Talk:Fictosexuality

Questionable article, even more questionable sourcing

I will preface this by saying that I do not speak Japanese, and so I am unable to truly and effectively check some of the sourcing present in this article, but this comes off as a fringe topic and term that is being bolstered by pseudo-scientific literature and by a scant few legitimate papers in Japanese academic journals. The first source in the article (titling itself a “manifesto”…) is cited as if it were an academic work, but is in fact a glorified blogpost for a website that seems to be a relationship oriented version of sites such as Medium. I know nothing about this “study group” nor do I know if anything they write of is necessarily worthy of inclusion. As it stands, the page seems to be attempting to demonstrate the notability of the topic through academic jargon while failing to demonstrate that this is an actually notable subject beyond the brief morbid fascination of a few otakus. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Basically, the Fictosexual Manifesto is only cited as an English-language resource for research in Japan (as far as I understund, the manifesto is a fairly accurate introduction to the Japanese research). Therefore, this Wikipedia article does not represent NTU-Otasudy's own views.

The academic papers currently referenced, both in Japanese and English, are legitimate academic studies published in scholarly journals and publications. These papers provide evidence that there are individuals who seriously self-identify as fictosexual. It is discriminatory to dismiss fictosexuality as a mere "brief morbid fascination" as it is a valid sexual identity. It is important to note that fictosexuality is a sexual identity and is different term from otaku.

The research on fictosexuality could be further developed in the future, which could enhance the quality of this article over time, even though it may not be perfect at present. Gruebleener (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gruebleener: "could be further developed in the future, which could enhance the quality of this article over time" – I have to remind you of WP:CRYSTAL, and the fact we all have to abide by it, aromantic people such as myself included. If the sources aren't great currently, and if the quality research hasn't been done yet, this article falls foul of WP:RELIABLE. Even if it could be good in the future, it doesn't mean we have to keep it if it's not good now. (I hope someone with a better knowledge of journals has a look into the reliability of the journals used here; I can never seem to get Beall's list working online.)

"the Fictosexual Manifesto is only cited as an English-language resource for research in Japan" – you don't have to provide a source in English; it's definitely helpful, but we cite non-English language sources all the time. Occasionally, the only reliable sources we have aren't in English at all. If a source is a blog post, an opinion piece, you shouldn't have to include it because this is English Wikipedia and it's the only English source you have; these types of sources are typically not reliable, as it's self-reporting. They could technically be writing anything, even if we're certain they're writing in good faith.

"These papers provide evidence that there are individuals who seriously self-identify as fictosexual"; odd to say, but this isn't a consideration here. Wikipedia's sources policy is "verifiability, not truth". No matter how true something may or may not be, if there's no reliable sources around, we can't verify that it's notable enough to be written about. If the journals aren't reliable sources, the "evidence" they contain can basically be dismissed for Wikipedia's purposes. Even if a stopped clock is right twice a day, we don't look at the stopped clock to tell the time.

If this article gets deleted, take heart that deleted articles do sometimes get recreated with better sources, if and when their topics become more notable, and have greater staying power on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't about determining fact, nor is it about everything in existence. It doesn't mean that something doesn't exist in the real world; it doesn't mean it'll stay non-notable forever. But we have to keep Wikipedia clear of articles that might be poorly-sourced because we already have so much work to do, and not enough editors to do it with.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 22:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the German article de:Fiktosexualität is referencing some English (and German) languages sources, I didn't check in depth, but maybe those could help. Still not sure it's enough WP:RS for the article to stand, but it might help, but it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I second that. Very vague. Plus this page doesn't accept mentions about sexual orientations, paraphilia, fictophilia. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:789F:E6C6:5B:4548 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Man, I hate being right… Paragon Deku (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Nijikon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

I believe these are the same phenomenon, the eighteen year gap between each page's creation explained by Japanese media covering it earlier than the media of the west. --Travisthecrab (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge. These are either the same thing or so closely related that it makes no sense to have separate articles, neither of which is particularly good. This article would be far better off stripped back to only the genuinely RS coverage and then merged into that, probably not vice-versa, to make one article of reasonable quality. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Don't merge. I don't think they're the same thing or so closely related that there's no need to distinguish them, given that phytosexuality is a concept that isn't limited to otaku culture such as anime and manga.--Kainioaefa (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Don't merge. I concur with Kainioaefa's viewpoint. Even in Japan, a distinction is recognized between fictosexuality as a sexual identity and nijikon as an otaku, and the Japanese Wikipedia features separate articles on fictosexuality and nijikon.

