What makes men hate women so much that they could do this <trigger warning, post about sexual slavery>

[Absofrigginlootly]

I read this yesterday and haven’t been able to get it out of my head since.

What sort of man could abuse women like this? Leave them bleeding and covered in bruises and not care? She says she had up to 20 men a day for 9 months.... that’s 5,400 men (give or take)

I just can’t get my head around it.

Nor the way she was treated by the police. Or the pathetic sentence that her captures received!!!!

I read on a thread on MN a year or so ago talking about how the patriarchy tries to suppress the true extent of male violence. That news stories always talk about “perpetrators” rather than naming the problem “male violence”.

So every news story I’ve seen since that day I’ve mentally named it to myself as male violence and goodness me it’s everywhere. And you can see how news organisations, the police, the government, the patriarchy do not name the problem intentionally. How most laws are written by men for the benefit of men.

It’s like the wool has fallen from my eyes and once you see it you can’t un-see it.

How do we raise the next generation of boys and men to be different????

'I was kidnapped in London and trafficked for sex' www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45103617

I watched something earlier about "the real Narcos"- an exposition of horrific violence which apparently involves "two or three murders a week" . Awful. And then I thought of the two or three women a week here who are killed by men and wondered where the outrage is about it?

This is why we need the Nordic model asap

Yes and at least Northern Ireland has.

I don't think it's even hate. I think it's indifference

I agree.

If women wrote the laws and the sentencing rules, the traffickers would have got life, the punters would have all been tried for rape, and the unlawful earnings would have been confiscated and used to benefit the women, e.g. to fund therapy for them. But men write the laws, so we get token sentences for the traffickers and the punters get off scot-free.

This just makes me fucking sad. This world is just fucking shit for females. That poor woman and the millions out there that haven't escaped.

I don't understand the sentencing at all.

They specifically changed the law so it was an offence to rape a trafficked woman. But there have been hardly any prosecutions.

Those sentences are disgusting, i dont have the words for the rest

Nordic Model Now. I see so many posts from clueless wokesters who believe that legalising prostitution is the answer to all the problems. Legalising prostitution increases trafficking. It legitimises it. It makes men think they can consume it who would not otherwise have done. It increases demand. There is not enough supply locally as local women in western countries generally done want to be prostitutes. That's when organised crime moves to bring women in that they can control and they want their pound of flesh.

Legalising prostitution merely legitimises a wholly misogynistic belief that women can be paid for and are merely bodies.

So many evil men in the world...they're fucking everywhere! Like diseases! And women, children and animals suffering every second of every minute of every day at their hands...it's overwhelming.😢

If women wrote the laws and the sentencing rules, the traffickers would have got life, the punters would have all been tried for rape, and the unlawful earnings would have been confiscated and used to benefit the women, e.g. to fund therapy for them. But men write the laws, so we get token sentences for the traffickers and the punters get off scot-free.

This. Exactly this.

If women wrote the laws and the sentencing rules, the traffickers would have got life, the punters would have all been tried for rape, and the unlawful earnings would have been confiscated and used to benefit the women, e.g. to fund therapy for them. But men write the laws, so we get token sentences for the traffickers and the punters get off scot-free.

Yet on the rape of the poor goat thread, Stevejobs seemed to think we women should be GRATEFUL for the useless men who established these shitty laws and sentencing.

The sentencing guidelines for these offences give a starting point of 8 years with a range of 6-12 years. Sounds as if the Judge has been very unduly lenient or the facts are different from those in the BBC article.

BTW Here is a link to the good folk on the Sentencing Council , for those wondering on the mix of men and women currently on it.

If the incidence of rape in India is so high, it rather puts paid to the argument that male, sexual offenders are the perverted few, as has been argued.

Women would be much more sensible to treat all men as potentially dangerous until they have substantial evidence to the contrary. Which is unfortunate for the good guys I suppose, but it's their mess to deal with. And not just in India.

In India there are 63 million "missing girls". That is, girl children aborted, killed at birth or abandoned. So, like China after the one-child policy which vastly favoured boys, there is now a lack of women.

It speaks volumes for male culture and porn culture, that rape is an acceptable substitute.

"Rapes have become the new normal in my country. So much so that India’s supreme court made headlines itself on Monday, asking: “What is to be done? Girls and women are getting raped left, right and centre.” This is unusual practice for a supreme court anywhere, and underlines the gravity of the situation. Justice Madan Lokur of the supreme court pointed out: “The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data observes that a woman is raped every six hours in India.”

Even the highly regarded Tata Institute of Social Sciences, in Mumbai, has reported the abuse of minors and women. It uncovered evidence while conducting a social audit of government shelters earlier this year. A medical report confirmed 34 girls had been sexually abused.

The 10-year-old in Uttar Pradesh begged the police to save her and her friends. Every evening, she said, red, black, grey cars came and took her friends away. They brought them back in the morning and the girls cried all day. Please help them, she pleaded. Predictably, she captured hearts and headlines. So it became national news."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/sexual-violence-india-rape-pornography

So these people got 4 and 5 years for trafficking girls to work in a nail bar but trafficking women and facilitating thousands of rapes gets 2 years
I just don’t get it

Nail bar traffickers jailed for modern slavery offences www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42541977

I can’t understand how men paying to rape a woman get away with it. Why is no one finding the men who assaulted her and charging them? There is no way they wouldn’t have known she was trafficked and that what they were doing was rape. They have left her permanently injured. Why are they allowed to do this? Whilst men know they can pay to rape a woman with total impunity, there will be a market for this and whilst there is a market, more girls will suffer. The men that visited this brothel should be punished, named, shamed and imprisoned. Until that is a likely consequence of doing this, how will trafficking be stopped?

This is so awful. And some men don't get why women are scared of them.

It sickens me that those thousands of men that raped her, many of whom did so violently, are just normal men, walking amongst us, fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands.

This.

And the sentencing.

Why aren't there decades worth of incarceration? And the clients too?

Is it because no one has the heart for it because women are useless and worthless?

Is it money?

The sentencing guidelines for these offences give a starting point of 8 years with a range of 6-12 years.

But I think even that is too lenient. They have ruined someone’s life and left them with permanent disability/pain and PTSD.

It should be 20 years minimum. Clearly short sentences are no deterrent since they’d already been convicted and imprisoned for a few years previously!

And everything that CaptainBrickBeard said

I did see this on the BBC but didn't click as too upsetting and I still haven't but have the gist from the thread.

Other cases recently as well where the men paying must have known or had a suspicion that the woman / girl was trafficked. They are all guilty of rape and the police need to look for them or point this out or something. The punters are always invisibilised though - the police never say they are looking for them.

They are all guilty of rape.

”the gang were convicted of human trafficking, controlling prostitution and money laundering in Northern Ireland.
Each of them was sentenced to two years. They served six months in custody before they were sentenced, then eight months in prison after being convicted, with the remainder spent on supervised licence.
They had already served two years in a Swedish prison on the same set of offences involving one of the same victims.”

What crime categorisation is “controlling prostitution” it should be a category named something like “organising rape”.

Agree controlling prostituion sounds like "normal" pimping.

They are accessories to rape.

A year or so back I wrote to my MP urging him to go to a meeting hosted by supporters of the Nordic model. He did (well played that MP), and also forwarded my letter to the home office.

The reply I got said that the law was already pretty tight: having sex with a woman who had been trafficked was a "strict liability" offence (i.e. mens rea didn't come into it; the material fact that a man had had sex with a trafficked woman was enough to establish guilt, regardless of whether he knew she was trafficked). What I want to know is why this law isn't being applied? Why aren't we seeing custodial sentences for punters?

Fermat That's interesting about the strict liability. Do you think that's actually the reason it's not prosecuted more often? Maybe there's a reluctance to ruin the lives of poor unsuspecting men who simply forgot to check whether they were traumatising an enslaved woman?

That's possible Cards. I've certainly heard it suggested that this is why we have a separate offence of causing death by dangerous driving, rather than prosecuting for manslaughter (which presumably would be equally applicable - you're in charge of heavy machinery at speed which you know is capable of killing and you don't pay enough attention to what you're doing... manslaughter if it was any other sort of machine than a car). The thinking apparently was that juries would identify with the driver so much ("a moment's mistake that could have happened to any of us") that they wouldn't be willing to convict.

I'd love to see the police go after a really open and shut case: punters caught during a raid on a brothel, obvious bars on the windows, locks on the doors, bouncer the size of a brick shit house, women with visible marks on their bodies - and really throw the book at the punters to make other low-life think twice about this situation.