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

[Marcus]

Am I making more sense?

No, not at all. It doesn’t seem like you read malkie’s earlier response.

If all the Bishop wants to do is to tell children and youth that sex and porn are bad, then they can get them all in a classroom and say it to all of them at the same time, every few months if needed. If the two options are that, and one-on-one closed-door interviews, I'd go for the group approach - no doubt about it.

But that is not the case.

A point that has been made over and over in this discussion is that the continual - and possibly progressive - placing of a vulnerable person in a situation in which an untrained and not properly vetted authority figure asks them, one-on-one, about intimate matters is problematic for at least three reasons

1. It makes it possible, and progressively easier, for the authority figure to take advantage of the person.
2. It desensitizes the person to inappropriate advances, and makes it easier for someone else to take advantage of them.
3. It makes it possible for the authority figure to be unjustly accused of trying to take advantage of the person.

I agree with you that most Bishops are not trying to harm anyone. I don't think that anyone in this discussion has suggested that they are. But this process facilitates the harm for the few who are intent on harm.

What I do not understand is why, when there is known to be potential for harm, and when there are alternatives, does the church still want Bishops to conduct one-on-one closed-door interviews.

All of this is still ignoring the fact that some of the things that the church demonizes as part of the sin next to murder are actually part of the normal development of the sexual creatures known as humans. I'm talking specifically about young people exploring their own bodies, and - horror of horrors - learning that certain things can be pleasurable. In the normal course of things, this should be no cause for feelings of guilt.

[Res Ipsa]

I never intend to

Here are my objections.

IHAQ was saying that adults can be groomed. IHAQ quoted, "young people [including young adults] can be groomed online." According to the dictionary, the term "grooming" means "the action by a pedophile of preparing a child for a meeting, especially via an internet chat room, with the intention of committing a sexual offense. " It is not grooming when the younger person is above the legal age of consent. I think "grooming" should be replaced with words like "tricked" "lied" "sexual harassment" when there are no minors involved.

A lot of extremists say it is "abuse" when a man dates a younger woman. According to some researchers, people simply call it "abuse". So I had to object to IHAQ's quote "Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a .... young person". For IHAQ, a young adult is a young person.

IHAQ then continues with "unintentional grooming". Hopefully, you can share some of the research on "unintentional grooming" or at least explain it from an evolutionary perspective.

Am I making more sense?

I'm sorry, but no. You're taking a bunch of snippets of information from disparate sources and trying to force them into a deductive syllogism without context.

This conversation has been going on a dreadfully long time, so my memory may be fuzzy, but has IHAQ ever stated that he meant to include adults in his use of "young people" in the sentence in question? If he didn't, then why assume that he was? It's your assumption about what IHAQ meant that is creating an entire issue out of nothing.

Definitions are typically fuzzy around the edges -- there are always edge cases to be argued about. For example, if a young person is being groomed for sex trafficking, why does it matter whether they are 18 or one day short of their 18th birthday? I suspect that if I looked at 10 different sources for a definition of "grooming," I'd find all kinds of small differences that would affect edge cases. But, again, it's just a label. It's the conduct that's important, so why are you placing so much emphasis on the label?

Why do you care what "extremists" say about abuse? Extremists say all kinds of things. Who cares? I am five years older than my wife. Which "extremists" would have called it "abuse" when we were dating? How many of these people are there? Who are they? Why should I care? Which researchers say that people call dating someone younger "abuse?" Unless two people were born simultaneously, isn't one member of a dating relationship older than the other? Does that make all dating "abuse?"

Why did you "have" to object to your own interpretation of IHAQ's quote, given that you were relying on your own assumption about what IHAQ meant, a dictionary definition that IHAQ may have never read, some unidentified extremists that IHAQ likely doesn't care about, and some unidentified researchers that IHAQ has never read. You didn't "have" to object at all. You chose to. I don't understand why.

I've given you my opinion on "unintentional" grooming. I think it makes more sense to restrict use of the label "grooming" to intentional conduct and refer to what IHAQ describes as something like "increasing susceptibility to grooming." So, I've already told you that I wouldn't use to the term "grooming" to apply to unintentional behavior. But, again, we're quibbling over labels. As a parent, I tried to teach my children "rules" that reduced their susceptibility to harm: don't get into a car with a stranger; don't play with guns; don't play three-card Monty; don't text naked pictures; etc. For children, reducing susceptibility to harm is a genuine consideration. And,, even though I may not agree with the label IHAQ used, I agree with his concern about how the church conducts worthiness interviews.

