What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding Asexuality
Asexuality can be defined as an enduring lack of sexual attraction. Thus, asexual individuals do not find (and perhaps never have) others sexually appealing. Some consider asexuality as a fourth category of sexual orientation, distinct from heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. However, there is also recent evidence that the label asexual may be used in a broader way than merely as a lack of sexual attraction. People who say they have sexual attraction to others, but indicate little or no desire for sexual activity are also self-identifying as asexual. Distinct from celibacy, which refers to sexual abstinence by choice where sexual attraction and desire may still be present, asexuality is experienced by those having a lack of sexual attraction or a lack of sexual desire. More and more, those who identify as asexual are coming out, joining up, and forging a common identity. The time is right for a better understanding of this sexual orientation, written by an expert in the field who has conducted studies on asexuality and who has provided important contributions to understanding asexuality. This timely resource will be one of the first books written on the topic for general readers, and the first to look at the historical, biological, and social aspects of asexuality. It includes first-hand accounts throughout from people who identify as asexual. The study of asexuality, as it contrasts so clearly with sexuality, also holds up a lens and reveals clues to the mystery of sexuality.
183 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
19 people are currently reading
1011 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
October 1, 2012
i should point out that i have no background in sexology, academia, or science. everything i know about the topics in the book i learned the old-fashioned ways: life experience, talking to other people, and scouring the internet for more information.
with that said: i found this book to be rather bullshitty. i mean, this is the stance i take on anyone and anything that says dan savage has right opinions about asexuals, but that is not the only thing that was problematic. bogaert completely ignores social causes for things (both within the asexual community and in women's sexuality in general) and insteads points to biology as the cause for everything. if we lived in a vacuum, that may have been the case, but we don't.
his (very small) selection of asexuals in pop culture is bullshit, and he willfully ignores the differences between an asexual figure (sherlock holmes is a popular example) and a desxualized one (he refers to the virgin mary as an asexual figure more than once- LOLNOPE). the conclusions he draws about asexuals and gender noncomformity are spurious at best.
for a book about asexuals, this talks an awful lot about gay men. and if i can get 100 pages into a book about asexuality before you say that you're not sure if asexuality is a disorder, there is a problem.
anyway, i was really disappointed by this. i'm still glad our library system purchased it- it's the only book they have on the topic- but it's not something i would recommend to someone who is just coming to terms with their asexuality.
with that said: i found this book to be rather bullshitty. i mean, this is the stance i take on anyone and anything that says dan savage has right opinions about asexuals, but that is not the only thing that was problematic. bogaert completely ignores social causes for things (both within the asexual community and in women's sexuality in general) and insteads points to biology as the cause for everything. if we lived in a vacuum, that may have been the case, but we don't.
his (very small) selection of asexuals in pop culture is bullshit, and he willfully ignores the differences between an asexual figure (sherlock holmes is a popular example) and a desxualized one (he refers to the virgin mary as an asexual figure more than once- LOLNOPE). the conclusions he draws about asexuals and gender noncomformity are spurious at best.
for a book about asexuals, this talks an awful lot about gay men. and if i can get 100 pages into a book about asexuality before you say that you're not sure if asexuality is a disorder, there is a problem.
anyway, i was really disappointed by this. i'm still glad our library system purchased it- it's the only book they have on the topic- but it's not something i would recommend to someone who is just coming to terms with their asexuality.
November 29, 2016
‘Understanding Asexuality’ is the first book to be published on the subject of asexuality as a sexual orientation. This makes it important. When I wish to research something, I’ll settle for online sources and journal articles, but what I really want are books. A few years ago I searched the catalogues of my university library, a legal deposit library containing more than 8 million items, and found no books whatsoever on the subject of asexuality. That was very dispiriting. Then Antony Bogaert published this book, I requested that the university library acquire it, and now I’ve read it. This may turn out to be a fairly long review.
This book is written in a style that combines elements of pop social science with academic writing. Thus it uses bracketed asides and jokes, as well as in-text citations. I found this a little jarring at first, but soon got used to it. Bogaert states that he is trying to appeal to a wide audience, including the wider public as well as those studying human sexuality. Overall I found the book an interesting complement to, albeit not a substitute for, material and discussions on asexuality that can be found online. A wide range of issues are covered, synthesising what academic work that has been done so far to investigate asexuality. For example, studies on prevalence are reviewed and compared to similar studies that seek to establish the prevalence of homosexuality or bisexuality. I’d pick out as especially notable the second chapter, which seeks to deconstruct sexuality into the components attraction, arousal, behaviour, cognition, and desire. I was also impressed by the range of reasons given as to why asexuality is not a pathology - as the discipline of psychology has tended to label it.
The book then slightly loses its way in the last third. As there has been relatively little actual empirical or even theoretical published work on asexuality, it appears that Bogaert ran out of material to cover. Thus there are three chapters which seem astoundingly speculative for a quasi-academic work. One covers art, another food, and another humour. Each asks to what extent a sexual element is present in each area of human life and what this might mean for asexuals. Whilst there is some interest in wondering about this, given the lack of actual data or even theory, it merely leads to such meaningless questions as, do asexuals laugh at dirty jokes? Most likely, some do and the answer depends on the sense of humour of each individual - which is outside the scope of sexuality studies.
In fact, my strongest critique of this book would be the agenda set out for future research. Rather than endless speculation about to what extent nature and nuture determine sexuality, or indeed finding out whether asexuals are amused by dick jokes, I would suggest:
- Research into how asexuals view their bodies and perform gender, investigating whether there are significant differences to non-asexuals.
- Research into fantasy amongst asexuals and the nature of any sexual component within this, investigating whether there are any trends. This would also include consideration of asexuality and kink (paraphilia).
- Research into how sexual and romantic attraction can be differentiated; I think there needs to be a lot more discussion of what romantic attraction actually is.
- Research into how demisexual and grey-a identities fit into the new dimension of sexuality opened up by the umbrella term ‘asexual’.
I apologise in advance for not being able to resist concluding this review with a rant. It is not purely about this book, but also applies to other work I’ve read on sexuality.
I realise that it is very difficult to write anything whatsoever about human sexuality without over-simplifying to some extent. That said, I am very sensitive to generalisations that are treated as facts. These seem to occur most frequently in disciplines that exist in the very murky area between social science and biological science. One notable generalisation used in this book is, ‘Women have lower levels of sexual desire than men’. I read this and wondered: in what ways might you empirically test that ‘biological fact’? There is reported behaviour - which is influenced by social norms of what is what is appropriate. Or observed behaviour - which is also influenced by social norms. Moreover, behaviour is not the same as desire, the two are wholly different concepts. So, what about interviewing a sample of both genders - but the results will also be coloured by reporting bias and embarrassment about discussing a relatively taboo subject. Then perhaps an anonymous questionnaire - like the interviews, this would suffer self-selection bias and would still be influenced by social norms. Indeed, the very concept of sexual desire has been defined by largely male theorists, notably Freud. It is extremely difficult for a discipline to break entirely with its sexist past and create a new and more neutral vocabulary, clearly.
However, it is also misleading to comment that ‘women have lower sexual desire’ as a matter of biology, when this is such a culturally influenced matter. Until the 19th century, British culture held that women had higher levels of sexual desire than men. Even though biology has moved on considerably since the 18th century, we are still unable to excise cultural baggage (in this case, sexism) from notions of sexuality. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the sexes (pre-supposing a strict binary that, to his credit, Bogaert criticises) respond to certain hormones differently, in ways that seem to impact on sexual desire. There is still a huge gap between that biological knowledge and a certainty that on average women’s sexual desire is less than men’s. In current Western culture, women are expected to have lower sexual desire than men. This will markedly influence how men and women report their levels of sexual desire, as well as influencing the way that this desire is measured by social scientists or biologists. Basically, I have a huge problem with generalisations like this, as they elide dominant cultural norms into scientific facts. This positively reinforces the norms, however problematic they might be. (Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism discusses the damage that this biological determinism can then do.)
‘Understanding Asexuality’ tries to caveat generalised statements, goes out of its way to challenge norms, and is thus not as guilty of this as much academic literature. But it still uses these generalisations in a way that I am not comfortable with. I don’t see how it is possible to determine whether, on average, ‘women have lower levels of sexual desire than men’. Especially as Bogaert goes out of his way to state repeatedly that women’s sexuality is ‘complex’ and even ‘the mystery of mysteries’. I can only assume that this is the case because for much of the time sexuality has been studied, it has been by males, on their terms.
That was cathartic. Despite some flaws, I’m still giving this book four stars as it breaks new ground in an accessible, interesting way. I enjoyed reading it and hope that further books on the subject appear in due course.
This book is written in a style that combines elements of pop social science with academic writing. Thus it uses bracketed asides and jokes, as well as in-text citations. I found this a little jarring at first, but soon got used to it. Bogaert states that he is trying to appeal to a wide audience, including the wider public as well as those studying human sexuality. Overall I found the book an interesting complement to, albeit not a substitute for, material and discussions on asexuality that can be found online. A wide range of issues are covered, synthesising what academic work that has been done so far to investigate asexuality. For example, studies on prevalence are reviewed and compared to similar studies that seek to establish the prevalence of homosexuality or bisexuality. I’d pick out as especially notable the second chapter, which seeks to deconstruct sexuality into the components attraction, arousal, behaviour, cognition, and desire. I was also impressed by the range of reasons given as to why asexuality is not a pathology - as the discipline of psychology has tended to label it.
The book then slightly loses its way in the last third. As there has been relatively little actual empirical or even theoretical published work on asexuality, it appears that Bogaert ran out of material to cover. Thus there are three chapters which seem astoundingly speculative for a quasi-academic work. One covers art, another food, and another humour. Each asks to what extent a sexual element is present in each area of human life and what this might mean for asexuals. Whilst there is some interest in wondering about this, given the lack of actual data or even theory, it merely leads to such meaningless questions as, do asexuals laugh at dirty jokes? Most likely, some do and the answer depends on the sense of humour of each individual - which is outside the scope of sexuality studies.
In fact, my strongest critique of this book would be the agenda set out for future research. Rather than endless speculation about to what extent nature and nuture determine sexuality, or indeed finding out whether asexuals are amused by dick jokes, I would suggest:
- Research into how asexuals view their bodies and perform gender, investigating whether there are significant differences to non-asexuals.
- Research into fantasy amongst asexuals and the nature of any sexual component within this, investigating whether there are any trends. This would also include consideration of asexuality and kink (paraphilia).
- Research into how sexual and romantic attraction can be differentiated; I think there needs to be a lot more discussion of what romantic attraction actually is.
- Research into how demisexual and grey-a identities fit into the new dimension of sexuality opened up by the umbrella term ‘asexual’.
I apologise in advance for not being able to resist concluding this review with a rant. It is not purely about this book, but also applies to other work I’ve read on sexuality.
I realise that it is very difficult to write anything whatsoever about human sexuality without over-simplifying to some extent. That said, I am very sensitive to generalisations that are treated as facts. These seem to occur most frequently in disciplines that exist in the very murky area between social science and biological science. One notable generalisation used in this book is, ‘Women have lower levels of sexual desire than men’. I read this and wondered: in what ways might you empirically test that ‘biological fact’? There is reported behaviour - which is influenced by social norms of what is what is appropriate. Or observed behaviour - which is also influenced by social norms. Moreover, behaviour is not the same as desire, the two are wholly different concepts. So, what about interviewing a sample of both genders - but the results will also be coloured by reporting bias and embarrassment about discussing a relatively taboo subject. Then perhaps an anonymous questionnaire - like the interviews, this would suffer self-selection bias and would still be influenced by social norms. Indeed, the very concept of sexual desire has been defined by largely male theorists, notably Freud. It is extremely difficult for a discipline to break entirely with its sexist past and create a new and more neutral vocabulary, clearly.
However, it is also misleading to comment that ‘women have lower sexual desire’ as a matter of biology, when this is such a culturally influenced matter. Until the 19th century, British culture held that women had higher levels of sexual desire than men. Even though biology has moved on considerably since the 18th century, we are still unable to excise cultural baggage (in this case, sexism) from notions of sexuality. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the sexes (pre-supposing a strict binary that, to his credit, Bogaert criticises) respond to certain hormones differently, in ways that seem to impact on sexual desire. There is still a huge gap between that biological knowledge and a certainty that on average women’s sexual desire is less than men’s. In current Western culture, women are expected to have lower sexual desire than men. This will markedly influence how men and women report their levels of sexual desire, as well as influencing the way that this desire is measured by social scientists or biologists. Basically, I have a huge problem with generalisations like this, as they elide dominant cultural norms into scientific facts. This positively reinforces the norms, however problematic they might be. (Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism discusses the damage that this biological determinism can then do.)
‘Understanding Asexuality’ tries to caveat generalised statements, goes out of its way to challenge norms, and is thus not as guilty of this as much academic literature. But it still uses these generalisations in a way that I am not comfortable with. I don’t see how it is possible to determine whether, on average, ‘women have lower levels of sexual desire than men’. Especially as Bogaert goes out of his way to state repeatedly that women’s sexuality is ‘complex’ and even ‘the mystery of mysteries’. I can only assume that this is the case because for much of the time sexuality has been studied, it has been by males, on their terms.
That was cathartic. Despite some flaws, I’m still giving this book four stars as it breaks new ground in an accessible, interesting way. I enjoyed reading it and hope that further books on the subject appear in due course.
December 6, 2014
To be honest I'm really disappointed by this book. It shouldn't be called Understanding Asexuality, but only Understanding Sexuality. The thing is that the author took such wide view that there was very little, to almost nothing about Asexuality.
Yes, he explained about the definition of Asexuality. Yes, he explained what the causes might be, and made no conclusions. He explained about masturbation and fantasizing. But some chapters were completely unnecessary. Like why do we need a chapter on the history of sex? Sex has been here for millions of years, and still is. And in our society more important than ever, end of story. Same with the chapter on Humor. That Asexuals might not understand and/or care for sexual humor? Yes, very true. But why does it matter. How does that help in understanding Asexuality? I did not see it.
As well as I did not agree with the author on some point he made. Like for example that Asexual people don't face the same set of difficulties as for example homosexuals. No, in many ways we don't. But on some basic level we have some in common. And more when he claimed that most sexuals/heterosexuals, if not all, take asexuality well. That's real nonsense. There is a lot a rubbish Asexual people hear from sexuals. A wide range. And that's because many don¨t believe such thing could exist. Even if you explain it to them. And no, there are not exactly few of them.
So, overall it was a big disappointment. Yes, I learned something, but not what I wanted to about. As an ebook this book costs almost $20, and you learn almost nothing on the topic you bought it for. I don't understand how the author could not see it. He missed many topics on asexuality. And honestly those who were there were quite short. The author took only a short part on it really, most of the chapter is talking about something else. Like Gays, Lesbians, Trans people, etymology, and many other things than what he should have had concentrated on.
Yes, he explained about the definition of Asexuality. Yes, he explained what the causes might be, and made no conclusions. He explained about masturbation and fantasizing. But some chapters were completely unnecessary. Like why do we need a chapter on the history of sex? Sex has been here for millions of years, and still is. And in our society more important than ever, end of story. Same with the chapter on Humor. That Asexuals might not understand and/or care for sexual humor? Yes, very true. But why does it matter. How does that help in understanding Asexuality? I did not see it.
As well as I did not agree with the author on some point he made. Like for example that Asexual people don't face the same set of difficulties as for example homosexuals. No, in many ways we don't. But on some basic level we have some in common. And more when he claimed that most sexuals/heterosexuals, if not all, take asexuality well. That's real nonsense. There is a lot a rubbish Asexual people hear from sexuals. A wide range. And that's because many don¨t believe such thing could exist. Even if you explain it to them. And no, there are not exactly few of them.
So, overall it was a big disappointment. Yes, I learned something, but not what I wanted to about. As an ebook this book costs almost $20, and you learn almost nothing on the topic you bought it for. I don't understand how the author could not see it. He missed many topics on asexuality. And honestly those who were there were quite short. The author took only a short part on it really, most of the chapter is talking about something else. Like Gays, Lesbians, Trans people, etymology, and many other things than what he should have had concentrated on.
December 6, 2022
This one isn't it, guys. If you want a more nuanced, more accessible discussion of asexuality, I would recommend Refusing Compulsory Sexuality: A Black Asexual Lens on Our Sex-Obsessed Culture by Sherronda J. Brown and Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex by Angela Chen.
Understanding Asexuality is the most remote, clinical, data-driven discussion of asexuality that I've encountered. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, Bogaert does little to effectively supplement the data points he brings to the table. I'd imagine a lot of his commentary could be similarly read within the studies that he's referring to, and he does little else with them. There is the occasional interview input, but they aren't really lingered on beyond how they support whatever study the focus is one.
Additionally, his writing style does very little to promote the "understanding" he promises in the title. Even as an asexual person who has encountered many of these studies and concepts before, Bogaert's explanations are incredibly difficult to follow. I would not want this to be an allosexual person's first foray into seeking to understand the asexual experience and what asexuality can teach us about society at large.
Bogaert's writing is largely frustrating in that in being written so clinically, it inadvertently overlooks the humanity of asexuality and the people behind the experiences he's detailing. I do not at all believe this was his intention, but simply a consequence of the heavily academic, data-driven writing behind this text. This book is a man's earnest attempt, and I do appreciate the effort even if the product feels less than readable for the intended audience he initially describes.
In the end, the two books listed at the top do a much better job with a lot of the same topics, including breakdowns of attraction vs. action vs. desire, the historical concept of "frigidity," spontaneous vs. responsive sexual desire, asexual-coded characters, and relationships between asexuality and gender identity. Brown and Chen just bring a lot more nuance to the table, as well as just generally giving explanations that are more easily understood. Please just read one or both of those instead.
(Although shout out to Bogaert for including Jughead on a list of asexual-coded characters BEFORE Jughead was made canonically asexual. Damn, dude, you must have felt incredibly vindicated when the comic released!)
Understanding Asexuality is the most remote, clinical, data-driven discussion of asexuality that I've encountered. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, Bogaert does little to effectively supplement the data points he brings to the table. I'd imagine a lot of his commentary could be similarly read within the studies that he's referring to, and he does little else with them. There is the occasional interview input, but they aren't really lingered on beyond how they support whatever study the focus is one.
Additionally, his writing style does very little to promote the "understanding" he promises in the title. Even as an asexual person who has encountered many of these studies and concepts before, Bogaert's explanations are incredibly difficult to follow. I would not want this to be an allosexual person's first foray into seeking to understand the asexual experience and what asexuality can teach us about society at large.
Bogaert's writing is largely frustrating in that in being written so clinically, it inadvertently overlooks the humanity of asexuality and the people behind the experiences he's detailing. I do not at all believe this was his intention, but simply a consequence of the heavily academic, data-driven writing behind this text. This book is a man's earnest attempt, and I do appreciate the effort even if the product feels less than readable for the intended audience he initially describes.
In the end, the two books listed at the top do a much better job with a lot of the same topics, including breakdowns of attraction vs. action vs. desire, the historical concept of "frigidity," spontaneous vs. responsive sexual desire, asexual-coded characters, and relationships between asexuality and gender identity. Brown and Chen just bring a lot more nuance to the table, as well as just generally giving explanations that are more easily understood. Please just read one or both of those instead.
(Although shout out to Bogaert for including Jughead on a list of asexual-coded characters BEFORE Jughead was made canonically asexual. Damn, dude, you must have felt incredibly vindicated when the comic released!)
July 28, 2025
Fermata al capitolo 8.
Non ha senso proseguire nella lettura. Il libro parla più della sessualità in generale che dell'asessualità. Il titolo è fuorviante, ma è scritto bene e l'autore sa di quello che parla quando si riferisce alla sessualità in generale. Sull'asessualità ho i miei dubbi, soprattutto perché l'autore non lo è.
Non ha senso proseguire nella lettura. Il libro parla più della sessualità in generale che dell'asessualità. Il titolo è fuorviante, ma è scritto bene e l'autore sa di quello che parla quando si riferisce alla sessualità in generale. Sull'asessualità ho i miei dubbi, soprattutto perché l'autore non lo è.
March 26, 2019
It was very informative, if slightly more technical than it maybe should have been. There are things I disagreed with—a huge focus on biology, constant comparisons to homosexuality, some dated language—but overall, it was a good stab at explaining asexuality to non-asexual people
March 28, 2020
2.5
Bogaert has a biological determinism problem. While making small nods to socialization, he spends most of the book gesturing to prenatal causation. And when, talking about handedness being linked to genes, he adds parenthetically "and what isn't," it's hard not to see him reveal himself as very deep within a purely biological model of sexuality. Note, as Lisa points out in their 2012 review, it takes 10 chapters before Bogaert even mentions that asexuality is not a disorder - and even then Devil Advocates throughout the book.
On top of that Bogaert plays very fast and loose in a way that comes across as careless. When talking about the world-stopping 13 minute furor over Tiger Woods' affair in 2010 he says, while other factors were involved for sure, "the only angle that that drove it to this level of fury was clearly the sexual one." I find this presumptive. Circular at that, since any affair that gets attention will get attention necessarily because it's sexual. That's what an affair typically is
Nonetheless, I rounded up from 2.5 for two reasons. For one, Bogaert is writing for the "NPR audience" (if you will). The kind of casual-listening in-the-loop minded person that probably won't absorb the worst implications of his rhetoric and yet will accept asexuality as real. Second, Bogaert is conscious of how limited his interpretation is, even stating "even we scientists may forward a cause that reflects bias. Keep that in mind as you read along!"
Does that make it okay? Arguably not, no. Until asexuality has more - and more well known - advocates however, having a popularizer with problematic tendencies isn't the worst case scenario. At least the conversation can begin then, and hopefully with the voices of asexuals themselves.
Bogaert has a biological determinism problem. While making small nods to socialization, he spends most of the book gesturing to prenatal causation. And when, talking about handedness being linked to genes, he adds parenthetically "and what isn't," it's hard not to see him reveal himself as very deep within a purely biological model of sexuality. Note, as Lisa points out in their 2012 review, it takes 10 chapters before Bogaert even mentions that asexuality is not a disorder - and even then Devil Advocates throughout the book.
On top of that Bogaert plays very fast and loose in a way that comes across as careless. When talking about the world-stopping 13 minute furor over Tiger Woods' affair in 2010 he says, while other factors were involved for sure, "the only angle that that drove it to this level of fury was clearly the sexual one." I find this presumptive. Circular at that, since any affair that gets attention will get attention necessarily because it's sexual. That's what an affair typically is
Nonetheless, I rounded up from 2.5 for two reasons. For one, Bogaert is writing for the "NPR audience" (if you will). The kind of casual-listening in-the-loop minded person that probably won't absorb the worst implications of his rhetoric and yet will accept asexuality as real. Second, Bogaert is conscious of how limited his interpretation is, even stating "even we scientists may forward a cause that reflects bias. Keep that in mind as you read along!"
Does that make it okay? Arguably not, no. Until asexuality has more - and more well known - advocates however, having a popularizer with problematic tendencies isn't the worst case scenario. At least the conversation can begin then, and hopefully with the voices of asexuals themselves.
October 15, 2012
My overall opinion is that the book is a great start to finally having some literature on asexuality. I very often felt Bogaert was entirely wrong—or at least failing to capture my experiences as an asexual person, and surely my experience is not the same as everyone's!—but the book is very clearly written with an understanding that this is only a beginning and ends with a call for further research. Great! Much, much more research still needs to be done on understanding the complexities of human (a)sexuality. Bogaert provides a start; now, it is time for others to take interest and begin real research.
May 28, 2022
A really good introduction and overview to research on asexuality. Dr. Bogaert touches on almost every major aspect, from defining asexuality to potential causes of asexuality to how asexuals navigate such a sexualized world. There are several things I wish he'd talked about that he didn't, but he still covered a lot of information and I would definitely recommend this book to anyone curious and/or confused about what asexuality is.
May 11, 2019
Some interesting tidbits about asexuality buried in pages and pages on musings about sexuality as a whole. Interesting in that data is involved, perhaps more interesting to someone who isn't asexual who wants to understand us better. My goal had been to understand my identity a bit better and find some solidarity, but really I ended up feeling a bit like I was a specimen on display listening in on a nerdy tour guide make it about himself.
April 22, 2017
Whoops, read this all in one go. I was very surprised to spot this in my university's library, and it was the only book there about asexuality. As an asexual person, I was kind of on edge the entire time reading it - waiting for the condemnation or ridicule I guess (probably why I read it all in one go in like four hours). But this book does give an accepting view of asexuality. The author clearly did his research and frequently quotes AVEN and asexual people, which is reassuring. The book also takes care to note that asexual people are diverse, just like any other group of people. Some of the language put me off, in relation to gender identities specifically, but I'm also cis, so take that with a grain of salt. Overall, I think this book is a good read for all people, asexual and allosexual. It's also good for just learning some interesting facts about people in general!
May 5, 2018
A very interesting read.
May 2, 2022
I appreciate how the author parses out many of the nos important issues, but the jokey, populist tone was annoying.
Read
May 20, 2016I don't rate academic books, I don't feel qualified to do it, but this one deserves a review.
It's an important book, because it's the first and one of the very few books that talk about asexuality- a topic completely absent from our sex-crazed society. And people need to realize that not everything is about sex, at least not for everyone.
First off, you need to know that I didn't need to read this book. And it means everything, because I never read any full books (or even journal articles) for my course. Yeah, I'm one of those. Either way, I read this book when I was procrastinating for my dissertation. I just snatched it out of my housemate's bibliography and then read it all in one evening.
It's not your typical academic book. It's not like reading Butler or Freud. The writing is very straightforward and it reads like a magazine article. It's even funny in places!
Some of the other reviewers mentioned how the research is very basic and ignores some relevant areas- well, maybe because it's the first book in the area! Everyone needs to realize that Bogaert's work is groundbreaking. What is more, if he didn't create AVEN (Asexual Visibility and Education Network) in the first place, there might be no book at all. In my opinion, the book is absolutely amazing seeing how Bogaert had no other sources to work with. Also, as the author mentioned a couple of times, writing a book about asexuality is like writing about sexuality-asexuality is also a spectrum, and every case is individual. You cannot get a straight answer of what being asexual is like no more than being told what being sexual is like.
Other thing that I've seen in other reviews is how Bogaert's examples are bullsh*t. Well, excuse me, but if I learnt one thing at uni, it's that media analysis is very subjective. And just look at the case! Have you ever heard of a book of film where a character identifies straight forward as asexual...? Exactly. It's more about picking up clues and working with them. Media analysis is not finite and is always up to discussion. And Bogaert makes his arguments really well.
I'm not saying that you have to read it, but if you are somewhat interested in the topic, it's a really good source to have a look at.
It's an important book, because it's the first and one of the very few books that talk about asexuality- a topic completely absent from our sex-crazed society. And people need to realize that not everything is about sex, at least not for everyone.
First off, you need to know that I didn't need to read this book. And it means everything, because I never read any full books (or even journal articles) for my course. Yeah, I'm one of those. Either way, I read this book when I was procrastinating for my dissertation. I just snatched it out of my housemate's bibliography and then read it all in one evening.
It's not your typical academic book. It's not like reading Butler or Freud. The writing is very straightforward and it reads like a magazine article. It's even funny in places!
Some of the other reviewers mentioned how the research is very basic and ignores some relevant areas- well, maybe because it's the first book in the area! Everyone needs to realize that Bogaert's work is groundbreaking. What is more, if he didn't create AVEN (Asexual Visibility and Education Network) in the first place, there might be no book at all. In my opinion, the book is absolutely amazing seeing how Bogaert had no other sources to work with. Also, as the author mentioned a couple of times, writing a book about asexuality is like writing about sexuality-asexuality is also a spectrum, and every case is individual. You cannot get a straight answer of what being asexual is like no more than being told what being sexual is like.
Other thing that I've seen in other reviews is how Bogaert's examples are bullsh*t. Well, excuse me, but if I learnt one thing at uni, it's that media analysis is very subjective. And just look at the case! Have you ever heard of a book of film where a character identifies straight forward as asexual...? Exactly. It's more about picking up clues and working with them. Media analysis is not finite and is always up to discussion. And Bogaert makes his arguments really well.
I'm not saying that you have to read it, but if you are somewhat interested in the topic, it's a really good source to have a look at.
November 29, 2020
I should maybe preface this by saying that I am asexual, and therefore somewhat biased in my reading of this. That being said, I do think it qualifies me to comment on some of the absolute nonsense presented by the author. So much of what he writes is either based on citations overwhelmingly taken from his own work (always a dubious approach in academia, I feel) or wildly extrapolated from outdated ideas about sexuality (are we still referring to Freud? Really?!). For example, Bogaert's musings on whether asexual women should be under or overweight seemed particularly pointless. In a similar vain, the chapter dedicated to whether asexual people would understand sex jokes posited the idea that laughing might indicate you weren't really asexual at all... Luckily, I did get the viagra joke, but didn't laugh so I guess I can still legally carry my Ace card??? All of this felt so speculative and I would have appreciated much more focus on actual asexual experiences, provided by asexual people themselves, but as I say I am biased.
The author is very clearly not asexual, which is not in itself an issue. But it does mean that he spends the majority of this book musing on what hypothetical asexuality tells us about more "typical" sexuality (i.e. heterosexuality). The focus always remains on sexual behaviour - asexuality viewed through a sexual lens, to use Bogaert's terminology. But I'd argue that if in your book about "Understanding Asexuality", every chapter ends with "so what does this tell us about asexuality?", almost as though it's an afterthought, your book isn't really about asexuality at all.
The problem with this really seems to be that it is an academic text written by a non-asexual academic. It has very little at all to do with the lived experience of being asexual and as a result at times I felt I was being "ace-splained" to. If you're an asexual person looking for a sense of how others experience asexuality, this isn't the book for you. Overall I wouldn't recommend this as a great starter for understanding what it is to be asexual.
That being said, I did bump this up to 3 stars based solely on the author disagreeing with Dan Savage's not so hot take on asexual identity. So there is that.
The author is very clearly not asexual, which is not in itself an issue. But it does mean that he spends the majority of this book musing on what hypothetical asexuality tells us about more "typical" sexuality (i.e. heterosexuality). The focus always remains on sexual behaviour - asexuality viewed through a sexual lens, to use Bogaert's terminology. But I'd argue that if in your book about "Understanding Asexuality", every chapter ends with "so what does this tell us about asexuality?", almost as though it's an afterthought, your book isn't really about asexuality at all.
The problem with this really seems to be that it is an academic text written by a non-asexual academic. It has very little at all to do with the lived experience of being asexual and as a result at times I felt I was being "ace-splained" to. If you're an asexual person looking for a sense of how others experience asexuality, this isn't the book for you. Overall I wouldn't recommend this as a great starter for understanding what it is to be asexual.
That being said, I did bump this up to 3 stars based solely on the author disagreeing with Dan Savage's not so hot take on asexual identity. So there is that.
Read
August 5, 2025DNF this is not an accurate review at all
hard pass. didn’t even make it through ch 1 when i started to wonder where the asexuality was gonna come in. then he defines it - the most allosexual definition ever mind you, with zero nuance - and starts talking like a gold star “hardcore asexuality” yeah, no. dnf.
(not even gonna touch on the other concerning stuff, wtf u mean “mystery of a the female orgasm” ??? what year is this)
perhaps there is some insightful material in here, but im not looking for scientific reasoning behind my asexuality, im looking for diff perspectives of the asexual identity, how people define it, how they experience it, their lives before and after they learned of it, how they seek out intimacy. the whole shabang. the discussion prompts in ch 1 wouldve been more interesting if they were brought up among… yknow. asexuals. not to uninvolved academics. yh im gatekeeping sry.
the one star is for the WHO’s definition of sexuality. i really like it
hard pass. didn’t even make it through ch 1 when i started to wonder where the asexuality was gonna come in. then he defines it - the most allosexual definition ever mind you, with zero nuance - and starts talking like a gold star “hardcore asexuality” yeah, no. dnf.
(not even gonna touch on the other concerning stuff, wtf u mean “mystery of a the female orgasm” ??? what year is this)
perhaps there is some insightful material in here, but im not looking for scientific reasoning behind my asexuality, im looking for diff perspectives of the asexual identity, how people define it, how they experience it, their lives before and after they learned of it, how they seek out intimacy. the whole shabang. the discussion prompts in ch 1 wouldve been more interesting if they were brought up among… yknow. asexuals. not to uninvolved academics. yh im gatekeeping sry.
the one star is for the WHO’s definition of sexuality. i really like it
December 31, 2020
Please don't waste money or braincells on this book. I know far more about asexuality by reading ace people on Twitter than through the biologicist-prone nonsense in this book.
It has been written as an academic paper for the most part, which is very exhausting to read and not for the general public as it states to be. The author tries to avoid making assertions to present himself as neutral but then you he inserts assertions like this completely disconnected from reality and ableist bit: "The fact that the courts in various societies at various time periods recognize that sex, at least under certain circumstances, causes 'insanity' illustrates my main point: sex, in many manifestations, and perhaps even at its core, is mad."
I feel for ace people if this man is the elite of current academic studies in asexuality as he claims to be.
It has been written as an academic paper for the most part, which is very exhausting to read and not for the general public as it states to be. The author tries to avoid making assertions to present himself as neutral but then you he inserts assertions like this completely disconnected from reality and ableist bit: "The fact that the courts in various societies at various time periods recognize that sex, at least under certain circumstances, causes 'insanity' illustrates my main point: sex, in many manifestations, and perhaps even at its core, is mad."
I feel for ace people if this man is the elite of current academic studies in asexuality as he claims to be.
May 18, 2014
2.5/5
The book has some scientific information that is both interesting and might be helpful in explaining asexuality to someone. There was not nearly enough information specifically about asexuals to truly satisfy me. I would not recommend this book to someone trying to figure themselves out-the language and tone are sterile (and a bit dull), and readers may feel uncomfortable. I know I was, from time to time.
The book has some scientific information that is both interesting and might be helpful in explaining asexuality to someone. There was not nearly enough information specifically about asexuals to truly satisfy me. I would not recommend this book to someone trying to figure themselves out-the language and tone are sterile (and a bit dull), and readers may feel uncomfortable. I know I was, from time to time.
September 28, 2012
You can check out my Library Journal review here under Editorial Reviews.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/under...
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/under...
wishlist
August 14, 2016Asexuality as the fourth sexuality. Sounds interesting though the price is scarily high for 192-page hardcover.
October 5, 2016
Very interesting and thrilling read. More complex and more interesting as I read.
June 13, 2024
This book has some good points and interesting scientific discoveries, however, for the most part, I was disappointed in it. I felt Bogaert spent much of the book talking about sexual people instead of asexual people. I kept thinking to myself “When are you going to relate this to asexual people? Why call a book ‘Understanding Asexuality’ if you’re going to focus on sexual people?”.
Bogaert also displays a stunning ignorance when it comes to society’s effects on human thoughts and behaviors, especially when it comes to women’s sexual thoughts and behaviors. He briefly mentioned that more than biology could inform the findings on many studies regarding women’s sexuality but does not explain further. He seems to take the data from studies at face value, not bothering to look into whether cultural ideas hold any influence on said data.
Lastly, he stated many times that asexuality has many levels and may be different from person to person. But did he go into particulars about the different identities on the scale of asexuality? No, he did not. As a demisexual, I was looking forward to hearing the science and discourse behind my particular flavor of asexuality. Demisexuality was not even mentioned. For a book supposed to be all about asexuality, I find that absurd.
Bogaert also displays a stunning ignorance when it comes to society’s effects on human thoughts and behaviors, especially when it comes to women’s sexual thoughts and behaviors. He briefly mentioned that more than biology could inform the findings on many studies regarding women’s sexuality but does not explain further. He seems to take the data from studies at face value, not bothering to look into whether cultural ideas hold any influence on said data.
Lastly, he stated many times that asexuality has many levels and may be different from person to person. But did he go into particulars about the different identities on the scale of asexuality? No, he did not. As a demisexual, I was looking forward to hearing the science and discourse behind my particular flavor of asexuality. Demisexuality was not even mentioned. For a book supposed to be all about asexuality, I find that absurd.
December 23, 2021
I hold little respect for the field of psychology in general. However, because of personal circumstances, I decided to give this book a read. It does a good enough job of defining asexually as it pertains to an individual, but I wish he had taken a deeper dive into asexuality as it effects personal relationships. Bogaert is sure to emphasize how asexuality has drastic effects on how asexual people interact with culture as a whole, but he didn’t really discuss how it affects one on one connections. I know this level of specificity is far more difficult to obtain in any meaningful way, especially when dealing with such a broad group of people. However I left this book feeling like I understood asexuality as it exists in isolation, and the thing about people is that we rarely exist in isolation. People’s lives are heavily defined by there interactions with others, and I don’t feel like this book missed a huge opportunity to explore that facet of asexuality.
November 18, 2018
Understanding Asexuality was certainly the goal of picking up this book, but Canadian sexologist/psychologist Anthony Bogaert's 2012 book suggests not much is known about the topic at this time. From my reading, Bogaert's main points are that (1) asexuality is a sexual orientation defined by the lack of sexual attraction; (2) understanding asexuality can help us understand sexuality; and (3) asexuality is not a disorder. The paperback version has the weight and feel of an academic book, but the writing is "academic light." Bogaert takes on a conversational tone, which didn't really appeal to me. Each chapter is relatively short and has a paragraph long summary. I think that makes sense for longer chapters with complex arguments, but since that was not the case, it seems almost repetitious.
August 9, 2025
Direct explanation of what asexuality is and isnt clear without any ideology , just some parts are a bit weird like the one about humor and just uses an unfunny joke as example .
Liked the part about how most people with asexuality probably dont care about activism or participating in any online platform about it m which seems correct .
Some excerpts:
"So while some asexual people do march and
assert their identities publicly , I expect that a
large number of asexuals quietly go about their lives without ever sign-
ing on to a chat-line or a website devoted to asexual issues, let alone
joining a march devoted to sexual minorities. "
"Do non-golfers go to golf courses and march on the eighteenth green to assert their non-golfing identity? It would be rather strange, of course, for non- golfers to do so, because golfing, as an activity and as a construct, is not personally relevant to most of them, nor is it part of their identity. Thus, as a golfer finishing up my round back to the clubhouse I rarely see such displays and marches from non-golfers"
Liked the part about how most people with asexuality probably dont care about activism or participating in any online platform about it m which seems correct .
Some excerpts:
"So while some asexual people do march and
assert their identities publicly , I expect that a
large number of asexuals quietly go about their lives without ever sign-
ing on to a chat-line or a website devoted to asexual issues, let alone
joining a march devoted to sexual minorities. "
"Do non-golfers go to golf courses and march on the eighteenth green to assert their non-golfing identity? It would be rather strange, of course, for non- golfers to do so, because golfing, as an activity and as a construct, is not personally relevant to most of them, nor is it part of their identity. Thus, as a golfer finishing up my round back to the clubhouse I rarely see such displays and marches from non-golfers"
August 30, 2019
One of the (sadly) few traditionally published books I could find on asexuality. I have several ace/aroace friends and family and even if I didn't, would consider it a basic human responsibility to be informed on how the identifier is affected sociopolitically and within the LGBTQ+ community. Not enough comprehensive research on the ace experience out there still, but Bogaert draws on what he has. Would have liked more personal #ownvoices anecdotes and less philosophical waxing, and some fundamental language feels absent (nonbinary people are underrepresented; aromanticism is barely mentioned) maybe due to datedness. Overall an informative read, in that I learned enough I didn't know prior.
November 30, 2020
Overall a good starter to understanding Asexuality, which the book itself admits. It's not the end all be all but a good basic. I particularly enjoyed chapter 10 but found chapters 11 and 12 kinda pointless and not as interesting. It was published in 2012 which shows in some ways, an unexpected one being that Jughead has been confirmed as asexual in the comics now. There are also many generalizations, which is in part due to the lack of research. Again, the book is aware of this, but it's still something to look out for.
September 25, 2021
I've seen this book mentioned in a lot of ace spaces - it's one of the original texts that I feel like a lot of asexual research cites. That said, even though it's just a decade old, there's parts of it that are WILDLY out of date and cringeworthy now. There's some stuff that's also straight up not true. I wouldn't recommend anyone read this now, unless you're interested in learning about how asexuality research has changed and evolved, but I'm grateful this book was written.
July 7, 2023
This book was required reading for my humanities class a few years ago, but I unfortunately did not read it then. Although I do believe I read it at the right time for me. This was an eye-opening experience and has made me understand some things about myself in a way. I will say that at times it felt a little one sided in terms of gender, but like Bogaert said we are just starting to scratch the surface on asexuality research.
May 6, 2025
2.5 stars
Read this to use as methodology for a paper about the representation of asexuality in media. Useful as an academic text but, as an asexual person, definitely falls short in many areas. I agree with the person who said it should be called 'Understanding Sexuality' as more of it was about the way the world sees sexuality as compulsory and necessary, a relevant observation but lacks in its ties to asexual individuals' experiences.
Read this to use as methodology for a paper about the representation of asexuality in media. Useful as an academic text but, as an asexual person, definitely falls short in many areas. I agree with the person who said it should be called 'Understanding Sexuality' as more of it was about the way the world sees sexuality as compulsory and necessary, a relevant observation but lacks in its ties to asexual individuals' experiences.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews