[SPOILER] Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" [SPOILER]

[MustacheAndaHalf]

If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.

I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

Ah correct.  I don't recall that Martha incident.  But I guess I don't follow why you think Gadd is lying about everything because one falsity in the show - the conviction - has been pointed out.  From what I gather, there's much more evidence that "Martha" has a history of lying than Gadd.  Do you know something about him and a history of dishonesty that the general population doesn't?

He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Your posts seem to show a very black and white view of victimization and sexual orientation.  Which might explain why you are viewing the show differently than most people.  I get that, it can be difficult to understand how a grown adult can "allow" themselves to be abused by another adult.  But that's kind of the crux of the story.  Accommodating abuse is a common reaction to being abused. 

I wouldn't fixate on his use of the term "groom." Yes, it's often used in the context of children being groomed by adults.  However, there's no age limit - adults can be abused by other adults via grooming, and intoxication and drug use is a very common strategy for abusers.

You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Yes, 100% disagree with your claim that only minors can be groomed (it even says that in your post/link).  It applies to abusers, who commonly target children, but adults can be groomed and can be victims of sexual abuse. There are lots of resources on the subject that are not wikipedia.

But even if he was technically using the wrong word, that doesn't really mean anything, right? We all know what he meant by the statement.

Please quote where it "even says that in [my] post/link".

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm not convinced he did the same for the head comedy writer who he accuses of rape.  Either he always goes to sleep when he does drugs, or his distorting events, and pretending any time he forgets is him waking up.  That's the difference between starting to have sex and forgetting it (drug-fueled memory lapse), versus waking up to sexual assault.  He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Donny's comedy act was bombing but after after he started working with Darrien the jokes were landing and the bar the was packed.   Darrien gave Donny GHB and sexually assaulted him.   Donny realized what happened afterwards but kept going back because he viewed Darrien as a mentor and wanted his approval. Similarly, at times he enabled Martha's stalking and would masturbate thinking about her because she thought he was funny and handsome which his how he wanted to see himself.

Donny wasn't innocent.   He definitely played a role in enabling his abusers and he could not understand why.    I think that's why the show is such a hit because that's how abuse works in real life, but that's not how it is normally portrayed in popular culture.

Darrien called the combination of GHB and another drug the "highest of highs".  Both of them took GHB, not just Donny.

When Darrien reaches down Donny's pants and starts jerking him off, Donny says "stop", and Darrien immediately stops.  Does that sound like a predator?

Donny portrays Darrien as a Bill Cosby figure who sexually assaults people in their sleep.  I asked myself which is more likely: Darrien is a regular gay man, or a predator.  Given how much Donny lies, I can't accept the story at face value, because Gadd (Donny) wrote the parts for all the characters - he can change the narrative any way he likes.

I think Donny confuses losing memory (side effect of GHB) with waking up (when most people stop feeling continuous time).  Either he is always going to sleep when he takes drugs, or he just has memory gaps.  If it is the former, Darrien is a rapist like Bill Cosby.  If the latter, drugs loosened up two men who had sex, both taking the same drugs.

Another area where I disagree is the value Gadd places on mentorship.  He wants to be famous, which is why he tolerates everything.  At one point he thinks Darrien is lying to him about his chances for fame, and hours later he claims he was raped.  Isn't that timing convenient - that it is only rape when Donny is no longer getting what he wants?

Later in the show, Donny finds a note on the script he wrote: Darrien wrote that the script was amazing.  It appears Donny was wrong to abandon him... and so later, he goes back to Darrien to work with him again.  It's the same thing playing out - when Donny thinks he can get famous, he works with the guy he accused of rape.

All I can say is that after many, many years of working on various contexts with sexual assault victims and being a sexual assault victim myself, I don't have the same reaction as you do.

And I will say again, the response has been overwhelmingly positive that Gad's messy, complicated representation of date rape is incredibly accurate to a lot of people's experiences.

