The "prolonged severe" part will come up later, but basically the research done on the subject acknowledges that there are differing degrees of abuse and abuse trauma. Even your own sources acknowledge this.
Of course there are differing degrees. Everything exists on a spectrum. Depression exists on a spectrum. Intelligence exists on a spectrum. There's some debatable degrees of severity between a young girl having her breasts fondled and being anally penetrated,
but the fact remains that both are still sexual abuse and should be treated with the same response.
Moreover, I checked a few of the studies your own sources linked to, and found some more support.
For instance, click on the link in the words "traumatic sexualization" and you'll find a study (in PDF, I'm not sure I can link it, but I told you exactly how to get it and it's not difficult) It says a lot of things, but one of the key ones is this:
Let's take a look at what you quoted:
"In such a context, the disempowering aspects of a sexual abuse experience may have only a minor or transient effect. If the child had experienced an unstable family configuration, in which the loyalty of significant others was in doubt, then the dynamic of betrayal may have already been strongly potentiated."
Did you understand what this quote says? Because what it's saying is that the severity of the betrayal experienced by the victim can be altered by an already strained relationship. As in,
if the child already lacks trust in the individual who then sexually abuses said child, the victim's feeling of betrayal is not solely instigated by that traumatic event because prior abuse had already instilled that feeling.
Here's an example: you're five, and your dad is physically abusive. Every day he gets a belt and whips you, making sure to get you with the heavy buckle. When he's not doing this he talks trash to you, yet says you should be grateful to have him give a shit about you. He's worn you down, every day, for five years. Your entire life. You know you shouldn't expect anything from him, and that he's not what a father should be, but you're trapped. The betrayal is already there because he's not giving you what you need. He doesn't love you.
Then, one day, he rapes you. It makes you feel worse, but at the same time the feeling of betrayal is not new. Because he's betrayed you before, this time it just feels a little different.
It's fucking awful, isn't it? That's what the quote is attempting to illustrate. It's not saying that the trauma is non-existent. It's saying that aggregated offenses have taken an astounding emotional toll on the victim. This actually indicates more severe trauma. So no, it doesn't prove your point. It proves the opposite.
The point of all this, really, is that these studies lump together everything stemming from "Father forced child to have sex with him physically" to "Decided one day on their own to have sex with a prostitute" (actually happened to a victim I knew). That's knowing about the symptoms more general rape brings onto adults, and that's knowing the incest taboo we have. The sources are extremely disingenuous about this.
I'm going to be honest, I have no fucking idea what your point here is. Are you saying that the research is invalid because it covers as wide an array of sexual abuse as possible? Are you saying that incest should not be a taboo? What qualifies as "general rape" as opposed to, say, "abnormal rape"? What is this glaring flaw that you see in these studies?
