Last week, there was an asexuality special theme issue of Psychology & Sexuality. It’s sort of a big deal because it’s several new academic papers all at once.
Few people have access to the journal, so you may have trouble finding copies. If you can’t find a copy, or, like me, are too lazy to read them, I recommend the summaries written by ace-muslim:
- Asexuality special theme issue: Editorial
- Who reports absence of sexual attraction in Britain? Evidence from national probability surveys
- Mental health and interpersonal functioning in self-identified asexual men and women
- How is asexuality different from Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder?
- Asexuality: From pathology to identity and beyond
- Some thoughts on asexuality as an interdisciplinary method
- A mystery wrapped in an enigma – Asexuality: A virtual discussion
- Book review: Understanding Asexuality by Anthony Bogaert
What was the main highlight of this issue for you? Any other thoughts on the articles?
If this discussion interests you, several people are proposing an asexual research reading group. Please join so they can gauge interest.
The Asexual Agenda 
I was most struck by the data showing that asexuals had suicidality rates comparable to the other non-heterosexual groups.
I’m not sure what to make of the “from pathology to identity” paper. The abstract was unreadable. The main thrust seemed to be, “everyone else is wrong and Foucault was right”…
I’m getting that the way asexuality is being construed is too mainstream for the author’s tastes, but he likes the way it undermines gender norms, heteronormativity and amanormativity. He thinks the trying-to-fit-in-with-the-mainstream approach makes it easier for society to accept asexuality, but his interest in asexuality is in it changing society’s conception of what people are like.
More broadly, I think that the author of this article was trying to understand asexuality within the framework of queer theory, which is their area of study, and to explore if approaching asexuality this way produces any new insights about sexuality or gender, which they believe that it does. How much people like this paper probably depends on their tolerance for and interest in queer theory. If that’s not your cup of tea, you can skip that paper.