Talk:Sexophobia

merge discussion

When clicking on a link to start this talk page, I see that this talk page was previously deleted by JohnCD: 19:49, 20 July 2011 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Sexophobia (G8: Talk page of a deleted page). So I'm guessing that he also once deleted the Sexophobia article. Similarly, I don't see that the Sexophobia article is needed. It was created by Teknad (talk · contribs) a little bit ago, with the statement: "Creation of a page about sexophobia, a mental health issue as well as a sociological phenomenon." I propose that this article is WP:Merged with Antisexualism, per WP:Content fork; this is the same topic with a different name. Furthermore, this TheFreeDictionary.com source for sexophobia has two definitions of it: "(1) Morbid fear of the opposite sex—heterophobia. (2) Morbid fear of sex organs or sexual activity." The article also gives those definitions, in a different way. We already have the Homophobia article; heterophobia redirects there after much discussion about the term. That article addresses the topic of defining heterophobia in different ways and that the term is not widespread. And, like I stated, the Antisexualism article covers "morbid fear of sex organs or sexual activity." I will alert WP:Med to this discussion, since Teknad calls this topic a mental health issue and since I'm not aware of mental health professionals diagnosing anyone with sexophobia. And I will alert WP:LGBT to the matter since this topic concerns heterophobia. For a regular Google search of the term sexophobia, see here. For a Google Books search of the term, see here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• support merge. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: the version I deleted in 2011 as an uncontested PROD was a one-liner that said only "Sexophobia also called Heterophobia and is the An abnormal fear for the opposite sex." JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• support merge, but the other way around. At the time I created the article, I was not aware of the existence of the term "antisexualim". A quick google search delivers far more results for "sexophobia" than for "antisexualim" (15 700 vs 5 430 results, according to my browser), both in informal and in academic contexts. Google Ngram suggests a rise in the use of the term "sexophobia" in the mid-1990s, and it would be more used nowadays than "antisexualism" [1]. The term "antisexualism" may be confusing because "sexualism" may refer to "seeing sexuality as a major concern in life", so, according to certain definitions, "antisexualism" would not be very different from "sexualism" (while "sexophobia" is much more clear in this aspect)[2]. So I propose instead to merge the article "antisexualism" into the article "sexophobia" (leaving aside the psychological and heteronormative definition of "sexophobia" referred to as "heterophobia" in the "sexophobia" article, which may be confusing in this case).--Teknad (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I figured that you or someone else might argue that the term sexophobia is used more in sources than the term antisexualim is. But the policies to follow in this case are WP:Neologism and WP:Precise. Take the Discrimination based on skin color article, for example; though there have been arguments that many sources in that article use the term colorism and not the phrase "discrimination based on skin color," that article is titled Discrimination based on skin color because of the WP:Neologism and WP:Precise policies. Not only is sexophobia pretty much a neologism, it gives the impression that it is a mental disorder (it surely is not a mental disorder, not under that name anyway), and it's a synonym for heterophobia. While you might argue that "antisexualism" is not a precise title to put the topic of sexophobia under, it is precise to me; I would not have suggested it if it weren't. The lead of the Antisexualism article currently states, "Antisexualism is opposition or hostility towards sexual behavior and sexuality." And the source supporting that states "consists of any negative response directed at sex organs or harmless sex expression." So I fail to see how the topic of sexophobia cannot precisely fit under the antisexualism title. Furthermore, both articles significantly focus on religion (the Antisexualism article more so, but probably because it's longer). Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The term "Sexophobia" has been around since the late 1920's (see the google Ngram graph on my previous comment), so it's not exactly what I would call a neologism (it’s not new, and it was used far more often than the term "antisexualism" much earlier, in the 1930s). I also think that there is undoubtedly a psychic dimension in sexophobia, which is very well expressed by the "-phobia" suffix. Moreover, in the present this suffix is commonly applied in words used to define social problems, such as "xenophobia", "transphobia", "islamophobia", etc. Sexophobia can be easily understood as "fear of sex", while antisexualism needs explaining what the term "sexualism" means (and it's not the opposite of antisexualism), so its construction as a word seems rather incoherent. Altogether, the real problem is that "antisexualism" is not the contrary of "sexualism", so the word is not well coined and leads to confusion. For all these reasons, I think that "sexophobia" is the best title for this article. --Teknad (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Neologism does apply to the term sexophobia. And if you look at the Neologism article, you will see terms noted/listed there that people would not categorize as new. The word new in the context of what a neologism is does not have to mean brand spanking new. Relatively new, and/or the term's failure to gain popularity, is the thing to go on with regard to what a neologism is. I reiterate that heterophobia and sexophobia are synonyms, and, like the aforementioned Heterophobia section makes clear, the term heterophobia is not widespread. My mind won't be changing on the matter of merging the Antisexualism and Sexophobia articles and not going with the term sexophobia for the title. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Teknad -- The word "antisexualism" is very effective in making it clear that it refers to a viewpoint or philosophy or advocacy position (not a pathological psychological syndrome). Also, in technical linguistic terms, "antisexualism" is formed by adding the "anti" prefix to the word "sexual", then adding the "ism" suffix to the resulting word "antisexual" as a whole (so the structure is [[anti[sexual]]ism], not [anti[[sexual]ism]]), exactly parallel to the formation structure of "antisemitism" in this respect. If you want to talk about a "not well coined" word, then homophobia would have a meaning according to Greek compounding rules which is completely different from its English meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Insofar as "sexophobia" is a name of a pathological psychological condition, oppose merge, because that's not what anti-sexualism is; furthermore, ideological anti-sexualism advocates do not generally call themselves "sexophobes". Unfortunately, I don't actually get a clear idea of what sexophobia is supposed to be from reading the article, since the body seems to go significantly beyond the definitions in the introductory paragraph... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AnonMoos, like I stated above, sexophobia is not a "pathological psychological condition." What WP:Reliable sources are there showing that anyone is diagnosed with sexophobia? Better yet, what WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are there showing that anyone is diagnosed with sexophobia? Sexophobia does not show itself as distinct from antisexualism; it can indeed validly be a section in the Antisexualism article, per all of what I stated above. Heterophobia, for example, and as I've already noted above, is a section within the Homophobia article. We do not need an Antisexualism article and a Sexophobia article; having them both is needless WP:Content forking, which we are supposed to avoid. Since this discussion is going slow and will no doubt go stale if I don't get more people weighing in on it, I will soon start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have direct personal expertise as to whether it is or is not a psychological condition; all I know is that the introduction to the article defines it as a "pathological fear of the opposite sex... or... morbid fear of sexual organs or sexual activities", and on that definition, the article is not suitable for merger with Antisexualism. If the article is wrong, then it needs to be fixed before merge question is decided. AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned above that the lead of the Antisexualism article currently states, "Antisexualism is opposition or hostility towards sexual behavior and sexuality." And the source supporting that states "consists of any negative response directed at sex organs or harmless sex expression." So I fail to see how the topic of sexophobia cannot precisely fit under the antisexualism title. Having "a morbid fear of sexual organs or sexual activities" is an aspect of "any negative response directed at sex organs or harmless sex expression," and therefore is an aspect of antisexualism. And I reiterated the heterophobia matter in my "01:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)" post above because it's obvious that heterophobia is not the same thing as homophobia, and yet heterophobia exists as a subsection within the Homophobia article. With sexophobia being essentially the same thing as antisexualism, I don't see how "the [Sexophobia] article is not suitable for merger with Antisexualism." If related topics can be covered within the same Wikipedia article (and they surely are often enough), then topics that are essentially the same thing can certainly be covered within the same Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Antisexualism is an ideology or belief system, not a morbid fear or pathological aversion (though of course, antisexualism might have origins in such fears in some cases). Unfortunately, having negative opinions about something is simply not the same thing as having a psychological phobia about it, and I don't see any compelling reason to obliterate the distinction here... AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The "racism" article is not titled Melanophobia... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand by all of what I stated above, and I reiterate that I will be starting a WP:RfC on the matter soon -- in a few days or so. As for your racism point, I don't see the point of that statement. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And the Google Books linked I pointed to above shows that sexophobia is defined differently depending on the source, and is often nothing but antisexualism with a different name. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it seems the first step would be to fix the Sexophobia article, not propose a merger (as I said before)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Topics that are the same thing or essentially the same thing should be covered in the same article, per WP:Content fork; I've already been over that aspect above. There are definitions of antisexualism and sexophobia that are essentially the same thing, and the lead of the Antisexualism article currently states, "Antisexualism is opposition or hostility towards sexual behavior and sexuality." These topics do not need separate articles in the least. They should be in one article. And I've also been clear above that "If related topics can be covered within the same Wikipedia article (and they surely are often enough), then topics that are essentially the same thing can certainly be covered within the same Wikipedia article." The WP:RfC will be next. I'm done repeating myself to you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

