Jump to content

Talk:Anarchism and issues related to love and sex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

It may be more appropriate to call the page "Anarchism and sexuality" -Reconsider the static (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even though i also prefer sex to love it deals also with romance and love so i thought it would be better sex/love. i will expand on the "love" part for example when i will mention the Errico Malatesta essay "love and anarchy" where he says love its some kind of "opium of the masses". Also it will include the views of Kropotkin.--Eduen (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it's kind of awkward though. I agree that sexuality is too narrow, however. Can anyone think of anything else? 'Anarchism and attraction'? That's even worse. Zazaban (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Ok, i think thaat the new title combines in itself many things which are just silly. Should we continue the trend and create "Issues related to anarchism and issues related to sex and love", after all we are discussing not only strict anarchist movement, but also submovements and such. Also now the question comes to mind what are "issues related to", child rearing is definitely related to sex and love, personal hygene is related to both also, but it is pretty clear that this is not what the article is about. Beta M (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd propose a new title along the lines of Anarchist perspectives on sex and love. It removes the wordiness of "issues related to", however, it does change the word "Anarchism" to "Anarchist" which may be undesirable to some. Alternatively we can do Anarchist sex and love politics since we aren't talking about anarchist sex lives, but rather politics of love and sex. Beta M (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, this title is *awful*. I really don't see why "Anarchism and sexuality" was a bad title, but "Anarchist perspectives on sexuality" would be good, too. I'm not sure why the "and love" part was added, which I don't think adds meaningfully to the article and does not follow usage elsewhere on the various perspectives on sexuality articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

list move

[edit]

The list has been removed claiming that it was "original research" even though all the sources were present. I have a feeling that the real reason for the removal was something different, but i'm not going to get into an edit war over this. I've moved the content to List of anarchist pornographic projects and models, it probably will fit there much better anyhow. I just wanted to announce it here, so that it doesn't look like i'm doing it behind somebody's back. Beta M (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest just putting it back. It's clearly not original research, and I will back you up on that. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that pornography is only vaguely linked to "sex/love" so while it should probably be linked from this article, they aren't the same thing. Also i think that the list should be on the list page, otherwise we should have "list of queer anarchists", "list of polyamorous anarchists", etc. which would really make this article hard to read. Beta M (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pornography is sex.--Eduen (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list was deleted back in 2012. The last good version is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_anarchist_pornographic_projects_and_models&oldid=480514185 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.37.40 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual discrimination in anarchist movement

[edit]

Hi, i was thinking that it would be a good idea to write about such an occurrence. I know it's a sad fact, but such things to take place, and it does not make sense to simply ignore them. I think i'll make it into a separate section. Beta M (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this issue there is already a small section dedicated to "anarchist homophobia". I hope anything you add is well sourced since it will be nice to keep a good quality standard on this article.--Eduen (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mackay and pedophilia

[edit]

Just curious as to why you talk about John Henry Mackay and sex, but don't talk about his relationship to pedophilia. Mackay wrote a whole series of book under the pseudonym Sagitta about what many of us would call child rape, but what he called “pederastic emancipation.” These were called Books of the Nameless Love. Other anarchists were aware of what he was doing to young boys; Mackay himself, in a letter to Benjamin Tucker, called the identity of Sagitta “an open secret.” Mackay’s contributions to the causes of both pedophilia and anarchism are probably best summed up by the concluding paragraph of his 2002 biography—and please note the title was not meant ironically—The Anarchist of Love: The Secret Life of John Henry Mackay: “Not only those of us who share his individualist anarchist views, but all of us in the gay movement—and boy-lovers especially—can rejoice in the tradition of John Henry Mackay: his struggle for equal freedom of all, for the recognition of our love as the equal of any other—the struggle of the individual for freedom from all oppression of whatever kind.” So no matter whether you think pedophilia is "emancipation" or whether you think, as I do, that Mackay was a sexual predator, it is not particularly honest to talk about his contributions to anarchist thoughts about sexuality without divulging his pedophilia.

citation: Kennedy, Hubert, Anarchist of Love: The Secret Life of John Henry Mackay, Peremptory Publications, San Francisco, 2002, p. 46. http://archive.org/details/AnarchistOfLoveTheSecretLifeOfJohnHenryMackay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7200:39F:1D45:27EA:2E9F:1A5F (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship anarchy merge reverted

