Talk:Child grooming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Contents 1 Other Countries 2 SO Act 2003 3 Updates and NPOV 4 Clarity 5 Pedophilia 6 Moral Character 7 AfD 8 Pornography abnormal or not? 9 Again 10 Requested move 10.1 Survey 11 Title 12 This article is really...

[edit] Other Countries

While the recent addition to the article is very interesting, it deals with child pornography and is OT for Child Grooming. I'm removing it.--Lepeu1999 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SO Act 2003

The Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 15[1] for the UK except Scotland (and the proposed Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill) make it an offence for an adult, after having met or communicated with a child on at least two earlier occasions, to meet, or travel to meet, the child with the intention of sexually abusing him or her on that occasion or later.

I'm curious: how do they prove intention? David.Monniaux 06:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may have been expressed in the previous communication.--Patrick 14:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updates and NPOV

The article seemed severely biased to one side of the situation. The term "child grooming" is not descriptive of the act that has taken place later, nor the intentions of the "groomer". Therefore, I felt it proper to add in the counter balance to this to state reasonably that other forms of "grooming" are socially acceptable, and indeed beneficial. I will add examples if required, however no examples are given to say such is not acceptable either - this can be inferred, but so can the good situations where "grooming" occurs. I removed the last paragraph too, as that would be more appropriate under a heading such as "Child predators" or such, and was really outside the definition of "grooming". --LuxOfTKGL 08:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. Your rational appears to be nothing more then an attempt to be disingenuous with respect to the entire concept. Given your public profile, I question whether or not you have an agenda here. 'Child Grooming' in the context of this article refers to the manipulation of child in question for purposes to the benefit of the 'groomer' and to the detriment of the child. Your edits do not clarify the matter, they simply serve to muddy the waters. -- Someone sometime

I'm not sure who named the above and below posts 'Someone sometime', but they were left by me. --Lepeu1999 14:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

'Child Grooming' in the context of this article - but this article has no context outside of its own definition. To say all child grooming is sexual is to create an imbalanced article that does not truly define what child grooming means. It would not be giving all sides of the story as it were - and therefore would be giving a point of view. The article as it stands currently describes in detail everything that you would probably want it to describe but also clarifies (as opposed to muddying) the term into what it actually means. Without this extra detail, it would be equivalent to the pedophilia article stating "all pedophiles are child molesters" - --LuxOfTKGL 17:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, I disagree, you're being a sophist. & while I would agree that not all child molesters are pedophiles (if you take a strict interpretation of the word as 'lovers of children - many molesters hate children), under the laws of all states in the US, all pedophiles who act on their inclinations ARE child molesters. There is no such thing as legal sexual contact with a child (defined as being younger then the age of consent). -- Someone sometime

And you are missing the point. Not all pedophiles have sex with children - therefore not all pedophiles are child molesters. Maybe you have not had the cultural experience to hear the word grooming in any positive contexts, but I assure you, it has definition validity outside the scope of child molestation, and giving any other view is to give an inaccurate rendering of the term. --LuxOfTKGL 07:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And you miss MY point as I specifically referred to pedophiles who ACT on their inclination. I've heard the word grooming used in positive contexts and have used it myself, but - as is pointed out below me, this PARTICULAR context refers to grooming a child to gain his or her trust for sexual purposes and your inserting other contexts simply muddies the waters. -- Someone Sometime

Yes, I'm afraid that I, too, must take issue with this article. I feel that its tone, perspective, and very definitions are biased, or at very least misleading. Grooming is not synonymous with befriending, otherwise it would simply be called befriending. Grooming, as I understand it to be, is the act of coercing an individual (usually a child) into accepting certain forms of behaviour (usually sexual) as correct, to the end of enticing that individual into engaging in the aforementioned behaviour. Now, I do not deny that befriending comes into play, as deliberately-forged emotional bonds are a powerful tool of coercion, but it is merely a facet or tool of grooming, and not the directed focus. The directed focus is coercion to a specific end, and is thus as morally questionable as any other form of coercion, such as religious indoctrination or psychological conditioning. It is my suggestion that this article be rewritten with a more accurate and neutral perspective. -Adam S. Clark 13:06 CST, 22 July 2005

