Jump to content

Academic Arguments for a Multifaceted View of Asexuality


Pramana

Recommended Posts

I have complied a brief summary of research on the question of how asexuality is conceptualized within academic research. In that regard, I have found three main viewpoints:
1. Asexuality defined in categorial terms as a subjective lack of sexual attraction towards other people (with various types of asexuals falling under that criterion).
2. Asexuality defined in multidimensional terms as various combinations of a lack of sexual attraction (with sexual attraction itself understood in multidimensional terms as both a total lack and as a low level), a lack of sexual behaviour, and self-identification as asexual.
3. Asexuality defined as a metacategory analogous to sexuality, encompassing a nonlinear collection of experiences involving low to non-existent levels of attraction and/or desire, as well as attraction and/or desire which is only present in specific circumstances or curtailed in various ways.

I have found zero academic support for a picture of asexuality which is both categorial and which recognizes only one type of asexual within that category. Therefore, I am perplexed as to why I would encounter such a view on AVEN. And in particular, I find it questionable that since most if not all of the academics publishing on asexuality today have in one way or another supported a multifaceted view of the concept for evidential and ethical reasons, that people would object to some of those academics who later adopt community terms such as “asexual spectrum” or “asexual umbrella” to refer to those concepts. Although I recognize that there is room for reasonable disagreement on this matter, for pragmatic philosophical reasons I personally subscribe to the metacategory interpretation of asexuality supported by queer theorists (particularly the version advanced by Ela Przybylo, who most reflects a Michel Foucault influence). And for what it’s worth, the research I have done suggests that in doing so I am following principles that AVEN used to represent.

In any case, here’s a brief research summary (for length reasons, there are a number of complimentary sources which I have omitted):

Leading asexuality researchers Anthony Bogaert and Lori Brotto have consistently followed the definition of an asexual as a person who does not experience sexual attraction. However, this definition is nuanced, as in their view what is most important for defining asexuality is the lack of subjective sexual attraction towards other people. Thus, their interpretation creates at least three or more types of asexuals: 1. Those who lack sexual attraction unqualifiedly. 2. Autochorissexuals (who lack the mental element of sexual attraction/desire, but whose bodies have a sexual orientation), and 3. Asexuals who experience sexual attraction, but only towards nonhuman targets (such as towards fictional characters, objects, or their self). They consider all three plus types to be asexuals (rather than gray-asexuals) within a categorical lack of sexual attraction definition. (1-2).

The categorial definition of asexuality has been questioned by some academics, who instead suggest a dimensional picture. In the 2009 paper Methodological Issues for Studying Asexuality, sociolinguist and self-identified asexual Andrew Hinderliter briefly considers without deciding whether asexuality should follow an absolute (no sexual attraction) or gradient (little to no sexual attraction) definition. (3)

Favouring a multidimensional approach to asexuality, psychologists Ellen Van Houdenhove, Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen, and Paul Enzlin assess the relevance of three indicators (lack of sexual attraction, lack of sexual behaviour, and self-identification as asexual) for 526 participants who self-identified as asexual according to AVEN’s description. They found that approximately a third of participants did not indicate a lack of asexual attraction as a relevant factor. Following Hinderliter’s point, they suggest this raises a question regarding whether for the purposes of defining asexuality a lack sexual attraction should be understood in categorial (all or nothing) or dimensional terms. And they suggest that the phenomenon of demisexuality provides further support for this interpretation. Citing previous work by other researchers, they conclude that asexuality should be viewed as a continuum rather than as a category, such that individuals may vary in the degree to which they are asexual. (4)

From a queer theory perspective which views asexuality as an identity that serves as a tool for people to express experiences and ways of being in the world which have been unjustly pathologized by sexual society, Erica Chu quotes approvingly the 2003 version of AVEN’s overview page, which reads: “Asexuality, like all identities (especially sexual ones) is self-proclaimed; someone is asexual if they say they are. There are no set criteria [sic] that make someone asexual or not, no test to see if someone “qualifies” as asexual. Like all sexual orientations asexuality is not a scientifically discernible condition that one either “is” or “isn’t,” it is a social construct, a word that can be used to figure themselves out and find others like them. Anyone who thinks that the term “asexual” might be useful in thinking about themselves and explaining themselves to others is welcome to use it.” (5)

In a similar vein, critical theorist Ela Przybylo, in the 2013 paper Producing Facts: Empirical Asexuality and the Scientific Study of Sex, argues that a scientific definition of asexuality circumscribed as a biologically ingrained and objectively observable lack of sexual attraction incorporates ethically problematic assumptions: “As I have demonstrated, while the scientific research on asexuality is instrumental in legitimizing asexuality, it does so through the reproduction of normative, essentialist, and harmful notions about (a)sexuality and sexual difference. Women are rendered as more receptive, pliable, and less sexually coordinated than men and asexuality becomes mapped on and in the biological body. Not only are naturalized views of sexual difference rehearsed, but they are also framed in what may seem at first glance a progressive and generous analysis of asexuality.” (6)

1. See: Anthony F. Bogaert, Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters, Journal of Sex Research,  May 2015, Volume 52, Issue 4, pages 362-379.

2. See: Morag A. Yule, Lori A. Brotto, Boris B. Gorzalka, Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation Among Asexual Individuals: An In-Depth Exploration, Archives of Sexual Behavior, January 2017, Volume 46, Issue 1, pages 311–328.

3. See: Andrew C. Hinderliter, Methodological Issues for Studying Asexuality, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 2009, Volume 38, Issue 5, pages 619–621.

4. See: Ellen Van Houdenhove, Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen, Paul Enzlin, Asexuality: A Multidimensional Approach, Journal of Sex Research, 52(6), 2015, pages 669–678.

5. See: Erica Chu, Radical Identity Politics: Asexuality and Contemporary Articulations of Identity, pages 79-99 in Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks editors Asexualites: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, New York and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2016.

6. See: Ela Przybylo, Producing Facts: Empirical Asexuality and the Scientific Study of Sex, Feminism and Psychology, May 2013, Volume 23, Issue 2, pages 224-242.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you just stick with the one thread about this exact topic? This is about the 30th thread you've made trying to discredit the opinions of certain members on AVEN, yet by now you must know you can't change our minds, and the people who agree with you will agree regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what academic research has to do with anything. The scientific side of asexual research comes from looking at the experiences of asexuals, so all those studies are really saying is "this is our best understanding of what the aces we researched thought about the specifics of asexuality at this point in time". We already know what asexual people's opinions on this are since people are discussing (and sometimes arguing) their opinions on asexual definitions and labels all the time here. Bringing academic research into the debate as some kind of evidence or voice of reason does little to really move the debate forward since those researchers have no more to base their point of view on then any of the asexuals debating this topic do. 

 

And just personally, I don't think academic research on asexuals should be considered more authoritative than the opinions of asexuals themselves in this situation. They don't know more about us then we do (individual asexuals maybe but not groups of them) just by way of being researchers, especially since it's our experiences that they base their findings on.

 

With regards to the actual debate, I personally think it would be beneficial to have the umbrella term referred to as something other than asexual, because to someone learning about asexuality it can be confusing: "This is what asexual means, but all these other terms with different meanings also come under the asexual spectrum? So are people with these seperate definitions -term-sexual or asexual? Are they both? Is asexual part of the asexual umbrella, making asexuality a type of asexuality? If not and it's seperate, why is it is different from the asexual umbrella? If the point of labels like Demi etc are to distinguish them from sexual and asexuals (the orientation), what is the point of also labelling them as types of asexuality (the umbrella)? Could people that refer to themselves with such orientations feel erased by having them considered as just a type of asexuality? Isn't the term asexual for those who identify solely as asexual now ambiguous as a lable because it could mean several other things, unless we have to state with every mention of the term whether we're on about the umbrella or the orientation? Why not just have different names?"

 

In my opinion, the spectrum/umbrella needs a term that can include asexuality so people don't feel like asexuals are trying to have nothing to do with other orientations, but for the sake of clarity the term can't be the same as one of the labels it has under it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Can't you just stick with the one thread about this exact topic? This is about the 30th thread you've made trying to discredit the opinions of certain members on AVEN, yet by now you must know you can't change our minds, and the people who agree with you will agree regardless.

People had asked for information on why academics started using terms like "asexual spectrum" and "asexual umbrella"; and this shows that while academics adopted those terms from the community, they did so to refer to ideas that had already been established through various methods of modelling sexual orientations, and which as far as I can see had already been described substantively in earlier papers without using those terms. In my experience, it is rare for AVEN members to support their opinions with researched arguments in this fashion, and in my view that is one of the main limitations of discussions on AVEN. Of course, not everyone will be interested in that approach, and people can of course choose what they might like to read or to not read at their discretion.
 

4 hours ago, Emanresu Yllisa said:

I don't see what academic research has to do with anything. The scientific side of asexual research comes from looking at the experiences of asexuals, so all those studies are really saying is "this is our best understanding of what the aces we researched thought about the specifics of asexuality at this point in time". We already know what asexual people's opinions on this are since people are discussing (and sometimes arguing) their opinions on asexual definitions and labels all the time here. Bringing academic research into the debate as some kind of evidence or voice of reason does little to really move the debate forward since those researchers have no more to base their point of view on then any of the asexuals debating this topic do. 

 

And just personally, I don't think academic research on asexuals should be considered more authoritative than the opinions of asexuals themselves in this situation. They don't know more about us then we do (individual asexuals maybe but not groups of them) just by way of being researchers, especially since it's our experiences that they base their findings on.

What if someone argued that only nonlibiodists are asexuals (a view that used to be common in the community), so therefore we should discard all the academic research that follows the wider attraction-based concept? In that regard, there are two aspects to highlight: 1. Descriptive research that looks at the range of people affiliating with asexual terminology, 2. Prescriptive arguments from queer theory for a particular form of definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

And from me - thumbs up.

I am a sex-averse not-very-sexual person who doesn't want to have sex with anyone and I will continue calling myself asexual even if my "level of sexuality" is above 0.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/09/2017 at 4:17 PM, Pramana said:

What if someone argued that only nonlibiodists are asexuals (a view that used to be common in the community), so therefore we should discard all the academic research that follows the wider attraction-based concept? In that regard, there are two aspects to highlight: 1. Descriptive research that looks at the range of people affiliating with asexual terminology, 2. Prescriptive arguments from queer theory for a particular form of definition.

Depends. If it's only a few people here and there, they'd likely find a lot of disagreement from AVEN members as that view is not very common here anymore. If it were a larger group, we might end up with something similar to desire v attraction debate. I do believe a large amount of people who used to argue non libido asexuals as the only kind of asexuals ended up splintering from AVEN to form their own website, so it's possible that could occur again. I certainly don't think that, in this situation, the research should be discarded just because some people disagree with it, just like I don't think the voices of people with the same opinion as that research should be either.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying we should discard research in a debate. I'm saying that their research can only really base itself on the perspectives of asexuals so, while not useless, only really confirms that there are groups of asexuals with differing views on asexuality, which was pretty apparent from the mere existence of the debate in the first place. I would say that the research can be useful for demonstrating how popular a perspective it is among the community and the research is more representative than the views of a small group on AVEN but, given that AVEN is the biggest Asexuality forum we have and that most people here have some form of opinion on the subject, I would argue research loses its authority a little over a larger community of asexuals debating the topic. I'm not against you citing studies if that's how you prefer to debate, but I personally don't see it as more or less valid than the collective opinions of the asexuals on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Emanresu Yllisa said:

Anyway, I'm not saying we should discard research in a debate. I'm saying that their research can only really base itself on the perspectives of asexuals so, while not useless, only really confirms that there are groups of asexuals with differing views on asexuality, which was pretty apparent from the mere existence of the debate in the first place. I would say that the research can be useful for demonstrating how popular a perspective it is among the community and the research is more representative than the views of a small group on AVEN but, given that AVEN is the biggest Asexuality forum we have and that most people here have some form of opinion on the subject, I would argue research loses its authority a little over a larger community of asexuals debating the topic. I'm not against you citing studies if that's how you prefer to debate, but I personally don't see it as more or less valid than the collective opinions of the asexuals on this site.

The trend now in behavioural psychology is to develop the Asexuality Identification Scale (AIS), which is intended to enable researchers to detect people who don't experience sexual attraction or perhaps who experience sexual attraction to only a low degree, regardless of whether they identify as asexual. That is one approach, and although I wouldn't limit understandings of asexuality to that, I think it's a valid and illuminating one. There is an issue of what to study with asexuality: is it lack of sexual attraction/sexual desire for other people, lack of sexual desire/libido, lack of sexual behaviour, self-identificaiotn as asexual, or some combination thereof? In that regard, research may be both descriptive (studying everything affiliating with asexuality in some way in practice) or prescriptive (seeking to better understand an objective phenomenon (such as lack of sexual attraction).

Studying views within the community on who may or may not be asexual is another matter, and in AVEN's case I often think that means looking at the opinions of maybe a hundred people who happen to like to post a lot on a forum site, which isn't a very representative sample. In terms of concepts like asexual spectrum/umbrella/metacategory, it seems to me that those are analytically legitimate tools for studying asexuality, and some asexuals may find those tools personally useful for explaining themselves. Therefore, I don't see any particular reason to tell people not to use those concepts, regardless of whether or not one personally affiliates with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 9/4/2017 at 2:36 AM, Pramana said:

I have complied a brief summary of research on the question of how asexuality is conceptualized within academic research. In that regard, I have found three main viewpoints:
1. Asexuality defined in categorial terms as a subjective lack of sexual attraction towards other people (with various types of asexuals falling under that criterion).
2. Asexuality defined in multidimensional terms as various combinations of a lack of sexual attraction (with sexual attraction itself understood in multidimensional terms as both a total lack and as a low level), a lack of sexual behaviour, and self-identification as asexual.
3. Asexuality defined as a metacategory analogous to sexuality, encompassing a nonlinear collection of experiences involving low to non-existent levels of attraction and/or desire, as well as attraction and/or desire which is only present in specific circumstances or curtailed in various ways.

I have found zero academic support for a picture of asexuality which is both categorial and which recognizes only one type of asexual within that category. Therefore, I am perplexed as to why I would encounter such a view on AVEN. And in particular, I find it questionable that since most if not all of the academics publishing on asexuality today have in one way or another supported a multifaceted view of the concept for evidential and ethical reasons, that people would object to some of those academics who later adopt community terms such as “asexual spectrum” or “asexual umbrella” to refer to those concepts. Although I recognize that there is room for reasonable disagreement on this matter, for pragmatic philosophical reasons I personally subscribe to the metacategory interpretation of asexuality supported by queer theorists (particularly the version advanced by Ela Przybylo, who most reflects a Michel Foucault influence). And for what it’s worth, the research I have done suggests that in doing so I am following principles that AVEN used to represent.

In any case, here’s a brief research summary (for length reasons, there are a number of complimentary sources which I have omitted):

Leading asexuality researchers Anthony Bogaert and Lori Brotto have consistently followed the definition of an asexual as a person who does not experience sexual attraction. However, this definition is nuanced, as in their view what is most important for defining asexuality is the lack of subjective sexual attraction towards other people. Thus, their interpretation creates at least three or more types of asexuals: 1. Those who lack sexual attraction unqualifiedly. 2. Autochorissexuals (who lack the mental element of sexual attraction/desire, but whose bodies have a sexual orientation), and 3. Asexuals who experience sexual attraction, but only towards nonhuman targets (such as towards fictional characters, objects, or their self). They consider all three plus types to be asexuals (rather than gray-asexuals) within a categorical lack of sexual attraction definition. (1-2).

The categorial definition of asexuality has been questioned by some academics, who instead suggest a dimensional picture. In the 2009 paper Methodological Issues for Studying Asexuality, sociolinguist and self-identified asexual Andrew Hinderliter briefly considers without deciding whether asexuality should follow an absolute (no sexual attraction) or gradient (little to no sexual attraction) definition. (3)

Favouring a multidimensional approach to asexuality, psychologists Ellen Van Houdenhove, Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen, and Paul Enzlin assess the relevance of three indicators (lack of sexual attraction, lack of sexual behaviour, and self-identification as asexual) for 526 participants who self-identified as asexual according to AVEN’s description. They found that approximately a third of participants did not indicate a lack of asexual attraction as a relevant factor. Following Hinderliter’s point, they suggest this raises a question regarding whether for the purposes of defining asexuality a lack sexual attraction should be understood in categorial (all or nothing) or dimensional terms. And they suggest that the phenomenon of demisexuality provides further support for this interpretation. Citing previous work by other researchers, they conclude that asexuality should be viewed as a continuum rather than as a category, such that individuals may vary in the degree to which they are asexual. (4)

From a queer theory perspective which views asexuality as an identity that serves as a tool for people to express experiences and ways of being in the world which have been unjustly pathologized by sexual society, Erica Chu quotes approvingly the 2003 version of AVEN’s overview page, which reads: “Asexuality, like all identities (especially sexual ones) is self-proclaimed; someone is asexual if they say they are. There are no set criteria [sic] that make someone asexual or not, no test to see if someone “qualifies” as asexual. Like all sexual orientations asexuality is not a scientifically discernible condition that one either “is” or “isn’t,” it is a social construct, a word that can be used to figure themselves out and find others like them. Anyone who thinks that the term “asexual” might be useful in thinking about themselves and explaining themselves to others is welcome to use it.” (5)

In a similar vein, critical theorist Ela Przybylo, in the 2013 paper Producing Facts: Empirical Asexuality and the Scientific Study of Sex, argues that a scientific definition of asexuality circumscribed as a biologically ingrained and objectively observable lack of sexual attraction incorporates ethically problematic assumptions: “As I have demonstrated, while the scientific research on asexuality is instrumental in legitimizing asexuality, it does so through the reproduction of normative, essentialist, and harmful notions about (a)sexuality and sexual difference. Women are rendered as more receptive, pliable, and less sexually coordinated than men and asexuality becomes mapped on and in the biological body. Not only are naturalized views of sexual difference rehearsed, but they are also framed in what may seem at first glance a progressive and generous analysis of asexuality.” (6)

1. See: Anthony F. Bogaert, Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters, Journal of Sex Research,  May 2015, Volume 52, Issue 4, pages 362-379.

2. See: Morag A. Yule, Lori A. Brotto, Boris B. Gorzalka, Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation Among Asexual Individuals: An In-Depth Exploration, Archives of Sexual Behavior, January 2017, Volume 46, Issue 1, pages 311–328.

3. See: Andrew C. Hinderliter, Methodological Issues for Studying Asexuality, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 2009, Volume 38, Issue 5, pages 619–621.

4. See: Ellen Van Houdenhove, Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen, Paul Enzlin, Asexuality: A Multidimensional Approach, Journal of Sex Research, 52(6), 2015, pages 669–678.

5. See: Erica Chu, Radical Identity Politics: Asexuality and Contemporary Articulations of Identity, pages 79-99 in Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks editors Asexualites: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, New York and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2016.

6. See: Ela Przybylo, Producing Facts: Empirical Asexuality and the Scientific Study of Sex, Feminism and Psychology, May 2013, Volume 23, Issue 2, pages 224-242.

This is fantastic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...