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Alalch Emis
 – — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your merge of Relationship anarchy. While I appreciate bold editing, your merge action certainly seems to violate the closed RfC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy (2nd nomination). As WP:BRD suggests, please open a discussion on the article's talk page or t another appropriate location, since you seem to want to merge several articles into Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. Peaceray (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceray Thanks for notifying me. I'll outline what I'm doing now: I am pinging the closer to get his view on whether the merge is counter to the AfD outcome. If he says that it isn't (which is what I expect and have given reasons for below), I will consult with you on restoring the redirect, expecting that you will be happy with that. If he says that it is counter to the AfD outcome, I will start a merge discussion.
Why the bold merger isn't counter to the AfD outcome?
  • no consensus (indicating status quo is in effect) has no added normative effect which can be violated (apart from procedural, abuse-of-process, considerations such as not starting another AfD too soon)
  • It is not required to start a discussion before a merger when it is obviously needed -- see WP:MERGEINIT
  • The need for a merger is obvious (I assume that you don't dispute substantively that this is a good action per usual merge rationales)
Therefore, since what I did was appropriate conduct-wise (not a violation of anything), my edit was merely the B part of BRD; your revert is however not quite yet a proper R -- instead of me having to open a discussion first (the opposite of what BRD suggests), it is upon you to offer a substantive reason for the revert (such as: the merger not being obviously needed; it not being the best solution to the problems of identical content, the article being too small, etc.) -- only then if I disagreed substantively with you I would be starting a discussion, otherwise, a discussion would be a waste of time (since we'd be in agreement and I'd give up on the idea); BRD is meant to avoid discussions using up more people's time than needed.
Scottywong With regard to the above, was this edit (diff) a violation of your close of this AfD? Thanks. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has done anything wrong. The AfD didn't result in consensus to do anything in particular. You tried to do what you thought was right, and someone disagreed with you and reverted you. At this point, a discussion should take place to determine how to proceed. There is an obvious problem to be solved (i.e. the same content appears in two different article), but the preferred solution is not so obvious. There are two fairly easy solutions available: either remove the content at Anarchism and issues related to love and sex and instead link to Relationship anarchy, or remove the content at Relationship anarchy and redirect it to Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. Both of these are reasonable solutions, and have their pros and cons. In my personal opinion, if it can be shown that Relationship anarchy cannot reasonably be expanded to a significantly longer and more in-depth article than it currently is, then the argument for turning it into a redirect becomes stronger. Otherwise, if there are available sources that would clearly support an expansion of the article (regardless of whether or not that expansion occurs immediately), then the argument for leaving it as a standalone article becomes stronger. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScottywongThanks for the reply. I won't undo the revert or intend for it to be undone without some kind of discussion. My actual thinking prior to the attempted merge strongly connects with what you're saying about potential for expansion and why merging would be indicated as preferable: the article was created in 2013, remained a stub until recently when it was rated start but it's stub-like, and some of the existing content is already weak, it's inclusion being tenuos with the primary sources tag up -- so there's even potential for reduction; there were two AfDs which attracted attention of editors to this topic, which has people interested in it on a normal day; the article was then edited somewhat actively in continuity, and efforts were made to expand coverage, but only small additions were made, e.g. in the last AfD someone added a further reading section. But really expanding core encyclopedic coverage was not able to be made it seems. There's evidence people tried and it didn't result in much expansion. As a total side note, I'm also interested in the topic, and keen on expansion and improvement here in general. Merge discussions elicit negative feelings with people sometimes, many of who see merger as pseudodeletions so starting a merger discussion soon would be seen like AfD round 2 which is always bad. I might actually not do it.
Peaceray did the other thing which is reverting all changes relating to the copy and integrate side of the merge, so now there's not even a mention of RA there (that article looks like it stalled and is simply outdated) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: Per above reply by the closer, my action did not violate the closed AfD. Since it did not, I'm consulting with you, the reverter, on restoring the merge. I think the completed merger is the most desirable end state for this content. Do you have particular reasons to oppose the merge with regard to the content organization issues mentioned above, and possibly elsewhere? — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch Emis: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy (2nd nomination), there were suggestions to merge this article to Free_love#Recent, Non-monogamy#Terminology, & Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. None of those suggestions gained any traction. I believe that this is the case because Relationship Anarchy (or RA as it is often know) does not fit neatly into any of those boxes. While RA supports consensual non-monogamy, I have heard RA discussion that its tools support communication in monogamous relationships. Similarly, there is much RA discussion around gender & nonbinary identities (see http://relationshipanarchy.com/wp-content/uploads/Creative-Interventions-Toolkit-Section-5-Other-Resources-06-2012.pdf) & respecting preferred pronouns.[1] As jcperezz wrote: Relationship anarchy is not an approach that fits into the category of non-monogamies, nor can it be included under the umbrella term of polyamory since it doesn't focus on refuting affective sexual exclusivity. Instead, it centers on challenging the whole set of authoritarian, normative, individualistic, and coercive attributes of the dominant culture in terms of relationships.
I note that at present, Anarchism and issues related to love and sex contains nothing about gender identity, non-binary identity, gender fluidity, or pansexuality, all of which are fundamental to RA's approach. Instead, this article is what I would term heteronormative & homonormative. Thus, this article is a poor choice for trying to shoehorn RA into a merge. Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "New Member Info". Seattle Relationship Anarchy. 2019-01-03.
@Peaceray: Thanks. Since I'm disagreeing with that, I'll probably be starting a proposed merge at some point. If you're not really all that into discussing this anymore, don't feel obligated to reply.
Here's why I disagree: Queer anarchism is within scope of this article; as a separate article it is a daughter article to this article. It's historical summary here however is very ... historical. It does not relate the contemporary outcomes of this anarchist school of though. But the daughter article itself starts like this:

