Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 20 January 2013

	Asexuality has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 22, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Asexuality. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Asexuality at the Reference desk.

Sexology and sexuality GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Symbols

I am going to remove the last sentence of paragraph two in the symbols section. It has been missing a citation since July of 2010. Also it is not that relevant to the explanation of the AVEN symbol. Xadmanx (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition, what was said in that sentence is also stated in the one below it, so it was redundant.Lauradronen (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I took out a link to the Earth page as it seemed unnecessary to the sentence it was in.Lauradronen (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Characters - Notable Asexuals

I removed one of the entries under this section because the link that was connected to it was broken. And since it was a minor point in the article, it won't be missed anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchingdude (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory and ] as there seemed to be a lot of disagreement over their sexuality. I also added citations for the other fictional characters. Lauradronen (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this section. TVtropes.org doesn't count as a WP:Reliable source, though, so we'll have to find another source for that one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you work, Lauradronen. Flyer22 is correct that TVtropes.org is not a reliable source. And for the mention of the asexual character in "Huge", the AVEN post is not appropriate here. You will need to find the exact TV episode where the character says she is asexual in order to verify the source. --Tea with toast (話) 04:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Romantic Relationships

I took out "Link 16" the one that connected to LGBT, because there are already two other links for the same sentence, so it was redundant, and the link was broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchingdude (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External Links

There was a link to the AVEN Youtube page which does not appear to exist, so I took it out. Lauradronen (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asexuality/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 07:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd removed the GA tag from this talk page because not only did I not think that this article was ready for GA status (and of course I still don't), we (myself and college students who just signed up here for a project; I'm not one of them) are just now in the process of significantly fixing up this article and I don't have the time to meet the GA demands. I thought that removing the GA tag from the article talk page would be enough to keep this article from going through with the GA review, which is what I was told at another article that was nominated without consulting the main contributors. This article was nominated for GA status by an IP. How is that valid, and can this GA review be removed without counting as a fail? Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that it was nominated by Xadmanx (one of the college students I was talking about) after I'd removed the first tag. Well, hopefully Xadmanx and/or the rest of the group will address your concerns in the limited amount of time given for GA review. Like I stated, I don't have the time to tackle all of the demands, at least not quickly, though I may help out with some aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. I have not gotten too far into the text, but from my general overview I find several things that will need to be addressed before I pass this article. You can get started on these:

• References. http addresses are not enough for a ref as they fall prey to WP:link rot. All refs should have the following: Author, date of publication, title, work/publication, access date (if website). I know not all of these may be available fore some websites, but get as many as you can. See WP:CITE for more guidelines.
• Lead. While I cannot yet judge if the lead adequately summarizes the content of the article, it does not look to be a very strong lead. See WP:Lead for more info on how to write a good lead.
• External links. This section looks like it might be too long. Please remove any unnecessary/inappropriate ones and duplicates (if the websites are cited in the references section, they may not be needed in the external links section).

That's all for now. I'll probably find more later. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 08:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed

Alright, I've finished with my review, and I like what I've seen in the article thus far. There is a lot of good content. However, here are the problems needing to be addressed:

• Lead. The lead needs to be expanded to include the following items:
  • There should be a dedicated paragraph on the fact that asexuality has only recently come to be accepted. You can mention how previous, people "flew under the radar", and it wasn't until recently that research has been done. Also include how asexual communities are only now beginning to develop since the advent of the internet and social media.
  • Also include that asexuality does not mean that a person is not romantically inclined as some asexual individuals form relationships or marry into an asexual arrangement.
  • Also include in the lead that asexuality is not a sexual disorder.
• New section needed. There needs to be a dedicated section about what makes asexuality distinct from celibacy, abstinence, and sexual disorders. I would include the paragraph about its similarity to hypoactive sexual desire disorder (second to last paragraph in "Research" section) into this new section and also stress that asexuality is not any type of other disorder such as female sexual arousal disorder, anorgasmia, anhedonia or sexual phobia. I was thinking about starting this section myself, but I think it needs someone with more expertise and access to the research papers (I won't until I get to work on Monday). I would appreciate if someone with more expertise could start this.
• Notable asexuals. Citations needed for all the fictional characters, I will accept episode numbers and page numbers of books, but it would be best if there was a third party reference stating why they are notable. It would also be helpful to have a sentence by each one stating why their inclusion in the list is relevant to the topic.
• References Here the big part that I don't have enough time to do myself. Please see my comments in the above section about how to go about fixing the citations. Here's what needs to be done.
  • Citations that are mostly bare urls needing full citation: #1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 46-50, 52-59, 63, 67
  • Citations needing pages numbers: #16, 17, 18
  • Citations needing more information (PMID and/or DOI, ISBN, title source, etc.): #7, 18, 22, 26, 28, 37

I think that should take care of if. I will put this article on hold until then. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For the "New section needed" part of your review, do you think that we need a Definitions section and that the material you suggested would fit there? I went over this on the article talk page in different spots, but asexuality is not consistently defined the same way. See this source and this source (especially, Theme 2: Definitions of asexuality, page 345). While some (researchers included) define asexuality to mean absolutely no sexual attraction, others define it to include "little to no sexual attraction." Some people define themselves as asexual because, while they can feel sexual attraction to a person, they would rather not have sex with anyone and/or they significantly lack that desire. Not to mention, asexuals who say that they have a sex drive -- the desire to masturbate -- but not the desire to engage in sex with a person. All of that is why the lead currently says "is the lack of sexual attraction" and "the lack of interest in sex" instead of using the word "no."

On a side note, I cleaned up the bare references in the lead...and will try to get some time to tackle your other concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A "Definition" type section is definitely what I had in mind for the "new section" I mentioned. Thank you for your above comment. I agree that the term "lack of" would be preferred over "no" sexual interest. I have contacted a few other frequent contributors of this article to notify them of this review process and the issues needing to be addressed. Hopefully a group effort can be made to get this article up to status. While the GA review guidelines suggest that the hold period only last for about a week, I would be willing to let it go longer than that in order to get the work done. It might take some time, but I think this is an important article and I think it is possible to get this article up to status. I will appreciate all efforts to improve this page. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tea with toast. Something else I didn't mention about your GA outline is that you say "here should be a dedicated paragraph on the fact that asexuality has only recently come to be accepted" and that the section you proposed should "also stress that asexuality is not any type of other disorder," but if you look at the Sexual orientation and etiology section, you can see that asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation (which makes it sort of odd that we have included it in Template:Sexual orientation, though that's also been debated) and that some researchers categorize it as either another form of sexuality or as a disorder. So by "accepted," what is it exactly that you mean? Started to become accepted? And how do we tackle the "not any type of other disorder" issue when there are still a lot of researchers who would classify it as a disorder; I don't believe that any of those researchers would call it a mental disorder, which is more so WP:FRINGE these days, but they do seem to believe that it is a sexual disorder. I can't fathom any other type of disorder they would be talking about.

Basically, since there is this debate among researchers, about whether asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation, just a variant of sexuality (since asexuals can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual...just not sexually active ones), or a sexual disorder, when we create the Definitions section, this information would need to go there. And there's going to need to be a merge of some kind since the Sexual orientation and etiology section is already addressing this and we don't want much redundancy. I'm thinking that the "Romantic relationships" and "Sexual orientation and etiology" sections should be subsections of the Definitions section, and that some of what is in the Community section, which also goes over romances, should be moved to the Romantic relationships section.

I take it that you're okay with the reference formatting now that Nick Levinson has fixed up the rest of the bare references? Or is there some type of consistent reference formatting you want for specific type of references? Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Flyer, that the concept of asexuality is not entirely accepted nor is their an agreement of the definition of it. The fact that all of these things are still being debated should be included in the text. I agree with all your other suggestions of mergers, those sound good. I'm not entirely satisfied with the citation style that Nick has chosen, but what is more worrisome to me is that now I find that most of the references are from blog posts and social networking threads, which are generally not acceptable sources for Misplaced Pages. They can be appropriate in some cases -- such as when social media is the topic being described -- but I will now look into which ones are still acceptable and which ones should be replaced. --Tea with toast (話) 02:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Tea with toast. I'll implement my suggestions and try to incorporate yours about distinguishing (and to comparing in one case) asexuality from some sexual disorders as soon as I have something written up about how different researchers/asexuals define the term. I of course agree about blogs not being acceptable sources, except for in the case of newspaper and magazine blogs or the case you describe. Are most of the references in the article really like that? If I'd known, I would have removed them; I haven't worked that extensively on this article (just mainly reverting vandalism or faulty additions, and addressing comments on the talk page), which is why I didn't catch them. I'll try to address, in a timely fashion, any reference concerns you list here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll implement what I stated above tomorrow. I intended to do that today, but I got sidetracked in another Misplaced Pages discussion that has been going on since this morning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here are the changes. Before that, as you may already know, I'd removed all of the unsourced/poorly sourced religious information...as well as the poorly sourced fictional characters. I was iffy on including mention of AVEN in the lead, since they are now mentioned in two places of the lower body of the article, but the last paragraph of the lead (with my revision) seemed lacking without mentioning them there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Other tweaks to my revision. I also forgot to state that I added this Psychology Today blog because it has valuable information and counts as a reliable source...per WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs.

Oh, and looking at the article again, I see that AVEN is actually mentioned in three spots in the lower body. Either that's two many mentions, with this not yet being a big article, or too many links per WP:OVERLINKING (or both). Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

More tweaks. Something else of note is that while it may seem (possibly at only first glance) that the information in the Romantic relationships and identity section about masturbation and having sex with romantic partners to please them belongs in the Sexual activity and sexuality section, I point out that it fits better where it is because that section is going over the different types of asexuals and their romantic relationships, which sex may or may not be a part of. As seen, I did give a brief mention of this material at the beginning of the Sexual activity and sexuality section...pointing readers to the Romantic relationships and identity section for further information in case they skipped this aforementioned section...and leaving the Sexual activity and sexuality section to deal with the in-depth research about sexual activity and sexuality among asexuals (which is placed under the Research heading, after all). Besides, there is no rule that we can't mention the same thing in more than one section of an article; it's done in plenty of Misplaced Pages articles, and sensible when relating to more than one section...as it does in this case. It's just a matter of not being too redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm much impressed with the changes that have been made! I have not yet had the time to look through everything in detail, but from my overview, things look very promising! I'll get back to you in the next few days with my final comments. Thanks for all your work. --Tea with toast (話) 04:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed the text added by Marchingdude, as seen in these edits. The reasons are: AVEN's definition of asexuality is a WP:Primary source, even though it was backed to a secondary source in Marchingdude's edit, and is not the definition used by most researchers. Sure, most researchers include "no sexual attraction," but that is not the only definition most of them use. As the section I created points out, they also use "little to no sexual attraction" (basically "lack of sexual attraction," which can mean "no" or "little," combined with other factors). The way researchers define the term should definitely come first. Marchingdude's source is also an abstract, meaning that I do not yet have access to the complete text. I'll either have to sign up to that site, purchase the article, or both. I'll sign up to see if I can simply access the text that way. If I cannot, then my not replying with a followup here about that will be the answer. I generally have no problem trusting editors on sources that I cannot access myself, but Marchingdude's edit stated "This is the "official" definition that the majority of the asexual community identify themselves under, and have in common with each other." I have my doubts that the source says this. And even if it does, other sources in the article show that this is not the way that most people who identify themselves as asexual define the term. Half may say that they have absolutely no sexual attraction and/or "need" to masturbate, but the other half may have little sexual attraction and/or some "need" to masturbate. Further, if this is AVEN saying that the majority of the asexual community define asexuality to mean "no sexual attraction," maybe they mean their own community at the website. If they do not, I do not believe that we should take AVEN's word that the majority of asexuals define asexuality that way. What worldwide statistics have they done to come to that conclusion? And, again, they are a primary source.

Marchingdude also included this text: "Unfortunately, this definition is somewhat broad, and is one big reason why there is some controversy that surrounds Asexuality as a sexual orientation." It's simply POV to say "unfortunately," per the obvious and per Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Editorializing. And if the broad definition is a big reason why there is such a controversy among researchers about defining asexuality as a sexual orientation, this information belongs in the Sexual orientation and etiology section, which already tackles that debate. And that's where I put some of Marchingdude's text (the stuff that was not redundant, and tweaked any "weasel-wordy" stuff). I put Marchingdude's text about some asexual men being completely unable to get an erection in the paragraph about the broad definition of asexuality, though.

Finally, something else I did not like is that Marchingdude divided half of what AVEN says about asexuality. Marchingdude left the "no sexual attraction" and "nother small minority will think of themselves as asexual" part at the top, but cut away the "here is no litmus test to determine if someone is asexual." line and left the following at the bottom: "Asexuality is like any other identity - at its core, it’s just a word that people use to help figure themselves out. If at any point someone finds the word asexual useful to describe themselves, we encourage them to use it for as long as it makes sense to do so". That left the text to where it is directly speaking to the reader and it could be anyone saying it.

Those are all of the reasons I changed Marchingdude's text. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All that said, I am open to striking a compromise with Marchingdude about having what AVEN has to say about asexuality come first in the Romantic relationships and identity section. I believe that the terms should come before the paragraph definitions, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, I went ahead and moved AVEN's definition and explanation to the first spot, since it is attributed to them by text and can be taken as authoritative or not. It's not in the lead for the reasons I've already gone over above about how most researchers and people who identify as asexual may define the term, but it's fine coming first in the Romantic relationships and identity section. I must admit that it flowed better to me coming last, explaining that anyone who feels that the term best fits them is more than welcome to adopt it. But I understand the need among many asexuals to have it strictly defined as "no sexual attraction." I await what you have to state about which paragraph should come first. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Some latest tweaks. And I'll of course make more tweaks, etc. as days go on. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am satisfied with the many changes that have been made to the article in order to get it to good status. Thank you for all your hard work! --Tea with toast (話) 17:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you and thank you for your tweaks (small and big). Flyer22 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

referents now have information

For the Good Article review, I edited the referents so they're no longer bare. Of the things listed for the purpose, it was the only thing I knew enough about to do. I did not add access dates; either an access date was already there or I didn't consider looking up bibliographic information enough reason to add an access date. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. Very much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Political Identity

I included a new section on asexuality being used as a political identity. It seems rather interesting, and I thought it was worth noting. However, I could see how some people many not think it should be on this page as it states that some people choose to be asexual. What does everyone else think? Lauradronen (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated my edit summary, "This section would/will likely offend true asexuals, because these people are 'choosing to be asexual,' but it is relevant." I don't mind if it stays or goes, but I did make it clear that these people are choosing to adopt the asexual label, as seen in that link. When I create the Definitions section, it'll be clear that some people define asexuality in different ways and may adopt the label even if they may not technically meet the definition to some people. Then again, as stated, there are different definitions of asexuality.

More than anything, you and your group need to be focusing on the GA demands made above. There is only a limited amount of time that GA stays open to review, although the GA reviewer in this case has agreed to let it stay open for a little over a week. In that GA section, you can also see why I felt that it shouldn't be nominated. I'm very busy outside of Misplaced Pages and you guys show up to edit sporadically, and that type of editing is not compatible with GA review. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We have been trying to clean up the article as well, but we are also quite busy. We would love to see this article attain GA status, and we hoped that in nominating it we could see exactly what needs to be done. Am I incorrect in thinking that it can be submitted for this multiple times? Also, thank you for tidying up my most recent edit!Lauradronen (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the "Political identity" section you made is more appropriate for an article such as sexual abstinence or celibacy as it is about rejecting sexuality rather than not having it to begin with. Flyer22 is correct that your time would be better spent addressing the concerns I listed in the GA review page.

Also, about GA reviews, you should not nominate an article for GA review unless: 1) You believe the article is as good as you can get it to be and you have taken care of all the details beforehand, 2) You have the time and are prepared to address all the problems that the reviewer finds. It is true that you can submit an article for GA review multiple times, but to submit an article if you know it will probably fail or still needs a lot of work is a disservice to the GA process as it creates more work for volunteers like me. If you are not sure if an article is good enough for GA status, you should first ask for a WP:peer review or make a request on a relevant WikiProject (such as WP:WikiProject Sexuality). I hope you use this as a learning process for future articles. --Tea with toast (話) 03:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Political correctness and not wanting to offend people should not, IMO, be reasons not to include content that is factual and encyclopaedic. Also, there appear to be quite a few people editing this document pushing strong POVs that who appear to fall in this group, which I feel confuses the lay person who might have no knowledge of Asexuality, and who may read this article in order to learn about it. So - as long as the section is written respectfully, dispassionately and, preferably, with respect, then I say most definitely include it. It clarifies a lot, especially with the somewhat confusing nature of the article as it currently stands, being rather wishy-washy about the nature of asexuality, and confusing low libido with asexuality on multiple occasions. IMO this article needs a lot of work, but it is heartening to see that multiple people are rolling up their sleeves and doing this work. Personally, I began get involved with this article some time ago but was ultimately discouraged by the politicisation and rabid POV-pushing I encountered at the time, and so I simply gave up, so more power to those of you who possess more patience than I! :) ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 14:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Beg my pardon for intruding, but what POV-pushing are you talking about? Your own? Because Flyer and Nick can't possibly be called POV-pushers here, as there are varying definitions of asexuality. Reporting these definitions and the research using them is not POV-pushing. It's just a reality. A reality Misplaced Pages is right to include. I've watched this article and talk page for months now, and I witnessed your debate with Flyer. I never understood your opposition to her points, besides your belief that the article should prescribe to your POV that asexuality means no sexual attraction. That is just one definition of asexuality. Flyer provided reliable sources showing just that, and still you attribute this to Flyer and Nick's POVs? Why is that? They are doing the right thing by letting us know what the sources (these experts) say about asexuality. It's these experts who are using "asexuality" to mean "no sexual attraction" in addition to "a lack of sexual attraction," and sometimes in reference to how low a person's libido is. If you want to blame someone for the topic of asexuality being confusing, then blame the experts. Or how about the people who define themselves as asexual, since the definition varies even among asexual-identified people? Or how about blaming it on sexual people who will never understand asexuality? All of the above three choices even.

For the record, I'm asexual and I don't believe that it's inaccurate when someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction calls themselves asexual. In my experience, these people couldn't care less to engage in sexual activity and are usually quite turned off by the idea of having sex, which makes them asexual in my opinion. Being a part of the asexual community, you learn that people define asexuality differently. I don't find this article confusing at all. On the contrary, I find it accurate and quite representative. Asexuality being confusing to people has to do with the examples I listed earlier, not this article. This is a good article, and others have agreed that Flyer and company did great work on it. I find your showing up here to criticize it after the hard work to get it to the level of a good article, basically because it doesn't prescribe to your POV, to be disheartening. The only thing you could have done with this article to make it reflect your POV would have been to remove the majority of its references along with its text, which would have severely threatened the article's chances of reaching the good article level. It's not like there is a lot of research on this topic. And what research there is - most of it is in this article. You need to face that and stop acting like you got ganged up on by editors trying to put inaccurate information into the article. I almost can't even begin to rationalize how you think it's a bad idea to report the different definitions and exactly how the experts have researched the topic, but that it's a good idea to include asexuality as a political identity in the article like asexuality is some kind of choice. (Personal attack removed) That's sad. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the political information, since the article explains that asexuality is not a choice. I'm just singling out your faulty argument for wanting it included. (Personal attack removed). 23.20.6.96 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"you got ganged up on by editors trying to put inaccurate information into the article": Yes, that is exactly what happened, and your rude, bullying post above is more of the same - and what the hell does feminism have to do with anything? You don't know me, and while it is true that I wouldn't put up with sexist treatment, I've never identified as a feminist, so I don't know what on earth you are banging on about with that name-calling at all. And really, come on - even though I'm not a feminist, I think that was a pretty weak and pathetic effort. It's also interesting that you come on here trying to bully me from the anonymity of your internet connection on behalf of Flyer and whoever else, and when I click on your previous contributions, you have no history... Very suspicious. If you have no history with Misplaced Pages, then I don't understand you venom and your mobbing mentality, if not, then who knows, maybe you are one of them? Either way, it makes no difference to me - you are being rude and bullying in your post, and logic is not on your side, as I have previously shown, and as I will once again show:

Asexuality is not about being attracted to others but just having a low libido (that is hyposexuality), and despite your inference above, nor is it about being sex-phobic (though admittendly some asexuals may be, many are not, and indeed many like me are quite sex-positive, so sex-phobia and sex-negativism are different subjects to asexuality). Just as with the other three main sexual attractions/identities, in its objective sense, a-, hetero-, homo- and bisexuality all relate to one's attraction. Just as homosexuality refers to attraction to the same sex but not to the opposite sex; just like heterosexuality refers to attraction to the opposite but not to the same sex; and just like bisexuality refers to attraction to both the same and the opposite sex - so asexuality refers to attraction to neither, or put more elegantly, the lack of sexual attraction - it is really that simple.

