FANDOM


The history of celibacy is a long and involved, although not at all complicated one, and can be seen in great detail at Wikipedia:Celibacy. In summary, celibacy as sublimation was invented by religion.

Non-participation in celibacy is of course the oldest act in the history of Planet Earth, but Anti-celibacy is a very recent phenomenon, younger even than the Hippie movement's (WP) Free Love (WP) and (WP) and later sex positivism (WP).

The issue can be examined logically, and there are at least four pairs of dualities involved. Perhaps needless to say, hippie philosophy has traversed all of them and innovated the correct configuration for dealing with all eventualities

Choice and Circumstance Sex can be (hypothetically) completely freely available, allowing completely free choice, or hampered by circumstances, more and more until it is prevented. Free Love and the later poly-amory was the Hippies' answer to this problem, which it solves thoroughly and completely. Feminism will occasionally join or adhere to free love concepts. Involuntary Celibacy conflates the issue of lack of free choice with psychology's primary weapon, making something a disease to diminish acceptance of behavior psychological theorists do not find acceptable. IC is further, both religious and anti-feminist.[1] Science should not really arm itself in any case, but psychology has a very long and deeply entrenched history of marginalization. Religion has nothing to say about availability, and in fact hampers availability considerably to completely with its rules. Anti-sex feminism does as well, a little less so; to the extent that celibate people may be making a virtue of necessity, it may be fulfilling the long-stated role that defenders of religion attribute to their charge; that it makes people feel better. The answer to both these defenses is that it also allows people to wallow in a rut, from which they might otherwise extricate themselves, and allows the exploitation of of a happy herd.

The Joy of Sex and an imagined physical and psychological benefit to abstinence. The Hippie movement invented the former; it was too busy pursuing its benefits to pay much attention to the latter. There was not the political debate of today, and it never set out to set itself up to be a disseminator of press releases or a forum for debate. Undoubtedly the issue would come up should it become mainstream. IC ignores the choice of not having sex completely, which for a highly organized modern grassroots movement is either disingenuous or incompetent.[2] Even, in a worst-case-scenario, if the reasons for choosing celibacy were bad, people would still have the right to make that choice, and it is troubling that people will adhere so strongly to a movement that ignores choice altogether. Religion never paid the slightest attention to the virtues of sex and relied entirely on assertion and the power of authority to make its assertions the law for its followers.

Gender equality and gender roles. The hippie movement, first of the global truly popular movements, can bear some justified criticism of being backward in gender equality at its inception, but it soon moved on. Involuntary Celibacy places itself firmly in the role of anti-feminism,[3] and that certain type of feminist, firmly against IC. One must assume that anti-sex feminism may see itself advantaged by reacting against criticisms of celibacy, and possibly mere examinations of the issue as well.

Happiness and morals. Religion has promoted the concept of the evil of sex so thoroughly that morality and sexual abstinence are practically synonymous. True morality, however, commonly faces the conflict of hedonism and ethics, and has often come down on the side of ethics. A black and a white person, or two gay people, should not be advised to not marry because other people would be upset, nor, in turn, that the bigot's actions might cause the couple an undue detriment. This all comes down to another continuum, of self-sacrifice and hedonism, with heroism somewhere near the self-sacrifice end and normal behaviour somewhere nearer the hedonism end. There is not, however, a direct correlation between the amount of suffering and the amount of self-sacrifice, because of Acclimatization. Humans become more used to whatever conditions they are in; although there will be a degree of diminishment of function under extreme adversity, humans do adjust to it, and can perceive what were previously considered adverse conditions as normality. The phrase, What does not kill us makes us stronger, recognizes this tendency, but fails to recognize its (blindingly obvious) root cause: human resources. Human resources are martialed quickly and easily by adversity, but they are just as easily commenced by self-motivation and training. Moreover, adversity damages, sometimes profoundly, as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)(WP) attests. Assuming one has embraced self-motivation and discarded the notion that what does not kill us makes us stronger, then any self-sacrifice that weakens us is a detriment to our efficacy at doing good.

Due to normal differences in people's levels of functioning, living a heroic life of poly-amory may be in one person's comfort zone and self-harm to another. However, it is worth noting that the most common criticisms of free love are that partners who experimented with it felt jealousy. This is a predictable hurdle, in part because it is so widely recognized enough by mainstream society that it has a very ancient name. One wonders how hard they were trying.

Christianity, and other religions too, make a virtue out of the necessity of self-sacrifice to an alarming degree. They make a virtue out of monogamy and celibacy while simultaneously proclaiming jealousy and pride as vices. One wonders how hard they were thinking.

Involuntary Celibacy Edit

[4]

Involuntary Celibacy conflates the issue of lack of free choice with psychology's primary weapon, making something a disease to diminish acceptance of behavior psychological theorists do not find acceptable. IC is further, both religious and anti-feminist.

A proponent of IC on WP:AfD shows religious colors by lumping together "atheists" with feminists, who have nothing in common on the issue of sex. Anti-sex feminists and religious people do. IC people wish are in denial about or wish to hide the interests of religious people, Ergo, IC people and religious people have issues in common. The most common political configuration that fits this would be traditional or Tea Party Republicans, claiming things that do not belong to them exclusively, as everyone does them (family, responsibility, abiding by the law, etc), to compensate for deficiencies in their political stance...probably, racism and/or a vested interest in economic equality[5] Science is thus used by IC for the purposes of marginalizing feminism and the Left, however marginalized its proponents may be by the prevailing political winds from Anti-sex feminists and the ruling class; always so eager to justify the excesses of their anti-egalitarian policy by proving themselves superior in some way. Sex is something those in the gutter do, or something dirty they hide from the uneducated common folk that just wouldn't understand, thus proving how free they are, and it is hedonistic animal behaviour like the competition and greed in capitalism, the violence in capitalism and war, and sex that proves how free they are. Well, they never really let sex be free, since they did not allow it into the open, and they never even let it be good, as is proved by the fact that they lump it together with other "animal" passions. A shame, since it is the only one of their values that actually IS good. There is also a certain irony in the ruling class looking to animals for values that are supposed to be superior.

Donnelly and her fellow researchers found that involuntary celibacy (incel) is a chronic near-total or total absence from sexual activity due to involuntary reasons. She found that most individuals identifying as incel exhibit the same social behaviors as their peers who have sex lives.[6] A few of the involuntarily celibate population might exhibit discernible Wikipedia:personality disorders that preclude current and future sexual opportunities, but the small amount of research done on this subject indicates that the incel population are on the whole socially normal, otherwise healthy individuals whose frustration is merely a product of their lack of sex, and not vice versa.[6]

There is extremely little Wikipedia:sexological study regarding involuntary celibacy.[6] A study on modern involuntary celibacy by Donnelly titled Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis, was published in 2001 and had been initiated in 1998, after a member of an online discussion group for involuntary celibates inquired about current research on the subject.[6][7] In an analysis by Donnelly et al. of members of an on-line Wikipedia:discussion group for incelibates three subsets were identified: 34 unmarried virgins, 25 single non-virgins and 23 non-virgins with partners. Her research indicated that they tended to miss key milestones in their sexual trajectory (e.g. dating, kissing, sexual activity) and found themselves on a radically different sexual development path than their peers. Other factors, as identified in Donnelly’s 2001 life course analysis include shyness; inability to relate to others; poor body image; difficult living arrangements (e.g. with parents, roommates, or in an isolated area); inconvenient work arrangements; lack of transportation; disinterest in having sex in the absence of love or a relationship; commitment to a marriage or relationship with a partner who is not interested in having sex with them; reduced physical ability to have sex as a result of illness, injury or handicap, or because of difficulty in developing and maintaining erections as a result of Wikipedia:erectile dysfunction or impotence.[6] Donnelly published a study on involuntary celibacy within marriage in 2008.[8]

Donnelly wrote that 35% of the 82 celibates expressed dissatisfaction, frustration, or anger about their lack of sexual relationships. If the person lacks any such experience while all of his or her peers have it, psychological consequences can result;[6][9]

Her research with Elisabeth Burgess found that people who want to have sex but are not are frustrated and unhappy. The study was of 82 people found on the internet. The study group included virgins, singles (non-virgins who wanted an intimate relationship) and partnered celibates. Study participants reported depression, low self-esteem, poor body image and emotional paralysis at the thought of initiating a relationship.[10]

Donnelly's data mining in 1990 found, unsurprisingly, that younger couples are more sexually active than older couples. She added together two statistics, thereby linking together data that was most revealing apart, in an obvious attempt to conflate one with the other, finding in an obfuscating assertion that couples with common interests -and- several children are most sexually active. There could be no attempt by the study to control for the level of accuracy in reportage of the two groups, as regards their values regarding violence and sex, as the data had already been gathered. Nevertheless, she reported that couples who have violent relationships have more sex than other couples.[11] That is to say, couples were not asked whether how they valued sex and how bad they thought violence was. Those who do not allow violence and thus under-report it may similarly report less sex than they have, or those who allow violence and thus report it may be at pains to report more sex than they actually have, or any other configuration of reporting.

Selected publicationsEdit

  • Stombler, M., Baunach, D., Burgess, E., Donnelly, D. and Simonds, W. (Eds.) (2009) 3rd Edition, forthcoming). Sex Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Donnelly, D., and Burgess, E. (2008). The decision to remain in an involuntarily celibate relationship. Journal of Marriage and Family 70(2):519-535.
  • Donnelly, D., Cook, K., Van Ausdale, D. and Foley, L. (2005). White privilege, color blindness, and services to battered women. Violence Against Women, 11 (1): 6-37.

Wikipedia:Template:Human sexuality

ReferencesEdit

  1. Proponent on AfD shows religious colors by lumping together "atheists" with feminists, who have nothing in common on the issue of sex. Anti-sex feminists and religious people do. IC people wish are in denial about or wish to hide the interests of religious people, Ergo, IC people and religious people have issues in common. The most common political configuration that fits this would be traditional or Tea Party Republicans, claiming things that do not belong to them exclusively, as everyone does them (family, responsibility, abiding by the law, etc), to compensate for deficiencies in their political stance...probably, racism and/or a vested interest in economic equality
  2. [http://www.involuntarycelibacy.com/about.html IC about
  3. Wikipedia – reasonable policy or TAC backslash? Posted on January 7, 2014 by thatincelblogger
  4. Denise Donnelly Department of Sociology, Georgia State University
  5. Proponent on AfD
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Donnelly D, Burgess E, Anderson S, et al (2001). "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis". Journal of Sex Research 38(2), 159–69. Template:DOI reprinted in Stombler, Mindy (2004). "Sex Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader". Allyn and Bacon. Template:Citation/identifier. 
  7. "For many, sexless lifestyle is not a choice". Georgia State University. July 24, 2001. http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwexa/news/archive/2001/01_0724-invcelrel.htm. Retrieved January 12, 2014. 
  8. Donnelly D, Burgess E (2008). "The decision to remain in an involuntarily celibate relationship". Journal of Marriage and Family 70(2):519–35.
  9. When Sex Leaves the Marriage by Tara Parker-Pope June 3, 2009 New York Times
  10. Surprise! Researchers Find That Sexless = Sadness by Catherine Donaldson-Evans August 30, 2001 Fox News
  11. Study Links Violence, Sex NATION : Fla. July 23, 1990 from Times Wire Services (LA Times)

External linksEdit

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.