'Underage Prostitutes' - response from BBC

[DannyLaRuesBestFrock]

Meant to post earlier, but a PP posted about BBC online and the oxfam scandal, where sick bastards had procured services from victims to get their sexual kicks.

The BBC stated that the people exploited, could have included 'underage prostitutes'

Agreed by lots of mners, that there isn't such a thing and it is child abuse, the poster prompted people to complain to the BBC.

I was one of them and after a couple of weeks, I did get a response to say that in hindsight, they could have used better wording and will try to do so in the future.

Just wanted to update. I don't think it is enough, but at least they listened?

@FlouncyDoves

A 15 year girl might "choose" to prostitute herself?

What would her alternative choices be?

And I meant 'who pays for sex with a child under 18' I managed to fall into the same trap. Apologies to all for my mistake.

Prostitution isn’t a choice. It’s a way of dealing with a desperate set of circumstances. It’s like comparing an altruistic live kidney donor to one who is so poor they raise some money by selling theirs.

I’m not saying I agree with the choices of those who abuse them (and I’m not saying it’s not abuse) just that it’s a choice that some make. And that for the BBC to call them prostitues isn’t wholly misleading or worthy of the moral outrage that MNetters like to react with.

Some of them are prositutes in that they exchange sex for money. Their age means they’re also being abused.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Anyway, my points are meaningless really as someone with a sensitive disposition will complain to MNHQ and they’ll take my original post down, rendering the interesting discussion mute.

Or the whole thread

I just can't accept that it is a choice in any way is my bottom line on this. The word 'prostitute' is a label that must not be used for children because it leads to victims blaming (brought it on themselves etc). But interestingly despite that I did it myself .

@Flouncy now you are just being disrespectful to young people who are abused and forced into prostitution. Please stop.

Your references if you want to get an education on this are international instruments such as the UNCRC (down to states to specify age of consent, but states should ensure children are protected), and the UNOTC, Palermo etc. Also see NSPCCs excellent work on children forced into prostitution and how it CANNOT be their choice or consensual. Also CEP website.

As I think you well know, age of sexual consent is a different matter to a young person engaging in prostitution. The former carries risks, eg to sexual health, preganancy etc.

Prostitution carries an awful lot more serious risks. Payment for sex usually involves criminal activity, and because it’s unregulated it subjects the prostitute to a significant risk of violence, additional non consensual acts which may be extremely traumatising, drugs, STDs and a criminal record.

Ever met a victim? I have. It’s fucking appalling, the most harrowing thing I have ever seen or heard.

Do NOT sit there smirking and trying to make facetious points about how the age of sexual consent means that young people can understand and control their choices in the world of sexual exploitation. They can’t.

I think we should somehow use a phrase that refers to the form of child abuse being prostitution, though not sure which is best. Those who pointed out to the BBC that it is child abuse are right to do so though.

Oh, and @Flouncy don’t try to belittle the offensiveness of your views by talking about ‘sensitive’ people potentially responding to your post. You have no idea who is reading your words, including victims of sexual abuse.

You’re absolutely right that I have reported you. I fully stand by that and it has nothing to do with me being sensitive and everything to do with you being offensive.

cor can adults make that choice then? I suppose it’s arguable that all prostitution is abuse. However, I imagine you’d find plenty of prostitutes who have made a choice and are content with that choice. Of course there’ll be many more who have been forced into/coerced/hate it etc.

Again, I’m not saying that all children who are paid for sex are prostitutes, nor that those who pay for sex with any underaged person (male or female) aren’t abusing them. It’s disgusting and wrong.

But, semantically speaking, the BBC were not incorrect to describe some of them as child prostitutes. They’ve taken on board the criticism that was whipped up on MN and apologised and explained they’ll try not to word it like that again.

For someone to have their knickers in a twist over that apology is, in my opinion, unfair (OP, YABU). I also feel it didn’t really require an apology as there is such a thing as a child prostitute.

How am I being offensive? I haven’t said that those who paid for sex with these girls were correct. I’m not defending their actions. Rather I’m discussing the semantics around describing those who were abused. It’s a difference of opinion.

I find it a shame that, in a free society, you can’t have a reasonable discussion about a topic without fear of upsetting someone who ‘might be reading’. You can’t through life watching every word you say and action you take for fear of upsetting someone sitting on the sidelines.

I am completely with Flouncy that the posts shouldn't be deleted. Unless difficult topics can be debated nothing will change including views that are wrong. That helps no one including victims of abuse.

I was impressed that the BBC referred to Mary Kay Letourneau as having raped her now Ex-husband as a boy. I know a few Americans who were shocked by the use of the word "rape", but felt it was appropriate.

My issue with the phrase "child abuse" is that it's too vague. They were underage prostitutes in the sense that they were sold for money. I don't think the word "prostitution" implies consent at all. Many adults are also forced into prostitution. It's still rape but the BBC used that phrase to express that they were being raped for money.

I think the phrase “child sex abuse victims”, when used by a British organisation to a British audience would naturally imply that you’re talking about children below the age of 16 so it would be misleading in this case.

I’m not sure what would be a better phrase when talking about young people who are prostituted between the ages of 16 and 18 (which is illegal whether you’re in the UK or Haiti). I understand your point that “underaged prostitute” is too neutral in tone and doesn’t stress the abusive element.

There is no reasonable discussion to be had regarding under 18s and prostitution in 2018

All media have style guides - how hard is it to put in the style guide alternatives to these awful and minimising terms?

I think 'prostitute' as a term is dehumanising. For example the old-fashioned reporting of the murder of prostitutes rather than women.

You can have a debate, of course, but with this there is a line that cannot be crossed in relation to child victims of abuse and their “choices”. The debate can be had without crossing that line. Mumsnet may take a different view.

I have limited experience with the policy and law relating to adult victims of exploitation and prostitution. That’s a far more complex world- I knew of good quality research into adults who othe UK authorities would deem as trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation yet actually the women fully understood what they were going to and had a family to support. There are Masters level courses and PhDs on this exact subject- some argue that it’s never a real choice for the adults involved. Others argue that, depending on the circumstances, it can be as valid a choice as other work.

I have little experience in this field so really cannot say- a few research papers doesn’t make me an expert. I do have expertise in policy and law relating to child exploitation, though.

The concept of having sex with someone for money is pretty dehumanising though irrespective of the term. The BBC are trying to explain the situation as it happened. That some aid agency workers paid women (and men perhaps) for sex and that some of those paid for sex may have been under the age of consent. How else can they describe this? The importance of the story is all of those paid for sex whether over or under the age of consent were horrifically exploited by those who were meant to be helping them and that it's a disgusting situation that should never have happened.

TRIGGER WARNING

I'm one of those 'sensitive posters' @FlouncyDoves a child being prostituted for money has more than likely been abused before this, so they're conditioned to believe that's all they're worth. I was conditioned to believe I couldn't say no to a grown up because I would be being rude. The one time I fought back, by biting my abuser's hand I was made to apologise.

A child in that position has not consented if she ends up going into prostitution, even if she were being paid, whether with booze or fags, or drugs, like the child sexual exploitation victims in places like Rotherham. They won't all have come from abusive backgrounds, but the vast majority were in the care system and therefore vulnerable.

The same is true of some adult women too. It's called being trafficked into prostitution.

Sorry for being so blunt. But it's very offensive to suggest that underage prostitutes are ever in it willingly. It's the reason why nothing was done about the exploitation, because social workers and police thought they were simply being promiscuous and didn't take it seriously.

Well, clearly, that’s awful and I’m sorry that’s happened to you.

Lizzie I think bluntness is needed to discuss this properly.

And your post describes the process completely accurately I think.

And some under-age girls might choose to prostitute themselves.

And that's why we have laws in this country, so that even if a CHILD (because an underage girl is absolutely a CHILD) makes a poor choice, the adults around them should help them reconsider that poor choice and not take advantage.

If a grown man sleeps with an underage child who has prostituted herself for whatever reason, he's abusing his position in society. He's actively seeking out a vulnerable, oftentimes already abused, child to have sex with her for his own selfish gain. It's nothing less than disgusting. There's no flowery-happy-prostitute-Belle-du-Jour nonsense. It's a vulnerable child being used and abused.

But this is my point. Mumsnetters seem to object to terms like underage prostitution and child pornography as “prostitution” and “pornography” implies consent and children cannot consent. I’m baffled by this really as most people involved in pornography and prostitution are not consenting. Most male prostitutes were raped as children, many women are trafficked for pornography and prostitution. It’s all horrific.

There was no consent for any of the people here because they were all desperate and vulnerable and they were all exploited.

I think the difficulty here is that if we're talking about 16/17 year olds (age of consent in Haiti is 18 so underage can be 16 and 17 year olds), that doesn't usually meet peoples definition of child abuse rather than people thinking using sex workers of any age isn't abusive.