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)

Asexuality is impossible amongst humans, what most people don't realize is that asexuality is NOT the absense of sexual desires, but rather the ability to mate and reproduce with oneself. Look in any FORMAL dictionary and this is what you will fine, the asexuality you refer to is nothing but a slang term and thus it should be marked as such, the title of the article should be given to the proper asexuality, not this. this article should be given a new title so as not to promote the use of this, and it is physically impossible for a human to be completely void of all sexual desires, many people can refrain from getting erections and many people only want a relationship for the love not the sex, that is true, but it is also true that all humans are born with hormones, the only way for you to be truly asexual is to rid your body of testosterone and estrogen, just because a person does not WANT sex, or cannot be AROUSED doesn't make them asexual, so in conclusion this article needs some editing, and a change of title. (XCKx32 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (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)

Flyer, you are making the common mistake of confusing sexual *attraction* with sexual *arousal*. Sexual attraction refers to the focus on an object of sexual desire, whereas arousal refers to the mechanics of having sex. By way of example, I can easily blow my nose, even if I'm not affected by hayfever, for example, and therefore do not have the desire to blow my nose. To use a sexual example, a homosexual could (and many homosexuals, before coming to terms with their sexuality, do) have sex with members of the opposite sex, relying on physical stimulation of their genitals to commence sex and achieve orgasm, though they may experience zero attraction to the person of the opposite sex that they are having sex with. User:Violet_Fae 17 September 2011 • contribs) 06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Violet Fae, I am not confusing anything. I offered what I believe non-believers (in this case, people who do not believe in asexuality) believe...and then I cited what The Kinsey Institute stated. As for your example of a homosexual person having sex with someone of the opposite sex but still being homosexual, I have used that example plenty of times on and off Wikipedia for various types of arguments regarding sexuality. The same goes for a heterosexual person having sex with someone of the same sex. What you cited is the reason there is such a big bisexuality debate, with those saying "true bisexuality doesn't exist" or that "everyone is bisexual." Also, in your example, the fact remains that the homosexual individual is often fantasizing about the same sex while having sex with the opposite sex. There was something being used to sexually arouse the person. And if not sexually aroused at all by the opposite sex, then what caused the sexual arousal? The same applies to studying asexuality. If an asexual person is not sexually attracted to either sex, then what is causing the sexual arousal? You believe that people become sexually aroused without being sexually attracted to anything? If so, I'd like to see a WP:Reliable source for that. Because I know of no source reporting it. And I'm not talking about men getting an erection out of nowhere either. You accuse me of confusing the matter, when, really, that is one way researchers determine sexual attraction -- by "confusing" sexual arousal with sexual attraction. It's not like the two don't usually go hand in hand. If a gay man becomes even a little sexually aroused by a sexual act that he is about to perform on a woman, that is sexual attraction in some form. I have known gay men who fit that bill, but they do not identify as bisexual because they have "close to zero" sexual attraction to women and/or say they have no true desire to have sex with women. But back to asexuals... Some asexuals also say they cannot become sexually aroused because they are not sexually attracted to anything. By your definition, they are confusing the terms as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2011 (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)

That is a complete lie, all males have a blood circulation, so all males will get erections, all females have mestruation, it is impossible to have no sexual feelings at all. What "asexuals" don't realise is that ANYONE can simply stop themselves from getting erections and many many people will agree that love is about feelings not about sexual desire, but the fact is that no matter what, so long as you have testosterone or estrogen in your body there is no physical way to be completely rid of sexual desires, it is implanted in your brain. ALSO if you look in a proper dictionary (not an online dictionary) you will find that the definition of asexuality is the ability to mate and reproduce with yourself. This article is not deserving of the title asexuality, the title should be changed. So once an "asexual" can prove to me that they have both a penis and a vagina and can reproduce with no help, then i will believe that they are asexual.XCKx32 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the type of asexuality that has to do with reproduction in plants, etc. Just accept that this is a newer and separate meaning for the same word. English is full of those. As for other arguments made here about how all humans have sexual desires, that doesn't really have much to do with asexuality, since asexuals are defined based on their attraction to people. You can have sexual urges (and therefore masturbate or even have sex with other people), but not feel sexually attracted to other people. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (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)

I think it's important to remember that atheism isn't a religion for reasons that aren't directly comparable to asexuality. A religion is a worldview or set of beliefs that concern spirituality and morality. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods. Atheism couldn't be a religion because it isn't a worldview or a set of beliefs, it is a single position. Theism isn't a religion for the same reason. Deism is (or could be) because it involves at least the belief in one God, and the belief that that God no longer interacts with the world. When asexuality is included in the category "sexual orientation", it is because a sexual orientation is a person's enduring pattern of romantic and/or sexual attraction. When it's not it's because "sexual orientation", it is because sexual orientation is defined with respect tothe target of that attraction, and if there is no targe there is no orientation. -128.138.65.140 (talk) 20:28, 14 October 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)

The way i see it, if you can have a romantic relationship, whether it is without sex, or not, then you aren't asexual, many asexuals say that they can have romantic relationships but no sex, keep in mind that 'sex' which is in the word a'sex'ual, means gender, not just intercourse, and the gender is what the word is derived from, and so it should be described as the absense of connection to any sex, or gender, no offense, but please educate yourself before claiming you are asexual, in my eyes though, nobody is asexual, because asexuality is the ability to reproduce by mating with yourself...XCKx32 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 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)

I may be able to shed some light here. Panromantic is a definition that definitely exists within the asexual community, and indeed refers to romantic attraction that is not dependent on gender. Biromantic (and bisexual) are older terms that generally mean exactly the same thing, but as they appear to refer to the existence of only two sexes, many people today prefer to used the prefix "pan" (I have not yet met a biromantically- or bisexually-identified person who rules out the possibility of being attracted to gender variant people, but I suppose it is theoretically possible, hence the use of the more inclusive term, panromantic (or pansexual in the case of sexual people). As for polyromantic, I haven't personally heard that term before, but I have certainly heard and used the term polyamorous, which refers to romantic relationships and/or romantic attraction between more than two people, so being a reasonably active member of the asexual community myself and not having personally heard the term polyromantic before, it appears to me that it should be replaced with panromantic, and that an additional mention should be made of polyamorous. I feel confident making this change, and perhaps polyromantic could be readded if someone is able to provide some proof of its use. User:Violet_Fae 17 September 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 17 September 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)

Low sexual desire/libido is not asexuality

This article tends somewhat to suffer from confusion between low sexual desire (hyposexuality) and asexuality. To make it clear, asexuality refers to a lack of sexual *attraction*, not a lack of sexual *desire/libido*, and I feel it is important to make this clear throughout this article. I have made a brief change in this respect to the introductory paragraph (as well as a few minor, unrelated changes), though I feel this article needs a little more editing to make clear the difference between asexuality and low sexual desire. If there are no objections, then I shall make these changes in the next couple of weeks, in order to give time for discussion to take place first. Violet Fae (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Violet Fae, we go by WP:Reliable sources here. As I just stated to you in the #Delete, Part 2 section above, the definition of asexuality has been cited as "little to no sexual attraction" to either sex. It is not always "no sexual attraction" to either sex. As stated in the article, "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'."

Clearly, some people who lack sexual desire/have a low libido self-identify as asexuals and have been classified as asexuals by reliable sources/researchers. You cannot proceed to change what these reliable sources are reporting simply because you disagree with how they define the term.

That said, I will leave a welcome message on your talk page since you are a newly registered user of Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, thank you for the welcome, though it appears you are using that to put me down as a "new user".

Secondly - woh, Nelly - please do not edit my user:talk comments in any way, such as placing them at the bottom of the page. I have restored this discussion to the top, because what asexuality actually is, is fundamental to this article.

Thirdly, and most importantly, asexuality *absolutely* is the absence of sexual attraction, not necessarily low libido, and I am very happy to give as reference for this the website asexuality.org. Even on the title page, it states very clearly, "Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction"; see also the FAQ page, which further elucidates: "The definition of asexuality is "someone who does not experience sexual attraction". There have also been numerous interviews with asexual people such as David Jay, who is the founder of the asexuality.org website, which is the main website for asexuals, clearly stating that asexuality and low libido/hyposexuality are not the same thing. Also see the many discussions of DSM-V re hyposexuality, which differentiate it from asexuality.

