There is a key difference between sex and rape, and it’s one word: consent.
There are variations in the definition of rape across the states and territories in Australia, but the consistent requirement in every jurisdiction is that the act is committed without the victim’s consent. Sex without consent is rape, sex with consent is not. It’s that simple.
Yet in much mainstream media reporting – particularly crime reporting – confusion between these terms is rife. Particularly regrettable is that the confusion seems to occur most often in reporting on child abuse.
Journalists, of course, have to be very careful when reporting on crimes still before the courts, and it’s possible that use of this kind of language might be based on the wording used in criminal proceedings. However, no reporter would ever characterise someone accused of robbing a bank as “making a substantial withdrawal”, or an alleged car thief as “the owner of the car in question”. That would be absurd, but this is what happens when journalists report on someone accused of child abuse or rape as ‘sex’.
No one can have sex or a sexual relationship with a child. Children cannot consent to sex with adults, so by definition, any sexual act that occurs in that context is not sex - it is rape, or abuse. Until charges have been proven in court it is alleged rape or alleged abuse. But it is still not sex. So let’s stop reporting it as such.
There are just some examples from the last few months:
Yahoo7 : “Female dance teacher accused of sex with underage girl”
The Australian : “Tiahleigh Palmer’s foster brother — accused of having sex with the 12-year-old a month before her death”
Tenplay : “Rick Thorburn, is accused of murdering the school girl, allegedly to cover-up his son’s sexual involvement with an underage girl.”
Herald Sun : “Abad was found guilty by a jury of having sex with a troubled 14-year-old even after detectives told him of her real age”.
Sky News : “Police will allege the man, from Sydney's southeast, first had sex with the girl in late 2012 or early 2013 when she was 13 and intoxicated.”
Brisbane Times : “A serving member of the Australian Army is facing multiple charges over an alleged sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl.”
ABC : “Michael Quinn, who is from Melbourne, was arrested on May 21 by special agents with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) when he arrived at a Los Angeles-area hotel to buy a six-year-old boy for sex”.
These are but a few examples – the full list would go on for hundreds of pages.
So why does it happen? Why does the mainstream media regularly refer to sexual assault and rape as ‘sex’? And why does it matter?
The inaccuracy of the reporting matters because it subtly alters public understanding of the nature of child abuse.
Study after study shows sexual abuse of children has serious, lifelong effects. Suicide, fatal overdose, mental illness, substance abuse, self-harm, lifetime difficulty with adult relationships, anxiety and depression are all significantly more likely for adults who were sexually abused as children. The effects of sexual abuse are worse and last longer than those resulting from physical abuse and neglect.
Mislabelling the cause of such harm as ‘sex’, a natural and enjoyable act, is abhorrent. It reduces a horrific crime, to something benign. It implies the motivation is natural sexual feelings and that the victim was participating, rather than being forced or coerced.
Feelings of shame and self-blame are extremely common in victims of sexual abuse. And they play a strong role in ongoing trauma. There are obviously many factors that influence these feelings, but a clear distinction in public understanding of the nature of sexual abuse of children is essential in helping victims understand that the only person to blame in their abuse is the perpetrator.