the case for protecting girls and boys

The case for protecting girls and boys

anal intercourse and abuse of trust, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

Christians have always been at the forefront of protecting children from sexual abuse. In 1885 it was Josephine Butler and Bramwell Booth (along with William Stead) who led the campaign to raise the heterosexual age of consent from 12 to 16. Now there is another battle to fight.

Contents

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

This Bill
What Lady Young has proposed
Why we support Lady Young’s amendments

Anal intercourse is extremely dangerous

Physical damage (“trauma”) and infection
HIV
Condoms
Drugs
Other facts about anal intercourse

The new offence created by the Bill

Strengthening the abuse of trust clauses
Abuse uncovered by the Waterhouse Inquiry
Other loopholes not covered by the Bill’s abuse of trust provisions
The Home Office Review

References

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

This Bill

lowers the age at which homosexual acts can be committed from 18 to 16.
lowers the age at which a man can commit buggery (anal intercourse) on a girl or a boy from 18 to 16.
introduces what the Home Office describe as a “very limited criminal offence” to protect young people from being sexually exploited by adults who abuse their position of trust.

Top

What Lady Young has proposed

Lady Young has tabled amendments which:

keep the age at which buggery can be committed on a girl or a boy at 18.
substantially strengthen the Bill’s abuse of trust safeguards.

These amendments do not affect the provisions in the Bill lowering from 18 to 16 the age at which homosexual acts (other than buggery) can be committed.

Top

Why we support Lady Young’s amendments

anal intercourse is one of the most medically dangerous forms of sexual activity.
boys and girls aged 16 and 17 need more protection from sexual disease and abuse, given that the Government insists on forcing through the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
The Government’s own review of sexual offences which reported in July has proposed more legal safeguards for young people. But the safeguards should be in place before the age of homosexual consent is lowered

Top

Anal intercourse is extremely dangerous

Physical damage (“trauma”) and infection

“The shape of the bowel is not intended for the purpose of sexual intercourse. The muscle of the anal sphincter has to be forced open. The lining of the bowel is a single cell layer. As a result there is trauma and tearing. The semen action damages the bowel lining and the consequence is easy entrance of bacteria and viruses.” (1)
Professor Elizabeth Duncan, MD(Hons), FRCOG, FRCSE

Dr Jeffrey Satinover says: “anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. These tissues... are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissue. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream.” (2)

“Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom.” (3)

The reason why it is possible for a person to “infect themselves” by their own bowel lining being torn is that bacteria reside in the gut. We need these bacteria for our digestion. Human faeces contains some of these bacteria. This causes no problems so long as the lining of the rectum is intact.

Top

HIV

Sexual acts such as ‘oral sex’ or mutual masturbation are known to be a low risk for HIV. But the risk of HIV infection from anal intercourse is extremely high: for men it is at least 2,700 times the risk from vaginal intercourse. (4)

Professor Elizabeth Duncan has highlighted recent research which shows that semen can eat away at the cells in the lining of the lower bowel. This not only allows viruses such as HIV to infect the blood stream but also affects the bowel’s ability to withdraw water from waste, causing diarrhoea. (5)

Anal sex is so dangerous for homosexual men that the UK Blood Transfusion Service will not accept blood from any man who has ever had sex with another man, even if it was ‘safe sex’ with a condom. (6)

Top

Condoms

Even condom manufacturers advise against anal sex. The condom company, Durex, said in October 2000 : “Anal intercourse is a high-risk activity because of the potential for infection from STDs including HIV transmission. Currently, there are no specific standards for the manufacture of condoms for anal sex. Current medical advice is therefore to avoid anal sex. However, whenever this advice is not followed, the medical profession recommends that stronger condoms should be used although studies have shown that there is still a risk of breakage and slippage”.(7)

Condoms do not offer adequate protection because condoms slip and break at an alarming rate during anal sex. One study calculated that 32% of condoms broke and 21% slipped during anal intercourse.(8) The researchers pointed out that “Condoms manufactured in the United States generally are labelled ‘for vaginal use only’. This labelling reflects the concern that condoms designed for use during vaginal intercourse may fail at an unacceptably high rate when used during anal intercourse...”(9)

A condom only has to slip or break once for HIV to be transmitted.

Top

Drugs

To facilitate anal intercourse, some people use drugs to relax the anal muscle. These drugs may unfortunately suppress the immune system. The recipient may learn to relax the anal muscle, but even then there is usually some tearing of tissue.(10) This damage can lead to a high level of rectal incontinence. One study found that over a third of those who received anal intercourse reported some degree of anal incontinence or urgency of defecation.(11)

Top

Other facts about anal intercourse

Both homosexuals and heterosexuals engage in anal intercourse.
Anal intercourse between men and women was only legalised (for those aged over 18) in 1994.
One major study for the Department of Health found that the average age for first anal intercourse for homosexuals was 20.9 years (12) and that that 71% of homosexual men have engaged in anal intercourse in the past year.(13)
Some 6.5% of heterosexual men have engaged in anal intercourse in the past year according to the largest study ever carried out in the UK on sexual behaviour.(14)
This same study found that only 0.3% of men are exclusively homosexual.(15)
Whilst proportionately more homosexuals than heterosexuals engage in anal intercourse, in terms of numbers there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals who have ever had anal intercourse.

