The reason you got voted down, (and I did not vote you down), was the snotty tone you took to an essentially correct answer.
I feel that you are in error, and this is why: my "snotty tone", a subjective judgement if ever I saw one, and the remarks in my post, were not in response to one or indeed any of the answers at all. They were directed at the actual quoted text in the original post, which came from a book review at the web site of the US organisation, NPR. I reproduce it here for reference:
It's in these passages that Dawkins reveals disturbing details of inappropriate sexual conduct — or "mild pedophilia" as he has referred to it in an interview — from both teachers and students in the public school system of his teenage years. He confesses that one teacher attempted to groom him by putting his hand down his shorts, but there was no abuse after that one incident.
My issues with this piece of web journalism are twofold:
1. A serious one: the language used to refer to Dawkins' revelation that he was abused. The word 'confesses', specifically. One confesses to crime or wrongdoing, and using it in connection with a revelation of victimhood reinforces victim-blaming and is a bad thing.
2. Where I come from, the UK, the word 'grooming' has a widely accepted meaning in the sexual abuse context: "Grooming is when someone builds an emotional connection with a child to gain their trust for the purposes of sexual abuse or exploitation." (NSPCC)
Grooming happens both online and in person. Groomers will hide their true intentions and may spend a long time gaining a child's trust. They may also try to gain the trust of the whole family so they can be alone with the child. Groomers do this by: (e.g.) pretending to be someone they are not, for example saying they are the same age online; offering advice or understanding; buying gifts; giving the child attention; using their professional position or reputation; taking them on trips, outings or holidays.
Thus my understanding has been (and I work in the justice system of my country) is that 'grooming' is a preparatory process, and that once touching of a sexual nature has taken place, the context has shifted to actual abuse. Of course further grooming might well be practiced, but I still feel that to call a first (or only) sexual touch by an abuser 'grooming' is a careless use of language. I suspect the review was hastily written and subjected to minimal editing (if any at all).
I await with interest your response to the above.