Asexual geographies: the allosexualisation of space in Ireland

0Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper contributes towards the beginnings of asexual geographies, an area that has been largely overlooked within sexualities and queer geographies. Indeed, despite gradually increasing awareness of asexuality as a concept and identity, asexuality remains an underdeveloped area of academic research and is still widely misunderstood and invisible across society. Scholarship in the burgeoning field of asexuality studies has sought to redress this invisibility by exploring asexual people’s lives, identities, and experiences. Through these explorations, asexuality scholars have developed the concept of ‘compulsory sexuality’ to describe the ways in which social norms and practices assume that all people are sexual. However, within this growing field, the spatialities of asexuality and compulsory sexuality have yet to be fully developed. In this paper, I therefore aim to bring together work in geography and asexuality studies to introduce the concept of the allosexualisation of space. Drawing from qualitative interview data collected from seven asexual people living across Ireland, I examine the ways in which participants described feeling excluded, invisible, and/or out of place in a variety of spatial contexts–illustrating how spaces can come to reflect and co-produce the logic and assumptions of compulsory sexuality. In doing so, I argue that space matters to our understandings of asexuality and asexual people’s lived experiences, as well to the ways in which compulsory sexuality is manifest throughout our everyday lives. This paper thus contributes to beginning geographical discussions of asexualities, and extends emerging research on asexuality by introducing a geographical lens.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bayer, R. (2025). Asexual geographies: the allosexualisation of space in Ireland. Gender, Place and Culture , 32(8), 1161–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2024.2374833

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free