Child Sexual Exploitation

[Dudley]

Hello there,

After much consideration, contemplation and debate I have founded a grass-roots group to raise public awareness of child sexual exploitation and to campaign against a culture that facilitates it.

The website is here:

http://www.allourdaughters.co.uk

This issue has been in and out of the headlines but I personally feel there is a need for a campaign to help ordinary people challenge a culture that facilitates this exploitation.

There are, of course, some amazing charities that work in this area, but they are all directly helping the actual victims of this abuse. This group could not attempt to do this.

This campaign hopes to raise public awareness of child sexual exploitation, and to enable ordinary people to challenge some of the ideas, which I believe help facilitate this abuse.

It would be great if you check out the website, and if you feel strongly about this issue to get in touch via the website and become a supporter.

Many thanks,

Laura McGowan

[Loz]

From your website...

Our Aims

Our group campaigns to raise public awareness of child sexual exploitation and advocates against a culture that facilitates it. We believe the following aims will contribute to the reduction in the sexual exploitation of young women and girls:

We seek to maintain the current age of consent at 16 and resist a chipping away of the age of consent;

Is there actually any serious move to lower the age of consent?

We challenge a culture that blames the victim for their abuse;

Fair enough.

We support attempts to restrict under-18s access to pornographic websites;

Within reason, I agree, but as long as the impetus is on the parents. Another part of you website claims "We support a system that requires internet users to opt in to view pornographic websites." Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Opt out is the only fair system.

We encourage fair and proportionate sentencing for sexual offences.

I'd encourage it too. But doesn't it already happen? Or is this newspeak for 'we want to lock em up and throw away the key'?

Lastly, I wish you wouldn't use the phrase "child sexual exploitation" when you clearly are only concerned with 'young women and girls'.

Finally, out of interest, what was your motivation for setting this group up? Seems a strange thing to do out of the blue (if indeed, that was the case)?

[Saffron]

I thought this was interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-21619188 .

[WorkingMummy]

That BBC link is slightly disturbing. The work sounds very important and I hope they manage to get as much funding as they need to intervene as early as possible wherever that is necessary, but what has happened to the poor child's childhood when someone aged 8 needs help with their inappropriate sexual behaviour?

Another measure I would like to see would be more relaxed, realistic support towards appropriate adolescent sexuality. I am not talking about lowering the legal age of consent so that adults can have sexual relationships with children under the age of 16 (as the link contained in the OP apparently fears).

I once read a really interesting Simon Kuper article in the weekend FT about his childhood in Holland, and how there, teenage sexuality is accepted as entirely normal, and healthy, and accepted "in house" by all parents. So teenagers who in this country would be humping behind bike sheds or whatever, over there have sleepovers under the safety of their parents' roof. He argued persuasivley that this leads, all round, to a much healthier attitude towards sex and sexual partners (and, as a secondary benefit, a much lower teenage pregnancy rate).

My feeling is that adult society in this country is so hung up/f'd up about sex itself that we are not as well placed as - apparently - the Dutch to give this sort of liberal guidance and support to our teenage children. I hope that this will change and I would certainly like to immitate a Dutch parent when my own children are teenagers.

[Dudley]

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to look at the website and post here.

Some brief replies;

Loz:

There are some suggestions to lower the age of consent and reference to this is on the website; No. 10 policy unit.

Yes it has been dismissed. We hope this will remain the case.

Opt-in internet: We are aware some people will be against it. But we think it is necessary and fair.

Sentencing: this is a complex area, no I don't think we should lock them all up. I have made replies to the current sentencing consultation on sexual offences (as said in the latest blog on the website).

If you would like a copy of the replies I can e-mail them to you.

Saffron: Thank you for this BBC link.

Alot of children who show inappropriate sexual behaviour at such a young age will have been abused themselves. One form of abuse is showing them pornography. This is one of the reasons why I believe there should be an opt-in system

Some children do have abusive and not responsible parents. Of course it would not prevent this abuse completely, but it would help.

WorkingMummy:

I have heard about the Dutch culture before. I do think however Dutch society is vastly different from Britain.

It is more accepting of teenage sexuality, but it less hyper-sexualised over all, such as in TV and the media etc.

But I have no particular experience on this point.

If you have a chance please to check out the blog where I have out up some updates:

http://www.allourdaughters.co.uk/172074346

Many thanks,

[Loz]

Dudley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Opt-in internet: We are aware some people will be

> against it. But we think it is necessary and fair.

Then I completely disagree with you. This is censorship - and a very, very dangerous precedent to try and set. Parents must take responsibility in these areas. By all means, give them the tools to control children's internet access, but an absolute no to a position of opt-out default censorship.