Fourthly, your statement re homosexuals having sex with people of the other sex are always fantasising about people of the same sex: while this may well be true some of the time, my explanation clearly referred not to fantasising about people of the same sex (which is irrelevant to the discussion of asexuality),but to physical sensation causing sexual arousal/response. Another example might be rape, where a - lets say in this example, a man - may indeed gain an erection and even orgasm, though he was in no way consenting to being raped, nor even sexually attracted to the rapist - it was purely physical stimulation alone which caused the erection and orgasm.

Fifthly, your comments re "You accuse me of confusing the matter, when, really, that is one way researchers determine sexual attraction -- by "confusing" sexual arousal with sexual attraction. It's not like the two don't usually go hand in hand" appear needlessly argumentative, and misguided. Please see my example above, and let's be civil here - there's no need for anything less than that. :)

Lastly, your mention of "non-believers" is, in my opinion, irrelevant. If I "didn't believe" is homosexuality, then it is of no significant import, because homosexuality and homosexual people will still go on existing, regardless of whether I "believe" in them of not.

Take care, and I encourage you to research asexuality further. As a jumping off point, I would highly recommend asexuality.org's FAQ pages. Violet Fae (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using anything to put you down. But it's clear to me that you are a new user, instead of some WP:SOCKPUPPET (which I keep lookouts for), since you are not familiar with signing your name, that new discussions go at the the bottom, or that we go by reliable sources here. I put your discussion at the bottom, because that's where it is supposed to go, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments (Fixing layout errors); it's where it would have gone if you had clicked on the "New section" tab at the top of the talk page.

You are wrong that "asexuality *absolutely* is the absence of sexual attraction." Why are you wrong? Because of the different people who make up the asexual community and identify as asexual. Should a heterosexual woman who has very little sexual attraction to men (feels hardly any sexual attraction to anyone) and never engages in sexual activity be considered asexual? I'm going to have to say yes. I believe "asexual" fits that woman better than "celibate" or any other term would, unless she truly is suffering from some type of sexual dysfunction. It's hardly any different than people who identify as lesbian but occasionally have sex with men (see your "gay but having sex with the opposite sex" argument above). To me, your argument on the correct way to define asexuality is no different than lesbians who tell other lesbians how they must identify. We have to let people identify by the term they feel best describes them. For example, though asexuality.org (which are not the authority on asexuality, by the way), says the definition of asexuality is "someone who does not experience sexual attraction," they also say that "only you can decide which label best suits you" and that "If you find that the asexual label best describes you, you may choose to identify as asexual." That's on their FAQ page. In their Overview section, they also say, "There is no litmus test to determine if someone is asexual. Asexuality is like any other identity- at its core, it’s just a word that people use to help figure themselves out. If at any point someone finds the word asexual useful to describe themselves, we encourage them to use it for as long as it makes sense to do so." And let's not forget asexuals who enjoy having sex with their partners, but have never felt driven to have sex with anyone else. I'm sure that most people would consider that to be sexual attraction, even though sexual attraction to only one person. But whether anyone considers it sexual attraction or not, asexuality.org says it "need not contradict asexual identity."

And on that note (of whether or not asexuality can encompass sexual attraction), in this source by Psychology Today, they report that in the study on asexuals by Kristin Scherrer, published in the journal Sexualities, "Others... ...said they did feel sexual attraction but not the inclination to act on it. Sarah said this to the researcher: 'I am sexually attracted to men but have no desire or need to engage in sexual or even non-sexual activity (cuddling, hand-holding, etc.)'." This is what I mean by my heterosexual example above.

So, yes, your definition of asexuality is limited. It is not law. "No sexual attraction at all" is not what most researchers go by in defining asexuality, as this entire article and that Psychology Today source above shows. Basically, asexuality is defined as someone who would rather not have sex at any point in their life...and we're not talking about for religious reasons or any other reason that doesn't necessarily have to do with asexuality.

