GOP: The party of idiots

[Toni]

I spent a year of my life working in a ( very bad) mostly defunct chain steakhouse.

I spent almost a year in a metalworking factory, exposed to chemicals and intense UV radiation. I didn’t want to do it and quit as soon as I could, but was coerced by circumstances.
ANYTHING THAT INVOLVES INVASION OF PHYSICAL SPACE, OR UNWANTED TOUCHING OF ANY KIND
is not “coercion”, it’s assault IMHO, and criminal. That it is commonplace is a travesty, but it is qualitatively different from prostitution, which is transactional.

It is insulting to suggest such equivalency. And beneath you.

Uh, it is you suggesting equivalence by calling rape “coercion”. I am drawing the distinction.

Coercion ( or incapacitation) a necessary component of rape.

Toxic chemical caps and exposure to blood and body fluids was a part of my last job as well. However, such risks were mitigated by personal protective gear and a lot of safety regulations. I was not coerced. I chose the job knowing I would be exposed to a number of hazards at work. But my employer did its job by putting appropriate safety measures in place and ensuring everyone had appropriate training and equipment—and insisting that everyone follow all safety measures and precautions. It was a disciplinary matter if anyone failed to comply. AND we were provided with reporting phone numbers to anonymously report any unsafe work practices.

Your employer sounds much less responsible.

 

[Toni]

I don't live adjacent to Nevada.

My mistake.

Is prostitution legal in Nevada? Yes.
But really, that has only trivial relevance here.

Coercion is a necessary component of rape. Rape is not a subset of coercion.

Oh FFS. Breathing is also a necessary component of rape, otherwise it becomes necrophilia. I don’t hear you complaining about breathing being legal - which it probably is where you live as well as in Nevada. So being “a necessary component of rape” is not reason to condemn it in blanket fashion.

Again, I beseech you to refrain from trying to co-opt the entire lexicon of every form of coercion, persuasion, cajoling, pleading, compelling etc etc, to equivocate them with rape.
It’s not just wrong, it’s counterproductive to any effort to discourage rape, and tends to give excuse to all forms of sexual violence.

Coercion is part of the definition of rape. Breathing is not.

Persuasion, pleading, beseeching is NOT coercion. Seduction is not coercion. Coercion involves the use of threats of or actual force/violence to compel someone to engage something they do not wish to do. Threats of or actually compelling someone into sex acts is rape. So is engaging in sex acts with a person who is unable to give consent due to their youth, or inebriation or intoxication or other incapacity to give consent such as an individual who has the intellectual capacity of a child or is otherwise sufficiently disabled to be unable to refuse or escape unwanted sexual contact. Whether or not financial extortion in order to force someone to engage in or allow sex acts is a matter of state law which can differ from state to state.

Lots of people engage in sex when they'd prefer not to but that does not make it rape. They do it for a lot of reasons, but a major reason is to make the other person happy even if they themselves are not in the mood. But they choose to do it willingly, which is different from 'choosing' to engage in sex in order to avoid a beating or worse or abuse of a vulnerable child or adult.

 

[Elixir]

Coercion is part of the definition of rape. Breathing is not.3

Nope. Not "necessarily" as you assert:

rape​

1 of 4

noun (1)​

: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception

Whereas:

Persuasion, pleading, beseeching is NOT coercion.

See above.

Seduction is not coercion.

I did not assert that it is.

Coercion involves the use of threats of or actual force/violence to compel someone to engage something they do not wish to do.

Precisely - WHETHER OR NOT RAPE WAS AN OUTCOME OR A FEATURE OF THAT COERCION

Threats of or actually compelling someone into sex acts is rape. So is engaging in sex acts with a person who is unable to give consent due to their youth, or inebriation or intoxication or other incapacity to give consent such as an individual who has the intellectual capacity of a child or is otherwise sufficiently disabled to be unable to refuse or escape unwanted sexual contact. Whether or not financial extortion in order to force someone to engage in or allow sex acts is a matter of state law which can differ from state to state.

That doesn't make coercion "necessarily" equate to rape, though conversely, "rape" can be used colloquially to describe lots of forms of compulsion that are not rape.
"COMPULSION/COERCION" ≠ "RAPE"

Lots of people engage in sex when they'd prefer not to but that does not make it rape. They do it for a lot of reasons

Right. Among them, coercion. Sometimes people engage in sex because their partner coerced them with promises of going out for ice cream afterwards.

