Their wives, daughters, and sisters are starving, but men still can scrape up the cash to pay to rape women.

I was reading some of the article to my coworker and she asked who are the men doing well enough to be paying women and girls for sex considering the absolutely dire living conditions in Tigray. I said good question and wondered too. It didn't even occur to either of us it could be the same men whose families are starving.

The title should be "Men in Tigray use threat of hunger to sexually exploit impoverished women and girls".

WHY do we allow the media to always remove agency from the men in these situations? They make it sound like men raping women (for pay or not) is some unstoppable force of nature, like a hurricane.

This is ALWAYS how almost everyone phrases male violence. Men and women. And if you start using language correctly and precisely, and correct them when they don’t—well, get ready for a firestorm. Fast track to unpopularity among men and women, liberals and conservatives, people of all races, religions, and backgrounds. Seems like almost all of us have one thing in common, at least.

Why are they still calling it "sex work" when it is very obvious that it is not a choosey choice?

This was my first thought as well when I read the headline. At least there's one mention of "survival sex" in the article.

And that's why some men hate abortion. They need enough poor, underage women in the population to exploit.