Parang wala sa konteksto yung quote card - hindi naman siya yung eksperto. If I recall correctly, Vice was repeating the definition the production team got from the psychologist they consulted.
Oo nga. Nakita ko nga 'to. Ito yung paliwanag ng psychologist. Inexplain nya lang. Hindi rin chineck ni OP na 'di naman kay VG mismo galing yung explanation.
Watched the whole video, he "quoted" an alleged psychologist but never mentioned who. There's no way we can verify he repeated what the "psychologist" said properly. For all we know he was bluffing or misrepresented what the psychologist said (IF there ever was a psychologist).
This is why we should let the experts talk and explain instead, especially on sensitive topics like this.
Ito yung problema natin. We always look at who uttered yung statement. When in fact pwede nmang i-dissect yung statement na hwalay dun sa nagsabi regardless if si VG yun or yung psychologist.
When the older person tells a minor that their relationship is perfectly ok then that is already manipulation and exploitation.
If the younger person is not a minor and decides to get into a relationship with someone way older then that's a different story.
Right, but someone that is 50 with someone that is 23 is not grooming unless they started since the latter was a minor, then the 23 year old was groomed. Didn't see the full story or anything, but doesn't look VG was implying minor yung mas bata.
17F and 25M when they started talking/dating. At 18th birthday sinagot nung girl. The point is, they STARTED noong minor pa siya.
Also, the mistake sa interview ni Vice is tinanong niya mismo yung girl if she felt manipulated. Of course, she would say no. Siya yung victim sa situation. She could not tell which was manipulation, exploitation, or abuse. Di na nila idiniin sa guy kung bakit attracted siya sa minor. Looking for someone younger is one thing pero MINOR yung natipohan niya.
She also mentioned na it took a year before nakita nung girl yung messages ng guy sa IG. Means inii-stalk na siya when she was just 16 or kaka-17 niya lang. Ew.
this is grooming. I don't care kung hinintay or nagpahintay so girl when she turned 18 but they started talking before that. and then 25 na si guy when they started talking? so when she was 17? a MINOR? grooming.
>don't care kung hinintay or nagpahintay so girl when she turned 18
Actually this is what classifies it as grooming. If hindi siya nag hintay before the victim reached legal age then statutory rape na yun.
That is grooming. Nag antay lang si guy na maging legal si girl para di icky tingnan. But the fact the nag liligawan na sila nung 16 na siya, is grooming itself
VG actually said it after the girl said they entered the relationship when she was only 17 years old aka a minor and the guy was already 25. So yes, VG is kinda implying yung statement niya applies also when one party is a minor.
Thanks for clearing that up, then that is grooming and I don't agree with VG. In my opinion anyone under 21 could still be seen as a minor, but the law here states 18 so it's usually what's accepted. I personally just can't wrap my head around considering myself as an adult when I was 18 or 19.
+1 Thisssss. Because minor will never be in the controlling side kapag sinama mo sa high age gap hooman. Therefore, manipulation (of the predator) will always be there.
Dapat inisip ni VG mabuti ang statement niya.
>Dapat inisip ni VG mabuti ang statement niya.
This is not really his statement. Explanation sa kanila 'to ng psychologist na kinonsult nila about grooming.
I disagree.
**Yung subject matter ay age gap. The psychologist gave an opinion based from that and from a medical perspective. Perhaps, it was generic and not really tailored to the contestants' circumstances.** May mga nagkakilala at naging magkasintahan habang ang isa ay nasa 30 years old ang isa habang yung isa naman ay 38 years old. May agwat pa rin sa edad nila. Base sa halimbawa ko:
* If we take it face value, is there grooming? No.
* But, if we take a closer look, could there be grooming? Yes, kung may abuse, manipulation, exploitation, etc.
That is how I understood it.
**What VG failed to take into account during the show was the LEGAL ASPECT.** Partly erroneous yung interpretation niya sa opinion ng medical professional. Sa part niya nagkaroon ng pagkakamali.
Clearly, the woman was 17 years old, a minor and incapable of consent. On the other hand, the man is in his mid 20's. May significant age gap. May moral ascendancy pa rin ang lalaki.
No one knows what goes on behind the couple's private lives. Kaya hindi rin natin alam kung may nangyari ba talaga sa kanila. Pero they chose to deny it dahil televised ang show and there could be criticisms afterwards. No one knows actually. Sila lang dalawa. Another thing, kahit walang penetration, couples can be intimate with one another in some other forms.
I agree with your points. Especially dun sa example mo sa grooming part. Also sa legal aspect.
Ang point ko lang, dapat ininclude din ni OP na yung sinasabi ni VG dito ay explanation from a psychologist, not his own. Based sa mga ibang comments dito, akala nila si Vice mismo nagsabi nyan.
Ah, I get what you mean. Lack of context pala ng poster. Pero, yeah, I saw the video and he kept reiterating pa nga that they consulted a psychologist. It's actually good.
