Why do the media us wording like ‘had sex with’ in abuse cases? TW rape

[ThisBluntGoldCrab]

I have seen this story multiple times. Why are they not using the correct phraseology? Why do they say ‘had sex with’? It makes it sound consensual. Is there a legal reason that I don’t understand as to why they say that? The victim uses the word ‘abuse’ in her statement, so why not call it that at least? I’m pissed off as I have seen this before, but I don’t know if there is a reason behind it that means they cannot use certain words.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2218590/horror-dad-has-sex-daughter?intsource=ampcontinuereading&intmedium=amp&intcampaign=continuereadingbutton#amp-readmore-target

I assume they don’t say rape because that’s not what the conviction is.

https://www.derbyshire.police.uk/news/derbyshire/news/news/south/2026/june/woman-waives-right-to-anonymity-after-father-and-partner-jailed-for-sexual-abuse/

I agree with you about the term abuse, although that is used in the first sentence of the article you link. But yes I’d say the headline is fairly minimising.

Thank you for this. I think it just confuses me because it says he admitted ‘penetrative abuse’, surely that is rape?! I think I just don’t get the legality around the wording in such cases. Also, I don’t understand why they are not labelled peadophiles. I mean, this started when she was 15.

A pedophile is someone with sexual interest in a prepubescent child, which rarely incudes 15 yo. I'm not saying he is any better than a pedophile, but he doesn't fit the definition.

Don’t agree with that on a personal level, but if that’s how it is in the eyes of the law then I accept that. The victim called them both paedophiles and personally, I agree with her as a 15 year old is still a child to me.

Paedophile specifically refers to pre pubescent children. Hebephile to adolescent children.

I don’t know if they were initially charged with rape, but the charges they admitted to in court are all that can be used.

The police investigated after find things on his phone which they had after a separate incident.

I see, so because they plead guilty to charges of abuse and were therefore convicted of such, they use that terminology and not rape.

That makes sense, but my original point then should be why the newspaper didn’t use the phrase ‘abused his daughter’. I have a massive issue with ‘had sex with’ as it sounds consensual. I saw somewhere else it said ‘had sex with’ and then the byline said it was not consensual, but the headline is the main draw and when this stuff is shared on social media half the time people don’t read the article so at best they think the perpetrators are incestuous and anyone who knows the victim may think the same. It feels like a dirty trick to me. Again, maybe this is because I don’t fully understand the legality of these things though.

I understand your feelings. Reading between the lines of the article, this was discovered because his phone was investigated for other reasons. While their victim is very distressed by what happened, they had attempted to normalise it to her. Bearing in mind her extreme vulnerability- effectively homeless, chaotic abusive background- and getting to know her long lost father for the first time, the situation may have been quite complicated in terms of what to prosecute- rape may have been difficult for a jury to determine.
As they pled guilty to those crimes, their victim didn’t have to go through a trial with them defending themselves of rape by attacking her.

I guess they want headlines that draw attention. If they could use the word rape, they would, for that reason. “Non consensual sex” might be a bit long for a headline. So just “sex” in big letters will do.

I'm not sure what the act was, here, but in the UK then "rape" only applies if penetration was by penis, so perhaps that was not the case here.

Yes, perhaps you are right. I think certain phrases the victim used made me assume it was rape. I still think the headline should have been abuse though, even if we were not the charge. Some of the comments on social media were what made me frustrated because of the interpretation of ‘had sex with’.

It's The Expeess, I'm surprised they didn't say "bonked".

Most of the time, I'm not sure, other than toeing the legal line and simplicity, though it may be because of the kind of increased engagement they get in the social media you've seen.

In this case, they may be quoting the Victim Personal Statement where she says those exact word 'had sex with'. In that statement, the victim also labelled them as dangerous paedophiles. The court can prevent parts of a Victim Personal Statement being read into the record if it views it as inappropriate to what is being sentenced - they didn't, they allowed them to be labelled dangerous paedophiles.

In my experience, it's rare for legal professionals to use the word paedophile in court or in legal paperwork, though it absolutely happens behind closed doors and when the recording equipment is off. I work these types of cases, and it's generally framed as 'sexually attracted to minors' or 'sexually attracted to children' rather than using the word paedophile, which is a term with no legal definition so legal professionals just use whichever of those definitions is more appropriate.

Personally, I'd prefer sexually motivated by overpowering others - or a shorter term if one exists with that meaning. In most cases, I think it's more accurate. Many who do these horrors don't only do them to kids, the common thread is their enjoyment in making others cower and overpowering them, and as they get away with it, they get more extreme - to children and animals. Having dealt with many of these cases, I think most of the time (absolutely not all), the sexual motivation wasn't that their victim was a child, but that they could coerce them into it, that they could control everything. As is often said, rape is not a crime of lust, sexual assault is not about overwhelming attraction, it's a crime of power, of overpowering. I think shifting discussions on sexual crime from attraction to sexual motivation has many benefits.

I’ve never read the Express until now, didn’t realise it was one of ‘those’ newspapers!

Thank you for this. I am not very understanding of the legal side of things and just couldn’t get my head around the use of language and what is merely used for outrage purposes, for protecting the perpetrator purposes and for legal restrictions. Language is really important, I believe, so I appreciate everything that you are saying. This thread has brought up
some interesting feelings behind the use of the word ‘paedophile’ too which I hadn’t realised.

Abuse is a very wide definition. It can cover everything from punching and hitting to verbal abuse, or neglect, or sexual abuse ranging from showing someone inappropriate material for their age, all the way to rape.

A lot of people hear "abused" and tend to assume it's on the lower end of the scale, because "if they meant the extreme end they'd say that". "Had sex with" is very explicit and leaves no doubt that "maybe it was just a slap".

Yeah, that makes sense. They could have said sexually abused though? I don’t know, maybe the media can’t win because this thread is very short and already the difference of opinion is very varied.