Talk:Asexuality/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Legitimate?

Is this NPOW?

"There is continuing disagreement over whether asexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation."

Who gets to decide if a sexual orientation is legitimate or not? Apparently not the catholic church! Juryen 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Famous Asexuals

I've moved this section into the article. If someone has a problem with this, please let me know here. Cogent 07:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a section on famous asexuals, like Glenn Gould. If anyone knows more, please add the section. Cogent

Issac Newton is reputed to have been one. Edeans 17:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

George Takei... is GAY and has been with his lover for many years, as he's admitted publicly.

JM Barrie

Imanuel Kant

John Ruskin

HP Lovecraft

Salvador Dali

I'm including the name of Santos Dumont to the list, based on some articles I've read. This one for example http://www.outsports.com/history/santosdumont.htm The author says that she thinks he was homossexual, but there's no self-declaration confirming, and other articles I've read in portuguese say he was only asexual. Kosher-X 03:27, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Since when are half of these people asexual? I have read biographies on quite a few of these supossed asexual people and none of them seem to fit the mold. Nikoli Tesla was interested in many different women but found persuing a relationship difficult due to his OCD. Salvador dali was good friends with the bi-sexual erotic latin american poet Lorca and married Helena. Hitler had a very terbulent relationship with many different girlfriends. I'm sure there have been many famious asexual people. However, this is more or less name droping. It should be noted that a lot of these people are conjectural and some are just blaintly untrue.
Lorca was gay, not bisexual (he wasn't hyphenated, either). Dali certainly wasn't asexual, since one of his female models has recounted in interview that the artist became visibly aroused in her presence, masturbated, and actually ejaculated onto her.
However, he is known to have emulated feminine appearance and dress, and to have actually incorporated his wife's name into his signature, so it is possible he may have been feminine-identified.
Nuttyskin 03:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


I just removed several of the names off the Famous Asexuals list because of lack of citation within the article or their respective individual articles on Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to add them back, please cite evidence in the article itself. I also would like to remove all of the names off the list that have only an explanation without citation, and propose that we remove those for whom there is evidence had only experienced a lack of sexual intercourse due to medical circumstances. Xombie 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those on the list that did not have any sources. I've also removed the names that cited only the SYL.com article as evidence, as it does not have any citation or evidence for its claims. Xombie 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This list of people is absurd, and the NNDB is the only reference for all of them. The NNDB does not provide any information on how they got their information and is of questionable reliability. The list doesn't mention the fact that most of these people are anecdotally asexual, which seems to be the best information source for a person's sexual behavior (unless, of course, their sexual escapades are well known). I think a reasonable person could see that some of these people may not have disclosed their true sexual orientation (Satie is a good example) due to circumstances of the time, and to list them as notable asexuals under the circumstances seems to be misrepresentative. I've deleted the list (yes, I know that's a drastic measure) but until some reliable sources can be identified the list doesn't belong here. TooMuchMath 03:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the list should stay. There is strong evidence suggesting that these people are asexual, and even if the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, I don't see a problem, as long as it says at the top of the list that not everyone on the list is absolutely certain to be asexual. ImperialLeader 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to re-add the list, you may remake it with proper citation to peer-reviewed primary sources according to the guidelines of WP:V. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. --Xombie 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources added by 84.190.195.129 on June 3 meet the Wikipedia standards for proper citation or verifiability. All the citations are explanations that denote original research or links that are taken out of context, lack citation themselves, or are not peer reviewed. --Xombie 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Banneker never married or had children and there is no love story with any woman who i know. That's why he appeared in some biography for Lesbians and Gay people. But a biography said that he was asexual. (Benjamin Banneker, Charles A. Cerami, 2002). As for Immanuel Kant, he is listed in multiple websites in the list "Famous Asexuals" and in his profile in nndb.com say the same thing http://www.nndb.com/people/891/000029804/. Roger_Smith

Why is Kellogg on the list if he is listed as married in his article?

Accuracy dispute

The article currently says:

Some Christian religions, 'based on 1 Corinthians 7:9 ("1 Corinthians 7:9 (RSV) But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.") endorse sex only within marriage

Please cite some Christian religions which based their sex only within marriage policy on the RSV version of the work.

I don't care which version is used. I care that we do not incorrectly assert a decision based on one version which was actually based on some older version. So, for example, I would object to asserting that the Church of England based it's decision on the RSV version, if the RSV version was written after the Church of England made its decision, because that's historically inacurate. That is, please get the history right and don't have churches making a decision based on a work which didn't yet exist in the quoted form. Jamesday 06:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After a Google search, I have found that Christian sects using the passage cite it to discourage pre-marital sex. I have yet to find a Christian sect that uses it to suggest that celibacy/asexuality is spirtitually superior. I removed it for the time being. inanechild 06:29, 17 Apr 2004 (EST)



Asexuality and Gender

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

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

07:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AVEN

Quote from the page:

"Some asexuals use a classification system developed (and then retired) by the founder of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (http://www.asexuality.org/) (one of the major asexual online communities, and abbreviated as AVEN). In this system, asexuals are divided into types A through D: a type A asexual has a sex drive but no romantic attraction, a type B experiences romantic attraction but no sex drive, a type C experiences both, and a type D neither. The categories are not meant to be entirely discrete or set in stone; one's type can change, or one can be on the border between two types. Note that AVEN itself no longer uses this system, on the basis that it is too exclusive."

This sounds strange, if you have a sex drive, shouldn't it per se be impossible to be asexual? I haven't read about the AVEN classification, but I think it would make more sense with something like "...persons are divided..."

--Similar to other orientations, the definition of asexuality is based on who one is sexually attracted to (in this case no one), rather than presence or absence of sex drive.

Uhmm, still sounds strange... What/Where would this sex drive direct its outlet at? (Npov?)
I believe it refers to the fact that some asexuals masturbate, but don't really fantasize about anything; it's only a physical urge.
Being asexual myself, let me field this one. Some of us masturbate, yes... others don't. When we do masturbate, it is usually just to release the "sexual tension" (or prevent cancer) and it isn't usually directed at anything; often we masturbate over the mere feeling of masturbation itself, and the frequency of masturbation is also less than that of a more sexually active individual. Often as little as once or twice a month, compared to 4 or 5 times a week of your average 21 yearold.


--Uh, why does it have to be directed at anything? Getting horny doesn't have to have an immediate cause, and nor does it have to result in anything actually being done about it.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

Asexuality and Religion

I removed three bits in this section. One, I removed the part about sexual attraction not being necessary for sex, and it thus not being much of an issue. Certain conceptions of sacred sexuality do seem to carry the assumption that one will enjoy the act, and that orientation is bound up in the concept of sexuality itself.

Two, I removed the part about these religions having so few adherents that asexuals have nothing to fear. I have my doubts about how NPOV that statement was, and it makes it sound as if the entire purpose of the religions section is to alert asexuals as to possible threats. Furthermore, some asexuals might be members of those religions in question, or considering joining.

