![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Paedophillia
Oct. 7th, 2004 09:17 amI am still aggravated by the misleading phrasing used in the Metro earlier this week in its coverage of “the UK's most prolific paedophile”.
The phrase inspiring my bile? He was referred to as a "homosexual paedophile".
There is more than one point... this is actually rather a barbed phrase... sparking this rather controlled outrage.
Firstly, this is more than the historical discrimination against homosexuals, more recently highlighted by the media circus around George Michael using public conveniences. It is not because I am gay that this infuriates me. The casual homophobia is callous, but not the crux of my distaste.
It is aggravating because this paedophile would not have been referred to as a "heterosexual paedophile" has his taste been for immature girls. The custom of ‘grading’ the ‘severity’ of abuse, of suffering, is at the very least distasteful. The quantifying of personal experience is at best a gross simplification. And yes, the intention of that phrase is to reinforce the severity of this mans crimes. Buggery is still illegal, whilst the charges that may be brought against a paedophile are worryingly limited. And furthermore, just to clarify, buggery is not exclusively homosexual. The undertones of this piece are highly insulting.
Adults are sexual - be it bi or hetro or poly or homo or a or sapio.
It is insulting to the child to issue them a sexuality. By inferring that the paedophiles preference for male children equated to homosexuality is worse than wrong. Paedophilia is separate to, different to, gender. A preference for children is different to a preference to gender. A preference for a child, for one whose adult gender is yet to develop, for the prepubescent is different to a preference for gender. The term homosexual means same sex. A prepubescent boy does not have the same sex as a middle aged man.
The term paedophilia is itself misleading, meaning "child love". An abusive relationship is far from loving. Just because the 'loved' ones are children, it is wrong to ignore them, or impose senseless terminology upon them as way of an explanation for their experiences. Those children grow up and understand what was really said, what it was those words meant. It is, quite literally, the addition of insult to injury.
The phrase inspiring my bile? He was referred to as a "homosexual paedophile".
There is more than one point... this is actually rather a barbed phrase... sparking this rather controlled outrage.
Firstly, this is more than the historical discrimination against homosexuals, more recently highlighted by the media circus around George Michael using public conveniences. It is not because I am gay that this infuriates me. The casual homophobia is callous, but not the crux of my distaste.
It is aggravating because this paedophile would not have been referred to as a "heterosexual paedophile" has his taste been for immature girls. The custom of ‘grading’ the ‘severity’ of abuse, of suffering, is at the very least distasteful. The quantifying of personal experience is at best a gross simplification. And yes, the intention of that phrase is to reinforce the severity of this mans crimes. Buggery is still illegal, whilst the charges that may be brought against a paedophile are worryingly limited. And furthermore, just to clarify, buggery is not exclusively homosexual. The undertones of this piece are highly insulting.
Adults are sexual - be it bi or hetro or poly or homo or a or sapio.
It is insulting to the child to issue them a sexuality. By inferring that the paedophiles preference for male children equated to homosexuality is worse than wrong. Paedophilia is separate to, different to, gender. A preference for children is different to a preference to gender. A preference for a child, for one whose adult gender is yet to develop, for the prepubescent is different to a preference for gender. The term homosexual means same sex. A prepubescent boy does not have the same sex as a middle aged man.
The term paedophilia is itself misleading, meaning "child love". An abusive relationship is far from loving. Just because the 'loved' ones are children, it is wrong to ignore them, or impose senseless terminology upon them as way of an explanation for their experiences. Those children grow up and understand what was really said, what it was those words meant. It is, quite literally, the addition of insult to injury.
