Rotten Reporting: WYFF Reports Man “Had Sex” With 5-Year-Old.

No, really. I know that WYFF isn’t the only outfit that engages in this bit of sophistry but I’m using them as an example. Children can’t consent to sex, so no one “has sex” with them. This is child rape.

Many a pervert who ends up on a sex offender registry argues the point that since they weren’t charged with rape they aren’t rapists, so I get that spineless editors will cave to the pressure. But to use the term “have sex” implies a consensual encounter. Using this term when dealing with pedophiles victimizing children is a scheme designed to make the crime seem less vile.

WYFF could have used many terms besides rape for an incedent where a man in his 20s sexually victimized a 5-year-old. Trems like:

Violated

Molested

Sexually Assaulted

Abused

And many others I’m sure. All those terms avoid the dreaded “rape” word while not minimizing what this child endured. But then that might make the porr child raping pervert unhappy I guess.

Comments

3 Responses to “Rotten Reporting: WYFF Reports Man “Had Sex” With 5-Year-Old.”

  1. DodiaFae on January 3rd, 2011 12:33 pm

    Why reporters/editors/”news” sources are so terrified of calling it what it is is beyond me. To say that he “had sex with” implies penetration, as does the fact that he was charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct. By legal definition, any sexual penetration that is not consensual is rape. And no child can consent to sexual activity, so why not just call it rape?

    I find the fact that they can say an adult “had sex with” a five year old child absolutely sickening. The fact that a five year old child was violated in such a way is sickening enough, but that any “news source” could minimize such a crime in that way is just so appalling.

  2. Bryce on January 4th, 2011 8:54 am

    Adding further salt to the wound he was also released the very next day…

  3. Rob Taylor on January 4th, 2011 6:07 pm

    That’s disgusting.

Leave a Reply