely exposed) until the statue was appropriately draped.
In 1999 Calvin Klein caused great uproar by advertising children’s underwear on a billboard on Times Square. Children had modeled (and continue modeling) underwear for Sears, J.C. Penny’s and countless department stores without raising eyebrows but with outlines of their genitals all sweetly airbrushed away. Klein’s ad simply omitted the airbrushing, showing the child as he really looks wearing that underwear. Apparently the uproar was caused by Klein acknowledging that children have genitals.
NEW YORK -- Even among the provocative advertisements of Times Square, Calvin Klein's new billboard for children's underwear may have gone too far for some critics. The billboard, which has little boys and girls in underwear jumping on a sofa, is scheduled to be unveiled today. A black and white photograph of the promotion was published in full-page newspaper ads Wednesday. "Whether you like it or not you have pedophiles in this society. Anything that could get them excited is detrimental, irresponsible and reckless," said Donald Wildmon, president of American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. He said the picture is "nothing more than pornography (Associated Press )
Many commentaries were written. The mayor of New York weighed in, as did many child advocates and movie stars. Klein eventually removed the billboard. After all, business is business, there’s no such thing as bad publicity and the ad had more than served its purpose of drawing attention to Calvin Klein underwear. But the conversation that needed to be explored, who are WE in the matter, was carefully buried by most. Author Deborah A. Lott, wrote (Kiddie pants or Kiddie porn):
But is the lurking presence of pedophilia the true source of our distress? When I look at the photograph, I suspect that the issue is far more complicated than this. Of course, the image is sepia-toned, larger than life, soft-focus, romantically lit; that is the graphic vocabulary of advertising. But that has also become the established language of our desire. The image forces a conjunction of "innocent" childhood and commercialized desire. It makes us uncomfortable -- not just uncomfortable, but erotically uncomfortable. There is something erotic about the image, and we search for the source of the eroticism we perceive: Is it in us or in the picture? In the eye of the photographer who took the picture, the producer who conceived it, innate in the children themselves? We cannot look at the photograph without imposing upon it what we already know about adult desire. We are not innocent; we know what is inside adults' underwear. We know what adult genitals do and how they look when they are aroused, we know what it is like to feel sexual desire for another person and we know what it is like to be trained to feel that desire in response to billboards in Times Square.
In our present-day culture mere mention of personal sexual interest in children places one in danger of being labeled a pedophile while corporations profit by selling thongs, padded bras and Bratz dolls to little girls. Advertisers seem unwilling to self- police, and we are not about to censor. Of all the options available to us, we have chosen to continue indulging our child-oriented sexual interests, curiosity, arousal etc. while denying their existence. We have reframed lust as disgust and found a target. It is not in us; it is them. We can continue to sexually exploit children as long as we do not acknowledge enjoying it. We can be entertained as long we tell ourselves that "To Catch a Predator" is popular only because Dateline is assisting in the prosecution of evil. We can indulge our “Whoopee” and as long as we have a corresponding “Whoa” - a Megan’s Law and a Jessica’s Law and lots of other nonsensical, often cruel and even counter-productive legislation that pretends but fails to enhance community safety.
4/19/07
The Feminist movement, child sexual abuse uncovered and reconstruction of “the innocent child”
The 1950’s was a time to be afraid. We feared the communists. We feared the atomic bomb. We feared polio. These and other problems were perceived as beyond our control and we felt impotent. We were unable to focus our fear or bind our anxiety. Fueled by the Kinsey Report and Hugh Hefner’s commercial venture, the 1950’s also marked an awakening of American sexual consciousness. And Elvis gave parents respite from bigger worries; they could get upset over sex.
The protests of the 1960’s, melded conversations about civil rights, women’s rights and children’s rights. The culture was changing dramatically. Several important books were published that helped reshape the American sexual persona. William Masters and Virginia Johnson published the first serious study of the physiology of sexual arousal and orgasm providing rich detail about male and female sexual arousal. Women’s voices and bodies were being acknowledged.
The Kinsey report had affirmed that women enjoyed sex and Masters and Johnson confirmed it with physiological evidence. The availability of contraception and legalization of abortion removed the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Women were free – free to explore and express their sexual interests and desires. Along with freedom comes responsibility. While not necessarily the intention of all feminists, some women interpreted feminist philosophy to mean that if women were sexually objectified, exploited or assaulted, they were always blameless. They did not have to take responsibility for how they dressed, for what they said, for the invitations they implicitly or explicitly gave or for provocative and risky behavior. Any sexual problem encountered as they expressed their new freedom was certainly due to the male patriarchal society that encouraged male violence. WHOOPEE!