I have zero interest in trying to find research on "unintentional grooming" or creating evolutionary just so stories for why it might occur. And I am baffled as to why I think you would think that that I would be.

Did IHAQ's post make you feel anxious?

[doubtingthomas]

I suspect that if I looked at 10 different sources for a definition of "grooming," I'd find all kinds of small differences that would affect edge cases.

I'll tell you what "grooming" means to most people. Grooming is when a pedophile is trying to have sex with a child. Simple.

This conversation has been going on a dreadfully long time, so my memory may be fuzzy, but has IHAQ ever stated that he meant to include adults in his use of "young people" in the sentence in question?

Yes, he did mention "vulnerable adults" several times.

For example, if a young person is being groomed for sex trafficking, why does it matter whether they are 18 or one day short of their 18th birthday?

Do you realize that older adults can also be victims of sex trafficking? No one would say "He groomed a 30 year old woman".

People think all young women are naïve and vulnerable, which is not true. Young women in poor households are not naïve at all, their brain develops faster.

But, again, it's just a label. It's the conduct that's important, so why are you placing so much emphasis on the label?

Older people can also be victims of sexual abuse and sex trafficking, does it mean that older people can be groomed?

I am five years older than my wife. Which "extremists" would have called it "abuse" when we were dating?

We are talking about young people. Many would say it is abuse when a 22 year old man is dates someone who is five years younger, but it wouldn't be a problem for Mexicans (in the US).

Who are they? Why should I care?

Because extremists are loud. According to Lei and South, "Other observers, however, view the decline in young adults sexual activity as a predominately detrimental development, signaling a reduction in potentially rewarding intimate relationships". Lei and South argue in another article, "Perhaps the intensifying concern with interpersonal sexual violence and sexual coercion as exemplified in the #MeToo movement has begun inhibiting presumably voluntary casual sexual encounters between young women and men. " Of course the possibility of sexual violence is a valid concern, but the idea that young adults are vulnerable does more harm than good. Saying things like "Grooming young adults" or "young people who are groomed" won't be helpful.

"Why Young Adults, Especially Men, Are Having Sex Less Frequently ... #MeToo movement also may be playing a part." https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... frequently
"Men Are Now More Likely to Be Single Than Women. It's Not a Good Sign"
https://time.com/6104105/more-single-men-than-women/

I have zero interest in trying to find research on "unintentional grooming"

I want to know if "unintentional grooming" really makes the dudes more vulnerable. The research is important.

Good point. The stubbornness is costing them, but then, taking this path has been overwhelmingly expensive for a long time.

Right.

Did IHAQ's post make you feel anxious?

Sure!

I turn into the Hulk. I am like "Why is some random dude on the internet saying that"

[doubtingthomas]

For children, reducing susceptibility to harm is a genuine consideration. And,, even though I may not agree with the label IHAQ used, I agree with his concern about how the church conducts worthiness interviews.

I am with you, I completely agree, but it is not okay to change the meaning of labels or words. The world is very complicated and changing the meaning of something can cause a lot of confusion .

[Res Ipsa]

Older people can also be victims of sexual abuse and sex trafficking, does it mean that older people can be groomed?

Yes, older people can be groomed. Here’s an article about it.

What is Adult Grooming?
It’s a gradual process. The abuser picks their target, build up trust, and the actual abuse, which is usually sexual or financial, doesn’t come until much later.

It often starts with friendship. The groomer will look for ways to gain their target’s trust, often with gifts or promises. Eventually they’ll start to ask for something in return, and this eventually leads to abuse. Because groomers work to befriend their victims, some organisations refer to it as “mate crime”.

Grooming can happen in person, or it can happen online. Online grooming might be referred to as “catfishing”, where the groomer pretends to be someone they’re not in order to gain trust. Read our guide to staying safe online here.

