Talk:Asexuality

Morrissey

Why is Morrissey mentioned? He did claim to be asexual in the 80s but it's clear to everyone now that he's either bisexual or gay and closeted about his sexuality. He is not asexual at all.

1% ?

I'm sure more than 1% of the population is asexual! I find it hard to believe 99%of the population wants to get laid. But then, most people don't know what asexuality is, and so can't catagorise themselves as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.126.141 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to believe? Asexual's have completely no interest in sex. Most of the world population can or does. About 99%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.234.177 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's 3% of U.S. noninstitutionalized adults that have not had sex in their lifetimes and 10% in a year, and I think those figures are due to underreporting, because the study was based on a stranger showing up at a home, saying they're from a university, taking attendance, promising to keep a secret, and asking about their sexuality.

The study came as two books, one professional and called The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, by Edward O. Laumann et al. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994), the other for a lay readership and called Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by Robert T. Michael et al. (Boston: Little, Brown, or N.Y.: Warner, 1994), both using the same data and criticized for understating the Lesbian/gay population (so maybe they understated the asexual population, too), but the data is separate from the argument about smallness, and the data is what should be cited. I think the data was tabulated in chapter 7 of Sex in America, the lay book in which there's a sentence from which one could understandably but incorrectly infer that 99% of men and 96% of women are heterosexual, figures that are probably due to nonparallelism of definitions (usually nonparallelism is due to relying on an expansive definition of heterosexuality (a man who leafs through pictures of naked women must be het) and a narrow definition of gayness (a man must be in bed with a man and exciting sexual organs in order to qualify as gay and anything less is not gay). So I suspect the 3% and 10% figures likely understate what they represent.

One could argue that many sexually inactive people still consider themselves not asexual, but that might be due to social opprobrium against any sexuality but hetero. These are noninstitutionalized adults, who presumably have opportunities to date, so if they don't maybe they don't want to, whatever they call themselves.

Nick Levinson (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete

It is not possible for a human with validly functioning sex organs to be asexual so please delete this article. --198.51.130.254 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Urvabara (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But seriously even among celibate people they still usually masturbate and have sexual desire, and almost all children go through sexual stages like the Oedipus complex, so this article should be deleted. --198.51.130.254 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oedipus complex is a kind of perversion restricted to just a few people and by no means a normal stage of sexual development.--80.141.178.41 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Celibacy is a choice... im not choosing to be asexual, it just sort of happened that way. lol. love between two people is more meaningful when you both don't care about having sex, but you enjoy each others company. People that have a sexual relationship tend to think that sex is the only thing that matters and if you don't have it then something is seriously wrong. they've been brainwashed to think that way thanks to society and the sexual media. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

The sexual media lol. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended because i am asexual. It is totally real. I can not get an erection because i cant be aroused so no it should not be deleted and i will get seriously ticked off and take action about this if you delete this page. 97.81.53.142 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete, Part 2

I personally don't think that it is possible for a person with normal sexual organs to be completely and totally devoid of sexual and even this article says that most of these "asexuals" admit that they masturbate, which would mean that they must have some sexual desire, so it probably isn't possible to be completely asexual. So since it is impossible to be asexual I think this bogus article should be deleted. --198.51.130.254 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The validity of an article on Wikipedia is based on notablility, not your personal views on the concept's truth. Wikipedia also has articles on bigfoot, time travel, God, and world peace, though many people argue that these things are impossible as well. If you can find any citeable materials stating that any person with sexual organs must have a sexual orientation, please add it into the article, as this would be a valuable addition. --Paul Cox 13:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am asexual, i don't masturbate, i have no interest in sex of any kind, so am i impossible?^DAVID _CAT 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you can't defeat your sexual desires doesn't mean everyone else can't. 70.59.7.115 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't make sense ^DAVID _CAT 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of good reasons to want to "defeat your sexual desires". But I would guess that real asexuals don't have sexual desires to defeat, and some probably would prefer to have sexual desires. 99.233.20.151 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to hear that I don't exist...thanks a bunch. but really, there is a major flaw here. You see, there is a difference between sexual attraction and sex drive. Being asexual means you have no sexual attraction to anything. Some asexuals do have a sex drive (libido), hence masturbation is possible. With sexual people their sexual attraction and their sex drive match, meaning they masturbate with preference toward their sexual orientation. but, I happen to not have a libido(like david cat), so this case doesn't pertain to me specifically, I'm just trying to clear this confusion up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.210.32 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that regarding masturbation, the non-believers mean that the person surely has to have a little sexual attraction to one sex/gender in order to become sexually aroused. Except for men having an "accidental erection," people don't suddenly need to masturbate out of nowhere. As the article states, "The Kinsey Institute sponsored another small survey on the topic in 2007, which found that self-identified asexuals 'reported significantly less desire for sex with a partner, lower sexual arousability, and lower sexual excitation but did not differ consistently from non-asexuals in their sexual inhibition scores or their desire to masturbate.'" It says "less" and "lower," not "non." I personally have studied many things, including asexuality, but I don't understand it that well; in fact, it is the least understood by most sexual experts. Still, I usually take an asexual's word about what they are or are not sexually aroused by...if anything. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm asexual. You are wrong dude. I'm in no way shape or form sexual at all. I am not attracted to females or males whatsoever. I cant get an erection either because i cant be sexually aroused. 97.81.53.142 (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A Sexual Orientation?

Asexuality is a sexual orientation? Is atheism also a religion? Asexuality the absence of a sexual orientation. -EatonTFores (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more in the word "orientation". I would view atheism as a religious orientation. -BarkerJr (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call atheism a "religious orientation," and I know atheists who are forever infuriated by the attempts of theists to cast their views as somehow "religious." In any case, this is an encyclopedia, and so words should be used literally. The word "asexuality" literally means "of no sexuality." As I said, it is not a sexual orientation, but rather the absence of any sexual orientation. Put it another way: if asexuality is a sexual orientation, then what are asexuals sexually oriented towards? 67.83.48.49 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality is not a black and white issue; it has many grey areas. Asexuals identify in many ways such as homoromantic asexual (a male that is romantically interested/attracted to other men). I think many sexual people find the idea/concept of no desire for sex to be absurd, but then again I know quite a few asexuals who think that sex is absurd and that a close relationship built on trust, communication, and romantic endeavors is optimal. --JustJasen (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather after-the-fact reply, but I'd like to add for others to see that the simplest explanation I've heard is that asexuality could be considered a subset of a sexual orientation. As JustJasen mentioned, asexual people can be attracted to other people in ways that would be classified under various sexual orientations; their asexuality just adds another layer to that. Of course, there are those who are just not attracted to anybody, and in those cases asexuality becomes its own category. It's as fluid as anything else relating to gender/sexuality, really. Miscellanium (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Asexuality is not an orientation. Children can already be very masculine or feminine, but still they dislike sex or even the mere thought of it. If they say otherwise it is mostly pretense. Some people just remain at that stage, mostly because of social restrictions during puberty (or because of once having been ridiculed), thus preventing a healthy development towards maturation. No one really choses to be asexual. He or she just settles down by this.--80.141.178.41 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"preventing a healthy development towards maturation" – What are you saying? That something is wrong with me and the whole asexual movement? This sounds insulting. So we aren't healthy individuals? I'm very comfortable with my "orientation". If you think about how checks and balances work... Homosexuality counters Heterosexuality, and Asexuality counters Bisexuality - so it must be an orientation; otherwise the system would have no balance. If you still argue that it is not an orientation, then you must admit it is a sexual identity - which I believe is the politically correct term because orientation doesn't fit your definition. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

That's ridiculous, I'm asexual and i've never been subjected to social restrictions that would cause this, i come from an open family and from childhood to now the interest i've had in sex has been the exact same which is no interest whatsoever. I have a gay sister, a gay uncle and very accepting parents and friends with a social network of their own that led me to friends that were pretty open from childhood aswell several with gay parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.90.59 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Asexuality is NOT a sexual orientation. It's the lack of a sexual orientation.173.59.61.207 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the reason it's considered part of the sexual orientation category, as touched on above, is because it has to do with sexual orientation (how people feel towards sex, etc.) It's an orientation that strays away from sex, therefore making it a sexual orientation. The Atheism argument is a good point, but I don't see it as the same. Some asexual people, for example, actually enjoy masturbation (and plenty of people wonder how asexuals get aroused to the point where they "must masturbate," if they aren't sexually attracted to anyone/anything at all), and other asexuals have stated to "rarely enjoy sex," but I haven't heard of any athiest who enjoys any aspect of religion. Basically, "lacking sexual desire" does not always equate to "no sexual desire." Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hypersexuality?

This bothers me so bad. As an asexual, I am puzzled as to why hypersexuality is there because hypersexuality is the complete opposite of asexuality. Why is this on the See also? Why? It doesn't make sense. IF anything, shouldn't hyposexuality be in its place. Can I please have a consensus on this? I don't think that hypersexuality merits inclusion on this article. It's like throwing 'Sharks in the see also section of the 'goldfish'. (Tigerghost (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)).

Also, the hypersexuality page has asexuality as a parallel see-also reference. The asexuality page has a box of sexual orientations generally as a compact list of links for researchers using Wikipedia, and maybe hypersexuality should go there, maybe into the Research subbox, but hypersexuality is described in its article as a clinical matter, which suggests disease, not the case with asexuality.

Nick Levinson (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IF asexuality is defined as an orientation and/or identity and not as a disease or disorder, then hypersexuality should be likewise defined. Yes, I think I can see why hyposexuality might have at least something to do with asexuality, as perhaps a frequent co-factor (co-existing condition), but it should be included even if the only connection is a common misconception or synonym in people's minds. As for opposites (antonyms), I think hypersexuality would come close in some ways, bisexuality in others, and the dispute is between those who insist it is only one and not the other; I believe they are both, and that asexuality involves not only a lack of orientation (& opposite of bisexual), but also, in the vast majority of cases, a greatly diminished level or complete absence of desire (thus making it opposite of hypersexuality). 173.16.125.178 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hypo- and hypersexuality are not sexual orientations, because a sexual orientation is a norm, while hypo- and hyper- are, by definition, respectively, 'too little' or 'too much' of something (of sexuality, in this case). Norms are generally beneficial to survival or thrival; that which is too little or too much is, by definition, not beneficial to that person. If someone is hypo- or hyper- anything, they want or need a correction; if they're normal, they don't have to. Since hypo- and hyper- are relative to some normal range, in this case a range that includes asexuality as a norm, it is possible for a hyposexual to have more sexual contact than an asexual does and still want or need correction when an asexual doesn't. If sexual quantity is to figure into sexual orientations, then other terminology is needed, with meanings of 'little' or 'much', but not 'too little' or 'too much'. Propose those terms, if you wish. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

New sections?

I was curious if anyone would be interested in adding a new section regarding Religion and Asexuality or historical Asexuality; I remember quite vividly that Paul was most likely celebate, but his nonsexual opinions could merit inclusion in the article under a religion section. Also, I have become aware that the Satanic Bible has a few passages on asexuality that would be interesting to quote. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

I believe the passages in the Satanic Bible you are referring to are

1. "Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your individual desires — be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual, if you choose."
2. "Even the asexual has a deviation - his asexuality. It is far more abnormal to have a lack of sexual desire (unless illness or old-age, or another valid reason has caused the wane) than it is to be sexually promiscuous."
3. "In many cases of sexual sublimination (or asexuality), any attempt to emancipate himself sexually would prove devastating to the asexual."
4. "Asexuals are invariably sexually sublimated by their jobs or hobbies. All the energy and driving interest which would normally be devoted to sexual activity is channelled into other pastimes or into their chosen occupations. If a person favors other interests over sexual activity, it is his right, and no one is justified in condemning him for it. However, the person should at least recognize the fact that this is a sexual sublimation."The Satanic Bible

While Lavey appears to be under the false impression that asexuality is a choice, it is notable that he acknowledges its existence. --Parodist (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are also suggestions that the apostle Paul was asexual, drawn mainly from 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Corinthians 7:5-9. While I don't find either verse as definitive evidence that he was, the suggestions are also notable. --Parodist (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And the Hindu Karma Sutra says (emphasis added) "A man is called a man of small passion whose desire at the time of sexual union is not great...and who cannot bear the warm embraces of the female. Those who differ from this temperament are called men of middling passion, while those of intense passion are full of desire." --Parodist (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

example of asexuality?

I make no claim that this is typical, but I just thought this may somehow be helpful here:

1. I am fully capable of being extremely warm, romantic, and intimate.

2.I find all sexual cues totally alien and meaningless. For example,genitals and female breasts are perceived by me as mere deformities.

3.I find all sexual behavior as alien and meaningless. I have tried sex from kissing to intercourse, and I didn't even know how to do it. It felt like playing with guts. I can't even imagine how sex can be perceived as related to human intimacy.

4. I have a strong libido, and have masturbated automatically to orgasm nearly every day since I was 6 years old, accompanied by a fantasy which, if turned into a movie, would be a G rated horror movie. All porn is disgusting and meaningless to me. 207.69.248.248 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take offense, but I just have to ask: How can it be disgusting if it is meaningless to you? If it disgusts you, it must mean something to you on some level, even if it's a subconscious level. 173.16.125.178 (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are people so shallow? He's disgusted by sex like someone is disgusted by, say, dirt. How is that so hard so see? Jeez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.236.239 (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Holmes is not asexual

I'm pretty sure Sherlock Holmes is not said to be asexual, but in fact he refuses to have any romantic or sexual relationships as he fears it may hinder his career. I think the part on Holmes should be removed, or the other explanation at least mentioned as a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.83.28 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Background: M.A. in English Literature. Holmes is BY NO MEANS asexual. The definition of asexuality post-dates Holme's existence. Note that the quote used to 'justify' this in the page is truncated early... after gibe and a sneer follows:

They were admirable things for the observer--excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained teasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results.

Not only does this imply that WATSON was making these observations OF Holmes, but that Holmes' reasoning laid more on his distractions than his lack of libido. In fact Holmes' malingering over Irene Adler is fairly well known. I think Conan Doyle would most certainly disagree with this branding. Vote to remove immediately. 142.162.12.7 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to respectfully disagree, at least with your apparent assumption that Holmes was attracted to Irene Adler. I think there's sufficient evidence to put down that theory, most notably "It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind." --98.17.234.154 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm going to mention at least that it is never explicitly stated and that it is possible he ignored sexual or romantic feelings in order to concentrate on his work. I suppose you could change it back, but it is a reasonable assumption and to not mention it would be unsencyclopedic anyway as we are never told what is going on in Holmes' mind and only what Watson sees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.90.19 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

propose to cite an article I wrote that a university journal published

I plan to cite the article For Men Only: Asexuality, by Nick Levinson, in So to Speak: a feminist journal of language and art, vol. 14, no. 2 (2005), pp. 51–54. I'm the article's author.

This isn't about how I'll use it when I cite it (I am still drafting a proposed text), but the possibility of citing per se.

The article's publisher paid me nothing (and wasn't supposed to) and I have no commercial plan for the article. I know of no organization in connection with the article, other than the publisher, a university.

I don't know of any conflict of interest per WP:COI and the article doesn't involve any BLP issue. If you think there may be one, please let me know.

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the citation to the article, per the new Etiology section draft, since no reply appeared. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

new Etiology section draft

I propose adding an Etiology section to the Asexuality article. The draft is on its own talk subpage.

Explanations:

• The citing of three Web posts and an article in so to speak is permissible within WP:SELFPUBOK because they're statements about their authors and not about other identified people. The statement by a clinical psychologist does not identify (e.g., name) the person being described, thus does not violate the BLP policy. Altogether, they are not a major part of the article and they fill a gap in the systematic research.
• Instead of etiology, perhaps ascription is more neutral. What do you think?

Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it the draft was okay, so I've put it into the article, with the section title left as drafted. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sex???NO!

Remove where it says that they engage in sex sometimes without desire just because of pere pressure or such. They cant have sex because they cant get erections. Its not possible if you have no sexual desires. I'm asexual. I know it does not happen.--97.81.53.142 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Please see http://www.asexuality.org/home/overview.html and the section of arousal Phil Nolte (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that it is difference for each ace Phil Nolte (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not having erections doesn't necessarily make a person asexual; it may indicate a sexual disorder. I'm a biromantic asexual, and I have no issues with ... well you know, but I'm also one of those asexuals that is okay with sex, but I don't personally find it to be a driving force in relationships. Sex is such an alien act for me. I've never felt comfortable doing it lol. (Tigerghost (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Not to mention that girls can be asexual and, you know, don't have erections.Sailorknightwing (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Another example would be the plenty of exclusively gay men who can and have had sex with women. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect example, Nil. I use examples such as that (for example, lesbians who have had sex with men) for a lot of things regarding sexual orientation and sexuality. Most gay and lesbian people have had sex with the opposite sex, but it doesn't mean they truly desired it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they do actully.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.53.142 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Can someone please consider deleting reference 49 (about the middle ring finger). references to FORUMS are in my opinion totally inappropriate. at least in this case it is. Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazalc (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Definitely is not a reliable source, per WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm Confused

Okay, I know that this does not have a whole lot to do with the article, or maybe this may inspire some of you guys to conduct further research so as to make this article more specific or detailed or whatever, but anyways, I just have a question:

I'm confused. I believe I may be asexual, but I'm not entirely sure. I am not bisexual, and I am not homosexual. Those I am sure of. But I'm not sure whether I'm heterosexual, or hetero-romantic asexual. I get erections and stuff, but I just don't see what's so awesome about sex. I don't oppose it, per se, because I know that sex is absolutely vital and necessary for the human race to continue. But I'm not a huge sexpot like a lot of people my age (14). I can have romantic relationships with the opposite gender, but again, I'm not a sex-craving simpleton. Am I asexual or not? Is there something to improve the article with relating to my question, so that other people like me who are confused about their sexuality can find an answer? I'm just confused. An answer would be most appreciated. :) 97.96.65.123 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are what you say you are. I say you're hetero-romantic because you're not interested in sex, but don't take it as your final disposition.115.188.88.21 (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

With that, I guess I'm asexual. It's not as easy to realize that you're asexual as it is to realize that you're, say, homosexual. The latter would be a bit more pronounced, whereas the former isn't very big news to me. :P 97.96.65.123 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain romantic orientations more clearly?

• panromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of any gender or lack of gender
• transromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of variant or ambiguous gender
• polyromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of more than one gender or sex but without implying, as biromantic does, that there are only two genders or sexes

I've been looking up the sexual variants of these terms, but even then it does not help to clear up their definitions. Pansexual/romantic comes off as an off-shoot of bisexual/romantic that includes transsexuals (ones who have had the operation, in case that isn't clear) - here, that's poly. Transsexual is obviously different to transromatic, so that makes things even more confusing. 115.188.88.21 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice this has since been removed, which I somewhat feel is an inadequate way of dealing with the description. However I have learnt that pansexuality is attraction regardless of gender, while bi is still an attraction based on gender in some form. This is only from asking an acquaintance however so cannot officially cite it.

--122.62.129.152 (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bell Curve diagram

The bell curve diagram has been removed on multiple occasions. Perhaps a discussion ought to be held on the reason why we use it. The idea behind a bell curve (the picture serving as an EXAMPLE of this principle, not the product of any single study) is that in a normally distributed population, the majority of individuals lie somewhere near the average concerning a given trait (in this case, sexuality). However, the farther you move from this average (i.e., the more extreme a deviation), the fewer individuals are described by the value at a given point (that is to say, the more extreme a category, the fewer who fall into it). But a bell curve, in theory, never touches the X axis - there is always a non-zero Y value for every value of X. This means that, within some limitation, even the most extreme deviations from the average can describe at least a few members of the population. Thus, the bell curve demonstrates the statistical possibility that a small number of people genuinely do not have any sex drive at all. If you wish to remove the bell curve again, you would have to start by demonstrating that the above is not a legitimate rationale for its use. If you want to see an example of a psychologist invoking the bell curve to demonstrate asexuality, watch the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmXXgRvotGM&feature=player_embedded#at=145

Why is Dumbledore on here

Celibate and asexual are not the same thing, especially if he was homosexual in the past. Albus Dumbledore should be removed from the list. Equivamp(talk) 15:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and deleted. LadyofShalott 15:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)