Talk:Analloeroticism

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Not Commonly Used[edit]

The term does not appear to have entered into wide usage. Most uses I was able to find were references back to the 1989 papers quoted as the source of the term. The term appears to be an obsolete synonym for "asexuality", which, despite what this page claims, is simply a lack of sexual attraction toward people of any gender and has nothing to do with sex drive. "Asexual" is much more commonly used in current scientific literature and elsewhere. (See recent work by Anthony Bogaert, Lori Brotto, and others, as well as AVEN and the documentary (A)sexual, among countless other sources.) While this term may be of some historical note, it should not be presented as a currently used term and should not be making confusing claims about the current usage of the word "asexual". 50.46.248.95 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analloerotic is not a synonym for asexual. Analloerotic is sexual interest but not towards others, whereas asexual is no sexual interest at all. (In fact, because the page says explicitly that they are different, it is hard to see how you conclude they are they same.)

WP does not, on its own, describe any term a current vs historical, etc. (see WP:OR), but if you can find any RS's that discuss the term in that way, then their contents could certainly be included.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen this discussion around the time it was made (including this removal by an IP), but I never got around to replying to it. So I'll reply now: James, it is hard to see the difference between analloerotic and asexuality, unless analloerotic can mean sexual interest in anything that is not human (meaning it only refers to no sexual attraction to humans). If you look at the Asexuality article, there are reliable references that support some asexual people having an interest in masturbating, acknowledging that they have a sex drive. And there are reliable references there showing that some researchers define people as asexual not only if they have no sexual interest in people or in anything, but also if people have minor sexual interest in people or in anything. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this edit (a revert that was supplemented with a source) was also made; it provides a source to support the claim that analloerotic is distinct from asexuality and that asexuality is about the lack of a sex drive. Per what I stated above, such a claim is at conflict with WP:Reliable sources on the topic of asexuality. Therefore, I attributed the claim to the source -- Anil Aggrawal -- using intext-attribution. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Aggrawal reference listed does not claim that asexuality is the lack of a sex drive. On page 5, it says "Asexuality is a sexual orientation describing individuals who do not experience sexual attraction at all." Analloerotic is mentioned on page 7, saying that "analloerotic has been used to designate gender dysphorics who report no erotic attraction to other persons". He describes two types of analloerotic people, one of which is called "asexual". However, it's clear from the context that he means "asexual" in this instance to be an adjective on analloerotic, and not to be read as a redefinition of the term for the sexual orientation he mentioned two pages earlier. 50.46.255.123 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that regardless of whether analloeroticism is distinct from asexuality, there is just not enough information on analoeroticism to validate it having its own article. I propose we move analloeroticism to a subsection of asexuality, and include in that section a discussion of whether it is distinct from asexuality in that subsection. GrassHopHer (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Content forking, I was thinking the same thing, but I feel that James is likely to object; that (his likely objection) is why I did not suggest it. However, a subsection on analloerotic would not be warranted because the information here (in the Analloerotic article) is only two sentences long. Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." So information with regard to analloerotic would fit best in the Definitions section of the Asexuality article, but without a subheading for it.

On a sidenote (for documentation on this talk page): I have further tweaked the analloerotic text. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move of article[edit]

Лорд Алекс, why did you move this article from "Analloerotic" to "Autoeroticism? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ray Blanchard, the term analloerotic is used to designate gender dysphorics who report no erotic attraction to other persons. Analloerotic is a person [an analloerotic person], and analloeroticism is a sexual orientation (arguably). The article is about sexual orientation. – Лорд Алекс (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Лорд Алекс, I'm not aware of Blanchard directly calling analloeroticism a sexual orientation. And as seen at Template talk:Gender and sexual identities#Analloeroticism (a permalink for it here), I argued against the sexual orientation argument with regard to analloeroticism...except for when it's talked about as being asexuality (which some experts consider a sexual orientation, while others do not). That's why you stated "arguably" above. I would state that this article is about sexuality, not sexual orientation. Also, something that can give this article validity with regard to standing on its own instead of being merged with the Asexuality article is to have that Blanchard definition you mentioned -- gender dysphorics who report no erotic attraction to other persons -- as the first sentence or second sentence. When it comes to analloeroticism, the Blanchard sources in the article are clearly focused on the people with gender dysphoria (specifically what he calls or called "male gender dysphoria") rather than people in general. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardism?[edit]

This article should be edited to reflect that this seems to be mainly a term used in Blanchard's typology of transgender women, which is not widely accepted in mainstream discussions about trans women and has been debunked for the most part. Additionally this term is used rarely if ever in asexual spaces (preferred terms are lithosexual, autochorisexual, aegosexual, or generally gray-ace/graysexual).

I will propose a merger into Blanchard's transsexualism typology, I don't think this meets notability requirements.

Luiysia (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "and has been debunked for the most part", do you have a source for that? And I don't mean a WP:Primary source or an activist source. I mean a WP:MEDRS-compliant one. Because the 2016 review I have here found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes. It stated that although Cantor seems to be right that Blanchard's predictions have been validated by two independent structural neuroimaging studies, there is "still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs." The review stated that "confirming Blanchard's prediction still needs a specifically designed comparison of homosexual MtF, homosexual male, and heterosexual male and female people." Of course, the source doesn't support all of Blanchard's commentary on trans women.

Anyway, that this article doesn't need to be its own article has been discussed before (as seen above). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While elements of the typology may be valid large parts of it are pseudoscientific and unfalsifiable (I am not particularly interested in debating about this). My point is more that this should be merged into the broader article about Blanchard's theory as this term does not exist outside of it - rather than being merged into the article about asexuality as was discussed above. It might warrant a mention or so in the asexuality article but it mostly exists within Blanchard's work and those who work within that framework. As was mentioned in the discussion under Blanchard's transsexualism typology this is not a widely used term in academia or laity. If there is no page for autogynephilia I don't see any good reason to have this one. Luiysia (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]