International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 3 2022 4
an especially common grooming strategy—one that
capitalizes on children’s innocence. Using touch:
The offender will exploit the child’s naivety
and trust by introducing increasingly intimate
physical contact such as play acting, tickling
or wrestling and even hugging to gradually
sexualize contact with the child. The use of touch
is particularly important as this determines
whether or not the child is receptive and begins
the process of desensitization—gradually
the abuser will escalate the boundary violations
of the child’s body which eventually culminates
in enticing the child to acquiesce to engaging
in sexual activity (McAlinden, 2006, p. 347).
Research indicates, “that for the child one of the
consequences of this desensitization and relationship
building process is that by the time the child knows
that abuse is taking place ...,the child may feel she has
given consent (e.g., because she did not say no when
the back of her head was rubbed) to the abuse” (Conte,
Wolf, and Smith, 1989, p. 300). Touch in the form of
tickling and playing may even occur in the presence
of the child’s parents as it seems like innocent fun
(van Dam, 2001). Furthermore, Lanning characterizes
some acts of grooming as comprising sexual acts in and
of themselves when they cause sexual pleasure for the
offender. Hence, in at least some cases, grooming is
not a means to sexual activity, but is the sexual activity
(Lanning, 2018). Additionally, the grooming process
involves “symbolic as well as practical dimensions,”
as they contribute to the objectification of the child.
Hence, children are stripped of their agency (Salter,
2013 p. 128).
When grooming and abuse take place in institutional
contexts, then offenders have exploited their social
roles and the trust therein. They have “violated inter-
personal relationships and defaulted on their moral
obligation and commitment to ensure the care, safety
and well-being of the children for whom they are
responsible” (McAlinden, 2006, p. 345). Research on
institutional grooming has been limited—a problem
that McAlinden’s (2012) recent work addresses.
Moreover, her discussion of Catholicism clearly invites
further examination of religiously situated grooming.
A caveat to consider in all research on grooming:
many behaviors that are a part of the grooming
process are not considered grooming when they occur
in the absence of abuse (McAlinden, 2006). Thus,
acts of affection, the provision of gifts, spending
time together, and an array of other typical adult-
child behaviors are not necessarily indicative of an
adult grooming a child—indeed, typically, they are
not. This proviso applies to religious settings also.
3. What Makes Grooming in Religious Settings
Unique?
3.1 Religion and Legitimation
A variety of social and cultural factors influence
child sexual abuse and hence the grooming process,
and, as Amy C. Tishelman and Lisa A. Fontes (2017)
note, “religious influence constitutes one of the most
understudied cultural issues in CSA [child sexual
abuse]” (Tishelman &Fontes, 2017, p. 120 [emphasis
added]). From their interviews with nearly forty
individuals who work with victims of child sexual
abuse, they found that the religion in which the child
victims were raised affected the children throughout
the entire victimization process (Tishelman &Fontes,
2017).11For researchers of religion, this finding may be
unsurprising, given the well-recognized influence that
religious institutions often have on the perceptions
and meaning-making processes of adherents (and of
course, younger children especially may be less likely
to have access to other conceptual frameworks).
Many religions are major social institutions—although,
as this article demonstrates, not all religious settings
exhibit the typical or perhaps expected features of
the religious institutions with which most people are
familiar. Moreover, not all religious rationalizations
for abuse occur within religious institutions per se. An
individual, such as a family member, may not occupy
a religious position of authority, but may still use
religious rhetoric to groom a child.
11 The research incorporated findings from a wide variety of faiths,
including Amish, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, Pentecostal, and others (Tishelman &Fontes,
2017). Likely, one could identify cases of the sexual abuse of children in
most, if not all, faiths. Though this reality may be difficult to accept, it is
not unusual, given the rate of sexual abuse of children across society more
generally. It would be imprudent to assume that religions are immune to
such crimes against children.
an especially common grooming strategy—one that
capitalizes on children’s innocence. Using touch:
The offender will exploit the child’s naivety
and trust by introducing increasingly intimate
physical contact such as play acting, tickling
or wrestling and even hugging to gradually
sexualize contact with the child. The use of touch
is particularly important as this determines
whether or not the child is receptive and begins
the process of desensitization—gradually
the abuser will escalate the boundary violations
of the child’s body which eventually culminates
in enticing the child to acquiesce to engaging
in sexual activity (McAlinden, 2006, p. 347).
Research indicates, “that for the child one of the
consequences of this desensitization and relationship
building process is that by the time the child knows
that abuse is taking place ...,the child may feel she has
given consent (e.g., because she did not say no when
the back of her head was rubbed) to the abuse” (Conte,
Wolf, and Smith, 1989, p. 300). Touch in the form of
tickling and playing may even occur in the presence
of the child’s parents as it seems like innocent fun
(van Dam, 2001). Furthermore, Lanning characterizes
some acts of grooming as comprising sexual acts in and
of themselves when they cause sexual pleasure for the
offender. Hence, in at least some cases, grooming is
not a means to sexual activity, but is the sexual activity
(Lanning, 2018). Additionally, the grooming process
involves “symbolic as well as practical dimensions,”
as they contribute to the objectification of the child.
Hence, children are stripped of their agency (Salter,
2013 p. 128).
When grooming and abuse take place in institutional
contexts, then offenders have exploited their social
roles and the trust therein. They have “violated inter-
personal relationships and defaulted on their moral
obligation and commitment to ensure the care, safety
and well-being of the children for whom they are
responsible” (McAlinden, 2006, p. 345). Research on
institutional grooming has been limited—a problem
that McAlinden’s (2012) recent work addresses.
Moreover, her discussion of Catholicism clearly invites
further examination of religiously situated grooming.
A caveat to consider in all research on grooming:
many behaviors that are a part of the grooming
process are not considered grooming when they occur
in the absence of abuse (McAlinden, 2006). Thus,
acts of affection, the provision of gifts, spending
time together, and an array of other typical adult-
child behaviors are not necessarily indicative of an
adult grooming a child—indeed, typically, they are
not. This proviso applies to religious settings also.
3. What Makes Grooming in Religious Settings
Unique?
3.1 Religion and Legitimation
A variety of social and cultural factors influence
child sexual abuse and hence the grooming process,
and, as Amy C. Tishelman and Lisa A. Fontes (2017)
note, “religious influence constitutes one of the most
understudied cultural issues in CSA [child sexual
abuse]” (Tishelman &Fontes, 2017, p. 120 [emphasis
added]). From their interviews with nearly forty
individuals who work with victims of child sexual
abuse, they found that the religion in which the child
victims were raised affected the children throughout
the entire victimization process (Tishelman &Fontes,
2017).11For researchers of religion, this finding may be
unsurprising, given the well-recognized influence that
religious institutions often have on the perceptions
and meaning-making processes of adherents (and of
course, younger children especially may be less likely
to have access to other conceptual frameworks).
Many religions are major social institutions—although,
as this article demonstrates, not all religious settings
exhibit the typical or perhaps expected features of
the religious institutions with which most people are
familiar. Moreover, not all religious rationalizations
for abuse occur within religious institutions per se. An
individual, such as a family member, may not occupy
a religious position of authority, but may still use
religious rhetoric to groom a child.
11 The research incorporated findings from a wide variety of faiths,
including Amish, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, Pentecostal, and others (Tishelman &Fontes,
2017). Likely, one could identify cases of the sexual abuse of children in
most, if not all, faiths. Though this reality may be difficult to accept, it is
not unusual, given the rate of sexual abuse of children across society more
generally. It would be imprudent to assume that religions are immune to
such crimes against children.
