Talk:Antisexualism

message: 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)
replies: text: You mean these: Antiandrogen?  Gameslinder 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old talk

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Arguments against 

message: the article does not provide reliable sources per wikipedia rules. `'mikkanarxi 02:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Not verified tag

message: 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"):  -- AnonMoos 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisexualist list (Hodgkinson) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Antisexualist list (castration) 

message: How is polygamy "destructive"?  It doesn't fit in with sadism and unsafe sex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ Craig (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice the discussion of that very point directly above? AnonMoos 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Polygamy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See what AnonMoos said here: Talk:Antisexualism#Not verified tag. --Alexc3 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: ... 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)
thread_title:  I'm just wondering... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  re lovecraft 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  re Orwell 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vetting Antisexual Stronghold as a ref 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please note 

message: I removed this section again because although it later appeared to be sourced, the single source appeared to make nine points (in Russian, btw, and were difficult to translate) whereas the article listed fourteen points. Where did the other points come from? In addition, much of it was still written in the second person. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for antisexualism 

message: Tolstoy should probably be mentioned in the article, according to this:  -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolstoy

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antisexualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301083100/http://www.mk.ru/editions/atmosphere/article/2007/11/08/71125-zhizn-bez-seksa.html to http://www.mk.ru/editions/atmosphere/article/2007/11/08/71125-zhizn-bez-seksa.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302205455/http://moulin-rouge.telion.ru/2006/05/140/1 to http://moulin-rouge.telion.ru/2006/05/140/1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article seems like a string of unrelated things strung together. Is there a reliable source which links these disparate movements and trends? Daask (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting question. Is there a requirement for an article to have an overarching RS? Genuine question - there are loads of articles on Wikipedia which suffer from that problem - having lots of individually sourced assertions, which don't really stitch together into a coherent whole. My personal antifavourite is Hydrotherapy, which I came away from more confused than I started. Is there a policy about needing RS for the article, over and above individual assertions? Girth Summit (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article OR? 

message: It seems biased against antisexuals, by the article calling them “coitophobic” and “prudish”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.232.242 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Terminology section NPOV?