For that reason alone, I could never support your campaign.

[Huguenot]

Opt-in Internet is just dim. Not only is it technically naive, it speaks to a bygone age of paternalism.

'We know what's best for you' is smug, self righteous and irrelevant. 'I'll watch the porn so you don't have to' deserves the can of beans on your lap that you'll get for it.

3 billion people in the world live in the same room as mummy and daddy making whoopie. They don't end up twisted or deluded or paedophiles. This is Puritan Victorian middle class idiocy.

'Necessary and fair' is an extraordinary claim to make from someone who has no more right to tread the pavements than the guy in the house next to you. Who appointed you?

Seriously Dudley, I have no idea what world you're living in, but you don't call the shots, no-one does.

Censorship has nothing to do with it.

[Saffron]

Can anyone give me a brief and accurate synopsis of the pros/cons, and mostly importantly logistics of opt-in vs opt-out? I had always thought that opt-in would be logistically impossible?

[Huguenot]

Banning access to particular types of content online can be attempted a number of ways online.

First you'd need to decide whether to attempt it through ISPs (like BT) or at a national level through overseas routers.

If you tried to do it through ISPs there's always the challenge of identifying and regulating them. If you tried to do it through overseas routers you'd struggle to block local servers.

The most obvious way is to block access to particular servers where the content is hosted by preventing routers transferring data from a particular set of IP addresses.

This is easily circumvented by suppliers changing servers or changing IP addresses.

It is also easily circumvented by viewers using virtual private networks (VPNs) which encrypt the data so that the originating server is unidentifiable.

It's also silly as it only applies to existing content, not newly created content.

Another route may try to block certain URLs (web page names) so that the IP address (physical location) couldn't be looked up at the domain name server (DNS) lookup.

However, the DNS may be based overseas and not be subject to UK law.

Other 'instant' approaches can try and block content according to certain keywords on page - a route that would inevitably lead to incorrect classification and restraint of trade on legal businesses who would be right to sue.

[Saffron]

In light of the difficulties in evenly and fairly applying an opt-in system, would time and money not be better spent on education and support?

(Edited for pointless ranting.)

[WorkingMummy]

I agree with Huguenot that opt-in sounds a bit People's Republic of China, as well as impractical.

But, another forumite sent me this link today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9821275/Our-daughters-are-abused-by-a-culture-of-porn.html

I don't like what it reports. If it's representative, I'm well behind the times. The pressures girls are under aged 14 are way higher than when I was at a Croydon comp, for sure.

Mind you, the mother of the girl spoken of in the article can at least take comfort in the fact her daughter told her what was going on.

I don't think Mary Whitehouse is the answer.

I think the article's suggestion of more wholistic sex education (covering topics of self respect and pleasure as well as abuse) is nearer the mark.

Huguenot, interesting what you say about societies where the kids share a room with the parents and grow up watching real sex between adults. I think that might well have the exact opposite effect to that caused by exposure to extreme/hard porn (within the context of a relatively conservative/repressed adult culture). Maybe chiming with my Dutch liberalism point. You grow up with an open, non-taboo attitude to sex all around you, everyone becomes less vulnerable.

[JohnL]

Hi - A lot of people will add bits I'd think but first thoughts ...

Con - Will cost more and go wrong more (we'll get google.co.uk banned on day 1 - you wait).

Logistics means setting up a great firewall of the UK I'd think and imposing it on all service providers (china has done similar), if anybody could get round it, it'll be teenagers to be honest.

John

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can anyone give me a brief and accurate synopsis

> of the pros/cons, and mostly importantly logistics

> of opt-in vs opt-out? I had always thought that

> opt-in would be logistically impossible?

[Dudley]

Hi again and thank you for the discussion and in particular explaining the technicalities of an opt-out.

Just a few points in general.

1) The Opt-out.

The campaign is in part (although this is not by any means the main aim) about making an opt-out for under 18?s only. It would not apply to adults. So I don?t think it is fair to label it as censorship or Mary Whitehouse.

First, Mary Whitehouse wanted offensive material including language banned generally for adults and not just children.

Secondly, we do regulate different products and things when it comes to children and young people. Sometimes the dividing line is 18, sometimes 16. For example we already restrict alcohol and cigarettes to young people on the basis that they can be harmful products.

In terms of material that is viewed this is restricted also. Obviously there is the ?watershed? and films are still restricted to certain age categories. So it is very much apart of our legal and cultural tradition to restrict some products or images from being viewed by young people, usually on the basis that it can cause some harm.

Not every restriction is ?Mary Whitehouse?, ?China?, or Victorian Puritanism.

