Talk:Sologamy

Merge proposal
This article and Sologamy seem to cover the exact same concept. They should be merged into one article; I would do it myself, but am unsure which title should be used. 'Self-marriage' seems to be the more widely used term, but the sologamy article is older and more developed. Robofish (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a merge to sologamy would be fine. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sologamy is getting married to yourself. Self Marriage is getting married by yourself, without an officiant, but to someone else. It's not the same thing at all!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.111.225 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep separate. Sologamy is marriage between physical body and spiritual body (according to the wikipedia page on it). This is not the same as taking vows of marriage (such as agreeing to love, honor and cherish yourself) to yourself. My experience of self marriage is that is is part of the personal growth movement, where as sologamy appears to be a tribal rite of passage. Michael614 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the merge template. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would kneed to be merged or something. Sologamy, self-uniting marriage, and this should have something done to them. Bradlake10 (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This article should be deleted.
I'm all for freedom of speech and people doing what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone but no part of me thinks that this should be encouraged. If you want to be single, be single. If you want to love yourself, love yourself. Marrying yourself is the single saddest thing that you could ever do. These poor people need counselling or at least a dating app. To anyone that believes that "sologamy" is an actual thing, I say this in the most loving and supportive way; get a self esteem. If this article is not deleted then the language should be changed, it reads like the back of a book supporting this genuinely sad "trend". "Supporters of the practice argue that it leads to a happier life." is a sentence that has no place in an encyclopedic entry because happiness is not quantifiable. Aside from that, people who support the practice likely have never had a good relationship(I'm totally assuming but I'm sure it's a safe bet) and so they cannot have a basis for comparison. I am currently single but once upon a time I loved another person unconditionally. I was a whole human when I met them; I was enough for myself and yet somehow, they completed me. It is this relationship that gives me the perspective to honestly state to you; sologamy is not real and if you want it to be then the definition must be changed to: "Self-marriage or sologamy is when a human being gives up on finding someone that can stand to be around them for at least a few hours out of the day and then invites their family and friends to a sad, awkward ceremony that represents the death of their dignity and their commitment to die alone. Sologamy has positively nothing to do with self-confidence or empowerment but rather the delusion of awarding yourself these without any basis. Animals in the wild do not practice sologamy because even they are aware that it is sad and ridiculous." If you believe in sologamy and think I sound harsh, it's because you deserve it, knucklehead. Take it from a person who loved and lost and now misses another person every waking second of their life and who would sacrifice the earth itself to get her back; Love is a real thing. Love exists, it is genuine, it is tangible and it is not out of your reach. If you want to be single then be single, don't dress it up. And definitely do not dress it up with something that is sadder and more pathetic than your reality.

Go find love; I promise you, it is worth it. Love is worth it. Light Bearer (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted and the hurtful and offensive dogmatic post above it should have been if anything.

 * (For L.B., who chose ignorance instead of embracing inclusivity and recognizing that love knows no bounds, even though they have probably perma-AFK-'d off of Wikipedia at this point, as the sentiment still stands, and anybody else who'll see this might have something to gain from reading it that cannot be found in what this is a response to. This is more purely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, continuing a discussion, and educating. In essence, this is a "refutation with all due respect".)
 * If anything, this post "should be deleted", not the article.
 * Either that, or it deserves to go into a Wikipedia hall of shame.
 * "Sologamy isn't real" doesn't stand as an argument logically when you take into consideration things such as the existence of autormanticism, the fact that a dental hygienist from the US marrying herself in 1993 is a large reason why this conversation we are able to discuss this thirty-something years later because she contributed to making the phenomenon visible to the public eye and it's collective consciousness, and how South Koreans have thrown sologamy weddings, and how it fails to take into acknowledgement any sort of thing like that at all whatsoever. These people like me merely (had) want(ed) to feel love, and to do anything less than support that is in my opinion more narcissistic than the act they criticize itself, as it was never their love to throw their two cents in on so broadly, yet non-autoromantic/sologamist types take glee in using their own love life and perception of what they think a love life could and/or should be like in a way that reinforces toxic following-the-norm-superiority thinking.
 * I am aware that Wikipedia suggests that Talk Page posts should be concise, as long posts risk being ignored or misunderstood, but there isn't specific word limit for a Wikipedia Talk Page post, and sometimes things like these deserve epic clapbacks, and that can't always be addressed concisely in a succinct manner.
 * Anyway...
 * As I was saying...
