Maybe I can approach that question. I don't know if this is going to assist you, but I guess what I would say, as someone who doesn't want to see us move in that direction, is that what I actually see is the opposite. Increasingly now, I attend forums and conferences where I hear people referring to sexually exploited children and youth as “youth sex workers”, and, in fact, arguing for a similar harm reduction approach, which would include extending decriminalization to adolescents in prostitution. I think the push to decriminalize prostitution, particularly to decriminalize the purchase of sex when done in the name of preventing some kind of harm to those involved, will naturally extend that. We've had one sex-workers-rights group in Canada actually call for decriminalization to be extended to the purchase of older adolescents.
I think it's wholly incompatible. The question really is, why are so many of those brought into the sex trade and trafficked underage? It's because it's a marker of inequality. It's a marker of inequality we can see. Young people are vulnerable for exactly the reasons you've heard. They're vulnerable to manipulation; they're vulnerable to promises; they're more vulnerable when their home lives have been difficult and chaotic.
There are all kinds of ways in which girls from all kinds of backgrounds, and sometimes boys as well, can be lured into prostitution by those who promise them the moon. I've certainly seen cases, particularly in suburban and rural areas, where young people, teenage girls, don't even realize they're in prostitution. They're brought to parties, and they're expected to exchange sex for drugs and alcohol. They would just think that they're partying. That's the entry point into prostitution, and they don't ever see the money. It never even flows through their hands.
All we're really doing is identifying youth as having a particular kind of vulnerability, but there are many other kinds of vulnerabilities that are also operative.