Saturday, January 18, 2014

2014 Call for Papers for NWSA Asexuality Studies Interest Group

The following was posted on the Asexuality Studies listserv by Regina Wright:
2014 Call for Papers about Asexuality
Asexuality Studies Interest Group
National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA)
November 13-16, 2014, San Juan, Puerto Rico

The NWSA Asexuality Studies Interest Group welcomes papers for the 2014 NWSA annual conference. These asexuality-related themes are orientated towards the full NWSA 2014 CFP which can be found here:

If you are interested in being a part of the 2014 Asexuality Studies Interest Group panels at NWSA, please send the following information to the designated panel organizer (listed under each theme) by Thursday, February 6, 2014:

*Name, Institutional Affiliation, Mailing Address, Email, Phone
*NWSA Theme your paper fits under
*Title for your talk
*50-100 word abstract

We will try to accommodate as many qualified papers as possible, but panels are limited to 3-4 presenters. NWSA will make the final decision about which panels are accepted. Presenters accepted into the conference program must become members of NWSA in addition to registering for the conference.

Sponsored Session: Asexualities and Issues of Race

For our sponsored session, we wish to think through the ways that race, ethnicity, and nation intersect with asexuality studies. We are interested in academic scholarship that focuses on these intersections, personal experiences of asexual people of color, as well as pedagogical approaches to teaching about asexuality through the lens of critical race studies and women of color feminism. Some questions we want to raise are:

• What difference does race, ethnicity, and nation make in the lives of asexual-identified people?
• How does asexual-identification predicated on low levels of sexual attraction and/or desire interact with racist assumptions that people of color are hypersexual?
• In what ways does asexuality help us think through histories of race-making and racism?
• How is racism experienced in the asexual community?
• How do online asexual communities work to make asexual people of color visible or invisible?
• How can we make asexuality studies be more attentive to issues of race and white privilege?

Please submit materials for the sponsored session to organizer Regina Wright at

Co-Sponsored Session with NWSA Fat Studies Interest Group

Fatness and asexuality provide useful frameworks for understanding how subjects are produced and disciplined within the context of the nation: positioned as unhealthy, deviant, pathological and unproductive--both fatness and asexuality are perceived as threats to the state’s normal functioning. While the growing activist and academic movements pertaining to fatness and asexuality both expose and problematize the disciplinary techniques of the nation, fatness and asexuality are only ever positioned together negatively. Fat empowerment politics, for example, involves critiquing the dominant ideology that fat bodies are either hypersexualized, fetishized or desexualized, and by this emphasis, can overlook the experiences of people who identify as both fat and asexual. This co-sponsored session wishes to place fat studies and asexuality studies in dialogue with each other and seeks papers that address questions including, but not limited to:

• What are points of encounter between asexuality studies and fat studies?
• In what ways can the intersections of fat studies and asexuality studies serve as a productive platform from which to critique ideas about labor, the economy, and the nation-state?
• How do marginalized fat and asexual bodies continue to foil the nation-state’s desire for fixity?
• How can fat asexuality be re-imagined as a form of empowerment and not stigma?
• How might the increasing use of social media as a mode of resistance to oppressive state regimes present a useful point of departure within fat and asexual politics?

Please submit materials for the sponsored session to organizer Danielle Cooper at

Theme 1: Rethinking the Nation

• In what ways does an avid investment in sex, sexuality, and the sexual imperative shape the formation of colonial nation-states and the making of empires?
• How does gender, race, class, ability, and sexuality interact with the sexual imperative to make mandatory certain ways of inhabiting and enacting national belonging and citizenship?
• Through what ways can we develop an asexual analytic to puncture the normativizing structures at work in the making of empires, nations, and neoliberal economies?
• In what ways does “asexuality” as an identification either collude with or challenge the grounding elements of nation-making, in and beyond the Occidental empires?
• Can asexual perspectives work in concord with critical race theories and feminist theories of race-making to demolish global hierarchies and the production of whiteness and white privilege?
• How is asexuality integral to the future of feminist critiques of the role of sexuality in nation-making?

