Paradise Split from LDS Scout Leader charged with several counts of criminal sexual conduct

[Res Ipsa]

It's not necessarily wrong - but there are lots of factors that could make it more or less likely to be acceptable to me personally, and to society.

So we agree. My question is in regards to IHAQ quote, "Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked....Groomers may also build a relationship with the young person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy".

Can a younger woman be "groomed", if so, would that automatically be abuse? Assume there is no real coercion, harassment, and the guy is not in a position of authority.

I don't understand why you are placing so much emphasis on labels that are, to some extent, arbitrary. Rather than trying to reason from the labels, describe the conduct and its purpose. I think it's helpful to limit the label "grooming" to non-violent behavior designed to lead to and conceal illegal sexual contact. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply it to any pattern of behavior intended to persuade a person to act against his or her own interests. The problem is, as I see it, the broader we make the label, the less useful it is because we have to stop and contextualize it every time we use it.

So, a meaningful answer to your question requires you to describe the the "grooming" behavior and how you are defining "abuse."

[doubtingthomas]

Exactly what is it that you believe we have agreed on?

I agree it is a complex topic and I agree it is not necessarily wrong.

Let me change the question.

Can a younger woman be groomed? If so, how would that be different from getting "tricked" or "deceived"?

[malkie]

Exactly what is it that you believe we have agreed on?

I agree it is a complex topic and I agree it is not necessarily wrong.

Let me change the question.

Can a younger woman be groomed? If so, how would that be different from getting "tricked" or "deceived"?

Sorry, DT, I'm getting bored with the "game" of defining nuances in the abstract. Once again I get the feeling that you have some end in mind that you are trying to drive towards, so that you can claim a victory of some sort.

I'm just not up for that.

If someone else would like to take up this part of the thread I'm happy to relinquish it.

[doubtingthomas]

So, a meaningful answer to your question requires you to describe the the "grooming" behavior and how you are defining "abuse."

IHAQ should explain what he means by grooming "young people" and should explain what he means by abuse. Labels matter.

I don't understand why you are placing so much emphasis on labels that are, to some extent, arbitrary. Rather than trying to reason from the labels, describe the conduct and its purpose. I think it's helpful to limit the label "grooming" to non-violent behavior designed to lead to and conceal illegal sexual contact.

Yes, it would be helpful. So cinepro was right when he said, "Grooming isn't accidental. It is intentional. The person does it with a goal (abuse) in mind. "

But malkie objected, "But it's something akin to grooming, and has the same effect of desensitizing the vulnerable person to inappropriate behaviour by some other authority figure. Call it "pseudo-grooming", or "unintentional grooming" - anything you like."

[Res Ipsa]

So, a meaningful answer to your question requires you to describe the the "grooming" behavior and how you are defining "abuse."

IHAQ should explain what he means by grooming "young people" and should explain what he means by abuse. Labels matter.

I don't understand why you are placing so much emphasis on labels that are, to some extent, arbitrary. Rather than trying to reason from the labels, describe the conduct and its purpose. I think it's helpful to limit the label "grooming" to non-violent behavior designed to lead to and conceal illegal sexual contact.

Yes, it would be helpful. So cinepro was right when he said, "Grooming isn't accidental. It is intentional. The person does it with a goal (abuse) in mind. "

But malkie objected, "But it's something akin to grooming, and has the same effect of desensitizing the vulnerable person to inappropriate behaviour by some other authority figure. Call it "pseudo-grooming", or "unintentional grooming" - anything you like."

So hopefully malkie explains what mystical effect is he referring to.

Labels are arbitrary. They are convenient ways to express certain ideas, but they should never be treated as the ideas themselves.

If you don't know what IHAQ intended by his use of grooming "young people" and "abuse," you should ask them to clarify. I'm responding to your use of the labels. If you don't know what you mean when you use a label, why are you using it at all?

I agree with Cinepro that, in the context of child abuse, the word grooming should be used to refer to intentional conduct with the goal of illegal child abuse. That has nothing to do with what "grooming" is. "Grooming" is just a label. It is what we define it to be. We could take the same idea -- intentional, non-violent conduct intended to result in illegal sexual contact with children -- and call it "German Chocolate Cake." Labels are not correct or incorrect -- they are more useful or less useful depending on how we use them.

If I were to describe IHAQ's concern, it's not that all bishops are grooming young people through personal worthiness interviews. It's that they are making them more susceptible to grooming by teaching them trust adults who ask them detailed questions about their sexuality in a one on one interview. Arguing over whether we should apply the label "grooming" to that pattern of behavior doesn't advance the conversation. The question is whether the worthiness interviews are harmful in some way.

The distinction between grooming and not grooming is not the same as the distinction between harmful and not harmful. We can assign labels however we want, but it won't help us get at the actual issue, which is whether the practice is harmful. If so, can the practice be changed in a way to preserves any benefits while reducing the harm?

I don't see Malkie as contradicting cinepro at all. He's simply saying that, even if we apply the label "grooming" the way cinepro applies it, that doesn't reduce the potential for harm in making the child more susceptible to grooming. You can use any label you want -- Malkie suggested several. It doesn't matter.

Finally, what Malkie is suggesting isn't mystical at all. It's all about teaching children the boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate behavior by adults in a way that makes them more or less susceptible to grooming. I do the a similar thing for my kids with respect to con artists.

[malkie]

IHAQ should explain what he means by grooming "young people" and should explain what he means by abuse. Labels matter.



