Talk:Antisexualism

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Antisexualism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Antisexualism at the Reference desk.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Maybe they're misanthropes(people who hate people) who hate humanity and desire its extinction. Why do they want humanity extinct? Maybe they're disgusted with how evil the human race is. Maybe they're nihilists who think that humanity's attempt to survive is futile and that everyone is going die anyway when the sun supernovas (explodes) and burns out, which is certainly going to happen, but there is the argument that humans might develope spaceships and colonize distant planets. However, this is very unlikey because the closest planet that could possibly sustain life is probably more than a thousand lightyears from the Earth. If by some improbable miracle humanity found a planet that could sustain life, they would have to restart civilization from scratch and eventually find another life sustaining planet in order to continue the human race, but that's only if there is a life sustaining planet that we can propel a spaceship to reach with the limited and decreasing resources this Earth has. Even if we could send a spaceship to a planet that could suatain life, it would take several millenia, probably more than ten thousand years, to reach it because light takes a thousand years to travel a thousand light years. If light takes that long to travel from where Earth is to these life sustaining planets, how long do you think it would take for a spaceship traveling considerably slower than light to reach there? Maybe they have problems or maybe humanity has problems, maybe this pathetic cycle should end once and for all? If people have souls then it won't all be over when they die, but if they don't then its too bad. What's so great about humanity, we may have great technology but it probably won't save us from inevitable extinction. Maybe they just want to get this futile travesty over sooner and end the human comedy, or tragedy, now? This doesn't matter anyway because they have their own desires and unique values, they just happen to value chastity and purity more than the continuation of the human race. What's wrong with that? They have the right to their opinion, they have the freedom to value certain things more than other things, they don't have to justify their opinion with logic because they have the freedom to have their own unique identity. Do you have a reason for why your favorite color is your favorite color, or why you like one type of music more than another, or why you prefer one thing to another. The truth is that one opinion isn't better than the other, it's just different. The question why can be asked an infinite amount of times and it never brings us any closer to answering the real truths, but the question how has provided many answers (physics was born from the question how does this objects behave when this force acts upon it). The solution can only be found when humanity changes the very foundation of its logic, thinking, and the it looks at things. If you can't find the solution to a problem using one mode of logic or way of looking at things, you adjust your logic or your way of looking at things. Gravity was originally an absurd concept, until people adjusted their way of looking at things. Viruses and bacteria were originally considered ridiculous nonsense, but when people adjusted their way of looking at things it became a perfectly accepted fact. Maybe you should try different ways of looking things, and maybe they should try different ways of looking at things, too. You may begin to understand why they value the things they value, and if they try to see things your way they might start to believe humanity isn't such a horrible thing. However, in their credit, people are not great enough to decide whether humanity is worthy enough to survive, its rather conceited of humanity to think it knows what it believes to be thruth when it has no proof, so the answer is up to a higher power. So, no they're not, they just value decency over the existence of humanity, which is indecent and evil.

Are these people idiots? How do they think the human race is supposed to continue?

Well i suppose some might permit it for baby-making, but otherwise artificial ways. Gameslinder 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd assume the crux of their argument is opposition to sex on, ahem, what could be contrued as less than 'functional' or 'industrious' grounds. The thrwarting of literal 'reproduction', I'd envisage, isn't really the aim of their wrath so much as all that bewildering cultural layering upon the entity of 'sexuality' and 'sexual behaviour' with which we remain so familiar. Quite a poser to consider, tho'... -- 21:05, 17 October 2006 81.109.36.8

I think they ether wish that people only had sex for getting children or that all children would be conceived by artificial insemination. This is an impossible dream unless we can find out a way to get ride of human sex drive without making people sterile.

2007-03-11 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

You mean these: Antiandrogen? Gameslinder 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such substances reduces sexual drive drastically. But they don't make it disapear entiarly unless the person allready have a low leveal of sex drive. The use of