Grooming can also take the form of predatory marriage. This is where someone exploits an adult at risk, often with dementia. They isolate them from their family and coerce them into marriage.

https://www.anncrafttrust.org/signs-of- ... h-out-for/

I’ll give you another church-related example. Affinity Fraud. Church members are conditioned from a very early age to implicitly trust only two things - their Church Leaders and some indescribable feeling in their tummies after praying. So of course nefarious people holding Church callings can use that conditioning to their advantage in order to con those members out of their cash. There’s a reason Utah/Mormonism is such a notoriously rich feeding ground for affinity fraudsters. Members have become desensitised to the risks of affinity fraudsters by the unintentional grooming (desensitising if you prefer) that they can trust the Church leader who’s asking them to invest their life savings into a money making scheme, and they can trust the good feeling they got when they prayed about it.

This conversation has become every postmodernist's dream playground. Do you trust anyone, IHAQ? I'm guessing you do. Do you know what trust is? It's an emotion like signal that something in your brain sends to that part that think's it's you. And that part that thinks it's you believes the other part, just like an LDS person trusts the Holy Ghost. Mormons just have a fancy label for the signal and attribute it to the divine. But you place as much "blind faith" in that signal from some part of your brain as the LDS person puts in theirs. Even when you think you are being "rational" when you trust that signal, the idea that you are being rational is just another signal from another part of your brain that you are placing the same kind of blind faith in that the LDS person does.

Where your argument leads is that any behavior, intentional or not, that influences one person to trust another is "grooming" and therefore harmful. In reality, trusting another person can be harmful and can be beneficial depending on the specific circumstances. In fact, trusting the same individual may be both harmful and beneficial at the same time. So, what sense does it make to use the same term to describe techniques used to commit and conceal the most heinous acts committed against children to, say, the actions I take to develop the kind of trust relationship I need to develop with my clients to give them adequate legal representation? It's all trust building, after all.

This is why confusing behavior with labels we assign to it is, in my opinion, a massive waste of time. Labels are purely for our convenience, with the primary purpose of facilitating communication. There is always a dialectic at work with labels, with contradictory pressures to broaden and to narrow the label. Because any two things are alike and any two things are similar, the conflict is irreconcilable. The more broadly the label is defined, the less useful it becomes for communication because the label doesn't signify anything specific. The more narrowly the label is defined, the less useful it becomes for communication because we have to invent and remember more labels than the average human brain can keep track of.

So, why not just accept that the labels are arbitrary and not argue about whether a behavior, which is a real thing, "is" a label, which is not? Right now, the term "grooming" has become used so broadly that it is close to useless as a tool for effective communication. For example, suggesting that school children not beat the crap out of the boy with effeminate characteristics during recess is now styled as "grooming" so we can discuss nonsensical arguments like: grooming is what kiddy diddlers do, therefore anti-bullying rules in schools promote child abuse.

If worthiness interviews as currently conducted by the LDS church are harmful, it is not because they are "grooming" or make children more susceptible to "grooming," it's because it makes the young people more vulnerable to harm, whatever label we give to the harm. "Grooming" is the label, not the harm.

[Res Ipsa]

For children, reducing susceptibility to harm is a genuine consideration. And,, even though I may not agree with the label IHAQ used, I agree with his concern about how the church conducts worthiness interviews.

I am with you, I completely agree, but it is not okay to change the meaning of labels or words. The world is very complicated and changing the meaning of something can cause a lot of confusion .

It sounds like you're assuming that words and labels have some objective, intrinsic meaning. They don't. We assign them. And as the world changes and people change, the meanings change. Here's some information on the history of the English word "groom:"

groom (v.)
"tend or care for; curry and feed," 1809, from groom (n.1) in its secondary sense of "male servant who attends to horses." Transferred sense of "to tidy (oneself) up" is from 1843; figurative sense of "to prepare a candidate" is from 1887, originally in U.S. politics. Related: Groomed; grooming.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/groom

So, should the verb "groom" be limited to its 1809 definition: tend or care for horses? Was it wrong to change the meaning of "groom" in 1843? In 1887? In whenever it was first used to apply in the context of child abuse?

Words are our slaves, not our masters. Humpty Dumpty got that part right.

