❖ In prevalence studies from England and Wales 15% of females and 5% of males experience some form of CSA before the age of 16 (perpetrated by adults and peers) (Kelly and Karsna, 2017).
❖ The highest levels of international estimates of CSA suggest it affects 30% of females and 23% of boys (Kelly and Karsna, 2017).
❖ Based on 55 studies across 24 countries, prevalence rates of CSA ranged from 8 to 31% for girls and 3 to 17% for boys (Barth et al. 2013).
❖ One in six boys, as opposed to one in three girls, aged 13 to 17 years, reported experience of some form of sexual partner violence (Barter et al. 2009).
❖ Approximately 30% of childhood victims of sexual abuse are male (Fergusson and Mullen, 1999).
Two meta-analyses showed CSA as affecting:
❖ 18% girls and 8% boys (an international study by Stoltenborgh et al. 2011);
❖ 19% girls and 8% boys (an international study by Perdea et al. 2009).
These figures show consistently lower rates of CSA amongst males compared to females. Moreover, the figures shown for both CSA and CSE above show an even lower percentage of CSE amongst males compared to females than the comparative figures for CSA. Allnock (2010) suggests one conclusion to be drawn from this is that CSE is a more recent concept than CSA, therefore, more robust research and awareness of the issue may produce more equitable figures in the future.
In addition to CSA and CSE, other forms of abuse also show lower levels of young males as victims. This has been demonstrated in studies in relation to sexual violence within adolescent peer relationships (Barter et al. 2009; Beckett, 2011; Hamby and Turner, 2013; Beckett et al.
23
2014; Cockbain et al. 2014; Firmin et al. 2016). A UK study of young people undertaken by Barter et al. in 2009, of which there were 581 males and 597 females, found almost half as many males compared to females (16% as opposed to 31%) had experienced violence within an intimate relationship. Despite the smaller percentage of males to females who had experienced this, males reported a higher level of sexual victimisation. The relative difference in percentage of male to female victims of some form of sexual assault by peers correlates with an American study by Hamby and Turner (2013) where 32% of males compared to 68% of females reported
experiences of this.
Moynihan (2018) argues, irrespective of the prevalence of CSE amongst males, there should be concurrent recognition of them as victims and that this currently represents a gap. I fully agree with this and believe greater awareness and recognition of CSE amongst males within the UK will improve our knowledge regarding prevalence. As important as this is, it is our comprehension of the varied and complex ‘models’ through which young people become exploited (McNaughton Nicholls et al. 2014) that is also critical in aiding the recognition of CSE. The following sub-section considers some manifestations of this.
2.7 Manifestations of CSE
To fully conceptualise young people as victims of CSE it is critical to understand the nuances of how they are sexually exploited, often referred to as ‘models of CSE’. Writing in 2009, Pearce contested the use of one dominant model to explain CSE, arguing that such an approach failed to take account of the various processes at play for the different groups of young males and
females. This referred particularly to the ‘grooming’ model of the ‘older boyfriend’, probably the first conceptualisation of CSE. This was supported by Melrose (2010) who posited that this model provided us with:
24
…a partial, ahistorical and decontextualized explanation which masquerades as a universal ‘truth’ and which pretends to explain the involvement of all young people at all times and in all places. (Melrose, 2010, p.17).
Further research studies have extended understanding of manifestations of CSE. However, the presentation of ‘models of CSE’ within the literature are overly simplistic, with the reality being more complex and interrelated one with another. I will now turn to consider some of the earliest and later models of CSE encapsulated in the literature and implications in relation to victim gender, followed by more recent contributions specifically in relation to young males. The following three models were developed by Barnardo’s from 1998.
Perhaps the first model of CSE which informed much of the early understanding about the phenomenon was the boyfriend model. This described a situation whereby a predatory adult (usually male) masquerades as the ‘boyfriend’ of a young person and grooms them into a relationship with him, before coercing or forcing them to have sex with his friends or associates. This model highlighted the stages of grooming whereby the perpetrator would identify the victim and their vulnerabilities; gain their trust; fulfil their needs, whether these be ‘tangible’ or
‘intangible’; isolate them from other meaningful relationships they may have; sexualise their relationship in an attempt to normalise and/or desensitise them to the planned sexual exploitation; and maintain control of them in order to ensure their silence and continued co-operation.
The inappropriate relationship is similar to that of the boyfriend model with the exception that the intention of the perpetrator is not to force the victim to have sex with others. Instead they groom the young person in order to have control over them. As well as the sexual element, the control can also be physical, emotional, and financial. There can often be a significant age gap with the perpetrator being much older than the victim; nevertheless, the young person believes they are in a loving relationship.
25
The third model, organised or networked sexual exploitation or trafficking, is a form of CSE that is usually characterised through the coercion or forcing of young people into sexual activity with multiple perpetrators and often passed through networks of perpetrators and over various geographical locations. Within these scenarios the victims are sometimes forced to ‘recruit’ other young people into the network.
The term commercial sexual exploitation of young people had been used for a number of years as an overarching term to describe CSE, irrespective of gender of victim but usually associated with a male perpetrator. It has been used to describe where the victim, or a third person(s) were perceived to have received renumeration of some kind for the sexual activity of the child or young person. Traditionally associated with the ‘street scene’, it was seen to be later supported by the Internet and mobile phone communication (Lillywhite and Skidmore, 2006; McNaughton Nicholls et al,.2014). Historically, where it was recognised with young males, it was referred to as the ‘rent boy scene’, now considered an inappropriate term. However, Brayley et al. (2014) argued that the involvement of young males in commercial sexual activity had been largely overlooked within the published literature. The model was reintroduced by McNaughton Nicholls et al. (2014), making the distinction between ‘prostitution’ historically being associated with young females and ‘commercial sexual exploitation’ being associated with young males.
Peer on peer exploitation is described as featuring physical, sexual, and emotional abuse occurring within friendship groups or intimate relationships (Firmin et al. 2015). The concept challenges the assumption that all perpetrators are adults. In a study by Beckett (2011) in NI, 24% of sexual exploitation cases were reported to have involved some degree of exploitation by peers. Peers solely perpetrated nine per cent whilst 15% was perpetrated by both peers and adults.
Related to peer on peer sexual exploitation is that which is youth gang related CSE. The model of exploitation within gangs is explained in Firmin (2015) and Beckett et al. (2013) as primarily
26
involving young people who are in, or associated with, a street-based group who engage in a range of criminal activity and violence. Beckett et al. (2013) highlighted how youth gang-
associated sexual exploitation is influenced by multiple factors including wider social patterns of sexual violence and power dynamics surrounding gender.
Online sexual exploitation is that which is facilitated by technology. It can occur through social media, online games, and through other channels of digital communication (Bentley et al. 2017). The behaviours related to CSE include the sharing of sexual or abusive images of children under the age of 18; inciting a child to sexual activity; sexual exploitation; grooming; sexual
communication with a child; and causing a child to view or watch videos of a sexual act (Sexual Offences Act, England and Wales, 2003).5 Within these contexts the model of online grooming and exploitation has commonalities between young males and females. It should be noted that CSE facilitated online can also be linked to that which is offline.
The risk of sexual exploitation via technology is present for both young males and females. However, it is suggested girls are more likely than boys to be victims of it (Wolak et al. 2005; Whittle et al. 2013). The literature highlights certain groups of young people may be particularly vulnerable to online CSE; these include those with learning difficulties, those with mental health difficulties, and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Their desire to achieve social interaction with others in a way that they do not feel able to offline can mean they may not fully understand potential risks involved with online contact (Palmer, 2015).