Are antis reconstructing honour culture via the grooming panic, but for minors?

[Artaxerxes II]

From a certain post on fedi:

Recently, I've been thinking, are antis reconstructing honour culture via the grooming panic, but for minors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Masai_(film)

From the plot tab:

"Lemalian does not want Carola to be friendly with other men, even if she is just serving a customer in a friendly way. He is very jealous and suspicious of Carola having a boyfriend. He even wants to kill a man he suspects."

The 2005 film The White Masai depicts a striking example of extreme jealousy: Lemalian refuses to let Carola interact with other men, even in innocent social exchanges, and harbors violent suspicions of her having a boyfriend. This scenario mirrors a broader cultural phenomenon—what can be termed as a modern reworking of honor culture in the form of "grooming panic."

By substituting Lemalian with "anti," Carola with "minor," and men/customers/boyfriends with "MAPs" or "adults," the same sentiment remains. Just as Lemalian assumes any interaction signals a path to infidelity, antis perceive any informal conversation between an adult and a minor as the start of a grooming process that inevitably leads to sexual abuse. This intense paranoia reflects the logic of honor culture, where safeguarding purity becomes paramount.

In honor cultures, a woman can only engage with her husband and male relatives; any informal exchange with outsiders is seen as a step toward promiscuity, thus justifying restrictive measures. Over time, the focus shifts from preventing undesirable outcomes to eradicating any behavior that might precede them. The same reasoning underlies the grooming panic: antis argue that intergenerational "free-mixing" will lead to grooming, which is seen as the precursor to child sexual abuse. The solution, then, is to eliminate any possibility of interaction.

For antis, the primary goal is preventing grooming at all costs, leading to aggressive tactics such as doxxing alleged groomers or exposing "inappropriate" behavior (e.g., exchanging suggestive messages). This mirrors honor culture's approach, where even a woman glancing at a man is seen as a prelude to sexual transgression. Both frameworks rely on extreme preemptive control under the assumption that any minor deviation will escalate into catastrophe.

Feminist literature often overlooks how honor culture operates on a protectionist, paternalistic foundation—one strikingly similar to the anti-grooming mainstream discourse in the U.S. and other Anglo countries. Just as honor culture prioritizes a woman's purity, grooming panic emphasizes preserving a minor’s "innocence" and "age-appropriateness." Both function as moral stand-ins that justify severe restrictions on autonomy.

Another parallel is the endorsement of vigilante violence. In honor culture, a man perceived as attempting to seduce a married woman becomes a legitimate target for retribution, often at the hands of her husband or male relatives. Similarly, if a MAP is suspected of engaging with a minor, violence against them is socially sanctioned, whether by the state or the minor's family. The minor’s willingness is irrelevant; what matters is that their "innocence" or "honor" has been violated, necessitating the destruction of the perpetrator.

At their core, both honor culture and grooming panic strip agency from those they claim to protect. Women under honor culture and minors under anti-grooming ideology are seen as incapable of autonomy, requiring constant guardianship to prevent their inevitable corruption. This paternalism infantilizes them, making it impossible to challenge the systems designed to "protect" them.

These cultures manifest in various ways: honor killings, laws reinforcing restrictive gender roles, and the rationalization of protectionism to justify stripping away rights. The same logic fuels the grooming hysteria, where dehumanization of both the minor and the alleged adult perpetrator becomes normalized. Over time, these moral panics embed themselves deeply within societal norms, leaving little room for dissent—except for those willing to question them.

A final note: In safety engineering, "safeguarding" refers to implementing measures to prevent industrial accidents. For example, placing a pressure valve on an ammonia tank prevents an explosion. Antis have appropriated this language to shift discourse away from assessing individual cases toward preventionism. Since they take it as a given that all adult-minor sexual contact is inherently harmful, the focus is not on addressing specific instances but on eliminating any possibility of occurrence.

Much like honor culture assumes that any interaction between a woman and a man will lead to promiscuity and tragedy, the grooming panic assumes that any conversation between an adult and a minor will lead to abuse. This assumption justifies extreme preventative measures, regardless of context or evidence.

Ultimately, the dynamics of honor culture and grooming panic share a common thread: a deep-seated distrust. Just as a jealous husband assumes any stranger poses a threat to his wife's purity, modern grooming paranoia is fueled by parents’ fear that any adult showing warmth toward their child has ulterior motives. This paranoia fosters an environment where suspicion, control, and violence thrive.

This also explains the punitive nature of antis. Grooming panic is not just about protecting minors—it is about preserving their "honor" under the false belief that all adult-minor relationships are inherently abusive. The result is the kind of vigilante violence we see today, justified by moral absolutism and fear.

[BLueRibbon]

Short answer: That's more or less where MAP oppression started.

Long answer: https://forum.map-union.org/viewtopic.php?p=6414#p6414

[PorcelainLark]

Yes, I think it never really went away in the Southern United States. It just got reframed as an issue about exploitation and trauma so it was more palatable to the coastal regions. Same with the opposition to sex education, support for abstinence, and opposition to contraception. These are religious ideas that have been "secular-washed".

[BLueRibbon]

Yes, I think it never really went away in the Southern United States. It just got reframed as an issue about exploitation and trauma so it was more palatable to the coastal regions. Same with the opposition to sex education, support for abstinence, and opposition to contraception. These are religious ideas that have been "secular-washed".

Seems to track based on what I've been reading. Liberal people really got played into supporting something they should never have supported.

[Bookshelf]

A legitimate debate with an anti will almost always devolve into conversations about an abstract concept of innocence. It might start with exchanging sources and tackling each other's logic; but it won't take very long for much of it to fall apart, and you find yourself trying to argue against inexpressible themes of purity.

I agree that it's effectively honor culture but for minors. Feminist theory would agree if it wasn't under the pressure to be seen as more acceptable to the public, as many of the ideas discussed in feminist theory (like how the patriarchy's origin is the nuclear family) can be easily related to the struggles that youth have.