MAP Forum

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.

I think grooming can exist in a negative sense when it involves deliberate secret keeping and a planned course of action with the final goal being sex. I also don't really think that grooming can be proven, though.

And much of what's called isn't grooming in the sense I outlined above. It's merely "bonding" or "flirting". You get to know someone, you grow close to them, romantic and sexual feelings develop, so you pursue sexual intimacy. That sounds like how many relationships work.

But "children aren't sexual" so it's assumed to be one sided. And the predator myth also kicks in, with it's assumptions about the purely sexual nature of what an adult that is sexual with a minor feels.

You see this play out over and over again with the women teachers getting arrested for sleeping with their male students. So many of the stories follow the exact same dynamic of a young teacher in her 20s that is in an unsatisfying marriage who develops feelings for a student that likely shows interest in her and that she has chemistry with. There is no grooming there. I'm not saying the boy is responsible. But I think the teacher is just as swept up in her feelings and things spiral out of control as the boy is. The teacher should probably know better and keep better boundaries. But to paint her as a predator? It seems ridiculous to me. It'd be like calling a mother who commits infanticide as a result of post-partum depression a "cold blooded killer". Obviously the mother has done something terrible, but it's rarely "cold blooded".

The accusation of "grooming" is actually probably one of the most hurtful parts of a court case involving a contact offense. To be gaslit by a system trying to insist that you never felt love and that you were only ever interested in your own sexual desire.

But I think what I said at the top is perhaps why it's become so widespread. There are actual cases of grooming, but they are so hard to prove. So instead we take grooming as the assumed default. "Guilty until proven innocent, milord." Just like everything when it comes to sex crimes (even adult-adult offenses are moving that way).

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 1:11 am
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.

Red Rodent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 4:21 pm
The original concept here was "grooming a child for sex."

I think this is what's been lost. The intentionality.

Red Rodent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 4:21 pm
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.

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.

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.

Fragment wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 10:56 pm
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.

Red Rodent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 4:21 pm 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.

Brain O'Conner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 12:50 am 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).

Harlan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:29 am 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).

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+

Brain O'Conner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 12:50 am

Red Rodent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 4:21 pm 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.