6 ms·

What makes me very uncomfortable is that are enough men that not only not care about, but actually enjoy rape to make it a huge market. This is not something t

by dimitar 11y ago

What makes me very uncomfortable is that are enough men that not only not care about, but actually enjoy rape to make it a huge market. This is not something that happens "between two consenting adults". If you read the article you'll see that there is no way in hell that they don't know what they are participating in. In fact many seek out the worst treated girls. There looks to me that there are more than one type of prostitution and maybe going after a particular type of John is very reasonable.

pluma 11y ago
The sad truth is that rape (like many disturbing behaviours including murder and child abuse) is entirely natural, it's not actually aberrant behaviour. Of course we're capable of recognizing it as harmful behaviour we would rather not see happen, but that's a matter of "ought" not "is". I think the best bet at preventing rape is education and empathy (violence becomes more difficult if you can relate to your victim). But with human trafficking the situation is a bit more difficult than with "rape culture" at large: the victims are in a uniquely helpless position, legal (or social) consequences are practically absent and as a "customer" you're already engaging in a highly illegal environment. Psychologically this is entirely different from overpowering or drugging a free person and raping them. Our best bet at preventing rape in human trafficking is likely just to eliminate human trafficking -- which seems like a worthy enough (if Herculean) task in itself.
- erikb 11y ago
  I agree with that rape itself is natural. And there are many instances in which even consenting sex is more exciting because it contains rape fantasies like calling the other one nasty names, hurting each other, bondage games etc. Stories like 50 shades of grey show that it is not just a male instinct to rape but also a female instead to be conquered. Power and sex are hard to separate. Education and empathy is a really strong step to fight rape, I also believe that. I remember to have been reading that seeing and understanding another person's pain can result in us having the same emotional reaction as when experiencing the pain ourselves. Therefore increasing empathy might make the experience of raping someone as unpleasent to the rapist as for the victim. I don't believe in that we are able to stop trafficking people, drugs, or anything else. When there's demand there are people who want to deliver. But it's true, when there are two impossible task at hand, which could you choose? I also don't believe that it's possible to break that sex-power relationship which results in rape.
  - pluma 11y ago
    Human trafficking is, essentially, modern slavery. As far as I know the two biggest sources of victims are: 1. people (frequently children, especially girls and women) being "sold" into slavery out of financial desperation or pressure from organized crime. 2. emigrants being tricked by traffickers, thinking they're buying a ticket to freedom in a better place but actually accruing "debt" they are then forced to "pay off" doing illegal sex work. Both of these are social problems in as much as they are crime problems. Crime thrives on social and economical instability. A naive plan of action would include: 1. Decriminalizing sex workers and illegal immigration to empower the victims who are too afraid to go to the police even if they could. 2. Improving the socio-economical situation in the victims' countries of origin, especially by curbing corruption and improving their human rights situations (e.g. reducing sexism) but also by improving social welfare and socialized health care. But I'm just navel-gazing, really. I have no experience with human trafficking and I'm just a middle-class white male so I can only make rough guesses at best.
    - kirsebaer 11y ago
      > Human trafficking is, essentially, modern slavery. Almost all "human trafficking" is willing migrants paying someone to help them cross a border (into US, EU, etc).
      - erikb 11y ago
        Sure about that? I thought the term refers to people who are brought against their will or by lie to another country. Definition from google: the illegal movement of people, typically for the purposes of forced labour or commercial sexual exploitation.
        dublinben 11y ago
        Smuggling immigrants across a border is still "the illegal movement of people" and counted in the trumped up "human trafficking" statistics that are bandied about.
- geon 11y ago
  By your definition, everything that ever happens is natuaral. That makes the word completely meaningless.
  - pluma 11y ago
    Yes, but what gave you the idea that "natural" equals "good"? I'm using the term entirely objectively. Of course everything that happens in nature is "natural". That's what the word means. The distinction I'm making should be obvious: a behaviour that happens in other, closely-related animals, especially if it happens quite frequently, and especially if it is "beneficial" in natural selection (like lions killing their young, chimps raiding and murdering other groups or dolphins engaging in gang rapes), is by definition "natural" and shouldn't be surprising if it occurs in humans. Non-consensual sex (i.e. rape in the most straightforward sense) is one such behaviour. That it shouldn't be surprising doesn't mean we should tolerate it or that we can't do anything about it. We're in the quasi-uniquely privileged position that we can reason about our collective behaviour and decide what kind of behaviour we do or don't want to tolerate and what we can do about it. In other words, because we're capable of sculpting our own human nature, yes, the term "natural" is pretty arbitrary when it comes to human behaviour. But it's entirely appropriate when looking at how other species behave without our interference.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      You're trying to be reasonable and logical, which is good. But I think you err in looking to animals to define what is natural behavior for humans. Doing that collapses the enormous gulf which lies between animals and humans. And it also generalizes across all humans. Instead, I think it's better to consider what is "natural" for certain societies and cultures. For example, most people in average, relatively prosperous Western countries (and many Eastern ones) would not "naturally" treat another human being the way the "clients" in the article do. A few sociopaths, but that's a very small percentage of the population. Why? I think it's pretty simple: it's how people are raised. Children who are raised by loving parents, taught to treat others well, disciplined when they don't, grow up to be adults who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. But a child who is raised by abusive parents, who witnesses the parents treating others like animals, may grow up and emulate that behavior. If they are taught that it's acceptable to treat other humans like animals and property, then that is what they will do. Nature vs. nurture is a bit of a false dichotomy. No one grows up in a vacuum. People are shaped by family, society, culture. People tend to emulate what they see. Getting people to change their behavior and values by reasoning with them is very difficult, and impossible with some people. This is an element that seems sorely lacking in the article: there's no mention of cultural and societal values. She mentions corruption in police and judicial systems, and she calls for unilateral, cross-border action--which would effectively be going to war. She doesn't recognize that you can't fix those problems by going to war, because war doesn't rewrite societal values. (On the other hand, one might point to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and post-WWII as counter-examples, but I think that is a bit different: it was a world war, and the nations were occupied for many years afterwards, and a government had arose which lead the people in evil ways. The cultures weren't necessarily innately evil in their values.) The reason human trafficking flourishes in these places and police and judicial corruption allow it to continue is that the societal values are corrupt. There's an element of oppressive governments not accurately reflecting the values of the people as well, but still, the government isn't forcing these atrocities to occur. And to bring it back to where we started: by defining "natural" by what seems natural to animals, you perpetuate the problem. Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. You might say that that's circular reasoning, but if we agree on that basic morality, regardless of where it comes from, then it stands. And therefore, the reason these other places continue to allow it is because of defective moral values in a large percentage of the population. That isn't a popular thing to say, because it's "judgmental." Well, yes, I do judge that that behavior is abhorrent, and that the people engaging in it and permitting it are acting abhorrently. And if you want to argue that it's not a result of defective cultural values, you'll have to do better than an "animal nature"-based argument, because that would logically erase cultural differences. And, no, a few outliers in cultures that largely don't have the same problem do not wash away the distinctions. Some cultures do have better moral values than others. (If you disagree with this, you're a moral relativist, and there's no basis for discussing it.)
- api 11y ago
  I applaud the courageous comment. Everyone should take a moment out of their day from time to time to take a whack at the idea that natural equals good.

by dimitar 11y ago

pluma 11y ago

The sad truth is that rape (like many disturbing behaviours including murder and child abuse) is entirely natural, it's not actually aberrant behaviour. Of course we're capable of recognizing it as harmful behaviour we would rather not see happen, but that's a matter of "ought" not "is". I think the best bet at preventing rape is education and empathy (violence becomes more difficult if you can relate to your victim). But with human trafficking the situation is a bit more difficult than with "rape culture" at large: the victims are in a uniquely helpless position, legal (or social) consequences are practically absent and as a "customer" you're already engaging in a highly illegal environment. Psychologically this is entirely different from overpowering or drugging a free person and raping them. Our best bet at preventing rape in human trafficking is likely just to eliminate human trafficking -- which seems like a worthy enough (if Herculean) task in itself.

erikb 11y ago
I agree with that rape itself is natural. And there are many instances in which even consenting sex is more exciting because it contains rape fantasies like calling the other one nasty names, hurting each other, bondage games etc. Stories like 50 shades of grey show that it is not just a male instinct to rape but also a female instead to be conquered. Power and sex are hard to separate. Education and empathy is a really strong step to fight rape, I also believe that. I remember to have been reading that seeing and understanding another person's pain can result in us having the same emotional reaction as when experiencing the pain ourselves. Therefore increasing empathy might make the experience of raping someone as unpleasent to the rapist as for the victim. I don't believe in that we are able to stop trafficking people, drugs, or anything else. When there's demand there are people who want to deliver. But it's true, when there are two impossible task at hand, which could you choose? I also don't believe that it's possible to break that sex-power relationship which results in rape.
- pluma 11y ago
  Human trafficking is, essentially, modern slavery. As far as I know the two biggest sources of victims are: 1. people (frequently children, especially girls and women) being "sold" into slavery out of financial desperation or pressure from organized crime. 2. emigrants being tricked by traffickers, thinking they're buying a ticket to freedom in a better place but actually accruing "debt" they are then forced to "pay off" doing illegal sex work. Both of these are social problems in as much as they are crime problems. Crime thrives on social and economical instability. A naive plan of action would include: 1. Decriminalizing sex workers and illegal immigration to empower the victims who are too afraid to go to the police even if they could. 2. Improving the socio-economical situation in the victims' countries of origin, especially by curbing corruption and improving their human rights situations (e.g. reducing sexism) but also by improving social welfare and socialized health care. But I'm just navel-gazing, really. I have no experience with human trafficking and I'm just a middle-class white male so I can only make rough guesses at best.
  - kirsebaer 11y ago
    > Human trafficking is, essentially, modern slavery. Almost all "human trafficking" is willing migrants paying someone to help them cross a border (into US, EU, etc).
    - erikb 11y ago
      Sure about that? I thought the term refers to people who are brought against their will or by lie to another country. Definition from google: the illegal movement of people, typically for the purposes of forced labour or commercial sexual exploitation.
      - dublinben 11y ago
        Smuggling immigrants across a border is still "the illegal movement of people" and counted in the trumped up "human trafficking" statistics that are bandied about.
geon 11y ago
By your definition, everything that ever happens is natuaral. That makes the word completely meaningless.
- pluma 11y ago
  Yes, but what gave you the idea that "natural" equals "good"? I'm using the term entirely objectively. Of course everything that happens in nature is "natural". That's what the word means. The distinction I'm making should be obvious: a behaviour that happens in other, closely-related animals, especially if it happens quite frequently, and especially if it is "beneficial" in natural selection (like lions killing their young, chimps raiding and murdering other groups or dolphins engaging in gang rapes), is by definition "natural" and shouldn't be surprising if it occurs in humans. Non-consensual sex (i.e. rape in the most straightforward sense) is one such behaviour. That it shouldn't be surprising doesn't mean we should tolerate it or that we can't do anything about it. We're in the quasi-uniquely privileged position that we can reason about our collective behaviour and decide what kind of behaviour we do or don't want to tolerate and what we can do about it. In other words, because we're capable of sculpting our own human nature, yes, the term "natural" is pretty arbitrary when it comes to human behaviour. But it's entirely appropriate when looking at how other species behave without our interference.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    You're trying to be reasonable and logical, which is good. But I think you err in looking to animals to define what is natural behavior for humans. Doing that collapses the enormous gulf which lies between animals and humans. And it also generalizes across all humans. Instead, I think it's better to consider what is "natural" for certain societies and cultures. For example, most people in average, relatively prosperous Western countries (and many Eastern ones) would not "naturally" treat another human being the way the "clients" in the article do. A few sociopaths, but that's a very small percentage of the population. Why? I think it's pretty simple: it's how people are raised. Children who are raised by loving parents, taught to treat others well, disciplined when they don't, grow up to be adults who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. But a child who is raised by abusive parents, who witnesses the parents treating others like animals, may grow up and emulate that behavior. If they are taught that it's acceptable to treat other humans like animals and property, then that is what they will do. Nature vs. nurture is a bit of a false dichotomy. No one grows up in a vacuum. People are shaped by family, society, culture. People tend to emulate what they see. Getting people to change their behavior and values by reasoning with them is very difficult, and impossible with some people. This is an element that seems sorely lacking in the article: there's no mention of cultural and societal values. She mentions corruption in police and judicial systems, and she calls for unilateral, cross-border action--which would effectively be going to war. She doesn't recognize that you can't fix those problems by going to war, because war doesn't rewrite societal values. (On the other hand, one might point to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and post-WWII as counter-examples, but I think that is a bit different: it was a world war, and the nations were occupied for many years afterwards, and a government had arose which lead the people in evil ways. The cultures weren't necessarily innately evil in their values.) The reason human trafficking flourishes in these places and police and judicial corruption allow it to continue is that the societal values are corrupt. There's an element of oppressive governments not accurately reflecting the values of the people as well, but still, the government isn't forcing these atrocities to occur. And to bring it back to where we started: by defining "natural" by what seems natural to animals, you perpetuate the problem. Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. You might say that that's circular reasoning, but if we agree on that basic morality, regardless of where it comes from, then it stands. And therefore, the reason these other places continue to allow it is because of defective moral values in a large percentage of the population. That isn't a popular thing to say, because it's "judgmental." Well, yes, I do judge that that behavior is abhorrent, and that the people engaging in it and permitting it are acting abhorrently. And if you want to argue that it's not a result of defective cultural values, you'll have to do better than an "animal nature"-based argument, because that would logically erase cultural differences. And, no, a few outliers in cultures that largely don't have the same problem do not wash away the distinctions. Some cultures do have better moral values than others. (If you disagree with this, you're a moral relativist, and there's no basis for discussing it.)
api 11y ago
I applaud the courageous comment. Everyone should take a moment out of their day from time to time to take a whack at the idea that natural equals good.