Yes, it would be helpful. So cinepro was right when he said, "Grooming isn't accidental. It is intentional. The person does it with a goal (abuse) in mind. "

But malkie objected, "But it's something akin to grooming, and has the same effect of desensitizing the vulnerable person to inappropriate behaviour by some other authority figure. Call it "pseudo-grooming", or "unintentional grooming" - anything you like."

So hopefully malkie explains what mystical effect is he referring to.

Labels are arbitrary. They are convenient ways to express certain ideas, but they should never be treated as the ideas themselves.

If you don't know what IHAQ intended by his use of grooming "young people" and "abuse," you should ask them to clarify. I'm responding to your use of the labels. If you don't know what you mean when you use a label, why are you using it at all?

I agree with Cinepro that, in the context of child abuse, the word grooming should be used to refer to intentional conduct with the goal of illegal child abuse. That has nothing to do with what "grooming" is. "Grooming" is just a label. It is what we define it to be. We could take the same idea -- intentional, non-violent conduct intended to result in illegal sexual contact with children -- and call it "German Chocolate Cake." Labels are not correct or incorrect -- they are more useful or less useful depending on how we use them.

If I were to describe IHAQ's concern, it's not that all bishops are grooming young people through personal worthiness interviews. It's that they are making them more susceptible to grooming by teaching them trust adults who ask them detailed questions about their sexuality in a one on one interview. Arguing over whether we should apply the label "grooming" to that pattern of behavior doesn't advance the conversation. The question is whether the worthiness interviews are harmful in some way.

The distinction between grooming and not grooming is not the same as the distinction between harmful and not harmful. We can assign labels however we want, but it won't help us get at the actual issue, which is whether the practice is harmful. If so, can the practice be changed in a way to preserves any benefits while reducing the harm?

I don't see Malkie as contradicting cinepro at all. He's simply saying that, even if we apply the label "grooming" the way cinepro applies it, that doesn't reduce the potential for harm in making the child more susceptible to grooming. You can use any label you want -- Malkie suggested several. It doesn't matter.

Finally, what Malkie is suggesting isn't mystical at all. It's all about teaching children the boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate behavior by adults in a way that makes them more or less susceptible to grooming. I do the a similar thing for my kids with respect to con artists.

Thanks, Res Ipsa, for crystallising my ideas so well.

Until cinepro mentioned that intentionality was built in to the accepted definition of "grooming", I was unaware of that fact. I was indeed looking at the result: an increased susceptibility to potentially harmful interactions with authority figures. I'm sure that the vast majority of LDS bishops are well intentioned. However, they are involved in practices that may eventually lead to harm

[doubtingthomas]

I agree with Cinepro that, in the context of child abuse, the word grooming should be used to refer to intentional conduct with the goal of illegal child abuse. That has nothing to do with what "grooming" is. "Grooming" is just a label. It is what we define it to be. We could take the same idea -- intentional, non-violent conduct intended to result in illegal sexual contact with children -- and call it "German Chocolate Cake." Labels are not correct or incorrect -- they are more useful or less useful depending on how we use them.

I understand, it is a valid concern. I just don't feel comfortable with quotes like this "Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked....Groomers may also build a relationship with the young person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy" because I was dating a younger woman last year. I am not a groomer.

Until cinepro mentioned that intentionality was built in to the accepted definition of "grooming", I was unaware of that fact. I was indeed looking at the result: an increased susceptibility to potentially harmful interactions with authority figures. I'm sure that the vast majority of LDS bishops are well intentioned. However, they are involved in practices that may eventually lead to harm

True.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree with Cinepro that, in the context of child abuse, the word grooming should be used to refer to intentional conduct with the goal of illegal child abuse. That has nothing to do with what "grooming" is. "Grooming" is just a label. It is what we define it to be. We could take the same idea -- intentional, non-violent conduct intended to result in illegal sexual contact with children -- and call it "German Chocolate Cake." Labels are not correct or incorrect -- they are more useful or less useful depending on how we use them.

I understand, it is a valid concern. I just don't feel comfortable with quotes like this "Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked....Groomers may also build a relationship with the young person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy" because I was dating a younger woman last year. I am not a groomer.

I don’t understand why the sentence bothers you. It doesn’t say or imply that someone who dates a younger person is a “groomer.” Were you dating someone you couldn’t legally have sex with?

[malkie]

I understand, it is a valid concern. I just don't feel comfortable with quotes like this "Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked....Groomers may also build a relationship with the young person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy" because I was dating a younger woman last year. I am not a groomer.

I don’t understand why the sentence bothers you. It doesn’t say or imply that someone who dates a younger person is a “groomer.” Were you dating someone you couldn’t legally have sex with?

Res, before I saw your reply, I was going to ask DT if this is what he has been building up to with all of the parsing and questioning. It all starts to make some kind of sense now, if that is the case - only DT can tell us.

But if it is, DT, it seems as if you are depending on a bunch of mostly anonymous strangers on a message board for validation of your actions and/or self worth. Is that a good idea?

if i'm wrong, I apologise for jumping to conclusions.

[doubtingthomas]

I don’t understand why the sentence bothers you. It doesn’t say or imply that someone who dates a younger person is a “groomer.”

The sentence says, "Children and young people who are groomed"

The sentence doesn't say, "Children who are groomed".

Young adults are young people. Does that make sense? According to the World Health Organization "young people (10–24 years)"
https://apps.who.int/adolescent/second- ... cence.html

It is now considered predatory behavior or sexual harassment when a man talks to a younger woman. I am not kidding. Many people do believe that now.

Were you dating someone you couldn’t legally have sex with?

Okay. I am just going to pretend you didn't asked me that.

if i'm wrong, I apologise for jumping to conclusions.

Your good! I am not offended.