, but a major reason is to make the other person happy even if they themselves are not in the mood. But they choose to do it willingly, which is different from 'choosing' to engage in sex in order to avoid a beating or worse or abuse of a vulnerable child or adult.

Look Toni, we are not arguing about those things - about which we agree.
I am simply pointing out that your (IMHO) excessive equivocation of the word "rape" with other terms that can also mean non-violent forms of motivating another person's actions or inactions, dilutes the meaning of "rape".

I do understand your urge to draw a really big circle around "rape" and make it all out of bounds, and I agree that truly equitable penalties and enforcement against rape would justify that. But doing it by warping the lexicon is NOT the way to accomplish anything constructive IMO.

 

[Toni]

Coercion is part of the definition of rape. Breathing is not.3

Nope. Not "necessarily" as you assert:

rape​

1 of 4

noun (1)​

: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception

Whereas:

View attachment 45762

Persuasion, pleading, beseeching is NOT coercion.

See above.

Seduction is not coercion.

I did not assert that it is.

Coercion involves the use of threats of or actual force/violence to compel someone to engage something they do not wish to do.

Precisely - WHETHER OR NOT RAPE WAS AN OUTCOME OR A FEATURE OF THAT COERCION

Threats of or actually compelling someone into sex acts is rape. So is engaging in sex acts with a person who is unable to give consent due to their youth, or inebriation or intoxication or other incapacity to give consent such as an individual who has the intellectual capacity of a child or is otherwise sufficiently disabled to be unable to refuse or escape unwanted sexual contact. Whether or not financial extortion in order to force someone to engage in or allow sex acts is a matter of state law which can differ from state to state.

That doesn't make coercion "necessarily" equate to rape, though conversely, "rape" can be used colloquially to describe lots of forms of compulsion that are not rape.
"COMPULSION/COERCION" ≠ "RAPE"

Lots of people engage in sex when they'd prefer not to but that does not make it rape. They do it for a lot of reasons

Right. Among them, coercion. Sometimes people engage in sex because their partner coerced them with promises of going out for ice cream afterwards.

, but a major reason is to make the other person happy even if they themselves are not in the mood. But they choose to do it willingly, which is different from 'choosing' to engage in sex in order to avoid a beating or worse or abuse of a vulnerable child or adult.

Look Toni, we are not arguing about those things - about which we agree.
I am simply pointing out that your (IMHO) excessive equivocation of the word "rape" with other terms that can also mean non-violent forms of motivating another person's actions or inactions, dilutes the meaning of "rape".

I do understand your urge to draw a really big circle around "rape" and make it all out of bounds, and I agree that truly equitable penalties and enforcement against rape would justify that. But doing it by warping the lexicon is NOT the way to accomplish anything constructive IMO.

I never asserted that coercion = rape. But coercion of penetrative sex ( see individual visual state laws) or sex with an individual unable to legally give consent to such acts = rape.

 

[Elixir]

But coercion of penetrative sex ( see individual visual state laws) or sex with an individual unable to legally give consent to such acts = rape.

Sure. I'd modify that just a little:
But coercion of penetrative sex ( see individual visual state laws) or sex with an individual unable to legally give consent who has not consented to such acts for any reason = rape.

But that is not what started this whole thing. I don't know if Derec would agree that coercing sex in exchange for money is "rape" but IMO it is definitely coercive.

 

[Toni]

But coercion of penetrative sex ( see individual visual state laws) or sex with an individual unable to legally give consent to such acts = rape.

Sure. I'd modify that just a little:
But coercion of penetrative sex ( see individual visual state laws) or sex with an individual unable to legally give consent who has not consented to such acts for any reason = rape.

But that is not what started this whole thing. I don't know if Derec would agree that coercing sex in exchange for money is "rape" but IMO it is definitely coercive.

Statutory rape is a thing for very good reason. So is requiring both individuals to have the mental capacity to agree a requirement, for good reason. Obviously there are gray areas: can someone with developmental disabilities give consent? Can somebody whose intellectual abilities have diminished due to age or injury legally consent to sex? That probably really needs to be case by case, with context being everything.

But 15 year olds cannot legally give consent to a teacher, a boss, a minister/clergy person, coach police officer, etc. because it is impossible to separate out what dues and does not constitute coercion. More complicated because in some states, 11 and 12 year olds can get married and in fact, marriage is often used to cover up so called sexual transgressions i.e. rape.

 

[Elixir]

Obviously there are gray areas: can someone with developmental disabilities give consent? Can somebody whose intellectual abilities have diminished due to age or injury legally consent to sex? That probably really needs to be case by case, with context being everything.

But 15 year olds cannot legally give consent to a teacher, a boss, a minister/clergy person, coach police officer, etc. because it is impossible to separate out what dues and does not constitute coercion. More complicated because in some states, 11 and 12 year olds can get married and in fact, marriage is often used to cover up so called sexual transgressions i.e. rape.

Drifting along with you... States that legitimize underage sex need to be overridden by the fed, and AFAIK they are not.
Like with most things regarding human sexual behavior, the legality of sex is a gray area. But forcing sex upon a person who doesn't want it, is WRONG, no matter what. Period, no exceptions. It's rape.
It's not mere persuasion or even coercion, it's RAPE.

 

[Toni]

Obviously there are gray areas: can someone with developmental disabilities give consent? Can somebody whose intellectual abilities have diminished due to age or injury legally consent to sex? That probably really needs to be case by case, with context being everything.

But 15 year olds cannot legally give consent to a teacher, a boss, a minister/clergy person, coach police officer, etc. because it is impossible to separate out what dues and does not constitute coercion. More complicated because in some states, 11 and 12 year olds can get married and in fact, marriage is often used to cover up so called sexual transgressions i.e. rape.

Drifting along with you... States that legitimize underage sex need to be overridden by the fed, and AFAIK they are not.
Like with most things regarding human sexual behavior, the legality of sex is a gray area. But forcing sex upon a person who doesn't want it, is WRONG, no matter what. Period, no exceptions. It's rape.
It's not mere persuasion or even coercion, it's RAPE.

Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying…

 

[southernhybrid]

It becomes coercion the second someone doesn’t want to proceed.

So most fast food workers are coerced?

Sexually? No. So it’s not rape.

I spent a year of my life working in a ( very bad) mostly defunct chain steakhouse. I did not want to work there but it was better than the other choices I felt I had and I was unable at the time to find a better job. That was not rape, even though one boss asked me out, another used to regal me with his suspicions of his then wife’s motives for going to the gynecologist, I got grabbed by customers and nearly fired for jokingly discouraging the advances of a regular customer. And I felt compelled ( out of fear for my own safety) to threaten a coworker who outweighed me by at least 150 lbs with castration if he lad a finger on me when he started to insinuate something bad would happen to me if I were not nice to him. I had no intention of being backed into the freezer by that creep. My hours were cut in favor of the manager’s son ( prom was coming up and Billy needed money!), the managers made us clock out, locked us in and then screamed at us for an hour or more on a regular basis but no, I was not raped. I detested being there, barely earned enough money to cover rent and could not afford to eat every day. But I stayed there voluntarily. My job prospects were quite grim. But I was not held against my will. Against my better judgement?

Honestly, and with all due respect, your argument is the kind only made by people who have never had someone actually try to rape them. Which has happened to me. More than once. Each attempt was unsuccessful because my attacker was not expecting me to resist much less fight back.

My former job disgusted me and often infuriated me but that was absolutely nothing like being shoved to the ground and being told some guy was going to fuck me.

It is insulting to suggest such equivalency. And beneath you.

I've been threatened with rape too, but I didn't take Elixer's remark quite the same way you did Toni. I took it to mean that sometimes people feel coerced, ( more like attracted ) for monetary reasons into getting into a relationship for a financial benefit. Nobody is forcing them into this, but we all know that money often attracts people into relationships that they may not otherwise choose. It's not just women either. There have certainly been young attractive men who have felt like being coerced, if we must use that word, into having a sexual relationship with a wealthy older woman or an unattractive wealthy woman. The one with the money is being coerced to pay a lot of money to have some eye candy on their arm. I don't see it as anything but part of culture. I certainly didn't equate his remarks with rape or being forced into sex.

I like and respect both you and Elixer, but I think perhaps you are making too much out of a word, or taking a word in a different way than was meant, or at least how I took it. Just trying to help because I hate to see people misunderstand each other and then get into a lengthy argument over minutia. Not that any of us would ever do that here. Now, you can both tell me why I'm wrong.

Just understand that my hands will be over my ears and I'll be saying, lalalalalalalalala.....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec your comments about women and Harris in particular are disgusting.

And for the record, I have a BMW. If you shop around and get a gently used one, you can drive a Beemer for the same or less than what some other "economy" cars are going for nowadays. I guess in Derec's mind I must have fucked someone to get mine.

My understanding is that while you can get them pretty cheap you'll pay a lot more in maintenance.

I have one too. The parts tend to be a little more expensive but the quality is worth it. But they are not disturbingly so, unlike Porsches where a brake caliper can be $2000. The labor is the same as any other car, unless you go to the stealership. I've only been there once to have the defective Takata airbag replaced. Otherwise I go to local mechanics with no issues.

Why do you think they are higher quality? Luxury cars aren't about durability, the automakers know that the people who buy them aren't going to keep them a long time so they have no incentive to make them last a long time. They will have high build quality but that's not the same thing as lasting a long time. For a case with an extreme disparity look at rocketry. Most rocket motors will burn less than an hour in their lifetime. A motor that's sure to last 10 hours will be cheaper and lighter than one that's sure to last 100 hours--your customer will prefer the motor with a shorter life.

 

[Toni]

It becomes coercion the second someone doesn’t want to proceed.

So most fast food workers are coerced?

Sexually? No. So it’s not rape.

I spent a year of my life working in a ( very bad) mostly defunct chain steakhouse. I did not want to work there but it was better than the other choices I felt I had and I was unable at the time to find a better job. That was not rape, even though one boss asked me out, another used to regal me with his suspicions of his then wife’s motives for going to the gynecologist, I got grabbed by customers and nearly fired for jokingly discouraging the advances of a regular customer. And I felt compelled ( out of fear for my own safety) to threaten a coworker who outweighed me by at least 150 lbs with castration if he lad a finger on me when he started to insinuate something bad would happen to me if I were not nice to him. I had no intention of being backed into the freezer by that creep. My hours were cut in favor of the manager’s son ( prom was coming up and Billy needed money!), the managers made us clock out, locked us in and then screamed at us for an hour or more on a regular basis but no, I was not raped. I detested being there, barely earned enough money to cover rent and could not afford to eat every day. But I stayed there voluntarily. My job prospects were quite grim. But I was not held against my will. Against my better judgement?

Honestly, and with all due respect, your argument is the kind only made by people who have never had someone actually try to rape them. Which has happened to me. More than once. Each attempt was unsuccessful because my attacker was not expecting me to resist much less fight back.

My former job disgusted me and often infuriated me but that was absolutely nothing like being shoved to the ground and being told some guy was going to fuck me.

It is insulting to suggest such equivalency. And beneath you.

I've been threatened with rape too, but I didn't take Elixer's remark quite the same way you did Toni. I took it to mean that sometimes people feel coerced, ( more like attracted ) for monetary reasons into getting into a relationship for a financial benefit. Nobody is forcing them into this, but we all know that money often attracts people into relationships that they may not otherwise choose. It's not just women either. There have certainly been young attractive men who have felt like being coerced, if we must use that word, into having a sexual relationship with a wealthy older woman or an unattractive wealthy woman. The one with the money is being coerced to pay a lot of money to have some eye candy on their arm. I don't see it as anything but part of culture. I certainly didn't equate his remarks with rape or being forced into sex.

I like and respect both you and Elixer, but I think perhaps you are making too much out of a word, or taking a word in a different way than was meant, or at least how I took it. Just trying to help because I hate to see people misunderstand each other and then get into a lengthy argument over minutia. Not that any of us would ever do that here. Now, you can both tell me why I'm wrong.

Just understand that my hands will be over my ears and I'll be saying, lalalalalalalalala.....

Well, there are threats of rape and then there are actual attempts—successful or not—at actual rape which is much different than agreeing to sex or frankly proposing sex for some monetary gain, please don’t forget that not all such proposals are between heterosexual couples. Horrifically, not always only between adults but far too often an adult or adults and minors.

Rape is violence, even if the victim acquiesces to avoid more serious injury.

Dangling some money or promises of material gain in return for sexual favors is more about power than sex. In that way, it is not dissimilar to rape. It’s not actually rape but includes the dynamic of having someone in your power, which is probably at least as much the point as orgasm.

I don’t really understand what makes someone twisted in that way: seeing sex as a means or rather, a display of power. Makes my skin crawl, actually. But I recognize that it happens and I’ve seen it in action.

 

[ZiprHead]

Derec your comments about women and Harris in particular are disgusting.

And for the record, I have a BMW. If you shop around and get a gently used one, you can drive a Beemer for the same or less than what some other "economy" cars are going for nowadays. I guess in Derec's mind I must have fucked someone to get mine.

My understanding is that while you can get them pretty cheap you'll pay a lot more in maintenance.

I have one too. The parts tend to be a little more expensive but the quality is worth it. But they are not disturbingly so, unlike Porsches where a brake caliper can be $2000. The labor is the same as any other car, unless you go to the stealership. I've only been there once to have the defective Takata airbag replaced. Otherwise I go to local mechanics with no issues.

Why do you think they are higher quality? Luxury cars aren't about durability, the automakers know that the people who buy them aren't going to keep them a long time so they have no incentive to make them last a long time. They will have high build quality but that's not the same thing as lasting a long time. For a case with an extreme disparity look at rocketry. Most rocket motors will burn less than an hour in their lifetime. A motor that's sure to last 10 hours will be cheaper and lighter than one that's sure to last 100 hours--your customer will prefer the motor with a shorter life.

Really? I'm on a BMW message board where several members have cars with over 400,000 miles on the odometer without an engine rebuild. You don't get that kind of mileage on most standard marques. Name an American car that can do that.

Do you mean Autozone crap parts are the equivalent of BMW spec parts?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My understanding is that while you can get them pretty cheap you'll pay a lot more in maintenance.

Mine had very low miles, so in the last 2 1/2 years it's been fine except for a minor oil leak. I found a local shop that's honest and very reasonable, but yeah...the joke about BMW stands for "Bring My Wallet" is based in reality.

I refer to them as "Big Money Waste".

You pay for the features that matter to you--and prestige doesn't even enter into my evaluation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I lived on a very curvy mountain road, 30mph limit and down to 20 on curves. That thing outran muscle cars, Porsches, even a Lotus 7 one night … also made SLC to Reno (520mi) in 5hrs 10minutes including a quick breakfast stop.

If you are averaging in excess of 100mph over a five hour journey, you should sell your car and send your licence back to Kellogg's, before you kill someone.

While I do agree that's excessive note that he's referring to what I believe to be (I've never actually been on the road) a very straight, flat, desert (no trees for wildlife to pop out from behind) road without a lot of traffic. Fly by other vehicles, I care. Fly down empty road, I don't care. (I'd like to see the speed laws changed--lower the penalty for speeding, increase the penalty for speeding involving a high overtake velocity.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And let's be clear about one thing: Derec's criticism of Harris' relationship with Brown is entirely based on speculation on his part about what the relationship was all about. He thinks "women are entirely transactional and fuck their way to the top. Here's a woman I don't like because she's black, so obviously she fucked her way to the top." Also worth noting is that Derec hasn't made the same accusation about Harris' husband. Weird, huh? Here's a guy who married the then California Attorney General (arguably more powerful that the Mayor of SF), who then went onto be a US Senator and VP, but for some reason Derec isn't accusing Doug Emhoff of anything at all.

Oh...wait...he's a white guy.

I believe his point was the age gap said it wasn't based on love, not merely that it was a relationship with someone with more power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think so. Touchy subject though.
I agree with Derec that a person’s choice, forced or otherwise, to have exclusively transactional relationships with people of the opposite (or same, as the case may be) sex, should not be criminalized, even if it is based on a coercive discrepancy in physical resources. Whether it is fair game in a discussion about GOP idiots, is perhaps a different matter.

You had me right up to the word coercive. Consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever type of consensual sex they mutually agree to do long as coercion of any kind is not involved. Not physical, not medical, political, psychological, intoxication related/adjacent: no coercion or sex without mutual, freely given consent. If money/facsimile/equivalent is exchanged, the minimum age for consent should be 25.

I intentionally left that in there because coercion takes so many forms that trying to remove it from transactional sex -or ANY sex - is just not an option, period.
Hot chicks like rich guys.
Want to make that illegal?
When does enticement become coercion?

Trying to regulate overtly transactional sex is difficult enough. Physical coercion is called rape and is illegal. Medical coercion is malpractice. Etc etc

Monetary coercion however, is another animal. It is the way things are done at the bottom foundation of our society. People don’t show up to work at McDonald’s because it’s fun. Porn stars and prostitues don’t work for free either.

It becomes coercion the second someone doesn’t want to proceed.

Emphasis added. He's talking about someone doing it because they need money, not someone who doesn't want to proceed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is insulting to suggest such equivalency. And beneath you.

You misinterpreted the original. He's just pointing out where your "position" (I believe you misunderstood, that it's not your actual position) leads. It's your comparison, not his.

 

[Elixir]

I lived on a very curvy mountain road, 30mph limit and down to 20 on curves. That thing outran muscle cars, Porsches, even a Lotus 7 one night … also made SLC to Reno (520mi) in 5hrs 10minutes including a quick breakfast stop.

If you are averaging in excess of 100mph over a five hour journey, you should sell your car and send your licence back to Kellogg's, before you kill someone.

While I do agree that's excessive note that he's referring to what I believe to be (I've never actually been on the road) a very straight, flat, desert (no trees for wildlife to pop out from behind) road without a lot of traffic. Fly by other vehicles, I care. Fly down empty road, I don't care. (I'd like to see the speed laws changed--lower the penalty for speeding, increase the penalty for speeding involving a high overtake velocity.)

It is, and it was. Speed laws if they existed were not enforced. If you had a 200 mph super car there are miles and miles where you could “safely” come close to maxing out. (It is where they set the world land speed records)
Plus, it was well into nighttime for most of that trip.* Hardly anyone on the road.
I vividly remember the feeling of having to slow down 2-3 times in little towns … 25 mph felt like I could get out of the car and walk backwards faster!
Also, the biggest meteor I ever saw lit up the sky. It broke up into pieces and disappeared over the western horizon. Very memorable.

* the only mod on the car was its headlights, which I converted to halogens on day one because of the road I lived on. Nice at 115!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I do agree that's excessive note that he's referring to what I believe to be (I've never actually been on the road) a very straight, flat, desert (no trees for wildlife to pop out from behind) road without a lot of traffic. Fly by other vehicles, I care. Fly down empty road, I don't care. (I'd like to see the speed laws changed--lower the penalty for speeding, increase the penalty for speeding involving a high overtake velocity.)

It is, and it was. Speed laws if they existed were not enforced. If you had a 200 mph super car there are miles and miles where you could “safely” come close to maxing out. (It is where they set the world land speed records)
Plus, it was well into nighttime for most of that trip.* Hardly anyone on the road.
I vividly remember the feeling of having to slow down 2-3 times in little towns … 25 mph felt like I could get out of the car and walk backwards faster!
Also, the biggest meteor I ever saw lit up the sky. It broke up into pieces and disappeared over the western horizon. Very memorable.

* the only mod on the car was its headlights, which I converted to halogens on day one because of the road I lived on. Nice at 115!

115 at night is overdriving your headlights and therefore unsafe. Period.

 

[Ford]

My understanding is that while you can get them pretty cheap you'll pay a lot more in maintenance.

Mine had very low miles, so in the last 2 1/2 years it's been fine except for a minor oil leak. I found a local shop that's honest and very reasonable, but yeah...the joke about BMW stands for "Bring My Wallet" is based in reality.

I refer to them as "Big Money Waste".

You pay for the features that matter to you--and prestige doesn't even enter into my evaluation.

I joke that mine is the smallest, cheapest BMW. Because it is. I have a little 2 series, and while it still has low miles, the car is now 8 years old. So "prestige" doesn't really fit. If I wanted to sell it, I'd be lucky if I got $20k.

As for the quality, it is head and shoulders above my previous car - a Ford Mustang convertible. Everything is better. The materials on the interior, all the "touch points" on the dash and doors, all the switches and buttons, and even carpet mats are all top notch. The Ford was a sea of cheap plastic. The driving dynamics are so much better as well. American cars (and a few other imports) can be "floaty" on the road. This (and the Audi I had some years ago) is very "buttoned down." The handling is better, the driving dynamics are better, and it feels very planted at all times. Another thing I noticed when I took a Lyft to the airport and my driver had a small Chevy SUV? The expansion joints in the highway. Every one sounded and felt like we'd hit a small speed bump. I barely notice them in my car.