I know what you were referring to in your statement about "homosexuals having sex with people of the other sex." And I didn't say "always." I said "often fantasizing about the same sex while having sex with the opposite sex." I also said, "And if not sexually aroused at all by the opposite sex, then what caused the sexual arousal? The same applies to studying asexuality." If a gay or lesbian person (most prefer those terms to "homosexual") is sexually aroused in any way by the thought of having sex with the opposite sex, how is that not sexual attraction? That is what researchers debate all the time -- the great bisexuality debate -- with regard to heterosexuals who have sex with the same sex as well. There are different interpretations of and beliefs about bisexuality. Plenty of gay men say that they cannot become sexually aroused by the thought of having sex with a woman and that they never got sexually aroused while trying to engage in sex with a woman. So why is it different for the gay men who can become sexually aroused in such situations, disregarding the ones who sexually fantasize about other men during the act? Some researchers would say that this is because these men are not completely at the end of "the gay side" of the Kinsey scale. Others researchers would simply explain it as "some people are sexual opportunists" and can become sexually aroused just by the thought of having sex or seeing people have sex. A good example is lesbians who watch gay male porn and become sexually aroused by it...but would never want to have sex with a man. On that note, however, if an asexual is sexually aroused by the thought of having sex with their partner, how is that not sexual attraction in the sense that they are sexually attracted to their partner in the moment? I am well-versed in the topic of rape. I am well-versed in most sexual topics, which is why I work on such Wikipedia articles. But I don't see rape as the same thing in this case, because I wasn't talking about people's bodies responding against their will. People who are being raped are not sexually aroused going into the act (unless they were already about to have sex, but one person changed their mind), and most never reach the point of sexual arousal during rape. What we were/are talking about are people who are already sexually aroused or become sexually aroused by the thought of what they are about to do. I questioned what has caused sexual arousal in an asexual that he or she "needs sexual release." My point was that people don't just become sexually aroused out of nowhere (with the exception of "accidental erections"). There is stimuli that makes them sexually aroused. I have talked with asexual individuals on AVEN (asexuality.org) who have been open about the fact that the thought of a person gets them sexually aroused, but that they would rather masturbate than have sex with that person. By definition, getting sexually aroused by the thought of a person is sexual attraction.

Per my statements above, I was being "argumentative" for a reason and it clearly was not misguided.

The point is...I was responding to "non-believers," just as others (including asexuals) have on this talk page. I don't find responding to them to be irrelevant. If you do, as well as their beliefs, which it appears that you do, then I have no problem with that.

I don't need to research asexuality further. I have already researched it as much as possible this past year (including with the few studies out there on it). And as already stated above, I have talked with people on asexuality.org, which is why I am so perplexed as to why your view of asexuality is so limited. There are asexuals there who describe having a little sexual attraction to whichever sex; they simply would rather not have sex and/or find acting on it to disinterest or repulse them. I suggest you research asexuality further, and talk with different types of asexuals more often. There's a reason the lead says "Asexuality, in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction and, in some cases, the lack of interest in sex." instead of "Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction and the disinterest in sex." Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting ridiculous, and I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to get into such long-wided arguments with you here. I'm assuming you "win" whatever arguments you start with people simply by tiring them out, not necessarily by actually being right.

Throughout your very long response, you are confusing definition with identity/the right to identify, ie. what asexuality is with someone's right to use asexuality as a label. For example, I could identify as heterosexual, say, but if I only feel attracted to other people of the same sex and only have sex with people of the same sex, then that doesn't change the meaning of heterosexuality, it just means that I choose to identify that way, without my attractions necessarily fitting the definition of heterosexuality. The same is true of asexuality. The asexual community is very welcoming of many different people who might choose to try on the asexual label and see if it suits them, but this doesn't change the basic nature of what asexuality is in an objective, definable sense: asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction, with strength of libido not being relevant to the definition.

2) If you weren't referring to absolutes in the example of the homosexual having sex with someone of the other sex, then your point is moot. We were talking about two different things - my example of the homosexual having sex with someone of the other sex was in reference to asexuality, whereas yours was in reference to people being in denial of their true sexuality, and is not relevant to a deiscussion of the definition of asexuality... the words "straw man argument" come to mind.

In the example you give above about the heterosexual woman with a low libido, you say that she is attracted to men but has a low libido. She doesn't, strictly speaking, fit the definition of asexuality, but as mentioned already, she is free to identify as asexual if that helps her or if it feels more comfortable for her than identifying as heterosexual, but that doesn't alter the basic definition of asexuality.

As for your comment re asexuality.org and David Jay not being the ultimate definition of asexuality, David Jay invented the word, and its definition. Of course asexuals existed before then, but other terms were used, such as Kinsey's "X" designation. If you think you know of a more reliable source for the definition of asexuality than its inventer and the asexual community themselves, then state who that source is and why.

Once again, let me make clear that people can identify however they wish, and I am not attempting to "tell people how to identify". I am just trying to ensure that the definition of asexuality here on Wikipedia is totally accurate. User:Violet Fae (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting ridiculous. And for your information, I win arguments on Wikipedia by providing reliable sources to back my assertions or I make correct assertions about the way Wikipedia works, often leading to WP:Consensus in my favor. Not what I believe to be correct, as it seems you do. Your response wasn't too short either, divided up into seven parts that I felt inclined to respond to. If you can't take thorough replies, then don't open the Pandora's box. My replies usually aren't that long, but there is a lot to address with your arguments. The most recent discussion I had that was as long-winded was with Nick at Talk:Sexual orientation, and we had no problem going back and forth with each other in such a way. Or rather...we didn't express a problem with it. Such long responses and discussions are staples of Wikipedia talk pages, though, when trying to come to an understanding/compromise. It is funny that you originally suggested that I be WP:CIVIL, something that I had done with you up until this point, when you are now being uncivil to me.

I am not confusing the definition with identity. From what I see, you need to research sexual orientation topics more thoroughly. Studies, the way researchers define sexual orientation and sexuality. Sexual orientation is also about identity. For example, lesbian-identified people who occasionally have sex with men are defined as lesbians by researchers. There are even some very reliable sources in the Lesbian article about this. They may not fit into some people's definition of lesbian, including some in the lesbian community, but they fit the definition of "lesbian" according to themselves and researchers who base a lesbian identity on the sexual preference rather than on the act. This is also why the lead of the Lesbian article was changed away from "women who are only sexually attracted to other women." In some cases, researchers simply use the term "women who have sex with women" to get around "the complications" of self-identity. Categorizing people by identity isn't about changing the meaning of a term. There isn't any researcher out there who would include a man who identifies as heterosexual but openly admits to only being sexually attracted to/having sex with men in a study labeled "Heterosexuals in America," for example. That man obviously doesn't fit the definition of "heterosexual." But they have included "heteroflexible" men and women in their studies about heterosexuals, because they have a clear sexual preference for the opposite sex. The same goes for their inclusion of "homoflexible" people in their studies about gays and lesbians. My point is... Just like there is more than one definition of "lesbian" among researchers, there is more than one definition of "asexual" among researchers. And people, too. That is what you are seeing with this article. Researchers define what sexual orientation is, and if they say that asexuality is defined as "little to no sexual attraction," which they do, then that is what we must do as well. That is the point you are missing. That is what Nick is trying to tell you below. It's not as though these researchers are defining any type of person as asexual. They have restricted the definition to "little to no." They have done that because of the large number of people who experience a little sexual attraction but never have the desire to engage in sex with a person...and thus identify as asexual.

Okay, you can believe we were talking about two different things. Fine. Even though I wasn't talking about people who are in denial about their true sexual orientation, or in denial about anything. Not every gay or lesbian person who has sex with the opposite sex is in denial about their true sexual orientation, hence the paragraph before this one.

Nowhere did I say the heterosexual woman is attracted to men but has a low libido. I said, "Should a heterosexual woman who has very little sexual attraction to men (feels hardly any sexual attraction to anyone) and never engages in sexual activity be considered asexual?" And you talk about me confusing sexual attraction with arousal/libido? As you know, there are some asexuals who have a high libido (which the Kinsey study above shows), but they say they experience no sexual attraction. You are already aware that some of them take care of this through masturbation, so I don't need to stress that. I also provided a reliable source of a woman labeled asexual in a study, who said, "I am sexually attracted to men but have no desire or need to engage in sexual or even non-sexual activity (cuddling, hand-holding, etc.)." In my opinion, that does fit the definition of asexuality. This woman has no desire/need to engage in sexual activity. Without there being any clue that this is due to low libido or sexual dysfunction. And, really, even people with low libido still generally want to engage in sex. So saying this woman is not asexual, when there is no hint that she is abstaining from sex due to celibacy or sexual dysfunction reasons, is "off" to me. That is where I find your definition of asexuality limited. Either way, it is not up to me or you to define asexuality as a whole. AVEN can define asexuality how they want, but it all comes down to how researchers define the term. They are the authorities on sexual orientation, whether you or AVEN likes it or not.

