Author: Former Student

Book Review – Asexual Erotics: Intimate Readings of Compulsory Sexuality

Posted on by Former Student

Asexual Erotics: Intimate Readings of Compulsory Sexuality, was written by Ela Przybylo and published in 2019 by the Ohio State University Press. In the monograph, Przybylo focuses on the topics of asexuality and erotics. She looks at both terms from a unique perspective and works to redefine them in a new light instead of one based on ideas influenced by heteronormativity and compulsory sexuality. She hopes that in writing Asexual Erotics she can combat the centralization of sex as a central factor in the experience of sexuality and erotics. Przybylo uses the term “asexual erotics” to show that these two ideas that seem like polar opposites when viewed in the typical way of thinking, can in fact go hand in hand. She wants readers to understand that erotics do not always have to be in reference to sex and sexuality doesn’t always mean sexual.

Ela Przybylo (she/her/ona) received her B.F.A. in Visual Communication Design, B.A. in Women’s and Gender Studies, and M.A. in English and Film Studies and Women’s and Gender Studies from the University of Alberta. She also received her Ph.D. in Gender, Feminist, and Women’s Studies from York University in 2016. Asexual Erotics is her only mongraph but she has published many articles and chapters in peer-reviewed journals during her career. She is currently working as Assistant Professor in the Department of English and is also a core faculty member in the Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies Program at Illinois State University. Przybylo is also one of the founders and managing editor of Feral Feminisms, a peer-reviewed journal. The Ohio State University Press was founded in 1957 and publishes an average of fifty to sixty books every year. They are a member of the Association of University Presses and specialize in literary and cultural studies. In addition to publishing new books, they also publish a number of distinguished journals.

In order to write her monograph, Przybylo had to gather the data she used to support her arguments. She used a derived and compiled method for generating this data. Rather than conducting studies to generate brand new information, she sorted through the data that had already been collected by other researchers and compiled their findings to back up what she discussed in her monograph. She used a wide variety of sources which were referenced throughout her monograph.

Przybylo’s main argument that showed up many times throughout the book, was the idea of redefining asexuality and erotics. She uses the monograph to build her argument for why these concepts need to be redefined, focusing on multiple subjects within the wider umbrella of these two topics. She begins her monograph by providing readers with a clear view of where her work falls within the field of knowledge about asexuality, as well as sexuality in general. She references the work of many other authors – including Audre Lorde and Cameron Awkward-Rich – as well as past studies that have been conducted on topics ranging from health and medical research to feminist and queer theories in order to establish what is known about the subject. She uses the information from these other authors and researchers to establish a frame for how she wants readers to think about asexuality and erotics as they read the monograph. Then Przybylo goes on to discuss the gaps in knowledge and uses what follows after the introduction to fill those. Other works have talked about the idea that sexuality and the erotics don’t need to be linked to sex, but Przybylo’s monograph is the first to provide readers with a language they can use to discuss intimacy without needing to talk about it in terms of sex.

Przybylo places a lot of focus on how sex has historically played a huge role in determining people’s sexual identities even though it only allows for a generalized understanding of these identities. Sex is not the only form of intimacy and basing one’s sexual identity solely on who they feel inclined to engage in sexual behaviors with does not allow for investigation of the intricacies of relationships with others. Asexuality is a sexual identity that allows for a new perspective on how people relate to each other. Asexual identifying poeple are still able to determine how they feel about others without depending on sex as a way to define their feelings.

The idea that sexuality and the erotic are not inherently linked to sex or other sexual things is crucial to Przybylo’s reinvention of these concepts. She goes into a lot of detail about how compulsory sexuality – the assumption that heterosexuality is standard – has been ingrained in society for centuries. In the past, asexuality has been labeled as someone having a low sex drive and viewed as a health issue. Asexual Erotics says while many asexual identifying people have low sex drives is true, it is not unnatural or unusual despite the fact that compulsory sexuality makes this seem as though this is the case. This compulsory sexuality originated from a heteronormative system that labels sexuality and calls anyone who doesn’t follow the standards of those in power – usually white, straight, cis men – unnatural. This system is grounded in its assumption that sex is a natural and necessary thing and those who don’t want it must be sick or lying. Przybylo says the creation of the term “allosexual,” currently defined as someone who does experience sexual attraction, is one way to challenge this system because it refutes the heteronormative notion of compulsory sexuality. 

Focusing on asexuality, another important part of the redefining of asexuality that’s highlighted by Przybylo’s writing is the understanding that there is not only one kind of asexuality. The current official definition of this sexual orientation says that an asexual person is someone who does not experience any sexual attraction. Przybylo writes that this definition is very limiting and does not allow for the nuances that come with each individual’s experience of asexuality. She believes that asexuality can’t be reduced to a lack of sexual attraction and this is another one of the many reasons why it needs to be redefined in a way that allows people to talk about it without needing to relate it to sex. 

There is still a lot of work to be done but Przybylo’s creation of new definitions for the concepts of asexuality and erotics is the first step toward addressing the problems faced by asexual identifying people. These are discussed in the monograph and they come from many sources both external and internal. Some of the external problems include standards for sexuality established by systems based on heteronormative ideals, lack of representation in the media, asexphobia, and incels that make it difficult for some people to distinguish between incels and asexual identifying people. Many of the problems within the asexual community stem from it being a predominantly white space. Minorities within the community often feel isolated and are subject to racism. Przybylo writes that even in the media, asexual characters are almost always white, cis men. Przybylo achieved her goal of using Asexual Erotics to provide a new way to view asexuality and other sexual identities and setting the groundwork for decentralizing sex within society. Even though there is still much to do before this decentralization becomes a reality, her monograph has opened up conversations about how this can be attained. This matters not only because it will allow society to shift away from a system grounded in heteronormativity and compulsory sexuality, but also because it encourages people to recognize that anything that deviates from what is considered the societal norm is not necessarily unnatural. Once people begin to realize this the world can become a much more accepting place where people are free to be themselves and express themselves. There will be less pressure put on people to live up to society’s standards because the standard will allow for so many nuanced experiences of life and identities. Przybylo’s Asexual Erotics is one of the first steps towards helping people open their minds to different experiences and learning to be more accepting of things they don’t currently view as normal.

