Libertarian Antisexualism

What do you guys think about this.
I know, I know. I'm not assuming we're all 100% in agreement here. Especially since I know we have at least one communist in our midst. But I didn't mean to be hostile, I might be wrong but I believed the reason you were communist was because you wanted to live in a secluded community with like-minded antisexual individuals. And I understand that.

But I think libertarian is the way to go to further the antisexual movement. And I'll explain why. Mainly I'm looking at why the purity movement is so ragged on.

First off, I believe antisexualism is truth yeah. Sex is stupid.
Other people believe sex is truth yeah. Sex is...great.

Well who wins? Do they force sexuality on everyone? Well yeah they try, and I want to stop that nonsense.
Do we win? Do we somehow censor porn in the information age? And tie peoples genitals up? No and I don't think anyone here wants to do this.

So who wins and how. Well, I believe it's from sharing viewpoints and researching the subject further. Seeing what others think and why they think so, and explaining our viewpoint. The viewpoint I believe is correct so strongly. Winning people over through spreading the idea. And also researching to figure out more things about it. (I could elaborate on these things but it would get off-topic. There's other topics here) Its just a social movement.

Imo our goal should be making sure people are informed about what sex is, by getting rid of the "You dont have a choice but to be sexual" mentality of today. To stop the pro-sexual pressure and even it out with an opposing viewpoint of sex-negativity (The RIGHT sex-negativity. Not puritanical sex-negativity). In fact maybe we're not fighting for sex-negativity. But sex-neutrality. With of course us being personally on the sex-negative side.
Maybe this above paragraph best explains why I'm leaning libertarian. Because I believe in antisexualism and believe in a world where it is given fair contemplation it would win because ITS SIMPLEH BETTER.

Maybe it's idealistic to that degree. I'm of course advocating stricter measures against blatantly harmful pro-sexual things such as sex-trafficing and the other more serious horrors sexuality brings. But in terms of culture, this is what I think is correct.

It's a golden rule sort of deal. But who here agrees with this? This is just a discussion starter.

I agree with your idea of spreading information concerning anti-sexuality. I, myself, adhere to a "live and let live" philosophy. Besides, our objective is to inform others about it, not ban sex or try to coerce pro-sexuals to think like us.

No, no, no. You turn this site into AVEN and watch how quickly the soil dries up. "Libertarian antisexualism" is, but a step away from becoming another part of the "rainbow". Antisexualism is not a lifestyle, it is an ideology that is against sexuality. Anti-smoking groups seek to rid society of smoke as much as possible, we should advocate the same with degeneration.

...and when removal is not possible because people do not want to change, then you seek to create a "smoking-free" zone where you live separate from the degenerates in order to not be polluted.

Of course nobody here is advocating for forced conversions, but let's be real here, if being celibate is your only objective, then AVEN is the site for you. On this site, at least from my interpretation, we seek to combat sexual propaganda and openly criticize sexual society - not just be a hobby group for virgins and celibates. If that's not the case, then what's the point of calling yourself "antisexual" if you are not negative towards sexuality?

"seek to combat sexual propaganda and openly criticize sexual society "
Yes of course, I went into that in the third to last paragraph. We are negative towards sexuality and are fighting so that people are aware that sex-negativity and sex-positivity are both things they can subscribe to. Of course with sex-negativity being the better option. Of course we don't want to make it so that sex-negativity is the ONLY perceived option because then it becomes a purity movement and people will rebel because they don't understand the world of both sides. They might miss exactly why sex is so pathetic. (Of course I'm making some assumptions here)


Of course, I'm all for combatting sexual propaganda and criticizing sexual society.
But we can only spread awareness and research and information. Not through pressure.
Well at least that's what I'm leaning toward.

I'm uneasy about the movement officially associating with any one political ideology, since when it was founded, it was deliberately created without being associated with any.

We have our differences in viewpoints, such as whether it's better to live completely apart from mainstream society, or still live in it, but avoiding the sexualized parts of it. There a lot of common factors that bring us together though, and many of the principles and goals mentioned in this thread are largely, if not unanimously agreed on.

Among those being opposing sexual propaganda, opposing how sexuality is imposed on others, and being critical of how it affects others, and that being antisexual has to be a freely given choice. We're not out to force others. I agree on an emphasis on sharing viewpoints, and doing further research to help strengthen our arguments, and to help us be more effective at reaching out to others.

