Talk:Asexuality/Archive 2

message: There ought to be a foot-note, citing a suitable reference, for each and every person included on this list, if the list is to be here at all. —SlamDiego 04:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous alleged asexuals 

message: Asexual is not LGBT, Dev, but it is LGBTA, a change that is occuring on many college campuses. Like lesbian, gay, and bisexual, asexual is a sexual minority. The classification in this category is correct, though wiki should add an A on the category as that is the current trend today. — Clippen (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT 

message: I believe that there should be a distinction.
Asexuality is a general disdain for sexuality whereas a celibate person may have desires for the opposite (or same) sex but choses a sex-free life either for religious or other purposes. For this reason I do not thing that Todd Fuller should be included on this list. Piercetp 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexual does not mean celibate 

message: A small point, but I'd like to bring it up. The article says 
:Another character, Shigeru Aoba, is strongly implied to be asexual in The End of Evangelion.
Firstly, 'strongly implied' is an unqualified statement, without any sources, so is just someone's opinion. Furthermore, looking at the Shigeru Aoba article itself, it doesn't mention anything about sexuality, only about unwillingness to trust anyone enough to 'open up'.
Similarly, many of the examples of asexuality in fiction seemed to be mislabelled, or at least without sources. Just because Doctor Who and Jughead Jones don't get romantic subplots doesn't mean that they are asexual. The list includes some real examples of asexuality in fiction, so I don't agree that these other ones should be there.
However, I'm a n00b at wikipedia, and I don't want to just hack through the list. What do other people think? Crispypercy 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've followed some links: there is no mention of asexuality on the pages of Immanuel Kant and Emily Bronte, and those were the first two I clicked. The whole section is completely unsourced.Crispypercy 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, finished checking the list. The only articles referencing asexuality were The Shivers (band), Edward Gorey, Erik Satie, Morrissey and Alberto Santos-Dumont. The rest may as well be all made up, as far as I can tell.Crispypercy 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexuality in fiction 

message: I added the reference to the Apostle Paul some time ago, but it has since been reformatteded and might not make a lot of sense where it is now.
In Biblical theology, there is really only two paths someone can take:  marriage which required intercouse between the couple (with the exception of health issues or temporary religious obligations), or singleness which requires celebacy from the person.  There is no other route.  To be married and to withold conjugal and procreative responsibilities is sinful (Exo 21:10, 1Co 7:5, Heb 13:4, et al.).  To be single and to engage in intercouse is also sinful (Act 15:20, Act 15:29, 1Co 6:9).
So it boils down to it being entirely right and even commendable to be single and celebate (1Co 7:8) or to be married and fruitful (see above);  just not one or the other.  The Apostle Paul, who by inspiration of the Holy Spirit penned 2/3 of the New Testament, led a celebate life.
The Bible and most theologians do not get into the issue of a biological origin for asexuality. It may or may not exist, but it is largely immaterial based upon the Biblical modes of life explained above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebacy in Christianity 

message: All biographies I read concerning the Nazi leader states that he probibly died a virgin. It was said by those close to him that he had no interest in sex. If he did he probibly did not pursue any relationships. His relationship to his mistress Eva Braun was believed to be sexless. Piercetp 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Hitler excluded from this list? 

message: The page describes Type C's as asexuals who experience neither and doesn't mention Type D.  Usually Type C is the type that doesn't see their sex drive and attraction as linked, and Type D experiences neither.  Is the page using a different classification system?
Agent KGB 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a little more googling I found the reference I was looking for. I'm not entirely sure if my usage of the ref tags is correct, so if someone could take a look at that I would be most grateful. Reverted the A-C system to A-D as per the source and AgentKGB's and my recollection. Mzyxptlk 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABCD Classification 

message: If someone has an affectionate orientation for both sexes, but cannot bring themselves to enjoy sexual encounters, are they asexual or are they something else?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Is it just me, or Albus Dumbledore of the Harry Potter series of books an Asexual? He isn't reported to have any sexual relationship, not when he was younger nor his later days. He seems far more interested in the running of Hogwarts School than sexuality.
Should he perhaps be added the list of possible Asexuals in fiction?
:It's just you. I don't think the characters in childrens books generally have a lot of sex. Greswik 13:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Asexual in Fiction: Albus Dumbledore? 

message: Removed rant irrelevant to the article.. 65.190.103.147 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexuality not a part of the LGBT 

message: I think whoever deleted the list had the wrong idea.  Even if asexuality was highly speculative for some of those people, it's not totally baseless to call them such, and a lot of them are really interesting people.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back the list 

message: Does this page still need a rewrite, or can the above tag finally be removed?  - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check your user page. ~ ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Talk page... implying I will talk. Okay.
My friend and I were talking... I don't want sex, right. I didn't know there was a term, or there was even people "like me". I look around and find asexual. I guess I am, whatever society would like to say. I like girls, I look at them. But I just don't want sex. No sexual activity as far as penis/vagina interactment. I haven't whacked off in like 5 years, and I'm 18 now. I do like to touch girls, and cuddle.
I'd just like to say that I'd never want to be part of the TLGB or whatever it is. I'm not a fag, and I'm not perverted. This seems to throw two huge blocks at entering that group; blocks I'm happy about.
Just wanted to give some views! Goodbye. :) 72.192.62.77 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello. 

message: It seems that someone has disputed the neutrality of the article, but didn't feel it important enough to justify that dispute.  The same person obviously didn't know what they were doing because two points were given demands for citations, when anyone has had read the article would have found the citations in the article (in one case only a couple sentences later.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freunlaven47 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality 

message: I've done significant rewriting of the section of research, adding two studies and adding further information about another three that were already discussed.  I removed a few (uncited) claims that I did not belive were acurate, but these were not very major.  I deleted the first citation, which had been to a book about sexual orientation as a human right.  The author mentioned asexuality but did not have good information about the subject.  He showed information about only one study, which dealt with a different sort of "asexuality" than he described in his book.
Points that I think need some more work: definition of asexuality.  The definition of asexuality given is more or less the one that has been used in all of the psychological studies on asexuality given (except Kinsey).  The current definition is people who don't experience sexual attraction, which is the one given on AVEN.  The psychological/sexological articles published actually define it somewhat differently.  They call asexuals people who experience "little or no sexual attraction" as opposed to none.  The Myra Johnson article defines asexuality differently, although most of the women she calls asexual (and that she calls autoerotic) probably fit the other definition, so I think the article should be included.  However she does define the term differently.  Perhaps another section could be added that dealt with the problems with definition.  This could also addresst the compliants of people with functioning sex organs can't be asexual, since the term doesn't mean asexual in every conceivable way.  But for people who have no interest in having sex (which is yet another definition excluding some asexuals and including some non-asexuals) "asexual" is the most frequently thought of word.  The problem is finding valid sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.198.199 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I have carried out a reorganization amounting to a more or less full rewrite of this page, adding quite a bit of additional cited research. The article was in a chaotic state and lacking in citations. If I have removed anything of vital importance it can be added back in, but a new structure was badly needed. Paul Cox 02:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite (2) 

message: Only individuals who have explicitly identified themselves as asexual can ever be listed on this article with any degree of consensus. This applies to fictional characters as well as real people. Looking through past edits and talk, more than half of the work put into this page has been sunk into adding, removing, disputing, and defending conjectured asexuals, none of which ever added substantial factual information to an article on this topic. It is indeed often interesting and relevant to bring up a person or character's apparent asexuality, but this is best done in the person or character's own article. From this point I propose that any individuals listed without an indisputably relevant citation be moved to this section of the talk page until the citation is added. Indisputable means the person either used the word "asexual" to describe his or herself, or made another statement to the effect of experiencing no sexual attraction to any gender.Paul Cox 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, Paul.  I've added an "Asexuality in culture" section for other mentions of asexuality or asexual people in popular culture and added "The Bone People" with a citation to start it off. Citriodora 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged asexuals 

message: As the first paragraph of this section explains, these are not sourced criticisms (as there is no actual research to point to) but commonly heard reactions to the asexual identity. The article is conspicuously incomplete without these, as they are a common part of any discussion of asexuality. If others have a better, more neutral, or more substantiated way of addressing these perspectives, please re-word or relocate these, but do not simply remove the whole section or the article appears paper thin and one-sided to anyone who has jumped to these conclusion themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollen (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem, but it's wikipedia's policy that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Maybe you can dig through some news sources.  Fireplace 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.... perhaps I'll give it a try. I will post my suggestion for a rewrite of the criticism section here on the talk page. Let's see how it goes. Albert Wincentz 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Note that asexuality is not the same as celibacy, which is the deliberate abstention from sexual activity; many asexuals do have sex, and most celibates are not asexual. What is the meaning of "many asexuals do have sex"? How can they and why do they have sex if they get no pleasure, attraction, or interest out of it. They're not doing it for pro-creation purposes I'm sure. 70.59.7.115 14:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there are a number of inaccuracies in the article that need to be addressed. The statement that "many asexuals do have sex", for example, is lacking a citation, and is most likely incorrect. I am working on a sourced rewrite of the criticism section, largely for similar reasons, as much of the criticism currently is based on a misconception of what asexuality actually is; it is referred to as involuntary loss of sexual function in otherwise sexual people, while self-identified asexuals usually are not impotent, merely preferring non-sexual outlets for intimacy/friendship instead. Albert Wincentz 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To anonymous and Albert both:  "How can they" is just like everybody else.  Asexuality is not a physiological inability to have sex.  "Why do they" is more complex, and delves into questions of social pressure, having romantic relationships in a society that defines intimacy through sex, and yes, in some cases procreation--I think we can all agree that the human desires for sex and for children are somewhat divorced from each other.  Many asexual people do have or want children.  Speaking of that troublesome "many," the statement "many asexuals do have sex" was likely written by someone within the asexual community speaking from an internal point of view.  Many of the asexual people on the AVEN messageboard have had or are in sexual relationships, for example, though internet forum discussions are clearly not citable sources.  Note, "many" does not mean "most" or "all."  Anwyay, I'm sure the topic's been covered in some of the scientific literature or media pieces, so I'll see if I can find something to source that statement.Citriodora 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Duh. Peer pressure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.228.83 (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Hell? 

message: I have noticed a new section has been added on fictional asexuals.  What is the feeling on this?  Does it add to the article or should it be eliminated?  I'm have mixed feelings on it at the moment since, on the one hand, it seems like showing that the media recognizes the existence of asexual individuals is noteworthy.  On the other hand, you could call just about any TV or movie character that has no known history of relationships asexual.  This is especially true of animated characters such as Spongebob Squarepants. Now, if we do keep in fictional asexuals then Spongebob should be included (this comment is in regards to recent edits of the article) as the reference cited clearly makes reference to him being asexual.  Keep in mind that just because a real world sponge is asexual in a different context than is referenced to here does not mean that in the context of the cartoon that Spongebob wouldn't have the potential for romantic relationships (just look at the bizarre pairing of creatures that happens on that show!).  For this reason I have restored the Spongebob reference until the larger issue of "should fictional asexuals be included in the article" is resolved.  Mantisia (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional asexuals 

message: On the main page, user:Freunlaven47 reverted some of my edit, saying "Previous editor inaccurately represented sources."
I am perfectly happy to discuss whatever issue you have with my changes, but I don't think that that is quite called for.  I am holding in my hands a copy of the Brotto article, which reads (first page) Storms' (1980) definition of asexuality focused on the absence of sexual orientation, characterized by low homoeroticism and low heteroeroticism, and shared with the definition of Bogaert (2004) that asexuals lack a basic attraction towards others.  What in my edit inaccurately represented that?  If you email me, I'll be happy to send you a .pdf of the whole article.  Brotto is on the DSM-V committee for sexual disorders, making her essentially the go-to sexologist for definitions like this.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper representation of sources. 

message: On my talk page, (conversation which can be seen here), the issue of clariffying the different forms of asexuality have been brought up. I think we need to clearly say "asexual may have different meaning...." in the intro.
The 3 forms of asexuality, to my knowledge are:
*asexual reproduction (separete article)
*asexual sexual orientation, as in not wanting anything to do with intimacy, sex, having a partner, etc.
*and asexual, as in having no desire for sex, but still desiring intimacy and being in relationships.
--cooljuno411 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What references can you provide for the distinction you are drawing between the two forms in humans? I am not convinced there is a true distinction there, but think it may be a continuum. (No, I do not have a reference for this, but you are the one trying to add something here, not I.) Aleta Sing 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is a clear distinction between the two human forms. Even in the article it says "sometimes a sexual orientation".... the sexual orientation form being the one that does not desire relationships, sex... the works.... The other form is just a person who doesn't want sex.... an asexual heterosexual.... an asexual bisexual..... an example would be this couple here.--cooljuno411 05:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I beleve the terms would be more accurately portrayed as bi-romantic asexuals and hetero-romantic asexuals (Tigerghost (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of the different meaning of asexual. 

message: I changed back the "heteroemotionality" stuff because "heteroromantic" is more commmon (just google it).  We haven't got it cited anyway, so I don't think we should change it back without a citation. Andral (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romantic 

message: Can someone explain why he's always removed. He invented asexuality for god's sake Whelanmk (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. He didn't invent Asexuality. He just got the credit for promoting awareness of it. But on a serious note, I do believe that his contributions to the Asexy movement should be mentioned and kept in this article. (Tigerghost (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. There's no doubt he's responsible for spreading the term and raising awareness in the media (see this page for some of the work he has done) Jozal (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Jay 

message: Why did the post on asexual symbols get removed? It was posted by an active member of the AVEN community who posted that they had posted here... and opened their content up for a critique over at AVEN.
It was very helpful. Why? 87.127.137.174 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll guess partly because of a problem with Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability: the edit summary (you can see these in the history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asexuality&action=history ) removing it said "There may be a few asexuals who use these symbols, but they are not widely recognized symbols. And the section had no citations."  I think what would be desirable would be some reliable secondary source (or perhaps several) writing about the symbols, thereby establishing some degree of notability.  A (1) member of the group writing about them on (2) AVEN's forum   or AVEN's own wiki  might not meet Wikipedia's standards.  Particularly since it seems like some members of AVEN aren't even familiar with these symbols; how recognizable could they then be to the general public? Шизомби (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

text: There are a number of acceptable ways Wikipedia:CITE.  If you have an acceptable one you can try adding it, and if the format is wrong someone else can correct it, or you can post it here on the talk page and ask for someone to add it properly. Шизомби (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexual symbols 

message: I'd like to see a better reference than wordreference.com for asexual orientation=nonsexual orientation.  That dictionary does not include that definition. Шизомби (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsexuality 

message: The first paragraph of the article refers to a certain Dante Lucato of Port Kembla, whose name is probably inserted as a cruel joke on someone as the references cited do not give any indication as to why his/her name is included. -AM- Amatalon (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dante Lucato 

message: I removed one of the entries under this section because the link that was connected to it was broken. And since it was a minor point in the article, it won't be missed anyway...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchingdude (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of this section. TVtropes.org doesn't count as a WP:Reliable source, though, so we'll have to find another source for that one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for you work, Lauradronen. Flyer22 is correct that TVtropes.org is not a reliable source. And for the mention of the asexual character in "Huge", the AVEN post is not appropriate here. You will need to find the exact TV episode where the character says she is asexual in order to verify the source. --Tea with toast (話) 04:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Characters - Notable Asexuals