Is The Hypocrisy?

[sp1814]

I thought that under-age girls could not be described as 'child prostitutes' or 'ten prostitutes'. In reality, they're exploited children.

If this is the case, then aren't these men groomers?

And would Daily Mail readers be more sympathic to her had the men been...browner?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4559646/Oakland-teen-prostitute-cop-sex-scandal-wins-1million.html#comments

[sp1814]

For 'ten' read 'teen'!

(Blame the iPad keyboard or something).

[Jackdaw33]

Any comment from me on the young 'lady' will lead to my immediate suspension so I must decline.

[jno]

I guess; but it started when she was 16, which would be above the age of consent here and makes it hard to think of her as a child. The age in the USA is 18, I think, which has always seemed quite old to me (though it would still be a few more years before she could drink alcohol).

However, in American terms, yes, she's an exploited child.

[naomi24]

//it started when she was 16 ....in American terms, yes, she's an exploited child. //

But not in our terms, so hypocrisy isn't an issue.

[jno]

it depends whether "our terms" are relevant. The Mail website is read in the USA too and readers there may well find it hypocritical.

[naomi24]

True, although I don't think SP expects a great response to his question from America.

[sp1814]

Underage is underage. Here it's under 16, in the US it's 16.

[naomi24]

Not really with you on this SP. The girl doesn't appear to have been 'groomed. She was working as a prostitute.

[hc4361]

She was groomed and pimped out. It is illegal for anyone other than a spouse to have intercourse with anyone under 18 in that part of the USA.

[naomi24]

Groomed by her pimp. Not by the men who had sex with her. I think SP is trying to compare this to Rochdale, etc., but I can't see that it does compare.

[sp1814]

naomi24

I think that when you have young girls 'working' as prostitutes, there must be an element of grooming involved.

At 15, very few girls will independently think, "Hmmm...prostitution sounds like a valid career path."

This girl was exploited by someone, or some people at a crucial stage of her life.

Any bloke in his thirties, whether they work in law enforcement or not, should be able to suss that there is something extremely wrong with a girl of that age working as a hooker.

The needle on their moral compass appears to be broken.

[sp1814]

"Groomed by her pimp, not by the men who had sex with her"

But exploited either way.

[naomi24]

SP, But it doesn't compare to Rochdale, etc., which is what you seem to be implying.

[sp1814]

naomi24

I think it does.

It would love interesting to see what the reactions would be if these men had been Muslim. Do you think the DM reporters would be attacking the girl, or the men who should know better?

I would lay quite a lot of money on the latter.

[naomi24]

sp, I guessed you thought it did. Had it been a gang of men grooming her it would have compared, but it wasn't, and therefore it doesn't.

[sp1814]

naomi24

But I think it goes deeper than comparisons to Rochdale. It's the pervasive sexualisation of young woman (basically girls) in some sections of the media which encourages this attitude that they are viable sex objects.

The 'they know what they're doing' stance is something that we've seen during the historic sex abuse stories over the past few years.

It needs to stop, wouldn't you agree?

[naomi24]

sp, Of course I agree - but I can't see it stopping.

[sp1814]

naomi24

Point of clarification - the Rochdale case was not a gang of men grooming girls.

They were being pimped out by one man who was getting paid by others for sex with the girls.

[sp1814]

I think it's about time it did. I'm sick of seeing stories about some 15 year old in the paper who's 'all grown up', or 'has legs to die for'.

Imagine if the same stories were being written about 15 year old boys!!!

[naomi24]

Right.