![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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?
- 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.
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 antiandrogens is called chemical castration. In other words it reduces fretrility as much as sexual drive, if it does not make the person entiarly sterile which might well be the case. We have a long way to go before we can take away sex drive without reproductional consequences.
2007-03-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Oops, I wrote as if antiandrogens had the same effect on sexual drive in both sexes! Women produce much less androgens than men. But I have no reason to believe that women on average have much less sexual drive. Consequently, antiandrogens don’t reduce women’s sexual drive to the same degree. Something transwomen are quite happy for.
2007-03-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
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)
this article is not npov, for instance polygamy is certainly not a "destructive" behavior as they claimed. Mathmo 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
I think a list with counter-arguments would be very suitable since at several of their opinions is contrary to human nature. Sure, there is much variation in human sexuality, but most of this variation is shown by a minority of people. The sexual pattern of the majority have served humanity well during our 200,000 years of existence. This includes hidden ovulation every three to five weeks, constant sexual drive, long term (not necessary lifelong) couples, and the joy of consensual sexual activities. All those traits are at least partly hereditary. The idea that sex don’t have to be fun probably originated as way for Christian clergy and monastery to rationalise their own celibacy. Originally being the ultimate sacrifice celibacy had become the norm. Complete celibacy (not even masturbation) will always be a drawback unless the person is asexual. I have made a thought experiment about how human sexuality would have been if our ancestors only had sex for getting children. It goes about like this:
“Women get ovulation once every four years. They are compleatly aware of it and even publicly announce it by emitting a especially sexy scent. A woman’s all male friends, neighbours and colleagues compete for having sex with her. The winner chose by the woman have sex with her only once. If they don’t use any contraception she will almost always become pregnant. The father-to-be stays with her and helps to support her until she stops breastfeeding. (In hunter-gatherers this coincide with the time when the child can keep the adult’s walking pace.) Soon after that she will get a new ovulation. The father of the first child have to compete with other men to concept her once more.” This is ONLY a idea of how it would have been IF our evolutionary history had been different.
Antisexualists point out that sex release drug-like substances in the brain. But he same substances are released by eating good food or getting praised. Yet nobody claims that food should be unappetising or that you should never praise anybody! In fact, this system evolved to reward us with pleasure only when we do things that we profit from in evolutionary terms. Don’t accuse me for being racist! Humans shows extremely little genetical variation for such a numerous species: “races” in the biological sense don’t exist. 2007-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
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 scientific counter-arguments would be very suitable.
2007-02-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I thought about the nature of human sexuality and the psychological consequences of complete celibacy.
2007-02-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
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 Nazi who claimed that there where one million Muslims in Sweden living on welfare. In reality Sweden have 250 thousand Muslim inhabitants and nobody knows how many live on welfare. Other examples of extreme ideas are Communism, Fascism and religious fundamentalism.
2007-03-11 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I have thoughtfully checked their arguments again. Here comes my criticism:
1. “Sexuality asserts itself in the human mind by releasing neurochemicals comparable to addictive drugs into the brain.” This is true but misleading. The brain have a system of reward to motivate us to do things we benefit from in evolutionary terms. Most addictive drugs mimic the function of the neurochemicals involved giving us pleasure without effort. However, the simularities can help explaining why some people becomes addicted to sex.
2. “Sexuality can lead to discrimination, based on perceptions of sexual immorality and intolerance of certain sexual preferences.” It such caces it is the INTOLERANCE that is the problem. If all harmless sexual activities where accepted the problem would disappear.
3. “Sexual desires could be false assumptions that are foisted on you by society...” Sexual drive is NOT a social construct: it exist as a genuine feeling towards other people! If you doubt that you might as well doubt that hunger is genuine feeling.
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 Thomas Robert Malthus. With widespead use of contraceptives and an intension to have few children the supposed link breaks down.
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 article does not provide reliable sources per wikipedia rules. `' mikkanarxi 02:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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).
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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)
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)
Re the H.P. Lovecraft quote:
This is why I removed it. Herostratus ( talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The article contained this passage:
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)
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:
Well, turns out all the questions are pretty similar. Are there any answers? Herostratus ( talk) 06:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
This pretty clearly isn't usable as a ref. It'd not even be an acceptable external link per #10 of WP:ELNO ("Links to... chat or discussion forums/groups"). Allowing pseudonymous internet forum posts to be used as refs would be highly idiosyncratic, and would be huge headache generally, which is why WP:RS clearly forbids refs like this, see WP:SPS.
It may or not be true that the writers are blowing smoke or trolling, that all the posts are made by the same person using different pseudonyms, and so forth. Probably not, but we can't have any confidence of this. Even if the material was reliable, it's a primary source and it'd be original research to use it. Herostratus ( talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
The current def in the article is:
OK, so this doesn't mean any of these:
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.
OK, Here are some uses of "antisexualism" and related words, picked more or less at random from Google and other places.
Another source is John Money. Money is a controversial figure with a strong point of view, and judging by his article he appears to have pretty sketchy ideas, but at least he's a trained and accomplished sexologist. He used the term "antisexualism" several times, sometimes in article titles, according to Google Scholar. I don't have cites and can't access the articles.
There's a lot more like this. Google, Google Books, Google Scholar.
Some of this is just idiocy, some of it isn't, but that's not important. It's reasonably notable. The problem teasing out a definition from all this.
The Erotophobia article handles this very much better. The aptly named "Political use" section begins:
This is a great improvement, but "anti-oppression" and "sex negative" are kind of loaded and not too NPOV, so let's see if we can go that article one better, how about:
How about this? Are there any objections to this? (Possibly it should be "antisexual" rather than "antisexualism", which would mean moving the article.)
I'm not sure what to say after the dicdef.... all the rest of the material in the lede falls more under the umbrella of "positive antisexualism", see below. But I'm sure one or two good quotes can be worked on to make a reasonable if very short article. It's really just a dicdef but we can pad it, I guess.
But then, getting down to the meat of the article, there is this interesting website, antisex.info. In the DicDef above, "antisex" is basically a pejorative, usually (not always) thrown about for some polemic purpose.
But this Russian site actually advocates antisexuality as a positive good. Unlike celibates and asexuals, they not only don't want to have sex but they they think you shouldn't have sex either. Or anyone. I haven't looked into this website yet in any detail, but plan to.
I don't think we can use this website as a reference, though. It's an advocacy website. Maybe something can be used, or there are links to material that can be used. Obviously it'd be nice if someone who, unlike me, gives a rat's ass about of any this was willing to help out... Herostratus ( talk) 05:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
Tolstoy should probably be mentioned in the article, according to this: [2] -- AnonMoos ( talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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?
- 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.
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 antiandrogens is called chemical castration. In other words it reduces fretrility as much as sexual drive, if it does not make the person entiarly sterile which might well be the case. We have a long way to go before we can take away sex drive without reproductional consequences.
2007-03-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Oops, I wrote as if antiandrogens had the same effect on sexual drive in both sexes! Women produce much less androgens than men. But I have no reason to believe that women on average have much less sexual drive. Consequently, antiandrogens don’t reduce women’s sexual drive to the same degree. Something transwomen are quite happy for.
2007-03-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
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)
this article is not npov, for instance polygamy is certainly not a "destructive" behavior as they claimed. Mathmo 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
I think a list with counter-arguments would be very suitable since at several of their opinions is contrary to human nature. Sure, there is much variation in human sexuality, but most of this variation is shown by a minority of people. The sexual pattern of the majority have served humanity well during our 200,000 years of existence. This includes hidden ovulation every three to five weeks, constant sexual drive, long term (not necessary lifelong) couples, and the joy of consensual sexual activities. All those traits are at least partly hereditary. The idea that sex don’t have to be fun probably originated as way for Christian clergy and monastery to rationalise their own celibacy. Originally being the ultimate sacrifice celibacy had become the norm. Complete celibacy (not even masturbation) will always be a drawback unless the person is asexual. I have made a thought experiment about how human sexuality would have been if our ancestors only had sex for getting children. It goes about like this:
“Women get ovulation once every four years. They are compleatly aware of it and even publicly announce it by emitting a especially sexy scent. A woman’s all male friends, neighbours and colleagues compete for having sex with her. The winner chose by the woman have sex with her only once. If they don’t use any contraception she will almost always become pregnant. The father-to-be stays with her and helps to support her until she stops breastfeeding. (In hunter-gatherers this coincide with the time when the child can keep the adult’s walking pace.) Soon after that she will get a new ovulation. The father of the first child have to compete with other men to concept her once more.” This is ONLY a idea of how it would have been IF our evolutionary history had been different.
Antisexualists point out that sex release drug-like substances in the brain. But he same substances are released by eating good food or getting praised. Yet nobody claims that food should be unappetising or that you should never praise anybody! In fact, this system evolved to reward us with pleasure only when we do things that we profit from in evolutionary terms. Don’t accuse me for being racist! Humans shows extremely little genetical variation for such a numerous species: “races” in the biological sense don’t exist. 2007-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
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 scientific counter-arguments would be very suitable.
2007-02-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I thought about the nature of human sexuality and the psychological consequences of complete celibacy.
2007-02-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
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 Nazi who claimed that there where one million Muslims in Sweden living on welfare. In reality Sweden have 250 thousand Muslim inhabitants and nobody knows how many live on welfare. Other examples of extreme ideas are Communism, Fascism and religious fundamentalism.
2007-03-11 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I have thoughtfully checked their arguments again. Here comes my criticism:
1. “Sexuality asserts itself in the human mind by releasing neurochemicals comparable to addictive drugs into the brain.” This is true but misleading. The brain have a system of reward to motivate us to do things we benefit from in evolutionary terms. Most addictive drugs mimic the function of the neurochemicals involved giving us pleasure without effort. However, the simularities can help explaining why some people becomes addicted to sex.
2. “Sexuality can lead to discrimination, based on perceptions of sexual immorality and intolerance of certain sexual preferences.” It such caces it is the INTOLERANCE that is the problem. If all harmless sexual activities where accepted the problem would disappear.
3. “Sexual desires could be false assumptions that are foisted on you by society...” Sexual drive is NOT a social construct: it exist as a genuine feeling towards other people! If you doubt that you might as well doubt that hunger is genuine feeling.
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 Thomas Robert Malthus. With widespead use of contraceptives and an intension to have few children the supposed link breaks down.
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 article does not provide reliable sources per wikipedia rules. `' mikkanarxi 02:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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).
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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)
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)
Re the H.P. Lovecraft quote:
This is why I removed it. Herostratus ( talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The article contained this passage:
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)
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:
Well, turns out all the questions are pretty similar. Are there any answers? Herostratus ( talk) 06:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
This pretty clearly isn't usable as a ref. It'd not even be an acceptable external link per #10 of WP:ELNO ("Links to... chat or discussion forums/groups"). Allowing pseudonymous internet forum posts to be used as refs would be highly idiosyncratic, and would be huge headache generally, which is why WP:RS clearly forbids refs like this, see WP:SPS.
It may or not be true that the writers are blowing smoke or trolling, that all the posts are made by the same person using different pseudonyms, and so forth. Probably not, but we can't have any confidence of this. Even if the material was reliable, it's a primary source and it'd be original research to use it. Herostratus ( talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
The current def in the article is:
OK, so this doesn't mean any of these:
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.
OK, Here are some uses of "antisexualism" and related words, picked more or less at random from Google and other places.
Another source is John Money. Money is a controversial figure with a strong point of view, and judging by his article he appears to have pretty sketchy ideas, but at least he's a trained and accomplished sexologist. He used the term "antisexualism" several times, sometimes in article titles, according to Google Scholar. I don't have cites and can't access the articles.
There's a lot more like this. Google, Google Books, Google Scholar.
Some of this is just idiocy, some of it isn't, but that's not important. It's reasonably notable. The problem teasing out a definition from all this.
The Erotophobia article handles this very much better. The aptly named "Political use" section begins:
This is a great improvement, but "anti-oppression" and "sex negative" are kind of loaded and not too NPOV, so let's see if we can go that article one better, how about:
How about this? Are there any objections to this? (Possibly it should be "antisexual" rather than "antisexualism", which would mean moving the article.)
I'm not sure what to say after the dicdef.... all the rest of the material in the lede falls more under the umbrella of "positive antisexualism", see below. But I'm sure one or two good quotes can be worked on to make a reasonable if very short article. It's really just a dicdef but we can pad it, I guess.
But then, getting down to the meat of the article, there is this interesting website, antisex.info. In the DicDef above, "antisex" is basically a pejorative, usually (not always) thrown about for some polemic purpose.
But this Russian site actually advocates antisexuality as a positive good. Unlike celibates and asexuals, they not only don't want to have sex but they they think you shouldn't have sex either. Or anyone. I haven't looked into this website yet in any detail, but plan to.
I don't think we can use this website as a reference, though. It's an advocacy website. Maybe something can be used, or there are links to material that can be used. Obviously it'd be nice if someone who, unlike me, gives a rat's ass about of any this was willing to help out... Herostratus ( talk) 05:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
Tolstoy should probably be mentioned in the article, according to this: [2] -- AnonMoos ( talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)