What is Important for a Researcher to Know?

[lilbunminx]

Hi everyone,

 

I am a grad student who wants to do their thesis on relationship well-being involving people who are on the asexuality spectrum.

 

I wanted to ask how people who are asexual feel about research involving asexual people. Is there something we are severely lacking? What are some important things that a researcher should be aware of when including asexual participants? Are there certain stereotypes that we should avoid perpetuating? And how can we better involve people on the asexuality spectrum?

 

I look forward to your answers if you are comfortable sharing them. I also want to hear about some critics of the current understanding of asexuality in academic research that I may be overlooking.

[mikeology]

I think asexuality is vastly underreasearched, so any research i think would be a great contribution to the community. I'm personally interested in the things we have in common that isn't obviously related to our sexuality. Or the mental health of the members of our community. 

I think it's important with asexuality to acknowledge that it's a spectrum and not everyone has NO sexual attraction.

Also, in terms of research, I think it's important to not overmedicalise us. I have personally been told to go to doctors or that it's unnatural and I know other asexual have had that experience. I'm sure you weren't going to do that already but just something to be aware of.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

Hi @lilbunminx. We could definitely use more research and stats when it comes to asexuality, and there's lots of times I remember feeling like there was something missing from questions though it's slipping my mind, but I think one was properly integrating the split attraction model, to be able to have multiple choices to be able to mix and match between romantic orientation and sexual orientation. Having a large aray when it comes to the spectrums also would be useful, and giving graysexuality some proper attention.

 

Understanding and even asking between orientation and libido could be useful too depending on what the point of the research is, and to not conflate those.

Also when asking orientations, there should be options for non-binary people, either generalizing the wording or using labels like gyneromantic and androromantic. There are a lot of non-binary people in the community and it's important to have options for different gender identities (including beyond questions for orientations).

 

That's what came to me for now anyway.

[lilbunminx]

12 minutes ago, mikeology said:

I think asexuality is vastly underreasearched, so any research i think would be a great contribution to the community. I'm personally interested in the things we have in common that isn't obviously related to our sexuality. Or the mental health of the members of our community. 

I think it's important with asexuality to acknowledge that it's a spectrum and not everyone has NO sexual attraction.

Also, in terms of research, I think it's important to not overmedicalise us. I have personally been told to go to doctors or that it's unnatural and I know other asexual have had that experience. I'm sure you weren't going to do that already but just something to be aware of.

Thank you for your insight! I read a lot about how asexuality was/is heavily medically stigmatized within sociology, psychology, and human sexuality research. It was viewed as a "problem" that needed "fixing". I am trying very hard to avoid the misconceptions that are made about asexual people, and I need to be careful about how I frame my research. I am having difficulty figuring out the best place to recruit participants. I want to make sure the population is diverse and is reflective of closer to the "true" population dynamics of those who identify as asexual. 

[lilbunminx]

33 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Hi @lilbunminx. We could definitely use more research and stats when it comes to asexuality, and there's lots of times I remember feeling like there was something missing from questions though it's slipping my mind, but I think one was properly integrating the split attraction model, to be able to have multiple choices to be able to mix and match between romantic orientation and sexual orientation. Having a large aray when it comes to the spectrums also would be useful, and giving graysexuality some proper attention.

 

Understanding and even asking between orientation and libido could be useful too depending on what the point of the research is, and to not conflate those.

Also when asking orientations, there should be options for non-binary people, either generalizing the wording or using labels like gyneromantic and androromantic. There are a lot of non-binary people in the community and it's important to have options for different gender identities (including beyond questions for orientations).

 

That's what came to me for now anyway.

Thank you for your thoughts! The spilt attraction model is what led me to learn more about how unique the asexual community is. One of the significant problems in research is the inclusion of sexual and gender minorities. It's less of a problem of not wanting to include more diverse populations. It's just, well, these groups are called a minority for a reason. There generally isn't a lot of them in the participant pool. And it often, unfortunately, ends up where, during our analyses, we kinda “squash” together all of the minority sexualities and genders into “other” or remove them altogether from the analysis because there isn't enough to make any meaningful conclusions. It is hotly debated in my department since many of us research minority groups. 

 

I am lucky in that I am specifically looking at the asexual community; since my study is primarily exploratory, I don't have to worry as much about between-group comparisons. If I recruit a large enough sample size, I might be able to do between-group comparisons of “traditionally” asexual vs. demisexual and those who are binary vs. non-binary.

 

Some details about what I want to include in my study. We will have participants self-identify in the demographics and fill out the AIS (Asexaul Identification Scale). Then, we will administer a variety of scales that measure intimacy and touch in one's relationship, touch attitudes, and possibly attachment behaviors. Then, we will see how this affects one's current well-being. I aim to highlight that many people find success and good well-being in their relationships, even when sex isn't involved (my hypothesis). I will have to work to “desexualize” quite a few of these scales and finding shorten versions so participants are not taking 3-hour surveys. This will all culminate into correlational analyses and a mediation analysis. If the results are promising, I would like to follow up with an experimental design (if I still have time in my program). 

 

My god, that was a lot of research word vomit, but I want to do better than my predecessors and work hard to bring a good light to the asexual community because, in my personal opinion/observation/personal research, there is much more to a meaningful relationship and ones general wellbeing then sex.
 

[Lilihierax]

1 hour ago, mikeology said:

I think it's important with asexuality to acknowledge that it's a spectrum

Actually it might be better to acknowledge that some asexuals disagree with this, rather seeing sexuality as the spectrum, and asexuality as more of a "0 point" on the scale. Meaning, for example, greysexual would be on the very low end of the 'sexual' spectrum. In other words, asexuality (as the total absence of sexual attraction) could be seen as a separate category all together.

 

The really just an academic point, but I think it's worth noting the different opinions within our community about this particular topic.