In fact, most victims are left extremely confused as to whether or not they even were assaulted.

I can see how you are conceptualizing this, and it sounds like you don't have a ton of exposure to real life SA victims. Which is why Gad is being so lauded because TV almost never portrays the messy, complex, contradictory, confusing reality of what SA actually looks like and feels like to a lot of victims, or the fucked up ways in which they respond.

Also, I agree, the use of the word grooming may or may not be ideal since people are using it in different ways, which is suboptimal. But the fact persists that predators in power do create situations pretty much identical to how children are groomed by predators.

Perhaps you haven't been in a situation where someone with extreme power in your world decides to target you for abuse. It's an extremely disorienting experience. A big part of it is that they start offering you what you want most and then make it really, really confusing as to what you owe them in return, and they often make it clear that substantial harm can come if you don't comply. All of this is typically done with a veneer of plausible deniability. Sometimes drugs and alcohol are used to create a lot of plausible deniability, but not always. So yes, there are often individual circumstances where an advance will be rejected and the person puts on a display of respecting the rejection. That's part of the process, but they fully intend to proceed once they can create circumstances to do so. ETA: This is why Gad chose to include that scene of Darrien ostensibly appearing to respect boundaries. That was the whole point.

What makes it sexual assault is that the person absolutely does not want to have sexual contact with the person in power, but have ended up in a dynamic where they feel they have no choice, or where they lose capacity to enforce a choice.

Gad's experience strikes you as strange, but it strikes folks who are extremely familiar with this process as downright textbook.

There's a whole range of predators out there. There are the Weinsteins who lure and pounce, the Cosby's who lure and drug, the R Kelly's who lure and imprison, but those are patterns of extremely bold predators who evolved their tactics in an environment of extreme protection.

Most predators in positions of power need to be more subtle than that. The plausible deniability is a huge element of their own survival as serial sexual predators.

As a therapist you see far more SA than most people.  I agree you are an expert, and people should respect your views on this more than mine.

Note that all three of the men you mentioned were heterosexual.  Earlier you mentioned Kevin Spacey, who has been cleared of all charges.  An adult, gay sexual predator of other gay men is extremely rare.

I discovered something that weakens my view of events.  GHB has sedative effects, which makes Donny waking up plausible.

My problem with Gadd isn't that the situation is strange or uncomfortable.  It's that Gadd lies frequently, and he is the sole writer of this narrative.  Once real-life Martha was discovered, we found out he lied about two stalking convictions and prison time.  I am concerned that someone who lies frequently - and lies about story details - may not be trustworthy.  And he's the one telling the whole story.

I should reiterate something I said earlier, which you brought up in your reply.  Darrien had a position of fame and power over Gadd, which he used to have sex with Gadd.  By itself, that could be sexual assault, regardless of the details I dispute.  From your description, it sounds like sexual assault occurred even if Gadd was conscious (and on drugs) at the time.

[Metalcat]

As a therapist you see far more SA than most people.  I agree you are an expert, and people should respect your views on this more than mine.

Note that all three of the men you mentioned were heterosexual.  Earlier you mentioned Kevin Spacey, who has been cleared of all charges.  An adult, gay sexual predator of other gay men is extremely rare.

I discovered something that weakens my view of events.  GHB has sedative effects, which makes Donny waking up plausible.

My problem with Gadd isn't that the situation is strange or uncomfortable.  It's that Gadd lies frequently, and he is the sole writer of this narrative.  Once real-life Martha was discovered, we found out he lied about two stalking convictions and prison time.  I am concerned that someone who lies frequently - and lies about story details - may not be trustworthy.  And he's the one telling the whole story.

I should reiterate something I said earlier, which you brought up in your reply.  Darrien had a position of fame and power over Gadd, which he used to have sex with Gadd.  By itself, that could be sexual assault, regardless of the details I dispute.  From your description, it sounds like sexual assault occurred even if Gadd was conscious (and on drugs) at the time.

I...don't even know what to respond about this...

