Towards a Conceptual Understanding of Asexuality

Taking the papers chronologically, next we have another from Bogaert in 2006.

Title: Towards a Conceptual Understanding of Asexuality

Author(s): Anthony F. Bogaert

Citation: Review of General Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 3 (2006), pp. 241-250

Abstract: “Asexuality has been the subject of recent academic (A. F. Bogaert, 2004) and public (e.g., New Scientist; CNN) discourse. This has raised questions about the conceptualization and definition of asexuality. Here the author reviews some of these issues, discusses asexuality from a sexual orientation point of view (i.e., as a lack of sexual attraction), and reviews the similarities and differences between this definition and related phenomena (e.g., hypoactive sexual desire disorder). Finally, the author concludes that the term asexuality should not necessarily be used to describe a pathological of health-compromised state.”

My Feelings on Significant Others

I wasn't expecting to write a post for this carnival, because I'm aromantic and dating isn't very important to me. Then I happened to check the original post and saw that the topic also included “significant others,” and that put a new spin on things.

I happened to be looking through the Book of Common Prayer recently, and I stumbled upon the order for marriage. There are things here I don't agree with, like that marriage is intended “for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord,” and that it is specifically for heterosexual couples, but that's not what I'm going to talk about here.

The 1979 order for marriage contains the following:

“In the Name of God, I, N., take you, N., to be my wedded (wife) (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I (plight) (give) thee my troth.”