Talk:Asexuality/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Bogaert’s book and WP:MEDRS

BTW, Bogaert’s monograph had acquired international fame before it appeared in print: Асексуализм признают четвертой сексуальной ориентацией (Asexuality is considered the forth sexual orientation) // Gazeta.ua. This article in a Ukrainian newspaper drew attention of the people to the fact that a special study of asexuality in the form of a book would be published next month by English-speaking scientist Anthony Bogaert (Template:Lang-ru). So the social value of the investigation is undoubted. It is certainly worth reading and including in this article about asexuality. --SU ltd. (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bogaert is used as a reference for different parts in this article already. And you included a Bogaert reference in the Further reading section you created. So what is it that you are proposing be added to this article that concerns Bogaert? Flyer22 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. I only wanted to say that his book had already become known in Russian-speaking countries, too. As you don’t understand my native language, you can read the same article in the original (in English). Well, I’d like to add that WP should contain an article about Anthony Bogaert, just as AVENwiki does. It seems he is now the leading researcher in this new field. Unfortunately, I’m not able to take part in WP very much now as I’ll be busy outside WP for a month or more. --SU ltd. (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when extensively researching asexuality when trying to ensure that this article would reach WP:GA status, it occurred to me that Bogaert's done the most recent extensive research on asexuality, or rather the most research on it. As you mentioned, and as the Asexuality article notes, asexuality is not widely studied; it's still a relatively new field of research. So far, Bogaert leads in that field. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Anne Widdecombe

I removed Anne Widdecombe from the list of notable asexuals. The sources provided are pretty weak. 1. She didn't identify herself as asexual (answering a question with "it's nobody else's business" is not enough) 2. The other source just mentions in passing that "Ferrari will be put on display with Ann Widdecombe draped across the bonnet." Gugganij (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that she shouldn't be listed. Like I mentioned in the #Janeane Garofalo and #Celibacy vs. Asexuality in bios sections above, we need to be careful about labeling people asexual. WP:BLPCAT applies for living people. Including Ann Widdecombe was also addressed in the #Verifying notable asexuals section above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggested to get rid further up the talk page, I think. If in doubt, leave 'em out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing "Notable Asexuals" section

There is regular contention about whether something should stay or go from this section, and entries arrive and disappear. I think we might actually be better off getting rid of the section altogether, to save a whole load of arguments. If one of the people in this list really is notable about being asexual, we should be able to get a direct quote from them and put it in the relevant section of the article. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In the #Celibacy vs. Asexuality in bios section above, I stated that I'm not fond of the list. So, yes, I'm fine with its removal because of the issues that have been expressed about it. Real-life and fictional asexuals could be mentioned in a Culture section...with more than just a listing (but text discussing their relevancy to the topic)...if it is considered important that we mention them. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait a few more days to see if anyone has any other opinions, then boldy nuke it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone on the lst somebody who has actually used either "asexual" or "nonsexual" to describe their orientations, or stated that they did not experience sexual attraction? If not, then the section should definitely go...it's a bit strange to apply an orientation to somebody else. Kila Onasi^(talk) 13:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Janeane Garofalo has, as seen above in the #Janeane Garofalo section. I'm not sure about anyone else, as I've never paid much attention to that list. But, as shown in the section immediately above this one, I have stated that categorizing a person as asexual when that person has not made a statement that they are is problematic and violates WP:BLPCAT in the case of living people. Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See also: Valeriya Novodvorskaya, Anatoly Wasserman, and Grigori Perelman

And many, many others. The list will be too long, I'm affraid. So it's a good idea to remove it. --SU ltd. (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't state that many other notable people can be added, especially since asexuality is not common. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And, Ritchie333, thanks for having gone ahead and removed the section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I figured, since you can probably apply WP:BLP to all of the list entries, that there's no point in hanging around. If consensus came back to keep, the notable ones could have been restored. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

All except the fictional ones, of course. And were there any more deceased people on the list, which BLP does not apply to? Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest Edward Gorey is still fair game for following BLP, because although he's deceased, I dare say he's got friends and distant family who are not. Kenji Miyazawa and Cecil Rhodes are, in retrospect, probably not, but in those cases I'd say neither were particularly notable for being asexual anyway, and the sourcing on Rhodes is a bit tenuous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Demisexuality made by girl on forum?

Been bothered by this, can we get some verification or sources about this claim? I've found mentions of some of the text hinted in the screen captures, but when I go to click the follow through links, I am met with an error about the forum not existing. The forum in question seems to be "The Highschool of the Gods". Does anyone have any other archive or cache services like Google or the Internet archive to search out this possible origin story for Demisexuality? If this proves legitimate, then we definitely would need to document it better and include it in the Wikipedia entry, no?

MonekyTom (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

By "verification," I take it you mean reliable sources? Because, yes, we'd need WP:Reliable sources for that information, not forum sources. "Demisexual" (or "demisexuality") is not a widely used term, and is a barely recognized term, having without a doubt originated somewhere on the Internet (like some other obscure or non-mainstream terms for sexuality), so there of course isn't much out there about it. That's why the article about it was redirected to this article and the term is now mentioned in the Romantic relationships and identity section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Rings

On the AVEN forum, there is a long-lived thread about using black rings on one's righ middle finger as an identification/pride thing, and I believe that this should be mentioned on the article. the thread is here http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/76607-black-rings-and-other-ways-to-show-asexual-pride Killerbee121 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated in the above section about a different matter, we'd need a WP:Reliable source for that information, not a forum source. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Acephobia

"Acephobia" redirects here. "Acephobia" is a word that appears in neither this article, nor wiktionary. I can only conclude that it is not a real word. Whether it is or not, references to it should either be explained or removed. 174.255.20.168 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a neologism, similar to homophobe, but for asexuals. It's not a big deal that it redirects here. Bhny (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The only people exposed to the word are those that are already searching for it, so who cares? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Serious problems with sources

Much of the material in this article consists of information considered general knowledge in the asexual community, but very often the references used for citations do not conform to wikipedia policy. The romantic relationships and identity section is especially bad in this regard. An FAQ from AVEN is a self-published source, and these are mostly acceptable for pages about the organization itself, and the same is true of AVEN's overview of asexuality. The link for the "Pitt News" article is dead. "Reflections of defining asexuality" is a self-published article, although it might be acceptable under this standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In defense of demisexuality is a blog post from an obviously polemical source. This also leaves unsourced many of the identity labels in that section.

Further down, "Asexuality as a Human Sexual Orientation" is an undergraduate term paper. In general, media articles are relied on more than they should be for this topic.TemporalanomalyX (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TemporalanomalyX. Okay, it's clear that you are not new to editing Wikipedia, though your TemporalanomalyX account was created two hours ago. As for sources, I am not clear on what you mean about the sources often not conforming to Wikipedia policy. Most of the sources in this article conform to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which is one reason it was able to reach WP:Good article status in 2011. Even with regard to this part of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline, it states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Well, the topic of asexuality is an area where little research progress is being made. Also, WP:Reliable sources is a guideline, though I and most other experienced Wikipedian editors treat it as a policy. WP:Verifiability, on the other hand, is a policy.

With regard to the other stuff, such as the identities in the Romantic relationships and identity section: Yes, it was brought up before (a year after the WP:GA process) that some of those identities are not supported by sources, which is why I don't mind the unsupported ones being removed (though, as seen in that linked discussion, I did not mind the terms staying because they are commonly used by asexuals). AVEN is a WP:Primary source and a WP:Primary source can be used as long as it is not misused, such as being used too often in the article; primary sources can also be used in conjunction with WP:Secondary sources. AVEN is only used in the "Romantic relationships and identity" section in conjunction with WP:Secondary sources, to support the fact that asexual people may identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and to support its own statements. The mention of demisexuality and the inclusion of its poor sources were moved to this article on February 15, 2013 when its article was essentially deleted (merged to this one); I did not support or clearly object to that merge. But it has two sources that can validly stay: The Pitt News source and the Melissa Adler source. Per WP:Dead link, The Pitt News source should not be removed simply because it is a dead link. However, I can't find a replacement for it on Internet Archive or one that is not a duplicated post on an Internet forum. I removed the "Reflections on defining asexuality" and "In Defense of Demisexuality" sources...which is what I should have done when they were added to this article. I'm not sure what "Asexuality as a Human Sexual Orientation" source you are referring to. As for relying on media sources, very few scholarly works have been done on the subject of asexuality, as this article notes. A lot, maybe the significant majority, of the sources on this topic (as a human sexuality or specifically as a sexual orientation) are media sources, except for in the case of sources equating asexuality with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Looking at the References section, there is a decent balance or almost-balance between media sources and non-media sources. I don't object at all to more scholarly sources being added, whatever valid sources that can, for example, be found on Google Books.

With regard to this edit you made, which I responded to with this and this edit, what did you mean by "corrected"? Why did you remove "discrimination" concerning its attribution to something that asexuals have dealt with? And why did you add that there was only one study that analyzed asexuals being discriminated against because they are asexual? I take it that you mean that the first study mentioned in that section, while noting that asexuals do get discriminated against, is not about asexuals being discriminated against because they are asexual? For example, whether or not they are asexual is something that the person victimizing them may or may not know. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22 is usually on the case with this article, but I had a quick look down the sources and there was no serious problem. Do you mean that the inline citations are incorrectly formatted (in which case, fix 'em!) or do you mean that the information in the article is not supported by the source (in which case, tag it as {{verification failed}} and somebody will have a look).

However, I think this reference is problematic - you really do need an ISBN or ISSN number when citing print media, as verification is hard to impossible otherwise. A couple of other sources, such as Wellings 1994 and Storms 1979 are affected by this.

Regarding the Pitt News source, a google search for "The Pitt News" "tracey hickey" asexuality returns hits relating to the article, so I can tell it really existed. I'll tag it with {{dead link}} for the meantime, but because the article is (presumably) still verifiable by the original print media, it is not a major issue.

AVEN should only be used to cite opinions on itself. Unless the source specifically attributes it to a known expert figure like David Jay (whose work has appeared in other sources), I would not use it to cite a general fact, such as how asexuals identify themselves romantically or emotionally. The list of labels does look a bit like original research, just because I can look at the label "heteroromantic demisexual" and think "yup, that's me", it doesn't follow that that has been acknowledged by the wider world. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I also found the source that TemporalanomalyX added to be problematic for those reasons, Ritchie333. I forgot to mention that.

The Pitt News source existed as a URL; I remember looking at it.

As for AVEN, I still feel that it is okay to use it to cite identities for asexual people, per WP:Primary source. And it is of course okay to use it in conjunction with a WP:Secondary source or to specifically cite something that is expressed in the article's text as being what AVEN believes or what the AVEN site entails. For example, one paragraph of text in the aforementioned section regarding definitions is specifically acknowledged as AVEN's definition of asexuality, and is included because they are the biggest and most common site for knowledge about asexuality and for asexual people to visit, as reported by WP:Secondary sources in this article, and people have tried to use AVEN as an authoritative definition of asexuality in this article; I decided that including AVEN's opinion in the aforementioned section regarding definitions is a good compromise on that matter. But I will look for better sources to support the identities; I know that all of them will not be supported by WP:Reliable sources, however, and I recommend removing those. As pointed out in the previous discussion about the identities, the terms heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic and panromantic can be supported by WP:Reliable sources.

Also, good to see you back at this article, Ritchie333; I checked in on you from time to time. Flyer22 (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Something else: TemporalanomalyX I'm tempted to restore this because the source is apparently valid and I'm not sure what you meant by your WP:Edit summary; you are saying that asexuals are not protected because of their sexual identity by the law in Vermont? Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I was probably exaggerating about "serious problems" with sources. The biggest problem was the romantic orientations section. For the Pitt News article, the information we do have about it suggests that it was an editorial in a college newspaper, and thus is not a reliable source. But I could not tell because the link was dead, and the WayBack machine didn't have it. The bit about Vermont involved a mismatch between the definition of "sexual orientation" given in the document and the definition in the Vermont statute, which is quoted in the document. According to the statute: "'sexual orientation' means female or male homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. " A relevant secondary source is "Compulsory Sexuality" by Elizabeth F. Emmens, footnote 317. Re: Discrimination. It is true that the title of the article contained the word "dicrimination," but it asked people about their attitudes towards asexuality. It did not provide any evidence of actual discrimination, nor does the text of the article say that it does. What they did talk about was "discrimination intentions", although the term "willingness to discriminate" was also used and is likely more accurate. TemporalanomalyX (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that The Pitt News source is a student paper; I didn't think much of its use, however, considering that it's sourcing uncontentious information -- identities that are common knowledge among asexual people. Any time that I see a student paper remain as a source on Wikipedia it's because it's sourcing school matters, something about the paper itself, something uncontentious, or because it was unnoticed in one way or another. But I agree to get rid of that as a source in this case.

Regarding the Cara C. MacInnis source concerning discrimination, basing my thoughts on the abstract only, I can see what you mean; for example, it states, "Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals)." I would state that it's a semantics issue, but, given that asexuality is of minor prevalence, it's unlikely that most people surveyed have interacted with an asexual person or, if they did, unlikely that they knew that they were in the presence of an asexual person. So feel free to tweak that matter appropriately in the article (meaning without any objection from me this time).

Regarding the Vermont matter, I'm confused. Even if asexuality is not defined as a sexual orientation by their statutory definition, asexuality is clearly a protected class by Vermont in some way, unless "Tracey Tsugawa, Vermont Human Rights Commission" was completely wrong listing asexuality. And let's remember that asexuals, like AVEN notes, can be heterosexual, lesbian, gay or bisexual; this is because they are identifying with the non-sexual aspects of those sexual orientations, hence "heteroromantic" and so on. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why they listed asexuality in the document, but the text of the statute is what matters most. If the question of whether asexuality qualifies as a sexual orientation in this statute arises in a Vermont court, and if the judge decides that asexuality does qualify as a sexual orientation according to the law, that opinion would also count. But if it is not clearly said to be a sexual orientation in the text of the law, and there is no judicial ruling interpreting it as a sexual orientation, then there is no basis for saying it is a sexual orientation according to that particular statute.

For the bias paper, I'm personally skeptical of their interpretation of their findings. I think it's mostly that people weren't familiar with asexuality. They say that they tested this hypothesis in their second study by including sapiosexuals and that they ruled it out. (In fact, they only ruled out that it accounts for 100% of the effect.) However, two facts strongly suggest that lack of familiarity accounts for most of it: According to their study, there is more bias against sapiosexuals than against hetero-, homo-, or bisexuals, and attitudes towards sapiosexuals was the strongest correlate of attitudes towards heterosexuals. Of course, saying all of this in the article itself would be editorializing, but stating the two relevant facts is not because these are things reported in the paper.TemporalanomalyX (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so to sum it all up simply, the main bone of contention is the list of labels, and frankly that doesn't surprise me. You could (flippantly, I admit) rewrite it "Asexuals may or may not be romantic. They may or may not have sexual relationships. They may or may not enjoy eating raspberry jam." I have seen discussions on AVEN and elsewhere that talk about labels, orientation, and people taking great offence if you use the "wrong" one, and I just confuses the bejeezus out of me, I'm afraid. I'll go and have a look and see what other sources I can muster, and see if this bit can be cleaned up. People seem to enjoy inventing labels, so we have to watch out for inadvertently putting neologisms in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The beginning of the "Romantic relationships and identity" section starts out acknowledging that asexual people may have romantic relationships. And the rest of that section (material past the identities) already goes into the fact that there is significant variation among people who identify as asexual. It also mentions that researchers have not used the terms asexual and asexuality for human sexuality consistently, though they generally use the terms to indicate a significant lack of sexual attraction or significant lack of sexual interest. Regarding WP:Neologism, which I mentioned to TemporalanomalyX when expanding on what sapiosexual means in the Discrimination and legal protections section, I don't believe that WP:Neologism applies to terms that are being identified in a section as terms commonly used in the asexual community...especially if those terms are reliably sourced. Better sources for those terms, as noted, is what we need. But, like I also mentioned, not all of those terms will be supported by reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can dig up a reliable source that verifies asexuals like eating raspberry jam, I will give you a barnstar. ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The term sapiosexual is defined in the McInnis paper, so an additional reference should not be necessary.TemporalanomalyX (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

But clarifying in text what that term means, which is what I did in parentheses, was/is necessary. Not to mention...people have to go through certain steps to access the source and a lot of those people (maybe most) either will not want to or will not have the means to do so. Most would likely simply Google the term; I saved them (time) from having to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention of researchers

As explained in this and this edit, I reverted Bhny because that simplicification of the text is redundant and takes away the explanation with regard to the complexity of defining asexuality. That text is specifically about how researchers define the term, and it is important to include (which is also why the source discusses it) because it explains how they vary in defining it and the exact ways that they define it; it addresses why there is no simple definition of asexuality, other than defining it as "the lack of sexual attraction." During the good article discussion, that text was one of the key things that the article needed, as is also clear by archived discussions concerning why this article is not strict in how it defines asexuality; in other words, that text is useful for those who are confused as to why this article does not state that asexuality is only no sexual attraction to anyone, and why it includes material that some people would consider not being something that equates to asexual. If researchers were strict in how they defined asexuality, then the way that the asexual label differs among people who identify as asexual wouldn't matter as much, considering that those other definitions would simply be incorrect with regard to scholars and their research on the topic.

Bhny mentioned "unnamed researchers" as part of the reasons for removing the text. I understand that "Researchers say" (or something like that) is seemingly a part of the WP:Weasel words guideline, but the WP:Weasel words guideline makes clear that the terms listed there are not necessarily weasel words. And in this context, the text is specifically about researchers, not about relaying a study by a group of researchers. Further, the source does not name the researchers and, like Template:Who, one of the templates to tackle weasel words, states: "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague."

All that stated, Bhny tweaked the text better in his or her second attempt while I was typing up this talk page section (took me longer than expected to post due to distractions), and I like that second wording. I had also considered cutting the redundancy I included in that text. Because I knew that Bhny would either revert or try a second attempt at wording, I decided to bring this matter to the talk page. Though I like Bhny's second wording, I think that text should be clearer that defining asexuality as "the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of sexual interest" is because that's how researchers generally define the term; the specific text about how they define it is simply specificity (for the reasons noted above). "Lack of" in this case means all of those things. The text shouldn't make it seem as though researchers are going against the standard definition; it should be clear that the standard definition has components because of how it is defined in scholarly sources. So I propose that the text be worded to: "Researchers generally define asexuality as the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of sexual interest, but their definitions vary; they may use the term 'to refer to individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors'." Flyer22 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes the weasely term "researchers" is ok here since the ref actually says that. A problem with this paragraph was the parsing. "researchers define A as B, but they define this [A or B!?] as C, D, E, F or a combination of all". That isn't readable or logical. You can't define a definition which is what it seems to say. You can expand on a definition, or disagree on how to measure an attribute. Bhny (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Like Template:Who notes, using the term researchers would also be okay "If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance." When there are multiple or several non-notable researchers (non-notable by Wikipedia's standards) listed in a source, and I want to (or rather should) mention that this is the belief of researchers, I will usually simply state "researchers," "scholars," or, depending on the context, "scientists" (as long as it's not a minority view; otherwise specificity is important); that is also common practice on Wikipedia, including in WP:Featured articles. People often misuse Template:Who, Template:Whom and Template:Which; for example, they fail to read that Template:Whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." And like I noted, using "researchers" is also okay in this instance because that paragraph is about how researchers define the term; one can't discuss researchers without stating "researchers"...unless they call them by some alternative name (such as "scholars"). I'm not fully clear on what you mean by "You can't define a definition"; researchers (and people in general) do that all the time. The reason that the definition is the way that it is (general definition with facets) is because of how scholarly sources define the term (it's that way significantly more so than because of how people self-identify). Since you have not objected to my alternative wording, I added it to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You make or create a definition. You can define a topic. "Defining a definition" is like subtracting a subtraction. It's a weird recursion that isn't logical. Bhny (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Narrow Definition

As someone who identifies as asexual, I have a slight qualm with the way it is defined on the wikipedia page. The wikipedia page starts with: "Asexuality (or nonsexuality) is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone or...". On the Asexuality and Visibility Network (AVEN) and everywhere else I have heard of asexuality, an asexual is described as "a person who does not experience sexual attraction." The wikipedia definition leaves the definition a bit open ended. Perhaps people are sexually attracted to other things or beings, and are sexual in regards to this. Yet according to the wikipedia definition, they would be considered asexual, even though they themselves may not think so. The more general definition of an asexual is simply someone who does not experience sexual attraction. This definition is all encompassing, and I feel as a wiki article, this page should have the definition of Asexuality as: "Asexuality (or nonsexuality) refer to someone who does not experience sexual attraction or..."

I hope you will take my opinion into consideration. As a wikipedia page, this is probably one of the most viewed pages referring to asexuality as well as the AVEN page at asexuality.org. It would be great to see a more encompassing definition on this page that also corresponds to the definition on AVEN.

128.135.220.185 (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. There is no "bit open ended," in my opinion; there is "contrast in definitions of asexuality," with the term usually being defined as the lack of sexual attraction (when not referring to asexual reproduction). This Wikipedia article makes that clear. Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability, and is defining asexuality the way that researchers and asexual-identified people define asexuality. I've addressed this before at this talk page (now found in the archives) and recently in this discussion. Like I stated in that latter discussion, this, this, this and this dictionary source show that lack does not necessarily mean absence; it is also why I chose to use both words (lack and absence) in the WP:Lead of the Asexuality article. The lead of the article summarizes the article well, subtly showing that there is not even complete agreement that asexuality means absolutely no sexual attraction and/or no sexual desire. With regard to sourcing, we go by the WP:Verifiability policy at this site. And with regard to the word lack, researchers generally define asexuality as "individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors"; this is made clear in the Romantic relationships and identity section of the article, a section that clearly shows that some people with low sexual desire or low sexual attraction identify as asexual. This is shown, for example, by this source, which notes how researchers and asexual-identified people define the term, and this scholarly book source...which addresses different definitions of asexuality among researchers and those who identify as asexual.

For example, a person who does experience sexual attraction but does not experience romantic attraction can be asexual; this is because a person with low sexual attraction may identify, and may be identified by researchers, as asexual because he or she does not have the desire to engage in romantic or sexual activity/relationships. So the inclusion of "low" does not mean that everyone with low sexual attraction/low interest in sexual activity is asexual, and I cautioned against that type of material; it simply means that people with low sexual attraction/low interest in sexual activity may self-identify, or be identified by researchers, as asexual. Furthermore, romantic attraction is usually tied up with sexual attraction, and is what usually distinguishes platonic love from romantic love; but for some people, such as some asexual people, they state that romantic attraction and sexual attraction are distinguished (separate) for them. You mentioned AVEN, but even AVEN, as this article shows, states: "Another small minority will think of themselves as asexual for a brief period of time while exploring and questioning their own sexuality. 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." But research shows that it's not just a small minority who experience minor sexual attraction and identify as asexual. Not to mention that the asexual community is very small to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional Fact About David Jay

I want to add this sentence at the end of the introductory/first section of the article:

"In fact, David Jay is in a romantic and intimate relationship with another woman who is also asexual." \

The final sentence of the first section mentions AVEN, the most popular community for people who are asexual. It also mentions the founder as David Jay.I feel that by providing this fact about David Jay that he is in a normal relationship will persuade readers to dig deeper into the topic and get rid of the negative stigma that may arise in people by reading the first few sentences. Rather than view asexuality as something "strange" or maybe even "sinful" maybe it will show that asexuals do not necessarily shy away romantic relationships.--Jhg1232 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted, for the reasons I stated in these WP:Edit summaries. It's not WP:Lead material, and it's already covered in the David Jay article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to make an argument for adding it to this article, it could be appropriately added to the Community section of the Asexuality article however, which mentions David Jay. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is asexuality listed under "gender binary"?

Asexuality isn't a binary attraction nor a non-binary attraction. It's neither. It's like asking if 0 is a prime or composite number. It's neither.

It's also neither because we tend to have a lot more varied romantic orientations on average than sexuals do (not that a situation like pansexual heteroromantic can't exist, because it can and does, but I'm talking on average), and it's just as likely to be outside of the gender binary as in it. This also applies to gray-asexuals and demisexuals. It's like trying to categorize the climate of Mars using Koppen climate classifications. It just doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.63.43 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

IP, since I don't see what gender binary listing you are referring to regarding the current state of the article, it seems that you are referring to Template:Sexual orientation; technically, asexuality is not listed as a gender binary on there, but is rather listed as a sexual orientation (its listing as a sexual orientation was debated at the talk page for that template, since asexuality is not widely considered a sexual orientation). The reason it's not listed under "Non-binary categories" on that template is because it's already listed there as a sexual orientation and because, unlike the sexual and gender categories listed there, it is not about distinguishing itself from binarism (though it of course includes non-binarism aspects). I'm not aware of it being rare that asexuals are binary, or a WP:Reliable source stating so. Like the article shows, there are asexuals who identify as heterosexual or homosexual/gay/lesbian, and ones that specifically use the terms heteromantic or homoromantic to indicate that it's the romantic, not the sexual, aspect of "heterosexual" or "homosexual" that they are identifying with. And considering that heteromantic is binary, and pansexual is not binary, your "pansexual heteroromantic" categorization confuses me; that is, if you are referring to a person identifying as such. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I see that you must be referring to Template:Gender and sexual identities, which is listed at the bottom of the Asexuality article. I suppose that with regard to sexual orientation, there is no better way to list asexuality on there, unless one wants to argue that it fits better under the Non-binary category or that it can be listed under both the Gender binary and Non-binary categories; one reason that it's currently listed under the Gender binary category is for consistency with Template:Sexual orientation; yes, I noted that Template:Sexual orientation doesn't have a binary listing. But it does imply one, since it has a non-binary listing. Both templates make a point of being consistent with the other, and the non-binary list on Template:Sexual orientation is the same as the non-binary list on Template:Gender and sexual identities. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

demiromantic or demisexual

There seems to be a lot of back and forth on this. There is a Romantic orientation section basically taken from Romantic orientation. This has nothing to do with demisexual. Also there is no reason for them both to be in bold. Only one term, demisexual, redirects to this article. Bhny (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You have it backwards; the identities at the Romantic orientation article were copied from the Asexuality article (more, all unsourced additions, were added at the Romantic orientation article). You can even see that the sources that are used there were used at the Asexuality article and then copied and pasted there; the sources used at that article are mostly about asexuality because "romantic orientation" does not significantly exist outside of asexuality. Furthermore, sexual orientation includes attraction based solely or partly on romantic attraction, which is why, as the article notes, some asexual people identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer or by the terms biromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic, panromantic, pansexual, demiromantic or demisexual. I'm surprised that the Romantic orientation article has not yet been deleted due to an absence of WP:Notability. When scientists state "romantic orientation," they are usually referring to sexual orientation, not something distinct from it. I'm not sure what you mean by "[t]his has nothing to do with demisexual," but like this source (page 92) used to support demisexual in the Asexuality article shows, "demisexual" is an asexual identity. And demiromantic is simply an alternative term for "demisexual," just like heteroromantic is an alternative term for "heterosexual" to emphasize the romantic aspects of heterosexuality. There has been no back and forth regarding the terminology of demiromantic or demisexual in the article; there has been a back and forth between me and an IP, and Ritchie333 and that same IP, regarding listing demisexual/demiromantic at all, as seen here, here, here and here. I don't care much about the bolding aspect; either redirect demiromantic to that section and then bold it, or de-bold demiromantic.

And regarding having a Romantic orientation section, which you and I have WP:Edit warred over, as seen here and here, there is no need to create a subsection to address these different identities; those identities are in a section titled Identity and relationships; so, of course, they are fine and fit well in that section. There is no need to create a subsection for that little bit of material and as though it's not a part of identity and relationships. Like MOS:PARAGRAPHS states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." And, yes, sexual activity is going to be discussed in a section about asexual identity and relationships, which is what various WP:Reliable sources on the topic do as well. That is how "romance and sexuality are mixed up in [that] one section." Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And regarding my removal of the Romantic orientation link, I'm not too opposed to that link being added back to the section at hand or to the See also section; I simply removed it because of what I stated in that edit summary, what I stated above, and because Bhny objected to its placement in the aforementioned section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article nomination?

I think this article has evolved and developed into a very good article at this point. I think it would be possible to nominate it for a "Today's Featured Article" mention. For those unfamiliar, TFA are note-worthy articles that have been deemed well-enough to be featured on the main pages of Wikipedia. What does everybody think? Should we do it? (Tigerghost (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

Tigerghost, per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." I'm currently the main contributor of the Asexuality article, and I appreciate that you asked here at the talk page first. That stated, I'm not ready to delve into the WP:Featured article process with this article. The WP:Featured article process has high standards, as you know, and that process can be stressful. There are certain reference matters that should be improved regarding the Asexuality article, and I'd perhaps need to explain to some editors why this article uses WP:Primary sources for some parts. The answer to those editors would be what the WP:MEDDATE section of WP:MEDRS states: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." In other words, like the lead of the Asexuality article relays, "Acceptance of asexuality as a sexual orientation and field of scientific research is still relatively new, as a growing body of research from both sociological and psychological perspectives has begun to develop." And I've cited WP:MEDDATE because aspects of asexuality concern the psychological field, and therefore the medical field, and so does heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Anyway, there are more sourcing improvements I want to make to the article before considering nominating it for WP:Featured article status. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm aware that you've been editing this article on and off for years. So I do know that you've contributed significantly to it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And to be clearer: Wikipedia:Today's featured article is for highlighting a WP:Featured article. The Asexuality article is currently a WP:Good article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged anti-asexual law in Russia

Although there were some claims that asexuals would be among those targeted by a new Russian driving law, they seemed very dubious to me: The entire basis of the claims was second-hand reporting of what some activists said in a press-release, without any reference to the actual law or to anything said by any government official. Many of the early articles did not even indicate that they had attempted to contact any government officials for comment.

Further developments in that story suggest that early report were misleading or inaccurate. [=Russia’s “Trans Driving Ban” Doesn’t Really Target LGBT Community. It Actually Targets the Mentally Ill and Russia gives green light for transgender drivers to stay on the road. I suggest that the relevant passage be removed entirely from the article about asexuality, unless a credible source can be found. TemporalanomalyX (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

TemporalanomalyX (talk · contribs), regarding this, go ahead and remove the passage. You might also want to leave a WP:Hidden note about the matter, advising editors not to re-add the material unless it satisfies the quality aspect you've addressed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the passage. The citation to the Daily Telegraph mentions asexuality only in passing, and only the context of the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights making a point about the absurdity of the law. The government have not explicitly outlawed asexuality, merely "disorders associated with sexual development and orientation" (which could mean anything from Pete Burns to Rolf Harris). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)