ETA: I found this article a good articulation of what some of us are trying to explain
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/28/baby-reindeer-gay-bi-men-grooming-rape-netflix

[charis]

If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.

I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

Ah correct.  I don't recall that Martha incident.  But I guess I don't follow why you think Gadd is lying about everything because one falsity in the show - the conviction - has been pointed out.  From what I gather, there's much more evidence that "Martha" has a history of lying than Gadd.  Do you know something about him and a history of dishonesty that the general population doesn't?

He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Your posts seem to show a very black and white view of victimization and sexual orientation.  Which might explain why you are viewing the show differently than most people.  I get that, it can be difficult to understand how a grown adult can "allow" themselves to be abused by another adult.  But that's kind of the crux of the story.  Accommodating abuse is a common reaction to being abused. 

I wouldn't fixate on his use of the term "groom." Yes, it's often used in the context of children being groomed by adults.  However, there's no age limit - adults can be abused by other adults via grooming, and intoxication and drug use is a very common strategy for abusers.

You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Yes, 100% disagree with your claim that only minors can be groomed (it even says that in your post/link).  It applies to abusers, who commonly target children, but adults can be groomed and can be victims of sexual abuse. There are lots of resources on the subject that are not wikipedia.

But even if he was technically using the wrong word, that doesn't really mean anything, right? We all know what he meant by the statement.

Please quote where it "even says that in [my] post/link".

Why are you so hung up on which word was used by the author of the show?  Again, we all know what he meant.  And your post says, sometimes the child's family.  Ie, adults can be groomed, and for varying reasons.  But I'm not going to continue this fixation on word usage with you.  There are very good sources out there regarding SA and grooming, you can find them if you wish to become better informed on this topic.

ETA and I see that Metalcat has already linked to one above.  I'm not sure why you are trying to argue so staunchly about a subject matter that you are clearly not very familiar with. 

ETA again having cross posted with your most recent post.  I appreciate your change of viewpoint and apologize if my comments seem harsh.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Gad's experience strikes you as strange, but it strikes folks who are extremely familiar with this process as downright textbook.

Thinking about it more, I've changed my view to match yours.  I didn't realize how well his story matches SA victims in general.

[Metalcat]

Gad's experience strikes you as strange, but it strikes folks who are extremely familiar with this process as downright textbook.

Thinking about it more, I've changed my view to match yours.  I didn't realize how well his story matches SA victims in general.

As an SA victim myself, who was also raped with really good plausible deniability by someone I profoundly admired, I can tell you that it gave me chills to watch.

Gad portrayed himself, on screen for millions, the darkest aspects of how SA impacts victims, the parts that are humiliating and make them look bad, like lying etc.

That's why I keep using the word honest. He openly shares the parts of SA that victims usually struggle to even talk to their therapists about.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.

I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

Ah correct.  I don't recall that Martha incident.  But I guess I don't follow why you think Gadd is lying about everything because one falsity in the show - the conviction - has been pointed out.  From what I gather, there's much more evidence that "Martha" has a history of lying than Gadd.  Do you know something about him and a history of dishonesty that the general population doesn't?

He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Your posts seem to show a very black and white view of victimization and sexual orientation.  Which might explain why you are viewing the show differently than most people.  I get that, it can be difficult to understand how a grown adult can "allow" themselves to be abused by another adult.  But that's kind of the crux of the story.  Accommodating abuse is a common reaction to being abused. 

I wouldn't fixate on his use of the term "groom." Yes, it's often used in the context of children being groomed by adults.  However, there's no age limit - adults can be abused by other adults via grooming, and intoxication and drug use is a very common strategy for abusers.

You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Yes, 100% disagree with your claim that only minors can be groomed (it even says that in your post/link).  It applies to abusers, who commonly target children, but adults can be groomed and can be victims of sexual abuse. There are lots of resources on the subject that are not wikipedia.

But even if he was technically using the wrong word, that doesn't really mean anything, right? We all know what he meant by the statement.

Please quote where it "even says that in [my] post/link".

Why are you so hung up on which word was used by the author of the show?  Again, we all know what he meant.  And your post says, sometimes the child's family.  Ie, adults can be groomed.  But I'm not going to continue this fixation on word usage with you.  There are very good sources out there regarding SA and grooming, you can find them if you wish to become better informed on this topic.

You forgot Martha's sexual assault of Donny, which I had to clarify.  Then you claimed I was wrong about "sexual grooming", so I quoted the definition.  Now you claim I'm wrong about the definition from Wikipedia.  I asked you to be more specific, because I suspected you had yet another misunderstanding.  And you do, over the Wikipedia definition of "sexual grooming" I linked above:

(1) Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to
(2) establish an emotional connection with a minor,
(3) and sometimes the child's family,
(4) to lower the child's inhibitions
(5) with the objective of sexual abuse

An emotional connection (2) is sometimes established with the child's family (3).  The words "and sometimes the child's family"(3) appear with commas on either side because it adds to the phrase "establish an emotional connection"(4).  Sexual grooming does not involve sexually abusing the child's family, as you seem to be claiming in your reply.  It means a sexual groomer uses an emotional connection with the child's family.

When you misunderstand things repeatedly, that's a problem.  It is hard to have a conversation through this much confusion, so I limited my replies to correcting your repeated misunderstandings.

[PeteD01]

What Is Sexual Grooming?
Medically Reviewed by Neha Pathak, MD, FACP, DipABLM on October 03, 2022 Written by Shishira Sreenivas

It's when a sexual predator builds a relationship with a child or adult to abuse and exploit them. They build trust but use it to control, isolate, and abuse their victims emotionally, physically, and sexually.
...
What Does Sexual Grooming Look Like for Adults?
It might start with what seems like a harmless friendship. Groomers use this to build trust and gain access to you and your daily personal or professional life. They might use flattering words, promises, and actions to win you over.

While their behaviors are similar to when they target children, a big difference is that they usually have your consent to become involved in a relationship.

But adults are often tricked into these relationships. For example, the groomer might make up lies about who they are and fake their entire persona – details like where they work and who their friends and family members are might be all made up. They do this to gain your trust, access, and interest before they isolate and manipulate you.

Over time, they follow the different stages of grooming to establish control and maintain power over you to get what they want.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-sexual-grooming

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Gad's experience strikes you as strange, but it strikes folks who are extremely familiar with this process as downright textbook.

Thinking about it more, I've changed my view to match yours.  I didn't realize how well his story matches SA victims in general.

As an SA victim myself, who was also raped with really good plausible deniability by someone I profoundly admired, I can tell you that it gave me chills to watch.

Gad portrayed himself, on screen for millions, the darkest aspects of how SA impacts victims, the parts that are humiliating and make them look bad, like lying etc.

That's why I keep using the word honest. He openly shares the parts of SA that victims usually struggle to even talk to their therapists about.

I would say Gadd made himself vulnerable, but I disliked how much he lied in the series. How do you compare Gadd's level of lying to the textbook definition of SA victims?


There are also times where Gadd allows someone to believe a lie, and says nothing.  When a co-worker takes Gadd's phone, and sends an invite to have sex to Martha... Martha thinks Gadd wants to have sex with her.  He doesn't clarify.  When Martha is in his house's kitchen, and has threatened his ex-girlfriend (who is upstairs), he does not reveal her identity.  I view both of these as lying by omission.

[Metalcat]

Gad's experience strikes you as strange, but it strikes folks who are extremely familiar with this process as downright textbook.

Thinking about it more, I've changed my view to match yours.  I didn't realize how well his story matches SA victims in general.

As an SA victim myself, who was also raped with really good plausible deniability by someone I profoundly admired, I can tell you that it gave me chills to watch.

Gad portrayed himself, on screen for millions, the darkest aspects of how SA impacts victims, the parts that are humiliating and make them look bad, like lying etc.