By way of example, there are people who identify as heterosexual, but who are sexually attracted to both men and women. I'm not going to go around telling them how they should identify, and nobody really would. At the same time, however, the fact that they choose to identify as heterosexual doesn't alter the basic definition of heterosexuality as attraction to the opposite and and not the same sex. In this example, the person I'm discussing may objectively be bisexual, but they are free to identify however they want. However their identification as "heterosexual" despite their bisexual attractions and/or behaviour doesn't alter the basic definition of what heterosexuality is.

"I don't believe that it's inaccurate when someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction calls themselves asexual": Of course it absolutely is inaccurate, but like I said, I don't tell people how they should identify, and people are free to identify however they like. I'm only interesting in seeing asexuality defined precisely and without the sloppiness and confusion currently present in this article. Not that I will be a part of that, of course, because I don't have the time or energy for this kind of PC "ganging up" on and childish name-calling that you three are engaging in.

Lastly, I will repeat what I came on here to say so it doesn't get lost in all this bullying: I don't believe that political correctness should be a reason not to post content in this article, providing of course that the content in question in accurate, concise and encyclopaedic, so I support the original poster's suggestion to include the "asexuality as a political identity" section, though if I had the energy to write the article then I would probably expand it to "asexuality as an identity", to include people such as yourself, who are free to identify as asexual, even if you are not, strictly speaking, asexual. Live and let live, after all - just keep the definitions accurate. ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You said "Goodbye, bully-boys" in one of your latest edit summaries. I hope it's really goodbye, because Misplaced Pages is no place for editors who cannot defer to reliable sources and work with others, and (Personal attack removed) when they don't get their way. Including information in this encyclopedia is generally about Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not what you think you know. (Personal attack removed) You continue to affirm that your POV is correct, in the light of overwhelming evidence that it is not. If we are to defer to the reliable sources, your POV is not correct. You haven't provided any reliable sources supporting your POV, other than AVEN. And not only can AVEN not be used as the be-all and end-all definition of asexuality because they are a Misplaced Pages:Primary source and not a scholarly one (scholarly sources are needed to define any sexual orientation topic), even they recognize that the definition of asexuality varies and they welcome it. According to research, there is no single definition of asexuality, besides "a lack of sexual attraction/interest in sex." And looking at the sources, the experts mean "a significant lack." For most of the sources, at no point do they say "no sexual attraction to speak of" when referring to the definition of asexuality.

It is categorically false that you were bullied by editors who were trying to put inaccurate information into the article. You were directed to defer to reliable sources and/or to provide reliable sources supporting your POV. Instead, you bitched and protested, insisting that you were right without anything other than AVEN supporting that you are right (even with AVEN being more welcoming of how asexuality may be defined than you). AVEN can only be used for a few things in the article, and AVEN is about all you would have saying that asexuality is defined as "no sexual attraction to speak of," when looking to most of all the other reliable sources on asexuality that are a bit broader in their definition. But we are bullies because we are deferring to reliable sources by experts while letting you know that you are supposed to do the same when editing Misplaced Pages articles? I suppose we're bullies then. Silly us for deferring to what the experts say and how they use the term instead of only you and a website forum. If you're a feminist, my argument about you wanting the political identity info included isn't that weak, as it has to do with feminists and their beliefs. But then again, looking through his contributions, the editor Nick works on a lot of feminism topics and hasn't supported the inclusion of this material, so maybe the argument isn't that strong. But I basically decided to speak up and criticize you for not making sense. In your discussion with Flyer and Nick, it was pointed out that you are a new user. Looking through your contributions, it doesn't look like you have learned much since then. This is made all the more apparent by your calling me suspicious because I had no previous contributions. Do you think only registered editors watch this talk page? Do you think all unregistered watchers have used their IPs to edit Misplaced Pages articles? Are you not aware of changing IPs, by whatever the means? How about you check the edit history of this talk page and see the recent IPs who commented here before me, who also had no edit history until now, as recently as the Flag discussion below. If you must know, I either change my IP (by whatever means) or it changes for me. And I have edited/commented at Misplaced Pages before recently, but I don't edit/comment often. My general aversion to having debates with people who cannot bother to see reason is the only thing that kept me from speaking up in your discussion with Flyer and Nick. Interesting that you focus on Flyer, when I also mentioned Nick. Interesting that I appear to know Misplaced Pages better than you when I have never registered as one of its users. I guess one learns a lot just watching articles and talk pages.

Logic does happen to be on my side. Others have shown that. You have not shown anything but AVEN. The following is not what I said: "Asexuality is not about being attracted to others but just having a low libido." I did not say that. I spoke of my belief that people can feel very minor sexual attraction and still be asexual, if they, like asexual people, usually don't want to have sex and are usually turned off by the idea of having sex. My belief is supported by numerous reliable sources in the article. What is yours supported by, besides AVEN? And shall I note that there are people on AVEN who would agree with me? I would think that the definitions area of the article is all one would need to look to in order to see that what I say is true. My inference about asexuals being turned off by the idea of having sex is supported as well. It doesn't necessarily have to mean "phobia." I am turned off by the idea of having sex, and I think all true asexuals are, or else we'd be having it (and I don't mean masturbation). I don't hate sex. Nor am I scared of it. I'd just rather not have it. The thought of it does nothing for me. And the issue of libido? It actually does have to do with asexuality, in the sense that some asexuals say they do not have a sex drive. It's only natural that experts try and determine whether this has to do with a person being asexual, even though there are asexuals who do have a sex drive. Experts are going to compare the sex drives of asexuals to the sex drives of non-asexuals. They are going to study libido in relation to asexuality. And that's what I see in this article. At no point in the article do I see "asexuality means low libido" (unless talking about asexuals with low libido). Even the area about sexual orientation and etiology clarifies that asexuality is not a sexual disorder, etc., to some experts at least. The definitions area talks about some experts including minor sexual attraction in their definition of asexuality, but sexual attraction is not the same thing as libido or necessarily the same thing as sexual desire. For example, the area notes that some people who identify as asexual feel minor sexual attraction, but have no desire to act on that sexual attraction.

The difference between your example that "there are people who identify as heterosexual, but who are sexually attracted to both men and women" and this topic is that experts define heterosexuality to mean "the sexual attraction to the opposite sex/gender." If a person admits to sexual attraction to both, they are generally labeled "bisexual. But with asexuality, there is no general or single agreement about the definition of asexuality among experts, other than saying that it is "a lack of sexual attraction/interest in sex." Some of them say "the absence of," but then also go on to include people with minor sexual attraction in their definition of asexuality. I've read half of the sources in this article, and I am telling you that's the deal. You maintain that someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction and calls themselves asexual because they are not interested in sex and are turned off by the idea of having sex cannot be asexual, but that is not what the research says. That's the reason I have criticized you. Because that is what the other editors were trying to tell you, but you weren't listening then and you aren't listening now. You would be correct in your POV if "no sexual attraction" were the only definition of asexuality, but it's not. And therefore you are partly incorrect. I will repeat that if anything about the article is confusing, it's because research is not consistent in how it defines asexuality. Hence, the nature of the article. But Flyer and a Tea with toast had a definitions area created to explain all that before readers delve into the rest of the article. They were also careful to include AVEN's definition. It even comes first. But what scholars say must also be included. Would you rather not have any of the research sections in the article exist, because the experts are not defining asexuality the way you would like them to? The encyclopedia cannot do that. If there are expert-research articles defining asexuality the way you do, they should be included too. Include them. But excluding the others is not an option, especially with so little research on this topic. You call it bullying. I call it a reality of the way this encyclopedia works.

As for myself, I am strictly and technically asexual. I am not interested in sexual activity/turned on by any sexual idea. So I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm not "a true asexual." You must have assumed that because I support the ones who are just like me, with the exception that they feel minor sexual attraction. Well, it is rich of you to say that you support those people in their identity, even though you also proclaim that they are not true asexuals. There is no way you could have divided this article up into the way you suggest, as it would be Misplaced Pages:Original research when compared to the fact that all the research supports those people as asexual as much as it does us. What you proclaim about political correctness not being a reason to exclude "content that is factual and encyclopaedic" is what I proclaim. It would be political correctness, among many other things, to have this article proclaim that asexuals never feel any sexual attraction, just to satisfy you and those like you who believe that the only true definition is someone who possesses absolutely no sexual attraction. If we defer to your POV, then why not also defer to asexuals who believe that masturbation cannot possibly be a part of "a true asexual's" life? After all, there are asexuals who are even stricter in their definition of asexuality and exclude such people as being representative of asexuality because they (like the general research community) believe that in order to become sexually aroused, there has to be a point of sexual attraction. Personal opinion should not be included unless supported by reliable sources and included properly. No Misplaced Pages:Undue weight. Bias and personal opinion should not have allowance to exclude content that is factual and encyclopedic. Your commentary about an identity section, for example? There is already an "asexuality as an identity" section in the article - the definitions area. The definitions area is being kept accurate, and why? Because, for the last time, it's what the damn sources say. You can't understand that for some reason. Live and let live indeed.

