Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 14 July 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual orientation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual orientation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Pedophilia

The Harvard Medical School’s Harvard Mental Health Letter states “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” It defines Pedophilia as “the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty.”

Is there any appropriate place to include this information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.182.78 (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason that you were reverted here and here, and it's the reason that pedophilia has been kept from being mentioned as a sexual orientation in this article for years: WP:Fringe. Stating that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, at least regarding the usual/authoritative way that sexual orientation is defined (which is by sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women, not whether or not someone is a child, adolescent or adult), is WP:Fringe. Calling it a sexual orientation, especially in the WP:Lead, is WP:Undue weight. Some people (including a minority of researchers) use the term sexual orientation loosely (including with regard to pedophilia), but it is not at all scientific consensus to call pedophilia a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I also found the claim that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in the medical testimony given to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of CANADA’s 40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION, Monday, February 14, 2011. I have yet to find any medical reference where it is claimed it is not a sexual orientation. Do you know of any? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not how WP:Fringe and WP:Undue work. Read that guideline and that policy. The vast majority of sources with regard to sexual orientation mention nothing of pedophilia as a sexual orientation; that is the point. That is why there is barely a debate among scholars with regard to pedophilia being a sexual orientation and thus is why there is barely a need among scholars to state that it is not one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So there are multiple quotations from independent sources for the view you call WP:Fringe and no quotations or independent sources for the view you call not WP:Fringe? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to read WP:Fringe and WP:Undue or not? Do I need to start citing parts of that guideline and parts of that policy for you to understand why it's not just my view that calling pedophilia a sexual orientation is WP:Fringe? Again, the vast majority of sources, WP:Primary and WP:Secondary, and whatever other type of source, define sexual orientation as sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women...with no mention of pedophilia. Most of the time, when researchers refer to pedophilia as a sexual orientation, they do not mean literally (like I stated, being loose with the term) and/or are usually comparing it to sexual orientation...as to state that it is like one (not that it is one). The significant minority calling pedophilia a sexual orientation, a minority that is mostly made up of pedophiles and pedophile supporters, do not even deserve a mention in this article...per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue.

I'll cease replying to you now so that someone else gets a chance to respond to you first. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t get the impression that the two sources I found (Harvard Medical School, and the experts asked to testify to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights) were “mostly made up of pedophiles and pedophile supporters”. They seemed to want to stop child abuse from what I read, and thought that by recognizing pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change, more effective treatment would be establish. I believe they are recommending that enabling pedophiles to resist acting on sexual urges is more effective at preventing child abuse than trying to change a pedophile's sexual orientation towards children.