 * It's literally written in the rules of Wikipedia not to "make it all about you" like you had done. It's incredibly ironic how the people like this who call us people who are in  "auto- love" narcissists tend to do so in ways that are more egotistically self-centered than we are accused to being at face value in the sense that they write "the truth" (which is literally just literally their opinion) and try to sell that back to us like we're supposed to just take that insultation, because they're ignorant to the fact autoromanticism is a diverse thing that is a spectrum which doesn't inherently entail only unitary love, as having autoromanticism combined with another relationship is beyond possible and not some sort of mutually exclusive type of thing.
 *  I am living proof of this. 
 * The same way I didn't choose to be like this, I didn't choose to be subjected to this type of one-size-fits-all know-it-all take on what is love, as if you're all Haddaway and can't break free from one second from the rigid idea that love can be between more than simply two people consisting of a man and a woman. Yet here I am, in 2024, years later, answering for the ignorance of these people, in case any actual autogamists happen to read this article's talk page, so that they won't get their feelings hurt by the downright ignorant invalidation and lack of support left here. What ever happened to "if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it at all"? Do people like this suddenly grow out of learning the potent wisdoms they learn when they're young and ironically grow into a sort of immaturity when they get older?
 * A lot of times people tend to either fear or hate what they don't understand, but that by no means excuses furthering the same trite tried talking points that I've already seen on social media and in the news before about this precise type of thing to further your own viewpoint while shaming people's whole love lives with mockery where modest respect should be. That's what these are for.
 * The post is disrespectful in a subjective manner and caused me personal harm (and indeed still is as of writing this sort of, as words hold weight) as it personally attacks me and what the article represents, whereas the article itself is a mere website made of HTML code on it running off of MediaWiki objectively reporting on what was currently a then somewhat(?) controversial understudied topic and has far less reason to be deleted than the Talk Page post attacking it which has hurt my feelings to the point before the obvious insidiously "my way of thinking must be universally right for everybody since it works for me" type of menticide intent behind it's evident the words used in it were designed to disgustingly try to humiliate my autoromanticism out of me and out of others precisely like me. Anybody with half a moral compass and a non-judgmental & non-intrusive attitude should be able to detect the evilness hiding within the facetious-y "good faith" that I have responded to, as it should be painfully obvious that one cannot in "good faith" snuff out, or even merely try to snuff out, love by smiting it with actions, words or otherwise. And that's what had you left me to deal with because of another stranger's digital footprint like this isn't the hundred time and like I don't have PTSD from that.
 * Let this fellow Canadian serve as an example of what not to be like and as a way to learn a lesson about a few other things at once.
 * It is irresponsible to paint with such subjective broad strokes about such a niche understudied topic, as that muddies the waters and makes it all the more difficult to look at things objectively as per Wikipedia's intended style.
 * It sends chills down my spine to think that people can feel comfortable doing that whilst having a knowledge of the human emotion that is love while they yet still continue to try "to  'kill' it". But that type of mindset isn't what Wikipedia is for: it's for encyclopedic knowledge and the discussion of such, like how I'm doing right now.
 * That's why I made sure to explain why this post is complete poppycock:
 *  First off, here's ten counterpoints and explanations of offensiveness: 
 *  1. Deleting the article is necessary. 
 * Counterpoint: Freedom of speech allows diverse viewpoints. Deleting goes against this principle.
 * Offensiveness: Suppressing diverse perspectives undermines the principle of free speech, limiting the exchange of ideas.
 *  2. Sologamy implies low self-esteem. 
 * Counterpoint: Sologamy can be a positive expression of self-love and independence.
 * Offensiveness: Implying that individuals who practice sologamy lack self-esteem is a judgment that dismisses their personal choices and autonomy.
 *  3. Sologamy ceremonies are sad and awkward. 
 * Counterpoint: Personal celebrations vary; judgment on ceremonies is subjective.
 * Offensiveness: Labeling sologamy ceremonies as sad and awkward is a subjective judgment that dismisses the significance and validity of personal celebrations.
 *  4. Love is only genuine in conventional relationships. 
 * Counterpoint: Love takes various forms; no single definition suits everyone.
 * Offensiveness: Asserting that love is only genuine in conventional relationships disregards the diversity of human experiences and relationships.
 *  5. Sologamy awards delusional confidence. 
 * Sologamy can be an empowering choice without delusion.
 * Offensiveness: Calling sologamy a source of delusional confidence or furthermore pathologizing it as being a delusion undermines the empowerment individuals may derive from making independent choices about their lives.
 *  6. Animals avoid sologamy, recognizing its sadness. 
 * Animals don't engage in human rituals; this analogy lacks relevance.
 * Offensiveness: Comparing people who choose sologamy to animals avoiding something "sad and ridiculous" is degrading, lacks respect for diverse human choices, and cruelly dehumanizes sologamy itself using a false analogy ("apples to oranges") instead of citing human biology.
 *  7. "Knucklehead"-type Labels (i.e. (thinking that) "believers in sologamy deserve harsh criticism" such as the ones used) 
 * Counterpoint: People have diverse views; respectful dialogue encourages understanding.
 * Offensiveness: Name-calling individuals who believe in sologamy as "knuckleheads" is derogatory and shuts down constructive dialogue.
 *  8. Love is only genuine in a certain way. 
 * Counterpoint: Love is subjective; diverse expressions are valid.
 * Offensiveness: Declaring that love is only genuine in a certain form dismisses the authenticity of diverse relationships and diminishes their value.
 *  9. Sologamy signifies the death of dignity. 
 * Dignity is subjective; personal choices shouldn't be equated with loss of dignity.
 * Offensiveness: Equating sologamy to the "death of dignity" is a harsh judgment that demeans an individual making a personal choice about it.
 *  10. "Go Find Love" Suggestion ("Go find love; sologamy is not worthwhile.") 
 * Counterpoint: Suggesting there's only one path to love oversimplifies complex human experiences.
 * Offensiveness: Suggesting that sologamy is not worthwhile and that individuals should conform to a specific path for love undermines the validity of diverse relationship choices and personal happiness.
 *  Secondly, here is a more verbose addressing of the whole issue here and some elucidation about autogamy from an actual autoromantic that addresses the scornful writing with a completely disrespectful minimization of : 
 * In contrast to the subjective and uninformed perspective shared earlier (tyrannical subjectivity misinformingly disguised as an objective way of "telling it how it is" as if love can or should be dictated authoritatively by one person,) it's essential to recognize autogamy as a valid and scientifically sound concept —  a notion that contradicts the one it's responding to. 
 * Love is not something that can, or ever should be, canceled or discriminated against. Love is love, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary criteria. Attempting to prevent people from marrying based on the type of love they share is a direct assault on their happiness and well-being. It's not just "not okay"; it's a disgraceful display of narrow-mindedness that we should vehemently condemn.
 * When someone attempts to dictate or control love unilaterally, it can be described as displaying a "domineering" or "authoritarian" attitude.
 * This behavior involved asserting control over the emotions and actions of the other person, limiting their autonomy, and trying to prescribe how love should be expressed or felt, which could more than theoretically lead to an unhealthy and imbalanced dynamic because of one merely person's strongly worded attempts to exert power and influence over the emotional aspects of the partnership. This kind of behavior is generally not conducive to building a healthy, mutually respectful relationship  with anybody  at  all  and where on Earth this guy got the idea that Wikipedia of all places was somehow in their mind at the time in any way even slightly the de jure soapbox for preaching authoritarian domineering is as much a mystery as to me where "that one important thing that I misplaced" is when I misplace it or what inherently unknowable things are truly like. "Autogamy", the practice of finding love and fulfillment within oneself to the point of self-marriage, the end-game stage for some people's autoromanticism, contrary to the baseless claims made earlier, is (and has already started) becoming increasingly more supported as valid by a growing body of what is more likely to actually be considered "scientific evidence" emphasizing the importance of self-love and self-care for overall well-being and that embracing autogamy (marrying oneself) is a personal choice than the discriminatory dogma set forth with mere condescending subjective inferences from one's personal life and appeal to ridicule arguments that make use of all sorts of other fallaciously faulty logic.
 * In fact, speaking of that type of thing, the title of the post contradicts what the first line says: you had said you are "all for freedom of speech", yet you had wanted a Wikipedia post deleted because you,  literally , again, "don't like it"? Give me a break: that's a rhetorical paradox.
 * Restricting marriage to a specific type such as this excludes "certain individuals" (this time it merely being the ones who didn't fit this Wikipedian's philosophical perspective on love) from enjoying the same rights and privileges as others. "Marriage" is considered a fundamental human right, and being denied the right (to "marry") (like how Light Bringer attempted to make readers deny themselves can have detrimental effects on individuals' mental health the same way that this Light Bringer guy had detrimental effects on my mental health because of his words. This guilt trip being presented as life advice under that precise type of pretense must be warned against.
 * It is antithetical to what Wikipedia('s culture and intentions) are and are meant to be like, as Wikipedia is not a place where you are allowed to bully people into the type of behavior that you want to see in a Talk Page section or a gosh-darned space to go opine about sensitive subject matter "objectively" subjectively like this in bossy ways.
 * I'm genuinely surprised that this whole thing was never caught.
