Most studies on aces are sex-focused, because the majority of the studies are done by Anthony Bogaert or Lori Brotto, both of whom are not ace. And they cannot imagine that anyone would not have primary or secondary sexual attraction, so both of them have issues with focusing on sex too much, the lack of sex, or mixing up terms like sexual attraction with libido, which we know as aces are not the same thing.
I spent a semester reading all of their papers for an Asexual paper I was doing (since I am ace spec and queer)... and I've done other uni papers about queerness as well. (A queer marathon, for example).
The conflation with touch stance, sex stance and sexual attraction is problematic with both of these academics.
But my major beef with both of them is saying there has to be biological determinism in order for someone to be ace, which categorically has shown not to be true, even with being lesbian or gay.
Biological determinism is the idea that there is a certain gene or set of genes that makes one queer. This is not the same as saying "You were socialized to be _fill in sexuality_ to be against it." It's more like saying ones sexuality CANNOT EVER CHANGE OVER A LIFETIME. And w all know that's not true. There are aces that genuinely discover later in life that they are ace, even though they felt sexual attraction before. (And no conversion therapy doesn't work).
This can be due to trauma, or it just genuinely happens that their sexual attraction becomes less.
After my paper, I did address this problem to Brotto, and Brotto pushed back and said there HAD TO BE A REASON that the whole ace spectrum was ace and it could not change over a lifetime. But I literally have met aces that genuinely did not have trauma and it did change for them over a lifetime.
In addition, Bogaert hated on trans people openly in several of his papers, and dismissed outright that trans people's sexualities (sexual orientations including asexuality) could change, despite several trans orgs with plenty of data to show this is true.
Bogaert spent an entire chapter, because he could not imagine total lack of sexual attraction, on aces who masturbate. In fact his favorite line to requote and insist that people quote from him is, "Clean the pipes" which really disturbs me that he had to overly focus on sexual activity of aces in all of his studies and then insist that people quote him and went on a tirade against Julie Decker, actual ace, for not quoting him. He also was as bold to say that he, n invented the term asexuality, when the term existed before he was alive to refer to our sexuality. And unless he has a time machine I don't think so. (KICK HIM OUT)
The other big claim that Bogaert likes to make is that ALL aces (who he claims agree with him) have paraphilias, (i.e. attachment to objects) and that's why they are ace. !@#$ Him. Kick him out.
Look, I'm not against allosexual people doing studies on us, but being this hell bent and focused on not the identity but sex is odd to me.
That said, the above, is kinda true and kinda not true. As Julie Decker argues: It's better to ask the ace in front of you how they feel on sex stance, touch stance, and how their asexuality reacts to primary and secondary sexual attraction than to assume or look at statistics.
I try my best to honor the range of asexuality out there. I love my Black stripe aces, the ace fluxes, the gray aces (Both the ones with and without primary sexual attraction and both those with and without secondary sexual attraction).
But Brotto and Bogaert both have this itch to boil us down to one person and one type and then plant a discovery flag on us when we were the ones that defined it for them.
Thus after reading ALL of the papers on asexuality at a high niversity level and doing actual field research, I can categorically say that Brotto and Bogaert are both off their rockers. We are awesome in our diversity.
I've met Black stripe aces that did not want to be touched at all with romantic attraction. I've met Gray aces with high libidos. I know aces who are in poly relationships. I know aces who are panSEXUAL (yes, sexual, as in they are 100% sure of their secondary sexual orientation once they get past the no primary sexual attraction.)
And it is breathtakingly awesome out there. Something that statistics and biological determinism can't capture is that.
Still, the best study on aceness out there is Julie Decker, who closed her book saying she thought she had not captured all of aceness, but just because it wasn't in her book, to not discount it.
And that's what aces can bring to academia about us: to look at the range of the identity itself.
YES. Some people have a high touch stance and are ace. But some also are less accepting and that's OK.
YES. Some people HAVE NO sexual attraction, but also are higher on sex stance. That's also OK.
Yes. some people have NO sexual attraction, have a low tolerance to touch and do not want to engage in sex. That's also OK.
Some people have low sexual attraction to celebrities. Some have high attraction to celebrities...
How is that person ace, it's best to ask. But I kinda think it's best to ask how people are allo, too in any relationship and allos could learn from us ace specs on how to negotiate boundaries in a relationship.
It's not all one way, or majority rules in sexuality. The only defining characteristic of asexuality is no, limited or conditional sexual attraction, though finding this out through sex stance is 100% valid. (BTW, I wrote to AVEN and aven said his was too hard to explain and refused to change their definition away from only including Black stripe aces. But this is so bad. This would be like saying People of color only come in Black because it's hard to understand that Indigenous, Latine, and Asians exist.)
And then I'd read Brotto and Bogaert and their cohorts with some caution because it seems like they are cutting out their subjects. At least Brotto will stop comparing us to amoeba as a hook after I asked her to stop.
BTW, excuse the typos, I'm typing this before going to (art history) class... I'll clean them up later.
