JustAnother...I think 'we' can all slice and dice and rearrange this situation to mean whatever but in the end our " take" (like that of your PO) probably more reflects where the 'viewer' is 'at' than what anyone actually knows (maybe Galen doesn't understand it either, not yet and he's the important person in all this along with the youngsters.)

As far as outside 'commenters" I for one was extremely disappointed because I heard Galen's TedX and wanted him to be that person he presented himself as on the talk because I needed to be able to use Galen as sort of public proof of 'recovery' to point to in order to justify my own hopes. Galen was my final word to shut the haters up)

But then, we never have the 'final word on anybody do we? I was also very sorry to see a 2nd chance thrown away. The problem is that I'm not sure If I was sorry so much for Galen as a very human human being or for myself because I wanted his success to prove me right. So in that respect maybe we can all
agree, there are different ways to 'use' other people.

I don't agree with what Galen was doing. I'm glad he got stopped. I also think I should never have been so eager to use Galen's 'success' to get the last word in, in "proving" I was right and the hater's wrong. Because lest we (I) forget...There but for the grace of God..once .again. JanetM

Oh yeah not that is a horrible thing to say to someone that they look attractive! How horrible!! I mean seriously? In case you cannot tell that was sarcastic ....I guess I am am really losing it because I just do not understand the way people think half the time these days ... I agree with Just but all of you already know that .... if Galen was not who he is would you think anything was wrong with his behavior? Is it criminal with out the label? In my opinion you only think it is grooming because of who he is

Yes advocate, I would think it was odd that he told a minor who he had never met until a funeral that he was "the best looking boy I know". Criminal, maybe not, but certainly that would raise most people's eyebrows. But because Galen was Galen, he knew he was walking a tightrope and he should have known better.

Oh yes I would agree that he took risks etc. that were absolutely stupid and got him in trouble but my point has been since the beginning of this thread (because everyone was vilifying him) that the things he did were not criminal but for the fact he was who he was - he did not re-offend.

I have an issue with the whole "grooming" thing anyway ....not only in this case but I hate the word and it's description (it is MY thing and I know that) but here is why I hate it ... just like the quote that can be interpreted in any way so can behavior....for instance if someone molests then they look at the behavior prior and say "Oh yeah that was grooming" - but that exact same behavior would be fine if there was no molestation or abuse. My goodness I can not even tell you how many times in my life I had adults that were not relatives take an interest in me and teach me things or encourage a talent etc. Were they "grooming" me? I guess not since no one abused me ...

Everyone suspects everyone in our society today ....especially men.

Advocate, you make a really valid point, grooming is only grooming if someone portrays the circumstances in a light that is less than flattering for anyone that it is put on. Because we are all guilty of grooming anyone that come into our presence and we want to convince them to see things our way. We groom them (manipulate them) in to seeing things from our point of view, which we believe to be favorable, regardless if they agree or not or even want to participate. Good sales people do it for a living, they groom their customers from the moment they walk through the door, asking yes questions, relating to the customer, getting personal but not too much, etc. So yes advocate, they were grooming you, for what we have yet to see, maybe you won't view what they want and are grooming you for as offensive or abuse.

Like it was said earlier, it is all a matter of context, the context of the quote that was written, which when reading it could be interpreted in a few ways, all depends on the perspective of the READER not the person that wrote it or even the person that quoted it.

If the subtle manipulations make a person uncomfortable or the things requested in return are not right either, then one could say that it is the dangerous kind of grooming. but that would also require that the groomed speak up which we know won't happen as groomers will only pick easy prey. Doesn't matter if you are an adult or a child, cause not all children are as prone to being sexually abuse, depending on what they were taught and their own confidence levels.

It all boils down to the individual and how they react to the manipulations of others.

Advocate2: You may have an issue with the word 'grooming" but how about calling it flattery and manipulation for fun and profit (sizing up the mark, running a con? chumming the waters? setting the hook?) getting away with manipulating a 'good looking' person into thinking you are friendly and trustworthy when what you intend to do all along is to draw them in and use them to meet your own need for ego reassurance that you have not lost your magic touch as proven by the fact that an attractive young boy fell for your line and proved it by giving you his phone number for whatever ?)

If you think walking up to a youngster you don't even know at a funeral and saying, "you are the best looking boy I know." and getting them to give you their phone number isn't working the room, OK, then how about if he walked up to a grown woman he didn't even know at a funeral and said (just out of the blue) "You are the best looking woman I know." would her husband maybe think you were angling for more ? Would he (like this young kid's mother) think getting a phone number might be more than just 'taking an interest in teaching a young boy things or encouraging a good looking woman's 'talent"? The old fashioned term for grooming is "leading them on..."

And, once the hook is set, reeling them in slow becomes part of the pleasure...especially if you get off on control, know that you are fishing forbidden waters and know that just getting caught can mean jail time? Never mind harms done to the best looking young 'fish" that swallowed your bait, hook, line and sinker.

Janet - I guess it all boils down to how one views humanity. I happen to not see people the way you seem to.