I agree, of course, that it is the parents who are the first and primary people who have responsibility for restricting what their children buy or view.

However films like Saw or Hostel etc are still restricted to over 18?s. Young people are not allowed view these by law even if their parents were willing to accompany them to the cinema. Do young people still view them online or by DVD at home? Yes of course but the question is should the law facilitate this.

So the Internet is (relatively) new to our legal and cultural tradition. Should some of its content be restricted to under 18?s on the basis of harmful effects like we do with films? I think so. Does this mean it will still be viewed by some people, under the age limit? Yes, but it is restriction at least.

Is pornography harmful to the young mind? It can be. The mind of a 10, 11, 12 year old has not matured yet, and I do think some of the material reportedly online is influencing in a negative way how some (not all) young people view women, in particular.

Will this cure all of society?s ills? Of course not, and I do not pretend that it will. But I do think more young people are committing more unwanted sexual acts against other young people because they are influenced by online pornography. These are not the ?stranger in the dark? but their friends.

I rely on the following link as evidence of this.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10232886.Judge_s_warning_as_boy_commits_rape_after_accessing_pornography_through_Playstation/

I ask you to look at the judge?s comments and those of Natalie Brook, a manager at Oxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre, in particular.

I would like to add that this is not about ?moral panic?. As rule I try not to panic, as what it the point? It is not very constructive. The internet is great (look at us discussing this on a public forum), but ?and this might sound naff but I really do believe it ? we must control it, and not let it control us.

2) Who calls the shots?

Well I certainly don?t agree that no one calls the shots. We as a society call the shots. And it is up to us discuss these issues, and determine how we want to deal with them. But I do, at least think, there is a real issue here.

3) Police culture

Saffron, thank you for your comments and telling us about your friend?s story.

I certainly don?t think every person who is abused will go on to abuse. I agree the policing culture needs to change. This is relevant I think to the ?blaming the victim? culture that needs to change, as I discuss on the website.

As I set out in the blog update on the website and from the recent news we know there are still problems with how the police handle complaints of sexual offences. The IPCC, only just reported how the Sapphire team in Southwark police were asking victims to withdraw their complaints of rape to improve their ?clean-up? rates for crimes. And of course Seville is on-going. In particular there is a problem with information sharing between forces, which seems to have been very relevant in your friend?s case.

However the CPS have made a very important announcement in terms of how future cases of child sexual exploitation will be handled, which will impact on the police too. This is also in the blog.

5) Would time and money not be better spent identifying and supporting victims(and abusers, esp'y children... as you note it may be that children with inappropriate or abusive behaviour were themselves abused)? Saffron.

Yes I agree. There are Safeguarding Children Boards, who I believe, should always be identifying possible victims.

What I have found shocking however from reading in this area, that after the Rochdale sexual exploitation trial, there was a Safeguarding report, and it is clear form this that social services knew these girls were being abused, but they did not label it as such. They believed what was going on was consensual even though they were well below the age of consent.

I have linked this report as a resource on the website.

4) And finally..

Although the focus so far has been on an internet opt-out I would appreciate any other views on other parts of the campaign?

A genuine thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

[Loz]

Dudley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi again and thank you for the discussion and in

> particular explaining the technicalities of an opt-out.

>

> Just a few points in general.

>

> 1) The Opt-out.

>

> The campaign is in part (although this is not by any means the main aim) about making an opt-out

> for under 18?s only. It would not apply to adults. So I don?t think it is fair to label it as

> censorship or Mary Whitehouse.

How would that work?? I'm pretty sure that nobody under the age of 18 purchases a broadband service, so how would an opt-out for under 18's only work??

[Huguenot]

It's kinda weird for me Dudley, because your arguments are so extraordinary but couched so reasonably that I find them borderline insane.

This is a particular example: "Does this mean it will still be viewed by some people, under the age limit? Yes, but it is restriction at least."

It's irrational.

In business we call it 'circle jerking', it's not a very nice term, but it refers specifically to the idea that some people consider the 'appearances' of doing something is equivalent to doing something. So they meet, in a circle, and jerk. It's not especially consequential, as you can imagine.

The fact remains , Dudley, that not only do I find your ideas ridiculous - you have bizarre Victorian phraseology ("Is pornography harmful to the young mind? It can be" WTF??? Let's all speak in meaningless cliche shall we?) but your solutions lack imagination and practicality.

It's aimless suburban post hoc ergo propter hoc. 'I saw porn so I raped'. It's prattish and gormless. 25% of South African schoolgirls have AIDS, but only 4% of boys. That's not because they saw porn on the Internet. It's because society dismisses their right to self-determination.

