Talk:Asexuality/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to signal editors who are elitist in how they go about deleting things from Wikipedia and who often delete things from Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) ^(cont) 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 [it]. 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 [1]. 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article, which merely has to be notable and verifiable, which this article is due to having information in multiple, independent reliable sources. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 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 ^(talk) ^(cont) 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 Wikipedia'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[es] 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 ^(talk) ^(cont) 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.[5] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) ^(cont) 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^(talk) 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, "[f]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 Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 2 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.

I don't know of any good sources that mention it. The AVENwiki includes some fairly obscure terms such as lithromantic, but excludes transromantic.
Intersexuality and transsexualism are two distinct things.
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.
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)

I think I have two concerns here, which are perhaps a little tendentious. First, I think there is an arguable claim that sexual orientations are cultural products and therefore change over time. From such a framework, I think that it is inaccurate and deceptive to "draft" historical persons in as representatives of modern orientations (and yes, I have the same problem with referring to Socrates as gay or Cleopatra as straight). The usual way around this problem is to declare that a certain objective set of actions--putting your penis in a man's anus, say--is inarguably proof of a given sexuality. I'm not about to sign on to that, but more importantly, this article specifically states that objective actions (e.g. celibacy) are not a demonstration of asexulity as an orientation. What that leaves with is the feeling that in order to call someone "asexual", as an orientation, we ought to be able to show that they associated themselves discursively with the modern understanding of asexuality, or something very much like it. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with listing "notable asexuals", as with lists of notable anything, is that, even with reliable sources to hand, it's still contentious whether or not somebody should be included in the list - or even if we should have a list at all. Do you draw the line at just being or sources, or do you go further and say that if asexuality is not a significant part of the person, say, to go in their article's lead, it shouldn't be in here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethan Mitchell, most researchers (experts who specialize in or have great knowledge of sexual orientation) do not believe that sexual orientation changes, but researchers generally believe and have observed that sexual identity/sexual orientation identity (as separate from, though related to, sexual orientation) can change over time. You have a valid point about not ascribing modern-day sexual orientation terms to people who lived in a time where such terms/concepts did not exist; the sexual orientations have always existed (for example, a man being primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to women), but these things were not defined in the way that they are defined in the modern world. Your point has been brought up at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, where people have stated that it is inappropriate to label historical people (people from a time where sexual orientation was not defined as it is today) as gay, lesbian or bisexual (there were a few terms in ancient times that were used to describe sexual orientations/sexual preferences, however). Engaging in heterosexual or homosexual activity is not necessarily indicative of one's sexual orientation, which is a main reason that there has been objection to putting people from ancient times in a LGBT category; we don't have heterosexual categories because people are presumed to be heterosexual unless otherwise specified (which is an aspect that the Heteronormativity article addresses). As is clear from above, I agree that we should only label people as asexual if they have identified as such. But there are different rules for dead people. If a reliable source identifies a person from ancient times as asexual, then it can be used to assert that the person is asexual. In contrast, Wikipedia values living people significantly more so; see the WP:BLP and WP:BLPCAT aspects I pointed to above.

Ritchie333, good points. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 23 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)

Here are some of citations from Gary F. Kelly’s textbook:

Normal asexuality: an absence or low level of sexual desire… (p. 614);
Normal asexuality: the individual who naturally has low levels of need for sexual gratification (not necessarily a dysfunction) (p. 537);
“normal asexuality, characterized by a very low interest in sex” (p. 538 or 401 in different editions)

It is obvious that to regard asexuality as a normal phenomenon is to contradict F52.0 ("Lack or loss of sexual desire") in ICD-10. Perhaps the meaning which Kelly attaches to the term “asexuality” does not coincide with the concept of asexuality in this WP article. Unfortunately, I haven’t got his book in the original, so that I have to use its Russian translation. --SU ltd. (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not regarded asexuality as a normal phenomenon, SU ltd. I have regarded the lack of sexual desire as a normal phenomenon, and that is because various reliable sources do. Lack of sexual desire is more common among women than men, however. You also have to keep in mind that "lack" does not necessarily equate to "low" or "absent," which is why I made sure to use "significant" when speaking of "lack, and also used the word "absence," in my comment above. The ICD-10 does not include asexuality by name. And since "lack or loss of sexual desire" is in the ICD-10, which is primarily for diseases and disorders, it is clear that the ICD-10 is speaking of "lack or loss of sexual desire" in terms of sexual disorder...while some researchers and most asexual people do not consider asexuality to be a sexual disorder (they don't think of it as something that suddenly happens, for example). Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And Kelly's definition of asexuality is consistent with what I stated in my original comment in this section above, and with what is stated in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the English version of Kelly's book (2004) is also on Google Books. The English version of a foreign language version, and vice versa, is usually available on there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this electronic version is available in your country. But this is not the case in Russia which I live in. There is a message at the page you’re referring to. It reads: “No eBook available.” So it is impossible for me to read the book as a whole. I can only look for words and short text passages in this book. The same can be said of the other English editions of Kelly’s textbook (e.g edition of 1998). As I have got the print version of its Russian translation, sometimes I manage to find the corresponding citations in the original. Using the search function, I typed key words, sought out Kelly’s definition of the term “normal asexuality” in the English version and suggested it to you. --SU ltd. (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I also only see short text passages, but I see this with the Russian version and with the English version. But you're saying that the eBook of this source is available in Russian? I wondered why you used the Russian source and translated that for me when using the English source shows the same text, although the version I used is blurry. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your links again, I see that they are also in English text. So you didn't actually translate anything for me, and I better understand why you used the Russian link. Maybe you can't access the English link of these sources without doing a special type of search? Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I don’t use the Russian version of Kelly’s textbook in the given case. Albeit there are both electronic and print versions of his book in Russian, I use the same English version as you in order to show you exact citations from it. So I didn’t translate them. We see the same text from the same book. The only difference is our interface. I read messages in Russian where you see the corresponding messages in English, e.g.: “No eBook available” (Russian: Нет электронной версии), “Find in a library” (Russian: Найти в библиотеке), “From inside the book” (Russian: Результаты поиска по книге), “7 pages matching…” (Russian: В этой книге найдено 7 стр., соответствующих запросу…) etc. But it doesn’t matter, because the very eBook is the same. Yes, I can't access the English link without doing a special type of search, because I use Russian versions of Windows, Internet Explorer etc. I’m sorry I didn’t think that such a trifle would give rise to problems for you. --SU ltd. (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. And, no, I don't see a problem on this matter unless (per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources) a completely Russian text version, or other completely non-English version, of the source were cited in the article. But it isn't, and so we're fine on that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2013 (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 ^(talk) ^(cont) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed Kenneth Williams and J.M. Barrie from the list of notable asexuals. Asexuality should not be conflated with not engaging in sexual activity. Kenneth Williams was certainly homosexual, though had issues with his homosexuality. This is not the same as being asexual. J.M. Barrie was probably romantically interested in boys. He may never have acted on this attraction, but again this doesn't constitute asexuality. Gloriousgee (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to the removals; see ‎#Removing "Notable Asexuals" section below, which was partly created due to your removals. But I'm taking this time to remind people that a person can be gay or lesbian, for example, and still be asexual; this is because all sexual orientations (the ones recognized as sexual orientations by most experts in the fields of psychology and sexology, I mean) and sexual identity labels have a romantic aspect, and, as this article notes, some asexuals experience romantic attraction and engage in solely romantic relationships. Instead of calling themselves heterosexual or homosexual (as in "a heterosexual asexual" or "a homosexual asexual"), for example, some of them have opted to call themselves heteromantic or homoromantic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)