A Language Ethics Quiz: Regarding “Groomer”

Conservatives have been using the word “groomer” this year to describe advocates of teaching school children (as young as third grade in some cases) about LGTBQ sexual practices and relationships, while presenting them in a positive light. Targets of the word have ranged from defiant LGTBQ teachers exposed by The Libs of TikTok, to libraries promoting drag readings for kids, to the advocates for “gender-affirming therapy” for teens and younger without parental approval, to Disney’s recent obsession with injecting gay sexual issues into its films and TV offerings.

R.L. Stoller objects. He says he is a “child liberation theologian” (?), and a child and survivor advocate with “a Masters in Child Protection”—okey-dokey, let’s take that as genuine authority arguendo. He objects to the use of “groomer” in the current trend, writing in part,

Grooming (or testing) is a word used by child protection professionals to describe the process by which sexual predators manipulate and entrap their victims and victims’ communities for the purpose of sexual molestation and rape. It is not, as a viral social media meme suggests, related to political or social indoctrination. It is a word that means something and it serves a vital purpose: to help protect children from sexual abuse.

We use the word grooming in the child protection profession to help communities and their members, including parents and children, to identify the techniques and tricks of child molesters. We create lists of warning signs and behavioral indicators, or tells, so that communities can know when a dangerous or tricky person is in their midst. Being able to identify grooming is a key tool for proactively protecting children from sexual predators. 

When conservatives misuse and abuse this word, they are doing several things:

First, they are muddying the meaning of the word. When grooming can be applied to everything from sex education to theology to being queer to critical race theory to what it actually means (sexual predation techniques), it means everything and thus nothing at the same time. This renders the word useless. Children will grow up without being able to identify the signs of grooming, because adults will be telling them grooming is things it is not.

Second, they are weaponizing the word. Let us be clear about this: many right-wing individuals are weaponizing the word grooming against queer people specifically. This is not new. Conservatives have a long and ugly history of accusing queer people of being sexual predators—even though the average child molester is a religious man in a heterosexual marriage. Indeed, 96 percent of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse identify as heterosexual.

What is new is that conservatives are now emboldened to weaponize the word against anyone who disagrees with them on anything. This is particularly dangerous because of the first reason we discussed: it renders the word useless in the very real and pressing fight against child sexual abuse.

Third, they are enabling and empowering child molesters. Child molesters want exactly what conservatives are doing: for children to be unable to identify what grooming is, for children to not receive sex education, for children to not know about their bodies, and for children to stay quiet if they are queer or different in ways conservatives disapprove of. Child molesters use each of those to their advantage and conservatives are freely giving them every tool they need just to spite liberals and progressives.

Fourth, they are encouraging children to fear helpers like child protection professionals, whether that’s the public school teacher in charge of sex education or the social worker giving a presentation on body safety at church. This is something conservative evangelicals in particular are very familiar with, as they have long promoted myths about helping professionals. When children grow up fearful of Child Protective Services or mandatory reporters or their bodies or their sexuality, they are perfect victims for child predators.

That’s about the end of Stoller’s relatively straightforward arguments untainted by obvious bias in his essay; the rest, which you can read if your sock drawer is in order, is the predictable anti-conservative bile one would expect from a “child liberation theologian.”

I’ll position the Ethics Quiz of the Day here…

Is the current use of “groomer” to describe advocates of pro-LGTBQ education and activities for minors unethical?

Some thoughts…

  • Considering last night’s  post about a new definition of “woman,” Stoller’s complaint about “muddying the meaning of the word” can be discarded with prejudice. Only Stoller’s woke pals can redefine words now?  If there isn’t a good word that means, “Adults who attempt to introduce children to non-heterosexual practices and culture in order to increase support for and participation in such practices”—and I don’t think there is—then why not add another meaning to “groomer”? It is certain to make more sense than the Cambridge Dictionary’s new definition of “woman” as (I’m summarizing here) “not a woman, but a man who says he is one.”
  • His accusation of ‘weaponizing” is similarly absurd. Words are commonly used pejoratively in the course of criticism, and there’s nothing wrong or unethical about that. Moreover, his gay-baiting is just an ad hominem attack on the critics—“They hate gays! They’re transphobic!” No, conservatives and others just don’t think children should be subjected to pro-gay, pro-trans propaganda by authority figures with agendas. Nobody thinks the Disney Corporation is gay. It is just abusing its reputation, power, influence and public good will, because it is misguided. It’s not bigotry to object to misguided and destructive initiatives.
  • “What is new is that conservatives are now emboldened to weaponize the word against “anyone who disagrees with them on anything.” His sole link to that proposition is unpersuasive. Conservatives call open-border advocates “groomers”? Opponents of gun rights are “groomers”? Those who want to abort babies five minutes before they can be born are “groomers”? Stoller is somehow under the impression that the Right uses “groomer” the way the Left uses “fascist,” “Nazi” and “threats to democracy.”

Baloney.

  • His third argument is a classic “accuse critics of doing what those they are criticizing may be doing” ploy. We’ve seen a lot of it this year.
  • Since too many of the professionals Stoller claims should be trusted implicitly have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, the responsibility for the problem is not theirs, but their critics’.

My answer to the quiz? “Groomer” is helpful and ethical when focuses attention on an aspect of the controversy that one side would prefer to ignore, hide, or deny. It is unethical when it is used as an appeal to emotion without fair analysis—and I have seen this use a lot.

33 thoughts on “A Language Ethics Quiz: Regarding “Groomer”

  1. 1. No, it’s not muddying the meaning of the word. It is used to refer to people normalizing sexual attitudes in children who should not be exposed to those. That is grooming.
    2. Weaponizing the word. No, the meaning is not being changed, nor is it being used indiscriminately.
    3. Empowering child molesters. Quite the opposite. Being vocal about calling out questionable behaviors makes the children more likely to recognize and call it out to.
    4. Encourage children to fear child protection professionals. Good, they should. I have never heard a story of a CPS worker saving a child from anything, and many of them going after innocent families for imaginary transgressions (I have an attorney’s bill for a few thousand if you want receipts.)

    Based on those arguments I want more public call outs of groomers.

  2. The word “groomer” is used correctly and accurately by the right when they are pointing out that the left is making it easier for predators to initiate conversations about sex or sexuality or anatomy with children. When people who want to indoctrinate children make it normal for an adult to ask a 9 year old if they are gay, if they feel like their body doesn’t have the right parts, if they thought the drag queen’s boobs were pretty, if they’ve read [book with graphic masturbation scene] etc. those children are vulnerable to people who AREN’T trying to indoctrinate them and ARE trying to initiate abuse. They have been groomed (even if inadvertantly) to think it’s normal for adults to talk to them that way, inviting actual abusers to make use of that.

    I think this is such an important point that even I get annoyed with people on the right who use it to describe CRT or to imply that trans people are themselves pedophiles.

    So the former use is ethical and important and needs to be answered in an honest debate with the left (if they believed in honesty or debate.)

    The latter uses are unethical because they give the left cover against a valid criticism against what they’re doing.

  3. https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/ is not a conservative group at all. The people in GAG are mostly gay or trans and stand against sexually inappropriate indoctrination of youth as well as against modifying the bodies kids in the name of gender theory. This group has been denied services from several companies including payment processing and merchandise makers.

    GAG’s crime of course isn’t that they’re “conservative” but that these renegade gays & trans aren’t going along. In the world of progressivism, not knowing your place as a minority is even worse than being conservative. This is why people call GAG an anti-gay transphobic hate group. Which of course makes no dang sense.

    The Department of Justice has used the word Groomer for years. I read some of the DOJ’s reports on school grooming by teachers and other staff. This has been an unsaid issue for decades. The difference now is that the grooming is more diffuse in schools and done by woke staff who don’t see any issues down the road with exposing kids, including LGBT kids, to sex and gender identity concepts that are not age appropriate or should be discussed with parents first.

