What does "groom" mean here? Grope?

grooming is the term used for a paedophilia mentally/emotionally preparing a child to be sexually assaulted

The Oxford definition is correct.

Thanks.

Would any one like to explain why Dawkins was in fear of being beaten up when he read P.G. Wodehouse novels?

Someone who is British/male/of a certain age will have to answer that.

The alternative is to read Dawkins' book.

__


disclaimer: I love Wodehouse and have 70 or 80 of his books.

Difficult to say. Read "Tom Brown's Schooldays".
Maybe because the bullies thought he was being too bookish or "cissified", a "swot" (a pupil too interested in his studies).

Very crappy writing. One does not 'confess' to being a victim, and a person putting a hand down a boy's shorts is committing an actual assault, not 'grooming', which is preparatory to the assault phase .

Thanks.
But I failed to find "cissified", which appears to be "sissy"+"fied"

I think you'll actually have to read Dawkins' to find your answer.

Quote ebeth:

I love Wodehouse too, and oddly, I wasn't usually beaten up in the New York City school system. Of course, I didn't read him when I was a schoolboy.

Must be an English thing.

I don't understand why I got severely voted down for this, by which I stand, and which I reassert.

The reason you got voted down, (and I did not vote you down), was the snotty tone you took to an essentially correct answer. To "groom" in this sense means to train a young person to gradually accept greater and greater sexual advances by the older person. While many will agree with you that putting the hand down the young man's pants constitutes an assault in and of itself, it is also true that it is over quickly and, if not repelled, would usually be taken as a sign that is safe to proceed to more invasive sexual activities.

I remember liking Wodehouse in my early teens but no memory of details, will put on my check him out list.

Oh, and I agree with others, except with Tes, re what grooming means in this situation.

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.

It means either they would have thought him not sufficiently aggressively masculine, because Wodehouse would not be considered manly even if reading was ok....or they might have assumed he must be homosexual if he was reading something like Wodehouse.

Or, maybe they had nothing particularly against Wodehouse but there were other reasons they went after Dawkins, and Wodehouse was Dawkins' favorite, so remarks were directed against Wodehouse when Dawkins was there as a way of putting down Dawkins.

People who attack people often take some unremarkable aspect of the target and build it up as a theme to hit them with.

I realize what you are saying, but anyway you look at it, a quick hand down the pants is normally an intermediate step between an appropriate relationship between an adult and children and a full fledged physical sexual relationship. Making a big deal over where you draw the line between late grooming and early sexual relationship is not that important-it's an intermediate step toward pushing the young one into a physical sex relationship.

Yes...but Wodehouse is actually mentioned as a specific trigger for attacks.

I think grooming is an unusual term for something that has progressed to hands down the pants....but if Dawkins used it that way, then so it goes

Actually, I think it was the article writer's usage, and you and Tes yeux noirs are probably right about the cutoff for grooming being earlier than the hand down the trousers stage. At any rate, whoever does that is usually going for something even more.