Language Matters: Why Our Perception of Child Sex-Trafficking Victims Should Change.
One of my favorite novels is George Orwell’s 1984. It’s one of the original dystopian novels, and in my opinion it’s the best. A major theme in 1984 is the danger of altering language to change our perception of history or reality. In this novel, changing language becomes a weapon for oppression. Sometimes, though, it’s important to question if the language we use actually should be changed. When dealing with the sexual exploitation of children, this is certainly the case.
Consider your perception of a sexually exploited child. Do you picture a “bad kid” who became a prostitute, or do you see a victim of a terrible crime? In a Shared Hope International blog post titled “Why Does It Matter? Wrestling with the intersectionality of language and response,” author Sarah Bendtsen describes how language can affect our perception of the kids who have become victims sex trafficking. According to Ms. Bendtsen:
Ultimately, language shapes how we view a person or issue. Referring to a commercially sexually exploited child as a prostitute not only conjures up a plethora of stereotypes and assumptions, it lays the foundation for the responses that a child will receive. Whereas a “prostituted” child stirs up the misplaced idea of an incorrigibly wild tween who deserves correction and punishment, a child victimized by a serious and systemic sexual crime properly identifies that child as requiring and deserving of protection, sympathy, and services.
On my DVM for Hope Twitter and Facebook pages, I have alluded several times to this issue. If you call a minor child who is a victim of commercial sexual exploitation a “prostitute,” you risk making her the criminal. This mode of thinking leads to the misguided tendency of law enforcement to arrest and prosecute the child instead of her abusers. The unintended consequence of this response may be general mistrust of law enforcement among exploited children, and it may be a factor that drives these kids back into the clutches of their traffickers.
Ms. Bendtsen goes on to discuss how language can affect our perception of the crimes themselves. Once again, to call sex trafficking of children “prostitution” can give the impression that it is a transaction between consenting individuals, or that it is only about money. However, sex trafficking of children is actually child molestation and rape, and all children who are exploited in this way are victims. Once again, according to Ms. Bendtsen:
More bluntly, the underlying crime of child sex trafficking is the raping and sexual molestation of a child. Our society and legal systems rightfully identify this type of sexual conduct between an adult and child as sexual abuse and violence; money neither sanitizes this crime, nor reverses the role of offender and victim.
When dealing with prostitution involving adults, there are various arguments about the criminalization or decriminalization of commercial sex acts and about who, if anyone, should be prosecuted. When dealing with the victims of the commercial sexual exploitation of children, though, it is critical to remember that the intent of the VICTIM isn’t what’s important. These children are not “prostitutes” or “hookers,” they are the underage victims of traffickers and of the men who pay money to prey on children.
So this week, my suggestions for readers are quite simple:
• Consider your perception of the children who are caught in the web of DMST, and make a concerted effort to change the language that you use to describe them ❏
• Hold others accountable for their language, especially our leaders and members of the press. For example, when a news story refers to a child as a “prostitute,” contact the reporter and let her know that “Language Matters” ❏
M.