"Gee, what a big loaf of bread you have..." "The better to exploit you with, my dear"

This BBC article on the sex-for-aid scandal in Liberia triggered a pretty strong response in the readers, as evidenced by the comments posted in reply. Some pretty salient points were made, touching on issues like why these men weren't being observed, how this is still widespread years after the issue first arose, how come the kind of inhuman bastards who would volunteer to help the world's most powerless and then wind up exploiting them aren't being rounded up and shot, etc., etc.

Personally, it reminded me a lot of the sex abuse in the Catholic Church, and I think there are a lot of relevant parallels. Both are patriarchal institutions (and yes, the UN, for all its human rights posturing, is essentially male-dominated and few insiders see any reason to change this; Stephen Lewis being a prominent exception). In both cases, abuse was carried out by persons in positions of authority who, more importantly, are presented as compassionate, caring figures. And, as always, the victims were largely children, as they are the most vulnerable and, therefore, easiest to exploit by the spineless, gutless and souless rejects who commit these types of crimes.

And it made me wonder if, like in the case of the Church, the perpatrators are/were simply being quietly shipped off somewhere else to a whole new batch of victims.

That's no way to solve this. And it certainly won't prevent future debased perverts from flocking to the priesthood/humanitarian aid agencies. This whole, "no gays in the priesthood thing" is also a ridiculous, non-solution, seeing as pedophilia and other forms of abuse are their own category of sexual orientation. Molesting boys doesn't mean someone's a homosexual, it means someone's a FUCKING MONSTER.

The problem is a cultural one, and it's present in Africa and North America. Let's look at this little gem from the BBC comments:

I doubt these girls are being forced to do anything, they know if they give certain favours then they get more food. It like giving money to a "lady" in soho, they need the money, the girls in Liberia need the food, im not saying this isnt wrong of course.

Oh, I see - it's not "force" if you can choose not to do it, even if choosing not to do it means DYING. Right. "Gee, I didn't force her to have sex with me, I just told her that if she or any member of her family ever wanted to eat, then she'd have to have sex with me." Last time I checked, being coerced, threatened or manipulated into sex IS RAPE. Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as sex with children - IT IS ALWAYS RAPE.

That's what the patriarchy won't admit - that a woman who must prostitute herself for food, water, housing, employment, support for her family, career advancement, anything, is a victim of rape. To admit that would be to admit its own illegitimacy, that the roots of its power aren't in some sort of underlying moral obligation, but merely the result of ceaseless bullying of the powerless. Such as:

After the tsunami in 2004, my aunt, who is from Sri Lanka, said that she had heard rumors of Christian missionary groups in the area refusing to give aid to people until they accepted Christ. Again, it was just a rumor, but unfortunately, it's believable. I can think of few things more inhuman than taking advantage of helpless people in the middle of a crisis, and exploiting a child is even worse. Can we strip these men of their power and starve them, just to see what they would do for food?

Again, maybe it's just a rumour, but maybe not. There are assholes everywhere, and the most cowardly of all are attracted to positions where they are dealing with the world's most helpless - the better to exploit you with, my dear.