Article Title:
Child sexual abuse/exploitation and LGBTQI+ children: Context, links, vulnerabilities, gaps, challenges and priorities.
Authors:
Capaldi, Mark, Schatz, Jennifer, Kavenagh, Mark
Summary:
This paper provides a valuable summary and discussion of the vulnerability of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender, queer or questioning and intersex (LGBTQI+) youth to global child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA). In so doing, the authors make several critical points (see article for extensive citations). First, LGBTQI+ status, by itself, does not confer an increased risk for CSEA; instead, risk and vulnerability stem from family, community and societal reactions to individuals with non-heteronormative sexuality or gender. Socio-cultural and religious beliefs and practices condone and facilitate emotional, physical and sexual abuse, peer violence, sexual harassment, family conflict and rejection, which in turn increase a youth’s vulnerability to sexual exploitation. Societal rejection and discrimination often preclude adequate housing and severely limit employment opportunities as well as access to services, and LGBTQI+ youth may perceive their only options for survival to involve street-based living and transactional sex. Bias, discrimination, and violence are particularly extreme for transgender individuals in many countries, with abuse and assault occurring at the hands of lay persons and authority figures. Some cultural practices directly involve CSEA of feminine presenting and non-binary youth, including ‘bacha bazi (‘dancing boys) and ‘hijras’ in South Asia.
Additional Factors:
Religious beliefs and practices frame homosexuality and non-binary gender status as sinful, thus condoning violence, discriminatory laws, and social rejection of vulnerable youth. And common myths such as homosexuality being a sign of weakness, and transgender individuals being immoral and sexually promiscuous, negatively influence not only public opinion but the self-perceptions of LGBTQI+ youth. Internalizing these negative beliefs, individuals may feel helpless, inferior, ashamed, deserving of abuse and reluctant to confide in others or actively seek assistance. This, in turn, may increase their vulnerability to CSEA.
Author Conclusions
The authors argue that to address risk and vulnerability of LGBTQI+ youth to CSEA, we must use a socio-ecological framework, considering the impact of gender-based violence and harmful socio-cultural beliefs regarding sexuality at the individual, family, community, and societal levels. Research specifically focusing on LGBTQI+ individuals will help in identifying risk and resilience factors and may inform prevention and intervention programs.