I would not want to see any sort of pro-NAMBLA rhetoric included in the article. If greater understanding of the sexual orientation of pedophiles can help prevent child abuse, then that information might be useful to include. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not here. The overwhelming majority of relaible sources on sexual orientation do not include pedophila in the concept. That sporadic reliable sources that do so don't carry much WP:WEIGHT, and need not be mentioned at all per WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly accept that the Harvard Medical School view was WP:FRINGE if I could find medical or scientific references to that effect. So far, I can only find political sorts of arguments. Can you point me to any medical or scientific reference where it is claimed Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation, paraphilia, perversion, or the result of demonic possession, it simply isn't sufficiently common to warrant any discussion in the lead of this article. Period. Now, as for whether it can be described as an "orientation" and not as a "paraphilia" later in the article, Harvard Medical School is a WP:RS but is taking a position contradictory to most RS on the topic. We don't need the other RS to explicitly say that it isn't an orientation, since not saying that it is an orientation is sufficiently descriptive of their position on the matter. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should not be in the lead (I just figured my WP:BOLD would last about 10 seconds no matter where I put it), I think it belongs towards the end. The statistics I am reading do not make it look much rarer than asexuality, which is in the article. In addition to the two WP:RS I mentioned above, I am now reading Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2012, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 231-236, “Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?” By Michael C. Seto. He argues that pedophilia can be understood as a sexual orientation with regard to age, just as heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality can be understood as sexual orientations with regard to gender. He looks at the issue on the bases of age of onset, correlations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.182.78 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Michael C. Seto bit is hardly any different than what I told you above: "Most of the time, when researchers refer to pedophilia as a sexual orientation, they do not mean literally (like I stated, being loose with the term) and/or are usually comparing it to sexual orientation...as to state that it is like one (not that it is one)." That is why the sexual orientation aspect is mentioned in the Pedophilia article, but pedophilia is not called a sexual orientation in that article; it is also WP:Due weight to mention that aspect in the Pedophilia article without asserting that it is a sexual orientation in that article. And asexuality has substantially more support as a sexual orientation than pedophilia has; that is why it is mentioned in this article and pedophilia is not, and is why it is currently included on the template for sexual orientation (not to mention that there has been WP:Consensus to keep it listed on the sexual orientation template, without the WP:Consensus having yet changed on that matter). Also take note that most adult asexual people experience romantic attraction toward other adults (as in men, women or both), and that romantic attraction is a defining aspect of sexual orientation in many or most sources with regard to sexual orientation (in fact, it's because of this that some asexual people identify as heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual...relating to the romantic aspects of those sexual orientations/sexual identities). Now I am just about done, or am done, discussing this topic with you because you are not getting the point and this discussion is going in circles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I can’t find any WP:RS to support what you are saying, and you have not provided any despite the fact I have ask repeatedly. It appears to me it is just new science that may hold a key to more effective treatments in preventing child abuse. It is politically inconvenient new science. But removing from view all new science regarding sexual orientation that is not politically convenient moves sexual orientation into a pseudoscience realm. It’s not even all that politically inconvenient, it just means people in the future may have to be more specific when they are only speaking with regard to gender sexual orientation and not sexual orientation as a whole. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of what I stated above is supported by various reliable sources, so be specific. What you mean is that you want a reliable source stating that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Well, you have already gotten replies about that with regard to what relevance it has in support of your addition/proposal. And, surely, in the few reliable sources discussing pedophilia as a sexual orientation, you can find one researcher who disagrees with calling it one; but again, that is not the point. The WP:BURDEN is not on us to prove that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation (the significant majority of sources, reliable and non-reliable, show that it's hardly ever considered a sexual orientation anyway); it is on you to prove that it is not WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight to call it a sexual orientation and therefore not WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight to include it in this article. And you have not proven that. I'm now done replying to you about this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and researchers speculating and/or arguing about something does not necessarily equal science. Researchers aren't even clear on the science behind sexual orientation, as this article clearly notes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can identify any WP:RS that states pedophilia is not a sexual orientation? I would be interested to hear about one if there is one. Certainly traditionally it has been research from a gender point of view, but is it impossible to believe that science could discover that other factors like age could be involved? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No source is required to explicitly state pedophilia is not a sexual orientation because the very term "sexual orientation" is a nothing more than a label with several definitions, some being more authoritative and in far more common use than others. It is simply that those authoritative, more commonly used definitions, due to their criteria, would not apply to pedophilia. This article currently demonstrates this in spades. Two or three letters or editorial journal articles that choose a non-standard definition do not invalidate the multiple other sources that use definitions that would exclude pedophilia.

Key to this matter, whether you want to admit it or not, is the motive for including pedophilia under this definition in this Misplaced Pages article. It's read by laypeople, so the only real motive is social agenda. That is, to exploit the common association of "sexual orientation" with civil rights matters and thereby ride the coattails of the LGBT community. Groups have been trying to do that for decades.Legitimus (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If the US and state governments accepted your view that sexual orientation is “nothing more than a label” with no scientific basis, it would set LGBT rights back decades. The whole marriage equality argument is predicated on the idea that sexual orientation is a scientific fact, and not a lifestyle choice.

