Talk:Gray asexuality

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mschm24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep or merge article, and the topic of sourcing
Soulbust created this article minutes ago, and I was brought to its attention by this edit that Soulbust made to the Asexuality article. Soulbust, as I've stated more than once, WP:Spinout articles should ideally only be created when needed. Considering that asexuality is not well-studied (though is being studied more by academics), and that gray asexuality is an aspect of asexuality because asexuality is not consistently defined as "no sexual attraction," and considering that the term gray asexuality is not used in a lot scholarly or media sources, what makes you think that we should have a Gray asexuality article instead of simply mentioning the topic in the Asexuality article (which we currently do) and letting people read more about it from the External links section in that article? And, like I stated with this edit, which you thanked me for via WP:Echo (followup edit here), "If we're going to keep this article, we should not be using [w]ikis as sources; see WP:Reliable sources. There is a difference between AVEN and [its wiki]."

KateWishing, do you have any thoughts on this WP:Spinout article? Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is well done, but this blog is cited four times. Most of the other sources only mention gray asexuality in passing. I believe Asexuality already contains all of the information here, so there's not much to merge, either. It could be redirected if no one objects. KateWishing (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I felt passionate when I began making the article, and once I got 9 (now 8) references I felt really tired so I went to bed. I'll probably try my best to add at least a few more references, but this 8-reference, short article was never the goal for me. Whether it gets merged before that I start editing on it again (probably tomorrow or Friday), I don't know, but I also want to mention how while some information is mentioned on the Asexuality page, "gray-A", itself is mentioned only 2 times, in the same brief article. While this article is a little more structured and mentions some more information about the gray-Asexuality. I understand there is a lack of research, but surely there is references to found when one looks for "gray asexuality" on Google News or Google Scholar. The following links could be added to this article. I mean I think the Huff Post one is definitely one to add in.

Soulbust (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:162382
 * http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/why-asexuals-dont-want-to-be-invisible-anymore/?_r=0
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/asexual-spectrum_n_3428710.html
 * I've added some more information to the article, and I'm not done. McClave's research is a lot to sift through but I think I should be able to add it to the article soon enough, unless someone would like to do that as well, which of course, is always welcome. Thanks :) Soulbust (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the article is needed, per what I noted above. Like I stated with this edit with regard to this edit you made, it's distinguishing asexuality in ways that researchers generally do not. The Asexuality article is clear that researchers use the term asexuality "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." So, of course, gray asexuality is included in that...even though the term gray asexuality usually is not. This Gray asexuality article, just like the AVEN wiki article about gray asexuality, is based on those who self-identity as gray asexual coming up with their own terminology and boundaries for what it means to be asexual.


 * All that stated, I won't be looking to merge/redirect or delete this article for now. It helps people better understand asexuality, even though the same can be done with pieces of this article as a section in the Asexuality article. I will remove WP:Synthesis on the spot, though. Similar applies if this article significantly duplicates material from the Asexuality article. A little duplication is expected and is fine. Also, you need to get better at spotting what are poor sources. See WP:Reliable sources, and especially WP:Self-published. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Soulbust, keep in mind what has been stated above about the sources; for example, I think that KateWishing was stating that you shouldn't be using the asexualityarchive.com source. I'm commenting now because you've recently expanded the article with that source. A part of me is like, "Discard the source. Be the stern Flyer22." And the other part of me is like, "Well, there aren't a lot of good sources on the topic of gray asexuality. Take it easy." I suggest you look on Google Books for more sources on this topic. I also question the lgbtq.unc.edu source you've used in the article, but at least it's from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And, of course, keep in mind what I stated above about creating unnecessary WP:Spinouts; often, a topic can be adequately covered in an existing article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thank you for the feedback. I will definitely be looking for more sources that could cause the Asexuality Archive source to be less commanding on the article, and so that the sources are more evenly distributed. Thank you again. Soulbust (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a Master's thesis really a viable source?
I'm sure she did really well, but well, my Master's isn't on Wikipedia. Should it be?! Does not seem like significant research into the topic to me, especially to be mentioned twice. Seems very odd, surely posted by someone known to the author? That, or my research is going right up on the appropriate page asap. ;) 98.222.61.249 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's kept on the article is another point to discuss, but I can guarantee I have no connection to McClave other than I found her research when searching for information to include/reference on this article. Soulbust (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition
I've reverted three times now (including once when PrometheusNowUnbound was an IP), as seen here, here (followup edit here) and here. And I mainly did so because PrometheusNowUnbound keeps changing "between identifying as asexual and engaging in sexual activity" to "between asexuality and non-asexuality."

PrometheusNowUnbound, "between asexuality and non-asexuality" is a little vague; what we actually mean is a person who is between being asexual and being sexual, even if it's a person who identifies as demiromantic as opposed to demisexual. We could state "sexuality" in place of "sexual activity," like we do in the Definitions section, if you think that's more accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And now has made pretty much the same changes again, including adding the same poor asexualityarchive.com source that is criticized in the  section above, and removing the following sentence: "Within a romantic relationship, gray-As may engage in cuddling, hand-holding, and proximity." Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's better,. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible Expansion
Hi everyone, I would like to expand on this page a bit. I would like to add the definition of what demisexuality is, explain the type of relationships demisexuals experience, as well as where they fall on the asexual spectrum and other information regarding demisexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity. I feel that expanding on this subject is important in order to allow questioning people to find the information and possible validation that they may need. Though this is a fairly new topic, there is a good amount of information on it. I would like to make this information easily accessible for curious people. Ideally, I would eventually like a separate page for this topic to be added but I know that is not possible currently. I would love to start the process for this page to expand on what each identity is as more information is found. What do you think of this? Mschm24 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mschm24, thank you for bringing this matter to this talk page after our brief discussion at the Asexuality talk page. I don't see that there is anything left for me to state regarding your intentions for expanding on this topic; so I'll reiterate what I already told you: "It is often important for student editors to discuss such plans with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. This is for reasons noted at WP:Class assignment. In the case of this article, for example, your class should be mindful of the fact that asexuality is not a well-studied topic, and that it is easy to go overboard with WP:Primary sources. Do read the WP:Primary sources policy. Simply adding study after study, especially primary studies, is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Also read Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and WP:Fringe; those are important guidelines for this article. In my opinion, before adding content to the article, it would be best that you and/or your class post proposed additions to be evaluated, either in your sandbox (with a link on this talk page to that sandbox) and/or directly to this talk page."


 * And keep in mind what is stated about sourcing in the section above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, Thanks for your input. I am the instructor for the course and will be working with Mschm24 to make sure we follow the guidelines. There has been a growth in the literature on asexuality, and even a little bit on demisexuality, beyond primary sources, at least in some of the LGBTQ academic journals, that Mschm24 cited in their longer in-class proposal. We understand that everything they write might not be accepted, but we are hopeful that we can expand the page even a little bit, an add some citations that are not currently included. We'll definitely work to keep the WP policies in mind though. Thanks for your guidance thus far. Transunicorn (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Transunicorn, yes, I am aware that the academic literature on asexuality has grown. Still, new Wikipedia editors have a tendency to cite too many primary sources and give them too much weight. Thank you for your assistance. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, Cool - thanks for the info. After there is a draft of the additions and its been reviewed (we'll see if we can get some of the wiki experts at LSU to take a look at it as well), we'll make sure to post it here on the talk page or will provide a link to the sandbox as you suggested to see what you think. Hopefully we can add something, but understand that as new editors, there is a learning curve. Again, thank you for the links to the pages. Transunicorn (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mschm24 and Transunicorn, for the type of additions I'd disagree with, see this explanation I gave for recently reverting at the Asexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mschm24 and Transunicorn, this addition that I reverted is exactly the type of content I was concerned about being added to the article. Asexuality is not yet well-accepted as a sexual orientation, which is why there is a section about that in the Asexuality article. Asexuality's status as a sexual orientation is disputed/debated; it is WP:Fringe to state that it is a sexual orientation. Naturally, this means that it is even more WP:Fringe to state that demisexuality, which is an asexual identity, is a sexual orientation. Like I told at Talk:Asexuality, "...Sexual identity is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation. Calling all of these asexual identities 'sexual orientations' is WP:Fringe; keep in mind that asexuality is not even widely accepted by researchers or the general public as a sexual orientation. And its identities are aspects of it, not separate sexual orientations." So we should not be stating that asexuality or one of its sexual identities are sexual orientations as though it is fact; we can state that some people consider it a sexual orientation, or use wording similar to that. But, per WP:Due weight, we should also be clear that asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation. Furthermore, asexualityarchive.com is not a good source to be using, which was made clear in the section above. Demisexuality.org is also a poor source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

How does this even qualify?
How is something that basically has no source aside from a Master's and continuous links to AVEN qualify as an article? This page requires a serious overhaul or just outright deletion considering the actual content of the page is contradictory and inane.

173.33.120.25 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC) M.


 * Well, I did argue for merging it above. What do you find contradictory and inane about the article? If it's the "spectrum between asexuality and sexuality" part, that is an aspect of asexuality, as is clear by the Asexuality article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How is this distinct from just having a naturally low libido?
Is "gray asexual" (a person who experiences sexual attraction very rarely, only under specific circumstances, or of an intensity so low that it’s ignorable) just a new term for someone who has a low baseline libido (a person's overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity)? If that's the case it's not clear how it's considered a type of asexuality, as it doesn't actually describe a sexual orientation (an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction or a combination of these to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender). If someone tells you they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual/pansexual or asexual this tells you that they are attracted to the opposite sex, same sex, both/all sexes or no sexes at all. But if someone tells you they are "grey asexual" the only orientation information this gives you is that they are not asexual -- because they do have some attraction to at least one sex. It's my understanding that sexual orientation is a descriptor of what genders you are attracted to, not the frequency or quantity of attraction felt, and that many asexual people actually have strong but directionless libidos. Could someone please clear this up? --69.172.156.69 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP. As I made clear above, the definition of asexuality is somewhat inconsistent in the literature. Some people define it as no sexual attraction, others define it as low or absent sexual attraction, and yet others base it more on the lack of interest in/desire for sexual activity, or both a lack of sexual attraction and lack of interest in/desire for sexual activity. Asexuality has always included this gray aspect. And whether or not it is a sexual orientation in the same vein as, or is similar to, heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality is debated, especially since asexual people may identify as heterosexual or heteroromantic, homosexual (or gay or lesbian), or homoromantic, or bisexual or biromantic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Libido and sexual attraction in the newer literature (after the two previous posts were written) are separated. Such that the category for sex repulsed aces (and spectrum therein) still count within the ace community. However, this ranges from sex positive aces to sex repulsed aces. (Sex neutral, etc) also is included. Dividing that, usually lack of sexual attraction, or conditional sexual attraction is also included, but sexual attraction and libido are also separated. Sexual repulsion and libido are also now separated in the literature. The problem was that the earlier literature focused mainly on sex repulsed aces, since they were the earliest to come to AVEN. But as the spectrum grew, the range of aces grew. But the academic literature doesn't actually sort the ace categories as they grew, creating new data set skew. However, I sent this complaint onto a lead researcher,so hopefully they'll fix it and actually pay attention to the social movements within the ace community as part of their data. KimYunmi (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, KimYunmi. What newer literature are you referring to? I may be familiar with it, but I want to know what reference works you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a dislike for both of the sources that stated it due to other factors, which is why I chose not to cite them until they delineate differences between the groups and clean up. One researcher until recently opened all of her papers by comparing aces to single-cell organisms, so I can't see as a reliable source, especially since she's non-ace and talks wild theories in biological imperatives about why people are ace. And the other person (also not ace aka zedsexual) gets the definition of trans wrong. Citing him is like backstabbing the ace trans community. He's also wordy, comes up with weirder theories and doesn't actually check it against the ace community if he's correct (most of the time from what I saw of his made up words--he's wrong and most aces end up disagreeing with him, but he continues on like it applies to everyone and then no one checks him when they cite him, creating a black hole of confirmation bias.), and made as if the definition of what it means to be ace from David Jay was his own *cough* Plagiarism *cough*. Also has this thing where he seems to demand every paper about aces cites him, a non ace. That was his chief complaint about Julie Decker (who is Ace) in his peer review, in which he cited himself for more than half the peer review. (His Hissyfit? AKA academic whining over nothing) So uhhh... don't like him either and don't want to cite him as a reliable source if it's going to hurt other LGBTQIA communities. Citing him, BTW, would have to come with major caveats and clean ups of his work with counter and that's not what wikipedia is for. But the wider definition of libido, is well-defined on wikipedia itself. Also, I think using Julie Decker, as cited below, would really help this page. She does define sexual attraction and delineate the definitions well. And she listens to ace voices more and highlights them more. (Maybe because she is ace)KimYunmi (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References 1 and 3 are exactly the same.
I'm not fluent in Wiki formatting to fix this, but the opening paragraph claims 3 references, two of which are exactly the same. -- Charles Stover 00:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out! I noticed a couple of other refs that were duplicated as well. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Demisexuality section
, regarding this and this, why do you feel that we need a Demisexuality section when demisexuality is covered in the Definitions section and when this article is about gray asexuality as a whole? Gray asexuality includes demisexuality. I don't see why demisexuality needs its own section. Furthermore, you have used poor sources. There is a already a sourcing issue with this article. See the comments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , regarding your questions, I feel that a separate demisexuality section should be included for one, because of the google searches, which indicate "demisexuality" being searched more than "gray asexuality" (and several variations-I used "demisexuality", "demisexual", "gray asexuality", "gray asexual", and "gray-asexual" as comparison terms, which you can see on the graphs.). Data on this. This article as a whole would be more relevant with the Demisexuality section. Note also that in the 2014 Asexual Community Census you see 14.5% of people identifying as Demisexual, and 21.2% of people identifying as Gray-A, and the other survey included 19.8% of people idenitfying as demisexual, while 13.6% identify as gray-a (overall, 51.7% of people identifying with a gray-a identity other than demisexual, by my calculations.) Obviously, demisexuality does have significant meaning within the gray-a community, and is a topic that people are looking for more information about, hence my reason for believing it needs a section in the gray-asexuality article. It has also had independent articles written about it-you can find those [| here], [| here], and [| here]
 * Furthermore, I see your point above about the Asexuality Archive is a poor source, and looking into it, I understand why it is a poor source, and will move to more reliable sources. However, on your point about demisexuality.org being a poor source, I personally disagree. I'm not sure if you're referring to the publisher, in which case, demisexuality.org has been cited by the MNN article as well as |this. Or, alternately, if you are referring to my use of the quote in the place I did, I have looked at the primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary source policy, and did not interpret the source but rather quoted it in reference to the statement I had made earlier, in order to give a primary source opinion. Can you please elaborate on why you think it is a bad source?
 * Thank you for your feedback, and regarding your comment earlier on another page, you were not the first person to revert if you look at the page history, and I was commenting on an earlier revert in which I forgot my quotation marks, to ensure it was properly cited.Ariadne (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * When it comes to sources on Wikipedia, I'm concerned with whether or not the sources pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. As that guideline makes clear, anyone can create a website. Being cited by a news article does not make a site a reliable source. I'm still not convinced that a Demisexuality section is needed when what you added can easily fit in the relatively small "Definitions" section.


 * On a side note: Are you a WP:Student editor? You showed up during a time that a number of other new accounts are making drastic changes to sexuality and gender articles. This includes the LGBT symbols article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And if you are not a student editor, how are you so familiar with Wikipedia, such as knowing about Administrator intervention against vandalism? Even new student editors generally don't know about Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it make more sense to create a sub-section under the "Definitions" section? That would make sense to me, as a compromise, and I would be agreeable to doing that as well, but I do believe there is enough potential content to create a sub-heading.
 * Regarding your question about me being a student editor, I am not a student editor, but I am both a student (high school) and an editor. (If that makes sense.) I have been interested in Wikipedia and how it all works for a while now, but have been too young until recently to pursue becoming an editor. I am making an effort to familiarize myself with all of the main policies, as I come across them and they are relevant. Regarding the sexuality and gender articles, I will say that I was drawn to creating an account at about the time I saw increasing vandalism on the LGBT symbols article, and as I have also been interested in LGBT topics (for less time than Wikipedia, but it did draw me to create an account and become an editor), as I am somewhat knowledgeable about them. I saw the vandalism through Tumblr, because of a recent debate there, and was slightly outraged and wanted to fix it, hence my looking into the policy regarding vandalism. I have interest in Asexuality in particular, and you are likely aware that vandalism on that section has been frequent.
 * Basically, as a young-ish editor, I have a lot of freedom to edit during my classes, (I'm in English, currently) and also to read up on Wikipedia policy. I'm currently working through some of the policies you have linked me, as they appear to be very important, so thank you.Ariadne (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Go with the compromise edit then, but stick to decent sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, be conservative when calling things vandalism on this site. WP:Vandalism has a specific meaning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help again, . Would you mind reviewing my new addition as a quality check, as you are the more experienced editor? (Also, I removed and re-sourced information gotten from Asexuality Archive, and deleted the one sentence I could not source adequately, and reformatted some book citations.)
 * Regarding your remark about vandalism, I am aware of WP:Vandalism and was referring to some of the more harmful edits, ie the replacement of the "Discriminations and legal protections" section with "you guys aren't getting murdered on the daily shut up", rather than good faith edits.
 * Again, thank you for all your help and feedback. You seem very involved in the LGBT content, so I hope to see you around.Ariadne (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gray asexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150217215611/http://www.pittnews.com/news/article_bf116f32-b344-11e4-8e5c-0f66dffdd8f3.html to http://www.pittnews.com/news/article_bf116f32-b344-11e4-8e5c-0f66dffdd8f3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161211031949/http://demisexuality.org/articles/what-is-demisexuality/ to http://demisexuality.org/articles/what-is-demisexuality/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.campuspride.org/resources/introduction-to-asexual-identities-resource-guide/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Demisexuality
There is already a section on Demisexuality at the Gray asexuality and there's not enough expansion to warrant a spinoff. Atsme 📞📧 07:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As noted by Atsme, a merge has been proposed. See Talk:Demisexuality for arguments made there. Above on this talk page, KateWishing and I already questioned the need for a Gray asexuality article, although I later became okay with retaining it. Retaining it was meant to address demisexuality and the other terms for (and aspects of) gray asexuality. I argue that the different terms for gray asexuality do not need their own Wikipedia article. They can be adequately covered at this article and already are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Tone tag
Ethanpet113, regarding this edit, I reverted because it is not clear why the tag was added. See WP:Drive-by tagging. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A Master’s Thesis is Highly Experimental
And thus, should not be considered a peer-reviewed article or completely credible source. Though those who create Master’s Theses are ambitious, there is no correlation between a required culminating experience and a peer-reviewed source. Ryanriviere (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Secondary Sexual attraction
Julie Decker, who is a reliable source, did talk about gray-aces and stated loosely there are secondary sexual attractions to account for. This would include bi/pan, hetero, and lesbian/gay within the context of gray-a. Probably should be included. I had the book but I decided for the better good to donate it to my university library, which had no copy and since I did my paper, but had trouble getting the book due to its popularity, decided for ace research to give them a copy of the one I bought. Along with Bogaert's book, which I hated thoroughly on several fronts. Said he covered gray-a, but didn't really. But I know, personal opinion doesn't really belong on wikipedia, which is why I rounded on him in my paper and wrote the other culprit personally to ask them to think it through more thoroughly.