That's why I keep using the word honest. He openly shares the parts of SA that victims usually struggle to even talk to their therapists about.

I would say Gadd made himself vulnerable, but I disliked how much he lied in the series. How do you compare Gadd's level of lying to the textbook definition of SA victims?


There are also times where Gadd allows someone to believe a lie, and says nothing.  When a co-worker takes Gadd's phone, and sends an invite to have sex to Martha... Martha thinks Gadd wants to have sex with her.  He doesn't clarify.  When Martha is in his house's kitchen, and has threatened his ex-girlfriend (who is upstairs), he does not reveal her identity.  I view both of these as lying by omission.

Okay, but I'm going to repeat myself. Gad chose to portray himself as a liar when he could have chosen not to.

SA victims very, very frequently engage in toxic behaviours, and lying is not an uncommon one. Their entire sense of self and place in the world becomes destabilized usually.

Gad showing this lying is part of what I respect about him.

It's also very possible/likely that Gad had previous life experiences that contributed to the lying. Often people with developmental traumas are more likely to be victimized, so it makes the pathology of sexual assault complicated. What unhealthy behaviours came before and what came after and how are they related?

Unhealthy human behaviour is profoundly complex.

[charis]

If she really stalked people, and Netflix portrayed that, that doesn't sound like defamation (under U.S. law, where the case is filed).  So the other claims (sexual assault of Gadd, criminal conviction) would need to add up to $170M of damages.

Both parties will look bad in court, so I still think this gets settled.

Why would the sexual assault of Gadd have any bearing on defamation of "Martha"? Or anyone else for that matter.  Even if it were untrue, which you seem to believe for reasons I don't follow, no one is defamed in the fictionalized telling of it, least of all Martha.

I think you're confusing one of the sexual assaults (his comedy writing mentor) with the other (Martha lying in wait for him at night, grabbing his crotch).  If the story shows Martha committing sexual assault, but she didn't, that could be defamation.

Ah correct.  I don't recall that Martha incident.  But I guess I don't follow why you think Gadd is lying about everything because one falsity in the show - the conviction - has been pointed out.  From what I gather, there's much more evidence that "Martha" has a history of lying than Gadd.  Do you know something about him and a history of dishonesty that the general population doesn't?

He later says this man groomed him, despite Gadd being about 30 years old at the time.  There's enough problems with his telling - and it is only his version of events - that I am suspicious he distorted things to remove any possibility he wasn't a victim, or anything mitigating for the other gay man (who never asked Gadd if he's gay in the story, which I find unbelievable).

Your posts seem to show a very black and white view of victimization and sexual orientation.  Which might explain why you are viewing the show differently than most people.  I get that, it can be difficult to understand how a grown adult can "allow" themselves to be abused by another adult.  But that's kind of the crux of the story.  Accommodating abuse is a common reaction to being abused. 

I wouldn't fixate on his use of the term "groom." Yes, it's often used in the context of children being groomed by adults.  However, there's no age limit - adults can be abused by other adults via grooming, and intoxication and drug use is a very common strategy for abusers.

You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Yes, 100% disagree with your claim that only minors can be groomed (it even says that in your post/link).  It applies to abusers, who commonly target children, but adults can be groomed and can be victims of sexual abuse. There are lots of resources on the subject that are not wikipedia.

But even if he was technically using the wrong word, that doesn't really mean anything, right? We all know what he meant by the statement.

Please quote where it "even says that in [my] post/link".

Why are you so hung up on which word was used by the author of the show?  Again, we all know what he meant.  And your post says, sometimes the child's family.  Ie, adults can be groomed.  But I'm not going to continue this fixation on word usage with you.  There are very good sources out there regarding SA and grooming, you can find them if you wish to become better informed on this topic.

