Sex Trafficking and Gender.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ripped from: https://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2013/1 ... /#more-359
And FEMRAdebates. (Hi if you're reading.)

NOVA, a research institute under the auspices of the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research found in a report (which discusses several studies) in 2002 that 2.1% of school-aged boys (of a representative sample – basically all pupils between 14-17 years old in Oslo were asked to fill out a form – appr. 12.000 pupils) in Oslo had performed sexual favours for payment. The corresponding number for school-aged girls were 0.6%. The mean age for first time sex selling experience was 13.5 years for boys and 14.1 years for girls.

http://www.nova.no/asset/3086/1/3086_1.pdf
Report is in Norwegian, but the final two pages contain an English summary.

This study from Sweden ( http://prosentret.no/?wpfb_dl=533 – sorry only in Swedish) found that from a sample of 2,323 girls and 2,016 boys (sample from the capital, a large port city and three smaller cities) that 1.0% of the girls and1.8% of the boys had sold sex. The difference between the genders are statistically significant(?) (Chi2 5,654, p=.017).

Another bunch of studies confirming similar rates:

This study also referred to an American study done in Saint Louis which found that the lifetime prevalency numbers for prostitution were 4% for men and 2% for women. Cottler L, Helzer J, Tipp JE. Lifetime patterns of substance use among general population subjects engaging in high risk sexual behaviours: Implications for HIV risk. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 1990;16:207-22.

That study is unfortunately behind a paywall, but here is a link if anyone has access through their university or work: http://informahealthcare.com/d…..9009001584

Another study ( http://prosentret.no/?wpfb_dl=371 ) done in the city of Gothenburg in Sweden also found that more boys than girls said they had sold sex (exchanged sex for money or other things/favours). Here it was 11.4% of boys and 7.4% of girls. The high percentage is explained by this not being a “normalpopulation”, they used an online-survey form advertised by banner ads on two social sites and in that sense the sample was self-selected and would likely contain a higher ratio of youth having experience with sex, sexual abuse and sex sale. This one was interesting considering that 1/3 of the boys reported a female customer.

According to this: http://www.monitor.upeace.org/…..rticle=873 UNICEF estimates that MORE than half of the 30,000 child sex workers in Sri Lanka are boys.

Another American study analysing data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System found that Police report more contacts with male juvenile prostitutes (61%) than with female juvenile prostitutes (39%). It is also depressingly predictable that the police is more likely to arrest male juvenile prostitutes and more likely to refer female juvenile prostitutes to other authorities, such as social services agencies.
Source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/203946.pdf

This report ( http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/prosti…..tsheet.pdf ) cites this study: Edward, J.M., Iritani, B.J., & Hallfors, D.D. (2005). Prevalence and correlates of exchanging sex for drugs or money among adolescents in the United States. Sexually Transmitted Infections 82(5): 354‐358. as finding that 67.9% of those who said they had participated in sex exchange were males (of a national representative sample of 12,294).

Curtis and Danks found in 2008 that 45% of underaged prostitutes in NYC were boys: http://www.riverfronttimes.com…..ng-minors/
I seem to remember that Toysoldier have posted something about that report when it came out.

A Minnesota statewide study of homeless youth in 2003 indicated that homeless boys are seven times more likely and homeless girls are three times more likely to have a history of sexual abuse than their housed peers:
Owens, Greg. Wilder Research Center. 2003. Homeless Youth In Minnesota: A statewide survey of people without permanent shelter. Wilder Research Center, St. Paul, Minnesota:

These type of findings is not something new – here are some more studies from the 1990s:
Feitel (1992) – New York – 150 shelter using youth age 13-22:
21 percent of the boys and 5 percent of the girls said that they had engaged in sex in exchange for ‘food, shelter, money, or drugs.

Rotheram‐Borus (1992) – New York – 206 homeless youth age 11-18:
13 percent of males exchanged sex for money or drugs and 7 percent of females exchanged sex for money or drugs.

Kipke (1995/97) – Los Angeles – 409 street youth age 12-23:
43 percent reported experience with survival sex (46 percent of young men and 32 percent of young women).

Wagner (2001) – Seattle – 289 homeless youth age 13-22:
47 percent of females and 37 percent of males were propositioned to sell sex.

Boys are more likely to be arrested, and girls are more likely to be guided toward social services, if caught.
(Sources: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/203946.pdf and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/us/a- ... share&_r=0 )


So, to the point then, other than educating people about sex trafficking and gender.
Do you think society needs to refocus the issue away from girls and women and towards boys and men, or toward a neutral look at the issue?
I'd say so. I'd also say the UN needs to do more to dispel the illusion that this is a womens issue, as do some private and government organizations.

