Sexual self-determination - Revision history

User4: /* See also */

2016-05-02T23:40:10Z

User4: /* Don't see also */

2016-05-02T22:32:00Z

Don't see also

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 2 May 2016
Line 29:		Line 29:

	[[Category:Encyclopedia]]		[[Category:Encyclopedia]]
			[[Category:Sexuality]]
	[[Category:Draft]]		[[Category:Draft]]

User4 at 22:30, 2 May 2016

2016-05-02T22:30:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 2 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sexual self-determination''' is one of the most recent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science pseudo scientific)] "justifications" used to argue against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 years of age and those ''under'' 18.		'''Sexual self-determination''' is one of the most recent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science pseudo scientific)] "justifications" used to argue against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 years of age and those ''under'' 18).

	The argument is:		The argument goes like this:

	:If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way):		:If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way):

User4 at 22:29, 2 May 2016

2016-05-02T22:29:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 2 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Sexual self-determination is one of the most recent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science pseudo scientific)] "justifications" used to argue against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 years of age and those ''under'' 18.		'''Sexual self-determination''' is one of the most recent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science pseudo scientific)] "justifications" used to argue against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 years of age and those ''under'' 18.

	The argument is:		The argument is:
	*If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way), then:
	* ''every other influence that would have determined the child's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation sexual orientation] or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught
	* any genetic influences, any of the child's ''other'' life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality.

	Therefore, the child's (so-called) "right" to "sexual self-determination is abrogated by any (so-called) "sexual interference" "perpetrated" by an adult on the child.		:If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way):
			:* ''every other influence that would have determined the child's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation sexual orientation] or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught
			:* any genetic influences, any of the child's ''other'' life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality.

			Therefore, the child's (so-called) "right" to "sexual self-determination (supposedly) is abrogated by any (so-called) "sexual interference" "perpetrated" by an adult on the child.

	The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought irrational] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_myth myth] is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion "perverted"] one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".		The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought irrational] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_myth myth] is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion "perverted"] one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".

User4 at 22:26, 2 May 2016

2016-05-02T22:26:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 2 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Sexual self-determination is one of the most recent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science pseudo scientific)] "~~arguments~~" used against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 years of age and those ''under'' 18.		Sexual self-determination is one of the most recent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science pseudo scientific)] "justifications" used to argue against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 years of age and those ''under'' 18.

	The argument ~~goes like this~~: If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way) ''every other influence that would have determined the child's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation sexual orientation] or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught: any genetic influences, any of the child's other life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality -- ~~all due to the~~ "interference".		The argument is:
			*If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way), then:
			* ''every other influence that would have determined the child's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation sexual orientation] or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught
			* any genetic influences, any of the child's ''other'' life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality.

			Therefore, the child's (so-called) "right" to "sexual self-determination is abrogated by any (so-called) "sexual interference" "perpetrated" by an adult on the child.

	The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought irrational] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_myth myth] is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion "perverted"] one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".		The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought irrational] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_myth myth] is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion "perverted"] one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".

Etenne at 16:55, 10 December 2015

2015-12-10T16:55:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 10 December 2015
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Such claims are extraordinary claims. And as the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan goes, [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".]		Such claims are extraordinary claims. And as the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan goes, [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".]

	And, to date, such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence evidence] is ''totally lacking''. But the claim that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity sexual activity] between an adult and child is "interference" in the child's "sexual self-determination" has been widely accepted among so-called "mental health professionals" and is one of the main arguments used to justify the current persecution and witch-hunt against BoyLovers.		And, to date, such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence evidence] is ''totally lacking''. But the claim that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity sexual activity] between an adult and child is "interference" in the child's "sexual self-determination" has been widely accepted among so-called "mental health professionals" and is one of the main arguments used to justify the current persecution and [[witch-hunt]] against BoyLovers.

	In essence, it is like claiming that if a child ''just once'' tries Chinese food at the urging of an adult, then the child's "right to culinary self determination" has been violated, and the child will no longer follow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29 "normal"] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural "natural"] path that he/she would have to determining what he/she prefers to eat. Does that argument sound [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason "reasonable"] to you?		In essence, it is like claiming that if a child ''just once'' tries Chinese food at the urging of an adult, then the child's "right to culinary self determination" has been violated, and the child will no longer follow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29 "normal"] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural "natural"] path that he/she would have to determining what he/she prefers to eat. Does that argument sound [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason "reasonable"] to you?

Etenne: /* Don't see also */

2015-03-04T13:06:51Z

Don't see also

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 4 March 2015
Line 23:		Line 23:

	[[Category:Encyclopedia]]		[[Category:Encyclopedia]]
	[[Category:~~Drafts~~]]		[[Category:Draft]]

User4 at 23:19, 24 February 2015

2015-02-24T23:19:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:19, 24 February 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The argument goes like this: If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way) ''every other influence that would have determined the child's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation sexual orientation] or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught: any genetic influences, any of the child's other life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality -- all due to the "interference".		The argument goes like this: If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way) ''every other influence that would have determined the child's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation sexual orientation] or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught: any genetic influences, any of the child's other life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality -- all due to the "interference".

	The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought] ~~irrational~~ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_myth myth] is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion "perverted"] one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".		The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought irrational] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_myth myth] is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion "perverted"] one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".

	This hearkens back to the anti-homosexual's (also mythical) argument -- once a boy (or even a young adult male) is "bitten" by the "homosexual bug" he is then lost forever to the "normal" world of heterosexuality.		This hearkens back to the anti-homosexual's (also mythical) argument -- once a boy (or even a young adult male) is "bitten" by the "homosexual bug" he is then lost forever to the "normal" world of heterosexuality.
Line 13:		Line 13:
	And, to date, such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence evidence] is ''totally lacking''. But the claim that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity sexual activity] between an adult and child is "interference" in the child's "sexual self-determination" has been widely accepted among so-called "mental health professionals" and is one of the main arguments used to justify the current persecution and witch-hunt against BoyLovers.		And, to date, such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence evidence] is ''totally lacking''. But the claim that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity sexual activity] between an adult and child is "interference" in the child's "sexual self-determination" has been widely accepted among so-called "mental health professionals" and is one of the main arguments used to justify the current persecution and witch-hunt against BoyLovers.

	In essence, it is like claiming that if a child ''just once'' tries Chinese food at the urging of an adult, then the child's "right to culinary self determination" has been violated, and the child will no longer follow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29 "normal"] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural "natural"] path that he/she would have to determining what he/she prefers to eat. Does that argument sound "~~sensible~~" to you?		In essence, it is like claiming that if a child ''just once'' tries Chinese food at the urging of an adult, then the child's "right to culinary self determination" has been violated, and the child will no longer follow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29 "normal"] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural "natural"] path that he/she would have to determining what he/she prefers to eat. Does that argument sound [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason "reasonable"] to you?

	=See also=		=See also=

User4: Added links

2015-02-24T23:16:41Z

Added links

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 24 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Sexual self-determination is one of the most recent (pseudo) "arguments" against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 and those ''under'' 18.		Sexual self-determination is one of the most recent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science pseudo scientific)] "arguments" used against intergenerational sexual activity (sexual activity between those ''over'' 18 years of age and those ''under'' 18.

	The argument goes like this: If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some magical way) ''every other influence that would have determined the child's sexual orientation or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught: any genetic influences, any of the child's other life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality -- all due to the "interference".		The argument goes like this: If an adult seduces, coerces, or otherwise induces a child to engage in sexual activity, then (in some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29 magical] way) ''every other influence that would have determined the child's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation sexual orientation] or preferences'' will suddenly be cancelled, nullified, and made naught: any genetic influences, any of the child's other life experiences, etc. will all suddenly (and magically) no longer be determining factors in the child's developing sexuality -- all due to the "interference".

