Talk:Asexuality/Archive 1

Famous Asexuals

I've moved this section into the article. If someone has a problem with this, please let me know here. Cogent 07:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a section on famous asexuals, like Glenn Gould. If anyone knows more, please add the section. Cogent

Issac Newton is reputed to have been one. Edeans 17:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

George Takei

JM Barrie

Imanuel Kant

John Ruskin

HP Lovecraft

Salvador Dali

Jonny Depp

Accuracy dispute

The article currently says:

Some Christian religions, 'based on 1 Corinthians 7:9 ("1 Corinthians 7:9 (RSV) But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.") endorse sex only within marriage

Please cite some Christian religions which based their sex only within marriage policy on the RSV version of the work.

I don't care which version is used. I care that we do not incorrectly assert a decision based on one version which was actually based on some older version. So, for example, I would object to asserting that the Church of England based it's decision on the RSV version, if the RSV version was written after the Church of England made its decision, because that's historically inacurate. That is, please get the history right and don't have churches making a decision based on a work which didn't yet exist in the quoted form. Jamesday 06:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After a Google search, I have found that Christian sects using the passage cite it to discourage pre-marital sex. I have yet to find a Christian sect that uses it to suggest that celibacy/asexuality is spirtitually superior. I removed it for the time being. inanechild 06:29, 17 Apr 2004 (EST)

---

Accuracy dispute

The article currently says:

Some Christian religions, 'based on 1 Corinthians 7:9 ("1 Corinthians 7:9 (RSV) But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.") endorse sex only within marriage

Please cite some Christian religions which based their sex only within marriage policy on the RSV version of the work.

I don't care which version is used. I care that we do not incorrectly assert a decision based on one version which was actually based on some older version. So, for example, I would object to asserting that the Church of England based it's decision on the RSV version, if the RSV version was written after the Church of England made its decision, because that's historically inacurate. That is, please get the history right and don't have churches making a decision based on a work which didn't yet exist in the quoted form. Jamesday 06:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After a Google search, I have found that Christian sects using the passage cite it to discourage pre-marital sex. I have yet to find a Christian sect that uses it to suggest that celibacy/asexuality is spirtitually superior. I removed it for the time being. inanechild 06:29, 17 Apr 2004 (EST)

---

Asexuality and Gender

I don't know if this discussion page gets read much, but here goes: I just deleted the fiction section of the article, since it was about gender, and not, like the rest of the article, sexual orientation. That said, many people do use "asexual" as a reference to gender, so there should probably either be a section about gender-related definitions of "asexual," or a new article about it. I'm not in a good position to put such a section or article together, but wanted to toss the idea out in case someone who is wanted to take up the task.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

07:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AVEN

Quote from the page:

"Some asexuals use a classification system developed (and then retired) by the founder of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (http://www.asexuality.org/) (one of the major asexual online communities, and abbreviated as AVEN). In this system, asexuals are divided into types A through D: a type A asexual has a sex drive but no romantic attraction, a type B experiences romantic attraction but no sex drive, a type C experiences both, and a type D neither. The categories are not meant to be entirely discrete or set in stone; one's type can change, or one can be on the border between two types. Note that AVEN itself no longer uses this system, on the basis that it is too exclusive."

This sounds strange, if you have a sex drive, shouldn't it per se be impossible to be asexual? I haven't read about the AVEN classification, but I think it would make more sense with something like "...persons are divided..."

--Similar to other orientations, the definition of asexuality is based on who one is sexually attracted to (in this case no one), rather than presence or absence of sex drive.

Uhmm, still sounds strange... What/Where would this sex drive direct its outlet at? (Npov?)

I believe it refers to the fact that some asexuals masturbate, but don't really fantasize about anything; it's only a physical urge.

Being asexual myself, let me field this one. Some of us masturbate, yes... others don't. When we do masturbate, it is usually just to release the "sexual tension" (or prevent cancer) and it isn't usually directed at anything; often we masturbate over the mere feeling of masturbation itself, and the frequency of masturbation is also less than that of a more sexually active individual. Often as little as once or twice a month, compared to 4 or 5 times a week of your average 21 yearold.

--Uh, why does it have to be directed at anything? Getting horny doesn't have to have an immediate cause, and nor does it have to result in anything actually being done about it.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

Asexuality and Religion

I removed three bits in this section. One, I removed the part about sexual attraction not being necessary for sex, and it thus not being much of an issue. Certain conceptions of sacred sexuality do seem to carry the assumption that one will enjoy the act, and that orientation is bound up in the concept of sexuality itself.

Two, I removed the part about these religions having so few adherents that asexuals have nothing to fear. I have my doubts about how NPOV that statement was, and it makes it sound as if the entire purpose of the religions section is to alert asexuals as to possible threats. Furthermore, some asexuals might be members of those religions in question, or considering joining.

Three, I took away the part about asexuals having a harder than gays when it comes to being spotted by some conservative religious groups. I didn't think it was all that accurate -- gays can remain closeted, and some asexuals desire (and possibly have) nonsexual relationships with the same sex.

"I removed three bits in this section. One, I removed the part about sexual attraction not being ecessary for sex". Without sexual attraction, you cannot sustain an erection when engaging, so you can't really have sex.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

Debate

There was some line about there being absolutely no evidence at all that asexuality is caused by hormone problems/repression/etc., IIRC. I took it out, because I thought it was misleading. No, there's no hard evidence (that I know of) that a lack of sexual attraction is caused by any of those things. But there's not much hard evidence, period. The number of scientific studies on a lack of attraction -- that I know, anyway -- can be counted on one hand. Saying that there's no evidence at all implies that that lack of evidence is on much more solid ground than it actually is.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

Orientation or dysfunction

Isn't this article a bit confused? I see no a priori reason to dismiss the existence of an asexual orientation as distinct from a sexual dysfunction that results in a loss of interest in sex. There are other articles on sexual dysfunctions. Why confuse the issue here with constant harping on sexual abuse, psychological problems, and other conditions that seem not to affect some people who identify themselves as asexual? (Some people mentioned in the literature cited here deny any such ætiology and seem content with what they regard as their sexual orientation.) Shorne 18:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--I included those things because a substantial number of people don't believe that there's any difference between asexuality and sexual dysfunction and, as the article says, there's no hard evidence either way. Reasonable or not, there is debate as to whether or not asexuality is a legitimate orientation.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

It seems to me that the position that asexuality is not a legitimate orientation should be presented in a single place, not throughout the text. Homosexuality was regarded as "illegitimate", even as a psychosis, by professional organisations of psychologists twenty or thirty years ago. It strikes me that asexuality, still relatively unknown, is just being subjected to the same sorts of prejudices.

I'd also like to see documentation of the position that a lack of interest in sex is necessarily a dysfunction. No one disputes that bisexuality is a genuine orientation, so why should the opposite extreme—asexuality—not be so regarded? Low libido is accepted, so why not asexuality?

I checked the DSM-IV. There is no suggestion that asexuality is necessarily a dysfunction. The closest conditions listed are "sexual aversion disorder" and "hypoactive sexual desire disorder", both of which "must result in significant distress for the individual". Asexuals who experience no distress from their lack of desire for sex would seem not to meet the definition of either dysfunction. Again, I'd like to see a source for the claim that asexuality is necessarily a dysfunction, which goes against common sense. Shorne 23:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A few links to instances of people believing asexuality is a dysfunction: article by a layman, letter by a layman, article on asexuality, "even when researchers do study people who are not having sex, it is always on the understanding that sexual inactivity is a problem that needs fixing", and I remember a professional on the Matthew Bannister radio show (on the 14th of October, 2004) making the case that it wasn't a legitimate orientation. I'm not finding a lot of other links to professionals explicitly saying that asexuality is a disorder, but I'm not finding a lot of links to professionals saying much about asexuality in the first place, and I've heard anecdotal evidence for some asexuals having their doctors or therapists tell them they're disordered. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter that you -- or any other individual user -- thinks it goes against common sense: the point of Wikipedia isn't to pick a side in a debate.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

I'm not trying to pick a side in the debate. I said that the claim should be presented, just as bigoted rubbish about the "immorality" of homosexuality should be presented. It should all be moved to a single paragraph.

