|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asexuality article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|This 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, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|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.|
|WikiProject Sexuality||(Rated GA-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Alternative Views||(Rated GA-class, High-importance)|
As someone who identifies as asexual, I have a slight qualm with the way it is defined on the wikipedia page. The wikipedia page starts with: "Asexuality (or nonsexuality) is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone or...". On the Asexuality and Visibility Network (AVEN) and everywhere else I have heard of asexuality, an asexual is described as "a person who does not experience sexual attraction." The wikipedia definition leaves the definition a bit open ended. Perhaps people are sexually attracted to other things or beings, and are sexual in regards to this. Yet according to the wikipedia definition, they would be considered asexual, even though they themselves may not think so. The more general definition of an asexual is simply someone who does not experience sexual attraction. This definition is all encompassing, and I feel as a wiki article, this page should have the definition of Asexuality as: "Asexuality (or nonsexuality) refer to someone who does not experience sexual attraction or..."
I hope you will take my opinion into consideration. As a wikipedia page, this is probably one of the most viewed pages referring to asexuality as well as the AVEN page at asexuality.org. It would be great to see a more encompassing definition on this page that also corresponds to the definition on AVEN.
- Hello, IP. There is no "bit open ended," in my opinion; there is "contrast in definitions of asexuality," with the term usually being defined as the lack of sexual attraction (when not referring to asexual reproduction). This Wikipedia article makes that clear. Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability, and is defining asexuality the way that researchers and asexual-identified people define asexuality. I've addressed this before at this talk page (now found in the archives) and recently in this discussion. Like I stated in that latter discussion, 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. The lead of the article summarizes the article well, subtly showing that there is not even complete agreement that asexuality means absolutely no sexual attraction and/or no sexual desire. 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 the article, a section that clearly shows that some people with low sexual desire or low sexual attraction identify as asexual. This is shown, for example, by this source, which notes how researchers and asexual-identified people define the term, and this scholarly book source...which addresses different definitions of asexuality among researchers and those who identify as asexual.
- For example, 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. So the inclusion of "low" does not mean that everyone with low sexual attraction/low interest in sexual activity is asexual, and I cautioned against that type of material; it simply means that people with low sexual attraction/low interest in sexual activity may self-identify, or be identified by researchers, as asexual. 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. You mentioned AVEN, but even AVEN, as this article shows, states: "Another small minority will think of themselves as asexual for a brief period of time while exploring and questioning their own sexuality. There is no litmus test to determine if someone is asexual. 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." But research shows that it's not just a small minority who experience minor sexual attraction and identify as asexual. Not to mention that the asexual community is very small to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Additional Fact About David Jay
I want to add this sentence at the end of the introductory/first section of the article:
"In fact, David Jay is in a romantic and intimate relationship with another woman who is also asexual." \
- Jay, David. "Transcript for Redefining Romance - David Jay on Asexuality". To The Best of Our Knowledge. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
The final sentence of the first section mentions AVEN, the most popular community for people who are asexual. It also mentions the founder as David Jay.I feel that by providing this fact about David Jay that he is in a normal relationship will persuade readers to dig deeper into the topic and get rid of the negative stigma that may arise in people by reading the first few sentences. Rather than view asexuality as something "strange" or maybe even "sinful" maybe it will show that asexuals do not necessarily shy away romantic relationships.--Jhg1232 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Reverted, for the reasons I stated in these WP:Edit summaries. It's not WP:Lead material, and it's already covered in the David Jay article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- If someone wants to make an argument for adding it to this article, it could be appropriately added to the Community section of the Asexuality article however, which mentions David Jay. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Why is asexuality listed under "gender binary"?
Asexuality isn't a binary attraction nor a non-binary attraction. It's neither. It's like asking if 0 is a prime or composite number. It's neither.
