A story quoted from The Scotsman newspaper (without permission but with attribution):
Sex with teens not paedophilia says expert
NICHOLAS CHRISTIAN
Sun 19 Nov 2006
Scotsman.com
ONE of the UK’s leading child protection officers has said men who have sex with children should not be classed as “paedophiles” if the victim was between the ages of 13 and 15, it was claimed last night.
A newspaper reported that Terry Grange, who speaks for English police on child protection and managing sex offenders, said only those who preyed on prepubescent children should be treated and labelled as “paedophiles”.
Grange, who is the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys Police, added the term “child pornography” should only be applied to images of children below the age of 13, according to the report.
Grange’s views last night seemed certain to spark a debate among child protection professionals, many of whom believe anyone who has sexual relations with under-16s should be treated as a paedophile.
Children’s charity Kidscape called Grange’s views “very disturbing, especially from a police officer”.
Grange told the newspaper his views were personal and reflected subtleties in the law in cases of young adults having consensual sex with children aged from 13 to 15.
He was reported as saying: “It is much more of an issue for me if a child is under 13. I think the closer they get to 16 the more it becomes a grey area, and I think everyone in the field of dealing with sexual health and sexual activity acknowledges that.”
He added, according to the report: “I don’t personally adhere to the 15-year-old being with a 20-year-old boyfriend being paedophilia, or even if the boyfriend is 30.”
Please note that Terry Grange is not condoning ‘ephebophilia’ (sex with a post-pubescent young person who is still below the legal age of consent), he’s just supporting the distinction between that activity and ‘paedophilia’ (sex with a prepubescent child). It’s a useful distinction, I would argue… while both kinds of sexual activity are likely to be coercive and to cause harm due to both the immaturity of the young participants and the uneven power relationships involved, it seems pretty clear that more harm both physical and emotional is likely to result from sexual activity on the part of a person whose body is not developed to a state of readiness for sexual activity than for someone whose body is sexually mature even if her/his mind is not.
I find it particularly worrying that the Kidscape people found his comments ‘disturbing’. It seems as though their goal is to emphasise the unacceptableness of ephebophilia by lumping it in with the (universally deplored) paedophilia. In other words, what they’re doing is using a category distinction – or in this case an over-simplification that removes a category distinction – as a way of applying a certain moral weight to certain activities.
That seems like a dangerous use of language to me, and an unnecesssary one. Keeping the distinction between paedophilia and ephebophilia allows us to make distinctions that might be useful and important, without condoning and supporting either.
This is just one example… I feel as though one of the besetting sins of our culture at the moment is the sound-bite view that anything that can’t be expressed simplistically is not worth expressing. As Einstein said: “Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”