Words shape our reality. They influence how we perceive problems, set priorities and develop solutions. Language has immense power, especially in the sensitive area of child protection. It can educate, protect and heal – or it can trivialise, stigmatise and hurt. The conscious choice of our words and phrases is therefore not only a question of linguistic correctness, but a fundamental act of protection against sexual exploitation and abuse.
‘Child prostitution’: A term that harms and obscures
The term ‘child prostitution’ is explicitly classified as a term to be avoided in ECPAT International’s Terminology Guidelines. At first glance, this may seem surprising, as it is used in many legal and media contexts. However, the reasons for this recommendation are profound and essential for the protection of children:
1. Implication of consent and legitimacy: The main criticism of ‘child prostitution’ is that the term could falsely suggest consent or even legitimate ‘work’ on the part of the child. However, it is of utmost importance to emphasise that a child is never capable of consenting to their own sexual exploitation or abuse. Any alleged ‘consent’ by a child to exploitative or abusive acts is legally null and void.
2. Shifting the blame: Terms such as ‘child prostitute’ run the risk of shifting the blame onto the child and making them responsible for the crime they have suffered. ‘The word “child prostitute” should not be used; it should not be used to describe a child who is a victim. […] We should never use this term to describe a person or child who is experiencing sexual exploitation.’
3. Downplaying the severity: Using the word ‘prostitution,’ which in the context of adults is often associated with ‘sex work,’ can trivialise the extreme severity and criminal nature of child exploitation. Sexual exploitation of children is a crime and a serious human rights violation, not a form of work.
4. Legal precision: Inconsistent terminology can lead to inconsistent laws and policy responses, making it difficult to develop effective safeguards. Countries such as the United Kingdom have already removed all references to ‘child prostitution’ from their legislation, such as the Serious Crime Act 2015, and replaced them with ‘sexual exploitation of children’.
ECPAT International recommends instead, in its Terminology Guidelines, terms such as ‘exploitation of children in/for prostitution’ or ‘children exposed to sexual exploitation in prostitution’. These formulations make it clear that the child is a victim and emphasise the act of exploitation by the perpetrator without attributing (co-)responsibility to the child.
The ‘lover boy’ myth: a dangerous trivialisation of emotional manipulation
It is important to emphasise that the colloquial term ‘lover boy’ describes a real and dangerous phenomenon that fits seamlessly into the concepts of child sexual exploitation covered in the Terminology Guidelines – in particular, so-called ‘grooming’.
‘Grooming’ is the official term defined as the deliberate targeting and recruitment of children for sexual purposes. It is a gradual process in which an adult – often via the internet, but also through direct contact – builds an emotional bond with a child in order to subsequently sexually abuse or exploit them. The main methods used are building trust, emotional manipulation and exploiting a power imbalance.
The so-called ‘lover boy method’ is a particularly perfidious form of grooming: perpetrators deliberately feign a romantic relationship in order to make children and young people emotionally dependent – with the aim of pushing them into sexual exploitation.
The following points show why the term ‘lover boy’ is problematic:
1. Romanticisation and trivialisation of crime: The term ‘lover boy’ implies a romantic or loving relationship (‘lover’), which in reality is deeply manipulative and criminal exploitation. This trivialises the seriousness of the crime and distorts public perception of it. It distracts from the fact that these are forced sexual acts based on fraud, deception and the abuse of a position of trust.
2. Victim blaming and shifting responsibility: Focusing on a ‘relationship’ – even if it is only feigned – can lead to victims being perceived as “complicit” or acting ‘voluntarily.’ This directly contradicts the principle that children can never consent to their exploitation and that responsibility always lies with the perpetrator.
3. Distortion of the perpetrator-victim dynamic: It is important to clearly distinguish between perpetrators and victims and to understand the complex perpetrator typologies. A ‘lover boy’ perpetrator is a perpetrator of sexual offences against children who exploits his position, whether through manipulation or feigned affection, to commit sexual exploitation.
4. Lack of legal recognition and handling: Since ‘lover boy’ is not an official or legal term, its use can complicate legal prosecution and lead to gaps in protection. ECPAT International’s guidelines emphasise that it is crucial to broaden the definition of grooming to include ‘meetings’ in the online sphere and not just require physical meetings, as perpetrators often do not intend to meet in person at all, but manipulate children into producing sexual images or videos. This underscores the importance of precise terms that cover the full range of exploitation.
To adequately describe the criminal acts behind it, official and precise terms such as ‘grooming children for sexual purposes’ or ‘(sexual) enticement of children online’ should be used. These terms emphasise deception, manipulation and exploitation and make it clear that the child is the victim who needs protection and support.
Words matter: responsibility begins with naming
Inconsistent language and terminology can lead to confusion, hinder legal development and complicate data collection, resulting in flawed responses and ineffective methods for measuring impact or setting targets. Avoiding stigmatising or blame-assigning terms such as ‘child prostitution’ and colloquial trivialisations such as ‘lover boy’ is a central aspect of a victim-centred approach. The aim is to protect the dignity of those affected and to make it clear that the responsibility for abuse and exploitation always lies with the perpetrators.
The choice of our words is a powerful tool in the fight against sexual exploitation and abuse. By using precise, respectful and non-stigmatising terms, we create a basis for more effective laws, better protection mechanisms and a society that fully respects the rights and dignity of those affected. Language is power – let’s use it.
Translated by Anna Smith
#Kinderprostitution #Loverboy-Methode #childprostitution #Sprache #Loverboy #sexuelleAusbeutung #Grooming #Kinderschutz #Menschenhandel #Ausbeutung #AgainstHumanTrafficking #GegenMenschenhandel #EndExploitation #EndTrafficking #HopeForTheFuture #Österreich