Gruebleener (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added paragraphs on terms in Chinese, Japanese, and English. While there may be some overlap between "nijikon" and "fictosexual" in Japan, the term "nijikon" primarily refers to being an otaku, whereas "fictosexual" specifically pertains to sexuality. In the English language, these terms have distinct meanings. Gruebleener (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge. I really don’t think there’s enough of a distinction between the concepts, and this page is a dumping ground for WP:REFBOMB by single purpose editors. If a genuine attempt to describe this phenomenon is desired, it would be most constructively done on a single page. Paragon Deku (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Don't merge. Nijikon is about anime/manga characters, a specific form of fictosexuality (as the Nijikon itself says). The last discussion was more encompassing of this situation. Fictosexual defines attraction to fictional characters, not just 2D animations. Also, the term fictosexual is related to the asexual spectrum, while nijikon is not essentially. I believe the article can be rewritten with less cultural bias. MikutoH (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Support merge. I'm unable to find sufficient reliable sources that justify the existence of this article; a merge would be a good way to keep some of this information on Wikipedia. Note that the first source cited in this article and used frequently throughout, while not a reliable source (and should be removed), is written by a doujin group focused on otaku, which is directly associated with anime/manga. Of course, nijikon is also linked to anime/manga. Akhelms (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Don’t merge They are considered different in Japan and they have separate articles on Japanese Wikipedia Qwv (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't merge Fictosexuality addresses general attraction to fictional characters whether it be cartoons, or anime characters. Nijikon only addresses the anime-side of the issue. It is possible for people to be attracted to non-anime characters. For example, in Fictosexuality, Fictoromance, and Fictophilia: A Qualitative Study of Love and Desire for Fictional Characters, there is a case-study of an individual attracted to a character from a C. J. Cherryh novel.

TL;DR: Fictosexuality is an umbrella term. Nijikon reflects a topic under the umbrella. Don't merge. ABBAABABABABA (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Support merge. I'm unable to see the relevance and notability of this article, especially the marginal remaining relevance considering Nijikon is already an article. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French translation of this page in Google

The french translation of this page in Google is incorrect, linking fictosexuality to gray asexuality when there is no direct link between any sexual orientation (a, hetero, homo or bisexual) and fictosexuality as anyone could feel this attraction and not only doesn't mention asexuality so asexualité in french but asexué which means without sexual organs. Thanks for fixing your content. 91.177.199.192 (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of fictosexuality and of sexual orientation on Wikipedia

Why not follow the dictionary definition that says that fictosexuality is a synonym of fictophilia and has no mention linked to asexuality or any other sexual orientation and why do you post a reference here that states that fictosexuality is not conform to a sexual orientation when the Wikipedia article on sexual orientation says that asexuality is part of the sexual orientations so why make a direct link between those 2 different definitions? https://www.dictionary.com/e/gender-sexuality/fictosexual/ 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:789F:E6C6:5B:4548 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the note, Dictionary.com's description is not "a formal definition" but "an informal word summary."

Matsuura's article explains that fictosexuality is often assumed as not being the so-called "sexual orientation," but it does not state that fictosexuality is not a sexual orientation. Hence, the term "sexual orientation" is enclosed in double quotation marks in the article's title.

Furthermore, whether a category is included in the gray asexuality (or asexual spectrum) is irrelevant to its classification as a sexual orientation because gray asexual is an umbrella term. Gruebleener (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It is normal that is not in all the dictionaries yet as it is a new definition. It doesn't mean you have to link it to asexuality. The term fictophilia existed before and was not linked to asexuality like in the article enclosed. A sexual orientation is towards real consenting human adult beings. Asexuality is a spectrum, an umbrella for having no sexual attraction to anyone or anything to a few sexual attraction to real people and grayasexuality is in this last definition. Gray means a few, rare, on occasions. Para means next to in Greek. A paraphilia is next to a sexual orientation (so asexuality spectrum to hetero, homo, bi pansexuality). The definitions are clear. Someone could be herosexual or homosexual and fictosexual. Fictosexuality is sexual attraction to fictional characters.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fictophilia 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:789F:E6C6:5B:4548 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The 4 main sexual orientations in human beings are the asexuality spectrum, heterosexuality, homosexuality and the spectrum from bi to pansexuality and you can verify that this is the correct definition of it on Wikipedia itself, as I had mentionned it in a link you erased here: sexual orientation. Any sexual attraction that is not towards consenting adult human beings is by definition a paraphilia or parasexuality. The definitions are there to prove it. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:789F:E6C6:5B:4548 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