Would you support a law demanding equal coverage in campaigns about the issue? I would, because:

“NGOs have figured out that they can appeal to the public, donors and funders if they emphasize sex trafficking of girls. These organizations have a vested interest in defining the problem in one way over the other. Using the term women and girls frequently has a very clear purpose in attracting government funding, public and media attention but boys who are victimized are being ignored because most of the resources are devoted to girls,” Weitzer said.

http://www.alternet.org/gender/demystif ... en-victims

I'd say all such similar behavior should be prohibited by law, frankly.
It's interesting that we see similar rates of reporting across different cultures, usually around twice as many males as females, dropping to in some areas males only slightly outnumbering females. I think this does a lot to bolster the credibility of the findings and rule out the self-reporting complaint. (As it does not appear to matter how much a society stigmatizes sex or homosexuality, the rates of reporting remain similar.)

(Tehedit)
EDIT:
It was pointed out to me that I should clarify.
The thread isn't entirely ripped from elsewhere. My prompts to discussion are original.
The sources and all quoted bits are, as well as the title since it seemed an appropriate one (Though I added, "And gender.")
Basically, if it's in quotes, it's not mine. The rest is. This, as far as I know, meets the standards for posting, especially as i've acknowledged all sources in the OP.
The information shown was not collected by me, but that doesn't strike me as odd, considering we have similar threads quoting news stories with a line or two prompting discussion and giving the OP's opinion. If anyone thinks this violates the rules, I invite them to take it up with moderation.
(If a moderator swings by and reads this, I give permission to delete this portion of the post if they determine the thread is kosher.)


TEHEDIT2!
Additional sources.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben-ach ... 91551.html

[Knockturn Alley]

Well I see your point and yes both sexes should be
helped, and yes awareness of sex trafficking of young boys should be spread but the fact remains that society is more ill-disposed towards women than men so spending more time and resources on young girls involved is sensible. Especially when it comes to conservatives, girls are more vulnerable.

EDIT: I didn't check the sources presented in the OP so I guess in US boys are equally vulnerable so yep more should be done to help young boys as well.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well I see your point and yes both sexes should be
helped, and yes awareness of sex trafficking of young boys should be spread but the fact remains that society is more ill-disposed towards women than men so spending more time and resources on young girls involved is sensible. Especially when it comes to conservatives, girls are more vulnerable.

Source? Because I just showed you a bunch that would suggest the exact opposite.

[Second Blazing]

Well I see your point and yes both sexes should be
helped, and yes awareness of sex trafficking of young boys should be spread but the fact remains that society is more ill-disposed towards women than men so spending more time and resources on young girls involved is sensible. Especially when it comes to conservatives, girls are more vulnerable.

It actually affects boys more but fuck it cuz feels.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well I see your point and yes both sexes should be
helped, and yes awareness of sex trafficking of young boys should be spread but the fact remains that society is more ill-disposed towards women than men so spending more time and resources on young girls involved is sensible. Especially when it comes to conservatives, girls are more vulnerable.

It actually affects boys more but fuck it cuz feels.

Feelz > Realz. You're right. It's an admission of sexism on their part, basically. They think women are more helpless, just because, and nevermind all the facts and shit I showed to say otherwise.

[Rhubenstein]

I think a lot sex abuse issues should take a more gender neutral tone. I think it's fine to specifically address girls and women and specifically address boys and men as victims but neither of these narratives should take away from either of these causes I.E. Using the statement "Men get raped too" to silence or detract from a conversation about women who are rape victims or vice versa helps no one. The conversations should address the specific stigmas and stereotypes that go along with the victims. We have this narrative built up that tells us that men are the aggressors and women are victims; that women are weak and men are strong. Stereotypes help no one. So yeah, I think it's important to have discussions and come up with solutions that specifically cater to boys and men who are victims.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think a lot sex abuse issues should take a more gender neutral tone. I think it's fine to specifically address girls and women and specifically address boys and men as victims but neither of these narratives should take away from either of these causes I.E. Using the statement "Men get raped too" to silence or detract from a conversation about women who are rape victims or vice versa helps no one. The conversations should address the specific stigmas and stereotypes that go along with the victims. We have this narrative built up that tells us that men are the aggressors and women are victims; that women are weak and men are strong. Stereotypes help no one. So yeah, I think it's important to have discussions and come up with solutions that specifically cater to boys and men who are victims.

Like a homes for homeless whites charity, and one for blacks.
That'll be a good thing for society, right?
Why does it need to be segregated at all? There already are groups dealing with the male victims.
The problem is, the female ones get way, way more money and attention because of sexism in society. This segregation is directly responsible for male victims being ignored. I think it should be banned.
You can discuss how it effects both genders. You don't need separate conversations for it.

