Moral equivalence
May. 21st, 2002 12:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynA few thoughts on things about "sexual abuse" reporting that bugs me.
To start with, the term "sexual abuse" has no meaning whatsoever for me anymore. I'll read news reports that call it "sexual abuse" when a 20 year-old man forces a toddler to perform oral sex. I've heard the same phrase "sexual abuse" used to describe far more innocuous acts. Teachers in kindergartens don't hug their pupils any more because if the toddler happens to complain, suddenly that hug was "sexual abuse".
Now, this may just be me, but not only do I distinguish a moral difference between these two acts, but I'll go so far as to say there's a difference between a man who rapes his twelve year-old niece and threatens to beat her to a pulp if she tells anyone, and a twelve year-old girl who thinks she's in love with her thirty-something neighbor and consents to have sex with him.
Neither of the above cases are "right" or "good" in my mind. But the former is considerably weightier as a crime. The girl clearly suffers at the point of the crime and will continue to suffer afterwards. In the latter case, the girl will, very likely, suffer at some future point: she will get older, she will regret her crush, she will resent the man who took advantage of her.
But, even though children cannot give "informed consent," I still think the distinction is meaningful. Both men in both cases have committed reprehensible acts, but while I have no sympathy whatsoever for the first, I have a little for the second.
The media doesn't distinguish. I read about this "rampant pedophilia" in the Catholic Church with "hundreds of reported cases" and "multi-million dollar civil suits" and I wonder: what did these priests actually do?
And if they are serial rapists, moved from parish to parish by bishops who were concealing the evidence of their actions, well, for goodness' sake, why aren't they facing criminal prosecution? Why am I reading about lawsuits against Catholic parishes (and, last I heard, it's not entire parishes that are being accused of mass orgies with children), and not about District Attorneys pressing charges specific individuals for criminal acts, and obstruction of justice? Last I heard, rape, sodomy, and sexual assault were all crimes.
Why don't we ever prosecute people any more? Why is it always organizations? The "Catholic Church" or "Arthur Andersen, LLC" are just words. Just names. Names don't commit crimes. People do. Why aren't we prosecuting them?
To start with, the term "sexual abuse" has no meaning whatsoever for me anymore. I'll read news reports that call it "sexual abuse" when a 20 year-old man forces a toddler to perform oral sex. I've heard the same phrase "sexual abuse" used to describe far more innocuous acts. Teachers in kindergartens don't hug their pupils any more because if the toddler happens to complain, suddenly that hug was "sexual abuse".
Now, this may just be me, but not only do I distinguish a moral difference between these two acts, but I'll go so far as to say there's a difference between a man who rapes his twelve year-old niece and threatens to beat her to a pulp if she tells anyone, and a twelve year-old girl who thinks she's in love with her thirty-something neighbor and consents to have sex with him.
Neither of the above cases are "right" or "good" in my mind. But the former is considerably weightier as a crime. The girl clearly suffers at the point of the crime and will continue to suffer afterwards. In the latter case, the girl will, very likely, suffer at some future point: she will get older, she will regret her crush, she will resent the man who took advantage of her.
But, even though children cannot give "informed consent," I still think the distinction is meaningful. Both men in both cases have committed reprehensible acts, but while I have no sympathy whatsoever for the first, I have a little for the second.
The media doesn't distinguish. I read about this "rampant pedophilia" in the Catholic Church with "hundreds of reported cases" and "multi-million dollar civil suits" and I wonder: what did these priests actually do?
And if they are serial rapists, moved from parish to parish by bishops who were concealing the evidence of their actions, well, for goodness' sake, why aren't they facing criminal prosecution? Why am I reading about lawsuits against Catholic parishes (and, last I heard, it's not entire parishes that are being accused of mass orgies with children), and not about District Attorneys pressing charges specific individuals for criminal acts, and obstruction of justice? Last I heard, rape, sodomy, and sexual assault were all crimes.
Why don't we ever prosecute people any more? Why is it always organizations? The "Catholic Church" or "Arthur Andersen, LLC" are just words. Just names. Names don't commit crimes. People do. Why aren't we prosecuting them?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-05-21 11:29 am (UTC)Working on a case right now which, on paper in the police report, sounds like a man rapind a 'child'. While the incident itself consists of a 17 year old girl sneaking off with her boyfriend (who is mear months her elder if that) to have oral sex in some secluded spot on several ocassions, her remaining friends with him after this, and then the instant he gets another girlfriend she screams sexual abuse -- while still remaining friends with this man.
I just did a file today where a woman is claiming her 16 year old daughter (severely retarded, 19 IQ, and also nearly blind) was sexually abused by the man that changes her diaper at school. The alleged abuse? Changing her diaper. Mom felt it was innapropriate for a man to do it despite the fact that his main reason for doing so was because none of his assistants wanted to. She also apparently didn't have a problem with this until she wished to transfer her daughter to another school with a 'better' program, despite the fact that her daughter was not physically capable of attending the classes. (the classes were for teaching disabled kids how to read and teaching them skills for potential future employment. It's highly unlikely that a person with an IQ of 19 could ever learn to read) Also, just for the recond, when the mother said it made her feel uncomfortable to have a man change her daughter's diapers he assigned a female assistant to the job.
Bleh. Some abuses are far too overused.
no subject
Date: 2002-05-21 07:13 pm (UTC)