Once again I have made some edits to this article. I have attempted to remain NPOV and present both sides, but the revert to the earlier version of this article removed any NPOV. I begin with the 'common' usage of the word and then modify the disclaimer to be a seperate paragraph - making it easier to read and adding white space. I have removed the 'befriending' definition as it is misleading and inaccurate - as was pointed out by at least one other user. I also removed the reference to 'adult seduction' as I believe the reference confused the issue. Likewise I have removed the reference to 'parents grooming their children to love them' as it is inaccurate and misleading. The remainder of the article is more the sufficient to point out that while the common useage of the term is to describe 'sexual grooming' possibly leading to illicit activites, the act itself is neutral and the intent needs to be considered before passing judgement.

I hope this is a compromise that all parties can live with.

Apparantly it wasn't as someone, without bothering to leave comments on the discussion page, added paragraphs of unrelated material. I am removing them.

1) comments on children allegedly seducing adults has nothing to do with this topic

2) references to the similarity to the adult act of seduction are out of place due to reasons cited in my prior entries

3) commentary on whether or not sexual activity is harmful to children has nothing to do with the subject.

4) Cite sources. "some experts" and "it has been noted" are examples of sloppy scholarship and mask opinion as fact.

I am also placing the POV tag back on this (someone removed it) because someone keeps making these changes w/o commenting in the discussion section. If you feel the need to modify the article, please explain why in the discussion notes.

The major change in question was apparantly done by 24ip - who, interestingly enough, marked his or her edit as 'minor'.--Lepeu1999 20:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

The presentation of the article seems kind of awkward. Maybe it would be better to have the commonly accepted definition of "Child Grooming" under one heading, followed by other interpretations of the term under a seperate heading. This would make the article more concice and easier to read.

[edit] Pedophilia

• Grooming a child is befriending a child by building a strong, trusting bond, though the term is most often used negatively to refer to an act of lowering a perceivedly inhibitory attitude of a child regarding sexual behavior with an adult.

In what way is this not an aspect of pedophilia? -Willmcw 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I gather, this article is about befriending a child and child sexual abuse (or attempted child sexual abuse). Neither of these are inherent aspects of pedophilia. By classing this in Category:Pedophilia, we are identifying this article as being about pedophilia -- and it is not, it's about child sexual abuse. 24ip | lolol 02:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessarily about sexually abusing children, but if it is then it is definitely an aspect of pedophilia. If there is a sexual attraction to children which is acted upon, even if no sex is involved, then it is pedophilic. We should not scrub all pedophilic activities from the pedophilia category. -Willmcw 05:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"an aspect of pedophilia"... This is not true. As the term is currently defined, it is true of those who would abuse children, not pedophiles. By claiming this, you are claiming that all pedophiles are child abusers. --Rookiee 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I can understand people tend to start being very closed-minded when anything smells like something really wrong, but think a little. As I understand this term, it is at the very least something every good parent would want to do with his child... The way you're making it sound with your defensive spirit is that every good parent is a pedophile and sexual criminal.

What really bothers me here is that everything is viewed so sexually. While it can be said that often this form of bonding abused for sexual abuse, it can't be the theme of the article if it, in original meaning, has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. Does grooming a child mean having sexual intercourse with a child? No it doesn't. Putting the article like you did, you might as well put an article about bubblegum a bit like this:

"Bubblegum is a synthetic compound that pedophiles often like to give to little children to earn their affection, so they can be more easily lured somewhere where they can be coersed to preforming sexual acts."

Do you see that on the Bubblegum defenition? No you don't and guess what this isn't site here isn't describing Child grooming either. Wikipedia has some rules regarding how personal feelings on things should be expressed and last time I checked it says don't take it out on the article and don't take it out on the authors.