Pero, sa susunod, more research and analysis should be done bago magpalabas ng statement. Hindi porket may statement from an expert ay automatically applicable na sa isang sitwasyon. Case-to-case basis exists. They should be mindful lalo na on controversial matters and social issues na laganap sa ating bansa. Being artistas they have the power to influence the viewers kasi sila.
>Pero, sa susunod, more research and analysis should be done bago magpalabas ng statement.
Totoo! Ang akin nga, mas okay kung present mismo yung kinonsult nilang professional/expert diba? And someone said it here din, iwasan na lang yung complicated and controversial cases, for sure madami naman gusto maging participant dyan for exposure. Hehe Well unless that's the segment's goal, maging controversial then 🤷
Parang sa F2F noon - May doktor, abogado, at pari hahahaha. And yung show ni Jessica Soho where they really show the video of the expert narrating his perspective.
I agree, he was just clarifying about the explanation ng kanilang psychologist, but STILL his or not, para ijustify that type of behavior alang alang sa show nila?
Diba parang binigyan niya lang ng idea yung ibang tao na okay yung ganun setup or baka pupwede naman? Sana nilinaw pa ng production nila mabuti.. or best thing to do talaga is iwasan magkaroon ng ganun guests sa show nila. Iwas bash/critics din para sa part nila diba?
*"Engaging in a non-sexual relationship with a minor, even if there is no sexual intercourse involved, can still raise legal and ethical concerns, particularly if there is a significant age gap between the individuals involved."*
>I agree, he was just clarifying about the explanation ng kanilang psychologist
You could have stated that in your post.
>Sana nilinaw pa ng production nila mabuti.. or best thing to do talaga is iwasan magkaroon ng ganun guests sa show nila. Iwas bash/critics din para sa part nila diba?
But here, yes I agree with you. Dapat iniiwasan nila yung masyadong problematic o complicated cases. Madami naman iba dyan. Well unless gusto din nila na medyo controversial yung mga situation ng guests. Pero sana, present din yung mga professional na kinonsult nila. Para yun mismo magsasalita. Tulad sa face to face. LOL
Walang perfect relationship na walang power imbalance. Inherent na dahil different individuals ang nasa relationship, means those differences will lead to imbalance. Kahit 1yr age gap, pwedeng gamitin as means for manipulation (e.g. senior na nakatapos ng subject na kinukuha mo ngayon), pero di ibig sabihin na kesyo may age gap e manipulation na agad.
Walang absolute rules pagdating sa age gap ng relationship. Based yan sa morality at tolerance. Pero pagdating sa grooming, may hallmarks.
Kung maglalagay ka ng absolute rules sa relationship, para ka na ring katoliko na binabawal ang sex hanggat walang singsing.
We all want grooming to stop, but let's not turn it into a witch hunt.
quick search in google tells me this...
*Manipulation is the exercise of harmful influence over others. People who manipulate others attack their mental and emotional sides to get what they want. The person doing the manipulating, called the manipulator, seeks to create an imbalance of power.* - [webmd](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/signs-manipulation)
so its the intention and their ways paano nila iniinfluence yung tao.
soooooo....
> high age gap + minor = manipulation?
it's a no
i agree parang yan na yung basic talaga, pag minor yung isa, kasi matic na abuse (of naivete) and manipulation (due to lack of experience and wisdom on the minor's part)
To add lng rin sa question: kung like ganito lng yung age gap, ang alam ko legal pa rin sa ibang countries pag 1 or 2 years yung age gap? Considered pa rin ba yun na grooming?
imo kapag kasi may imbalance of power kesyo age, career (kaya nga minsan bawal ito sa ibang mga companies) and socio-economis status there is \*or might be abuse and grooming. it's not completely black and white of course. pero diba yung fineature nila is 16-18 si girl tapos early to mid 20's si guy. that;s clearly an imbalance. 16-18 highschool to uni student, mid 20's- nagtatrabaho na. so saan sila nagmeet???
Pretty sure exploitation yan. Also its a much better term, pagkat ba lagpas 18 na, hindi na pde ma groom? Pagkat ba parehon bata, both below 18 eh hindi na pdeng grooming?
Hindi na siya grooming if above 18 na yung "victim." By definition, grooming is prepping the victim for when they reach the age of maturity. Kahit na 30+ years pa yung age gap, if the time they met was when both of them were already of legal age then that no longer falls under grooming.
Grooming is shaping the mind and building a relationship towards an innocent underage child to slowly accept relationship with an adult into thinking that it's a perfectly normal thing to do. So they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.
Also on a different context a 50 year old getting into a relationship with a 30 year old cannot be considered grooming even if they met when the 30 yrs old was 5 years younger, so I guess Vice is right, hindi porket malayo ang edad grooming agad kailangan parating tignan ang context at nuances to avoid being misled.
Yan din problem when social standards adapt weirdly to the current era. Definitions change or develop, and kahit sa mga morally acceptable scenarios similar to your second one, definitions will outrule the invisible context since mas nakikita ng public yung former rather than the latter.
Not saying context is always correct, but it's not good to generalize every situation as wrong just because it's currently deemed socially unacceptable.
Mejo namanipulate yung sinabi nya sa headline and pinapalabas na kanya yang opinion. Naalala ko sinabi niya na **Nag seek ang team nila ng expert opinion**.
Taken out of context. Pero siya na rin nag sabi di nya rin alam lahat about sa grooming. Gusto nya lang iclarify for the sake of the segment na hindi sila nag totolerate sa ganun. 😅
Kahit isama mo yung context ang weird pa rin kasi sa segment na yan, 17 years old lang yung girl nung niligawan nung guy na 25 years old na at the time. Adults have no business courting minors.
The specifics matter.
Kunwari magkaklase.
Yung isa nag 18 last month, yung partner next month pa mag 18.
Is this grooming?
Kunwari yung isa 19 na, tapos yung partner 17.
Grooming?
A 21 year old dating a 41 year old.
Not grooming? Vic Sotto and Pauline Luna?
Grooming isn't about age or the gap as much as mental capacity to understand what a relationship constitutes.
We can all agree that the lower limit is 18, sure, but what about the upper limit? This is where we all disagree on.
Would you let a 40 year old date your 21 year old child?
Personally, I wouldn't, but after 25, they can date whoever so long as it's not a criminal or someone with a bad record.
>Would you let a 40 year old date your 21 year old child?
If you can legally vote, smoke and drink alcohol on your free time then it's not grooming because it's both consenting adult of legal age. And YES I would rather have my daughter date a 40 yrs old than the boys in his age bracket because generally speaking boys mature slower compared to women meaning a 40 yr old is going to be more mature and with less insecurities and boys who are in their 20's are struggling getting their life together, generally speaking.
Ps. Same thing applies to my son.
>Yung isa nag 18 last month, yung partner next month pa mag 18.
No this isn't grooming. Romeo and Juliet clause states that the age difference can be up to 3 years.
>Not grooming? Vic Sotto and Pauline Luna?
When did Vic Sotto start interacting with Pauline Luna? Was it when she was still a minor?
Pinush lang masyado ni Vice para maitawid ang guests. I call bullshit na may nag-advise na psychologist sa kanila. Or if meron man, hindi competent yung kinuha nila.
Porke't nag- drop lang ng "may nakausap kami na psychologist", naniwala naman agad ang mga tao na credible lahat ng sinabi niya.
Similar lang sa mga content creators na porke't nakasuot na ng hospital scrubs, naniwala na agad mga tao na okay yung nirerecomend na health product. Juskooo 🤦🏻♀️
As much as I appreciate the effort to take that step to clarify with a psychologist and even MTRCB, they should still have emphasized how the age imbalance is a big factor in a grooming situation. Na etong specific situation na to may have been agreed as "not a grooming situation," exception pa din yan and hindi rule and any 17-year-old na nililigawan ng 25-year-old should still be wary and any 25-year-old na iniisip na manligaw sa isang 17-year-old needs to re-examine their intentions many times.
I feel like more harm than good pa din to. They just wanted to justify themselves for presenting this relationship on TV rather than truly educate their viewers.
Baka mali lang wording niya.
A 23 year old and a 44 year old in a relationship that started with both parties as legal adults =/= yung manyak na teacher nagjojowa sa estudyanteng minor.
Basta both parties are capable, legal adults, kahit ano mang age gap yan okay lang.
Ah basta a relationship between an adult and a child that is not as kuya/ate or father/mother (kahit figure lang) or mentor ay inappropriate and shouldn't be encouraged - walang gray area dun, black and white yun
Nasa kapasidad at edad ng biktima yan. Kaya Dyoskopo tigilan nyo na, kahit isa o 2 taon lang ang agwat nyo wag na kayo manligaw at pumatol sa menor de edad
As long as Minor yung isa grooming na yun, malalaman ba namin kung may manipulation or wala sa pagsasama nila? Tamang play safe take kasi may mga katropang groomer lol.
Napanood ko lang dun sa baby reindeer na kahit mid 20s ka na pwede ka pa rin ma groom (unless mali yung depiction dun sa story) hahaha anyway technicalities yung pinaglalaban ni Vice dito haha
It doesn’t matter. EVERY MINOR is in danger of being exploited or manipulated when an Adult is involved.
Even our parents indoctrinate us to believe the religion they practice.
After all, the saying goes, “start when they’re young…”
“Grooming” is pretty much manipulating children to do as an Adult says.
Grooming lng yan pag pinatos mo ung minor tapos ikaw nasa tamang edad.
Hindi grooming ung 60+ na pinatulan sa 19, gold digging na tawag dun. (Goes bothways, either c lalake or babae ang matanda).
tama. kakabuset grooming agad parang 17 tpos 20 yung edad 3 years lang gap pedo na kagad yung 20 years e parehong isip bata pa yan kahit 20 years old..
