This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I'd like to add something about Catholic priests, in terms of both celibacy and chastity. In particular, let's address the issue of homosexual priests. Since Catholicism does not deem homosexality itself sinful, a homosexual ought to be able to take the same vow of chastity (or celibacy?) as any other priest. Is this correct? Ed Poor 17:51, 18 December 2001 (UTC)
Yes - Ben 05:53, 27 April 2002 (UTC)
Not exactly. The recent Vatican document argues that celibacy in the sense of priestly celibacy is not a gift to someone who is homosexual and uninterested in marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the old articles on celibacy and chastity were identical with the last paragraph of the Holy Orders article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)
This looks like as good a place as any to put this:
The Catholic and Orthodox churches holds themselves to Canon 6 of the Council of Trullo in 692, which reads as follows:
"Since it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done." - Ben Brumfield 05:53, 27 April 2002 (UTC)
Thank you for resonding for my call to assistance, AdelaMae and Hideouslywrinkled. Unfortunately, there were some mistakes. The Reformers did not give alternative interpretations of verses cited in favor of celibacy. hey cited verses they thought were against it, and their reasoning belongs in the Humor section (read the verses they cited). If it was people outside the Church thinking married priesthood was a solution, it would not even be mentioned (Catholics do not tell Muslims what colors they should paint their mosques to attract converts). Unfortunately, this opinion is held by many high-rank officials in the Church (but note: the insincere ones). And, as I said previously, "The sectors of the Church where vocations are the highest are those where the Church's teachings are followed, and the sectors where these teachings are not followed have the lowest." The data DOES exist, but I need to find it. JBogdan 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added some reference to celebacy being practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Certainly it is not only practiced within the Christian world - maybe people could expand these areas in order to make the article more ' global' in it's focus. How is it seen in different countries and cultures around the world? 82.163.63.228 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek ( Talk/ Contrib) 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently added a section about History of Celibacy. My additions showed when and who started the tradition of celibacy in Catholic Church.
Why Musical Linguist deleted them?
In my opinion he is downgrading Wikipedia by selectively editing chosen articles to enforce his agenda. The discussion about his other contribution clearly show that.
Please, let the moderator show his clear view and ban Musical Linguist from constant misediting wikipedia pages.
Thank you. User:83.19.104.34
Why did she do it? - Because your edits were downgrading WP by adding false information.
Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The article homosexual celibacy redirects to this page, but this page lacks any mention of celibacy due to reasons involving sexual or gender identity, nor anything of that nature. While it probably can fall into reasons for celibacy, it could potentially be an additional section; I have therefore added an request for expansion. (And please don't suggest that it should go into the homosexuality article instead - that thing is huge already!) - Heartofgoldfish 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest the whole section on religious celibacy is too focused on the Catholic church. Of course it is a major topic of debate and interest within that Church, but surely the subject of the Catholic view of celibacy should be a subset (albeit a substantial one) of a general heading on celibacy due to religious belief, since practitioners of other variants of Christendom (and of other faiths) may also choose celibacy because of their beliefs. 82.153.129.223 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a seperate article on clerical celibacy that I think it would be better for this article to refer users to who are interested in that aspect of celibacy. The whole article needs a re0write and I've started to do a bit of a literature search (this not being my field, it takes days at the library which are few and far between :-). From what I've seen so far, we should have 4 sections on the "whys": religious belief and practice, physical/biological causes; social reasons (including involuntary celibacy); and cultural forces. There has been a request to cover homosexual celibacy (and the article homosexual celibacy points to this article), but from my search so far, homosexual celibacy doesn't seem to be rooted in anything different from hetrosexual celibacy. So I was thinking of incorporating homosexual perspectives throughout the article rather than having a seperate section. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this page should be merged with the entry about 'clerical celibacy'. While the content is partly the same, the entry for 'clerical celibacy' is more detailed, better structured and less biased. I stumbled upon the 'celibacy' entry when I wanted to find out something about the history of celibacy in the catholic church, but all I found was a biased argument why celibacy is a good thing and why all who say otherwise are 'insincere', 'uninformed' or 'humourous' (luckily, the latter two terms have been edited out). Even the external links don't provide information, but only propaganda for clerical celibacy. As you see, I think the 'clerical celibacy' entry is far superiour and this one should link to the other. 80.218.144.173 ( talk) 10:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. An article on "celibacy" that doesn't include clerics is fairly meaningless. Why would anyone care? Merge. A link to "clerical celibacy" is okay in the short run, but merge and delete this article long term. -student- 67.8.201.227 ( talk) 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this article could benefit from a "list of famous celibate people", like the "list of famous..." in other articles such as the one about homosexuality. A rather famous celibate is Paul Erdös, and Friedrich Nietzsche was also one by some accounts.
Good idea.
This article needs a lot of cleanup. I made a start, but a lot more needs to be done. Here's what I see:
-- Shunpiker 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just an idea, but can the medical opinions from this site be made into a new page for "Health Benefits of Celibacy"? www.semenloss.com There are many citations from doctors. Unfornuately some of the sources are only from the work of Dr. Bernard. But many of the sources are from the original author's directly. As108 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This article lacks pictures. How about someone introducing a picture of a couple not engaging in sexual behavior before marriage. Perhaps a shot of people walking down a street, eating some ice-cream or having sexual intercourse. Oops - not that one :-) - Bennyboyz3000 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is very lopsided; more than half of it touches on the Christian aspect of celibacy. The practical and secular forms of celibacy (such as the involuntary celibacy experienced by professed nerds) are mentioned in the opening, but largely ignored by the rest of the article. Even the section which deals with reasons for celibacy makes a highly biased statement on celibacy by quoting the Apostle Paul verbatim at the end. I'm not sure how we could rebalance the article, because celibacy is usually associated with religion in the first place, but a good start might be to focus more on celibacy in non-Christian religions and the secular celibate. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the Shakers (distinct from the Quakers) should also be mentioned. They have practically died out as a sect because of celibacy and a failure to win converts. Ranthlee 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added the Islam section, with myself being a muslim and already knowing alot about celibacy in Islam.
I have researched alot about it before putting the info in, and have tried to make it as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.25.71 ( talk) 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. Jjdon ( talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The article read like this "An inability to find a sexual partner that one finds acceptable or tolerable" with a link to involuntary Celibacy. Involuntary Celibacy is if a person is unable to find a sexual partner. If one can find a sexual partner but refuse their Celibacy is not Involuntary it is due to their choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris smith jones ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I was reading this article and I noticed that one possible reason for celibacy is missing. It is the reason I have chosen to become a celibate: I have a mental disorder that many people are trying to cure (I won't mention which one because it's not relevant in this context), and I have become a celibate so that I cannot have children and therefore cannot contribute to the continuation of this mental disorder's gene.
What I'm saying is, do enough people become celibates for the reason that they cannot reproduce and therefore not give their unborn children undesirable genetic qualities (like defects, mental disorders, ect.)? If so, would this be worth putting on this article? Pippin the Mercury ( talk) 00:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a good thing to add, but you've got to find an article or something that mentions this so that you have a citation. Cowgod14 ( talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I added two very well known celibates, Jessica Simpson (took a vow of celibacy at 12 and remain a virgin until her marriage to Nick Lashey) and Britney Spears (famous for her celibacy as a teen) and they were removed without reason. Apparently these were not celibates as they were in their young 20s. I don't believe to be any sort of valid reason for a vow of celibacy to be valid, especially considering Jessica and Britney took a "vow of Celibacy" which is what the article is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Celibacy is defined as referring to be being either unmarried or to sexual abstinence., the cases mentioned cover both in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Siobhan - I can surely confirm that no, I'm not reading that as an either one or the other case, I'm using the exact definition given. Jessica Simpson in her case took a vow of celibacy, it doesn't get any clearer or more defined than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.81.125 ( talk) 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I am removing again the names of actress Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears a very-well know whore. Get married as a virgin do not implies celibacy. My grandmother and my mother and millions of peoples engaged in their weddings in virgin state, due this was be a cultural ethics. Don't be stupid your moron. Rodrigo Zauli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.161.228 ( talk) 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To the Wikipedia Team: Can we discard the above immature comments? I've re-applied the names Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.81.125 ( talk) 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with discarding the stupid/moron comment, though I think the rest of what he said was fine. How about having 2 separate sublists? One list could be for people who are permanently celibate, and the other list could be for people who are only waiting for marriage. Both categories are worth mentioning, but I think they should be separate. There's a big difference between someone who never has sex and someone who only has sex while married. -- cowgod14 26 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Am I missing a vital piece of context for the "Reasons for celibacy" section of this article? It seems to me that the most obvious reason for celibacy, and one I would like to add to the list, is:
Blackworm 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider it done. Chris Henniker 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.106 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"The old meaning of this term was "to have sexual intercourse only with one's wife".
