Kare 11's Botched Investigation Into Sex Offenders

To anyone living in Minnesota, Kare 11 is a household name in news. They are largely a reputable company with many investigations and news articles under their belt. However, a recent investigation into sex offenders, and the follow-up to that investigation, should appall you. Why? Because their investigation not only was extremely incomplete, but touts a single example as the legal norm in Minnesota for sex offenders, and argues that all sex offenders are dangerous. In fact, their opening headline for the primary investigation reads:

KARE 11 Investigates: Minnesota's Secret Sex Offenders

A LITTLE-KNOWN LEGAL LOOPHOLE IS ALLOWING HUNDREDS OF CHILD SEXUAL PREDATORS IN MINNESOTA TO SLIDE UNDER THE RADAR, LEAVING PARENTS IN THE DARK ABOUT THE DANGER THEY MAY POSE.

Hundreds Of Predators?

If you read very far into their report, however, you see that "hundreds of child sexual predators" includes a fair amount of juveniles who received a stay of adjudication and 210 other adults 22 years old and older. A stay of adjudication means that an offender must complete a series of requirements, and their crime is not available in public databases unless they do not complete the requirements.

Some of the requirements, for example, are to complete a lengthy probation sentence and complete sex offender treatment (treatment which usually requires at least two years to complete). Standard probation requirements for sex offenders typically involves no contact with anyone under 18 years old, and no pornography. 

What their investigation completely ignores is that Minnesota is home to 17,654 registered sex offenders as of December 6th, 2016. The ability to find out just how many of those 17,654 offenders are considered "high-risk" by the state is challenging at best. To the best of my recall, the amount of level 3 sex offenders in the state does not exceed 2,000 people. 210 people, compared with these numbers, is miniscule. The worst thing about risk level in Minnesota is that it is not determined by an actual risk-assessment administered by a trained psychologist: It is determined based entirely on Minnesota's own criteria, which was developed by studying sex offenders released from prison.

To the average person, that may sound like a good thing... until you realize that many low-level sex offenders, including those convicted of child sexual abuse and sexual abuse material crimes, are frequently given probation if they are a first-time offender. The screening tool that Minnesota uses to determine the risk level of its sex offenders does not have as much reliability as other screening tools, like the Static-99R. More work is needed.

What About Recidivism And Megan's Law?

To make these matters worse, Minnesota's Department of Corrections has done two "recent" studies on sex offenders that would matter to the average person: The 2007 report on recidivism, and the report on Megan's Law in 2008. Both of these reports are as flawed as the system they use to assign risk level: The 2007 report on recidivism looks at 3,166 sex offenders released from a correctional facility (read: prison) between 1990 and 2002, which means their report does not look at the vast majority of sex offenders, only those released from prison. 

The report discussing Megan's Law is also extremely narrow in its scope, and contains methodological errors that would shame any statistician: They conclude, based on their study of recidivism rates of 155 level three offenders subject to notification and 125 who were not, that notification has a strong deterrent effect and reduces recidivism. They essentially claim that correlation proves causation, with no control methods used to distinguish  between the results of these groups. 

Overall Sex Offender Statistics

The statistics discussed in the aforementioned reports are shockingly incomplete, and give the public just enough data to shut up. However, a plethora of other studies have also been done on sex offenders. You have heard me mention them here numerous times: A study done in New York on 21 years of arrest data found that 95% of new sexual crimes were committed not by registered sex offenders, but first-time offenders new to the criminal justice system. Other studies have yielded similar results, usually finding that at least 90% of sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders. This means that the numerous processes we have to address sex offenders attempts to answer approximately 5-10% of new sex crime. 

That study, combined with the numerous meta-analyses done on sex offender recidivism, point to the idea that sex offenders are not nearly as dangerous as people believe: Around 12% of sex offenders will re-offend with a sexual crime, and around 30-40% will reoffend with any crime. That contrasts to the national average for criminal recidivism being around 60-75%. It has been said in media articles on the subject that the only crime with a lower recidivism rate is murder. 

Cost

I know from previous experience with the Minnesota legislature that Minnesota spends a few hundred thousand on preventing sexual assault, and I learned recently that we spend $93 million on managing and tracking sexual offenders. I believe this is very imbalanced, and makes it clear that our focus is not on preventing sexual crimes, but on reacting where they do occur.

The Take-Away

Kare 11 focuses on a miniscule fraction of 5% of new sex criminals in the making. Already, some of Minnesota's legislators, including Gov. Mark Dayton and Rep. Tony Cornish are promising to fix how stays of adjudication are used. But nothing is being promised to address and prevent 95% of new sex crime, which is not committed by sex offenders, but by those new to the criminal justice system. Minnesota, like so many other states, is focusing its efforts on endlessly punishing those who pose the smallest amount of risk in terms of future sex crimes, and focusing next to nothing on preventing sexual crimes before they can happen. Indeed, Minnesota spends $93 million a year on SORN policies, and only $300,000 on sexual assault prevention. Our priorities are not on keeping the public safe.

As an advocate pushing the end of child sexual abuse before it can happen, I am outraged that not only Minnesota's leaders, but also its major media outlets, are doing nothing about the majority of sexual crimes in Minnesota. We are weak: The only statement worth supporting in Kare 11's investigation is that Minnesota has created an atmosphere of legal tolerance of sexual violence. While that statement was intended to address how sex offenders are treated in the legal system, I think that statement is used far too narrowly. 

I am ashamed to call myself a Minnesotan.

Alternative Solutions

There are several solutions that many of my readers may already be familiar with, like knowing the facts and the warning behaviors in potential abusers, and many of my other suggestions center around reforming sexual offender laws to be more effective at protecting the public. Some of them concern educating families, and educating children.

Sex offender registration needs reform, primarily because it lumps low-risk and no-risk offenders in with high-risk and recidivist sex offenders, which means law enforcement has a harder job investigating sex crimes. Instead, it would be best to use the money currently allocated to the sex offender registry in each state to perform psychological risk assessments on each offender. These risk assessments would divide only into low and high risk. These assessments would be done by an independent board of expert psychologists in each state, and only those who score as high-risk will be registered with law enforcement. The specific statute being charged and convicted should have no bearing on risk level, and the circumstances of the offense and risk assessments should be used as the determining factor for risk. As risk level and offender registration are not punitive measures, they could only be used as a factor when determining a criminal sentence. 

The trend in research identifies several issues with publicly identifying sex offenders in the community, commonly known as sex offender notifications. Many of these issues can be solved by only notifying the community in certain special circumstances: Multiple sex crimes, a high-risk score on risk assessment, release from prison, and two or more psychological disorders could be some of the criteria. The compliance patrols that are currently aimed at low-risk and no-risk offenders could instead be aimed at those who meet enough criteria to warrant public notification. Not all high-risk offenders would warrant public notification, only those who meet enough criteria would qualify. Anyone subject to sex offender notifications would be incarcerated for life if they commit another offense of any kind.

