LAUSR

We are grateful to the authors of the six commentaries who provided thoughtful reflections on our Target Article, ‘‘Asexuality: Sexual Orientation, Paraphilia, Sexual Dysfunction, or None of theAbove?’’(Brotto&Yule,2016).Clearly,ourpaperprovideda catalyst for considering a variety of issues, in some depth, surrounding the nature and study of asexuality/lack of sexual attraction.Wewere especiallypleased tonote thedifferent perspectives expressed, sometimes in opposition to one another, but clearly in the spirit of scientific inquiry and pushing us to bemore critical in ourwork,orasLevine(2017)requested,‘‘ALittleDeeper,Please.’’ Scherrer and Pfeffer (2017) remind us of our own inherent biases as individuals and provocatively raise the possibility that it may be‘‘sexuals’’withnon-benigncomplexitiesgiven their incessant pursuit of ‘‘sexual relationships, despite the existence of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (each of which is associated withnotinsignificantmorbidityandmortalityrisk)’’.Theirreminder that the behavior of sexuals may be seen to defy logic (and bolster fragile egos), though uttered with sarcastic undertones, makes us aware of our own unconscious biases as we undertake research in this domain of sexual attraction. Is categorization, aswe sought todetermine inourpaper, even necessary? Scherrer and Pfeffer (2017)warn of its potential dangers as well as its imprecision. We are acutely aware of this and pointout inourTargetArticle thatclassificationinonegroupdoes not exclude the possibility that asexuality may also fit in one or more other groups. Because sex researchers, sex therapists, the media,andthepublichaveconsideredthenatureofasexualityvisà-viscategorization,wefeltcompelledtoevaluate thefitofasexualitywithineachof thoseproposedcategories.OurTargetArticle was not intended to imply that these (i.e., mental disorder, sexual dysfunction,paraphilia,andsexualorientation)weretheonlypossible categorizations of asexuality; rather, they simply reflected groupings that had been proposed in the literature. Another broad conceptual issue raised was the concern about theoperational definitionweadopted inour paper.Chasin (2017) criticized our paper (andwe believe the larger literature on asexuality)becauseof its relianceonanoperationaldefinitionof asexuality that rests upon‘‘lack of sexual attraction.’’Chasin pointed out that the original FAQs for the Asexuality Visibility and EducationNetworkin2002emphasizedtheroleofself-identification, notingthatasexual individualsclassifiedthroughaprocessofselfidentification aredifferent fromasexual individualswhoare classifiedbyendorsinga‘‘lackofsexualattraction’’questionnaireitem. Chasin labels us as being ‘‘insufficiently mindful of this distinction’’in our Target Article. Though we agree that any operational definition adopted representsjustascientificconstruct,wewishtopointoutthatBogaert’s (2004) analysis of the data from over 18,000British residents was basedon the item:‘‘I havenever felt sexually attracted toanyone at all.’’Muchof the early researchonasexualityafterBogaert’s paper usedeitherthissameitemoramodificationofit(e.g.,somedropped ‘‘at all’’). InourTargetArticle,wedeliberately adoptedadefinition of asexuality with wide margins around it—noting that it is generallydefinedasalackofsexualattraction,andwefurtherqualified thatsomeasexual individualsmayexperiencesexualattractionthat isnotdirected towardothers. It is interesting tonote thatmostof the empirical literature on asexuality has adopted this definition of asexuality (or a modified version thereof) and not a self-selection process wherein individuals identify as asexual regardless of their sexual attractions. If Chasin’s view is accurate, that self-identification as asexual represents a superior definition to lack of sexual attraction, thenresearchersmustbemindfulof theirownprocessof classificationwhenmaking conclusions about researchfindings to & Lori A. Brotto [email protected]