Works Cited

“Dr. Ela Przybylo.” College of Arts and Sciences, June 8, 2017. https://cas.illinoisstate.edu/faculty_staff/profile.php?ulid=emprzy1#fs-tabs-accord1.

Przybylo, Ela. Asexual Erotics: Intimate Readings of Compulsory Sexuality. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2019.

“The Ohio State University Press.” The Ohio State University Press. Accessed November 12, 2022. https://ohiostatepress.org/.

“But Girls Can’t Like Lizards!” – Gender Stereotyping in a Popular Kids Show

Posted on by Former Student

Jessie, a Disney Channel show, ran for four seasons from 2011 to 2014. It follows the story of a woman in her twenties, Jessie, who’s an aspiring actress nannying for a family in New York City while trying to land a role. She nannies four kids – Emma, Luke, Ravi, and Zuri – whose parents are almost always traveling for work. I first watched Jessie when I was twelve years old and will admit that since then it has become one of my comfort shows. However, in the past few years I’ve started noticing that there are a lot of problematic things throughout the show, including a vast amount of gender and racial stereotyping. 

Although there are many issues with the show, I would like to focus specifically on the storyline of Ravi’s crush on a girl named Tanya in season one, episode 21 titled “A Doll’s Outhouse.” In Jessie, there is a lot of emphasis on following gender norms. Emma and Zuri are perfect examples of this as they are “girly girls” who follow traditional beauty standards and their interests include fashion, boys, makeup, and dolls. The most notable thing about Tanya’s character is that she doesn’t follow these gender norms and could be considered a “tomboy.”

Tanya sitting in Central Park.

The first time we see Tanya is in Central Park when Luke is trying to talk to Ravi but he’s not paying attention because he’s too busy staring at her while she’s painting a lizard on a canvas. Eventually Luke does get Ravi’s attention and the dialogue during this scene is as follows:

Because Tanya doesn’t dress like a “typical” girl, Luke sees her and assumes that she’s a guy. This idea that Tanya being a girl is shocking carries on throughout the episode. After Luke finds out that Ravi likes Tanya, he says Ravi should try to talk to her which then leads to the following conversation:

If Luke, the character representing the stereotypical tween boy (meaning his main interests are girls and sports and he hates doing homework and taking showers), had farted, it would’ve been turned into something funny. However, when Tanya farts it’s used as something to show how “unladylike” she is. Furthermore this fart is used as a reason for why it’s “understandable” for Luke to think she’s a guy.

One last notable example of Luke commenting on how Tanya seems like a boy, happens near the end of the episode when Ravi and Luke are preparing to duel because Ravi thinks Luke is trying to steal Tanya from him. Luke attempts to get Ravi to cancel the duel and this is a short part of their exchange:

Luke (left) and Ravi (right) during their duel while Emma (behind Luke) watches.

The Tanya slander continues in the duel scene as Emma listens to Tanya’s comments as she watches the duel and responds quietly to each one. These comments are problematic for many reasons, one of which is that Emma’s character is about three years older than her – Tanya is in elementary school and Emma is in middle school.

The final comment Emma makes during this scene is particularly upsetting to me. After the duel, Ravi realizes that Luke really wasn’t trying to steal Tanya and the two of them leave the park without Tanya. After they leave, Tanya and Emma have a brief interaction:

This would be upsetting in any situation, but in this case it’s even more so because of what demographic makes up the intended audience of Jessie. The show is intended to be for children ages 7-10. An important part of media, especially television and film, is for the audience to be able to see people like them represented. In this case, there may have been quite a few girls watching the show who felt they could relate to Tanya’s character. When Emma insinuates that because she isn’t pretty in the traditional sense and has “non-girly” interests, Tanya is going to be alone forever, that’s the message being sent to all the young girls like Tanya who watch Jessie. 

A similar message may also be sent to some young male viewers who identify with Ravi’s character. Ravi is the show’s token nerdy Indian character. He is often the butt of jokes (usually Luke’s) and in this episode is mocked for his lack of skills when it comes to romance. One particular line that stood out to me in this episode was when Ravi showed up to the duel wearing an old-fashioned soldier’s uniform. Ravi asked Luke why he hadn’t worn his proper dueling attire and Luke responded by saying “Because some of us don’t want to die alone” (14:36). Just like viewers who relate to Tanya, viewers who relate to Ravi are getting a similar message that because of their “nerdiness” they’re going to be alone forever.

Ravi in his proper dueling attire.

Most kids who are at the ages of the intended audience for shows like Jessie don’t have very well-developed critical thinking skills which means they aren’t able to think about shows the way older people can. I know that when I first watched Jessie all the problematic things about it didn’t register as problematic until I was older. There are so many messages sent by this show, even in this episode alone, and a majority of them are negative. This episode tells young girls and boys that if they’re “nerdy” and not conventionally attractive, they’re going to be alone for the rest of their lives and reinforces this idea that being conventionally attractive and dumb is synonymous with romantic success. That’s why it’s important to be very intentional about how shows for children are written. Writers need to be intentional about the messages they are sending to young viewers and Jessie is a great example of how not to write.