I congratulate Flyer, Nick, and Tea with toast on elevating this article to WP:GA. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

More of the same bullying and harrassment. See Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. I am only replying here one last time as I have been informed that either you (individual) or you (three) have been posting insulting comments about me on other Misplaced Pages pages, so I am formally asking you to delete any and all such comments immediately. My life is far too short for this ridiculous waste of time (and if I had the time, energy & inclination I might detail how the articles don't even say what you three say they "define" asexuality as, but as I've previously said, life is just too short, and you three have driven me from contributing to this article). The article will just have to remain sloppy and inaccurate and confusing to the uninitiated. In any case, if they're interested they will probably eventually find AVEN to get a much better idea of what asexuality actually is.

So remove any harassing comments you (singular or plural) have made on other pages. Now. ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Researchers differ on how many sexual orientations exist, ranging from two to four. Some don't count bisexuality. Scholar Judith Butler in Bodies That Matter contends that asexuals don't exist. Modern feminist literature generally accepts more rather than fewer sexual orientations.

Sexual orientation differs from other sexualities in that the others presumptively need treatment or isolation of their individuals (punishment usually being isolative). While some people believe there's a need for more children and therefore oppose anything but heterosexuality, many disagree. I think one study found that asexuals' relationships were no less healthy than heterosexuals' relationships. So the scholarly view that asexuality does not need treatment or punishment and so is a sexual orientation has a basis.

Many Misplaced Pages articles report conflicting nonfringe views from scholars. Mainstream and alternative nonfringe views are reported with due weight for each (see WP:WEIGHT). We don't choose to report only the mainstream when the other views are nonfringe. Other websites may choose differently. Misplaced Pages makes research information available to readers who may then choose what to follow up on.

In the posts above, a little of the language is over the top and should not be used (I don't know what's on other pages that Violet Fae is referring to), but asking to keep the article's content within Misplaced Pages's standards is not.

If presenting conflicting views is confusing to some readers, if the issue is that there are conflicting views, there's nothing to be done about that. But if the issue is how the two are presented and if there's a better way to separate the conflicting views and to be clear that they are conflicting (within a reasonable length and without criticizing one of the views except to report sourcing doing so), then please provide such an edit.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, IP and Nick. Excellent points. Best to not even respond to Violet Fae any longer about this, with her abhorrent responses and, as the IP stated, failure to follow reliable sources. She says she "might detail how the articles don't even say what three say they 'define' asexuality as"? I say, "Oh no, they say exactly what we say they do." One example is this Prause/Graham source that she continues to ignore, which says "The term 'asexual' has been defined in many different ways" and "researchers have used the term 'asexual' to refer to individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors," for starters. I don't care if Violet Fae considers us bullies for reporting different definitions of asexuality and the research on it that includes aspects she happens to disagree with, or that she considers the article "sloppy and inaccurate and confusing to the uninitiated." As said, we're only following sources, and I did my best with what I had to work with. Because of that work, this article is now considered GA, and I won't let her take that honor from me. Even if I leave Misplaced Pages for good, and the article descends into crap by her hand, that honor will still be mine. Don't know what she's talking about with regard to us "posting insulting comments about on other Misplaced Pages pages." I haven't done that here (other than criticize her arguments) or elsewhere. But I don't care. I will say that if we should read WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, then so should she. I will also say that she can refer to me as a boy/male all she wants. Doesn't make me one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

This article is really good. It is split up and divided nicely. Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmolenaa (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we still have some more to do, but I thank you for the assessment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Sexual orientation" in hatnote

I've started this section to discuss MathewTownsend's removal of the sexual orientation wording from the hatnote. MathewTownsend stated "not a 'sexual orientation'," but as the lead and article notes, asexuality is considered a sexual orientation among some researchers. For some asexuals, it is not just "a lack of sexual attraction," but "no sexual attraction." All of this is why asexuality is listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and Template:Sexual orientation, which was only listed after thorough discussion. Although I don't feel strongly about MathewTownsend's removal, since this topic is so debated among researchers, I don't understand the issue with listing it as a sexual orientation in its Misplaced Pages hatnote when it is already officially listed as one by Misplaced Pages. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too concerned about in this but I do think the article should be accurate. If least two reliable sources can be found that state that it is a sexual orientation, then the hatnote would be on more solid ground. But none of the dictionary sources in the lede say that it is a "sexual orientation". And the lede says only that it is "sometimes considered a sexual orientation." But the source you link to that statement says: "Asexuality, in contrast, can be defined as the absence of a traditional sexual orientation".

So I question whether "sexual orientation" is the reason most readers would be coming to the article, so there is no reason to put it in a hatnote. And it is misleading, if Asexuality is not generally considered a sexual orientation. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Asexuality being considered a sexual orientation is backed in this article in the third paragraph, where it says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not." It's backed to the "Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?" source. You cannot access it, but that source does go over the debate among researchers about whether or not asexuality should be categorized as a sexual orientation. The Sexual orientation and etiology section also includes this source and other sources on the subject. We aren't going by dictionary sources when it comes to defining asexuality as a sexual orientation; those are not good sources to use for such a topic. Scholarly sources are. The dictionary sources are only used to define asexuality in general.

As for the source you linked to above, that is in the Sexual orientation article, I assume it's used because classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation is also mentioned in that source (which consists of 12 pages; the last two are more so blank pages). Even the line you cited mentions it: Absence of a traditional sexual orientation. That line is saying that it is not a traditional sexual orientation, not that it isn't a sexual orientation at all.

Like I stated, I don't see the issue with calling asexuality a sexual orientation in the hatnote when it is already listed as one in the Sexual orientation article and its template. If you don't think it should be listed in those instances, you can bring that up on their talk pages. I mean, in the GA discussion above, I did say "...asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation (which makes it sort of odd that we have included it in Template:Sexual orientation." But I don't think there will be much support to remove it, since it is used to describe people who lack or do not have sexual attraction for either sex. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That article is not a good source to make a claim that asexuality is a sexual orientation. First, it is a primary source and is not a reliable secondary source. And it is an old source, published in 2004. If there has been no follow up, no subsequent articles supporting that research, that is not a good sign that the research article made any kind of impact. Second, it is only one source, so it is only the one researcher's opinion. The article needs independent reliable sources to make the claim that asexuality is a sexual orientation. None of the other sources for the asexuality article support that claim. If authoritative secondary sources could be found, such as the American Psychological Association, and more that one, then the claim could be included. Third, the article quoted, besides being a primary source, does not directly say "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." Instead, it makes a vague, unsubstantial claim not backed by evidence that can be interpreted various ways. The sexual orientation article says, "our conception of sexual orientation as an attraction to another person". This is the general consensus, and Misplaced Pages does not publish fringe theories. The article should follow Identifying reliable sources (medicine), since the article is bordering on making diagnoses.

Also, there is has one slight mention in the sexual orientation article (footnoted to the same article as in this article), and 99% of the sexual orientation article directly contradicts it. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the Contemporary Sexuality source ("Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?") is a primary source. Primary sources are sources such as AVEN. The Contemporary Sexuality source features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation. It is not a primary source, and neither is the Prause source. There is also the "Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality" source by Bogaert. All of these sources now back the line in the Sexual orientation article that says: though asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth category. They show that asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation category by some researchers. That is all these sources are supporting in the Asexuality article: That asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation by some researchers. The lead says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not.", not "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." I only started this section because I find it odd not to mention "sexual orientation" in the hatnote when asexuality is already listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and template. Like I stated, "If you don't think it should be listed in those instances, you can bring that up on their talk pages." That is where the debate about whether or not we should list asexuality as a sexual orientation should be had, because this article is not saying that it is definitively a sexual orientation...except for the template that is listed here (and the category at the bottom of the article, if you count that). Yes, sexual orientation is "an attraction to another person." Asexuality is also about attraction; it is about little or no sexual attraction. This is why it is debated as a sexual orientation by researchers. I don't see the Sexual orientation article contradicting asexuality. I see it as mainly discussing heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. And this is because of what I just stated above -- the debate. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please see WP:MEDRS. When it comes to research articles, a primary source is an individual study or research endevor conducted by an individual researcher or group of researchers. It presents raw data, and analyzes it, then presents original conclusions. A secondary source is a review article that summarizes the current research in the field. It examines many studies are comes to conclusions based on an analysis of many studies, based on what the majority of studies support. One study can be way off base. If used at all in an article, it must be supported by secondary sources. It is just one researcher's findings. That is why they are not reliable sources. Something like AVEN is just a self-published source and really can't be used at all, except to cite uncontroversial facts about AVEN itself and not considered a reliable source for any other information. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

MathewTownsend, I am already aware of WP:MEDRS. I would have to be, working on articles such as these. In any case, the sources I added are supporting the line in the Sexual orientation article that asexuality is starting to be recognized as a fourth sexual orientation category, and the line in the Asexuality article that some researchers consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation. I also realize that you must have been originally talking about this Bogaert source when you started talking about primary sources. My main point is that you are focusing on one finding. I am not speaking of findings. I am speaking of what is debated among researchers, backed by reliable sources. Does the Asexuality article say that asexuality is definitively a sexual orientation? No. It says that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers. Are you saying that this cannot be mentioned and thoroughly investigated in the Asexuality article? If so, I do not see why...since this debate is supported by reliable sources. And, yes, AVEN counts as WP:PRIMARY; it's only used in this article for things that primary sources are okay for. AVEN itself is also cited in reliable sources, so its article can most definitely be expanded beyond its own sources. I am bringing editors in from WP:MED to weigh in on this matter, since they know better than anyone when it comes to topics about sourcing such as this.

