Scan barcode
A review by abbiesdigitallibrary
A Quick & Easy Guide to Asexuality by Will Hernandez, Molly Muldoon
I honestly would not have read this if not for a netgalley eARC. I saw my fellow aspec friends reading and disliking it, and I lost the desire to read it, assumed my previous request would not be approved after months of it pending, and did not know if or how to take back a request. Then I was approved.
To be clear, I am both asexual and aromantic and these are all of my honest opinions.
I would not recommend this to other aces, while it does some things well, I learned nothing new, and it only enraged me the more I read.
I also would not recommend this to allos (non-aces), since I believe it will do more harm than good by giving so many incorrect impressions of the asexual community.
But first, what did it do well?
• It acknowledges that people can be ace due to trauma;
• Action doesn't equal attraction, aces can and some do have sex;
• The split attraction model;
• The depiction of what it's like going through puberty as an asexual;
• Reassuring aces they're not broken; and
• *Finally* acknowledging that some aces do have some sexual attraction.
Now, what did it not do well?
• The entire vibe is defending aces to allos, not teaching allos about aces (yes, it does "teach" but that shouldn't come bc of having to defend asexuality);
• Defining asexuality as "not feeling sexual attraction" and as a "lack thereof" when the majority of aces prefer the definition as "experiencing little to no sexual attraction" and the majority of aces dislike the term "lack of" because it implies brokenness, which we are neither lacking nor broken;
• Pulling other queer minorities into it saying "if you're this or that identity I'm sure you get lots of weird questions, here's the weird questions we get as aces." Just leave the other people out of it instead of drawing attention to how they're mistreated;
• The implication that all ace people do want romantic relationships & families (I mostly dislike the focus on families here bc they do later discuss aromanticism and how not all aces want romance either);
• The entire cake analogy. Just explain asexuality in terms of sexual attraction, not making cake a metaphor for sex. Sex isn't anything to not talk about so stop making asexuality more "palatable" by taking the sex part out of the discussion;
• The line where one author refers to sex as a "regular human thing." Aces aren't any less "regular" than allos;
• The line where it says aces don't feel a part of the "cisgender heterosexual society" bc of being ace when gender literally has nothing to do with this;
• The suggestion for aces to just simply talk to a counselor... I have been lectured by one therapist who thought I needed to hear how sexuality is fluid and this is only a "phase" for me right now and have been told by another that everyone's interest in my dating life & desire to have or not have kids is "only bc they care about me" (yes, that's also aphobic); and
• THE DEBATE ON ASEXUALITY BEING PART OF THE LGBTQIAP+ COMMUNITY AND SAYING THAT THE A ALSO STANDS FOR ALLY.
We're gonna break that last part down a bit. If you're ace and don't identify with being queer, as is stated by one of the authors, that is VALID. But that doesn't mean the A doesn't stand for asexual. By saying there's no clear answer as to whether or not asexuality is a part of the queer community, you're only creating room for self-doubt for the already anxious asexuals who are questioning whether or not they're accepted. Nobody is required to identify as queer or part of the LGBTQIAP+ community just because their identity is an accepted part of the community, but to be clear, the A DOES stand for asexual, aromantic, and agender. Whether or not someone then identifies as queer is up to them. And also, the A DOES NOT stand for ally. Allies, while great, are not part of the queer community and do not have a letter to denote them in the acronym. Be a good ally by showing how you support us, don't let it be performative-based by being concerned about a letter.
To recap: I would not recommend this book. There are other great resources out there that do a great job of representing the asexual spectrum in a way that does not center around defending aces to allos and does not give false impressions. May I suggest checking out Upside Down by NR Walker, Loveless by Alice Oseman, Hazel's Theory of Evolution by Lisa Jenn Bigelow, Summer Bird Blue by Akemi Dawn Bowman, the How to Be duology by TJ Klune, Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, The Reckless Kind by Carly Heath, and Sawkill Girls by Claire Legrand (to name a few of my favorite asexual (and aromantic) books) instead?
CWs: aphobia, harmful stereotypes, mentions of sexual violence, medical discrimination, depression, rejection, invalidation, cyberbullying
This is an honest review in exchange for an eARC from Netgalley and Oni Press. Expected publication date: March 29, 2022.
