Childhood sexual innocence - Revision history

Lysander: /* Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent" */

2016-06-04T11:15:05Z

Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 4 June 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:
	[[Harris Mirkin]] notes:<ref>http://childwiki.org/wiki/Research:The_Social,_Political,_and_Legal_Construction_of_the_Concept_of_Child_Pornography#Abstract</ref>		[[Harris Mirkin]] notes:<ref>http://childwiki.org/wiki/Research:The_Social,_Political,_and_Legal_Construction_of_the_Concept_of_Child_Pornography#Abstract</ref>
	{{quotation\|The current view of young people mirrors the Victorian construction of the innocent woman who was thought to be corrupted by being viewed lustfully by others, or by having erotic thoughts and desires herself. It is interesting that, although this construction of youth was created by adults and therefore presumably serves their own purposes, it embodies the view that adults are sinful beings that have fallen from a childhood period of grace and virtue.}}		{{quotation\|The current view of young people mirrors the Victorian construction of the innocent woman who was thought to be corrupted by being viewed lustfully by others, or by having erotic thoughts and desires herself. It is interesting that, although this construction of youth was created by adults and therefore presumably serves their own purposes, it embodies the view that adults are sinful beings that have fallen from a childhood period of grace and virtue.}}

	~~==Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent"==~~
	There is deemed to be some fundamental difference between (unmarried) kids' sexual play with each other and what adults do (which can render them sluts, etc.) Childhood innocence is not lost even when kids commit the same kinds of acts with each other that would be considered not innocent if adults did them.

	==References==		==References==

Lysander: /* Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent" */

2016-06-04T11:13:13Z

Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:13, 4 June 2016
Line 16:		Line 16:

	==Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent"==		==Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent"==
	There is deemed to be some fundamental difference between (unmarried) kids' sexual play with each other and what adults do (which can render them sluts, etc.)		There is deemed to be some fundamental difference between (unmarried) kids' sexual play with each other and what adults do (which can render them sluts, etc.) Childhood innocence is not lost even when kids commit the same kinds of acts with each other that would be considered not innocent if adults did them.

	==References==		==References==

Lysander at 11:12, 4 June 2016

2016-06-04T11:12:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 4 June 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:
	[[Harris Mirkin]] notes:<ref>http://childwiki.org/wiki/Research:The_Social,_Political,_and_Legal_Construction_of_the_Concept_of_Child_Pornography#Abstract</ref>		[[Harris Mirkin]] notes:<ref>http://childwiki.org/wiki/Research:The_Social,_Political,_and_Legal_Construction_of_the_Concept_of_Child_Pornography#Abstract</ref>
	{{quotation\|The current view of young people mirrors the Victorian construction of the innocent woman who was thought to be corrupted by being viewed lustfully by others, or by having erotic thoughts and desires herself. It is interesting that, although this construction of youth was created by adults and therefore presumably serves their own purposes, it embodies the view that adults are sinful beings that have fallen from a childhood period of grace and virtue.}}		{{quotation\|The current view of young people mirrors the Victorian construction of the innocent woman who was thought to be corrupted by being viewed lustfully by others, or by having erotic thoughts and desires herself. It is interesting that, although this construction of youth was created by adults and therefore presumably serves their own purposes, it embodies the view that adults are sinful beings that have fallen from a childhood period of grace and virtue.}}

			==Even when kids have sex with each other, they're still somehow "innocent"==
			There is deemed to be some fundamental difference between (unmarried) kids' sexual play with each other and what adults do (which can render them sluts, etc.)