The research surrounding residency restrictions is nearly unanimous in saying that they do not keep the public safer, and in some cases, can lead to increased homelessness. This increased homelessness has been shown to increase risk factors for further offending, as well as making it more difficult for offenders to reestablish themselves as productive members of society. Therefore, residency restrictions should be completely abolished except for those warranting community notification, as covered in the heading "sex offender notifications". As such, any such offender committing another offense of any kind would be subject to a life sentence.

In many states, sex offenders are restricted from random things that do not have any effect on public safety. For example, sex offenders in some states cannot use the internet, or cannot use certain aspects of the internet, such as for gaming, social media, or even commenting on the news. In other places, sex offenders cannot participate in Halloween or attend the state fair. As 95% of new sex crime is perpetrated by those without criminal convictions, these restrictions do nothing to keep the public safer and put onerous enforcement requirements on supervising corrections officers and law enforcement that could be better spent detecting new sex crimes or educating the community regarding safety and prevention. 

Some funding originally directed at sex offender registration in the past must be directed to educating families about appropriate safety plans, facts around child sexual abuse and sexual assault, warning behaviors in potential abusers, resources for individualized help on a variety of topics, and normative vs. atypical sexual behavior in children and teenagers. This education plan would be created using accurate terminology, research-based factoids, and produced by experts in these areas. 

In line with the aforementioned education of families, schools and families should have access to age-appropriate sexual education covering a wide variety of topics to prepare each child for life in the adult world. Such education should be covered both at school and at home, and the standards for this education should be a principled skeleton of topics. It would then be decided on the local level how to cover each principle, so that each community has a say in practicing this education. These principles should include:

• Legal and ethical specifics on the subject of consent
• Anatomical health practices including STD's, safe sex, and physical boundaries
• How to form and keep social and emotional boundaries
• Resources that a child can use for a variety of situations including but not limited to, sexual abuse, mental health disorders, physical health concerns, and relationship health.

Ten Things People Do Not Know About Child Sexual Abuse

If you know some of these, I congratulate you on being knowledgeable about sexual abuse. However, for most people, this is a fairly accurate list of what ten things people simply are not aware of on the issue of child sexual abuse.

One: Sexual Abusers Are People We Trust

One of the most common statistics cited by prevention programs, advocates, and survivor groups is that over 90% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by those known and trusted by the victim. But that can sometimes mislead us. After all, these are people trusted by the victim. The child. Children trust everyone, right? According to Wikipedia, about a third of sexual abuse is perpetrated by immediate family members, and two-thirds is perpetrated by a friend of the family: Babysitter, teacher, coach, nanny, etc. So it is not just the child doing the trusting, it is everyone around the child.

Two: Sexual Abusers Are Not Registered Sex Offenders

This fact is going to be particularly shocking to most people, but sex offender registration happens after someone has been sentenced (not accused, not convicted, sentenced) for a sex crime that mandates registration. That is easy enough to understand. But we know from studies on the subject that most accused of sex crimes, to the tune of 95%, are first-time offenders, in other words, people completely new to the criminal justice system (they have a clean criminal record). While background checks are certainly useful for recidivist sex offenders, they will fail to catch nine out of ten potential sexual abusers.

Three: Victims Do Not Disclose Abuse

A statistic commonly cited by survivor organizations is that it takes the average victim of child sexual abuse 22 years to disclose that they were abused. Another common statistic is that for every child who discloses their abuse, another 8 do not. We like to think that our children will talk about it if someone is mistreating them, but most of the time that person is someone they know and trust. There are a variety of systemic issues that prevent children from speaking up that can be corrected by properly educating children about good/bad touch, boundaries, and good mental health in general, but these systemic corrections cannot completely compensate for the fact that sexual abuse is a horrid violation of a child’s trust, respect, and boundaries, and for the child, talking about that is humiliating.

Four: Sexual Abusers Are (Mostly) Not Attracted To Children

This is probably another shocking statistic for most people: Two-thirds of sexual abusers are not sexually attracted to children. Most abusers are not motivated by positive factors like the sexual pleasure from their actions, but by negative factors like significant life events, daily stress and frustration, resentment towards others, and many other factors. Entire books and studies examine the numerous motivations of sexual abusers and sexual offenders, but the point is that sexual pleasure is typically not a motivating factor. In other words, the stereotypical sexual predators are not really the biggest threat we need to worry about.

Five: Most Sex Abusers Do Not Re-Offend

How many times have we heard (or expressed) the idea that sexual abusers, child molesters, or sex offenders should be locked up, castrated, or killed on the basis that if they are, they can then never harm another person sexually? If we were somehow able to search every news story on the subject, I suspect this would be the overwhelming comment. Yet, according to research, the opposite is true: Most of the time sex offenders re-offend, it is with a non-violent offense, and child molesters re-offend at a lower rate. To be more exact, 11.5% of sex offenders will go on to commit another sexual crime. We know from studies too numerous to name that the things that help lower recidivism are not sex offender registries and harsher punishments, but softer approaches like reentry projects like housing and job assistance and therapy specifically tailored for sex offenders.

Six: A Significant Number Of Sexual Abusers Are Juveniles

35.6%, to be more exact, and researchers at the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse have more recently been saying half, not 36%. While adults do make up the majority of sexual abusers, a statistically significant portion of them are juveniles, not adults. Motivations for juvenile offending are just as vast and complex as adult sexual offending, but with one major difference: While it is true that most adults do not re-offend sexually, it is even more true for juveniles. Sexual recidivism for juveniles is generally around 3%. Punishing juveniles and placing them on sex offender registries is not only barbaric, it is not supported by research. Just ask Elizabeth Letourneau, I am sure she would welcome questions on the subject.

Seven: Most Abuse Happens 1-on-1 In A Residence

To save you the trouble of grabbing your dictionary, a residence is a house or apartment where someone lives, as opposed to an institution like a school, sports program, or office. To be exact, 80% of sexual abuse happens in a residence, and 85% is in a private situation between the child and the abuser (both statistics courtesy of Darkness to Light). In other words, keeping sex offenders (who already do not re-offend much) away from schools or parks (which probably fall somewhere in the remaining 20%) is not based on fact, but wishful thinking and yes, probably some vengeance.

Eight: Boys Are Sexually Abused Also, And Some Of Them By Women

For some reason, many criminal courts go easy on women who sexually abuse boys. It comes up from time to time in my Twitter feed. And inevitably, someone makes the comment that the boy is lucky, or that the commenter would not have minded the attention. The fact of the matter is, this is still sexual abuse, and the effects of it on the victim are well-documented. As the name might indicate, 1in6 is an organization of male survivors who were sexually abused as children, and they have numerous statistics on this subject. What is the rate of boys who are sexually abused? Every one in six boys. That is almost as much as girls (one in four).

Nine: Most Pedophiles Do Not Sexually Abuse Children

I have covered this before, but according to what we know about child molesters and pedophilia, the vast majority of pedophiles, or those sexually attracted to children, do not hurt children. For a more detailed analysis of why pedophilia is not a risk to children, see here.

Ten: The Majority Of Sexual Abuse Victims Do Not Abuse Others

It is common knowledge to researchers that roughly 40% of sexual abusers are known to have been abused as children, but most people still believe the myth that if a child is sexually abused, they will go on to sexually abuse other children. And, while prior abuse may be a factor in juveniles who sexually abuse, it is hardly a factor for adults who sexually abuse. I am not entirely sure what the exact statistic is for the ratio of victims who have never abused to victims who have, but it is very safe to say that most victims of sexual abuse are perfectly safe to other people. Typically, the challenges they face as victims and survivors are directed inwards, not outwards.

Issues In Mandatory Reporting

Introduction

Mandatory reporting can be an immensely complex topic to cover. Given the pushes in the United Kingdom for mandatory reporting, I think it is necessary to address some of the failures that mandatory reporting can have, as well as some of the misconceptions of what mandatory reporting calls for. I think that in the United Kingdom, there are particular concerns about whistleblowers who may wish to report what they know to be an abusive situation, but fear that their job may be on the line. This is a separate issue from mandatory reporting. So, this post will aim to address the difference between mandatory reporting and whistleblower protection, and the pitfalls of mandatory reporting.

Issues In Mandatory Reporting

One of the biggest issues that comes to mind with mandatory reporting is the reality of who sexually abuses children, or for that matter, the reality of who abuses children in general. The public perception seems to continue to be that dirty strangers and sex offenders abuse children, or sexually abuse children. However, the reality is that over 90% of those who sexually abuse children are people known and trusted by both the child and the community around the child. With sexual assault as a whole, that statistic is still above 80%. In other words, in the majority of these cases the perpetrator is someone who is known, trusted, and well-liked in the community of the child.

When you love someone, the last thing you want for them are the legal hassles of being arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime. You can tell yourself until you are blue in the face that it does not matter who the person is, if they are sexually abusing your child, you will report them immediately. I really do not care what you tell yourself, but the reality is not at all that simple. Say you are married with children, and you find out that your husband or wife is sexually abusing one of the children. You want them and the child, first and foremost, to get mental health help to wade through the issue and ensure it does not happen again.

Another common public perception is that most of the time someone does sexually assault or abuse someone, they will inevitably reoffend. Please stop here. Go to the right-hand side of this blog, and at the top you will find, “Resources:Studies And Articles”. Click it. You can pick any number of studies and articles in this resource, but the facts and statistics firmly establish the fact that most people who sexually take advantage of someone else will not do so again. The facts also show that help is effective in dropping the number of people who re-offend. While recidivism rates are far from perfect, they are a great general indicator of how likely to re-offend a particular criminal population is.

So, let us visit a few scenarios:

1.      A single parent who discovers that a teenage son or daughter is sexually abusing a younger sibling.

2.      A married couple with children, and one of the couple discovers that the other is sexually abusing the children.

3.      A married couple without children, and one of the couple discovers that the other is volunteering with children, and takes individual children to private places for unknown reasons. They suspect something might be going on.

4.      Someone who has sexual attractions to children, and fears they might someday act upon their attractions.

5.      Someone who has sexually abused a child and wants to get help to stop and make sure it does not happen again.

In each of these scenarios, which are likely very common, you have people who, under mandatory reporting laws, would not be mandated to report the abuse. However, if any of these people see a therapist, that therapist would be required, under mandatory reporting, to tell law enforcement about that situation. All of these people are either very close to the abusive person (1-3), or they are the abusive person (4-5). If they are aware that seeing a therapist means the involvement of law enforcement, how likely are they to seek help?

That just covers five scenarios not involving mandatory reporters. Now, let us take a glance at some situations that could involve mandatory reporters, under mandatory reporting laws:

1.      A social worker, teacher, or church official that becomes aware of abuse within the child’s family.

2.      A social worker, teacher, or church official that becomes aware that a coworker is abusing a child.

3.      A police officer that becomes aware that their partner or boss is abusing a child.

4.      A doctor or nurse that becomes aware that their direct supervisor is abusing a child.

5.      Someone who works in any one profession that requires mandatory reporting, but knows someone in their personal life who is abusing a child.

Suddenly, mandatory reporting stops being straightforward. Does the person in the first scenario do their duty and rip apart the child’s family, which is also traumatic for a child? Does the person in situations 2-4 shatter their workplace with such a revelation? If their country does not have whistleblower protection laws, which shield someone in those situations from losing their job, will they be risking their job? How likely are any of these people to say anything in the absence of mandatory reporting laws? How likely is it that, under mandatory reporting laws, these people will be making a difficult situation even more traumatic, not only for the child, but all of the people around them?

Mandatory reporting may sound like the right thing to do at first, but these ten situations raise a number of questions that do not have solid answers. Countries that have mandatory reporting, like the United States and Canada, sometimes will have procedures in place for law enforcement to limit the trauma of involving the police. These procedures are not in place in every situation, and come places will have child protective services, family court, or a similar setup to ensure that fairness and justice are both in place. Child advocates, lawyers, judges, juries, therapists, social workers… the complications to each of these situations are not as simple as “make them report it to police”.

Whistleblower Laws

Some countries, like the United States, have what are called “whistleblower” laws to protect people who know of illegal activity within the company from facing retaliation for reporting the illegal activity to the police. These whistleblower laws do not mandate that people report such activity, but they do give them legal protections and courses of action to take if their employer retaliates against them if they choose to make such a report. These laws give added protection and are aimed at limiting the actions that employers can take in response to such a report being filed.

Pedophiles

I must stop a moment to address something that most people do not consider, and that is the reality that pedophiles do not always abuse children. A pedophile is someone with sexual attractions to young children, and there is academic evidence to suggest that not all pedophiles are even a danger to children. Observing that reality does not make me some kind of “sex offender advocate”, or mean that I am “taking the side of sex offenders”. It means I recognize a fact that is related to the issue of child sexual abuse. I have discussedthe estimates that can be made based on what we know about these issues, and these estimates show that using the most conservative estimate of the number of pedophiles, only 8% or less are known to sexually abuse children.

With that being said, and as you probably realize with me having to dedicate an entire paragraph to explain it, pedophilia is an extremely stigmatized condition. If you wish to know more about this stigma, please copy “stigma against pedophiles” into Google, as it is not the main focus here.

However, it should be pointed out that most mental health providers do not have specific experience with pedophilia or other sexual issues. There have also been many horror stories of pedophiles being reported to the police merely for talking with a therapist about their attractions in order to get help with them. Therefore, the common assumption among pedophiles is that if their country has mandatory reporting, it is not safe to talk with a therapist about the issues they are experiencing. Sexual abusers who are sexually attracted to children (“pedophilic”, in other words) make up about a third of sexual abusers. Imagine if even half of those people felt they were able to get professional help, before they had sexually abused a child.

Conclusion

Mandatory reporting is not an ideal solution to child sexual abuse. It can cause more issues than it solves by pushing people further away from mental health help, and it can have the added effect of stigmatizing mental health issues. Other solutions besides mandatory reporting, like whistleblower laws, should be considered in the UK instead, and a closer look must be paid to the child sexual abuse prevention program Don't Offend: Germany's Prevention Program. The United States has had a “Help Wanted” study this year to look at what pedophiles report that they needed in adolescence to help them with pedophilia. A great many organizations exist to reduce and eliminate the stigma around mental health issues. We must investigate other alternatives to mandatory reporting. 