I wouldn't want for this site to be a clone of AVEN, because this site wouldn't be able to live up to what it's supposed to. Existing and potential members would lose interest in it, and anyone whose only objective is being abstinent would find it redundant. We're part of a niche group trying to reach out to others in it, and won't be able to very well if this site strays too far from it.

I'm uneasy about the movement officially associating with any one political ideology, since when it was founded, it was deliberately created without being associated with any. 

Hey, I just said the same thing recently. 
I believe what I meant was pushing antisexualism in a way that is similar to "libertarian". Not actually libertarian. I'm not sure what libertarian is profusely, but when I posted, I beleived it was the people that want to legalize weed and pose forth the challenge that you have to come up with arguments against weed instead of ban it. Which is what I've been doing on these forums as of late. (This is a simplflied explanation)

https://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t168-puritan-movements#1837 
See here I talked about it, how we may want to differentiate ourselves from being "legalistic" or "authoritative". Do any of us think putting law's hindering sexuality would be the correct way of changing sexual attitudes?
I think we instead want to make it clear sexuality is a choice (And as antisexuals we are of the sway that it is the wrong choice). And not have kids inducted into the sexuality "cult" (As I readily compare it too though that may be controversial.
Though there ARE sex cults.).

I just was using Libertarianism as a descriptor. It's not exclusive to that movement.

such as whether it's better to live completely apart from mainstream society, or still live in it, but avoiding the sexualized parts of it

This doesn't match up with how I was perceiving things. The way I see it antisexualism is active opposition to sexual society. Of course any one of us could perhaps break away to find some old functioning monastary in Europe (Or the Shakers is basically a co-ed monastery) and not care about sexual society. But instead we're doing this. (Of course this example is ignoring the religious aspects of monastaries)

You're third paragraph I agree on. And perhaps the fourth paragraph is from a misunderstanding of what I was saying?

Biscotti wrote:

I'm uneasy about the movement officially associating with any one political ideology, since when it was founded, it was deliberately created without being associated with any. 

Hey, I just said the same thing recently. 
I believe what I meant was pushing antisexualism in a way that is similar to "libertarian". Not actually libertarian. I'm not sure what libertarian is profusely, but when I posted, I beleived it was the people that want to legalize weed and pose forth the challenge that you have to come up with arguments against weed instead of ban it. Which is what I've been doing on these forums as of late. (This is a simplflied explanation)

https://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t168-puritan-movements#1837 
See here I talked about it, how we may want to differentiate ourselves from being "legalistic" or "authoritative". Do any of us think putting law's hindering sexuality would be the correct way of changing sexual attitudes?
I think we instead want to make it clear sexuality is a choice (And as antisexuals we are of the sway that it is the wrong choice). And not have kids inducted into the sexuality "cult" (As I readily compare it too though that may be controversial.
Though there ARE sex cults.).

I just was using Libertarianism as a descriptor. It's not exclusive to that movement.

such as whether it's better to live completely apart from mainstream society, or still live in it, but avoiding the sexualized parts of it

This doesn't match up with how I was perceiving things. The way I see it antisexualism is active opposition to sexual society. Of course any one of us could perhaps break away to find some old functioning monastary in Europe (Or the Shakers is basically a co-ed monastery) and not care about sexual society. But instead we're doing this. (Of course this example is ignoring the religious aspects of monastaries)

You're third paragraph I agree on. And perhaps the fourth paragraph is from a misunderstanding of what I was saying?

I misunderstood what you meant by libertarian, but I understand more clearly now. It's obvious we oppose the ways that sex is glorified and pushed on others, but I agree that it's important that we differentiate ourselves from the puritanical movements, because we get mistaken for them.

I agree with being antisexual as being in active opposition to sexual society. I meant to say that we don't all agree on what that entails, and some may want to live in seclusion from it, akin to living in a monastery, while some may still live among other people but seek to minimize their involvement in sexual society. Minimizing involvement without living in complete seclusion can include seeking out like-minded people as your peers, focusing on maintaining family ties and friendships, seeking out non-sexualized media.

The fourth paragraph I wrote was just clarification on how we need to avoid straying too much from what we are so far, and was more in response to a point that ForeverPure made.