Talk:nonsexual

RFV discussion: December 2019
"That does not induce sexual arousal", as distinguished from the existing sense "not sexual". Equinox ◑ 13:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm - there do seem to be two different senses to the term, but the existing definitions do not capture the difference (although the Usex seems to point to it). There is an "asexual" sense - that is lacking sexual function, or neuter, and then there is a "not involving sexuality" or "platonic" sense. I can cite both of them (see citations page). We could either lump everything together under a single definition, "not sexual", or alter both definitions. Kiwima (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the great interest among contributors and users in all terms sexual, I'd go for the greater amount of verbiage, since you find it justifiable. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, for the purposes of translation only I suppose it's worth taking every sense of sexual and having a corresponding anti-sense at nonsexual, though then we get into tedious issues of synchronising senses as with color/colour. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Who says they all have to be synchronized? "nonsexual" is its own word, according to us, not just some subsidiary of sexual. The entries can diverge. DTLHS (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)