What can I say, I'd really like to see the real meaning here.--DustWolf 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Child grooming" does not refer to brushing a kid's hair. It means going out of your way to form a bond with a child in order to gain trust for a future sexual encounter. That's just the definition. If you want to start a section on hair brushing then then should be separate. -Willmcw 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Where did he say anything about brushing a kid's hair? 24ip | lolol 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

See below. -Willmcw 00:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"It means going out of your way to form a bond with a child in order to gain trust for a future sexual encounter." — Perhaps that is how it's perceived by some, but not all. The term is inherently biased. The bias lies within the interpretation of the action. If adult/minor sex was seen as positive, it would not be considered abusive. See? Take religion, for example. People teach kids at a VERY early age to be of a certain faith; something which consists of major moral, legal, and social implications. Is this considered "grooming" by society? It depends on the person. It's all arbitrary. Since some societies past and present do encourage more liberal sexual freedoms with children, those do not even consider uttering the phrase "child grooming".

My personal take? Any type of forced coercion is wrong (whether it be sexual in nature, religious, or otherwise). However, ultimately, since example is how humans develop socially (by copying behavior), then certain forms of modelling and molding are inevitable. If that's "grooming" then we're all guilty, whether you be pedophile or puritan. Ya think pederasty has nothing to do with religion? May I refer you to Ganymede. I'll be talking about this on my next show[1]. --Rookiee 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Character

• Child grooming is the practice of instilling foundation of moral character within a child.

No, it is not. It is a felonious cultivation of children for sexual pruposes. Please show a supporting reference for the "character" point of view. -Willmcw 21:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As seen on The Free Dictionary, the definition of grooming is NOT listed as a sexual predatory tool used by those evil, evil pedo people[2]. It describes the general practice of raising a child. That is where the truth lies. --Rookiee 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

More references:

• [3] "The classrooms are spacious, well lit and decorated with attractive murals consistent with providing the correct ambience for proper child grooming."
• [4] (Same)
• [5] "Because he is the heir, Rui's father was always very strict with him as a child, grooming him for his future position."
• [6] "spending time with your child, grooming him, instilling morals, values etc are more important"
• [7] "Child Grooming Education Tuition Centre"
• [8] "If you are diplomatic he may be inspired to discuss his child grooming plans in advance."

Furthermore, I should also add, that the term as used these days to refer to the very felonious act you're speaking of arose from the general use of the word. To "groom" someone means to raise them up to be a certain way. While I agree that this term generally refers to children as objects to be "molded", it IS a very old term which is why the connotation which arose from it. Ever watch Marry Poppins? Winifred Banks asks her husband his opinion of Marry after the interview, whether or not she can "mold our young breed."; that's grooming. --Rookiee 23:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Child grooming" is also a felony. We should probaby plsit the two topics into separate articles. The topics that you are referrig to might be better handled under a title like Child rearing. Meantime, please do not remove information about the criminal meaning of the term. -Willmcw 00:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which jurisdiction you're in, and what country? Which felony is "child grooming" specifically? "Felonious" does not necessarily mean "breaking the law". It also means to simply be wicked or evil. Showing pornography to a minor is illegal, having sex with a minor under the age of consent is illegal, but there is no statute in the US that I'm aware of that says "grooming" is illegal. That's a UK term, to be sure of. And thank God, the UK doesn't reign over the US anymore. --Rookiee 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I just had a realization and a suggestion. Since Child grooming can either mean "rearing" or "abuse", then I move the entry on "child grooming" as it refers to the unscrupulous act of brainwashing a kid into sex be simply forwarded to the "child sex abuse" page as a sub-entry, and the other meaning for "rearing" forwarded to the appropriate page as well. The disambiguation page for "grooming" should be able to handle this well enough.

