I think the word you're looking for is "Abrahamic."

Amoral and immoral aren't even the same concept, you know? We should start there.

And more than that he can't possess nude pictures of someone under 18. That's considered child porn. Having sex is considered to be totally different than appearing in pornography. That's just how it is. Depending on your state's laws it may be legal to have sex with someone under 18. In no state is it legal to…

Frankly, this would have been just as awful if she had been 18, which highlights just how disgusting he is by saying, "BUT THE LEGALITY HURR DURR." I really hate how our legalistic attitudes drive much of our notion of what's moral, rather than asking, "is this moral?"

All those first person pieces are like that, aren't they? So far, that's always my reaction: I'm willing to be interested and educated and empathetic, but when I'm done I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be taking away.

I feel we tend to forget why we deemed violence wrong in the first place, and go into a sort of tunnel vision. Violence is wrong because it harms, and in most cases it carries emotional as well as physical harm. It's naive to say all violence is the same. When I was groped in the street I reacted by turning around and…

But we can try to think for ourselves and account for context instead of stubbornly clinging to definitions and pretending they cover all potential real-life situations.

Not too mention that it's not at all uncommon for children to want to protect their parents' feelings. Kids can't stand seeing their parents upset or sad, so a lot of trauma is withheld from parents. How many times have you heard a parent say "if only I'd known what my child was going through?"

I really don't get why so many commenters here seem to need an instruction on how to feel about this or how to take this. Also it is very obvious that this is a personal story, you don't even need the 'first person' tag to realise this.

They may be operating under the (apparently erroneous) assumption that their readers are largely grownups and thus can handle being exposed to things that don't have explicit morals.

THIS. And to see some of the idiocy seasoned Jez commenters are spewing.

Right? That response is blowing my mind:

Ya gotta lol at the people that are all like "I don't like this because it doesn't tell me how I should react to it."

How dare this young child use violence against a grown man who has emotionally abused her! How dare she laugh while her equally young friend photographs his penis, without considering the question of whether the same action would be appropriate if she were an older boy and her abuser a younger man! This young child…

Why do you need somebody to tell you what to think?

"Kids shouldn't be seeing this, I thought". You are a kid when you're 12 :( That part was what really hit the whole thing home for me.

I don't understand all the questions about how to take this... it's her life. It's OK for it to be morally ambiguous. I interpret it as a child taking an empowering action against an abusive and inappropriate adult but you, reader, can interpret it however you like.

You know, I had no idea anyone could criticize the 12 year old in this situation. I thought all the comments would be along the lines of 'That's awful!'. NOPE.