	The myth is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a "perverted" one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".		The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought] irrational [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_myth myth] is that there is some natural, intrinsic process that a child undergoes -- a "normal" process -- that, if "interfered" with by an adult, causes the child to suddenly veer off and become some ''other'' kind of a "sexual person" -- a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion "perverted"] one, of course -- one they would ''not'' have become without the outside "interference".

	This hearkens back to the anti-homosexual's (also mythical) argument -- once a boy (or even a young adult male) is "bitten" by the "homosexual bug" he is then lost forever to the "normal" world of heterosexuality.		This hearkens back to the anti-homosexual's (also mythical) argument -- once a boy (or even a young adult male) is "bitten" by the "homosexual bug" he is then lost forever to the "normal" world of heterosexuality.

	The main problem with these kinds of arguments is that so little is known about human sexuality and sexual development that any conjectures are just that -- unfounded theories ''not'' based on any ''empirical research''. And such theories more resemble [~~https~~://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science "junk science"] than valid criticisms.		The main problem with these kinds of arguments is that so little is known about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality human sexuality] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality sexual development] that any conjectures are just that -- unfounded theories ''not'' based on any [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research ''empirical research'']. And such theories (or rather, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis hypotheses)] more resemble [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science "junk science"] than valid criticisms.

	Such claims are extraordinary claims. And as the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan goes, [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".]		Such claims are extraordinary claims. And as the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan goes, [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".]

	And, to date, such evidence is ''totally lacking''. But the claim that sexual activity between an adult and child is "interference" in the child's "sexual self-determination" has been widely accepted among so-called "mental health professionals" and is one of the main arguments used to justify the current witch-hunt against BoyLovers.		And, to date, such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence evidence] is ''totally lacking''. But the claim that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity sexual activity] between an adult and child is "interference" in the child's "sexual self-determination" has been widely accepted among so-called "mental health professionals" and is one of the main arguments used to justify the current persecution and witch-hunt against BoyLovers.

	In essence, it is like claiming that if a child ''just once'' tries Chinese food at the urging of an adult, then the child's "right to culinary self determination" has been violated, and the child will no longer follow the "normal" or "natural" path that he/she would have to ~~finding out~~ what he/she ~~likes~~ to eat. Does that argument sound "sensible" to you?		In essence, it is like claiming that if a child ''just once'' tries Chinese food at the urging of an adult, then the child's "right to culinary self determination" has been violated, and the child will no longer follow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29 "normal"] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural "natural"] path that he/she would have to determining what he/she prefers to eat. Does that argument sound "sensible" to you?

			=See also=
			* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
			* http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method
			=Don't see also=
			* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_self_determination
			:... because Wikipedia ''does not consider'' the theory of sexual self-determination to be valid or notable or supported by evidence.

	[[Category:Encyclopedia]]		[[Category:Encyclopedia]]
	[[Category:Drafts]]		[[Category:Drafts]]

User4 at 21:49, 24 February 2015

2015-02-24T21:49:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 24 February 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:
	This hearkens back to the anti-homosexual's (also mythical) argument -- once a boy (or even a young adult male) is "bitten" by the "homosexual bug" he is then lost forever to the "normal" world of heterosexuality.		This hearkens back to the anti-homosexual's (also mythical) argument -- once a boy (or even a young adult male) is "bitten" by the "homosexual bug" he is then lost forever to the "normal" world of heterosexuality.

	The main problem with these kinds of arguments is that so little is known about human sexuality and sexual development that any conjectures are just that -- unfounded theories ''not'' based on any ''empirical research''. And such theories more resemble "junk science" than valid criticisms.		The main problem with these kinds of arguments is that so little is known about human sexuality and sexual development that any conjectures are just that -- unfounded theories ''not'' based on any ''empirical research''. And such theories more resemble [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science "junk science"] than valid criticisms.

	Such claims are extraordinary claims. And as the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan goes, [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".]		Such claims are extraordinary claims. And as the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan goes, [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 2 May 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:

	=See also=		=See also=
			*[[Sexual Self-Determination, children's right to]]

			==External links==
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis		* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
	* http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method		* http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method

	=Don't see also=		=Don't see also=
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_self_determination		* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_self_determination