In this episode, I encourage clarity, as our news is flooded with information about released files. I address concerns about the normalization of abuse through language, emphasizing the importance of correct terminology to protect victims and prevent further harm. I also discuss the role our biases play and offer tools for awareness and advocacy. Chapters 00:00 Language & The Blurring of Lines in Abuse02:50 Desensitization & Normalization 04:18 Understanding Consent and Age of Consent (Legal Perspective)11:21 The Role of Bias in Language15:20 Call to Clarity and Responsibility Words matter. The language we hear seeps into our unconscious and has the ability to make what is horrific palatable. It has the ability to take something as horrible as child sexual abuse and human trafficking and gradually start to make it seem almost normal. Listen carefully and you will hear this shift in the public discourse around the release of millions of documents about many of our world’s wealthiest and most powerful people abusing children and adults. You will hear a blurring of the lines - of what it means to be a child and what it means to be abused, assaulted, and trafficked. You will also hear a clouding of the distinction of who is responsible when abuse occurs. I’m concerned that the coverage — the amount and the language used (even by the well-intended) — is normalizing what we can’t normalize. This blurring of lines only emboldens perpetrators who are out there right now. It puts more children and adults at risk. It prevents more victims from reporting abuse and it further harms anyone who has been abused. This episode is my attempt to counter that normalization, encourage clarity, and provide tools to help you recognize the types of words and phrases that blur important lines. Elite We obviously live in a society that idealizes those with money, power, and celebrity. We project our innate gifts and greatness onto a few. We turn over our inner authority. We even project our inner wisdom onto bedazzling marketers posing as wellness and spiritual gurus. Those with the most depraved behaviors in our culture have our fascination, while humble, service-driven leaders are largely ignored. Should we be surprised that a group of sociopathic “elites” are leading many of our institutions? Our collective idol worship has helped elevate, support, and protect those who’ve harmed not only their victims, but all of us who rely on their institutions. Will these recent discoveries help us change course? How our society handles this open abscess will either lead to greater clarity and healing - or it will manage to infect us further. Desensitization Inevitably, this story, with all of its far-reaching implications, will be in the news for a very long time. The more we hear something, the less shocking it becomes. The amount of media content on this topic (even if in the direction of needed justice) is already leading to a collective desensitization. We are losing sight of the severe harm caused to the victims and survivors. (I include “victims,” because not everyone survived.) Normalization A thoughtful popular podcaster who identifies as someone who wants justice for the survivors and accountability for the perpetrators said: “He may have had a sexual relationship with an underaged woman.” This podcaster is just one of many using this type of language. Even Steven Inskeep, a seasoned journalist with NPR, described the victims in the sex-trafficking case as “underage women.” After a number of listeners spoke out, NPR did an autopsy of sorts to understand how (in the line of editors and checks), this ended up being read on air. NPR made a public apology, explained how this ended up being read on air and what they were doing to prevent it from happening again. Many journalists recognize a need to understand and use appropriate language. But, most in independent media, who are actually investigating and discussing the files, aren’t trained journalists and many are unintentionally contributing to the normalization of abuse. To say, “He may have had a sexual relationship with an underaged woman” blurs more than one line First, adults and children do not have sexual relationships. Adults sexually abuse children. It is increasingly important to have clarity on this singular point and to have words that reflect this clarity. Saying “he had a sexual relationship with…,” implies that the child was able to consent. ● Children are unable to consent as indicated by the law. ○ Consent = voluntarily, actively, and knowingly agree to or grant permission for a specific act, proposed by another. There is more to the legal definition, which I’ll get to for adults, but here, that doesn’t matter, because, again, children are unable to consent. ○ There is a significant power imbalance between children and adults ○ When a child is abused, they are being harmed in that moment and will have enduring impacts from the abuse (emotional, psychological and physical). Along these lines “child prostitute,” and “child porn”, suggest consent. Saying instead that a perpetrator sexually abused, exploited and trafficked a child and saying sexual abuse materials recognizes that children are unable to consent. Second, “underage woman” is an oxymoron I can only imagine this term is being used to describe a physically mature teen. It’s as if an adult is saying, “She looks like a woman to me.” It doesn’t matter how physically mature a child looks, they are still a child. A child can not consent regardless of their physical appearance. But what about the phrase, “underage girl”? An “underage” girl is a girl There is no reason to add the word “underage,” here. Children are children. If underage is being added, it is blurring that fact. Child, girl, boy, or minor are the terms to use. If we hear “underage woman,” or “underage girl,” over and over again, before we know it, we may be saying it without even thinking. What could the podcaster have said instead? “He may have sexually abused (or sexually assaulted) a child,” Age of Consent If children can’t consent, you might be wondering about situations, such as a sexual relationship between a 17-year-old girl and an 18 year old teenage boy. Age of Consent = the age at which anyone can consent to anyone older. Depending on the state (here in the United States), the legal age of consent is anywhere from 16-18. But, even for states in which the age of consent is 16 or 17, there are laws that specify how much older the “older” person can be to whom the 16 or 17-year-old is consenting. The information coming out of the files is about perpetrators who were clearly well beyond 18 and early adulthood. In fact, they were old enough to have achieved prominence in their respective fields. What about the women who were of “the age of consent”? Here’s where I’ll share with you the complete legal definition of consent. (Since children are unable to consent, I didn’t share the qualifiers yet). Consent means to voluntarily, willfully, and knowingly agree to, approve, or yield to a proposition or action proposed by another. Consent is given by a person with legal capacity without coercion, fraud, or duress. It requires active permission rather than passive submission or absence of resistance. So when Megan Kelly, an attorney/media personality, describes many of the victims as “barely legal” (as opposed to teenagers who were unable to consent to much older adults or young women who were coerced), the law would say, this is not legal and is abuse - a crime. From Normalizing to Celebration Another podcaster/journalist/academic who is seemingly on the side of the victims and survivors completed what seemed to be an appropriate and serious podcast by inviting his audience to share in the comments if they found anything “spicey” in the files. He smiled as he said this. Spicey = exciting or entertaining, especially through being sexually suggestive or involving conflict. “Spicey,” goes well beyond normalization to tantalizing. I don’t think this is something he intended to communicate and I don’t think he is unusual in this regard. You could say his listeners got a glimpse in the window - of feelings as he read the files. Our Words Are a Window Into Our Biases …and there are some windows, we may not want people looking in. We all have biases. It is simply part of human nature, part of the associations our neuronal connections have made. Our biases are influenced by our families, childhood experiences, our culture and what media content we consume. Our biases in this case, are also influenced by whether we have children or not and their ages and gender. I had to wonder, for example, if an adult who has a daughter would be as likely to say, “underage woman or underage girl,” than an adult who doesn’t. Those who deny they have biases are more susceptible to their problematic impacts. We can all be more aware of how our own biases show up. The language we use is just one of the ways. Collectively, we can ask ourself, how do we consciously or unconsciously think about ● children? Are they separate beings with their own potential and their own lives who are in their most critical developmental stage or are they less than adults and not worthy of the same respect and care? (This can also be a window into how worthy we were made to feel as children) ● young women? Do we think of them differently than young men? Are we more okay with blurring the line between girls and women than between boys and men? How often would someone say “underage man,” or “underage boy” when it comes to sexual assault? ● consent? Do we say she was “involved with” or use words like “prostitute” or “escort” when all evidence points to the person being trafficked? ● abuse? Do we use language to describe the victim , such as
