Producing facts: Empirical asexuality and the scientific study of sex

Abstract

Asexuality, quickly becoming a burgeoning sexual identity category and subject of academic inquiry, relies at this budding moment of identity demarcation on a series of scientific studies that seek to ‘discover’ the truth of asexuality in and on the body. This article considers the existing scientific research on asexuality, including both older and more obscure mentions of asexuality as well as contemporary studies, through two twin claims: (1) that asexuality, as a sexual identity, is entirely specific to our current cultural moment – that it is in this sense culturally contingent, and (2) that scientific research on asexuality, while providing asexuality with a sense of credibility, is also shaping the possibilities and impossibilities of what counts as asexuality and how it operates. In the first section, I consider how older scientific research on asexuality, spanning from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, is characterized by a disinterest in asexuality. Next, turning to recent work on asexuality, the beginning of which is marked by Anthony Bogaert’s 2004 study, I demonstrate how asexuality becomes ‘discovered’, mapped, and pursued by science, making it culturally intelligible even while often naturalizing, in the process, what I argue are harmful sexual differences.

Beyond Sexual Orientation: Integrating Gender/Sex and Diverse Sexualities via Sexual Configurations Theory

“…There is a body of empirical research supporting understandings of what could be described as an alloerotic/nonalloerotic dimension (e.g., Bogaert, 2004Bogaert, , 2006Brotto et al, 2010;Brotto & Yule, 2011;Carrigan, 2011;DeLuzio Chasin, 2011;Prause & Graham, 2007;Przybylo, 2012;Scherrer, 2008). In SCT, an asexually-identified person could identify as having little to no alloerotic interest and being nonalloerotic.…”

“…I detail the structure of SCT, mapping out its general organization and parameters and outlining how sexual configurations are assembled. The theory is interdisciplinary and rooted in literatures on polyamory, asexuality, intimacies, and social neuroendocrinology that are themselves interdisciplinary (e.g., Barker & Langdridge, 2010;Bogaert, 2004Bogaert, , 2006Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erksine, 2010;Brotto & Yule, 2011;Carrigan, 2011;DeLuzio Chasin, 2011;Diamond, 2003b;Klesse, 2006;Noël, 2006;Prause & Graham, 2007;Przybylo, 2012;Scherrer, 2008;Sheff, 2005; van Anders, Goldey, & Kuo, 2011).…”

Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Sex and Romance in Asexuals

“…Though research into sexuality has seen a surge in recent years, the area of asexuality received relatively little attention (Przybylo, 2013) until recently. This may be due to a lack of overt norm-challenging behaviour (Bogaert, 2004), in contrast with behaviours such as homosexual sex, which has historically been perceived as deviant.…”

Exploring the Experiences of Heterosexual and Asexual Transgender People

“…While most of this work remains in interdisciplinary and psychological fields at present, early results suggest it may be an emerging area for serious consideration across the social sciences (Scherrer 2008). Using a variety of quantitative, qualitative, and historical methods (Scherrer 2008;Przybylo 2013), social scientists have analyzed (1) meanings surrounding asexualities within ace communities and more broadly (Scott and Dawson 2015), (2) romance, intimacy, and fantasy in the lives of ace people (Dawson et al 2016), and (3) the social construction of ace identities (Scott et al 2016). These studies show that, much like transgender experiences with cisnormativity (Schilt and Westbrook 2009), LGBQ people's experiences with heteronormativity (Schrock et al 2015), and BQ people's experiences with mononormativity and heteronormativity (Barringer et al 2017), ace people face marginalization and discrimination from other social groups due to systemic notions of compulsory sexuality (see, e.g., Chasin 2015; Gupta 2017; MacInnis and Hodson 2012).…”