Feminist writings also asserted that child sexual abuse was the result of a male dominated culture that still considered women and children as property.
“Feminists problematised (sic) CSA as ‘male violence’, pointing to the overwhelming predominance of men as perpetrators of such abuse. To this extent, CSA was viewed – along with other forms of violence perpetrated against women and children by men – as an expression of male social power and a means by which patriarchal social relations are reinforced and reproduced” (Rethinking Our Knowledge about Child Sexual Abuse)
Feminist writers began to challenge the myth that child sexual abuse was a rare.
“While it is clear that concern about CSA was not completely absent from public discourse for the first half of the twentieth century, the 1970s marked a watershed in our cultural conceptualisation (sic) of CSA. Prior to that time, CSA was not widely talked about in the media, it was rarely a subject of public policy, and it was only very narrowly investigated as a subject of medical research.” (Rethinking Our Knowledge about Child Sexual Abuse)
Another important publication of the 60’s came from a radiologist. Dr. Henry Kempe and his colleagues coined the term “The battered child syndrome” and in 1968 published “The Battered Child.” This seminal work enabled doctors to empirically identify non- accidental injuries and make referrals to child welfare agencies charged with protecting children. To address public outcry over the plight of these “battered” children, states instituted mandatory child abuse reporting laws, first for physicians, who argued against being singled out, and lobbied to include wide array of professionals who worked with children. Legislation quickly expanded child abuse reporting laws to accommodate new concerns about children exposed to unwanted sexual contact by adults.
And so by the mid 1970’s mainly through the efforts of the child protection lobby and the women’s movement child sexual abuse found its way into public awareness. One of the problems with the expanded reporting laws was that they were based on the assumption that investigators would have the same type of empirical evidence for sexual abuse as Dr. Kempe was able to establish with regard to non-accidental physical injuries. However, while physical abuse and sexual abuse of children share certain characteristics, there are significant differences. Physical abuse can be life threatening and frequently leaves evidence in the form of detectable injuries. Third parties often directly witness physical abuse. Sexual abuse on the other hand, occurs in secret, rarely leaves overt physical signs, is rarely witnessed and is likely to leave only psychological effects in its wake.
The assumption that protective service agencies could use the same protocols to investigate physical and sexual abuse proved problematic and contributed to the hysteria and media frenzy of the 1980’s. Along with many legitimate disclosures of child sexual abuse came unproveable and unlikely accusations of sexual abuse of pre-verbal and very young children during acrimonious divorces, unsubstantiated reports of ritual abuse, recovered memories of sexual abuse and stories alluding to dens of pedophiles conspiring to sexually abuse small children.
“One
of the most shocking and baffling claims to emerge from American
society's recent confrontation with child abuse is that satanic or ritualistic
abuse has been occurring for decades and is still widespread. Hundreds of
children and adults have reported abuse involving multiple perpetrators;
intergenerational cults; and quasi-religious rituals complete with grotesque
sexual assaults, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and consumption of blood,
urine, and excrement.” (Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of
Ritualistic Child Abuse)
Mandatory reporting laws encouraged sexual abuse disclosures and a cultural acceptance of child sexual abuse as a social problem. But along with this acceptance came an unexpected reconstruction of childhood. Accepting the prevalence of child sexual abuse caused a shift in thinking about childhood. When sexual abuse was uncovered, we could no longer hold the image of “ innocent” child in our minds without thinking about sex. The sexually abused child generates an image of an “innocent” child with a “knowing” adult. We might be disgusted, or outraged, but in our minds, thinking of a child being sexually abused means we are thinking about children and sex… we can’t help it.
The arousal created by the tension of sex combined with outrage had wide consumer appeal. Public disclosures exposed the raw reality of adult sexual abuse of a child. What the media discovered was that child sexual abuse was not only a public policy issue, it also had entertainment value. Our appetites for feature articles, TV dramas, magazine stories, and movies seemed insatiable. We wanted the stories – Movie stars who were molested, politicians who were victims, priests who were offenders, day care providers who were perpetrators. The problem of child sexual abuse was not only newsworthy, it was marketable. Child sexual abuse excited and upset us. It was shocking, but we couldn’t get enough of it. The problem of child sexual abuse not only gained widespread acceptance, but also became a saleable commodity.
4/13/07
A (very) short history of sex and the media
Advertisers know that “sexy” sells and they capitalize on our ambivalence – our lust and our disgust, our outrage and titillation at the sexualized portrayal of children. We are drawn to the “sexy child” but any person admitting that would likely be labeled deviant – a budding pedophile. Our culture markets children as sexual objects, sells products to further sexualize children, while punishing those who openly acknowledge sexual interest in children.