[Physics Guy]

Changing the meanings of words can be bad, of course, but only if you're doing it to deceive or confuse people somehow. Meanings of words gradually change over time, eventually changing a lot. If what most people understand by a word has changed a lot in fifty years, then it could be that going back to that fifty-year-old definition, instead of using the current one, is the deceptive thing.

[Res Ipsa]

I suspect that if I looked at 10 different sources for a definition of "grooming," I'd find all kinds of small differences that would affect edge cases.

I'll tell you what "grooming" means to most people. Grooming is when a pedophile is trying to have sex with a child. Simple.

I understand that you want the label to have that meaning, but I doubt you have any idea what meaning "most" people give the label. Unless you've discussed it with a huge percentage of the population.

This conversation has been going on a dreadfully long time, so my memory may be fuzzy, but has IHAQ ever stated that he meant to include adults in his use of "young people" in the sentence in question?

Yes, he did mention "vulnerable adults" several times.

I don't think the terms "vulnerable adult" and "young adult" are synonymous. "Vulnerable adult" is often applied to elderly adults or adults with some kind of cognitive impairment. It is also used to mean "emotionally vulnerable," such as adults that have undergone some kind of trauma.

For example, if a young person is being groomed for sex trafficking, why does it matter whether they are 18 or one day short of their 18th birthday?

Do you realize that older adults can also be victims of sex trafficking? No one would say "He groomed a 30 year old woman".

Yes, of course. That fact has nothing to do with my point. Also, people can and do talk about "adult grooming," including grooming of 30 year old women. A quick google shows that your "no one would say..." is false. "Grooming" is described in connection with trafficking of adult women and in abusive relationships at any age. In addition, people use "grooming" to describe behavior targeted at men as well as women, but going forward you are using it exclusively as women/girls being the targets.

[/quote]People think all young women are naïve and vulnerable, which is not true. Young women in poor households are not naïve at all, their brain develops faster.[/quote]

What people? Not me. I've known naïve young men and naïve young women, vulnerable young men and vulnerable young women, naïve older men and naïve older women, and vulnerable older men and vulnerable older women. Even if there were quantifiable differences in averages, the ranges of vulnerability and naïveté in each category make the differences of little consequence. I don't think the data support the sweeping generalizations you are making and the conclusions you are drawing.

But, again, it's just a label. It's the conduct that's important, so why are you placing so much emphasis on the label?

Older people can also be victims of sexual abuse and sex trafficking, does it mean that older people can be groomed?

That's non responsive to my question. I asked you why you are hung up on the label, and you asked me another question about the label. Why are you so hung up on the label?

I am five years older than my wife. Which "extremists" would have called it "abuse" when we were dating?

We are talking about young people. Many would say it is abuse when a 22 year old man is dates someone who is five years younger, but it wouldn't be a problem for Mexicans (in the US).

So, you were making an over broad generalization. What you are talking about is the issue of adults dating minors, not the age spread itself. Now, who are these extremists you keep talking about and why should we place any importance on what they say?

Who are they? Why should I care?

Because extremists are loud. According to Lei and South, "Other observers, however, view the decline in young adults sexual activity as a predominately detrimental development, signaling a reduction in potentially rewarding intimate relationships". Lei and South argue in another article, "Perhaps the intensifying concern with interpersonal sexual violence and sexual coercion as exemplified in the #MeToo movement has begun inhibiting presumably voluntary casual sexual encounters between young women and men. " Of course the possibility of sexual violence is a valid concern, but the idea that young adults are vulnerable does more harm than good. Saying things like "Grooming young adults" or "young people who are groomed" won't be helpful.

"Why Young Adults, Especially Men, Are Having Sex Less Frequently ... #MeToo movement also may be playing a part." https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... frequently
"Men Are Now More Likely to Be Single Than Women. It's Not a Good Sign"
https://time.com/6104105/more-single-men-than-women/

You cherry picked something out of an article that suggested a number of possible causes of the observed decline in the frequency of people having sex. Did any of them attribute the decline to something about sex between older men and younger women? Or to a belief that all young adults are "vulnerable?" Or to a "change" in the meaning of "grooming?" If the metoo movement is a cause, is it because men are pressuring women less for sex in connection with work or that women are becoming more assertive or both? In either case, why would that be a problem? It seems to me you're making all kinds of leaps here that just don't follow.

Lots of people are loud. You seem fixated on unidentified "extremists" that apparently don't say what you say they say. I don't get it.

I have zero interest in trying to find research on "unintentional grooming"

I want to know if "unintentional grooming" really makes the dudes more vulnerable. The research is important.

Then research the literature yourself. My guess is that you won't find much, as exposing children to potentially harmful behavior is probably tough to get past an ERB.

Good point. The stubbornness is costing them, but then, taking this path has been overwhelmingly expensive for a long time.

Right.

Did IHAQ's post make you feel anxious?

Sure!

I turn into the Hulk. I am like "Why is some random dude on the internet saying that"

Why would it make you feel anxious? As for why IHAQ would say what he said, I don't think there's any deep mystery. He's talked about worthiness interviews as being problematic for the same reason on a pretty consistent basis for years. He says it because he sees the way the interviews are conducted as harmful and thinks they could be easily changed to reduce the harm without reducing whatever benefit there is to the interviews themselves. And, as he views the LDS church as a tremendous source of harm and this is "Discuss Mormonism" ... well, there just aren't many dots to connect there. The only thing different about his posting in this thread is use of the label. I believe he lives in the UK and using "grooming" to describe conduct targeted at adults seems fairly common there, if Google is any guide. I saw articles that used the labels "child grooming" and "adult grooming," which seemed to me to be a useful way of handing the labels.

[doubtingthomas]

"Grooming" is described in connection with trafficking of adult women and in abusive relationships at any age.

I understand, but it has nothing to do with IHAQ's quote, "Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person".

What you are talking about is the issue of adults dating minors, not the age spread itself.

A 22 year old dating someone who is five years younger? 17 is legal in most states, and I don't think it is a felony anywhere, as long as the 22 year old doesn't travel to another state.

Mexicans in the US would praise a 26 year old white man dating a 17 year old Mexican. Many people would call it abuse when a 26 dates an 18 year old.

It sounds like you're assuming that words and labels have some objective, intrinsic meaning.

Of course not, but just talk to apologists. People like to change the meaning of things to score political points or to create confusion. Republicans are trying to change the meaning of "grooming". Look it up.

You cherry picked something out of an article that suggested a number of possible causes of the observed decline in the frequency of people having sex. Did any of them attribute the decline to something about sex between older men and younger women?

I'll show you the research when I come back.

If the metoo movement is a cause, is it because men are pressuring women less for sex in connection with work or that women are becoming more assertive or both?

I'll give you the researcher when I come back. Young men are afraid to be called "predators" or "creeps".

Romantic relationships are at a record low, and less men are dating younger women. One researcher said the decline started in 2017.

How do you explain the decline? You can't blame the decline on the bad economy because the decline is greater among teens. According to Lei and South, much of the decline is "unexplained", but you can't blame "social media", "the economy", and "the decline in marriage".

My guess is that you won't find much, as exposing children to potentially harmful behavior is probably tough to get past an ERB.

We need a statistical analysis.

[Res Ipsa]

No, I’m not trolling. Statistical analysis of what data? Where are you going to get reliable data on the susceptibility of children who attend worthiness interviews with their LDS bishop as compared to those who don’t. If my understanding is correct, the extent to which bishops ask detailed, intrusive questions about sexual contact varies from Bishop to bishop. So you can’t even control for that variable.

There are a million factors that could come into play in terms of changing survey results about sexual practices over time. Sure, you could data mine for correlations, but that is problematic in terms of statistical significance. Perhaps the whole notion of younger women marrying older men was simply a cultural artifact from past times. One of the articles suggested that young people are maturing more slowly, which could translate into having sexual partners later. That, by itself, would reduce the frequency of sex between 17 year olds and 22 year olds. The drop off is reportedly larger among men than women, so maybe it turns out that more women prefer women as sexual partners than before. Maybe men were more sensitive in the past in terms of image and lied about the frequency at which they had sex. Maybe when sex isn’t treated as a taboo topic, young people just aren’t as interested. Maybe social media. Maybe the pandemic. Why should I have any strong opinion based on something that may be a factor?

But I don’t see what any of this has to do with how we should define the word grooming or whether the LDS Church should change its worthiness interviews in the interest of harm reduction.