Talk:Absolute sex

Absolute sex has survived VFD. I don't see any agreement on any alternative (keep, delete, merge), so I've left the article as it stands. Feel free to merge it if you are thus inspired, or to relist it on vfd. For the record, see: Votes for deletion/Absolute sex -- Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you're understating the consensus. No one voted to keep it.  I took account of the calls for merger by adding this sentence to the Unification Church article: "The Unification Church uses the term 'absolute sex' to refer to its teaching about sexual morality, which is essentially abstinence before marriage and fidelity thereafter."  Anyone who can find anything else of substance in this article should add it to the Unification Church article.  Assuming that merger has been accomplished, the only disagreement was whether, after deleting this Moonie tract, we should leave behind a redirect.  Only -- orthogonal spoke against redirect.  At this point, I'd say the consensus is to delete the current text and substitute a redirect to Unification Church. JamesMLane 15:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've re-listed this page because I think that Francs2000's decision to remove it from VfD despite a consensus to delete, and based only on his subjective opinion that the page had been changed enough to invalidate all votes to delete.

The change to the page consisted of the addition of Unification Church POV.

For the record, I think Franc2000's actions in ignoring community consensus were arbitrary and capricious. Had Francs2000 deleted the article despite a consensus to keep it, my feelings would be the same.

Additionally, I think that his proposition, that those disagreeing with his arbitrary decision could simply re-list the page on VfD is onerous at best, and calculated to frustrate community consensus at worst: re-listing opens up a settled matter for another vote, effectively giving one side an unarmed second bite at the apple. To allow one sysop to completely ignore community consensus makes a mockery of voting.

Below please find the original VfD discussion; as this subpage already existed when I resulted it on VfD, it already contained the original discussion. Perhaps the original discussion should be moved to a sub-sub page?

Original discussion and Francs2000's (unsigned) decision

Article was listed on Votes for deletion July 4 to July 12 2004. Although rough consensus was to delete, the article was updated since original listing, which is suitable grounds for being kept; if you believe this was incorrect please discuss this after the archived debate (below) or you are free to renominate the article for deletion.

Archived discussion:

Moonie substub. It doesn't say anything, but it links to two Unification Church sites. Geogre 17:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. Short enough to be a dictionary candidate, and no potential for further expansion. Noisy 17:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How about absolute delete? - Lucky 6.9 18:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * keep/redirect? Might work in the context of a more general article on the subject. -Stevertigo 18:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What does vodka have to do with Moonies? Delete. Fire Star 19:18, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm inclined to redirect to Sun Myung Moon. Moonies is stublike but there is already a significant quote section in the article on Moon himself. It's his neologism AFAIK, but it may be one that people search on. That's assuming that these quotes really belong in Wikipedia, I'm unsure of this so no vote at present. Andrewa 21:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. Just plain keep. Or, merge into Unification Church, which is where the doctrines and practices are covered, and redirect. It's more than a dicdef. It's a legitimate term, and I don't believe it has any other meaning. The current article on Unification Church a) does not explain the term, and b) does link to it. (Now, how about an article on dissolute sex, which sounds like more fun...) (Relative sex, of course, is already covered at incest). (Those were jokes, folks. Ha ha.) Dpbsmith 02:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. We haven't the room (in terms of non-colliding namespace, not database space) to include every doctrine of every religion or philosophy. Unless this is a recognized central tenet of the Unification Church, analogous to the Jewish Ten Commandments or the Christian Holy Trinity or the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility, this needs to be deleted. -- orthogonal 02:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to appropriate page, as a section. Rich Farmbrough 23:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as far as I can tell, this doctrine is not anything beyond discouraging fornication and promoting marital fidelity. As such it's just a sort of weird dicdef.--Samuel J. Howard 21:10, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, though the article is quite unclear as to the specifics of the belief (what exactly does "freedom" mean in this context?). -Sean Curtin 22:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems to me that the decision to make it a separate article, rather than a section of Unification Church ought to entail one of two trigger events. 1. If the doctrine is so famous that people will hear of it outside of the context of the Unification Church, it needs a separate article. 2. The existing article on Unification Church is so large, dense, and long that editing it triggers warnings about file size, the docrine needs a separate entry.  It seems to me that neither of these criteria is met here, which is why the Redirect votes.  Also, at the time I listed the artilce, it was a substub that simply didn't tell the reader anything except that he'd be better off reading the Unification Church entry. Geogre 16:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, sure, if it's so important to them. Everyking 01:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a recognized central tenet of the Unification Church. The worst sin is to violate the mandated purity of absolute sex. I added a new paragraph today. If the problem is that the article is too stubby, please encourage me to write more; don't discourage me by deleting my offerings. --Uncle Ed 21:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved from vfd main space by Graham &#9786; | Talk)

End archived discussion

New Votes can now be found at Votes for deletion/Absolute sex

Statement from User:Francs2000

It is my understanding that when the article was originally listed it contained nothing but a title and two links to Unification Church websites or articles: ''Moonie substub. It doesn't say anything, but it links to two Unification Church sites. Geogre 17:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)''. When I came to assess whether the article needed deletion or not it had grown to include other material, by the original poster (Uncle Ed) that was added after all but one of the delete votes had been made. Therefore the article had been added to after consensus had been reached.

I try to clear off old debates from Votes for deletion/Old because I do not believe that having them hanging around there gains anything at all. Following the guideline from Deletion policy The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for listing no longer applies. and from Deletion guidelines for administrators When in doubt, don't delete. I felt that the best course of action in this case was to remove the page from vfd with every expectation that it could be re-listed at any time, hence the comment that if you believe this was incorrect please discuss this after the archived debate (below) or you are free to renominate the article for deletion. on Talk:Absolute sex.

In my opinion I was acting in the best interests of the community and the only 'abuse' (a word used to describe my actions by -- orthogonal on my talk page) here is to omit to sign my name on Talk:Absolute sex, for which I apologise.

Graham &#9786; | Talk 08:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But isn't this just monogamy
I don't have much experience with Wikipedia editing, or UC (which, by the way is also an acronym for ulcerative colitis!), but the second half of this article really stuggles to differentiate the "absolute sex" movement from the monogamy movement. And really, that's because there's absolutely no difference between them except that one is a UC coined term, and the other is the term everyone else uses...

I think its important that the first half of the article is retained (somewhere, and why not here)... but the second half, pretty blatently, is just plugging a religious viewpoint, and knocking free sex. It doesn't say a thing to define absolute sex from monogamy (as the first half does).

My opinion? Take out the crap about "A physical advantage is that the couple needn't worry about contracting a sexually transmitted disease if they are faithful to one another (see abstinence education)." and the quote from some random, biased source at the end.

Dan