Talk:Asexuality/Archive 3

1% ?
I'm sure more than 1% of the population is asexual! I find it hard to believe 99%of the population wants to get laid. But then, most people don't know what asexuality is, and so can't catagorise themselves as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.126.141 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to believe? Asexual's have completely no interest in sex. Most of the world population can or does. About 99%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.234.177 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's 3% of U.S. noninstitutionalized adults that have not had sex in their lifetimes and 10% in a year, and I think those figures are due to underreporting, because the study was based on a stranger showing up at a home, saying they're from a university, taking attendance, promising to keep a secret, and asking about their sexuality.


 * The study came as two books, one professional and called The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, by Edward O. Laumann et al. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994), the other for a lay readership and called Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by Robert T. Michael et al. (Boston: Little, Brown, or N.Y.: Warner, 1994), both using the same data and criticized for understating the Lesbian/gay population (so maybe they understated the asexual population, too), but the data is separate from the argument about smallness, and the data is what should be cited. I think the data was tabulated in chapter 7 of Sex in America, the lay book in which there's a sentence from which one could understandably but incorrectly infer that 99% of men and 96% of women are heterosexual, figures that are probably due to nonparallelism of definitions (usually nonparallelism is due to relying on an expansive definition of heterosexuality (a man who leafs through pictures of naked women must be het) and a narrow definition of gayness (a man must be in bed with a man and exciting sexual organs in order to qualify as gay and anything less is not gay). So I suspect the 3% and 10% figures likely understate what they represent.


 * One could argue that many sexually inactive people still consider themselves not asexual, but that might be due to social opprobrium against any sexuality but hetero. These are noninstitutionalized adults, who presumably have opportunities to date, so if they don't maybe they don't want to, whatever they call themselves.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete
It is not possible for a human with validly functioning sex organs to be asexual so please delete this article. --198.51.130.254 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Urvabara (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But seriously even among celibate people they still usually masturbate and have sexual desire, and almost all children go through sexual stages like the Oedipus complex, so this article should be deleted. --198.51.130.254 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Oedipus complex is a kind of perversion restricted to just a few people and by no means a normal stage of sexual development.--80.141.178.41 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Celibacy is a choice... im not choosing to be asexual, it just sort of happened that way. lol. love between two people is more meaningful when you both don't care about having sex, but you enjoy each others company. People that have a sexual relationship tend to think that sex is the only thing that matters and if you don't have it then something is seriously wrong. they've been brainwashed to think that way thanks to society and the sexual media. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

The sexual media lol. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended because i am asexual. It is totally real. I can not get an erection because i cant be aroused so no it should not be deleted and i will get seriously ticked off and take action about this if you delete this page. 97.81.53.142 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete, Part 2
I personally don't think that it is possible for a person with normal sexual organs to be completely and totally devoid of sexual and even this article says that most of these "asexuals" admit that they masturbate, which would mean that they must have some sexual desire, so it probably isn't possible to be completely asexual. So since it is impossible to be asexual I think this bogus article should be deleted. --198.51.130.254 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The validity of an article on Wikipedia is based on notablility, not your personal views on the concept's truth. Wikipedia also has articles on bigfoot, time travel, God, and world peace, though many people argue that these things are impossible as well. If you can find any citeable materials stating that any person with sexual organs must have a sexual orientation, please add it into the article, as this would be a valuable addition. --Paul Cox 13:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am asexual, i don't masturbate, i have no interest in sex of any kind, so am i impossible?DAVID CAT 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you can't defeat your sexual desires doesn't mean everyone else can't. 70.59.7.115 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sentence doesn't make sense DAVID CAT 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can think of good reasons to want to "defeat your sexual desires". But I would guess that real asexuals don't have sexual desires to defeat, and some probably would prefer to have sexual desires. 99.233.20.151 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to hear that I don't exist...thanks a bunch. but really, there is a major flaw here. You see, there is a difference between sexual attraction and sex drive. Being asexual means you have no sexual attraction to anything. Some asexuals do have a sex drive (libido), hence masturbation is possible. With sexual people their sexual attraction and their sex drive match, meaning they masturbate with preference toward their sexual orientation. but, I happen to not have a libido(like david cat), so this case doesn't pertain to me specifically, I'm just trying to clear this confusion up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.210.32 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that regarding masturbation, the non-believers mean that the person surely has to have a little sexual attraction to one sex/gender in order to become sexually aroused. Except for men having an "accidental erection," people don't suddenly need to masturbate out of nowhere. As the article states, "The Kinsey Institute sponsored another small survey on the topic in 2007, which found that self-identified asexuals 'reported significantly less desire for sex with a partner, lower sexual arousability, and lower sexual excitation but did not differ consistently from non-asexuals in their sexual inhibition scores or their desire to masturbate.'" It says "less" and "lower," not "non." I personally have studied many things, including asexuality, but I don't understand it that well; in fact, it is the least understood by most sexual experts. Still, I usually take an asexual's word about what they are or are not sexually aroused by...if anything. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm asexual. You are wrong dude. I'm in no way shape or form sexual at all. I am not attracted to females or males whatsoever. I cant get an erection either because i cant be sexually aroused. 97.81.53.142 (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A Sexual Orientation?
Asexuality is a sexual orientation? Is atheism also a religion? Asexuality the absence of a sexual orientation. -EatonTFores (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's more in the word "orientation". I would view atheism as a religious orientation.  -BarkerJr (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call atheism a "religious orientation," and I know atheists who are forever infuriated by the attempts of theists to cast their views as somehow "religious." In any case, this is an encyclopedia, and so words should be used literally. The word "asexuality" literally means "of no sexuality." As I said, it is not a sexual orientation, but rather the absence of any sexual orientation. Put it another way: if asexuality is a sexual orientation, then what are asexuals sexually oriented towards? 67.83.48.49 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality is not a black and white issue; it has many grey areas. Asexuals identify in many ways such as homoromantic asexual (a male that is romantically interested/attracted to other men). I think many sexual people find the idea/concept of no desire for sex to be absurd, but then again I know quite a few asexuals who think that sex is absurd and that a close relationship built on trust, communication, and romantic endeavors is optimal. --JustJasen (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a rather after-the-fact reply, but I'd like to add for others to see that the simplest explanation I've heard is that asexuality could be considered a subset of a sexual orientation. As JustJasen mentioned, asexual people can be attracted to other people in ways that would be classified under various sexual orientations; their asexuality just adds another layer to that. Of course, there are those who are just not attracted to anybody, and in those cases asexuality becomes its own category. It's as fluid as anything else relating to gender/sexuality, really. Miscellanium (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Asexuality is not an orientation. Children can already be very masculine or feminine, but still they dislike sex or even the mere thought of it. If they say otherwise it is mostly pretense. Some people just remain at that stage, mostly because of social restrictions during puberty (or because of once having been ridiculed), thus preventing a healthy development towards maturation. No one really choses to be asexual. He or she just settles down by this.--80.141.178.41 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "preventing a healthy development towards maturation" – What are you saying? That something is wrong with me and the whole asexual movement? This sounds insulting. So we aren't healthy individuals? I'm very comfortable with my "orientation". If you think about how checks and balances work... Homosexuality counters Heterosexuality, and Asexuality counters Bisexuality - so it must be an orientation; otherwise the system would have no balance. If you still argue that it is not an orientation, then you must admit it is a sexual identity - which I believe is the politically correct term because orientation doesn't fit your definition. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

That's ridiculous, I'm asexual and i've never been subjected to social restrictions that would cause this, i come from an open family and from childhood to now the interest i've had in sex has been the exact same which is no interest whatsoever. I have a gay sister, a gay uncle and very accepting parents and friends with a social network of their own that led me to friends that were pretty open from childhood aswell several with gay parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.90.59 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypersexuality?
This bothers me so bad. As an asexual, I am puzzled as to why hypersexuality is there because hypersexuality is the complete opposite of asexuality. Why is this on the See also? Why? It doesn't make sense. IF anything, shouldn't hyposexuality be in its place. Can I please have a consensus on this? I don't think that hypersexuality merits inclusion on this article. It's like throwing 'Sharks'' in the see also section of the 'goldfish'. (Tigerghost (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)).


 * Also, the hypersexuality page has asexuality as a parallel see-also reference. The asexuality page has a box of sexual orientations generally as a compact list of links for researchers using Wikipedia, and maybe hypersexuality should go there, maybe into the Research subbox, but hypersexuality is described in its article as a clinical matter, which suggests disease, not the case with asexuality.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IF asexuality is defined as an orientation and/or identity and not as a disease or disorder, then hypersexuality should be likewise defined. Yes, I think I can see why hyposexuality might have at least something to do with asexuality, as perhaps a frequent co-factor (co-existing condition), but it should be included even if the only connection is a common misconception or synonym in people's minds.  As for opposites (antonyms), I think hypersexuality would come close in some ways, bisexuality in others, and the dispute is between those who insist it is only one and not the other; I believe they are both, and that asexuality involves not only a lack of orientation (& opposite of bisexual), but also, in the vast majority of cases, a greatly diminished level or complete absence of desire (thus making it opposite of hypersexuality). 173.16.125.178 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hypo- and hypersexuality are not sexual orientations, because a sexual orientation is a norm, while hypo- and hyper- are, by definition, respectively, 'too little' or 'too much' of something (of sexuality, in this case). Norms are generally beneficial to survival or thrival; that which is too little or too much is, by definition, not beneficial to that person. If someone is hypo- or hyper- anything, they want or need a correction; if they're normal, they don't have to. Since hypo- and hyper- are relative to some normal range, in this case a range that includes asexuality as a norm, it is possible for a hyposexual to have more sexual contact than an asexual does and still want or need correction when an asexual doesn't. If sexual quantity is to figure into sexual orientations, then other terminology is needed, with meanings of 'little' or 'much', but not 'too little' or 'too much'. Propose those terms, if you wish. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

New sections?
I was curious if anyone would be interested in adding a new section regarding Religion and Asexuality or historical Asexuality; I remember quite vividly that Paul was most likely celebate, but his nonsexual opinions could merit inclusion in the article under a religion section. Also, I have become aware that the Satanic Bible has a few passages on asexuality that would be interesting to quote. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I believe the passages in the Satanic Bible you are referring to are


 * 1) "Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your individual desires — be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual, if you choose."
 * 2) "Even the asexual has a deviation - his asexuality. It is far more abnormal to have a lack of sexual desire (unless illness or old-age, or another valid reason has caused the wane) than it is to be sexually promiscuous."
 * 3) "In many cases of sexual sublimination (or asexuality), any attempt to emancipate himself sexually would prove devastating to the asexual."
 * 4) "Asexuals are invariably sexually sublimated by their jobs or hobbies. All the energy and driving interest which would normally be devoted to sexual activity is channelled into other pastimes or into their chosen occupations. If a person favors other interests over sexual activity, it is his right, and no one is justified in condemning him for it. However, the person should at least recognize the fact that this is a sexual sublimation."The Satanic Bible

While Lavey appears to be under the false impression that asexuality is a choice, it is notable that he acknowledges its existence. --Parodist (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are also suggestions that the apostle Paul was asexual, drawn mainly from 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Corinthians 7:5-9. While I don't find either verse as definitive evidence that he was, the suggestions are also notable. --Parodist (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And the Hindu Karma Sutra says (emphasis added) "A man is called a man of small passion whose desire at the time of sexual union is not great...and who cannot bear the warm embraces of the female. Those who differ from this temperament are called men of middling passion, while those of intense passion are full of desire." --Parodist (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

example of asexuality?
I make no claim that this is typical, but I just thought this may somehow be helpful here:

1. I am fully capable of being extremely warm, romantic, and intimate.

2.I find all sexual cues totally alien and meaningless. For example,genitals and female breasts are perceived by me as mere deformities.

3.I find all sexual behavior as alien and meaningless. I have tried sex from kissing to intercourse, and I didn't even know how to do it. It felt like playing with guts. I can't even imagine how sex can be perceived as related to human intimacy.

4. I have a strong libido, and have masturbated automatically to orgasm nearly every day since I was 6 years old, accompanied by a fantasy which, if turned into a movie, would be a G rated horror movie. All porn is disgusting and meaningless to me. 207.69.248.248 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't take offense, but I just have to ask: How can it be disgusting if it is meaningless to you? If it disgusts you, it must mean something to you on some level, even if it's a subconscious level. 173.16.125.178 (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Holmes is not asexual
I'm pretty sure Sherlock Holmes is not said to be asexual, but in fact he refuses to have any romantic or sexual relationships as he fears it may hinder his career. I think the part on Holmes should be removed, or the other explanation at least mentioned as a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.83.28 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Background: M.A. in English Literature. Holmes is BY NO MEANS asexual. The definition of asexuality post-dates Holme's existence. Note that the quote used to 'justify' this in the page is truncated early... after gibe and a sneer follows:

They were admirable things for the observer--excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained teasoner 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.

Not only does this imply that WATSON was making these observations OF Holmes, but that Holmes' reasoning laid more on his distractions than his lack of libido. In fact Holmes' malingering over Irene Adler is fairly well known. I think Conan Doyle would most certainly disagree with this branding. Vote to remove immediately. 142.162.12.7 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to respectfully disagree, at least with your apparent assumption that Holmes was attracted to Irene Adler. I think there's sufficient evidence to put down that theory, most notably "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." --98.17.234.154 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm going to mention at least that it is never explicitly stated and that it is possible he ignored sexual or romantic feelings in order to concentrate on his work. I suppose you could change it back, but it is a reasonable assumption and to not mention it would be unsencyclopedic anyway as we are never told what is going on in Holmes' mind and only what Watson sees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.90.19 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

propose to cite an article I wrote that a university journal published
I plan to cite the article For Men Only: Asexuality, by Nick Levinson, in So to Speak: a feminist journal of language and art, vol. 14, no. 2 (2005), pp. 51–54. I'm the article's author.

This isn't about how I'll use it when I cite it (I am still drafting a proposed text), but the possibility of citing per se.

The article's publisher paid me nothing (and wasn't supposed to) and I have no commercial plan for the article. I know of no organization in connection with the article, other than the publisher, a university.

I don't know of any conflict of interest per WP:COI and the article doesn't involve any BLP issue. If you think there may be one, please let me know.

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the citation to the article, per the new Etiology section draft, since no reply appeared. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

new Etiology section draft
I propose adding an Etiology section to the Asexuality article. The draft is on its own talk subpage.

Explanations:
 * The citing of three Web posts and an article in so to speak is permissible within WP:SELFPUBOK because they're statements about their authors and not about other identified people. The statement by a clinical psychologist does not identify (e.g., name) the person being described, thus does not violate the BLP policy. Altogether, they are not a major part of the article and they fill a gap in the systematic research.
 * Instead of etiology, perhaps ascription is more neutral. What do you think?

Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it the draft was okay, so I've put it into the article, with the section title left as drafted. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Romantic Relationships
I took out "Link 16" the one that connected to LGBT, because there are already two other links for the same sentence, so it was redundant, and the link was broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchingdude (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

referents now have information
For the Good Article review, I edited the referents so they're no longer bare. Of the things listed for the purpose, it was the only thing I knew enough about to do. I did not add access dates; either an access date was already there or I didn't consider looking up bibliographic information enough reason to add an access date. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nick. Very much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Political Identity
I included a new section on asexuality being used as a political identity. It seems rather interesting, and I thought it was worth noting. However, I could see how some people many not think it should be on this page as it states that some people choose to be asexual. What does everyone else think? Lauradronen (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated my edit summary, "This section would/will likely offend true asexuals, because these people are 'choosing to be asexual,' but it is relevant." I don't mind if it stays or goes, but I did make it clear that these people are choosing to adopt the asexual label, as seen in that link. When I create the Definitions section, it'll be clear that some people define asexuality in different ways and may adopt the label even if they may not technically meet the definition to some people. Then again, as stated, there are different definitions of asexuality.


 * More than anything, you and your group need to be focusing on the GA demands made above. There is only a limited amount of time that GA stays open to review, although the GA reviewer in this case has agreed to let it stay open for a little over a week. In that GA section, you can also see why I felt that it shouldn't be nominated. I'm very busy outside of Wikipedia and you guys show up to edit sporadically, and that type of editing is not compatible with GA review. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We have been trying to clean up the article as well, but we are also quite busy. We would love to see this article attain GA status, and we hoped that in nominating it we could see exactly what needs to be done. Am I incorrect in thinking that it can be submitted for this multiple times? Also, thank you for tidying up my most recent edit!Lauradronen (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the "Political identity" section you made is more appropriate for an article such as sexual abstinence or celibacy as it is about rejecting sexuality rather than not having it to begin with. Flyer22 is correct that your time would be better spent addressing the concerns I listed in the GA review page.


