There are several determinants that call into question the prevailing view, in society, of males as victims of CSE, also evident in the lack of discourse surrounding this (CEOP, 2011; DfE, 2011; Barnardo’s, 2014; Cockbain et al. 2014; McNaughton Nicholls et al. 2014; Public Petitions Committee, 2014). A review of the literature has revealed a wealth of opinions regarding the influence of gender constructions and stereotypes in negating the victimhood of males. One example is Andersen’s statement that…’men are refused (both by themselves and by ‘culture’) the position of being in need of help or of weakness’ (Andersen, 2013, p.236).
This statement refers to the multi-determined nature of such constructs rather than existing in a vacuum, which is discussed in the following chapter, the theoretical framework. The dominant concepts of masculinity portraying males as tougher than females, more likely to be in a position to control their situation and to resist another having power over them, both from a physical and emotional perspective, do not align with conventional fundamentals of victimhood: those of weakness, helplessness and in need of support (Lilywhite and Skidmore, 2006). Instead they create a polarisation of thinking, shaping the prevailing view, in society, of females as victims and males as perpetrators (Mahalik et al. 2003a; Connolly, 2006; Dennis, 2008; Firmin, 2013), a free agent whose masculinity makes him ‘an active participant in every social milieu’ (Dennis, 2008, p.21) and able to resolve any problems he may find himself in. This all serves to sustain the invisibility of males as victims of CSE.
In a similar vein, the needs of male victims of trafficking or violence, including domestic abuse, can be overshadowed by the existence of a radical feminist theoretical perspective that positions females only as victims of male violence (Pearce, 2002; Hall, 2012). Such stereotypical views also serve to hinder professionals from gaining knowledge about male CSE, stifle confidence in addressing it, or fail to see it as a priority. This can lead to a perception that young males require less supervision and are, therefore, offered less as they get older. Each example highlights the existence of a hierarchy of victimhood, potentially positioning female victims of CSE as priority
38
over males. This raises the question, to what extent such beliefs may serve to impede the identification of female-on-male perpetration, an issue examined in the next sub-section.
Whether as a result of gender construction or other reasons, two, albeit much earlier, examples demonstrated the active differentiation between males and females. Dating back to early legislation, it can be seen, explicitly and implicitly, as having separated the genders. Firstly, the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, used to deal with males who were seen to persistently solicit for immoral purposes, did not define the behaviours of the male as prostitution; neither was there any requirement to prove persistence as required for females. Even at this historical juncture, I would conclude there was a differential gendered view of how the activity of prostitution was perceived. The meaning of this is perhaps open to interpretation, however, one could hypothesise that, because the males’ behaviour was not categorised as prostitution, it could either be seen as a denial of the existence of male prostitution, or not deemed possible for males to act as prostitutes.
Secondly, prior to 1994 the UK legal definition of rape was limited to cases of forced or non- consenting vaginal penetration, thus excluding males as victims of sexual assault (Bullock and Beckson, 2011). Cases of forced or non-consenting anal penetration were dealt with under the legal statute of ‘buggery’, however, there was a lesser penalty for this than there was for rape, suggesting less significant harm caused by it. Whilst this law was also applicable to female anal penetration, it could be argued males may be more likely to be the subject of this offence. I would suggest, at that time, there was inherent disparity in the recognised level of harm to males. offence.
Such gendered distinctions within the current legislative framework are no longer present;
however, they do reflect the potential for differentiation between male and female victims of CSE. It is critical that interpretation and application of the legislation into practice does not replace such disparities between male and female victimhood in the context of CSE. Similarly, although the policy context of CSE has also progressed over the last two decades, the continued lack of
39
discourse concerning young male victims raises concern as to how this also influences interpretation of policy within practice. One example of this concerns the current definitional context of CSE, discussed in section one, and whether it supports the recognition of males as victims. The ‘intangible’ element of the ‘exchange’ perceived as love, affection, attention, and protection may be less likely to be associated with males than females. For example, the
traditional model of CSE, that of the older boyfriend7 may lead professionals to perceive females as the only victim and as having more to gain by way of emotional or ‘romantic’ benefits.
Similarly, the gendered assumption of a male being more able to protect himself may inhibit identification of any threat towards him.
An additional factor that may compound the invisibility of males as victims of CSE relates to the masculine trait, referred to by Levant et al. (1992), as being non-expressive of emotions relating to vulnerability. Some contemporary studies on masculinity have highlighted the lack of
emotional vocabulary or emotional readiness in males, compared to females, to verbally communicate their feelings (Kring, 2000; Sorsoli et al. 2008; McNaughton Nicholls et al. 2014) potentially appearing uncooperative and/or not being emotionally vulnerable.
As mentioned above, the propensity to view the young male as perpetrator rather than victim has been well documented. It is to this aspect I now turn.