Despite the complexity and ambiguity of interactions between CSE and youth offending, as stated above, previous research has revealed two primary reasons for CSE experienced young males to be involved in criminal activity: firstly, coercion into criminality by exploiters as a means of
initiation into and control over their sexual exploitation; and secondly, criminal behaviour as a manifestation of trauma, experienced as a result of sexual exploitation (Cockbain et al. 2014; Fox, 2016;). However, criminal behaviour as a manifestation of CSE is not always recognised by professionals (Fox, 2016) or indeed by young male victims themselves.
55
It is possible to understand reasons as to how offending behaviour can mask CSE amongst young males. One reason may evolve from the reluctance of young males to report experiences of exploitation if he is also involved in offending, believing he may lack credibility given his criminal reputation or he may not want to draw attention to his criminal behaviour. Research evidence showed young male victims of CSE, with criminal behaviour, to be likely to receive, perceive or expect a negative response from professionals (Cockbain and Brayley, 2012; McNaughton Nicholls et al. 2014). In a study conducted with the Pandora street work project in Bristol (Darch, 2004), of the 87 sexually exploited boys and young men with whom the project had contact, 98% had a class A drug dependency, most had housing problems and 90% had been in care, placing them all at risk. All had experienced crimes against them, but none had reported these to the police. The research suggested there can be a double barrier for the young male victim feeling he is not worthy of protection or if he does decide to report, considering first if he will be believed. Although this may also be a factor relating to females, as Coy (2009) suggests, the later discussion in relation to professionals will highlight the greater propensity for this to be an issue for males (Darch, 2004).
In a briefing document on youth offending and CSE, University College London (2011) identified nearly 40% of CSE victims were involved in offending, with aggression and dishonesty offences being the most common. Although this figure does not distinguish between male and female, Cockbain and Brayley state ‘male victims are significantly more likely to offend than their female counterparts’ (2012, p.691). Several studies refer to the externalisation of anger and feelings of shame, as a result of exploitation, which can be manifested in outward aggression and other anti- social or destructive behaviours, whilst at the same time, avoiding disclosure (Garnefski and Arends, 1998; Romano and De Luca, 2001; Allnock and Hynes, 2011; McNaughton Nicholls et al. 2014; Fox, 2016). In contrast, many of these authors suggested females tended to exhibit
internalising behaviours such as guilt and depression. However, Coohey (2010) contests this, stating there is mixed evidence in relation to the internalising behaviour of male and female victims of abuse.
56
2.10 Conclusion
The focus of this chapter has been to provide a conceptual context for this study through a review of the relevant literature. Section one of this review has confirmed there has been a significant shift in the recognition of CSE as a child abuse issue. As a phenomenon it has grown as an issue of concern at social and political levels since the 1900’s. However, this has mainly been
prompted by children’s charities, academics and high-profile cases evidencing failures in the systems tasked with protecting young people from CSE. Undoubtedly, policy, legislative, and definitional contexts relating to CSE have responded positively to the changes, demonstrating a greater understanding of the issues, and giving recognition to the victim status of young people affected by CSE. There is the implicit inclusion of males and females within this. However, through my analysis of the literature, I have concluded, given the complexities entailed with CSE and specific nuances involved for both male and female victims, there is the potential for
inconsistencies in interpretation and application of policy, legislation, and in defining the issue. The existence of these safeguards does not necessarily or naturally translate into equality of practice or provision of services for males and females.
The absence of a UK prevalence study on male CSE is problematic. The known prevalence rates of male CSE illustrate, not necessarily a lower rate of male than female victims, but a need to focus on why our knowledge is more limited in relation to males, and a need to improve
recognition of it alongside more robust statistics. This review has lent heavily on the literature in relation to male CSA highlighting fundamental gaps in the research specific to barriers to
recognition of male CSE.
There has been a welcomed recognition that one single model of CSE is limiting. It is
advantageous to have additional knowledge regarding models or routes into CSE for males, and to acknowledge, as McNaughton Nicholls et al. discerned from their study …’complex
intersections of different factors appear to influence the different models of sexual exploitation by which boys and young men are victimised’ (McNaughton Nicholls et al. 2014, p.24).
57
Section two provided a critique of issues discussed in section one by determining what is distinctive to male victims of CSE that results in less recognition of their victim status. Gender constructions, and in particular masculine ideology, was exposed as a significant influencing factor in this discourse; the latter because the sexual exploitation of young males violates a prevailing perception in society of all that is masculine. This theme permeates throughout the remainder of this chapter when also considering perpetrator gender and the role of offending behaviour in the lives of male victims of CSE.
Research focusing on the sexual exploitation of young males has only begun to gain prominence in recent years, with an increasing appreciation of difficulties in relation to the recognition, and hence the low rate of known cases (Beckett, 2011; Berelowitz et al. 2013). However, in the absence of more focused research into these barriers to disclosure and the impediments to identification, fundamental gaps exist in knowledge and understanding, and inevitably limit the degree to which we can effectively protect boys and young men from this form of abuse. The concept of the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ suggested by O’Connell-Davidson (2011), establishes a moral hierarchy which, currently, does not appear advantageous towards male victims of CSE. Theoretical frameworks can help us understand these complex issues; the subject of the next chapter.