Why Terminology Matters

Terminology Guidelines

Last week, a global inter-agency group released a fairly long document, titled "Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse" (you can find the direct PDF link here). Why does this matter? It matters because there are a wide variety of words that we use to describe a wide variety of topics with regard to the sexual abuse of children, and the sexual exploitation of children. As their document is 114 pages long, this will serve to highlight some of what they say, why they say it, and recommend specific terms based on their recommendations.

A Matter Of Terminology

Some argue that the terminology that we use does not matter. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, a perpetrator is a perpetrator, and a victim is a victim. However, some terminology can not only minimize what is done to the victim of abuse, and make it seem less harmful than it actually is, it can also perpetuate myths that enable sexual abuse to happen rather than preventing it. In short, the words we use when discussing child sexual abuse and associated crimes matters because we have to be simultaneously respectful both to the victims of such crimes, and to the facts surrounding such crimes. Without giving due respect, we can do more harm than good by the words that we use.

In their introduction, they say, "Greater conceptual clarity on terminology is thus needed to ensure stronger and more consistent advocacy, policy and laws in all languages across all regions of the world. To engender more clarity in the conceptualisation, definition, and translation of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children, a multi-stakeholder dialogue involving the voices of a multitude of actors at all levels is needed."

In other words, words matter.

Minor

This term begins on page 8. Minor is generally a term used to describe someone who is under the age of majority, or the age someone becomes an adult. The most common usage is in legal, law enforcement, and similar situations. They recommend using the word "child" in most contexts, and define "child" to mean anyone under the age of 18. Their conclusion? Use "minor" in legal issues, and "child" everywhere else.

Child Prostitute And Child Sex Worker

This term begins on page 31. These terms should be avoided, due to the implication that children in such situations are there by choice, are consenting to their work, and are paid for it. Children who are trafficked or exploited for sexual purposes are not paid, cannot consent, and are not there by choice, they are forced into those situations. Therefore, "child sexual exploitation victims" or "sexual exploitation victims" should be used. These terms are closely related to the next term.

Child Pornography

This term begins on page 35. This, perhaps, is one of the most important terms addressed in the guidelines. Both legally and linguistically, the use of the term "pornography" to refer to images and videos of real children that depict the sexual abuse of children of varying levels is completely misleading. In traditional pornography, there may be some exploitative elements, but the actors are adults who are consenting to act and model for pornographic purposes, and are paid to do so. However, images and videos that depict real children in sexual situations, whether those images involve children on children or adults on children, means that a real child is being sexually abused on film. It involves a real victim, and that real victim can be extremely affected by the knowledge that images of their sexual abuse are on the internet for anyone to see.

In short, such images and videos of real children are sexually exploitative and cannot accurately be described as pornography. Therefore, both the guidelines (p. 35-38) and other researchers have recommended that either "child sexual exploitation material" or "child sexual abuse material" (CSEM/CSAM) should be used to describe such imagery, and the terms "child pornography", "child porn", "kiddy porn", "pedo-porn", or other terms involving the word "pornography" are to be avoided altogether.

Important Note: The imagery I have just described is a completely separate issue from cartoon, computer-generated, or otherwise fictional representations of children involved in sexual situations, and will be addressed separately at some point in the future.

Grooming

This term begins on page 51.Grooming is the process of building trust in a child, the child's community, and breaking down the boundaries that might otherwise hinder someone to be sexual with the child. Grooming can be online or in person, and a significant portion of grooming does take place on social media, though it should be noted that 95% of new sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders, so while it seems to make sense to restrict social media use to sex offenders, the reality is that an adult approaching a minor on social media is, in general, a red flag. According to the guidelines, it is a term that has a generally agreed upon meaning and can be used safely.

About grooming, it should be noted that some grooming is slower is about gaining the victim's trust, but some is also more abrupt and coercive, so as to gain immediate leverage and can take less time than the traditional idea of grooming. It should also be noted that not all grooming behavior is intentional, not all behaviors that appear to be grooming are in fact grooming, and not all behavior that is in fact grooming will appear to be grooming. Some grooming, such as showing pornography or CSEM/CSAM to children, is illegal and is of itself a sex crime, but most grooming does not involve illegal behavior.

Important Note: While there are warning signs to sexually abusive acts, those warning signs do not automatically mean that sexual abuse is the end goal. The presence of warning signs and grooming behavior should warrant further conversation with the person exhibiting the warning signs and grooming behavior, and if necessary, separation from the child involved. The focus in such conversations should be around getting the person in question help and letting them know they have a safe space to be honest, and the conversation should steer clear from accusing the person involved of sexual behavior with children.

Child Sex Tourism

This term begins on page 56. Child sex tourism has traditionally referred to travelling for the specific purpose of sexually exploiting and abusing children, but the term has been increasingly debated. Considerations are the word "tourism", which is a legitimate industry, and "child sex", which amounts to child sexual abuse. In short, the term should be avoided because it has a high potential to normalize the practice of travelling to sexually exploit children.

Pedophiles

This term begins on page 86. They recommend the use of the term "preferential offenders" to describe those who sexually abuse or exploit children because they prefer children sexually, and recommend avoiding the term "pedophiles". They further recommend using the term "situational offenders" to describe those who sexually abuse children without a sexual preference for children.

In short, pedophilia and pedophilic disorder refer to "the clinical diagnosis of a mental health condition". Their note about the condition is:
"According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), paedophilic disorder is a part of a larger group of paraphilic disorders, characterised as a “persistent and intense atypical sexual arousal patterns that are accompanied by clinically significant distress or impairment”. The change in terminology from “paedophilia” or “paedophile” to “paedophilic disorder” in DSM-5 was intended to reflect the growing acceptance among mental health professionals that not all individuals who present with symptoms of paedophilic disorder are perpetrators of child sexual abuse or exploitation."

They further note that, "The terms "paedophile" and "paedophilia" continue to be overused and misunderstood, often seen as a label for a person convicted of child sexual exploitation or sexual abuse rather than as a term for a clinical condition."

I sincerely hope that their recommendations are familiar to you, as I have said much the same thing for quite some time. I have a number of different posts on the subject (here, here, here, and more recently here). Therefore, the fact that a global inter-agency cooperation dedicated to determining the proper terminology is saying the same thing really should catch your attention. It is time for the misuse of the words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" to end.

Wrap-Up

While I did not cover every single term, that does not mean that the other terms mentioned throughout the rest of the guidelines are unimportant. Frankly, trying to whittle down the amount they say about the terms I did include to a few paragraphs was a challenge, as was deciding which terms to include here. While I certainly encourage people to read through all of the guidelines, I recognize that not everyone has the patience to go through a 114-page document describing every single term related to child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation. I hope you found this breakdown illuminating.

Religious People And Hate Speech

Does This Need An Introduction?