 * Also, about GA reviews, you should not nominate an article for GA review unless: 1) You believe the article is as good as you can get it to be and you have taken care of all the details beforehand, 2) You have the time and are prepared to address all the problems that the reviewer finds. It is true that you can submit an article for GA review multiple times, but to submit an article if you know it will probably fail or still needs a lot of work is a disservice to the GA process as it creates more work for volunteers like me. If you are not sure if an article is good enough for GA status, you should first ask for a WP:peer review or make a request on a relevant WikiProject (such as WP:WikiProject Sexuality). I hope you use this as a learning process for future articles. -- Tea with toast  (話)  03:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Political correctness and not wanting to offend people should not, IMO, be reasons not to include content that is factual and encyclopaedic. Also, there appear to be quite a few people editing this document pushing strong POVs that who appear to fall in this group, which I feel confuses the lay person who might have no knowledge of Asexuality, and who may read this article in order to learn about it. So - as long as the section is written respectfully, dispassionately and, preferably, with respect, then I say most definitely include it. It clarifies a lot, especially with the somewhat confusing nature of the article as it currently stands, being rather wishy-washy about the nature of asexuality, and confusing low libido with asexuality on multiple occasions. IMO this article needs a lot of work, but it is heartening to see that multiple people are rolling up their sleeves and doing this work. Personally, I began get involved with this article some time ago but was ultimately discouraged by the politicisation and rabid POV-pushing I encountered at the time, and so I simply gave up, so more power to those of you who possess more patience than I! :)  ★★  Violet Fae   (contributions)★★  14:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Beg my pardon for intruding, but what POV-pushing are you talking about? Your own? Because Flyer and Nick can't possibly be called POV-pushers here, as there are varying definitions of asexuality. Reporting these definitions and the research using them is not POV-pushing. It's just a reality. A reality Wikipedia is right to include. I've watched this article and talk page for months now, and I witnessed your debate with Flyer. I never understood your opposition to her points, besides your belief that the article should prescribe to your POV that asexuality means no sexual attraction. That is just one definition of asexuality. Flyer provided reliable sources showing just that, and still you attribute this to Flyer and Nick's POVs? Why is that? They are doing the right thing by letting us know what the sources (these experts) say about asexuality. It's these experts who are using "asexuality" to mean "no sexual attraction" in addition to "a lack of sexual attraction," and sometimes in reference to how low a person's libido is. If you want to blame someone for the topic of asexuality being confusing, then blame the experts. Or how about the people who define themselves as asexual, since the definition varies even among asexual-identified people? Or how about blaming it on sexual people who will never understand asexuality? All of the above three choices even.


 * For the record, I'm asexual and I don't believe that it's inaccurate when someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction calls themselves asexual. In my experience, these people couldn't care less to engage in sexual activity and are usually quite turned off by the idea of having sex, which makes them asexual in my opinion. Being a part of the asexual community, you learn that people define asexuality differently. I don't find this article confusing at all. On the contrary, I find it accurate and quite representative. Asexuality being confusing to people has to do with the examples I listed earlier, not this article. This is a good article, and others have agreed that Flyer and company did great work on it. I find your showing up here to criticize it after the hard work to get it to the level of a good article, basically because it doesn't prescribe to your POV, to be disheartening. The only thing you could have done with this article to make it reflect your POV would have been to remove the majority of its references along with its text, which would have severely threatened the article's chances of reaching the good article level. It's not like there is a lot of research on this topic. And what research there is - most of it is in this article. You need to face that and stop acting like you got ganged up on by editors trying to put inaccurate information into the article. I almost can't even begin to rationalize how you think it's a bad idea to report the different definitions and exactly how the experts have researched the topic, but that it's a good idea to include asexuality as a political identity in the article like asexuality is some kind of choice. That's sad. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the political information, since the article explains that asexuality is not a choice. I'm just singling out your faulty argument for wanting it included. . 23.20.6.96 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "you got ganged up on by editors trying to put inaccurate information into the article": Yes, that is exactly what happened, and your rude, bullying post above is more of the same - and what the hell does feminism have to do with anything? You don't know me, and while it is true that I wouldn't put up with sexist treatment, I've never identified as a feminist, so I don't know what on earth you are banging on about with that name-calling at all. And really, come on - even though I'm not a feminist, I think that was a pretty weak and pathetic effort. It's also interesting that you come on here trying to bully me from the anonymity of your internet connection on behalf of Flyer and whoever else, and when I click on your previous contributions, you have no history... Very suspicious. If you have no history with Wikipedia, then I don't understand you venom and your mobbing mentality, if not, then who knows, maybe you are one of them? Either way, it makes no difference to me - you are being rude and bullying in your post, and logic is not on your side, as I have previously shown, and as I will once again show:
 * Asexuality is not about being attracted to others but just having a low libido (that is hyposexuality), and despite your inference above, nor is it about being sex-phobic (though admittendly some asexuals may be, many are not, and indeed many like me are quite sex-positive, so sex-phobia and sex-negativism are different subjects to asexuality). Just as with the other three main sexual attractions/identities, in its objective sense, a-, hetero-, homo- and bisexuality all relate to one's attraction. Just as homosexuality refers to attraction to the same sex but not to the opposite sex; just like heterosexuality refers to attraction to the opposite but not to the same sex; and just like bisexuality refers to attraction to both the same and the opposite sex - so asexuality refers to attraction to neither, or put more elegantly, the lack of sexual attraction - it is really that simple.
 * By way of example, there are people who identify as heterosexual, but who are sexually attracted to both men and women. I'm not going to go around telling them how they should identify, and nobody really would. At the same time, however, the fact that they choose to identify as heterosexual doesn't alter the basic definition of heterosexuality as attraction to the opposite and and not the same sex. In this example, the person I'm discussing may objectively be bisexual, but they are free to identify however they want. However their identification as "heterosexual" despite their bisexual attractions and/or behaviour doesn't alter the basic definition of what heterosexuality is.
 * "I don't believe that it's inaccurate when someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction calls themselves asexual": Of course it absolutely is inaccurate, but like I said, I don't tell people how they should identify, and people are free to identify however they like. I'm only interesting in seeing asexuality defined precisely and without the sloppiness and confusion currently present in this article. Not that I will be a part of that, of course, because I don't have the time or energy for this kind of PC "ganging up" on and childish name-calling that you three are engaging in.
 * Lastly, I will repeat what I came on here to say so it doesn't get lost in all this bullying: I don't believe that political correctness should be a reason not to post content in this article, providing of course that the content in question in accurate, concise and encyclopaedic, so I support the original poster's suggestion to include the "asexuality as a political identity" section, though if I had the energy to write the article then I would probably expand it to "asexuality as an identity", to include people such as yourself, who are free to identify as asexual, even if you are not, strictly speaking, asexual. Live and let live, after all - just keep the definitions accurate. ★★  Violet Fae   (contributions)★★  05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said "Goodbye, bully-boys" in one of your latest edit summaries. I hope it's really goodbye, because Wikipedia is no place for editors who cannot defer to reliable sources and work with others, and when they don't get their way. Including information in this encyclopedia is generally about Verifiability, not what you think you know.  You continue to affirm that your POV is correct, in the light of overwhelming evidence that it is not. If we are to defer to the reliable sources, your POV is not correct. You haven't provided any reliable sources supporting your POV, other than AVEN. And not only can AVEN not be used as the be-all and end-all definition of asexuality because they are a Primary source and not a scholarly one (scholarly sources are needed to define any sexual orientation topic), even they recognize that the definition of asexuality varies and they welcome it. According to research, there is no single definition of asexuality, besides "a lack of sexual attraction/interest in sex." And looking at the sources, the experts mean "a significant lack." For most of the sources, at no point do they say "no sexual attraction to speak of" when referring to the definition of asexuality.


 * It is categorically false that you were bullied by editors who were trying to put inaccurate information into the article. You were directed to defer to reliable sources and/or to provide reliable sources supporting your POV. Instead, you bitched and protested, insisting that you were right without anything other than AVEN supporting that you are right (even with AVEN being more welcoming of how asexuality may be defined than you). AVEN can only be used for a few things in the article, and AVEN is about all you would have saying that asexuality is defined as "no sexual attraction to speak of," when looking to most of all the other reliable sources on asexuality that are a bit broader in their definition. But we are bullies because we are deferring to reliable sources by experts while letting you know that you are supposed to do the same when editing Wikipedia articles? I suppose we're bullies then. Silly us for deferring to what the experts say and how they use the term instead of only you and a website forum. If you're a feminist, my argument about you wanting the political identity info included isn't that weak, as it has to do with feminists and their beliefs. But then again, looking through his contributions, the editor Nick works on a lot of feminism topics and hasn't supported the inclusion of this material, so maybe the argument isn't that strong. But I basically decided to speak up and criticize you for not making sense. In your discussion with Flyer and Nick, it was pointed out that you are a new user. Looking through your contributions, it doesn't look like you have learned much since then. This is made all the more apparent by your calling me suspicious because I had no previous contributions. Do you think only registered editors watch this talk page? Do you think all unregistered watchers have used their IPs to edit Wikipedia articles? Are you not aware of changing IPs, by whatever the means? How about you check the edit history of this talk page and see the recent IPs who commented here before me, who also had no edit history until now, as recently as the Flag discussion below. If you must know, I either change my IP (by whatever means) or it changes for me. And I have edited/commented at Wikipedia before recently, but I don't edit/comment often. My general aversion to having debates with people who cannot bother to see reason is the only thing that kept me from speaking up in your discussion with Flyer and Nick. Interesting that you focus on Flyer, when I also mentioned Nick. Interesting that I appear to know Wikipedia better than you when I have never registered as one of its users. I guess one learns a lot just watching articles and talk pages.


 * Logic does happen to be on my side. Others have shown that. You have not shown anything but AVEN. The following is not what I said: "Asexuality is not about being attracted to others but just having a low libido." I did not say that. I spoke of my belief that people can feel very minor sexual attraction and still be asexual, if they, like asexual people, usually don't want to have sex and are usually turned off by the idea of having sex. My belief is supported by numerous reliable sources in the article. What is yours supported by, besides AVEN? And shall I note that there are people on AVEN who would agree with me? I would think that the definitions area of the article is all one would need to look to in order to see that what I say is true. My inference about asexuals being turned off by the idea of having sex is supported as well. It doesn't necessarily have to mean "phobia." I am turned off by the idea of having sex, and I think all true asexuals are, or else we'd be having it (and I don't mean masturbation). I don't hate sex. Nor am I scared of it. I'd just rather not have it. The thought of it does nothing for me. And the issue of libido? It actually does have to do with asexuality, in the sense that some asexuals say they do not have a sex drive. It's only natural that experts try and determine whether this has to do with a person being asexual, even though there are asexuals who do have a sex drive. Experts are going to compare the sex drives of asexuals to the sex drives of non-asexuals. They are going to study libido in relation to asexuality. And that's what I see in this article. At no point in the article do I see "asexuality means low libido" (unless talking about asexuals with low libido). Even the area about sexual orientation and etiology clarifies that asexuality is not a sexual disorder, etc., to some experts at least. The definitions area talks about some experts including minor sexual attraction in their definition of asexuality, but sexual attraction is not the same thing as libido or necessarily the same thing as sexual desire. For example, the area notes that some people who identify as asexual feel minor sexual attraction, but have no desire to act on that sexual attraction.


 * The difference between your example that "there are people who identify as heterosexual, but who are sexually attracted to both men and women" and this topic is that experts define heterosexuality to mean "the sexual attraction to the opposite sex/gender." If a person admits to sexual attraction to both, they are generally labeled "bisexual. But with asexuality, there is no general or single agreement about the definition of asexuality among experts, other than saying that it is "a lack of sexual attraction/interest in sex." Some of them say "the absence of," but then also go on to include people with minor sexual attraction in their definition of asexuality. I've read half of the sources in this article, and I am telling you that's the deal. You maintain that someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction and calls themselves asexual because they are not interested in sex and are turned off by the idea of having sex cannot be asexual, but that is not what the research says. That's the reason I have criticized you. Because that is what the other editors were trying to tell you, but you weren't listening then and you aren't listening now. You would be correct in your POV if "no sexual attraction" were the only definition of asexuality, but it's not. And therefore you are partly incorrect. I will repeat that if anything about the article is confusing, it's because research is not consistent in how it defines asexuality. Hence, the nature of the article. But Flyer and a Tea with toast had a definitions area created to explain all that before readers delve into the rest of the article. They were also careful to include AVEN's definition. It even comes first. But what scholars say must also be included. Would you rather not have any of the research sections in the article exist, because the experts are not defining asexuality the way you would like them to? The encyclopedia cannot do that. If there are expert-research articles defining asexuality the way you do, they should be included too. Include them. But excluding the others is not an option, especially with so little research on this topic. You call it bullying. I call it a reality of the way this encyclopedia works.


 * As for myself, I am strictly and technically asexual. I am not interested in sexual activity/turned on by any sexual idea. So I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm not "a true asexual." You must have assumed that because I support the ones who are just like me, with the exception that they feel minor sexual attraction. Well, it is rich of you to say that you support those people in their identity, even though you also proclaim that they are not true asexuals. There is no way you could have divided this article up into the way you suggest, as it would be Original research when compared to the fact that all the research supports those people as asexual as much as it does us. What you proclaim about political correctness not being a reason to exclude "content that is factual and encyclopaedic" is what I proclaim. It would be political correctness, among many other things, to have this article proclaim that asexuals never feel any sexual attraction, just to satisfy you and those like you who believe that the only true definition is someone who possesses absolutely no sexual attraction. If we defer to your POV, then why not also defer to asexuals who believe that masturbation cannot possibly be a part of "a true asexual's" life? After all, there are asexuals who are even stricter in their definition of asexuality and exclude such people as being representative of asexuality because they (like the general research community) believe that in order to become sexually aroused, there has to be a point of sexual attraction. Personal opinion should not be included unless supported by reliable sources and included properly. No Undue weight. Bias and personal opinion should not have allowance to exclude content that is factual and encyclopedic. Your commentary about an identity section, for example? There is already an "asexuality as an identity" section in the article - the definitions area. The definitions area is being kept accurate, and why? Because, for the last time, it's what the damn sources say. You can't understand that for some reason. Live and let live indeed.
 * I congratulate Flyer, Nick, and Tea with toast on elevating this article to WP:GA. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

More of the same bullying and harrassment. See Civility and No personal attacks. I am only replying here one last time as I have been informed that either you (individual) or you (three) have been posting insulting comments about me on other Wikipedia pages, so I am formally asking you to delete any and all such comments immediately. My life is far too short for this ridiculous waste of time (and if I had the time, energy & inclination I might detail how the articles don't even say what you three say they "define" asexuality as, but as I've previously said, life is just too short, and you three have driven me from contributing to this article). The article will just have to remain sloppy and inaccurate and confusing to the uninitiated. In any case, if they're interested they will probably eventually find AVEN to get a much better idea of what asexuality actually is.

So remove any harassing comments you (singular or plural) have made on other pages. Now. ★★  Violet Fae  (contributions)★★  16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Researchers differ on how many sexual orientations exist, ranging from two to four. Some don't count bisexuality. Scholar Judith Butler in Bodies That Matter contends that asexuals don't exist. Modern feminist literature generally accepts more rather than fewer sexual orientations.


 * Sexual orientation differs from other sexualities in that the others presumptively need treatment or isolation of their individuals (punishment usually being isolative). While some people believe there's a need for more children and therefore oppose anything but heterosexuality, many disagree. I think one study found that asexuals' relationships were no less healthy than heterosexuals' relationships. So the scholarly view that asexuality does not need treatment or punishment and so is a sexual orientation has a basis.


 * Many Wikipedia articles report conflicting nonfringe views from scholars. Mainstream and alternative nonfringe views are reported with due weight for each (see WP:WEIGHT). We don't choose to report only the mainstream when the other views are nonfringe. Other websites may choose differently. Wikipedia makes research information available to readers who may then choose what to follow up on.


