Reposting this as an article since my first one with just the court documents violated rule 1.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24179145/bianco-v-lamington-farm-club.pdf
Reposting this as an article since my first one with just the court documents violated rule 1.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24179145/bianco-v-lamington-farm-club.pdf
deleted by creator
You’re welcome to your definitions.
edit: and I’m sure that all the women groomed to be sex slaves by Allison Mack for the NXIVM cult would disagree, as would most of the reporting on that story. It doesn’t have to do with children, it has to do with being psychologically and/or sexually manipulated in various ways to feel loved, included, accepted, etc. No victims benefit from a narrow definition.
Isn’t that what sex trafficking is? I don’t mean to take anything away from the outrage, but using terms in their appropriate context is something that people malign the right with pretty frequently, e.g. the right calls everything an “insurrection” to diminish the use of the word. Sex trafficking is pretty abhorrent, but means something different than Grooming as far as I understood the terms. Habba is shit either way.
Go search “NXIVM groom.” I consider the discussion over.
I took your advice. The conclusion that I came to was that the charges brought in the NXIVM case were sex trafficking, racketeering, and others. The abuse with at least one of the victims began when she was 15 years old, so Grooming in that case seems applicable.
You should take some time to think about how asinine it is to draw a distinction between two people who went through the same thing because one was 15 and one was 19, much less any other age difference. The distinction that should be made is what kind of manipulations they went through that made them think they wanted to be in that situation, and for each person that entailed someone breaking down a part of their psyche until they were in a mentally childlike state, vulnerable to the types of programming they were subjected to. We remain in disagreement and I’m fine with that. And I’m not interested in your alternative viewpoint because, again, it’s asinine.
Good for you.