Top

The new offence created by the Bill

The Bill makes it a criminal offence for adults in certain positions of responsibility to have sexual relations (homosexual or heterosexual) with a young person aged under 18 in their care.

The situations covered are tightly defined in Clause 4. They include full time education, young offenders’ institutions, children’s homes, foster care and hospitals. The narrowness of the provisions is revealed in the Bill’s explanatory notes which state that the Home Office only predict 10-15 prosecutions a year.(16) Of course, not all prosecutions will end in convictions.

The new abuse of trust offence runs in parallel with the age of consent offences. A full time teacher who has sexual relations with a 14 year old pupil will be committing both offences. If the pupil was aged 16, only the abuse of trust offence would have been committed.

A specific intention of the abuse of trust offence is to protect young people aged 16 and 17 from an adult who could exploit a position of responsibility. The great benefit of the offence is that (like the age of consent) it is automatic. It only has to be proved that the sexual act took place. The Court does not have to consider arguments about whether the young person consented.

Top

Strengthening the abuse of trust clauses

Lady Young and other peers have proposed amendments which closes loopholes in the Bill’s abuse of trust provisions.

By far the most important are those amendments which deal with the systematic abuse which was uncovered by the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in North Wales children’s homes. Sir Ronald Waterhouse has particularly pointed out the vulnerability of young people when they leave care or before they go into care.
Top

Abuse uncovered by the Waterhouse Inquiry

“We have concentrated our attention on evidence relating to children who were in care at the time, having regard to our terms of reference, but we have necessarily heard some evidence about others who were on the fringe of the care system, that is, children who were later committed to care and youths who had recently been discharged from care. In our judgment, the perils for such persons are as great in this respect as for those actually in care and our findings emphasise the importance of continuing support by social services for those who are discharged from care.

We draw the attention of Parliament also to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years, in circumstances which appear to have made him question his own sexuality for a period. Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred.” (17)
The Waterhouse Tribunal of Inquiry into the North Wales child abuse scandal.

The report into Child Abuse in North Wales drew attention to the following types of abuse not covered by the Bill’s abuse of trust provisions:

‘Grooming’
preparing a young person for abuse after they have left the home
‘Farming out’
children from one home were abused by care staff from another home
Absconders
these cease to be “resident” at the home and so can be abused by the care staff from the home without committing an abuse of trust offence
Abuse by ancillary staff
Abuse by a social services inspector
(including the man who became the Deputy Chief Inspector of Social Services in Wales)
Abuse in youth organisations
(paedophiles got involved in youth club leadership)
Top

To view the Christian Institute's response to the Waterhouse Report please click here

Other loopholes not covered by the Bill’s abuse of trust provisions

religious organisations
part time pupils
part time teachers
“personal advisers” as appointed under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000
“personal mentors” as appointed under the Learning and Standards Act 2000
adults in loco parentis
abuse by step-parents
homosexual incest (the incest laws only cover heterosexual incest)
Top

The Home Office Review

Several of Lady Young’s amendments reflect recommendations of the Home Office’s own enquiry into sexual offences. The Home Office paper “Setting the Boundaries” produced in July, proposed a series of new offences. The table below compares some of the proposals with Lady Young’s own amendments.

Lady Young's Amendments	Sexual Offences Review Proposals
Extend abuse of trust to cover ancillary staff in residential homes	New offence of breach of relationship of care to cover all staff in residential care homes (Recommendation 32)
Extend abuse of trust to cover all social care workers	New offence of breach of relationship of care to cover designated care providers (Recommendation 32)
Extend abuse of trust to cover adoptive-, foster- and step-relations, aunts and uncles and those living in the same household	New offence of familial abuse of trust to cover adoptive relations, step-parents, foster parents, aunts and uncles and those living in the same household. (Recommendations 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42)

Given the similarities between the Home Office’s own proposals and Lady Young’s amendments, the Government should have no difficulty in accepting them.
Top

References

1 Duncan, M E Anal Intercourse – The Medical Risks (unpublished paper, 2000)
2 Satinover J, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Baker, 1997, page 67
3 Loc cit
4 Stewart G, Health Care Analysis, 1994, 2; 279-286. Professor Duncan has pointed out the clear implications of this study. Anal intercourse is uncommon amongst the heterosexual population, but usual amongst the homosexual population.
5 Duncan, M E Op cit
6 Do Not Give Blood Without Reading This Leaflet, The UK Blood Transfusion Services, Department of Health, December 1995
7 http://www.durex.com/scientific/faqs/faq_4.html#1 as at 29th October 2000
8 Silverman B G et al, Use and Effectiveness of Condoms During Anal Intercourse, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Vol. 24, No. 1, January 1997, page 14
9 Ibid page 11
10 Duncan, M E Op Cit
11 Miles A J G et al, Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal function, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol 86, March 1993, page 146
12 Weatherburn P et al, The Sexual Lifestyles of Gay and Bisexual Men in England and Wales, HMSO, 1992, page 13
13 Ibid page 15
14 Johnson A M et al Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, Blackwell Scientific, 1994, page 164
15 Ibid page 209
16 The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, Explanatory Note, para 21
17 Waterhouse, Sir Ronald, Lost in Care: Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974, The Stationary Office, 2000, para 52.86,87
Top

The Christian Institute