If you’re a regular visitor to this site, you may have already read through the comments on a recent post challenging a ridiculous claim that “the average age of entry into prostitution in the United States is 12″. The evidence offered by the group to support their claim was a quote from a Department of Justice website:
“The average age at which girls first become victims of prostitution is 12-14….”
That was apparently derived from a university study (top of page 92).
What the advocacy group failed to mention is that the statistic they surgically culled from the DOJ website clearly excludes adult prostitutes. When you’re only looking at children, the age is obviously going to be very young.
Leaving out that very crucial distinction implies that the average age for entry into prostitution, in general, is 12-14. Why is that important? Because it suggests that those advocating for the cause may be willing to intentionally distort the facts to achieve a greater impact on their audience. It calls into question the objectivity of the entire production. Furthermore, using exaggerated information to solicit funding and donations or influence legislation poses ethical questions.
Have a look at the trailer for a new documentary called FLESH: Bought and Sold in the U.S. Be sure and watch all the way to the end.
Of all the statistics they could have used to get people’s attention, they picked that one. Maybe they got their facts from another source.
I bet it wouldn’t be hard to create your own hysterical statistics, present them as fact, and have organizations like “With More Than Purpose” and people like Kristin Ross Lauterbach (writer/director of “Flesh”) eagerly lap them up. I’m sure there’s a lot more donations & grants to be had when your numbers are more extreme.
Maybe you can get them claiming prostitution starts at age 6 by the DVD release.
Im not too sure exactly what the argument is here?
Ofcourse the statement is in relation to children, the movie is in relation to children – specfically young women who are manipulated, coerced and forced into illegal activity of prostitution. The Statement is relevant for the topic and is in context. They arent streamline presenting the genre of ADULT prostitution that occurs through choice.
The DOJ website does in fact state that the The majority of American victims of commercial sexual exploitation tend to be runaway or thrown away youth who live on the streets who become victims of prostitution are aged 11 -12.
Depending on the study’s research parametres and methodolgy, there are always going to be differences in the provision of information based on process.
There is a significant amount of fact based evidence that show that it happens to children and young people in this age bracket and younger.
Unless ofcourse you debate that it is illegal and feel the practice does no harm, I’m sure you can see the need for both public education as well as targeted resources aimed at both victim rehabilitation and the prosecution of perpetrators.
Fact or Fiction? Are you serious? You question that the practice even occurs? Exaggerated? I don’t think so. Spend a single night in the life of one of these young victims feeling what they feel and experience what they experience and I’m confident that you would come to the conclusion that even ONE (1) victim is too much.
Whatever resources we as a community can provide to minimise the occurence of this abuse, and assist in the victims recovery is more than justified.
I dont really think that this particular topic is one that falls under the ‘Humanity’s Stunning Irrationality Toward All Things Sex Related.’ banner. To trivialise the matter would be an injustice to victims who need us to understand and fight to make our communities a safer place for all out children.
(To you; BoogaFRITO – the age of 6 years is a common practice in some locations, particularly Cambodia, where sex tourism is rife and local men believe that having sex with virgins cures them of AIDS.) I’ve seen reports on a victim as young as 4 months.
Louella,
Thanks for your perspective. However, I stand by my contention that the statement at the end of the trailer implies that the average age of entry into prostitution, in general, is 12-14 and, if based on the referenced DOJ source, is a serious misrepresentation of the data.
Your defense of the claim does nothing to refute that.
I leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether the claim in the video is credible and what the underlying motives might be if they deem it to be inaccurate.
By the way, a statement of fact that is untrue, is fiction.
Of course, it could just be a mistake. Mistakes happen and organizations with integrity admit to them and take action to correct them. For example, newspapers routinely issue retractions when they make errors.
LOL! Sheesh! All they would need to do is quote that part of your comment that says “prostitution starts at age 6″!
I don’t think the rescue groups make numbers up, but I don’t think they are inclined to check their “facts” for accuracy or credibility, especially if the numbers are dramatic and help them to elicit a favorable response to their solicitations. I also think they commonly drop the word “estimate” and present their claims as concrete facts.
From what’s been posted here. their contention seems to be that the numbers are unimportant (which doesn’t keep them from using them) and that the ends justify the means (if only one child is saved it doesn’t matter how we did it).
One of the problems of serious discussion of sex work aka prostitution is semantics, and statistical confusion often arises, commonly over the age at which persons first engage in prostitution, over studies of street sex workers being used as representative of sex workers in general, and over studies of sex workers in one part of the world being used inappropriately in other parts of the world in a way which would be regarded as ridiculous if used with other classes of workers.
Good blog, must add it to my blogroll.
Dave, do you have access to any document that states the producers of FLESH sourced that comment from the DOJ document you referenced?
If not, you don’t know where they sourced the information for the statement in question. There is nothing for me to refute at this stage. You are only assuming that IF based on the referenced DOJ source, then it is a serious misrepresentation of the data.
If you doubt the Integrity of the information you have every right to request Objective Qualifiying Evidence that supports their claims.
My personal opinion is it could be supported by a number of released reports, a few of which I have read. It could perhaps be one of those.
I did go on to read the report you made reference to (thankyou, I had not seen it previously), and have also read the Trafficking in Persons Report 10th edition (2010) released by the Department of State. You can find that here if you are interested (specific information in relation to human trafficking, including child sex trafficking); http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/142979.pdf
I don’t really understand the motive of this particular blog article, especially since you arent aware of the integrity level of the source statement in querstion.
It is all about suggestion and personal opinion in relation to motive, based on no factual information at this point.
If it was to create discussion, so far – there’s the 3 of us, but to what end?
If we had some evidence that showed the statement was in fact false and or manipulated that would provide more of a basis for your personal opinions.
Perhaps a read through some of your other blogs might provide some context to the assumptions and opinions you’ve presented here.
Louella,
First you come in and say the “of course the statement is in relation to children”. Now you say they may have derived the claim from some other source. I appreciate your attempts to defend them, but you’re clearly grasping at straws.
You say you don’t understand the motive of my article, but I’m pretty sure it would be impossible to make it any plainer than I already have.
That 12-14 figure is bandied about and misused repeatedly and the source, when it’s given, points back to the DOJ website. If the 12-14 figure from the university study is true, then it would be hard to believe that a study which included adults would yield the exact same result. But, who knows. As I said in the post, “Maybe they got their facts from a different source.”
By the way, thanks for the link to the state department trafficking reports. I am somewhat familiar with those reports. I know that rescue groups like to reference government sources because it lends credibility to their claims. However, government claims are not exactly a shining model of accuracy either. A case in point is the 12-14 figure so often cited from the DOJ site. That figure was derived from interviews with 107 young girls and yet is almost universally, and erroneously, claimed to be applicable to the entire U.S. population.
All I get from the rescue organizations is arguments about how the accuracy of their numbers doesn’t matter. Never does anyone say, “Oops, we screwed up. We will fix that.” Why is that? Is it because their interest in painting a dramatic picture trumps their interest in painting an accurate picture?
Stephen P,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. I will be sure to drop by your site in the next day or two. I’m finding that you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the problem regarding how statistics are used and abused.
[edit] Ah-ha! I just realized I’ve already been to your site and have a link to it. I just didn’t recognize it from the web address. I probably should have remembered that, but I one have one memory cell left and it’s usually tied up trying to remember my name.
Dave,
Although I sometimes struggle with it, I personally think it is very important to study the information provided to you when in conflict with your own opinion.
In this case, I’ve read your comments and more of your blogs, taken what has merit and tried to understand your motivation and position more. I do not consider that to be grasping at straws. I consider that to be a reasonable attempt to become more informed for the purpose of participating in this discussion.
RE MOTIVATION and MANIPULATION of DATA;
In comparison to your views, my nature tends to lean more towards a less cynical view.
In my opinion, the motivation of this documentary is about educating people on the topic at hand. Usually education leads to a range of behaviours which are not always about the provision of money. Things such as recognition, and reporting processes,
NUMBERS VS DRAMATIC PICTURE;
Numbers. in my opinion arent required to ‘paint’ a dramatic picture.
Stories and or documentaries which are presented from a personal level are very effective. They are effective because;
- People are able to relate, or
- People are able to empathise with the experience.
What is endured by one (1) person when a victim of sexual trafficking is always DRAMATIC. Sharing that raw, true experience moves people emotionally. That is what then moves people to action. It is NOT the semantics of the numbers.
The number one (1) is all that is required to paint that picture. The sole account is more powerful in influencing people to action on an individual level than any other factor.
NUMBERS/STATS re ALLOCATION of RESOURCES;
The numbers are VERY important when considering the implementation of programs and or resources to deal with the issues in a designated area.
If I were to donate time/money to an organisation, I would do my homework.
If I was in a position of granting funding, I would be taking the semantic statements very seriously in funding applications.
Personally, I would ensure the provision of OQE would be a part of the application criteria.
This is not to deprive the allocation of resources, but more so to ensure they are used appropriately and effectively where they are needed.
You’re welcome re the link to the Trafficking Reports. It gives some interesting insight into individual countries efforts, particularly in relation to Policy,Protection and Prosecution.
I myself dont have an affiliation with any ‘rescue’ group. – First time I have infact heard that generic term used until I visited your blogs.
I think it is important to try and view individual organisations with fresh eyes, and learn about their mission and how they carry out business ‘before’ judgement is made.
If we all loose out ability to do that, we end up with a stereotype, much like the one I feel is presented here. It paints the work of all people with one brush. That’s not always the case, and we can miss out on wonderful initiatives when we do that.
I disagree. What happens to one (1) person is an anecdote. Action isn’t taken because one person was struck by lightning. It’s taken when people are convinced lightning is a leading cause of death (especially for children aged 12 – 14).
This is why every news report and piece of non-profit rescue literature is quick to cite a statistic about how widespread, common, and devastating their particular cause is. You will not find one that doesn’t. It’s the basis for their income (and in the case of news reports, their reader-/viewership) and status. It’s the only way they can guarantee they are taken seriously.
I would say this blog is not simply making a “semantic” argument. Statistics are the very foundation of the rescue industry. Relying on misleading or bogus statistics to drum up the hysteria they desire is not just fundamentally dishonest, it preys on the public’s basic moral goodness and sympathies. Receiving support and publicity by making fraudulent claims should not be an acceptable business model, even if their stated intentions are good (apparently the defense-du-jour when questionable numbers are bandied about–but how can you “educate” someone with facts that aren’t true?).