 

@lilbunminx Also remember to distinguish between romantic and sexual attraction. Some people still get confused about that. Aromanticism deserves a quick mention, even to help illustrate the point that not all ace people have romantic inclination, but the ones you are researching do (if that is what you meant by relationships.)

[Sarah-Sylvia]

1 hour ago, lilbunminx said:

I aim to highlight that many people find success and good well-being in their relationships, even when sex isn't involved (my hypothesis).

In relationships in general or in asexual relationships?
I think you'll have widely different answers if it's a mixed relationship compared to both partners being asexual or on the ace spectrum. Can be worth  getting data on that so definitely some questions asking about what kind of relationship they have or have had would be good, and whether or not sexuality has been an issue in them.

 

Based on experience from the site, it tends to be a sticking issue when it comes to mixed relationships, though couples at large don't necessarily look for help if things are going ok with the relationship, so I'm not saying how it's been here is reflective, but a large amount of mixed relationships have issues  because of sex being important for intimacy, to a large part of the population.
For me physical intimacy is important but not sexual, but I'm gray-ace.

 

1 hour ago, lilbunminx said:

It's less of a problem of not wanting to include more diverse populations. It's just, well, these groups are called a minority for a reason.

Yeah I can see that being hard in some cases, only 1% of the population are estimated to be asexual. It's likely a bit higher though since awareness has a ways to go.

 

1 hour ago, lilbunminx said:

I want to do better than my predecessors and work hard to bring a good light to the asexual community

Sounds good to me ;).

[everywhere and nowhere]

3 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

What are some important things that a researcher should be aware of when including asexual participants? Are there certain stereotypes that we should avoid perpetuating?

Specifically about relationships, there is a stereotype that asexuals in mixed relationships have sex. (And let's face it - whether we like it or not, mixed relationships exist and probably form the majority of relationships involving asexuals - asexual dating sites exist, but are not very popular, and we should accept that probably most relationships grow out of preexisting acquaintances.) This stereotype is dangerous, because in a sex-normative world, the pressure to have sex already exists - and then this stereotype amplifies the pressure even more. If people believe that all other asexuals have sex (which is definitely not true, given that the majority of self-identified asexuals haven't had sex), some sex-averse people may start wondering "What is wrong with me if others can and I can't?". Fortunately, I have avoided it... but partially simply because I have no idea how to form relationships, so I have no experience either. But since I'm proud to accept my sex aversion, I want other people to receive that reassurance: that there's nothing wrong about being sex-averse, nothing wrong with being celibate for life, nothing wrong with assuming upfront that one never wants to have sex.

[uhtred]

I think any research on this has to deal with the various ways people use the term "asexual".  Any survey / study has to correct for the fact that people who identify as "asexual" may mean significantly different things.  

[FJO8]

Moved from QaA to Vis-Ed

 

FJO8

moderator for JFF and QaA

[Luftschlosseule]

I would also add that how many there are of us is an unknown number. Yes, there are statistics, but unless everyone learns in school about the existence and validity of asexuality, many people may not be aware that this is an option and might just think oh yeah, I am hetero, just low interest. I am sure my mom is demi, but she was never given the language for it. And now she does not really listen to me so educating her is not that easy.

 

In my experience, once I say in a group that I am ace, there will be others. Of course there is some bias in the groups I personally frequent, and that I need to feel safe to out myself in the first place, but I am convinced that the stats we currently have are not that accurate.

[Mult]

Mm, remember to consider that non sexual non romantic people exist. By this I mean avoid wrong assumptions like "everyone wants love even if they don't want sex!" It's incredibly weird for people to try to humanize a lack of sexual attraction or interest by framing romance as a common denominator in all people. Even if you don't go into those who are not romantic, at least keep it in mind. Romantic orientation would be helpful information to collect as well.

 

As for stereotypes, avoid making comments that suggest those who aren't romantic are robotic or inhuman. I've seen plenty of people say things like "asexuals can date and fall in love, we aren't robots!" and the fact that the literally equated those who aren't romantic to robots completely flies over their head. They just do not consider it at all.

 

So what I mean is consider what you say and what it could be saying about someone else you didn't consider.

[Rynn]

Sounds good  

 

Here's some things that have bugged me in previous surveys:

• Assuming that there is no data yet, while in fact: https://acecommunitysurvey.org/past-censuses/
• Assuming that the majority of aces are heteroromantic, while in reality that's only about 20%.
• Assuming that asexuals don't face discrimination, stigma, conversion therapy etc, or that it's not as serious as what other letters of the LGBT+ acronym experience, and then not even adding options for aces to add that we in fact do, on the survey, but still giving those options to the LGBT's.
• Assuming that asexuality is due to trauma or mental health reasons, or due to introverted personality
• Focusing on whether asexuals masturbate, and what to.
• Either assuming that no true asexual has sex ever, OR assuming that all aces are capable of having sex for an allosexual partner's sake. We're all different.
• Only allowing participants to select 'male' or 'female', while almost a third of us are nonbinary.

I've seen a lot of surveys attempt to be inclusive about gender and overcomplicate with a billion microlabels and still manage to accidentally be transphobic about it, so here's a quick way of getting most of the info you want:

 

Spoiler

What's your gender identity?

• man
• woman
• nonbinary
• not sure

Are you transgender?

• yes
• no
• not sure

(You might not need these next two, depending on your purposes)

What's your sex assigned at birth?

• male
• female

Are you intersex?

• yes
• no
• not sure

 

So don't do this:

What's your gender? (choose one)

• male
• female
• ftm
• mtf
• agender
• bigender
• genderfluid
• demiboy
• cisgender
• transgender
• librafluid
• danish
• asexual
• intersex
• ...

Or this:

Who are you attracted to?

• women
• men
• transsexuals

 

I hope you also include non-romantic relationships in 'relationship wellbeing,' otherwise you'll exclude a very large part of the ace population, not just aromantic people. Lots of romantic aces don't have romantic partners, because ace partners are hard to find and mixed orientation relationships don't work for everyone.

Ace/allo mixed romantic relationships often lead to unmet needs, which would lower relationship wellbeing, so I think it's important to ask whether their romantic partner is allo or ace. Allo partners often start off thinking they don't really need sex so it'll be fine, and then find that the thing they need isn't the sex itself, but the feeling of being sexually desired by their partner.

 

13 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

I aim to highlight that many people find success and good well-being in their relationships, even when sex isn't involved (my hypothesis).

I mean I hope that's what you find, but if you research bisexuals you'll find that they have lower well-being (higher rates of depression and anxiety) than straight people because of minority stress, so you will probably find the same for asexuals. That shouldn't then lead to the conclusion that: 'since ace wellbeing is lower than allo wellbeing, we conclude that sex is necessary to be well'. Please have participants take the minority stress scale, and control for that. I know it wasn't developed with aces in mind, but it should still apply.

 

Since the majority of asexuals are not heteroromantic, not cisgender, or both, that's another area to control for. Discrimination can fuck up your relationship well-being, obviously. Aces are also more likely to be polyamorous, which seems relevant to ask about.

 

Aces, like all the letters of the LGBT+ acronym, are more likely to be neurodivergent than the general population, specifically autism and/or ADHD. Sucking at maintaining relationships (not only romantic) is quite literally one of the diagnostic criteria for autism, so this should be asked about and controlled for. I am autistic. Not trying to be an ableist douche.

 

13 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

Then, we will administer a variety of scales that measure intimacy and touch in one's relationship, touch attitudes, and possibly attachment behaviors.

Autism can come with touch aversion and sensory issues that are probably going to be relevant in your study.

 

Gender dysphoria is probably going to be relevant too. Sure interferes with touch attitudes. Once dysphoria gets solved, these touch issues can go away, while still not making someone allosexual.

 

13 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

If I recruit a large enough sample size, I might be able to do between-group comparisons of “traditionally” asexual vs. demisexual

I hope you do, because in the community survey reports I linked above, aces/greys/demis are statistically very different from one another.

I'd also, separately, distinguish and compare aces who are repulsed/averse/indifferent/favorable. (And not conflate that with the terms 'sex-negative' and 'sex-positive', because those are political opinions, not attitudes towards personal willingness to participate in sex.)

 

13 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

We will have participants self-identify in the demographics and fill out the AIS (Asexaul Identification Scale).

That's great. Could you not include question 6: "I am confused by how much interest and time other people put into sexual relationships" though, because that's dumb. I'm as ace as it gets, but I don't see why I would be confused by other people not being like me, and I don't think that should make me less ace on that scale.

 

 

So yeah, loads of factors. We're statistically not very similar to your regular cishet American in lots of ways that are relevant to this study. Seems difficult lol. Good luck!  

Edited February 4 by Rynn

[lilbunminx]

14 hours ago, Lilihierax said:

Actually it might be better to acknowledge that some asexuals disagree with this, rather seeing sexuality as the spectrum, and asexuality as more of a "0 point" on the scale. Meaning, for example, greysexual would be on the very low end of the 'sexual' spectrum. In other words, asexuality (as the total absence of sexual attraction) could be seen as a separate category all together.

 

The really just an academic point, but I think it's worth noting the different opinions within our community about this particular topic.

 

@lilbunminx Also remember to distinguish between romantic and sexual attraction. Some people still get confused about that. Aromanticism deserves a quick mention, even to help illustrate the point that not all ace people have romantic inclination, but the ones you are researching do (if that is what you meant by relationships.)

Thank you for your input! I hope that using the AIS (Asexual Identification Scale) will allow me to include more of the diversity within the asexual community by measuring those who may go through flux periods. However, the AIS really only measures behavior and not a person's cognitive processes around sexuality. There is the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI). Still, I once again run into the problem of categorizing people who are asexual as having low sex desire with that scale when that is not necessarily true.

[lilbunminx]

14 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

In relationships in general or in asexual relationships?
I think you'll have widely different answers if it's a mixed relationship compared to both partners being asexual or on the ace spectrum. Can be worth  getting data on that so definitely some questions asking about what kind of relationship they have or have had would be good, and whether or not sexuality has been an issue in them.

 

Based on experience from the site, it tends to be a sticking issue when it comes to mixed relationships, though couples at large don't necessarily look for help if things are going ok with the relationship, so I'm not saying how it's been here is reflective, but a large amount of mixed relationships have issues  because of sex being important for intimacy, to a large part of the population.
For me physical intimacy is important but not sexual, but I'm gray-ace.

 

Yeah I can see that being hard in some cases, only 1% of the population are estimated to be asexual. It's likely a bit higher though since awareness has a ways to go.

 

Sounds good to me ;).

I plan to include all forms and types of relationships as long there is a close attachment or intimate behavior in the relationship, which I plan on asking in my demographics. I want to include the different forms of relationships that people may engage in as much as possible. I'm not generally looking for couples who have an unhealthy relationship vs a healthy one; that will not be a comparison group in my paper. I would actually be very happy if people who sign up have fairly healthy relationships with their partners, whether they are in a mixed relationship or not.

 

The only exclusion criteria I can think of at the moment is that participants need to be in a close relationship with someone during the study or have had one in the past. I will try to make the demographics to be as inclusive as possible because I know there is a wide variety of close relationships that people who are on the asexuality spectrum are in. Although we won't measure romantic attraction specifically, I hope the questionnaires I administer capture some of that in the final analysis.
 

