This video raises a question that appears linguistic but is in reality deeply political, legal, and symbolic: should we speak of "sexual abuse" or "sexual violence" to refer to sexual offenses? Behind this choice of words lies our way of understanding the facts, of classifying their seriousness, and ultimately, of recognizing them as unacceptable acts.
The discussion begins with a deliberately simple scenario: what does the word "abuse" spontaneously evoke for us? In everyday language, it refers to the idea of excessive use, of crossing boundaries, such as an abuse of power, an abuse of rights, or medication misuse. Lexicographical definitions all point in this direction: it refers to the misuse or excessive use of something over which one initially has a certain right. However, in the realm of sexuality, and even more so when it involves children, this logic is problematic: no right to sexually use another person exists. Therefore, speaking of "sexual abuse" introduces an ambiguity that can unintentionally minimize the nature of the acts.
The video then reminds us that what is at issue in these situations is not excess, but acts of domination, coercion, and aggression. French law refers to sexual violence and defines it as sexual acts committed with violence, coercion, threats, or by taking advantage of the victim's vulnerability. Legally, these are clearly identified offenses: rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse. These terms do not describe misuse, but criminally reprehensible acts, which are always illegal.
A historical perspective helps explain why the expression "sexual abuse" has become so prevalent in public discourse. It largely stems from a literal translation of the English "sexual abuse," widely used since the 1980s. However, this translation is debatable: the English word "abuse" refers more to mistreatment or abuse than to mere excess. Therefore, using the term "sexual abuse" in French is an anglicism that doesn't fully capture the reality of the situation.
One of the central points of the video is the risk of confusion inherent in this term. To say that someone "sexually abuses" a child can suggest, even implicitly, the idea of excessive use, whereas it is always a misdemeanor or a felony. This confusion blurs the line between what is legal and what is illegal, between what might be considered excessive and what constitutes assault. Conversely, the term "sexual violence" clearly designates the violence suffered and emphasizes the impact of the act, regardless of the final legal classification.
The video also highlights that the concept of violence extends beyond the legal framework alone. A situation can be experienced as sexual violence even in the absence of prosecution or conviction. Recognizing this dimension is essential to taking into account the experience of victims and not reducing their lived reality to the mere existence of a trial.
A personal reflection reinforces this analysis. The author acknowledges having used the expression "sexual abuse" in the past, particularly in a book for children, for the sake of clarity and because the term is still widespread and perceived as less harsh. But this video marks a shift in approach: the deliberate choice to now speak of sexual violence serves an educational and ethical purpose, so as not to minimize the seriousness of the acts.
In conclusion, the video reminds us that words are never neutral. Naming things accurately sharpens our collective awareness, clarifies our understanding, and improves the application of laws. Speaking of sexual violence rather than sexual abuse fully acknowledges the violence of these acts, their unacceptable nature, and the need to prevent them. Language, far from being a mere semantic debate, directly contributes to understanding and preventing violence.