 * In the posts above, a little of the language is over the top and should not be used (I don't know what's on other pages that Violet Fae is referring to), but asking to keep the article's content within Wikipedia's standards is not.


 * If presenting conflicting views is confusing to some readers, if the issue is that there are conflicting views, there's nothing to be done about that. But if the issue is how the two are presented and if there's a better way to separate the conflicting views and to be clear that they are conflicting (within a reasonable length and without criticizing one of the views except to report sourcing doing so), then please provide such an edit.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, IP and Nick. Excellent points. Best to not even respond to Violet Fae any longer about this, with her abhorrent responses and, as the IP stated, failure to follow reliable sources. She says she "might detail how the articles don't even say what [us] three say they 'define' asexuality as"? I say, "Oh no, they say exactly what we say they do." One example is this Prause/Graham source that she continues to ignore, which says "The term 'asexual' has been defined in many different ways" and "researchers have used the term 'asexual' to refer to individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors," for starters. I don't care if Violet Fae considers us bullies for reporting different definitions of asexuality and the research on it that includes aspects she happens to disagree with, or that she considers the article "sloppy and inaccurate and confusing to the uninitiated." As said, we're only following sources, and I did my best with what I had to work with. Because of that work, this article is now considered GA, and I won't let her take that honor from me. Even if I leave Wikipedia for good, and the article descends into crap by her hand, that honor will still be mine. Don't know what she's talking about with regard to us "posting insulting comments about [her] on other Wikipedia pages." I haven't done that here (other than criticize her arguments) or elsewhere. But I don't care. I will say that if we should read WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, then so should she. I will also say that she can refer to me as a boy/male all she wants. Doesn't make me one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work
This article is really good. It is split up and divided nicely. Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmolenaa (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we still have some more to do, but I thank you for the assessment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Sexual orientation" in hatnote
I've started this section to discuss MathewTownsend's removal of the sexual orientation wording from the hatnote. MathewTownsend stated "not a 'sexual orientation'," but as the lead and article notes, asexuality is considered a sexual orientation among some researchers. For some asexuals, it is not just "a lack of sexual attraction," but "no sexual attraction." All of this is why asexuality is listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and Template:Sexual orientation, which was only listed after thorough discussion. Although I don't feel strongly about MathewTownsend's removal, since this topic is so debated among researchers, I don't understand the issue with listing it as a sexual orientation in its Wikipedia hatnote when it is already officially listed as one by Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not too concerned about in this but I do think the article should be accurate. If least two reliable sources can be found that state that it is a sexual orientation, then the hatnote would be on more solid ground.  But none of the dictionary sources in the lede say that it is a "sexual orientation". And the lede says only that it is "sometimes considered a sexual orientation."  But the source you link to that statement says: "Asexuality, in contrast, can be defined as the absence of a traditional sexual orientation".
 * So I question whether "sexual orientation" is the reason most readers would be coming to the article, so there is no reason to put it in a hatnote. And it is misleading, if Asexuality is not generally considered a sexual orientation. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Asexuality being considered a sexual orientation is backed in this article in the third paragraph, where it says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not." It's backed to the "Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?" source. You cannot access it, but that source does go over the debate among researchers about whether or not asexuality should be categorized as a sexual orientation. The Sexual orientation and etiology section also includes this source and other sources on the subject. We aren't going by dictionary sources when it comes to defining asexuality as a sexual orientation; those are not good sources to use for such a topic. Scholarly sources are. The dictionary sources are only used to define asexuality in general.


 * As for the source you linked to above, that is in the Sexual orientation article, I assume it's used because classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation is also mentioned in that source (which consists of 12 pages; the last two are more so blank pages). Even the line you cited mentions it: Absence of a traditional sexual orientation. That line is saying that it is not a traditional sexual orientation, not that it isn't a sexual orientation at all.


 * Like I stated, I don't see the issue with calling asexuality a sexual orientation in the hatnote when it is already listed as one in the Sexual orientation article and its template. If you don't think it should be listed in those instances, you can bring that up on their talk pages. I mean, in the GA discussion above, I did say "...asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation (which makes it sort of odd that we have included it in Template:Sexual orientation." But I don't think there will be much support to remove it, since it is used to describe people who lack or do not have sexual attraction for either sex. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That article is not a good source to make a claim that asexuality is a sexual orientation. First, it is a primary source and is not a reliable secondary source. And it is an old source, published in 2004. If there has been no follow up, no subsequent articles supporting that research, that is not a good sign that the research article made any kind of impact.  Second, it is only one source, so it is only the one researcher's opinion. The article needs independent reliable sources to make the claim that asexuality is a sexual orientation. None of the other sources for the asexuality article support that claim. If authoritative secondary sources could be found, such as the American Psychological Association, and more that one, then the claim could be included. Third, the article  quoted, besides being a primary source, does not directly say "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." Instead, it makes a vague, unsubstantial claim not backed by evidence that can be interpreted various ways.  The sexual orientation article says, "our conception of sexual orientation as an attraction to another person". This is the general consensus, and Wikipedia does not publish fringe theories. The article should follow Identifying reliable sources (medicine), since the article is bordering on making diagnoses.
 * Also, there is has one slight mention in the sexual orientation article (footnoted to the same article as in this article), and 99% of the sexual orientation article directly contradicts it. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how the Contemporary Sexuality source ("Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?") is a primary source. Primary sources are sources such as AVEN. The Contemporary Sexuality source features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation. It is not a primary source, and neither is the Prause source. There is also the "Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality" source by Bogaert. All of these sources now back the line in the Sexual orientation article that says: though asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth category. They show that asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation category by some researchers. That is all these sources are supporting in the Asexuality article: That asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation by some researchers. The lead says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not.", not "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." I only started this section because I find it odd not to mention "sexual orientation" in the hatnote when asexuality is already listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and template. Like I stated, "If you don't think it should be listed in those instances, you can bring that up on their talk pages." That is where the debate about whether or not we should list asexuality as a sexual orientation should be had, because this article is not saying that it is definitively a sexual orientation...except for the template that is listed here (and the category at the bottom of the article, if you count that). Yes, sexual orientation is "an attraction to another person." Asexuality is also about attraction; it is about little or no sexual attraction. This is why it is debated as a sexual orientation by researchers. I don't see the Sexual orientation article contradicting asexuality. I see it as mainly discussing heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. And this is because of what I just stated above -- the debate.   Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS. When it comes to research articles, a primary source is an individual study or research endevor conducted by an individual researcher or group of researchers. It presents raw data, and analyzes it, then presents original conclusions. A secondary source is a review article that summarizes the current research in the field. It examines many studies are comes to conclusions based on an analysis of many studies, based on what the majority of studies support.  One study can be way off base. If used at all in an article, it must be supported by secondary  sources. It is just one researcher's findings. That is why they are not reliable sources. Something like AVEN is just a self-published source and really can't be used at all, except to cite uncontroversial facts about AVEN itself and not considered a reliable source for any other information. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MathewTownsend, I am already aware of WP:MEDRS. I would have to be, working on articles such as these. In any case, the sources I added are supporting the line in the Sexual orientation article that asexuality is starting to be recognized as a fourth sexual orientation category, and the line in the Asexuality article that some researchers consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation. I also realize that you must have been originally talking about this Bogaert source when you started talking about primary sources. My main point is that you are focusing on one finding. I am not speaking of findings. I am speaking of what is debated among researchers, backed by reliable sources. Does the Asexuality article say that asexuality is definitively a sexual orientation? No. It says that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers. Are you saying that this cannot be mentioned and thoroughly investigated in the Asexuality article? If so, I do not see why...since this debate is supported by reliable sources. And, yes, AVEN counts as WP:PRIMARY; it's only used in this article for things that primary sources are okay for. AVEN itself is also cited in reliable sources, so its article can most definitely be expanded beyond its own sources. I am bringing editors in from WP:MED to weigh in on this matter, since they know better than anyone when it comes to topics about sourcing such as this.


 * I'd also rather keep this discussion in one place. So since you started the Template talk:Sexual orientation discussion, let's keep it there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a little silly to call that article in an organizational newsletter a "research article" as if it were published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Contemporary Sexuality source basic, simple journalism of exactly the sort you'd find in any newspaper or magazine that happened to care about this subject.  If you really need to figure out whether it's primary or secondary, then you might find WP:PRIMARYNEWS to be helpful.
 * But frankly, I think the classification is irrelevant: Neither PRIMARY nor MEDRS prohibit the use of journalism-type sources, especially when the claims being made are "Some experts say this, and others say that".  (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it a research article, WhatamIdoing, although it could be called one in the sense that, as I stated, it "features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation." To me, calling it a research paper is different than calling it a research article and is what would have been a little silly. But, again, I didn't call it a research article.


 * Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to Sexual attraction in the lede
In the lede, Sexual attraction is piped to "Sexual interest". I believe this is incorrect. If you read the article Sexual attraction, it says:

"Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context in which they appear. [etc.]"

So the lede of this article says, essentially {if you look at the article the piped link actually goes to:

Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality),[1][2][3] in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attractiveness or sex appeal [and] refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice.

Do you mean to say the Asexuality refers to the lack of sex appeal? That the most important aspect of the asexual person is that he/she is not sexually attractive to others?

If so, that's not what those three dictionary definitions the you link to in the lede say. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As seen in these links, I pipelinked "sexual attraction" to "sexual interest" only after you removed "sexual attraction." The "lack of sexual attraction" line was actually backed to two scholarly sources and one news source, not dictionary sources, and I will change it back to that per these sources and because it's best to just say "sexual attraction" instead of "sexual interest" in this case. An asexual person may show significant sexual interest in another person just to please a romantic partner, for example, but still feel no sexual attraction.


 * As for the Sexual attraction article, I did look at that article after I pipelinked to it and the only reason I can think that it is defined that way in the lead is because the article used to be titled Sexual attractiveness. I'll fix that now. Thank you, MathewTownsend, for pointing out just how badly it needs to be reworded. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ok. Since I doubt an asexual person would have much Sexual attraction or "sex appeal" for others, so it really makes no sense to link to it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I already fixed the definition in the Sexual attraction article. I don't mind if it's not linked here, per WP:OVERLINKING, since it is a common term that most people comprehend. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a side point to MathewTownsend, perhaps you meant a different preposition, but your doubt that an asexual would have much sexual attraction for others is about someone else's attraction to the asexual, and that's not necessarily near zero, even if an asexual is statistically less likely to dress or appear to be sexually appealing to others. Not all attraction is mutual or supported by an object (so to speak) of attraction. It may lead to frustration but so may many, perhaps most, attractions between nonasexuals. An object being asexual may increase attraction from another specifically because asexuality may be disbelieved or viewed as a challenge or ground for a project or conversion experiment. This may assist in the discussion of sexual attraction for the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking through the edit histories of Sexual attraction and Sexual attractiveness, it seems that the Sexual attraction article was never titled Sexual attractiveness; Sexual attractiveness was created as a redirect. So it's odd that the lead didn't completely correspond with the title. Maybe it did at one time, but someone changed it? Hmm. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)