If modern society has it's problems, its not because you have controlled the visibility of naked bodies having sex. How stupid is that?

In the vernacular, you've chosen a shit idea, and you're pursuing it in a shit way.

TBH Dudley, you have zero right to use the law as a weapon to exact your distorted perceptions of moral upbringing.

You claim that 'we as a society call the shots', but I don't agree. We don't allow the majority view in favour of the death sentence to hold sway. It's not 'democratic' - it's called 'don't let daft people make daft decisions'. I certainly think there are people who will agree with your social control approach, but not the bright ones.

You don't even hang around for a conversation. You deposit your totalitarian ideology on here like a turd on a cheese sandwich, disappear for a long period, and then return to make some bland assertion of your rectitude.

[WorkingMummy]

"We believe that the adult entertainment industry should be just that: for adults only. We support a system that requires internet users to opt in to view pornographic websites.

We support proposals by the online video regulator to urge banks not to process payments for websites that let children see pornography."

Dudley, you say you are pro opt-in for under 18s only, and that this marks you out from Mary Whitehouse. I checked, and as per the above quote, the website linked to your OP does not make the same distinction. It wants universal opt-in.

How on earth do you have a system of opt-in Internet access which only applies to kids anyway? Seriously. On top of all the technical problems Huguenot describes, how would this central censorship machine know to switch itself on whenever a minor touched a keyboard? I am not being rhetorical; I want to know what you are proposing.

Who is the "online video regulator" whose proposals you support? And what measures would enable banks to reassure themselves that children were not accessing pay-per-view porn sites? (A completely futile measure even if enforceable, since heaps of hard porn is free online.)

To be clear about where I am coming from, I can't say I'm all that thrilled about the idea of 10, 11 and 12 year old kids watching hard core porn either. I don't believe that there is a simple link between such exposure and rape, but there doesn't have to be for me to feel that way. But unless you can answer the above questions satisfactorily, it's obvious: we can't prevent young people watching porn. "Circle jerking" is not an unfair description of what you are doing.

I'm not knocking your instinct to protect. I share it. It's just, like it or not, Huguenot is right that the way you are proposing being protective is misguided. More than that: it's part of the problem you are trying to solve.

You say Dutch liberalism won't suit the uk because we have a more "hyper-sexualised" culture overall. Could you entertain the possibility that THOSE two things might be linked? I write in all sincerity when I say this: if you truly want to reduce or destroy the negative influence of pornography on the young, introduce an element of pornographic literature to their formal education and get them thinking about it/critiquing it with adult teachers.

"The youth is to be respected." If adults, parents, educators, law makers would only remember that one rule, we wouldn't go too far wrong.

[JedMk2]

Wow!

One of the first threads that i truly could put down!

I have no answer and possibly somewhat of a 'sit on the fence post' but felt compelled to comment.

Over the years I have worked with people with addictions. I am by no means an expert on the subject but what i can tell you is that nearly all people with sexual addictions were exposed to pornography during early teenage years. These addictions morf into video porn addiction, chroinc masturbation, traumatic masturbatory syndrome, inhibited ejaculation (retarded ejaculation), an inability to form any type of relationship with the opposite sex, public groping and in some cases suicide. As is always the case the addictions are a manifestation of deeper problems experienced when young childen get stuck in stages of psycological development. This is the real problem. If porn did not exist their addiction would undoubtedly burrow to find another outlet, drink, drugs. It feels to me like creater of this thread is attempting to treat the symtoms of sexual explotation rather than the cause.

On the flip side there are learned behaviours. People considered to have no emotional dysfunction that discover porn and become obsessive. Again potentially manifesting into the problems mentioned above. Again not everyone is susceptible.

In synopsis we live in a digital age where any teenager, armed with a internet search engine, can bypass any technological restrictions emposed by parents. I'm not saying that no teenagers should watch porn but i do think that without some sort of control (god only knows what) they could potentially stir a sleeping giant.

[Huguenot]

"what i can tell you is that nearly all people with sexual addictions were exposed to pornography during early teenage years"

Let me correct your fairly straightforward error:

"what i can tell you is that nearly all people were exposed to pornography during early teenage years"

It doesn't take rocket science MDs to point out that many more people were exposed to porn that didn't end up with sexual addictions than those that did.

Not only is there no causation/correlation link, but taking away porn is not going to take away sexual addiction.

[JedMk2]

Agree completely. All I can state is my personal experience.