Please submit materials to theme organizer Ela Przybylo at

Theme 2: Trans- Feminisms

• What does it mean to be both trans* and asexual? How do trans* members of the asexual community negotiate these two identities?
• How might these intersecting identities help us redefine feminist and asexual politics and epistemologies?
• What is the intersection between the human and the non-human in asexual communities? How might the encounter between the human and non-human species be productive in terms of transspecies critiques and participation in ecofeminist or cyborgian narratives?
• In what ways do cultural and socio-political locations create space or challenge asexual identities? • Why are some ethnicities, nationalities, and races only minimally represented in online asexual communities?
• How do the hierarchical relationships among regions across North/South and other hegemonic borders figure into asexual studies?
• How might asexual communities and identities help generate transnational and transcultural feminist alliances?
• How might transgenerational feminist perspectives in asexual studies intersect with or challenge foundational concepts in women’s and gender studies? What are the dynamics among the members of the multi-generational asexual community?

Please submit materials to theme organizer LaChelle Schilling at

Theme 3: Technologizing Futures

Contemporary asexual identities and communities have largely developed online (and in some cases have subsequently moved “off-line”). This theme will explore this relationship between contemporary asexualities and the Internet and might address any of the following questions, or other relevant questions:

• What is the relationship between the Internet and contemporary asexual identities and communities? How has the fact that these identities and communities were first developed online shaped the form of these identities and communities?
• What forms of asexual activism have been enabled by the online nature of asexual identities and communities? Has the online nature of these identities and communities augmented and/or limited their ability to effect social change?
• What role do bodies play in online asexual communities? How has the online nature of these communities affected the ways in which other social categories have manifested in these communities (such as race, class, gender, and ability)?
• What happens when asexual communities and identities move “off-line”?
• Has the online nature of asexual communities enabled the formation of transnational connections? Do global inequalities remain unaddressed in asexual communities?
• What can the “case study” of asexual identities and communities contribute to scholarship on digital communities? To scholarship on sexual identity formation?

Please submit materials to theme organizer Kristina Gupta at

Theme 4: Love and Labor

One can look at the larger project of asexualities as a relatively recent series of actions by individuals, groups and disciplines laboring privately and publicly to come to terms with different approaches to our definitions of love. Through radically redefining sexuality, identity, bodies and desire in a heteronormative society, it becomes possible to further imagine an openness to contingency and experiments within and between communities. This panel addresses some of the ways in which feminist, queer and performance studies can inform and build upon one another within the context of activating various perspectives on asexualities, through the following areas of inquiry:

• How do we construct new networks in innovative ways that link theoretical inquiries to the socioeconomic and racial realities of asexual communities?
• To what extent can we employ trust, creativity and imagination in the exploration and construction of asexual identities and space through an everyday performativity?
• How would shared social and cultural rituals of a small community translate into larger, networked activism?
• In what ways, do we enable and enrich the writing of future histories of asexualities within the context of this interdisciplinarity?

Please submit materials to theme organizer Anna Lise Jensen at

Theme 5: Creating Justice

• In what ways are asexual identities marginalized/oppressed? What structures, discourses, and modes of power refute, obstruct, and/or censor asexual legitimacy?
• In what ways does the struggle for legitimacy resemble prior movements toward justice, such as those for women’s rights, minority voices, and queer communities? What can a campaign for asexual justice take and learn from those movements? In what ways is the asexual movement different?
• What can be learned from the proliferation of asexual spaces online and how can that knowledge be put into practice in a campaign for legitimacy and justice offline?
• What is asexual justice? How can it be achieved in theory and practice?
• In what discourses and institutions is asexuality currently allowed (wholly or partially) to operate?
• How do specific cultures and languages reshape, challenge, or aid the campaign for asexual justice?
• How does this campaign for justice change when considered outside of the dominant contexts of the United States and Europe?

Please submit materials to theme organizer Nathan Erro at

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Don't put much confidence in 'Intergroup bias toward Group X'

The paper "Intergroup bias toward ''Group X'': Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals" by MacInnis and Hodson has gotten more attention in asexual spaces than most academic articles, probably because what the authors claim to have found fits well with some people's politics. I'm deeply skeptical that their data show what they say the data show, and so I think that we need to have a serious discussion about the use of this paper in asexual politics. The paper uses scientific methods to get a politically controversial point that isn't remotely merited by the data. When conservatives do this, the paper tends to get the label "junk science." In this case, the supposed findings are more consistent with liberal biases, and so it has received less criticism. However, people of all sorts of political opinions are quite capable of bad science in the service of politics.

