3 ms·

> 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 "d

> 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.

corin_ 13y ago
> 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.

corin_ 13y ago

> 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.