Three, I took away the part about asexuals having a harder than gays when it comes to being spotted by some conservative religious groups. I didn't think it was all that accurate -- gays can remain closeted, and some asexuals desire (and possibly have) nonsexual relationships with the same sex.

"I removed three bits in this section. One, I removed the part about sexual attraction not being ecessary for sex". Without sexual attraction, you cannot sustain an erection when engaging, so you can't really have sex.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

I think Islam has negative attitude towards asexuality, for example Muhammad has said "Don't practice celibacy like the Christians" ( but I don't know whether it's authentic)

-- 83.146.53.235 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexual attraction is obviously not necessary for sex. As for this comment "Without sexual attraction, you cannot sustain an erection when engaging, so you can't really have sex." It is completely untrue. Physical arousal is not 100% dependant on mental arousal, it is possible for a man to be physically aroused while mentally being indifferent or even replused by the situation. Otherwise an asexual man could never have sex.

Debate

There was some line about there being absolutely no evidence at all that asexuality is caused by hormone problems/repression/etc., IIRC. I took it out, because I thought it was misleading. No, there's no hard evidence (that I know of) that a lack of sexual attraction is caused by any of those things. But there's not much hard evidence, period. The number of scientific studies on a lack of attraction -- that I know, anyway -- can be counted on one hand. Saying that there's no evidence at all implies that that lack of evidence is on much more solid ground than it actually is.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

Orientation or dysfunction

Isn't this article a bit confused? I see no a priori reason to dismiss the existence of an asexual orientation as distinct from a sexual dysfunction that results in a loss of interest in sex. There are other articles on sexual dysfunctions. Why confuse the issue here with constant harping on sexual abuse, psychological problems, and other conditions that seem not to affect some people who identify themselves as asexual? (Some people mentioned in the literature cited here deny any such ætiology and seem content with what they regard as their sexual orientation.) Shorne 18:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--I included those things because a substantial number of people don't believe that there's any difference between asexuality and sexual dysfunction and, as the article says, there's no hard evidence either way. Reasonable or not, there is debate as to whether or not asexuality is a legitimate orientation.

-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17

It seems to me that the position that asexuality is not a legitimate orientation should be presented in a single place, not throughout the text. Homosexuality was regarded as "illegitimate", even as a psychosis, by professional organisations of psychologists twenty or thirty years ago. It strikes me that asexuality, still relatively unknown, is just being subjected to the same sorts of prejudices.
I'd also like to see documentation of the position that a lack of interest in sex is necessarily a dysfunction. No one disputes that bisexuality is a genuine orientation, so why should the opposite extreme—asexuality—not be so regarded? Low libido is accepted, so why not asexuality?
I checked the DSM-IV. There is no suggestion that asexuality is necessarily a dysfunction. The closest conditions listed are "sexual aversion disorder" and "hypoactive sexual desire disorder", both of which "must result in significant distress for the individual". Asexuals who experience no distress from their lack of desire for sex would seem not to meet the definition of either dysfunction. Again, I'd like to see a source for the claim that asexuality is necessarily a dysfunction, which goes against common sense. Shorne 23:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A few links to instances of people believing asexuality is a dysfunction: article by a layman, letter by a layman, article on asexuality, "even when researchers do study people who are not having sex, it is always on the understanding that sexual inactivity is a problem that needs fixing", and I remember a professional on the Matthew Bannister radio show (on the 14th of October, 2004) making the case that it wasn't a legitimate orientation. I'm not finding a lot of other links to professionals explicitly saying that asexuality is a disorder, but I'm not finding a lot of links to professionals saying much about asexuality in the first place, and I've heard anecdotal evidence for some asexuals having their doctors or therapists tell them they're disordered. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter that you -- or any other individual user -- thinks it goes against common sense: the point of Wikipedia isn't to pick a side in a debate.
-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17
I'm not trying to pick a side in the debate. I said that the claim should be presented, just as bigoted rubbish about the "immorality" of homosexuality should be presented. It should all be moved to a single paragraph.
Your references are rather weak, I must say. The first and the second are from people who are obviously confused about the subject, equating asexuality with various physical problems and such. These laymen shouldn't be quoted as reliable sources when they don't even understand the subject. The third article does not say what you claim: it says that a lack of interest in sex may be the result of a dysfunction, which no one questions. The fourth article makes the best case: little work has been done in this area because of a bias towards restoring sexual performance/desire in people who are not happy with its lack. That is worth mentioning, along with the reports that some doctors or therapists have leapt to the conclusion of a sexual disorder (which is probably common, just as so many doctors hastily seize upon weight as the cause of a fat person's sore feet without doing any investigation). Shorne 06:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's only mentioned in two sections: the debate section (which I chopped up into paragraphs for ease of reading), and the introduction, which needs it because. . . well, it's an introduction and there's a debate, so it should be mentioned.
The third article does say that it's a disorder: "(Asexuality), however, is a rare condition and most forms of sexual dysfunction respond to therapeutic intervention." As for the quote from the New Scientist article, it's an acknowledgement that most professionals are going to view it as a disorder. You think this is an example of bias and not a reasonable conclusion? Fine. But I'm sure they don't. Your argument about this fits very well into the "asexuality is legitimate" side of the debate, and I agree that it should be put into the article. But it should be put with the other "asexuality is legitimate" arguments, and presented as one of them.
As for the first and second links, yes, they're from laymen (if you want more anecdotal things along their lines, poke around AVEN}. But they're instances of what I've found to be common thought among laymen; furthermore, you can't just state that they're invalid because they don't fit a definition of asexuality that is based in the idea that it is legitimate. It seems all right to include a note that the majority of the documented objections to asexuality are coming from laypeople -- as long as you also note that most of the discussions about asexuality at this point are coming from laypeople, period.
-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17


This is like saying straight people can't have ovarian (PCOS) . This is just a pre-mature response to something many don't understand . http://www.pcosupport.org/


I am a self-proclaimed asexual at this point in my life, but I was once straight, and I do not belive, in my case at least, that I am asexual due to disfunction. My sex drive is exactly the same as it has ever been, it is only my state of mind that has changed.

Asexuals enjoying sex?

It is still a point of controversy as to whether one can enjoy sex and still be asexual. I removed all statements implying that until a consensus can be reached.

I noticed that, too, and thought it peculiar. At a minimum, this possibility would require more discussion, preferably with references. Shorne 23:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Despite my request to have the "can asexuals enjoy sex?" debate moved to the discussion page, user 169.105.136.111 keeps changing the article to say things like "many asexuals have sex," not to mention giving the article POV by saying no evidence exists to say asexuality is unnatural. If this doesn't stop, we may have to have the page barred from editing.
I share your desire to have the discussion brought to the talk page. The next time you edit the article, please state in the edit summary that disagreements need to be discussed here.
But I don't think we should say anything at all about what is "unnatural". That's a very pejorative POV; really, it's nothing more than a slur. Asexuality exists, so how could it be "unnatural"? Shorne 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That "unnatural" information is in there because there are people that think that it is. To be blunt, it doesn't matter whether you personally think that opinion is wrong. Wikipedia is not meant to be a soapbox: if a number of people think that asexuality is unnatural, NPOV dictates that we mention that and present what they think.
-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17
Again, "unnatural" is a POV. It should not be presented as if it were a fact. Try finding out the substance of the allegations instead of accepting labels at face value. Shorne 06:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Honestly, the word "unnatural" isn't even showing up in the recent versions of the article I'm looking through -- I assume the commenter above (who was complaining about giving the article POV) was paraphrasing. What precisely are you taking issue with? If it's just the word "unnatural" -- well, I wouldn't class it as automatically non-NPOV, depending on context, but there are enough perfectly good (but hopefully less offensive) synonyms for it that that can be worked around.
However, I'd assumed that the commenter who first used the word "unnatural" was referring to the tendency by one of the contributors to make sentences along the lines of, "There is debate as to whether or not asexuality is a legitimate orientation or a disorder, though there is no evidence for the latter." Those sentences are problematic. No, there's no evidence that asexuality isn't natural and legitimate. But there have been so few studies that there's barely any evidence for the contrary, either. To only single one of those positions out for a comment about the lack of evidence is to stray from NPOV.
-- Anonymous at 68.4.112.17
That's what I meant. I thought emphasizing that there was no evidence proving asexuality isn't legit but failing to mention that there is also no evidence proving asexuality is natural was too POV.
-- 83.146.53.235 13:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to "can asexuals enjoy sex?"
Maybe you should ASK an asexual about these things, rather than just guessing. I am asexual. Some asexuals do enjoy sex, and some don't. Whether they enjoy sex or not does not affect whether they are asexual, because asexuality is about not having the innate desire to initiate the sex, and has nothing to do with how the person feels about the actual sex itself. You could have sex everyday, or never ever, and this wouldn't change whether you were asexual or not.

I made a number of fairly small cosmetic changes to improve readability: the debate section was shuffled around a bit to give what I thought was a smoother read, for instance, as was the variations section. I also moved the research information to its own section because that seemed useful. It's right after the debate section, though, and hopefully the last sentence of the debate section is a good lead-in. I removed the section about what the ram study might mean, as it struck me as better to let the readers make up their own minds; I could be completely wrong about that, of course.

I also changed the very last paragraph to something that I thought was less biased: I thought the phrase "challenging the belief that heterosexuality is the only normal sexual orientation" wasn't as NPOV as it could be, and didn't like the way the paragraph completely singled out conservative religious groups.

There was a bit at the top of the variations section saying that there were variations with asexuality, as with any other orientation; I removed the "as with any other orientation," since it seemed to make the article more NPOV.

Also, Wayland's contributions in the "see also" section: what do people think of these?

Inkburrow 17:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (formerly 68.4.112.17)



I forgot to sign my name.

Religious condemnation could change in the future?

Article says: "Currently, asexuals face little religious condemnation; unlike homosexuals, for instance, they are not a target of conservative religious groups. However, this could change in the future."

I don't quite understand. Is there something to suggest that a change is happening or going to happen, or why is the last sentence there?

Why are hermits listed as see also? I don't think they have anything to do with asexuality

Something about hermits not getting sex, maybe? There's a tendency for some people to associate misanthropy and asocialness with asexuality, too. Not that I think the hermits link is entirely appropriate, but no one was complaining about it, so I didn't know if that was just a bias of mine.
Inkburrow 08:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite a nice article, but I am somewhat amused by the following lines: "Samuel R. Delany's 1969 short story "Aye, and Gomorrah..." depicts a society where astronauts become sexless because cosmic radiation renders their gonads useless." Is "gonads" a term commonly used in dictionaries? :D User:195.148.0.60

Actually, it is - although I am not quite sure why "no gonads" are supposed to equal "sexless". Oh, and do sign your comments please, even if you don't have a username. Just type -- ~~~~ and the computer does the rest. -- AlexR 09:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article refers to a novel called "John-Jack Christian"...is there any evidence that suggests this exists? When googled, it only appeared in this article. Aerothorn 00:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

Moved section "Famous Asexuals" from article to talk

The section stated:

There exists strong circumstantial evidence that the following people are asexual.

* J.M. Barrie
* Salvador Dali
* Glenn Gould
* Immanuel Kant
* H.P. Lovecraft
* Isaac Newton
* John Ruskin

Evidence please? -- Karada 20:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These and many more are listed with supporting evidence here: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/1563/famousantisexuals.htm There is no way to include these without being controversial. The section itself admitted the evidence was circumstantial. All the same, I feel they are worth listing. Perhaps the title of the section should be toned down. i.e. Famous Figures suspected of being asexual?

Sadangel

Additionally, I would add Nikola Tesla to the list. He was well-known for his aversion to all human contact, which may go beyond asexuality into some mental/social disorder. Still, he's often included in such lists and there is more evidence for him than many others.

Sadangel

I am putting the list of asexuals back in the article, as we will never have perfect evidence as to the sexuality of people who died hundreds of years ago, but the evidence is, as was discussed, more than strong enough to warrant inclusion with a disclaimer.

Also, George Takei goes back in because he made no reference whatsoever in his memoirs ("To The Stars") to an interest in sex or romantic relationships. Cogent 23:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Takei is now permanently out, because he is now "out of the closet." [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Brad Altman] is his partner.--T. Anthony 11:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"other suggested causes include... hormonal problems... and not having met the right person". That is just so cute! :) --Vizcarra 20:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dalí was married and devoted to his wife.
Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 17:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed him and Chopin. I'm pretty sure I read of love affairs Chopin had that were consummated by him and not out of duty or curiosity or whatever.--T. Anthony 16:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I guess Sand's letters did indicate that.(News to me, I've read some about Sand's relationship with him) I'm skeptical, but I guess I'll put him back.--T. Anthony 16:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Sophocles wasn't asexual, which many sources attest. For example:

