What is enough? A study that actually provides the numbers you claim it does.
The U Penn study purported to count “at risk” kids. Unless there is some evidence that allows us to calculate a reliable percentage of “at risk” kids that actually become sexually exploited children, then all this figure shows is that these are the number fo kids at risk. Period.
It’s obvious that “827” is useful if one wanted solid evidence of the low-water mark: since 827 arrests were made of under-18 sex workers, we can say with great confidence that this is a minimum number. What we cannot say is how much greater the real number is. Do arrests capture one of every ten? One of every 25?
Where are those surveys?
I found one: M.H. Silbert and A.M. Pines, 1982, “Victimization of street prostitutes,” Victimology: An International Journal, 7:122.
But I also found that to find and interview their sample group, Silbert and Pines hired interviewers who were former prostitutes and current clients of a substance abuse treatment treatment center in San Francisco. They make no attempt to correct for any biases on the part of the interviewers or describe how the interviewers found their subjects. All the interviewed subjects were drawn from the streets of San Francisco and apparently from the social circle of the interviewers.
These are serious methodological problems with that approach.
I did explain… I took the number of people I knew who had worked in the sex trade while I was a teen in the size of city I lived in, and divided by population locally, then multiplied by the population of the USA.
Canada’s population is just under 1/10th of the USA, our culture is nearly identical, so multiplying by 10 should yield closer numbers.
Here is another study.
It seems Canada has done significant research into youth prostitution, where the USA hasn’t - so it makes sense to look at the neighbour’s stats if you want a realistic number, unless you don’t want a realistic number…
I’ll look for more later on Canadian numbers and also some more papers which state that most prostitutes start as youths. They are out there in droves.
That approach assumes the per capita incidence of underage prostitutes in Hunts Points in the Bronx is identical to the per capita incidence of underage prostitutes in Ames, Iowa.
And while your link is Canadian, the bulk of studies they refer to are American.
Perhaps you could quote the section from that link that you feel supports your thesis?
It of course would be averaged, I’m pretty sure there are some small towns with a problem.
But, this is getting totally off the point. Do you think the 827 annual arrest reflect 100% of the youth prostitution market in the USA in a year? That is what the Village Voice is claiming.
I am saying that I do not know the exact number, but I think it is significantly higher based on what I have observed in my life - and North America wide. I think it is closer to 125,000 based on my own method - but my method is not scientific and I admit that.
I am also saying using the number of arrest is a worst indicator for this issue thank either U Penn or anecdotal evidence due to many factors with youth prostitution, including police apathy and youth lying about their age and being loyal to pimps.
I am saying the Village Voices article, which insults an actor, and calls the U Penn study propaganda is bad journalism, and it is trying to be like FOX news.
Canada has done more research, and has numbers far higher - even for yearly arrests. And extrapolating Canadian numbers would give you a number way higher than 827, even for arrests!
Here is Canada’s arrest numbers.
The number when goggling that keeps coming up for Canada is about 10,000 child prostitutes across Canada - so if you consider the USA has over 10 times the population - 100,000 is reasonable in the USA for a guess.
All of you who don’t believe the 100,000 to the 300,000 number, where is your evidence? Where is your scholarly study?
The Village Voice was not journalism, nor was it scholarly and even got numbers wrong - so that doesn’t count. It called a U Penn studies number propaganda and insulted an actor, and it’s Seattle numbers were 1/6 the real arrests. The Village Voice lied… Fox news style.
What bone do you who wish to disbelieve a scholarly article and believe the bad journalism of the Village Voice have in this? Do you just wish the busy bodies would not legislate sexual morals? I wish for the same thing, in fact, I know if there were legal brothels I may have a few more friends living today, so I am for the legalization, as long as the cops can clean up the exploitation of youth, and prosecute bad johns so that ADULT WOMEN who choose to work in the sex trade are safe.
What does “averaged” mean? Your method calculates the total populations by counting the incidence of youthful prostitutes in one city and stating that the entire country’s average is the same. I contend that this is an invalid method of reasoning, because the incidence of underage prostitutes will be lower, or non-existent, in small towns.
No, I don’t believe that’s accurate either.
Are you reading the links you provide?
Here’s a sentence from that PDF that you just linked:
So going by the report and the numbers that you presumably endorse, 97% of prostitution arrests in Canada were of individuals over 18.
Jeepers, must be quite the burden to be able to peer into everyone’s soul and know exactly what’s going on, Sookie.
Oh wait, you can’t. Let me enlighten you: you are not the standard by which all human experience is measured. You are mistaken; accept it.
No, they don’t. They present that number as evidence that the 100-300K is crap, they are not and did not say that the arrests represented all the child prostitutes.
I suggest you take note of what Bricker is saying:
“The relatively small proportion of youths (12 to 17 year-olds) charged may reflect their frequent diversion to social service agencies by police, and the use of other deterrence practices aimed at juveniles.”
So, where do you think the numbers are?
Where are they between ~800 and 300,000 - and what evidence, what studies, what research (NOT INCLUDING THE HIGHLY BIASED UNJOURNALISTIC UNSCHOLARLY AND INFLAMMATORY ARTICLE BY VILLAGE VOICE).
I personally think more research needs to be done, but I do think once research is done, the number will be much bigger than ~800 - but lower than 300,000.
So then if you have no idea - why is it hard to believe that the numbers may end up on the high end of that range.I have data, albeit anecdotal from my own life, I am venturing a guess that the number will be around 125,000. What evidence other than the VV’s bias, poorly written drivel is there that the number would be low?