To think child sex abuse victims shouldn’t be called prostitutes

[Notevilstepmother]

Following on from the Haiti Oxfam debacle. The BBC has reported that the use of child prostitutes cannot be ruled out.

I think it’s important to distinguish between consent for money (still dubious and creepy in such a situation with vulnerable women) and children being unable to consent. Children are not prostitutes they are child sex abuse victims and should be respected and reported as such.

I’ve complained to the BBC, feel free to do the same.

I have also complained, words carry an energy, the energy given to the words 'underage prositution' minimises the fact that CHILDREN are being abused.

Also 'child porn' fucking child sexual abuse......

Utterly shameful Graphista. The perpetrators are child abusers and rapists. Why anyone would want to minimise that is beyond me. This was all under the spotlight with Rotherham, yet here we are, having the same argument. Have we learned nothing?

Language and how it is perceived is interesting isn't it?

Personally I don't see 'child prostitute' as minimising it at all. In fact to me it smacks of a child being systematically abused by any number of people, where as victim of child sex abuse could mean one person or it could mean more.

But I understand not everyone sees it that way.

Have submitted a complaint - appalling and minimising reporting.

Ignore, ignore, ignore on the other issue.

Yanbu. They used the term “child pornography” on radio 4 today too. I think that’s pretty poor from bbc.

Thank you! I was listening to this on R4 this morning in the car and kept hearing the use of ‘child prostitutes’ and ‘underage prostitutes’. My teenage DDs were in the car and I felt it necessary to point out every time ‘there’s no such thing as a child prostitute’. Because words do matter.

Thank you for posting this. I agree that it is so important how we frame events with language. I have complained.

I thought it might have happened because there wasn't an age of consent in the country where it took place. So by our definitions it is child abuse, but it might not be by local laws.

However, apparently Haiti specifically has the same age of consent as the UK. So no excuse there.

It is shameful and it needs to change. Agree even more so with the use of "child pornography" it's not it's images of child abuse.

Morphene I've seen on other forums inc fb people trying to say that re Haiti only to be pulled up by others pointing out the age of consent there is actually 17. People (frankly apologists in my view) have tried to argue the age of consent is lower there.

This also conveniently ignores how very vulnerable ALL the victims were and that the perpetrators were supposed to be helping them - NOT making matters worse.

Oh gosh, I wasn't saying it would be morally fine if it isn't against local laws AT ALL. Just that it might affect the technical language used in reporting. But obviously that isn't the case as it is very much just as illegal there as here.

No I know you weren't I was referring to others elsewhere

Called abused, trafficked and/or exploited children prostitutes absolutely minimises the crimes being committed so much so it affects the way they are viewed by the people who ought to be protecting them. I work in Rotherham and the police dismissed the children that were being exploited as "prostitutes". They knew how old they were but they didn't want to help because they didn't see them as children. I support women and children that have been exploited and the police are much more careful about their language and that is hand in hand with the work they are doing to change tgeir attitudes.
Language is powerful.

And indeed I misread the information. Haiti think we are raping children if we have sex with a 17 year old.

I honestly think capacity to consent needs a rethink. There are definitely some 16 and 17 year olds that I don't believe can consent...and likely there are 14 and 15 year olds that can.

None of this pertains to prostitution though. The age of consent for prostitution should be much higher than it is for unpaid sex due to the higher potential for exploitation.

YANBU and I agree with the above- it’s not “child porn” either it’s images of sexual abuse against children.

Mind you, I forget the details of the actual case but an article I read online recently described an adult “having sex with a child under 13” no they didn’t have sex with that child they raped that child. Ffs.

prostitute
ˈprɒstɪtjuːt/Submit
noun
noun: prostitute; plural noun: prostitutes
1.
a person, in particular a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.

The word ‘engages’ in the definition implies agency on behalf of the individual. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Thus aside from the morals of using the term ‘prostitute’ to refer to a child it’s also fundamentally incorrect. It’s impossible.

Same would go for trafficked women, who are not engaging, but are being engaged.

Thanks for the link. Complaint submitted.

I absolutely hate it when language like this is used. It does influence people, it seeps in in little dribs and drabs and becomes normalised and accepted.

I'm going to complain.

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/12/choice_of_phrase.html

The other issue with the term 'child prostitute' is that it's a pejorative label, it smacks of 'victim blaming' and children who have been abused have already coped with far too much of that.

Maybe it genuinely doesn't minimise the offence in your eyes, I accept that, but the truth it's insulting to abuse survivors and it has minimised abuse in the eyes of the police and SS in the past. Why use the term anyway? What happened in Rochdale and Rotherham was child sexual exploitation, not child prostitution.

Personally I don't see 'child prostitute' as minimising it at all. In fact to me it smacks of a child being systematically abused by any number of people, where as victim of child sex abuse could mean one person or it could mean more.
Ditto. And child prostitution emphasises the monetary, business aspect of it which I think is relevant because the approach taken to stop it needs to be completely different. It's less likely to be other paedophiles facilitating it, and more likely to be the sort of unscrupulous individuals that will also exploit vulnerable adults (generally women) in the same way. With these people you need to be attacking their finances and the trafficking methods; with paedophiles you need to gain their trust (obviously by pretending to be one of them) to infiltrate their network and arrest more of them. Totally different.
No-one is going to read 'child prostitution' and think 'oh that's okay then'.

I agree that it smacks of victim blaming. It reminds me of the way lots of women talk about teenage girls as "little slags", etc.

YANBU as of these kids haven’t been through enough but then to be blamed for their own abuse. Shocking.

Araiwa - those are pretty poor excuses for why. She's basically saying that the more accurate language is either too many characters or too hard for certain audiences (mainly younger working class) to understand.

Thanks for highlighting this I’m on a long term bbc boycott but maybe it’s better to watch and complain.
Also I think human nature says if your card is market as a child prostitute you’ll be treated more negatively as an adult, especially if you are a sex worker and/or addict. The reality is an abused child has a hard enough time as an adult.
I hope every journalist worth their salt is trying to get work with an NGO right now. I suspect not, probably trying to get tickets to the royal wedding. I haven’t seen 1/2 the outrage needed.