Paradise Split from LDS Scout Leader charged with several counts of criminal sexual conduct

[doubtingthomas]

even when their questioning is sensitive and non specific, this will desensitise vulnerable minors and vulnerable adults to the risk of other adults asking them inappropriate questions or getting them into one on one situations for nefarious reasons.

"In context, IHAQ’s reference to young people was pretty clearly to minors that we wouldn’t necessarily think of as children" - Res Ipsa

[Chap]

You did say 16 year olds are adults. It was a very long time ago.

So quote me, with a link to the post.

[Res Ipsa]

pretty clearly to minors that we wouldn’t necessarily think of as children

Not necessarily, the word "child" can mean "below the legal age of majority".

When you said, " intentional, non-violent conduct intended to result in illegal sexual contact with children" you didn't mention "young people".

Why would you think he’s referring to some reference you pulled out of an encyclopedia?

The reference is just one example. No one would disagree that young adults are young people.

As I said before, many people now believe that men who talk to younger women, are engaging in predatory behavior. The rhetoric is out there. That is the reason why I don't like the wording of IHAQ's reference. Does that make sense?

Then I apologise again - it just seemed to me that you may have been trying to approach the essential question from multiple angles rather than coming straight out with it, and trying to find ways in which you could say we agreed with you and the situation was OK. That is what bothered me earlier..

I understand.

I think it's helpful to limit the label "grooming" to non-violent behavior designed to lead to and conceal illegal sexual contact.

I honestly see some problems with your definition. Is it grooming when an 18 year old is secretly dating a 17 year old in the state of California? Or when the 18 year old travels to another state to see his girlfriend?

Would your definition of grooming apply in the Middle East? Because sex is illegal outside of marriage.

Does your definition of grooming apply in your state (Washington state)? The age of consent is 16 in your state. According to your definition, a 61 year old talking to a 16 year old, wouldn't be grooming.


Now, I don't want mention the laws (and the culture) in Mexico.

Can you please expand on what you mean by grooming?

No. I think my definition is clear enough. I have no desire to argue about edge cases.

[doubtingthomas]

No. I think my definition is clear enough. I have no desire to argue about edge cases.

Okay. Does your definition apply in other countries? Or just in the US? The majority of LDS members are outside of the US.

So quote me, with a link to the post.

When I have the time.

[doubtingthomas]

but sex ed at schools is a wonderful and beautiful thing, even if it makes kids or parents uncomfortable..."

You heard Kate Kelly alright. Keep your ass on topic or create a new one. What on earth are we thinking with our off-topic comments? This thread is about the LDS Scout Leader charged with several counts of criminal sexual conduct, as Kate points out.

You got that? I don't want to hear a "but"

And sorry for taking you out-of-context, here is the full quote

When you answer the question, try to do it from the standpoint of someone who would have to interpret the laws and apply them in a court room, not from the perspective of "I hate creepy Mormon Bishops and wish they would be locked up, but sex ed at schools is a wonderful and beautiful thing, even if it makes kids or parents uncomfortable..."

Here is my context, When you answer the question, try to do it from the standpoint of someone who would have to interpret the laws and apply them in a court room, not from the perspective of "I hate creepy Mormon Bishops and wish they would be locked up, but transgender women using the ladies room is a beautiful thing.

Just want to make Kate happy.

[Chap]

But let me ask you, would it be "inadvertent grooming" for a branch president (who is single and wants to get married in the temple) to flirt with a woman (who is also single and a member of the same branch)? Assume the branch president works overtime in his private life, and assume there is no coercion or sexual harassment.

I would like to know your opinion.

Maybe Shades could start a forum for posting LDS-linked sexual fantasies and discussing them with like-minded members? It would clearly fulfil a need.

[doubtingthomas]

Maybe Shades could start a forum for posting LDS-linked sexual fantasies and discussing them with like-minded members? It would clearly fulfil a need.

Chap, we honestly don't want to know what your sexual fantasies are.

[Chap]

But let me ask you, would it be "inadvertent grooming" for a branch president (who is single and wants to get married in the temple) to flirt with a woman (who is also single and a member of the same branch)? Assume the branch president works overtime in his private life, and assume there is no coercion or sexual harassment.

I would like to know your opinion.

Maybe Shades could start a forum for posting LDS-linked sexual fantasies and discussing them with like-minded members? It would clearly fulfil a need.

Chap, we honestly don't want to know what your sexual fantasies are.

And I haven't told you, and I never intend to. You, on the other hand ...

[doubtingthomas]

And I haven't told you

Good! Please Don't.

and I never intend to. You, on the other hand

I am not a branch president. Jesus Christ! I was simply describing the culture in other countries.

I don't have any fantasies. I dated younger women, one was of the barely legal type at the time (back in 2020). All of them very beautiful, like the woman of your dreams. So I am happy with myself. I'm so good, I don't have to brag.

Good point. The stubbornness is costing them, but then, taking this path has been overwhelmingly expensive for a long time.

Chap going off-topic.

Who is getting very angry?

[doubtingthomas]

I never intend to

Here are my objections.

IHAQ was saying that adults can be groomed. IHAQ quoted, "young people [including young adults] can be groomed online." According to the dictionary, the term "grooming" means "the action by a pedophile of preparing a child for a meeting, especially via an internet chat room, with the intention of committing a sexual offense. " It is not grooming when the younger person is above the legal age of consent. I think "grooming" should be replaced with words like "tricked" "lied" "sexual harassment" when there are no minors involved.

A lot of extremists say it is "abuse" when a man dates a younger woman. According to some researchers, people simply call it "abuse". So I had to object to IHAQ's quote "Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a .... young person". For IHAQ, a young adult is a young person.

IHAQ then continues with "unintentional grooming". Hopefully, you can share some of the research on "unintentional grooming" or at least explain it from an evolutionary perspective.

Am I making more sense?