Talk:Asexuality/Archive 1

message: Is this NPOW?
"There is continuing disagreement over whether asexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation."
Who gets to decide if a sexual orientation is legitimate or not? Apparently not the catholic church! Juryen 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone, and that's the point. If one person or organisation had absolute authority over whether it was legitimate or not, there'd be no disagreement. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But although there is no authority on the matter and the opinion has no solid basis, we shall nevertheless divide sexual orientations into legitimate and illegitimate. Juryen 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. As an analogy, take the various small cults around the world. Are they legitimate religions or just a bunch of deluded weirdos following a charismatic personality? Which government or authority gets to determine that? How many followers does a cult need before it becomes a legitimate religion? The ambiguity provides plenty of material for contention, just as it does in the case of sexual identities outside of the mainstream. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimate? 

message: I don't know if this discussion page gets read much, but here goes: I just deleted the fiction section of the article, since it was about gender, and not, like the rest of the article, sexual orientation. That said, many people do use "asexual" as a reference to gender, so there should probably either be a section about gender-related definitions of "asexual," or a new article about it. I'm not in a good position to put such a section or article together, but wanted to toss the idea out in case someone who is wanted to take up the task.
-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17
: 07:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexuality and Gender 

message: I removed three bits in this section. One, I removed the part about sexual attraction not being necessary for sex, and it thus not being much of an issue. Certain conceptions of sacred sexuality do seem to carry the assumption that one will enjoy the act, and that orientation is bound up in the concept of sexuality itself. 
Two, I removed the part about these religions having so few adherents that asexuals have nothing to fear. I have my doubts about how NPOV that statement was, and it makes it sound as if the entire purpose of the religions section is to alert asexuals as to possible threats. Furthermore, some asexuals might be members of those religions in question, or considering joining. 
Three, I took away the part about asexuals having a harder than gays when it comes to being spotted by some conservative religious groups. I didn't think it was all that accurate -- gays can remain closeted, and some asexuals desire (and possibly have) nonsexual relationships with the same sex.
::"I removed three bits in this section. One, I removed the part about sexual attraction not being ecessary for sex". Without sexual attraction, you cannot sustain an erection when engaging, so you can't really have sex.
-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17
I think Islam has negative attitude towards asexuality, for example Muhammad has said "Don't practice celibacy like the Christians" ( but I don't know whether it's authentic)
-- 83.146.53.235 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexuality and Religion 

message: Article says:
"Currently, asexuals face little religious condemnation; unlike homosexuals, for instance, they are not a target of conservative religious groups. However, this could change in the future."
I don't quite understand. Is there something to suggest that a change is happening or going to happen, or why is the last sentence there?
Why are hermits listed as see also? I don't think they have anything to do with asexuality
:Something about hermits not getting sex, maybe? There's a tendency for some people to associate misanthropy and asocialness with asexuality, too. Not that I think the hermits link is entirely appropriate, but no one was complaining about it, so I didn't know if that was just a bias of mine.
: Inkburrow 08:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is - although I am not quite sure why "no gonads" are supposed to equal "sexless". Oh, and do sign your comments please, even if you don't have a username. Just type  -- ~~~~  and the computer does the rest. -- AlexR 09:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Well the Catholic church and some other conservative religious groups are opposed to 'artificial' birth control and masturbation and premaritical sex and all that so we can assume they will generally be opposed to asexuals who have sex drives of some sort. Many of these appear to think that people can and should enter into family units, reproducing as much as possible so we can expect they will view asexuals negatively in this light. In short, asexuals appear to violate their views that everyone should enter into heterosexual family units that procreate (and only use sex for procreation) so we would espect they would be opposed to asexuals. Well unless said asexuals become nuns and stuff... Nil Einne 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious condemnation could change in the future? 

message: Is this really true? Because it looks like a case of vandalism to me. Does Ralph Nader really qualify as asexual? Though he has some external sigs of such, their is nothing to confirm this, and I want some proof on the issue.
IdeArchos 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NNDB (www.nndb.com) states he is.
What are 'external signs' in this case? Samantha of Cardyke 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Could he have what many other people might regard as a neurosis about sexual matters but is in fact indicative of possible asexuality? He is said to fear conversations which might turn to small talk. Also, it is suspected that women who might be perceived as trying to attract a partner sometimes make him nervous. Samantha of Cardyke 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I contacted the NNDB nearly two months ago to request an amendment if they were uncertain. They haven't actioned it so perhaps the level of proof is very high but I wouldn't put him back in the list. As you can see elsewhere I am one of the people pushing for reliable citations establishing certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Samantha of Cardyke 11:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unmarried doesn't mean asexual. I took Ravel off as he had relationships and allegedly frequented bordellos. Maybe asexuals do pay for sex, for appearance sake, but this strikes me as a bit counterintuitive if true.--T. Anthony 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ralph Nader? 

message: Here's a quote from wikiquote: "I tried sex once with a woman and that woman was Gala. It was overrated. I tried sex once with a man and that man was the famous juggler Federico Garcia Lorca [the Spanish Surrealist poet]. It was very painful."
:I recommend that he remain off the list unless much more evidence emerges. Looks possible that he simply had some sexual hang-ups which he perhaps largely overcame with time. Samantha of Cardyke 08:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dali is asexual 

message: I did a Google search and it seems that he was asexual due to a congenital testicular abnormality, though I can't access the web pages. Perhaps there should be a mention of this in the article, both in relation to Sun Ra and in the general sections. This could be a possible explanation in at least some of the other 'cases' on the list (e.g. Hitler) but there is the (rightful) problem of lack of access to private medical information. Samantha of Cardyke 10:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun Ra 

message: I see no reason to assume many Catholic priests etc were asexuals as described in this sentence:
:For example, it is likely that in past centuries, many Catholic priests, popes, monks, and nuns were asexuals, including many canonized saints
I suspect many of them had sex drives and desires for people of the same and/or opposite sex at least initially but choose to repress it due to the celebacy requirements of their profession. Definitely it appears to be true nowadays that many of them are not asexuals... Perhaps over time you could try an argue that many were so successful that you could call them asexuals but then again, we don't even really know for sure how many of them were truly celebate let alone trying to decide whether they were asexual. It would probably be acceptable to say some of them were asexual but that's all. Nil Einne 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I didn't explain myself well. I'm not denying some of them may have been asexuals. But I see no reason to assume many of them were asexuals. Also, you are perhaps confusing celibacy with asexuality. My understanding is the primary requirement for priests etc is celibacy NOT asexuality and we have no real way of knowing how many of them were asexual, 'naturally' or out of their enforced celibacy.  Nil Einne 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient asexuals 

message: The symbol isn't referred to in the text that I noticed.  It's neat, but does any group actually use it?  I would have thought perhaps the muted trumpet Inamorato Anonymous uses in The Crying of Lot 49 which is I think an asexual organization. Esquizombi 08:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol? 

message: Abstinence and sexual dysfunction are not the same thing as asexuality. Asexuality is the ability to reproduce without sex, such as division, budding, and regeneration. Humans cannot physically be asexual as they are complex multicellular organisms whose karyotypes contain non-autosome chromosome pairs. This article needs to either be deleted or merged with sexual dysfunction. TheRaven7 15:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, bud, you're wrong. Look at the references section (which seems a bit slim, alas). —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also note the "debate" section in the article. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my issue. The issue is that "asexuality" means the ability to have offspring without sex. This article gives the word an incorrect definition.TheRaven7 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is "asexual reproduction". Incidentally, discussion on the merge is at Talk:Sexual dysfunction. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As the top of the article says, what you're describing can be found at asexual reproduction. Many asexuals believe "asexuality" (and that's the term used to describe it) is an orientation; that is, lack of sex drive is a characteristic, rather than a symptom. Also note that the article on sexual dysfunction describes a problem or disorder, whereas this article describes people who feel no sexual attraction to other people. There's a big difference, and very little of the material in this article would be appropriate there. I guess a simpler way to put it is, asexuals feel "normal" and natural not seeking a sex life, while those with sexual dysfunction want to have sex but physiologically can't. Further, if your quibble is with the definition of the word "asexual," then one could just as easily claim this article is false because asexual humans still have functioning sex organs.  --Birdhombre 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is completely false. 

message: Being an asexual, and knowing a number of asexuals, are there actually asexuals who claim not to have sexual desire or attraction? This article at present seems to treat it as some sort of biological condition wherein individuals are not sexually attracted to one another. I don't see that as true at all. I generally consider asexuality more the sense that love and lust are incompatible, and that sex is unnecessary, awkward, and possibly even violent. It does not mean having no sex drive, but an opposition to sexual lust for other reasons. It simply sees acts such as cuddling, etc as more intimate and the ultimate expression of love and sexual intercourse as awkward and/or violent and thus acts of lust not compatible with or unnecessary in a loving relationship. Sarge Baldy 05:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it needs to be made clearer nearer the beginning of the article what the words asexual / asexuality mean in this context, with reference to the fact that they are still used rather loosely with several shades of meaning. Samantha of Cardyke 08:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to reword the header to accomodate more fairly. I'm not quite happy with it, so any adjustments would be appreciated. Sarge Baldy 08:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: These kinds of questions come up on AVEN  frequently. Some asexuals feel attraction to other people, but don't feel the need to act on it sexually, which is what you're describing. Many can be sexually aroused through physical stimulation, but their brain doesn't connect it to a human being. Some call themselves "aromantic" and don't seem to feel a strong attraction toward other people, other than just as friends. Still others have fetishes but consider themselves asexual because the sexual thoughts are limited to the fetish (i.e. they are attracted only to the fetish trait or object, and are still turned off by the thought of sexual intercourse or sex organs)... if that makes sense. --Birdhombre 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose it is rather broad and complex. I've also met asexuals who only see themselves as asexual in their relationships with one sex, but not with the other. I think I would maintain this is asexuality, but it confuses things even further. I would only like to see this page make a clear accomodation all manifestations, as some asexuals may otherwise be turned off to the term, thinking it is necessarily a form of sexual dysfunction. The FAQ on that page is quite useful, and (to me) really makes it clear that there are some clear commonalities amongst asexuals, especially with points such as "Many asexuals can see that other people are aesthetically attractive to them but see this beauty as no different from looking at a beautiful painting or a stunning sunset." Sarge Baldy 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The asexuals I know have a sex drive, but aren't interested in sex with other people. Perhaps these are different kinds of asexuals? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's probably the dominant form of asexuality, which is why I took issue with the old wording. Many (most? all?) asexuals have a lessened sex drive to varying extents, but having none whatever seems rather unlikely (although if such a physical condition existed, that individual would probably be asexual by default). Most want relationships based on affection, and some will have sexual relationships simply out of a lack of other options. Others (myself included) would rather remain indefinitely single than become involved sexually, although seeing that as simply the better of two evils, and not being happy about it. (Which is why asexual awareness is important.) And (hypothetically) there's some that would prefer not to have any relationships of any sort. (Although I've never heard of asexuals with certain characteristics, it's important to use an inclusive definition.) Sarge Baldy 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual desire/attraction? 

message: OKay see this quote: Some argue that it falls under the heading of hypoactive sexual disorder or sexual aversion disorder.
Both of these point to "Inhibited Sexual Desire". Should there really be 2 links to the same article AND neither of them actually be the title of said article? Seems a bit redundant to me is all. Maybe it is warranted, but Wikipedia seems to equate them both as the same thing? --143.238.88.142 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhibited Sexual Desire?? 

message: This article seems to have a big problem with inconsistently confusing celebacy with asexuality.  In the beginning of the article much care is given to convey the ambiguity that surrounds the definition of asexuality, and in the last line of the section titled Variations ("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.") a clear and correct distinction is made between celebacy and asexuality, But in the very next section (titled Asexuality and religion) this view is abandoned and priests, nuns, etc. are labled asexual rather than the more correct and accepted term: celebate. There is no evidence that these religous leaders did not experience sexual desires, they were merely remaining celebate as they believed it would please and honor God.  Therefore I am removing this statement, as well as changing the next sentence from "many conservative Christians" to "some conservative Christians" since the word "many" implies some sense of amount which we have no evidence to support any knowledge of, and the word "some" does not imply any sort of amount other than that there is more than none.
The same inconsistancy is appearant in the first line of the section titled Asexuality in fiction which labels a charecter who is devoting his life to chastity as asexual rather than celebate. Also, the first sentence of the next line seems more like an "I told you so" piece of evidence to support the earlier comments that sexuality is supressed in certain religions, and is definately not a good example of asexuality in fiction. I am therefore removing both of them.
--Mirabile Dictu 21:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction and Inconsistancy 

message: I've noticed a lot of strange generalities in this article, such as here: "...some asexuals believe that their lack of "base desires" allows them to feel a deeper spirituality, although other asexuals consider that an elitist attitude." Such uses of generalities create a sense of questionable accuracy. Was a national poll conducted on this subject? All of the wording seems to suggest a sense of myth or "he-said, she-said" -- it has a feel of "I heard it on the grapevine". Am I the only person with this objection?
:What precisely is your objection? You said yourself there's probably been no research or information-gathering on the subject, so how else exactly can anything be said on the subject without citing anecdotal references? So long as anecdotal references are clearly marked as such, they are perfectly reliable sources of what is the current state of widely-disseminated knowledge (or lack of it) on the subject. A citation is no more a garantor of accuracy than the lack of one ought to discredit an argument.
:Nuttyskin 03:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Choice 

message: Who added this:
:Ryan A. Morgan's 1997 novel John-Jack Christian tells about a teenager struggling to deal with his asexuality in a normal teenage environment, before resorting to bodybuilding to keep himself sane.
A Google search for "John-Jack Christian" turned up no such novel. None.--Rmky87 02:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "John-Jack Christian" 

message: I think this is something more related to over-shyness, involuntary celibacy, and/or other factors more then being an actual orientation.
: In the cases I've heard of, over-shyness and involuntary celibacy had nothing to do with the people not having sex. Frankly, I don't see how an uninformed opinion, from either me or you, helps anything.--Prosfilaes 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this real? 

message: I am going to remove the last sentence of paragraph two in the symbols section. It has been missing a citation since July of 2010. Also it is not that relevant to the explanation of the AVEN symbol.  Xadmanx (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, what was said in that sentence is also stated in the one below it, so it was redundant.Lauradronen (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols