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}
A Psychologist's Perspective
Date: 2002-06-08 12:23 pm (UTC)What you mention is a huge problem in the social sciences, especially in research. I remember a case conference recently where a woman described a study she was about to do, funded by the government for big $$$. She was going to divide people into two groups, one of these groups a "sexual trauma" group, the other a "non-trauma" group. And then look to see which group has more trauma.
Gee, I wonder if the trauma group will have more trauma? Especially if the criteria to divide the two groups a priori is related to the criteria for outcome measures?
Why does this happen? It's because on taboo issues, people do not want science. They want absolute morality, which isn't provided by science. Science is based on data, which is subject to change when you look at another population. Even if you study every human on earth, the brackets of genetics and environment in which we live will change and drift with each new generation. Even between generations. So the associations we hold dear (like sex --> trauma) will change subtly from day to day. Some are more stable than others, but there are always exceptions. Exceptions aren't good for absolute morality, either.
A year or two ago, someone did a study demonstrating that child sexual experience studies actually underestemated trauma, because they were defining "sexual experience" so broadly that it included most people, thus diluting the strength of the association they sought to find. This study recommended that people use narrower definitions. "Dr." Laura said this made it harder to prosecute pedophiles, and as a result, Congress made a rare duck--a unanimous vote. To decry the study. Whatever the hell that means. I guess politicians are experts in every field.
Truth be told, arguments like "consent" are essentialistic and bad policy to base judgment on. Data-based logic exists to outlaw practices which endanger children, yet still "consent" definitions are the legal foundation in America and most other countries... Mainly because these laws cannot change, since the definitions themselves are arbitrary. I could go on about this and explain in detail, but I'm about to run out of LJ space in which to do so... Just for one comment, "consent" has been used to justify civil rights abuses in the past, like in the 1860's when it first appeared in American law. It was impossible for a white woman to "consent" to a black man, by definition; therefore, miscegenation with a black man was always considered "rape".
Trickster