465:. It's not in Wiktionary. It's not in Merriam-Webster. It's not in dictionary.com. It's not even in Urban Dictionary. My Google search finds: the first hit is this article. The rest of the top hits are blogs, forums, wikis, that sort of thing, and Knowledge (XXG) mirrors, then it gets thick with the internal links to this article from within Knowledge (XXG). I'm not saying that no one has ever said or written the word - it's properly constructed (anti + sex + ism) and expresses a thought. But so does anti + fool + ism or any other number of like constructs. But that doesn't make it real word. Only real-world notability as shown by reliable sources can do that. And we're not supposed to have articles with titles that are made-up words. Right? This seems basic.
685:, which asserts, "Sex is similar to drugs, both in physical and social effects. It places primitive instincts higher than intellect, a human being - a sentient being - turns into a primitive animal... Finally, copulation is aesthetically disgusting." I'm personally very much in favor of turning into a primitive animal from time to time, and I dare say the aesthetic judgment is very different depending on whether one is a participant or an observer, too. But it was nice to have a reason to grin. ;-) Cheers, –
313:
any form is simply ridiculous and absurd, and really does nothing to build mutual confidence (and in fact ends up presenting yourself in more of a negative light than what you are attempting to sneer and jeer at). There are plenty of available sources on ultra-ascetic
Gnosticism, on Origen and St. Jerome strongly preferring perpetual virginity over marriage, on the Skoptzys etc. etc., and I presume that such sources are cited in the specific articles on those movements and persons. However,
675:, appears to use the term in a slightly different sense than the article in question: "...what might be called the anti-sexual instinct, the instinct of personal isolation, the actual repulsiveness to us of the idea of intimate contact with most of the persons we meet, especially those of our own sex." The second quotation is from Bertrand Russell's ubiquitous 1929 essay,
486:- before making that particular argument, perhaps you ought to try clicking the Books and Scholar links at the top of the page. You'll find you do get some hits. (How exactly they relate to the subject of this article, I've yet to look at in detail, but you will find that the word is apparently used by academics.)
318:
details of Origen's philosophy or whatever) have been hard to come by, despite the fact that a significant number of people are interested in the subject. You throwing around a bunch of derogatory epithets purely at random really does nothing to clarify any issues or problems that exist with the article.
748:
per
Ohiostandard's sources. I'm inclined to say that it's a notable topic since James and Russell have discussed the issue. It might be a good idea to trim it down to a stub though since it looks like it's mostly unreferenced. (BTW, I have a userbox that relates to this topic--it is solely for humor
281:
sites, Aryan
Brotherhood sites, you name it. That means, precisely, nothing. We want reliable scholarly or journalistic sources here. I don't know about the ancient Gnostics and I'm perfectly willing to believe that they were celibate, but I'm not willing to take anyone's word for it that they were
513:
It would have been nice if you had not made abrasively dogmatic assertions on a subject which you appear to know almost nothing about, and had refrained from implying that anyone is the Orly Taitz of
Knowledge (XXG). P.S. It's simply a fact that there are some long-established articles which have
317:
particular article is about anti-sexualism in itself (not as an embedded part of any one particular historic religious doctrine, and in modern times often not connected with religion at all), and acceptable sources which take an overall survey of anti-sexualism (as opposed to focusing on technical
312:
What the heck is that supposed to mean?? I object strongly to your pointlessly sneering and jeering tone throughout (which contributes absolutely nothing to constructive or productive discussion of the subject), while your hasty and ill-informed assumption that anti-sexualism has never existed in
199:
It's not just that the article consists entirely of a collection of rank speculation, flat-out invention, and random woolgathering. If there was such a thing as "Antisexualism", we could burn it down to a stub and start over. And if the article isn't deleted I propose to remove all the unsourced
341:
The concept that humans, or at least those trying to gain a higher spiritual level, should reject sexuality is found in
Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Christianity (although not as the official stance of the established church), and in various new religious movements and New Age thinkers
797:
Sufficient references have been found; perhaps the nom would have done better to look for them than to complain about their absence. Many articles from the earlier period of
Knowledge (XXG) need considerable work and sourcing, and the solution is to work on them and source them.
772:? Why does sex have to be performed in private? Why are children told they came from 'storks'? I could add several more questions. Antisexualism has a great point. Besides, the official position of some religions is antisexual. The Roman Catholic Church and the
250:
Actually, there's are websites which have attracted a fair number of users expressing similar views, and a certain strain of thought along such lines has existed for thousands of years, from ancient
Gnosticism to Orwell's "Junior Anti-Sex League" in
211:
There is no such thing as "Antisexualism" in any notable, organized (or even unorganized) form. If there were, there would be reliable sources showing that. But there aren't. The article has existed for seven years. That's long enough to find
553:
05:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Also, you'll note that I have chosen not yet to remark on whether or not the article should be kept. I restricted my comments to what was clear until I have further examined the available possible references.
378:
Not exactly the same thing. I have personally discussed this with Roman
Catholic priests. The official position of the Church is that the reason for celibacy is so that people can focus on God and their missions, not that sex itself is
576:
Huh? I was replying solely to
Herostratus, not to you at all... My comment had two indentation prefix thingies (the same as your comment), and not one extra, which is the signal that my comment was not inteded to be a reply to yours.
200:
material (==all the material) and burn it down to a one-sentence stub. But what would the stub say? "Antisexualism refers to the ideology of opposing sex and the social movement encompassing this ideology" I guess -
154:
710:
The idea that sex is wicked and wrong seems remarkably commonplace and is expressed in numerous laws and moral codes. I have rewritten the lead, providing a better reference to support the topic.
404:
537:
That is hyperbolic, and I am not implying anything of the sort. (If it somehow seemed I did, that was certainly not my intent.) However, you said antisexualism is not a word, and it clearly is.
768:
The issue discussed by the article in question is notable, although the article still is a stub. If sex is not a destructive thing, why being naked in public at most spaces is regarded an
196:(O paragon of scholarly erudition!) and the other is for a quote from H. P. Lovecraft, whose views on matters of human sexuality carry as much weight as those of my next-door neighbor.
430:
115:
681:: "So far we have been considering pro-sexual elements in religion; anti-sexual elements, however, existed side by side." Besides this point, researching the term led me to
148:
286:, I already mentioned that. Look, don't you think it's pretty remarkable that a "certain strain of thought along such lines has existed for thousands of years"
216:
reference, I think. (I mean, is anyone against sex? Sure there are groups of celibates - monks, Manichaen elect, Shakers, asexuals etc. - but they aren't
626:
635:
and the book on which it is talking. Other sources found in the Google Books and Google
Scholar sources that can be clicked at the top of this page.
346:
for one). Is it one thing that should be the topic of a WP article, or unrelated aspects of different topics.? I don't know the answer to that.
224:, which is entirely different thing altogether. The only description in the article of an organization which is actually against sex is from
17:
88:
83:
92:
625:- While Urban Dictionary (!) and even a standard Webster's may not list the term, it is used in scholarly publications such as
75:
232:
169:
136:
824:
231:
As alternative to deletion, the article could be moved someplace where it could serve as a "what not to do" example of
36:
631:
823:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
715:
671:
130:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
645:
601:
564:
547:
496:
446:
809:
789:
758:
738:
719:
700:
695:
651:
607:
586:
570:
523:
502:
474:
452:
419:
388:
373:
355:
327:
299:
264:
244:
126:
57:
514:
titles which barely occur outside of Knowledge (XXG) (e.g. "Nontrinitarianism", "Oxford spelling" etc.).
470:
369:
295:
240:
53:
785:
734:
282:"Antisexualists", which would be something entirely and completely different. And Orwell was writing
176:
773:
711:
677:
162:
637:
593:
582:
556:
539:
519:
488:
438:
323:
260:
79:
754:
687:
415:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
255:. So it's not a hoax or joke, and it doesn't deserve to be treated like a hoax or a joke...
466:
384:
365:
351:
291:
236:
49:
142:
781:
730:
203:
776:, for instance, say that sex should be performed, if at all, only for procreation. I.e,
669:, which gives two quotations for its use. The first of these, from William James' 1890
805:
578:
515:
461:
from nominator. Perhaps I should have have just made this point and left it at that:
319:
256:
71:
63:
777:
750:
411:
109:
380:
347:
343:
800:
361:
661:
Per LadyOS. ( You don't want to make a sorceress mad, you know. ) Also,
769:
278:
274:
682:
192:
OK, there are two references in this long article - one is to an
817:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
273:"Websites that have attracted a fair number of users" includes
729:
several reliable sources on Google Scholar use this term. --
185:
You've got to be kidding me. This article has existed since
405:
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
189:, and in all that time has not had one single reference?
105:
101:
97:
290:
in any reliable source? I find that quite remarkable.
161:
48:. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator.
431:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
235:. But there is no place for this in article space.
175:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
827:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
749:purposes and shouldn't be taken as a COI).
