Jump to content

Talk:Asexuality/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Famous alleged asexuals

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)


The list should be removed - I think it causes people to ignore all the factual information in the article, and unless these people have specifically came out and said, "I am asexual" no one can say that they are/were. They could very easily just be people with sexual adversion disorder, or closeted homosexuals, etc.


I agree that people who have never said they were asexual should not be on this list. Also, why on earth is Hitler on this list? Is this supposed to be a cheap insult to Asexuals? [edited to add: I have removed Hitler from this list]

As far as a I can see, David Jaye is the only one on this list that should be there - although if there are other famous people who identify as Asexual, then they should be added to the list, too. - Siobhan, Australia.

LGBT

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).

Actually, there are 2 communities now. One is the alternative sex-having community, or the LGB. The other is the KTIA community - Kleinfelters, True-Transsexuals, Intersexed, and Asexual. The first community is for alternative forms of sexuality, where sex is actually being performed. The KTIA contains only birth defects, medical conditions, and a lifestyle that is based on NOT having sex.--65.190.103.147 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Asexual does not mean celibate

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)

Variations

I fixed the miscount in the variations sections - someone had set it to three, instead of four

Lack sex drive, but have romantic attraction Lack sex drive and lack romantic attraction Lack romantic attraction, but have sex drive Have sex drive and romantic attraction

Asexuality in fiction

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)

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)
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)

I'm going to go ahead and edit those names out according to what you looked up (and I double checked) and see what happens. 155.68.101.139 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Matt

Tintin I really don't think a character like Tintin can be considered 'asexual'. Tintin was an adventure series which did not delve into the sexual or romantic lives of any of its characters, much like any other boy-oriented fiction at the time. The personal lives of all the characters are highly mysterious, to the extent that Tintin appears to have no family, is of indeterminate age, and spends hardly any time reporting, although he is a reporter by profession. Like all personal details, Tintin's sexual life is simply left out, and it is never implied that he is asexual.Cdeuskar 04:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Why is it there are so many fictional characters that are defined Asexual if there are only a handful of true famous "real" people that fit the Asexual persona? Does that mean that sexual people have a desire not to be sexual and admire those that are nonsexual, whether in fiction or non-fiction? (Tigerghost 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Celebacy in Christianity

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).

Why was Hitler excluded from this list?

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)


One thing that worries me about this page is that it seems to have been edited only by individuals with some personal (and therefore biased) interest in an article on "asexuality". As it stands, it doesn't quite seem to be non-NPOV, but it is still highly suggestive, using vague phrases such as "some people". Fuzzform 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the neutrality header to the top of the page (out of the section on religious asexuality) because the entire page needs a NPOV overhaul. Please discuss any objections/changes on this page before removing it. Fuzzform 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ABCD Classification

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)

It would appear so. If I were able to find a reliable source, I would change it myself right now. If I remember correctly (it's quite possible I don't), the article did use to mention all 4 types. My guess is that an overzealous editor removed Type C. After all, claiming asexuality while having both sexdrive and romantic attraction does sound a bit odd to the untrained ear. Mzyxptlk 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Question

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)


An Asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual lust. An Asexual can experience phyiscal, emotional and spiritual attraction to another person, but not sexual. I myself am hetro-asexual. That means I am attracted to women in every aspect bar sexual. I can look at a woman and think "she's beautiful" but the "I'd like to have sex with her right now" thought usually doesn't happen for Asexuals, although it can for some on the rare occasion.

"cannot bring themsevels to enjoy sexual encounters" sounds more like a fear of intimacy than Asexuality, if they are wanting to "bring themselves" to doing something sexually, but it may just be the wording of that. Asexuals do not "fear" sexual encounters, they simply do not find interest in them. Asexuality is a broad term for an orintation though, just like hetrosexuality and other forms of sexual and human oriantation, so it's hard to give a solid black and white answer for any issue pertaining to Asexuality.

Another Asexual in Fiction: Albus Dumbledore?

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)

Asexuality not a part of the LGBT

Removed rant irrelevant to the article.. 65.190.103.147 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious Section

I noticed the religious section was removed. The content of the original section may not have been good, but I do think there should be some mention of it. There are two reasons really a.) Most of the wiki articles dealing with sexual lifestyles have some reference to the religious or cultural attitudes of the practice b.) Many, perhaps most, of the world's religions have some teaching, theological tennant or practice that involves celebacy. 68.118.72.8 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


You do realize that asexuality is completely different from celibacy right? An asexual person cannot be celibate because celibacy requires abstaining from desire, and asexuals don't have the desire to abstain from.
Absolutely there is a difference. However, the definition of celebacy is not "abstaining from desire," but is rather (from the dictionary):
• an unmarried status
• chastity; abstaining from sexual relations (as because of religious vows)
An asexual person could certainly take part in a religious calling or tradition that involves the celibate life. 71.93.238.212 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Absolutely they could, but a person who abstains from sex due to a religious calling or tradition isn't automatically asexual. An asexual person can be celebate (sorry, I disagree with my learned colleague above; you can be asexual but not celebate), but a celebate person isn't always an asexual. 121.45.241.202 10:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bring back the list

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. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Differentiate between "sexual" and "romantic".

I think there should be an effort to differentiate between romantic feelings and sexual feelings pertaining to asexuals. Many asexuals desire romantic relationships but not sexual in nature. As we all know, sex and romance are not the same. I have replaced a reference of "sexual/romantic" to "sexual and/or romantic" to better describle how asexual human mentality can work.

Rewrite

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)

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 rather chaotic state and lacking in citations. If I have removed anything vitally important it can be added back in, but a new structure was badly needed. Paul Cox 02:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Check your user page. ~ ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace list

Hey, here is a suggestion, replace the list of fictional asexuals with documented and cited, true cases of people who are asexual such as John Harvey Kellogg, Ann Lee or Edward Gorey. (Tigerghost 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

None of the above are diagnosed Asexuals. All the evidence is questionable at best. They weren't even self-described asexuals. Xombie 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The List of Fictional Asexuals

I am not sure if it belongs in there as a list per se, but fictional is a problem as you assume that a character in a book, play, show, or film being asexual. You are only given a limited timefame in which to make assumptions. I will place it here for now until this debate is resolved. (Tigerghost 11:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

  • I think the number one asexual fictional character of all time has to be Mrs. Dalloway in the book of the same name by Virginia Woolf. Septimus Warren Smith is another character in that book who also appears to be asexual. I think both characters reflect Woolf's own problems with sexuality, at least when it came to men, including her husband, Leonard.
"Asex was really nothing but an umbrella term for a broad group of philosophies, styles of dress, cosmetic-surgical changes, and deep-biological alterations. The only thing that one asex person necessarily had in common with another was the view that vis gender parameters (neural, endocrine, chromosomal and genital) were the business of no one but verself, usually (but not always) vis lovers, probably vis doctor, and sometimes a few close friends. What a person actually did in response to that attitude could range from as little as ticking the 'A' box on census forms, to choosing an asex name, to breast or body-hair reduction, voice timbre adjustment, facial resculpting, empouchment (surgery to render the male genitals retractable), all the way to full physical and/or neural asexuality, hermaphroditism, or exoticism." (Distress, paperback ed., p. 45)
  • Herge's most famous character Tintin has no apparent romantic or sexual attraction to any other human beings.
  • Samuel R. Delany's 1969 short story "Aye, and Gomorrah..." depicts a society where astronauts (or "Spacers") are rendered sexless because cosmic radiation would otherwise damage their reproductive organs. Delaney's Spacers seek out "frelks", or individuals with a fetish for the asexual Spacers, and exploit them for money and amusement -- or possibly out of loneliness.
  • In the original Doctor Who television series (1963–1989), the Doctor was almost always depicted as asexual despite his regular stream of attractive young female companions. Since the First Doctor's initial companion, Susan Foreman, was introduced as his granddaughter, it is often assumed, but never confirmed, that the Doctor had had at one time in his early life a partner of the opposite sex with whom he had at least one child. The 1996 Doctor Who television movie caused some controversy among Doctor Who fans by having the Eighth Doctor passionately kiss, more than once, his companion Grace. In the new series (2005–), the Doctor is occasionally flirtatious, and has a romantically tinged relationship with his companion Rose Tyler. The episode "Human Nature" specifically contrasts his ability to love as a Time Lord as being decidedly different from that of a human, the possibility of romance without the core attraction. Actor David Tennant who currently plays the Tenth Doctor, has assured fans that the relationship is still celibate or "a love story without the shagging." as he puts it. See also The Doctor and romance.
  • Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is often regarded as another quintessentially asexual character. While his friend Doctor Watson is portrayed as charming and very much attracted to and, in the manner of a stereotypical Victorian gentleman, gallant towards various female characters, and indeed marries at least once, the detective dismisses dealings with women outside of his specific business as 'Your department, Watson' and even once sneeringly tells the doctor that 'the most winning woman' he ever knew committed infanticide for the insurance money. The story "A Scandal in Bohemia" (first published in the Strand Magazine in July 1891), however, introduces a female character whom Holmes admires excessively (she outwits him), and it opens with a frank explanation of the character's asexuality as it is seen by the narrator — as (almost) always, Doctor John Watson:
"To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. 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. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer – excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner 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. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his."
  • In the long-running Granada television series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes, one feature-length episode, The Master Blackmailer (1992) — expanded from Conan Doyle's short story "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" — had the detective seemingly developing feelings for a woman for once, but only while in character: disguised as a working man in order to infiltrate the household of the blackmailer, Milverton. Embarrassed and uncomfortable, he is nevertheless prepared to go as far as engagement in pursuit of the villain. Once out of the disguise, though, he reverts to normal and is dismissive of the poor girl.
  • In the K. Sandra Fuhr's online strips Boy Meets Boy and Friendly Hostility, the cynical Collin Sri'Vastra claims to be asexual. He later forms a relationship with his best friend Kailen "Fox" Maharassa, but his romantic/affectionate levels appear to be rather low, at least at the beginning.
  • One of the central characters of Isabel Allende's The House of Spirits, Clara, could be construed as asexual. In her later years, she expresses a lack of interest in coitus, commenting that it only makes her bones ache.
  • Nny from the comic Johnny the Homicidal Maniac is largely viewed as asexual, as he shows no sexual drive and, in several instances, shows disgust at the mere thought of sexual activity. He is quoted: "I spend enough time trying not to touch or be touched", he views sexual behavior as "submission to physical longing, all seek to enslave you". He aims to go one step further with this belief towards the end of the comic when he leaves to achieve total desensitization to his emotions which he believed would free him.
  • Haruhi Fujioka in the series Ouran High School Host Club does not show interest in either sex. Throughout it, many members of both sexes are attracted to her (she is androgynous in appearance and often mistaken for a boy) but she does not appear to show any interest in return, and nor is it entirely clear if she realises that other people are attracted to her.
  • Jughead Jones was, for several decades, perhaps the only character of the Archie gang who is not romantically interested in the opposite sex.
  • In John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany, the narrator appears to be asexual. There is a brief mention that, in his teens, he is introduced to several female peers and is clumsy and ineffective in his attempts to make love to them. He remains a virgin when the book ends. In early adolescence he is tied up face-to-face with a major character called Hester (who jokingly calls herself "Hester the molester"). Although both find the experience uncomfortable and embarrassing, Hester goes on to have a sexual relationship with the title character. Later in the book, the narrator is referred to by others as a "non-practicing homosexual", a term also used by the board of trustees to describe Dr. Wilbur Larch in Irving's novel The Cider House Rules.
  • Kouta Hirano's character Montana Max is asexual in both of his incarnations, as he appears in two works that have no connection to each other. In the graphic novel Coyote, which is, ironically, pornographic, Max claims that it was his mother's prostitution in his family's one-room home which alienated him from sexuality, and that the only thing he cares for is war. Max is featured in Hirano's later work, Hellsing, despite its having no ties to Coyote, as an almost identically apparently asexual character. In both works, his mental state is generally abnormal, as he has an obsessive love for war in all its manifestations, regardless of any suffering on his part.
  • Kerewin Holmes, lead character of Keri Hulme's novel The Bone People also confesses her own asexuality to Joe, and vehemently denies it being result of any kind of abuse at any stage in her life.
  • Spyros Deloglou (played by Giorgos Kapoutzidis), one of the main characters of the Greek sitcom Sto Para Pente, is commented by Dahlia to be asexual, after he confessed he had sexual intercourse only "one time and a half".
  • Paksenarrion Dorthansdotter, protagonist of the Tolkien-esque military fantasy trilogy The Deed of Paksenarrion, is an asexual woman. She has close friendships with men and women, but mentions 'she never wanted to' be with anyone sexually.
  • In the science fiction webcomic Saturnalia, one of the main characters and members of PACER, Ellipsis, is identified as asexual beginning in chapter 10, although she prefers the term "non-sexual."
  • In John Steinbeck's East of Eden Cathy is implied to be an asexual person. The author goes on to include his thoughts on the existence of asexuals:

What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality! The only drawback in that freedom is that without it one would not be a human. One would be a monster.

–John Steinbeck, East of Eden (1952), p. 74

  • In the novel Hard Love by Ellen Wittlinger, the character John Galardi Jr aka Gio tends to shy away from romantic relationships and during the course of the novel only develops one with a lesbian named Marisol. Many times he states that he has "no attraction to men or women."
  • In the Showtime television series Dexter, the benign murderer and protagonist, Dexter, begins the series as asexual. He later becomes sexually active, but without any substantial or noticeable drive.

Hello.

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)

Disputed neutrality

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)

Rewrite

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)

Rewrite (2)

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)

Because the article has undergone such basic changes, most of the Talk page was no longer relevant. I've moved everything to Archive 2 so we can start afresh.Paul Cox 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged asexuals

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)

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)
  1. ^ Morrissey (2002). The Importance of Being Morrissey (TV-Documentary). {{cite AV media}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://ralphnaderdocumentary.com/news.cfm?WhatID=79
  3. ^ http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html
  4. ^ http://www.nndb.com/people/864/000024792/

Criticism

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)

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)

To be honest I think the criticism page is pretty well done and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean they're aren't valid.

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)

The criticisms listed are common enough in literature and articles about asexuality as well as the asexual community that they might be considered common knowledge. They are brought up in the Melby article, so I've removed the citation needed tags and added more footnotes pointing to that source. It's really inelegant, but ideally that will clear things up for now. Citriodora 08:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

I've moved three sections (below) here, pending citations. Fireplace 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That seemed like a very hasty move to Talk, particularly considering the scarcity of published work on asexuality and the time and effort it takes to find reliable sources for this subject. I've made a good start on rewriting and sourcing those sections, so I'm moving them back to the light of day, sans flags. They still need work but they're sourced now and as they're all important parts of the article they should be visible. I'm also moving the individual removed from "famous asexuals" to the Talk page's "alleged asexuals" section above, per Paul's earlier guideline for this article. Citriodora 21:24, 18 September 2007

(UTC)

What the Hell?

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)

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)
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)

I don't understand why they'd do it if they have no interest in it. Though, if your male dog is neutered, they still feel pleasure by being stimulated, the nerves are still there, just they have no attraction to other dogs. And since asexuals have no attraction to other people, why would they do it? It seems an obvious contradiction, they have no interest but they do it anyway? Why? You are never required to do it, it's not like taking out the trash, something that needs to be done out of necessity. Sex doesn't The snare (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Duh. Peer pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.228.83 (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree with the statement that MANY asexuals have sex; some do. The reasons for some asexuals having sex is to please their partner/spouse, peer pressure, etc.... As an asexual I have felt required in the past to perform sexually for my spouse. Being asexual means there is no desire to have sex; it does not mean one is incapable of having sex. --JustJasen (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How do men get erections though?97.81.53.142 (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Issac Netwon

There are, in fact, several sources which can be used to back up the assertion that, at the very least, he was very likely to have been an asexual. According to this article, for example, historical accounts indicate that Newton was noted by his contemporaries of lacking any kind of romantic or sexual interest in either men or women:

Many friends of Isaac Newton believed he was just too into his work to notice women, or even men for that matter. Isaac Newton was such an accomplished person in every respect that it was just assumed that maybe he couldn't make time for romance. But, those who were closest to him realized that he seemed to lack sexual attraction or even a desire for sex. Close friends and family knew that Isaac Newton just wasn't quite like everyone else, but in 1727 when he died there wasn't much data about asexuality so he sort of died as a sexual and social mystery in many people's minds.

While it is true that there are no direct evidence of his asexuality (such as him personally stating that he is one), one has to also consider the fact that there was no such term back then and all available details on his bio provide obvious clues that he would have been most certainly labeled asexual had he lived in our times. Perhaps stating that he was an "alleged", "likely" or "suspected" asexual could prove to be a viable alternative? Or, perhaps we can create another section, entitled "Alleged famous asexuals"? Albert Wincentz (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Albert, I moved Newton here because NNDB is a highly disputed source. I've also read various things about Newton's suspected asexuality, but never in verifiable third party published sources.
On the topic of having an "Alleged famous asexuals" section, this is a slippery slope. The old article, before Pollen's rewrite, was almost entirely a subjective list of historical and fictional characters suspected of being asexual. In the interests of sticking to encyclopedic info, I would err on the side of caution and avoid speculating about individuals' a/sexuality. The article you link mentions Ruskin, and I've also seen speculation that he was a pedophile or had a sexual phobia. Unless multiple biographers agree, I'd hestitate to put anything here about historical figures. As Pollen wrote above, such speculation would be more at home in the individual's own article. Citriodora (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to criticisms

Being a young(23) asexual myself, I completely agree with the sexual development argument about this. I must however make people aware that like being gay, most people dont see this as a choice they made; it is just a natural way of life. I had a strong libido as a teenager but then it died out. I now have no sexual desire whatsoever. This is related to depression issues as well as abuse issues. I will be flat out, I have been abused by adults of both genders. I think as a result of those experience I am an asexual because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandanwh (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I would suggest an anti-depressant! They're very effective.
Also, all these discussions about the existence or non existence of asexuality are technically Original Research, and should probably happen somewhere other than Wikipedia.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional asexuals

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)


>>I think the section on fiction Asexuals should just be removed. It adds no useful content because fictional characters are fictional and therefore are not a good basis for describing asexuality. Now if there was a fictional character created to make a point about asexuality, I would be all for that but the current references are not need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.84.53.117 (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


>>Spongebob's not asexual anyway, not by this definition. That's a quip on Hillenberg's part-Spongebob is a sponge and sponges reproduce asexually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.195.239.153 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper representation of sources.

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)

Clarification of the different meaning of asexual.

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)

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)
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)
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))

"as in not wanting anything to do with intimacy, sex, having a partner, etc." That's called being a-romantic/aromantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.211.220 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Romantic

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)

David Jay

Can someone explain why he's always removed. He invented asexuality for god's sake Whelanmk (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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))
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)

Asexual symbols

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)

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 [1] [2] or AVEN's own wiki [3] 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)

How do you show these citations once you have them, by any chance?87.127.137.174 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Nonsexuality

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)

  • It was the only source i could find, but there are many forums within the asexual community that refer to themselves in the nonsexual sense as a way of easing people into the concept of asexuality. The word nonsexual already redirects to the asexual page as well. It is a notable phrase among the asexual community; finding a much more reliable source is challeging though; I can't use forums. (Tigerghost (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Dante Lucato

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)

Motive? WTF?

The motives section is not neutral, poorly written, and seems out of place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.182.143 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The section carefully avoids discussing whether asexuality, like any sexuality, is determined by mainly biological predetermination or culture. In one individual both are factors and therefore choice is applicable. We often consider a person heterosexual if they're in a lasting mixed-gender marriage; that standard of judgment is not biologically valid, but probably is sociologically valid and is popularly accepted, so that if, say, being Lesbian/gay was suppressed in adolescence and the person accepted that and entered a heterosexual life, people differ on whether that person is subsequently heterosexual. Politically, for the sake of civil rights, we should accept people being Lesbian or gay and reject most antigay conversion attempts, but politics itself generally doesn't make anyone Lesbian/gay or asexual, that decision generally not being for political activists to make but for individuals to live in the course of time. If we accept that people are each authoritative about their own respective sexualities, the article's section is neutral on point.
Feminism itself, and profeminism within feminism, are controverted. There are points of view on both. But simply mentioning them is neutral within WP. And WP discusses both in other articles.
Other motives can be added. Room was left for that purpose; rather than expand on feminism's role, it's mentioned, and other motivations might be mentioned in the future. Add as you wish.
I don't see another article on asexuality to which to move the section, so this article is the best page for it.
Nick Levinson (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone at an IP (not the above commenter's) deleted the Motive section and citation without explanation. If you want it out, please explain. I answered the above criticism and no one wrote a better passage. The Celibacy article lists asexuality under motivations, not ideally describing it but justifying the extension into this article. So, meanwhile, I put the deleted text back. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I fail to see the point of the section. It is only one sentence long, and I'm puzzled as to what its getting at. (Tigerghost (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
Thanks. Treat the section as a section stub or section starter and add whatever is apropos. I assume other people have sources. Perhaps some of the celibacy article's similar section should be moved to this one according to appropriateness for each subject, which depends on semantic differences between the articles' subjects. As to the section's point, people have reasons for their choices, and that's what the section acknowledges. The view that sexuality is natural and therefore we don't control anything sexual that we do is too extreme to be justifiable. At any rate, feel free to add. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There are certainly motivations to identifying as asexual (such as justifying being single) but I'm not so certain "identifying" and "becoming" are the same thing. However... that is somewhat irrelevant. Asexuality describes a state of not desiring sex. Asexuals still can partake in sex, and a few do. Celibacy is a state of choosing not to partake in sex, regardless of whether or not one wants it. Therefore, some asexuals may be celibate (perhaps the majority), but some may not. Based on a small synopsis post here about the article "For Men Only: Asexuality" (the source cited for the sole sentence under the motivation category), celibacy seems to be the term the author was looking for. Why he picked "asexuality" I do not know... but the concept of "refraining from sexual relationships" certainly qualifies as celibacy, which, as stated, is not asexuality. (Presumably the men who refrain from sex would still desire it...)
The historical lay definitions waver at the boundaries between 'must' and 'may', between 'physical possibility' and 'impossibility', and between self-chosen or imposed by another and, being lay, those definitions are permeated by more subjectivity and heterosexist bias (derived from a very intense global social obligation probably stronger than statute to marry or secondarily otherwise to couple and then to reproduce); modern professional definitions appear to be more reliable and internally consistent. Even so, American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1992) includes for asexual "[l]acking interest in or desire for sex", which is at least more specific about cause than Webster's Third New International Dict. (Merriam, 1966) or Shorter Oxford Eng. Dict. ([4th ed.] 1993). A University of Chicago study titled The Social Organization of Sexuality and also titled Sex in America (two books on one study and sharing some coauthors) more professionally defined heterosexuality and homosexuality as being in such a relationship, wanting to be, or self-identifying as heterosexual or homosexual, respectively; if bisexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality agree on all elements other than whom a partner might or might not be, the parallel fourth term is asexuality. We can't isolate nature from nurture and we don't have a test, to my knowledge, for finding out who's genetically L/gay, het, bi, or a, and I think if such a test existed employers and religious bodies would be administering it all day, so it's probably safe to assume there's no such test; so we can't determine who's biologically asexual or celibate by checking genes. We can infer genetic distributions from cross-cultural statistics of large populations but that doesn't say much about any individual. In short, I don't think asexuality and celibacy are definitionally as cleanly separable as hydrogen and helium or ostriches and penguins, and we'll have to live with squishy popular definitions or turn to somewhat more precise scientific ones. Thus, asexuality appears to fit. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Minor correction to citation and minor wording correction: Nick Levinson (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the section on Motive. My reason:

If you are going to say "Insofar as asexuality is a chosen orientation" I really think it is necessary to provide some sort of evidence that asexuality is a chosen orientation (else there is no point to be made). To suggest that people are choosing their sexual orientation is very contentious and runs dangerously close to being offensive (think about what would happen if you suggested this in the homosexuality article). Therefore, if you believe that people are choosing their orientation as "asexual" (as opposed to choosing their behaviour) some evidence is really needed. Discussion about whether sexual orientation (in general) is a choice or is innate does not belong here, on a specific sexuality topic. If asexuality is a valid orientation -and no one has provided evidence otherwise- then it should be treated as per Homosexuality and Bisexuality where "motive" is not mentioned. Orientalmoons (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the only source was one by a Nick Levinson. User:Nick Levinson, if that is you, I trust that you have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and that you realize that restoring the section without more discussion is not the best idea. Personally, I don't see much for that to require its own section as of yet; if there are more sources, especially independent, third-party ones supporting this, then by all means go ahead. Otherwise, I don't see the point.  fetchcomms☛ 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for waiting.
It is controversial. Were all controversy banned, this whole article and many others would be gone. Its history page (via comparison of article versions for diffs) shows controversy. Much of that controversy, however, is misplaced: Human asexuality exists and reading about it is not perverse, for example, and therefore the controversy to the contrary did not justify removing the article's content, and it was put back, which was correct. The question is not just whether content is controversial but, at least in part, whether the controversy itself is intellectually significant. Asexuality, feminism, and profeminism are all controversial, and probably so in most major societies around the world, but the articles on them stay in Wikipedia, and properly so. That asexuality is a sexual orientation is recognized in Wikipedia in the asexuality article (see the sidebar titled "Sexual orientation" and see the WP category page for sexual orientation) and left open in the sexual orientation article ("[t]he continuum between heterosexual and homosexual does not suit everyone, however, as some people identify as asexual" (footnote omitted)). That seems determinative of WP community perceptions regarding asexuality being a sexual orientation and therefore that the point is not so controversial as to deny it a place in WP. Someone being offended if the information they're offended at is accurate and relevant (and not in a BLP) is not WP's concern. Further, many articles have sections stating controversies, and they do not normally get deleted. In this article, the motive section was not even controverting asexuality or any motivation. It was providing an explanation, one of several available, with room for more should anyone wish to add them, and was germane.
The divide between innateness and choosability has long impacted the discussion of sexual orientation. Two sociologists and two other academics in 1994 addressed this. "[T]wo major camps [in "recent writing and thinking about homosexuality"] (and many minor variants of . . . [the two]) can be found both in popular thought and in more theoretical and scientific debates. These two perspectives have come to be called essentialism and social constructionism ([Michel] Foucault [The History of Sexuality (N.Y.: Pantheon)] 1978; [David F.] Greenberg [The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press)] 1988; [David M.] Halperin [One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love (N.Y.: Routledge)] 1990; [Edward] Stein [(ed.), Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy] 1992).3" "3. . . . People who accept one basic viewpoint or the other can hold either pro- or anti-gay beliefs. Social constructionism was mainly developed by pro-gay intellectuals. . . . [T]oday, many gay people are strong believers in some version of essentialism." Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, cloth, [1st printing? printing of 1994?] 1994), p. 284 & n. 3.
Many Lesbians and gays do posit gayness as biologically determined. They may be partly right; there's some evidence in support; there's enough evidence that I agree that there is partially biological determinism by prenatal biology, probably including genetic and chromosomal. But partially biological determinism is not exclusively biological determinism, the evidence is incomplete, and scientists don't know enough biology to be sure of exclusively biological determinism; see, e.g., work by Dean Hamer. Many of the people who want exclusively biological explanations will be offended and will raise controversies, just as hets who believe in exclusively biological explanations will raise controversies in their direction against environmental influence because the hets want more hets to foster population growth, but no one has nailed down biology well enough to eliminate culture as a determinant. Until exclusivity is proven, partially biological determination without known exclusivity means part of the determination is likely nonbiological. The nonbiological part is acculturation (culture being whatever is learned); this is what is referred to as environment.
L/G leaders' claim of biological innateness is a rational political response to how civil rights are achieved in the U.S. and perhaps other nations, given general resistance to civil rights except among beneficiaries. If homosexuality is changeable, then civil rights are largely unavailable, because, it is argued, a gay should just become het, for which there's lots of het support. If it's not changeable, persecution may be ended by rendering persecution ineffectual. Getting civil rights is faster or easier if the ground of discrimination is immutable ("[p]roving people are born gay would give them wider social acceptance and better protection against discrimination, many gay rights advocates argue" and "[s]ome advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights", What Makes People Gay?, by Neil Swidey, in The Boston (Mass.) Globe, August 14, 2005, as accessed Feb. 21, 2010) and we accept single-human-generation genes as immutable for all practical purposes.
A reasonably nuanced position is that by the attorney (and former U.S. Solicitor General) preparing to argue in the U.S. Supreme Court for same-sex marriage rights, which suggests extensive preparation in anticipation of questions Supreme Court Justices may happen to ask: "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed." Theodore B. Olson, The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage: Why Same-Sex Marriage Is an American Value., in Newsweek, vol. CLV, no. 3, Jan. 18, 2010, p. 52, col. 1 (emphasis added). He does not say that it's immutable; he says only that it's as immutable or mutable as heterosexuality.
The political cause is legitimate, but it is not enough to deny that at least partially environmental determinism exists.
That environment at least possibly contributes to or correlates with sexual orientation is accepted in Wikipedia, including environment exclusive of hormones. In general, environment includes both pre- and postnatal.
Whether sexual orientation is wholly innate or partly environmental, sexual orientation is at least deeply rooted within us. The consequence of the depth is that most people only rarely or never change their sexual orientations, much as most people only rarely or never change their major religious faiths, and there's little or no case for biological determinism of religious affinity. Many older teens and younger adults experience several kinds of sexual/nonsexual relationships. Whether they were only temporarily diverging from their sexual orientations or were permanently changing can only be known the same way we know someone's sexual orientation.
In determining a person's sexual orientation, only three methods are even conceptually available (as far as I know), and, of these, only one is feasible.
"One way of assessing . . . ["sexual orientation"] is to ask people the basic question about the gender of their sexual partners." Joseph A. Catania, Diane Binson, John Peterson, and Jesse Canchola, The Effects of Question Wording, Interviewer Gender, and Control on Item Response by African American Respondents, in John Bancroft, ed., Researching Sexual Behavior: Methodological Issues (Bloomington, Ind.: Ind. Univ. Press (Kinsey Institute ser., vol. V (papers from an international meeting)), 1997) (authors Joseph Catania assoc. prof., med., Univ. California at San Francisco, id., p. 437, & John Peterson assoc. prof., psychology, Georgia State Univ., id., pp. 441–442 (other 2 authors' bios not stated), & ed. "trained in medicine at Cambridge University and in psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, London", "has been Director of The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction", & prof., psychiatry, Indiana Univ., id., p. 437), p. 112.
In answering such a question, most people do not know their own genes or ever had them relevantly tested and so cannot rely on genes to state or explain their own sexual orientations. Thus, most people when describing or naming their sexual orientations are relying on other kinds of self-knowledge, which questioning generally does not restrict, so that culture will often shape answers people give, and therefore shape the data on how many people have each orientation. That self-knowledge includes self-perception, which, by definition, is subjective, not objective; and it is susceptible to change over time as people take their changing self-perceptions into account.
The second major method of assessing sexual orientation is observation of behavior. This is predominantly the popular method. If we see a man arm-in-arm with a woman and they both seem to be of approximately the same age, we as laics usually assume they're heterosexual. If we see a man reading or flipping through a well-known porn magazine, we as laity assume he's heterosexual. But if we see the same thing in single-sex form, we often assume someone's wrong, in error, or "confused". Laity don't generally apply parallel standards, leaning toward heterosexual in their judgments as often as possible. Even being heterosexually married, by itself, is not reliable proof of heterosexuality, when either spouse may be of another sexual orientation and when same-sex marriage is ilegal in most venues and asexual marriage as proof of sexual orientation is a contradiction in terms. Laics' conclusions sometimes go to claims of everyone being het, claiming that gays (and presumably Lesbians and bisexuals) are merely "confused", which, unless some are left out, means thinking absolutely everyone is really het. (I disagree about "confusion".) At a scientific level, I'm unaware of any assessment of a substantial population conducted by observations without inquiry and using parallel definitions. Were one performed, it is virtually certain that asexuality as a sexual orientation would be indistinguishable when single individuals who are bi-, hetero-, or homosexual are observed as single, e.g., when running neighborhood errands or while at their employments.
Even determining from behaviors requires limiting to chosen behaviors, to be scientific. Determining from nonchosen behaviors is not indicative of sexual orientation, although more than a few families and communities heterosexualize females by forcing them into heterosexual relationships (e.g., by so-called corrective rape) and believe they have thereby either established or reinforced the females' sexual orientations wanted by the families and communities. That is a type of case where sexual orientation is largely irrelevant or hidden and behavior is properly distinguished from sexual orientation.