I'd also rather keep this discussion in one place. So since you started the Template talk:Sexual orientation#Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation? discussion, let's keep it there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a little silly to call that article in an organizational newsletter a "research article" as if it were published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Contemporary Sexuality source basic, simple journalism of exactly the sort you'd find in any newspaper or magazine that happened to care about this subject. If you really need to figure out whether it's primary or secondary, then you might find WP:PRIMARYNEWS to be helpful.

But frankly, I think the classification is irrelevant: Neither PRIMARY nor MEDRS prohibit the use of journalism-type sources, especially when the claims being made are "Some experts say this, and others say that". (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call it a research article, WhatamIdoing, although it could be called one in the sense that, as I stated, it "features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation." To me, calling it a research paper is different than calling it a research article and is what would have been a little silly. But, again, I didn't call it a research article.

Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to Sexual attraction in the lede

In the lede, Sexual attraction is piped to "Sexual interest". I believe this is incorrect. If you read the article Sexual attraction, it says:

Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context in which they appear.

So the lede of this article says, essentially {if you look at the article the piped link actually goes to:

Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attractiveness or sex appeal refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice.

Do you mean to say the Asexuality refers to the lack of sex appeal? That the most important aspect of the asexual person is that he/she is not sexually attractive to others?

If so, that's not what those three dictionary definitions the you link to in the lede say. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As seen in these links, I pipelinked "sexual attraction" to "sexual interest" only after you removed "sexual attraction." The "lack of sexual attraction" line was actually backed to two scholarly sources and one news source, not dictionary sources, and I will change it back to that per these sources and because it's best to just say "sexual attraction" instead of "sexual interest" in this case. An asexual person may show significant sexual interest in another person just to please a romantic partner, for example, but still feel no sexual attraction.

As for the Sexual attraction article, I did look at that article after I pipelinked to it and the only reason I can think that it is defined that way in the lead is because the article used to be titled Sexual attractiveness. I'll fix that now. Thank you, MathewTownsend, for pointing out just how badly it needs to be reworded. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ok. Since I doubt an asexual person would have much Sexual attraction or "sex appeal" for others, so it really makes no sense to link to it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I already fixed the definition in the Sexual attraction article. I don't mind if it's not linked here, per WP:OVERLINKING, since it is a common term that most people comprehend. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As a side point to MathewTownsend, perhaps you meant a different preposition, but your doubt that an asexual would have much sexual attraction for others is about someone else's attraction to the asexual, and that's not necessarily near zero, even if an asexual is statistically less likely to dress or appear to be sexually appealing to others. Not all attraction is mutual or supported by an object (so to speak) of attraction. It may lead to frustration but so may many, perhaps most, attractions between nonasexuals. An object being asexual may increase attraction from another specifically because asexuality may be disbelieved or viewed as a challenge or ground for a project or conversion experiment. This may assist in the discussion of sexual attraction for the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the edit histories of Sexual attraction and Sexual attractiveness, it seems that the Sexual attraction article was never titled Sexual attractiveness; Sexual attractiveness was created as a redirect. So it's odd that the lead didn't completely correspond with the title. Maybe it did at one time, but someone changed it? Hmm. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Asexual Flag

Sometime last month, it looks like the asexual flag and information about it have been removed. The flag is an important and growing symbol in the asexual community. Many asexual people will identify themselves using the flag or its colors. Asexual groups in Pride Parades will fly the flag. It's a much more widespread symbol than the gradient triangle, which is the logo of a single website. The asexual flag is hardly "based entirely on web forums", which was the rationale for removing the section. The flag info should be restored. 50.46.248.95 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In compliance with Misplaced Pages's verifiability requirements, the information about the flag was removed since the only sources of information about the flag were web forums. If you can find information about the flags from reliable secondaries sources (books, print magazines, etc.), you are free to include information about the flag on the article. --Tea with toast (話) 04:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(Not the original IP.) You assume that there are whole books about asexuality, when in reality even books on sexuality have at the most a couple of badly researched pages on asexuality. --87.157.44.28 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there actually is a verifiable non-Internet source for the flag, though it's not yet widely available. Angela Tucker's documentary (A)sexual, which is currently making festival rounds, features the flag prominently. If you need further proof of the flag being flown outside the Internet, see this YouTube video of the asexuality contingent in the San Francisco pride parade, in which someone is wearing the flag. Lunasspecto (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tea with toast, I would think that it would have been less destructive and much more constructive to post here on the Talk page about the need for additional sources (or indeed to spend the time finding said sources), rather than simply deleting important content without warning, as editors may not immediately notice the information's deletion, and the asexual flag is an important symbol of asexuality, and as such should definitely be present in an article about asexuality (accept my apologies if this discussion did take place in previously archived pages, with nobody responding - though a repeat warning before deletion still should have happened, IMHO). ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Neologisms in the Definitions section

I reverted an attempt to include sapioromantic on the list as it didn't seem to be a real word. (diff) As it turns out all the words on the list basically compound words created recently and I don't find them in any dictionary. I've checked www.onelook.com and books.google.com. Perhaps there are articles in journals that use these words? (check scholar.google.com) Many seem to be coined by replacing sexual with romantic in standard words, i.e. asexual becomes aromantic. It should be made clear that these are neologisms and who is introducing them into the language. Below is a list of the words. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• aromantic
• biromantic
• heteroromantic
• homoromantic
• panromantic
• omniromantic
• transromantic
• polyromantic
• grey-romantic
• demiromantic

Richard-of-Earth, with the exception of "grey-romantic (gray-romantic)," and maybe "demiromantic," I feel that the terms listed should stay because these are terms commonly used by asexuals (and "omniromantic" isn't in that section, by the way). The terms are only alternatives to terms that already exist (replacing "sexual" with "romantic," like you stated; they are simply the romantic aspects of already-existing terms), which is shown in that section, so I'm not sure about describing them as neologisms. But even if we say that they are neologisms, I don't feel that we should point out (in the section) that they are new terms or aren't common, since it's clear that they are only used by asexuals. I believe that the terms are supported by AVEN. Yes, AVEN is a WP:PRIMARY source, but primary sources are okay to use in instances such as these. I'm not asexual, but I have studied it a great deal these past couple of years and used that knowledge to help elevate this article to WP:GA status. And knowing what I do about the asexual community, having a definitions/identity section without those terms makes that section seem incomplete. I'm not sure if any scholars discuss asexuals using these terms. I'll have to look through my sources again, as well as others. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the two I mentioned above, seeing as there are no corresponding articles for them and the descriptions for them ventured into WP:OR in contrast to other entries which simply identify themselves as being the romantic aspects of the already-existing terms. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Omniromantic is mentioned as an alternative to panromantic. I didn't say they should be removed, although the ones you removed are fine with me. I also didn't mean to denigrate the excellent work you have done. It's just they are all unsourced. I think it is fine to have them. Maybe we don't need to say they are neologisms in the article as "neologisms" seems to be a dirty word on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we could say these are proposed terms and who is proposing them? No deadline, we're all volunteers here. Add it to your list of things to do. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I overlooked omniromantic. I know that you didn't suggest that the terms be removed, but I felt that you may be implying that or that you would get around to suggesting it since the terms aren't sourced. And I know that you weren't denigrating my work on the article; no worries there. I didn't even add the terms; I simply gave them better context when fixing up the article. I don't believe that they are proposed terms, though. Just rather terms used in the asexual community. If you don't feel that it's already clear, we could somehow emphasize that people will only hear/read about these terms with regard to the asexual community. Like I stated, I'll look for scholarly sources using the terms. But I think that AVEN may be the only source supporting them; hopefully, there is a section on AVEN supporting them, because we certainly can't refer to AVEN forums. But, yes, other than removing the terms, I don't know what to do if I can't find sources backing them, which is why I explained my reasons for believing that they should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that one of the sources in the section backs a few of the terms, but I don't know how reliable the source is or if it should be used as a primary or secondary source. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it did occur to me and it wouldn't diminish the article any, however I'm fine with the list now as we can see a basis for what goes on the list and what does not. As long as it doesn't become a list of slang. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I did find some refs on google scholar, but as I'm not spending money on this I can read the full articles. Lookin just for "biromantic" gets at the top of the list AC Hinderliter, who apperently works for AVEN, wrote this letter that seems to talk about how these words formed. Searching for all the terms "biromantic", "heteroromantic", "homoromantic" and "panromantic" gives this work and this work. Perhaps if I get ambitious, I'll go by the library to read them in full. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard-of-Earth. I appreciate it. Do you want one or two these sources added beside each of the terms, or will having them added beside the line "Asexuals, while lacking in sexual desire for any gender, may engage in purely emotional romantic relationships." suffice for you? I take it you also want a bit on how these terms formed added to the article? Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I should read them first, you can do what you think is best, but I'm in no rush. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bell Curve

"Most traits in an average population can be described in terms of a bell curve"

This statement is dubious at best. First I don't understand what it means to have an "average population". A population is the entire group of people, in this article it seems you are talking about the world's population. I have no idea what it means to examine the average world population. You can talk about the average sexual behavior instead. Many traits do follow a bell curve but the use of the word "most" here is misleading. If there is some evidence that sex drive follows a bell curve I would suggest citing that and then only talk about sex drive instead of trying to generalize all traits so that they follow a bell curve.

I think this is some attempt to appeal to the Central Limit Theorem but this is misguided since you are talking about the distribution of the population. 174.53.155.158 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Good points, IP. I'll have to check the sources to see if they state anything about "most." What wording do you suggest if "most" is not supported? Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is evidence that sex drive follows a normal distribution (bell curve) then cite it and leave the word most out of the discussion. Otherwise I'd suggest removing this portion. 174.53.155.158 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Update: An IP removed the image and its text. Not sure if it was the same person (different IP) above who did it. Also note that I was not the one who added that image/text. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article AVEN currently has no reliable sources and I can't find any via a quick search. Rather than nominate the whole page for deletion, a more reasonable cause of action would be to redirect / merge the content from that article into this one, and trim it down to a few paragraphs.