What would you say if your best friend's family was murdered by an angry motorist? Would you say it was too bad the motorist did not kill more drivers? I should hope not. Yet, a similar sentiment was expressed by a "Baptist Pastor", a Mr. Roger Jimenez out of Sacramento, California, who is the "Pastor" of Verity "Baptist Church". Note all of the quotation marks, please, because I hardly believe for one millisecond that the man, or his church, have anything to do with the Jesus Christ I know.

His exact words were, "Hey, are you sad that fifty pedophiles were killed to day? I think that's great. I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida's a little safer tonight."

Primary Prevention Advocate

Have you read much of my blog? I hope so. But more importantly, I hope you are aware of the facts I attempt to advocate to counter the myths people believe. You see, pedophilia is the condition of being sexually attracted to children prior to their hitting puberty. Evidence points to this condition being an affliction, not a choice, any more than being bisexual or homosexual is a choice. It is generally accepted fact that people do not choose what or whom they are sexually attracted to. None of what I just said has any bearing whatsoever on the facts surrounding child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse is perpetrated by a wide variety of people, and while some of them are indeed sexually attracted to children, attempting to define all those who sexually abuse as pedophiles is just as illogical as someone labeling people in the LGBT community as pedophiles.

I Call Bull Excrement

Yes, for those that had no idea, I am a Christian. I am both proud and ashamed to be one. Frankly, it is distracting to the subject of this blog, and I do not talk about it much. Why am I proud? Because I get to know and love God. Why am I ashamed? Because "Pastors" of "Churches" who are supposed to represent Christ are constantly making God look a good sight more awful than He actually is. These people are religious people who hate, not Christians who love God and love others.

That irks me to no end, but what irks me even more are the myths and implications that Mr. Jimenez wrapped up in his barbarically insensitive comment.

I call bull excrement on Mr. Jimenez being a pastor. He is not fit to lead anyone spiritually, particularly himself.

I call bull excrement on the idea pedophiles being a threat to anyone. If a sexual attraction made someone dangerous, we all belong in cages, every single human who is not asexual.

I call bull excrement on the idea that anyone in the LGBT community are any more or less of a threat to sexually abusing children than anyone else is, except maybe recidivist sex offenders.

I call bull excrement on the number of conservative Christians who are applauding and supporting his bigoted comments.

Facts Over Myths Prevent Sexual Abuse

I have reiterated, time and time again, that preventing child sexual abuse before there is a victim is preferable to punishing people after it has already happened. Studies and researchers and politicians and articles have reiterated that point. Yet we are still using erroneous terminology to refer to people who have sexually abused children.

The only context that the words "pedophile" or "pedophiles" belongs in is the context of describing people with the condition of pedophilia, of being sexually attracted to young children. Period. End of sentence. The discussion of that attraction does not belong in the context of child sexual abuse, unless a therapist is discussing the difficulties the condition of pedophilia brings to a client who has sexually abused a child. Period. End of sentence. Sexual attraction to children. Sexual abuse of children. They do not belong in the same sentence, and they are separate.

Can I please get a volunteer to tape this (so as to not deface church property) to the door of Verity Baptist Church?

Primary Prevention Basics

Stop A Moment...

The information that I am about to present will shock you. You will have feelings about it, and I very much doubt that you will like what you are about to read. I doubt you will want to believe it. So please take a moment to relax, and set aside how you feel about the subject of child sexual abuse. Take a moment, and give me the space to present some challenging facts.

The Cold, Hard Truth

Child sexual abuse is an epidemic that we must take steps to reduce. That one-fourth of girls and one-sixth of boys are abused by the time they come of age is pathetic, disturbing, and disgusting. Society has taken many approaches to attempt to curb this epidemic, very similar to the American war on drugs in the 1990's: The main approach is to exact a harsh penalty and hope that the penalty deters people from committing these horrific crimes. The reality that someone can touch the genitals of a child for sexual pleasure is a disgusting, appalling concept just by itself. Then you add to that reality that there are people who are sexually attracted to children the way most adults are attracted to other adults... and you get people getting their pitchforks and nooses ready. People are ready and willing to accept that the people who commit these horrific acts are evil monsters, and that the victims are poor, defenseless children who always tell adults when it happens.

The truth is not nearly as simple as that one paragraph might lead you to believe. Most children do not disclose that they were touched in a private place by anyone, because of the fear, shame, and humiliation that accompanies such a basic boundary violation. And when they do tell an adult, the reaction is typically something like, "But we know and trust that person. Only monsters molest children, and they're not a monster." Most adults who sexually abuse children are not actually attracted to them, but are heterosexual. And most juveniles (a third of sexual abusers are juveniles at the time of the crime) who sexually abuse children are doing so because of abuse they have suffered, which is a stark contrast to the majority of abusers who were never sexually abused as children. The truth is that child sexual abuse is not a simple problem to solve, and even handling a disclosure of abuse can be very, very difficult.

Extremely Controversial

Primary prevention is an extremely controversial area of sexual abuse prevention. Primary prevention involves facts people do not want to believe, and there are many extremely difficult truths to accept, if one is to look at all into what it means to prevent child sexual abuse before it occurs. Some of them are:

1. Pedophilia, the attraction to children, is separate from the act of sexually abusing a child.
2. Those who sexually abuse children cannot be profiled, and there is no one common factor that motivates the abuse.
3. Those who sexually abuse children do not typically repeat their crimes.
4. Sex offender registration and community notification laws do not prevent children from being abused, and researchers have found extremely limited, if not counterintuitive results from the enaction of such laws.
5. Victims of child sexual abuse do not disclose the abuse for months or years, if at all.
6. Mandatory reporting also prevents people who are concerned about their thoughts from seeking out a psychologist for fear of being reported to the police and having their lives ruined.

These truths are controversial in part because the media has butchered the language in stories describing those who sexually abuse. They typically refer to those who abuse as pedophiles, or paedophiles, and their crimes as pedophilia. Pedophiles and sex abusers; pedophilia and child sexual abuse: These terms are used interchangeably, even though they mean very different things to researchers and those who work with these subjects. That difference is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome, because it seems to make sense that the sexual abuse of a child would be motivated by a sexual attraction to them. If you can accept just the first fact as truth, it will become easier to believe the rest. 

Popular Myths, Stigma, And Hype... And Reality

The reality of child sexual abuse is not at all a simple subject. I have seen myths perpetrated by people who are very much against sexual abuse. This weekend, in fact, I was told that, "The subject is as simple as no matter what urges you get you DO NOT HARM AN INNOCENT!!! End of [story]..." when I told someone that the subject of child sexual abuse prevention is not simple at all, due to a myriad of controversial laws that do more harm than good, due to the complexities of what motivate someone to sexually abuse a child, and due to the oversimplifying of the issue by the media and by politicians.

Most people think that not abusing a child is as simple as knowing the difference between right and wrong, or that abusing a child is always perpetrated by adults who are sexual predators and monsters. But the reality is that those who abuse a child... are us. They are human. One-third of them are juveniles, not adults. Over 90% of sexual abusers are known and trusted by the victim and the victim's family. Most sexual abusers do not have a psychological drive to molest children, the child was just an available outlet for a powerful emotion that distorted the person's thinking and decisions, similar to the way someone desperate enough can commit murder under the influence of powerful emotions like rage, jealousy, or fear. As such, the motivations that lead to an abuser's decision to sexually abuse a child are complex to foresee, treat, or prevent, let alone be believed by the general public.

Accusations Against Researchers, Therapists, And Advocates

If I had a dime for every time I have been accused of being a sex offender just for pointing out facts and statistics about sex offenders, I would have plenty of money. This is a very common accusation against anyone who delves very deeply into the realm of preventing child sexual abuse: That we are coddling sexual offenders, sexual abusers, and child molesters. Or worse, that we are child molesters who just want to make the act acceptable. I have even been called creepy. The amount of this same pathetic logic leveled at researchers, advocates, and therapists is astounding to me. Here we are, attempting to educate people about the subject, but we are constantly being accused of coddling abusers or worse. Who are some of these experts?

I would like to showcase two researchers: James Cantor, and Elizabeth Letourneau:

Dr. Letourneau is the current director of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse, and the former president of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Her work is primarily in researching ways that sexual abuse can be prevented, studying and working with those who have committed sexual crimes, and helping form public policy so that these crimes can be prevented. She posts frequently on Twitter, but is rarely liked or retweeted, except by a handful of colleagues and advocates like myself.

Dr. Cantor is a Canadian sex researcher that studies sexual disorders, known as paraphilias, for a living. He gets paid to figure out why people are sexually attracted to what they are sexually attracted to. He has authored many research studies, spoken and written for many news organizations, and done a lot to prevent child sexual abuse. He simply wants people to know and understand his subject matter. Yet, I have seen him accused of attacking abuse victims, being arrogant, and other petty insults.

The public response to these experts is frightening, and by reading many of these responses you would think that the public are the experts, and these people are just hacks who make stuff up for their own amusement. But as you can see by their profiles and their work, they have dedicated their entire lives to contributing to a solution to the epidemic of child sexual abuse.

Tying It All Together

You may not realize it, but your opinion matters. What you know and what you think you know about the subject of child sexual abuse has a very real impact to the epidemic of child sexual abuse. If what you think you know are actually myths, stereotypes, and misinformation about the subject, then you can actually contribute to the epidemic rather than its solutions. The truths of child sexual abuse, and the facts in the realm of primary prevention are indeed counterintuitive. However, believing the myths and misinformation over the facts on the issue means that we can blind ourselves to the reality that our neighbor, our friend, our family member, or our own children could be struggling with an issue that could, or already has, led to a child being abused. Believing the myths and misinformation mean that we deny the truth, and even attempt to cover it up.

The biggest reason that children do not disclose their own sexual abuse is to protect their abuser, and to protect their loved ones from the knowledge that they are being sexually abused. Adults do not disclose abuse for very similar reasons: They do not want the atrocious decision to haunt the abuser for the rest of their lives, and they know that will happen with the laws we have formed and the public opinion on these issues. That is one of the reasons why navigating a disclosure of abuse is so complex. Our knee-jerk reactions may be to just tell the police, but the reality when it happens is not nearly that simple for most people.

When this topic comes up, please take a deep breath, in, and out. Please take a moment to center yourself, and think rationally. Take a moment to realize that your reactions are not only normal, they are expected. But also take a moment to realize that it is emotional reactions that can contribute to the epidemic of child sexual abuse rather than contributing to a solution to that epidemic. We have already formed policies and laws based on the passionate reactions to this issue, and research has shown many times that these policies are not doing what they intended to do, and they can even increase crime. It may sound like it makes sense to try to keep sex offenders away from schools and parks, or to put them on a list, or do any number of other endless punishments.

However, these methods are only effective once a sex crime has already happened.

Criminology Myths Debunked

Today, I ran across a rather unfortunate article discussing the prevention of child sexual abuse. While a very small amount of the information in the article is accurate, the majority of it is not. This will serve as a review of the information presented in the article, as well as a rally cry to protect our children. Not with myths, not with misinformation, but with facts.

Part One: What Is Pedophilia? Who Are Pedophiles?

This article is wrong from the very first sentence, which has to be some kind of achievement somewhere. Obviously, anyone with internet access (and the ability to read English) can look on the side of this blog and click the "Wiki: Pedophilia" link on the side, and read that pedophilia refers to an attraction to children that meets very specific criteria. You can also see my recent post on pedophilia. Why does this matter? Well, the title of the article is not "Pedophilia From The Perspective Of Criminology", but "Do more to prevent child sexual abuse". Sexual abuse is a choice. Our best information from the DSM-V is that pedophilia is not a choice. It is described as a sexual orientation:

Page 698 of the DSM-V, first paragraph

Obviously, pedophilia cannot be both a condition and a crime. It cannot be a noun and a verb at the same time. That is a logical fallacy of ambiguity called equivocation: Using the same word to mean multiple things so as to make a fallacious argument sound solid. A student of critical thinking could easily see where I am going with this. The article is supposedly written by a criminologist who studied at the University of Detroit in 1989 for a masters in criminal justice. If someone who is smart enough to get a masters and direct a university in Malaysia, but cannot do a simple Wikipedia search to use words properly, I question his credentials and his ability to lead properly in preventing child sexual abuse.

So far, that covers just the first sentence. The second paragraph is equally poor. Pedophiles are not people whom prefer to have sex with children, they are people who find children who have not yet hit puberty attractive. Many pedophiles would prefer not to have such a sexual attraction at all. Where this man gets the idea that he somehow knows how all people with the condition of pedophilia think, I have no clue, but I very much doubt that they teach mind-reading in the criminal justice master's programs in Detroit. And as far as I know, pedophiles do not prefer to taste children, nor do they achieve sexual pleasure from children. That would imply that all pedophiles sexually abuse children, and given that around a third of those who abuse children are pedophiles, well, that implication would not hold true under any expert's analysis.

Also, the DSM-V discusses pedophiles as exclusive (only attracted to children) or non-exclusive (attracted to children, but also to other age groups). So the last sentence, that they desire sexual relations only with children, is demonstrably false.

Part Two: Grooming, Profiling, And Abuse Facts

Some of the information here is okay, like the last sentence: A well-known abuse statistic is that 90% of sexual abuse victims know and trust their abuser, though I am not sure how exactly the victims' mothers factor into that well-known statistic. The point is that people generally trust those who abuse children. Pedophiles do in fact come from all backgrounds, and pedophiles only share one thing in common: An attraction to prepubescent children. There is no way to identify a pedophile. Nor, by the way, is there any way to identify someone who sexually abuses children, short of catching them in the act or the child disclosing the abuse, which was probably his point: There is no profile of someone who sexually abuses a child.

However, we do know why people abuse children. They abuse children because they are available, because of unmanaged mental health needs, out of mishandling difficult emotions, and yes, sometimes being sexually attracted is a factor. However, the sexual attraction is not the reason they abused, but the fact that they did not properly manage or get support for the attraction that they have. They abused a child because they made the decision to do so. The main point here is that sexual abuse is a choice, and pedophilia is not.