If someone by choice has a sexual experience that runs counter to one's sexual orientation and enjoys it and never has such an experience again, we may wonder what their sexual orientation during that experience was. A gay man said he was once heterosexual for "five minutes". Sexual orientation being deep, it doesn't change for five minutes and then flip back. That's simply behavior that's an exception to the person's sexual orientation. So, despite the five minutes, I don't doubt his gayness for the time or since.
The third method of determining sexual orientation is the objective method of studying a body, e.g., extracting a gene or a chromosome. So far, the science is inadequate and so no such method is feasible.
Whether asexuality can be established at the time of birth is unknown, according to clinical psychologist Robyn Salisbury. She disputes asexuality if a person so self-describing is autoerotic, which is incorrect reasoning if most adults are autosexual since then most adults are bisexual and not heterosexual, but, even so, within her opinion, subtracting autoerotic asexuals presumably leaves some asexuals existing. No Sex Please, We're Asexual, by Shelley Bridgeman, in (New Zealand) Herald News, Aug. 5, 2007, as accessed Feb. 20, 2010.
Thus, the only practical method is to ask individual people about their own respective sexual orientations.
But a person can answer differently over time, just as a person's sexual-orientation-determining behavior may change over time. So if a person changes what they say about self then counts of sexual orientation will change over time (all else equal). That sexual orientation may change is recognized without arguing that people should change them: "Most people are heterosexual, a proportion of the population is homosexual, and for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span. . . ." Susan Moore and Doreen Rosenthal, Sexuality in Adolescence: Current Trends (E. Sussex/London: Routledge (Adolescence and Society ser.), 2d ed., pbk., 2006), p. 48 (emphasis added) (authors respectively developmental social psychologist, Swinburne Univ. Melbourne, & developmental psychologist, Univ. of Melbourne, id., cover IV). Example: See the German study with a large drop over years in reported homosexuality. Example: Where therapy or religion is used to try to change someone's sexual orientation, whether it works depends largely on the person's wish to change or not. It's usually resisted, so it usually doesn't work. A resisted attempt may result in a change to surface or short-term behavior, but that is not generally to sexual orientation. Such efforts are politically offensive because they are almost always heterosexist and politically antigay but that alone doesn't say whether the methods work. If a person afterwards and for the rest of their lives self-identifies as het and is in het relationships and if we didn't know the person up to the time of the change and so never know of the change or the change attempt, I don't know how any scientist would determine that person's sexual orientation as anything other than het. Whether the data are due to people changing or lying (if they consistently lie) cannot be distinguished scientifically. If most sexual intercourse is procreational or intended to be symbolically procreational, most should be heterosexual; but if most is recreational and/or relational then arguably it's as likely to be homosexual as heterosexual; I don't know of data that would tease that apart and tell us whether sexual orientation absent environment would be far more homosexual than reports now suggest. So in determining sexual orientations we're left with statements and that means we're left with sexual orientation sometimes being partly determined by a person's changing.
Given that a person can change, the change can have reasons, and that means the person can have reasons, i.e., motivations.
Many object to having to have reasons (many discussions at AVEN's website iterate those objections) but that does not deny that a person can have reasons. Someone can eat whatever for dinner without agreeing to a reason. I can eat the identical dinner because it gives me nutrition I need and/or because I want hunger to go away. Regardless, we can both eat. Someone being asexual without a reason does not deny that someone can be asexual for a reason. And I have to question how any variation in our lives can occur without a reason of some kind, perhaps genetic or one of choice, but, recognized or not, nonetheless a reason.
Some individual asexuals have written of their reasons. This is not a random sample or otherwise a systematic study, but merely some exemplars in a single-website search. That they're anecdotal is irrelevant to their credibility as personal statements; no attempt is made to project population percentages. The selection here favors those self-statements that suggest or state causation rather than correlation; a person is generally the best expert on their own self. The language of these exemplars is not always precise or neatly bounded to fit standardized categories. Studies that achieve precision or neatness in their results tend to require respondents to conform their individual responses into preset categories, so these asexuals' answers being not easily categorizable may reflect greater accuracy in reflecting asexuals' reasons.
One asexual's stated reason is that they "see sex as both [non-"inherent . . ."] abuse ["ridiculous, embarrassing, (emotionally) hurtful" ("it seems fundamentally silly to me")] and worship ["where appearance overrides any consideration of personality"] at the same time." One Reason Why I Don't Like Sex, comment #1, Sep. 26, 2008, by fangless (user), as accessed Feb. 28, 2010 (noninherence is stated in id., comment #20, Sep. 28, 2008, by same individual). The person added, "Me personally, I don't find sex fun." Id., comment #20.
Another asexual said, "[a]s an asexual, I can say I've never seen sex as anything natural or anything more than a complication. . . ." "I don't want anyone to touch most parts of my body, let alone tear one open. I don't want someone to have been nice to me just to get in my skirt, and I don't want someone to really have interest in me but then have it be overridden by their sex drive. I hate the idea of daterape and the related drugs, and I don't want to participate in the power struggle. I don't want someone to be that close to me . . . ." One Reason Why I Don't Like Sex, comment #16, Sep. 27, 2008, by Cheerio_Koroke (user), as accessed Feb. 28, 2010.
Another asexual said, "What I really think is that I feel narrowed down when in a relationship and all too random when sexually active. Both together are absolute chaos." My Reason For Being Asexual, comment #1, Mar. 20, 2005, abc55555 (user), as accessed Feb. 28, 2010.
One person described himself as an asexual ("I am asexual") partly by choice ("[t]his is, in part, a choice I have made" clarified to "[a]sexuality, for me, has not exactly been a choice, any more than being gay is a choice" and "[t]he choice, perhaps, is in being out as asexual") and as such partly because he wants to be "consistent with . . . [his] values to not exploit, violate, harm, and otherwise oppress others with sex, or be oppressed, harmed, violated, and exploited by the systems . . .") (Compulsory Sexuality and Asexual Existence, by Julian Real, Wednesday, December 9, 2009, as accessed Feb. 20, 2010).
Sexual abuse in one's history may be a motivation for asexuality. One clinical psychologist, Robyn Salisbury, of New Zealand, described one male who self-described as asexual and said "that he'd been horrifically sexually abused and was making a very valid choice for himself to not engage in that aspect of life." No Sex Please, We're Asexual, ibid.
It's likely that some asexuality is motivated by religiosity, not that of the most populous faith communities that demand heterosexuality but that of individuals having affinities with faith communities interpreting their faiths. That is, a person may be affiliated with a faith community and stand for a religious position that is not the official teaching of that religious body. Nonetheless, if their motivation for asexuality is based on that person's faith, regardless of what officialdom says, it is a religious motivation.
Lesbian/gay orientation may offer us some analogies to asexual orientation.
In the case of Lesbianism, some Lesbians have self-reported their own reasons. The following excludes reports that appear to be about particular relationships only; these are statements that are more general and therefore more about sexual orientation. "'Personally, I like girls better, they are more tender and loving.'" Shere Hite, The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality (N.Y.: Seven Stories Press, 2004 ed. pbk. [1st printing?] © 1976, 1981, 2004) (ISBN 1-58322-569-2), p. 325 (including bracketed insertion). "'It's much easier for me to give myself emotionally to a woman, to surrender my ego'". Id., p. 326. "'I find women better lovers; they know what a woman wants and most of all there is an emotional closeness that can never be matched with a man. More tenderness, more consideration and understanding of feelings, etc.'" Ibid. "'With women there is . . . a lot more touching and affection. There is not any particular procedure [except "'. . . to produce orgasm . . .'"]. Women are warmer, more mutual, careful to see how I'm reacting, as opposed to most men, and sex is much slower. Women consider the whole body erotic . . . .'" Ibid. "'Women seem to have a more sustained energy level after orgasm, and are more likely to know and do something about it if I'm not satisfied. . . .'" Ibid. "'There was . . . much more kissing and holding than with men, and much more concern for my pleasure. I felt greater, much more free, than with men.'" Id., p. 327. "'I have been a lesbian for two years . . . . Physically, sexual relationships with women have been much more pleasurable than with men. Psychologically too, because the women I've had sex with have been my friends first, which was never the case with men. Being friends sets up a trust that I think is essential for satisfying physical intimacy. Relating to another woman physically seems to me like the most natural thing in the world. You've already got a head start on knowing how to give her pleasure. Gentleness seems to be the key, and is the main difference between relating to men and women.'" Ibid. "'Sex is better with women physically and emotionally. Women are much more sensitive to other people's needs probably as a result of our servile programming. . . . Also, I like the fact that women can't rape each other. I also like the aesthetic symmetry—'twin' aspect—as well as the power symmetry.'" Ibid. "'. . . . In general, my female lovers have taken far more creative and varied approaches to lovemaking [than have "'men in my heterosexual career (when I was twenty until I was twenty-eight)'"]. All of them, however, began by being incredibly gentle and aware of my needs, as well as theirs. . . . Twenty minutes for a man, at least an hour with a woman, usually more.'" Id., p. 328. "'Lesbian sex is very different from sex with men. It is not an 'exchange' or a 'trade' or services, . . . it is not demand (orgasm) oriented. . . .'" Ibid. "'Sex with a woman means independence from men.'" Id., p. 330. "'Because of my own tremendous conditioning, which I believe is almost universal, it is almost impossible for me to have a truly healthy sexual relationship with a man . . . .'" Ibid. "'Sex with women is more of a communion with self . . . . But men are usually juvenile in some way and so one gets emotionally wasted with them.'" Ibid. "'I am currently thinking of lesbianism as an alternative to abstinence, and to men in general, because they are not very liberated sexually or emotionally or any other way, and I can't stand it anymore.'" Ibid. "'Lesbianism in my view is a far-out alternative to always being underneath some man and being a baby machine.'" Ibid. "'I see lesbianism as putting all my energies (sexual, political social, etc.) into women. Sex is a form of comfort and to have sex indiscriminately with males is to give them comfort. I think it should be seriously considered.'" Ibid.
A parental role in establishing one's sexual orientation is unclear, but not ruled out.
"Different aspects of sexual orientation may be influenced to a greater or lesser degree [p. 303:] by experiential factors such that sexual experimentation with same-gender partners may be more dependent on a conducive family environment than the development of a gay or lesbian identity." Susan E. Golombok & Fiona L. Tasker, Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?, in J. Kenneth Davidson, Sr., & Nelwyn B. Moore, Speaking of Sexuality: Interdisciplinary Readings (Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Publishing, 2001) (ISBN 1-891487-33-7), pp. 302–303 (adapted from same authors, Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families, in Developmental Psychology (American Psychological Association), vol. 32, 1996, 3–11) (author Susan Golombok prof. psychology, City Univ., London, id., p. xx, & author Fiona Tasker sr. lecturer, Birkbeck Coll., Univ. of London, id., p. xxiii).
"Whereas there is no evidence from the present investigation to suggest that parents have a determining influence on the sexual orientation of their children, the findings do indicate that by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children's sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian, or gay." Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?, ibid., in Speaking of Sexuality, id., p. 303 (adapted per id., p. 303).
"No significant associations were found between same-gender sexual interest in adulthood and . . . the mother's political involvement . . . ." Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?, ibid., in Speaking of Sexuality, id., p. 301 (adapted per id., p. 301).
A possibly-useful book is La Révolution Asexuelle, originally in French, by Jean-Philippe de Tonnac, and translated into English as The Asexual Revolution. What confuses me is that the author, according to Asexual Satisfaction, in Psychologies, as accessed Feb. 20, 2010, "has studied the conscious and subconscious motives of those practising abstinence". If the author studied abstinence only or conflated it with asexuality, the findings are not relevant. Since I don't know how to read much French and the English is a translation, I don't want to dig the book up and try to determine what the author originally wrote. But if the author really centered on asexuality, this might be a valuable compendium of motives.
Why we have sex with a partner, when we choose to at all, itself has been classified into several motivations. The Social Organization of Sexuality, id., p. 511 & n. 1, identifies three frequent and at least two infrequent normative orientations, the three major being procreational, recreational, and relational, translating into apparent benefit for a baby, for oneself, and for one's partner, respectively. (A percentage distribution is in The Social Organization of Sexuality, id., pp. 520–521.) Many nonsexual relationships are caring relationships that don't follow genderal sexual orientations (e.g., a heterosexual may have a same-gender nonsexual friendly relationship and usually does); if one, just one, of those nonsexual relationships becomes sexual by choice then we may consider that that person's sexual orientation has changed, and has changed due to a motive of doing something the other person wanted. And these normative orientations, applying to homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality, are applicable to asexuality, as beneficial to other people who might otherwise be sexual partners, as beneficial or pleasant to oneself, or (rarely) as not interfering with hopes for the results of pregnancy by artificial insemination involving a desired biological partner (the medical veracity not being important, only the perception of it). Conversely, motives are available for not having sex with a partner or for not having a partner.
In summary, all we know germanely of sexual orientation is that it is deeply held but not its biological component's composition, the only reliable measures we have of it are behavioral and self-verbal, and people change their statements and behaviors. For a claim that it never changes in anyone, the burden of proof is on those who so claim. I don't think that claim can be proven.
Changes have reasons, although they're not always articulated. Since sexual orientation is partly environmentally caused and environment includes the social, the reasons can be social. That only leaves determining which reasons apply. There being over 6 billion people in the world, many of them adults, the existing reasons may be very numerous.
If the heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality Wikipedia articles do not mention motivations, they can.
The asexuality article's Motive section carefully and clearly did not posit whether a sexual orientation is exclusively essentialist or genetic. It wasn't necessary so to posit for the section to be relevant to the article. We know of sexual orientation that it is deep and persistent and that culture is part of its causation. It is legitimate to discuss a cultural factor, or several cultural factors, of a sexual orientation.
I read often about many subjects and write about some of them. It's not a conflict of interest to have written elsewhere since what I write here is not pushing a POV, any commercial or familial interest, interests of associates of mine to my knowledge, or an autobiography and none of my writings so far get me paid and I'm not contracted to be paid for any of them. And if there were a conflict of interest, the COI policy does not justify deletion.
I've sought bias in the section's content and I have not found it. Mentioning the existence of feminism or profeminism is not bias; it's relevant and true and they're written about more extensively on the linked-to pages, not in the asexuality article, so the mentions are not duplicative.
I don't mind invitations to add more content, including more sources. I hadn't earlier mainly because I conserve my time. I've assumed that if an editor wrote a biographical article that included a death date but no birthdate because the editor didn't know it (not uncommon for many entertainers) the article could still be posted with addition of the birthdate being up to any editor who had the information handy later and saw a need to include the information, assuming all other criteria for posting were met. I've therefore assumed that anyone was free to add material about motivations for any sexual orientation, including asexuality. I still assume that.
I think I've now answered all pending criticisms of the Motive section (now renamed Motives and generally edited). If not, please post what you consider still open.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Minor correction only: Nick Levinson (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Minor corrections only (cite-date error, category link doesn't work like other WP links (so delinked), & added 3 WP links): Nick Levinson (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • My impression is that WP:TLDR apart, this is an overt attempt to introduce, if not original research, an impermissible synthesis of disparate sources in order to introduce novel material into this article. The background is simply that I have never seen any academic analysis of sexuality that seriously discusses "motivation", and my academic experience is largely limited to "nature vs nurture" debates, in which volition, and (it follows) motivation has no place. So this is a new theory that really does require valid academic acceptance before it is acceptable here. We are not publishers of original thought here. I remain to be convinced that this topic is generally accepted in academia, not only in relation to asexuality, but in relation to sexuality generally, because if it is so, it should not be so limited. Rodhullandemu 02:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad the last respondent is an attorney who has considered the subject, but this is within psychology, and I drew on the research of specialists in psychology for the Talk piece above to justify including the article's section. While, in the nature-versus-nurture realm, nature largely does not admit volition, nurture most certainly does include volition and therefore motivation. A person's ability to make choices, whether inherent in nature or not, is inherently nurturable. You were doubtless taught to make choices; that teaching was part of your being nurtured. According to Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, ed. 16 8th print 1989) (ISBN 0-8036-8310-3), a nursing-level medical dictionary, "nature and nurture" means "[t]he combination of an individual's genetic constitution and the environmental conditions to which he or she is exposed. . . ." and "environment" means "[t]he surroundings, conditions, or influences that affect an organism . . . ." The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ([4th] 1993) (SOED) says "nurture", noun and verb, means "[t]he process of bringing up or training a person, esp. a child . . . tutelage . . . fostering care . . . social environment as an influence on or determinant of personality . . ." and "[t]rain . . . educate", respectively. The Columbia Encyclopedia (Columbia Univ. Press, 5th ed. 1993) (ISBN 0-395-62438-X) says at "motivation" "a motive is defined as an innate mechanism modified by learning" (last word in small caps as cross-reference) and that "learning" "does apply . . . to attitudes and values." You should have no major difficulty finding more on nurture as including support for choice in academic literature.
The Talk piece is lengthy, but, at under 30.1KiB, it's shorter than many articles, and even that length was necessary to make the case carefully. WP:TLDR is for articles; it doesn't apply to Talk, which serves a different purpose than do articles, which are often replete with space-saving links and references. The issue under discussion is controversial and this Talk item was likely to be disagreed with on first impression, precisely why its support had to be careful. To that end, it references literature professionally written and publicly available. What you didn't understand is explained in what you didn't read.
Some deletings of the section were anonymous, from IP addresses. Apparently, new people delete, I explain and restore, the latest deleter leaves it in, someone else deletes it, and the cycle repeats. The section being controversial doesn't make it wrong or unsuitable. Objectors, instead of deleting the whole thing, should add to it content that is encyclopedic.
For the article's section, I supplied from one source, was told to supply more research, I did, and now I'm told that it isn't in a single source. However, the supplying of multiple items of research is the case in likely most major WP articles, and the standard for asexuality should not be different. All information on a subject does not have to come from one source when this isn't synthesizing to advance a POV.
Please rebut the Talk if it is wrong. As matters stand now, it is right.
Rather than reverting immediately per WP:BRD, I will briefly wait and see if there's any further opposition to the Motives section before restoring it. If there are useful suggestions for editing it, I'll consider them, but I prefer that each editor simply add to it as apropos (after restoration), rather than asking me to do research we might all like time to do. I'm glad to research to repair a critical omission of mine, but I don't think there is one. Please identify one if there is.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am still opposed to the motives section being restored. I also agree with Rodhullandemu's points; although I am beginning to doubt that we can reach any kind of concensus, especially as ad hominem attacks are creeping in.
The connection between Asexuality and sexual trauma in a person's past has been mentioned anecdotally in many places, particularly by those wishing to discredit asexuality as a valid orientation, but you provide only an isolated example of one case. It is my opinion that if you wish to connect asexuality with psychosexual pathology, the source should be more robust (a survey of many self-defined asexuals, for example).
It is also my opinion that there is so little academic research about motives and asexuality that the whole section is an attempt to introduce your POV; indeed, although you say otherwise it seems to be an attempt to question whether asexuality is a valid orientation. The section implies that "asexuality" is simply a cover name for a form of celibacy practiced by people with sexual disorders (such as sexual aversion disorder) and others ideologically opposed to sex.
Finally, I think it is important to note that Antisexualism, Erotophobia and sexual abstinence (and the various forms of sexual disorder) are currently treated as distinct concepts compared to asexuality as an orientation; yet your section suggested that they are or can be the same thing (implicitly at least, given that you did not actually give a name to them). If you can find evidence of overlap between them then it would be better content for the article than anything about "motives".
Orientalmoons (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:BRD does not allow you to just re-revert over and over. Doing so now would quickly end in a silly edit war. As it was written the motives section had large issues, if you can rewrite it to be more NPOV then perhaps but some of the comments made (such as "Additional motivations may be found by researching the people named in the notable asexuals section of this article, to the extent that motivations apply to any of them.") are completely out of line. If you would like to include it I would recommend rewriting it on HERE and asking for thoughts before placing it back onto the main page. Regarding the commentary above, it is most definitely tldr to a point that it seems to be purposeful (it may not be, but it reads as if it is). Tldr is a major issue on talk pages because it makes it much harder for people to reply and scares away many who would like to. I would highly encourage you to refactor your comments so that others can read them easily and to refrain from such posts on talk pages in the future. James (T|C) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Asexuality is valid, physically healthy, and mentally fine. Ascribing asexuality to mental illness is dangerous. Before we recognized sexual orientations as enumerable, only heterosexuality was taken as normal; homosexuality was a diagnosis with a treatment (a failed treatment but not for lack of trying) and bisexuality was diagnosed as both perversion and promiscuity and subjected to treatment. No one should be proposing mandatory sex; that's why we have laws against rape in most societies. Sexual aversion disorder sounds like an excuse for rape.
Antisexuality, to my knowledge, has not been classified as a sexual orientation; the WP article on it distinguishes it, relying heavily on a concept of sexual addiction, and that pretends that sexual intercourse can't be said "no" to. There are mentions of possible candidates for sexual orientation other than the four main ones (a-, bi-, hetero-, and homosexuality, to use the clinical terms) but I think that's as far as I've seen it taken professionally. WP lists pan- and poly-, too, but that's it (see the sidebar in the asexuality article). I'm not clear what antisexuality would add to a typology or taxonomy of sexual orientations and, by way of analogy, I think it would be a bad idea to add, say, antihomosexuality to sexual orientations, even though probably many people are heterosexual in order to be perceived as not homosexual.
Heterosexuality has motives. Wanting a baby is one, even though being heterosexual is not a precondition to pregnancy, birth, and childraising. Popularity is another. Economic interest is another, as when wealthy parents threaten to disown their child unless married. International migration qualification, fear of the unknown, fear of psychiatric treatment, fear of loss of a career, and wanting to please (for nonsexual reasons) a partner who is of the other sex are all motives. That's not a complete list.
We could easily identify sexual trauma as a cause of heterosexuality via the mechanism of corrective rape applied to Lesbians. For most heterosexuals, I think the cause is perceived naturalness that, as a perception, goes so far as to deny room for choice, as when a man claims that a miniskirt is provocative. He's provoking himself. His friends are provoking him. Possibly, sometimes, she is. But the skirt isn't, and yet that's what many men claim. They're lying, but if he says that he has het sex because a skirt provoked him then his reason is provocation by skirt. Whether the reason is moronic or felonious does not make it any less a reason in that man.
It would be nice if someone would undertake the kind of research you propose. But asexuals may be as few as one per cent of a national population and that very substantially raises the financial cost of carrying out such a survey, since you'd have to ask for the cooperation of about 80–90 times as many people to get a sample readers would like, not because you'd need 3,000 for roughly the same reproducibility as for 3,000 hets but because readers wouldn't be likely to accept a sample of under 100 when 1,500–3,000 has become a statistical norm in the U.S. In the meantime, we need to use the best evidence we have, because asexuals exist and some are willing to discuss it. If you don't mind becoming controversial in the non-WP world, go to a major thoroughfare and ask ambling passersby if they're heterosexual and why. Some would say there's no reason but many, possibly most, would give you reasons of some sort (including naturalness, in which case you could probe naturalness and get more specific answers), although they might take offense at your asking and might fear you had doubts. I don't think that would vary according to whether the thoroughfare is in a conservative or liberal city, although the frequency of particular reasons probably would (e.g., someone might say that God's plan includes having children, and that is their statement of a reason). I don't think WP should wait till the most fabulous research possible has been published sometime in the future (I know of no pending research due out soon). An analogy: Not everything about gravity has been settled among physicists, but WP publishes on that subject, including this sentence: "There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways." That roughly agrees with what I've read of physics, I don't dispute that sentence, and that page is semiprotected, so presumably the WP consensus is that a complete theory of gravitation is not required before reporting what is known. That's acceptable for sexual orientation, too, at least until new facts come out.
Whether some anecdotes are reported because a teller or reteller wishes to discredit something else is relevant only if the report is therefore invalid, i.e., it's been changed from what it would have been without that animus. Is that the case for anything I cited? It's not, to my knowledge. I didn't cite everything I came across and I don't take responsibility for the usefulness or lack thereof for sources I didn't cite. If there are many anecdotes of asexuality being grounded in sexual trauma and they're not all groundlessly invented by bigots, then maybe we can credit the remaining anecdotes and should.
Sexual abstinence can be temporary or permanent. Since a sexual orientation is deep within a person — I think we agree on that — it is unlikely to be temporary. So abstinence is different. The reasons given in the WP article support that.
Erotophobia and erotophilia appear to be within the realm of mental illness. They don't belong within sexual orientations. If someone is antilesbian or antigay, I don't generally consider them to be a homophobe; I don't give them the excuse of not being able to help it that they're bigoted. They don't need treatment. They may need education and, in some cases, imprisonment, but not treatment. And WP serves as an educational forum.
I will leave the premises for psychological care to others. There are people who want treatment for this or that and I have no objection to that choice. E.g., if someone is either security-sensitive or paranoid, they could get a job as a security guard or ask a therapist to help them and either is a fine choice; but I'm not willing to add an overlap of orientation into illness. Any overlap there has to acknowledge that hets can be in need of treatment even though most of society refuses. Therefore, keeping the concepts separate keeps our clarity.
There was what appeared to be a relevant claim of professional qualification as support for a comment. I took it into consideration in my reply. It was not apropos to ignore it.
I'm not just reverting over and over. I'm specifically discussing the issues raised but silencing the relevant information is not valid.
I can probably take out the line you quoted without damaging the main point. You say there are others; please list them. I looked but didn't find anything fitting your description.
I see the anger. I take it as political (and on civil rights I agree). What I wrote is a politically minority position. It is scientifically valid. Therefore, to make the case took care and care took length. The talk item is shorter than many articles. If I shorten it by cutting X someone will say that my point is wrong because X isn't stated. If I can take the time to read book chapters for this article, and, in the past, whole books, please read the relatively short talk item. I don't think it will scare you.
Please identify any citation I gave that you believe fails a test of falsification, whether because someone wanted to be heterosexist or for another reason. Please tell us how sexual orientation can be reliably identified in a population except from people's statements and how that is immune to people changing their statements and, whether changing or not, how it is impossible for them to have reasons that they themselves can recognize. I discussed that in my earlier comments and made the case for there being reasons including those cited. If you want to refute, science, either cited or logically built, would be helpful.
Feel free to write your own motives section. If it's valid, that's what we need. Some kind of motives section is valid. If you have better information, please provide it. You may post it in the talk page or directly into the article, as you see fit.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If sexual orientations are not to be counted based on people's self-statements but only on genetics or chromosomal analysis, probably most of WP's statistical content on hetero-, homo-, and bisexuality population proportions would have to be deleted. I don't agree with doing that and I don't think most people would agree with that. But if they are to be counted based on self-statements, then why people make the statements they do is valid and the section is valid. Specific edits are welcomed for consideration; a blanket denial of current knowledge should be carefully considered by those wanting the blanket denial lest it lead to a double standard within WP's science coverage.
WP:TLDR can't require brevity in Talks when many or complex points are charged and must be answered (minus those agreed to). Otherwise, one side could overwhelm with charges even if invalid and you'd have no meaningful communication, so that the charging side would never learn when they're incorrect. When I can be brief, I am, and I usually am. Otherwise, I at least am concise. TLDR applies to articles because they can be divided and cross-linked; a Talk debate usually can't be because the linking would impede resolution.
If a subject or a part of it is too much for me to understand in a reasonable time frame, for either an article or a talk section, I don't attempt to edit it or weigh in on the discussion. That choice is available to all of us, not just me. Please pick up whatever background you need to handle the topic and then the length will be easy to take in stride.
I'm open to your draft of the section and to specific edits of my section language.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that people are making a conscious choice about their sexuality as a result of the motivations you list; or are you saying that people's unconscious ideas and thoughts are leading them to conclude (consciously) that they are asexual? What you wrote about "motive" in the article itself implies the former, whereas I think what you have written here on the talk page describes the latter. The examples you provide also seem to support the former, whereas I think only the latter is consistent with the definition of asexuality at the start of the article.
In any case, I don't think you have addressed the issue that this is still a hypothesis, for want of research showing otherwise. Articles can and do exist about hypotheses and incomplete theories (both those proven to be false and those as yet unproven either way) as you say, but they are widely documented outside Wikipedia. None of the citations you have provided so far have satisfied me that this is more than your own hypothesis.
You say "no attempt is made to project population percentages" but then if we don't know how significant these are, how do we know it is significant at all? And why would we include it in an article if it was not significant? Simply by inclusion, a certain amount of significance is given to these quotes which could mislead the reader into thinking that this was a more widely held view.
You also say "a blanket denial of current knowledge should be carefully considered". I would not wish to deny current knowledge, but I don't think this is actually knowledge, but rather, opinion which is unpublished and therefore falls under the category of original research. See WP:NOT#OR point 3. Everything you have written so far, including the quotes from dictionaries, relates only to this as your own theory.
You say "silencing the relevant information is not valid" and "Some kind of motives section is valid" but I do not agree that the information is relevant and that there is a need for this section in the article at all. I cannot provide a draft of the section because I do not think that there is any need for there to be one. Until you provide some research relating specifically to choices and motivations to identify as asexual; or you provide sufficient citations of this as a significant but unresearched opinion or view (and frame it as such), then I could not agree with its inclusion in the article.
May I suggest that if you wish to continue with this, you begin by addressing sexual orientation in general (as I think you have argued that all forms of sexuality have or could have some form of motivation or choice). The article's only mention of "choice" is that people do not experience any sense of choice, there is no mention of motivation at all. You say that the opinion that motives exist within determining sexuality is a minority viewpoint which merits inclusion, but if you think it is worthy of inclusion here then it must therefore be worthy of inclusion in the article which covers sexual orientation in general. Alternatively, if you wish to treat asexuality as a special case then you ought to provide specific citations relating to asexuality and include this in anything you draft for the article.
We could also consider following what the article on homosexuality does and write instead about etiology. Whilst I think we would be seriously lacking in material for such a section (and therefore I will not attempt to write it, because the best that I could say is that we don't know and that no current research covers it), it would at least have the benefit of being a NPOV title. I leave it to you to propose a draft version.
Orientalmoons (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Renaming the section is okay, but etiology has become mostly medical in meaning, moving asexuality back into diagnosis and treatment, when we don't treat heterosexuality. That section title ironically fits in the homosexuality article because that section starts by discrediting a medicalization or psychiatric-cure premise for etiology. For this article's section, how about Ascription or Attribution? Attribution sounds more related to literature. I favor ascription as relatively neutral and perhaps less controverted. In U.K. usage, it's less clear that ascription has to do with cause, as it might be read as being about ascribing asexuality to a person (Shorter Oxford Eng. Dict. ([4th] ed.)), but in the U.S. it is adequately about causation or contribution (Webster's Third New Intntl. Dict. (Merriam, 1966) and Am. Heritage Dict. (3d ed. 1992)). If you don't think ascription will be a problem for WP users in the U.K. and U.K.-influenced readerships, I can use it as the section title.
No distinction between conscious and subconscious is of much use, since for what is deep within us both are applicable and the subconscious comes partly from what was once conscious. Awareness or its lack does not alter whether a way of being is caused prenatally or postnatally. Nothing about sexual orientation in WP or elsewhere requires lack of awareness of why one has a known sexual orientation. The subconscious denotes the unconscious (A Dict. of Psychology (Oxford Univ. Press, 2d ed. 2006), entry for subconscious) and the unconscious in the Freudian model includes the id as "the motivating force in human behavior" (Columbia Encyc. (5th ed. 1993), at Unconscious, cross-ref'd from Subconscious), so the subconscious holds motives. The essential difference between the conscious on the one hand and, on the other, the subconscious, unconscious, nonconscious, and preconscious is current awareness: the conscious is with current awareness and the others lack it (A Dict. of Psychology, id., conscious & consciousness, and Joseph G. Johnson & Ann L. Weber, Intro. to Psychology (N.Y.: Collins, 2d ed. [1st printing? printing of [20]06?] 2006), (ISBN 13: 978-0-06-088152-8 & 10: 0-06-088152-6) p. 57). And identifying someone's subconscious contributors depends probably on third parties as interpreters of someone's outputs, and that is more complicated and less reliable than surveying respondents' self-statements, where surveying uses a minimum of third-party interpretation of respondents' answers before statistical aggregation. What I relied on were self-statements of both orientation and cause, thus favoring consciousness. But if someone had, say, gone through psychotherapy and learned from a therapist what seemed to be subconscious contributors and then reported that in their self-statements, the research could reveal reported subconscious elements. None were so identified in what I read, so probably all of what was reported here was based on the conscious. And, in general, the conscious is as reliable an indicator of memory and motive as the unconscious.
If someone wants to say there's no motive for their sexual orientation, fine. I'm dubious (I'm pretty sure lots of hets claim motives for their orientation), but the statement by someone who says they have no motive is the best information I've got for that person. But that leaves everyone else who says they do have a motive. So there's no basis for saying that the orientation is just there for all people. For at least some people, and probably all, it's there for some kind of motive, including choice, conscious or unconscious. I support the political goal, I understand the legal issue leading to denial of any motive's relevance, and I understand the history giving psychology a bad name in the LGBT community, but nonexistence of motive is not what psychology says about our drives, feelings, and thoughts, conscious and otherwise.
The distinction from celibacy is that celibacy may be shallow while sexual orientation is enduring. The distinction is why sexual orientation is not professionally generally determined by behavior but by self-statement (we don't have a reliable genetic or other objective bodily measure). That it's enduring means it has already withstood many tests, and thus it resists change. But that doesn't deny motivation being underneath it.
While any sexual orientation can have motives, they may be the same or different, and thus the place to state what is known to be different of them is in the separate articles for each orientation.
Population proportions not being given doesn't justify deleting the information without proportions, just as in the sexual orientation article WP says that "[d]etermining the frequency of various sexual orientations in real-world populations is difficult and controversial" and yet 4-6 orientations are discussed at length in WP, and correctly so. Case studies are commonly published in scientific journals in medicine with almost no measure of how common the central medical condition is in the population. Publishing the content is still valid. Both APAs and NASW accept the principle of nonmeasurement in some areas of sexual orientation: "[S]imply to document that a phenomenon occurs, case studies and nonprobability samples are often adequate. . . . Some groups are sufficiently few in number — relative to the entire population — that locating them with probability sampling is extremely expensive or practically impossible. In the latter cases, the use of nonprobability samples is often appropriate." Brief Amici Curiae of the Am. Psychological Ass'n, Calif. Psychological Ass'n, Am. Psychiatric Ass'n, Natnl. Ass'n of Social Workers, & Natnl. Ass'n of Social Workers, Calif. Ch. in Support of the Parties Challenging the Marriage Exclusion, in In re Marriage Cases, Case S147999, Cal. Sup. Ct., Sep. 26, 2007, <http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf>, as accessed Mar. 17, 2010, p. 4 (p. 26 per Adobe Acrobat Reader), n. 3.
You didn't refute my major position; you charged me with agreeing with the literature I cited. I'm allowed to agree. But you wrote, "None of the citations you have provided so far have satisfied me that this is more than your own hypothesis." Give the original authors credit for what they contributed. You can disagree with me but to claim that because I agree with the sources that turns the sources and me wrong is itself wrong. You call it unpublished but that ignores that I cited books in my Talk post of March 6, this thread, above. The Talk is partly OR for issue clarity, but not the article section, which is supported with cites. If you're complaining that I got personal statements from the Web, many articles about people and institutions have much of the information from those persons' or institutions' official websites. We accept self statements for WP as long as they're reliable and citable, e.g., not an email but a publicly available source, and a website is that.
The minority relevance I wrote of is that "[w]hat I wrote is a politically minority position," not that it is of a scientific minority. For the sake of civil rights, a political issue with which I agree, many argue that no one has anything to do with their sexual orientation, it is just there. But we know people's sexual orientation by what they say; no other method is reliable. What they say is determined by what they choose to say, and that's not limited to revealing or concealing. As I showed with one of my links, what some people say over time changes. That means either they're lying or orientations change over time, and change is agreed on in WP.
The asexuality article may offer more content (when otherwise apropos) than the general article on sexual orientation does at the same time. Anyone's free to add to the latter without our having to wait for them to be first.
I'm considering how to reframe the section and should have something, reframed or not, shortly. The research into what has been published is not very difficult; it's just time-consuming.
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Minor corrections (spelling & paragraphing): Nick Levinson (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
With the recent reorganization of the sexual orientation article and its apparent acceptance through stability, I've drafted a new etiology section for the asexuality article. See the discussion on it. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Fictional Characters - Notable Asexuals

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)

I removed Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory and [Sherlock Holmes]] as there seemed to be a lot of disagreement over their sexuality. I also added citations for the other fictional characters. Lauradronen (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asexuality/Archive_2&oldid=1251682671"