I never thought about it, but this is not the least bit surprising. Who is more powerless?
I’ve wondered about this for a long time, and pretty well assumed that it was the case. Not necessarily violence or forceable rape – although that is probably common as well – but I’d kind of assumed that BJs and sex were demanded by any men with power, with the implicit knowledge that such services would be taken if they weren’t provided “willingly”.
The 20% who weren’t bothered were probably almost all above 40-45 years of age.
On the other hand, is there any benefit in minimizing the reality of rape? Depends who you are, I suppose.
Age has no bearing on rape statistics a lot of the time. It’s not about sexual attractiveness. It’s about power.
Yes, the spectre of “forcible rape” and “Bj’s and sex” not being sexually assaultive enough to be considered rapeRAPE.
Perpetrators can be coyotes, other migrants, bandits, or even government authorities.
What in the world is a coyote? I assume it’s slang for something, not the literal animal.
(I am channelling my deepest right wing insensitivity…)
“Yeah, but if we loosened our immigration laws, these people would be free to just walk across the border unmolested!”
WHICH IS THE POINT.
This is terrible, but the BB headline misrepresents the study.
The BB headline suggests that e.g. Mexican immigrants coming into the US are commonly raped, but actually the study refers to something specific - Women from Guatemala and other Central American countries passing through Mexico are raped en route, in particular in Mexico. Central American migrants represent a small proportion of the total.
The big red “MORE WONDERFUL THINGS” button at the bottom of the article has never been less appropriate.
This is, indeed, horrible.
There are insane assholes in the U.S. who will think to themselves: “this is just deterrence, and totally fair, eye-for-an-eye justice. Be a criminal, suffer the consequences. They commit the horrible crime of seeking a better life for themselves and their family, er, I mean raping our COUNTRY, and so are they really surprised that crimes are committed against their sovereign bodies?” It’s like how preventing young women from getting the HPV vaccine is a totally sane strategy, in some lunatics minds, for keeping young women from having sex. And, well, if they end up getting an STD that eventually causes their own cells to eat them from the inside out? serves the sinners right.
It would be bad enough if they just thought it to themselves, but let’s not forget that quite a few of the insane assholes who think this way are public figures who are very well-paid, and therefore considered authorities, for saying that the victims get what they deserve.
i came here to say the exact same thing. jeez.
No. And since that wasn’t what I did – it’s unclear why you threw this preening bit of interrogative into the discussion thread.
Accurate description of the dynamics of power, how coercion plays out, how it differs in its specifics from straight up violence – is not “minimizing the reality of rape”. Except in the minds of those comfortable armchair “rape-fighters” who demand certain modes of speech in all things (the better to avoid actually dealing with life as it truly is, I suspect) .
Better buff and polish your halo on someone elses time.
Did I equate age and physical attractiveness? Please note the passage where I did so, I would like to know about it.
Your revealing far too much about your own biases with this reply. Age has a great deal to do with relative power in any society. Older women are more respected (in traditional Central American cultures), and more able to defend themselves from assault – by being warier, or more skilled at using humor, derision & deflection. Or by simply being less cowed by bullshit.
I used to work with rape victims. One day, I had an 11-year-old and a 67-year-old one right after the other during the same shift. Older women are often targets of rape because they’re usually less able to run away or fight back. Remember, it’s not about sex, it’s about having power and control over someone else. As I used to say, if putting your finger in someone’s ear was the most personal and intimate thing you could do with them, the definition of rape would be putting your finger in someone’s ear without their consent.
Reality is, a wicked sense of humor will not keep you from being raped.
I’m sure there are insane @$$holes who think lots of crazy things. This sounds, however, like a “the tribe on the other side of the river are all cannibals” story you’ve been told. I know of no one on the conservative or libertarian side of politics who either voices that or who I could plausibly believe thinks that but only voices it in dog-whistles or klavarn meetings.
Who in the world wants to prevent young women from getting an HPV vaccination if they want it? The only uproar on the right I know of about the HPV vaccine was in Texas when Gov. Perry tried to MANDATE the vaccine for all children. The perception (at least on the right side of politics here) was that this mandate was not due to a careful medical calculation about what’s best for their children, but that Merck had spent a bunch of money lobbying for it and this was cronyism. (Oddly if the Travis Co. DA had indicted him for that instead of trying to get rid of one of their drunk and dangerous co-workers then there would have been a lot of support for them from Perry’s right). But that is hardly the same thing as attempting to deny access to HPV to young women (or men) who want it. And, in fact, if the players were changed slightly I suspect lots here would be screaming “hands off my body” regarding being forced to buy vaccinations from well-connected cronies.
If there are “quite a few” public figures who think that it is either:
- fair for migrants sneaking illegally into the U.S. to be raped, or
- good that these rapes happen for the deterrence to illegal immigration it creates,
then you should have no trouble giving specific examples of three such statements.
No? How about two? Can you give two? What about one who is sufficiently a ‘public figure’ that he or she should have at least 1% name recognition… or even just a regular column in something more widely read than a photocopied 'zine handed out by cult members?