Yes, I was aware of that. Nonetheless, the article chose to use the “grooming” framing to describe the scenario, as well as put special emphasis on the “groomer” being “nearly twice her age”. It’s clear that the TIME journalist is trying to communicate personal opinions and/or appeal to crowds that stigmatize relationships between adults who have large age differences:
“One recalled being “groomed” by a powerful man nearly twice her age… Another told TIME a much older EA recruited her to join his polyamorous relationship while she was still in college.”
“Joseph was 22 and still in college; he was nearly twice her age.”
In my view, the other person’s age is fair commentary here. “Powerful” is rather vague and indefinite—the other person’s age provides support for the conclusion that the other person was indeed in a position of power/influence such that there was a serious power imbalance here. And that imbalance is what makes what the man said particularly inappropriate in what was supposed to be a professional-related context.
Yes, I was aware of that. Nonetheless, the article chose to use the “grooming” framing to describe the scenario, as well as put special emphasis on the “groomer” being “nearly twice her age”. It’s clear that the TIME journalist is trying to communicate personal opinions and/or appeal to crowds that stigmatize relationships between adults who have large age differences:
“One recalled being “groomed” by a powerful man nearly twice her age… Another told TIME a much older EA recruited her to join his polyamorous relationship while she was still in college.”
“Joseph was 22 and still in college; he was nearly twice her age.”
(emphasis mine)
In my view, the other person’s age is fair commentary here. “Powerful” is rather vague and indefinite—the other person’s age provides support for the conclusion that the other person was indeed in a position of power/influence such that there was a serious power imbalance here. And that imbalance is what makes what the man said particularly inappropriate in what was supposed to be a professional-related context.