'Pope's Children' or 'Baby Groomers' ?

The recent reporting of an alleged Paedophile ring and subsequent introduction of emergency legislation on grooming has exploded some enduring myths. Paedophilia and Ephebophilia are not the preserve of the stranger. More frequently, it is someone familiar to the child who has turned out to have engineered the abuse. 

Neither is the grooming and sexualization of children limited to direct personal contact. It is now common knowledge that mobile phones and Internet sites are also being used to individually target children, a fact thankfully recognised in the new legislation.

Having moved against these forms of individual targeting, however, should we not now be asking the question: Does the exposure of children to sexualized images in general not constitute a form of grooming on a grand scale? Does the sort of pornographic material on view to children in newsagents, on television and in the media generally, not prepare the groundwork for those who would prey on the young?

The American Psychological Association certainly seems to think so. In a report released at the end of February, it exposed the harm done to young girls by sexualized media imagery.

If we're to be honest, much of the viewing that adults think of as harmless entertainment, is putting our children at risk. Why? Because it distorts their view of themselves, teaching them that their value is linked to the predatory preferences of others.

The harmful effects are not always limited to the short term, either. In a recent Channel 4 documentary, Ulrika Jonsson  blamed her own present day sexual addiction, in part, on a large library of porn which her father used to keep when she was a child, and which he made no attempt to hide from her. 

The vast majority of people want what's best for their children but, up to now, the availability of harmful media has been presented almost exclusively as an issue of civil liberties, for adults! This approach shows no concern for children. It is self-serving, introverted and short-sighted. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, for example, referred, euphemistically, to a need to "accommodate the diversity of tastes, expectations and interests of Irish viewers and listeners" when it quietly introduced the idea of licensing 'adult-oriented' channels, during the drafting phase of its new Code of Programme Standards.

It then used the same 'accommodating diversity' argument to reject the wishes of the majority of respondents who took part in its consultation process. These individuals and groups had merely requested that any 'adult-oriented' channels should be subject to the same standard requirements as other stations.   

As a society we must be mature enough to recognize that thinking such as this is failing us badly and that a new approach is needed to the availability of harmful media.

We must look beyond ourselves and place our hope in the future.  Otherwise the generation now known as 'the Pope's children' may soon be redubbed the 'baby groomers'.