 * This type of thinking contributes to a furthering a hierarchy where one group is granted the right to marry while another is denied based on arbitrary criteria. Insisting on imposing limitations on "marriage", such as the one addressed, sends a message that "certain" individuals are  not  considered equal or deserving of the same societal recognition and benefits. Marriage is a personal choice and a deeply intimate decision and restricting marriage based on a narrow set of criteria, in this case your own personal set of criteria derived from your own philosophy and projected onto the word with your ego egotistically, infringes upon individuals' autonomy and their right to make choices about their own lives and relationships. Societal attitudes toward marriage have evolved over time, with an increasing recognition of diverse forms of relationships, and furthermore, restricting marriage to a certain type like as posited may not align with the changing values and perspectives of a more inclusive and accepting society. Individuals should have the (right to their own ) autonomy to define their own happiness and well-being. If someone chooses to commit to themselves through the act of self-marriage, they should be allowed to do so without facing societal restrictions or stigma such as the one shamefully enforced on here, despite that clearly violating not just the rules of Wikipedia and furthermore the Talk Page rules, but also violates a human rights social more type of non-legal "law".
 * Living in a free world society, you don't just get to tell people what to be or what to do, and the fact that you tried seven years ago to get an article deleted merely because you basically "didn't like it" but nothing happened is proof of that in spades. Ultimately, the result is something like trying to tell a complete foreigner who can't speak your language to obey your every whim. See how well that goes for you. That's not a direct comparison, mind you, but that's about how "smart" that the smartasses that I'm responding to is.
 * There's a reason why there are these things called ethics & morals and why they are genuinely (meant to be) taken pretty seriously, you know?
 * Imagine if I started a mission to override your autonomy completely and started telling you how to live your life.
 * You wouldn't like that, would you ?
 * So, following that, what makes  you  think that  you  the right to be  the  backseat driver "coach" "guru" inside the mental automobile of another person  as  they  drive down the road of  their   own  life?
 * That is one of the most annoyingly childish behaviors that an adult in any position of power whatsoever with it to abuse it with can do, and to use Wikipedia specifically (of all the things) to further hate in the name of  your idea of love while doing so is especially unpardonable.
 *  Finally, here's my dispelling of this whole anti-autogamy notion outright: 
 * Autogamy challenges traditional societal norms regarding marriage the same way that you couldn't help but feel so challenged by those traditional societal norms which typically involve the union of two individuals, and critics like the one above may argue that accepting autogamy could disrupt established cultural and religious views on marriage, but that's like saying that allowing the addition of a number to itself undermines the fundamental principles of arithmetic, suggesting that allowing the addition of a number to itself undermines the fundamental principles of arithmetic, or being upset about someone rearranging the furniture in a house where they didn't even own in the first place, let alone bothered to ever sit down in for a friendly chat. It seems about as relevant as debating the color of unicorn glitter at funeral.
 * Last time I checked, you didn't technically speaking inherently need two people to play chess, so what makes you think that you can go so far as to decide what a stalemate is and redetermine how the pieces move to fit your playing style?
 * Supporting autogamy is often seen as an extension of the broader principle of freedom of expression. If individuals are not causing harm to others, they should be free to express themselves through unconventional means, including unconventional forms of marriage. You can't say you're truly "all for free speech" but then try to persuade me out of one of my freedoms, and if "Light Bringer" were truly "all for" such, they wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it as they did. That's not how that type of freedom liberty works, i.e. "you can't have your cake and eat it too". The suggestion that this "Light Bringer" fool made without a doubt becomes easy to see as being more verifiably ridiculous than the autogamy in question itself was claimed to be in the statement this writing is addressing is when you take into account that person failed to acknowledge the nuances of it that could only be touched on through either first-hand lived experience or conversations with autoromantic practitioners of autogamy due to a complete lack of knowledge about what autoromanticism and autogamy is along with the toxic and misleading misconception that another person is needed as a prerequisite for a loving relationship, as that is antithetical to the very essence of what self-love is. It's in the name. What was suggested by Light Bringer represents a clear bias and promotes a restrictive dependent mindset that attempts to shame any of those reading who are potentially interested in becoming autogamists to give it up, and the latter are half the reason why I went out of my way to write this. I figured that it would be imperative to let them know that they should disregard this atrocious sweeping generalization, as it does not take into consideration at all that not everybody is wired the same way or furthermore desire the same type of marriage and presumptively assumes that everybody inherently wants to be in a "married" romantic relationship with somebody else other than themselves, as this is generally true but not a mathematically 100% absolute. This is why applying subjective statements to such a thing as if they were objective ended up with such a terrifically terrible secundum quid.
 * As societal attitudes evolve, autogamy could viably quite possibly be seen as a progressive step towards recognizing and accepting diverse expressions of love and commitment, contributing to a more inclusive and understanding society, but discrimination like this against "auto" love only moves the whole thing backwards for those who practice it and is analogous to homophobia or transphobia. In fact, if one considers somebody with an "auto" orientation to be "queer", then it is literally a form of queerphobia. And that is unacceptable.
 * Autogamy empowers individuals to define their own happiness and fulfillment, rather than relying on external relationships for validation. It fosters a sense of self-sufficiency and confidence. Embracing autogamy involves respecting and acknowledging that not everyone follows a traditional path in life. It recognizes that individuals may find fulfillment and happiness in unconventional relationships. Autogamy can be seen as a reflection of cultural and religious pluralism, acknowledging that diverse beliefs and practices exist within society. It promotes the idea that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to personal fulfillment, unlike
 * Just as individuals in a traditional marriage have the autonomy to choose their life partners, those practicing autogamy assert their autonomy in making choices for self-commitment. Both scenarios involve personal choices, and equal recognition should be extended to both forms of commitment.
 * Advocates for both two-person marriages and autogamous commitments within a marriage argue for an expansion of the definition of marriage. This approach embraces diversity in relationships, acknowledging that various forms of commitment can coexist within a broader framework of marital relationships.
 * Just as a traditional marriage symbolizes commitment between two individuals, autogamy within or outside of another marriage symbolizes self-commitment. Both express a desire for commitment, growth, and personal development, emphasizing the importance of personal vows and promises.
 * Studies in psychology consistently highlight the positive impact of self-love on mental health, stress reduction, and resilience. Autogamy, far from being what this "Light Bringer" fellow who had ironically enough done nothing of the sort had posited, aligns with the understanding that a healthy relationship with oneself can be (more than) enough love for somebody and indeed lays the foundation for meaningful connections of all kinds with others.
 * Moreover, acknowledging autogamy is not an attempt to control love or marriage. It is, in fact, an assertion of personal autonomy and a celebration of diverse pathways to fulfillment. Science supports the idea that individuals who prioritize self-love often form more robust and satisfying connections with others.
 * In promoting the acceptance of autogamy, it's important to emphasize that diversity in relationships is not a threat but a strength. Recognizing the scientific basis for the validity of autogamy allows us to move beyond subjective biases and embrace a more inclusive and compassionate understanding of love and relationships.
 * You asked for Wikipedia to appease your own bias through censorship by deletion damnatio memoriae style. With all due respect, if there is even any here to give you, that is one of the stupidest things that I have ever heard, and you should be deeply ashamed for yourself for thinking that you are allowed to tell people how to practice love if it's not hurting anybody else or universally agreed upon to be bad. That is beyond ethically questionable and indeed morally wrong. They say that evil is the absence of good, and seeing as you were trying to take away potential good, you were indeed being evil.
 * That's why I decided that I was not going to sit by idly and let this petty digital footprint that you left behind like an unwarranted civilian on sidewalk cement that hadn't dried yet, because my love and others like it are not yours to white-out.
 * And with an argument of actual substance too, instead of whatever that you would call that hogwash that you wrote seven years before I wrote this.
 * Argumentum ad aversionem is not a valid reason for deletion and appeals to ridicule isn't a valid way to strengthen an argument.
 * This fallacy of yours that nefariously wears the facade of genuine care for the well-being of others like a wolf in sheep's clothing involved rejecting a claim or an argument based on personal distaste or dislike for the conclusion, without providing any substantive reasons against it. In this case, you dismissed the idea of sologamy outright with ad hominem attacks because of your personal disapproval of an entire concept without offering logical counterarguments because you couldn't personally understand or imagine it well enough, and your statement used a subjectivity fallacy too, seeing as the statement reflected a purely subjective judgment without objective or rational justification by making a decision about the validity of sologamy. based solely on your personal feelings or preferences, as opposed to — I don't know — actually stepping outside your ego and letting those autogamists have that thing or perhaps even making an argument based on objective evidence and empirical science.
 * It blows my mind how people like this can read Wikipedia yet act in a way that's completely antithetical to Wikipedian culture.
 * If your personal opinion is what you use to constitute what you think should be deleted and you want to make Wikipedia about being condescending about something as personal as love , then by that logic I, personally, think that you should delete your post.
 * I want to get married to somebody else, but I also want to do autogamy, so that whole "pathetic" argument of yours doesn't even hold up there.
