Jump to content

Sociology (Macionis/Gerber)


hyenaboy

Recommended Posts

I'm taking an 'Introduction to Sociology' course right now, and it made me intensely happy to read this in my textbook!

asex001.jpg

asex002.jpg

There's nothing more in-depth about asexuality than what I've got pictured here, but I'm assuming that's due to the lack of academic research. However, it is in here, and even considered one of the "four major orientations". I'm just glad that this is what is being taught in my school. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

The model and picture are based on a proposal by a guy named Michael Storms. He proposed it in a 1978 paper (that is rarely cited) and then again in a 1980 paper (which is sited a lot more). My sense is that, if pressed, a good number of academics will acknowledge that it is a better model than one that only included 3 sexual orientation. I know that at least a few textbooks here and there will include it, however briefly. Nevertheless, it's basically ignored in most actual research, though there are a handful of exceptions here and there (3, as I recall.) There have also been studies here and there that used separate questions for same-sex interest and opposite-sex interest, with little actual interest in asexuality. But they've made it an option, and they find that some people fit in that category.

If you're curious, there's a blog post on Apositive about it called A different model of sexual orientation. The picture Storms used was quite a bit less colorful than the one in your textbook.

It's good to see that this is at least getting brief mention in your class. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
asex001.jpg

Surprised%20Girl%20Face.jpgWha?!

I'm in a social service program, and even in our chapters regarding sex and sexual issues, nothing on Asexuality is mentioned. I actually had to educate my social issues teacher about it during a talk about sexuality.

Nonetheless, EPIC. What's the textbook?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet! :D I like their definition of asexuality too, even if it is all up in the gender binary...

It's interesting how they define sexual attraction, since it's different from how a lot of asexuals seem to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast
Sweet! :D I like their definition of asexuality too, even if it is all up in the gender binary...

It's interesting how they define sexual attraction, since it's different from how a lot of asexuals seem to see it.

I hadn't even read the text. (I had just read the bold words and the at the big, pretty picture.:))

Their definition of sexual orientation is really a definition of romantic orientation, and there is good evidence (and not just from asexuals) that sexual and romantic orientation are different. (The people for whom the difference matters most seem to end up either in asexual or bisexual categories, though.)

Sometimes I have a suspicion that, to make modern (English speaking, at least) culture more accepting of sex and have more "positive" attitudes about sex, they try to make this really strong tie between love and sex in order to sell sex. (Sex, obviously, is doing just fine on its own in terms of sales, but you know what I mean. ;)) Fewer people are going to have anti-caring -elationship biases than anti-sex biases. It's kind of an interesting phenomenon because it creates this delusion that what sex is really about is love and commitment and caring relationships. Of course, sometimes, that's what sex means for people. But there's also a whole lot of sex that doesn't have much to do with these things.

Looking at studies on common sexual fantasies, there seem to be two major themes: affection and power. When talking about sex, at least in educational contexts, we seem a lot more comfortable talking about one of these than the other.

I also observed the word behaviour in the textbook, so I'm pretty sure it's not from the US. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the textbook?

I suppose I didn't make the thread subject entirely obvious. :P The textbook is called "Sociology" and it was written by Linda Gerber and John J. Macionis.

Their definition of sexual orientation is really a definition of romantic orientation, and there is good evidence (and not just from asexuals) that sexual and romantic orientation are different. (The people for whom the difference matters most seem to end up either in asexual or bisexual categories, though.)

I'm with you there. I don't quite agree their definition of sexual orientation, either.

I also observed the word behaviour in the textbook, so I'm pretty sure it's not from the US. :)

Indeed. It's Canadian. ("Sixth Canadian Edition" to be exact. :P)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm taking an 'Introduction to Sociology' course right now, and it made me intensely happy to read this in my textbook!

asex001.jpg

asex002.jpg

There's nothing more in-depth about asexuality than what I've got pictured here, but I'm assuming that's due to the lack of academic research. However, it is in here, and even considered one of the "four major orientations". I'm just glad that this is what is being taught in my school. :)

Oh my god, that's so exciting! Do you know what year the text book came out? Just curious.

I hope I find something similar in my Sociology classes... so far, I haven't. We had one class where the prof was lecturing about the different sexualities, and one of the other people in the class spoke up: "What about asexuality?" And then there was a muttering of "Asexuality? What's asexuality?" amongst the students, and the professor put it on the board next to the others as if he'd just forgotten to include it... <_< It wasn't in the textbook, either. But I suppose, at the very least, it's cool that someone in the class knew about it and brought it to attention - we're getting the word out there, slowly, but surely! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this thread and decided to have another look at my old Sociology 101 text book, which is an older book written by Macionis. While it doesn't have a picture of the Storms Model it does mention it briefly, including a definition of asexuality. I didn't notice it before because it's included in a small paragraph entitled Bisexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AFlyingPiglet

Wow, it's great that it's in there. I'm now curious as to whether the old A Level Sociology textbook I used mentions(ed) Asexuality at all. I shall have to investigate as to whether its still in print but it was a good read at the time - Haralambos - Themes and Perspectives. The more Asexuality is mentioned in any educational context, the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, I know that asexuality is mentioned in the textbook for the Anthropology class my friend took last year, because she showed me. I don't remember what the textbook was called, though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only does it have the definition of sexual attraction completely wrong, but I'd question the idea that heterosexuality is "the norm" in every society. Weren't there ancient cultures, for instance, where the majority of men were expected to be bisexual? Or am I hallucinating about that?

Still, cool that they had asexuality in there.

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...