Sex Trafficking and Gender.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nope. I said organizations that dealt with those problems would be useful. Never said they couldnt also deal with womens problems.

So you'd be against an organization that only catered to men's specific needs?

Yes.

If you phrase the law in such a way as to seize the funds of organizations found not to be adhering to it, they'll obey it.
You can say something like the charitable funds were acquired under false pretenses.

You wont find organization not adhering to it - you will find organizations that have broad campaign to end sex trafficking regardless of gender except only gender they are interested in is yielding results. Now some judge has to distinguish after the fact if a charitable organization is actually deliberately targeting a gender or they just had good luck with that gender.

Sure. Like when we have trials about pay gaps and hiring practices. Fine by me. We still sometimes win those.
If a campaign yields very lopsided results and the charity doesnt spend a lot of time and money figuring out why and how to fix it, we can be sure they're just being sexist and nail them for it.

[Rhubenstein]

So you'd be against an organization that only catered to men's specific needs?

Yes.

Okay. So how would you enforce that equal treatment was given to both men and women in every organization?

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes.

Okay. So how would you enforce that equal treatment was given to both men and women in every organization?

Well, you can demand that any television advertisements or leaflets or poster campaigns etc devote equal time to the issue.
Or you can demand a straight up division of funds. Plenty of ways.
You could do what we do for sexist hiring and payment practices and have it just be based on if an employee sues the company.
If one of your workers for the group isn't convinced the company is neutral, they can sue, and a judge/jury will decide.
Or have a watchdog organization do that.
There's a lot we could do.

[Rhubenstein]

Okay. So how would you enforce that equal treatment was given to both men and women in every organization?

Well, you can demand that any television advertisements or leaflets or poster campaigns etc devote equal time to the issue.
Or you can demand a straight up division of funds. Plenty of ways.

Would there be quotas? I assume battered men or battered women shelters would be considered discrimination, yes? So if a shelter received a disproportionately high number of women or men they would what, be audited? Charged with discrimination?

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, you can demand that any television advertisements or leaflets or poster campaigns etc devote equal time to the issue.
Or you can demand a straight up division of funds. Plenty of ways.

Would there be quotas? I assume battered men or battered women shelters would be considered discrimination, yes? So if a shelter received a disproportionately high number of women or men they would what, be audited? Charged with discrimination?

What happens when a company receives a disproportionately high number of male or female applicants?
Nothing.
Because it's proportional.
If they get 500 male applicants for a space and 5000 female ones and only hand out 10% of the spaces to males, that's fine.
If they get 5000 of each and 90% go to women, that's indicitive of sexist practices.

[Rhubenstein]

Would there be quotas? I assume battered men or battered women shelters would be considered discrimination, yes? So if a shelter received a disproportionately high number of women or men they would what, be audited? Charged with discrimination?

What happens when a company receives a disproportionately high number of male or female applicants?
Nothing.
Because it's proportional.
If they get 500 male applicants for a space and 5000 female ones and only hand out 10% of the spaces to males, that's fine.
If they get 5000 of each and 90% go to women, that's indicitive of sexist practices.

Okay, makes sense. How do we handle issues like prostate cancer awareness versus ovarian cancer awareness? Would an organization be able to only advocate for one or would they be required by law to advocate for both?

[Ostroeuropa]

What happens when a company receives a disproportionately high number of male or female applicants?
Nothing.
Because it's proportional.
If they get 500 male applicants for a space and 5000 female ones and only hand out 10% of the spaces to males, that's fine.
If they get 5000 of each and 90% go to women, that's indicitive of sexist practices.

Okay, makes sense. How do we handle issues like prostate cancer awareness versus ovarian cancer awareness? Would an organization be able to only advocate for one or would they be required by law to advocate for both?

That's dealing with a specific issue, and it's not necessarily tied to gender, though it is tied to sex.
Further, the rates are actually different. I'd say that provided the funds don't get too crazily disproportionate i wouldn't want to mess around with them.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose merging the two, but it doesn't strike me as necessary. There are multiple charities for seperate types of cancer. The biggest gender issue I see there is getting people to realize breast cancer kills men too, since theres often a lot of free tests for women handed out.
Basically, while seperate charities for sex exploitation will fuck over males, I don't see how an ovarian cancer charity existing does so. It isn't ignoring males with ovarian cancer, or directly filtering away funds from prostate cancer.