I have always woundered if they would ever go mad with idiology and literly kill anthing to do with sextuality, and their behabour becomes almost like the Dalek on Doctor Who. The Irony of destroying something you see the evil (and all that you see to it), in and you become the villan yourself. EmperorofFatilism 10:51 P.M 15 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.123.17 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article is not npov, for instance polygamy is certainly not a "destructive" behavior as they claimed. Mathmo 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not taking a position on the matter, but just summarizing the arguments used by the advocates. Though this is not particularly the place for a debate on polygamy, those who called it "destructive" might have been referring to the fact that in the real world polygamy all too often becomes a matter of old men marrying off their teenage daughters to each other (without too much respect for the wishes of the girls involved). AnonMoos 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article was not making clear that destructiveness is merely an opinion of those who oppose polygamy. plus you seem to be holding some kind of false misconception about polygamy, that is arranged marriage (and is even that really such a bad thing? others would disagree). polygamy and arranged marriages do NOT go automatically hand in hand. rather you are thinking of various random outlier sects and cults. Mathmo 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this page should also list some counter-arguements to this idea, as to give a better example of what range of opinions there may be on this issue. 66.24.236.62 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not an issue first of all, it's a view. I guess there could be a section with reasons against antisexualism, but I don't think it would be too informative about antisexuality and it would be getting a bit off-topic IMHO. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list with counter-arguments would be very suitable since at several of their opinions is contrary to

Interesting, but if those are only your own personal views, then they don't really belong on the Wikipedia article page... AnonMoos 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my informed view. I wrote my contributation in indignation over people having such dysfunctional ideas. However, I think a list of more or less

2007-02-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

It's not necessary, but if you want to, then I think we should discuss what "scientific counter-arguments" you were thinking of here first. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the nature of human sexuality and the psychological consequences of complete celibacy.

2007-02-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

That doesn't seem very appropiate for a page about antisexualism. If you want to write about celibacy or human sexuality, please go to their pages and write about them there. --User:alexjohnc3 ^(talk) 13:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t like when extreme ideas are presented without any counter-arguments. The followers might come with “factual” arguments which are simply wrong. One example is a Swedish

In the case of the Swedish Nazi, that person is just factually wrong. For antisexuals, the arguments section just has facts that cause them to have the opinions they do. What their arguing is why they want to be antisexuals, not that there is a specific number of antisexuals in the world or in a certain country. Remember, we have to follow

NPOV and presenting reasons why you think antisexualism is wrong violates this rule. Antisexualism doesn't make any claims in itself, individuals who are antisexual are opposed to sexuality. If there are any specific arguments you want to put there, we can discuss them here first, but saying it's "extreme" is your own point of view and violates the NPOV rule. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

4. “Some antisexualists make no distinction between consent and coercion, seeing sex as a means of oppression.” This distinction is very important due to the enomous diffrence in the precived emotions of at least one of the ivolved. The victime ecperience a rape as something compleatly different than consensual sex!

5. “Some antisexualists see a link between unrestricted reproduction, resource depletion and environmental decay.” This is an outdated idea reminding me of

Eventually, I wounder if people really “oppose procreation”. Do they wish for the extincion of humanity!? Such opinions are simply amazing!

2007-03-26 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

The problem with the article is that it is not very clear. Origen and Ann Lee did not believe that everyone should be castrated or celibate. The point is, there is a difference between describing as a social movement a particular group of people or trend that is distinct from others, and a group of people who are trying to change their entire society). Since Origen and Ann Lee were not trying to tell others to change the way they lived, nor were they making scientific arguments, it is unsurprising that few people have written critiques of their positions. Be that as it may, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or chatroom. Lena, you are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia but you must follow our policies such as

WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

However, Origen and Ann Lee viewed celibacy as the ethically and religiously highest calling, and Origen was part of that Quasi-Gnostic-Ascetic current of opinion of the early centuries A.D. which regarded marriage as an extremely poor second-best to celibacy from a spiritual point of view. As the article says, before the modern period you had prosyletizing antisexual religions, while now you also have a secular social reform reform movement which seeks to gain support for itself. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see the great differences which you're implying. AnonMoos 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well in terms of my point about social movements, the question I would think is, did they see themselves as part of a movement to change all of society so that everyone lives according to their views? Some social movements do just this: in the US, for example, the Civil Rights movements changed the way both Blacks and Whites lived. I think there is an important distinction between a person or group fo people who try to create a voluntaristic community of like-minded people who share a particular path to (God, truth, self-actualization) versus a movement that seeks to change the way all people live. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article does not provide

