Critique: A Look at Bogaert’s Asexuality Article
Kayson Carlin
Bowling Green State University
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of Bogaert’s article Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters which was published in volume 52, issue 4 of the Journal of Sex Research. The content is analyzed in how it uses rhetoric methods such as ethos, pathos, and logos to supports its statements. The conclusion has found that the article has a solid foundation and succeeds in using previously mentioned rhetoric to reach its audience.
Keywords: asexuality, LGBT, rhetoric, critique
Critique: A Look at Bogaert’s Asexuality Article
As humans evolve in linguistics, new terms pop up all the time to describe groups of people with shared experiences. Such experiences or phenomenon may have existed for hundreds or thousands of years, but only recently have been given names. One such example is the term “asexual”, meaning non-sexual. Anthony Bogaert, a professor at Brock University in Canada, studies human sexuality and the origins of human orientation. Through a number of academic journals, he addresses the concept of asexuality, or people who do not identify with a sexual orientation. The main purpose of Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters is to persuade the audience that asexuality is a legitimate orientation that needs to be studied more depth in order to fully understand human sexuality as a whole. I believe the article accomplishes this by making use of scientific data, reliable academic sources, and a strong prevalence of logos mixed with ethos and pathos.
The word “asexual” is mostly used in biology related fields to refer to an organism that can sexually reproduce with itself. In more modern times, the term has come to refer to people who do not experience sexual attraction. Unlike heterosexuality or homosexuality, they feel no urge to form sexual relationships, and have little to no interest in males, females, or other genders. This does not mean however that they do not experience romantic attraction as some identify as hetero-romantic, homoromantic or biromantic. Still, some identify as “aromantic” in which they do not experience romantic attraction. Currently there is dissonance in whether asexuality is a “real” orientation and should be accepted just like homosexuality or bisexuality, especially in the Lesbian, Gay, Bi, and Trans+ (LGBT+) community. Very little scholarly work has been done on asexuality, but as awareness spreads, researchers are beginning to examine this phenomenon more closely.
The use of logic is abound in this scholarly text. One of the first uses is in reference to an observation of rams’ sexual preferences to explain that this phenomenon is not limited to humans or human society. “Most of the rams exhibit behaviors that evince heterosexual attraction. However, a significant minority of rams exhibit behaviors evincing marked attraction to the same sex (i.e., other rams) or both sexes (rams and ewes). There is also a significant minority of rams showing no interest or attraction for either rams or ewes” (Bogaert, 2015). This conclusion was based on a previous study researchers conducted in 2004. The author then links this behavior to humans by stating “Other atypical orientations—no sexual attraction—in rams may provide an important animal model of human asexuality. Thus, there may be similar brain and other developmental mechanisms giving rise to these atypical sexual attractions in both species” (Bogaert, 2015). By using this source the author establishes a line of reasoning using past scientific observations to make conclusions.
Used less often than logos is pathos; an appeal to the emotions. Given that Bogaert’s article is based on scientific evidence, there is little room for an emotional argument. When discussing the possibility that asexuality is caused by a medical condition that can be corrected, he asks the question “Does it matter what causes it?” by using an example: “if a man is attracted to other men because of an atypical biological process—including a biological process that is atypical for his sexual orientation and that process may be alterable—does this negate the lived experience of his (subjective) attraction to men? In short, he no longer has (or had) same-sex attraction; thus is not, or was not, homosexual? It is argued here—and likely most would agree—that, no, he is still homosexual because his subjective attraction is to men, regardless of the cause of that subjective experience, even if the cause potentially differs from the main processes underlying homosexuality for most individuals, and even if that process might be alterable at some point in time” (Bogaert, 2015). This example contains an emotional tone that suggests audiences should agree with Bogaert’s view that it does not matter what “caused” someone to be asexual to be considered valid, but that simply because it exists or existed at some point in their life that makes it valid.
The author, Anthony Bogaert Ph.D., does not explicitly bring up his credibility on this subject but instead frequently refers to and cites his own past work regarding human sexuality. From looking at his sources, we can see the extent of his research on not just asexuality but sexology as well. By digging deeper we can find qualifications and experience in this field through university achievements, advanced education, and previous journal publications. While not obviously apparent, such milestones contribute to his credibility, or ethos, on this particular subject.
An important facet to note is the context in which this article was published. As our society becomes more progressive and opens itself up to new ideas and ways of thinking, an increasing number of people voice their experiences. What was once thought of as a non-existent orientation now has researchers, scholars, and scientists’ attention. Perhaps 200 years ago, no one would take notice of this phenomenon because there was no term to describe it; the pressure from society to conform, and the limited understanding hid asexuality from even those who experienced it. However, when this article was published in 2015, an incredible amount of change had taken place in the world. The advent of the internet connected people, ideas, and movements to foster learning of those who were similar and those who were different. LGBT+ activism swept the nation, gays and lesbians were granted equal rights to marry, transgender people spoke up loud and clear, and sexual minorities were gaining recognition. These events are important in how audiences receive this article. Had this been published 30 years ago, it may not have had the relevance it has today. In fact, with gender and sexuality being a hot topic in the modern world, this article utilizes the full interest and impact when read by audiences.
In conclusion, Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters utilizes rhetorical techniques in all three main aspects; logos, pathos, and ethos. It relies mostly on logos and previous observations to convince readers of its claims, which can greatly support any argument in any article. This gives it a solid foundation. Perhaps an improvement in pathos would be to include experiences, thoughts, and opinions of asexual people themselves. Such rhetoric would be more appropriate however in a pop culture article instead of a scientific journal. The weakest of all three is ethos because there is no immediate or tell-tale way to assume credibility of Bogaert, unless outside research is done. It can be argued that Kairos is used in the timing of this publication to reach the most readers and have the greatest impact to the topic. Overall, Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters is well written with an understanding of rhetorical techniques that make good use of the information provided.
References
Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Asexuality: What it is and Why it matters. Journal of Sex Research, 52(4), 362-379. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1015713