We live in a time of 24/7 access to sexualized children, but presenting children in a sexualized manner is nothing new. As soon as we develop a new technology, be it printing, photography, magazines, artwork, we use it make a profit. And sex is very profitable marketing tool.
In 1879 John Everett Maillais painted a portrait of a seemingly innocent Victorian child which he entitled “Cherry Ripe.” Scholars reviewing Victorian art history have argued that there is not only sexual innuendo in the title but that the painting reflects the tension between the innocent and desirable.
Cherry Ripe's arms are "open," and, to make the message perfectly clear, her hands, pressed palm to palm between her parted knees, form a representation of female genitalia.
The darkness of Cherry Ripe's mitts emphasizes the salacious suggestion of her hands. . . In Cherry Ripe . . . the dark mitts stand out, draw the eye to, and frame the little girl's hands, implying mature pubic hair around the depicted labia. . .
I see the disturbing presence of a saucy miss whose seductive portrayal grants sanction to the pedophile and provides titillation to those men and women, not attracted by children, who, nevertheless, enjoy the contemplation of sexually ardent femininity.
What is so interesting about “Cherry Ripe” in today’s consumer society is that in the artist’s day, paintings were usually sold to private collectors. But according to the Liverpool Museum, the Graphic Magazine” purchased the painting “Cherry Ripe” and the technology of the day made it quite lucrative.
The reason The Graphic bought this was because they made a presentation colour print of it by a new process called chromolithography which was a mechanical process and they apparently made 600000 copies of this which they gave away with a special issue in order to increase their circulation. 'Cherry Ripe' was also engraved in black and white and Millais would have made quite a lot of money out of selling the copyright to the engravers as well as selling the actual painting to ‘The Graphic’ magazine.
This picture was widely circulated because of all these copies floated around far more people could see it than ever saw the one oil painting and Millais's supposed to have received letters from all over the world from Australian miners, Canadian backwoodsmen and South Africa trekkers, saying what a wonderful painting this was (sic).
In 1949 an ad appeared in a magazine. “The layout shows a sleeping Native American man sprawled in an attitude of complete exhaustion in a sheet (which cost about a dollar back then) stretched hammock - style between birch trees. A comely young woman flashing a wide grin is getting up from the hammock, one leg still caught in its confines. Its caption reads "A buck well spent on Springmaid sheet.
For some magazines, this was too much. They refused to carry ads with such overtly sexual overtones -- leading to more publicity for Springs and his company and more name recognition for his products. Meanwhile, the face of advertising had changed forever -- for better or for worse. (Foundation for New Media Inc.)
In the 1950’s two publications made their way into our popular culture and permanently cemented sex and advertising. In 1948 and 1953 Alfred Kinsey published his seminal works “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.” He interviewed 17,000 men and women about their sex lives and shocked the American public. One of the most interesting revelations was that most sex happens when we are alone. Masturbation! Ninety two percent of males admitted masturbating. Kinsey gave Hugh Heffner a great idea and in 1953 with a nude centerfold of Marilyn Monroe, Hugh Heffner used the technology of the day to mass market to this audience. In the very first edition of Playboy Mr. Heffner says:
If you're a man between the ages of 18 and 80, Playboy is meant for you. If you like your entertainment served up with humor, sophistication and spice, Playboy will become a very special favorite.
We want to make it clear from the very start, we aren't a "family magazine." If you're somebody's sister, wife or mother-in-law and picked us up by mistake, please pass us along to the man in your life and get back to your Ladies Home Companion
We believe too, that we are filling a publishing need only slightly less important than the one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report
The door was open and sex became a public commodity. The media both shapes and reveals who we are, while politicians pander to both our lust and our disgust.
Next Blog - The feminist movement, child sexual abuse uncovered; reconstruction of “the innocent child”
4/10/07
The media shapes and reflects everything we do, even if we don’t realize it. We inundate our children with sexual messages. In a 2005 “Kaiser Family Foundation Report Sex on TV” (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Sex-on-TV-4-Report-Findings.pdf) found that
Across the composite week
sample of 959 general audiences programs, more than two of every three shows
(70%) contained some sexual content in the form of talk about sex and/or sexual
behavior (see Table 5). Few of these programs presented just a single, isolated
scene involving sexual material; more than four of every five shows that
presented sexual messages (83%) included two or more scenes with sexual themes
or topics. Across all 675 programs with sexual content, there was an average of
5.0 scenes per hour involving sex. Thus, the data make clear that not only are
sexual talk and behavior a common element across most television programming,
but also that most shows including sexual messages devote substantial attention
to the topic.
Sex is no longer an adult secret. It is a pervasive part of a child’s life.
