Talk:Antisexuals

NOTE: I have "rearranged" the following responses to impose a more logical order on them User4 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There are also some antisexuals who are opposed to all sex, including that between spouses. See http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Antisexual Leucosticte (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, true. There was a religious group like, too, in the late 19th century (if I remember correctly, the last one died early in the 20th) (short on time, so not googling for their name). They died out for that reason. They refused to breed. And finding converts turned out to be just a wee bit difficult. Gee, I wonder why? User4 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You must be thinking of the Shakers. Leucosticte (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I just wanted to get a "quickie" article in on the topic, and didn't bother to go into great detail. The antisexuals and the sexophobes are our real enemies -- it is due to their efforts that BLs have been demonized in society (as has happened with other "sexual orientations" in the past, too. There's a great book about that -- ).

Gee, I'd love to link you to a whole bunch or materials, but seems we suffer here from "linkophobia" these days. Funny, most other sites post links (they just don't host the actual materials) and don't have any problems at all. If you look at the torrent sites, they put a disclaimer that the links are legal, but they do not host the materials on their own servers, so it is completely legal. But it seems that BW is different...

I'd like to link you to a study called: Historic origins of penal statutes concerning sexual activities involving children and adolescents, by Martin Killias (the original .PDF was titled: martin_killias_1.pdf ) but I don't think that I should. Hmm... I often use the google search: "inurl:SEARCH TERM " to find good stuff. Another interesting book that I wish I could give you a link to is:

• Sexology collection. Sex in the Ancient World from A - Z , originally titled: 0415242525.pdf , but I don't think I should.

And another (don't have the original .PDF file name,)

• The rise and fall of 20th century sexual psychopath laws.pdf

Then there's

• Policing Sexuality- Sex, Society and the State.pdf,

then there's (this is the original title)

• Hagay-Frey - Sex and Gender Crimes in the New International Law; Past, Present, Future (2011).pdf .
• Gayle S. Rubin Deviations A Gayle Rubin Reader a John Hope Franklin Center Book 2011.pdf
• Pseudoscience- A Critical Encyclopedia, Brian Regal (original title: 031335507XPseudoscience.pdf
• Sex Panic and the Punitive State.pdf (for this, try site:boychat.org )
• SEX AT DAWN THE PREHISTORIC ORIGINS OF MODERN SEXUALITY(sex_at_dawn-prehistoric_origins.pdf maybe original title)
• Sex and Punishment_ Four Thousand Years - Eric Berkowitz.mobi (original title)

... and a bunch more. You should see my library... User4 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much a general linkophobia, I think it's just that torrents are automatically viewed as suspect. Leucosticte (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Torrents. Yes - the super-rich (and yet still money-hungry) interests in the music and film distribution industries have made such a big stink about downloading, downloaders, etc. (which includes a great deal of misinformation, as well) that people have developed a knee-jerk reaction when they hear the word "torrent". Our wikimaster seems to be suffering from that, as well. Gee, kind a reminds me of how John. Q. Public reacts to the words "pedophile" and "sex offender". Funny, that...

RE: The religious group: Yes, I was thinking of the Shakers, but I wasn't absolutely certain (for fault of googling) so I didn't put the name.

RE: Providing file names: Uh, the file names for the books I mentioned didn't just come right off the top of my head (I wish I were that smart!) but came only after an extensive search of my one-terabyte external hard drive. What I mean is, if you give feedback when I give info like this, I'll continue to do so. But if you're not interested (which is not a problem for me) please tell me so I don't waste my time, OK? It's just that most of the sources I mentioned above are relevant to the current contributions you're making here on legal issues.

BTW - My computer screwed up, and I couldn't use it for over 12 hours, so I didn't immediately follow up on (at least one of) your comments. I'll get back to you on your feminism comments sometime soon.

[NOTE TO SELF: Do not have over 100 tabs open in Firefox while the OCR software is loaded and proofing a scanned book and while several other books are being edited in OOO writer and while around 20 instances of Notepad are active, along with several other editors with varying capabilities, and while Acrobat reader has half a dozen other books loaded in memory, not to mention a few other things. It tends to screw up the computer...] User4 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How many minutes did you make it before disregarding that note to self again? Leucosticte (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

About 10. That is, if you really must know... :- | User4 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The wiki Council and the curators have to ensure that we do not give law enforcement cause to get a warrant to seize our server or harass our host. We have to be extra, extra careful, even though everything is 100 percent aboveboard, not to even present the possibility of impropriety. So yes, we are going to err on the safe side. I am sorry but that is simply the reality of the world we live in. --Etenne (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The situation is getting worse. More and more of these subpoenas and search warrants are being issued. It's probably best to not have a host at all, if it can be avoided, but to have one's own server, and have it set up with some kind of security that can survive the government's computer forensics. Leucosticte (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind too that unlike you and your wikis, I don't own BoyWiki. BoyWiki is independently operated by the Wiki council as part of Free Spirits. --Etenne (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Plus if this continues to be an issue, we could be forced to go back to the original set up were anything that is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License including those that are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (Wikipedia) and the like, as well as "fair use" of "some" media would be be disallowed. I think it is better this way don't you? --Etenne (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After reading "the new policy" I don't see a difference between what you call "the original set up" and what are proposed in the new BoyWiki:Fair_use_policy article. What is the difference? What would/will be allowed under the "new" policy that was not part of the "old policy"? User4 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well fair use of media not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License itself was not allowed when BoyWiki was originally set up in 2004. We have relaxed those restrictions somewhat since 2004 and now allow for other documentation licenses. The guidelines are not nearly as rigid as they were back then.--Etenne (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... a small difference. The policy is still' (IMHO) overly restrictive. I can explain further, but it would be better to do so off-site. User4 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)