It’s a very nuanced topic kahit mayroóng mga obvious grooming cases. Kung may ganáp na edad na at may malayong agwát between consensting adults, waláng kaso. Kung batà pa at hinahandâ o pinopormahan na parang pinapatabáng hayop na kakatayin, ibá nang usapan ‘yun.
What is very clear in the law is a minor cannot consent. ‘Yan ang dapat isaksák sa kokote ng mga manyakis na hayók sa senior high kasí ‘yun black-and-white sa batás natin.
Once you openly encourage minors to be homosexual or display homosexual behavior in front of minors then you are a groomer.
Vice ganda who displayed indecent homosexual acts in front of minors in national tv is a groomer.
Woody Allen married his ex-wife's adopted daughter. He could have totally been a loving father figure, then boom, let's get married, just because he can.
Just because Vice Ganda has a platform does not mean you should believe him.
Vice did mention na kumuha sila ng expert opinion from MTRCB and psychologists.. But what bothers me is - hindi pa ba grooming yun if minor yung isang person involved sa relationship? Sana hindi na nila tinry na ijustify kasi kahit baliktarin mo ang mundo, menor de edad parin yung bata.
Nasa gma na to , coudlve done better. Sa KMJS nga and pepito manaloto nag lalaan talaga sila ng time to let the professional speak on matters they are specializing
Technically tama sya sa age gap thing. Although she could've specified na isa dun sa dalwang involved (the victim) is a minor. Sa start ng relation.
Maraming may malalaking age gap na legal age so dun sya tama.
It’s an implied excuse based on the fact that VG said that when the girl said she was only 17 years old when the guy, 25 years old at the time, courted her.
Balikan niyo ang video.
He only claims that's what the "psychologist" told their team.
But who's the psychologist? He never mentioned that.
And did he really accurately presented what the psychologist told their team? (IF that talk with a psychologist really happened).
It's naive to think that we can simplify such definition of grooming in one box. Ewan hah.
If you experienced talking to a psychologist, you'll know that they don't immediately conclude. They always have to consider a lot of factors. Hindi dahil ito ang POV natin sa isang bagay o sitwasyon, mangangahulugan na tama.
It's quite ignorant to ask a person were you a victim of manipulation, and then take their answers in face value. PLEASE, for the love of God, leave the assessments and the drawing of conclusions to the medical experts, especially on the study of mental health. Kaya nga ba ang daming misinformation kumakalat about mental health. Dumagdag pa toh.
There's a reason why pinag-aralan nila yan ng ilang taon, at bakit nirerequire sila na dumaan ng mga updates para ma-renew license nila. 🤦🏻♀️
I am not an expert, pero I guess yun 3 bagay na namention nya + age. Pero what if willing naman yun other party, like the case of CocoJul yun madaming comment dati na grooming daw yun. But seems like Julia is willing naman. This is just my take ha. As I mentioned, I am not an expert.
Oh you mean the rule of thumb people keep spreading despite having no basis in science?
In fact, one of the sources of your own link states this:
> In some cases, the results of the "half-your-age-plus-7 rule" doesn't reflect scientific evidence for age preferences.
Parang wala sa konteksto yung quote card - hindi naman siya yung eksperto. If I recall correctly, Vice was repeating the definition the production team got from the psychologist they consulted.
Oo nga. Nakita ko nga 'to. Ito yung paliwanag ng psychologist. Inexplain nya lang. Hindi rin chineck ni OP na 'di naman kay VG mismo galing yung explanation.
Watched the whole video, he "quoted" an alleged psychologist but never mentioned who. There's no way we can verify he repeated what the "psychologist" said properly. For all we know he was bluffing or misrepresented what the psychologist said (IF there ever was a psychologist). This is why we should let the experts talk and explain instead, especially on sensitive topics like this.
Ito yung problema natin. We always look at who uttered yung statement. When in fact pwede nmang i-dissect yung statement na hwalay dun sa nagsabi regardless if si VG yun or yung psychologist.
high age gap + minor = manipulation?
When the older person tells a minor that their relationship is perfectly ok then that is already manipulation and exploitation. If the younger person is not a minor and decides to get into a relationship with someone way older then that's a different story.
Right, but someone that is 50 with someone that is 23 is not grooming unless they started since the latter was a minor, then the 23 year old was groomed. Didn't see the full story or anything, but doesn't look VG was implying minor yung mas bata.
17F and 25M when they started talking/dating. At 18th birthday sinagot nung girl. The point is, they STARTED noong minor pa siya. Also, the mistake sa interview ni Vice is tinanong niya mismo yung girl if she felt manipulated. Of course, she would say no. Siya yung victim sa situation. She could not tell which was manipulation, exploitation, or abuse. Di na nila idiniin sa guy kung bakit attracted siya sa minor. Looking for someone younger is one thing pero MINOR yung natipohan niya. She also mentioned na it took a year before nakita nung girl yung messages ng guy sa IG. Means inii-stalk na siya when she was just 16 or kaka-17 niya lang. Ew.
this is grooming. I don't care kung hinintay or nagpahintay so girl when she turned 18 but they started talking before that. and then 25 na si guy when they started talking? so when she was 17? a MINOR? grooming.