[lilbunminx]

15 hours ago, everywhere and nowhere said:

Specifically about relationships, there is a stereotype that asexuals in mixed relationships have sex. (And let's face it - whether we like it or not, mixed relationships exist and probably form the majority of relationships involving asexuals - asexual dating sites exist, but are not very popular, and we should accept that probably most relationships grow out of preexisting acquaintances.) This stereotype is dangerous, because in a sex-normative world, the pressure to have sex already exists - and then this stereotype amplifies the pressure even more. If people believe that all other asexuals have sex (which is definitely not true, given that the majority of self-identified asexuals haven't had sex), some sex-averse people may start wondering "What is wrong with me if others can and I can't?". Fortunately, I have avoided it... but partially simply because I have no idea how to form relationships, so I have no experience either. But since I'm proud to accept my sex aversion, I want other people to receive that reassurance: that there's nothing wrong about being sex-averse, nothing wrong with being celibate for life, nothing wrong with assuming upfront that one never wants to have sex.

Thank you for highlighting this stereotype to me. It was concerning in the research I was doing to get my background on this, which was something that previous researchers didn't consider. It is, unfortunately, a sticking point for my advisor and me about this aspect of the research. I definitely see it as a very problematic conclusion, especially with the very limited research there is for those who are sex averse or aromantic. Most in my department do NOT see this as such; unfortunately, this idea still permeates academia. I generally think part of the problem is that we don't really talk to the populations we are studying, nor are there people part of these populations in the research world. So, I got what I needed from research and thought there was nothing better than going to the source. 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

40 minutes ago, lilbunminx said:

I plan to include all forms and types of relationships as long there is a close attachment or intimate behavior in the relationship, which I plan on asking in my demographics. I want to include the different forms of relationships that people may engage in as much as possible. I'm not generally looking for couples who have an unhealthy relationship vs a healthy one; that will not be a comparison group in my paper. I would actually be very happy if people who sign up have fairly healthy relationships with their partners, whether they are in a mixed relationship or not.

 

The only exclusion criteria I can think of at the moment is that participants need to be in a close relationship with someone during the study or have had one in the past. I will try to make the demographics to be as inclusive as possible because I know there is a wide variety of close relationships that people who are on the asexuality spectrum are in. Although we won't measure romantic attraction specifically, I hope the questionnaires I administer capture some of that in the final analysis.
 

What about queer platonic relationships? I know they're rarer but if the point is to include the asexual community then aromantic people will be different there, could have a QPR or not have committed relationships, and a QPR might not be an 'intimate' one but still be meaningful. Though again it depends what you're trying to research, but the aro side can be important to know about too.

[lilbunminx]

3 hours ago, Rynn said:

Here's some things that have bugged me in previous surveys:

• Assuming that there is no data yet, while in fact: https://acecommunitysurvey.org/past-censuses/
• Assuming that the majority of aces are heteroromantic, while in reality that's only about 20%.
• Assuming that asexuals don't face discrimination, stigma, conversion therapy etc, or that it's not as serious as what other letters of the LGBT+ acronym experience, and then not even adding options for aces to add that we in fact do, on the survey, but still giving those options to the LGBT's.
• Assuming that asexuality is due to trauma or mental health reasons, or due to introverted personality
• Focusing on whether asexuals masturbate, and what to.
• Either assuming that no true asexual has sex ever, OR assuming that all aces are capable of having sex for an allosexual partner's sake. We're all different.
• Only allowing participants to select 'male' or 'female', while almost a third of us are nonbinary.

Thank you for all of this information! And I appreciate all of your suggestions, which will help me better include what is needed in a conducive and non-offensive way. 

I very much appreciate you giving me a quick sample of how to ask about gender identity in the demographics section. I was very worried about how to include everyone best, and you gave me a clean, concise way to do that. I was thinking for sexuality, I would ask something along the lines of:

 

Spoiler

Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
Heterosexual (straight) 
Gay/Lesbian 
Bisexual 
Asexual 
Not sure
Prefer not to answer 

 

Do you consider yourself asexual?
Yes
No

 

If yes, do you consider yourself as: 
Asexual 
Demisexual
Greysexaul
Not sure
Prefer not to answer

 

I would appreciate it if you could give me better suggestions on how to format this. I was going to do something very similar when I also asked about romantic orientation. I want to ensure I am inclusive and not accidentally perpetuate harmful rhetoric.

 

3 hours ago, Rynn said:

Please have participants take the minority stress scale, and control for that. I know it wasn't developed with aces in mind, but it should still apply.

I will definitely have to talk to my advisor again about adding in a minority stress scale. Just as you said, minority stress can be a massive driver in one’s well-being in many different situations, with one of those including close relationships.

 

3 hours ago, Rynn said:

Autism can come with touch aversion and sensory issues that are probably going to be relevant in your study.

 

Gender dysphoria is probably going to be relevant too. Sure interferes with touch attitudes. Once dysphoria gets solved, these touch issues can go away, while still not making someone allosexual.

You mentioned some of my scales could mislabel ASD and gender dysphoria behaviors as asexual behaviors in close relationships. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! It will be helpful for me in the discussion part of my paper. Do you have any suggestions that could account for ASD and gender dysphoria in my study design? I can include scales/demographics for those, but I'm a little reluctant about how I will address gender dysphoria because I know it is a sensitive thing for most people.
 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

21 minutes ago, lilbunminx said:

Do you consider yourself asexual?
Yes
No

 

If yes, do you consider yourself as: 
Asexual 
Demisexual
Greysexaul
Not sure
Prefer not to answer

One issue with this is that a portion of people who are ace-spec don't use asexual as an umbrella, including me. I id as graysexual, but not asexual. An easy change could be to just change the question on being asexual, but there's more to consider too..
Someone graysexual or demi (etc) can also be straight or gay, so it would be better to structure in a way that someone can answer in both categories (restructured as well).

And again, those orientation labels don't work for non-binary people, because there is no 'opposite' or 'same' gender for orientation.
That's why I had mentioned gyne and andro labels, though I had for romantic orientation, but it's the same for sexual.