[Rhubenstein]

Okay, makes sense. How do we handle issues like prostate cancer awareness versus ovarian cancer awareness? Would an organization be able to only advocate for one or would they be required by law to advocate for both?

That's dealing with a specific issue, and it's not necessarily tied to gender, though it is tied to sex.
Further, the rates are actually different. I'd say that provided the funds don't get too crazily disproportionate i wouldn't want to mess around with them.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose merging the two, but it doesn't strike me as necessary. There are multiple charities for seperate types of cancer. The biggest gender issue I see there is getting people to realize breast cancer kills men too, since theres often a lot of free tests for women handed out.

Sure, so an awareness campaign directed towards men would be a good thing?

[Ostroeuropa]

That's dealing with a specific issue, and it's not necessarily tied to gender, though it is tied to sex.
Further, the rates are actually different. I'd say that provided the funds don't get too crazily disproportionate i wouldn't want to mess around with them.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose merging the two, but it doesn't strike me as necessary. There are multiple charities for seperate types of cancer. The biggest gender issue I see there is getting people to realize breast cancer kills men too, since theres often a lot of free tests for women handed out.

Sure, so an awareness campaign directed towards men would be a good thing?

I'd prefer just including them in the current campaigning. We don't need women getting the impression that breast cancer is a guy thing.

[Rhubenstein]

Basically, while seperate charities for sex exploitation will fuck over males, I don't see how an ovarian cancer charity existing does so. It isn't ignoring males with ovarian cancer, or directly filtering away funds from prostate cancer.

And here is the meat of it. You and I do have similar views then.

[Ostroeuropa]

Basically, while seperate charities for sex exploitation will fuck over males, I don't see how an ovarian cancer charity existing does so. It isn't ignoring males with ovarian cancer, or directly filtering away funds from prostate cancer.

And here is the meat of it. You and I do have similar views then.

Maybe. But I don't see how the two are comparable.
If sex exploitation was something that literally only happened to women, then ofcourse it would make sense to have a charity devoted to it.
But it's not BECAUSE they are women.
It's because they have ovaries.
I realize that's a distinction without much of a difference, to an extent.

Ovarian cancer FOR WOMEN charity - Bad.
Ovarian cancer charity - Acceptable.

Sexual exploitation for women charity - bad.
Sexual exploitation charity - acceptable.


EDIT:
Basically, a hypothetical man with ovarian cancer should have precisely as much access to the charity and it's resources as women do. Some such men aren't hypothetical, because trans.

[Rhubenstein]

And here is the meat of it. You and I do have similar views then.

Maybe. But I don't see how the two are comparable.
If sex exploitation was something that literally only happened to women, then ofcourse it would make sense to have a charity devoted to it.
But it's not BECAUSE they are women.
It's because they have ovaries.
I realize that's a distinction without much of a difference, to an extent.

And I'm saying that we can have organizations that address the stigmas that only affect men and only affect women. It would be hard from a man's point of view to understand that people will blame a woman for getting raped based on what she was wearing and it'd be hard from a woman's point of view that some people don't believe a guy can even get raped. If an organization can handle both of these sides, great! If an organization wants to specialize towards men or towards women, great! It comes back to caring about a cause doesn't exclude you from caring about another cause. I specifically said we need to talk more about boys and men being victims in my first post.

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe. But I don't see how the two are comparable.
If sex exploitation was something that literally only happened to women, then ofcourse it would make sense to have a charity devoted to it.
But it's not BECAUSE they are women.
It's because they have ovaries.
I realize that's a distinction without much of a difference, to an extent.

And I'm saying that we can have organizations that address the stigmas that only affect men and only affect women. It would be hard from a man's point of view to understand that people will blame a woman for getting raped based on what she was wearing and it'd be hard from a woman's point of view that some people don't believe a guy can even get raped. If an organization can handle both of these sides, great! If an organization wants to specialize towards men or towards women, great! It comes back to caring about a cause doesn't exclude you from caring about another cause. I specifically said we need to talk more about boys and men being victims in my first post.

Ovarian cancer FOR WOMEN charity - Bad.
Ovarian cancer charity - Acceptable.
Sexual exploitation for women charity - bad.
Sexual exploitation charity - acceptable.

EDIT:
Basically, a hypothetical man with ovarian cancer should have precisely as much access to the charity and it's resources as women do. Some such men aren't hypothetical, because trans.