So if your article doesn't state that it is not a sexual orientation, it is because it is not. Fictosexuality is a sexual attraction not one of the 4 main human sexual orientations. Ficto is also not the same frefix in Greek as a. A is privative. 91.177.199.192 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on an article that says: it doesn't state that so it could mean that but I'd rather rely on articles that state direct definitions. Don't you agree? 91.177.199.192 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wanting to join the LGBTQIA+ with a paraphilia like fictosexuality is something but putting it under a sexual orientation like asexuality here (not homosexuality (LG) or bisexuality is something else because the definitions don't wholly fit as a paraphilia will always be by essence next to any of the 4 mains human sexual orientations so I hope you will delete the content that directly leads asexuality to fictosexuality on this page. If fictosexual people and any other objectophile or else want to join the LGBTQIA+ community, they can add themselves in the +. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I found another french article saying we could all (so any sexual orientation: asexual, heterosexual, homosexual or bi to pansexual) be fictosexual. So I hope you will delete the direct link made between the asexual spectrum and fictosexuality as any person of any sexual orientation could be fictosexual next to it or not. On the asexual spectrum, people have no sexual orientation to a few (demi, fray, gray, ...). Not all asexual people have any sort of paraphilia, to the contrary so no direct link between the 2. Those are facts. The link won't charge here but is Au Feminin: qu'est ce que la fictosexualité ... 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There are too many contradictive articles for you to link directly the sexual orientation asexuality (contrary of bi/pansexuality like homo is the contrary of heterosexuality in a graph so they make up the 4 main sexual orientations in humans) to fictosexuality anyway and I explained hereabove with they don't automacally fit together at all. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Prior to your edits, the article already contained a statement indicating that not all fictosexuals are gray asexuals ("not all fictosexuals identify themselves as gray asexuals").

However, it is unfounded to claim that fictosexuality is never gray asexual. Several peer-reviewed articles have described that the term fictosexual is used within the asexual community to represent individuals on the asexual spectrum. Therefore, fictosexual and asexual spectrum should be considered related terms to a certain extent. In Wikipedia, peer-reviewed articles are regarded as a more reliable source than online dictionaries.

Furthermore, your provided definition of "sexual orientation" is not self-evident. For example, recent research on asexuality claims that "sexual orientation is a sociopolitical category and whether and how asexuality qualifies will depend on sociopolitical context." (C. J. Chasin, "Asexuality and the Re/Construction of Sexual Orientation," p. 215), and Matsuura's article also critically examines the sociopolitical distinction between sexual orientation and sexual preference. It would be appreciated if you could refer to reliable sources when editing this article. Gruebleener (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why? If not all of them are gray asexual then not all of them are asexual or not all of them are heterosexual or homosexual or bi to pansexual ... Why would some fictosexual people have a rare sexual attraction to human adult beings so be grayasexual and be ficto and others like wholly asexual or hetero or homo or bi to pansexual people couldn't? Gray is having few sexual attraction to human beings so why couldn't an heterosexual woman also be sexually attracted to a fictional character like Groot for example? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole picture is not taken into account here. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I refered to Wikipedia itself for sexual orientations. Having a preference means it is not a non chosen sexual attraction, isn't it? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And many articles claim the contrary and many members of the asexual community also think fictosexuality is not part of the asexual spectrum but a parasexuality that could be annexed to any of the 4 main human sexual orientations. If you don't have proof of fictosexuality being on the asexual spectrum and it only, please don't mention it as part of the asexual spectrum. 91.177.199.192 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And our sexual orientations shouldn't be political. And it is going to far from the subject. The definition of sexual orientation would still the same anyway, no? 91.177.199.192 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that demi, fray, ... are all a few sexual attraction towards real consenting adult human beings so where do you add a sexual attraction that can be full and towards fictional characters so not real humans there? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And that a person who would only experience sexual attraction to fictional characters after falling in love with them would then be called demifictosexual but wouldn't inherently be demiasexual towards real humans. Para means next to because there is no direct link between a sexual orientation towards consenting adult human beings and a paraphilia (towards non consenting adult human beings). Fictophilia or fictosexuality is a paraphilia. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Just like a sexual attraction is not directly link to a person's romantic or sensual or aestethic attraction. For example: a person can be a demiromantic asexual (so not demiasexual) or aromantic homosexual (so not asexual). 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to call fictosexuality a paraphilia because some paraphilias on the spectrum are dangerous, I get it but then you can call it fictosexuality now. What does utaku mean? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Asexuality is a spectrum from no sexual attraction to a few and to human beings and fictosexuality is having sexual attraction and to fictional characters so if one person can be both to humans and fictional characters, to can also be none or one of the 2. You can read about people who had dangerous paraphilias and were also heterosexual for example ... 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Article about "What is is to be on the asexual spectrum" by Cosmopolitan: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a41058910/what-is-asexual-spectrum/ 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A more accurate description would be to state that a certain kind of fictosexuality is part of the asexual spectrum or aspec, rather than being categorized as gray asexual. (I think the association with gray asexual was made for convenience since there was no Wikipedia article on the asexual spectrum.)

The asexual spectrum includes not only gray asexual and demisexual  but also includes other identities such as aegosexual.

https://www.asexuals.net/asexual-spectrum/

Aspec includes a wide range of categories beyond those mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

It is important to note that just because a category does not consistent with the descriptions found in Wikipedia articles on gray asexual or demisexual does not exclude it from being considered part of the asexual spectrum. Gruebleener (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said grayasexuality isn't part of the asexual spectrum. It is a part of it. It means rare or a few sexual attraction to human beings though so what does it have to do with sexual attraction (not mentionning if a few or whole) to fictional characters? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your link states fictosexuals fall under the asexual umbrella as they don't experience sexual orientation to others but you had posted before that some fictosexual people identify as gray asexual and others not so it means these people have a few sexual attraction towards real people so they can have some or even a full one. Note that the term used in this article is umbrella and not spectrum. One person could be asexual and fictosexual or only asexual without being fictosexual or identify only as fictosexual or as hetero or homo or bi or pansexual or else and fictosexual or even as animephiliac or objectophile and fictosexual when the asexual spectrum means having no to a few sexual orientation towards others (so consenting adult human beings). This article doesn't say that people are ALWAYS asexual when they are fictosexual as it wouldn't be true to say so. 91.177.199.192 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And you said it yourself "a part". A part of fictosexual people can be both asexual and fictosexual. Other parts are not. 91.177.199.192 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not because fictosexual people could be both asexual and fictosexual so that this side includes them, that they can't belong to their own spectrum or be related to other sexual orientations than asexuality either. 91.177.199.192 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You can also simply follow the greek prefixes and terminologies: what does a mean, what does philia mean, what does paraphilia mean? Then the english terms like what does sexuality mean, what does sexual orientation mean? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Article about the asexual spectrum from lgbt wiki doesn't mention fictosexuality. https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Asexual_spectrum 91.177.199.192 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Another link on the aroace spectrums. No mention of fictosexuality in it. https://www.oulgbtq.org/acearo-spectrum-definitions.html 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

So I think the spectrum means the distance from no sexual attraction at all (privative greek "a") to a few (the grayasexuality and its spectrum) and that an umbrella is what can be under it (all the time or not). A person can not always be under the same umbrella or can be under 2 or more umbrellas at once ...2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Your article even states it actually with the umbrella term ... that some identities are under the umbrella but in addition to another identity. So I hope you will change your content and not directly link fictosexuality to asexuality but say it can be under its umbrella but that fictosexuality has its own identity alongside it. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You can find me on AVEN (Asexual Visibility and Education Network), on their FORUM if you want to talk more about asexuality and fictosexuality. I'm not intending to talk more here as I have already talked much and that this isn't a forum. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Make the edit if you think it would improve the page. It seems not to be asexual but could be on the broader asexual spectrum. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you fot the edit. I think it improves the page because there is no proof of a direct link between asexuality and fictosexuality so we can't say they are on the same spectrum. People can be both under the asexual umbrella towards human beings and both fictosexual towards fictional characters or not so these are 2 identities. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:D188:609:CFD7:84AE (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Not mutually inclusive or exclusive with aspec. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In general, a single word can have multiple meanings depending on the context. The most common definition of "fictosexuality" is "a sexual attraction towards fictional characters." Within the asexual community, it is also used to refer to those who "only sexually attracted to fictional character, do not experience sexual attraction towards real people".

Having two meanings for the term "fictosexuality" does not imply that the descriptions are contradictory. In the Wikipedia description, it would be appropriate to present the two meanings in a straightforward manner. Multiple reliable sources (Matsuura 2021, Yule et. al. 2017, Karhulahti and Välisalo 2021) demonstrate that the term "fictosexuality" is used within the asexual community as part of the asexual spectrum.

Especially, Matsuura (2021) wrote that "This context serves as the background for including the concept of fictosexuality in the asexual spectrum(フィクトセクシュアル概念が アセクシュアル・スペクトラムに含められる背景には、このような文脈もある)." And Daigle-Orians writes in his book on asexuality that "Fictosexual is a microlabel that describes people who only experience sexual attraction toward specific fictional characters or types of fictional characters."

Here is not a place to debate the validity of the concept of fictosexuality. The focus should be on how the term "fictosexuality" is actually used and the existing research on the topic.

When writing explanations on Wikipedia, it is important to base them on reliable sources rather than making unsourced original claims. Additionally, on the talk page, it is recommended to be concise and avoid starting the same discussion on multiple pages. I hope you will follow these Wikipedia guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

Gruebleener (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said fictosexuality had many meanings depending on some contexts and honestly to me the 2 definitions you just stated of it are the same. What I say is that on this page, it is linked to asexuality as being part of it and only it and what I say is that there is a bigger picture to it. I agree about that and I never debated the validity of fictosexuality. I agree that the main focus of this article should be on fictosexuality rather than on its link to asexuality or not, hence why I wrote it would be a great idea to talk about the fictosexuality umbrella with its subdivisions and say where it comes from. For the rest, sorry but I don't speak japanese so I can't read you supposedly reliable article but I follow asexual pages and not all asexual people think that fictosexuality is ALWAYS under the asexual umbrella but rather under it if fictosexual people don't experience sexual attraction towards real people or just a few of it and that, alongside it, they still keep their other own identity as fictosexuals.2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

My point is that the common definition and the aspec definition of fictosexuality are NOT the same. While it might be possible to present both definitions in an integrated manner, that would be an original interpretation unless supported by sources. Conversely, some sources indicate that fictosexuality is used as a microlabel in the ace. When editing Wikipedia, it is necessary to provide reliable sources to support the information presented. Gruebleener (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

About asexual masturbation

Don't you think people on the asexual spectrum can't just masturbate to pornography so to real human adult beings like the peopoe from the other 3 main human sexual orientations (homo, hetero and bi/pansexuality) when they don't experience fictosexuality? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Or are you aware that asexual people could masturbate without having sexual attraction towards anyone because libido is hormonal and can be directed to no one in particuliar? And are you aware that there is a difference between using a sextoy and to be sexually attracted to an object for example? 91.177.199.192 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Folks, this is getting a little bit into WP:NOTFORUM territory. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. I'm sure that there are other forums where things like this can be discussed. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Cfr this page links about asexual masturbation and living my best asexual life ... but I can't talk further about articles or it will be considered as a forum so I only mention asexual masturbation. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

My point is that when we are children and teenagers, we are first fans of fictional characters and identify to them then very usually, when we hit puberty or are late teenagers then young adults, we turn to real human beings and become fans of real adult human beings and become sexually attracted to them (except for fully asexual people) too so romantically attracted or platonically or not to them so there is no inherent link between fictosexuality and the asexual spectrum. Child development studies could attest this. An adult can be on the asexual spectrum and be turned to no one or to real human adult beings. A fictosexual person does have sexual attraction when they see a fictional character. So unless someone can prove fictosexuality is part of the asexual spectrum and it only instead of it being next to it or another sexual orientation, I don't know why we should inherently link them together. What do you think? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Objectophilia or objectosexuality

Are you aware that objectosexuality is a paraphilia like fictosexuality so a sexual attraction to non humans when asexuality is one of the 4 main human sexual orientations towards humans so why comparing the 2? They are parallels, on 2 differents spectrums: sexual orientations and paraphilias. They can come together or not. You can be of a sexual orientation without experiencing any paraphilia. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Objectum sexuality is among paraphilias. It is written in its Wikipedia definition, did you see this? 91.177.199.192 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)91.177.199.192 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

pov tag

i have added a {{pov}} tag due to the fact that this article is written as if someone wanted to shoehorn fictosexuality into the lgbtq+ spectrum. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes trying to fit in the asexual spectrum ONLY when there is no inherent link between the 2. Many asexual people don't experience fictosexuality when a person of another of the 3 other main human sexual orientations than the asexual spectrum (so hetero, homo and bi to pansexuality) could experience fictosexuality so it could be a + category. People can be asexual and fictosexual or not and they could be from another sexual orientation too and fictosexual or not and could even be fictosexual and sexually attracted to nature for example.

91.177.199.192 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Definition of grayasexuality

grayasexuality is between whole asexuality so lack of sexual attraction to allosexuality so full sexual attraction in the 3 main human sexual orientations so hetero, homo and bi to pansexuality. Do you agree? Wikipedia states that grayasexuality is between asexuality and sexuality. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you think gray means? A spectrum where we can add fictosexuality (and else like objectophilia) or being between whole asexuality and allosexuality? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:6466:A41B:D638:EC89 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You write: "Not all fictosexuals identify as asexuals". What do the other fictosexual people identify as? Only fictosexual or else? And if not all of them identify as asexuals and not all asexuals identify as fictosexuals at all as well, where is the direct link between the 2? A demi is in direct link to the asexual spectrum as they only have a few sexual attraction so enter the lack of or a few sexual attraction that the asexual represents for example but for fictosexuals who do have sexual attraction, not a lack of or a few, where is the direct link? 91.177.199.192 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Kinds of fictional characters

I think it would be a good idea to add more information about what non human characters are and why we don't talk about human fictional characters like roles played by human actors in series and movies for example; to talk about the spectrum of fictosexuality itself and where it comes from.91.177.199.192 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Link to a journal article about man who married a fictional character in Japon: https://nypost.com/article/what-is-fictosexuality-meaning-definition/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:a09e:a800:ac0b:5f04:169b:f220 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Please notice the use of SOME fictosexuals ALSO identify as asexual. I don't think all fictosexual people are asexual but that they could also be hetero or homo or bi to pansexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:a09e:a800:ac0b:5f04:169b:f220 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Also in the article, it says that the man has no romantic interests in real people but romantic and sexual attractions are not the same and don't always pair up. Also, the journalist writes that the interviewed man is part of the lgbtq+ community, but doesn't state where he stands on it. Fictosexuals also indentify as fictosexual in the article next to asexuality towards real humans so they also have their own identity as fictosexual people. Finally, the fictosexual flag takes some of the colors of the asexual flag but in the article, they are linked to "attraction to non humans", whereas on the asexual flag they are not, they are linked to no sexual attraction or a few sexual attractions towards human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.199.192 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Xenogenre and fictosexuality

People who are binary (boy or man or girl or woman) or non binary (Agender or BIgender or gender fluid or neutral) are still on the human spectrum of genders when xenogender people are not like an Asexual or BIsexual is directed towards human beings (one being the contrary of the other like hetero is the contrary of homosexuality) when fictosexuality is not directed towards human beings. If they want to add the LGBTQIA+ community, shouldn't they thus be put in the +? 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Note here that xenogender is not part of Agender ... so why should fictosexuality be part of the Asexual spectrum when it can actually be next to it or not. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it is not that a person is agender so not woman nor man that the xenogenre is part of them. Same with asexuality and fictosexuality or objectophilia/sexuality or animesexuality/philia or else. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we please aknowledge that some people are not woman and not man and that's all (so not another thing than human) without being directly linked to others who identify as another thing than human like for example an animal or a color? And same thing for their sexual attraction? Can we please take into account the differerences between "a" and "ficto" and "a" and "xeno", between asexuality and fictosexuality and agender and xenogenre? Ones are human or towards humans and ones are not. Wanting to put "ficto" and "xeno" under "a" would thus invalidate the a making it an umbrella for "xeno" and "para" and not its own definition of "a" which means lacks of, is a privative greek prefix. As xenogenders DO HAVE (so contrary of lack of) a gender which is not human and fictosexual people DO HAVE a sexual attraction and to non human. Putting them under the "a" term thus invalidates this "a" term. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Direct link between asexual spectrum and fictosexuality

Could someone post a proof (with definitions) that fictosexuality is part of the asexual spectrum instead of fictosexual sexual people can also be asexual or not and not all asexual people are fictosexual either and that "a" means lack of in greek and that the asexual spectrum is lack of sexual attraction to a few (like the demi, fray, gray ...) to others (so consenting adult human beings) and that fictosexuality is having sexual attraction which is directed towards fictional characters like I state? Where would you place ficto in the acespec instead of it sometimes being next to it and sometimes not? And why? Please answer before changing the content of this page again. I have repeated myself much until now and got no answer for this, the content is just changed without explanation. Thank you. 91.177.199.192 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is in the references of this page:NIH (National Library of Medicine) -

Fictosexuality, Fictoromance, and Fictophilia: A Qualitative Study of Love and Desire for Fictional Characters

Note that the only mentions about asexuality is going on forums and asking oneself how fictophilia could be related to other romantic and sexual attractions and that SOME fictisexual people also identify themselves as asexual. Also note that this article uses fictophilia as a synonym for fictosexuality and uses the term parasocial to use it in society. 2A02:A03F:A09E:A800:AC0B:5F04:169B:F220 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add more evidence about this topic to debunk obvious falsehoods

There's no link between being attracted to fictional characters who are or look underage made anyone a pedophile or they have a pedophile behaviour. I'm not only talking about the lolicon/shotacon specifically here, I'm talking about fictional characters who are still underage (13-17) but they are not considered lolis/shotas. Since ficto people are not interesed in irl people sexually and romantically, it makes no sense for them to act into irl people especially since most fictional characters tend to be unrealistic. I know there is a brief mention about it but I think more information should be mentioned like for example, in the otaku community and hundreds of online posts, it's mostly acceptable as long not real people are involved which exclude underage voice actors and underage actors for obvious reasons especially after the Cuties incident. The next article could be used as an example since the topic is similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_video_games

Also, I think a mention about anything sexual even in fiction is seen as taboo in the West unlike in the East and violent and gore are seen as taboo in the East unlike in the West. Don't know if that should be too relevant to the fictosexual article but since there's a brief mention in the article, it could made the article. I know there's laws in some countries banning pornography of fictional underage characters but it's unenforceable due its impossible to control what people do with fictional characters and the lack of known recent cases (all cases listed in Wikipedia are from the 2000s or early 2010s). Waka Waka (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Images

The fictosexual pride flag (c. 2015), using similar colors to the asexual pride flag

File:KaluraYRMW.fic.jpg

2021 fan fiction illustration, depicting an original character in a relationship with Superman

I have removed these two images from the article: Commons:File:Fictosexuality_flag.png and Commons:File:KaluraYRMW.fic.jpg

My concern over the flag is that it lacks a reliable source. The only source on Commons is a DeviantArt page, which is WP:UGC and is not a reliable source for this flag on Wikipedia. If this flag is used enough to be relevant to this topic, please include a reliable source supporting this. With such a source, the flag should be restored, but from past experience, I suspect finding such sources is harder than it might seem.

My concern over the second is that this image very obviously depicts Henry Cavill who is one of many actors to have portrayed Superman. Since the image is clearly derived from photographs with a digital filter, the other person is also unlikely to be fictional. Since at least one of the two people depicted is not fictional, this image seems more confusing than helpful. The image also likely fails MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. (There are also copyright red flags here, but Commons would be a better place to go into that). Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell the flag has reliable sources. See NYP, thefocus, vocus.cc, hitc. The flag was removed in the past because a user thought the flag was a joke. Do you think NYP isn't enough? Abesca (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, no, see WP:NYPOST. But more importantly, it's not enough for sources to exist on a talk page, they need to be cited and summarized in the article. If reliable sources explain why this flag is relevant to the article, let's summarize those sources. As it was, the flag was not mentioned in the body of the article and no citations were present for the image caption. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the other sources, the link to hitc.com is dead, but the outlet an unreliable gossip site. That site is part of "GRV Media". I don't specifically know about thefocus.news, but since it's part of the same media company, GRV, and that link seems to be mainly citing twitter and wiki, I don't think it's a good source.

For vocus.cc, I do not read Chinese and machine translation should not be used for sources, so if you do read Chinese, and believe that outlet is reliable, we can summarize what it says. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Grayfell raises some good points. I'm not sure why the image was restored without further discussion here? At this point there isn't consensus for its inclusion and WP:ONUS applies.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I looked at the Chinese language source a bit more. This (archive) appears to be an English-language version, although I don't know which version was written first. It does not appear to be a WP:RS, and doesn't mention the flag in any detail. It merely includes the flag as a header image cited to "Sexuality Wiki" which is also very unlikely to be a reliable source (per WP:UGC).

If a reliable source for this flag exists, it would be a useful addition to the article. I have not yet seen such a source, unfortunately. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@DarknessGoth777: Please sop adding the flag image until you have consensus, and that won't happen until you can find a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I have some questions about the current sources of this article.

I have removed the use of a Frontiers in Psychology article, as Frontiers Media is not a reputable or ethical publisher and should not be cited without consensus.

It appears that most of the article is now supported by the works Matsuura Yuu (written as マツウラ ユウ) but a significant percentage of this work appears to have been published as an academic blog, and not in reputable journals. The use of such blogs should be limited, and every such cite should be clearly attributed to Matsuura Yuu.

As for the ACG (subculture) symposium, I would really like to see some more context on what this event was, if it was peer reviewed, etc. before accepting it as a reliable source. I would be reassured if those adding these sources can confirm that they can read Chinese without the use of machine translation. The same goes for Matsuura's work in Japanese.

As for this source I do not have access to the full article, and would like reassurance that it does support the attached claim. The summary presented doesn't support this. It barely mentions fiction, and doesn't use the term 'fictosexual' at all. It appears from the summary that it is about pornography in Japan, mainly through a heterosexual lens. It seems usable, but it may or may not be directly relevant to this topic.

