When should inter-child sex be supported?

 

The Home Office Review

 

To understand clause 14 of the Sexual Offences Bill [section13] we need to consider a Home Office consultation paper entitled Setting the Boundaries, which was published in July 2000. It was the report of a body called the Sex Offences Review set up by Jack Straw (who was then Home Secretary) on 25 January 1999 [138] . Its terms of reference were-

To review the sex offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and make recommendations that will:

• provide coherent and clear sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation;
• enable abusers to be appropriately punished; and
• be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the ECHR and Human Rights Act.

Chapter 3 of Setting the Boundaries I is entitled ‘Children’. It needs close examination, for it provides the core of the thinking behind clause 14. First however I shall consider the nature of the membership of the Sex Offences Review, because that is crucial to the nature of its recommendations.

In the Sex Offences Review there were three Home Office officials acting respectively as Chair, Secretary and Administrative Support. Then there was a Steering Group and an External Reference Group. The Steering Group consisted of twelve Civil Servants, eight lawyers, four members of NGOs working with problem children, two police officers, one Anglican clergyman and one unattached individual (a Ugandan Asian woman). The External Reference Group consisted of fifteen members of NGOs working with problem children, three religious representatives, two medical people, two academics, two social workers and one lawyer. Some members of the Review served for only part of the period for which it operated. [139]

The striking thing is how one-sided this membership was. We have officials, NGO members, lawyers, police officers, medical people and social workers. We do not have any ordinary members of the public (except for the solitary Ugandan Asian woman). Above all, we do not have any children or young people. The report says that at a fairly late stage in the review they had discussions with some Year 10 and Year 11 pupils aged 14-16 at one school, adding ‘Sadly lack of time meant we could not undertake a wider consultation’. [140] That might be called scandalous.

 

Aims of the Review

 

The terms of reference ‘gave us our three key themes’, namely protection, fairness and justice. [141] Nothing about the duties of ethical understanding, ethical action, sex-acceptance, sex-respect and sex-fulfilment, which are discussed at length in my book on secular sexual ethics. [142] Nothing about the positive side of human sexuality, because the professional experiences of these people were mostly steeped in the bad side of sex. They were used to dealing with sad, abused children, not the healthy, happy children of which the child population largely consists. Yet it is both kinds who are made criminals by clause 14.

There are some enlightened comments in Setting the Boundaries. For example-

‘Many people, including members of the review, have questioned the need for a criminal offence of sex between minors, arguing that there is no public interest in prosecuting sexual experimentation between mutually agreeing adolescents, giving them a criminal record for behaviour which they and many others do not regard as criminally culpable. They also argue that fear of being criminalised may deter young people from seeking help and advice, and possibly also raise questions about agencies offering it. Where children are sexually active, it is important for them to feel confident enough to seek help and advice . . . To ensure this, children must be very clear that by seeking such guidance, neither they nor their advisers would be breaking the law.’ [143]

Then in the very next paragraph they spoil this by saying ‘we want to discourage under-age sex’. Why should they want to do that in all cases? It is sex-negative, whereas sex should be treated positively. In the next and final chapter of this Briefing I reproduce some passages from my book The Sex Code which show at length why this should be so. Meanwhile I end this chapter with a look at Children and young people as abusers: An agenda for action [144] . Because this booklet mainly consists of a paper by Dr Arnon Bentovim, formerly of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street London, I shall refer to it as ‘Bentovim’.

 

When inter-child sex should be supported

 

At first sight, Bentovim seems to be one more study that regards all inter-child sexual behaviour as reprehensible and looks for ways to stop it. A closer look reveals however that, while it is mostly concerned with abusive or otherwise inappropriate sexual behaviour by one child towards another, it does allow room for the possibility that such interaction may in some cases be harmless or even beneficent.

 

‘Information from professionals confirms that many of the children who display inappropriate behaviour towards other children will themselves have been the victims of some kind of abuse; probably, but not exclusively, sexual abuse, and where treatment and therapeutic facilities for children who have been abused are still limited, this fusion of victim and victimiser in the same child poses massive problems of response. Added to this there is the definition of abuse. Can a child as young as three or four years be said to have the necessary intent to “abuse”? In whose judgement is an act abusive? Where do we draw the line between experimentation and abuse? And where do we draw lines about age-appropriate behaviour?’ [145]

 

This is helpful, but we should pause at that suggestion that the line is always to be drawn between ‘experimentation’ (allowable) and ‘abuse’ (not allowable). What about the child who is simply enjoying himself or herself and satisfying natural sexual needs? Here I quote from my book on secular sexual ethics.

 

‘A frequent cop-out by adults is to say that adolescents are “finding out” about sex, when what is really meant is that they are engaging in activities directed solely to sexual fulfilment. It is not a matter of “finding out” but of doing. Our society stubbornly refuses to accept that young adolescents, even children, are sexual creatures with a need for some form of sexual fulfilment. The very thought is shocking.’ [146]

 

In search of a definition of child sexual abuse, Dr Bentovim cites Schecter and Roberge. [147] They suggest such abuse is ‘. . . the involvement of dependent, developmentally immature children and adolescents in sexual activities they do not truly comprehend, to which they are unable to give informed consent and which violate the social taboos of family roles.’ [148] This relates to abuse of children and young persons by adults. Is sexual congress between childish age-mates to be treated any differently? Dr Bentovim says: ‘A gap of five years is usually accepted as the age difference which defines abusive behaviour’. [149] In relation to clause 14 we are considering an age range of 10-15, so we may take it that all the children within our field are age mates whose sexual conduct to one another would not, on Dr Bentivim’s terms, be considered abusive.