Anybody got a source on the "the original meaning of celibacy" quote? The author seems to be describing what's sometimes referred to as "continence". - Ben Brumfield
Exactly. Leaving aside the fact that celibacy is a noun and "to have sexual intercourse only with one's wife" is a verb, I've checked OED and there's no evidence for any such meaning. The original sense was "unmarried" and the current one is "not having sex". Deleted that sentence. Flapdragon 6 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
"To have sexual intercourse only with one's wife" is an infinitive phrase, which serves perfecly well as a noun phrase, as in "To have sexual intercourse only with one's wife is a worse fate than reading Wikipedia." The original sense was "unmarried", and the current sense is "unmarried"; the sense "not having sex" is used out of ignorance by people unfamiliar both with the word "celibacy" and the term "sexually abstinent". The manner in which this article vacillates between these senses without any apparent clue that two senses even exist, or that one of them is colloquial and very recent, is clear warning that this article, frankly, sucks. 71.126.140.52 ( talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a response to Ed poor's post.
I believe that if you take a vow of chastisy you should keep it. It doesn't matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual. There have been a lot of things in the news about Priests sleeping with boys because "It is not against the doctrine" This kinda makes me mad. ( Gothsrus ( talk) 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
Hi. Please see the article history. I removed text added by User_talk:64.252.184.216 which seemed to be a copyright violation from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1906063,00.html - unless of course Time borrowed it from Wikipedia in the first place? DBaK ( talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please see the article history. I removed what appeared to be a long and not entirely encyclopaedic essay from User:Prithviraj chouhan. Please feel free to discuss it here if you think it should be in. Thanks DBaK ( talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not pro Buddhist but since the monastic tradition of Buddhism whether Mahayana or Theravada practiced celibacy for men & women for thousands of years is a good reason to add the Buddhist religion as one of the advocates of celibacy today.-- 121.54.68.114 ( talk) 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article really should cover the health implications of celibacy. It kind of glosses over the health disadvantages. Zodon ( talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently there is an "involuntary celibacy" entry that exceeds the length of this main celibacy entry. By combining entries the main points will be sorted out and lead down the line to stronger interconnected pages on the topic. For now, there appears to be some pages with social focus, others with psychological, some with heavy opinion statements, etc. This main celibacy page is the correct venue to sort through content and potential wikipedia policy violations ( 98.218.218.120 ( talk) 05:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)).
Please correct my point of view if I'm wrong, but I think that the key of celibacy is to avoid civil unions and sexual relationships (not intercourse!). And "abstention from sexual relationships" is correct, but not intercourse.
Maybe it never was. Maybe I'm just dumb. So... just note that. Thank you, 184.163.123.4 ( talk) 02:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have studied the Scriptures at length, and have failed to find the ancient tradition spoke of in this section. I also have found that the reference of "The Resurrection" spoken of by the Messiah may be taken out of context. If you read (it isn't hard to do) you will find that the resurrection is BEFORE judgment, when the Bride of The Elohim is chosen. After Judgment, they will be The Elohim's Bride, in Marriage.
I have also found, that there seems to be an inconsistency with the whole sentence that contains the phrase "celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church but a church rule or discipline." I would like some elaboration and explanation on this, as I thought (as written in
Doctrine), a doctrine is a church rule, law, or
discipline (systematic instruction given to a disciple. i.e. an instruction) which fits into "a body of teachings" or "instructions", as noted by
Doctrine, as well as the fact that each of these "Church Rules" vary from system to system, they could even fit "as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system."
One more thing... I would love to see the passage in the Scriptures that allow the Church to go ahead and Override the Elohim's laws, change the festivals, change the day of rest/worship, and create these "new laws."
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.238.149.253 (
talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I just skimmed through the article. I didn't read the resurrection bit so I'll leave that.
However the discipline vs doctrine question I can probably assist with. I believe what that is expressing is that Catholics don't believe that God requires priests to be celibate. So in that sense it isn't a doctrine. However there was a long history of problems with the call to live as eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven and the rule attempts to address that. Now I haven't looked at the definitions so you might be right but that is the distinction intended when the terms are used (misused).
You obviously like studying the scriptures at length so I invite you to focus on the New Testament to get the answer to your subsequent questions. Skip past the gospels and you will be getting warm. Since you don't use the term Jehovah can I assume you are a seventh day adventist or are you from a smaller group? Most Christians consider it licit to celebrate Christmas, have the Lord's day as our sabbath and organise housekeeping within the Church. If adventists are anything like their JW offshoots your Bible might be tweaked for your belief system. If so you might not find the stuff and I apologise for sending you on a wild goose chase. Yeenar ( talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We read that "In the Roman Catholic Church the apostles were considered the first priests and bishops in the Church and the call to be eunuchs in Matthew 19 referred to above is considered to be a call to be sexually continent. This developed into mandatory celibacy for priests who are believed to be the successors of the apostles." I believe that mandatory celibacy is the order of the day in the RC Church so why is the RC Church state of affairs re this topic not removed from the 'Celebicy' section and instead posted in the Involuntary celibacy section? Eog1916 ( talk) 06:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the Eog comment above. Who is to say that RC priest celibacy is voluntary or involuntary? By saying that the article on "Celibacy" refers to only voluntary celibates and inserting the RC priesthood under this, Wiki seems to be assuming that priests freely choose celibacy not just before ordination but throughout their priesthood. In fact, I know of many priests who left active clerical ministry because they struggled for years as involuntary celibate priests. Can we please improve on this asap; it is highly problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.7.124 ( talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Are people who engage in sexual activity with others at a distance, such as cybersex, sexting and phone sex regarded as celibate if they don't engage in any sexual activity in person with anyone? Does sex chat etc with someone who is miles away from the person mean that the person is not celibate, or does a person have to have actual sex to be not considered celibate? How about a person who chooses to take part in mutual masturbation whilst in the same room with someone, but chooses to never have intercourse - is he celibate? The article should state where the line is drawn to define the threshold of where celibacy begins and ends. 188.28.227.101 ( talk) 18:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Practice of Celibacy There are two things in this world that one should not waste, One is money and the other is semen. Money should not be misused and one should practice Celibacy as much as possible. The ultimate extract of our nourishment is semen and it is dissipated and lost in sex. There are certain nerves in the body that help preserve semen and this in turn protects the body. Therefore, Celibacy should be preserved as much as possible.[38]
Celibacy (Brahmacharya) is the life force of the body (non-self). The ultimate essence of the food we eat and drink is Celibacy. If this essence, Celibacy disappears, then the foundation of the relative self to the Pure Self becomes unstable and loose. And then the exact experience and attainment of the Self becomes very difficult. Therefore, Celibacy is a critical spiritual practice. There is no end to bliss if there is Gnan (Knowledge of the Self) on one side and Celibacy on the other. Then it brings about an unbelievable change. It is because Celibacy is the life force and the essence of the body.[39]
Celibacy should be practiced with understanding. If the fruit of Celibacy is not moksha (Liberation) then,Celibacy is like castration. It will make the body good, strong, and good looking and would live longer. Even a bull becomes strong and healthy.[40]
[edit] The Keys to Practice Celibacy by Dada Bhagwan
• Unflinching determination to practice Celibacy with the support of Dada’s Science. Dada Bhagwan has shown a way to practice Celibacy; one should have the deep inner intent and second the person’s unflinching determination to do so.[41]
• 3 Vision - stops Sexual Vision: Dada Bhagwan’s three vision is exceptional and is a very powerful tool to help conquer Sexual Vision - the first vision is to see him/her without clothes, the second Vision awareness arises when the body is without the Skin and the third Vision is seeing the intestines, the kind the person sees when the stomach is cut open. Visualize the changes that occur within the intestines, see the blood vessels, fecal matter. This will stop sexual impulse arising.[42]
• True Repentance and Introspection to help overcome Sexual Thoughts in Akram Science, this is a practical day to day medicine that helps the person to overcome Sexual thoughts and desires. By doing repentance the person is washing away their thoughts or desires which occurred earlier and that helps further, next time the thoughts become weaker so it’s easier to deal with the situation in front of the person. If the has a thought of Sexuality, if the person throws away the thought within two seconds, then the thought completely disappear.[43]
• The Keys of Celibacy for Married People, This science of Celibacy will liberate anyone, and is applicable to even married people. It is ignorance of the Self that is the obstruction.[44]
• Exclusive Nature Of Celibacy In Akram Science, If the person takes the Knowledge of the Self through the Self Realization process, then to practice Celibacy would be very easy. [45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorajinesh ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Vorajinesh ( talk) 10:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The article insisted that celibacy means not being married and insisted that is wasn't about not having sex. It said that not having sex was "chastity." However, that's not what the page on chastity said. This definition of celibacy goes against how the word is used in the rest of the article and how it is used generally. I changed the definition to "not having sex," and included the less common meaning (that is still in dictionaries, though I've never heard the word used that way) at the end of the introduction. A good discussion of celibacy can be found on http://www.answers.com/celibacy/. Another interesting discussion can be found an article that examines how the word celibacy is used: http://asexystuff.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-celibacy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.131.113 ( talk) 00:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Celibacy is not the same as chastity. To be celibate is to be unmarried. To be chaste is to not have sexual intercourse. (Oxford Universal Dictionary Third Edition: Celibacy - The state of living unmarried. Celibate - Unmarried, single, bound not to marry.) A person can be celibate and still have sex. Lettwoman70
Lettwoman70 is correct. Celibacy refers to ones state in regards to marriage. It does not mean "doesnt't have sex" To my limited knowlege there is no such word in English. The word is associted with that definition because in the Judeo/Christian tradition the married state is the only state in which sexual intercourse is acceptable. Even chastity refers to being true to ones married or unmarried state. Therefore, if one is married one may be said to be chaste if one only has sexual intercourse with one's spouse. I do however recognize that the "no sex" definition may be the more prevalent but this work is supposed to show the facts not what is commonly belived. I changed the definition to reflect this.-- Kjrjr ( talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree and I challenge the person who changed the definition to... 'or not having sex' to find any reference to celibacy meaning 'not having sex' previous to Paris Hilton making the vow in the early 2000s. When Hollywood types like Paris Hilton wanted to make vows against having sex, they mistakenly (or on purpose) used the term for a vow of being unmarried 'celibacy' - because it sounds strange. Had she used the correct term like 'chastity', 'continence' or 'abstinence', she would've been saying 'I'm done being a slut for awhile.' PLEASE let's not have Hollywood morons inform our language! If Paris Hilton had said that she had taken a vow of 'Apocalypse' and other idiots followed her lead - would that be the new definition of Apocalypse? Here is a history of celibacy. You will see that the entire focus is 'marriage' not 'sex'. http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/celhist1.html
Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/101371/celibacy
"Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world."
Please change it back to the CORRECT definition: 'The state of being unmarried'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.82.44 ( talk) 18:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Refererring to this [2] changement: The same IP has repeatedly changed the reasoned and much more detailed statement that celibacy and sexual abstinence are not the same to the meaning that they are the same. Please note: the former statement has been mutally referenced, amongst others by specialist literature.-- Turris Davidica ( talk) 15:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, "repeatedly" means twice. This is also the number of times my changes have been undone by Turris.
First, what is claimed above is false. I did not write that abstinence and celibacy are the same. I wrote that they are similar, but subtly different, reference two online dictionary sources. Here they are for your consideration:
cel·i·ba·cy [sel-uh-buh-see]
1.abstention from sexual relations.
2.abstention by vow from marriage: the celibacy of priests.
3.the state of being unmarried.
(Dictionary.com)
1: the state of not being married
2a: abstention from sexual intercourse b: abstention by vow from marriage
(Merriam Webster)
As can be easily understood from these two independent sources in agreement, "celibacy" refers either to the state of being unmarried or is defined as a subtype of abstinence.
Second, the use of Gabrielle Brown's book is highly inappropriate. It is an opinion and self-help type book, not a reference for defining words. The phrase referenced is "abstinence is a response on the outside to what's going on, and celibacy is a response from the inside". The definition provided, then is "celibacy is a response from the inside" (inside of what? what kind of response? a response to what?) This definition is inaccurate and false.
I don't know if Turris is attempting to change the definition of celibacy or to sell Gabrielle Brown's book, but this section needs to be fixed. You can't have a reasonable discussion of a word without first defining the word accurately. 75.65.34.19 ( talk) 00:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Previously I removed these two links from the article. They were put back in with the request to explain my objections against them:
See
WP:ELYES: What can normally be linked. Number 1 and 2 clearly do not apply. Point 3 says: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article ..."
The links that were added are in no way neutral. They reflect a spiritual teacher's point of view. In spite of the name, there is nothing scientific in the second link "Celibacy with Scientific Understanding". These are "just" teachings. I mean, in which peer-reviewed journal has this "scientific understanding" been published?
See also
WP:ELNO: Links normally to be avoided. Number 4: Links mainly intended to promote a website. The last week or so, these Dada Bhagwan links have showed up at different places in Wikipedia, and you've probably noticed that I have removed a lot of them. I understand that you probably feel deeply about Dada Bhagwan but Wikipedia is not the place to promote him.
Namaste,
Lova Falk
talk 13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we should cover the psychological and/or evolutionary explanation for this behaviour. I'm sure someone must have covered it.. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 03:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This page, Clerical celibacy, Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) for example seem to cover somewhat overlapping topics - is there a better way we could divvy up all of this information, leaving only brief mentions of the related articles, with section hatnotes leading to the proper main articles? AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 09:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose that Sexual abstinence and Chastity be merged into this article, and perhaps add a section describing the etymology and varying uses of the three terms. It does not seem that they are sufficiently different to warrant three articles. As per WP:Merging#Reasons for merger, pages should be merged if "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept." It's hard to argue that these three concepts don't have a large overlap.
Elizabeth Abbott, a historian of celibacy/abstinence/chastity, writes in her book A History of Celibacy (p. 3),
I also drafted a definition of celibacy that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity, and virginity, all of which I used as key words in my research. The fact is that, despite dry, dictionary distinctions, they are, practically, synonymous. (emphasis added)
I agree with this sentiment, except that I think virginity can meaningfully be kept separate.
The reason I think the other two pages should be merged into this one is simply because this one gets more traffic according to this tool. Handcuffed ( talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed the top-of-article tagging, since the merge proposal has clearly failed at this point (as far as the discussions of the last three weeks are concerned). AnonMoos ( talk) 09:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The feminist group Cell 16, founded in 1968 by Roxanne Dunbar, was known for its program of celibacy and separation from men, among other things. [1] [2] Considered too extreme by many mainstream feminists, the organization acted as a sort of hard left vanguard. [3] It has been cited as the first organization to advance the concept of separatist feminism. [2] [4] In No More Fun and Games, the organization's radical feminist periodical, Cell Members Roxanne Dunbar and Lisa Leghorn advised women to "separate from men who are not consciously working for female liberation"
Moved all this into article Feminism. This is the theoretical foundation for lesbian separatism, and has nothing to do with this article. Stop adding it here. Hafspajen ( talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC).
Ok, but the article Feminism deleted it. Maranjosie ( talk) 13:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Did they? Blast. Why? Hafspajen ( talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment by the person who removed it was "Rv recent edits on celibacy as WP:BRD; seems quite UNDUE and FRINGE" 71.175.26.106 ( talk) 13:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Whether or not to recreate the Involuntary celibacy article is up for discussion at WP:Deletion review. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
History
I've noticed a growing trend on Wikipedia which diverges from our initial goals with a dangerous precedence being set. Our goal is to document the world based on verfiability and notability. It is here that we have the right to document the unusual apart from the usual with a neutral point of view. Mainstream acceptance has never been a requirement, while this social phenomenon is unusual to rare there are enough secondary reliable sources to deem it notable. I feel in many ways the previous close was against consensus. We have the term no consensus for a reason such as this case when there is no consensus. The ensuing dispute only emphasizes the lack of consensus.
