It's Not "Sex." It's Rape.

[Trigger warning].

A judge just sentenced a Seattle man to 23 years in prison for coercing a 12-year-old girl into prostitution, raping her repeatedly, and attempting to tamper with witnesses. The man, 25, was convicted of two counts of second-degree child rape and a single count of promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor.

The guy sounds like a real charmer, and there's definitely some question in my mind about whether that sentence (the longest allowed by law) is long enough. (In his testimony, he said the real tragedy was that his family won't benefit from his presence while he's in prison. Gah.) However, what struck me most about the stories on his conviction and sentencing is that they consistently refer to what he did as "having sex" with the girl, not raping her. To wit:

"Over several days, he had sex with the girl..."

"Leonard was paid by a man who had sex with the girl...."

".. he had sex with her several times and gave her advice on how to solicit money for sex. He took most of the money she received for a sexual act..."

"...a man paid the 12-year-old for sex..."

And on and on and on.

Although most of the stories mention the fact that Leonard was sentenced for the crime of child rape, the writers take pains to consistently describe what he did as "sex," not rape. (One even refers to the child as a "teen," which she was not.) Words matter. A 25-year-old man cannot "have sex" with a 12-year-old girl. Describing what happened this way negates her perspective--and makes his crime seem less horrible, maybe even excusable, in the process.