"THE Vatican is bracing itself for a rent boy scandal after a convicted paedophile priest apparently sought vengeance by informing on other child abusers in the Roman clergy.
Definition of Rent Boy, Wiki - the act or practice of men providing sexual services to either men or women in return for payment
Similarly to my previous post Child Prostitute , it seems that society seems totally incapable of distinguishing between children and adults when it comes down to prostitution. Girls under 16 who are sexually exploited and prostituted out are wrongly and prejudicially called "child prostitutes", and boys under 16 who are in the same position are wrongly and prejudicially referred to as "Rent Boys".
What is wrong with the correct definition for both sexes? Why is it so hard - for the media in particular - to use the term "prostituted child"?
As can be seen by the definition of Rent Boy, it explicitly refers to "Men", not "Boys". Boys of under 16, like girls under 16, do not "provide sexual services in return for payment" - they do not and cannot consent to this - they are prostituted out by child abusers to other child abusers to be sexually abused and raped. Where is the difficulty in understanding this?
I have nothing against this term being used in it's correct capacity, just not in instances where it describes child sexual exploitation. Just because this is a crime against male children, does not mean that it is less of a crime, and it should be referred to with the same seriousness as sexual crimes against female children should be referred to.
Please stop using this term to describe the sexual abuse of boys - by doing this, yet again you are both trivialising and legitimising this crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment