The Pros And Cons Of Asexuality

1864 Words 8 Pages
If no experiments are done, then the lack of information can create a misunderstanding in the community, resulting in a misdiagnosis. This is why it is so important to do more research in the asexual community so that they are not wrongly labeled as having a disorder like the homosexuals in early DSM copies a few decades ago. Similar to a homosexual or bisexual identity, Scherrer explicitly states that asexuality is an identity that somebody is biologically, not a choice. This definition, though backed up by the 102 people in her study, is not scientifically sound because there are no experiments to support this theory. Unfortunately, unlike homosexuals, asexuals’ brains have yet to be examined in context to their identity to find any correlations …show more content…
Though Scherrer technically conducted an experiment, it entailed more of a self-report conclusion resulting in a wide array of definitions and identities throughout the 102 people who participated in the study. Her findings, though interesting, are not corroborated by any other similar asexual identity studies. The following studies listed, though the participants are also from AVEN, are more concerned with disorders and what asexuality is in a psychological, scientific standpoint instead of social like Scherrer’s study. Though there are not any neuroanatomical studies done on asexuals, scientists have found some correlation between health status, weight, height, and age of first menstrual cycle in women of asexual and sexual humans. Asexuals tend to be on average less healthy, weigh less, and shorter than sexual beings. This may relate to biological factors in early development, but not enough studies have been done as mentioned before. The article “A Mixed-Methods Approach” discusses an experiment also using people from AVEN to further understand definitions of asexuality and …show more content…
The main difference between this study and the previous study is that the people in this study were not self-identified asexuals, but instead took a placement test and then scored greater than 40 on the Asexuality Identification Scale (AIS). It is important to note that these scientists were able to overcome the previously reoccurring issue with finding participants for asexual studies. They determined who was asexual and not by the AIS and therefore bypassed the issue of self-identification. Another major difference between this study and the last two is that this study had a control group to test against the asexual group. This is vital to the credibility of the experiment. Though this experiment had 668 individuals instead of the one thousand of the “Mixed Methods Approach” study, the participants came from a wide array of online listings, in clinic postings at sexual therapists and sexologists’ offices, and at a university. Everything considered this experiment shows a more reliably representative group of the asexual community. Similar to the “Mixed Methods Approach” experiment, these scientists also used questionnaires and self-reported answers in similar aspects like demographics, sexual behaviors, and social desirability. The distinct difference

Related Documents