I wasn't really thinking of race when I considered Vietnam as a red flag, though I suppose it could be taken that way.

In America I generally trust that the FBI will have no mercy when cracking down on human trafficking. I also trust that the vast majority of sex workers are legit, consenting people who consciously chose to do it.

I don't know much about Vietnam, but I am guessing police/FBI-esque corruption is much higher than America/Europe which is why I would also guess that this accounts for the larger percentage of sex workers there that are trafficked.

Your entire explanation is exactly what unconscious bias is. You look at Asians as "others" without knowing anything about their situation, automatically assume that the corruption is worse in Asian countries than "white" countries, even though there is immense amount of force prostitution and human trafficking in the US and Europe. I'm not attacking you but just pointing out that this is truly the definition of unconscious bias.

According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, at least, GP is exactly correct. Maybe it’s not unconscious bias so much as a general awareness of world affairs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Prostitution is much more prevalent in vietnam than in the us. So I'm inclined to think there's a chance this could be a 'legit' operation.

> "Just because she's Vietnamese and not white"

How can you say "just because"? Several other reasons were plainly listed?

No, it's not. Southeast Asian, specifically Filipino, Thai, and Vietnamese women are the most commonly trafficked ethnic group worldwide.

You're wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/a-...

That article doesn't address the discussion. First, it's five years old, and second it's talking about something that is somewhat different.

I might also note that I lived in southeast Asia for many years. There's a huge amount of trafficking that isn't being reported to the Atlantic website or the US State department there.

So, you have nothing to base your assertions on except for anecdotes and your own self-confidence in being right? I referred to a documented and researched article, and you dismiss it without any evidence?

Would you please not post in the flamewar style to HN?

If you'd review the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow them, we'd appreciate it. This one is particularly relevant: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."