Is "grooming" a meaningful concept?

[PorcelainLark]

If we look at the history how pedophilia is portrayed, we see the underlying justification for the laws connected to it. The 1996 film Bastard Out of Carolina is a good window into the motivation for the laws we have. A child is sexually coerced and is helpless to escape that coercion. This gives a clear rationale for why laws about child abuse need to be in place, because a child is otherwise helpless to a child abuser.
However, what if the child isn't coerced? Grooming makes sense as a concept when it is manipulative, as for example the stereotype of a predator enticing children with "free candy", but what if a child knew what a MAP wanted and wanted it too? How would that be different than other relationships? The standard explanations suggest a child either has no interest in sex and/or no knowledge of it, unless they've been "groomed" into it.
The concept of grooming has become a way of closing down the challenge that statutory rape may be a victimless crime. A minor is still a victim even if they don't feel like they are a victim and suffered no adverse side effects, and were already having sex with others their own age.
I have yet to see an explanation of why grooming (when it doesn't involve deception or pressure) is actually wrong.

[Red Rodent]

I have yet to see an explanation of why grooming (when it doesn't involve deception or pressure) is actually wrong.

The one that gets me (I hear it all the time) is that children become "inappropriately sexualized" by experiences. Even otherwise enlightened people fall in with this myth.

Even young children are interested in sex, even if it's just on the level of curiosity. In fact, they're fascinated by it. They may perceive arousal differently from those who have started puberty, but they don't exist in a state of sexless purity. That's a fact that's been recognised since Freud came along. To make the same claim about pubescent kids is clearly ludicrous. And the hormones start flowing quite some time before they have a noticeable impact physically.

The original concept here was "grooming a child for sex." Grooming is, in essence, a caring activity: one that makes the child look and feel better. Just like we groom horses and groom ourselves. I remember when job adverts public-facing roles said things like, "A high standard of personal grooming is required."

So yeah: all kids want to be looked after and cared for. They want to be bigged-up. They want to be on an equal footing with adults. There's nothing intrinsically harmful in doing that.

On the other hand, children's sensuality and sexual feelings are extremely fragile and vulnerable, and I do see the sizable risk of responding to them in the same way as we would to adults' affection.

And there are, undeniably, some predatory paedophiles around, who target and exploit young people through gaining their trust and affection by making them feel good.

[Artaxerxes II]

Not really, at least in the context of minor attraction. I never understood why grooming was ever used when terms like "luring" or "manipulation" fit the bill. Apparently it was first coined when US cops began to use the term to describe what was essentially seduction of young women by older men.

Typically the term "grooming" as used by antis indicates a wide range of behaviours that go from being adults being affectionate to youths, to deception as Fragments described. But over the years, the term has been so over-used that now even sex ed in US schools is now deemed as "grooming". But then again, the term as used by antis was always bollocks as you never see them describing deceptive tactics to obtain sex as "grooming" except when it involves an age gap the anti arbitrarily finds disgusting.

So no, I don't find "grooming" to be meaningful except within the context of taking care of one's appearance, pet care, and someone befriending a person with the plan of making them their successor.

[Red Rodent]

Even of the people who do this, I wonder how many deliberately do it and how many just don't realize what they're doing.

Humans are much better at unintentionally harming others than intentionally doing so.

Oh, fuck, yes! So much damage that is done through human interplay is unintentional. Few of us go out to hurt others intentionally. It happens all the time in adult relationships. Most of us have experienced that, and pointing fingers of blame is unhelpful.

But when it comes to kids, including adolescents, I think there is an extra layer of responsibility on mature adults.

[Brain O'Conner]

Even young children are interested in sex, even if it's just on the level of curiosity. In fact, they're fascinated by it. They may perceive arousal differently from those who have started puberty, but they don't exist in a state of sexless purity. That's a fact that's been recognised since Freud came along.

I beg to differ. While you're are right in a way that prepubescent children do those things out of curiosity, a lot don't solely do it out of curiosity with no sexual feelings attached. Sexual feelings and desires are not necessarily dependent on puberty. If you want to be technical, most kids between the ages of 5-7 years old enter in a phase of puberty called adrenarche that is sometimes nicknamed the "psychological phase of puberty" and starts two or more years before the physical phase of puberty that is commonly taught in school. Adrenarche is the activation of the adrenal glands that produces a spike in androgens called DHEA and DHEA-S (don't ask me how to pronounce the abbreviated words, go look that up) and is responsible for a number of things such as pubic hair growth, acne, but more specifically, libido and continues until and peaks at your twenties. Think of this phase as the starter phase that prepares you for the second phase of puberty.

[Harlan]

If you want to be technical, most kids between the ages of 5-7 years old enter in a phase of puberty called adrenarche that is sometimes nicknamed the "psychological phase of puberty" and starts two or more years before the physical phase of puberty that is commonly taught in school. Adrenarche is the activation of the adrenal glands that produces a spike in androgens and is responsible for a number of things such as pubic hair growth, acne, but more specifically, libido and continues until and peaks at your twenties.

For this reason, I believe that the current boundaries of Hebephilia (11-14) should be adjusted to 7-14. Then we get quite equal division according to physiological development: Pedophilia (0-6), Hebephilia (7-14), Ephebophilia (15-21).

[Red Rodent]

Even young children are interested in sex, even if it's just on the level of curiosity. In fact, they're fascinated by it. They may perceive arousal differently from those who have started puberty, but they don't exist in a state of sexless purity. That's a fact that's been recognised since Freud came along.

I beg to differ. While you're are right in a way that prepubescent children do those things out of curiosity, a lot don't solely do it out of curiosity with no sexual feelings attached.

I don't see how we differ here. Kids find lots of things sexually arousing. However, the focus does change with puberty. It's quite normal for five-year-olds to find poo and snot erotic, and they are likely to enjoy playing with their genitals, but show them a romantic scene in a movie and many, if not most, will find it boring.

[Brain O'Conner]

Even young children are interested in sex, even if it's just on the level of curiosity. In fact, they're fascinated by it. They may perceive arousal differently from those who have started puberty, but they don't exist in a state of sexless purity. That's a fact that's been recognised since Freud came along.

I beg to differ. While you're are right in a way that prepubescent children do those things out of curiosity, a lot don't solely do it out of curiosity with no sexual feelings attached.

I don't see how we differ here. Kids find lots of things sexually arousing. However, the focus does change with puberty. It's quite normal for five-year-olds to find poo and snot erotic, and they are likely to enjoy playing with their genitals, but show them a romantic scene in a movie and many, if not most, will find it boring.

I may have misunderstood you then. But even so, there are a lot of kids that are five or six years old that get turn on whether they are exposed to erotic things such seeing their parents or other people having sex, particular body parts about a man or womans body, erotic poses or dances, and so on and so forth. I would also state the fact that children that young do have romantic feelings as anybody else would have them for and reenact the things they see from a movie to express the feelings and desires they want with a person. Again, none of this stuff is puberty dependent. I didn't really know that children that young get aroused over poo or snot though; I never heard of that one before

[Harlan]

Also works fairly well with 4 year intervals:
Nepiophilia 0-3
Early Pedophilia 4-7
Late Pedophilia 8-11
Hebephilia 12-15
Ephebophilia / Teleiophilia 16+

Overcomplicated. 3-4 year periods are too short and confusing. Also it seems to me unnecessary to separate Nepiophilia, it is more of a fetish and part of Pedophilia.

[Anonymous_Lover]

No.