"The historian Athenaios reported that Sophocles loved boys like Euripides loved women. The poet Ion of Chios relates: “I met Sophocles in Chios when he was as a strategist on his way to Lesbos. He was an adroit man who liked to make merry at the symposium. Hermesilaos was his friend and the official host of the Athenians. The boy who poured the wine stood at the fireplace, beautiful and blushing. Sophocles, visibly touched, asked him: ‘Do you want me to drink with delight?’ He nodded. ‘So take your time when you give me the bowl and take it away.’ The boy blushed more strongly. Sophocles remarked to the guest who lay beside him: “How beautiful is the line of Phrynichos: ‘Shining on purple cheeks the light of love.’ ” His neighbour, who was a schoolmaster of Eretria answered him: ‘You are doubtless a sage poet, Sophocles, but Phrynichos did not express himself well in calling the cheeks of a beautiful boy purple, because, if a Persian had painted them with purple colour, the boy would appear no longer beautiful. Therefore one must not compare the beautiful to the obviously not beautiful.’ Sophocles laughed and said: ‘So you also won’t like the verse of Simonides that the Greeks appreciate so much: “From purple lips the girl let flow her voice,” and what the poet says of Apollo’s golden hair, because, if a painter had painted the god’s hair golden instead of black, the painting would be worse. Likewise the poetic “rose-fingered”, since, if anyone should dip their fingers into rose-red paint, they would get hands like a dyer but not like a beautiful woman.’ The other guests laughed, and the man from Eretria was struck dumb with the rebuke, while Sophocles turned towards the boy again. This one was just trying to remove a speck from the bowl with his little finger. Sophocles asked him whether he could see the straw distinctly. He affirmed it, and Sophocles continued: ‘So blow it away, lest your finger should become wet.’ While the boy approached his lips to the vessel, Sophocles brought it nearer to his mouth, so that their heads approached each other. When the boy was near him, Sophocles put his arm around him, drew him even closer and kissed him. All applauded and cheered him for having outfoxed the boy so nicely. Sophocles replied: ‘Gentlemen, I’m practising strategy, because Pericles said that I understood poetry but not strategy. Now, don,t you think my stratagem turned out quite well?'’ ”(2)

Of course, Sophocles's strategies did not always turn out to his advantage. He was reputed to have had amorous trysts with pretty boys all life long; Plato swore to it. His pederasty is similarly reported by Euripides, and by Athenaios. The latter, who liked gathering anecdotes about the lives of the great men of antiquity, relates one of Sophocles's misadventures: “One day, Sophocles (who was around 65 years of age at the time) led beyond the walls of the city a beautiful youth in order to enjoy him. The lad spread his rough himation (a cheap coat) on the grass and the two covered themselves with the elegant chlanis of the poet. When the thing was done, the boy snatched the chlanis, leaving the himation for Sophocles. Naturally word of this got around, and as soon as Euripides found out he made great fun of it.” (3)

After Athenaios and Ion of Chios, Deipnosophistai I, 20, and XIII, 603-604"

My great aunt went out on a date with Ralph Nader. Where has he said that he's asexual? Pimpalicious 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I propose removing this section for anyone except those that there is absolute certainty and references for.Xombie 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice that this section has been repeatedly vandalised over recent days, with additions of people who don't already have a Wikipedia page (notability?) and family and work-related groups rather than individuals (though perhaps Velvet Cacoon are different as they appear to have made a joint admission). I think it's time citations were made compulsory for inclusion on this list. Samantha of Cardyke 13:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
We should decide what standard we're going to use to include people in this list as well. Asexuality as a sexual orientation is so little known (or accepted) that it will probably be hard to find sources that flat-out say "so-n-so considers himself asexual." Evidence that a person was a lifelong virgin doesn't necessarily work, because they may have just chosen to be celibate, or were sociophobic, or simply lacked the social skills required for nabbing a mate, rather than naturally lacking a libido. --Birdhombre 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Removing HP Lovecraft due to lack of sources and presence of evidence against it - http://www.hplovecraft.com/life/myths.asp#homosexual Xombie 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor (Doctor Who)

The article mentions the traditional asexuality of the Doctor and the presence of Susan, but dosen't mention his kiss with Grace in the '96 telefilm or the open flirting he partakes in in the new series. Should it be? GracieLizzie 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the Doctor Who bit, perhaps too much. If someone less geeky than myself wishes to cut it down, please feel free to do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
but dosen't mention his kiss with Grace
It doesn't mention his kiss with Captain Jack, either.
Nuttyskin 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Or Rose. DTPQueen 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Joey Lauren Adams

I removed her from the list - here is why.

Ralph Nader?

Is this really true? Because it looks like a case of vandalism to me. Does Ralph Nader really qualify as asexual? Though he has some external sigs of such, their is nothing to confirm this, and I want some proof on the issue. IdeArchos 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The NNDB (www.nndb.com) states he is.

What are 'external signs' in this case? Samantha of Cardyke 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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


Dali is asexual

Here's a quote from wikiquote: "I tried sex once with a woman and that woman was Gala. It was overrated. I tried sex once with a man and that man was the famous juggler Federico Garcia Lorca [the Spanish Surrealist poet]. It was very painful."

I recommend that he remain off the list unless much more evidence emerges. Looks possible that he simply had some sexual hang-ups which he perhaps largely overcame with time. Samantha of Cardyke 08:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sun Ra

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

Ancient asexuals

I see no reason to assume many Catholic priests etc were asexuals as described in this sentence:

For example, it is likely that in past centuries, many Catholic priests, popes, monks, and nuns were asexuals, including many canonized saints

I suspect many of them had sex drives and desires for people of the same and/or opposite sex at least initially but choose to repress it due to the celebacy requirements of their profession. Definitely it appears to be true nowadays that many of them are not asexuals... Perhaps over time you could try an argue that many were so successful that you could call them asexuals but then again, we don't even really know for sure how many of them were truly celebate let alone trying to decide whether they were asexual. It would probably be acceptable to say some of them were asexual but that's all. Nil Einne 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what the parent was saying is that a portion of them were NATURALLY asexuals; an analogy might be ``you have to learn French to work here, but I already know French so that's nothing extra

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well. I'm not denying some of them may have been asexuals. But I see no reason to assume many of them were asexuals. Also, you are perhaps confusing celibacy with asexuality. My understanding is the primary requirement for priests etc is celibacy NOT asexuality and we have no real way of knowing how many of them were asexual, 'naturally' or out of their enforced celibacy. Nil Einne 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Symbol?

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

This article is completely false.

Abstinence and sexual dysfunction are not the same thing as asexuality. Asexuality is the ability to reproduce without sex, such as division, budding, and regeneration. Humans cannot physically be asexual as they are complex multicellular organisms whose karyotypes contain non-autosome chromosome pairs. This article needs to either be deleted or merged with sexual dysfunction. TheRaven7 15:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, bud, you're wrong. Look at the references section (which seems a bit slim, alas). —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Also note the "debate" section in the article. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not my issue. The issue is that "asexuality" means the ability to have offspring without sex. This article gives the word an incorrect definition.TheRaven7 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That is "asexual reproduction". Incidentally, discussion on the merge is at Talk:Sexual dysfunction. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
As the top of the article says, what you're describing can be found at asexual reproduction. Many asexuals believe "asexuality" (and that's the term used to describe it) is an orientation; that is, lack of sex drive is a characteristic, rather than a symptom. Also note that the article on sexual dysfunction describes a problem or disorder, whereas this article describes people who feel no sexual attraction to other people. There's a big difference, and very little of the material in this article would be appropriate there. I guess a simpler way to put it is, asexuals feel "normal" and natural not seeking a sex life, while those with sexual dysfunction want to have sex but physiologically can't. Further, if your quibble is with the definition of the word "asexual," then one could just as easily claim this article is false because asexual humans still have functioning sex organs. [6] --Birdhombre 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary link Birdhombre provided shows the problem: if you follow it (or this one), you'll see that "asexual" has three distinct meanings. The first two meanings are biological, and those are the ones TheRaven7 is referring to. The third is a cultural concept, and that's the one this article is about. I don't really know enough about either field (biology or the social construction of sexual identities) to suggest a wording, but I think that the article should probably make this distinction more clearly and explicitly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexual desire/attraction?

Being an asexual, and knowing a number of asexuals, are there actually asexuals who claim not to have sexual desire or attraction? This article at present seems to treat it as some sort of biological condition wherein individuals are not sexually attracted to one another. I don't see that as true at all. I generally consider asexuality more the sense that love and lust are incompatible, and that sex is unnecessary, awkward, and possibly even violent. It does not mean having no sex drive, but an opposition to sexual lust for other reasons. It simply sees acts such as cuddling, etc as more intimate and the ultimate expression of love and sexual intercourse as awkward and/or violent and thus acts of lust not compatible with or unnecessary in a loving relationship. Sarge Baldy 05:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be made clearer nearer the beginning of the article what the words asexual / asexuality mean in this context, with reference to the fact that they are still used rather loosely with several shades of meaning. Samantha of Cardyke 08:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to reword the header to accomodate more fairly. I'm not quite happy with it, so any adjustments would be appreciated. Sarge Baldy 08:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
These kinds of questions come up on AVEN [7] frequently. Some asexuals feel attraction to other people, but don't feel the need to act on it sexually, which is what you're describing. Many can be sexually aroused through physical stimulation, but their brain doesn't connect it to a human being. Some call themselves "aromantic" and don't seem to feel a strong attraction toward other people, other than just as friends. Still others have fetishes but consider themselves asexual because the sexual thoughts are limited to the fetish (i.e. they are attracted only to the fetish trait or object, and are still turned off by the thought of sexual intercourse or sex organs)... if that makes sense. --Birdhombre 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose it is rather broad and complex. I've also met asexuals who only see themselves as asexual in their relationships with one sex, but not with the other. I think I would maintain this is asexuality, but it confuses things even further. I would only like to see this page make a clear accomodation all manifestations, as some asexuals may otherwise be turned off to the term, thinking it is necessarily a form of sexual dysfunction. The FAQ on that page is quite useful, and (to me) really makes it clear that there are some clear commonalities amongst asexuals, especially with points such as "Many asexuals can see that other people are aesthetically attractive to them but see this beauty as no different from looking at a beautiful painting or a stunning sunset." Sarge Baldy 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The asexuals I know have a sex drive, but aren't interested in sex with other people. Perhaps these are different kinds of asexuals? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that's probably the dominant form of asexuality, which is why I took issue with the old wording. Many (most? all?) asexuals have a lessened sex drive to varying extents, but having none whatever seems rather unlikely (although if such a physical condition existed, that individual would probably be asexual by default). Most want relationships based on affection, and some will have sexual relationships simply out of a lack of other options. Others (myself included) would rather remain indefinitely single than become involved sexually, although seeing that as simply the better of two evils, and not being happy about it. (Which is why asexual awareness is important.) And (hypothetically) there's some that would prefer not to have any relationships of any sort. (Although I've never heard of asexuals with certain characteristics, it's important to use an inclusive definition.) Sarge Baldy 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Inherently

I don't like the word because it pretty flatly says it's a biological condition. Not all asexuals would make that case. I don't think it's necessary because celibacy is more of a self-control thing, where asexuality is a "I'm not interested in sex" sort of thing where there isn't anything to control. For that matter asexuals don't vow not to have sex, and some do. It's also unclear what extent social development has on people who identify as asexual. (For instance, it doesn't seem coincidence that 93% of people on AVEN identify as introverted.) Maybe wording it different would help, but having that word there puts it on one extreme of the nature vs nurture continuum. Surely you couldn't edit the homosexuality article to call it "natural" or "inherent", and the same controversy exists here. Sarge Baldy 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(I'm going off topic but some say that shyness is likely to be a consequence of asexuality rather than a contributing cause. For example, some asexuals may find it hard to relate to many conversations because talk about romance or sex forms such a large part of them.)Samantha of Cardyke 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The word "inherent" does not have anything to do with biology. --Xombie 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well it is saying that it is an "essential" property of asexuals. It's saying it's a fixed trait "natural" to the individual. I don't know what that could possibly mean other than genetics and biology. Sarge Baldy 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"Inherent" is something that is a defining characteristic, not a necessarily natural characteristic. --Xombie 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking through dictionaries [8], it very much seems to be a natural characteristic. They all essentially state in some way that inherent refers to traits that are innate, fixed, "essential", natural, inalienable, permanent, intrinsic and so on. None of these words are compatible with "learned" or "developed". Sarge Baldy 22:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking through dictionaries, there is a common definition that has to do with the character of something, which is the context in which the word is used. It is appropriate. There must be a word used that separates it from celebacy, because asexuals necessarily lack an interest in sex, not simply choosing not to have it (which is covered under celebacy). --Xombie 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a clear separation. Celibates are people who don't have sex. Asexuals are people who don't want to have sex. Celibates may or may not be asexuals. Asexuals may or may not be celibate. Most celibates are heterosexuals who do lust and do want sex, but not before some "appropriate" time (e.g. marriage). No one has ever claimed that "celibate" is a sexual orientation, so it's very difficult to confuse it with asexuality. But the two do overlap very prominently. Those definitions state not just that inherent means a characteristic, but an "essential" or innate characteristic. Which is at the very extreme "nature" end of the spectrum, where a significant number of asexuals (including myself) would state there is a very prominent "nurture" aspect. Sarge Baldy 23:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the articles on celibacy and sexual abstinence, they are voluntary. Asexuality, according to general definion, is not voluntary, but simply a lack of sexuality or interest in sex. "A significant number of asexuals" is also not an appropriate citation. --Xombie 00:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a whole lot of research on asexuality to give you a citation. I haven't seen a citation saying that it's purely nature either, and I think you'd have trouble pulling one up. A poll on AVEN of 104 asexuals shows only 14% of respondents claiming it's entirely nature. [9] The vast majority consider it voluntary or learned to some extent. Sarge Baldy 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If there is no citation for the information, it should not be put into the article. This is not a personal manifesto, it is an encyclopedic article meant to have a neutral point of view. --Xombie 21:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong to add a word like 'inherently'. The word seems restrictive if you widen the definition of asexuality to include people with low levels of sexual attraction or low sex drives directed at other humans. In that case it probably shouldn't be considered a fixed trait. After all, many people's sex drives can vary considerably over a lifetime due to biological and psychological changes, and social circumstances. But if you limit the definition of asexuality to people over a certain age who have never noticed a sex drive or whose sex drive has never been directed at other humans, I think it is probably a biological thing, but not definitely. (I wonder what the most likely explanations would have been in the alleged 'cases' of the famous people currently listed on the article page.) Samantha of Cardyke 08:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, and there is a large gradation among asexuals. This isn't a particularly good poll, but there is evidence suggesting that a significant majority of asexuals are sexual in some way with only a small minority saying they have no libido whatsoever. [10] Although I would agree that asexuality may effect someone's social interaction, another poll shows that 94% of asexual respondents were "loners" as children [11], before sexuality would have had any real social importance. (Since whatever crushes do occur in child years are asexual anyway.) Clearly these are not scientific polls, but nevertheless using the word "inherent" would seem to disenfranchise a significant number, if not most, asexuals from the term. Sarge Baldy 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
(But the feeling of being an 'outsider' can start in early childhood. Tennessee Williams, who was gay, recalled this.) Samantha of Cardyke 08:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Not only are they not scientific, they are not a legitimate source of NPOV information, and therefore completely irrelevant when considering this issue. --Xombie 21:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're trying to pull here. You haven't given a citation stating that it's purely biological, and I can assure you, you won't. Certainly not from any "neutral" source. It isn't a "neutral" point of view to say it is. It's an extreme point of view. And I didn't show those polls as a source for the article. I didn't claim they should be included in the article. I was just making an appeal to reason. As terrible as those polls might be, it's very plain to see that not all asexuals are "pure" asexuals. In fact, it suggests that the strong majority are not. In light of that, you seem content in saying it's "NPOV" to say all asexuals are asexual in the extreme sense, without any sort of citation to back that up in any way, even after the editor who added the word admitted it was probably a mistake. Sarge Baldy 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As I stated, this is not a manifesto. If there is little information then the topic should in fact be treated in a strict sense in order to prevent the leaking of NPOV information. Your polls are completely invalid as they are bordering on weasel words. Your assertion that those with disinclination toward sex are in any way affected by "nurture" is not backed up by any NPOV scientific evidence. The opinions of only a select few people claiming to be asexual is not evidence of anything about asexuality. I am stating that the word should remain, as there is evidence that those with a low libido are affected by psychological mood (proven by studies of the effects of SSRIs), and asexuality should be separated from simply having a disinterest or choice not to have sex, and it should by nature of the very word be isolated to those with necessarily no sex drive. If you do not agree with "inherently", then suggest another like word to replace it, but there is valid reason to keep it there. --Xombie 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing citation with NPOV. NPOV means a POV that there's a general consensus around. Clearly there is no general consensus that asexuality is "innate". Nor at present is there any citation claiming that it is. In fact it would even appear to be a minority opinion. It is a claim that no dictionaries appear to make. [12] The only purpose that word serves is to say that asexuality cannot in any fashion be learned. Science is not NPOV. There are debates between and within scientific fields. The most glaring is the nature vs. nurture debate. NPOV policy dictates that we don't take the extreme position, which is what you are attempting to do. And if you know anything about science, you should know that in science NOTHING is proven. I'm certain if you read whatever article you're talking about closely, it will not claim that asexuality is purely biological and no other position is valid. (If it did, it would not have survived any serious peer review process.) There is no word to replace "inherently" with, because to put any word there would be to express a POV. The article on asexuality should be about people who identify as asexual, not about what some scientists call asexuality from an ivory tower. Sexual orientations are chosen labels, not imposed. Sarge Baldy 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
First, NPOV policy dictates that you are not to insert your or others' opinion into article as fact. Second, I am not making a case for it being purely biological. Third, I already pointed out that the word used fits the definition that would specify it as a state in which the person necessarily has no desire for sex. A merely lower sex drive is in fact psychological, as it can be artificially changed with medication in repeated testing. If you wish you may change the word to something more appropriate to display the distinction. Until such a time as you come up with a "better" word, it should remain. You said that you wish to be reasonable, so compromise. As for your argument regarding "what scientists call asexuality from an ivory tower", this is not a manifesto for asexuals to express themselves. It is not a podium, it is not a blog. It is an encyclopedia.
Exactly. And having the word "inherently" is inserting one opinion – your opinion – as fact. Not having the word there allows space for other opinions currently dismissed. You're correct this is an encyclopedia. And that's why we need to look at asexuality as a sexual orientation and not strictly as some psychobiological phenomenon. Sarge Baldy 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I never stated any opinion. I provided M-W.com as a source, and we've already been over this: there is a definition of the word "inherently" that fits to provide it as a distinction. Come up with a better word and it will be changed. You want to dispute it, that is what will resolve the dispute. --Xombie 04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That definition says exactly what I've been saying "inherent" means: "involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit". "Essential character" means an innate property. I don't understand what word you'd want me to pick? I don't understand what word we would want there? Or why we would need any word.Sarge Baldy 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, obviously "inherently" won't work. How about "intrinsically"? Asexuality is a general term or self-designation for people who are intrinsically disinclined towards sexual behavior and lust. To me, the definition "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing" accurately describes what we're trying to convey here. It doesn't say whether the source of the orientation is nature or nurture (as the phrase "belonging by nature or habit" implies nature), but makes it clear that it's somehow deeply rooted in the person, rather than being a choice (a la celibacy). In spite of the various orientations of people who describe themselves as asexual, I think the one common thread is that they did not choose to be that way, just as one would not "choose" to dislike peanut butter or classical music. Thoughts? --Birdhombre 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just don't find that any better. Intrinsic is tied up very strongly in nature as well, and essentially means the exact same thing. (Oxford: "belonging to the basic nature of someone or something" Dictionary.com: "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing"). All sexual orientations are essentially chosen. You can't just tell someone they're homosexual or asexual, they have to choose to accept the vocabulary. Celibates aren't necessarily asexual because they might very well have a sexual interest being restrained; asexuals aren't necessarily celibate because a number of asexuals have sex. How about something along the lines of "Asexuality is a general term or self-designation for people who find sexual behavior unappealing." Sarge Baldy 06:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ohhh, OK, I think I see where you're coming from now. Perhaps we should be looking at the definition of "nature" rather than the word "inherently" then. :) From M-W: 1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b : disposition, temperament. In this context, "nature" does not necessarily mean "natural," ironically enough. It's "in my nature" that I tend to be a packrat, yet this is something I learned from my father while growing up ("nurture") and is not genetic. Also, when I say "it's not a choice," I'm not talking about choosing a label for oneself; I'm saying I never chose to not be sexually attracted to other people. I think your suggestion of "unappealing" might be the best we can do, in light of this discussion, and perhaps we could move the "Asexual does not equal celibate" line up to the opening paragraph, since we also mention the dysfunction vs. orientation debate there. --Birdhombre 11:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a discussion about labels is not relevant; it doesn't change things. One could, for example, think of herself as either a "lanky gingerhead" or "willowy redhead". Samantha of Cardyke 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not exactly a fair analogy. Sexual orientation works in scales. Practically no one is purely heterosexual, and practically no one is purely homosexual. A woman may have sexual interest in a woman, or sexually experiment with a woman but still consider herself heterosexual. Or she could consider herself bisexual. Or maybe she decided she didn't like men after all and started calling herself a lesbian. Sexual orientation can change, and saying it can't is exactly the nature side of the argument. Would you define heterosexuality as "the involuntary attraction to members of the opposite sex" or "the inherent attraction to members of the opposite sex"? Why do you need that extra adjective? Your POV seems to be that people can be happily placed in rigid boxes and that sexuality remains constant. However, this is only one perspective, and queer theory gives a very different one. Labels are important, because this article should not marginalize people who identify as asexual but don't take the extreme position. Just like we shouldn't marginalize heterosexuals who have had sexual interest in members of the same sex from the heterosexuality article. Sarge Baldy 16:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I do not believe that sexual orientation is always absolute or rigidly fixed. It is rarely reported but a substantial number of people are reconsidering their sexual preferences at any given time. Though I believe that there are some people (certainly some asexuals) for whom it is determined at birth and is a lifelong thing. But I don't believe it to be true in every case. Samantha of Cardyke 07:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for misrepresenting you, then. I would agree that many (and probably most) asexuals would keep to that orientation, but unless an orientation is rooted completely in biology, it can change. For instance, Bogaert's article suggests that asexuality for some individuals may result from deeply-seeded religious convictions regarding purity or such. But if asexuality were socially constructed in this fashion, it is easy to see how for instance change in religious belief or practice may eventually result to a change in sexual orientation. (Just to give one example.) I don't think you can say that a sexual orientation is "inherent" to an individual without saying that nurture plays no role whatsoever. If orientation is socially constructed in even the slightest sense, then it is also conceivable it can be deconstructed. Sarge Baldy 08:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You appear to be going on about something that has nothing to do with precise language and everything to do with promoting a pet theory. One that as far as I can tell has never been applied to asexuality specifically in any peer reviewed study. I agree with Birdhombre, the word does not mean permanence or inborn trait, which was your original dispute with it. --Xombie 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I would ask that you remain civil. Queer theory is not some "pet theory" of mine, and I do not wholly espouse it. However, it is exceptionally well regarded and well known (the theory actually receives well over 3x as many hits as "theory of gravity" on Google) and represents a point of view that would be absent from the article. Queer theory applies to asexuality because asexuality is a "queer" orientation as that word is used by theorists. I think to say anything is inherent is to say it's permanent, because inherent (in the sense you're using it) means an essential characteristic, and essential means fundamental, necessary, or representing the fixed essence of, which puts us right back where we were. As far as I can tell, there's only been one serious study devoted to human asexuality, which is the Bogaert article referenced in the article. This author does not jump to the essentialist conclusion that asexuality is "inherent", and accepts that some asexuals may have completely normal sexual functioning but see themselves as asexual for other reasons: "In other words, there may be a group of so-called "true" asexual people (defined as those who lack sexual attraction for partners of either sex) who show no physiological response to stimuli with males or females as sexual targets and another group of individuals who show typical attraction and arousal patterns and yet report, label, or perceive themselves as being asexual for various reasons (e.g., not aware of own arousal; deny arousal)." Sarge Baldy 07:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again: "queer theory" appears to be only applied in peer reviewed study to homosexuality and bisexuality. You are only assuming that it applies to asexuality, which would fall under "original research" and therefore is outside the realm of verifiability (the rules of which I previously linked to you). It is therefore inadmissable to this article's content. It has also already been explained several times to you by both I and others that the word "inherently" is not being used to imply permanence, merely a character which is not necessarily permanent, and you repeating ad-nauseum that it is will not change that. I'd also like to note that the context of your quote is referring to hypothetical future research, not the findings of the article. --Xombie 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's "original research" because theorists have said rather explicitly that Queer Theory applies broadly. Quoting T. A. Dowson, Robert J. Wallis says that queer theory is "open to 'anyone who feels their position (sexual, intellectual or cultural) to be marginalised'" (World Archaeology 32(2):253.). For that matter, Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, and any widespread theoretical approach should be represented. And as I keep saying, I believe "inherently" does require permanence. And I wish you would take this claim seriously instead of presuming it is rhetoric. You have not adequately demonstrated to me that "essential characteristic" does not require permanence. And certainly his point was regarding future research, but that does not dismiss the fact that he says asexuality is hypothetically compatible with a regular sex drive. Sarge Baldy 17:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It is rhetoric. We have presented to you a completely valid explanation why the word does not imply permanence, and all you have done is dismiss it offhand and repeat your original assertion. It appears so far that the only way we could "adequately demonstrate" anything to you is by agreeing with you, since you have rejected even compromise on the matter. So unless you come up with a compelling NPOV reason why our explanations should be dismissed, I move that we attempt to resolve the dispute by other methods.
As for the Bogaert article, in context it is not evidence of anything at all. You are welcome to add queer theory in the article, however as it has not been directly applied to asexuality in peer reviewed study, using it for the first part of the article would give it undue weight. --Xombie 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that queer theory needs to be introduced, I'm simply suggesting that all points of view should be respected in the opening definition. Neither Bogaert or the Kinsey study claim or argue in any way that asexuality is "inherent". In fact, the Kinsey study notes that there is no precise definition of asexuality and that some studies of asexuality have categorized people with low rather than no sexual desire as asexuals. So to make a factual claim that asexuality is "inherent" is blatantly POV, and one you still have not substantiated with a source. Note also that this article is about asexuality as it is identified in human beings, and not asexuality as a general biological process. I also have yet to see how asexuality could be confused with celibacy, because the former is concerned only with sexual desire where the latter is concerned only with sexual behavior. Sarge Baldy 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not trying to be snarky here, but... I also have yet to see how asexuality could be confused with celibacy, because the former is concerned only with sexual desire where the latter is concerned only with sexual behavior. ...I think it's quite easy to confuse the two. If someone is so deeply religious that they can't stand the thought of having sex, does that count as asexuality? To me, that's repression, or at the very least, a Clockwork Orangesque way of making someone "asexual." As I said before, I think the one common thread among the different people who describe themselves as asexual is that they don't feel they are repressing anything, and they only know that there's something "wrong"/different because sex is flaunted everywhere in society. Celibates, on the other hand, know full well what they're doing. But people often tell asexuals they're just "repressing" or "you just haven't met the right person" or other such lines, so apparently society as a whole can't make the distinction either. Maybe a more basal way of putting it is (as I said in another discussion up above), asexuals are generally comfortable being who they are, whereas people with sexual dysfunction want to have sex but physiologically can't. If it's not "inherent," isn't it a choice? Maybe I'm still missing a piece of the puzzle here. --Birdhombre 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your choices on the matter:

1.) Both I and Birdhombre offered M-W as a source for the definition. As stated before, our intention with the word fits within the definition. What you personally understand the word as carries no more weight than what we understand it as, such is the nature of semantics. If your problem is with people pushing that asexuality is inborn, we aren't, and have explained how we are not. The dispute with that dispute is therefore solved, as the word is indeed applicable.
2.) You keep saying that you disagree with "inherent" yet have refused several offers to replace it with another word. If your problem is with the definition of the word, surely you have no problem with another word to replace it. Stating again: the intention is not to push that asexuality is purely inborn and biological. This solution is perfectly reasonable and will aleviate your fears that anyone will mistake the word for a definition implying inborn trait. I suggest the word "necessarily".
3.) You are welcome to proceed with more formal dispute resolution. I am unwilling to continue this debate, as it has gone on for longer than any on this page with no resolution. --Xombie 21:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
1) I know what definition you selected. "Involved in the constitution or essential character of something", and as the dictionary then states, this means "belonging by nature or habit". These are not separate definitions, they mean the exact same thing. To say it is in the nature of an asexual to not experience sexual attraction is to suggest it is something deeply rooted and beyond change. It's taking one extreme end. The other extreme would be to say that asexuals are people who choose to avoid feelings of sexual desire. We shouldn't take either extreme, we should take a NPOV.
2) I've refused offers to replace it with another word because
a) you never demonstrated why a word is needed there
b) you never gave a source defining asexuality in a way that would require any such word
c) I fail to see why a word is needed there
I can however, see your complaint. But I don't think we can fix it by adding a word there. What we need to do is create a better definition. My suggestion is "Asexuality is a general term or self-designation for people who find sexual behavior unappealing." This makes it very clear that asexuality is not celibacy, because most celibates may find sexual behavior appealing without actually wanting to engage in it. I think unappealing is a good choice (meaning "not appealing to the senses") because it's fairly neutral with regard to nature and nurture, and neither implies rigidity or flexibility. Sarge Baldy 01:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)



Psychologically Withdrawn From Sexual Desires

Could it be possible that asexuality is caused by psychological repulsion towards sexual activities? People molested at a young age could perhaps mentally withdraw themselves from sexuality and live upon this, telling themselves that they do not want to engage in affairs pertaining to sex. I think of myself as an asexual because I am not sexually attracted to either gender. This might be caused by my parents persistent reminder that sexual intercourse is to reproduce, but like the dissimilarity between refusing cake because of a diet or just not wanting any, there is a vast difference between celibacy and asexuality. Or perhaps I, like many others, am too occupied with the brusqueness of reality and the pressure to stay a fruitful investment for my parents. This brings me two other dilemmas: 1. Is there something wrong with the way I function considering the years I am in now are the ones where hormones are at their peak, hence causing an array sexual desires (or supposed to, anyways)? 2. If I am normal, what about everyone else? Have their sexual desires surpassed the importance of their well being? Cheau The GOD 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to ask these sort of questions at AVEN [13], which is better prepared to answer them. Sarge Baldy 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to mislead you. My sole question was the one pertaining to psychology. I was just ranting about asexuality.


Inhibited Sexual Desire??

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

Contradiction and Inconsistancy

This article seems to have a big problem with inconsistently confusing celebacy with asexuality. In the beginning of the article much care is given to convey the ambiguity that surrounds the definition of asexuality, and in the last line of the section titled Variations ("Note that asexuality is not the same as celibacy, which is the deliberate abstention from sexual activity; many asexuals do have sex, and most celibates are not asexual.") a clear and correct distinction is made between celebacy and asexuality, But in the very next section (titled Asexuality and religion) this view is abandoned and priests, nuns, etc. are labled asexual rather than the more correct and accepted term: celebate. There is no evidence that these religous leaders did not experience sexual desires, they were merely remaining celebate as they believed it would please and honor God. Therefore I am removing this statement, as well as changing the next sentence from "many conservative Christians" to "some conservative Christians" since the word "many" implies some sense of amount which we have no evidence to support any knowledge of, and the word "some" does not imply any sort of amount other than that there is more than none.

The same inconsistancy is appearant in the first line of the section titled Asexuality in fiction which labels a charecter who is devoting his life to chastity as asexual rather than celebate. Also, the first sentence of the next line seems more like an "I told you so" piece of evidence to support the earlier comments that sexuality is supressed in certain religions, and is definately not a good example of asexuality in fiction. I am therefore removing both of them. --Mirabile Dictu 21:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Word Choice

I've noticed a lot of strange generalities in this article, such as here: "...some asexuals believe that their lack of "base desires" allows them to feel a deeper spirituality, although other asexuals consider that an elitist attitude." Such uses of generalities create a sense of questionable accuracy. Was a national poll conducted on this subject? All of the wording seems to suggest a sense of myth or "he-said, she-said" -- it has a feel of "I heard it on the grapevine". Am I the only person with this objection?

What precisely is your objection? You said yourself there's probably been no research or information-gathering on the subject, so how else exactly can anything be said on the subject without citing anecdotal references? So long as anecdotal references are clearly marked as such, they are perfectly reliable sources of what is the current state of widely-disseminated knowledge (or lack of it) on the subject. A citation is no more a garantor of accuracy than the lack of one ought to discredit an argument.
Nuttyskin 03:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"John-Jack Christian"

Who added this:

Ryan A. Morgan's 1997 novel John-Jack Christian tells about a teenager struggling to deal with his asexuality in a normal teenage environment, before resorting to bodybuilding to keep himself sane.

A Google search for "John-Jack Christian" turned up no such novel. None.--Rmky87 02:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this real?

I think this is something more related to over-shyness, involuntary celibacy, and/or other factors more then being an actual orientation.

In the cases I've heard of, over-shyness and involuntary celibacy had nothing to do with the people not having sex. Frankly, I don't see how an uninformed opinion, from either me or you, helps anything.--Prosfilaes 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

- It seems perfectly feasible to me that shyness, celibacy, introversion et al be traits with free reign to co-exist or otherwise with 'asexuality'. The above stated perceived 'conditions' are simply other entities complete with their own templates of individual premise and philosophy. Overlaps could exist, although it would be no less probable for them not to.


Ed Gein

I've read enough about Ed Gein (I think 80 books...) to safely remove him from the list of asexuals. No asexual would dig up a woman and remove her genitals and then then put them in his underpants. Or make a suit out of a woman's skin. Asexuals just aren't into that stuff. They're asexual. Doi. -Gates, not signed in...what's my password?

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.