Community perspectives on the extent to which transactional sex is viewed as sexual exploitation in Central Uganda.
Adolescent girls and young women
Sexual exploitation
Transactional sex
Uganda
Journal
BMC international health and human rights
ISSN: 1472-698X
Titre abrégé: BMC Int Health Hum Rights
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088678
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2020
01 05 2020
Historique:
received:
30
10
2018
accepted:
19
03
2020
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
5
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Definitions of child sexual exploitation vary. Sexual exploitation violates children's rights and exposes them to mental and physical harm. There exist differences in views of behaviour that is considered exploitative, including transactional sex. This paper explores community perspectives on the extent to which transactional sex is considered exploitative. In 2014, we conducted 19 focus group discussions and 44 in-depth interviews with young people and adults in two communities in Uganda. Participants were presented with vignettes describing sexual encounters between adolescent girls and young women and men to explore under what conditions participants considered the scenario to be exploitative and why. Interviews were conducted in Luganda using a semi-structured tool, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was thematic and complemented by constant comparison and deviant case analysis techniques. Definitions by multilateral, bilateral, and non-governmental organisations of the sexual exploitation of children shared similarities with community conceptualisations of wrong or unfair sex. Although in community conceptualisations there was no consensus on what constituted sexual exploitation, transactional sex was condemned to the extent to which it involved sex with a minor or misled a naïve or immature girl; involved lack of consent, particularly in relationships characterised by power differentials; or worsened the pre-existing status of the girl. Also relevant was the extent to which a man's intentions were considered inappropriate; the adolescent girl or young woman was considered vulnerable; and the adolescent girl or young woman was considered responsible for 'her situation'. Existing social norms that condemn sex with a minor or sex that involves deception, sexual coercion or misleading an immature girl, present opportunities to mobilise communities to protect adolescent girls and young women at risk. Any intervention must, however, be designed with full cognisance of the social and structural drivers that underlie transactional sex and limit adolescent girls' and young women's opportunities to provide for themselves without recourse to sexual relationships with men. Interventions must also be designed to recognise that girls in transactional sex relationships may not consider themselves as exploited, thus requiring engagement with them based on their own concerns, aspirations, and expectations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Definitions of child sexual exploitation vary. Sexual exploitation violates children's rights and exposes them to mental and physical harm. There exist differences in views of behaviour that is considered exploitative, including transactional sex. This paper explores community perspectives on the extent to which transactional sex is considered exploitative.
METHODS
In 2014, we conducted 19 focus group discussions and 44 in-depth interviews with young people and adults in two communities in Uganda. Participants were presented with vignettes describing sexual encounters between adolescent girls and young women and men to explore under what conditions participants considered the scenario to be exploitative and why. Interviews were conducted in Luganda using a semi-structured tool, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was thematic and complemented by constant comparison and deviant case analysis techniques.
RESULTS
Definitions by multilateral, bilateral, and non-governmental organisations of the sexual exploitation of children shared similarities with community conceptualisations of wrong or unfair sex. Although in community conceptualisations there was no consensus on what constituted sexual exploitation, transactional sex was condemned to the extent to which it involved sex with a minor or misled a naïve or immature girl; involved lack of consent, particularly in relationships characterised by power differentials; or worsened the pre-existing status of the girl. Also relevant was the extent to which a man's intentions were considered inappropriate; the adolescent girl or young woman was considered vulnerable; and the adolescent girl or young woman was considered responsible for 'her situation'.
CONCLUSIONS
Existing social norms that condemn sex with a minor or sex that involves deception, sexual coercion or misleading an immature girl, present opportunities to mobilise communities to protect adolescent girls and young women at risk. Any intervention must, however, be designed with full cognisance of the social and structural drivers that underlie transactional sex and limit adolescent girls' and young women's opportunities to provide for themselves without recourse to sexual relationships with men. Interventions must also be designed to recognise that girls in transactional sex relationships may not consider themselves as exploited, thus requiring engagement with them based on their own concerns, aspirations, and expectations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32354329
doi: 10.1186/s12914-020-00228-w
pii: 10.1186/s12914-020-00228-w
pmc: PMC7193338
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11Subventions
Organisme : Oak Foundation
ID : PHGHZC3512
Pays : International
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Nov;168:186-197
pubmed: 27665064
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Jun;158:24-33
pubmed: 27107148
Reprod Health. 2018 Dec 13;15(1):207
pubmed: 30545378
J Int AIDS Soc. 2015 Feb 26;18(2 Suppl 1):19408
pubmed: 25724504
AIDS Care. 2007 Sep;19(8):974-81
pubmed: 17851993
J Prim Prev. 2014 Apr;35(2):113-7
pubmed: 24445410
AIDS Care. 2001 Feb;13(1):83-98
pubmed: 11177467
Glob Health Action. 2015 May 21;8:27249
pubmed: 26001780
J Marriage Fam. 2011 Oct 1;73(5):1048-1064
pubmed: 22180665
Aust Coll Midwives Inc J. 1999 Jun;12(2):6-10
pubmed: 10754809
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Jul 27;19(1):20749
pubmed: 27469061
J Adolesc Health. 2019 Apr;64(4S):S7-S9
pubmed: 30914171
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 11;9(11):e112431
pubmed: 25386901
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Nov 02;19(1):20992
pubmed: 27809960
AIDS. 2005 Sep 23;19(14):1525-34
pubmed: 16135907
Stud Fam Plann. 2000 Mar;31(1):35-46
pubmed: 10765536
Cult Health Sex. 2012;14(3):283-96
pubmed: 22118492
Afr J AIDS Res. 2017 Dec;16(4):283-293
pubmed: 29132281
Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020 Dec;28(1):1700770
pubmed: 31934824
Reprod Health. 2010 Apr 29;7:2
pubmed: 20429913
Int J STD AIDS. 2012 Jul;23(7):468-74
pubmed: 22843999
Soc Sci Med. 1992 Mar;34(5):475-83
pubmed: 1604353
Arch Sex Behav. 2011 Feb;40(1):5-15
pubmed: 20652390
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Oct;59(8):1581-92
pubmed: 15279917
Glob Public Health. 2009;4(2):169-82
pubmed: 19333807
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 2;14(4):e0214366
pubmed: 30939145