Queer anarchism, or anarcha-queer, is an anarchist school of thought that advocates anarchism and social revolution as a means of queer liberation and abolition of hierarchies such as homophobia, lesbophobia, transmisogyny, biphobia, transphobia, heteronormativity, patriarchy, and the gender binary.

In Anarchism & Sexuality: Ethics, Relationships and Power (Routledge, 2011) there is much mention of gender identity, there is critique of "the binary sex/gender system", there's discussion of heteronormativity and homonormativity, etc. Even if this article is lacking in this regard, anarchism isn't. So all of these concepts are well represented in the subject of this article, it being the parent article.
Naturally, since RA also comes from anarchism, being a (particular 21st century) "application of anarchist principles to intimate relationships" (Wikipedia), it will involve these interrelated topics. In Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012), Andie Nordgren is interviewed and is called an anarchist, directly—in the sense that she formulated RA as a response to polyamory in it's aspects which were antithetical to anarchism. Even polyamory in general is said to be anarchist in Europe: "In Europe and the United Kingdom, polyamory seems more of interest to those with a political bent who appreciate the anarchistic appeal of free love as advocated by Emma Goldman ..." Then, the Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities (Springer, 2015) says: "Relationship anarchy is a new concept that recently developed out of polyamorous and anarchist communities".
A blog post featured on the RA website titled The anarchism of “relationship anarchy” discusses how RA "came from an anarchist context where it was literally just anarchism applied to relationships" (link). Looking at the "other side" there is no evidence of anarchists critiquing RA as non-anarchist, not on reddit for example, where there are indeed posts about RA, with someone only calling it a lifestylism which is still an internal critique within anarchism.
So I would say that RA is a 21st century instance of anarchism as it relates to issues of love, sex, gender identity, non-binary identity, etc. (I simply imagine that these words are in the title of this article already, but the title can't be that long). As such it would be something that merits inclusion here. If it's included here, it might as well be included only here, because the content is so short that everything can easily fit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch Emis: First, sorry that I have not responded promptly. I have been on vacation & editing as catch can. I am now back home.
I would indeed like to see a discussion at Talk:Relationship anarchy. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy (2nd nomination), there seemed to be a slightly greater number arguing for keeping rather than merging. Editors of the RA should have a say, & my reason for reverting was to avoid a fait accompli.
I am personally agnostic. I think there are good arguments for both keeping & for merging RA into Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. It is possible that the latter may give more visibility to RA. However, I do think this requires due process, & I oppose a summary merge without a proper discussion. Peaceray (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to article lead

[edit]

The lead to this article reads

Major anarchist thinkers (except Proudhon) generally supported women's equality.

It makes sense, it's broadly accurate, and it is well documented. However, it seems to imply that Proudhon is the only political anarchist who didn't support women's equality. He is probably the most widely referenced "antifeminist anarchist" but not the only. My proposal is to change it to

Major anarchist thinkers (notably except Proudhon) generally supported women's equality.

as it seems to be a concise fix. However, I'm not sure it's the cleanest edit and am hoping someone else has an idea, or can suggest an improvement. Thoughts? - Procyonidae (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism_and_issues_related_to_love_and_sex&oldid=1258234934"