EE: Sex Slavery Traffic

[tim360z]

a good read for anyone, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html?th

[fencer]

... in response to EE: Sex Slavery Traffic, posted by tim360z on Jan 25, 2004

Lots of skepticism is being heaped on this article, almost holding it up as a case study in bad journalism.

Some people might be interested in some of the commentaries in Slate.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094414/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094502/

They are a great read and give the lie to the notion this article has been "fact-checked out the wazoo before it's published".

[wsbill]

... in response to this story keeps getting curiouser and c..., posted by fencer on Jan 28, 2004

disputing the story, if they don't have the story of the year, well then, it's time to discredit the writer and call it all a hoax...

They're more concerned about a 25% head count differential, verses the other 75% who are stuck doing the deed.

It's simply not their problem or their life.  So they, stick with bashing the writer.  So maybe 3/4 of this story has be fabricated.  *(I certainly wouldn't want to be too factual as these gangs don't fool around, knocking off a accurate reporter would be just too easy to do).

But is that to say it doesn't happen?
--
Sounds like the people who are complaining are worried this will lead to more income to social programs.  Which for the most part typically get by on grants by the Federal Gov't.

Or do they just want to have their names attached to the article as being the critic.  The critic for social injustice.

I guess this is how they make a name for themselves making and vindicating their lifes work, while on their way to becoming a critic for attack government policy.   So in fact, we have two writers or more who are seeking self satifaction and reward, and then theirs the pawn who gets nothing...except exploited for their youth and discarded.

[valuedcustomer]

... in response to EE: Sex Slavery Traffic, posted by tim360z on Jan 25, 2004

Someone transferred this post to the Latin Board so I will respond here.

I would urge men to be skeptical about this article and not just swallow it whole.  

The alleged examples of brutality are so over the top that it has the feel of sensationalistic journalism.  Especially, when the same article admits that the Los Angeles Police Department doesn't consider sex trafficking to be a problem.  

I quote from page 8 of 10: "No Department of Justice attorney or police vice squad officer I spoke with in Los Angeles -- one of the country's busiest thoroughfares for forced sex traffic -- considers sex trafficking in the U.S. a serious problem, or a priority."

Personally, I believe very little from the same media that daily sells me Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and Scott Peterson as truth when it is mostly entertainment for the purpose of selling soap.  O, bye the way, they are all men accused of doing typically nasty male deeds.   Anyone see a pattern here?  Are you a man?  Then there's no hope.  At least according to the parasites that run the american media, maybe you should slit your wrists.  

I also don't see the relevance of bringing this up on a board for men looking for foreign wives.  We are all basically trying our best to escape a culture poisoned against men mostly by the three do-nothing agencies of the american system where parasites are known to thrive most productively: the media, academics, and government.

We all need good information here from experienced men and not more propaganda from the enemy.

Remember: the US media lies and there is a difference between allegations and facts.

[tim360z]

... in response to Re: EE: Sex Slavery Traffic, posted by valuedcustomer on Jan 26, 2004

Hard to disagree with your "logic"  Your sterling intellect?  Any other "gems"

[wsbill]

... in response to uuuummmmhh?, posted by tim360z on Jan 26, 2004

Public relation while in the business to gasing and cremating the Jewish population in the 1935-45.

[valuedcustomer]

... in response to Re: I think he's the same guy who Hitler..., posted by wsbill on Jan 26, 2004

The fact that you can only respond with sarcasm reflects on your intelligence.  An update: as I was driving home tonight I heard that same guy who wrote that article on NPR radio spinning his horror yarns.  So he is obviously making the rounds and cashing in to enhance his career.  You might want to ask yourself why, according to the admissions in his own article, the police don't think there is as much of a problem as he does.  Not everything you see in print is true.  I am just asking the intelligent men out there to look at the article with a skeptical eye.

[tim360z]

... in response to Re: Re: I think he's the same guy who Hi..., posted by valuedcustomer on Jan 26, 2004

10,12,6 and below, even babies.  For those of you thinking this has something to do with the further eroding of your already eroded male rights...you are outta line.  These are kids, female and male. The traffickers go for the kids,  not the 22 or 25 year olds--they are way too old.  Pervs pay more for sex with kids....  

And I fail to see how protecting kids from sexual slavery has ANYTHING to do with your diminishing male rights.

[tim360z]

... in response to Re: Re: I think he's the same guy who Hi..., posted by valuedcustomer on Jan 26, 2004

That sex slavery does not exist?  That it is not a world wide problem?  This is not a real problem with real victims?  Wherein is the lie?  This is only 1 story, the WHO and UN and international government agencies have countless others,  it is not an illusion. It is a problem Putin has fully recognized and made attempts to stop.  There are ample credible resources.  Despite its flaws,  the news organizations merely cast some light on a subject most would rather not have to deal with.  Pure and simple...it is slavery.  Possibly,  you condone it.

The problem is endemic to the former FSU. Do some intelligent research before you start typing. Otherwise,  one would think you are an unintelligent ninkinpoop.

[Mark A]

... in response to Re: Re: I think he's the same guy who Hi..., posted by valuedcustomer on Jan 26, 2004

I didn't really want to get involved in this thread, but what the hey... Without providing any specifics about the article that people find questionable, it's silly to suggest that we discount it.

I have issues with the NY Times, and the recent scandal notwithstanding, you can bet any feature article (particularly a Sunday Magazine piece) is fact-checked out the wazoo before it's published.

I also take issue with the contention that the article is typical feminist male bashing. The author makes a very adamant point on p4 about how women are involved: "Once the Mexican traffickers abduct or seduce the women and young girls, it's not other men who first indoctrinate them into sexual slavery but other women... Women are the principals... the victims are put under the influence of the mothers, who handle them and beat them... Men are the customers and controllers, but within most trafficking organizations themselves, women are the operators... Women are the ones who exert violent force and psychological torture."

Am I reading the same article? In this context, the behavior of women slavers seems to me much more insidious than the men's.

Here in the NYC area, there are a number of "Gentlemen's Clubs" (quotes added for irony LOL) wherein each night a repatronized school bus pulls up full of beautiful young Russian women. At the end of the night, the bus takes them back to Brooklyn. Rumor (and nothing more than rumor, although I won't discount it) has it that the women are slaves under the control of the Russian mafia. The women don't complain (probably out of fear), the people in Brooklyn don't complain, the club owners don't complain, and of course the club patrons don't complain. So why should the police get involved?

[Dan]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: I think he's the same guy wh..., posted by Mark A on Jan 27, 2004

Please tell me you didn't really mean what you said about "So why should the police get involved?"

How about the fact that - according to your own written perspective - the girls are held and kept quiet "out of fear."

Would you want your daughter to be subjected to that kind of bondage - and then promote that others be passive about it?!?

Then, of course, there is the (not so) small matter that the populace elected politicians and legislators that passed laws ruling that specific behavior as illegal. In fact, it is not only illegal, it is a felony (as opposed to a lesser crime of misdemeanor).

And if you really think the NY Times is any less subject to the feminist agenda, you really are smoking something good. Can I get a referral to your source?

- Dan

[Mark A]

... in response to You Have GOT To Be Kidding . . . , posted by Dan on Jan 27, 2004

Dan, you misinterpreted my post. Of course law enforcement should absolutely be involved in looking into this. Someone in this thread was skeptical about slavery being "problem" because the police didn't believe it was widespread enough to be a concern. "If the cops don't think it's a problem, then it doesn't exist" is convoluted logic. By the same token, without specific info or public outcry, the police have other fish to fry.

And for those who think the author is promoting his career by talking about this on NPR... Well duh, the guy broke an important story that deserves further discussion.  

Lastly, there's not a whiff of proof that there's a "feminist agenda" behind the article. I have to laugh at the usual stream of whiners who want to blame their diminished stature on women. Guys: join a support group, read "Iron John," or something, because your constant whining makes you seem--dare I say--womanish.

[tim360z]

... in response to You Have GOT To Be Kidding . . . , posted by Dan on Jan 27, 2004

less to do with feminist agendas.  And the Times vets it's content better than most,  surely better than GW.

[wsbill]

... in response to You Have GOT To Be Kidding . . . , posted by Dan on Jan 27, 2004

What's the name of some of those gentlemens clubs?

http://abroad.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/01/28/011.html

[Dan]

... in response to Re: Maybe the question DAN should asking..., posted by wsbill on Jan 27, 2004

Grows just about anything - or so they say.

Seriously, if you are suggesting that I am somehow supporting or condoning the sexual slavery problem, you aren't reading my messages.

I am - at the same time - *extremely* skeptical about the veracity of stories coming from the press. A tenet of democracy is a free press - and I am thankful we protect it - but it is often influenced by special interest groups (such as the feminists). So I read the stories just like everyone else - and I challenge the positions of the reporter by examining; (a) the laws of common sense, (b) my own experiences to see if they support or refute the article, and (c) whatever agenda the writer may have. I look for other things as well - before I will believe what is written - but, admittedly, that is just *my* style and it may not work for everyone.

- Dan