Talk:Demisexuality

Edits

@Demiplume, I would really like to be able to work with you and help you use your interest in this topic to improve the article, but you're going to need to understand and accept some things about how Wikipedia works. Your personal experience with the topic means nothing here, and everything you write must be verified by independent, reliable sources. You've declared yourself to be an admin on a large group for demisexuals, which is great, but your personal experience and knowledge is not a valid basis for writing the article. Right now, the article reads like a personal essay about demisexuality, which is explicitly a type of writing prohibited on Wikipedia. If you try to only keep what you personally think is valid about Demisexuality, the article will be deleted or cut back to something that pretty much looks like this. I'm happy to go through all my edits and we can discuss specific language and so forth, but just understand that I'm trying to conform this article to WP's policies and if you start mass-undoing my edits, you're only harming the article. Respond to this if you can please, and then I'll go through and make my edits again and point to exactly what Wikipedia policy I'm basing my edits on. Lets try to work together, but saying "if you don't know about demisexuality, please don't make edits" is not going to be helpful. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to opine on the title of Demisexuality#Outdated terminology section. A lot of sources still use that definition. It reads as non-neutral. That user acts as if they were the owner of the article. — Tazuco ✉️ 15:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tazuco I've given @Demiplume plenty of time to respond. I'm gonna start making some edits again and I encourage you to as well. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edits give me as much of a headache... I think you should understand there's not a lot of reliable information about demisexuality. And just because what you can find says one thing, it doesn't mean it's true or even easy to understand. Demisexuality has been considered as "not real" for so long because of terms such as ""bond" or "emotional connection", since it sounds like a movie trope, where characters only notice each other after they go through some kind of adventure together...

This leads to so many people in the community asking stuff like: "I became attracted to this guy at work (that they have been seeing for months) but I don't know them that much, am I still demi?"

It causes a LOT of confusion, they also wonder after they developed sexual attraction to someone if that means that they have romantic feelings for them...

I think it's great that you are good at following Wikipedia guidelines but sexuality is so complex, and there really isn't a book about demisexuality and what it means... Isn't really up to the people who knows what it's like to define it?

The most important thing is to mantain the definition about experiencing secondary but not primary sexual attraction...

In that sense demisexuals are basically asexuals in the way they experience the world (not being sexually attracted to people they pass-by, not being affected by sex appeal in advertisements, etc) and they only experience sexual attraction to those specific people that they got to know and enjoy more about (but since it can even be an influencer they never met using words like "bond", "emotional" and "connection" it's too much and can lead to confusion).

As long as you mantain the main definition I'm okay with working with you in doing another edits. Demiplume (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Demiplume I've made a lot of edits again, all of which are supported by various Wikipedia policies. You're welcome and encouraged to make different suggestions and continue to expand based on what reliable sources say, but please don't just wholesale undo my edits. That will make this much more of a headache. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Split/move some topics?

While the sections about "primary vs. secondary attraction" and "attitudes towards sex" are very helpful, shouldn't their content belong to separate articles and just be linked? 1) The attitudes section feels like a separate article or as a part of the article about the aces in general. 2) The attractions section feels like either a separate article (as a description of an attraction model) that could be linked here and in articles about sexual attradtion. 83.21.46.150 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Plantbella.

— Assignment last updated by Bunny322 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

About the 'See Also' section

Hi, I've never edited Wikipedia before, so please excuse anything I get wrong. I wanted to ask this here before even considering editing the article. Can anyone give me a good explanation for why Fictosexuality is listed along with Pansexuality and Asexuality? No offense intended to any fictosexuals out there, but I'm not sure fictosexuality is as relevant to demisexuality as asexuality and pansexuality are. I think listing "sexual attraction to fictional characters" alongside comparatively common orientations is gonna give the Average Cishet Joe browsing Wikipedia the wrong impression about demisexuality. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, nonbiased place for research, and someone who's never heard of demisexuality before and sees this might make some incorrect assumptions. Again, not dogging on fictosexuality, but I don't think these subjects are remotely in the same category, nor should it be listed alongside asexuality and pansexuality as if it were equally relevant to the subject at hand. I'm just concerned, that's all. Has this been discussed before? Thanks in advance. Also, while I'm here, I think Asexuality should be listed above Pansexuality, since it's not only more relevant to the subject of demisexuality but also because it's alphabetical. FixedResolution (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you've said, and in the absence of sources discussing any particular connection between demi- and fictosexuality I've removed it. Additionally, See Also sections are only supposed to contain links to articles that haven't already been linked in the article, and since asexuality is discussed all over the current article I've removed that too. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Thanks! FixedResolution (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)