Children are influenced by what the media portrays and what is left out.
The media affects their interpretations and attitudes about sexual behaviors.
their The media creates perceptions and teaches what behaviors are acceptable
or unacceptable. The media teaches novel modes of sexual behavior, may
strengthen or weaken inhibitions and provides information regarding the
consequences of these behaviors. And as in all other aspects of child
development, children model what they see. All children are sexual (more about
that another time) but the media teaches children to be “sexy.”
“National data and recent research both suggest that 3–7 year-old children watch an average of two to three hours of television per day with media related television activities such as video games and movies adding a half hour per day and computer games adding another half hour per day (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1687199) .
Media influences how children develop their sexual persona. We are just beginning to research the consequences of this phenomenon. A 2007 Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html) defines sexualize as
What does this have to do with sex crimes?
A sexual offender walks into his treatment group. It is his first meeting. He is ashamed, scared, and usually wants to say the right thing. He is asked to reveal the circumstances of his sexual offense. Very often we will hear him say “I stole his/her innocence.” We want the offender to be honest and accountable for his behavior. We should expect no less from ourselves. If we truly desire to create safety for children we should consider our contribution to offering them up as sexual objects.
The sexualization of girls
may not only reflect sexist attitudes, a societal tolerance of sexual violence,
and the exploitation of girls and women but may also contribute to these
phenomena. (APA report)
NEXT BLOG: ADVERTISING SEX – A SHORT HISTORY
4/9/07
I am a licensed clinical social worker. I received my Master’s degree in 1969. What I learned about child sexual abuse can be captured in one sentence “It hardly ever happens, but sometimes young girls fantasize about it, and falsely report it.” In the mid 1970’s, before mandatory child abuse reporting, at a time when we barely believed that children were being sexually abused, I was asked to develop a treatment program for young children who came to the attention of authorities, usually because an older child in the family reported sexual abuse and had been placed in foster care. There were no treatment protocols, no research to guide me and hardly anyone in CA was “treating” sexual offenders. So I started a group for young children. They transformed my career. They were all molested by their fathers, step fathers, or grandfathers. They were molested in their own homes, not in parks, within 2000 feet of schools or bus stops. And for the most part, wanted their abuser “fixed” so he would stop the abuse. The most surprising aspect of their conversation (unlike our conversation today) was that they did not synthesize their relationship down to what he did to them. He was more complex and they did not hate him. I quickly realized that in order to be an effective therapist for victims, and their non offending mothers, I would have to learn about sexual offenders. That’s how I started my career.
For the past 30 years I have worked with, evaluated and treated families impacted by interpersonal family violence - sex offenders, batteres, their victims, and their partners. I should be ready to retire. I have done my part - after all we accept that children are sexually abused. We have crafted legislation in response. The rate of child sexual abuse has declined http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/199298.pdf With so many web sites and blogs what else is there to say?
We are afraid to look at who we are in the matter. That is the conversation I would like to have. We are obsessed with child molesters, but are afraid to talk about children’s sexuality. We watch “To Catch a Predator” and are appalled by the numbers of “perverts” yet are unwilling to talk honestly about sexual attraction to children. We bombard our children with sexually explicit material, and then act shocked when an adult says that a child is “sexy.” Is it possible to expand our national conversation and look at these issues without being labeled an apologist for sex offenders, a NAMBLA supporter, or a danger to our notion of childhood innocence? Let’s give it a try.
Whoopee and Whoa
If I were an alien entering this culture and looked to the media for a definition of our sexual persona, I would describe us as a sexually free, very permissive uninhibited society. After watching television, reading magazines, listening to music, and browsing the internet I would conclude that children are sexual, women are sex objects, violence is glorified, men are devalued there is no concern for the consequences of sexual behavior, but interestingly there are words that are classified as obscene (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/Welcome.html/FAQ.html#TheLaw)
If I acted on those conclusions and for example, acknowledged a sexual interest in a child, or stated that a young child was “sexy” I would be accused of a mental disorder called pedophilia http://www.helping-people.info/articles/dsm.htm). If I voiced a desire for a sexually objectified woman I might be accused of sexual harassment (http://www.de2.psu.edu/harassment/legal/) If I acted on my sexual interest, there might be catastrophic consequences, including disease, pregnancy, and possible incarceration even banishment. While the media rarely showed the consequence for sexual expression, there is an obvious cultural tension between what the media proclaims and what the law allows. To sex the media says “Whoopee” but the law says “Whoa.” What does it mean for a child to grow up within the tension of these seemingly contradictory notions of sexuality?
NEXT BLOG - THE WHOOPEE: CHILDREN, SEX AND THE MEDIA
