Talk:Antisexualism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such substances reduces sexual drive drastically. But they don't make it disapear entiarly unless the person allready have a low leveal of sex drive. The use of antiandrogens is called chemical castration. In other words it reduces fretrility as much as sexual drive, if it does not make the person entiarly sterile which might well be the case. We have a long way to go before we can take away sex drive without reproductional consequences.

2007-03-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Oops, I wrote as if antiandrogens had the same effect on sexual drive in both sexes! Women produce much less androgens than men. But I have no reason to believe that women on average have much less sexual drive. Consequently, antiandrogens don’t reduce women’s sexual drive to the same degree. Something transwomen are quite happy for.

2007-03-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.


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

Wikipedia is not taking a position on the matter, but just summarizing the arguments used by the advocates. Though this is not particularly the place for a debate on polygamy, those who called it "destructive" might have been referring to the fact that in the real world polygamy all too often becomes a matter of old men marrying off their teenage daughters to each other (without too much respect for the wishes of the girls involved). AnonMoos 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
the article was not making clear that destructiveness is merely an opinion of those who oppose polygamy. plus you seem to be holding some kind of false misconception about polygamy, that is arranged marriage (and is even that really such a bad thing? others would disagree). polygamy and arranged marriages do NOT go automatically hand in hand. rather you are thinking of various random outlier sects and cults. Mathmo 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguements against

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

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

I think a list with counter-arguments would be very suitable since at several of their opinions is contrary to human nature. Sure, there is much variation in human sexuality, but most of this variation is shown by a minority of people. The sexual pattern of the majority have served humanity well during our 200,000 years of existence. This includes hidden ovulation every three to five weeks, constant sexual drive, long term (not necessary lifelong) couples, and the joy of consensual sexual activities. All those traits are at least partly hereditary. The idea that sex don’t have to be fun probably originated as way for Christian clergy and monastery to rationalise their own celibacy. Originally being the ultimate sacrifice celibacy had become the norm. Complete celibacy (not even masturbation) will always be a drawback unless the person is asexual. I have made a thought experiment about how human sexuality would have been if our ancestors only had sex for getting children. It goes about like this:

“Women get ovulation once every four years. They are compleatly aware of it and even publicly announce it by emitting a especially sexy scent. A woman’s all male friends, neighbours and colleagues compete for having sex with her. The winner chose by the woman have sex with her only once. If they don’t use any contraception she will almost always become pregnant. The father-to-be stays with her and helps to support her until she stops breastfeeding. (In hunter-gatherers this coincide with the time when the child can keep the adult’s walking pace.) Soon after that she will get a new ovulation. The father of the first child have to compete with other men to concept her once more.” This is ONLY a idea of how it would have been IF our evolutionary history had been different.

Antisexualists point out that sex release drug-like substances in the brain. But he same substances are released by eating good food or getting praised. Yet nobody claims that food should be unappetising or that you should never praise anybody! In fact, this system evolved to reward us with pleasure only when we do things that we profit from in evolutionary terms. Don’t accuse me for being racist! Humans shows extremely little genetical variation for such a numerous species: “races” in the biological sense don’t exist. 2007-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

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

It is my informed view. I wrote my contributation in indignation over people having such dysfunctional ideas. However, I think a list of more or less scientific counter-arguments would be very suitable.

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t like when extreme ideas are presented without any counter-arguments. The followers might come with “factual” arguments which are simply wrong. One example is a Swedish Nazi who claimed that there where one million Muslims in Sweden living on welfare. In reality Sweden have 250 thousand Muslim inhabitants and nobody knows how many live on welfare. Other examples of extreme ideas are Communism, Fascism and religious fundamentalism.

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

In the case of the Swedish Nazi, that person is just factually wrong. For antisexuals, the arguments section just has facts that cause them to have the opinions they do. What their arguing is why they want to be antisexuals, not that there is a specific number of antisexuals in the world or in a certain country. Remember, we have to follow NPOV and presenting reasons why you think antisexualism is wrong violates this rule. Antisexualism doesn't make any claims in itself, individuals who are antisexual are opposed to sexuality. If there are any specific arguments you want to put there, we can discuss them here first, but saying it's "extreme" is your own point of view and violates the NPOV rule. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have thoughtfully checked their arguments again. Here comes my criticism:

1. “Sexuality asserts itself in the human mind by releasing neurochemicals comparable to addictive drugs into the brain.” This is true but misleading. The brain have a system of reward to motivate us to do things we benefit from in evolutionary terms. Most addictive drugs mimic the function of the neurochemicals involved giving us pleasure without effort. However, the simularities can help explaining why some people becomes addicted to sex.

2. “Sexuality can lead to discrimination, based on perceptions of sexual immorality and intolerance of certain sexual preferences.” It such caces it is the INTOLERANCE that is the problem. If all harmless sexual activities where accepted the problem would disappear.

