A place to talk about Minor-Attracted People, and MAP/AAM-related issues. The attraction itself, associated paraphilia/identities and AMSC/AMSR (Adult-Minor Sexual Contact and Relations).
Fragment wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:28 am
Anyone pedi repost that’s relevant:
Talking to a minor is not grooming.
Talking to a minor about sex is not grooming.
Talking to a minor sexually is not grooming.
Showing overt sexual interest in a minor is not grooming.
Doing something sexual with a minor after building a relationship with them is not grooming.
Grooming refers to a specific type of coercive behavior, usually threatening or deceptive in nature. It does not mean "any interaction between a minor an unrelated adult".
In addition
Honest friendship and romance with a minor is not "grooming".
Honest compliments, care and gifts are not "grooming"
Men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I don’t like the term because a strictly platonic friendship between an adult and child can be misconstrued as grooming. If it needs to be used, it should be applied after the fact to behaviors that culminated in unwanted sexual contact.
32M | Exclusively attracted to boys 3-15 (peaking at 10-13) | Currently reside in Georgia (US)
PorcelainLark wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2024 1:11 am
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.
Well, as a minor I can say that I know what maps are and I still like it, I feel like that's like consent
I used to hate the term "grooming" as it's used in the modern sense, but nowadays I understand where antis are coming from. Since children tend to be more naive, easygoing and impulsive, they perceive relationships between adults and them as inherently foul play, so to speak. They assume the adult is taking advantage of the kid.
My honest opinion? I'm not that interested in changing the world or even culture and people anymore. I know myself, I know my intentions, my boundaries, I know the love and care I have for children. I trust myself. So I will navigate my relationships with them however I see fit. There's a lot of fun to be had under the radar without causing harm or worries to anyone (:
When people say grooming nowadays they use it to describe any interaction between two people with an unattractive age difference that precedes a consensual sexual encounter. This would normally be called "being friendly", "getting to know each other", and "seduction"/"romance" between adults of similar ages.
They also use it to describe any behavior with a young person where sexual disinterest isn't blatantly obvious. It is deemed grooming on the mere possibility that the interaction could be motivated by an attraction. If you're not in an authority position and you have a friendly personal encounter with a young person where you don't treat them like they're below you, you're called a groomer.
The word assumes that teens have no natural interest in sex with adults, so the adult has to break down their barriers and brainwash them into it.
In some cases using the word makes sense with the prepubescent age groups. 99% of the time it's used incorrectly. It's a trigger word used to make natural human interaction sound sinister and manipulative.
No. Its either a loving relationship or its manipulation. Yet both are just called “grooming” with no discerment into the differences. Any case of a loving relationship between a map and minor can just be described as romance instead of “grooming”. Any forced or coerced relationship between a map and a minor can just be described as “manipulation.” The way I see it, the very concept of grooming was simply invented to demonize the former, and make all AM relationships seem as awful and abusive as straight up manipulation. The concept of grooming is bullshit and I refuse to take most “grooming” accusations seriously. Even educating a kid is “grooming” for some stupid fucking reason.