[DJKillaQueen]

This is a debate that has been had for decades. Remember the video nasties one in the 80's? Did rapists exist before television and photographic media? Yes. Did sexual child abuse take place before television and photographic media? Yes. Lot's of unsavoury aspects of human behaviour have always existed, and I've never been convinced that anything is a primary cause of that, other than when the bounds of law and order are removed (like war for example).

The only area where reserach does seem to stand up though is in that a high percentage of those who abuse (be they adults on children, or children on children), they were themselves abused as children. But not all abused children become abusers.

We seek to prevent/ break cycles of abuse (because they are more often than not cycles) by developing civilised cultures where cetain types of behaviour are not acceptable (use of law) and by seeking to protect children from exposure to harmful influences. But history shows us that what one person defines as harmful is not what someone else defines as such and documents well the harm caused by prohibition of openess around issues of sex and sexuality. I personally wouldn't ever want to got back to that kind of repressive culture.

All I can say is that if I had children, would I welcome some ability to prevent them from watching material not suitable for them? Yes I would.....but here is the dilemma for me. Most parents would want it to be their choice as to what they define as suitable, and not the state (and I broadly agree with that) but if that parent is themselves of a controversial belief system, then what?

This thread is specifically about sexual exploitation of children. I think that exploitation is wrong but don't necessarily agree that all the forms discussed here are expoitative. And also the issue of what young people do between each other is a different issue to adults who seek to sexually exploit children. We do have laws in place to protect children from all of those things. Sexual abuse is a crime, whatever the age of the perpetrater. So for me the key is to educuate and empower young people to be in control of whatever they face, and to be able to seek the right support if they need it, rather than shutting off entires areas of the internet to them. Young people are just as capable as being appalled by something as adults........we should trust them to have the right reactions to things sometimes too.

[JedMk2]

Great post Killa. Straight to the point without provocation :)

[kanecarter]

Sexual abuse on children is one of the serious offense in every country, a person that will get caught doing said things may face a severe punishment or may lead on beheading if the action is extremely worst.

Just sad sometimes that others that's been a victim choose to stay silent to preserve the name of their family.

[WorkingMummy]

Whether you share the OP's perspective or not, let's all agree not to behead proven child rapists. Indeterminate terms of imprisonment for public protection quite enough.

DJKillaQueen is right that this thread has now narrowed to a fairly well trodden area about pornography and sexual abuse, where the OP is about (or could be about) something slightly more subtle and a lot more ubiquitous. Children and young people's (the OP would say, girls') "sexualisation".

I'm still of the view that de-mystifying any topic is the best way to enable children and young adults to develop their own positive attitude to it and, therefore, to reduce their vulnerability to being exploited (including by their peers). I really think they need to be equipped to look after themselves, and then granted a degree of privacy and trusted to get on with it.

Pre-pubescent education - at 10 or 11 - informing kids what changes to expect, informing them that sex can be pleasurable and acknowledging that they might want to start experimenting at some point in their teens, but giving them some pointers about how to look after themselves, would not be a bad start. (Rather than teaching about sex primarily in the context of biology/reproduction and basically advising the kids they have to wait until they are 16.)

[drusky]

Freud, who wrote a lot about sexual desire, argued that the human subject is polymorphously perverse. That is, sexual identity, far from being pre-determined, fixed and immutable, was constructed, influenced by developmental circumstances and lived, environmental experience. At first sight, this could be quite bad news; it means that, potentially, anyone could grow up to find that, sexually, they were inclined to want to abuse children.

The good news is that a healthy society could be sophisticated enough to address this - it's just not a good sign of a healthy social structure if it doesn't. We need to know who has access to children, the regulatory processes in place, the accountability procedures, how people and organisations who make key decisions about children are themselves subject to a responsibility framework, reporting and feedback mechanisms and, most importantly, clear lines of sight across the whole matter so that everything is transparent to those who are active participants in society.

No censorship is the solution not the problem.

[DJKillaQueen]

Freud also thought 'Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own' and don't get me started on his theory of 'penis envy'.

There is evidence to suggest that levels of estrogen and testosterone during pregnancy can affect a whole range of things inculding sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. It is an accepted concept that stress is detrimental during pregnancy too because of it's impact on hormone levels...so Freud's assertions are not the first place I'd look for any kind of genetic/nuture understanding of this issue. There is so much still not understood about the development of the brain, and the part genes and pregnancy play in personality (and they must play some part).

Of far more interest to me (in the nurture debate) is some evidence that shows that during childhood, and in some adults too, the brain deals with extreme trauma in some peopple, by turning that trauma into a pleasurable experience. It's one theory behind why some abused children become themselves abusers. In some rape victims for example, rape instead of continuing to be a traumatic memory will become a fantasy - not one that they want to act out necessarily - but the psychological switch is made all the same.