Talk:Homosexual seduction

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Unreliable source?

Ping User:Crossroads. I am not sure we should remove this source, unless another source explicitly criticizes this. In fact, it would be good if someone had better access to [1] than I did (I only got snippets); we need more explicit criticism of this old theory. I was surprised how little criticism I could actually find, it's more like that theory has been half-forgotten than debunked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the one I removed has a WP:FRINGE view of what it peculiarly calls "man/boy sex", a NAMBLA-esque term. It's also nearly 30 years old, a primary source, and from an obscure journal. The source is completely redundant and unnecessary, so there's no point bothering with it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tone/layout issues with Legacy section

The section’s tone is more journalistic than encyclopedic and its structure and layout tends toward a POV. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Acquired homosexuality" article?

This article has a lot of overlap with a few other articles: LGBT grooming conspiracy theory, acquired homosexuality, and anti-LGBT rhetoric. I reckon we should consider merging this one with acquired homosexuality, although if this stays put, it probably needs to do more to distinguish itself from those other articles. Lewisguile (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I have read this in more detail and added some more details and context. Maybe there's enough to justify keeping this as a separate page after all. Lewisguile (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Acquired homosexuality with Homosexual seduction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; no consenus for alternative pages related to forming a (unnamed) disambiguation page, nor of its scope, with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles seem to be about the same topic, except that the "acquired homosexuality" topic is more clear from the title. Although "seduction" in homophobic publications is often taken to mean converting a straight person to be gay, it could also refer to a normal courtship process between people who are already gay or bi. If the scope of this article is different from the "acquired homosexuality" one, I am not sure how it differs from LGBT grooming conspiracy theory. Overall, I think these articles should be merged or a clear scope difference between all three elucidated. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Acquired homosexuality and Homosexual seduction should be merged, in my opinion acquired homosexuality would be the better term. As for LGBT grooming conspiracy theory, I'm neutral. I think either way would be fine. Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run it is probably better to have an article specifically dealing with 'Molestation theories of homosexuality' in general, since it is a bit broader than 'recruitment' and there is actual research on that idea. As for the present proposal, how should they be merged and which way? Because the sources generally use one term or the other. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these articles are specifically about molestation though. The acquired homosexuality article notes the two proposed "vectors" for the "spread" of homosexuality, mass media and sexual relationships. Historically the biggest concern was for young men above the age of consent, so molestation is definitely not the right word. (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the 'homosexual seduction' article may not be well written, but texts refer to that as seduction through molestation. It is mentioned on that article several times though. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Acquired homosexuality" seems to have only half the Google Scholar hits then "Homosexual seduction", so if the merge is done it probably should be the other way around. While the concepts are related I am not convinced they are identical (no sources for this have been presented), so for now I am opposing the merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are 1) this article title is ambiguous, "acquired homosexuality" is not, and 2) the proliferation of articles that have vague and overlapping scope and are largely about the same topic—purported conversion of youth to LGBT identities through the influence of LGBT adults. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree, but it's unclear what the title should be. Something like "homosexual recruitment"? But I'd prefer to see something like "conspiracy theories" or "myths" added. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with those additions is that neither is commonly used in sources. In many cases it's not alleged that LGBT people are "recruiting" deliberately let alone as part of a conspiracy. Not all false beliefs are myths or conspiracy theories (t · c) buidhe 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Google Scholar and Athens tells me "homosexual seduction" is the more common term but we could always make "homosexual recruitment" a redirect to the new page. That way, no one ends up missing vital info. A disambiguation page might also help people navigate the overlapping terms?

If I had to distinguish, I would argue that "homosexual seduction" is an outdated psychological and sociological theory, whereas "homosexual recruitment" is the conspiracy theory that LGBTQ+ people actively wants to "recruit" or "turn" straight people via homosexual seduction. Lewisguile (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards a disambiguation page rather than a merge. A disambiguation page allows for easier navigation of the info and less need for each article to say "this is related to/overlaps with X" but avoids loss of nuance or conflation.

"Acquired homosexuality" feels like a broad term that refers to any of the alleged ways someone might (if it were possible) "acquire" homosexuality, while "homosexual seduction" is a more specific term for one proposed route that might take. While the latter is also the most commonly used academic term, I'm not sure it covers the former term.

The LGBT grooming conspiracy theory is different again, because it implies intentional and organised behaviour, specifically targeted at minors, which doesn't have to be physical seduction (it's a perceived "social contagion").

I would want to see some reliable sources laying out the relationship between these concepts before we make a decision. I'm not convinced they're interchangeable (yet). And if we have a disambiguation page (or even one merged article), we'd need a name that is accurate and reflective of each of the different topics covered. Lewisguile (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.