	==References==		==References==

Lysander at 20:58, 19 December 2015

2015-12-19T20:58:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 19 December 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are many arguments related to '''childhood sexual innocence'''. Whilst innocence in its purest form (absence of sexuality in women and children, as supported by Victorian [[Puritanism]]) is rejected by most modern child advocates (antisexual feminism, victimology, public and charity work), the "safeguarding" of "children" and "childhood" from supposedly corrupting and politically undesirable forces is still alive and well. Nevertheless, the arguments addressed here are more likely to be found on American Christian bulletin boards than Science or Rationalism sites.		There are many arguments related to '''childhood sexual innocence'''. Whilst innocence in its purest form (absence of sexuality in women and children, as supported by Victorian [[Puritanism]]) is rejected by most modern child advocates (antisexual [[feminism]], victimology, public and charity work), the "safeguarding" of "children" and "childhood" from supposedly corrupting and politically undesirable forces is still alive and well. Nevertheless, the arguments addressed here are more likely to be found on American Christian bulletin boards than Science or Rationalism sites.

	==Institutional argument==		==Institutional argument==

Lysander at 19:54, 19 December 2015

2015-12-19T19:54:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 19 December 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:

	This argument relies on the vague assumption that sex automatically leads to complicated emotional reactions in the first place. It is also based on the assertion that "innocence" and "purity" are somehow the opposites of sexual experience, assuming that sex cannot be "pure" or "innocent". These are ''beliefs'', and have no grounding in objective reality. Similar beliefs in relation to women have already been thoroughly discredited to the point of ridicule.		This argument relies on the vague assumption that sex automatically leads to complicated emotional reactions in the first place. It is also based on the assertion that "innocence" and "purity" are somehow the opposites of sexual experience, assuming that sex cannot be "pure" or "innocent". These are ''beliefs'', and have no grounding in objective reality. Similar beliefs in relation to women have already been thoroughly discredited to the point of ridicule.

			==Grace and virtue argument==
			[[Harris Mirkin]] notes:<ref>http://childwiki.org/wiki/Research:The_Social,_Political,_and_Legal_Construction_of_the_Concept_of_Child_Pornography#Abstract</ref>
			{{quotation\|The current view of young people mirrors the Victorian construction of the innocent woman who was thought to be corrupted by being viewed lustfully by others, or by having erotic thoughts and desires herself. It is interesting that, although this construction of youth was created by adults and therefore presumably serves their own purposes, it embodies the view that adults are sinful beings that have fallen from a childhood period of grace and virtue.}}

			==References==
			{{reflist}}

			[[Category:Concepts]]

Lysander: Lysander moved page Innocence of children to Childhood sexual innocence

2015-12-19T19:37:15Z

Lysander moved page Innocence of children to Childhood sexual innocence

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:37, 19 December 2015
(No difference)

Lysander: Created page with "There are many arguments related to '''childhood sexual innocence'''. Whilst innocence in its purest form (absence of sexuality in women and children, as supported by Victoria..."

2015-12-19T19:36:54Z

Created page with "There are many arguments related to '''childhood sexual innocence'''. Whilst innocence in its purest form (absence of sexuality in women and children, as supported by Victoria..."

New page

There are many arguments related to '''childhood sexual innocence'''. Whilst innocence in its purest form (absence of sexuality in women and children, as supported by Victorian [[Puritanism]]) is rejected by most modern child advocates (antisexual feminism, victimology, public and charity work), the "safeguarding" of "children" and "childhood" from supposedly corrupting and politically undesirable forces is still alive and well. Nevertheless, the arguments addressed here are more likely to be found on American Christian bulletin boards than Science or Rationalism sites.

==Institutional argument==

:''"Childhood is a time to be pure, innocent and uncomplicated by adult emotions such as sexuality. Children do not understand the corruption of adulthood, and require moral protection, as does the institution of childhood"''.

==Sexual contact ("theft") argument==

:''"The theft of a child's innocence (molestation) is an unforgivable crime"''.

This argument relies on the vague assumption that sex automatically leads to complicated emotional reactions in the first place. It is also based on the assertion that "innocence" and "purity" are somehow the opposites of sexual experience, assuming that sex cannot be "pure" or "innocent". These are ''beliefs'', and have no grounding in objective reality. Similar beliefs in relation to women have already been thoroughly discredited to the point of ridicule.