 

This goes too far in the liberal direction, and I suggest we should change it to a rebuttable presumption that conduct by children who are both within the age range 10-15 is not abusive. Certainly when the conduct is consensual it may be said not to be abusive. Even here however I am suggesting, to be on the safe side, that consensual conduct within our age range of 10-15 should be treated as abusive if it causes injury or disease or results in pregnancy.

 

Schecter and Roberge reference to violating ‘the social taboos of family roles’. This is reminiscent of what the self-appointed Longford Committee on Obscenity called ‘outrage to contemporary standards of decency or humanity accepted by the public at large’. [150] In attempting to define obscenity Mr W R Rees-Davis MP referred to ‘contemporary community standards of decency’ [151] Appeals to this sort of criterion meet the objection that no one can know what it really means in a particular case. It is far too vague for practical use in a criminal context, where the law needs to be certain. Nevertheless it is obvious that the law must not get too far out of line with public opinion. However it can in some cases, of which this is one, lead public opinion towards more enlightened attitudes.

 

A group work programme

 

Bentovim gives details of a group work programme carried out at the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street. [152] Although this programme was designed for young sexual abusers its details throw a helpful light on the question we are examining, namely when inter-child sex should be supported. I will therefore give an account of this programme.

 

The group of reported male sex abusers was in the age range 13-15. There was extensive use of questionnaires and paper and pencil tests since they seemed an excellent way to engage young people in work tasks rather than discussion alone. Experience previously was that, unless there are specific tasks, restlessness and defensive behaviour take over. There was no coercion to attend, but at preliminary meetings it was made clear that if a person was abusing at their age there was a possibility of becoming a convicted sex offender. The theme of needing to avoid becoming such an offender was a powerful one which was maintained in the front of people’s minds. This had an impact throughout the life of the group.

 

‘One of the young people who had been abused was alleged to have abused extensively. Although initially he did not accept responsibility for his abusive actions he was prepared to attend because of the “alleged” offences he had committed. After a number of sessions he was able to take responsibility for his abuse saying that if others could he could.’ [153]

 

Although a number in the group were victims it was decided that it was important to deal with perpetration patterns first, so that young people could be confronted with the fact that they could not use their own victimisation as an excuse.

 

Language etc It was important to establish at the outset a non-sexist common sexual vocabulary to be used during the sessions. ‘The young people were taken seriously and were treated and expected to treat others with respect. It was important for workers to support each other, appreciate gender issues and give group members hope, information and space.’ [154]

 

Sessions It was found ideal for a group to hold around fifteen sessions of 1¼ hours each. Boys who were group members were normally accompanied by parents, carers, residential workers, social workers etc. This was to ensure attendance and deal with stressful responses by group members.

 

Session 1 Introductions, establishing rules, hopes and fears for the group. Development of sexual language using body maps. Developing an agreed sexual language for the group.

 

Session 2 Group exercise ranking different sexual acts, using cards stating appropriate and inappropriate acts named by group members and leaders. This exercise brings familiarity with, and ease of talking about, various inappropriate acts. It reduces the intense anxiety surrounding one’s own acts, fantasies and experiences and initiates the processing of such material cognitively.

 

Session 3 Group exercise going through the normal dating cycle. No less than 28 steps were identified by the boys or leaders.

 

Sessions 4-6 Each boy works out his own cycle of offending in considerable detail. By now group members are more confident in each other. They are also more articulate, having found the appropriate language to describe their cycles.

 

Sessions 7-9 Analysis of victims’ responses: anger, fear, feelings of worthlessness, only being valuable for sex, a body reacting sexually even though its owner was hating it, worries about homosexuality in same-sex cases, having flash-backs at uncontrolled times, worries about damage to sex organs or about having children in the future.

 

Session 10 Personal issues raised by members of the group or from outside the group.

 

Session 11 Showing videos of public TV programmes dealing with the topic. Beginning the process of linking perpetration with victimisation.

 

Sessions 12 and 13 Sex education, including contraception.

 

Sessions 14 and 15 Strategies to prevent reoffending, including what will happen if you do. Introducing principles of blocking and cognitive structuring towards more appropriate masturbation fantasies.

 

Session 16 Celebration and advice for the future.

 

Conclusion

 

The type of group just described is intended for boys aged 13-15 who are sex abusers. I suggest a suitably modified version would be useful for boys in that age group who do not have a history of abusing. It would be a form of sex education which faced the reality of pubescent male sexuality and acknowledged it as not a matter for shame, but for open recognition and acceptance. Guilt would be banished, provided the boy behaved properly with due recognition of the rights of others. Differently modified versions with the same object could be used for younger children, and for girls.