---

I've changed the lead of the article to make it more clear, adding new references and removing the mention of the term heterophobia in order to avoid confusion.--Teknad (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see, but I will still be looking to merge the articles. Flyer22 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church section written like a hit piece

There is no effort made to be neutral towards the Catholic teachings on sexual morality. This section clearly portrays it in a negative light, in violation of WP:NPOV, making no mention of Catholic perspectives of the beauty of chastity. I'm not saying it needs to be a glowing review of Catholic doctrine, but it needs to present both sides of the story. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for recent cut of article

Staszek Lem, thanks for this. As seen with a different matter, I've argued similarly, but some editors disagree about sticking to sources that use the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

MAssive original research removed

Prohibition and restriction of sex is not the same as sexophobia, neither lea to sexophobia. The sources cired do not speak of sexophobia, only about restrictions on sex by relegion, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

that is correct Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the section being edit warred in:

Sexophobia and religion

Sexuality is regulated in the three main monotheistic religions through the concept of sin. For instance, in Islam there is a series of designated haraam (forbidden) acts, of which zina condemn specifically many kinds of sexual relationships that are viewed as impure. Other religions such as Buddhism predicate a renunciation of sex that may eventually lead to sexophobia.

Catholic Church

See also: Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments § Sixth Commandment, and Catholic teachings on sexual morality

Sexophobia as the fear of sex and sexuality has a long and complex history related to the Roman Catholic Church, since its very beginning. It condemned practices such as masturbation and the general enjoyment of the body in favor of chastity and self-mortification. French philosopher Michel Foucault, in his book The History of Sexuality, analyses how the church developed a discourse on sexuality through the ritual of confession. Indeed, catholic priests had to confess whether they had committed any of the sins of the flesh, but also if they had thought of them, or desired them. In the High Middle Ages, confession was reserved to priests, but the church decided later to impose it also to common parishioners in order to generalize the confessions of the flesh among them. Men who rape/molest women and children or practicing polygamy, sodomy, concubinage, incest, lust, adultery and sex slavery, It will automatically be condemned to hell. Sex is only for procreation, according to Medieval Catholic Church.

References

comments to follow Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I could belong to "Antisexualism" page, but the latter one also smacks WP:SYNTH" and neologism creep. Is there any other article which covers suppression of sexuality? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)