I can’t believe anyone really thinks pedophiles are going to get civil right protections as result of the above medical discussion being included in the article. Laws, like the federal hate crimes law, are already written very carefully to state explicitly that civil rights only apply to gender sexual orientation and not sexual orientation as a whole. I think the motivation for including this information would be to promote effective treatment programs for pedophiles, and to provide accurate information about the current state of scientific investigation into sexual orientation, including new developments. 173.95.182.78 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To comment on what Legitimus stated, it's obvious to me that he was not stating that sexual orientation is nothing more than a label; he was stating that the term sexual orientation is nothing more than a label, which is hardly any different than what the American Psychological Association states, and is why he used the word term. The IP has also clearly twisted Legitimus's words with regard to the rest as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than communicating you are full of hate, I really don’t get what you are trying to say. If you are not concerned about pedophiles getting civil rights (which I agree no one wants) what does “exploit the common association of "sexual orientation" with civil rights matters and thereby ride the coattails of the LGBT community” mean? 173.95.182.78 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all people (should) have civil rights, no matter what their sexual preference. Certainly paedophiles should not be discriminated against just because they are attracted to children. I SHOULD POINT OUT that I am using the term paedophilia to refer to people who are attracted to children, NOT to people who have abused children (although I'm sure most of those people would be classed as paedophile too). There was a big debate on this a while back on one of the pages (maybe the paedophilia one, cant remember), and I think it ended with them saying paedophile could refer to both people who were attracted to children, and those who had followed through with these attractions. I personally think that the word, paedophile, just like any other -phile, just means attracted to the thing, in this case, paedo- (child). You can be a paedophile and not act out your desires. Anyway, back on topic, Legitimus is clearly saying that he is talking about the word sexual orientation, rather than that which it describes. He has repeatedly pointed out that what you are asserting is, at the moment, WP:FRINGE, and until you substantiate it with multiple reliable sources, it is a no go. You keep asking him to provide sources, seemingly not understanding that the burden of proof is upon you, not him, as you are trying to "go against" an established school of thought. The fact that reliable sources dont mention paedophilia while talking about sexual orientation is proof of this. If you want sources for that in particular, just look at the bottom of the article. 152.78.249.33 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, new IP, you are correct that pedophilia more accurately refers to sexual attraction to children (a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, to be more precise). You are also obviously correct that child sexual abuse is a separate matter. Though it is common for pedophiles to sexually abuse children, not all pedophiles do. And not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles (especially since child sexual abuse, in addition to sexual abuse of prepubescents, covers sexual activity with underage pubescents and underage postpubescents as well). I was the one repeatedly pointing out WP:FRINGE to the aforementioned IP. But, as you can see, that and some other things didn't sink in far enough for him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant flyer22. 152.78.249.33 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Paedophilia isn't (and never will be) a sexual orientation. It's a categorical impossibility. Children aren't a sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeBonolo (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Article as a whole has unverifiable sources.

Yes, I am that IP, and now that my ANI has been closed, I will at least try to move its discussion here. I warn you my comments, following this, may be compromised, because I haven't slept in two days in a row. At any rate, the article as a whole needs fixing, and axing certain sources. While I acknowledge certain sources won't be axed, I will admit my real intent is to assert that any source claiming sexual orientation is fixed, is fundamentally flawed. Thus, these sources cannot be accepted, and anyone asserting this is discreted, as far as I know. My basis is a bit more extreme then I initially told you. Its a reason modern science, since the 1990's, is not really verifiable, especially in gender studies such as this. I got to go to bed, and will come back after and post the full story, as I am starting to see things, please wait I finally sleep. As for what I will post in it, I will post a much more detailed reason why these sources then I did in ANI, and will actually be reading the entire sources, including the really long ones. It will likely take 3 to 5 hours, due to my very slow typing, and these sources are very long, and I read kind of slow as well. I regain sanity as I sleep. --209.188.54.59 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are claiming that all 140 sources can't be verified, then you will have to convince us, the other editors who believe otherwise. Please take us through the logical, policy-grounded steps that lead you to these conclusions for each source, for example by providing better sources that refute each existing source. - MrX 11:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To everyone (seems that MrX already knows): For what the IP means by "that IP," see here, here, here, here and here.

With regard to what I stated about the lead at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI): As seen here, here and here, the lead no longer states that...which the latter two of those WP:Edit summaries show I disagree with. Apparently, the IP's post at WP:ANI caught the attention of an editor I have disagreed with, and still disagree with, on the matter of what causes sexual orientation/noting what causes it, and that editor decided to alter the lead narrowly; the editor decided to do that no matter that I've very clearly pointed out in "The text about what causes sexual orientation in the lead" discussion to that editor at the Homosexuality article why that narrow view is wrong and why it is not WP:Undue weight to mention the other aspect in the lead or lower body of the article. So, clearly, the IP has mistakenly identified me as, among other things, one of those editors who push/try to push a "biology only view," when that could not be any further from the truth, and has achieved the exact of opposite of something she wanted by advertising a content dispute in such a public forum. I will not be interacting with this IP for reasons noted higher up on this talk page and shown in the diff-links of the first paragraph of my reply in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

While the content may me changed, the point stands. The reality, including some of these sources are removed, some really, really fringe theory sources are still here. The point is, as I touted earlier, on a larger view I have, and it may be bit extreme, is that any, and I repeat, any, gender study is unverfible. While the result is that over 70 percent of all articles related to sexual related articles might be seriously compromised, so be it. I am also sorry for harassing you on an earlier IP, which you already know what it is. I will try to avoid commenting on other people's pages from now on, and I while I did not sleep for two days in a row, it does not excuse me. I hope you really reply to me for my reasons, even if you don't have to. Before I give my reasons, the intent it seems on my view, and I don't know if it is wrong and right ( I seriously don't know if is) is sort of against reliable sources policy. I haven't read the policy itself, but I have a feeling it is against it. I do remember, sometimes go against all rules over 3 years ago, but I haven't read that article since then, and I vaguely remember. As for the sources themselves, read the following I still find objectionable, and I will give my reasons why these should me removed.

Problem sources: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx#history (most extreme source so far

a b Vare, Jonatha W., and Terry L. Norton. "Understanding Gay and Lesbian Youth: Sticks, Stones and Silence." Cleaning House 71.6 (1998): 327-331: Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 19 Apr. 2012. (automatically fringe) though I cannot read it, I won't comment on it, just filler

The rcpsych presents no evidence, and you have to blind to trust this. I think this should be wiped off, because this is extreme. No evidence is asserting its outrageous claims, everyone is different, and I assure you that this is an extremist paper. Aside from the fact that the section Misplaced Pages points to, is obviously false, it reads this:

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

"Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice" shows a red flag immediately. I assure you almost anyone can change sexual orientation , as I have. This article, for the reasons I touted some time ago, is discredited from sources like this. As for other sections, other defects points to this:

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems (King et al, 2003; Gilman et al, 2001).

Is obviously false. I know for a fact, that in most of the would, gays and or lesbians, are discriminated, and that gay and lesbian attitude is incompatible with normal mental health in most of the world ( mostly third world countries, mostly Africa and parts of Asia.)As such, it doesn't view a worldwide view, and that it is more then enough of a reason to delete this on its own. (fun fact, western bias)

It appears that all other sources were removed that I found objectionable, so it appears that I only have one source. Well, that shows progress, and I am surprised.

Other: Scientific consensus is vague and npov, reword that.

Thanks for at least liseting to me. --209.188.54.59 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources the IP cited at WP:ANI have been removed thus far. No comment on the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, created an account... at last. Cannot edit, for now. ( I am the IP address) I kind of knew that it wasn't going to get removed, because my thoughts were perhaps a little to extreme, but hey at least I tried. As for what happens now, you may close this section, as I have lost interest. I will now look at non-related articles. Anyone want to e-mail me ( I will try to avoid spam bot) (Redacted). Two a not separated and anyone can talk to me! Thinks... --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP having created an account does not matter with regard to this article. If she edits this article in any way that she has indicated above she wants the article edited, she will obviously be reverted...by more than just one editor. And reported if she violates WP:3RR. She repeatedly states that she will move on. But she does not move on; that is why she has now created an account, obviously. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, the article will always be this way. Flyer22 is really, really wrong here, and I don't mean to be an "enemy" but the intent of floating these sources is I repeat, and I repeat, ALWAYS unverifiable. In fact I'm debating to nominate the Article for deletion for insufficient sources, but it will obviously not fly. Sometime back in 2010, I remember her on these same pages, in fact almost all talk pages ( I was active(but as an IP)) related to sexual content. Since this was over three years ago, I remember nothing, and it is really, really vague, but I do remember her. Although I never talked to her until 2013, I do remember. I will, however revive the discussion, saying the entire page should be redone in order for these so-called "research" removed. The fact of the matter is that it will always inherintly be untrue. You may have to believe my words, but trust me, some things just cannot be verified (especially these sorts). The intent, and I repeat, intent is to someday change the polices... but as mention here forth, I know they won't. The entire article's npov is compromised, and I can now edit it, but I'm to scared to do so, because I know my limits. Since the article is obviously in a bad state, nothing will change. As mention, stuff like "if the source if reliable, then EVERYTHING is reliable to EVERYTHING IT PUBLISHES" is policies I wish to get rid of. The idea of course is to put fourth POLICIES in front of ACTUAL ACCURACY. If you don't know what that means, it means as an analogy; if source is verifiable, immediately accept EVERYTHING they publish. This of course compromises accuracy, and it unto further damages the credibility of Wikipeida. Take my words as-is, I am stating an opinion, but this is what I believe. Since while I know it will probably never go unto my ways, I am taking it to the talk page. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do so, and I'm really lazy, so I prefer someone do it in there spare time. "sigh..." Singing off, Love; Sara... --Lesbiangirl (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am sorry if there was any attack... I did not... mean any attack on anyone, but if so, I'm sorry. Flyer22, if it is taken as an attack, I'm sorry. According to my view, it wasn't, but if there was, I am sorry. I just tried to change the article, as mention, I am stating the facts when I saw you on the various talk pages... now that I think about it, I actually remember talking to you one time... but it was so long ago, on an IP that I forgot what it was. Anyway, my point stands, the article is in dire situation, and I am simply requesting editing it. Love, Sara... --Lesbiangirl (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are saying verifiability, but what I think you really mean is reliability. It is easy to check that an article says what we say it says - that is verifiability. That you believe a given source is inaccurate is a matter of how reliable it is. LadyofShalott 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

birth order is a subset of biology

The birth order phenomenon relates to biological brothers, not brothers in the same social environment. It's a biological phenomenon, so I was bold and moved it under the Biology header. Leadwind (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Societal construct

This article doesn't seem to confront the likely possibility that 'sexual orientation' is a cultural construct and that there is no reason to see sexual attraction as intrinsically directed towards any groups on any basis, and that it is entirely possible for sexual attraction to be something one feels towards individuals on an individual basis. Even the section 'Anthropology, history, and sexology' only entertains the possibility that sexual orientation may be based on 'other categories'. What about no categorization? This would be evidenced by the fact that in a history of western culture the idea of sexual orientation is something that has only appeared very recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.148.43 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a section whose very title is "Sexual constructionism and Western societies".--Auró (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of asexuality in introduction

The introduction defines asexuality as "the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others". Could someone with editing powers on this article remove the romantic part to just leave "the lack of sexual attraction to others"? The sources in the introduction and on Misplaced Pages's page on asexuality concur that asexual individuals vary on the ability/inclination to form romantic attachments, i.e. there are asexual individuals who experience romantic attraction. MagpieMe (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The word lack does not have to mean absence. And notice that the word or is used, meaning that it (the attraction) may be one or the other, if not both. Therefore, the description is accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On a point of sheer pedantry, the definition of "lack" is "deficiency or need (of something desirable or necessary); an absence, want".

Back on topic, however, I respectfully disagree. The definition is inaccurate because using the word "or" means that a person who does experience sexual attraction but does not experience romantic attraction can be called asexual, which is not true. The definition currently doesn't match the sources: they concur that there are competing definitions of asexuality, but every definition circles around sexual attraction. Romantic attraction is not included in any of the definitions in the sources. The asexuality page goes into more detail (using the same sources) if you want more info. MagpieMe (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

MagpieMe, Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. This, this, this and this dictionary source show that lack does not necessarily mean absence; it is also why I chose to use both words (lack and absence) in the WP:Lead of the Asexuality article. Note that while I do not own the Asexuality article, I am the main editor of it, and propelled it to WP:Good article status. So I am well aware of the topic of asexuality and what that Misplaced Pages article states about it. The lead of that article summarizes that article well, subtly showing that there is not even complete agreement that asexuality means absolutely no sexual attraction. With regard to sourcing, we go by the WP:Verifiability policy at this site. And with regard to the word lack, researchers generally define asexuality as "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"; this is made clear in the Romantic relationships and identity section of that article, a section that clearly shows that some people with low sexual desire or low sexual attraction identify as asexual.

You are incorrect when you state that "omantic attraction is not included in any of the definitions in the sources," as shown by this source, the first source used in the lead of the Sexual orientation article for the asexual bit and which notes how researchers and asexual-identified people define the term, and this scholarly book source (also in the lead and which addresses different definitions of asexuality among researchers and those who identify as asexual). If romantic aspects were not a part of defining asexuality in WP:Reliable sources, or some characteristic of it, the romantic factor would not be mentioned in the Asexuality article...unless, because a WP:Reliable source mentions it, it was to state that asexual people do not experience romantic attraction. So, yes, keeping all of what I just stated in mind, a person who does experience sexual attraction but does not experience romantic attraction can be asexual; this is because a person with low sexual attraction may identify, and may be identified by researchers, as asexual because he or she does not have the desire to engage in romantic or sexual activity/relationships. Furthermore, romantic attraction is usually tied up with sexual attraction, and is what usually distinguishes platonic love from romantic love; but for some people, such as some asexual people, they state that romantic attraction and sexual attraction are distinguished (separate) for them.