I notice AVEN was proposed for deletion. What was the outcome of that? --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support; looks reasonable to me. There's not much worth merging - there's no evidence of notability and no independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, PROD is only for totally uncontroversial deletions - anyone can disagree and remove the PROD (which means that, in practice, articles are only PRODdable if the article creator is no longer an active editor). Somebody removed the PROD, and that's that. AfD is the one-size-fits-all, general-purpose way to suggest deletion of any article, whilst PROD and CSD are more specialised and "niche". AVEN could be a good candidate for the AfD Pit Of Doom, but the end result of that would probably look very similar to the result of this merger proposal anyway. bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• I found a BBC News article here which mentions AVEN. That probably wouldn't be enough to sustain a full article, but it would make it worthy of mention here. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• No support. And I state that because there are news, reliable website and scholarly sources which discuss the site briefly. That is because it's often difficult to talk about asexuality extensively without talking about the most prominent site for asexuality (that site being AVEN). Some of those scholarly sources are in this article. And here is a Psychology Today source briefly discussing it (take note that this is not a blog that violates the reliable sources guideline, but rather one that is in line with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs). I knew that the AVEN article had a chance of being nominated for deletion, especially with the tags that were placed on it, but until I could get around to fixing the article up, I hoped an experienced AfDer would realize that just because an article is devoid of reliable, third-party sources, it doesn't mean that the topic is not notable. Ritchie333 is such an AfDer, and I appreciate that. But just doing a quick search before suggesting deletion or merging isn't sufficient either. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think mentioning the site briefly or in passing is sufficient. Coverage needs to be significant ie: it has to be very specifically about AVEN as a group, not just on its parent topic. The article you linked to certainly sustains the overall topic of asexuality as being notable (which I don't think anyone doubts), but I don't think I can muster up anything about the website itself beyond a few paragraphs (such as the BBC News article I mentioned above). Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages procedure is also such that the burden is on the article's authors to provide references, not for deletionists (for want of a better term) to refute them. Therefore, if you don't have time to provide reliable sources, the de facto state of the article is that it will get deleted. The previous run of people campaigning for it to be speedy deleted were flippant and arrogant, but they did have a point. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• AVEN is mentioned briefly in various reliable sources, though, often as an explanation of what asexuality is and/or to describe what takes place in the asexuality community. The sourcing guideline requires that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.," and that the topic is discussed (not simply mentioned) in the sources (at least the sourcing guideline is clear, and perhaps used to state, that mentions are not enough). I'm stating that there is brief discussion of the site in some reliable sources, not just the ones you or I listed. But, again, thank you for being a rational AfDer (I won't call you a deletionist because that has been a dirty name around Misplaced Pages to signal editors who are elitist in how they go about deleting things from Misplaced Pages and who often delete things from Misplaced Pages with that mindset). I of course understand your point, and see the validity in your argument. No, I don't have time to fix up the AVEN article. I'm busy in offline life and with other articles on Misplaced Pages. I would state that the AVEN information can fit in the Community section of this article for the time being, but it's already there. There is no merging of material that is needed. The Community section covers AVEN well, and includes reliable third-party sources about it, so you can simply redirect AVEN to that section. I'm not stating that I support the merge, but I do see the validity in it/solid rationale behind it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is a very recent Metro UK article here which mentions AVEN throughout the article, has a short interview with the founder of AVEN and briefly discusses the relation of the LGBT community and AVEN.--Annix9 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's useful to know. Hmmm, with at least two reliable sources I'm getting more of a feeling to keep the article - but I think it still needs quite a bit of cleanup. I'll have a think about something. In the meantime, perhaps those on AVEN going to Pride in London tomorrow might consider collaring any reporters or newsmen floating around to gather some more notability. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected the article in line with the above. AIRcorn (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks - I'd forgotten all about that. I think Flyer22 was the only one who was concerned about the merge, and she eventually agreed with consensus anyhow. --Ritchie333 15:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the internal links to Asexual Visibility and Education Network. And although, in that edit summary, I stated that I didn't see consensus for a merge (seeing as two people were for the merge and it seemed that Annix9 was right along with me for possibly not merging, and that Ritchie333 reconsidered his merging proposal), like I stated in this edit summary, "I did kind of agree with merging later on and no longer object to . So perhaps that is consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent change to article

This addition uses language that even children in grade school generally know is not acceptable. I am astounded that any editor of any standing would believe such juvenile comments are appropriate anywhere. I sincerely urge the editor involved to perhaps consider what their motivations in editing are. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think my edit was a factual edit. "Horniness" and sexual attraction are synonymous terms are they not? I could be mistaken thogh, but please correct me if i am. Pass a Method talk 21:06, 1 August 2012 (U::TC)

I am truly stunned that anyone who would presumably consider themselves an adult would try to defend adding the word "horniness" to the lead of an article. Do you have a dictionary definition of "horniness" to verify your assumption, I wonder, which would be required as per WP:V? Also, I have to think that any editor who has been such for some time would presumably be aware that encyclopedic content should avoid using ill-defined slang language in the lead section of an article. I am sorry that in all the time you have been editing you still are not apparently familiar with WP:MOS, WP:TONE, and other indicators of how to write reasonable encyclopedic articles. The addition was not sourced, there is no clear evidence that the word was used accurately, there was no discussion of any sort before the fact, and I do have to believe a reasonable adult who does not actually live in the gutter would know without having to be told that language which does not add anything of substance to the article, which rather clearly uses slang language which rarely if ever appears in encyclopedic content. Apparently, one of those basic indicators of competence to edit as per WP:COMPETENCE and elsewhere is something with which you have trouble. May I very seriously urge you to perhaps actually read some of the relevant policies and guidelines so that you do not engage in such truly extraordinarily questionable behavior. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Has it ever occured to you that i did not know that the term "horniness" is considered slang? In fact, in British dictionaries it is simply described as "informal" and not as slang. See . John, i would appreciate it if you could show more good faith instead of accusing me of "trolling". Pass a Method talk 21:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to have to consider what you may or may not know. That is one aspect of the competency as per WP:COMPETENCE that I had mentioned earlier. And even you admit that it is "informal" at best, and informal language of that type is something that presumably any editor of some experience would know is avoided. Also, there is the fact that the language was also, basically, redundant. Really, Pass a Method, is it your understanding that we have to rewrite content in a redundant way using what you call "informal" tone for some reason which I cannot for the life of me conceive of? I once again believe that such less than justified, undiscussed, unilateral, revisions of a rather dubious nature could reasonably raise questions of competence. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally dont think its necessarily unencyclopedic to use informal language, as long as formal language is used as well. In fact i have seen informal language used many times on wikipedia. But i dont feel even remotely strongly about this edit, so i sort of feel like we are debating for no reason. I wouldn't even have reverted that IP. Im a bit surprised how this has been blown out of proportion. Pass a Method talk 22:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Adopting informal language when writing articles isn't consistent with WP:TONE, and irrespective of whether you consider John Carter's response disproportionate, the gist is simply that such phraseology is not appropriate. Informal or improper language elsewhere does not legitimise a user's adoption of said nomenclature for their own edits. After further reflection, I'm also concerned at the consistency of your defence in spite of John's explanation and the earlier references to the applicable policies indicating that the revision is inappropriate. Meph 22:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC).

@Pass a Method: The IP reverted you for well-stated reasons. I still have virtually no capacity to understand why an editor would continue to try to defend themselves in this thread if, as they say, things "have been blown out of proportion." And I am very much surprised that an editor of long standing would display the very dubious judgment to make such a questionable edit in the first place, and then try to defend it, although I think the comments I received on my user talk page regarding these edits may well explain why the tone has softened since, well, someone saw those comments and decided to add their own. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

John im not defending my edit and i think the current version is absolutely fine, and i dont feel strongly about my edit in the slightest. If i reverted the edit, i might have understood such a strong reponse. But the fact i did not revert, and even explicitly stated i could be "mistaken" represents (i think) an exaggerated response considering all the sanction threats you've thrown at me. Pass a Method talk 23:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since PAM seems willing not to readd the objectionable term, let's all drop the sick. LadyofShalott 23:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the term was appropriate because it puts a burden on the reader of knowing what the term means, where sexual attraction (with wikilink) does not. But you know what, it's not the end of the world..... --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ritchie, it's safe to say that most English-speaking people know what "horniness" means. But "horniness" is a synonym for sexual arousal, not sexual attraction. And although sexual attraction and sexual arousal largely overlap, they are not the same thing. For example, a person may become sexually aroused at the idea of a sex toy, but I doubt most people would describe themselves or the person as being sexually attracted to the sex toy. As mentioned in the article, some asexuals state that they become sexually aroused and "need to" masturbate...but feel no sexual attraction to anyone. With the exception of the occasional times a male has an unexpected erection and then has the desire to reach "release," the question begs: How are asexuals becoming sexually aroused if not sexually attracted to anyone? But that's for the experts to figure out.

My main point is that since "sexual attraction" covers sexual arousal (although that doesn't always go vice versa), there was no need to add "horniness." Not to mention...it is indeed slang. Pass a Method, you have a bad habit of adding slang to sexual articles, and given the objection to such slang each and every time, unless placed in an Etymology section, I'd think you'd have learned not to do it anymore. And you say that you wouldn't have reverted, but the thing is...you usually do revert. We got through disputing issues with the topic of asexuality not too long ago, and here you are again with similar behavior. This hasn't been "blown out of proportion," especially considering that you continue to edit Misplaced Pages this way in general. And by "this way" and "in general," I mean that your edits are generally unsourced, especially the WP:SYNTH variety, slang or otherwise disruptive. It needs to stop. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

syntax of definition

The second paragraph in Romantic relationships and identity begins

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) defines asexuality as "someone who does not experience sexual attraction" ...

Asexuality is not a "someone", a person, but a state or characteristic of a person. I'm changing that to

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) defines as asexual "someone who does not experience sexual attraction" ...

--Thnidu (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I of course agree that asexuality is not a person, Thnidu. Thanks for pointing out that wording error. I tweaked your change, though, so that it states "defines an asexual as." Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

IS ASEXUALITY EVEN REAL???

it's pretty common knowledge that human beings need sex/sexual relations (see the article for "human" on wikipedia) to function and be healthy, so my question is why is there even a lengthy article on "asexuality" here? is this a real thing, or just people who for whatever reason choose to not engage in sexual activities?

.......

another question i have is what is the root cause of "asexuality"? i don't see anything mentioned in the article about the cause. one thought i have is that most (if not all) of these people were sexually abused /molested when younger, and choose to identify as "asexual" as a result of these traumas. what are your thoughts on these various points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.154.228 (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is not really an appropriate topic for this page, which is to do with discussion of the asexuality article, not asexuality as a topic. Your question is probably better off asked on AVEN, or, if you prefer an on-wiki answer, at the reference desk. A quick glance at the numerous forum posts in there will reveal that many people consider that asexuality is a very real thing for them. However, that in itself is not important for a Misplaced Pages article, which merely has to be notable and verifiable, which this article is due to having information in multiple, independent reliable sources. --Ritchie333 08:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The question in the section title is often asked on this talk page, as can be seen in the archives at the top. I commented on this a bit (see Talk:Asexuality/Archive 4) and don't have much more to state on the matter here than that. But it seems that this topic will always be discussed here, even if we add a FAQ template at the top of the talk page informing readers/editors that this is a frequently asked question that shouldn't be discussed here, but has been addressed in the archives. Most people who ask it here simply don't know about WP:NOTAFORUM and don't see or disregard it being linked at the top of the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As for causes... IP, the Sexual orientation and etiology section does mention what some researchers believe to be the reason for asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

I wished to add Albus Dumbledore of the Harry Potter books to the fictional asexuals section, but was thrown by a blaring edit note stating not to add him. I wish to dispute this, however-- Albus Dumbledore was asexual. This is referenced from Rowling herself:

"He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgement in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and bookish life." (emphasis added) (New J.K. Rowling Interview: Confirms Working on "Scottish Book"...)

If we accept what the page itself says that it is possible for asexuals to flirt with romantic or even sexual relationships at times, then, this is perfectly valid. If we accept the author's own words then, this character was asexual. ProfessorTofty (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct when it comes to the reference, but on the other hand, how does adding this wizard contribute to the article??? There are thousands upon thousands of asexual figures in children's literature. Should we add Donald Duck and his likes? Lova Falk talk 09:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Rowling is apparently using the term "asexual" to refer to sexual abstinence/celibacy; as this Asexuality article notes, those two things are not the same as asexuality. Well, they generally aren't considered the same thing by people who identify as asexual and most researchers studying the topic. The hidden note about Dumbledore relayed "Rowling stated in an interview that she thought of him as gay, since she is his creator, and thinks he is attracted to men - he's not asexual." But I changed it because "people who are gay can be asexual, as this article notes." They are called homoromantic, generally by those in the asexual community. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to restrict the list of notable asexuals to people whom their asexuality is a significant feature of them. I don't think of asexuality when I think of Dumbledore, but I do when thinking of Anne Widdecombe (an archetypical spinster) and Kenneth Williams (as his posthumous diaries show a private live more or less at odds with his public career). --Ritchie333 16:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's fair. In that case, we are saying that the author is using the term in a way that doesn't actually meet the definition accepted here. I can accept that, though I'm not sure I necessarily agree. I think that what Rowling might be saying is that after his negative experience with Grindelwald, he lost his sexual desire. I suppose, though, that there's not really enough evidence, other than the fact she herself used the term "asexual." As for what it adds to the article-- if it were accepted, how would be any less notable than a couple of patients featured on one episode of House?ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think they are totally not notable as well. I'll remove them! Lova Falk talk 16:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333's suggestion and thus agree with Lova Falk's removal. We should also put a hidden note in that section about this, right near the top. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: The Dumbledore issue was also brought up at Talk:Asexuality/Archive 4#Why is Dumbledore on here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Questioned edit

Hey, Lova Falk... Regarding this, the source does mention celibacy and therefore an aspect of sexual abstinence (which is of course a social aspect). So in what way did you (likely still do) feel that the source doesn't support the wording you removed? Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Flyer! Thank you for discussing this with me here. The original sentence was: "... because asexuality does not necessarily define someone as having a medical problem or problems relating to others socially (such as celibacy or abstinence)." For me, this "such as celibacy or abstinence" relates to "a medical problem or problems relating to others socially". Now, the source doesn't connect celibacy with a medical problem or with problems relating to others socially, and the source doesn't even use the word abstinence. So that is why I removed these words. Lova Falk talk 16:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, Lova Falk. I do note, though, that the source is addressing the fact that significantly not being interested in sexual activity and therefore never or barely engaging in it may be a medical problem; as we know, abstaining from sexual activity is generally considered sexual abstinence. It's an umbrella term for abstaining from sexual activity for whatever reason, and is often used interchangeably with "celibacy," although "celibacy" and "asexuality" are about more than just abstaining from sexual activity. But I definitely understand why you removed the text. Putting "abstinence" aside, the source doesn't explicitly state that celibacy can be related to a medical problem, and, while it is also a social matter, the source certainly doesn't state that celibacy can be a problem relating to others socially. So I am fine with your removal of the text. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for this friendly discussion on the talk page! Lova Falk talk 18:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You (editor Nick Levinson) as a source

(The following and a similar title are copied from my talk page and answered here. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

Nick, I just noticed a little bit ago that you are used as a reference in the Asexuality article (as a source at the end of the Sexual orientation and etiology section). I'm certain that it's referencing you, given your interest in feminism and that you've heavily edited the article in the past. I suppose, and of course without any offense intended (you that know I very much respect you), my only question is how reliable is it with regard to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy/guidelines? I also know that some editors object to other editors adding sources based on their own research. And although I stated "my only question," my other would be to know your profession. I'm not sure if you told me before, and I'm okay with you not divulging that information if you don't want to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Prior discussions were the challenge on COI by user Fetchcomms, Feb. 17, 2010 9:42p (UTC), my proposal to cite it, and my Etiology section draft proposal. The source was okay in 2010 for what it is but it is not a source with much research. I used it because it seemed not much was available one way or another, other than claims of nonexistence. I recall that one APA recognized that smaller populations lead to reliance on less sample-based research, forcing everyone to rely on whatever is the best research available. And the source is verifiable but not easily, in that probably few libraries get it and it's probably not in a database or been discussed much elsewhere. If there's a better source these days, maybe this one should be replaced or relegated to being additional reading. I don't stay up to date in the field, so if you want to delete it, go ahead. My profession is not in the field and for a long time I've limited my editing in it, as other editors know more than I do. Feel free. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, Nick. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

archive duplication

There seems to be some redundancy between Archive 3 and Archive 4. Maybe we should cut from archive 4 or maybe both get cited or linked to and we should leave both. I didn't test What Links Here. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the duplication before responding in the "IS ASEXUALITY EVEN REAL???" section, Nick. But I decided to pass on doing anything about it at that time, since the duplication is a bit different when taking into account the extra replies. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Janeane Garofalo

Regarding this revert by Ritchie333, the new editor Spongepoet likely removed her because the source doesn't state "asexual"; it states "celibate." And while some people no doubt state "celibate" when they mean "asexual," or "asexual" when they mean "celibate" (as noted above), the point is that they are not the same thing and we should go by the reliable sources on this. The source doesn't even show that Garofalo "describ herself as having no interest in sex whatsoever." That is why I didn't revert Spongepoet.Likewise, the asexuality mention with the same source in her article should be removed, and so should Category: Asexual people per WP:BLPCAT, unless the source is replaced with a reliable reference that documents her calling herself asexual. We need to be careful labeling people asexual; really, they should only be labeled such if they identify as such. Flyer22 (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Flyer. I didn't check the sources (oops, should have), so now we have good documented evidence as to why the removal was done, feel free to revert my undo. On a tangent to this, I need to dig out some more sources for Kenneth Williams to confirm he was definitely asexual as opposed to merely celibate - his diaries and dramatisation thereof show him being extremely reluctant to have intimate relationships with other men, though whether this is due to actual asexuality or merely a fear of doing something that was then illegal, is hard to verify. --Ritchie333 11:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, the source does state "self-proclaimed asexual atheist." So she is apparently both asexual/celibate. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the Garofalo information to this. Flyer22 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Janeane Garofalo publically stated her asexuality during her stand-up video "If You Will" in 2010. She had a whole routine regarding her happiness in a sexless marriage. Why is she such a controversial figure to be included in the list? She even used the word "ASEXUAL" to describe herself during the show. (Tigerghost (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC))

By "such a controversial figure to be included in the list," I take it that you mean Spongepoet having removed her from the list yet again before I reverted? I state that you must be referring to Spongepoet because the only problem I had with her being included on the list is that, per sourcing and WP:BLP issues, I didn't think the source uses the word "asexual" and wondered whether Garofalo identifies as asexual. Per above, I corrected myself when I saw that the source does indeed use the word "asexual" and states that Garofalo identifies that way.

As for Spongepoet, I will direct him or her to this talk page discussion. If he or she removes Garofalo again, then revert and issue a warning to the user about it. If he or she keeps removing Garofalo, even after being warned not to, then he or she will eventually be blocked (temporarily at first...most likely). Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Asexuals & Masturbation

the article contains the following sentence "Some may masturbate as a solitary form of release, while others do not feel a need to do so. The need or desire for masturbation is commonly referred to as a "sex drive" and is disassociated from sexual attraction and being sexual"

i'm confused by this, can anyone (esp. someone who's asexual) explain a little more on this? also when asexuals masturbate if they have no sexual desires, what exactly are they fantasizing about when masturbating? that makes no sense. Sleek Intro (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asexual, but like I stated in the "IS ASEXUALITY EVEN REAL???" section above, questions about sexual activity among asexuals are often asked on this talk page, as can be seen in the archives at the top. I commented on this a bit here, the aspect you question, as seen at Talk:Asexuality/Archive 4, and don't have much more to state on the matter here than that. You should read the Delete, "Delete, Part 2," A Sexual Orientation?, and Low sexual desire/libido is not asexuality discussions, and it may benefit you to read others on the topic in the archives. But despite those archive discussions, discussions about this shouldn't be had on this talk page...per WP:NOTAFORUM. Flyer22 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is, if multiple, independent, reliable sources state a known link between asexuality and masturbation, we can write about it in a Misplaced Pages article. You could try asking your question at the reference desk, but you'd be better off seeking an off-wiki forum for this sort of thing. --Ritchie333 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Or, if reading the archive(s) isn't sufficient, asking at AVEN, like Ritchie333 mentioned in the "IS ASEXUALITY EVEN REAL???" section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not even every sexual person fantasizes while masturbating (most males do, but many females do not). I think most libidinous asexuals masturbate for the same reason they would scratch themselves if they were itchy. Kila Onasi 18:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if males sexually fantasize about a person more than females do before/while masturbating. But the heart of the question here is the following: How are they -- the asexual-identified people who state that they don't experience even a little sexual attraction -- becoming sexually aroused if they aren't sexually attracted to anyone? They state that they can become sexually aroused without being sexually attracted to anyone, and that it's the sexual arousal that causes them to masturbate. Based on some sources and commentary from asexuals, I don't think most asexuals who masturbate simply start masturbating before being sexually aroused. And as I've stated before, except for the occasional surprise erection that men get, people don't become sexually aroused out of nowhere. For some asexuals, perhaps the sexual arousal, while not resulting from sexual attraction to a person, results from sexual attraction to the situation -- the fact that sexual pleasure will be achieved. I know that there are men and women who can become sexually aroused by the thought of sexually pleasing themselves. So the "asexuals who masturbate" aspect, except for asexual-identified people who state that they feel minor sexual attraction, is one part of asexuality that confuses even researchers. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Then again, maybe some asexuals are defining libido (sex drive) somewhat separately from sexual arousal. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

yes but something doesn't add up here. in order to be aroused and masturbate, and then ejaculate, one must have some sort of sexual fantasy in their minds (if they are not viewing pornography of course). what exactly are these "asexuals" masturbating to then - textbooks, clouds, bowls of soup??? Sleek Intro (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Equivamp stated, not everyone fantasizes while masturbating. Some people go right into the act of stimulating their genitals and become sexually aroused that way. And like I mentioned before, "or some asexuals, perhaps the sexual arousal, while not resulting from sexual attraction to a person, results from sexual attraction to the situation -- the fact that sexual pleasure will be achieved." But this talk page really isn't the place to discuss this. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate, this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the Asexuality article, NOT on asexuality itself. I have seen anecdotal evidence that people masturbate as a way of releasing body fluids that they consider analogous to going to the loo. If people say that's the case, who are we to dispute it? If multiple, independent, reliable sources mention it, it also has a place on Misplaced Pages. --Ritchie333 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Verifying notable asexuals

I'm concerned that a few of the people mentioned in the "notable asexuals" section may not be clearly asexual. The citations for Anne Widdecombe, in particular, do not seem to support this. There are two given: the first is an interview in which she refuses to discuss her sexuality, and the second is a joke by a journalist (and even if it is to be taken at face value, no actual evidence is given in the article). If there are better sources for this, then they should be included (I have not found any myself); otherwise, I believe she should be removed from the list. Since she is a living person, this should probably be of extra concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrownfootfalls (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the rationale was that although Widdecombe doesn't want to directly discuss any alleged sexuality, when it came down to picking a name for somebody who might represent it (albeit even in jest), her name came before any others. You just have to go with what the sources tell you. --Ritchie333 21:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If she is actually something of a symbol for asexuals, then regardless of her actual orientation, I can imagine it still being worth including in the article (I'm not sure one way or the other). To have her in a list explicitly called "notable asexuals" seems a bit of a mismatch, though - much like placing someone whom the media speculate is gay, because of their perceived campness or something like that, on a list of "notable homosexuals".

In general, what sort of criteria would you use to determine who is on the list? I think I might find that more helpful than the rationale for one person, as it'll be a lot easier to see it in perspective. Oh, and if there's a Misplaced Pages guideline for "notable Xs" or anything like that, then I haven't found it, and a pointer would be much appreciated!

Thrownfootfalls (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically, a reliable source, and preferably more than one, has to explicitly associate them with asexuality. The policy I would use is our policy of biographies of living people, which you've already referred to - which basically means, if in doubt, leave them out. --Ritchie333 12:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "transromantic" definition

I removed the following line from the Definitions section:

transromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of intersex or transgender – the romantic aspect of transsexuality

It doesn't fit with the others and is kind of confusing.

1. I don't know of any good sources that mention it. The AVENwiki includes some fairly obscure terms such as lithromantic, but excludes transromantic.
2. Intersexuality and transsexualism are two distinct things.
3. It makes no sense to say it's "the romantic aspect of transsexuality" as transsexuality is not a sexual orientation. The analogy between homoromantic and homosexual works because both are types of attractions. Transsexualism doesn't involve any such attraction and so has no romantic counterpart.
4. Trans women are women and so heteroromantic men and homoromantic women would already have their attraction to trans women included under those definitions. (And likewise for trans men.) Having a separate definition seems to imply that the identities of binary identified trans people aren't as "real" as the identities of cis people.

--Jak86 (talk)(contribs)(email) 09:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

William Pitt the Younger

When reading the personal life section of the page on William Pitt the Younger, I noticed that there is a quote by his biographer (William Hague) stating that "In practical terms it appears that Pitt was essentially asexual throughout his life". Perhaps he could be added to the list of notable asexuals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.22.25.158 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Celibacy vs. Asexuality in bios

As I look through the list of historical figures we're including, it seems like we're conflating asexualiy as a (non-) orientation and celibacy. For instance, I take it that Miyazawa's inclusion is based on Roger Pulvers line "Kenji, it must be remembered, was a man who displayed no particular interest in romantic love or sex." Williams is there, ostensibly, because he didn't talk about sex in his diary very often(?!) At this rate, we will have to include every major celibate figure, which includes vast numbers of monks, nuns, priests, popes, and so forth. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In the #Janeane Garofalo section above, I mentioned that we need to be careful about labeling people asexual. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; just because someone doesn't exhibit sexual tendencies, doesn't mean that they are in fact asexual. Some people suffer disorders, are authentically celibate, or had a traumatic event in their lives that caused them to repress their sexuality - which doesn't fit the criteria of asexual. It would be difficult to distinguish celibacy from asexuality for a person who claims to be celibate unless that person in question states that they do not or have never been attracted to others. A person can be both asexual/celibate and a person can be asexual/sexual (if the asexual gets into a relationship with a sexual person aka just to keep their partner's sexual needs met). If a celibate person wants sex but refrains because of his celibacy, then he is not asexual.(Tigerghost (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

• To my mind, the reason for including of a person in the list should be the persuasiveness of his/her example rather than the person’s notability itself. Say, the life of Martin Luther convincingly shows that celibacy (I mean Luther’s life in a monastery) does not witness to asexuality (I mean his marriage after his leaving the monastery). Hence it follows that there’re people who can abstain from marriage and at the same time cannot overcome sexual drive (i.e. are not asexual).

The example of Silouan the Athonite can serve as a strong argument against the following convictions:

It is not possible for a human with validly functioning sex organs to be asexual so please delete this article;

Asexuality is impossible amongst humans (ibid.).

In contrast to this conviction, Silouan was a healthy peasant from a Russian village. He was distinguished by remarkable physical strength and had no signs of physical or sexual disorders. Before he entered a monastery, he had had an affair with a woman. And yet this man managed to recover from the sin of voluptuousness at once. Perhaps another “persuader” is the life of Leonardo da Vinci who was an asexual man, despite his physical health, beauty, and strength (judging from S. Freud’s essay). --SU ltd. (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the list. But it is better to draw the line at notability, with a reliable source or sources clearly stating that the person identifies as asexual (per WP:BLP in general and WP:BLPCAT specifically for the clear identification regarding living people part); otherwise, we'll generally have a list of random people (whether notable or non-notable, living or dead) that would be longer and more trivial-seeming. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging on persuasiveness would be going by personal opinion, and is tantamount to WP:Original research. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Being careful not to add sources that are specifically about the lack of sexual interest, as "among people in general"

While some researchers define asexuality to include the significant lack of sexual interest in others and/or the lack of desire for sexual activity at all, as this article shows, we should not add sources that are about this unless the sources define this as asexuality. For example, I'm not sure if this source (citing Psychology Today) recently added by SU ltd. is about asexuality or the lack of sexual desire in general. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t feel like arguing about it. Flyer22, it’s up to you to decide. I only wanted to help in improving the article. Maybe you’re right, albeit the citation seems to describe the same phenomenon. The term “asexuality” merely did not exist in 1983, did it? --SU ltd. (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not really up to me, SU ltd. It's that we have to follow the WP:Verfiability policy. A lot of people may have a lack of interest in sexual activity, for a number reasons, as some of the sources in this article mention, but that doesn't mean that those people are asexual. Asexuality is defined among researchers as the significant lack of sexual interest in others and/or the significant lack of desire for sexual activity at all (meaning even masturbation)...or as the absence of sexual attraction, absence of sexual interest in others, and/or the absence of desire for sexual activity at all (meaning even masturbation). But there are those, especially those among the asexual community, who define asexuality only as having absolutely no sexual sexual attraction to, or sexual interest in, others. The Definitions section, of course, goes over the different definitions. My point is that we will be confusing asexuality with the lack of sexual desire that is felt among the general public if we do not restrict such inclusion to references that specifically use the word "asexual" or "asexuality." On my talk page, you mentioned the Sexual arousal article. Well, it addresses non-asexual reasons that people may lack sexual desire. If any source you added to this article doesn't use the word "asexual" or "asexuality," it should be removed...along with its text. As for old sources not mentioning asexuality by name, Alfred Kinsey's X designation, for example, has been categorized by newer sources as representing asexuality (and this article mentions that the X designation is considered to represent asexuality in modern times). Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• GA-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• GA-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles