Opinion: ''Touched'' should not be synonymous with rape

I don’t know about everyone else but when someone tells me ‘’[ insert person here ] touched a child!’’, my reaction is ‘‘ok?’’

If touching a child is a crime, then every parent should be in prison.

I know when someone says ‘‘they touched a child’’ they mean ‘‘they raped a child’’ but that’s so stupid to me. Call the crime what it actually is instead of censoring it with words that have no relation to the crime.


I disagree.

Unwanted physical contact is one of, if not, THE primary component of rape, and it’s not necessarily limited to “mere fondling” or caressing, but includes forceful acts, like groping.
I don’t think it’s the same as genital-on-genital penetration, but it’s certainly on the same tier as that.

And since minors can’t consent to sex with adults, it’s always going to be considered a form of assault, and it’s like this for a reason.

1 Like

I’ll agree it is a bit jarring to see similar, yet distinct terminology misapplied like this, but it’s certainly not without reason. There isn’t really any censorship or suppression of viewpoints or speech at play, though.

yes, touching is obviously one of the primary components of rape but touching is also a component of a great many other activities, merely touching a child does not legally constitute as sexual assault.

It’s simply more logical that the correct terminology should be used. Simply using ‘‘touched’’ as a synonym for rape is vague.


There’s also “touched” in a metaphorical sense.


merely touching a child does not legally constitute as sexual assault.

If you touch a child in a sexual organ, buttocks or breast for sexual gratification, or to inflict suffering, it’s legally fucking sexual assault.

1 Like

I dont like the term but there is nothing inherantly wrong with it.

I think it dilutes the impact of child rape… same as when people use the word ‘‘diddle’’ to refer to child rape.

Often, people have a morbid fear of uttering certain “bad” words in case something terrible happens as a result. It’s the psychological equivalent of saying “He Who Must Not Be Named” in place of “Voldemort” in the Harry Potter series. Except, of course, that’s a fantasy series and in real life such concerns are totally irrational, but then that’s human psychology for you.

I think when they say “touching” in that sense people are talking about sexual touch, private parts etc, it’s probably not to be taken literally. So obviously “touching” a child (in that regard)it’s absolutely wrong, maybe it’s not equivalent or as bad as physically raping a child, although I don’t really like to make that kind of hierarchical judgment about which “type” of abuse is the worst and witch type is the “least worst”, anyway. I’m not from the US, but here in Brazil if someone say that “someone touched a child”(“alguém tocou numa criança”,in brazilian portuguese ), what is understood is that someone sexually touched a child, not that someone literally just touched a child’s arm, for example. I don’t know if I was able to answer your question properly, but that’s what I I could answer for what I understood.

Children cannot consent to sexual activities with adults in any way.

Molestation and rape are both forms of sexual assault. Both are unacceptable and deserve to be punished.

I don’t think your going to get much push back here.

Unfortunately many people around the world still belive in a very low age of consent.

1 Like

Sorry? Was there a misunderstanding in what I said? Because I didn’t say that at any point in my comment, on the contrary. I just tried to answer what you were asking. Maybe you are confusing with someone else

No one ever said they could on this post. I’m just arguing that the correct terminology should be used when referring to child abuse.

1 Like

My opinion is that rape crimes should be better differentiated. Raping someone is on a totally different level than sexually abusing someone by “just” touching them.
I guess some people want to treat both as the same gravity to make all kinds of harassment more serious. But in my view this ends up having the opposite effect, and trivializes the crime of rape.


Well… molestation and genital penitration are obviously distinct, but they are still harmful nonetheless. They’re still both unacceptable forms of abuse.

Of interesting note, however, is how lines can get blurred when digital (fingers) penitration is factored in. Some people and legal statutes might consider that a type of molestation, rather than rape, despite the fact that insertion may be taking place. It’s also worth noting, if it hasn’t been brought up already, that specifically penitration might also be codified differently.

Again, I don’t think it really helps to try to say one is worse or more severe than the other on the basis of genital or anal insertion.
Force can be and usually is applied in instances where children are molested, just like it is with rape, regardless of whether force is involved, are still harmful to and exploitive to children and minors.