Talk:sexualism

From RFV
They meant sexism? --Connel MacKenzie 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think they're saying that sexualism is to a person's sexuality as sexism is to a person's sex.


 * However, a quick look at b.g.c. suggests that is very much a minority meaning, to the extent that it might not even meet CFI. The majority meanings appear to be synonyms for sexuality (for which it may be a precursor, and which is its meaning according to OED2+) and sex addiction (cf alcoholism). It is also used as a type of philosophy (which the OED entry leans slightly towards) and as psychology jargon of which I could not quickly deduce the meaning.  All in all, it should arouse a range of editors. --Eng in ear 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2018
The prejudice senses. Per Talk:sexualism, these are in no way the main/common definition of the word, if they exist at all. I just added sense 1, which is far more common. Note that Thesaurus:sexualism is problematic for the same reason. Equinox ◑ 10:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I combined those two senses into one, as many quotes I found did not clearly fall under one or the other. Although most of what I found in support of this was either a mention, or on a non-durably archived source, the combined entry is now cited. (I also added yet another definition that I found while looking). Kiwima (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Impressive work finding and figuring out the Valette sense. The 1870 citation of the discrimination sense is weird (it seems like a somewhat different sense?), but the other three citations attest the sense in any case. - -sche (discuss) 00:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 1870 quote is problematic. It is not about the sexual act so much as about behaviors that transgress other sexual taboos, which makes it slightly different, but still in line with the same general thrust. Frankly, I am not sure what else to do with it. Kiwima (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * *shrug* It could always be moved to the citations page, since the sense has enough other quotations without it. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Mis-spelling "sexualizm"
The mis-spelling "sexualizm" (with "z") should lead to this article page. But it's terribly time consuming to find out, how to do this.

Even in "Help:Misspellings"/"Wiktionary:Misspellings" it is not clearly explained (all on *one* page) how to do it: Does one have to create a new page with the misspelling as it's title or can one simply place the template { {misspelling of} } in the *correctly* spelled article?

So, if your criteria allow, please include it.

And, please, improve the mentioned help page. 2A01:C23:7957:7000:647C:2E3B:318F:C524 10:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't include every possible misspelling, only ones that are common and that people would want to look up. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The sequence of the three definitions should be *chronological*
The sequence *is*: 1. "The quality of being sexual", oldest source: 1918 2. "A social theory", oldest source: 1893 3. "The belief that", oldest source: 1870.

It should be *easily* possible to study the *evolution* of this word, *simply* by reading from top to bottom.

For this, the sequence of these definitions *should* be (with the *oldest* at the *top*):

1. "The belief that one set of sexual behaviors is intrinsically superior ...", oldest source: 1870, The Medical Times and Gazette.

2. "A social theory first introduced by Aline Valette (1850—1899)", oldest source: (her book published in) 1893 (year according to the article in en.wikipedia on "Aline Valette" / 3rd para / last sentence).

3. "The quality of being sexual; a sex-oriented approach or focus.", oldest source: 1918, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine on Freud".

2A01:C23:7957:7000:647C:2E3B:318F:C524 11:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been debated for a decade or more. Some people would prefer to put the most common or most important first. They would ask why one should have to scroll through senses that no one has used for centuries in order to find what the word means now. There are good arguments for both approaches and no consensus as to which to use, so we don't have a policy one way or another.
 * An entry talk page is a lousy venue for a general discussion like this, since no one reads these unless they happen to visit the entry. Those of us who check all the recent edits for vandalism are the only ones likely to see this any time soon. the proper venue for such discussions is the Beer parlour. Of course, this has been discussed there many times over the years, so I'm not sure another discussion will change anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)