What is “Internet Grooming”? Could it have a regional meaning in the U.K.? As per this article:
Does internet grooming mean someone is preparing or training girls for Internet contact? Sounds like pimping. But from the context, it seems like it means just enticement, but it’s a strange term to someone from the US of A.
I think it refers to an non-minor talking to a minor… with the idea that the non-minor is just trying to win the minor’s trust so they later violate that trust… USING THE INTERNET. I’m not aware of it being illegal if you’re not USING THE INTERNET for a non-minor to talk to a minor, but they UKers are a funny bunch, what with their cameras.
Except for a strange 1996 post on Usenet(which I think has nothing to do with the pedophile meaning), it seems to appear on UK Usenet in 2001.
‘Internet Grooming’ refers to the process of peadophiles posing as youngsters in order to gain the trust of the youngster and then arrange a meeting.
I think this is because it would be impossible to disguise yourself as a child if you were conversing face to face or on the phone. It isn’t illegal for a non-minor to talk to a minor but it is illegal for a non-minor to talk to a minor, trick them into a meeting then attempt to molest them…see the difference?
“Grooming” is a term that has been used for a few years here in the U.S., I am not sure where and when it started, and I am not sure if there is an official definition. It is especially used among those professions that work with sexually abused children and their perpetrators.
In the context, grooming is the process that the sexual perpetrator uses to win the child’s (or parent’s) trust, and then see how far he can push the sexual envelope until there is some sort of sexual contact. It can be compared to the way a con man would slowly and carefully work his way into an elderly person’s life until he has full control of the elderly person’s finances.
For example, suppose a man wants to groom a kid over the internet. He might first just be a buddy, maybe share a few embarrassing secrets so that the kid shares a few embarrassing secrets, he might send the kid a present or some money, he might tell the kid a few dirty jokes to see how he responds, he might send the kid a few porno pics to see how he responds, he might try to put the kid into some embarrassing position so that he has some influence or power over the child, etc, etc etc. The perpetrator just keeps pushing it, step by step, sometimes taking months or even years till he actually makes a move on the kid.
Some of these common grooming steps are illegal (providing porn or drugs to minors, walking around naked in front of them), some are not (talking to kids, asking them to keep secrets, giving them presents). It would be difficult to make a law outlawing grooming since so much of the process could be explained as simple kindness (wierd kindness, if you knew the context). It would be difficult to make a law like “You can no longer allow nieghborhood kids to play on your driveway basketball hoop” or “You may not loan CD’s to your girlfriend’s son” or “you can not build your nephew a clubhouse in his own backyard” all of which could be used by a perpetrator to groom their intended victims.
Here’s an Irish site about the matter: http://www.finegael.ie/fine-gael-news.cfm/year/2004/month/5/action/detail/newsid/23314/level/page/aid/10/
Putting “internet grooming definition” into google brings up UK sites as the first 6 refs. One is the Urban Dictionary.
Still, a more conventional dictionary doesn’t seem to include this definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grooming , so I still think it must be mostly a UK term, and perhaps of slang or jargon origin.
It looks a lot like simple “enticement” to me.
The term is also used by the media in Australia, particular in connection with new proposed anti-paedophilia legislation (here’s an article published a month ago). It’s not a very common usage, but it’s sufficiently understood such that it doesn’t have explicitly defined each time it’s used in the media.
‘Grooming’ in UK terms does not just mean employing th einternet to gain the trust of minors.
Paedophiles are known to take up employment that might allow unsupervised access to children, such as social workers, etc.
The whole process of gaing a childs trust, or perhaps even subtle intimidation is known as ‘grooming’ over here.
Grooming is just a word for gaining access and need not be trust based at all.
Well, based on the locations of cites introduced here and the locations of those responding in this thread (except for chriscya), it sure seems like the term “grooming” when applied to pedophilic enticement is most commonly used in the British “cultural realm,” that is, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Australia.
“Cultural realm.” I just made that up. Like it? 
Anyone from New Zealand or South Africa care to chime in?
Up until the “trick them into a meeting and then attempt to molest them”, which is already covered under existing laws, I don’t see the difference. How do you tell when a non-minor talking to a minor is going to, at some future date, attempt to molest them? Is it the posing as a minor thing? What if you never bother to discuss your ages with each other, but the minor assumes you’re also a minor? What if you assume they’re a non-minor, and so have all sorts of off-color conversations, as non-minors are wont to do at times? I could see such exchanges seeming very suspicious, though if a meeting ever was arranged and executed, there’d be zero chance of molestation (and probably a slightly sick feeling) when they found out the age disparity… which makes this particular USING THE INTERNET law particularly whack.
I think you are missing the point 1010011010, ‘Internet grooming’ refers to the practice of pretending you are a child in order to gain another childs trust. Using a childlike user name ‘SK8ERDUDE99’ for example, referencing bands or interests that are age specific and actually stating that you are a minor. If you can’t see the difference between doing this and simply talking to a child then i’m not sure I can explain it any better. It is this sort of pretence that they are trying to stop but I’m not sure that it is actually illegal but you have to wonder at the motives of someone who would do this.
This may well be true but ‘Internet Grooming’ (as per the OP) commonley means pretending you are a child in order to gain the trust of another child for nefarious reasons via the internet.
Bob likes boy bands, not boys.
Bob used to skate when he was younger. He get got his first computer in 1999, he chose his e-mail adress according to those interests. Now, half a decade later, he still has the e-mail address… and much to his personal embarassment, he secretly feels that MTV has quality programming. No one in his own peer group shares this love of “music”… so Bob discusses his interests on message boards, not unlike this one. Due to the fact that he knows it’s kind of weird for someone his age to like this type of celebrity, he lies about his age in his profile on the 'board to fit in. Unsurprisingly, these messageboards are full of young people and over time Bob develops online friendships with some of them. The Pop Tarts are coming to his town for a concert… but he doesn’t want to go alone. He posts a non-commital thread wondering if anyone else on the board is going to the show… plans end up being made- perfect excuse for a board meeting!
Earl likes boys, not boy bands.
Equivalent actions, postings, conversations, and comments as above… just for slightly different reasons… and different bands.
You are the parent of one of the kids on the board, and became suspicious about Bob and Earl, but haven’t done anything, since they were just talking- harmless enough. Since you happen to be neither a psychic, nor a reader of this SDMB thread, you cannot know anything of their motives. You know only of thier online activities and that they have lied about their ages.
Both concerts start in 10 minutes on opposite sides of town.
You can only stop one of them.
So! What’s the difference?
I personally think you are just being pointlessly obtuse about the whole thing, what is your point? Internet grooming is not a crime as far as I am aware but merely a handy phrase to explain how some paedophiles gain the trust of children…what more can I say? As to your hypothetical question well I would stop either one, does it make a difference seeing as from my perspective they could both be potential paedophiles? If however it happened in the real world then I would contact the police and have both men investigated.
It IS an offence, as is mentioned in the OP.
If you’d read the OP and its link, you’d realise that it has been an offence in England and Wales since last year.
Fair enough, I still can’t see why 1010011010 appears to have a problem with it being an offense though.
Simply not the case. You’re spouting off speculation as fact.
I’m spouting off the facts of a hypothetical situation. That simply is the case, there is zero chance of child molestation. In other cases, people are doing the exact same kinds of things to win a child’s trust in order to later violate that trust, but not in the situations I’ve invented for this discussion (except as otherwise indicated)
I’m asking people to identify the observable difference between them… because I can’t find it. How do you seperate the Bobs from the Earls, going on information that will be available in the real world? And, no, the old “Think of the children!” argument is not a justification for sticking Bob under bright lights and making him feel inhuman. Nor is “Well, that’s unrealistic.” since people do some pretty unreal things, and I don’t see why they should get shat on if they aren’t hurting anyone.
I see this law being used improperly moreso than being used to stop incidents of child moleestation before they happen… and who gives a fuck about Bob’s right to privacy and that whole presumed innocence thing? He likes boy bands! Burn him!
Ehhhh? how does that work? Surely hypotheses cannot be facts?