‘Setting ’Em Up’: Personal, Familial and Institutional Grooming in the Sexual Abuse of Children
| Author | Anne-Marie Mcalinden |
| Published date | 01 September 2006 |
| Date | 01 September 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0964663906066613 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
‘SETTING ’EM UP’: PERSONAL,
FAMILIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
GROOMING IN THE SEXUAL
ABUSE OF CHILDREN
ANNE-MARIE MCALINDEN
Queen’s University Belfast, UK
ABSTRACT
The term ‘grooming’ has been used to describe the offender’s actions during the
preparatory stage of sexual abuse. This article will argue that current discourses on
grooming have created ambiguities and misunderstandings about child sexual abuse.
In particular, the popular focus on ‘stranger danger’ belies the fact that the majority
of children are abused by someone well known to them, where grooming can also
occur. Current discourses also neglect other important facets of the sex offending
pattern. They fail to consider that offenders may groom not only the child but also
their family and even the local community who may act as the gatekeepers of access.
They also ignore what can be termed ‘institutional grooming’ – that sex offenders
may groom criminal justice and other institutions into believing that they present no
risk to children. A key variable in the grooming process is the creation and subse-
quent abuse of trust. Given that the criminal law may be somewhat limited in its
response to this type of behaviour, ultimately concerted efforts must be made to foster
social and organizational awareness of such processes in order to reduce the offender’s
opportunity for abuse.
KEY WORDS
grooming; institutional grooming; sexual abuse; trust
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, www.sagepublications.com
0964 6639, Vol. 15(3), 339–362
DOI: 10.1177/0964663906066613
340
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(3)
INTRODUCTION
ONEOFthe most recent debates in the area of sexual offences against
children has centred on behaviour known as ‘grooming’. This term
usually refers to the situation whereby a potential offender will set
up opportunities to abuse by gaining the trust of the child in order to prepare
them for abuse either directly or, as is the case more recently, through
Internet chat rooms (Gillespie, 2001, 2004; Gallagher et al., 2003). It has
recently been claimed that ‘grooming is a ubiquitous feature of the sexual
abuse of children’ (Thornton, 2003: 144). However, despite the significance
of this process in the onset of sexual abuse and the recent prominence of the
term in public consciousness, it is a term which has not featured all that
heavily in academic and policy-making debates.
Cases of sexual exploitation of children involving the Internet are risks to
children that have received widespread official attention only in the last few
years. Of these cases, those involving child pornography, or ‘child abuse
images’ as the often preferred term, have by far received the greatest amount
of attention.1 By way of contrast, Internet initiated grooming and subsequent
sexual abuse of children have lagged someway behind. Several jurisdictions
have recognized the extent of the dangers of ‘Internet grooming’ for some
time.2 In the United Kingdom, however, the term ‘grooming’ has only just
recently found expression in Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which covers the offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming.
Moreover, the dangers of sexual grooming have also been recently recognized
by the judiciary.3 However, despite the fact that society as a whole is
becoming more focused on grooming and its role in the sexual abuse of
children, difficulties remain.
This article seeks to critically discuss some of these issues. It will be
demonstrated that there are uncertainties and misconceptions about what
sort of behaviour is covered by the term ‘grooming’. In particular, the recent
association of the term with the Internet and on-line abuse in both the
popular imagination and official discourses is based on the image of the sex
offender as a sexual predator or so-called ‘stranger danger’. In fact, it has been
well documented that children are most likely to be sexually abused by those
with whom they have a family relationship (Grubin, 1998), where grooming
can also take place. Moreover, the use of the Internet for ‘on-line grooming’
is simply one way in which offenders can get to know children and be no
longer regarded as a ‘stranger’ by them. Many more offenders, however,
make contact with victims and gain acceptance via off-line methods –
through schools or clubs or by getting to know particular families. These
ambiguities surrounding what amounts to sexual grooming also have impli-
cations for the criminalization of such behaviour.
Indeed, the current focus on the grooming of children has been largely
reactive in nature and neglects other important facets of the sex offender’s
behavioural pattern. This behaviour, in fact, is much more pervasive than has
previously been acknowledged: the sociological process of grooming has
MCALINDEN: PERSONAL, FAMILIAL & INSTITUTIONAL GROOMING 341
resonance in terms of not only extra-familial sexual abuse by strangers but
also within the context of intra-familial abuse where children may be
persuaded that inappropriate sexualized relationships with family members
are ‘both natural and common place’ (Ost, 2004: 148). Moreover, current
discourses do not fully consider that sex offenders may also groom not just
the child but also their family or the wider community as a necessary pre-
requisite to gaining access to the child. In addition, far more significantly
perhaps, these discourses do not appear to recognize that sex offenders may
also seek to groom criminal justice and other institutions into viewing them
as posing no danger to children.
The structure of the article will be as follows: the first section will outline
developments and difficulties to date within the area of grooming. These
include the lack of settled meaning of the term and the consequent problems
associated with a criminal law response. The second section will examine the
sociological literature on the abuse of trust as a key variable in the grooming
process. The third, fourth and fifth sections will critically examine the role
and significance of grooming in the onset of child sexual abuse at the
personal, familial and institutional levels respectively. They will analyse the
importance of trust within these processes in preparing the child, their family
and the wider community, and institutions in order to facilitate the abuse.
Finally, the sixth section will endeavour to put forward a constructive
solution to the problems associated with grooming. It will be argued that
social and institutional awareness of the dynamics of grooming, particularly
how sex offenders seek to create and then abuse trust, must be promoted in
order to reduce the offender’s opportunity to abuse and respond to the
problem in a more proactive and holistic way.
DEVELOPMENTS AND DIFFICULTIES TO DATE
Grooming is not a new concept. The term has been in use for some time by
psychologists who have sought to analyse patterns of deviant sexual behav-
iour. However, the area has generally been under-researched and there is a
good deal of confusion as to the exact meaning and scope of the term.
LACK OF SETTLED MEANING
In general terms, the verb ‘to groom’ has been defined as ‘to prepare, as for
a specific position or purpose’ (Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, 1975) or ‘to
prepare for a future role or function’.4 However, within the context of sexual
offending against children, the term ‘grooming’ has never been properly
defined. As Gillespie (2004) argues, grooming is a transient process that is diffi-
cult to capture and virtually impossible to pinpoint when it begins and ends.
The problems of definition associated with this term may be due to a
number of factors: first, some of the uncertainty is in part attributable to the
342
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(3)
fact that since only a relatively small amount of research has been carried out,
understanding of the area is still fairly rudimentary. Second, as mentioned
earlier, a related problem is that within popular and even official discourses
grooming is immediately linked to the Internet and is used mainly to refer
to on-line behaviour.5 Crucially, this is contrary to the reality that the vast
majority of abuse takes place by someone known to the victim rather than a
predatory stranger (Grubin, 1998) and where the grooming is most often off-
line. This latter misconception in the common usage of the term is due largely
to media portrayal of the risk of sexual abuse and recent public education
and awareness campaigns on the dangers of chat rooms and safe use of the
Internet. Third, the enactment of recent legislation on grooming in several
jurisdictions has not done anything to remove these ambiguities from the
debate over the sexual grooming of children.6 In fact, it may even be said to
have added to the confusion. In the United Kingdom, for example, within
the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the term grooming is nowhere defined.
Moreover, this provision continues to be known as the grooming offence,
even though it is not intended to be so. In fact, as will be explained further
later, it is the behaviour following grooming that is to be captured by the
offence, and not the grooming process itself.
THE CRIMINAL LAW RESPONSE
Section 15 of the 2003 Act introduces the offence of meeting a child follow-
ing sexual grooming. It covers the behaviour of an offender who meets, or
seeks to meet, a child with the intention of committing a sexual assault, if he
has met or communicated with that child on at least two earlier occasions.