The problem is, you're defending segregation. Because it won't be equal. Because society doesn't give a fuck about men.
I might settle for a law that garnishes the womens charities (Or the mens, sure) of their funds to equalize them.
(If total funds for womens charities = 33 mil, mens = 3 mil, seize 15 and give to mens.)
At least that would be seperate and actually equal, unlike segregation was and is.

[Rhubenstein]

And I'm saying that we can have organizations that address the stigmas that only affect men and only affect women. It would be hard from a man's point of view to understand that people will blame a woman for getting raped based on what she was wearing and it'd be hard from a woman's point of view that some people don't believe a guy can even get raped. If an organization can handle both of these sides, great! If an organization wants to specialize towards men or towards women, great! It comes back to caring about a cause doesn't exclude you from caring about another cause. I specifically said we need to talk more about boys and men being victims in my first post.

Ovarian cancer FOR WOMEN charity - Bad.
Ovarian cancer charity - Acceptable.
Sexual exploitation for women charity - bad.
Sexual exploitation charity - acceptable.

EDIT:
Basically, a hypothetical man with ovarian cancer should have precisely as much access to the charity and it's resources as women do. Some such men aren't hypothetical, because trans.

The problem is, you're defending segregation. Because it won't be equal. Because society doesn't give a fuck about men.
I might settle for a law that garnishes the womens charities (Or the mens, sure) of their funds to equalize them.
(If total funds for womens charities = 33 mil, mens = 3 mil, seize 15 and give to mens.)
At least that would be seperate and actually equal, unlike segregation was and is.

I am not defending segregation. I'm defending specialization. I still care about humans even though I give money to animal shelters. I still care about starving children in other countries even though I give to my local food shelf.

And the blog your original headline came from is sexist (according to your standards)

Tamen's Writings
On male victimization and related gender issues.

[Saiwania]

I'm not sure if I believe this, it is obvious to me that women in general are much more likely to fall victim to human trafficking than men are. There is simply more demand for female prostitutes than there is for male ones. People wouldn't pay a man doing porn as much as a woman, unless he was doing something like "gay for pay." The same principle applies. A man simply cannot bring in as much profit and has a lower market value within the sex industry.

Most criminals aren't going to victimize anyone for the hell of it, they are going to go after where the money is.

[The Conez Imperium]

I'm not sure if I believe this, it is obvious to me that women in general are much more likely to fall victim to human trafficking than men are. There is simply more demand for female prostitutes than there is for male ones. People wouldn't pay a man doing porn as much as a woman, unless he was doing something like "gay for pay." The same principle applies. A man simply cannot bring in as much profit and has a lower market value within the sex industry.

Most criminals aren't going to victimize anyone for the hell of it, they are going to go after where the money is.

Yes as much as common logic says, boys and men are still going to be as abused as girls and women. Also if were talking about trafficking in general, logic would also assume males are more desirable for physical-slave like conditions. A boy is much better carrying weights than a girl....

Also male prostitutes may even have it worse...read about this poor boy. Warning. Confronting story ahead

KATHMANDU, April 6 – Divya sat there and calmly related a quite devastating story of deception, torture and a seven-year life of hell in a male brothel in India.

He, and we will call him ‘he’ although he is a “meta” or feminine male, spoke about his escape from the Mumbai brothel and his return to his native Pokhara in the foothills of the Himalayas. There he was reunited with his loving mother, but found that most people in the city harassed him whey they found out about his life over the past seven years.

There was little compassion, except in his mother’s house. So he left for Kathmandu and the Blue Diamond Society which he had learned about in Mumbai, triggering off his plan to escape back to Nepal.

Divya began working at a very early age to help support his mother, father and two brothers. He was barely a teenager when he started work at the Deurali guesthouse and restaurant.

It was here that he met Manoj Thapa Magar who said he was from Butwal. Divya was made an offer that, as a teen, he could hardly refuse.

He was asked if he wanted to earn more money. And what teen, being the principle bread-winner for his family, would have replied anything but yes.

Divya was told that there was more money to be earned working in restaurants in India and that Manjo had a few friends in Mumbai who would have a job for the youngster. After all, Manjo had lived for a few years in Mumbai before he started working in Pokhara

The youngster immediately agreed, thinking that he would be able to earn more money to help his family.

Together, the two travelled to Mumbai. On arrival, Divya was taken to the Rani Haveli brothel in Mumbai’s seedy Kamatipura red light district. The young Nepali was told he could live and there while he earned a lot of money.

Manjo went out of the room saying that he would be back in a while. Divya waited and waited. It was in vain.

That night, Maharani (brothel owner) came to the youngster and told him that Manoj had left, but he could work there. Divya had no idea what was in store.

Divya was forcefully taught to wear different dresses, including saris, and jewellery. He had ‘vigorous’ training in how to walk and talk like a girl. If he made a mistake he was severely beaten.

Then they taught him how to beg for money, which is a common trait in India for the hijara (castrated males). He was tortured everyday by the owner who brought up to 25 clients a day and was forced to have unprotected sex.

According to Divya, there were between 50 and 60 Nepali metas in Rani Haveli. And Nepali metas are in great demand. The brothel also had Indian metas, known as kothis. All were forced into trafficking.

After a while Divya was sent with a few other hijaras wearing saris to beg in different buildings and even on the train. He said it was really humiliating since he would rather do a hard days’ work than beg.

Divya said that on the days that he couldn’t bring much money, the maharani didn’t give him any food, so he had to go to bed hungry. If he even made one small mistake he was beaten severely, he has scars, burn marks, and stitches to prove these atrocities.

After working there for two years, the brothel owners tried to forcefully castrate him as most of the males brought there are eventually castrated.

But when Divya forcefully refused, they circumcised him since the brothel owner, Maharani – a Muslim, said it was a Muslim brothel and that Divya had to become Muslim.

Link: http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005april/0602.htm

[Threlizdun]

While raising awareness of all sex trafficking and its victims is important, it cannot be divorced from the realities of gender and sexism in society, as such realities are what make it a problem that so disproportionately affects women.

[Olthar]

People wouldn't pay a man doing porn as much as a woman, ...

You're right. He's paid more.

[Ostroeuropa]

While raising awareness of all sex trafficking and its victims is important, it cannot be divorced from the realities of gender and sexism in society, as such realities are what make it a problem that so disproportionately affects women.

The sources say it disproportionately effects boys. So... source?

Because I provided a bunch.

2.1% of school-aged boys (of a representative sample – basically all pupils between 14-17 years old in Oslo were asked to fill out a form – appr. 12.000 pupils) in Oslo had performed sexual favours for payment. The corresponding number for school-aged girls were 0.6%.

Similar numbers show up in lots of studies.
So you're wrong, basically, and relying on a sexist view of the situation to come to your conclusion.
Namely that women are helpless because vaginas, so obviously it happens more to them. (The same outlook that causes the media and governments to focus on women and perpetuate the tropes.)
Unless you can explain where else you got this notion of yours?

I'm not sure if I believe this, it is obvious to me that women in general are much more likely to fall victim to human trafficking than men are. There is simply more demand for female prostitutes than there is for male ones. People wouldn't pay a man doing porn as much as a woman, unless he was doing something like "gay for pay." The same principle applies. A man simply cannot bring in as much profit and has a lower market value within the sex industry.

Most criminals aren't going to victimize anyone for the hell of it, they are going to go after where the money is.

Because your gut feeling is better than dozens of studies. That's how reality works. Feelz > Realz.
Or as Dawkins would say, "Ah yes, they call that one the argument from personal incredulity."
But i'm not sure you could have possibly made such a post. Doesn't feel right to me, because anyone on the forums would know better than to give someone an excuse to post this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

[Zottistan]

Interesting results. I'm all for sex- and gender-neutral treatment of issues like this, just like I was before seeing these results. It'd probably be wise to campaign a bit to shift the perception away from it being a predominantly female issue.

One thing, though. Does selling sexual favours necessitate sex trafficking? I thought sex trafficking usually referred to organized and coercive operations?

[Ostroeuropa]

Interesting results. I'm all for sex- and gender-neutral treatment of issues like this, just like I was before seeing these results. It'd probably be wise to campaign a bit to shift the perception away from it being a predominantly female issue.

One thing, though. Does selling sexual favours necessitate sex trafficking? I thought sex trafficking usually referred to organized and coercive operations?

It's murky. Theres a lot of studies in there, and like I said, I ripped the thread from elsewhere including that part of the title.
It's possibly misleading, though i'm not entirely sure.
I'd argue that underaged prostitution is necessarily coercive by nature. It also includes stats on homeless prostitution, which strikes me as clearly coercive.

EDIT:
It was pointed out to me that I should clarify.
The thread isn't entirely ripped from elsewhere. My prompts to discussion are original.
The sources and all quoted bits are, as well as the title since it seemed an appropriate one (Though I added, "And gender.")
Basically, if it's in quotes, it's not mine. The rest is. This, as far as I know, meets the standards for posting, especially as i've acknowledged all sources in the OP.
The information shown was not collected by me, but that doesn't strike me as odd, considering we have similar threads quoting news stories with a line or two prompting discussion and giving the OP's opinion. If anyone thinks this violates the rules, I invite them to take it up with moderation.

[Zottistan]

Interesting results. I'm all for sex- and gender-neutral treatment of issues like this, just like I was before seeing these results. It'd probably be wise to campaign a bit to shift the perception away from it being a predominantly female issue.

One thing, though. Does selling sexual favours necessitate sex trafficking? I thought sex trafficking usually referred to organized and coercive operations?

It's murky. Theres a lot of studies in there, and like I said, I ripped the thread from elsewhere including that part of the title.
It's possibly misleading, though i'm not entirely sure.
I'd argue that underaged prostitution is necessarily coercive by nature. It also includes stats on homeless prostitution, which strikes me as clearly coercive.

Not misleading so much as a bit confusing. Sex trafficking is inherently bad. Prostitution isn't.

Underaged prostitution isn't necessarily coercive, and neither is homeless prostitution. Both have a much higher potential to be coercive than regular prostitution, especially homeless prostitution, but neither are inherently coercive. Especially not with teens selling sex to other teens, although there's obviously catches with that.

Basically the only way to make sure that prostitution isn't financially coercive is to make sure people always have alternative sources of income. A strong welfare system would probably work.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's murky. Theres a lot of studies in there, and like I said, I ripped the thread from elsewhere including that part of the title.
It's possibly misleading, though i'm not entirely sure.
I'd argue that underaged prostitution is necessarily coercive by nature. It also includes stats on homeless prostitution, which strikes me as clearly coercive.

Not misleading so much as a bit confusing. Sex trafficking is inherently bad. Prostitution isn't.

Underaged prostitution isn't necessarily coercive, and neither is homeless prostitution. Both have a much higher potential to be coercive than regular prostitution, especially homeless prostitution, but neither are inherently coercive. Especially not with teens selling sex to other teens, although there's obviously catches with that.

Basically the only way to make sure that prostitution isn't financially coercive is to make sure people always have alternative sources of income. A strong welfare system would probably work.

The issue would be that currently, I think most governments would call it sex trafficking due to the age of the participants.
I agree that a strong welfare system would alleviate the problem of coercion in prostitution.

[Kaztropol]

In the UK newspapers, I occasionally read stories whereby adult women from Eastern Europe, and in several occasions even further afield, are lured to the UK with false promises of employment, and end up in various forms of sexually exploitative work, as oftentimes their passports were stolen and so on.
This happens often enough, that there are moves to try and ensure that these women are not charged with crimes, when their places of employment are raided by the police. That is, they won't get charged with illegally immigrating and all that, because they are a victim.

Anyway, I read about those stories. But what I don't see, are any stories about young men in similar circumstances.

Which suggests several things: That men aren't being lured in this way, that it is just not being reported, or that there aren't any lapdancing clubs, saunas, massage parlours or other similar businesses, that the organised criminals use as covers for prostitution, that employ men in the same ways as they employ women.

Do you have any statistics showing anything similar ?

E.g. X thousand young E.European women are lured to the UK with promises of factory work or similar, end up in a massage parlour. This appears in the newspapers. How many young E.European men are in similar circumstances, in the UK ?

[Ostroeuropa]

In the UK newspapers, I occasionally read stories whereby adult women from Eastern Europe, and in several occasions even further afield, are lured to the UK with false promises of employment, and end up in various forms of sexually exploitative work, as oftentimes their passports were stolen and so on.
This happens often enough, that there are moves to try and ensure that these women are not charged with crimes, when their places of employment are raided by the police. That is, they won't get charged with illegally immigrating and all that, because they are a victim.

Anyway, I read about those stories. But what I don't see, are any stories about young men in similar circumstances.

Which suggests several things: That men aren't being lured in this way, that it is just not being reported, or that there aren't any lapdancing clubs, saunas, massage parlours or other similar businesses, that the organised criminals use as covers for prostitution, that employ men in the same ways as they employ women.

Do you have any statistics showing anything similar ?

E.g. X thousand young E.European women are lured to the UK with promises of factory work or similar, end up in a massage parlour. This appears in the newspapers. How many young E.European men are in similar circumstances, in the UK ?

There are links provided in the OP showing that male victims of this are likely to be arrested, and female ones are likely to be directed to social services. As for luring, i'm unsure.