David Jay took the already existing word "asexual" and applied it to the sexual feelings of human beings, and then created his own definition of the term. He also makes clear that others who share his sexual orientation thought up the word just as easily as he did. And like you pointed out, researchers were already defining the term in their own ways...even if under a different name. My point is that even after being named "asexuality," researchers have continued to define it in a way that isn't as strict as Jay's definition of "no sexual attraction." His entire community is made up of some people who experience a little sexual attraction but do not want to engage in sex because they are disinterested in it for the same or slightly different reasons that he is. And yet these people shouldn't be considered "real asexuals"? Researchers clearly disagree. And as I already made clear, they are the authorities on sexual orientation. Always have been. Sources that are considered "more reliable" or "better" for the reasons Nick stated below are available in the article.

The definition of asexuality on Wikipedia is "totally accurate" because this is how asexuality is defined by researchers -- "little to no sexual attraction." You got annoyed by how the term is defined at different parts in the article without knowing that, it seems. You then proceeded to say you would attempt to fix this. I took that to mean that you would either be changing or removing what these reliable sources are saying about the term. We get that you believe the article should reflect the strict definition of "no sexual attraction whatsoever." The problem is that would not accurately reflect the research...and would be changing information in a limited way. We cannot do that. We cannot have the lead imply or say that asexuals never experience sexual attraction, given the way this conflicts with researchers' and some self-identified asexuals' definitions of asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Violet Fae, please add whatever information is missing and base it on sourcing. I think the sources in their diversity cover what you've raised, because they cover differences in definitions, but if something's missing, go ahead and source it. While asexuality.org and David Jay are useful sources, they're often primary or tertiary, and Wikipedia generally prefers secondary. On the logic of whether asexuality is not a sexual orientation, some have argued that a homosexual is simply a heteosexual with low libido in the proper direction, it was diagnosed as impotence or frigidity, and some said it wasn't a sexual orientation. Our reliance on sources moves that discussion to source authors; then we rely on what they publish.

Editors tend to look for new discussion topics/sections at the bottom of the page. They're not sequenced top-down by priority or relevance. Placement at the top gives the impression that the topic is old and therefore it's more likely to be ignored. I would have moved it back down if Flyer22 hadn't.

Someone created a user talk page for me in a Wikipedia that serves a language I don't know how to read, and posted a welcome message there. Posting that kind of message has become fairly routine recently, and probably is meant to introduce newcomers on how to avoid mistakes that usually are obvious only later.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your input. I will add other sources as you suggested. To be honest, I feel pretty exhausted after plowing through this discussion, but my intention is to improve this article, so I will at some point add further sources. I'm somewhat curious about the preference for secondary sources over primary ones such as the asexuality.org website, where asexuals define themselves, as many of the secondary sources are internet dictionaries with very limited entries. While there is a place for the odd secondary reference of this nature, perhaps this is indicative of a need for better secondary references overall. Violet Fae (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Violet Fae, I just replied to you above and I honestly do not mean to tire you out. I am trying to stress to you the way Wikipedia works and who has authoritative say on sexual orientation. For what we mean about primary vs. secondary, see WP:PRIMARY...which takes you to information about primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Also see WP:THIRDPARTY. I'll let Nick address the rest on that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll add at the risk that this is old hat:

For each sexual orientation and sexuality, which differ, definitions serve a variety of purposes. Thus, public health investigators of sexually-transmitted diseases are less often interested in how people identify than in what they do (thus terminology like men who have sex with men since some say they're not gay), public health advocates and community leaders (mayors, political organizers, magazine publishers, et al.) have approximately the opposite interest, and psychologists probably want a combination. One pitfall especially common among laity is nonparallelism of definitions, by which, usually, a man reading Playboy must be het but a man having sex with men is confused and really het. Scholars and scientists try to maintain parallelism. Given that, if an asexual is only someone with mathematically no attraction, a question should arise about how to classify a self-identified gay man who had a husband before any state allowed same-sex marriage and was a gay rights activist and leader and gay news journalist and who said he was heterosexual for "five minutes", by which I presume he committed one exception, but I doubt it would be useful to most researchers to classify him as bisexual, and in general classifying with too much absoluteness would leave most people unclassified.

Definitions can come from advocates and practitioners, for example, when they're the best sources available at a given time. Eventually, though, because most of the public tends to rely on professionals and academicians and their institutions for the general management of the world, the definitions used by the latter tend to overtake those historically created to get discussions started. Some of these specialists and organizations publish a few definitions in their formal publications, and sometimes those are more relevant than those in dictionaries or glossaries, but not always. Among dictionaries, some are considered primary and others derivative, which is a bit confusing within Wikipedia, because a primary dictionary is generally accepted as a secondary source for Wikipedia and a derivative dictionary may be allowed in Wikipedia as a tertiary source but not as a replacement for a WP secondary source or as a replacement for a primary dictionary. To sort that out: A dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary is a primary dictionary (and a couple of others come to mind, not counting some specialized glossaries called dictionaries) because the OED is compiled from sources such as Shakespeare and edited newspapers to which are added analyses in the form of definitions, etymologies, etc. by the expert editors of the OED. Some lesser dictionaries in the Oxford series and various children's dictionaries, however, are derived from primary dictionaries, and thus are tertiary in Wikipedia.

I hope this helps in identifying sources. Best wishes.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources on asexuality that may contribute to this page

Bogaert, A. (2004). Asexuality: prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 279-287.

From a survey done in 1994 of 18,876 British citizens Bogaert estimates that 1.05% of the United Kingdom is asexual as 195 of the participants claimed to be so. He cites possibly reasons for sexual attraction as age, illness, physical health problems, religiosity, education, gender, and economic status.

Bogaert, A. (2006). Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10(3), 241-250.

Cerankowski, K., & Milks, M. (2010). New orientation: asexuality and its implications for theory and practice. Feminist Studies, 36(3),650-664.

Fahs, B. (2010). Radical refusals: on the anarchist politics of women choosing asexuality. Sexualities, 13(4), 445-461.

This article discusses the decision to choose asexuality in order to suppress the oppression of women through institutions of governmental and patriarchal control. Starting in the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s many women have felt that sexual liberation involved more sexual encounters with more people. However, some women have felt that asexuality may be used as a tool for female empowerment and self-gratification. Thus they have chosen to abstain from sex to regain control over their own bodies.

Melby, T. (2005). Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation? Contemporary Sexuality: The International Resource for Educators, Researchers and Therapists, 39(11), 1,4-5.

This brief article discusses other research that has been done by Anthony Bogaert on the prevalence of asexuality,Leonard DeRogais and Marty Klein on its classification, and Joy Davidson on its explanation. This article provides summary of theory on asexuality and points toward other articles.

Lauradronen (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Asexuality Plan:

Our group is working on asexuality. We plan on editing, cross-checking and adding information to five existing categories on this Wikipedia page. We also want to add another category (psychology). The category would either be a new header, or a sub-point of the research header. This would allow us to look for facts on the difference between the neural structures of people with asexuality as oppose to people with differing sexual orientation. Also we can then discuss the influence of nature and or nurture on the formation of asexuality in humans.

In the community category we want to add more up to date information on the asexual community, as well as find more organizations, and the present day progression of groups involved in opposing and promoting asexuality. For the prevalence category we want to cross-reference and edit if necessary. The legality category needs information in more than just the area of what states define asexuality as a protected class. For the etiology portion of the article we want to delve deeper into the causation and classification of asexuality. Finally for the religion section, we are going to try to find out how other religions (besides the existing ones discussed) view asexuality, and if they even define it as such a category of sexual orientation. Xadmanx (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)