doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 5:05 am
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
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.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
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?
doubtingthomas wrote: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.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
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?
doubtingthomas wrote: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.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
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?
doubtingthomas wrote: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?
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
I am five years older than my wife. Which "extremists" would have called it "abuse" when we were dating?
doubtingthomas wrote: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?
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
Who are they? Why should I care?
doubtingthomas wrote: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.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
I have zero interest in trying to find research on "unintentional grooming"
doubtingthomas wrote: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.
Marcus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 4:35 am
Good point. The stubbornness is costing them, but then, taking this path has been overwhelmingly expensive for a long time.
doubtingthomas wrote:Right.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:36 pm
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.