Consider this passage from a New York Times article about a man on death row:

“…prosecutors had withheld evidence from the defense showing that Mr. Williams’ victim Amos Norwood, whom he beat to death in 1984, had homosexual relationships with minors, including Mr. Williams.”¹

The phrase “homosexual relationships” connotes consensual sexual encounters between people with the capacity to consent.  Adult men do not have “sexual relationships”—homosexual or heterosexual —with minors.  It is illegal.  The Times’ phrasing completely erases the fact that this was child sexual abuse, not a consensual “relationship.”

Misuse of the word “relationship” and other terms from the vocabulary of consensual sex stands out starkly in the television coverage of a special education teacher in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  He was charged in two counties with 25 counts of fourth degree rape, two counts of solicitation of a minor and two counts of sexual contact with a minor in connections with his abuse of two 13-year old girls.  He committed some of the assaults at the school.  He texted each victim more than 600 times in four days, even after he was confronted with the allegations.  Although the headline uses the word “rape,” it disappears from the tv report, which instead uses the following phrases:

• “fostering sexual relationships with two 13 year-old-girls;”
• “maintaining sexual relationships with two 13 year-old-girls;”
• “he would perform sex acts on the two girls;”
• “visit one of the girls…where the two engaged in sexual activity.”²

This teacher did not have “relationships” with these students. They are minors. He raped them. 

The phrasing “perform sex acts on the two girls” gives no hint that this teacher is committing a crime on a minor each time he “performs.” 

Even more misleading is the phrase “where the two engaged in sexual activity,” a phrase which communicates fully consensual sexual behavior between two people with the capacity to consent.