Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

An Exploratory Study of Adolescent Pimping Relationships

2014, The Journal of Primary Prevention

https://doi.org/10.1007/S10935-014-0338-3

Abstract

In the last decade, public attention to the problem of commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC) has grown. This exploratory qualitative study examines adolescent pimping relationships, including how urban youth perceive these types of relationships. Study data stem from interviews with three young adult informants with first-hand knowledge of adolescent pimping, as well as three gender-specific focus group discussions with a convenience sample of 26 urban high school students who have first-or second-hand knowledge of adolescent pimping. Findings indicate that respondents believe teen pimping exists in their schools and communities, and that those exploited typically do not self-identify as victims. Respondents also believed that younger pimps are more likely to use violence to induce compliance among the girls they exploit, whereas older pimps are more likely to emotionally manipulate young women into exploitation. Further, respondents indicated that some young people agreed to exchange or sell sex for money as a favor to their boyfriends or girlfriends, and some young people believed that selling sex is acceptable under certain circumstances. The growing attention to CSEC provides an important opportunity to expand prevention efforts to reach those most affected and at risk for exploitation. The findings highlight critical areas for augmenting traditional content in school-based HIV/ STI and sexuality education classes.

References (10)

  1. Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. NY: NYU Press.
  2. Estes, R., & Weiner, N. (2001). The commercial sexual exploitation of children in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/restes/CSEC_Files/Exec_Sum_ 020220.pdf. Retrieved 1 Aug 2012.
  3. Eyre, S. L., Read, N., & Millstein, S. G. (1997). Adolescent sexual strategies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 286-293.
  4. Kennedy, M. A., Klein, C., Bristowe, J. T. K., Cooper, B. S., & Yuille, J. C. (2007). Routes of recruitment into prostitution. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 15(2), 1-19.
  5. Melrose, M. (2002). Labour pains: Some considerations on the difficulties of researching juvenile prostitution. Interna- tional Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5, 333-351.
  6. Mitchell, K. J., Jones, L. M., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2011). Internet-facilitated commercial sexual exploitation of children: Findings from a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23(1), 43-71.
  7. Norton-Hawk, M. (2004). A comparison of pimp-and non- pimp-controlled women. Violence Against Women, 10, 189-194.
  8. Reid, J. A., & Jones, S. (2011). Exploited vulnerability: Legal and psychological perspectives on child sex trafficking victims. Victims and Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-Based Research, Policy, and Practice, 6(2), 207-231.
  9. United States Congress. (2007). Sexual exploitation of children over the internet. House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-109HP RT31737/html/CPRT-109HPRT31737.htm. Retrieved 1 Aug 2012. United States Department of Justice. (2003). Assessment of U. S. activities to combat trafficking in persons. Washington, DC: Author.
  10. Williamson, C., & Cluse-Tolar, T. (2002). Pimp controlled prostitution. Violence Against Women, 8(9), 1074-1092.