We can only report what the antisexualists have said about themselves and their views, in those places where they happen to have expressed those views. What is your plan to get around such limitations? Do you have any concrete suggestions to offer. AnonMoos 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To explain myself more specifically, while anti-sexualist religions or religious tendencies have existed for a long time, and there have probably always been individuals with anti-sexualist views, it seems that anti-sexualist individuals not tied to one specific religion only sought each other out and formed a comunity during the Internet age. Therefore many of the sources on non-religion-specific anti-sexualist advocacy will necessarily be Internet sources. AnonMoos 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of antisexualist lacks to mentione to Liz Hodgkingson, a very famous british woman writer with a strong bias against sex and all related issues. User:Ed War Avila 11:08, 18 December 2006

Removed Hodgkinson mention from article, since it seems from her website that she's a "Refraining from sex can be positive" advocate, which is rather different from true anti-sexualism ("sex is almost always bad"): [1] -- AnonMoos 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People can chose to castrate themselves for a variety of reasons; the fact that they did so doesn't make them antisexualists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.17.202 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays a few people have themselves castrated for "kinky" reasons (as reported in wire-service articles which seem to recur about 2-3 times a year), but it's very hard to imagine such a motive in ancient times (or even in 1865). In ancient times, people had themselves castrated out of a combination of religious enthusiasm and "gender dysphoria" (i.e the priests of Cybele), to get a position as a palace eunuch, or to express a philosophy of sexual asceticism (i.e. effectively antisexualism). In Origen's case, his motive was clearly the third of these, and there were no priests of Cybele or palace eunuchs in the United States in 1865... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is polygamy "destructive"? It doesn't fit in with sadism and unsafe sex. —The preceding

Did you notice the discussion of that very point directly above? AnonMoos 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, "Some of the claims made by antisexuals include..." Actually I should change this to, "Some antisexuals claims..." instead, but, as AnonMoos said, it isn't necessarily true, but the article is just pointing out arguments sometimes made by people for antisexualism. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In almost all societies where polygamy exist it is only legal for one gender. In the vast majority of cases it is the men which are allowed to have more than one wife at the same time. As such polygamy is a matter of gender inequality not of destructive sexual behaviour.

2007-02-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Polygamy isn't only "a matter of gender inequality" when it's legal for only one gender. You're incorrect because, first of all, whether or not it's legal has nothing to do with the word, and, secondly, polygamy can be practiced by both males and females (which means there is no inherent gender inequality). What you're thinking of is legal polygyny. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I mixed up polygamy with polygyny. But in the societies where polygamy is legal it is almost always so for only one of the genders. That is why I consider it a matter of gender inequality in the was majority of cases.

2007-03-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

You're right, in the majority of cases it is a matter of gender inequality. I'm just saying it's not something that has to be true. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites no sources using the term "antisexualism". None of the beliefs ascribed to "some" or "all" antisexuals is attributed to a concrete person or supported with a citation. Thus, all of the info may potentially be original research. I suspect it should be deleted altogether. --91.148.159.4 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is partly a loose paraphrase of the "Anti-Sexual FAQ" linked in the external links section; unfortunately, most of the sources for non-religion-specific anti-sexual communities of interest will be Internet sources, for the reasons explained above (did you read it?). And the word "antisexualism" is easily found on pages such as http://www.antisex.info/en/iamnews.htm etc. etc. AnonMoos 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice the external link, but the sources should be indicated with footnotes. More importantly, the WP:notability guideline requires that a topic "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." There's a discussion/edit war about that guideline right now, but nobody disputes the necessity of a work that is *independent* from the subject. Now, that antisexual site is not independent from antisexuality. We can't have an article about any person or group of persons who decide to make a web page and proudly declare they have founded some sort of organisation. The question is: are they important enough? Has anybody else, any scholar or respectable journalist, ever been interested in them? Also, even if there were no such requirement, the site of the organisation can be at best a source about itself, not about antisexuality in general. If there is antisexualism in religion as you say, for example, that would need to be sourced too. --91.148.159.4 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what AnonMoos said here: Talk:Antisexualism#Not verified tag. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what he said there. What he said amounts to the idea that because the topic "antisexualism" doesn't satisfy wikipedia's criteria for verification, we should ignore wikipedia's criteria for verification. My understanding is that if the topic "antisexualism" doesn't satisfy wikipedia's criteria for verification, we should ignore the topic "antisexualism" and delete the article. Policies are supposed to be observed, otherwise they are not policies. According to the other logic, I could formulate my own crazy ideology on a web page and then require wikipedia to have an article about it.--91.148.159.4 13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of articles on Internet phenomena, where verification by means of printed paper sources would often be extremly sketchy at best... AnonMoos 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating: the problem is not "internet sources" vs "paper sources", the problem is "Foo talking about himself" vs "reliable independent sources (scholars, respectable journalists) talking about Foo". --91.148.159.4 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Inclusionism. As it stands, this is a well-written article that does a good job at documenting antisexualism. How about not trying to be counter-productive? If there aren't any sources listed, try to find some and help improve the article. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 19:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whist I don't think the page should be nominated for deletion for it's shortcomings, I don't think this excuses it from being tagged for it's lack of neutrality and sources. These tags increase awareness that the factual content may be questionable (important if children, young adults or anyone not well educated on the matter read the page) and may well prompt users to add the citations required. Whilst some facts may not be easily proved, it does excuse the whole page from the rules on verification, and once citations have been found for most statements, the tags can be moved down to just those statements that are uncertain. This page really needs to go forwards with this, rather than just avoiding it altogether. Constructive criticism should not be seen as counter-productive, as this suggests that being productive is to force a particular point of view. A way should be found to describe the subject fairly referencing books on the subject, the same way other issues of sexuality are discussed on wikipedia, rather than labelling the wiki's policy as being in the wrong.