 

at the very least, it's useful to have an 'other' option too and/or where someone can enter their own.

 

[lilbunminx]

1 hour ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

What about queer platonic relationships? I know they're rarer but if the point is to include the asexual community then aromantic people will be different there, could have a QPR or not have committed relationships, and a QPR might not be an 'intimate' one but still be meaningful. Though again it depends what you're trying to research, but the aro side can be important to know about too.

I would love to include QPRs! I would also love to learn more about QPRs, so I can better understand and find a scale that can kinda measure the close behaviors in a QPR. The problem with many of the scales I have is that they are built upon heterosexual romantic relationships (recently including other LGBTQ+). So the questionnaires ask a lot about deep intimate acts like cuddling, deep hugs, hand holding, etc. For example, one of the questionnaires we plan on using is the Physical Affection Questionnaire (PAQ).

Spoiler

Diamond, L. (2000). Passionate friendships among adolescent sexual-minority women. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 10(2), 191-209.

 

Please indicate how often you engage in each of the following behaviors with your partner OR, if
you are not in a relationship right now, how often you engaged in the following behaviors with
your most recent partner.
(Rating – never, less than once a month, 1-3 times a month, 1-3 times a week, almost daily,
N/A)
1. Hugging each other
2. Touching or patting each other anywhere on the body
3. Holding hands or having arms around one another's shoulders
4. Adjusting each other's clothes, hair, or appearance
5. Cuddling with each other on a couch or bed
6. Giving each other neck or back massages or similar warm touches
7. Kissing
8. Having sexual contact with each other

 

But as you can see, nothing is measuring emotional intimacy. Some of our scales ask throughout if one feels "close" with their partner or close relationship through the use of touch. However, I do not have a scale that specifically asks about the emotional affection one may engage in. If you know of any, I would appreciate it. In the meantime, I'm still trying to find something similar.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

23 minutes ago, lilbunminx said:

I would love to include QPRs! I would also love to learn more about QPRs, so I can better understand and find a scale that can kinda measure the close behaviors in a QPR. The problem with many of the scales I have is that they are built upon heterosexual romantic relationships (recently including other LGBTQ+). So the questionnaires ask a lot about deep intimate acts like cuddling, deep hugs, hand holding, etc. For example, one of the questionnaires we plan on using is the Physical Affection Questionnaire (PAQ).

  Hide contents

Diamond, L. (2000). Passionate friendships among adolescent sexual-minority women. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 10(2), 191-209.

 

Please indicate how often you engage in each of the following behaviors with your partner OR, if
you are not in a relationship right now, how often you engaged in the following behaviors with
your most recent partner.
(Rating – never, less than once a month, 1-3 times a month, 1-3 times a week, almost daily,
N/A)
1. Hugging each other
2. Touching or patting each other anywhere on the body
3. Holding hands or having arms around one another's shoulders
4. Adjusting each other's clothes, hair, or appearance
5. Cuddling with each other on a couch or bed
6. Giving each other neck or back massages or similar warm touches
7. Kissing
8. Having sexual contact with each other

 

But as you can see, nothing is measuring emotional intimacy. Some of our scales ask throughout if one feels "close" with their partner or close relationship through the use of touch. However, I do not have a scale that specifically asks about the emotional affection one may engage in. If you know of any, I would appreciate it. In the meantime, I'm still trying to find something similar.

I wonder if there's any scales based on love languages, since touch is one. It's a big one but its importance varies a lot in not just aromantic relationships but asexual as well (some small percent are even touch-averse).

Emotional intimacy is harder to measure because it goes beyond actions as well. And in some cases like for some QPRs it might not even be what's important.

I consider higher levels of intimacy to be important for romance, but as soon as we get away from that it really depends what kind of relationship it is and what's meant by intimacy.

 

I think sometimes especially when covering new grounds, research (and scales) has to be re-thought how to think about things..

Asking questions on those things and other things like companionship should be useful for data though.

[lilbunminx]

1 hour ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

One issue with this is that a portion of people who are ace-spec don't use asexual as an umbrella, including me. I id as graysexual, but not asexual. An easy change could be to just change the question on being asexual, but there's more to consider too..
Someone graysexual or demi (etc) can also be straight or gay, so it would be better to structure in a way that someone can answer in both categories (restructured as well).

And again, those orientation labels don't work for non-binary people, because there is no 'opposite' or 'same' gender for orientation.
That's why I had mentioned gyne and andro labels, though I had for romantic orientation, but it's the same for sexual.

 

at the very least, it's useful to have an 'other' option too and/or where someone can enter their own.

 

Thank you for your feedback! Here's a bit of a revised version. What do you think?

Spoiler

Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation (select all that apply)?
Heterosexual (straight)
Homosexaul (gay/lesbian)
Bisexual
Asexual 

Gynosexual (sexual attraction to female-presenting people)

Androsexual (sexual attraction to male-presenting people)
Not sure
Prefer not to answer 

Other (please specify)

 

Our goal is to look closer at those who identify on the asexuality spectrum, and we want to know more about the specific identifications of our participants. Please indicate what you consider yourself to be; if you have already indicated, please indicate below again (select all that apply). If this doesn't apply to you, you are free to skip this question. 
Demisexual
Greysexaul
Not sure
Prefer not to answer

Other (please specify)

Please tell me if I am missing something. If there is another important identifier I am missing. I would appreciate your and any others' feedback. As a previous commenter pointed out, I am trying to include as much as I can without having 20+ identifiers listed. I want to remind you that for those that specify under 'other,' we will read through and sort them under the closest larger identifier. I wish not to do that, but we need sizable groups if we want to do some between-group comparisons down the line.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

Thank you for your feedback! Here's a bit of a revised version. What do you think?

  Hide contents

Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation (select all that apply)?
Heterosexual (straight)
Homosexaul (gay/lesbian)
Bisexual
Asexual 

Gynosexual (sexual attraction to female-presenting people)

Androsexual (sexual attraction to male-presenting people)
Not sure
Prefer not to answer 

Other (please specify)

 

Our goal is to look closer at those who identify on the asexuality spectrum, and we want to know more about the specific identifications of our participants. Please indicate what you consider yourself to be; if you have already indicated, please indicate below again (select all that apply). If this doesn't apply to you, you are free to skip this question. 
Demisexual
Greysexaul
Not sure
Prefer not to answer

Other (please specify)

Please tell me if I am missing something. If there is another important identifier I am missing. I would appreciate your and any others' feedback. As a previous commenter pointed out, I am trying to include as much as I can without having 20+ identifiers listed. I want to remind you that for those that specify under 'other,' we will read through and sort them under the closest larger identifier. I wish not to do that, but we need sizable groups if we want to do some between-group comparisons down the line.

Yes that is much better even if it's a lot of options. I know it's more a template but I'll just say things that could be better:

- You could add pansexual next to bisexual (like with a /, or 'or')

- If you needed to save space the new options I mentioned could be left for someone to specify in 'other', but if you do include them, gyno/andro can include identity too (so gynosexual means attraction to female and/or feminine people)

- The second question is a bit long and I'm sure it can be made shorter.

- Greysexual is misspelled ;p.

 

Other improvements I have in mind wouldn't make sense to implement so I think that's good enough for me, but others might think of something.

[Rynn]

 

17 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

 

I would appreciate it if you could give me better suggestions on how to format this

Since you presumably already asked about people's gender identity in the survey, I'd do something like: 

 

Which people are you romantically attracted to? (choose all that apply)

• Men
• Women
• Nonbinary people 
• None of the above
• Not sure

(Not having binary trans people as a separate category from their cis counterparts is Very Deliberate here.)

(If they click they're a woman and attracted only to men, there you go, she's straight. Just logic your way out of having to ask for two separate data points (own gender and gender they're attracted to) within a single question. Multiple data points in one question always gets too complicated.)

 

Which of these best describes your romantic orientation?

• Alloromantic (+ short explanation what that is) 
• Greyromantic
• Demiromantic
• Aromantic
• Not sure 

Rinse and repeat both questions for sexual orientation.

 

And maybe to get a quick way to categorize and compare the different groups:

Which of these best describes you, in terms of whether you'd personally want to engage in partnered sex? 

• Sex-favorable
• Sex-indifferent
• Sex-averse
• Sex-repulsed
• Not sure
• Fluid

 

Believe it or not, people can also be romance-favorable, indifferent, averse or repulsed. But that might fall outside of your scope.

 

Edited February 5 by Rynn

[Sarah-Sylvia]

@lilbunminx I like the simplicity of @Rynn's suggestion and I think the same could work for sexual attraction too but there are a few disadvantages and I have a few thoughts.  It is a disadvantage that it makes it longer to get stats for how many people are straight or gay, etc, but that's not a big deal.

 

One bigger disadvantage is that it only relies on gender when something else could matter for someone's attraction so one suggestion is for an option of gender not mattering, which could cover pansexuality as well as some other possibilities. And having 'other' as an option with text would also let someone be more specific, including in the case someone is andro/gyne romantic/sexual.

 

I think the phrasing for the second question might be confusing to some. I think i'd make it clear that it's an extra part to romantic orientation.

 

 

I'm not sure if gender dypshoria will be more relevant than other reasons someone could be touch averse from in some way, like if someone is germaphobic in example.. so maybe it'd be better to ask if there's other/external reasons for being averse to touch or sex? with examples said like body insecurities, dysphoria and asd, germaphobia, etc.
Just my thoughts.
 

 

 

[FJO8]

I would like to remind you of the procedures for Surveys on AVEN:

On 8/5/2005 at 4:25 PM, Cate Perfect said:

3.2 Researchers and Students requests
If you want or need to make a survey, a research or a study recruiting AVEN members, please make sure to follow the rules for researchers and students established by the Project Team.

 

Sharing your ideas, asking for topics and sharing results is fine. And I actually like that you can get so much out of this thread!

But making a survey for a published paper needs to be approved by the Project team.

 

[lilbunminx]

7 hours ago, FJO8 said:

I would like to remind you of the procedures for Surveys on AVEN:

Sharing your ideas, asking for topics and sharing results is fine. And I actually like that you can get so much out of this thread!

But making a survey for a published paper needs to be approved by the Project team.

 

Of course! A mod already reached out to me to walk me through that. Right now, I am doing community outreach. The final paper will include nothing about what the members say directly. But what everyone has to say will help guide the way I go about my methodology and the language I need to use to accurately highlight how those on the asexuality spectrum see their own orientation. When the time comes for when I want to reach out for participants, I will go through the necessary steps to get that approved.

[Rynn]

11 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

One bigger disadvantage is that it only relies on gender when something else could matter for someone's attraction so one suggestion is for an option of gender not mattering, which could cover pansexuality as well as some other possibilities. And having 'other' as an option with text would also let someone be more specific, including in the case someone is andro/gyne romantic/sexual.

The problem with adding an 'other' option like this is that the people who use it will be rendered statistically invisible. If they're not in a category, or in a category too small to draw conclusions about, they cannot count in statistics. If you allow people to write in their own response 'polysexual', you are effectively letting them self-select out of being considered in the statistics at all, while if they just clicked the box that is 99% correct for them, they get to be considered. Of course, if this survey was about 'which labels do you identify with', then endless microlabels could all be relevant, but I think in this case, it's mostly relevant who people are and aren't attracted to.

 

If we look at stated preferred love languages on dating sites (love languages are Christian propaganda by the way, not science), statistically we see that men overwhelmingly prefer 'physical touch', and women are more varied. This will most likely impact the relationship well-being of aces who are attracted to men and not to women. That's relevant data. Whether someone is attracted to men, women and nonbinary people regardless of their gender or because of their gender doesn't give us any data relevant to this study.

 

19 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

but I'm a little reluctant about how I will address gender dysphoria because I know it is a sensitive thing for most people.

I'm not sure what you mean with that. This is a survey in which you are asking asexual people, who are often sex-repulsed, about their willingness to engage in sexual behaviors, but you think asking them whether they have gender dysphoria is where they will draw the line? I am confused by that, but I'll give you a format for a gender dysphoria question somewhere further down.

 

I'm not sure which questions will feature, but I think if there are questionnaires that list specific sexual acts in order to ask people's willingness to perform them, I'd add in an opt-out, like: 

 

The next section asks about willingness to perform partnered sexual acts, would you like to answer these?

• yes, go to questionnaire
• no, I am uncomfortable answering and would like to skip without recording any answers
• no, I am uncomfortable seeing these questions, auto-fill everything with 'no, unwilling'.

If I was taking your questionnaire, I would probably click that last option.

You could separate non-sexual intimate acts onto a separate page of questions.

 

17 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

You mentioned some of my scales could mislabel ASD and gender dysphoria behaviors as asexual behaviors in close relationships. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! It will be helpful for me in the discussion part of my paper. Do you have any suggestions that could account for ASD and gender dysphoria in my study design? I can include scales/demographics for those, but I'm a little reluctant about how I will address gender dysphoria because I know it is a sensitive thing for most people.

I think given that this study is about asexual people, and that the numbers are so significantly different from numbers about the general population, this deserves to be more than a discussion point at the end. The existence of these hidden variables invalidates your conclusion otherwise. Here are some numbers from some of the ace community survey reports (>10000 respondents per year):

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

Of course there is sampling bias, but I haven't yet seen any statistics on aces that don't confirm our high rates of neurodivergence and gender-nonconformity.

 

17 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

Do you have any suggestions that could account for ASD and gender dysphoria in my study design?

I think you can ask for reasons behind a lack of physical intimacy more broadly, so it doesn't feel targeted, e.g.:

 

 

I think it's important to ask about this. You can't just assume all lack of physical intimacy can be attributed to asexuality. 'Fear of unwanted pregnancy' seems particularly relevant right now, given that you're in the US.

 

And: 

 

 

For that last set of questions though, there is something to be addressed first. Are you studying a person's well-being, or a relationship's well-being? If you're studying a relationship's well-being, you'd also have to take into consideration whether the partner has mental health issues, dysphoria, stressors, or is asexual, etc, not just the person who is taking the survey. That seems feasible at first, until you factor in polyamory and QPR constellations, because then there's not one partner, but possibly several relationships, each with different levels of well-being. 

 

So I think it's far more feasible to study a person's well-being/satisfaction in regards to their relationship(s) as a whole.

 

Ace polyamory numbers:

Spoiler

 

19 hours ago, lilbunminx said:

The only exclusion criteria I can think of at the moment is that participants need to be in a close relationship with someone during the study or have had one in the past. I will try to make the demographics to be as inclusive as possible because I know there is a wide variety of close relationships that people who are on the asexuality spectrum are in.

So would a friendship count as a 'close' relationship? Would it need to be a relationship in which you are each other's main person, or do 'just' besties count? If besties count, a lot of people will have multiple (not just aces). If besties don't count, you'll be excluding a lot of aces who are perfectly content with their relationships, like me. Given that your hypothesis is 'relationships can totally work without sex', it doesn't seem to me like you had friendships in mind (but I could be wrong!). A subsection of QPR's could maybe be squeezed into the amatonormative framework that is assumed by all of the scales you mentioned, but I'm not sure regular friendships can.

 

I guess I'm worried that if this study is about measuring a relationship's well-being rather than measuring a person's satisfaction with their array of relationships, and if your hypothesis is 'relationships without sex can totally work', then this would be more about whether aces are dateable (to the presumably allonormative reader) than about the wellbeing of asexuals in their own right. It could then become about proving asexual worthiness, based on our ability to have 'successful' relationships according to amatonormative standards.

 

'Would you date an asexual?' is a question that allosexual people ask each other, in a similar vein to the question 'would you date a transgender person?' that cis people ask each other. It has an undertone of 'Would you tolerate that? Would you stoop so low?' It doesn't consider the agency of trans and ace people to reject them back. 'Would you date a fat person?' The demographics this question gets asked about are expected to take any scraps that come their way, and not have standards of their own.

 

The correct response here isn't "here are all the reasons why they are dateable, look at this study, so please be progressive and kind and don't exclude them from your personal dating pool", it's "Don't make yourself date people you're not thrilled to date because you think you should. Don't pretend to be okay with things you're deep down maybe not so okay with, and don't ignore them or hope your partner will change. Your partner will notice and be immensely hurt somewhere down the line. Just let them have a partner who doesn't question this in the first place, it shouldn't be conditional or doubtful."

 

I'm worried that your hypothesis plays into the idea that it is progressive to overlook fundamental sexual incompatibility, and pretend it is an issue that should be easily overcome (with compromise, love, communication, progressive beliefs, therapy, you name it). That is a harmful idea, because it leads allosexual people to date asexual people who don't want sex. The allo partner often originally believes that no sex will be no problem for them (or that it's okay in the short run, and that increased emotional intimacy will increase willingness for sex over time), and then half a year into the relationship the allo partner realizes that they actually do need to feel wanted and sexually desirable, which then puts the ace partner in a situation where they are unintentionally pressured into having sex they don't want to have, or potentially lose a partner they love. That is not okay. And that is the story I see play out over and over again.

 

According to the 'Asexual Lived Experiences Report', About a quarter of total respondents had experienced this type of guilting, and about three quarters of the respondents who had experienced intimate partner violence did. Two quotes from that report:

 

The technique of the partner being “grumpy and sullen” is a common theme among submissions, with many respondents admitting to initiating sex. Several even wrote that their partner’s behaviour was intended to make them not just agree to sex but initiate it. One anonymous respondent said “He was so unbearable, I’d be forced to initiate my own rape”

 

Taylor’s experience is a typical example of what I have named “sexual goalpost shifting”. It often begins in relationships where the abusive partner had originally entered saying that no sex would not bother them (but we do not have this information for Taylor). The partner begins pressuring for sexual acts, with the argument that it “proves love” or “they feel unwanted”. The kind of sexual act will escalate continually beyond the abused person’s comfort. 

 

It is okay, and even good, for allosexual people to not want to date people they are not compatible with. It saves everyone involved a lot of time and heartbreak down the line. We shouldn't want to prove we are dateable to people we are not compatible with. Our worth doesn't lie in whether we can successfully have an amatonormative relationship (or a proxy thereof). Our own satisfaction with our own relationships, often unconventional and platonic as they may be, is enough.

 

But of course allosexual people aren't fully incompatible with ace people all over the spectrum, they're only fully incompatible with those on my end of the spectrum. I often see grey-aces and demisexuals focus on "Hey don't immediately discount us as potential partners just because we're ace! We can be good partners! We can have sex, even, sometimes! Or maybe something similar to sex!" and in doing so, they often unintentionally or intentionally sideline the aces who very much cannot do that. It is a type of respectability politics. Erase the ones least capable of performing normativity, so that the ones most capable of performing normativity can find acceptance from the mainstream.

 

But this sentiment doesn't only hurt the repulsed aces who get chucked under the bus, it's also an expression of hurt by the people proclaiming it. It saddens me when I see people attach so much of their self-worth to whether they're 'loveable' or 'dateable' in conventional, normative, acceptable ways, and put so much effort into proving that they are. It makes them susceptible to the type of guilting described above, even if their partner isn't actively trying to make them feel bad about their lack of enthusiasm for sex. What happens on a day they don't feel up to sex? Does it hit a sore spot? Does their self-esteem take a hit? Do they feel guilty? Do they man up and do it anyways? Are they worried they can't keep doing that forever?

 

I wish, for them, that they could be in a relationship with someone who doesn't need convincing, one where they don't need to be worried about this.

 

So yeah, aces are all quite different in ways that are relevant to your study. I think if you can't get a large enough ace sample size to compare demis/greys/aces, then you can't get a large enough sample size to compare aces on different levels of comfort with touch either, at which point the study would lose its purpose.

Here's some numbers from ace community survey reports on our differences:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

49 minutes ago, Rynn said:

The problem with adding an 'other' option like this is that the people who use it will be rendered statistically invisible. If they're not in a category, or in a category too small to draw conclusions about, they cannot count in statistics. If you allow people to write in their own response 'polysexual', you are effectively letting them self-select out of being considered in the statistics at all, while if they just clicked the box that is 99% correct for them, they get to be considered. Of course, if this survey was about 'which labels do you identify with', then endless microlabels could all be relevant, but I think in this case, it's mostly relevant who people are and aren't attracted to.

 

If we look at stated preferred love languages on dating sites (love languages are Christian propaganda by the way, not science), statistically we see that men overwhelmingly prefer 'physical touch', and women are more varied. This will most likely impact the relationship well-being of aces who are attracted to men and not to women. That's relevant data. Whether someone is attracted to men, women and nonbinary people regardless of their gender or because of their gender doesn't give us any data relevant to this study.

I've seen studies or summaries mention outliers so I'm not sure something would be too small, and someone can still choose the other options too. But at least I would still have 'other' even if not specifying, to see a statistic that there were people who felt differently than the main ones. And it really depends what the research covers for if it's relevant or not. I would think it can actually matter since we're talking about orientations and sex. For all we know pan people could on average feel differently about some things, but I was thinking more about being able to list how they are more accurately, since I can picture someone with the orientations I mentioned not being sure how to answer.

 

For the second part, I actually don't understand what you were saying. Maybe there was a misunderstanding on what I meant for gender mattering or not, I meant on the target of attraction. 

Love languages are very real and important to talk about when it comes to relationships so I don't agree at all with dismissing it as 'propoganda'. I don't think it's limited to the popular ones though, I think there can be more. But also I don't believe men 'overwhelmingly' prefer touch more compared to women, I think it depends on how it was asked but also I think it really depends on if sex is thought as being 'necessarily' part of it or not. And just to say, people don't just have one  love language which I do see places talk about it as if it's one but I think it's obvious that it's to different degrees (and reflected in some quizzes). If you don't like the term, it's really easy to just term it like you did with 'preferring', but I do think it makes sense to see it as a language because it feels like that (and how someone can feel and understand affection and more), but someone could also just say 'it's meaningful to me and it's how (or one way) I feel and share connection and affection'.

I think how strongly someone feels about a love language can mean a lot for how important it is to them in a relationship. And personally I'd put sex as its own one, and it definitely varies for how important it is to someone.

[lilbunminx]

17 hours ago, Rynn said:

And maybe to get a quick way to categorize and compare the different groups:

Which of these best describes you, in terms of whether you'd personally want to engage in partnered sex? 

• Sex-favorable
• Sex-indifferent
• Sex-averse
• Sex-repulsed
• Not sure
• Fluid

 

Believe it or not, people can also be romance-favorable, indifferent, averse or repulsed. But that might fall outside of your scope.

I would love to include this in the demographics! I think it will give me a more accurate descriptor of what I am trying to see in some of my analyses. I am a bit confused about the difference between sex-adverse and sex-repulsed. Would sex repulsed be a stronger adversion? Or is it something entirely different?