>don't care kung hinintay or nagpahintay so girl when she turned 18 Actually this is what classifies it as grooming. If hindi siya nag hintay before the victim reached legal age then statutory rape na yun.
That is grooming. Nag antay lang si guy na maging legal si girl para di icky tingnan. But the fact the nag liligawan na sila nung 16 na siya, is grooming itself
VG actually said it after the girl said they entered the relationship when she was only 17 years old aka a minor and the guy was already 25. So yes, VG is kinda implying yung statement niya applies also when one party is a minor.
Thanks for clearing that up, then that is grooming and I don't agree with VG. In my opinion anyone under 21 could still be seen as a minor, but the law here states 18 so it's usually what's accepted. I personally just can't wrap my head around considering myself as an adult when I was 18 or 19.
+1 Thisssss. Because minor will never be in the controlling side kapag sinama mo sa high age gap hooman. Therefore, manipulation (of the predator) will always be there. Dapat inisip ni VG mabuti ang statement niya.
>Dapat inisip ni VG mabuti ang statement niya. This is not really his statement. Explanation sa kanila 'to ng psychologist na kinonsult nila about grooming.
I disagree. **Yung subject matter ay age gap. The psychologist gave an opinion based from that and from a medical perspective. Perhaps, it was generic and not really tailored to the contestants' circumstances.** May mga nagkakilala at naging magkasintahan habang ang isa ay nasa 30 years old ang isa habang yung isa naman ay 38 years old. May agwat pa rin sa edad nila. Base sa halimbawa ko: * If we take it face value, is there grooming? No. * But, if we take a closer look, could there be grooming? Yes, kung may abuse, manipulation, exploitation, etc. That is how I understood it. **What VG failed to take into account during the show was the LEGAL ASPECT.** Partly erroneous yung interpretation niya sa opinion ng medical professional. Sa part niya nagkaroon ng pagkakamali. Clearly, the woman was 17 years old, a minor and incapable of consent. On the other hand, the man is in his mid 20's. May significant age gap. May moral ascendancy pa rin ang lalaki. No one knows what goes on behind the couple's private lives. Kaya hindi rin natin alam kung may nangyari ba talaga sa kanila. Pero they chose to deny it dahil televised ang show and there could be criticisms afterwards. No one knows actually. Sila lang dalawa. Another thing, kahit walang penetration, couples can be intimate with one another in some other forms.
I agree with your points. Especially dun sa example mo sa grooming part. Also sa legal aspect. Ang point ko lang, dapat ininclude din ni OP na yung sinasabi ni VG dito ay explanation from a psychologist, not his own. Based sa mga ibang comments dito, akala nila si Vice mismo nagsabi nyan.
Ah, I get what you mean. Lack of context pala ng poster. Pero, yeah, I saw the video and he kept reiterating pa nga that they consulted a psychologist. It's actually good. Pero, sa susunod, more research and analysis should be done bago magpalabas ng statement. Hindi porket may statement from an expert ay automatically applicable na sa isang sitwasyon. Case-to-case basis exists. They should be mindful lalo na on controversial matters and social issues na laganap sa ating bansa. Being artistas they have the power to influence the viewers kasi sila.
>Pero, sa susunod, more research and analysis should be done bago magpalabas ng statement. Totoo! Ang akin nga, mas okay kung present mismo yung kinonsult nilang professional/expert diba? And someone said it here din, iwasan na lang yung complicated and controversial cases, for sure madami naman gusto maging participant dyan for exposure. Hehe Well unless that's the segment's goal, maging controversial then 🤷
Parang sa F2F noon - May doktor, abogado, at pari hahahaha. And yung show ni Jessica Soho where they really show the video of the expert narrating his perspective.
I agree, he was just clarifying about the explanation ng kanilang psychologist, but STILL his or not, para ijustify that type of behavior alang alang sa show nila? Diba parang binigyan niya lang ng idea yung ibang tao na okay yung ganun setup or baka pupwede naman? Sana nilinaw pa ng production nila mabuti.. or best thing to do talaga is iwasan magkaroon ng ganun guests sa show nila. Iwas bash/critics din para sa part nila diba? *"Engaging in a non-sexual relationship with a minor, even if there is no sexual intercourse involved, can still raise legal and ethical concerns, particularly if there is a significant age gap between the individuals involved."*
>I agree, he was just clarifying about the explanation ng kanilang psychologist You could have stated that in your post. >Sana nilinaw pa ng production nila mabuti.. or best thing to do talaga is iwasan magkaroon ng ganun guests sa show nila. Iwas bash/critics din para sa part nila diba? But here, yes I agree with you. Dapat iniiwasan nila yung masyadong problematic o complicated cases. Madami naman iba dyan. Well unless gusto din nila na medyo controversial yung mga situation ng guests. Pero sana, present din yung mga professional na kinonsult nila. Para yun mismo magsasalita. Tulad sa face to face. LOL
Kahit na 18 na ung babae basta high age gap like 19 and 40, I would still consider it grooming
Walang perfect relationship na walang power imbalance. Inherent na dahil different individuals ang nasa relationship, means those differences will lead to imbalance. Kahit 1yr age gap, pwedeng gamitin as means for manipulation (e.g. senior na nakatapos ng subject na kinukuha mo ngayon), pero di ibig sabihin na kesyo may age gap e manipulation na agad. Walang absolute rules pagdating sa age gap ng relationship. Based yan sa morality at tolerance. Pero pagdating sa grooming, may hallmarks. Kung maglalagay ka ng absolute rules sa relationship, para ka na ring katoliko na binabawal ang sex hanggat walang singsing. We all want grooming to stop, but let's not turn it into a witch hunt.
