Hannah, where is the petition regarding match.com and IMBRA?  I'd like to sign it as well.  I agree with Amanda that big-profit IMBs are probably a much greater risk, but I'd like to see there be regulations to protect all women.

Thanks!

Hannah: I admire your passion, and thank you for the information, but you dont do your cause any favors when you attack others who are basically working toward the same ends that you are.

Wow, slug me?   How mature.  The comments I made above were in response to four men, including yourself, who were trolling a women's rights page on care2.com, and harassing people who signed the petition.  This same group was throwing fits on at least two of Amanda's other human trafficking articles, both about the Diner's Club.

You seriously need to get a grip Tristan and grow up.  I got sick of being ganged up on by the four of you.  While I admit my comments were sarcastic, I don't see them as sexist.  It seems that you four have wives/girlfriends, jobs, etc... why do you waste your time harassing people online?  I felt when I wrote that last post that anything I said was simply providing fodder for your endless rants.  The four of you were dominating the site, and you weren't even supportive of the cause it represented.  Tacky.  I didn't want to play a part in it. 

As far as insulting your wife, I don't know her and I wasn't insulting her.  In fact, I feel sorry for her, if you act at home like you have acted online.  I never said she was unable to use the computer.  I said it's likely she wasn't allowed with your pushy nasty attitude.  And based on the amount of time you have dedicated to trolling, I frankly don't see how she'd get the time.  If you want to talk about sexist, look at your own website.  I've seen it and it's filled with profanities and nasty comments.

Putting in a big long quote from one person's book does not impress me, nor does it outweigh the evidence presented at senate hearings, or the anecdotal evidence that I have personally heard from people in the field.

Fear of being turned in to the INS is a major reason many immigrant women stay with their husbands, so I doubt very much that the INS is fully aware of the scope of the problem.  I know a lady who works in this field, who sees the abused victims of mail order bride trafficking on a regular basis, no matter how much you don't want to believe they exist.

I'm also wondering why you are so defensive about Hannah... hmm... one of your buddies?  Who knows, who cares... I said I was done talking to you on the care2 site, now I'm done talking with you here.  I view your actions as aggressive and childish.  If you feel the need to continue to attack me, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Romy,

I appreciate your concern for the safety and well-being of women.  Your goal is admirable, but your methods are questionable.

I didn't come here to troll this site, but to set the record straight.  I had no choice but to rebut the outrageous and slanderous characterization of men and women who meet through international personals ads as "sex traffickers", "purchased brides" and "trafficker-husbands".  These egregious labels hurt innocent people, including women and children.  I don't want my two sons to go through life with the label of a "sex-trafficked" family.  I felt compelled to clear the names of innocent people who are being hurt by your rhetoric.

I also feel that lonely men and women should have the right to seek adult companionship through whatever venue is available to them.  You can't prove that EVERYONE who uses Cherry Blossoms or AForeignAffair to seek a romantic partner is an abuser or exploiter, therefore why punish them all?  Many honest, well meaning and well intentioned people turn to these services to find a loving companion.  I was one of them.

You can question some of the advertising techniques of some of the services if you want.  You can be disgusted and repulsed by men who seek women overseas if you want.  But please, try to be accurate and objective in your reporting.  Please do not call people who meet on free-will message boards traffickers and trafficked victims.  Don't tar and feather a whole business just because some people abuse it.

Ms. Carver,

You wrote on the Care2 site about posted comments differing from yours: "Funny that they are all from Brian, Tom, Bob and Jon, who want to rant and rave. I suppose I could waste a lot of time arguing with the four of you til kingdom come..."  But now you claim above that I am one of these four, even though I post under my own name which is not Brian, Tom, Bob or Jon.

You also wrote above that you wonder why I am so defensive about Hannah.  But I did not mention Hannah.  Who is Hannah?

If you cannot keep your facts straight regarding a few posts at your fingertips, how could you expect anyone to believe that you can keep facts straight regarding the complicated issue of trafficking?  Fortunately you are willing to admit that statistics (the INS' Scholes study) or statistics and academic analysis (the Constable book) are meaningless to you because you have anecdotes to rely on.  This undercuts every position you have taken on these petition drives and helps demonstrate a fortiori that the positions advocated are intellectually fraudulent.

It is astounding that you would characterize the expression of opinions differing from yours as harassment.  

OK this is seriously my last post on this particular forum.  First off: Delphi Pro, thank you for at least being polite.

Secondly: Tristan, you're right.  There were not four men trolling that site, there were five.  You were one of them, and I forgot to include your name on my last post.  The others were men who frequent your online "dating rights" website.  Your mention of Hannah was in reference to my discerning that Hannah is likely a man.  You said, "If Ms. Carver is such a detective by sleuthing the identity of another poster above...," referring to Hannah.  Remember now?

Can't imagine why I'd accuse you of harassment when you follow me from site to site, attack my viewpoints, and even brag about how your wife would like to slug me in the face.  Hmmm, maybe I'm "overreacting."

As far as "the emporer," the quotes you attributed to me are from the original author of the article, not myself, so your entire post was arguing with me about something I didn't even say.

At this point I don't care what misreprentations you want to put up here about me, or threats to have your wives slug me, or whatever drivel you care to post.  You are not gaining credibility for your cause by attacking me verbally. 

I'm not going to say that there aren't happy marriages out there between couples from different lands.  What I am going to say is that by the very nature of the way these IMBs market their "products," namely women, they are sexist.  They "market" the women as being submissive and compliant, instead of intelligent thinking human beings. 

I have seen lots of information that indicates that there is enough severe abuse going on to justify everything that IMBRA is doing.  I am not going to litter this site with lengthy quotes; you probably won't read them anyway.

I have seen many posts by this small group of men on Amanda's other articles, and on the care2 site, describing women who care about these issues as middle-aged, insecure, dumpy, ugly, fat, selfish, indulgent, meddlesome, and jealous of younger women (and the list goes on).  Whatever you want to believe is fine with me.  These characterizations are stereotypes and do not represent the person writing them as educated or open-minded, just hateful.  That said, I am officially done discussing this with you.

I will, however, continue to sign petitions that I know will benefit the safety of women and children, no matter who is upset about it.

I don't understand how some folks don't see the difference between Match.com and the IMB business models.

Match.com is a service whereby two paying individuals find one another, use the service to communicate and eventually meet IRL, then choose their next step.

IMBs are services whereby one paying individual can actually shop for another person, without any need to communicate with her. He pays the service to send her to him.

Do you really not see the difference here? The first allows for a great deal of choice on both sides, between two knowingly consenting people (they both pay for the service). The second gives a great deal of choice to one party while the other doesn't get that opportunity.

Comparing one to the other is not to recognize the basic rights of these women. Whether this is because they are women or because they don't happen to be from your country of origin, or both, these folks need to get a hold of themselves. It is the definition of exploitation to use the unfortunate situations of these women to get them to do your bidding when you pay for it.