Your references are rather weak, I must say. The first and the second are from people who are obviously confused about the subject, equating asexuality with various physical problems and such. These laymen shouldn't be quoted as reliable sources when they don't even understand the subject. The third article does not say what you claim: it says that a lack of interest in sex may be the result of a dysfunction, which no one questions. The fourth article makes the best case: little work has been done in this area because of a bias towards restoring sexual performance/desire in people who are not happy with its lack. That is worth mentioning, along with the reports that some doctors or therapists have leapt to the conclusion of a sexual disorder (which is probably common, just as so many doctors hastily seize upon weight as the cause of a fat person's sore feet without doing any investigation). Shorne 06:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's only mentioned in two sections: the debate section (which I chopped up into paragraphs for ease of reading), and the introduction, which needs it because. . . well, it's an introduction and there's a debate, so it should be mentioned.

The third article does say that it's a disorder: "(Asexuality), however, is a rare condition and most forms of sexual dysfunction respond to therapeutic intervention." As for the quote from the New Scientist article, it's an acknowledgement that most professionals are going to view it as a disorder. You think this is an example of bias and not a reasonable conclusion? Fine. But I'm sure they don't. Your argument about this fits very well into the "asexuality is legitimate" side of the debate, and I agree that it should be put into the article. But it should be put with the other "asexuality is legitimate" arguments, and presented as one of them.

As for the first and second links, yes, they're from laymen (if you want more anecdotal things along their lines, poke around AVEN}. But they're instances of what I've found to be common thought among laymen; furthermore, you can't just state that they're invalid because they don't fit a definition of asexuality that is based in the idea that it is legitimate. It seems all right to include a note that the majority of the documented objections to asexuality are coming from laypeople -- as long as you also note that most of the discussions about asexuality at this point are coming from laypeople, period.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

This is like saying straight people can't have ovarian (PCOS) . This is just a pre-mature response to something many don't understand . http://www.pcosupport.org/

Asexuals enjoying sex?

It is still a point of controversy as to whether one can enjoy sex and still be asexual. I removed all statements implying that until a consensus can be reached.

I noticed that, too, and thought it peculiar. At a minimum, this possibility would require more discussion, preferably with references. Shorne 23:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Despite my request to have the "can asexuals enjoy sex?" debate moved to the discussion page, user 169.105.136.111 keeps changing the article to say things like "many asexuals have sex," not to mention giving the article POV by saying no evidence exists to say asexuality is unnatural. If this doesn't stop, we may have to have the page barred from editing.

I share your desire to have the discussion brought to the talk page. The next time you edit the article, please state in the edit summary that disagreements need to be discussed here.

But I don't think we should say anything at all about what is "unnatural". That's a very pejorative POV; really, it's nothing more than a slur. Asexuality exists, so how could it be "unnatural"? Shorne 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That "unnatural" information is in there because there are people that think that it is. To be blunt, it doesn't matter whether you personally think that opinion is wrong. Wikipedia is not meant to be a soapbox: if a number of people think that asexuality is unnatural, NPOV dictates that we mention that and present what they think.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

Again, "unnatural" is a POV. It should not be presented as if it were a fact. Try finding out the substance of the allegations instead of accepting labels at face value. Shorne 06:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, the word "unnatural" isn't even showing up in the recent versions of the article I'm looking through -- I assume the commenter above (who was complaining about giving the article POV) was paraphrasing. What precisely are you taking issue with? If it's just the word "unnatural" -- well, I wouldn't class it as automatically non-NPOV, depending on context, but there are enough perfectly good (but hopefully less offensive) synonyms for it that that can be worked around.

However, I'd assumed that the commenter who first used the word "unnatural" was referring to the tendency by one of the contributors to make sentences along the lines of, "There is debate as to whether or not asexuality is a legitimate orientation or a disorder, though there is no evidence for the latter." Those sentences are problematic. No, there's no evidence that asexuality isn't natural and legitimate. But there have been so few studies that there's barely any evidence for the contrary, either. To only single one of those positions out for a comment about the lack of evidence is to stray from NPOV.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

That's what I meant. I thought emphasizing that there was no evidence proving asexuality isn't legit but failing to mention that there is also no evidence proving asexuality is natural was too POV.

---

I made a number of fairly small cosmetic changes to improve readability: the debate section was shuffled around a bit to give what I thought was a smoother read, for instance, as was the variations section. I also moved the research information to its own section because that seemed useful. It's right after the debate section, though, and hopefully the last sentence of the debate section is a good lead-in. I removed the section about what the ram study might mean, as it struck me as better to let the readers make up their own minds; I could be completely wrong about that, of course.

I also changed the very last paragraph to something that I thought was less biased: I thought the phrase "challenging the belief that heterosexuality is the only normal sexual orientation" wasn't as NPOV as it could be, and didn't like the way the paragraph completely singled out conservative religious groups.

There was a bit at the top of the variations section saying that there were variations with asexuality, as with any other orientation; I removed the "as with any other orientation," since it seemed to make the article more NPOV.

Also, Wayland's contributions in the "see also" section: what do people think of these?

Inkburrow 17:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (formerly 68.4.112.17)

Religious condemnation could change in the future?

Article says: "Currently, asexuals face little religious condemnation; unlike homosexuals, for instance, they are not a target of conservative religious groups. However, this could change in the future."

I don't quite understand. Is there something to suggest that a change is happening or going to happen, or why is the last sentence there?

Why are hermits listed as see also? I don't think they have anything to do with asexuality

Something about hermits not getting sex, maybe? There's a tendency for some people to associate misanthropy and asocialness with asexuality, too. Not that I think the hermits link is entirely appropriate, but no one was complaining about it, so I didn't know if that was just a bias of mine.

Inkburrow 08:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite a nice article, but I am somewhat amused by the following lines: "Samuel R. Delany's 1969 short story "Aye, and Gomorrah..." depicts a society where astronauts become sexless because cosmic radiation renders their gonads useless." Is "gonads" a term commonly used in dictionaries? :D User:195.148.0.60

Actually, it is - although I am not quite sure why "no gonads" are supposed to equal "sexless". Oh, and do sign your comments please, even if you don't have a username. Just type -- ~~~~ and the computer does the rest. -- AlexR 09:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article refers to a novel called "John-Jack Christian"...is there any evidence that suggests this exists? When googled, it only appeared in this article. Aerothorn 00:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Moved section "Famous Asexuals" from article to talk

The section stated:

There exists strong circumstantial evidence that the following people are asexual.

* J.M. Barrie
* Salvador Dali
* Glenn Gould
* Immanuel Kant
* H.P. Lovecraft
* Isaac Newton
* John Ruskin

Evidence please? -- Karada 20:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These and many more are listed with supporting evidence here: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/1563/famousantisexuals.htm There is no way to include these without being controversial. The section itself admitted the evidence was circumstantial. All the same, I feel they are worth listing. Perhaps the title of the section should be toned down. i.e. Famous Figures suspected of being asexual?

Sadangel

Additionally, I would add Nikola Tesla to the list. He was well-known for his aversion to all human contact, which may go beyond asexuality into some mental/social disorder. Still, he's often included in such lists and there is more evidence for him than many others.

Sadangel

I am putting the list of asexuals back in the article, as we will never have perfect evidence as to the sexuality of people who died hundreds of years ago, but the evidence is, as was discussed, more than strong enough to warrant inclusion with a disclaimer.

Also, George Takei goes back in because he made no reference whatsoever in his memoirs ("To The Stars") to an interest in sex or romantic relationships. Cogent 23:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Takei is now permanently out, because he is now "out of the closet." [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Brad Altman] is his partner.--T. Anthony 11:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"other suggested causes include... hormonal problems... and not having met the right person". That is just so cute! :) --Vizcarra 20:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dalí was married and devoted to his wife.

Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 17:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed him and Chopin. I'm pretty sure I read of love affairs Chopin had that were consummated by him and not out of duty or curiosity or whatever.--T. Anthony 16:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I guess Sand's letters did indicate that.(News to me, I've read some about Sand's relationship with him) I'm skeptical, but I guess I'll put him back.--T. Anthony 16:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sophocles wasn't asexual, which many sources attest. For example:

"The historian Athenaios reported that Sophocles loved boys like Euripides loved women. The poet Ion of Chios relates: “I met Sophocles in Chios when he was as a strategist on his way to Lesbos. He was an adroit man who liked to make merry at the symposium. Hermesilaos was his friend and the official host of the Athenians. The boy who poured the wine stood at the fireplace, beautiful and blushing. Sophocles, visibly touched, asked him: ‘Do you want me to drink with delight?’ He nodded. ‘So take your time when you give me the bowl and take it away.’ The boy blushed more strongly. Sophocles remarked to the guest who lay beside him: “How beautiful is the line of Phrynichos: ‘Shining on purple cheeks the light of love.’ ” His neighbour, who was a schoolmaster of Eretria answered him: ‘You are doubtless a sage poet, Sophocles, but Phrynichos did not express himself well in calling the cheeks of a beautiful boy purple, because, if a Persian had painted them with purple colour, the boy would appear no longer beautiful. Therefore one must not compare the beautiful to the obviously not beautiful.’ Sophocles laughed and said: ‘So you also won’t like the verse of Simonides that the Greeks appreciate so much: “From purple lips the girl let flow her voice,” and what the poet says of Apollo’s golden hair, because, if a painter had painted the god’s hair golden instead of black, the painting would be worse. Likewise the poetic “rose-fingered”, since, if anyone should dip their fingers into rose-red paint, they would get hands like a dyer but not like a beautiful woman.’ The other guests laughed, and the man from Eretria was struck dumb with the rebuke, while Sophocles turned towards the boy again. This one was just trying to remove a speck from the bowl with his little finger. Sophocles asked him whether he could see the straw distinctly. He affirmed it, and Sophocles continued: ‘So blow it away, lest your finger should become wet.’ While the boy approached his lips to the vessel, Sophocles brought it nearer to his mouth, so that their heads approached each other. When the boy was near him, Sophocles put his arm around him, drew him even closer and kissed him. All applauded and cheered him for having outfoxed the boy so nicely. Sophocles replied: ‘Gentlemen, I’m practising strategy, because Pericles said that I understood poetry but not strategy. Now, don,t you think my stratagem turned out quite well?'’ ”(2)

Of course, Sophocles's strategies did not always turn out to his advantage. He was reputed to have had amorous trysts with pretty boys all life long; Plato swore to it. His pederasty is similarly reported by Euripides, and by Athenaios. The latter, who liked gathering anecdotes about the lives of the great men of antiquity, relates one of Sophocles's misadventures: “One day, Sophocles (who was around 65 years of age at the time) led beyond the walls of the city a beautiful youth in order to enjoy him. The lad spread his rough himation (a cheap coat) on the grass and the two covered themselves with the elegant chlanis of the poet. When the thing was done, the boy snatched the chlanis, leaving the himation for Sophocles. Naturally word of this got around, and as soon as Euripides found out he made great fun of it.” (3)

After Athenaios and Ion of Chios, Deipnosophistai I, 20, and XIII, 603-604"

My great aunt went out on a date with Ralph Nader. Where has he said that he's asexual? Pimpalicious 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)