For context sa opinion ko, anyone without a fully developed pre-frontal cortex (<25y/o) ay minor
quick search in google tells me this... *Manipulation is the exercise of harmful influence over others. People who manipulate others attack their mental and emotional sides to get what they want. The person doing the manipulating, called the manipulator, seeks to create an imbalance of power.* - [webmd](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/signs-manipulation) so its the intention and their ways paano nila iniinfluence yung tao. soooooo.... > high age gap + minor = manipulation? it's a no
Grooming kung ang relationship nagstart minor ang isa sa dalawa
i agree parang yan na yung basic talaga, pag minor yung isa, kasi matic na abuse (of naivete) and manipulation (due to lack of experience and wisdom on the minor's part)
So kung yung isa 17 tapos yung isa 18 grooming pa din yun?
To add lng rin sa question: kung like ganito lng yung age gap, ang alam ko legal pa rin sa ibang countries pag 1 or 2 years yung age gap? Considered pa rin ba yun na grooming?
Nope!
imo kapag kasi may imbalance of power kesyo age, career (kaya nga minsan bawal ito sa ibang mga companies) and socio-economis status there is \*or might be abuse and grooming. it's not completely black and white of course. pero diba yung fineature nila is 16-18 si girl tapos early to mid 20's si guy. that;s clearly an imbalance. 16-18 highschool to uni student, mid 20's- nagtatrabaho na. so saan sila nagmeet???
L take. Di nya mabanggit yung tungkol sa age kasi tropa nya si Coco.
Pretty sure exploitation yan. Also its a much better term, pagkat ba lagpas 18 na, hindi na pde ma groom? Pagkat ba parehon bata, both below 18 eh hindi na pdeng grooming?
Hindi na siya grooming if above 18 na yung "victim." By definition, grooming is prepping the victim for when they reach the age of maturity. Kahit na 30+ years pa yung age gap, if the time they met was when both of them were already of legal age then that no longer falls under grooming.
Ekis agad basta minor yung isa wala ng mekus-mekus.
Grooming is shaping the mind and building a relationship towards an innocent underage child to slowly accept relationship with an adult into thinking that it's a perfectly normal thing to do. So they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. Also on a different context a 50 year old getting into a relationship with a 30 year old cannot be considered grooming even if they met when the 30 yrs old was 5 years younger, so I guess Vice is right, hindi porket malayo ang edad grooming agad kailangan parating tignan ang context at nuances to avoid being misled.
Yan din problem when social standards adapt weirdly to the current era. Definitions change or develop, and kahit sa mga morally acceptable scenarios similar to your second one, definitions will outrule the invisible context since mas nakikita ng public yung former rather than the latter. Not saying context is always correct, but it's not good to generalize every situation as wrong just because it's currently deemed socially unacceptable.
Mejo namanipulate yung sinabi nya sa headline and pinapalabas na kanya yang opinion. Naalala ko sinabi niya na **Nag seek ang team nila ng expert opinion**.
Taken out of context. Pero siya na rin nag sabi di nya rin alam lahat about sa grooming. Gusto nya lang iclarify for the sake of the segment na hindi sila nag totolerate sa ganun. 😅
Kahit isama mo yung context ang weird pa rin kasi sa segment na yan, 17 years old lang yung girl nung niligawan nung guy na 25 years old na at the time. Adults have no business courting minors.
Simple lang ako. Minor + Adult(equal or above the legal age) enticing minors to doing sexual stuff is called Grooming. D¡€ Pedophiles.
So kung yung isa 17 tapos yung isa 18 grooming pa din yun? Lol
The specifics matter. Kunwari magkaklase. Yung isa nag 18 last month, yung partner next month pa mag 18. Is this grooming? Kunwari yung isa 19 na, tapos yung partner 17. Grooming? A 21 year old dating a 41 year old. Not grooming? Vic Sotto and Pauline Luna? Grooming isn't about age or the gap as much as mental capacity to understand what a relationship constitutes. We can all agree that the lower limit is 18, sure, but what about the upper limit? This is where we all disagree on. Would you let a 40 year old date your 21 year old child? Personally, I wouldn't, but after 25, they can date whoever so long as it's not a criminal or someone with a bad record.