[Rhubenstein]

I think a lot sex abuse issues should take a more gender neutral tone. I think it's fine to specifically address girls and women and specifically address boys and men as victims but neither of these narratives should take away from either of these causes I.E. Using the statement "Men get raped too" to silence or detract from a conversation about women who are rape victims or vice versa helps no one. The conversations should address the specific stigmas and stereotypes that go along with the victims. We have this narrative built up that tells us that men are the aggressors and women are victims; that women are weak and men are strong. Stereotypes help no one. So yeah, I think it's important to have discussions and come up with solutions that specifically cater to boys and men who are victims.

Like a homes for homeless whites charity, and one for blacks.
That'll be a good thing for society, right?
Why does it need to be segregated at all?

I'm talking about addressing specific stigmas attached to each gender's victims. People don't believe men are rape victims because "men always want sex" or because "you were stronger than her, just push her off" or "as a 14 year old boy, I would have loved if my hot teacher had sex with me". Whereas with women it's more like "why did you walk down the street all alone at night" or "look what you were wearing" or "you got drunk and passed out at the party, what did you think would happen?".

[Ostroeuropa]

Like a homes for homeless whites charity, and one for blacks.
That'll be a good thing for society, right?
Why does it need to be segregated at all?

I'm talking about addressing specific stigmas attached to each gender's victims. People don't believe men are rape victims because "men always want sex" or because "you were stronger than her, just push her off" or "as a 14 year old boy, I would have loved if my hot teacher had sex with me". Whereas with women it's more like "why did you walk down the street all alone at night" or "look what you were wearing" or "you got drunk and passed out at the party, what did you think would happen?".

Sure, and you managed to cover both of them in one post.
So why not ban organizations discussing only one of them and force them to include both? The alternative is to let boys be screwed over because of societal misandry and gynocentrism.

[Rhubenstein]

I'm talking about addressing specific stigmas attached to each gender's victims. People don't believe men are rape victims because "men always want sex" or because "you were stronger than her, just push her off" or "as a 14 year old boy, I would have loved if my hot teacher had sex with me". Whereas with women it's more like "why did you walk down the street all alone at night" or "look what you were wearing" or "you got drunk and passed out at the party, what did you think would happen?".

Sure, and you managed to cover both of them in one post.
So why not ban organizations discussing only one of them and force them to include both?

Because specialization works? That's like saying we shouldn't have any animal shelters because there are still homeless people. We shouldn't have any food shelves in developed nations because there are developing nations that have a larger amount of starving people. Addressing one facet of an issue doesn't mean excluding another.

[Metapolis]

Nice post Fluttershy, mind if I copy and past it on other forums ?

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure, and you managed to cover both of them in one post.
So why not ban organizations discussing only one of them and force them to include both?

Because specialization works? That's like saying we shouldn't have any animal shelters because there are still homeless people. We shouldn't have any food shelves in developed nations because there are developing nations that have a larger amount of starving people. Addressing one face of an issue doesn't mean excluding another.

It works for women. It doesn't work for men, as i've shown in the sources.
Society is too gynocentric for it to work for them. People don't give a fuck about males.

[Rhubenstein]

Because specialization works? That's like saying we shouldn't have any animal shelters because there are still homeless people. We shouldn't have any food shelves in developed nations because there are developing nations that have a larger amount of starving people. Addressing one face of an issue doesn't mean excluding another.

It works for women. It doesn't work for men, as i've shown in the sources.
Society is too gynocentric for it to work for them. People don't give a fuck about males.

And you're here advocating on behalf of males. Does this mean that you don't care about women because you're not also advocating for them right now?

[Ostroeuropa]

It works for women. It doesn't work for men, as i've shown in the sources.
Society is too gynocentric for it to work for them. People don't give a fuck about males.

And you're here advocating on behalf of males. Does this mean that you don't care about women because you're not also advocating for them right now?

My advocacy for males isn't directly causing females to be ignored. If it was, you could make that argument.
To be fair, it doesn't work for women much either. A bunch of high profile charities screaming about women being constant victims of everything that men aren't (They are, but shhhh) doesn't make women look like actors, but things acted upon. Hence their trouble being taken seriously in business and such.

[Knockturn Alley]

It actually affects boys more but fuck it cuz feels.

Feelz > Realz. You're right. It's an admission of sexism on their part, basically. They think women are more helpless, just because, and nevermind all the facts and shit I showed to say otherwise.

Never said that once, and admittedly I didn't check the source, so OK I guess boys are equally vulnerable I'll go change my post

[Rhubenstein]

And you're here advocating on behalf of males. Does this mean that you don't care about women because you're not also advocating for them right now?

My advocacy for males isn't directly causing females to be ignored. If it was, you could make that argument.
To be fair, it doesn't work for women much either. A bunch of high profile charities screaming about women being constant victims of everything that men aren't (They are, but shhhh) doesn't make women look like actors, but things acted upon. Hence their trouble being taken seriously in business and such.

And I contend that an organization that caters to women doesn't cause men to be ignored. Men have specific problems, wouldn't it be beneficial to have organizations that would address these problems?

[Ostroeuropa]

Nice post Fluttershy, mind if I copy and past it on other forums ?

Go ahead.

[Olthar]

That's interesting. I certainly didn't expect those results.

[Ostroeuropa]

My advocacy for males isn't directly causing females to be ignored. If it was, you could make that argument.
To be fair, it doesn't work for women much either. A bunch of high profile charities screaming about women being constant victims of everything that men aren't (They are, but shhhh) doesn't make women look like actors, but things acted upon. Hence their trouble being taken seriously in business and such.

And I contend that an organization that caters to women doesn't cause men to be ignored. Men have specific problems, wouldn't it be beneficial to have organizations that would address these problems?

You can contend that all you like, but my sources show otherwise. Do you have counter sources?
Yeh, yeh it would be useful. It'd also be useful if those organizations got government funding. But they won't, because there are no votes in it compared to giving another few billion to a womans group.
Because of societal sexism.
Seperate but equal. (Not really equal, shh.)
Sounds familiar.
Why are you defending segregated facilities? You do realize that's what you're doing right? Defending segregation?

[Great Nepal]

While gender neutral coverage on this and other issues as well as gender-neutral laws and policies should be encouraged and prescribed, I dont see how mandating organization deal with both genders will make any impact or how such laws will be enforced - organizations would simply say "we will take gender neutral approach" and focus on group they want simply claiming it to be part of wider campaign which isn't yielding results on group they aren't interested in.

[Rhubenstein]

And I contend that an organization that caters to women doesn't cause men to be ignored. Men have specific problems, wouldn't it be beneficial to have organizations that would address these problems?

You can contend that all you like, but my sources show otherwise. Do you have counter sources?
Yeh, yeh it would be useful. It'd also be useful if those organizations got government funding. But they won't, because there are no votes in it compared to giving another few billion to a womans group.
Because of societal sexism.
Seperate but equal.
Sounds familiar.
Why are you defending segregated facilities?

You just said these segregated facilities would be useful.

[Ostroeuropa]

While gender neutral coverage on this and other issues as well as gender-neutral laws and policies should be encouraged and prescribed, I dont see how mandating organization deal with both genders will make any impact or how such laws will be enforced - organizations would simply say "we will take gender neutral approach" and focus on group they want simply claiming it to be part of wider campaign which isn't yielding results on group they aren't interested in.

If you phrase the law in such a way as to seize the funds of organizations found not to be adhering to it, they'll obey it.
You can use a reasonable persons test too, same as we use for sexist corporations and hiring. Can you convince a jury you were being gender neutral?
No?
Well then, guess you're fucked.
You can say something like the charitable funds were acquired under false pretenses. Maybe arrest the chairperson too.

[Ostroeuropa]

You can contend that all you like, but my sources show otherwise. Do you have counter sources?
Yeh, yeh it would be useful. It'd also be useful if those organizations got government funding. But they won't, because there are no votes in it compared to giving another few billion to a womans group.
Because of societal sexism.
Seperate but equal.
Sounds familiar.
Why are you defending segregated facilities?

You just said these segregated facilities would be useful.

Nope. I said organizations that dealt with those problems would be useful. Never said they couldnt also deal with womens problems.
A neutral org won't get funds either so long as a womens group exists, because they are the white people when it comes to funding for their problems. The fact people defend this type of segregation baffles me.

[Rhubenstein]

You just said these segregated facilities would be useful.

Nope. I said organizations that dealt with those problems would be useful. Never said they couldnt also deal with womens problems.

So you'd be against an organization that only catered to men's specific needs?

[Great Nepal]

While gender neutral coverage on this and other issues as well as gender-neutral laws and policies should be encouraged and prescribed, I dont see how mandating organization deal with both genders will make any impact or how such laws will be enforced - organizations would simply say "we will take gender neutral approach" and focus on group they want simply claiming it to be part of wider campaign which isn't yielding results on group they aren't interested in.

If you phrase the law in such a way as to seize the funds of organizations found not to be adhering to it, they'll obey it.
You can say something like the charitable funds were acquired under false pretenses.

You wont find organization not adhering to it - you will find organizations that have broad campaign to end sex trafficking regardless of gender except only gender they are interested in is yielding results. Now some judge has to distinguish after the fact if a charitable organization is actually deliberately targeting a gender or they just had good luck with that gender.
Such law would be nice - much in the same way that law banning exploiting of all tax loopholes would... neither would obviously be effective.