425:
399:
360:I do. There is a perfectly good article,
429:: This debate has been included in the
403:: This debate has been included in the
780:is a subject apart from antisexualism.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
233:Knowledge (XXG):Original Research
667:in the Oxford English Dictionary
220:sex. They just don't have sex
1:
810:03:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
790:21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
759:05:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
739:21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
58:02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
720:07:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
701:07:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
652:05:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
608:05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
587:05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
571:05:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
524:04:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
503:04:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
475:03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
453:01:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
420:01:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
389:05:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
374:03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
356:20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
328:03:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
300:19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
265:18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
245:18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
632:The Journal of Sex Research
844:
364:, which covers all this.
820:Please do not modify it.
672:Principles of Psychology
32:Please do not modify it.
770:attempt against modesty
288:without leaving a trace
228:, which is... fiction.
202:but there isn't even a
678:On Marriage and Morals
659:Oh, keep; definitely.
463:it's not a real word
774:Gaudiya Vaishnavism
194:internet forum post
206:reference for that
44:The result was
455:
434:
422:
408:
835:
822:
699:
692:
650:
648:
644:
640:
606:
604:
600:
596:
569:
567:
563:
559:
552:
550:
546:
542:
501:
499:
495:
491:
451:
449:
445:
441:
435:
409:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
843:
842:
838:
837:
836:
834:
833:
832:
831:
825:deletion review
818:
688:
686:
646:
642:
638:
636:
602:
598:
594:
592:
565:
561:
557:
555:
548:
544:
540:
538:
497:
493:
489:
487:
447:
443:
439:
437:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
841:
839:
830:
829:
813:
812:
792:
762:
761:
742:
741:
723:
722:
712:Colonel Warden
704:
703:
655:
654:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
591:My apologies!
529:
528:
527:
526:
508:
507:
506:
505:
478:
477:
456:
423:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
305:
304:
303:
302:
268:
267:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
840:
828:
826:
821:
815:
814:
811:
807:
803:
802:
796:
793:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:
763:
760:
756:
752:
747:
744:
743:
740:
736:
732:
728:
725:
724:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
705:
702:
697:
693:
691:
684:
680:
679:
674:
673:
668:
666:
660:
657:
656:
653:
649:
641:
634:
633:
628:
624:
621:
620:
609:
605:
597:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
575:
574:
573:
572:
568:
560:
551:
543:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
525:
521:
517:
512:
511:
510:
509:
504:
500:
492:
485:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
454:
450:
442:
432:
428:
424:
421:
417:
413:
406:
402:
398:
397:
390:
386:
382:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
337:
336:
329:
325:
321:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
234:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
209:
207:
205:
197:
195:
190:
188:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:Antisexualism
69:
68:
65:
64:Antisexualism
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
819:
816:
799:
794:
778:antinatalism
765:
745:
726:
707:
690:OhioStandard
689:
676:
670:
664:
662:
658:
630:
622:
536:
483:
462:
458:
426:
400:
338:
314:
287:
283:
252:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
201:
198:
193:
191:
186:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
627:this review
467:Herostratus
366:Herostratus
344:Leo Tolstoy
292:Herostratus
237:Herostratus
149:free images
50:Ron Ritzman
782:Algorithme
731:Cerebellum
222:themselves
663:the word
412:• Gene93k
683:this faq
579:AnonMoos
516:AnonMoos
362:Celibacy
320:AnonMoos
257:AnonMoos
116:View log
751:Qrsdogg
647:Shalott
603:Shalott
566:Shalott
549:Shalott
498:Shalott
484:Comment
459:Comment
448:Shalott
339:Comment
284:fiction
279:truther
277:sites,
275:birther
218:against
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
381:Borock
348:Borock
127:Google
93:delete
806:talk
204:WP:RS
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
795:Keep
786:talk
766:Keep
755:talk
746:Keep
735:talk
727:Keep
716:talk
708:Keep
696:talk
639:Lady
623:Keep
595:Lady
583:talk
558:Lady
541:Lady
520:talk
490:Lady
471:talk
440:Lady
427:Note
416:talk
401:Note
385:talk
379:bad.
370:talk
352:talk
324:talk
315:this
296:talk
261:talk
253:1984
241:talk
226:1984
187:2004
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
801:DGG
629:in
410:--
208:.
177:TWL
114:– (
808:)
788:)
757:)
737:)
718:)
665:is
643:of
599:of
585:)
562:of
545:of
522:)
494:of
473:)
444:of
433:.
418:)
407:.
387:)
372:)
354:)
326:)
298:)
263:)
243:)
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
804:(
784:(
753:(
733:(
714:(
698:)
694:(
581:(
518:(
469:(
436:—
414:(
383:(
368:(
350:(
342:(
322:(
294:(
259:(
239:(
214:a
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.