Bogaert..Believable or Bunkum?

For discussion of general issues pertaining to asexuality.
PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Bogaert..Believable or Bunkum?

Postby PiF » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:26 am

Over the years the usual people have bandied Bogaert and Kinsey around and on occasion I've read some bits but largely been unimpressed

Asexuality is simply the lack of sexual attraction..a yes or no identification...but imagine you want to write a book or research paper, that definition with honesty won't get a lot of interest as it would be a very short book/research paper...so lets "pad it out a bit"

so using avens own wiki I took a few looks and generally saw what bore little accuracy so I'll pop them in from here http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.ph ... F._Bogaert

In this paper, Bogaert analyzes a British probability sample in which 1.05% of respondents said that they had never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all....isn't this simply copying Kinseys original guesstimate?

He correlates this response with other questions in the sample and makes the following conclusions:

On average, asexuals had fewer sexual partners than sexual people, I'd be interested to know what the age groups he used, if the replies where teens/early adults then of course they are likely to have had less than say a 40 year asexual so was the statement based on a wide age group?

started having sex later (if at all), and were currently having less sex. Seeing avens comments from members I wouldn't feel this is so as to having sex less, ask most sexual couples and the monthly amount of sex has gone down greatly due to life's struggles and sex not rating highly..sexual apathy is not asexuality

They were less likely to currently be in a cohabiting or married relationship. Again the age range would help justify this claim as many who are older..sexual as well as asexual have been in relationships (some with many) and may have been married and more than once but as you get older some give in with relationships having been through the relationship ringer so again..just as applicable to sexuals as asexuals

On average, asexuals were older than sexuals. sayyy whatttt??? a 17 year old asexual is the same age as a 17 year old sexual... as well as most of those identifying as asexual on the largest forum are between the 17-25 age group

They were more likely to be female, poor, nonwhite, and/or poorly educated...again the research is flawed..yes most identifying seem to be female, most also seem to be white and most are in college or university..I'm beginning to wonder if he knows what he is doing

Asexuals were more likely to have health problems, to have started menstruating later (if female), to be shorter, and to weigh less...blimey, true some seem hypochondriacs but that is more in line with the generation identifying as asexuals i.e. teens/early adults ...but, is the same for sexuals and asexuals ...as to the height and weight comment, I've met asexuals and seen the pride pictures..he couldn't be more wrong, they are all shapes and sizes..as to when menstrating starts, I think you will find mother nature decides that more than asexuality or sexuality

Asexuals, on average, attended religious services more often than sexuals...again I wonder where this has come from? look at aven and I would say it has more than a healthy share of atheists

the more I read of his work the more I realise it is just padding and hoo haa but I leave you with this comment which describes within the link the basis of his research

This data is limited since it came from a probability sample used for general research into sexual behaviour and STDs;

given the god like status some foist upon such as Bogaert...it's dissapointing to see much of his thesis was based on a clap clinic.
Last edited by PiF on Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Bogaert..Believable or bolloxs?

Postby KAGU143 » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:43 am

I think that several of your criticisms are groundless because they fail to take into account the fact that AVEN is an online website, and that the demographics of website users will automatically have a huge effect on any surveys which depend on them.

In other words, the results of any AVEN-based surveys have already been skewed because many of the people who should be questioned in order to get accurate results aren't there, and they never will be.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Bogaert..Believable or bolloxs?

Postby PiF » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:00 am

Which proves my point Nancy..but could you be more specific in which "several"?

If the largest asexual community aren't a researchable..is that a word?.. reference point, then how can someone have a career as an "expert" in asexuality..even more so when the results are based on a very small token group from a general sexual disease survey? I mean come on...if I was looking into asexuality..a std survey would have been not my first choice.

If you discount aven where are these reference points?..I have not seen a collective study done in real world study terms....

I have seen in asexual internet forums...more than a steady stream of requests by students doing a theseis, organisations and news media requests... This would highlight that much is what is being put out there about asexuality is internet forum based opinion would it not?

Despite most of my points being relevant to the research by an "expert" it would appear the expert is no expert at all but are the modern day version of the snake oil sellers

I agree with you Nancy that aven is not representative of asexuality..that said..if you discount aven..just where are such experts getting their "accurate" information from?

Which comes back to my point if the "experts" use a ever changing internet forum which cannot be seen as a true reflection of asexuality, as proof for their thesis and theories..and they are wrong..why are they writing it? I have a sneaky suggestion ..

978-1-4422-0099-9 • Hardback • August 2012 • $49.95 • (£31.95)
978-1-4422-0100-2 • Paperback • March 2015 • $24.00 • (£14.95)
978-1-4422-0101-9 • eBook • August 2012 • $23.99 • (£14.95)
Subjects: Psychology / Human Sexuality, Self-Help / Sexual Instruction

Much seems to be theory rather than study..I hope thier basis is more factual than the usual theorists always patting themselves on the back

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Bogaert..Believable or Bunkum?

Postby KAGU143 » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:35 pm

I think that the info will become more accurate with time since the old folks will eventually die off and be replaced by people from all walks of life who routinely use the internet. Those days are not very far off at all - probably 20 years at the most.

I guess I'm just not as worried about split-hair precision definitions as you are. The main job that we, as asexuals, had to do has already been accomplished: asexuality is now a known thing and it's getting some long overdue attention. Now it's time to figure out the hows and whys.

Scientific method, which always starts with a theory, almost never gets every single fact right with the first attempt at understanding something, but each additional attempt will get closer to the truth. That's the way it works.
You should expect all sorts of theories about asexuality to be discussed and tested, whether by surveys or by actual physical exams.

Based on the laws of probability, quite a few theories about asexuality are sure to be wrong, so here's a thought:
What if it turns out that what WE have been thinking (our theory that asexuals lack sexual attraction) has been wrong all along?
What if scientific study proves that asexuals DO experience sexual attraction, but that for some reason they don't realize it or respond to it?

I don't have all of the answers and neither do you. I'm just glad that someone is finally asking the right questions.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Bogaert..Believable or Bunkum?

Postby PiF » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:01 am

Hey hey... I have more than 20 years left :lol:

I guess I'm just not as worried about split-hair precision definitions as you are...For me there are not any definitions, there is just the only definition...if you experience sexual attraction then your sexual. and that is very much my point..it is the only thing that makes us different from sexuals so some may see it as splitting hairs ...I see it as being honest about why we are different

Agree theory starts things but theorists at some point have to prove that theory and based on Bogaert's papers it seems all he has done is plagiarize others reports and unscientific "studies"

as to What if it turns out that what WE have been thinking (our theory that asexuals lack sexual attraction) has been wrong all along? ...I do not feel that day will happen, as I said, it is the only single difference between us as asexuals and sexuals

What if scientific study proves that asexuals DO experience sexual attraction, but that for some reason they don't realize it or respond to it? ...on this I would say they would be confusing asexuality with a number of medical and emotional conditions/situations that are often confused with asexuality

Although I have to say..based on current "scientific" studies..I don't see the definition changing at all

n.b. I changed the bolloxs title to bunkum as I know your not a fan of rude words Nancy...apologies :D