You're trying to make the case that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, then it didn't fall.
If a stranger breaks into your home, goes through your belongings, and takes your prized possessions, it doesn't matter if you're well insured or if you're poor. It also doesn't matter if you're the extremely rare edge case who does not feel violated and doesn't press charges. The actual act of burglary occurred and the degree of it doesn't change based on your response.
Likewise, when a child is molested, it doesn't matter if he or she is not harmed physically. (Indeed, the psychological effects might be the longest lasting and most painful in many cases.)
Certainly, we can be thankful that they weren't physically harmed -- or in your rare edge case, that they are able to live the rest of their lives without any apparent repercussions. But that doesn't change the fact that there was an abuse of power (the other person was bigger, in a position of authority, more mentally capable, or more sober, etc.) And as I said before, it doesn't place any more responsibility on the child, nor any less culpability on the abuser.
Firstly, I do think there's a difference between a burglar who thinks "they're insured, I'm only taking items they won't have any personal attachment too (e.g. money) and other than the nuisance of claiming insurance they won't mind" as opposed to one who just doesn't care. And that really does make a difference - I've been the victim of credit card fraud once, I just notified by card provider and got the money right back, and therefore it effected me far less than if they broke into my home and stole my computer.
And secondly: "when a child is molested, it doesn't matter if he or she is not harmed physically"
Really? In the burglar analogy is that not the same as saying "if someone breaks into your home it doesn't matter what they steal"?
<Got a bit confused here, not sure if I posted the above alone and then kept writing more below, or... so think this was an edit point here.>
Let's say you and I were walking along and discovered an adult having sex with a young child somewhere. The adult runs off. I then walk up to the child and punch them in the face - do you think "well that punch doesn't matter"? Assuming not, why is it different if that pain is caused by the sexual abuser as opposed to a different person? And/or why is it different if that pain is caused by a punch after the abuse or by the abuse itself? You do then go on to suggest that actually it is better if the child isn't physically hurt.. which seems like disagreeing with yourself.
> And as I said before, it doesn't place any more responsibility on the child, nor any less culpability on the abuser.
First off, I hope in none of my comments have I at any time suggested any responsibility be assigned to children in these situations. I can't see where I might have, but if I have.. it was by accident.
As to culpability, well I think it's a bad word since in my understanding of it that is much more binary in this sort of situation, and yes I would say both adults are 100% "culpable".
Think of it another way: if you were forced to chose between a child having sex with an adult and the child not minding it (at the time of the abuse, who knows how they will feel in the future) or a child being physically forced to have sex with an adult and crying as it happens, would you still think "doesn't matter which"?
In my opinion, your opinion is being clouded based on the fact that both situations are still extremely serious, and extremely wrong. In either situation you and I would both despise their actions strongly enough that it would be irrelevant to analyse the exact act and try to define exactly how bad it is. But that doesn't mean there still is a scale.
> The adult runs off. I then walk up to the child and punch them in the face - do you think "well that punch doesn't matter"?
You're muddling the context of "doesn't matter". In your hypothetical, the rapist would be prosecuted for rape and you would be prosecuted for assault. So yes, it matters in that it should not be ignored. In mine, I am saying it is inconsequential to the morality of the situation whether the child feels harmed or not. A prosecutor may still charge the abuser with additional counts for physical abuse if warranted.
> t it would be irrelevant to analyse the exact act and try to define exactly how bad it is. But that doesn't mean there still is a scale
This is my point. Trying to define a moral scale of abuse based on the response of the abused -- consent, nonconsent, etc. -- is not more than an irrelevant intellectual exercise.
> In your hypothetical, the rapist would be prosecuted for rape and you would be prosecuted for assault.
Legal issues haven't been part of the discussion, we're talking morals/ethics. Would you judge me for doing that?
> Trying to define a moral scale of abuse based on the response of the abused
I'm not talking about basing it on the response, I'm talking about doing it based on the way it is carried out.
If an adult sets out to have consensual sex with another adult, and the other adult shows they don't want to do it (maybe at first contact, or maybe when they're both naked and just about to get started, maybe even after they just had sex already and one wants to go again) then that adult can chose to continue (rape) or stop (not rape).
I doubt (though fuck knows, could be wrong) that any adult has ever set out to rape ("rape" as in, with physical force, blackmail, etc. rather than "rape" as in statutory) a child and then discovered that the child enjoyed it afterwards. But there are definitely cases of adults starting consensual relationships with children - maybe if those relationships didn't go well they would then move onto rape, or maybe they would pull back like any normal person would in a comparable adult/adult situation.
It's all about intent of the abuser, not response of the abused.
If a stranger breaks into your home, goes through your belongings, and takes your prized possessions, it doesn't matter if you're well insured or if you're poor. It also doesn't matter if you're the extremely rare edge case who does not feel violated and doesn't press charges. The actual act of burglary occurred and the degree of it doesn't change based on your response.
Likewise, when a child is molested, it doesn't matter if he or she is not harmed physically. (Indeed, the psychological effects might be the longest lasting and most painful in many cases.)
Certainly, we can be thankful that they weren't physically harmed -- or in your rare edge case, that they are able to live the rest of their lives without any apparent repercussions. But that doesn't change the fact that there was an abuse of power (the other person was bigger, in a position of authority, more mentally capable, or more sober, etc.) And as I said before, it doesn't place any more responsibility on the child, nor any less culpability on the abuser.
The response does not change the act.