To be clear, I am both asexual and aromantic and these are all of my honest opinions.
I would not recommend this to other aces, while it does some things well, I learned nothing new, and it only enraged me the more I read.
I also would not recommend this to allos (non-aces), since I believe it will do more harm than good by giving so many incorrect impressions of the asexual community.
But first, what did it do well?
• It acknowledges that people can be ace due to trauma;
• Action doesn't equal attraction, aces can and some do have sex;
• The split attraction model;
• The depiction of what it's like going through puberty as an asexual;
• Reassuring aces they're not broken; and
• *Finally* acknowledging that some aces do have some sexual attraction.
Now, what did it not do well?
• The entire vibe is defending aces to allos, not teaching allos about aces (yes, it does "teach" but that shouldn't come bc of having to defend asexuality);
• Defining asexuality as "not feeling sexual attraction" and as a "lack thereof" when the majority of aces prefer the definition as "experiencing little to no sexual attraction" and the majority of aces dislike the term "lack of" because it implies brokenness, which we are neither lacking nor broken;
• Pulling other queer minorities into it saying "if you're this or that identity I'm sure you get lots of weird questions, here's the weird questions we get as aces." Just leave the other people out of it instead of drawing attention to how they're mistreated;
• The implication that all ace people do want romantic relationships & families (I mostly dislike the focus on families here bc they do later discuss aromanticism and how not all aces want romance either);
• The entire cake analogy. Just explain asexuality in terms of sexual attraction, not making cake a metaphor for sex. Sex isn't anything to not talk about so stop making asexuality more "palatable" by taking the sex part out of the discussion;
• The line where one author refers to sex as a "regular human thing." Aces aren't any less "regular" than allos;
• The line where it says aces don't feel a part of the "cisgender heterosexual society" bc of being ace when gender literally has nothing to do with this;
• The suggestion for aces to just simply talk to a counselor... I have been lectured by one therapist who thought I needed to hear how sexuality is fluid and this is only a "phase" for me right now and have been told by another that everyone's interest in my dating life & desire to have or not have kids is "only bc they care about me" (yes, that's also aphobic); and
• THE DEBATE ON ASEXUALITY BEING PART OF THE LGBTQIAP+ COMMUNITY AND SAYING THAT THE A ALSO STANDS FOR ALLY.
We're gonna break that last part down a bit. If you're ace and don't identify with being queer, as is stated by one of the authors, that is VALID. But that doesn't mean the A doesn't stand for asexual. By saying there's no clear answer as to whether or not asexuality is a part of the queer community, you're only creating room for self-doubt for the already anxious asexuals who are questioning whether or not they're accepted. Nobody is required to identify as queer or part of the LGBTQIAP+ community just because their identity is an accepted part of the community, but to be clear, the A DOES stand for asexual, aromantic, and agender. Whether or not someone then identifies as queer is up to them. And also, the A DOES NOT stand for ally. Allies, while great, are not part of the queer community and do not have a letter to denote them in the acronym. Be a good ally by showing how you support us, don't let it be performative-based by being concerned about a letter.
To recap: I would not recommend this book. There are other great resources out there that do a great job of representing the asexual spectrum in a way that does not center around defending aces to allos and does not give false impressions. May I suggest checking out Upside Down by NR Walker, Loveless by Alice Oseman, Hazel's Theory of Evolution by Lisa Jenn Bigelow, Summer Bird Blue by Akemi Dawn Bowman, the How to Be duology by TJ Klune, Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, The Reckless Kind by Carly Heath, and Sawkill Girls by Claire Legrand (to name a few of my favorite asexual (and aromantic) books) instead?
CWs: aphobia, harmful stereotypes, mentions of sexual violence, medical discrimination, depression, rejection, invalidation, cyberbullying
This is an honest review in exchange for an eARC from Netgalley and Oni Press. Expected publication date: March 29, 2022.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Acephobia/Arophobia
Minor: Bullying and Sexual violence
CWs: aphobia, harmful stereotypes, mentions of sexual violence, medical discrimination, depression, rejection, invalidation, cyberbullying