To start with, the title itself is misleading, probably intentionally: The title suggests the article provides "Evidence of...discrimination against asexuals." But how could they possibly make claims about discrimination against asexuals without any data from any asexuals? Probably what they have in mind is this: "Comfort with renting to and hiring a member from each sexual orientation were tapped on 11-point scales," which led to scores ranging from 0-10. Responses to this were then labelled (by the researchers) as "discrimination intentions". Both of these words are inappropriate. They didn't ask about intentions--they asked about how comfortable someone would be. Further, I believe that a major difference between discrimination and prejudice is that discrimination involves (unfairly) treating people differently, while prejudice is a matter of beliefs/attitudes/feelings (these are often related, of course). The question was about feelings, not behaviors, so the word "discrimination" is inappropriate. In the abstract, they state "Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals)." Not only do they make this statement without any questions actually about willingness to discriminate, here's the actual summary of the data (possible scores range from 0-10).
Question Hetero- Homo- Bi- A-
S1-hire 9.5 8.92 8.61 9.09
S1-rent 9.45 9.06 8.76 8.84
S2-hire 9.68 8.86 8.97 9.05
S2-rent 9.63 8.87 8.87 9.00
From Tables 1 & 3.

If someone is asked, "On a scale from 0-10, how comfortable would you be with renting to an asexual?" I confess that I am not overly worried if people tend to answer, "I don't, maybe 9?" There is a significant difference in the means for the different groups, so there is a finding to be explained, but this doesn't remotely justify the claim in the abstract.

So the claims about "discrimination" are totally unsupported by their data. Next, I want to move to what the study is primarily about: attitudes. Attitudes are something they, in fact, did ask about. Now, it is true that differences in attitudes towards heterosexuals vs. bisexuals and homosexuals in research like this do correspond to how people are treated in the real world, but a VERY BIG QUESTION is whether this generalizes to groups that people have (possibly) never even heard of. MacInnis and Hodson state that one reason for study 2 was "to rule out outgroup familiarity as a potential confound." While this typically would mean, "To test whether the results of their first study are (at least in large part) due to this confound" they actually mean it as "to rule it out as a possible confound regardless of what results they end up getting." In fact, results of study 2 strongly suggest that lack of familiarity is a very large part of why the attitude thermometer scores for asexuals were lower than those of bisexuals or homosexuals. However, they try to hide this, and instead set up the absurd standard of whether lack of familiarity can completely account for the finding. (If the standard is "Does r^2=1?" I think I can rather confidently tell you that the answer is "no" without even looking at your data--or even knowing what you're studying--as long as you've got more than a handful of data points.)

If you take a close look at the paper, here are some things to notice:

Although one of the two main purposes of doing study 2 was to include "sapiosexuals" to test the possibility that familiarity accounts for why attitude thermometer scores for asexuals are so low, sapiosexuals are conspicuously missing from Table 3, showing attitude thermometer scores for study 2. They only report the data for sapiosexuals 2 pages later on p. 14, most likely so that readers don't notice that attitudes towards sapiosexuals are lower than attitudes towards homosexuals or bisexuals (though I don't know if it's strong enough, given their sample size, to be statistically significant).

Heterosexuals: 8.78
Bisexuals: 7.02
Homosexuals: 6.92
Sapiosexuals: 6.81
Asexuals: 6.45

I've never seen anyone using this study to claim that there is more (or at least least as much) prejudice towards sapiosexuals as towards homo- or bisexuals. Probably this is because if we accept that relatively low attitude thermometer scores for sapiosexuals is largely a matter of lack of familiarity (which seems likely), then this suggests lack of familiarity is also a large part of the reason for the low attitude scores for asexuals. There's also another piece of data in the paper that suggests lack of familiarity with asexuality is largely the reason for their "finding" (again, under the assumption that this is largely responsible to low attitudes towards sapiosexuals): Table 4 shows that the strongest correlate of attitudes towards asexuals was attitudes towards sapiosexuals (r=.84). Excluding alpha reliability co-efficients, this is, in fact, one of the two strongest correlations in entire table (the other being attitudes towards homosexuals and bisexuals, which are also correlated at r=.84).

However, rather than being up front about these facts, they don't draw attention to the strong correlation between attitudes towards asexuality and sapiosexuality, and they try to hide the attitude data about sapiosexuals somewhere were most readers are unlikely to compare it to attitude data for homo- and bisexuals.

They present two arguments to "rule out" familiarity as accounting for their findings. The first is by showing that although sapiosexuals have a lower familiarity score than asexuals, asexuals have a lower attitude score than sapiosexuals. In fact what this means is that [the particular measure used in their study for] familiarity cannot completely account for the attitude data towards asexuals. I wouldn't expect it to, but I'll bet that it does account for a large part of it. As a second argument, they state that "In further evidence that familiarity per se does not explain dislike of asexuals, relations between [right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation] or ingroup identification with asexual evaluations were relatively unchanged after statistically controlling for familiarity with asexuals (partial correlations equal −.36, −.31, −.24, and ps < .02, respectively). Prejudice-prone persons, therefore, were not more prejudiced toward asexuals as a result of mere unfamiliarity" (p.15). (The original correlations were -.34, -0.30, and -.25, respectively)

First of all, the correlation between attitudes about asexuality and each of these three wasn't all that strong compared to other correlates--in fact, in no case did it exceed the correlation between attitudes about asexuals and attitudes about heterosexuals (r = .36). Second, they never actually provide evidence that people in these groups tended to dislike asexuals. They labeled the endpoints of their attitude thermometers as "extremely unfavorable" and "extremely favorable." The mean attitude score for asexuals in the first study was 4.70, and in the second study 6.45. Possible scores range from 0-9, so 4.5 should mean neutral (or "I don't know"???) They then tell us that various things were negatively correlated with attitudes towards asexuals, so it's possible that if we made groups based on these scales, these people might had average attitudes below 4.5, but they don't tell us. The biggest problem, however, is the data given in the 2nd argument leaves open the possibility that attitude scores for asexuality among the less prejudice-prone people was correlated with familiarity. If they're trying to rule out (un)familiarity as a possible confound, it seems odd that they don't provide data on whether familiarity with X is correlated with attitudes about X, at least in the cases of asexuality and sapiosexuality. If I had to guess, it's because doing so wouldn't support their argument...

In summary, I don't think that this study provides good evidence of prejudice against asexuals. More likely, it shows us something about how people answer social psychologists' questionaires like this when asked about groups they've never/barely heard of before. That finding would much less exciting than their claim about asexuals, and I suspect that publishing pressures in social psychology encouraged them to take the route that they did.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Asexuality: Few Facts, Many Questions (New paper)

Van Houdenhove, Ellen; Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen, & Paul Enzlin. in press. Asexuality: Few facts, many questions. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.
Although there has been increasing interest in asexuality during the last decade, still little is known on this topic. In order to define asexuality, three different approaches have been proposed: a definition of asexuality based on sexual behavior, one on sexual desire/sexual attraction, one on self-identification, and one on a combination of these. Depending on the definition used, reported prevalence rates range from 0.6% to 5.5%. In this article, characteristics of asexuality are presented and biological, psychological and socio-demographic factors associated with asexuality are reviewed. Given the suggestion of existing overlap with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD), special attention is paid to similarities and differences between this condition and asexuality. It is further noted that theoretical models to understand (the etiology) of asexuality are underdeveloped.

This is a review article about asexuality, and overall I think it does a good job of reviewing the literature on the topic, although a consequence of the relatively slow speed of academic publishing is that by time it's published, it's already out of date. Obviously, the most recent research articles (i.e. the analyses of NATSAL-II by Bogaert and by Aicken et al. both published this year, Yule et al.'s paper on asexuality and mental health issues) aren't covered. I'm not really sure why Mark Carrigan's work isn't discussed--they mostly rely on Scherrer's qualitative work regarding asexual identity (in my view, Carrigan's 2011 paper gives a more accurate picture of asexual discourse and identity than does Scherrer's). They also do a good job of covering the main findings reported, how confident (or not) we can be in those findings, and the various possible explanations that have been proposed for these.