    Yes, this is grooming because such exposure seeks to eliminate innocence and circumvent parental moral teaching.

    Just the other day, I got a text from a friend I’ve known since I was 12 years old. When I came out to her as bisexual at 16, it changed our friendship and we didn’t really talk for a couple years. Years ago, before I could legally marry my wife, this same friend chose to get married and asked me to be a bridesmaid. At the time I was a bit incensed by the request because it felt like a legalized slap in the face. I never said anything and realized her joy mattered more than my annoyance.

    Her text was about how her sixth grade daughter had a girlfriend but now is dating “boys, girls, and non-binary kids”

    Kids is the key word here.

    Sixth grade in my mind is too young to date but what really disappointed me is that I know her daughter is anything but queer. I have been able to predict with 100% accuracy, which kids may be gay later in life and this girl simply isn’t. My friend, went on about how her daughter’s school was “a supportive, open school that fosters kindness, exploration, openness and curiosity.”

    I’m sorry but the only exploration kids should be doing in school is regarding their studies.

    My friends daughter, I believe, has been groomed into thinking she’s queer from all the “exploration” of her school combined with a hypocrite of a mom who sees nothing wrong with letting her 11 year old become essentially a checkmark on the never ending list progressive bona-fides. Her text felt like a giant “look at me!” exercise while her kid is caught in the rainbow crossfire.

    The irony here is I can’t even talk to this friend who once couldn’t even bother waiting to marry until people like me could. This is a friend who once said it was okay for whites to attack racial/sexual minorities like Andy Ngo for wrong think.

    I responded to her text by saying I didn’t want to discuss the matter but that I hope her daughter knows she can wait before dating or deciding anything. “You can never get your innocence back” I texted her and left it at that. Thus far, I’ve received no response. I suppose it must be weird when the person you think will automatically affirm your 11 year olds LGBTQ “exploration” has little to say.

    My sincere concern for my friends daughter and so many of these kids is that they may find themselves doing things with people that is inauthentic to who they are. They may be robbed later in life of things like having their own kids or being in relationships that are less about looking “queer” and more about truth and loving as they truly are.

    I worry these kids will take drugs that will change them permanently. I’m concerned these kids will cut off body parts that later in life they’ll greatly miss. Or that we’ll have a generation of children who have been used as pawns in their parents quest to out-woke other parents, resulting in the kids suffering from severe mental and physical problems later.

    No straight kid should have to fake queerness and no gay, bi, or trans kid should fake straightness. Such a paradigm can only make kids less real and less happy.

    Concerns about the safety and innocence of kids isn’t a conservative issue, it’s a societal one. Any attempt to say otherwise is allowing the ruin of innocence. If that isn’t grooming, I don’t know what is.

    • > No straight kid should have to fake queerness and no gay, bi, or trans kid should fake straightness.

      This phrase summarizes my stance and I fully agree with you.

    • Excellent observations, most definitely COTD worthy.

      Perhaps using “groomer” in the vernacular might confuse “sexual predation of minors” but, as Jack pointed out, the Left has waived the right to complain about definitional precision.

      The Right should be precise in its criticism, though. Trans Library Story Time is not, technically, “grooming” kids for sexual predation but it is fostering an ideology that teaches something – and it’s not tolerance: it is acceptance and promotion of that ideology whereby criticism is trashed as anti-AlphabetSoup.

      jvb

  4. Mr Stoller seems to imply that only experts are qualified to use the term. Lay use, particularly by conservatives, is harmful. He links several times to examples of less than precise definitions or incorrect usages, and at one point he lists characteristics of what a groomer’s behavior might involve:

    > Gaining access…isolating the victim: Abusers will …often seek out positions in which they have contact with minors.

    Like teachers, coaches, clergy, library volunteers, … and, yes, social workers?

