Does anyone know the article about "prostitute", "sex worker" etc not being the correct terminology

It was in the context of, if they're pimped out by lover boy until the age of 17 years, 364 days as victims of CSA, they don't suddenly become free agents the following day. When a child has been subject to CSA but has escaped/been rescued from that situation, and later goes back as an adult (with a gap of some years) I think it's a bit more complex. If they have used those years to gain a degree or other qualifications, and have worked in "respectable" jobs (and so have options) and yet choose to work, perhaps part-time, as an independent prostitute, who are we to say that's not as free a choice as that made by a similar person who was not a victim of CSA? I hate the theory that goes, victim of CSA becomes prostitute (years down the line), oh well, that was inevitable. It's insulting to victims of CSA, iyswim?

That works as an argument.

Vile, just vile.

I will qualify my statement; most adults in prostitution in the UK started as adults. The situation globally may be different, but then we're back to lies, damned lies and statistics, not to mention laden agendas, and I don't think any of that advances this particular discussion.

I did not say that "lover boy pimps" are in relationships, but that the prostitutes, or in such cases "prostituted women" (sometimes your favoured terminology fits) think they are. Otherwise why the "lover boy" descriptor?

If 51% of adult women entered prostitution, prices would soon drop, I'm sure that would delight the likes of NIK...

Most adults in prostitution started as adults

You think this but there is evidence to the contrary. Even if you are right, what about those who don't? Is it okay if 51% of women start in prostitution as adults?

Have you actually read anything about lover boy pimps? There is no relationship. It is a trap, nothing more nor less.

Most adults in prostitution started as adults. Some victims of CSA go on to work as prostitutes, and I would agree that theirs is not a free choice if it's a continuation of that CSA.

You used the phrase "lover boy pimp", that does suggest to me that there is some sort of relationship, at least as perceived by the prostitute, hence my saying it's a form of DV (and probably also involving other forms of DV).

Are you suggesting I am pro-pimp? I find that rather insulting, and can assure you I am not, and will not be coerced by you, or anyone else, into yet another pointless discussion on the nature of "free choice".

"A child of 17 years, 364 days is a victim of child sex abuse, not a child prostitute, so they do need to be considered in a different way than we'd regard an adult of say 24 deciding to work as a prostitute, whether on the streets, in a brothel, or independently.

And yet adults in prostitution are considered to be exercising free choice regardless of how old they were when they started.

I would certainly consider a prostitute with a "lover boy pimp" to be a victim of DV, and in a quite different group from those who choose the work. (And yes, we can then discuss how free that choice is again... But do we really have to?)!

Domestic violence suggests a relationship, not a pretence of a relationship with the goal of prostitution. I know it is up comfortable for pro-pimps to consider these situations but, yes, you really have to.

We can agree on that. :)

Surely that is the fault of all lies, damn lies and statistics

And I guess a definition of "irrelevant" and "agenda laden" may vary quite widely.

Oh, absolutely, but so often irrelevant studies have been used to "make" broader points, and even to attempt to change the law. I'm not referencing any particular study, but have seen arguments based upon, for example, a study of streetworkers in City A showing that 90% of prostitutes were victims of CSA, which is used to argue that 90% of all prostitutes are victims of CSA. Further investigation into the numbers then shows that the sample was of prostitutes in an exit programme specifically aimed at those who entered prostitution aged 21 or under...

So I do think it's important that we know who we're talking about, rather than extrapolating numbers in an arbitrary, or sometimes frankly agenda-laden, manner.

But when carrying out studies and so on, you don't have to frame them around what the law is.

For instance different countries have different laws, but it is still reasonable to draw your own line and see what happens above/ below that line, across the globe.

No-one on FWR is arguing for the law on prostitution to change so that people under 18 can engage in it lawfully, FWIW. But is is reasonable if e.g. someone does a study of young people aged 16-21 in prostitution, to talk about that on MN.

But under the law, lines do have to be drawn. A child of 17 years, 364 days is a victim of child sex abuse, not a child prostitute, so they do need to be considered in a different way than we'd regard an adult of say 24 deciding to work as a prostitute, whether on the streets, in a brothel, or independently.

I would certainly consider a prostitute with a "lover boy pimp" to be a victim of DV, and in a quite different group from those who choose the work. (And yes, we can then discuss how free that choice is again... But do we really have to?)

AnyFawker true.

I think that both sides of the conversation aren't actually confused about who is talking about what and it's simply a fight over whether to use a term that widens the group while at the same time excluding the most vulnerable or whether you want to focus on one part of the sex industry and everyone in that part including the most vulnerable.

We all know this though, don't we? Oh, the OP! OP - that is what I think the answer is, just my opinion as ever though.

You don't need to refer to DV though do you

A lot of younger people wouldn't quite fit into that category anyway - especially when you think of how most people perceive a DV situation, what their mental image is, a lot of situations would't fit that.

I would think "women and girls engaged in prostitution due to coercion, fear, emotional or physical abuse etc) or similar.

It's a minefield

"Same as when considering legalising / liberalising, including these groups is not going to be appropriate."

I mean, not appropriate as in not desirable for the people pushing for those things.

But that's not very specific. It disguises a particular issue within prostitution that has nothing to do with DV and everything to do with sexual exploitation of women. Since this is a problem that is particularly prevalent in countries where prostitution is legal, it's not surprising that pro-prostitution lobbyists want to disguise the issue.

Because clearly when considering harms to a group as a whole, separating out the most vulnerable and saying they should not be included in the analysis or that they are a separate conversation is going to muddy the waters.

Same as when considering legalising / liberalising, including these groups is not going to be appropriate.

From a harms perspective, it seems artifical to remove say under 18s. As clearly people do not hit 18 and magically leave, it does not suddenly become OK, they are in the same boat as they were the previous day. Also considering there were calls to reduce the age to 16 from some LibDem people, I think it's better to look across the piece. As well as to look at what is going on with e.g. child sexual exploitation as a separate piece.

Mainly victims of domestic abuse/violence, also a separate group.

So I guess you'd say the % of women and girls (or people - men & women boys & girls) engaged in prostitution via whatever means used to describe that - with a pimp (are we allowed to say that or is there a different word for that) - who entered under a certain age due to a relationship etc etc whatever you were measuring.

I think if the language is clear then there is no problem.