This offence, however, is not restricted to on-line behaviour. It requires face-
to-face...
FAMILIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
GROOMING IN THE SEXUAL
ABUSE OF CHILDREN
ANNE-MARIE MCALINDEN
Queen’s University Belfast, UK
ABSTRACT
The term ‘grooming’ has been used to describe the offender’s actions during the
preparatory stage of sexual abuse. This article will argue that current discourses on
grooming have created ambiguities and misunderstandings about child sexual abuse.
In particular, the popular focus on ‘stranger danger’ belies the fact that the majority
of children are abused by someone well known to them, where grooming can also
occur. Current discourses also neglect other important facets of the sex offending
pattern. They fail to consider that offenders may groom not only the child but also
their family and even the local community who may act as the gatekeepers of access.
They also ignore what can be termed ‘institutional grooming’ – that sex offenders
may groom criminal justice and other institutions into believing that they present no
risk to children. A key variable in the grooming process is the creation and subse-
quent abuse of trust. Given that the criminal law may be somewhat limited in its
response to this type of behaviour, ultimately concerted efforts must be made to foster
social and organizational awareness of such processes in order to reduce the offender’s
opportunity for abuse.
KEY WORDS
grooming; institutional grooming; sexual abuse; trust
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, www.sagepublications.com
0964 6639, Vol. 15(3), 339–362
DOI: 10.1177/0964663906066613
340
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(3)
INTRODUCTION
ONEOFthe most recent debates in the area of sexual offences against
children has centred on behaviour known as ‘grooming’. This term
usually refers to the situation whereby a potential offender will set
up opportunities to abuse by gaining the trust of the child in order to prepare
them for abuse either directly or, as is the case more recently, through
Internet chat rooms (Gillespie, 2001, 2004; Gallagher et al., 2003). It has
recently been claimed that ‘grooming is a ubiquitous feature of the sexual
abuse of children’ (Thornton, 2003: 144). However, despite the significance
of this process in the onset of sexual abuse and the recent prominence of the
term in public consciousness, it is a term which has not featured all that
heavily in academic and policy-making debates.
Cases of sexual exploitation of children involving the Internet are risks to
children that have received widespread official attention only in the last few
years. Of these cases, those involving child pornography, or ‘child abuse
images’ as the often preferred term, have by far received the greatest amount
of attention.1 By way of contrast, Internet initiated grooming and subsequent
sexual abuse of children have lagged someway behind. Several jurisdictions
have recognized the extent of the dangers of ‘Internet grooming’ for some
time.2 In the United Kingdom, however, the term ‘grooming’ has only just
recently found expression in Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which covers the offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming.
Moreover, the dangers of sexual grooming have also been recently recognized
by the judiciary.3 However, despite the fact that society as a whole is
becoming more focused on grooming and its role in the sexual abuse of
children, difficulties remain.
This article seeks to critically discuss some of these issues. It will be
demonstrated that there are uncertainties and misconceptions about what
sort of behaviour is covered by the term ‘grooming’. In particular, the recent
association of the term with the Internet and on-line abuse in both the
popular imagination and official discourses is based on the image of the sex
offender as a sexual predator or so-called ‘stranger danger’. In fact, it has been
well documented that children are most likely to be sexually abused by those
with whom they have a family relationship (Grubin, 1998), where grooming
can also take place. Moreover, the use of the Internet for ‘on-line grooming’
is simply one way in which offenders can get to know children and be no
longer regarded as a ‘stranger’ by them. Many more offenders, however,
make contact with victims and gain acceptance via off-line methods –
through schools or clubs or by getting to know particular families. These
ambiguities surrounding what amounts to sexual grooming also have impli-
cations for the criminalization of such behaviour.
Indeed, the current focus on the grooming of children has been largely
reactive in nature and neglects other important facets of the sex offender’s
behavioural pattern. This behaviour, in fact, is much more pervasive than has
previously been acknowledged: the sociological process of grooming has
MCALINDEN: PERSONAL, FAMILIAL & INSTITUTIONAL GROOMING 341
resonance in terms of not only extra-familial sexual abuse by strangers but
also within the context of intra-familial abuse where children may be
persuaded that inappropriate sexualized relationships with family members
are ‘both natural and common place’ (Ost, 2004: 148). Moreover, current
discourses do not fully consider that sex offenders may also groom not just
the child but also their family or the wider community as a necessary pre-
requisite to gaining access to the child. In addition, far more significantly
perhaps, these discourses do not appear to recognize that sex offenders may
also seek to groom criminal justice and other institutions into viewing them
as posing no danger to children.
The structure of the article will be as follows: the first section will outline
developments and difficulties to date within the area of grooming. These
include the lack of settled meaning of the term and the consequent problems
associated with a criminal law response. The second section will examine the
sociological literature on the abuse of trust as a key variable in the grooming
process. The third, fourth and fifth sections will critically examine the role
and significance of grooming in the onset of child sexual abuse at the
personal, familial and institutional levels respectively. They will analyse the
importance of trust within these processes in preparing the child, their family
and the wider community, and institutions in order to facilitate the abuse.
Finally, the sixth section will endeavour to put forward a constructive
solution to the problems associated with grooming. It will be argued that
social and institutional awareness of the dynamics of grooming, particularly
how sex offenders seek to create and then abuse trust, must be promoted in
order to reduce the offender’s opportunity to abuse and respond to the
problem in a more proactive and holistic way.
DEVELOPMENTS AND DIFFICULTIES TO DATE
Grooming is not a new concept. The term has been in use for some time by
psychologists who have sought to analyse patterns of deviant sexual behav-
iour. However, the area has generally been under-researched and there is a
good deal of confusion as to the exact meaning and scope of the term.
LACK OF SETTLED MEANING
In general terms, the verb ‘to groom’ has been defined as ‘to prepare, as for
a specific position or purpose’ (Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, 1975) or ‘to
prepare for a future role or function’.4 However, within the context of sexual
offending against children, the term ‘grooming’ has never been properly
defined. As Gillespie (2004) argues, grooming is a transient process that is diffi-
cult to capture and virtually impossible to pinpoint when it begins and ends.
The problems of definition associated with this term may be due to a
number of factors: first, some of the uncertainty is in part attributable to the
342
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(3)
fact that since only a relatively small amount of research has been carried out,
understanding of the area is still fairly rudimentary. Second, as mentioned
earlier, a related problem is that within popular and even official discourses
grooming is immediately linked to the Internet and is used mainly to refer
to on-line behaviour.5 Crucially, this is contrary to the reality that the vast
majority of abuse takes place by someone known to the victim rather than a
predatory stranger (Grubin, 1998) and where the grooming is most often off-
line. This latter misconception in the common usage of the term is due largely
to media portrayal of the risk of sexual abuse and recent public education
and awareness campaigns on the dangers of chat rooms and safe use of the
Internet. Third, the enactment of recent legislation on grooming in several
jurisdictions has not done anything to remove these ambiguities from the
debate over the sexual grooming of children.6 In fact, it may even be said to
have added to the confusion. In the United Kingdom, for example, within
the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the term grooming is nowhere defined.
Moreover, this provision continues to be known as the grooming offence,
even though it is not intended to be so. In fact, as will be explained further
later, it is the behaviour following grooming that is to be captured by the
offence, and not the grooming process itself.
THE CRIMINAL LAW RESPONSE
Section 15 of the 2003 Act introduces the offence of meeting a child follow-
ing sexual grooming. It covers the behaviour of an offender who meets, or
seeks to meet, a child with the intention of committing a sexual assault, if he
has met or communicated with that child on at least two earlier occasions.
This offence, however, is not restricted to on-line behaviour. It requires face-
to-face...
To continue reading
Request your trial