Upon reviewing the sources, this topic has been covered both academically and by mainstream media including a documented shooting which the perpetrator directly specified incelism as a motivate. I've added an additional six citations to tokyogirl's version the argument that this lacks notability or is not a social condition simply does not hold. I am requesting that the current version be moved to the mainspace. Valoem talk contrib 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It is clear this subject has notability I am seeing significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Published works subject to editorial review is notable, Web MD is notable. There are 15 other sources in the article subject to both peer and editorial review. Prior debates all deletes are revolved around WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:I HAVENTHEARDOFIT. If this subject is not notable I need an explanation as to why. Please breakdown each individual source and compare it to the sources found in celibacy. We do document the unusual, it is as simple as that. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I revised my position on this several times during the DRV. On reviewing what was said there, I'm still of the view that there's an encyclopaedic article to be written here, based on Tokyogirl's draft, but I think the article should be called "Sexual inactivity". I'm now persuaded that we should not have an article called "Involuntary celibacy".— S Marshall T/ C 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:@
Blue Rasberry: Do you have any suggestions what the new name should be?--
Rent A Troop (
talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I oppose restoring this article without a rename. The term "involuntary celibacy" is too contentious and much too much of a distraction, especially since that term is not used by most of the sources cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Valoem, the notability process looks something like this:
Step #1: Decide whether the subject gets its own standalone article. In this case, the answer seems to be "no". (Re-read the lead paragraph at WP:N that begins "This is not a guarantee..." for the relevant "rule".)
Step #2: Following the advice at WP:FAILN guideline, specifically "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages", figure out if there is a "closely related notable article".
Options: This subject has several possible candidates. Given a subject that can be described as "unhappy because he can't get married and/or otherwise find a (voluntary) sexual partner", you could reasonably focus on the "unhappy" part, on the "not married" part, or on the "no sex" part.
In this discussion, different editors have different ideas about the most important focus.
None of these are perfect, and nobody's "wrong" for preferring one over the other. The choice just shows what each person believes is the most important or most unique aspect of the concept. (As a tactical measure, if you really want to see incel mentioned in the mainspace, I'd suggest that you cling to any suggestion for a place to mention it at all, even if you think it isn't the ideal solution.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Spartaz, I am assuming if this version if moved to the main space it well be AfDed again. The previous DRV was closed improperly, of course there is no consensus to allow restoration, but there was also no consensus not to allow restoration. The arguments for this version of the article are vastly stronger than the calls for delete. Anyone with an understand of WP:GNG can see the sources listed pass notability guidelines. In the end this requires AfD not DRV. The close should have always been no consensus, not delete. Also this is an RfC and I am requested comments from established editors with a solid history of neutrality. Per WP:IAR I really don't have a choice in this matter, I can't see how we can be fair and balanced when deletionists naturally canvass each other and I am expected to fight alone. If I ask for any help I get smack with canvassing does that seem reasonable to you. Valoem talk contrib 19:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
*Comment: Strongly urge procedural close of this AFD. This is a bizarre situation which has been mucked up in the process of short stroking. The
User:Valoem put this forth as an RFC, not an AFD (although regrettably included afd in title of RFC). The RFC, which is traditionally a 30-day process, has been converted (by an admin who closed two of the AfDs linked above) bizarrely to an AFD, which is a 7-day process. My reading of the RFC was that the editor was asking if he could (using IAR) bypass the most recent DRV, and use the RFC process to get article restoration in the page's most current form in order to commence a new AFD. Migrating the process to deletion discussion directly has conflated the original discussion with a direct deletion discussion. Arguments above conflate restoration with keep and no restoration with delete; these assertions, while partially connected, are not identical. I'd like to see the RFC run its intended course, then see a AFD unconnected to any other procedure. Previously involved admins (and I'm looking straight at you
User:Coffee) should not take any further administrative actions to either process.
BusterD (
talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who has viewed my edit history knows that my primary objective here is to make sure subjects and topics which pass GNG find their way on to the main space. This is not a subject that I personally suffer from, but one which warrants my interest. Any accusations of fringe pushing is unwarranted. I implore all editors involved in this discussion to look at what we cover here based on WP:GNG:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
In fact this source here from the The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 distinctly differentiates between voluntary and involuntary abstinence. It is incorrect to merge this topic into sexual inactivity or sexual frustration, sources provided all suggest these are different topics. Valoem talk contrib 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: It does still appear that involuntary celibacy is the common name. Valoem talk contrib 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems no doubt that "involuntary celibacy" is a thing. However it is not clearly defined in the sense that we have, for example:
Christian celibacy is voluntary for monks and nuns, but involuntary for all desiring to be priests in the Catholic church. (Introduction to Religious Studies, Harvey J. Sindima, Page 103)
and
..individuals may be limited to a choice between commodified sex and involuntary celibacy... (Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture edited by Martha M. Ertman, Joan C. Williams)
It is fairly clear that while the older, technical, meaning of celibacy may have related to an unmarried state (indeed the 1933 OED admits no other definition), Wiktionary is quite to correct to ascribe a second meaning "2. (by extension) Abstaining from sexual relations."
And moreover, neither of those meanings are inherently either voluntary or religious.
Therefore the material at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy that is not undue, belongs to the article Celibacy, at least in the first instance.
Any additional material (that would constitute WP:UNDUE in Celibacy) relating to the condition known as love-shy belongs in that article, since that is the WP:COMMONNAME of the condition.
Involuntary celibacy should redirect to Celibacy as should voluntary celibacy.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow .
I know that this is a contentious topic, because of the effort to get "incel" into Wikipedia. (I don't really care one way or the other about that; the notability is borderline at best, so it could go either way.)
But, really, guys, the very first source in this article directly says "celibacy is often enforced" sometimes. "Enforced" means exactly the opposite of "voluntary". So, sure, if your notion is celibacy is limited purely to religious celibacy chosen by mature adults, I'm willing to say that it's voluntary. But celibacy isn't limited to that. The very source that allegedly says every dictionary declares that it must be voluntary (it says nothing about any dictionaries) says that the most common meaning is just plain "unmarried" ( "The term is mostly used in the sense of being unmarried". (It's a book entirely about religion, so the fact that it goes into details about the religion-specific use shouldn't be surprising.)
Given these sources, it is simply not true that absolutely every single one of the actually-celibate people on the planet has made a voluntary choice to remain unmarried or not be sexually active. It could be that something else is forcing them to be celibate (exactly like that first source says). If you really think that anyone who isn't married and/or having sex is doing that "by choice", then you should spend a month improving our article on Sexuality and disability. Or Prison sexuality, to give another example of non-voluntary celibacy that's mentioned in the first source. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world.
1. abstention from sexual relations. 2. abstention by vow from marriage. 3. the state of being unmarried. Hafspajen ( talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Editor Rich Farmbrough took it upon himself to redirect voluntary celibacy to celibacy as a way to single-handedly bypass consensus while the issue is still being discussed. I nominated it for speedy deletion until some form of consensus is reached, because it's a first step to redirecting "involuntary celibacy" in a similar way. Mythic Writerlord ( talk) 07:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it has been created again, in yet another form. This is why I stated at Talk:Incels, "Coming from this matter after following MurderByDeadcopy's edit history minutes ago, I see that the article 'Incels' has been created to get around the WP:Consensus formed on this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy. Because of this, I am WP:Pinging Sandstein, who closed the deletion review, and I will be alerting Talk:Celibacy to the existence of this article."
My only problem with the Incels article existing is that it was created to get around WP:Consensus. And let's not forget Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination), which was a few months ago. In that discussion, I supported the existence of that article (though I was more so for a merge). But, alas, WP:Consensus was against that support. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Also WP:Pinging Juliancolton, who closed the third deletion nomination. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've twice removed variations of the mention that " Rahul Krishnan organised workshops on Celibacy and Social Pressure in University of Pennsylvania from 2009-10". The material is being added by Ankit1121 ( talk · contribs). The statement is unsourced, identifying a random person offering the workshops, with no indication that the workshops were any more notable than the hundred or even thousands of other such workshops offered at schools and youth programs elsewhere. I don't see any encyclopedic value offered by the statement. As the material has once more been restored, I'm bringing it to the talkpage for further discussion. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 06:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I'd like to add something about Catholic priests, in terms of both celibacy and chastity. In particular, let's address the issue of homosexual priests. Since Catholicism does not deem homosexality itself sinful, a homosexual ought to be able to take the same vow of chastity (or celibacy?) as any other priest. Is this correct? Ed Poor 17:51, 18 December 2001 (UTC)
Yes - Ben 05:53, 27 April 2002 (UTC)
Not exactly. The recent Vatican document argues that celibacy in the sense of priestly celibacy is not a gift to someone who is homosexual and uninterested in marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the old articles on celibacy and chastity were identical with the last paragraph of the Holy Orders article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)
This looks like as good a place as any to put this:
The Catholic and Orthodox churches holds themselves to Canon 6 of the Council of Trullo in 692, which reads as follows:
"Since it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done." - Ben Brumfield 05:53, 27 April 2002 (UTC)
Thank you for resonding for my call to assistance, AdelaMae and Hideouslywrinkled. Unfortunately, there were some mistakes. The Reformers did not give alternative interpretations of verses cited in favor of celibacy. hey cited verses they thought were against it, and their reasoning belongs in the Humor section (read the verses they cited). If it was people outside the Church thinking married priesthood was a solution, it would not even be mentioned (Catholics do not tell Muslims what colors they should paint their mosques to attract converts). Unfortunately, this opinion is held by many high-rank officials in the Church (but note: the insincere ones). And, as I said previously, "The sectors of the Church where vocations are the highest are those where the Church's teachings are followed, and the sectors where these teachings are not followed have the lowest." The data DOES exist, but I need to find it. JBogdan 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added some reference to celebacy being practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Certainly it is not only practiced within the Christian world - maybe people could expand these areas in order to make the article more ' global' in it's focus. How is it seen in different countries and cultures around the world? 82.163.63.228 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek ( Talk/ Contrib) 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently added a section about History of Celibacy. My additions showed when and who started the tradition of celibacy in Catholic Church.
Why Musical Linguist deleted them?
In my opinion he is downgrading Wikipedia by selectively editing chosen articles to enforce his agenda. The discussion about his other contribution clearly show that.
Please, let the moderator show his clear view and ban Musical Linguist from constant misediting wikipedia pages.
Thank you. User:83.19.104.34
Why did she do it? - Because your edits were downgrading WP by adding false information.
Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The article homosexual celibacy redirects to this page, but this page lacks any mention of celibacy due to reasons involving sexual or gender identity, nor anything of that nature. While it probably can fall into reasons for celibacy, it could potentially be an additional section; I have therefore added an request for expansion. (And please don't suggest that it should go into the homosexuality article instead - that thing is huge already!) - Heartofgoldfish 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest the whole section on religious celibacy is too focused on the Catholic church. Of course it is a major topic of debate and interest within that Church, but surely the subject of the Catholic view of celibacy should be a subset (albeit a substantial one) of a general heading on celibacy due to religious belief, since practitioners of other variants of Christendom (and of other faiths) may also choose celibacy because of their beliefs. 82.153.129.223 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a seperate article on clerical celibacy that I think it would be better for this article to refer users to who are interested in that aspect of celibacy. The whole article needs a re0write and I've started to do a bit of a literature search (this not being my field, it takes days at the library which are few and far between :-). From what I've seen so far, we should have 4 sections on the "whys": religious belief and practice, physical/biological causes; social reasons (including involuntary celibacy); and cultural forces. There has been a request to cover homosexual celibacy (and the article homosexual celibacy points to this article), but from my search so far, homosexual celibacy doesn't seem to be rooted in anything different from hetrosexual celibacy. So I was thinking of incorporating homosexual perspectives throughout the article rather than having a seperate section. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this page should be merged with the entry about 'clerical celibacy'. While the content is partly the same, the entry for 'clerical celibacy' is more detailed, better structured and less biased. I stumbled upon the 'celibacy' entry when I wanted to find out something about the history of celibacy in the catholic church, but all I found was a biased argument why celibacy is a good thing and why all who say otherwise are 'insincere', 'uninformed' or 'humourous' (luckily, the latter two terms have been edited out). Even the external links don't provide information, but only propaganda for clerical celibacy. As you see, I think the 'clerical celibacy' entry is far superiour and this one should link to the other. 80.218.144.173 ( talk) 10:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. An article on "celibacy" that doesn't include clerics is fairly meaningless. Why would anyone care? Merge. A link to "clerical celibacy" is okay in the short run, but merge and delete this article long term. -student- 67.8.201.227 ( talk) 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this article could benefit from a "list of famous celibate people", like the "list of famous..." in other articles such as the one about homosexuality. A rather famous celibate is Paul Erdös, and Friedrich Nietzsche was also one by some accounts.
Good idea.
This article needs a lot of cleanup. I made a start, but a lot more needs to be done. Here's what I see:
-- Shunpiker 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just an idea, but can the medical opinions from this site be made into a new page for "Health Benefits of Celibacy"? www.semenloss.com There are many citations from doctors. Unfornuately some of the sources are only from the work of Dr. Bernard. But many of the sources are from the original author's directly. As108 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This article lacks pictures. How about someone introducing a picture of a couple not engaging in sexual behavior before marriage. Perhaps a shot of people walking down a street, eating some ice-cream or having sexual intercourse. Oops - not that one :-) - Bennyboyz3000 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is very lopsided; more than half of it touches on the Christian aspect of celibacy. The practical and secular forms of celibacy (such as the involuntary celibacy experienced by professed nerds) are mentioned in the opening, but largely ignored by the rest of the article. Even the section which deals with reasons for celibacy makes a highly biased statement on celibacy by quoting the Apostle Paul verbatim at the end. I'm not sure how we could rebalance the article, because celibacy is usually associated with religion in the first place, but a good start might be to focus more on celibacy in non-Christian religions and the secular celibate. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the Shakers (distinct from the Quakers) should also be mentioned. They have practically died out as a sect because of celibacy and a failure to win converts. Ranthlee 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added the Islam section, with myself being a muslim and already knowing alot about celibacy in Islam.
I have researched alot about it before putting the info in, and have tried to make it as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.25.71 ( talk) 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. Jjdon ( talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The article read like this "An inability to find a sexual partner that one finds acceptable or tolerable" with a link to involuntary Celibacy. Involuntary Celibacy is if a person is unable to find a sexual partner. If one can find a sexual partner but refuse their Celibacy is not Involuntary it is due to their choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris smith jones ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I was reading this article and I noticed that one possible reason for celibacy is missing. It is the reason I have chosen to become a celibate: I have a mental disorder that many people are trying to cure (I won't mention which one because it's not relevant in this context), and I have become a celibate so that I cannot have children and therefore cannot contribute to the continuation of this mental disorder's gene.
What I'm saying is, do enough people become celibates for the reason that they cannot reproduce and therefore not give their unborn children undesirable genetic qualities (like defects, mental disorders, ect.)? If so, would this be worth putting on this article? Pippin the Mercury ( talk) 00:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a good thing to add, but you've got to find an article or something that mentions this so that you have a citation. Cowgod14 ( talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I added two very well known celibates, Jessica Simpson (took a vow of celibacy at 12 and remain a virgin until her marriage to Nick Lashey) and Britney Spears (famous for her celibacy as a teen) and they were removed without reason. Apparently these were not celibates as they were in their young 20s. I don't believe to be any sort of valid reason for a vow of celibacy to be valid, especially considering Jessica and Britney took a "vow of Celibacy" which is what the article is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Celibacy is defined as referring to be being either unmarried or to sexual abstinence., the cases mentioned cover both in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Siobhan - I can surely confirm that no, I'm not reading that as an either one or the other case, I'm using the exact definition given. Jessica Simpson in her case took a vow of celibacy, it doesn't get any clearer or more defined than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.81.125 ( talk) 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I am removing again the names of actress Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears a very-well know whore. Get married as a virgin do not implies celibacy. My grandmother and my mother and millions of peoples engaged in their weddings in virgin state, due this was be a cultural ethics. Don't be stupid your moron. Rodrigo Zauli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.161.228 ( talk) 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To the Wikipedia Team: Can we discard the above immature comments? I've re-applied the names Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.81.125 ( talk) 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with discarding the stupid/moron comment, though I think the rest of what he said was fine. How about having 2 separate sublists? One list could be for people who are permanently celibate, and the other list could be for people who are only waiting for marriage. Both categories are worth mentioning, but I think they should be separate. There's a big difference between someone who never has sex and someone who only has sex while married. -- cowgod14 26 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Am I missing a vital piece of context for the "Reasons for celibacy" section of this article? It seems to me that the most obvious reason for celibacy, and one I would like to add to the list, is:
Blackworm 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider it done. Chris Henniker 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.106 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"The old meaning of this term was "to have sexual intercourse only with one's wife".
Anybody got a source on the "the original meaning of celibacy" quote? The author seems to be describing what's sometimes referred to as "continence". - Ben Brumfield
Exactly. Leaving aside the fact that celibacy is a noun and "to have sexual intercourse only with one's wife" is a verb, I've checked OED and there's no evidence for any such meaning. The original sense was "unmarried" and the current one is "not having sex". Deleted that sentence. Flapdragon 6 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
"To have sexual intercourse only with one's wife" is an infinitive phrase, which serves perfecly well as a noun phrase, as in "To have sexual intercourse only with one's wife is a worse fate than reading Wikipedia." The original sense was "unmarried", and the current sense is "unmarried"; the sense "not having sex" is used out of ignorance by people unfamiliar both with the word "celibacy" and the term "sexually abstinent". The manner in which this article vacillates between these senses without any apparent clue that two senses even exist, or that one of them is colloquial and very recent, is clear warning that this article, frankly, sucks. 71.126.140.52 ( talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a response to Ed poor's post.
I believe that if you take a vow of chastisy you should keep it. It doesn't matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual. There have been a lot of things in the news about Priests sleeping with boys because "It is not against the doctrine" This kinda makes me mad. ( Gothsrus ( talk) 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
Hi. Please see the article history. I removed text added by User_talk:64.252.184.216 which seemed to be a copyright violation from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1906063,00.html - unless of course Time borrowed it from Wikipedia in the first place? DBaK ( talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please see the article history. I removed what appeared to be a long and not entirely encyclopaedic essay from User:Prithviraj chouhan. Please feel free to discuss it here if you think it should be in. Thanks DBaK ( talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not pro Buddhist but since the monastic tradition of Buddhism whether Mahayana or Theravada practiced celibacy for men & women for thousands of years is a good reason to add the Buddhist religion as one of the advocates of celibacy today.-- 121.54.68.114 ( talk) 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article really should cover the health implications of celibacy. It kind of glosses over the health disadvantages. Zodon ( talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently there is an "involuntary celibacy" entry that exceeds the length of this main celibacy entry. By combining entries the main points will be sorted out and lead down the line to stronger interconnected pages on the topic. For now, there appears to be some pages with social focus, others with psychological, some with heavy opinion statements, etc. This main celibacy page is the correct venue to sort through content and potential wikipedia policy violations ( 98.218.218.120 ( talk) 05:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)).
Please correct my point of view if I'm wrong, but I think that the key of celibacy is to avoid civil unions and sexual relationships (not intercourse!). And "abstention from sexual relationships" is correct, but not intercourse.
Maybe it never was. Maybe I'm just dumb. So... just note that. Thank you, 184.163.123.4 ( talk) 02:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have studied the Scriptures at length, and have failed to find the ancient tradition spoke of in this section. I also have found that the reference of "The Resurrection" spoken of by the Messiah may be taken out of context. If you read (it isn't hard to do) you will find that the resurrection is BEFORE judgment, when the Bride of The Elohim is chosen. After Judgment, they will be The Elohim's Bride, in Marriage.
I have also found, that there seems to be an inconsistency with the whole sentence that contains the phrase "celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church but a church rule or discipline." I would like some elaboration and explanation on this, as I thought (as written in
Doctrine), a doctrine is a church rule, law, or
discipline (systematic instruction given to a disciple. i.e. an instruction) which fits into "a body of teachings" or "instructions", as noted by
Doctrine, as well as the fact that each of these "Church Rules" vary from system to system, they could even fit "as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system."
One more thing... I would love to see the passage in the Scriptures that allow the Church to go ahead and Override the Elohim's laws, change the festivals, change the day of rest/worship, and create these "new laws."
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.238.149.253 (
talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I just skimmed through the article. I didn't read the resurrection bit so I'll leave that.
However the discipline vs doctrine question I can probably assist with. I believe what that is expressing is that Catholics don't believe that God requires priests to be celibate. So in that sense it isn't a doctrine. However there was a long history of problems with the call to live as eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven and the rule attempts to address that. Now I haven't looked at the definitions so you might be right but that is the distinction intended when the terms are used (misused).
You obviously like studying the scriptures at length so I invite you to focus on the New Testament to get the answer to your subsequent questions. Skip past the gospels and you will be getting warm. Since you don't use the term Jehovah can I assume you are a seventh day adventist or are you from a smaller group? Most Christians consider it licit to celebrate Christmas, have the Lord's day as our sabbath and organise housekeeping within the Church. If adventists are anything like their JW offshoots your Bible might be tweaked for your belief system. If so you might not find the stuff and I apologise for sending you on a wild goose chase. Yeenar ( talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We read that "In the Roman Catholic Church the apostles were considered the first priests and bishops in the Church and the call to be eunuchs in Matthew 19 referred to above is considered to be a call to be sexually continent. This developed into mandatory celibacy for priests who are believed to be the successors of the apostles." I believe that mandatory celibacy is the order of the day in the RC Church so why is the RC Church state of affairs re this topic not removed from the 'Celebicy' section and instead posted in the Involuntary celibacy section? Eog1916 ( talk) 06:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the Eog comment above. Who is to say that RC priest celibacy is voluntary or involuntary? By saying that the article on "Celibacy" refers to only voluntary celibates and inserting the RC priesthood under this, Wiki seems to be assuming that priests freely choose celibacy not just before ordination but throughout their priesthood. In fact, I know of many priests who left active clerical ministry because they struggled for years as involuntary celibate priests. Can we please improve on this asap; it is highly problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.7.124 ( talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Are people who engage in sexual activity with others at a distance, such as cybersex, sexting and phone sex regarded as celibate if they don't engage in any sexual activity in person with anyone? Does sex chat etc with someone who is miles away from the person mean that the person is not celibate, or does a person have to have actual sex to be not considered celibate? How about a person who chooses to take part in mutual masturbation whilst in the same room with someone, but chooses to never have intercourse - is he celibate? The article should state where the line is drawn to define the threshold of where celibacy begins and ends. 188.28.227.101 ( talk) 18:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Practice of Celibacy There are two things in this world that one should not waste, One is money and the other is semen. Money should not be misused and one should practice Celibacy as much as possible. The ultimate extract of our nourishment is semen and it is dissipated and lost in sex. There are certain nerves in the body that help preserve semen and this in turn protects the body. Therefore, Celibacy should be preserved as much as possible.[38]
Celibacy (Brahmacharya) is the life force of the body (non-self). The ultimate essence of the food we eat and drink is Celibacy. If this essence, Celibacy disappears, then the foundation of the relative self to the Pure Self becomes unstable and loose. And then the exact experience and attainment of the Self becomes very difficult. Therefore, Celibacy is a critical spiritual practice. There is no end to bliss if there is Gnan (Knowledge of the Self) on one side and Celibacy on the other. Then it brings about an unbelievable change. It is because Celibacy is the life force and the essence of the body.[39]
Celibacy should be practiced with understanding. If the fruit of Celibacy is not moksha (Liberation) then,Celibacy is like castration. It will make the body good, strong, and good looking and would live longer. Even a bull becomes strong and healthy.[40]
[edit] The Keys to Practice Celibacy by Dada Bhagwan
• Unflinching determination to practice Celibacy with the support of Dada’s Science. Dada Bhagwan has shown a way to practice Celibacy; one should have the deep inner intent and second the person’s unflinching determination to do so.[41]
• 3 Vision - stops Sexual Vision: Dada Bhagwan’s three vision is exceptional and is a very powerful tool to help conquer Sexual Vision - the first vision is to see him/her without clothes, the second Vision awareness arises when the body is without the Skin and the third Vision is seeing the intestines, the kind the person sees when the stomach is cut open. Visualize the changes that occur within the intestines, see the blood vessels, fecal matter. This will stop sexual impulse arising.[42]
• True Repentance and Introspection to help overcome Sexual Thoughts in Akram Science, this is a practical day to day medicine that helps the person to overcome Sexual thoughts and desires. By doing repentance the person is washing away their thoughts or desires which occurred earlier and that helps further, next time the thoughts become weaker so it’s easier to deal with the situation in front of the person. If the has a thought of Sexuality, if the person throws away the thought within two seconds, then the thought completely disappear.[43]
• The Keys of Celibacy for Married People, This science of Celibacy will liberate anyone, and is applicable to even married people. It is ignorance of the Self that is the obstruction.[44]
• Exclusive Nature Of Celibacy In Akram Science, If the person takes the Knowledge of the Self through the Self Realization process, then to practice Celibacy would be very easy. [45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorajinesh ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Vorajinesh ( talk) 10:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The article insisted that celibacy means not being married and insisted that is wasn't about not having sex. It said that not having sex was "chastity." However, that's not what the page on chastity said. This definition of celibacy goes against how the word is used in the rest of the article and how it is used generally. I changed the definition to "not having sex," and included the less common meaning (that is still in dictionaries, though I've never heard the word used that way) at the end of the introduction. A good discussion of celibacy can be found on http://www.answers.com/celibacy/. Another interesting discussion can be found an article that examines how the word celibacy is used: http://asexystuff.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-celibacy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.131.113 ( talk) 00:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Celibacy is not the same as chastity. To be celibate is to be unmarried. To be chaste is to not have sexual intercourse. (Oxford Universal Dictionary Third Edition: Celibacy - The state of living unmarried. Celibate - Unmarried, single, bound not to marry.) A person can be celibate and still have sex. Lettwoman70
Lettwoman70 is correct. Celibacy refers to ones state in regards to marriage. It does not mean "doesnt't have sex" To my limited knowlege there is no such word in English. The word is associted with that definition because in the Judeo/Christian tradition the married state is the only state in which sexual intercourse is acceptable. Even chastity refers to being true to ones married or unmarried state. Therefore, if one is married one may be said to be chaste if one only has sexual intercourse with one's spouse. I do however recognize that the "no sex" definition may be the more prevalent but this work is supposed to show the facts not what is commonly belived. I changed the definition to reflect this.-- Kjrjr ( talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree and I challenge the person who changed the definition to... 'or not having sex' to find any reference to celibacy meaning 'not having sex' previous to Paris Hilton making the vow in the early 2000s. When Hollywood types like Paris Hilton wanted to make vows against having sex, they mistakenly (or on purpose) used the term for a vow of being unmarried 'celibacy' - because it sounds strange. Had she used the correct term like 'chastity', 'continence' or 'abstinence', she would've been saying 'I'm done being a slut for awhile.' PLEASE let's not have Hollywood morons inform our language! If Paris Hilton had said that she had taken a vow of 'Apocalypse' and other idiots followed her lead - would that be the new definition of Apocalypse? Here is a history of celibacy. You will see that the entire focus is 'marriage' not 'sex'. http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/celhist1.html
Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/101371/celibacy
"Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world."
Please change it back to the CORRECT definition: 'The state of being unmarried'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.82.44 ( talk) 18:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Refererring to this [2] changement: The same IP has repeatedly changed the reasoned and much more detailed statement that celibacy and sexual abstinence are not the same to the meaning that they are the same. Please note: the former statement has been mutally referenced, amongst others by specialist literature.-- Turris Davidica ( talk) 15:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, "repeatedly" means twice. This is also the number of times my changes have been undone by Turris.
First, what is claimed above is false. I did not write that abstinence and celibacy are the same. I wrote that they are similar, but subtly different, reference two online dictionary sources. Here they are for your consideration:
cel·i·ba·cy [sel-uh-buh-see]
1.abstention from sexual relations.
2.abstention by vow from marriage: the celibacy of priests.
3.the state of being unmarried.
(Dictionary.com)
1: the state of not being married
2a: abstention from sexual intercourse b: abstention by vow from marriage
(Merriam Webster)
As can be easily understood from these two independent sources in agreement, "celibacy" refers either to the state of being unmarried or is defined as a subtype of abstinence.
Second, the use of Gabrielle Brown's book is highly inappropriate. It is an opinion and self-help type book, not a reference for defining words. The phrase referenced is "abstinence is a response on the outside to what's going on, and celibacy is a response from the inside". The definition provided, then is "celibacy is a response from the inside" (inside of what? what kind of response? a response to what?) This definition is inaccurate and false.
I don't know if Turris is attempting to change the definition of celibacy or to sell Gabrielle Brown's book, but this section needs to be fixed. You can't have a reasonable discussion of a word without first defining the word accurately. 75.65.34.19 ( talk) 00:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Previously I removed these two links from the article. They were put back in with the request to explain my objections against them:
See
WP:ELYES: What can normally be linked. Number 1 and 2 clearly do not apply. Point 3 says: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article ..."
The links that were added are in no way neutral. They reflect a spiritual teacher's point of view. In spite of the name, there is nothing scientific in the second link "Celibacy with Scientific Understanding". These are "just" teachings. I mean, in which peer-reviewed journal has this "scientific understanding" been published?
See also
WP:ELNO: Links normally to be avoided. Number 4: Links mainly intended to promote a website. The last week or so, these Dada Bhagwan links have showed up at different places in Wikipedia, and you've probably noticed that I have removed a lot of them. I understand that you probably feel deeply about Dada Bhagwan but Wikipedia is not the place to promote him.
Namaste,
Lova Falk
talk 13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we should cover the psychological and/or evolutionary explanation for this behaviour. I'm sure someone must have covered it.. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 03:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This page, Clerical celibacy, Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) for example seem to cover somewhat overlapping topics - is there a better way we could divvy up all of this information, leaving only brief mentions of the related articles, with section hatnotes leading to the proper main articles? AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 09:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I propose that Sexual abstinence and Chastity be merged into this article, and perhaps add a section describing the etymology and varying uses of the three terms. It does not seem that they are sufficiently different to warrant three articles. As per WP:Merging#Reasons for merger, pages should be merged if "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept." It's hard to argue that these three concepts don't have a large overlap.
Elizabeth Abbott, a historian of celibacy/abstinence/chastity, writes in her book A History of Celibacy (p. 3),
I also drafted a definition of celibacy that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity, and virginity, all of which I used as key words in my research. The fact is that, despite dry, dictionary distinctions, they are, practically, synonymous. (emphasis added)
I agree with this sentiment, except that I think virginity can meaningfully be kept separate.
The reason I think the other two pages should be merged into this one is simply because this one gets more traffic according to this tool. Handcuffed ( talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed the top-of-article tagging, since the merge proposal has clearly failed at this point (as far as the discussions of the last three weeks are concerned). AnonMoos ( talk) 09:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The feminist group Cell 16, founded in 1968 by Roxanne Dunbar, was known for its program of celibacy and separation from men, among other things. [1] [2] Considered too extreme by many mainstream feminists, the organization acted as a sort of hard left vanguard. [3] It has been cited as the first organization to advance the concept of separatist feminism. [2] [4] In No More Fun and Games, the organization's radical feminist periodical, Cell Members Roxanne Dunbar and Lisa Leghorn advised women to "separate from men who are not consciously working for female liberation"
Moved all this into article Feminism. This is the theoretical foundation for lesbian separatism, and has nothing to do with this article. Stop adding it here. Hafspajen ( talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC).
Ok, but the article Feminism deleted it. Maranjosie ( talk) 13:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Did they? Blast. Why? Hafspajen ( talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment by the person who removed it was "Rv recent edits on celibacy as WP:BRD; seems quite UNDUE and FRINGE" 71.175.26.106 ( talk) 13:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Whether or not to recreate the Involuntary celibacy article is up for discussion at WP:Deletion review. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
History
I've noticed a growing trend on Wikipedia which diverges from our initial goals with a dangerous precedence being set. Our goal is to document the world based on verfiability and notability. It is here that we have the right to document the unusual apart from the usual with a neutral point of view. Mainstream acceptance has never been a requirement, while this social phenomenon is unusual to rare there are enough secondary reliable sources to deem it notable. I feel in many ways the previous close was against consensus. We have the term no consensus for a reason such as this case when there is no consensus. The ensuing dispute only emphasizes the lack of consensus.
Upon reviewing the sources, this topic has been covered both academically and by mainstream media including a documented shooting which the perpetrator directly specified incelism as a motivate. I've added an additional six citations to tokyogirl's version the argument that this lacks notability or is not a social condition simply does not hold. I am requesting that the current version be moved to the mainspace. Valoem talk contrib 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It is clear this subject has notability I am seeing significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Published works subject to editorial review is notable, Web MD is notable. There are 15 other sources in the article subject to both peer and editorial review. Prior debates all deletes are revolved around WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:I HAVENTHEARDOFIT. If this subject is not notable I need an explanation as to why. Please breakdown each individual source and compare it to the sources found in celibacy. We do document the unusual, it is as simple as that. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I revised my position on this several times during the DRV. On reviewing what was said there, I'm still of the view that there's an encyclopaedic article to be written here, based on Tokyogirl's draft, but I think the article should be called "Sexual inactivity". I'm now persuaded that we should not have an article called "Involuntary celibacy".— S Marshall T/ C 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:@
Blue Rasberry: Do you have any suggestions what the new name should be?--
Rent A Troop (
talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I oppose restoring this article without a rename. The term "involuntary celibacy" is too contentious and much too much of a distraction, especially since that term is not used by most of the sources cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Valoem, the notability process looks something like this:
Step #1: Decide whether the subject gets its own standalone article. In this case, the answer seems to be "no". (Re-read the lead paragraph at WP:N that begins "This is not a guarantee..." for the relevant "rule".)
Step #2: Following the advice at WP:FAILN guideline, specifically "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages", figure out if there is a "closely related notable article".
Options: This subject has several possible candidates. Given a subject that can be described as "unhappy because he can't get married and/or otherwise find a (voluntary) sexual partner", you could reasonably focus on the "unhappy" part, on the "not married" part, or on the "no sex" part.
In this discussion, different editors have different ideas about the most important focus.
None of these are perfect, and nobody's "wrong" for preferring one over the other. The choice just shows what each person believes is the most important or most unique aspect of the concept. (As a tactical measure, if you really want to see incel mentioned in the mainspace, I'd suggest that you cling to any suggestion for a place to mention it at all, even if you think it isn't the ideal solution.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Spartaz, I am assuming if this version if moved to the main space it well be AfDed again. The previous DRV was closed improperly, of course there is no consensus to allow restoration, but there was also no consensus not to allow restoration. The arguments for this version of the article are vastly stronger than the calls for delete. Anyone with an understand of WP:GNG can see the sources listed pass notability guidelines. In the end this requires AfD not DRV. The close should have always been no consensus, not delete. Also this is an RfC and I am requested comments from established editors with a solid history of neutrality. Per WP:IAR I really don't have a choice in this matter, I can't see how we can be fair and balanced when deletionists naturally canvass each other and I am expected to fight alone. If I ask for any help I get smack with canvassing does that seem reasonable to you. Valoem talk contrib 19:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
*Comment: Strongly urge procedural close of this AFD. This is a bizarre situation which has been mucked up in the process of short stroking. The
User:Valoem put this forth as an RFC, not an AFD (although regrettably included afd in title of RFC). The RFC, which is traditionally a 30-day process, has been converted (by an admin who closed two of the AfDs linked above) bizarrely to an AFD, which is a 7-day process. My reading of the RFC was that the editor was asking if he could (using IAR) bypass the most recent DRV, and use the RFC process to get article restoration in the page's most current form in order to commence a new AFD. Migrating the process to deletion discussion directly has conflated the original discussion with a direct deletion discussion. Arguments above conflate restoration with keep and no restoration with delete; these assertions, while partially connected, are not identical. I'd like to see the RFC run its intended course, then see a AFD unconnected to any other procedure. Previously involved admins (and I'm looking straight at you
User:Coffee) should not take any further administrative actions to either process.
BusterD (
talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who has viewed my edit history knows that my primary objective here is to make sure subjects and topics which pass GNG find their way on to the main space. This is not a subject that I personally suffer from, but one which warrants my interest. Any accusations of fringe pushing is unwarranted. I implore all editors involved in this discussion to look at what we cover here based on WP:GNG:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
In fact this source here from the The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 distinctly differentiates between voluntary and involuntary abstinence. It is incorrect to merge this topic into sexual inactivity or sexual frustration, sources provided all suggest these are different topics. Valoem talk contrib 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: It does still appear that involuntary celibacy is the common name. Valoem talk contrib 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems no doubt that "involuntary celibacy" is a thing. However it is not clearly defined in the sense that we have, for example:
Christian celibacy is voluntary for monks and nuns, but involuntary for all desiring to be priests in the Catholic church. (Introduction to Religious Studies, Harvey J. Sindima, Page 103)
and
..individuals may be limited to a choice between commodified sex and involuntary celibacy... (Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture edited by Martha M. Ertman, Joan C. Williams)
It is fairly clear that while the older, technical, meaning of celibacy may have related to an unmarried state (indeed the 1933 OED admits no other definition), Wiktionary is quite to correct to ascribe a second meaning "2. (by extension) Abstaining from sexual relations."
And moreover, neither of those meanings are inherently either voluntary or religious.
Therefore the material at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy that is not undue, belongs to the article Celibacy, at least in the first instance.
Any additional material (that would constitute WP:UNDUE in Celibacy) relating to the condition known as love-shy belongs in that article, since that is the WP:COMMONNAME of the condition.
Involuntary celibacy should redirect to Celibacy as should voluntary celibacy.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow .
I know that this is a contentious topic, because of the effort to get "incel" into Wikipedia. (I don't really care one way or the other about that; the notability is borderline at best, so it could go either way.)
But, really, guys, the very first source in this article directly says "celibacy is often enforced" sometimes. "Enforced" means exactly the opposite of "voluntary". So, sure, if your notion is celibacy is limited purely to religious celibacy chosen by mature adults, I'm willing to say that it's voluntary. But celibacy isn't limited to that. The very source that allegedly says every dictionary declares that it must be voluntary (it says nothing about any dictionaries) says that the most common meaning is just plain "unmarried" ( "The term is mostly used in the sense of being unmarried". (It's a book entirely about religion, so the fact that it goes into details about the religion-specific use shouldn't be surprising.)
Given these sources, it is simply not true that absolutely every single one of the actually-celibate people on the planet has made a voluntary choice to remain unmarried or not be sexually active. It could be that something else is forcing them to be celibate (exactly like that first source says). If you really think that anyone who isn't married and/or having sex is doing that "by choice", then you should spend a month improving our article on Sexuality and disability. Or Prison sexuality, to give another example of non-voluntary celibacy that's mentioned in the first source. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world.
1. abstention from sexual relations. 2. abstention by vow from marriage. 3. the state of being unmarried. Hafspajen ( talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Editor Rich Farmbrough took it upon himself to redirect voluntary celibacy to celibacy as a way to single-handedly bypass consensus while the issue is still being discussed. I nominated it for speedy deletion until some form of consensus is reached, because it's a first step to redirecting "involuntary celibacy" in a similar way. Mythic Writerlord ( talk) 07:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it has been created again, in yet another form. This is why I stated at Talk:Incels, "Coming from this matter after following MurderByDeadcopy's edit history minutes ago, I see that the article 'Incels' has been created to get around the WP:Consensus formed on this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy. Because of this, I am WP:Pinging Sandstein, who closed the deletion review, and I will be alerting Talk:Celibacy to the existence of this article."
My only problem with the Incels article existing is that it was created to get around WP:Consensus. And let's not forget Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination), which was a few months ago. In that discussion, I supported the existence of that article (though I was more so for a merge). But, alas, WP:Consensus was against that support. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Also WP:Pinging Juliancolton, who closed the third deletion nomination. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've twice removed variations of the mention that " Rahul Krishnan organised workshops on Celibacy and Social Pressure in University of Pennsylvania from 2009-10". The material is being added by Ankit1121 ( talk · contribs). The statement is unsourced, identifying a random person offering the workshops, with no indication that the workshops were any more notable than the hundred or even thousands of other such workshops offered at schools and youth programs elsewhere. I don't see any encyclopedic value offered by the statement. As the material has once more been restored, I'm bringing it to the talkpage for further discussion. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 06:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)