I agree advocate context is important, you made a very good point. For me it boils down to who was there and who would have the best idea of what was going on? Josh was there, I'm not sure what motivation he would have had to lie in that scenario.

Grooming is subjective and in most circumstances, I really try to give anyone the benefit of the doubt before assigning them with sinister intentions. As a group, we collectively know that appearances can often be deceiving. There isn't always the proverbial fire where there is smoke. But with Galen, to me, there isn't just the appearance of impropriety. Why, after all, would he tell this teen certain ways to communicate online without getting caught by either parents or cops? After all, if everything was above board, why wouldn't he object to the mother knowing about the relationship? Couple that with his past history and I find it hard to give him a pass. But hey, really, that's just me. Perhaps I am letting my anger that he hurt our cause get in the way of seeing the situation objectively.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "his past". We all have a past. Some people could find that offensive and I apologize.

Again, anger here is toward Galen. Malice towards no one else.

Lol Michiganfamily, I think most people agree with you. Advocate is the person you want on your jury, she will make the state proof their case beyond all reasonable doubt and even some unreasonable doubts.

I would never tell an underage girl I think she is attractive. At best it's incredibly stupidly foolish and at worst it can be taken as grooming. Yes, grooming is a subjective behavior, but RSOs don't get third chances. There is absolutely no reason to risk your freedom for this.

A little accuracy would probably be in order along with context. Some people seem to believe Baughman became a slavering beast at the funeral of a friend that would stop at nothing immediately grooming a new victim all based on "you are the best looking boy I know.".

Two problems - First that quote is inaccurate. The actual quote attributed to Baughman is "Are you the best looking boy you know?” and second it wasn't said (or asked if you prefer) at the funeral. It's a token text message pulled from several pages worth of text messages that were exchanged over a period of months. It might be alluding to how Baughman was thinking but by itself there's no way to know and no matter what it certainly isn't as blatant or suspect as walking up to a random person and saying "you are the best looking boy I know". All the other quotes are also token texts pulled from the same source in the same way. The quote about using Kik or Snapchat is actually “conversations you don’t want to be seen” with absolutely no indication Baughman himself ever used either one. It could have had a nefarious purpose for Baughman but it's equally likely it was just dubious advice. There's simply no way to know without more information.

The meaning of grooming depends on the context. It could be about personal hygiene or in this context signs of predatory behavior. Like it or not in this context grooming started out life as FBI investigative terminology which moved on to becoming a legal and psychological term that really isn't all that subjective. There are several different descriptions of what grooming might entail but they all include some common elements. One is grooming must have an end goal of culminating in sexual contact. Another is there has to be a victim that cannot legally consent to the sexual contact. Common characteristics of grooming involve secrecy, creating close proximity to an intended victim, building a relationship with the family, giving gifts or money, talking about sex, making the victim view pornography etc etc.

So was Baughman grooming a victim? He was talking to a teenager however that teenager could legally consent to sexual contact so by definition Baughman couldn't be grooming a victim but even if you discount that he probably still wasn't grooming. He didn't keep what he was doing a secret or ask, coerce or threaten the young man into keeping anything secret. The mother might not have known at first but that's not because Baughman had gained her trust or was actively trying to keep her in the dark. On the contrary it seems all she did was look at her son's phone and If Baughman had been doing things like that she likely never would have found out. Even Josh Gravens knew what Baughman was doing, says he never saw anything illegal and confronted Baughman about it. Baughman may have invited the young man to D.C. but other than that it doesn't seem he made any other effort to get physically close and we don't know what context the offer was made in. There's no indication any gifts were given, not even a plane ticket to D.C. No signs of any kind of pornography, no sexual contact and no signs of talking about anything sexual. If there had been anything sexual discussed Baughman would be facing new charges instead of just a technical violation because the age of consent for that kind of communication is actually 18, not 16. Since he isn't being charged with a new offense it's pretty safe to say there's no evidence of a sexual discussion at all.

Feel free to be angry with Baughman all you want. He made extremely bad decisions and has done serious harm to a movement he made his own but to continually ascribe things to the situation that never actually happened and continuing to make him out to be a malevolent beast that needs to be put down isn't helping anything or anyone.

Yeah I agree - I do not think Josh would lie about it but I do think that Josh's interpretation could be subjective as well - bottom line is that regardless of the intent it was a violation. Going back to my original stance here though is that it would not be a violation for another person - the behavior itself was not criminal.

Yeah michiganfamily - we seem to be thinking a long the same lines - for instance I tell my students to be aware of all these things to avoid the situation of ruining their lives - am I grooming them? No....so I guess what it boils down to is that when we vilify something someone has done only because of their label then we are doing the same thing "they" all do to us. Again - what he did would not have been criminal except for the fact he is a RSO. Anyone else (whether you THINK the behavior is suspect or not) would not have been in trouble at all. We in the RSO community are vilified and prosecuted for things that others in the country would not be merely becasue of a label. I would look at this different if he had actually re-offended - but he didn't

I agree 100% percent - unfortunately RSOs need to keep their noses cleaner than the next guy but that is what is so wrong about it ....