Grayfell (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, as I mentioned above, this Fictosexual Manifesto may be a translation of the AGC source or in some other way related. In general manifestos need to be attributed and contextualized, ideally by WP:IS. Even when they are reliable sources, which isn't a given, they are still WP:PRIMARY sources. Interpreting primary sources is a form of original research, and Wikipedia articles should not contain original research. Grayfell (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

While Frontiers in Psychology may have its issues, I believe it's an exaggeration to suggest that it should be completely disregarded as a reference. Based on my reading, the article appears to be an ordinary survey of web discourse. Additionally, the author of this article seems to be a reasonably well-known researcher in the field of game studies. Megluck (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think "issues" is an understatement. Strictly-speaking, how well-known the specific author is is a distraction. This is part of the problem with predatory publishers, since they fail to distinguish between good scholarship and bad scholarship. I have no specific issues with the study itself, but what we, as editors, think of the content of a source is only of limited use. A source's reliability (WP:RS) is decided by reputation, and Frontiers Media doesn't have a positive reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, peer review, etc. If anything, it has a negative reputation. If Veli-Matti Karhulahti has written about this topic in a reputable journal, We should consider it, but right now, adding weak or disreputable sources is only going to make the absence of decent sources more noticeable. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Frontiers may have questionable practices as a publisher, but I think it's not necessarily a predatory journal. In fact, according to Google Scholar, the article has received 18 citations, indicating recognition as an appropriate reference among researchers in this field. Additionally, as you acknowledge, there is nothing wrong with the study itself. Even considering Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't believe we should go as far as to say that this article should not be referenced. Megluck (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Cite counts alone are not an indicator of reliability (although they can be a starting point). Even blatantly unreliable pseudo-journals can get hundreds of cites. Sometimes its from walled gardens of similar journals, but now also from AI-generated spam, and sometimes from legitimate journals which are specifically studying pseudoscience. This means that some studies get cited specifically because they are bad scholarship and are specifically being challenged or debunked. Or sometimes the study is okay despite the publisher, but we don't assume that.

Google Scholar itself also often includes duplicate citations, citations to blogs and similar, and I've frequently found examples of citations which pre-date the articles they are supposedly citing, sometimes by many years. Once again, Google made automation which was 'good enough' but not actually accurate or reliable when viewed up-close.

I don't think this is the case here, but hopefully it explains why bad publishers like Frontiers are so frustrating. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yule, Brotto & Gorzalka (2017)

Regarding this source:

• Yule, Morag A.; Brotto, Lori A.; Gorzalka, Boris B. (2017). "Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation Among Asexual Individuals: An In-Depth Exploration" (PDF). Archives of Sexual Behavior. 46 (1): 311–328. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0870-8. PMID 27882477. S2CID 254264133.

It barely mentions fictosexuality at all. It doesn't say "Some fictosexuals are participants in the asexual community", as this article did. Instead it mentions that some asexual people also identify as fictosexual. It doesn't say anything about fictosexuals participating in any specific community (nor does it say they don't participate in the community). The source does also mention schediaphilia/toonophilia but does not define this concept in any detail, but does helpfully say this:

While there is very little academic writing on this topic, it has some presence on the Internet and there are claims that some individuals are sexually and/or romantically attracted to particular cartoon characters. Elucidating the difference between those who are attracted to human, non-human, and animated fictional characters will be important toconsider in future asexuality research..

The phrase "more research is needed" is an academic cliche, so this suggests to me that we shouldn't be over-stating the relevance of this source.

The article does still use the source as one of several for the statement "Several asexual studies and introductory books on sexual minorities refer to fictosexuality." This seems like about as far as this source will take us for this article.

Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Source for flag

Regarding this potential source for the flag (also discussed at #Images):

• Barron, Victoria (2023). Amazing ace, awesome aro: an illustrated exploration. London ; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 978-1-83997-714-5.

To keep it simple: what, exactly does this book say about the fictosexual flag? I accept that comic books can be reliable sources, but the format requires a lot of visual information, but doesn't always provide context or background for that information. Does this book actually explain the flag, or mention its history, or does it use it as a decorative element? All sources are evaluated in context, so this would help. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy

This article reads like an advocacy page. Based on this article you'd think "fictosexuality" was an accepted sexual orientation in psychology as opposed to a very fringe idea that's barely been studied properly. Both this and human-oriented sexualism article have clearly been created by the same editor to push an agenda. (An edior who seems very obviously to be a single purpose account.) This is yet another case of a very fringe group hijacking LGBT rethoric to try to mainstream what most people in psychology would regard as a paraphilia or at the very least a fetish. Wikipedia should not just accept this because they manage to cite some dubious journal articles and a bunch collections of mentions in larger studies on sexuality. As of right now there is no balance in this article and honestly it might be better to WP:Blow it up and start over. ★Trekker (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

afd is that way ltbdl (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated the other article, I'm not sure what road to take with this one.★Trekker (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You say there is no balance in the article. Do you have the opposing sources to balance the article? You also say that this is "a very fringe idea that's barely been studied properly". If that is the case (and you've stated this as a fact), you can definitely add this to the article — as long as you provide reliable sources stating that, because we can't be based on WP:OR. Skyshiftertalk 14:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

no! they have you too! ltbdl (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)