Hysteria can be seen in what terminology is used, which further precipitates the problem literally brainwashing people to become more hysterical.  Such brainwashing terminology in reference to pedophilia includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Referring to anything sexual occurring between an adult and a child as: "sexual abuse."  "Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a legal term rather than a scientific."  "Child sexual abuse is not a syndrome or illness, but rather an event ...Children identified as sexually abused are similar to each other only in that they have been exposed to sexual behavior deemed to be inappropriate or socially unacceptable."  Such language is slanted because it incorporates the value judgment that anything at all sexual between an adult and a child is just de facto "abusive," which of course has no basis in fact -- It's just a declaration made by many people who realize it is wrong, but unfortunately resort to underhanded tactic to try to make their point.  The term is simply not a neutral description as it honestly should be if one is concerned about carrying on an intelligent, objective conversation about the topic.  Just plainly descriptive words should be used such as "sexual contact," "sexual interaction," or even "sensuous contact," etc.

"Survivor of sexual abuse" is the worst, in that it is a doubly loaded expression that can only result in brainwashing.  "Survivor" means by definition "to remain alive, esp. after others in the same situation have died."  Since child-adult sexual encounters rarely end in death for the child "survivor" is hardly appropriate.  Even the word "victim," which is less severe than "survivor," has a preconceived value judgment associated with it, and it is often the adult who is the victim of the child.  One should say "one who has experienced" or other terminology, such as "target," "focus," or even just "participant" or "partner."  "Hurt" is another loaded word.  We often see things like "How could anyone hurt a child like that?"  "Hurt" is most often used to describe a physical injury and only occasionally used in reference to mental anguish.   All of these terms are used by those who over-react, become hysterical, and want to spread that hysteria to others.  In the vast majority of child-adult sexual relationships there is no physical harm done, and emotional distress is inflicted by others who make the child feel ashamed.  In fact, rather than being distressed many of those who were child-partners have very pleasant memories

Another point to take into consideration is complete sexual depravation during childhood actually does cause emotional distress as well as a tendency toward perversions -- because when normal sexual desires can not be fulfilled at a time when the desire is acutely strong, the child or teen begins to explore fetishes for relief of sexual tension.

The primary reason why adult-child sexual relations is wrong is because it's anti-social, and not because it actually traumatizes the child.  Sex is fundamentally about having babies, and adults with child partners most certainly cannot raise a family.  Sex is all about having sex with one's own generation to procreate the species, and the more we get abreast of that reality the more perverted things get even when it comes to consenting adults.  

Certainly if a child is truly taken sexual advantage he or she  could be abused, victimized, hurt, and even be a survivor in some rare cases, but the point here is that none of these things are necessarily true of any and all or even most adult-child sexual interactions -- and should not be declared as such in the language used.    

Compare the two following descriptions:

"I'm a survivor of child sexual abuse.  I was victimized.  Now I'm traumatized; I naturally hate the person, and require years of clinical therapy."

"I participated in adult-child sexual interaction.  I'm now bothered by it, but I certainly don't hate the person.  I feel that it was inappropriate; and I would like to discuss it with someone." 

Which of the above two descriptions would actually be the most accurate and would be less likely to result in either the child or the adult suffering overly adverse consequences? 

However, to be fair, the term "intergenerational sex," which is sometimes use by those attempting to be neutral, is really not appropriate either.  A forty-year -old having sex with a 20-year-old would be intergenerational sex, as would a sixty-year-old having sex with a forty-year-old.  Though even that may raise some eye-brows, it is not the issue here.  What we are concerned with here specifically is: child-adult sex or adolescent-adult sex, and sometimes even child-adolescent sex.
 

Another area of hysteria presides in just what we view to be sexual molestation.  Molestation means the unwanted (bothersome) or inappropriate sexual advances shown toward someone.  There is nothing in that, that means that absolutely any and all sexually provocative interactions between an adult and a child is molestation or abusive.  There is such a thing as sexual "horseplay" and  "an air of sexuality" that may occur between adults and children in any number of situations that should not be viewed as molestation, harmful or in any way traumatizing.  However, over zealous prosecutors and hysterical parents often want some kind of vengeance for just anything at all that smacks of sexuality between an adult and a child no matter how minor.  This is true fanaticism, and fanatical views and reactions concerning anything constitute a sickness in and of itself that causes incredible amounts of harm in society. 