It's also neither because we tend to have a lot more varied romantic orientations on average than sexuals do (not that a situation like pansexual heteroromantic can't exist, because it can and does, but I'm talking on average), and it's just as likely to be outside of the gender binary as in it. This also applies to gray-asexuals and demisexuals. It's like trying to categorize the climate of Mars using Koppen climate classifications. It just doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- IP, since I don't see what gender binary listing you are referring to regarding the current state of the article, it seems that you are referring to Template:Sexual orientation; technically, asexuality is not listed as a gender binary on there, but is rather listed as a sexual orientation (its listing as a sexual orientation was debated at the talk page for that template, since asexuality is not widely considered a sexual orientation). The reason it's not listed under "Non-binary categories" on that template is because it's already listed there as a sexual orientation and because, unlike the sexual and gender categories listed there, it is not about distinguishing itself from binarism (though it of course includes non-binarism aspects). I'm not aware of it being rare that asexuals are binary, or a WP:Reliable source stating so. Like the article shows, there are asexuals who identify as heterosexual or homosexual/gay/lesbian, and ones that specifically use the terms heteromantic or homoromantic to indicate that it's the romantic, not the sexual, aspect of "heterosexual" or "homosexual" that they are identifying with. And considering that heteromantic is binary, and pansexual is not binary, your "pansexual heteroromantic" categorization confuses me; that is, if you are referring to a person identifying as such. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now I see that you must be referring to Template:Gender and sexual identities, which is listed at the bottom of the Asexuality article. I suppose that with regard to sexual orientation, there is no better way to list asexuality on there, unless one wants to argue that it fits better under the Non-binary category or that it can be listed under both the Gender binary and Non-binary categories; one reason that it's currently listed under the Gender binary category is for consistency with Template:Sexual orientation; yes, I noted that Template:Sexual orientation doesn't have a binary listing. But it does imply one, since it has a non-binary listing. Both templates make a point of being consistent with the other, and the non-binary list on Template:Sexual orientation is the same as the non-binary list on Template:Gender and sexual identities. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
demiromantic or demisexual
There seems to be a lot of back and forth on this. There is a Romantic orientation section basically taken from Romantic orientation. This has nothing to do with demisexual. Also there is no reason for them both to be in bold. Only one term, demisexual, redirects to this article. Bhny (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- You have it backwards; the identities at the Romantic orientation article were copied from the Asexuality article (more, all unsourced additions, were added at the Romantic orientation article). You can even see that the sources that are used there were used at the Asexuality article and then copied and pasted there; the sources used at that article are mostly about asexuality because "romantic orientation" does not significantly exist outside of asexuality. Furthermore, sexual orientation includes attraction based solely or partly on romantic attraction, which is why, as the article notes, some asexual people identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer or by the terms biromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic, panromantic, pansexual, demiromantic or demisexual. I'm surprised that the Romantic orientation article has not yet been deleted due to an absence of WP:Notability. When scientists state "romantic orientation," they are usually referring to sexual orientation, not something distinct from it. I'm not sure what you mean by "[t]his has nothing to do with demisexual," but like this source (page 92) used to support demisexual in the Asexuality article shows, "demisexual" is an asexual identity. And demiromantic is simply an alternative term for "demisexual," just like heteroromantic is an alternative term for "heterosexual" to emphasize the romantic aspects of heterosexuality. There has been no back and forth regarding the terminology of demiromantic or demisexual in the article; there has been a back and forth between me and an IP, and Ritchie333 and that same IP, regarding listing demisexual/demiromantic at all, as seen here, here, here and here. I don't care much about the bolding aspect; either redirect demiromantic to that section and then bold it, or de-bold demiromantic.
- And regarding having a Romantic orientation section, which you and I have WP:Edit warred over, as seen here and here, there is no need to create a subsection to address these different identities; those identities are in a section titled Identity and relationships; so, of course, they are fine and fit well in that section. There is no need to create a subsection for that little bit of material and as though it's not a part of identity and relationships. Like MOS:PARAGRAPHS states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." And, yes, sexual activity is going to be discussed in a section about asexual identity and relationships, which is what various WP:Reliable sources on the topic do as well. That is how "romance and sexuality are mixed up in [that] one section." Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- And regarding my removal of the Romantic orientation link, I'm not too opposed to that link being added back to the section at hand or to the See also section; I simply removed it because of what I stated in that edit summary, what I stated above, and because Bhny objected to its placement in the aforementioned section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)