Also, I have tried to be gender-neutral in this discussion, since even though most of the sexual harassment cases we have heard about have been heterosexual and with a male antagonist and a female victim, that is not to say that all sexual harassment cases have that same dynamic. For instance, as far as I'm concerned, any female teacher of elementary or secondary school who tries one on on their charges e.g. Mary Kay Letourneau, is guilty of sexual harassment at best, and of out-and-out statutory rhymes-with-tape at worst.
That's one of the few variations in sexual abuse scenarios that I think is clear-cut. Abuse is abuse regardless of the genders of the aggressor and victim.
What I find fascinating about the current wave of public sexual abuse/harassment accusations is society's (social and mainstream media's) attempts to decide how condemnation and/or redemption might be earned or given. Do we add and subtract "points" based on an alleged abuser's reaction to being accused? On the number of accusers? On the severity of the transgressions? On the palpability of the evidence?
Al Franken was caught red-handed, photographed groping Leann Tweeden, but he immediately admitted his misdeeds, apologized, expressed remorse, and asked the senate ethics committee to evaluate his conduct. Does he deserve more or less punishment or forgiveness than Roy Moore, whose alleged transgressions are arguably more sinister than Franken's, but who denies everything and calls his accusers unpatriotic liars in a conspiracy against him? There's far more informal evidence against Moore than Franken, but it's not as concrete as Tweeden's photograph.
And Moore's denial is problematic, because if he's lying, he's abusing his accusers
again.
Would Franken be
less remorseful if he were not caught red-handed? Would Moore be
more remorseful if he
were caught red-handed? In this scenario, remorse
signifies guilt, but lack of remorse doesn't signify innocence.
Should it matter that Moore's alleged abuses occurred in a state so backward that his openly paedophiliac behavior at the time was regarded as little more than an inconvenient quirk? And should it matter that his condemnation or forgiveness will be decided by voters who might still regard his behavior as "odd but tolerable" even today?
I don't have answers, but they're damned interesting questions.