Huckle made decisions to seek out children, and to write a manual on how people can sexually abuse children and get away with it. You have likely seen news articles referring to Huckle as a pedophile who wrote a pedophilia manual. He is a sexual abuser who wrote a sexual abuse manual. Pedophilia had little to do with his choices. I also very much doubt that Western privelege factored much into his decision to abuse children, as there are many people with Western privelege that use it to help people rather than exploit children. You might as well mention that he had a beard, therefore all people who have beards might sexually abuse children.

He alludes to grooming in the first sentence by saying that abuse "can be a small act in everyday life". I say he alluded to it, because he does not actually name it as grooming, or go into detail about what grooming is. Grooming is the intentional or unintentional progression of earning the victim and the trust of those close to the victim so that the perpetrator can spend time with the victim alone without arousing suspicion. Grooming is a real thing, though grooming is not, of itself, abuse. Nor, I might add, is abuse a "small act in everyday life". This man is a professional at minimizing child sexual abuse, as abuse is neither a small act, nor should it ever be part of everyday life for a child.

Part Three: Criminal Behavior, Pedophilia, And Victims

The theory mentioned in the first sentence may have been a popular notion in 1989, but I very much doubt that you will find many criminologists (no, that is not my field) that believe that all criminal behavior is learned from other criminals who hold criminal attitudes and values. You might as well say that all crime is the result of mafias, we just have to identify who taught whom. I have no idea what most criminologists actually believe in regards to theories and what causes behavior, but I am very familiar with psychology and psychologists. Most experts in sex crime that I have either spoken with or read a peer-reviewed study from would say that child sexual abuse is a choice. That choice may be influenced by environmental factors, or by biological factors, but it does not negate the fact that behavior is the end result of a decision. It is controllable. This is yet another example of the man minimizing child sexual abuse.

And again, he uses the term "pedophiles" to refer to those who have abused children. The number of abusers who were abused themselves is around 30-40%, last I checked that statistic. You can look it up if you do not believe me, but 30-40% hardly qualifies as "most pedophiles", or rather, most abusers. And while pedophilia is certainly the result of some complex biological and environmental process, the condition of being sexually attracted to young children does not automatically lead to criminal behavior any more than depression automatically leads to suicide. This man is clearly speaking outside his area of expertise, and is attempting to blame mental illnesses and psychological conditions as the cause of criminal behavior. Can I get a show of hands for those who think that such blame casting towards mentally ill people is completely inappropriate?

Part Four: What Makes Someone A Pedophile, Cure For Pedophilia

While I did not look up the 2014 Korean report on twins with pedophilia (I hesitate to believe it even exists, after what I have read so far), I am quite familiar with James Cantor's work on pedophilia and what he says about the subject: That pedophilia acts as a sexual orientation and is developed very, very early and is likely the result of biological processes far more than it is the result of an environmental factor such as child sexual abuse. None of that, of course, is at all relevant to child sexual abuse and how it could be prevented, unless he were asserting that pedophiles do not choose their condition and should receive help and not stigma (this is obviously not his argument).

He claims there is no agreement about what makes an individual a pedophile. This is almost laughable. Pedophilia is a word that describes the condition of having an ongoing sexual attraction to prepubescent children, so obviously people who have such an ongoing sexual attraction would be a pedophile. While there is certainly disagreement over the nuances of pedophilia and how pedophiles should be treated, there is no academic disagreement about what makes someone a pedophile to my knowledge. It is a narrow term with a narrow definition, and the term itself does not have disagreement, the concepts surrounding it do. Should it be called a disorder? Should it be called an orientation? What about mandatory reporting? These concepts rage ongoing debates.

And it is absolutely correct that there is no cure for having the sexual orientation of pedophilia, it is absolutely incorrect that most pedophiles are sociopaths. I believe I discussed this recently. He is referring, of course, to sexual predators who are the very extreme minority of sexual abusers, which again, is completely irrelevant to pedophilia or pedophiles. While there is some comorbidity (like correlation, but for psychologists) between pedophilia and antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy, or sociopathy, if you prefer the stigmatized language), there is also comorbidity between pedophilia and substance use disorders, depressive, bipolar, and anxiety disorders, as well as other paraphilic disorders. Yes, I copied that almost word-for-word from page 700 of the DSM-5.

Conveniently ignoring the reality of pedophilic disorder to make his point that pedophiles are terrible people that have an innate drive to rape children is academically dishonest. Yet, this man is the director of a university as well as holding several affiliations and titles. He should stick to his areas of expertise and not butcher the field of psychology and pass it off as fact.

The last sentence is almost laughable. Do I even need to cite sources when I say that sexual recidivism of sexual offenders is around 10-20%? Do I need to link the two studies on the side of this page, which will tell you that sexual abusers have lower recidivism than the average sexual offender? Anyone can search "recidivism for child sexual abusers" and see the top result. The last sentence is a lie that is clearly exposed to be a lie by a simple Google search. If he had a masters degree in criminal justice, he should be able to find that information far easier than I can.

Part Five: How Abuse Happens, How Sexual Abuse Can End

Here, he begins wading into realms far outside my area of experience. What I can tell you is that law enforcement must have specific training in how to question victims of child sexual abuse so that the trauma involved is not made worse by making the victim relive the experience before they are ready. I can also tell you that law enforcement must spread far and wide the message that there is no profile for sexual abusers. I can even tell you that enforcement is a must. I also wholeheartedly agree that effective laws are a must in combating child sexual abuse. However, speaking from the perspective of an American, with all of our sex offender registration and notification laws, and all of the subsequent studies that have shown how useless they are except in maybe 5% of sexual offenders, I must say that these laws must be done with expert analysis and recommendations. Which brings me to the final part of Mr. Satar's article...

Part Six: Sexual Abuse Prevention, Responsibility, And Child Protection

I completely agree with the first two paragraphs: Preventing child sexual abuse is everyone's responsibility. The police must investigate and enforce, but parents, teachers, and others must be able to spot abuse when it is occurring, and spot the warning signs in those who may be at-risk to sexually abuse a child. The third paragraph is also brilliant: Parents must ensure the safety of their children. The fourth paragraph is golden: Parents must know the warning signs and not take someone's title for granted (oh, the irony). We must not assume that someone is reliable because they are trusted in the community, or because of a title. We must watch for the warning signs.

But that is where I stop agreeing, because the last two paragraphs scream the same precursor warning signs that America should have been hearing in the 1990's when parents began demanding laws that we now know are completely ineffective at protecting children: Put registries in place, register pedophiles and child abusers (conflating pedophilia with abuse again, I see), and do all this to protect our children! That has not worked well in the United States, and that rhetoric was formed on the assumption that recidivism is high, but that is just an erroneous assumption.

Mr. Satar, our children do need to be protected from child sexual abuse. But they do not need to be protected from pedophiles or pedophilia. They need to be protected from the bad decisions of older children and adults, and those are just that: Decisions. Our children, not just here in America, not just in Malaysia, but all of the children in the world, must be protected by facts, laws and policies that are based on those facts. America and Europe has already made the mistake of forming these policies and laws based on the emotive rally cry: Protect our children! It is time that this rally cry becomes based in fact, not just hype, so that it can be effective at actually keeping our children safe.

The first part of that, if you noticed, is fact. Verifiable, trustworthy, peer-reviewed, honest, fact. Not myths based on a misunderstanding of psychology, sexual abusers, and the dehumanization of those that abuse children. Fact.

Defining Child Sexual Abuse: A Therapeutic Approach

It is always helpful to define terms, particularly when terms can be as controversial as the subject matter is. Child sexual abuse is a controversial topic because it is a broad topic. Contained in that one subject are consent laws, mandatory reporting laws, civil laws aimed at improving public safety, SORNA, residency restrictions, sex offenders, law enforcement training, and a slew of other items. Many people love to debate controversial issues.

I used to be one of those people, but on this topic, I have a generally narrower focus. I specifically avoid the legal subjects involving age of consent and mandatory reporting because those issues are never-ending. I also avoid using a legal definition of child sexual abuse, because it is overly broad. It is possible for a legal act of child sexual abuse to occur, yet have the legal victim be an enthusiastic participant in the activity, particularly among older teenagers. It is also possible for teens to send explicit images of themselves to others, and have them be legally charged with child pornography, with themselves being both the legal victim and perpetrator.

That is why I avoid legal conversations. I avoid age of consent, because no matter what number is picked, there will always be someone below that number who is mature enough to consent, and someone above that number who is not mature enough to consent. I likewise try to avoid a legal definition of child sexual abuse: No matter how diligent or understanding the police are, there will always be someone arrested for something that was not harmful to the legal victim.

Therapeutic?

I try my best to be clear that when I talk about child sexual abuse, I use a therapeutic approach. In my treatment/support group, they considered a sexual offense as an act that crossed someone's sexual boundary in a way that harmed or traumatized them. For me, the definition of child sexual abuse is tied with harm done to the victim: If there was no harm, there was no victim, if there was no victim, it was not abuse. The act is tied to sexual exploitation and the aftermath of the act: If the act was done by someone several years older than the victim, and the act was sexually exploitative, coercive, and resulted in harm, it was abusive.

So... what is a child?

In talking about perpetrators of abuse of said children, there is typically an age difference of at least a few years. For example, an 11-year-old touching the private parts of a 7-year-old would be considered child sexual abuse if the 7-year-old was harmed. Developmentally, such behavior is not expected or considered the norm. If a 7-year-old is touching the private parts of another 7-year-old, that behavior is considered normal curiosity and exploration. The key is an age difference. Many groups push for considering anyone under 18 a child, but I do not think the reality is that simple unless a therapeutic definition is used for abuse.

Practically speaking...

That is great, but how does that look practically? An adult who photographs a child when they are nude is sexually abusive if that child is harmed in the process, or afterwards by knowing the photograph is on the internet. They are not if the child is unharmed during or afterwards (still illegal). Someone several years older who touches a child's private parts are sexually abusive if the child is uncomfortable with it, and are harmed by it. They are not abusive if the child is unharmed and okay with it (still illegal). Someone who, as a 19-year-old, has sex with their 15-year-old lover, is sexually abusive if the 15-year-old was harmed and did not consent to the act. They are not abusive if the teen was unharmed and consented (still illegal in the US). A lewd conversation between an adult and a child, if the child was harmed, it was abusive (legal unless solicitation was involved).

Those are just a few out of many possible situations. You might ask me, "How can you describe a situation where a child goes through that and isn't harmed? That's impossible." However, those situations are real and documented. There are a number of studies that show that there are some children who are either unharmed, or move past the event enough that it ended up not being traumatic. Running With Scissors is a book where one such situation is detailed by the author. The book is an autobiography. As I have pointed out before, those situations do not justify or make legal the acts that do not result in harm, it means a therapeutic definition is important.

Researchers prefer to view those situations as examples of people overcoming potentially traumatic events. I have the perspective that these children are well-adjusted because they were able to accurately examine how they felt about the events, and decided for themselves that they were not harmed. You could say that these children are very robust and emotionally healthy, because they were able to look at an event and decide for themselves how they felt about it. Here is one great example of an act that was consensual, that the teenager did not report harm, but was still illegal and still overreacted to by the adults in their life. Bear in mind that this would have still been illegal if the man was not on probation for a different sex crime. Also, that case is a great example for groups that discuss age of consent laws. They would point out that in most parts of the world, including Europe, that act would not have been illegal. It perfectly illustrates why legal discussions on this subject are never-ending: What if the girl was 15? 14? 12? What if she still consented then? How does she know what consent is?

Primary prevention tie-in?

The presence of these situations is critical to the primary prevention of child sexual abuse, and here is why. The presence of these situations means that there are children who knew their own boundaries and feelings well enough to know when something did or did not cross those boundaries. It is a win for primary prevention, because these select few children were able to express themselves clearly. It serves as a model for what happens when children are able to create, set, and maintain their own boundaries. If they are able to look at something potentially traumatic as a neutral event, they will likewise be better able to determine when something crosses boundaries and causes them harm.

It is also a reminder that when approaching a child who was impacted by sexually exploitive behavior, we must let the child tell their own story. It is a reminder that overreacting can make a neutral situation traumatic for the child, and to respect the child enough to tell their own story.

Why the emphasis on children?

When it comes to detecting when abuse is occurring, preventing it from happening, and holding perpetrators accountable, the first priority must be the child. While the surrounding community does have feelings about abusive events, the primary impact is to the child. No one should ever presume to tell a child how to feel, only help the child work through how they feel and what they think. It is extremely common for children who have been abused to care for and trust their abuser. The child has a right to feel that way, just as they have a right to hate their abuser. Without that sort of emphasis on children, it is possible to dictate how the child feels and make the impact and effects of the abuse worse than they initially were. Magnifying the effects of child sexual abuse is obviously not something to be striving for, and that is why an emphasis on children must take priority. Without it, primary prevention cannot happen.

Final thoughts...

I know there are some people out there who might twist my argument here to mean that sexual acts with children are acceptable if the child is not harmed, and I must be clear that just because there are children who are not harmed does not make the behavior on the part of the older youth or adult acceptable or moral. The high potential for harm makes the act immoral and unacceptable, every time. Just because even 15/100 cases do not result in harm does not make the behavior itself okay. Another issue is that child sexual abuse does not always result in readily apparent harm. Sometimes, it can take years for someone to realize they were in fact traumatized.

My own abuse was exactly like that: It affected how I saw myself and the world around me. It was not until I began talking about my past that I came to a more realistic understanding of what happened to me, where previously I saw it as normal. I felt shamed for the normal experiences because I did not believe I had the right to enjoy them. But I felt that the abusive experiences were normal for no other reason than that they happened to me. And how I felt about everything was a garbled mess because I had no idea how to properly feel or identify my emotions.

While it is possible that children involved in sexual acts with older youth or adults will not be traumatized or harmed does not make the behavior acceptable. Just because a handful of alcoholics are able to recover to the point of being able to drink socially with no problems does not mean that all alcoholics will get to that point.