Talk:Scientology and sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and sex article.
Article policies
An entry from Scientology and sex appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 May 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Original research

It was not established that these are the views and practices on sex of individual Scientologists or just Hubbard's opinions. Steve Dufour 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please use [original research?] tags so that we know specifically what you feel is OR in the article. Smee 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
I went ahead and did that. Steve Dufour 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Things work out so much better around here when we are all polite. Smee 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sentence on Lisa McPherson removed

I took this out because it had nothing to do with the topic of the article. Steve Dufour 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Scientology's views on sex are, logically enough, connected to their position on the human body in general. The Lisa McPherson bit is essential because of her comments about being an Operating Thetan and not needing her body anymore. wikipediatrix 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case it is original research. I am not expert, and not a medical professional. But from reading about Ms McPherson's case it seems like she suffered from an illness or injury to her brain, maybe from the accident or maybe something else. I never thought that her taking her clothes off had anything to do with sex. Steve Dufour 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
To say "In that case it is original research" makes zero sense, because I just explained to you in the plainest English I know how it is not original research. I never said Lisa taking her clothes off in itself had anything directly to do with sex, so stop criticizing something that isn't there. As I also just explained to you already, the Lisa incident has to do with the anti-sex, anti-physical-body sentiment in Scientology doctrine. There's no "original research" to it. wikipediatrix 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
When you say it is in a WP article it is original research. If you can cite someone else saying it in a published source it would not be. Steve Dufour 05:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You're still making zero sense. Seriously. I have no idea what you are talking about. Someone else saying what?? wikipediatrix 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Your statement that: "the Lisa incident has to do with the anti-sex, anti-physical-body sentiment in Scientology doctrine" is original research. All the time I have been aware of it I thought the problem was the Scientologists' denial of mental illness and hatred of the mental health profession. It never occured to me at all that people were saying that Scientology doctrine itself had driven Ms McPherson insane. Is that what the critics are asserting? Steve Dufour 07:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A. An anecdote about someone who's traumatized, reeling and hysterical from a car wreck is presented as Church doctrine?

B. Can we add: 1. The section from the Code of a Supervisor that says don't have emotional relationships with students, 2. The section from the Auditor's Code about not taking liberties, and 3. I forget where it is, but something about all rules about the Second Dynamic being cancelled? 70.116.150.14 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the part on Ms McPherson. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with "Scientology and sex" Steve Dufour 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. I'd agree that someone who was just in a car wreck is not qualified to explain Scientology views. Especially someone who strips naked and walks down the street. If she has not done this previously or since, then impaired judgment is clearly an issue.
  2. It may also violate BLP rules.
  3. Most important.. it is OR. As far as I can tell, she made two statements. 1) that she is an Operating Thetan and 2) that she did not need a body to live any more. It is OR for us to connect these two and draw a conclusion, unless she connected them with 'therefore'. Otherwise, she could just as well have meant she did not need a body to live, because she was ready to die.
Lsi john 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nude movie stars

On another issue, I never said that they weren't sexy. I just meant that talking about them in the article was original research because it is putting two things together and coming up with a conclusion. Steve Dufour 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. What is this "conclusion" you speak of? wikipediatrix 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR tags

I put orginal research tags on two sentences:

"Scientology views and practices regarding sex are based on Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's written works which make up the Standard Tech or core doctrine of the Church." To me this suggests that the views and practices of individual Scientologists on sex are based on Hubbard's opinions. Has anyone else said this? From the article it looks like his opinions are so confusing and contradictory that nobody could base anything on them.

"Despite the anti-sexual attitudes inherent in Scientology doctrine, many Scientologist actors have appeared nude or nearly nude in films, such as Mimi Rogers, John Travolta, Nicole Kidman, and others." This has been improved a bit. However, it still seems to be original research. Has any published source said this is a problem? Or even interesting? Are you trying to say they are bad Scientologists? If so it would be a living persons violation. Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading the article. The article does not say it's a problem nor interesting, so why would we need a source that says such a thing?? wikipediatrix 12:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is no relationship between the nude actors and the subject of the article then the paragraph should be removed. If a relationship is asserted, as I assumed it was - and I think most readers would, then it is original research. That's how it seems to me anyway. Steve Dufour 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would submit that you need a citation from a secondary source, which confirms anti-sexual attitudes are inherent in Scientology doctrine. Then you would need a secondary source which shows those actors are practicing Scientologists. Then you would need a source which shows that those actors were practicing Scientologists WHEN they appeared nude or nearly nude in the films. Then you would need a secondary source which claims that appearing nude (or semi nude) in films violates (not just any, but THE) anti-sexual attitude that is inherent in Scientology doctrine. And and others is weasel wording. Sorry, but without sourcing, this is OR in so many ways. Lsi john 20:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited material on living persons removed

