Talk:Asexuality · Paulipedia

GA Reassessment

Asexuality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Speedy closed (kept), per what everyone except the nominator has said below, and my closing comment below. -sche (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

My rationale is that this article doesn't meet criteria of good article criteria:

It has no Verifiable references. All provided references and references to research papers either directly or indirectly refer back to AVEN with attempt to circumvent criteria of Verifiable references;
It doesn't satisfy criteria of Broad in its coverage. It goes in unnecessary details like describing particular natural person personal website i.e. AVEN;
It doesn't satisfy criteria of being Neutral. Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website;
It is not Stable. The evidence is that the Article has semi-protected status, which means there are ongoing editorial wars.

The whole my point is not to remove the Article itself, but to:

delist it first, because editors affiliated with AVEN use GA as an argument to state that AVEN is Verifiable resource trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies and rules. The article couldn't be improved by providing Verifiable references to the claims made, because Verifiable references simply do not exist and claims made in article are not correct.
When there would be no argument that AVEN is Verifiable source it would be possible to proceed to change the claims in Article to correct ones with references to Verifiable sources like Oxford University Press, which is the most authoritative and most reliable source for definitions, lexicography and words usage with most recent developments in English language taken into account, which is a concern of the Article. In fact AVEN itself has no even its own article, which makes it unreliable in the first place and in fact reflects definition of Questionable source.
The Article will be nominated for GA again when claims stated in Article will be changed and referenced to Verifiable sources.

Unfortunately, without these 3 steps process there is no way to fix Article to satisfy GA criteria as editors affiliated with AVEN are using GA status argument to circumvent Wikipedia rules and policies on Verifiable sources. AceRebel (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article shows this nomination to be patently absurd and conspiratorial in its rambling about AVEN. I also note that this user (or I should say, account) has a grand total of 23 edits. CU would be a good idea. This should be speedily closed. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are making serious allegations without providing any proof. You attempt to discredit me on the basis of my account statistic, doesn't make any sense as you do not address any points I made, but trying to divert conversation from the good article criteria discussion. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No type of solid rationale provided for this "reassessment." Seems to be retaliatory for Crossroads reverting the editor here. The editor was also reverted by Adam9007. Although AceRebel is being disruptive like a newbie, it's clear that AceRebel is not a newbie. Not sure what AceRebel is trying to achieve except for trying to get the article delisted because of their views on AVEN (and possibly due to other personal feelings). Close this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 Frozen, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This user also accused me of being affiliated with AVEN. I didn't realise that being asexual (or creating the related article Discrimination against asexual people) automatically affiliates you with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how this article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website? Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what point of my argument are you looking to address? AceRebel (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you haven't at all explained your argument that this article is somehow affiliated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, your rephrased statement makes no sense to me. In my Community reassessment request I'm challenging four criteria, specifically: Verifiable, Broad in its coverage, Neutral and Stable. What challenges are you addressing? AceRebel (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that this Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website makes no sense whatsoever. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, please, specify explicitly criteria you are talking about. I will help you. Are you talking about Neutrality? Am I correct? To be efficient in our discussion we have to focus on specific criteria, rather then trying to delude the conversation talking about something in general. Please, specify the context of your question. I will not be able to address your question until you will specify the criteria you are talking about. Are you talking about Neutrality? AceRebel (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You haven't at all explained how this article isn't neutral, or how it's affiliated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. Now let's move on to the next step. We have to agree on the definition of word affiliated. When I wrote my contention the definition I was using was as follows: closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position. Do you agree with this definition? AceRebel (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going by the Oxford English Dictionary's definition: officially attached or connected to an organization. No Wikipedia article is officially associated with another entity. The fact that this Wikipedia article happens to mention AVEN a lot doesn't make it associated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You see? It was a good idea to agree on the definition of affiliated, before moving on. Because I was the author of contention and I was choosing words to describe the problem we should stick to my version of definition, because this is what was on my mind at the time of writing. I added link to definition of word affiliated I was using in my initial text to prevent confusion. Does it sounds reasonable? AceRebel (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Both definitions are pretty much the same. How is this article "closely associated" (your definition) with AVEN? Adam9007 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Word associated means related or connected. Let's take last sentence of the first paragraph: "It may also be categorized more widely to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities.^[1]" If you open this source and scroll to the "Methods" section, you will see the statement: "To undertake this objective, I recruited participants from asexuality.org, also known as the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network, (AVEN) [...]". Therefore, this "source" is connected (closely associated) to AVEN, i.e. biased. Shell I continue about other sources? Those sources either connected to AVEN, i.e. biased (not Neutral) or not Verifiable. AceRebel (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You said the article itself is biased, not its sources. Sources are allowed to be biased (if you can call that biased). Adam9007 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The familiarity of this "new" editor with GAR processes is rather ducklike, the opening of the request right after their edit regarding AVEN was reverted has led editors above to speculate that the request was retaliatory, and the editor has refused to substantiate their belief that all of the article's hundred-plus sources are a conspiracy linked to AVEN, despite being repeatedly prompted to do so. As suggested by multiple users above, I am speedy closing this. If anyone would like to CU the nominator, as also suggested above, that's up to them (and the CU policies). -sche (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Scherrer, Kristin (2008). "Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire". Sexualities. 11 (5): 621–641. doi:10.1177/1363460708094269. PMC 2893352. PMID 20593009.

Asexual microlabels

There should be a section for asexual microlabels. Fictosexual, mentioned in the above section, could also be included. GoodExtraPath (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello GoodExtraPath, and thanks for your efforts to improve the article. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources for asexual microlabels: all I've been able to find is user generated content like wikis, blogs, etc. Could you propose something along the lines of peer-reviewed published research, a book from a reliable publisher, that sort of thing, to support the addition of microlabels? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@GoodExtraPath: you've been repeatedly adding unreliable wiki sources, despite several editors reverting their addition and asking you to stop. So I'm asking you to make a basic effort at dialogue about it here, to avoid you getting blocked by an administrator for edit-warring. Wikishovel (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Reassessment of asexuality as a "lack of orientation" (discuss)

The article makes this statement almost immediately:

It may be considered a sexual orientation or the lack thereof.

The citations used are old, and I don't believe that this is reflective of how the asexual community understands asexuality broadly. I am not strictly asexual, though I am on the asexual spectrum — specifically aceflux. My time in asexual spaces has led me to the conclusion that the vast majority of people on the asexual spectrum (whether strictly asexual or not) hold the view that asexuality is a sexual orientation in its own right, not a lack thereof. It is a view that I hold as well.

This is also, to my understanding, a major part of why terms like allosexuality and zedsexuality were coined to refer to its opposite. People would simply use "sexuality" to describe this otherwise, which can carry some problematic implications:

"Asexuality is not a sexuality."
"Allosexuality is the default sexuality, so it can just be called 'sexuality' with no further specification needed."
"Asexual people never engage in any sexual behaviors." (This is true for some asexual people, but not all.)

AVEN refers to asexuality and its sub-labels as sexual orientations (see their overview), and has made a point of emphasizing this for years. That was (and is) a major goal of AVEN; this is even stated under the "Purpose" section of its Wikipedia article. That's where I grabbed that second external link from.

Even the medical community, which the asexual community has long been at odds with, seems to explicitly acknowledge asexuality as a sexual orientation — examples here and here and here and here and... You get the point. However, with all of this said, I also want to acknowledge that I am very obviously biased, so I want to discuss this change rather than diving right in to edit the article. KyloFC (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the last change and some of my arguments can be seen in the summary. Different perspectives do exist and identity and orientation are (obviously) also not the same (but both aspects play a role as stated in the intro). Additionally we would have to agree on a clear definition of sexual orientation first if we were to state that asexuality can only be seen as a sexual orientation. The term asexuality excludes "sexual" attraction/desire while still including "romantic" attraction/desire. That is not the case in e.g. heterosexuality and homosexuality. So if "sex" as in "heterosexuality" were defined in the same way as it is done in "asexuality" that would basically mean that heterosexuals do not experience romantic attraction/desire or rather that their romantic orientation needs to be explicitly specified. --MightyMaz (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2025

That however is not the way the term "sexual orientation" is used in reality as it refers to (at least) both aspects and only asexuality differs from that common use. The spectrum on the other hand does NOT consist of independent orientations but rather of preferences and identities which can be classified as either "asexual" or (in most cases to be honest) as "(allo)sexual" because those people DO experience sexual attraction/desire (and that fact simply contradicts an orientation based definition of asexuality) although they might be part of the community and/or have made similar experiences (that's the identity part of the definition). (UTC) --MightyMaz (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you're under the assumption that the split attraction model is strictly used in application towards people who are asexual, when this is not the case. Strictly allosexual people can also experience their sexual orientation separately from their romantic orientation. A strictly heterosexual person could be homoromantic, biromantic, or aromantic, for example. Your argument against asexuality as a sexual orientation relies on a false premise, because the use of the split attraction model is not exclusive to asexual people, nor does it disqualify something from counting as a sexual orientation, otherwise nothing would ever count as a sexual orientation.

The only arguments I've seen against asexuality's recognition as a sexual orientation have come from outside the asexual community, especially as a method of furthering stigma or an effort to classify it as a medical problem, as can be seen in the article as well.

Sexual orientation refers to the way in which a person experiences or does not experience attraction, and especially the way in which a person identifies as a result. The "does not experience" part must be implicitly accepted as a defining factor of sexual orientation, due to heterosexuality and homosexuality often being partially defined by lack of attraction to certain genders. Otherwise, the only sexual orientations would be ones which include all possible attractions, such as pansexuality and (circumstantially) bisexuality.

Regarding which types of attraction form a person's sexual orientation, this attraction may contextually be specified as strictly sexual, or can refer to attraction broadly, but both are valid and commonly used interpretations of "sexual orientation" as a term. This largely depends on whether a person uses the split attraction model, but not necessarily on whether one is asexual or allosexual.

All of that is to say, sexual orientation is related to attraction, but it is not a synonym for it. One can have a sexual orientation without experiencing sexual attraction. I'm not saying that the expansion upon the "sexual orientation or lack thereof" debate should be removed, but I think that the sentence in the beginning (the one that I quoted) should be changed or removed, because it inaccurately reflects the current consensus within the asexual community regarding this categorization, and uncritically puts a framework of sexuality often regarded as acephobic at the forefront of the page. KyloFC (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The split attraction model is an attempt to differentiate between sexual attraction and romantic attraction (or desire). That differentiation also leads to the separation of a sexual orientation and a romantic orientation. Asexuals do lack the "sexual" part of the orientation while retaining the "romantic" part (unless they are also aromantic). It just makes no sense to separate the romantic orientation from the sexual orientation and then classifying romantic orientations as sexual orientations again. Also I highly doubt that people with only the sexual part of an orientation even exist (here we would have to agree on a definition of sexual first), so the separation might work in one direction but not in the other. Also constructs like "homoromantic heterosexual" are semantically possible but are rather artificial in my opinion because (at least from a common viewpoint) those people would fall in the bisexual spectrum. I'm not saying that those differentiations make no sense but I'm saying that they clearly contradict more common perspectives on the matter (and thus it is also true that asexuality can be seen as the lack of a sexual orientation).

My personal solution btw. would be to regard asexuality either as a "sub-orientation" (that would mean all orientations are only identified by the romantic/emotional attraction/desire and a/hetero/homo/bi - sexual become the subcategories) or as a "super-orientation" (asexuality and allosexuality are the primary categories and hetero/homo/bi become the specifications) but that viewpoint is basically nonexistent in the community or in scientific discourse. --MightyMaz (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you mean by "It just makes no sense to separate the romantic orientation from the sexual orientation and then classifying romantic orientations as sexual orientations again."

Because that's not what I'm doing to begin with. Asexuality is about sexual attraction. It is a sexual orientation, not a romantic orientation; it says nothing about a person's romantic attraction or lack thereof. Aromantic is a romantic orientation, not asexual.

"Also I highly doubt that people with only the sexual part of an orientation even exist" - then you aren't looking very hard.

"Also constructs like 'homoromantic heterosexual' are semantically possible but are rather artificial in my opinion because (at least from a common viewpoint) those people would fall in the bisexual spectrum." - some people fitting that description would identify as bisexual, but some would not. There are absolutely people who would reject being categorized as bisexual, especially considering the way that "bisexual" often carries implications which would not align with how a homoromantic heterosexual person experiences attraction.

Additionally, even the article itself acknowledges the majority consensus among asexual people, which aligns with my own experience in asexual communities: "Those who identify as asexual usually prefer it to be recognized as a sexual orientation."

I would like to ask: are you asexual, or anywhere on the asexual spectrum? Is this a community which you have much experience engaging with or learning about? Because the majority of what you're saying, to me, suggests that this is not a topic you are familiar with. And that isn't to say that you have to be asexual to offer your input, but I also believe that the wording used at the top of the page has a major impact on how people perceive asexuality and asexual people. So, as such, I think that it is important that this wording does not uncritically present opinions on asexuality which the majority of us find to be ignorant or discriminatory.

Again, this does not mean that the elaboration further into the article needs to disappear; I think that it is actually important that the "Sexual orientation, mental health and cause" section stays. But I find it irresponsible to put the "It may be considered a... lack [of orientation]" statement at the beginning of the article. KyloFC (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I personally don't think that statement does any harm, so lets agree to disagree here.

I've been a member of AVEN for more than 21 years but, as I am not a native speaker of English, I'm not very active in the English board. Identity and orientation are just not the same. You can identify in one way but be orientated in another. If you don't know about the term asexuality you will most likely identify as e.g. heterosexual but that will not have any influence on your actual attractions. Homosexuals might even be forced to identify as heterosexual due to discrimination. Also you can choose not to identify at all e.g. because you don't agree with a certain definition. For example there is a desire based definition of asexuality (asexuals do not experience desire for sexual interaction / intercourse) which I (and many other members of e.g. AVEN) clearly prefer over the common AVENus definition as lack of sexual attraction. That's one of the reasons (but not the only one) why I personally also do not identify as asexual although I might be asexual in the sense of an orientation and I do score above 40 points in the AIS by Brotto et al. Identity however has never been a relevant category for me. --MightyMaz (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the idea of asexuality as "a lack of sexual orientation" is used as a justification for classifying it as a disorder, as well as excluding it from activism, LGBTQ+ communities, and legal protections against discrimination, I do believe there is tangible harm. You may disagree. But I think this is more than just a semantics issue. The page on acephobia goes into depth on this, and as mentioned before, the rejection of asexuality as a sexual orientation is often considered acephobic in its own right. KyloFC (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that's more about politics / setting narratives then. I would not hide certain viewpoints just because of the fear of discrimination. Sadly people who want to discriminate against others will always find a way or create their own narratives. Also asexuality is not actually classified as a disorder. Brotto et al. have done a lot of research in that area and even a lifelong form of "HSDD" can be clearly differentiated from asexuality. As a result DSM-5 explicitly excludes people who identify as asexual from the diagnosis of male hypoactive sexual desire disorder and female sexual interest/arousal disorder. Also the ace community surveys suggest that such a diagnosis is VERY rare (in the 2019 community census only 0,1% of the population were diagnosed with "HSDD"). --MightyMaz (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Back to topic: Although I wouldn't remove the statement altogether it's true that asexuality is not commonly defined as a lack of sexual orientation. However that's also the case for "absent interest in or desire for sexual activity". Although I would consider the absence of desire for sexual intercourse (or rather sexual interaction / partnered sexual activity / ...) to be a common definition of asexuality the term sexual activity also refers to masturbation. As far as I know only nonlibdoists were of the opinion that people who masturbate should be excluded (the clash of opinions with early AVEN was the reason they dropped the term asexuality altogether. Also this probably was an important factor in the construction of an identity based definition on AVEN because the community was able to grow much faster that way). So maybe the intro should be rewritten in a way that separates the more common perspectives on asexuality from the less common ones. I don't think I can do that myself however as I don't have access to proper sources to support those claims. If you or someone else is interested in modifying the intro in such a way I do support this. --MightyMaz (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

What I think should be changed:

I am proposing a revision to the definition of asexuality used in the infobox to prioritize the "lack of sexual attraction" framing as the primary definition, while moving "little to no attraction" to a secondary or "umbrella" context. While honouring the "no hierarchy of asexuality" principle.

Why it should be changed:

1. Accuracy and Consensus: The current definition of asexuality as a "lack of sexual attraction" is the foundational standard used by the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) and major advocacy groups like GLAAD. It provides a clear, distinct boundary for the orientation that focuses on the presence of attraction rather than the frequency or intensity of a desire.

2. Sourcing Rigor: The current "little to no" phrasing in the article relies heavily on a specific proposal and video about it that appears to have been quietly left in indefinite hiatus and more or less walked back due to a lack of broad community support. Relying on a proposal and a non-academic video detailing the proposal falls short of Wikipedia's standards for reliable secondary sourcing.

3. Preventing Semantic Drift: There is some concern within the community that a "little to no" lead definition over-broadens the term to the point of erasure for "black-stripe" asexuals (those with zero attraction). By centering the lead on the "lack of attraction," we protect the specific identity of asexual people while still allowing the Asexual Umbrella (Gray-Ace, Demisexual) to be accurately represented as distinct sub-identities. I fear there is already linguistic drift being driven and amplified by LLM’s as you can see such language starting to occur as you can see it popping up in places such as the APA dictionary.

Research and the community organizations such as AVEN still prioritize "lack of," and even large community subreddit's such as r/asexuality’s community companion website define it as “Asexuality is a sexual orientation where a person doesn't experience sexual attraction towards anyone ” and Wikipedia should reflect the primary sources of the identity's definition.

References supporting the possible change:

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network. "General FAQ: Definitions". asexuality.org. Retrieved 2024-05-22. An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction.

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network. "Update on proposed change to definition put on back-burner forum comment". asexuality.org. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

GLADD Media Reference. "GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Glossary of Terms: LGBTQ". glaad.org. Retrieved 2024-05-22. Asexual: An adjective used to describe a person who does not experience sexual attraction.

American Psychological Association. "APA Dictionary of Psychology: Asexuality". dictionary.apa.org. Retrieved 2024-05-22. n. a sexual orientation in which an individual experiences little to no sexual attraction to others

Bogaert, Anthony F. (2004). "Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample". Journal of Sex Research. 41 (3): 279–287. doi:10.1080/00224490409552235. Asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction to others.

"What is asexuality?". asexuality-handbook.com. Retrieved 2024-05-22. At its heart, asexuality has a very simple definition – asexuality is a sexual orientation where a person doesn't feel sexual attraction towards anyone.

~2026-28436-53 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Your edit request also reads as if it was written at least in part by an AI chatbot; please do not use AI to edit Wikipedia or make posts on talk pages. Day Creature (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

References