1. ASEXUAL CITIZENSHIP IN A SEXUAL WORLD
Identity, Intimacy, & Self-Other Relations
Nina Nouripanah, Counselling Psychologist-In-Training
nina.nouripanah@regents.ac.uk
Supervised by Prof. Martin Milton & Dr. Anna Butcher
“Everybody wants to fuck somebody!”
- LGBTQ Switchboard volunteer to person identifying as asexual
APPLICABILITY:
• Critically engage with hegemonic assumptions and
representations
• Revisit questions of hetero- and sexual-normative scripts
• Alter the discursive landscapes of ‘intimacy’ and relationality
• Contribute to the development of alternative and novel models of
mindful social organisation that could potentially influence both
asexual and non-asexual communities in positive ways.
An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction (Bogaert, 2004)
Background
Within Western culture, discourses and ideologies of hetero- and sexual-normativity
pervade (Chasin, 2014), providing the normative scripts upon which discourses of
abnormality and pathologies of difference/non-sex are constructed (Przybylo, 2011). Not
only are romantic, (hetero)sexual, monogamous couplings considered the pinnacle of
human relationships, but there is now a pressure for more frequent, adventurous,
immensely enjoyable, orgasmic sex (Carrigan, 2011). In such a climate, persons identifying as
asexual and their lived experiences are rendered invisible. Moreover, by rejecting the socially
constructed view of relationships, wherein sex is the sine qua non, an asexual identity
becomes a stigmatised and marginalised identity, frequently pathologised as something to
be ‘fixed’, or dismissed entirely (Foster & Scherrer, 2014).
This Research
In our highly sexualised world, dominant representations and discourses of (romantic) connection often equate
‘intimacy’ with sex. Lust is central to the concept of romantic love. By rejecting dominant representations of
romantic intimacy, persons identifying as asexual can be seen as actively and creatively negotiating their
identity and the boundaries of intimacy not only with themselves and their relational counterparts, but also
with wider cultural values and normative conventions. Thus, rather than viewing persons identifying as asexual
as defective/abnormal or as victims of the sexualised world, one could instead examine the ways in which
‘intimacy’ (as personally defined) is discursively constructed by those who eschew the primacy of sex.
Aims
• Examine how persons identifying as asexual talk about, construct, negotiate and interpret their experiences in relation to
‘intimacy’
• Explore the self-other, therapeutic, and socio-cultural-political-moral implications of these constructions
Qualitative Method
Social justice underpinning
Ontology: Critical Realist
Epistemology: Social Constructionist
Analytic Strategy: Critical Discursive
Psychology
Owing to its dual analytic focus on the micro
and the macro, CDP permits a nuanced
examination of the intricacies of language use
and conversational turns, careful attention to
the experiences articulated, whilst integrating
critical attention to ideology, power, and
social change (Edley, 2001).
Data Collection
Discussion groups have been chosen as they stimulate a
naturally occurring conversation and are sites of active
negotiation of meaning and discursive sense-making, allowing
rich data and insight into the social processes and
constructions of phenomena.
12 demographically variant participants:
• Ages 18 to 47 years (average: 28 years)
• 6 females, 5 males, 1 gender fluid
• 8 single, 4 in relationship
• 4 heteroromantics, 3 panromantics, 3 biromantics, 2
aromantics
References
• Bogaert, A. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample.
Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 279-287. doi:10.1080/0022449049552235
• Carrigan, M. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference and commonality within the asexual
community. Sexualities, 14(4), 462-478. doi:10.1177/1363460711406462
• Chasin, C. J. D. (2014). Making sense in and of the asexual community: Navigating relationships and
identities in a context of resistance. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 167-
180. doi:10.1002/casp.2003
• Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject
positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp.
189-228). London: SAGE.
• Foster, A. B., & Scherrer, K. S. (2014). Asexual-identified clients in clinical settings: Implications for
culturally competent practice. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 422-430.
doi:10.1037/sgd0000058
• Przybylo, E. (2011). Crisis and safety: The asexual in a sexusociety. Sexualities, 14(4), 444-461.
doi:10.11771363460711406461