You forgot Martha's sexual assault of Donny, which I had to clarify.  Then you claimed I was wrong about "sexual grooming", so I quoted the definition.  Now you claim I'm wrong about the definition from Wikipedia.  I asked you to be more specific, because I suspected you had yet another misunderstanding.  And you do, over the Wikipedia definition of "sexual grooming" I linked above:

(1) Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to
(2) establish an emotional connection with a minor,
(3) and sometimes the child's family,
(4) to lower the child's inhibitions
(5) with the objective of sexual abuse

An emotional connection (2) is sometimes established with the child's family (3).  The words "and sometimes the child's family"(3) appear with commas on either side because it adds to the phrase "establish an emotional connection"(4).  Sexual grooming does not involve sexually abusing the child's family, as you seem to be claiming in your reply.  It means a sexual groomer uses an emotional connection with the child's family.

When you misunderstand things repeatedly, that's a problem.  It is hard to have a conversation through this much confusion, so I limited my replies to correcting your repeated misunderstandings.

I didn’t misunderstand things repeatedly. I didn’t recall Martha grabbing Gad, once. And it was irrelevant to the discussion. And you are quite wrong about grooming as multiple posts and posters have pointed out to you, notwithstanding your estimate for Wikipedia. We have a problem and it ain’t me lol. I never suggested grooming the family refers to abusing them. I pointed out that grooming can refer to other situations that aren’t just the abuse of children, which many other posters have ALSO told you. I take back my apology. You are very ignorant on this topic.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Yes, 100% disagree with your claim that only minors can be groomed (it even says that in your post/link).

Please quote where it "even says that in [my] post/link".

And your post says, sometimes the child's family.  Ie, adults can be groomed, and for varying reasons.

Even when I quote you directly, and spell out why you're wrong, you refuse to admit it.

"sometimes the child's family" is a direct quote from the Wikipedia definition I quoted earlier, which includes "to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family".  Your "Ie" (in example) does not follow from that sentence, that "adults can be groomed".

[PeteD01]

You're claiming Wikipedia is wrong about the definition of sexual grooming?

"Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family,[1] to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

Yes, 100% disagree with your claim that only minors can be groomed (it even says that in your post/link).

Please quote where it "even says that in [my] post/link".

And your post says, sometimes the child's family.  Ie, adults can be groomed, and for varying reasons.

Even when I quote you directly, and spell out why you're wrong, you refuse to admit it.

"sometimes the child's family" is a direct quote from the Wikipedia definition I quoted earlier, which includes "to establish an emotional connection with a minor, and sometimes the child's family".  Your "Ie" (in example) does not follow from that sentence, that "adults can be groomed".

Adults are commonly groomed and family grooming is also common:

What Is Familial Sexual Grooming?
Understand how perpetrators manipulate families to gain access to children.
Posted December 5, 2023 |  Reviewed by Ray Parker

Perpetrators of child sexual abuse may not only sexually groom the child but also their family.
Familial grooming involves the selection of a child due to family vulnerability and the development of trust.
Family grooming may be more common when the victim is a child as opposed to a teenager.
About two-thirds of all cases of child sexual abuse may involve familial sexual grooming.

Sexual grooming is the deceptive process in which the perpetrator uses manipulative tactics and behaviors to sexually abuse a child while reducing the likelihood that the abuse will disclosed or detected by others. While most of the research on sexual grooming focuses on the behaviors and tactics directed at the minor, it is believed that perpetrators of CSA also engage in the sexual grooming of the minor's parent, guardians, and family—a phenomenon known as familial grooming.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202312/what-is-familial-sexual-grooming

[iris lily]

For anyone who needs to be convinced that grooming an entire family, including adult parents to get at a child is a real thing, seek out the documentary “Abducted in Plain Sight”

It’s a few years old now, but it’s unbelievable yet it happened.

I’ve never seen anything like it.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

For anyone who needs to be convinced that grooming an entire family, including adult parents to get at a child is a real thing, seek out the documentary “Abducted in Plain Sight”

Which is not what happened in "Baby Reindeer", which was my original point.