All that stated, I went ahead and granted your request...for better consistency with the lead of the Asexuality article and because (and I've noted this on Misplaced Pages before) it seems that the vast majority of asexual people experience romantic attraction. On a side note: You are not completely new to editing Misplaced Pages, are you? I notice that you have signed your username twice now, something that WP:Newbies usually have to be told to do (despite the fact that, whenever they are typing up a comment in the Misplaced Pages editing space, there is a message above it informing them to sign their username), and you have used WP:Indent (properly at that, though you might have been following my lead...correctly deducing that you should indent one mark further after me). Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the amendment. I started this topic because I felt the definition given was incorrect in itself, but also because I had read the asexuality article and saw an inconsistency between the definition of asexuality given in the asexuality article and the definition given in this article. I did not know you were the lead editor of the asexuality article (obviously), but now that I do, I'd like to thank you and your fellow editors for doing such a good job with it.

Having read your response, I think I might not have explained what I meant clearly enough. I am not trying to say that romantic attraction has nothing to do with asexuality. I've been trying to say that the original wording defined three types of people as asexual:

1) Does not have a standard level of sexual attraction and does not have a standard level of romantic attraction;

2) Does not have a standard level of sexual attraction and does have a standard level of romantic attraction;

3) Does have a standard level of sexual attraction and does not have a standard level of romantic attraction.

This is because "the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others" allows for the presence of a standard level of sexual attraction or romantic attraction, so long as the other is absent.

I've re-read my comment about the sources and it wasn't clear, apologies. In both of them (and others), the only definitions of asexuality which include romantic attraction also specify a lack or significant reduction of sexual attraction/behaviour. I have not seen any definition of asexuality which includes "normal" sexual attraction. (Which doesn't mean a source along those lines doesn't exist, although it would be pretty weird! Regardless, if you know of one I'd be grateful if you'd point me in its direction.) None of the definitions in the sources defined person 3 as asexual, but the original definition here did, which is why I said that the sources did not support the definition. I didn't make my point well, but I hope it's clear now.

On the side note of me not being new to Misplaced Pages, no I am not, although this is the first time I've had a user account. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that? I haven't bothered with a user account before because I've tended to use Misplaced Pages very infrequently, if at all, but I made one recently because I've been on the site more often. While we're on this topic, though, could you please bear in mind Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers? I was honestly quite taken aback and a little upset by the tone of your response. If I was completely new to Misplaced Pages, it's quite likely that I would have abandoned my account and probably felt scared to go onto Misplaced Pages at all for a while. That was my initial reaction anyway, despite being a little more experienced that your average new-account-holder. I had to struggle with myself to get past it. I don't think any of that was your intention, but you'll never know it happened if I don't say something, which is why I've mentioned it here. MagpieMe (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome for the alteration. Yes, I know that you were not stating that romantic attraction has nothing to do with asexuality; after all, you began your commentary in this section by stating that romantic attraction can be a part of it. I don't feel that the lead was implying any of the three interpretation examples you gave above (well, not exactly in those ways), but thanks for explaining your point of view on that matter; I certainly didn't want any readers interpreting that text the wrong way, and I think I had at one time considered removing "romantic" from the asexual bit because it felt "off" to me because I know that people can sometimes take "or" the wrong way (which is one reason the and/or construct is popular, though Misplaced Pages has the WP:ANDOR guideline that advises us to generally stay away from that construct). As for assuming good faith and not being bitey, you felt that my question about whether you are completely new to editing Misplaced Pages was a violation of those guidelines? I don't see it that way, but I apologize for having upset you in that regard. It's just that I'm usually very good at spotting editors who are not new to editing Misplaced Pages, whether they are experienced IP address editors, an editor who has made a legitimate WP:Clean start or a WP:Sockpuppet; I have had many experiences with that last type, and so I am commonly suspicious of a new Misplaced Pages account that shows familiarity with editing Misplaced Pages, but I was not suggesting that you are that type. I was curious, and definitely did not mean to bite you. I think it's something that only experienced Misplaced Pages editors (whether having low, mid, or high Misplaced Pages experience) would get upset by. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Top-importance sociology articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles