Asexual Borderlands: Asexual Collegians’ Reflections on Inclusion Under the LGBTQ Umbrella

Just a decade ago, asexuality was absent from the sexual orientation lexicon (Bigio, Davenport, Pinder, Chevigny, & Tucker, 2011). Today, visibility of asexual people continues to grow. For example, Asexuality Visibility and Education Network’s (AVEN, n.d.b) first Community Census in 2011 received 3,430 responses while responses to the 2014 census more than tripled to 10,880 respondents. Much of the research on asexuality (see Bogaert, 2012; Scherrer, 2008; Van Houdenhove, Gijs, T’Sjoen, & Enzlin, 2014) associates asexuality as part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, aggregating asexuality with all other minoritized identities of sexuality and gender. MacInnis and Hodson (2012) conducted the only study of asexual marginalization using a small (N = 148) single-institution sample of college students who did not identify with a minoritized sexual identity to evaluate attitudes toward sexual minorities (homosexuals [sic], bisexuals, asexuals). Participants’ attitudes toward asexuality were the most negative, but a confirmatory factor analysis of the data also supported a single factor of sexual minority prejudice. The perception of shared marginalization may be one reason asexuality is sometimes included with the LGBTQ community in research and higher education. Indeed, some colleges’ LGBTQ resource centers include asexual students as a population they support (see, for example http://www.umass.edu/stonewall). Conversely, the definition of asexual as “someone who does not experience sexual attraction” (AVEN, n.d.a, header) distinguishes asexuality from the broader LGBTQ population. With more than 40% of the 2014 Asexual Community Census participants identifying as college students (Ginoza, Miller, & Associates, 2014), and given the importance of college as a time and space for individuals to clarify their sexual identities (Stevens, 2004), we examined asexual college students’ reflections on being included within the LGBTQ community as a first step toward understanding asexual identity.

Asexuality remains one of the least studied and least understood sexual identities (Van Houdenhove et al., 2014). As noted earlier, many scholars include asexuality with other sexual and gender minorities in terminology and practice (see Byne, 2014; Pinto, 2014; Walls, Kane, & Wisneski, 2010). The earliest academic articulation of asexuality came from Kinsey (1953; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948), who incorporated asexuality as “Group X” into the spectrum of sexuality; Group X represented less than 2% of individuals who reported sexual attraction to neither gender. In 2001, the emergence of AVEN, the largest online asexual community, increased awareness of asexuality in society and created a space for community, resources, and support for asexual individuals (Carrigan, 2015; Pacho, 2013; Scherrer, 2008). As of 2015, the AVEN community included over 75,000 members (AVEN, n.d.a). Since the founding of AVEN, studies of asexuality comprise a growing body of literature (Bogaert, 2004; Pacho, 2013; Van Houdenhove et al., 2014). Yet, despite the presence of AVEN and the emergence of asexual literature, many asexuals still express a need for increased visibility (Bigio et al., 2011; Jay, 2003).

The definition originally provided by AVEN represents the most prevalent definition of asexuality in both research and online communities (Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010; Carrigan, 2011; Chu, 2014; Scherrer, 2008). Specifically, “an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction” (AVEN, n.d.a, header). This definition creates a dichotomy between no sexual attraction and any level of sexual attraction, which some scholars argue oversimplifies asexuality (Bogaert, 2004; Pacho, 2013; Van Houdenhove et al., 2014). The term asexual represents both a distinct identity and a uniting term for a spectrum of identities. Understanding asexual identities also involves considerations of other types of attraction in addition to sexual attraction. For example, many asexuals commonly identify the gender(s) to whom they are romantically attracted (Chasin, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). Asexuals identify their orientations in a complexity of ways with an expansive vocabulary to express individual differences and orientations within the community (Carrigan, 2011; Hinderliter, 2009; Scherrer, 2008). The intersections of these identities further complicate the question of aggregating asexuality within the LGBTQ community.

This study is an opportunity to amplify the perspectives, identities, and needs of students representing a breadth of asexual identities, rather than grouping...