3. “Sexual desires could be false assumptions that are foisted on you by society...” Sexual drive is NOT a social construct: it exist as a genuine feeling towards other people! If you doubt that you might as well doubt that hunger is genuine feeling.

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

5. “Some antisexualists see a link between unrestricted reproduction, resource depletion and environmental decay.” This is an outdated idea reminding me of Thomas Robert Malthus. With widespead use of contraceptives and an intension to have few children the supposed link breaks down.

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

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

The problem with the article is that it is not very clear. Origen and Ann Lee did not believe that everyone should be castrated or celibate. The point is, there is a difference between describing as a social movement a particular group of people or trend that is distinct from others, and a group of people who are trying to change their entire society). Since Origen and Ann Lee were not trying to tell others to change the way they lived, nor were they making scientific arguments, it is unsurprising that few people have written critiques of their positions. Be that as it may, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or chatroom. Lena, you are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia but you must follow our policies such as WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
However, Origen and Ann Lee viewed celibacy as the ethically and religiously highest calling, and Origen was part of that Quasi-Gnostic-Ascetic current of opinion of the early centuries A.D. which regarded marriage as an extremely poor second-best to celibacy from a spiritual point of view. As the article says, before the modern period you had prosyletizing antisexual religions, while now you also have a secular social reform reform movement which seeks to gain support for itself. Otherwise, I'm not sure I see the great differences which you're implying. AnonMoos 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well in terms of my point about social movements, the question I would think is, did they see themselves as part of a movement to change all of society so that everyone lives according to their views? Some social movements do just this: in the US, for example, the Civil Rights movements changed the way both Blacks and Whites lived. I think there is an important distinction between a person or group fo people who try to create a voluntaristic community of like-minded people who share a particular path to (God, truth, self-actualization) versus a movement that seeks to change the way all people live. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not verified tag

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

We can only report what the antisexualists have said about themselves and their views, in those places where they happen to have expressed those views. What is your plan to get around such limitations? Do you have any concrete suggestions to offer. AnonMoos 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
To explain myself more specifically, while anti-sexualist religions or religious tendencies have existed for a long time, and there have probably always been individuals with anti-sexualist views, it seems that anti-sexualist individuals not tied to one specific religion only sought each other out and formed a comunity during the Internet age. Therefore many of the sources on non-religion-specific anti-sexualist advocacy will necessarily be Internet sources. AnonMoos 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Antisexualist list (Hodgkinson)

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

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

[edit] Antisexualist list (castration)

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

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

[edit] Polygamy?

How is polygamy "destructive"? It doesn't fit in with sadism and unsafe sex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ Craig (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Did you notice the discussion of that very point directly above? AnonMoos 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
From the article, "Some of the claims made by antisexuals include..." Actually I should change this to, "Some antisexuals claims..." instead, but, as AnonMoos said, it isn't necessarily true, but the article is just pointing out arguments sometimes made by people for antisexualism. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tags

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

The article is partly a loose paraphrase of the "Anti-Sexual FAQ" linked in the external links section; unfortunately, most of the sources for non-religion-specific anti-sexual communities of interest will be Internet sources, for the reasons explained above (did you read it?). And the word "antisexualism" is easily found on pages such as http://www.antisex.info/en/iamnews.htm etc. etc. AnonMoos 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice the external link, but the sources should be indicated with footnotes. More importantly, the WP:notability guideline requires that a topic "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." There's a discussion/edit war about that guideline right now, but nobody disputes the necessity of a work that is *independent* from the subject. Now, that antisexual site is not independent from antisexuality. We can't have an article about any person or group of persons who decide to make a web page and proudly declare they have founded some sort of organisation. The question is: are they important enough? Has anybody else, any scholar or respectable journalist, ever been interested in them? Also, even if there were no such requirement, the site of the organisation can be at best a source about itself, not about antisexuality in general. If there is antisexualism in religion as you say, for example, that would need to be sourced too. --91.148.159.4 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
See what AnonMoos said here: Talk:Antisexualism#Not verified tag. --Alexc3 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw what he said there. What he said amounts to the idea that because the topic "antisexualism" doesn't satisfy wikipedia's criteria for verification, we should ignore wikipedia's criteria for verification. My understanding is that if the topic "antisexualism" doesn't satisfy wikipedia's criteria for verification, we should ignore the topic "antisexualism" and delete the article. Policies are supposed to be observed, otherwise they are not policies. According to the other logic, I could formulate my own crazy ideology on a web page and then require wikipedia to have an article about it.--91.148.159.4 13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Repeating: the problem is not "internet sources" vs "paper sources", the problem is "Foo talking about himself" vs "reliable independent sources (scholars, respectable journalists) talking about Foo". --91.148.159.4 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
See Inclusionism. As it stands, this is a well-written article that does a good job at documenting antisexualism. How about not trying to be counter-productive? If there aren't any sources listed, try to find some and help improve the article. --Alexc3 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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