Skip to main content

Cara's question: why don't we call rape what it is?

A basic Libertarian tenet: property rights are fundamental, and the most fundamental of all is the right to control your own body.

At The Curvature, Cara angrily asks the incredible important but uncomfortable question:

Why the fuck do people still keep referring to the practice of selling a child’s body to men as “forced prostitution” instead of what it is: holding a child hostage and allowing men to rape her for a set fee?

Selling rape is not “forced prostitution.” It’s selling rape. The rape of a child is not sex. You cannot “have sex” with a child.” Rape is not sex. It is violence.


I don't think this is an issue of political correctness; I think its one of accuracy and intellectual honesty.

But, hey, that's just an insensitive Libertarian perspective.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Legally speaking, it is called rape: statutory rape. The purveyor of the rape (the child's pimp) can be charged with accessory to statutory rape (although I'm not sure on this point), but will most likely be charged with child endangerment, among a host of other offenses against the child (kidnapping, etc.).

In short, I think that Cara's wish has already come true.
February 1, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Steven H. Newton said…
Michael
I think Cara is talking about media references rather than legal charges. You read a lot about "forced child prostitution" in Thailand, for example.

She's arguing that we should be calling it something like "the business of child rape" in Thailand instead.
February 1, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Anonymous said…
Got it. Probably should have clicked through, huh?
February 1, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more