    > Trust development and keeping secrets: Abusers …sharing “secrets” and other means to … keep the relationship secret.

    Like encouraging secretive use of pronouns, safe places to confide feelings, and “deadnaming” only while in presence of patents?

    > Desensitization to touch and discussion of sexual topics: Abusers …touch a victim in ways that appear harmless, …or discuss sexual topics with them, to introduce the idea of sexual contact.

    Like the drag show story hour where a queen had kids rolling their bodies over top of the prone performer’s belly? What about having the kids do a “twerk” dance? Put play money in a costume?

    Those are the cases where I’ve seen the groomer term used. They seem to fit the definitions just fine to me. Oddly, mr. Stoller doesn’t expound on why these cases don’t fit his definition.

  5. “Adults who attempt to introduce children to non-heterosexual practices and culture in order to increase support for and participation in such practices”

    Nothing in the above definition is illegal or immoral, so I’m confused. How does introducing the idea of non-heteronormative behavior “corrupt” children’s thinking except through normalization? Do we not want homosexuality normalized? Do we not want children to support people with different sexual identities against discrimination? Do we not want questioning children to feel safe expressing those feelings to their parents or guardians?

    If that’s what you consider “grooming,” then the word really has changed. I’m not suggesting your analysis is wrong, but your definition of terms leaves something to be desired. Especially if it’s supposed to sound nefarious …

    • Neil
      Such is the purview of parents in the child’s early development. There is plenty of time in later years to promote non-discrimination based on orientation. More importantly, acceptance and tolerance does not require normalization. Herero-normative society is a biological necessity but will allow for those who are not. Given that many promote secrecy from parents because they are not “safe” is a strategy to alienate the child from his or her parents. Creating fear in children is immoral.

    • Now, now: I didn’t say “corrupt,” did I? Nor is this a legal blog or a morality blog. It’s unethical for adults to take on that assignment without informed and unforced consent from the children’s parents. I don’t think its ethical for non-parents to introduce children to ANY sexual practices or issues at all, other than what is necessary to understand age appropriate literature and to learn basic biology. Unethical means “abuse of position, influence, competence and power in this case.

    • It should be possible to normalize gender/sexual/romantic nonconformity without introducing children to concepts they’re too young to be thinking about. It can be done the same way conformity to heterosexual and cisgender norms is done: by showing behavior that is age-appropriate for young viewers. E.g., showing married couples, weddings, et cetera.

      We don’t want kids to get friendship confused with romantic or amorous feelings, but if it ever comes up I suspect their parents can just say, “You’re too young to be thinking about that or copying that kind of adult behavior. Romance is related to a different feeling that you won’t have started to feel yet. Right now your relationships should just be friendships.” Something like that, anyway.

      Does that make sense?

  6. Desensitizing a child to sexually-related behavior inappropriate for their age or level of understanding is “grooming”, no matter what the end goal of the groomer might be. It’s selfish on the part of the adult, whether they’re trying to build a specific relationship with a specific child, or just attempting to promote a particular agenda,

  7. “I didn’t expect much out of Bowie,”

    You make Bowie sound like some young punk upstart but his musical career was already a decade-old at that point (and having already made some of the most critically-acclaimed music of his career) and he only cemented that reputation in the decades to come. He might not be your cup of tea, but he’s considered by many to be an auteur himself and, to my generation, his legacy outshines Bing’s. LOTS of current artists cite Bowie as an influence, while Bing is seldom remembered.

    A crime, perhaps. But memories (like words) change with the passing of time. If everyone forgets it, culturally it never happened.

  8. O, the subtleties of the English language! In the sense that “grooming” is used in its “nefarious” definition here, yes, it is and it should sound so. However, the definition is broad, covering everything from prepping a poodle for the dog show, to the positive portrayal of any non-heteronormative identity or relationship, to the demonizing of it. “Preparing (a victim)” in an active, deliberate-unto-evil sense, is what we’re talking about. “Teaching” is its innocent corollary, however, and that is what needs to be addressed. As part of an update of the old “stranger danger” scenario, the grooming procedure can be explained to children – preferably by a parent, preferably in answer to a question or in response to an anxious, secretive attitude.

    This site, “Stop it Now,” was recommended to me by several people (parents, a pediatrician and a child psychologist friend) as a starting point:
    https://www.stopitnow.org/help-guidance/online-help-center/childrens-behaviors

    And this list: https://parents.thorn.org/help

  9. “Grooming (or testing) is a word used by child protection professionals to describe the process by which sexual predators manipulate and entrap their victims and victims’ communities for the purpose of sexual molestation and rape. It is not, as a viral social media meme suggests, related to political or social indoctrination. It is a word that means something and it serves a vital purpose: to help protect children from sexual abuse.”

    Yes, and while I can’t speak for the entirety of the population using “Groomer” in the current context, it doesn’t seem facially absurd to suggest that manipulation towards a goal of molestation is exactly what they’re talking about. As an example, and one I’m going to circle back to a lot: I’ve always thought that Drag Queen Story Hour was weird. I don’t understand the moral impetus requiring that children be read books to by men dressed up as absurd caricatures of risque women. I have a certain amount of sympathy towards the idea, for instance, that at least *some* of the people pushing participation are in fact grooming children by normalizing sexual fetishism because there’s almost certainly going to be examples of exactly that happening. It would be mindboggling if there weren’t… Pedophiles already tended to seek out positions where they work with kids. A position where they were able to work sexually around children? This seems almost designed as pedo bait. And yet it seems like the people hosting these shows don’t see that, because they can’t even be bothered to check and see if the readers are on the sex offender registry.

    Again… What’s the moral impetus? What offsets that?

    “We use the word grooming in the child protection profession to help communities and their members, including parents and children, to identify the techniques and tricks of child molesters. We create lists of warning signs and behavioral indicators, or tells, so that communities can know when a dangerous or tricky person is in their midst. Being able to identify grooming is a key tool for proactively protecting children from sexual predators.”

    Yes. Yes it is.

    “First, they are muddying the meaning of the word. When grooming can be applied to everything from sex education to theology to being queer to critical race theory to what it actually means (sexual predation techniques), it means everything and thus nothing at the same time. This renders the word useless. Children will grow up without being able to identify the signs of grooming, because adults will be telling them grooming is things it is not.”

    Sir, thou may consume an entire satchel of Richards. The idea that progressives are concerned about muddying language is so facially absurd that I find it amazing that the author didn’t hide his head in a paper bag before defenestrating himself out of his office out of pure, unbridled shame.

    But to the point itself… I’d love for someone to enunciate exactly what they think the line is between grooming behavior properly identified as grooming behavior and this. Because grooming behavior includes normalizes sexual contact for ease of future access – Tickling to normalize touching, discussing sexual topics to make them less taboo, walking around with less clothing to normalize nudity. Grooming is the metaphorical frog in the soup pot. If the author chooses to view opposition to having children be put in close contact with men dressed up as sexual caricatures as “political” rather than problematic, then that’s on him.

    I’m not saying that’s a good enough reason to ban them, but I am saying that’s a good enough reason to view anyone putting these damn shows on with a healthy dose of skepticism.

    “Second, they are weaponizing the word. Let us be clear about this: many right-wing individuals are weaponizing the word grooming against queer people specifically. This is not new. Conservatives have a long and ugly history of accusing queer people of being sexual predators—even though the average child molester is a religious man in a heterosexual marriage. Indeed, 96 percent of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse identify as heterosexual.”

    The difference here, because I agree that conservatives have an awful track record with gay people (generally) and so a distinction ought to be made, is that *these* queer people are specifically seeking out the company and affirmation of children in a sexual context.

    It’s almost like they’re purposefully targeting the innocence of youth as if innocence were a scourge. And then they have the temerity, the gall, to say things like “you knew straight people had sex”, I mean… I don’t know that that’s true. I don’t know at what age I realized that my parents must have had sex in order for me to exist, but I guarantee it wasn’t between K-6. I know that the Santa myth has outlived the stork, but straight people absolutely took pains to conceal their bedroom extracurriculars from kids. I don’t know whether them saying this is just indicative of their own shitty childhood or if their brains liquefied at some point along the way, but who thinks like that?!

    “Third, they are enabling and empowering child molesters. Child molesters want exactly what conservatives are doing: for children to be unable to identify what grooming is, for children to not receive sex education, for children to not know about their bodies, and for children to stay quiet if they are queer or different in ways conservatives disapprove of. Child molesters use each of those to their advantage and conservatives are freely giving them every tool they need just to spite liberals and progressives.”

    Oh sir, your Richards are getting cold!

    Child molesters *might* want what conservatives are doing by “muddying” the word… I don’t see why that would be true, but regardless of whether they *might* want the term to lose meaning, I’d be willing to put money on them supporting drag queen story hour full-throatedly. Because even if the specific reader has no ulterior motive, the reality is that those children are still being groomed, they’re still being exposed to adult themes in a normalizing way… Even if this isn’t intended, that probably makes the prospective job of future groomers easier. You are doing their work for them.

    Frankly, sex education is good. Great, in fact. Including the existence of gay people in sex-ed isn’t a bad idea. The problem is in the method, and if you can’t think of a way to provide sexual education without Drag Queen story hour, without hiding material facts about their children from parents, or straight up showing them porn, that’s a terminal lack of imagination on your part and *I’m* not the one “muddying” the waters.

    “Fourth, they are encouraging children to fear helpers like child protection professionals, whether that’s the public school teacher in charge of sex education or the social worker giving a presentation on body safety at church. This is something conservative evangelicals in particular are very familiar with, as they have long promoted myths about helping professionals. When children grow up fearful of Child Protective Services or mandatory reporters or their bodies or their sexuality, they are perfect victims for child predators.”

    This is bizarre. The argument is so neurotic it defeats itself several different ways. Are we warning kids against queer people or CPS? Was there an issue with trusting church officials or wasn’t there? Do pedophiles seek out jobs that interact with children or don’t they?

    But even if you take it at face value… A child not in danger of abuse isn’t harmed by being warned off of strangers, and a child already being abused probably doesn’t have a healthy dose of trust to begin with. This idea that if it weren’t for the current groomer narrative, all these abused children would be contacting CPS doesn’t hold up against the reality of child abuse prior to 2022.

    And we’re not talking about queer people writ large. Picture someone you think of when we say “groomer” in this context. We all have a picture in mind? Ok, I’m psychic: Everyone’s picture includes hair dye. Possibly some gauges in their ears? A certain style of large glasses? A smug smile? A lisp? I’ve said this before: There’s nothing inherent to being gay that requires green hair dye. These things are affectations. They say things about the people who put them on.

    The people we are talking about? I don’t think these behaviors are inherently sexual to them. I think we’re talking about a group of very stunted people with between very little and no identity outside the paradigm of their sexuality or privilege markers seeking affirmation from children because affirmation feels good and they’re not going to get it from adults. That affirmation is between neutral and harmful to children, because frankly, I don’t those kids shouldn’t view the people we’re thinking of as aspirational role models.

    Which brings me to my point…. Which is motive. It really does feel like the people who take the most issue with the groomer label are lamenting their loss of easy access to children. And even if they don’t mean to groom children for predators, I would argue that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and they’re doing it, intended or not. I don’t see a reason to let them.

    • Sorry for the delay; I meant to come back to this comment earlier but got sidetracked.

      Great deconstruction, HT! (I appreciated the chuckles as well.)

      One rule of thumb that comes to mind is that adults who interact with children should not be asking them to keep anything about the interactions secret from their parents. (If the parents are abusive and would punish attempts to seek help, that’s a whole different context.) Are there any other simple flags that people could use to recognize and put a stop to grooming situations?

      • I think you nailed it by focusing on the teachers who are trying to conceal things about their child’s sexuality from their parents. Not only is that not their job. Not only aren’t they trained for situations like that. Not only is it weird and creepy… But they get it wrong. Parents are showing up to school board meetings *irate* that they weren’t told, and specifically saying things like “you didn’t even give me a chance to be my ally”. The author above lamented that the groomer narrative might be souring kids away from CPS. Carry that logic one step further: What do you think telling kids they need to keep secrets from their parents does to THAT relationship? And for what? You get primary school teachers for a year if they’re lucky, they might be in the same building for six. You want to talk about isolation? What happens in year two? I’m getting angry even thinking about it… These myopically short sighted, self important, endorphin starved affirmation junkies don’t give a hot damn about what happens to the kids.

        Back to the question… The short answer, is “yes”. I think we’re still at the low hanging fruit stage, and some of the red flags are painfully obvious. Things like Drag Queen Story Hour are obviously inappropriate, but there is a contingent of people that seem bound and determined to defend and promote that practice. That’s just as big of a problem as anything else.

  10. It’s easy for me not to get involved in this conversation because I was raised in a medical environment by people who were accustomed to teaching human sexuality in basic English, and given straightforward, simple (age-appropriate) guidelines as well as answers to all questions.

    There were several times – I think all of them were on Manhattan subways or in stations thereof – when I felt or sensed people too close, without reason … until the third time, I later realized, that my pocket had been picked clean. Before that, because I stuffed my pockets with everything I could, I’d thought it had had been my own carelessness pulling items out. That last time, the subway police had picked up the thief: they had been staking out a place he’d toss the wallet and papers after removing the cash. This time my name and the name of my school appeared on the report card I had been carrying around for several days, reluctant to take it home for parental signature. That’s when I got an unexpected lecture – not about pickpockets – but about people getting too close for comfort, crowded subway or not. And on trusting my parents enough to tell them when I was having school troubles.

  11. Having worked a few years as a child abuse investigator, I am perhaps more suspicious than the average parent or grandparent concerning the motives and propensities of those who work with children. As much as I detest those who abuse and exploit children for any purpose, I also abhor the poor parenting (inattentive, self-absorbed, naive, pick your poison) that often allows those people access to the children. I often tell my daughter, now 31, that although I realize it was sometimes tough for her knowing that my overly protective eyes were constantly on her and those around her, I will never apologize for keeping her safe from predators of all varieties.
    As our popular culture has morally degraded toward the acceptance of every sort of perversion, I am not really surprised that “grooming” behavior is being publicly defended by so-called experts.
    Personally, for punishment of pedophiles I have always advocated the .30 caliber solution. The recidivism rate for those so punished is very low.

  12. It should be remembered that at young ages, children have minds that are essentially blank slates. They are very impressionable and generally can be made to believe anything an adult wants them to believe.

    The practice of introducing gender confusion into these young minds where there was none is solely for the purpose of recruiting them into their queer ranks, and there is no other word that best describes this most heinous form of child abuse than “grooming”.

    Finally, their desire to conceal their machinations from parents should tell us all we need to know about their true intentions. They don’t want to “help” children, they want to recruit them.

  13. Words do change meaning in relationship t the context, culture, and historical moment. Just look at the word gay. at the turn of the last century, it meant someone jealous or in fad with the time. It did not refer to sexual preferences until the later third of the century. The word fag implies a homosexual male here in America, however, in Britain, it meant a cigarette. In the army, we called new recruits maggots and we were not referring to the insect. The ubiquitous niggger self-description in hip-hop culture is derogatory outside that culture and is forbidden. To rip one off can mean to cheat someone out of money or to expel bodily gases.

    Words have dependent meanings. A groomer as the picture shows can be one who makes dogs prettier, it can also be someone who dresses another. Finally, it can mean that today s most frequently used to describe someone who is setting children and other vulnerable adults for sexual exploitation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.