Secondly I see no reason why the page shouldn't have a more neutral point of view, many pages gives the advantages and criticisms of a number of things on wikipedia, and this goes to increase the quality of the page since it allows readers to form their own opinions. Many of the claims here could be both scientifically supported and challenged, which would again make it easier to pick out areas in need of clean up. I may add this sometime this week when I have time and depending what the reaction is. I can see how the page has got to where it is now, but "ignore all rules" does not mean we should ignore the lapse itself. Ignore all Rules 92.2.127.76 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... are the people who are staunchly opposed to all forms of sex perhaps just cranky because they're not getting any? It's something worth considering ;) 24.189.87.160 (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      This isn't a place to debate about anti-sexualism. Please don't be toxic. 100.36.232.242 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in that case this article needs to be referenced. People watching this article need to add some good references in a reasonably timely manner. Later on - not now, but after a while - I propose to through here and redact all the material that is not sourced to a good reference. Herostratus (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't seen any progress here. There is one additional reference, but for some reason right now I can't get it to load. But it is is to a forum, which forums are not reliable sources.

But leaving leaving aside the bad references, and leaving aside that a whole section of the article is fiction, there are no references for the great bulk of this article, and that is simply not sustainable. Not only that, but many of the assertions are not only unreferenced, but appear to be unreferenced risible nonsense. Apparently some unreferenced people somewhere have claimed that "Technological advances render sex obsolete", opposee procreation because "Mother-roles are a construct used to subjugate women", then we throw Marx and Engels in there, and if Marx and Engels were antisexualists there ought to be some reference showing that.

Come on people. This article is an essay, period. This is nonsense. I tagged if for refs a while back, and my patience is now exhausted. I have removed the entire (and entirely unreferenced) section "Reasons for antisexualism" for starters. That is just for starters, but if anyone wants to discuss that we can do that before moving on. Discuss, please, before reverting. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor restored the material with an edit summary of "The article is a stub. Why just that unreferenced part was deleted?" Well, it's true (I guess) that stubs have lesser reference requirements, but this article is not a stub (yet). Just that part was deleted because I haven't vetted the rest yet. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the H.P. Lovecraft quote:

• Lovecraft was not a sexologist, sociologist, essayist, philosopher, social commentator, or academic. He was a pulp fiction writer and is known only for that. He is notable, but in an entirely different field. We don't include the musings of Bill James on international monetary policy, of Justin Bieber on quantum physics, or of Mickey Mantle on mammalian taxonomy. Same thing here.
• Even then, it's not at all clear that Lovecraft's quote is indicative of "erotophobia" to a point similar to racial and religious bigotry in the sense that Ince means. It's not at all clear that Lovecraft's quote is part of a considered philosophy rather than a cherry-picked one-off quote.

This is why I removed it. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article contained this passage:

The Junior Anti-Sex League, in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, was a group of young adult Party members devoted to banning all sexual intercourse, and replacing its procreative functions with the use of artificial insemination (children would be raised in public institutions, rather than in individual families). The existence of the League served as an important public reminder of the Party's disapproval of all attachments and activities which could diminish exclusive loyalty to the Party, and that everything other than "normal intercourse between man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting children, and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman" was forbidden sexcrime, which could be punished by death.

The problem with the passage about 1984 is that it's unreferenced. It's original research, somebody's interpretation of the book. One could claim that it's obvious original research -- after all, the book had the Youth Anti-Sex League, so it prima facie shows antisexualism in action. If this were true, I'd not object to the passages, we don't object to "the sky is blue" type passages as original research. However, I'm not so sure it is true.

If I recall correctly, the Party didn't actually object to sex or find it disgusting or unpleasant; Julia said something like "Those Party bastards are the one's visiting prostitutes the most!", so quite the opposite. Rather, the party wanted to stamp out sex for political reasons: because sexual bonds, and loyalty to a sexual partner, represented an alternative to loyalty to the party. That's quite different from what Ince is talking about. (The party may also have wanted to deny sex to people just to make them miserable as part of the "boot-in-the-face-forever" program.) Anyway, who knows? I don't. So let's not include individual editor's interpretations of literature, and I've removed the passage. Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this before, but I think the article was redirected at the time that I would have looked here. Actually, what's quoted above is a pretty direct paraphrase of passages in the novel, so it would be far more of a primary sources problem than an original research problem. There's another sentence present -- "Though the League was founded and countenanced by the all-powerful totalitarian Party, the Party leadership did not allow it to succeed in its goals" -- which provides some necessary context... AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, let's see where we stand. After work described in the three sections above, the article has been reverted (with no proper explanation or engagement on the talk page) to its original form as an unsourced (and probably highly innaccurate) POV essay, once by an editor with 3 edits to date, once by an editor with 2 edits to data, and another editor has averred that removing the unsourced material again will likely get me in trouble.

So, are we stuck with unsourced (and probably highly innaccurate) POV essay as a Wikipedia article? Maybe! But let's keep at it -- you never know. I'm not going anywhere, so let's do it all again! Let's start by taking a look at the "Reasons for antisexualism" section. I've already tagged this for references in the spring (and got no response, or references) but let's try again -- maybe something will come up this time. So let's go through it sentence by sentence, I'll give each sentence followed by my questions about it:

• The antisexual movement promotes antisexualism as a way of life.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• Antisexuals are not always asexual, although they say it is not impossible to become asexual and they seek asexuality, but the reasons for their antisexuality are often based on their reasoning or morals.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexuality can complicate relationships (as when people are hostile towards each other because they are sexually attracted to the same person).

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sex may hinder one's spiritual development.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexual desire can cause people to place primitive instinct ahead of intellect (people across the world continue to have unsafe casual sex despite their awareness of the dangers of
  STDs
  , for example).

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexuality asserts itself in the human mind by releasing neurochemicals comparable to addictive drugs into the brain.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexual desire can cause people to lie and cheat in the pursuit of sexual relationships.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexuality can lead to discrimination, based on perceptions of sexual immorality and intolerance of certain sexual preferences.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexual desires could be false assumptions that are foisted on you by society, hence you may need to look at how your sexuality is ideologically and institutionally constructed.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexuality, which is usually based on notion of physical attractiveness, encourages and justifies obliviousness to the unfairness of discrimination against people who are deemed unattractive by others.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: There is no difference between consent and coercion; sex is a means of oppression.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: There is a link between unrestricted reproduction, resource depletion and environmental decay. This is a position ideologically connected to deep ecology, antinatalism and Malthusianism.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Mother-roles are a construct used to subjugate women, hence they may oppose procreation. This argument chimes with certain feminist and queer theories (lesbian, pro-celibacy and Green feminism), but not others.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Male dominated families can be harmful entity for society, which is similar to the theory of Marx and Engels that male dominated family structures which reduce females to objects of reproduction and household chores are more a form of 'prostitution' than one of ethical family values. Some Marxists have advocated the abolition of the family and communal living.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Sexual behavior evolved for human reproduction. If life is more a burden than a joy, one does a service to would-be offspring by not having them.

Question: what's the reference for this?

• [One] of the claims some antisexuals make include[s]: Technological advances render sex obsolete.

Question: what's the reference for this?

Well, turns out all the questions are pretty similar. Are there any answers? Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hmmm, it seems like a lot of this is taken from here (in Russian). My reading of Copyright and Derivative work ("A 'derivative work' is a work... such as a translation") lead me to believe that translation doesn't create a new copyright under US law or the Universal Copyright Convention.

