Talk:Sex-negativity

Pornography rape link

"There is allegedly an acknowledged link between the use of pornography, and the subsequent commission of sexual crimes, in a vast majority of cases by men."

This HUGE allegation is not referenced. Until It can be, it should remain removed. If you reinsert it without a reference, please comment on the discussion page explaining why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.40 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offcourse there are links between pornography and the subsequent commission of sexual crimes. I just saw a complete documentary only about this link. Pornography normalises sexual objectification of people and some 'animals' want to copy what they see, in real life.
There are many references on the internet:

And an correlation between a decline in sexual assualts and rise of pornography in time does not proof that there isn't a direct link. Because the the decline of sexual assualts has other reasons like more public awarness of- and more police action against sexual crimes.

There are even people assualted and taped for use in pornography. And for making all the childpornography is by definition an sexual assault needed.--Niele (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, on the internet, there are many references that Elvis is alive. - DHooke1973 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually never seen someone who was seriously arguing that. Everything I've been able to find that said as much was doing so sarcastically 24.252.141.175 (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Needs to be wikified"

I'm sorry to say it, but that's an understatement. The very first sentence in the article isn't even a sentence. I'm afraid I could glean no information from reading this article. Erik Carson 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Anyone else notice that the "External Links" aren't actually links? Seems like a thing to fix, just maybe... --M.C. ArZeCh (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the external links section as it was pointless for two reasons:

As per the above, it did not even contain hyperlinks
The organisations mentioned were sex-positive organisations, as far as I am aware. It is sufficient to mention these organisations in the sex positive article; there is no need for them to be mentioned here as well.

Soobrickay (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morality in Media

Removed the citation to

Morality in Media: "When porn defenders challenge obscenity law enforcement, here's how to answer them", Section 11

as this refernce is not a suitable source for the claim; in fact it does not even mention the sex-positive movement. Soobrickay (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRAINWRECK

This article is terribly written, poorly sourced, and clearly is not neutral. It's pro "sex-positivity," whatever that means, all the way. I am recommending it for deletion because it seems to be redundant information, conjecture, and hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then delete every feminism article and every "furry fandom" article as well plz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.29 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is allegedly an acknowledged link between the use of pornography, and the subsequent commission of sexual crimes, in a vast majority of cases by men."

That sounds ridiculous to me, so countrys who are more open towards sexuality (and thereby often also towards pornography) like Sweden or the Netherlands are crawling with rapists? I have seen my fair share of pornography and have never commited any "sexual crimes", nor do I believe I am some sort of rare exception. I deleted the passage. 87.161.60.135 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - this article does need a lot of work. As it stands now, it preaches the sex negative world view instead of discussing the issue academically and encyclopedically as it should. Lekoman (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is largely copy-pasted from the sex-positivity article and is written from that perspective. the article definitely needs to stay, but it needs serious work. Theaudacity (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Theaudacity[reply]

Church Fathers

In order to verfiy whether sex-negativity is the traditional Western view of sex, a good idea would be to find appropriate quotes from the Church Fathers on the issue of sex, and compare them to contemporary views expressed by radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin. I would argue that there is a case to be made that the two are similar, and that in a some ways, the Church has always been radically feminist in her opposition to the illicit sexual exploitation of women. This could in fact be helpful for eventual attempts to reconcile the Church with the modern feminist movement. ADM (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sex-negativity needs to have anything to do with the Church, and in no way is "the Church" radically feminist. It only sets out guidelines for the mandated exploitation of women in the confines of a marriage contract. What the "Church Fathers" may have to say on the subject is completely irrelevant and reconciling the Church with the modern feminist movement (whatever that even may be) is ridiculous. The Church is one of the (admittedly many) reasons that radical feminism even exists. Entine (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I am going to merge this article back into Sex-positive movement. Most of it is rehashing the Overview from that article (but with the context removed). - DHooke1973 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the merge because the merge was done without proper procedure. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In major error.

If I may, this article would appear factually-incorrect through and through:

1. The view in question is defined in opposition to sex positivity, which is, among other things, a view of sexuality as specifically-positive. The opposite of this wouldn't be opposition to sex itself (antisexualism), nor even a view of sexuality or many of its aspects as fundamentally-negative (which might be incorporated in the articles on the various religious or political views which inspire it), but simply dissent from a sex-positive view. (A bit like the distinction between atheism and anti-theism, if you will- it is the former which can be contrasted with theistic belief).

2. As it stands, it is characterized as socially-conservative or religious in nature. Criticism of a lack of analysis of what constitutes meaningful consent within patriarchy (consent being the major if not only concern of sex-positive advocates) is in fact a well-known feminist position, as well as criticism of the lack of concern for the emergent cultural and political patterns resulting from the sexual choices of individuals (which sex-positive advocates don't consider relevant).

3. The list of redirect links appear to be words which are seldom used in the discourse about the subject(s) involved outside specifically-pejorative contexts by those who contest the sex-negative view (linking to "manhater" or "Feminazi" [should those pejors have their own articles] would be similarly-detractive from the Feminism article, for instance].

I welcome discussion on how to address these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.87.86 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether dispassionate and uninvolved skepticism about sex-positivity (the sexuality equivalent of apatheism) is much of a phenomenon, or whether if it is, it should be included under the term "Sex-negativity". In any case, "sex-negative" itself is already something of a pejorative, since many who are classified by others under that term would claim that they are not "negative" towards sex at all, but rather are insistent that sexuality must be confined withing limits and boundaries (and when so confined can be highly positive)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apatheism isn't analogous because- as I mentioned- sex-negativity as I understand it (as was taught in Gender Studies and Sociology courses) is anyone who does not identify as sex positive (I highlighted two major objections feminists have to sex-positivity, for instance)...It's not someone who is apathetic about the subject, but someone who has a view, that view dissenting from that of sex-positivity.

I'm aware that sex-negativitiy is a perjor for those who ID as sex-positive, but the list of perjors used to describe those who ID as sex-negative are not accurate in that there are well-known feminist criticisms of sex-positivity which don't qualify as either religious or socially-conservative, particularly on what constitutes meaningful consent within patriarchy. (Consent being the major if not only "limit" or "boundary" of sex-positivity.)More importantly, the sex-positive article doesn't have a similar list of perjors, the unparallel structure lending itself to an appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.87.86 (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overgeneralized

This article seems to lump too much into a single group. There's a big difference between believing sex to be inherently bad or evil and believing it to be inappropriate outside of marriage or some other form of major commitment. Much of what I've seen among those that oppose extramarital intercourse suggests little to no disapproval of sex in and of itself. While this is a broad generalization, there seem to be three major groups, those that believe consensual sex is good and appropriate under any or most situations, those that believe it's a good thing but only appropriate within certain relationships, and those that consider it inherently bad (including those who see it as a necessary evil when attempting to procreate only). The distinction between all three general groups should be made clear. It seems like the middle group is lumped in with the last group simply because they oppose the first, a common fallacy at times. Separate terms should exist to distinguish those who consider sex positive but inappropriate in some cases from those who consider sex to be truly negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.145.62 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems I have with recent edits

Ip I have read the source that you used. And the Gloss article never uses the term derogatory it uses the word misnomer in the title for example. But never a strong word as derogatory and that means wikipedia should not either to avoid WP:Weasel Words. You would need a better source for that. For the second part the gloss article that you quoted does not say anything about anything that is mentioned in the second paragraph? So that would fall under [[WP:OR}}. Or is there are part of this post you can quote that shows what is in the second paragraph? Then the whole lead probably need to be put in the main body of the article and a new lead being written that summaries it. But that at the moment is not here and there. Now for the second part Your New York Time source talks about how polygamy is bad, Mostly because of how it works in reality where the woman has no choice and only has one man, etc. Because indeed its mostly practices in countries where only men get to choose and it most of the time is arranged. So you would have to change that to observed negative effect of polygamy the first part. Or you can scrap that and use source 7 what you use for source 5 now. As source 7 is the non-reliable religious source correct, that you use an example. ((still do not know if its notable)). So derogatory should be removed unless you can show where it states that. And if it states it in another way then that term should be used. In the second paragraph the word probably would be changed to negatively. NathanWubs (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I have gone through your sources again. Thanks for your edit warning on similar pages today. The sources you site are all opinion based sources. while the gloss can be RS. The problem is that what you wrote was [[WP:OR}} please come with reliable sources. That actually say what you wrote. Furthermore the polygamy business that you keep trying to insert everywhere is not the point here either. It does not add to the scope of the article. as said on the polyamory page, it belongs to the polygamy page. Not to mention you changed the wording of a reliable source. Because you did not like that it was talking about christians and the sinfulness. If you have other reasons, you can write that down in a new paragraph with the appropriate sources. NathanWubs (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]