Why? Why do we need an article about the other aspect of child grooming? What would it say? The Child sexual abuse article rather long already, so I don't see an advantage to making it longer. -Willmcw 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my God... it's long? Well, gee, I wonder why? Because you reverted my changes taking "Offender" (which is an identification term and logically should be given its own entry under category:Criminology) and giving it its own article. I was in the middle of making the changes when all my work was undone. Once "offenders" is out of there and placed into its own entry (defining a perpetrator of an illegal activity) it'll be nice and short. The category is wrong under "abuse". It's a term used for legal analysts and criminal psychologists to decribe a clinical pathology. The child sexual abuse article should point people to the article on (child) sex offenders. The new article should also talk about the consequences sex offenders face after their release, such as sex offender registries and limits of freedom, liberty and employment as well. Child sex offender deserves its own entry to detail all this.

As far as the "other" aspect of child grooming, I attest that the current definition being given for the word is the other aspect. The true term is "grooming". Within that article, it states: "For the predatory tactic used by pedophiles...". I contest that. I'm a pedophile, and I've never done that to anyone. That statement is biased and ignorant. It should read "For the predatory tactic used by child abusers" at the very least, then point to child sexual abuse#child_grooming and given a paragraph at the most. --Rookiee 02:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about you, and your personal experiences would qualify as original research. Regarding Grooming, that article ssmes fine as it is. Child grooming is not done by non-pedophiles, so the reference to this article is appropriate. -Willmcw 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Child grooming is not done by non-pedophiles..."

Proof, please? It's a question of logic. Not every child abuser is a pedophile. Not every pedophile is a child abuser. Is every heterosexual a rapist? Is every homosexual into sodomy? Of course not. It's stereotyping. It's ignorant. You don't have to be sexually attracted to a child to abuse them. There are many more types of "grooming" than merely sexual. I've already proved this with modern sources currently online. The article is biased.

Another example: Someone who raises their children to become sexual prostitutes for crack money... is that person a pedophile? No, he/she is a crack addict. There are many examples of where grooming can be done by non-pedophiles. Positive form of grooming? No, but the person is not a pedophile, and neither are the people having sex with the kids (using the true sense of the word)[9]. There's no love involved; only lust. THAT is abuse. --Rookiee 15:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone who sexually abuses a child is a pedophile. But child grooming is a much more involved, premeditated effort than simply molesting a kid. It means actively cultivating a relationship for the ultimate purpose of sex. Who but a pedophile would do so? -Willmcw 00:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"But child grooming is a much more involved" — Aaaannnd you would know this, how? ;) The way you're making it sound, either you've done it, or you've had it done to you. Either way is original research. --Rookiee 15:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The article as it exists at this moment refers to both aspects of Child Grooming - that it is a neutral act & can be positive but is most often referenced in context of child sexual abuse. That seems like a very fair compromise. Removing any reference to the negative connotation of the phrase is wrong as the negative context is the most popular usage of this phrase. --Lepeu1999 14:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

This article is a bunch of fluff that either is or should just be covered elsewhere. I am contemplating nominating it for deletion. It'll likely survive, but it needs to seriously go through the grinder to get some focus. You can groom anyone for many different reasons, why not articles on Grooming someone for money, Grooming someone for a Job, Grooming old ladies to steal their SSI checks...etc., articles connected with every noun and every verb combination there is.

(I think you're right. Joey Q. McCartney 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

The "Sexual grooming in the UK Sexual Offences Act" doesn't seem relevant at all. Two contacts isn't what I'd call grooming. Is the term used in the document? If not, this section needs to go. --DanielCD 22:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not. This article is about the crime of child grooming, and so a citation of the law on the matter seems highly appropriate. As for "fluff", what is fluffy here? The article has several references. "Child grooming" is not a made-up term. -Will Beback 19:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The following statements from the article have no references:

• "Child grooming is a somewhat euphemistic term for the development of a relationship with a child by an adult for the purpose of engaging in sexual activities with the child. The "groomer" is sometimes refered to as a "chickenhawk"."
• "In addition to acts which by themselves are legal, sexual grooming may include acts such as showing pornography to the child, perhaps even child pornography. The pornography may be used to arouse the child, as an example of what the adult desires or to give the child the impression that the depicted acts are normal or common."
• "One form of grooming is "Internet grooming" or "online grooming", that is, nurturing an Internet friendship, usually by means of online chat, which may later result in "real life" contact. In 2003 MSN Chat was restricted to better protect children from what they called "inappropriate communication".
• "...A similar bill is pending in Scotland: the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill."
• "Thus, a crime may be committed without a meeting actually taking place and without the child being involved in the meeting (for example, if a police officer has taken over the contact and pretends to be that child)."