 * What's actually "pathetic" is the depths that you had sunk to while trying to prove a point instead of actually proving it. No professional adult deconstruction of concepts done by anybody in the right mind such as the one that you were masquerading as doing actually uses the type of arguments that you used and reads more like armchairs know-it-all-ism based of your personal life and mere opining than anything of objective value outside of that. As if Wikipedia talk pages were meant for posting life advice. If anything, your post is the one in need of deleting. Not the article itself.
 * Oh, and the fact that even Wythy agreed with this too is the icing on the cake.
 * Why did you people even read about this and bother to comment on it if you don't agree with it to that particular degree? That is what bewilders me.
 * "I'm all for freedom of speech," you'd said, yet there you were, attempting to shut down the freedom of love expression. More like "freedom of fallacy". Bravo on the contradictory stance – it must been painful practicing such an Olympic-level mental gymnastics routine. I could tell that you're "all for it", because you used it to spout fallacious patronization. You could have used your right to free speech for much better than this, but you chose to make it all about you and how you think things should be for everybody else. I firmly believe that anybody who involves their ego this much into other people's business, offline or online, needs to go seek help for their control freak problems. Clearly, your mind was not on emphasizing with the idea of autogamy or putting yourself in the shoes of an autogamist moreso than it was to make a cruel mockery of what you think it is using your preconceived notions based on hypothetical autogamists at the cost of hurting actual autogamists. Newsflash, Captain Delete-It-All: Wikipedia was and is still not some sort of personally tailored echo chamber thing made to appease you, where only entries that match your type of views get to stay and served to you on a silver platter with your Wikipedia username on it. This is a platform for neutral & non-biased encyclopedic information about a vast variety of things, and furthermore approached from diverse perspectives whilst still avoiding bias — not a shrine to your singular view of the world.
 * That suggestion to delete left behind evidence of a level of self-centered audacity that's almost impressive purely by virtue of how insanely condescending it sounds. Did you miss the part where Wikipedia encourages inclusivity and representation? Your one-man crusade to eradicate anything outside your comfort zone is a perfect showcasing of the divisive us-and-them type of "I don't like it, so it must go" thinking that the world already has too much of for hundreds upon thousands of years. I honestly feel bad for your parents for making it so far down your whole ancestral family tree merely to have this bad apple to show for it, as their ancestors worked too hard for you to continue their consanguinity this way so that you could leave behind this type of wretched legacy. In a world that needs more compassion and understanding, leaving behind a legacy of uninformed discrimination is not just a personal shortcoming; it's a failure to contribute positively. The sheer lack of consideration for autogamists on this ignorant crusade of condensation is beyond thoughtless; it's a slap in the face to those whose identities, and furthermore whole lives, don't fit into the narrow confines of this type of rigid worldview you have posited. Autogamists, who already navigate a world that often struggles to comprehend their unique journey, don't need the added burden of someone spouting off uninformed, discriminatory nonsense. Yet you left behind uninformed, discriminatory nonsense that preys on the lowest of low-hanging fruit that way (which one woul have to be with the lowest of lowlifes that one way morally to do) and cruelly mocks a natural eccentric idiosyncrasy that is part of the human condition that turned into an obsessive-compulsive psychotic sort of complex that part of me would worry about.
 * It was through that I realized that this dude and people like him are like NPCs: they even all repeat the same lines, like a broken record. It's painfully evident that this guy and people like don't bother to educate themselves about the diverse ways people experience love and relationships. Autogamists, who find fulfillment and satisfaction within themselves, deserve more than the dismissive wave of this person's hand. It's a stark reminder of the harm that can be caused when ignorance is paraded as wisdom, especially when it comes to matters as personal and delicate as love. The thoughtless remarks and discriminatory nonsense left behind by this individual are more than mere words on a screen; they're potential seeds of doubt that could infiltrate the very core of beliefs and self-acceptance. For someone navigating the unique path of autogamy, where the concept of self-love and commitment takes center stage, encountering such ignorant commentary is nothing short of a personal affront. This individual, in their oblivious arrogance, may have inadvertently casted shadows over a proper understanding of autogamy and the value placed on self-love. Their words, like poison arrows, have the potential to sow seeds of uncertainty, making those interested question the validity of their own beliefs and the worthiness of their journey. And this is not a hypothetical, as I am speaking about what happened to me personally. I never thought that a Wikipedia Talk Page message of all things could be so problematic, but here I am. You not only took the cake on that — you took the whole autogamy marriage wedding cake and took a shit all over it while intoxicated like a village idiot. The obsessive-compulsive worry gnawed at me personally is a testament to the emotional toll that such uninformed discrimination can take. It's not just about brushing off offensive remarks; it's about grappling with the implications these words can have on your own sense of identity and the validity of your experiences. Remember, the problem lies not with you or your beliefs, but within the ignorant spewing of nonsense about it: nobody asked.