Anyway, the point being shouldn't we also mention things like what Julie Decker put in about the secondary sexual attractions after that in its own section and elaborate a bit on things like what she said about being unsure of the secondary sexual attraction due to low amounts of people...? 'cause I have known people who are pansexual gray-a's and had to get into arguments with stupid people who argue up and down that gray-a's don't have a secondary sexual attraction, and therefore pansexual gray-a's do not exist. (While they also argue things like lesbian gray-a's are OK. Yes, bi/panphobia.) So it would be nice if this page reflected the actual research. Plus Julie Decker's research while quick, is really good.--KimYunmi (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With this edit (followup note here and fix here), I added the Julie Decker source. Although this 2019 "LGBTQ+ Activism in Central and Eastern Europe: Resistance, Representation and Identity" source, from Springer Nature, page 297, and other sources cite her, I personally wouldn't overly rely on her. This is due to her credentials. Google Books tells us the following about her: "Julie Sondra Decker has been a prominent voice for the asexual community since 1998, spreading asexuality awareness through her popular videos and blog essays. She has been interviewed in many mainstream publications, including Marie Claire, Salon, and the Daily Beast, and she was a prominent interviewee in the documentary (A)sexual by Arts Engine. She is a regular contributor to Good Vibrations. As an aromantic, asexual woman, she is happily single and resides in Tampa, Florida." Of course, asexuality is still not widely studied, but it's best to stick to sexologists, psychologists and sociologists for this topic. Some may not like or agree with Bogaert on everything regarding asexuality, but he is the foremost expert on asexuality. And like Google Books relays, "Anthony Bogaert is professor of community health sciences and psychology at Brock University. He has published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, along with book chapters, on such topics as asexuality, sexual desire, sexual orientation, birth order and sexual identity, and other related topics." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Flag
Should we consider adding the gray-a flag since not all gray-a's are demis?

https://www.glbtrt.ala.org/news/archives/2848

--KimYunmi (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

bidemisexual, homodemisexual, cisdemisexual
Demisexual is a hypernym. It is VERY problematic in dating site because it doesn't reveal sexual orientation (direction) but (the) degree of (sexual) intensity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:C290:B1CD:5E5B:5D0B:33E4 (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This comment is vague to me - is your argument that demisexual shouldn't be included in the article because it's too "problematic"? Do you have any reliable sources for this? -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pride flag
Can the image be updated to accurately represent the gray asexual flag? Notbee us (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * a) - if there's a grey asexuality flag on commons.wikimedia.org, then we can add it to the article; however -

b) which flag? Because there are a *lot* of grey asexuality flags. They all kinda follow the same theme - black, grey and white with purple somewhere - but it all gets a bit no true scotsman after a while...or like that xkcd comic about lesbian flags - i.e., every time someone comes up with a new standard flag, we just add it to the existing pile. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Demisexuality as a term doesn't reveal the sexual orientation, it reveals only the degree of sexuality
Many websites use the term "demisexual", but that should be used combined with sexual orientation terms, like the Rh blood group system which doesn't define the basic blood type.

Premisexuality and its relationship to PE
Much like the links between intersex and transgenderism were not as explored until recently with topics and flags only arising in the past ten years I think this article needs a greater discussion of premisexuality. Historically biological men have had this for tens of thousands of years and the upset it has caused in ancient cultures like discrimination against two-spirited individuals among tribes needs exploring. Premature ejaculation and greater premisexual identity is often mocked like intersex people have been with cut away gags and its important this be documented here along with the greater issues these communities suffer from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.129.133 (talk • contribs)


 * Your edit here is completely original research and synthesis. The two references you use don't ever use the term "premisexual" or "premisexuality". You have created a term and worked backwards to pretend it has a historic or scientific basis. It doesn't. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar/template overload
When I removed the LGBT sidebar, it was in an effort to give more reasonable space to flag images in the article. This article is small, and right now it is overloaded with sidebars. This is apparent because, when looking at a saved copy of the article, the flag images appear in the references section rather than in a section about the topic. In my opinion, keeping all of the sidebars isn't a necessity. I chose to remove the LGBT sidebar because it isn't as relevant to this article as it is to, say, the homosexuality article. The terms LGBT and LGBT community don't always include the asexuality community, especially in research. And this is a much greater truth when the subject being studied is the suptopic gray asexuality.

Ineffablebookkeeper undid my edit. I'm okay with this. But I am concerned about more sidebars, templates, and images being added to this small article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential clarification and expantion on the definition of gray asexuality
There are two places in the article that describe gray asexuality as between asexuality and sexuality. I think someone who reads this could conclude that asexuality is a lack of sexuality/sexual behaviour or an inability to engage in those things, when that's usually not how it's defined. I think it would be useful to include a term like 'allosexual' here, but there isn't a proper article for that yet. Unless/until that changes and the page can be linked to, maybe the definition section could be edited to specify that gray asexuality is between asexuality and allosexuality, with a brief explanation of what allosexuality is. I know 'allosexual' isn't in common useage outside LGBT+ spaces, but it's a useful term (especially in this case) and there are studies out there that have used the term and supplied its definition (this also provides a useful starting place for possibly making an article on that topic, if anyone thinks that would be a good idea). PrometheusNowUnbound (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * there's a page on allosexuality but it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary/wikt:allosexual. I agree that it would solve the dubiety but it would require readers to see what allosexual/zedsexual mean. — Tazuco  ✉️ 18:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of what I'm recommending would be a short explanation within the 'definition' section of what allosexual means, e.g., 'gray asexuality is the spectrum between asexuality and sexuality or allosexuality (any sexual orientation that isn't on the asexual spectrum).'I think this should be a good reference for that, for both phrasing and as a citation? PrometheusNowUnbound (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there isn't a definition section already, tbh.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 10:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)