That last sentence explains and interprets the statute. Such a sentence should be sourced. Joey Q. McCartney 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess there doesn't have to be a rush to include references, and I assume everything in the article is true, but I do question whether many of the statements I list above can currently be verified without original research. Joey Q. McCartney 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Attached is a reference re the use of pornography in child sexual grooming. The cite is from a UNESCO article and as such (I think) qualifies as scholarly enough for our purposes. www.unesco.org/webworld/child_screen/conf_index_2.html --Lepeu1999 18:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel like investing mush time in this article, but a quick Google search brought up a large number of solid-looking references available on this topic. However some of the specific items may not be verifiable even so. I did add "chickenhawk" to the search and that brought up nothing. -Will Beback 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography abnormal or not?

Because of "The pornography may be used to arouse the child, as an example of what the adult desires or to give the child the impression that the depicted acts are normal or common" I added that the sex acts in pornography usually is abnormal, to clarify. Someone considered that POV and deleted. So how is it? Either "the pornography..." should be changed or the article ought to state that sex in pornography is abnormal. 81.216.236.207 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

read in context, the implication is that the acts are 'normal or common' for the child to engage in them. I for one had no problem understanding what was being said there. I don't see it needs to be altered. --Lepeu1999 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, did you mean that the current version doesn't need to be altered? Or that the version with edits by 81.216.236.207 doesn't need to be altered? Zebruh 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I refer to the phrasing as it exists at this time. --Lepeu1999 20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree.Zebruh 22:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Again, some fairly extensive changes to this article with no comment in the discussion page. I made some minor edits for clarity. --Lepeu1999 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with most of your edit. However, "child grooming" can (but does not always) mean grooming for a future activity or role. I'm not saying the article has to talk about any other kind of grooming. I'm just saying the statement as it was, was technically inaccurate. You asked for more explanation than was in my last edit summary, so there it is. I personally think changing the title is even more sensible; it could say something like "grooming a child for a future activity or role." Joey Q. McCartney 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And in case I'm not being clear, the "other" meaning I'm talking about is appearance/hygiene grooming. Again, I'm not saying that appearance/hygiene grooming needs to be discussed at all in this article. I'm just saying the sentence "child grooming means grooming for a future activity or role" is technically inaccurate. Joey Q. McCartney 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you were trying to do, but for some reason the phrase 'can mean' feels weak to me when used in that spot - no offense is intended. Trying something a little bit different. If you don't like, feel free to revert.

--Lepeu1999 14:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the article defines child grooming as preparing a child for a future role, but the only examples given are sexual. It seems that intellectual stimulation, sports programs, etc would fit the definition in this article, yet are not discussed here. The article either needs to be broadened to include preperation for all sorts of future roles, or it needs to be moved to a single purpose title, such as "grooming children for sexual roles". Johntex\^talk 01:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

John, that was tried. If you look at the history, at one point the article was titled something like 'Child Grooming; Sexual' but people keep changing it out for what ever reason or agenda. It appears that there may be some users - mostly anonymous users - that are determined to see that any reference to the sexual/abuse aspect of the term Child Grooming either gets buried or deleted entirely. I make no accusations at all as to who. The intent of the article - at least from what the historical revisions suggest - is to present an article on the act of grooming a child for sex. I don't think McCartney's edit was intended to bury that, but to address that the term can have other meanings to prevent confusion --Lepeu1999 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Until Joey Q. McCartney's edits the article focused on the sexual aspect. I'm not sure what the point is of having an article on the other aspects, which all fit under education. It makes more sense to keep the article on one topic, in my opinion. -Will Beback 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

After leaving the comments above, I realized that many of the comments by others were correct. The focus of this article had been moved from its origional intent for whatever reason. Reviewing the history of this article, it is about sexual grooming. Without getting into discussions of morality or legality the focus of this article should remain as it was intended. I have rearrainged the text to support this. You will note I have tried to make the number of textual changes as few as possible. I have deleted some of the 'convince the child' stuff after 'showing pornography' as it removed clarity and brevety. The child is shown pornography in the context of this article to convince him or her of one thing - that sexual activity between an adult and child is normal and/or acceptable. Again - I am NOT looking for a moral, legal or ethical debate on this here in the talk page.

If someone feels there is a need for an article on the benign aspects of Child Grooming in context with 'normal' child rearing then by all means write it - but it doesn't belong here.--Lepeu1999 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Perhaps a title such as grooming (child sexual abuse) would be more appropriate? Is the word "grooming" used in any other specifically sexual contexts, or only in relation to child abuse? 217.155.20.163 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the purpose of such a move? "Child grooming" is the term often used for this subject.[11][12]. Variations are used, like "grooming children" but the meaning is the same. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is really...

Weird. It just sounds off. 86.137.28.211 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That critique isn't helpful. If you have a more specific complaint we may be able to address it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose we merge it with child sexual abuse as its just a fork, and a badly linked one at that, this article makes clear theya re the same thing, SqueakBox 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Child grooming may lead to child sexual abuse, but it is a crime of its own. Child sexual abuse is quite long already, so I don't think merging would be advisable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, for example the "Examples of child grooming section" which I note is mostly unsourced. Things like "Taking the child on outings, away from protective adults." sounds like something a pedophile would say (protective?). 86.137.28.211 11:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources at the end of the list. Parents and other concerned adults would normally seek to protect children from the attention of pedophiles. That doesn't seem odd. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source for that item:

• Grooming may take many forms. It may occur through:
• Enticing the child away from protective adults (e.g. taking the child on outings without other adults and children)
• "Ending Offending Together" [13]

So the "protective adults" part is a direct quote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to repeat someone else's rubbish prose? The article reads like it was written by a high schooler. 86.137.28.211 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the concept of Wikipedia isn't clear: we verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We don't create new research on our own. I don't see why the source qualifies as "rubbish prose". There's no grammatical or logical error in the phrase "protective adults". Is that the only complaint? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually child sexual abuse is a num,ber of different crimes, one of which (in some places) is child grooming. The CSA article being too long is a poor argument, creating endless sub-articles alwways weakens wikipedia and this just seems like an unnnecessary one when grooming clearly is a form of CSA, SqueakBox 15:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We have several articles on topics that are forms of CSA or related to it: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, Scouting sex abuse cases, Incest, Covert incest, Prostitution of children, Child pornography. While we could merge all of those into one huge article, I don't that would serve readers well. The debate between fewer, larger articles and more, smaller articles is a philosophical difference. I'm not even sure that Child sexual abuse would be the best target for a merge. Child grooming is an explicitly pedophilic activity, one that a child may not even be aware of or be harmed by. Trying to lure a child on the internet is not abuse in and of itself. It is a pedophile activity though. If we really want a merge I'd suggest that Pedophile might be a better target. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Child Grooming is a specific technique almost universially used in CSA, it is a large enough topic and consept that it deserves its own space on wikipedia, and should only be summerized and linked in CSA as one methods used by preditors. There is a lot more information that should eventually but put under this topic than there currently exists, so trying to fit it under CSA would eventually never work, and it would eventually become its own space again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhall0608 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I support the YouTube channel known as YoungTubersUnited. I am NOT YouTube's galipoka, but I chose that name for myself here. Encyclopedia Dramatica labels supporters of YoungTubersUnited as pedophiles.

I figure those kids are too smart to be groomed.

I like YoungTubersUnited because of the content of their videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galipoka (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Galipoka 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)