Wikipedia:Cv101

warns against "machine translation from some foreign text". I don't know if this is a machine translation, but parts of it are a mechanical translation -- that is, a basically word-for-word translation rather than a loose translation of the general sense. This applies to much but not all of the material. There is some material intertwined that isn't in the source. For example, the article has

• There is a link between unrestricted reproduction, resource depletion and environmental decay. This is a position ideologically connected to deep ecology, antinatalism and Malthusianism.

This is taken from the source:

• Бесконтрольное размножение приводит к перенаселению Земли, истощению ресурсов и ухудшению состояния окружающей среды.

The first part is a mechanical translation from the source, but the second sentence ("This is a position...") is not in the source. (This means it's unsourced and is presumably just some editor blowing smoke, but that's a different issue.)

Anyway, the source has 9 bullet points and the article has 14, so there's some new material, probably about 5 points worth. I think the bits about Marx and technological advances and the "more a burden than a joy" (huh?) is some editor riffing rather than violating copyright.

I'm unsure of what to do here, so I didn't do anything. I haven't removed the material as copyvio, but maybe it should be removed for that reason. We're supposed to be pretty conservative regarding copyright. Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user did add a ref, to Antisexual Stronghold. I've been working up a ref vetting checklist, which is explained in detail here. It's not done but let's deploy it for a test drive on this ref. It's long, so I've hidden it. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's dubious that "opposition to romantic love" as such is the major motivation. And it's absolutely incontestable that Yuri Nesterenko writing as an individual giving his own personal personal opinions on stuff is completely non-notable for Wikipedia (not sure who Peyotero is or how he's relevant, but presumably it would be the same with him). However, that's not the issue. The issue is whether FAQ-type documents which are claimed to be the distillation of numerous forum postings by self-identified antisexuals can be used as evidence for the existence and goals of self-identified antisexuals. There are definitely problems with this from the Wikipedia perspective, but they're not quite the same problems as would be for one random individual expressing purely personal opinions... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

I expanded the existing refs to make clear what was going on to all. I agree that the forum source is not reliable as a secondary source, and is sketchy as a primary source about itself. At best, it could be mentioned, "The Russian forum website Antisex Stronghold exists as a self-described clearinghouse for antisexual advocacy.", but would need an independent RS to support that. Any books? --Lexein (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify some basic points

The current def in the article is:

• "Antisexualism' is opposition or hostility towards sexual behavior and sexuality..."

OK, so this doesn't mean any of these:

• Celibacy -- That's based on a decision not to have sex oneself.
• Asexualism
  -- that's lack of desire for sex.
• Erotophobia -- that's fear of sex.

Regarding the first, if you ask a (celibate) priest "Father, I'm married, and I want children. Should I have sex?" he'll likely answer "Yes, and plenty". So that priest is not antisexualist, by the definition given. Asexuals and erotophobia have personal predilections of their own but don't, as a class, have a political opinion about other people's sexual activity.

Antisexualism as a DicDef

OK, Here are some uses of "antisexualism" and related words, picked more or less at random from Google and other places.

• A wave of antisexualism has rippled through extremist groups of the women's liberation movement and attacks men for treating women as venereal objects in what is described as a 'sexist society'. Beauty contests, the use of the sexual sell in advertising, and prostitution are all seen as evidence of male chauvinist depersonalization of women into sex objects." That's from a book by Daniel Gianturco and Harmon L. Smith, The Promiscuous Teenager. I don't have the book and that's all I can get from the preview.

• "...what might be called the anti-sexual instinct, the instinct of personal isolation, the actual repulsiveness to us of the idea of intimate contact with most of the persons we meet, especially those of our own sex." This is from William James, Principles of Psychology (1890), according to an editor at this article's earlier AfD. I don't have any more info on this.

• "So far we have been considering pro-sexual elements in religion; anti-sexual elements, however, existed side by side." This is from Marriage and Morals by Bertrand Russell, a famous and seminal book.

• "The terror of being mistaken for a queer dominates the straight mind because this terror constitutes the straight mind. It is precisely that culturally produced and reinforced horror of/fascination with abjected homosexuality that produces and maintains 'the straight mind' as such, governing not so much specific sexual practices between men and women (after all, these things happen) as the institution (arguably antisexual) of heteronormativity itself." -- Thomas, Calvin, ed. (2000). Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality, p.27. University of Illinois Press.
  ISBN 0252068130
  .

• ISBN 1890159018
  .