Homosexuality and Homophobia: Toward a Causal Model of Asexuality

[EGAD!]

It is a bit of a strange title, but it does deal with asexuality.

You can find it here.

Here is the abstract:

The goal of the study was to present a general causal model of asexuality as related to other elements of sexuality (homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual) and belief structures. We used Belief Systems Theory (Hamilton & Mineo, 1996, 1999) and the Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954) to explain the impact of homophobia, religiosity, female gender, and positive relationships with gay male, lesbian, and bisexual individuals on homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual elements of sexuality, and, ultimately, on asexuality. A predominantly self-categorized heterosexual sample of college undergraduates (N = 244) was used in the study. Six elements of sexuality emerged: bisexuality, gay fantasy, gay convergence, gay act, straight fantasy, and asexuality. Homophobia and the gay act element of sexuality had a positive effect on asexuality. Female gender and positive relationships with gay male, lesbian, and bisexual individuals decreased homophobia, whereas religiosity increased it. Female gender also increased one’s likelihood of becoming bisexual, whereas religiosity decreased it. Finally, straight fantasies had a negative effect on asexuality.

[Lord Happy Toast]

I remember seeing that a while ago. I don't think I shared it with anyone because I thought it was such utter crap. As an example of how absolutely awful their attempt at "scholarship" is, here's an example from their literature review. They discuss "asexuality" in various cultures.

"Kim (1989) further describes that being sexy is not an important criterion for selecting a bride in Korea, where the primary emphasis in placed on the reproductivity and a woman’s ability to bear a man’s child. In contrast, sexuality and sex appeals are crucial for establishing romantic relationships in American culture."

I thought this was interesting (and completely false based on what I know of contemporary Korea where "sexy" is actually a loan from English.) So I decided to go to their references to try to find the article. It turns out the article was about selecting a bride during the Korean war. The morons writing the article neglected to mention this fact and made it sound like a description of Korea in the '80s.

I just skimmed through it again. I don't think they remembered to tell you how they operationally defined asexuality. Given that they actually left asexuality out of the list of sexual orientations, I don't think anything they say in their findings has any value.

[EGAD!]

I remember seeing that a while ago. I don't think I shared it with anyone because I thought it was such utter crap. As an example of how absolutely awful their attempt at "scholarship" is, here's an example from their literature review. They discuss "asexuality" in various cultures.

"Kim (1989) further describes that being sexy is not an important criterion for selecting a bride in Korea, where the primary emphasis in placed on the reproductivity and a woman’s ability to bear a man’s child. In contrast, sexuality and sex appeals are crucial for establishing romantic relationships in American culture."

I thought this was interesting (and completely false based on what I know of contemporary Korea where "sexy" is actually a loan from English.) So I decided to go to their references to try to find the article. It turns out the article was about selecting a bride during the Korean war. The morons writing the article neglected to mention this fact and made it sound like a description of Korea in the '80s.

I just skimmed through it again. I don't think they remembered to tell you how they operationally defined asexuality. Given that they actually left asexuality out of the list of sexual orientations, I don't think anything they say in their findings has any value.

I still have yet to get around to reading it, but if nothing else the content of this paper could go toward a content analysis of the "reasons" and "causes" of asexuality according to "experts" in the academic community.

Though I am sure many of us have heard enough "expert" opinions.