I made some changes in the article by taking out some sentences that refered to living person's views and practices. There is nothing that says that Hubbard's opinions are what is being followed by living Scientologists. If there is then add the information to the article. Thanks.Steve Dufour 13:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about Hubbard's opinions, we're talking about official Church doctrine, and the article is flawlessly sourced in that respect. But if adding the word "official" to the intro, as I see you've done, makes you feel better, then so be it. wikipediatrix 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This is one confused article. There are no "Official Scientology views regarding sex". There are only Ron's words on the subject and they form no part of anything required or much of anything practiced in Scientology . This article is basically a POV fork and presents this stuff from a quite unrealistic POV. --Justanother 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "official" was inserted by Steve Dufour at his great insistence. As for the article being "confused", it's hard to suss out where the confusion lies since everything here is straight from the Hubbard's mouth, in official Church policy and texts. It's not like the article is quoting Hubbard's personal views on sex taken from a Playboy interview or something - the book "Creation of Human Ability" is part of Standard Tech and the "Pain and Sex" edict is from an official HCOB, not idle personal musings. Lastly, the article is hardly a POV fork, because it promotes no POV. It simply presents the subject by relating what the sources say. If you have different/better sources, feel free to add them. It's no more a POV fork than Homosexuality and Scientology, Taoist sexual practices, Sexual orientation and Wicca, The Bible and homosexuality, Religion and sexuality, Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood, Sex segregation in Islam, Sex in science fiction, etc. wikipediatrix 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sex in science fiction? Next you will be telling me that there is a Sex and Trekkies article! You seem to be trying to present the idea that there is some bright line between "policy" and "musings" when I think that you know full well that that is not the case. "Scripture", meaning simply the published and recorded words of Hubbard, contains plenty of Hubbard's musings along with plenty of hard "technology" and everything in-between. To take obscure materials and promote them to some sort of statement about the Scientology religion is just ignorant. Not ignorant in the "bad way" but simply ignorant of what Scientology is and how it is practiced. It is POV; the POV of the uninformed critic, no matter how well-read that uninformed critic may be. It is "look, he said this" and "look, he said that" with little or no regard to what it means to Scientology or Scientologists and is similar, if not so obvious, to what you are doing elsewhere as in Space opera in Scientology scripture. But I still wikilove you! --Justanother 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You're veering off into a tangential argument which is certainly interesting in its own right, but approaches OR on your part to want to apply it to the article. The totality of Hubbard's writings and lectures are considered "Standard Tech" of Church scripture. The article does not state, nor does it imply, that all Scientologists get in bed and say "honey, want to exchange admiration particles tonight?" .... you and Steve Dufour have both confused reporting of a religion's statements on sex with real-world practice. (It's like my Uncle Ned who insists that he believes every word in the Bible is true, yet he doesn't practice the Old Testament dictum that menstruating women aren't allowed in the house.) I have no problem with adding a section (if it's properly sourced) that shows that the average Scientologist chooses to ignore the Pain and Sex HCOB. wikipediatrix 14:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Staying in the OR-ish realm, Hubbard's words on the topic could be equated to those of many Eastern religions that make a clear distinction between the things of the flesh and the things of the spirit. In many or most religions, one gives up the things of the flesh to advance spiritually, see asceticism. I guess it might be considered an advantage of Scientology that spiritual advancement comes without such sacrifice. A Scientologist can enjoy sex, ot a good steak, or even a good fight, I guess (maybe we enjoy that last a bit much - actually we enjoy them all). The important point being are you "lowering yourself" or are you not. Are you going "downtone" or "downscale" to where sex lives or are you simply enjoying a sensation. As far as the article, I see it as a POV fork because these writings are non-notable and not deserving of their own article. --Justanother 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW Justanother, you might check this out: [1]. Steve Dufour 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, that is interesting. If I were not an engineer, I might become a professional theologian; it is a topic I find endlessly interesting. I will not AfD as I am trying to ramp down here for a bit and having trouble doing that as it is. --Justanother 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and nominate it for deletion then. I think it is less interesting than "Sex in science fiction", which probably wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings since it's mostly about people who are not born yet. Steve Dufour 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove some POV stuff: 1. The "see others" to articles about 2 Scientologists who were found guilty of sex crimes. Out of 50,000 American Scientologists 2 are not remarkable. 2. External links to anti-Scientology sites when no pro sites are linked. Steve Dufour 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LRH jr. and reliability

Since he did end up retracting most of his statements, and some of his stories sound like he had his father's gift of imagination, we really should quit citing him. Anynobody 08:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Junior retracted the info in his book with Bent Corydon, not this Penthouse interview which the article is citing. (Junior clearly only made a public about-face because someone must have been leaning on him. He can't realistically say that Corydon misrepresented his anti-Scientology statements in the book, when he's making the exact same kind of statements on his own in the Penthouse interview.) wikipediatrix 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that he retracted most of what he said, not just in the book but almost everything. He may not have taken back the Penthouse interview, and if so you're welcome to put it back in however he sounds like a bitter son rather than a reliable source. (Note: I'm not saying he had no reason to be bitter, LRH was not a very good father. His attitude may impact accuracy is all I'm saying.) Anynobody 20:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the retraction is that this may be part of a settlement with CoS. I.e. he did not retract because he lied but because that was the condition on which he could get money. --Leocomix 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR

This article has long bothered me. I would have hoped that WP standards had been enforced and it would be long gone. The entire thing is original research based on Hubbard's writings. There is no evidence or even a claim from a secondary source that his crazy ideas are the basis of anyone else's views or behavior. I have been invited to return to Project Scientology. If I decide to accept I will nominate this article for deletion. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "LRH jr. and reliability". I don't see LRH jr aka Ron DeWolf referenced anywhere in the article. AndroidCat (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. That's the section above. I usually click on the "edit" link of the last section to start a new one. I hope that doesn't cause a problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal with Homosexuality and Scientology

  • Oppose Merge. - These are completely different topics and will most likely incorporate a whole set of different types of sources. I do not think they should be merged. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)