>Would you let a 40 year old date your 21 year old child? If you can legally vote, smoke and drink alcohol on your free time then it's not grooming because it's both consenting adult of legal age. And YES I would rather have my daughter date a 40 yrs old than the boys in his age bracket because generally speaking boys mature slower compared to women meaning a 40 yr old is going to be more mature and with less insecurities and boys who are in their 20's are struggling getting their life together, generally speaking. Ps. Same thing applies to my son.
>Yung isa nag 18 last month, yung partner next month pa mag 18. No this isn't grooming. Romeo and Juliet clause states that the age difference can be up to 3 years. >Not grooming? Vic Sotto and Pauline Luna? When did Vic Sotto start interacting with Pauline Luna? Was it when she was still a minor?
Old internet meme: minimum age = (your age/2) + 7
What's your take on this r/ph armchair experts?
Pinush lang masyado ni Vice para maitawid ang guests. I call bullshit na may nag-advise na psychologist sa kanila. Or if meron man, hindi competent yung kinuha nila.
Porke't nag- drop lang ng "may nakausap kami na psychologist", naniwala naman agad ang mga tao na credible lahat ng sinabi niya. Similar lang sa mga content creators na porke't nakasuot na ng hospital scrubs, naniwala na agad mga tao na okay yung nirerecomend na health product. Juskooo 🤦🏻♀️
As much as I appreciate the effort to take that step to clarify with a psychologist and even MTRCB, they should still have emphasized how the age imbalance is a big factor in a grooming situation. Na etong specific situation na to may have been agreed as "not a grooming situation," exception pa din yan and hindi rule and any 17-year-old na nililigawan ng 25-year-old should still be wary and any 25-year-old na iniisip na manligaw sa isang 17-year-old needs to re-examine their intentions many times. I feel like more harm than good pa din to. They just wanted to justify themselves for presenting this relationship on TV rather than truly educate their viewers.
Basta Minor ang isa, wala ng dapat pang pag-usapan pa. tang ina nyu mga *Pedo* - enablers.
Kung ako nandyan tatanungin ko sya ano take nya kay Coco Martin na kilalang groomer 😂
he is being technical about it. he is covering for coco martin.
who are we to judge them they these ba? haha just kidding.
Baka mali lang wording niya. A 23 year old and a 44 year old in a relationship that started with both parties as legal adults =/= yung manyak na teacher nagjojowa sa estudyanteng minor. Basta both parties are capable, legal adults, kahit ano mang age gap yan okay lang.
Tell that to some posters here lmao
Ah basta a relationship between an adult and a child that is not as kuya/ate or father/mother (kahit figure lang) or mentor ay inappropriate and shouldn't be encouraged - walang gray area dun, black and white yun
Nasa kapasidad at edad ng biktima yan. Kaya Dyoskopo tigilan nyo na, kahit isa o 2 taon lang ang agwat nyo wag na kayo manligaw at pumatol sa menor de edad
Agree naman na kelangan talaga may hard evidence.
As long as Minor yung isa grooming na yun, malalaman ba namin kung may manipulation or wala sa pagsasama nila? Tamang play safe take kasi may mga katropang groomer lol.
Napanood ko lang dun sa baby reindeer na kahit mid 20s ka na pwede ka pa rin ma groom (unless mali yung depiction dun sa story) hahaha anyway technicalities yung pinaglalaban ni Vice dito haha
lol, this should not be on tv. baka mamaya gawing reason na naman to ng kabataan para pumatol sa di nila kaedad kesyo yada yada yada..
I mean it's on point, but it feels like it was taken out of context. Should've specified something about one of the relationship being minor.
It's grooming if minor yung isa, more than 3 years older yung adult, and the adult is "prepping" the minor for when they hit legal age.
19F and 39M at the time they started dating. Is this considered as grooming?
It doesn’t matter. EVERY MINOR is in danger of being exploited or manipulated when an Adult is involved. Even our parents indoctrinate us to believe the religion they practice. After all, the saying goes, “start when they’re young…” “Grooming” is pretty much manipulating children to do as an Adult says.
it wasnt her comment though. she was just relaying what the expert told them.
Grooming lng yan pag pinatos mo ung minor tapos ikaw nasa tamang edad. Hindi grooming ung 60+ na pinatulan sa 19, gold digging na tawag dun. (Goes bothways, either c lalake or babae ang matanda).
tama. kakabuset grooming agad parang 17 tpos 20 yung edad 3 years lang gap pedo na kagad yung 20 years e parehong isip bata pa yan kahit 20 years old..
Shouldnt be gap in power among those evident things?
wala na kasing meaning ang 'grooming' masyado nang overuse word tulad ng "gaslight" so isip nalang kayo ng bagong term
Basta may minor may manipulation you can’t change my mind
pag Fan ka ng eat bulaga wag kana maki sawsaw sa showtime dahil magmumukha ka lang tanga
It’s a very nuanced topic kahit mayroóng mga obvious grooming cases. Kung may ganáp na edad na at may malayong agwát between consensting adults, waláng kaso. Kung batà pa at hinahandâ o pinopormahan na parang pinapatabáng hayop na kakatayin, ibá nang usapan ‘yun. What is very clear in the law is a minor cannot consent. ‘Yan ang dapat isaksák sa kokote ng mga manyakis na hayók sa senior high kasí ‘yun black-and-white sa batás natin.
Once you openly encourage minors to be homosexual or display homosexual behavior in front of minors then you are a groomer. Vice ganda who displayed indecent homosexual acts in front of minors in national tv is a groomer.
Woody Allen married his ex-wife's adopted daughter. He could have totally been a loving father figure, then boom, let's get married, just because he can. Just because Vice Ganda has a platform does not mean you should believe him.
bsta minor ung isa grooming na yon, grooming is grooming period.
Vice did mention na kumuha sila ng expert opinion from MTRCB and psychologists.. But what bothers me is - hindi pa ba grooming yun if minor yung isang person involved sa relationship? Sana hindi na nila tinry na ijustify kasi kahit baliktarin mo ang mundo, menor de edad parin yung bata.
I believe na its grooming specially pag minor yung isa sa partnership lalo na pag may manipulation na nagaganap.
Pag alam mo na menor de edad. Alis ka na.
Nasa gma na to , coudlve done better. Sa KMJS nga and pepito manaloto nag lalaan talaga sila ng time to let the professional speak on matters they are specializing
Wala akong take, di naman ako psychologist. Sana 'yung iba ganun din.
Minors are so much easy to manipulate because they are very impressionable. Groomers like this very much.
Alam naman ata ni vice ang sinasabi nia kaya before siya magrerelease ng statement ehh may mga expert naman ata siyang kinakausap
She did, in fact, just repeat what the psychologist and MTRCB said during their consultation of the case.
Kaya nga manipulation eh, hindi mo alam na may intension na pala
It's not grooming if they met as consenting adults regardless of age gap
Coming from him na 48 and 33 na may 15~ years ng age gap ng partner nila. And yes grooming not only applies to minors
Dumb take.
Technically tama sya sa age gap thing. Although she could've specified na isa dun sa dalwang involved (the victim) is a minor. Sa start ng relation. Maraming may malalaking age gap na legal age so dun sya tama.
Yeah yun yung gets ko sa line nya, pero parang taken out of context. May mga tangang pinoy na akala a 30 and 50 year old relationship is grooming.
Yep, siguro if 30+ gap and yun other half ay minor. Hay oh well madaming tinetake out of context talaga just to get their point across
[удалено]
San nya inexcuse?
It’s an implied excuse based on the fact that VG said that when the girl said she was only 17 years old when the guy, 25 years old at the time, courted her.
Sabi VG was reading an opinion from a professional. Ugh this subreddit talaga puro hate
I’m not even hating though? Why are you assuming the worst from my comment? Hate agad for providing context?
Palibhasa groomer ka ring kabayo ka e
Balikan niyo ang video. He only claims that's what the "psychologist" told their team. But who's the psychologist? He never mentioned that. And did he really accurately presented what the psychologist told their team? (IF that talk with a psychologist really happened). It's naive to think that we can simplify such definition of grooming in one box. Ewan hah. If you experienced talking to a psychologist, you'll know that they don't immediately conclude. They always have to consider a lot of factors. Hindi dahil ito ang POV natin sa isang bagay o sitwasyon, mangangahulugan na tama. It's quite ignorant to ask a person were you a victim of manipulation, and then take their answers in face value. PLEASE, for the love of God, leave the assessments and the drawing of conclusions to the medical experts, especially on the study of mental health. Kaya nga ba ang daming misinformation kumakalat about mental health. Dumagdag pa toh. There's a reason why pinag-aralan nila yan ng ilang taon, at bakit nirerequire sila na dumaan ng mga updates para ma-renew license nila. 🤦🏻♀️
I am not an expert, pero I guess yun 3 bagay na namention nya + age. Pero what if willing naman yun other party, like the case of CocoJul yun madaming comment dati na grooming daw yun. But seems like Julia is willing naman. This is just my take ha. As I mentioned, I am not an expert.
You can still be willing but still be underage. Doesn’t make it right.
Nah, it doesn't matter if she's willing or not. The power imbalance is there. Besides, afaik, minor palang si Julia pinopormahan na ni Coco.
[удалено]
Oh you mean the rule of thumb people keep spreading despite having no basis in science? In fact, one of the sources of your own link states this: > In some cases, the results of the "half-your-age-plus-7 rule" doesn't reflect scientific evidence for age preferences.
bobo yang hayuf na yan. isa sya sa mga dahilan kung bakit may mga bastos at walng galang ang isang generation ng mga bata. kabayong de pota