The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus; default to keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

unsourced neologism - it was prod'd earlier but someone removed it because it was "in the urban dictionary" - not a source we put any stock in. Fredrick day (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I love hate sex articles, but I have a love/hate relationship with hate sex article AfDs. On the one hand, if it ends up being kept, then it's less likely someone will try to delete it again later; on the other hand, there's always the potential it will get deleted. I do think this subject is notable if only for the many times the concept appears in literature, including in the seduction community, although more research is probably needed to get some better sources than the ones that were removed. The term itself may be a neologism (hard to say), but the article is not about the term, but rather the act that the term describes. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced and unreferenced. Isn't the article about the term that forms its title? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really; no more than the George W. Bush article is about his name. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced, seems like an attempt to upgrade a slang expression to science. I've read my share of seduction community books and the expression is not that common even there. Besides, the article seems to have been written to promote hatesex.net (the link has now been removed). 83.227.25.237 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, like trying to establish the notability of a particular "John Smith," it's a difficult subject to do so using Google. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now and expand. I'm sure sources exist for it, but they will be harder to find. The term hate will bring up a lot and sex will bring up a lot on google. If anything worse than keep, merge with a related topic.(like bdsm)Undeath (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO Chris! _ct 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced (although I might change my mind if sources were provided). --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was sourced, but the sources were removed. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which were crap and in no way were reliable sources - anyone can check out the history and check their validity for themselves. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Much fiction has as a plot device two people who hate each other but suddenly are having a roll in the hay. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) consider Xander suddenly getting it on in mid-argument with Cordelia when they had previously hated each other, then Buffy herself getting it on in mid-battle-to the death with her enemy Spike. I am told that romance novels are full of such relationships. But when I searched Google Scholar for "hate sex" the most common instances I found were about "I hate sex" or hate and sex listed in a sequence of things. I believe that references are out there to be found for this, but a quick search did not disclose them. In a Google News search I found at least some uses of the term. There is "The Harder They Come." Nashville Scene - Oct 26, 2006, which says "At the same time, given the recent cinema’s track record of unfaked hate sex (Baise-Moi), diseased sex (Anatomy of Hell) or just plain lousy sex (take your ..." Then there is "Moveable feast for the column-starved," ESPN - Oct 18, 2002, which says "Apparently Hackman's reason was, 'I don't know if a marriage can be built on hate sex, let's cut it off now.' Okay, I made that last quote up. ..." There is "MY CATALOG OF IMPERFECT MEN," New York Post - Sep 2, 2007: "Smoking hot, filled with machismo and the magnetism manifested in total hate sex." There is "Mountain Democrat (Newspaper) - November 6, 1996, Placerville.Nov 6, 1996: "Unfortunately, your karma is distressing (look it You are not only "lovers of hate sex, as you say, but you are guided by reproach and resignation." There is "Hurts so good: Anti-Valentine's Day show to offer balm for..." Chicago Sun-Times Feb 12, 2007: "It's 'sort of about the chilly hate sex we used to have,' says Piatt, who had 'a long, dry 2006' on the dating circuit." So there is hope to find refs for this article, given that the exact phrase is frequently used in the exact sense of the article.(edited to add instances) Edison (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yeah, I was reading something about an episode in which Sonny Corinthos and Carly Corinthos have hate sex. I'll add that to the article. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Edison. When I saw the name of the article, I did know what it meant, so the language communicates. It's a simple description, not a true neologism. So the topic is real. What can be said about it that is verifiable? It does seem there are a few things. So ... it does seem likely that there is some sufficiently reliable source, and, paralleling a comment in another AfD, if you build it, they will come. I.e., articles that exist grow and become better sourced. Wikipedia was built with articles like this, inadequately sourced, but the sources came later. Delete it, and you guarantee that, at least for a time, it won't grow. I'd give this article some breathing space. Disclosure that should be here: Mbstpo did originate this article as User:Sarsaparilla, a former account. (*not* a sock puppet, Mbstpo is a serial accountant. Really, a CPA.) Also, I was informed of the existence of this AfD by a file in Mbstpo's user space. The file did not tell me how to vote.--Abd (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, I probably should've disclosed that. Oops. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, perhaps it is a descriptive term as opposed to a neologism, Consider also "makeup sex" which is supposed to be special after there has been a breakup, or "revenge sex" to get even with someone, or "ricochet sex" after a relationship ends, all of which undeniably are amply present in fiction as well as real life. Could be individual articles or one articles about varieties of sexual relationships. Edison (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter could become a subsection of Rebound (dating). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article provides no reliable sources with which to verify the information it contains and from the comments above it seems like the sources aren't going to be found anytime soon. No prejudice to recreating the article if such sources can be found and they provide the coverage neccessary to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the concept is clearly notable, and the term is as good as any for it. DGG (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I figured out the key. You have to do searches for strings like "had hate sex" or "have hate sex". Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some dude writes on Yahoo Answers, "Yes, in 10th grade I hated my algebra teacher, MS. Emerson. She was constantly on my case in front of the whole class. About 7 weeks into the semester, I ran into her at movie theater. We talked in the lobby, then sat together in the theater, then went to her apartment and did it. I stayed all night. Every time we had sex that night, we constantly told each other how much we dispised each other. This lasted for 3 years, until the end of my freshman year at college. Never once said the words like or love, only hate despise etc. To this day whenever I eat popcorn I think of her, she was great. I think that to this day I really hate her." So see, it does exist. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a valid example. If one is having sex with one's 10th grade teacher, where'd the hate really come from? (1) The teacher is a paedophile, (2) the relationship is driven by the teacher's inappropriate use of her position and not by any bdsm fantasies either party may try to rationalise into it, and (3) the student probably hates the teacher on an unconscious level more because of (1) and (2) than because of any pre-relationship irritation. Just because the student enjoyed getting his rocks off doesn't mean he doesn't resent being taken advantage of. Dethme0w (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, she sounds like a real TILF. This gives a whole new meaning to those Pink Floyd lyrics, "When we grew up and went to school, there were certain teachers who would hurt the children in any way they could." (Those sick fucks.) Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I've dated women whose whole sexual outlook seems to be summed up by these two words, I don't think all of the "Yeah, I know what that's like" comments in the world are a substitute for a single reference to a published paper in a journal of sexuality, psychology, sociology, etc. Hell, even a letter to Penthouse would almost be enough to change my mind. Without any references at all, this is just a neologism, regardless how familiar the concept. Dethme0w (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the ways you can tell this is a WP:NEO is we're coming up with several plausible definitions here edg ☺ ☭ 13:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find sources in JSTOR, research databases, or reliable sex dictionaries/encyclopedias. Stuffing the article with examples that don't use the term doesn't help the cause, unfortunately.-Wafulz (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one search by phrase in JSTOR, by the way? I've tried putting stuff in quotes before but it didn't seem to work. I know that it allows boolean ANDs and ORs, but what about exact phrases? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Select "full text" as your search parameter and look for what you need in quotes.-Wafulz (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At my university, an advanced search allows for term search on JSTOR - this returns no results, neither do any other academia sources I can search. --88.105.110.62 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wouldn't happen to be the same user as 83.227.25.237 (above), would you? I notice you're both from Amsterdam, with OrgName of RIPE Network Coordination Centre. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

em..no.. RIPE is an IP identification service based in Amsterdam - the IP is not posting from there, no IPs are posting from there..._{for clarification - 83.227.25.237 is posting from sweden and 88.105.110.62 is posting from the uk.} --Fredrick day 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just want to advise readers to look through the history of the article, as there are content and citations that have been removed. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it fails WP:V. Biruitorul (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I tried hard to look for something I could use as a source, but the signal to noise ratio is just too low for me to deal with here. I would have no objection to a sourced article, but as far as I can tell this is a neologism that finds some use in blogs and forums but is not in real use. Mangojuice^talk 04:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• merge & redirect -this topic could not be ignored and it can be merged with Antisexualism or orgasmafter fixing it . being a part of Antisexualism its note is necessary .Pearll's sun (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.