Idiotic things such as playful pats, tickling, or discussing anything at all sexual with a child can be thought of as sexual molestation now-a-days.  Just as adults can joke around about sexual matters without really being sexually erotic, so too can adults joke and engage in horseplay with children that is in some sense sexual, but not erotic, thus not molestation.  Unfortunately, many teachers and others who work around children are going to jail for the most ridiculous excuses of child molestation imaginable due to the fanatical sickness of what one might call pedophileophobia.  A sex offender used to mean a rapist and not usually much less, perhaps indecent exposure or a voyeur, but now it just anything that could possibly be perceived as having any air of sexuality.  Sex offender registries are busting that the seams, not because there are more criminals, but because of the forever widening definitions of sexual offenses.

Hysteria magnifies things and causes over reactions which often end in tragedy:

On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert."

In the article "Day of the dad: pedophilia hysteria leaves men afraid to help," The Telegraph raises a question that applies equally to North America. Have high profile cases of pedophilia created such public hysteria that the average decent human being, especially a man, is now reluctant to approach a child in need?

Consider what happened to Abby. The toddler wandered from her nursery school, Ready Teddy Go, through a door left open. A bricklayer named Clive Peachey drove past her in his truck. At the inquest, he stated, "I kept thinking I should go back. The reason I didn't was because I thought people might think I was trying to abduct her."

Instead, he assured himself that the parents must be "driving around" and would find her.

A few minutes thereafter, Abby fatally fell into an algae-covered pond. Meanwhile, the nursery staff searched. When the mother noticed the staff near her home, she was told they were looking for a "lost dog" but the truth soon emerged. The frantic mother's search ended when she leaped into the pond to fish out what she thought was Abby's shoe.

She stated, "As I grabbed for the shoe, I missed and was shocked to touch what felt like a leg. I pulled the leg upwards." The dead child emerged.

Abby's case may be extreme but it hinges on a question that commonly confronts everyone who interacts with other people's children. Is it possible to touch a child in a non-abusive manner without risking terrible repercussions?

Before moving to this question, however, it is necessary to consider a related issue that arises in almost every discussions of Abby. Is Clive Peachey legally or morally responsible for her death?

For several reasons, I argue that he is not. First and foremost, the responsibility lies with the nursery staff who became her guardians. Abby was in no immediate danger when Peachey saw her and he contacted the police upon later hearing a 'missing child' report.

Arguably, if he had phoned the police immediately, Abby would have been dead long before they arrived. Moreover, by coming forth, Peachey has accepted the damage to his life that comes with the public disgrace of saying "I drove past her."

Important information in judging Peachey is missing. For example, if Peachey has a family, he may have been reluctant to place his reputation or livelihood at risk. He may have balanced possible harm to his own children against helping a stranger's child.

Peachey's fears have precedence on this side of the Atlantic.

Last summer, an Illinois man lost an appeal on his conviction as a sex offender for grabbing the arm of a 14-year-old girl. She had stepped directly in front of his car, causing him to swerve in order to avoid hitting her.

The 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby jumped out his car, grabbed her arm and lectured her on how not to get killed. Nothing more occurred. Nevertheless, that one action made him guilty of "the unlawful restraint of a minor," which is a sexual offense in Illinois. Both the jury and judge believed him. Nevertheless, Barnaby went through years of legal proceedings that ended with his name on a sex offender registry, where his photograph and address are publicly available. He must report to authorities. His employment options are severely limited; he cannot live near schools or parks.

Arguably, the law would have punished Barnaby less had he hit the girl or not cared enough to lecture her. Perhaps that's the equation that ran through Peachey's mind.

Again, Barnaby is an extreme case. But ordinary people make decisions on how to interact with children based on such high profile stories.

The effect on average people in non-extreme situations can be partially gauged through a study conducted by Dr. Heather Piper at Manchester Metropolitan University: "The Problematics of 'Touching' Between Children and Professionals." Piper examined six case-study schools through interviews with teachers, parents and children regarding the propriety of touch.

Commentator Josie Appleton reviewed the study, "Reported cases include the teacher who avoided putting a plaster [bandaid] on a child's scraped leg; nursery staff calling a child's mother every time he needed to go to the toilet; a male gym teacher leaving a girl injured in the hall while he waited for a female colleague."

One school reportedly kept an account of every 'touching incident.' They stated, "We write down a short account and date it and put which staff were present and at what time, we then explain it to the parent and ask them to read and sign it."

Appleton observed that this is more in keeping with "police logs than teaching children."

The last words encapsulate the problem.

Touching a child, even to render medical assistance, has become a potential police matter.

Child abuse must be addressed but it is worse than folly to punish those who help children. Our society is creating Clive Peachey -- decent men who will walk away from a child in need.

Abby Rae died not only from drowning but also from bad politics.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.