It seems that, to help somewhat speed up the process, they have published a version online not only ahead of print, but ahead of submission of corrections along with the galley proofs. [Note: Typically, at some point after an article has been accepted, authors will be sent galley proofs with editorial comments to be addressed, generally about grammar and references.]

One of my biggest complaints about the paper is that they keep citing "" as a source for claims about the asexual community. For example:

In this respect, it is urgently needed that the validity of some ‘new’ categories that are widely used in the asexual community (, i.e., hetero-romantic, homo-romantic, bi-romantic and a-romantic, is being tested.

Now, I have long hoped that researchers would investigate the scientific validity of these (and other) categories devised in asexual discourse, but I have no idea what part of AVEN they're citing.

AVEN is a big site. As of a couple weeks ago, the English language forums on AVEN viewable to non-members (minus Off-A and JFF) had around 76 million words. If you included hotbox, meet-up mart, the wiki, AVENues, and the static content, my guess is that this would come to around 100 million words of English language content. (By comparison, all 7 Harry Potter books combined have around 1.1 million words.) So what part of AVEN are we talking about?

Some of the AVEN-citations are of questionable veracity:

While most asexual persons indicate they have always felt this way, others report possible ‘causes’ of their asexuality in their history ( Within the asexual community, there is an ongoing debate on whether persons with a potential cause in their history, such as an experience of sexual abuse, can be considered as ‘truly’ asexual.

And then there are ones like this:

Within the asexual community, it is questioned whether asexuality and masturbation can co-occur (

I believe it would be more accurate to say, "About 10 years ago, it was debated whether..." There was a time when this was debated, but the matter had more-or-less already been settled by time Tony Bogaert's 2004 paper was published.

The other main aspect of the paper that I took issue with concerned future research on the etiology of asexuality, possible negative reactions from the asexual community should the evidence suggest pathological/pathology-related causes. I think that this is an important topic, but the handling of the conceptual issues seems rather muddled, in my view. If I get time, I'll try to put together a post on that topic.

In general, I think the paper is a fairly good review article on asexuality, which is something for which there was a need, and I agree with the authors' hope that "this literature review may be a source of inspiration for other researchers to contribute to a better understanding of asexuality."

Friday, July 12, 2013

New Chapter on Asexuality

Bogaert, Anthony F. 2013. The demography of asexuality. International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, ed. by Amanda K. Baulme, 275-288. New York, NY: Springer.

As with many chapters in edited volumes, this one doesn't have an abstract. The bulk of the chapter is an analysis of the asexuality data in NATSAL-II, primarily examining the same things that Bogaert's 2004 paper on asexuality examined with the NATSAL-I data.

For those unfamiliar with it, the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles
is the largest scientific study of sexual behaviour since the pioneering studies of Alfred Kinsey in the US in the 1940s and 1950s.

Natsal was originally set up because of an urgent need for information about sexual lifestyles in the context of the HIV/ AIDS epidemic.

Natsal first took place in 1990, with the second study taking place in 2000. The third Natsal began in 2010 and its results will be published in 2013.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

A second survey on asexuality-related terminology.

In May, I started running the first of two surveys on asexuality-related concepts and terminology, which was the first of two surveys I will be running this summer.  I am now running the second one.

To participate, you must be at least 18 years of age or older, be proficient in English, and identify as asexual, gray-A, or demisexual.

Most of the survey consists of a series of questions about a number of terms.  It is expected that some will be familiar and others unfamiliar to you.  Please do not look things up while taking the survey.

Click here to participate

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Survey about asexuality, gray-asexuality, and demisexuality

As many readers know, I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.  My dissertation is about online asexual discourse, with particular interest in its development over time.  I ran one survey last January, and I am now conducting a survey on asexuality-related concepts and terminology.

To participate, you must be at least 18 years of age or older, be proficient in English, and identify as asexual, gray-A, or demisexual.  The  survey has a number of language-related questions, and it is asked that you do not look things up while taking the survey.

Click here to participate.