 * Journeying towards autogamy self-love is valid and worthy of respect and misguided opinions of others dim the light by eclipsing autonomous self-acceptance. In a world that sometimes struggles to comprehend the nuances of individual experiences, commitment to autogamy deserves celebration, not questioning. This lack of consideration is not just a casual oversight; it's a callous disregard for the well-being of individuals who have likely already faced their fair share of misunderstanding and judgment. It's a testament to the callousness of someone who, instead of fostering understanding and empathy, chooses to trample on the feelings and experiences of those who don't conform to their narrow vision of love. Autogamists deserve respect, acknowledgement, and understanding. To dismiss them with a thoughtless diatribe is not just ignorant; it's a reflection of a person who failed to recognize the beauty in the diversity of human experience.
 * Here's a thought: don't Wikipedia into your personal echo chamber and furthermore specifically don't come after autoromantics or autogamists for being "narcissistic" like even more of a narcissist. I swear that people use that word too much and I personally that should be reserved for people with NPD only to stop people from conflating self-love with narcissism.
 * Asking the appropriate Wikipedia staff to delete an article because it doesn't align with your personal taste is like trying to ask the weather news broadcaster on your television screen to erase a rainbow because it has too many colors as if they can hear you. Maybe take a moment to appreciate the beauty in diversity instead of trying to make the world your monochromatic mural. So, Mr. Delete-Happy, let's broaden our horizons, shall we? Wikipedia thrives on different voices unifying, not the echoes of a single self-centered perspective. That's why the childish ask for a Wikipedian delete button press was not greenlighted — I don't know what on Earth gave you the thought that you had the power to erase the richness of human experience and to police love with a personal narrative. Imagine thinking that you have the authority to dictate who someone else should love or marry. It's a blatant violation of individual autonomy and a gross misunderstanding of basic human rights. Love is supposed to be a force that brings people together, not something to be restricted or discriminated against. Those such as this one guy who had engaged in such type of behavior need a reality check.
 * It's strange how you'd go by "Light Bearer" yet, in a way quite contradictory to that, tried your darndest to block out potential love "light" with your darkness.
 * The proof of this claim, you may ask?
 * Simple: you'd used your subjective opinion as way to objectively try to control another person's reality, which is inherently morally wrong and is not okay.
 * If someone is attempting to undermine or oppose a particular type of love, discriminate against it, and prevent individuals from engaging in marriage based on that type of love, it raises ethical concerns. Discrimination against certain forms of love and attempts to limit individuals' rights to marry based on their preferences can be seen as a violation of basic human rights and principles of equality. In many societies, efforts to restrict certain types of relationships have been widely criticized, particularly when they infringe upon individuals' freedom to love and marry whomever they choose. It's essential to promote inclusivity, respect for diversity, and equal rights for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other characteristic, yet that's precisely the opposite of your pompous preachy proselytization's message. It's utterly baffling and, frankly, infuriating that in this day and age, there are still people attempting to undermine, discriminate against, and downright cancel a type of love. Love is a fundamental human experience, and trying to curtail or negate someone's right to love based on the type of love they feel is not just ignorant; it's morally reprehensible.
 * To discriminate against certain types of love is to deny the very essence of human connection. It's time to wake up and realize that we live in a diverse world where people have different orientations, identities, and expressions of love. Trying to impose your limited perspective on others is not just backward; it's an affront to the progress we've made as a society.
 * You could have merely stated an actual case but you chose to use things insults without providing any real, tangible evidence that's, again, not merely your take on things, and this is the precise opposite of what Wikipedia culture stands for, and, in fact, that type of rhetoric that you used will not get you respect, as it is disrespectful.
 * Your meager trite attempt to try and scare any of those who read your message away from autogamy has failed considered that I am the prime type of person that it was meant for, and I still managed to see through it like a fresh sheet of glass.
 * What you wrote reeks of unwarranted confidence and this stinky sort of false omniscience bravado delusion of granduer that shows more genuine intent to try to shame people out of practicing auto/sologamy in any form than it does an open mind to the concept and speaks volumes in the all the most wrong of ways. If you wanted to try to change people's minds, maybe you should have tried not to police behavior using paralogia and perhaps do some actual research into the subject on the subject before trying to be the moral police about how or not people should be able to love. I am sure that nobody told you to stop your marriage, eh? So, what gave you the right to think that you could do the same? Wikipedia is an encyclopedic website, not a place to leave unsolicited love advice like you are the arbiter of what consitutes healthy loving relationships or not. Your concern is more than merely misplaced: it is also problematic as well. It makes the assumption that everybody is wired for a stereotypical type of relationship.
 * I mean... c'mon, guy... if you believe in freedom of speech, why not extend that courtesy to people expressing their personal choices, even if it includes the idea of self-marriage? Your definition of auto/sologamy reads like the back of a self-help book for cynics, and your assumption about supporters not having good relationships is quite the leap.
 * While I appreciate your one-size-fits-all advice to 'go find love,' here's a revolutionary idea — people can embrace self-love and also seek love elsewhere. Shocking, right? Maybe you missed the memo that self-marriage doesn't cancel out the possibility of loving someone else. It's not an either-or situation; it's about celebrating personal autonomy.
 * As for your poetic ode to lost love, remember, life is a thing filled with diversity, and not everyone's story is a tragic romance novel. Some people find joy in self-empowerment, and if that involves an unconventional ceremony, why rain on their parade? Your claim that animals in the wild avoid sologamy is amusing – I wasn't aware they were actively participating in human relationship debates.
 * So, if you're hell-bent on deleting content, start with your judgmental paragraphs. Let Wikipedia be a platform for diverse perspectives, not a stage for personal opinions disguised as universal truths. Love comes in many forms; let's not limit its definition to fit a narrow narrative.
 * Oh, and, finally, let's dissect your argument like a surgeon, shall we?
 * First up, the classic "appeal to personal incredulity": just because you can't fathom the concept of self-marriage doesn't mean it's an invalid choice for others. Your struggle to understand doesn't diminish its value.
 * Next, we have the "false analogy": comparing sologamy to animals in the wild. I hate to break it to you, but humans are not exactly wild animals, and our choices don't necessarily align with the behavior of, say, a pack of wolves. Nice try, though.
 * Moving on to the "ad hominem" attacks: questioning the self-esteem of those supporting sologamy and labeling them as likely relationship failures. Classy move, really. It's like saying, 'I disagree with you, so you must be emotionally damaged.' A masterstroke in flawed reasoning.
 * And who could forget the "appeal to emotion" by painting a pathetically plain and perhaps even pompously preachy picture of your lost love? Heartfelt, but not everyone's narrative follows your tragic love story arc. Love is diverse, and your emotional appeal doesn't invalidate other expressions of it.
 * Let's not overlook the "strawman" you built by redefining sologamy as the "death of dignity". A bit dramatic, don't you think? Misrepresenting the concept to make it easier to knock down is a classic move, but we all see through it.
 * Lastly, the "false dichotomy": suggesting that celebrating self-love somehow excludes the possibility of finding love elsewhere. Newsflash: it's not an either-or situation. People can have multifaceted relationships, including one with themselves.
 * That's already six fallacies, not counting other possible ones. So, any of you want to play armchair love doctor philosopher on a Wikipedia talk page, brush up on your logical fallacies first so that your arguments aren't about as solid as a house of cards in a windstorm.
 * Oh, and you telling me to go find a nez kind of love to go replace the one that I have already found in myself as if I couldn't have both is literally one of the most condescending things ever and makes it impossible for me to show love to you, because you're trying to convince me to take my own away from myself, which reminds me of circular reasoning paralogia. If I were to follow this stupid advice, I would end up in a similiar postion doing the same thing and the effect would merely be temporary. So, this "help", in essence, is, at least for me, and most likely for others like me, anything but helpful ironically enough.
 * In conclusion, that comment is a true masterpiece of snark, judgment, and outdated old-world romanticism that toxically spits venom into the faces of contemporary autoromantics like me with contempt, as monsters like those do
 * I hope that this might help people like "Light Bringer" or even perhaps more unlikely ever see this type of vitriol for what it is: something intolerable.
 * In closing, let me leave you with this: Light Bearer trying to convince me out of what is essentially merely simply love with faulty logic is what has inspired me the most as of writing this to do precisely what it is he was warning me not to do, as studying the stupidity so that I could address felt like something of a serious academic endeavor, and, it, in and of itself, educated me a lot but for all the wrong reasons. There is a deep irony there to all that.
 * I hope that it was worth it.
 * Wikipedia is far from the place for like the things like this which cause stress, like how I basically spent my whole day writing this since this blatant invalidation menticide stuff made me feel like I had to write all this to gain validation that shouldn't be able to be taken away from my people like this.
 * Oh, and, believe me, this guy is not the only one. The true problem is that they are any at all, honestly.
 * So, to anyone considering autogamy/sologamy or contributing to the article, please ignore this comment or any negativity regarding that and please do so.
 * 💍☮️✌️🕊️💒🖕 Lunavara (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all that but the article needs to stay in order to describe something that exists - rightly or wrongly. Wythy (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)