“I Have a Lot of Feelings, Just None in the Genitalia

Region”: A Grounded Theory of Asexual College Students’

Identity Journeys

Amanda L. Mollet

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 61, Number 2, March-April

2020, pp. 189-206 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0017

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/752976

[ Access provided at 5 Feb 2022 03:41 GMT from Oakland University ]

“I Have a Lot of Feelings, Just None in the
Genitalia Region”: A Grounded Theory of
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
Amanda L. Mollet
In this grounded theory study I examined
asexual college students’ identity development
within collegiate environments. Asexual students’
experiences provided the emergent pathways
for understanding their processes of identifying
within the asexual spectrum. The resulting
theory was constructed from and rooted in
asexual students’ stories and their realities of
navigating campus with an asexual identity.
This theory provides a potential theoretical
perspective for professionals to consider the
multiple aspects of asexual students’ identity
development to effectively situate programs,
services, and resources for asexual students. As an
emerging area of research, multiple opportunities
exist for expanding knowledge about and
understanding asexuality.
A common definition for someone who
identifies as asexual is: “a person who does
not experience sexual attraction” (http://www.
asexuality.org). Asexuality also represents a
uniting umbrella term encompassing a breadth
of identities. The asexual lexicon, developed
largely in online asexual communities, provides
precise language for asexual people to identify,
describe, and concisely label their attraction—
or lack of sexual attraction (Carrigan, 2011;
Hinderliter, 2009; Scherrer, 2008). With
the growth of online asexual communities,
awareness of asexuality has expanded (Ginoza
& Miller, 2014) while more than 5% of college
students may identify as asexual (McAleavey,
Castonguay, & Locke, 2011). Despite these
expansions, invisibility of asexuality continues
Amanda L. Mollet is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at University of Kansas.
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 189
in society (Chasin, 2011; Scherrer, 2008; Van
Houdenhove, Gijs, & T’Sjoen, 2014), higher
education (Mollet, 2018; Mollet & Lackman,
2019), and within college student development
theory. Existing models of college students’
sexual identity development all perpetuate
the allonormative assumption that all people
experience sexual attraction, which contributes
towards the invisibility of asexuality and does
not inform theoretical awareness of asexual
identity development. Allosexual is a term
to describe people who experience sexual
attraction. This term decenters sexuality
as the normative identity. Allonormativity
describes the societal influence that perpetuates
allosexuality as universal.
THE SCHOLARSHIP OF
ASEXUALITY AND (A)SEXUAL
IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT
Asexuality is a burgeoning area of study. Much
of the previous literature discussed lexicon and
prevalence (e.g., Bogaert, 2004; Chasin, 2015)
or validation and etiology (e.g., Bogaert, 2012;
Brotto, Yule, & Gorzalka, 2015) of asexuality
with limited studies of asexual experiences
and climate (e.g., MacInnis & Hodson, 2012;
Robbins, Low, & Query, 2016), including
one study (Mollet, 2018) examining asexual
college students’ perceptions and experiences
in LGBTQ contexts. The growing body
of asexual research has also highlighted
many of the theoretical and methodological
challenges of studying asexuality, such as

inconsistent definitions of asexuality, gathering
limited demographic information about
participants (e.g., conceptualizing gender on
a binary, not asking participants’ race), and
recruiting participants almost exclusively from
online asexual communities (Chasin, 2011;
Hinderliter, 2009). At the time of this article,
only five published manuscripts (MacInnis &
Hodson, 2012; McAleavey et al., 2011; Mollet,
2018; Mollet & Lackman, 2019; Prause &
Graham, 2007) have addressed asexuality in
higher education contexts.
Defining Asexuality
Over the last decade, awareness and research
about asexuality have increased substantially
with the expansion of online asexuality
communities (Scherrer, 2008). The Asexual
Visibility and Education Network (AVEN),
the first online asexual community, was
founded by David Jay, a college student who
created the group to counter the invisibility of
asexuality in other spaces of his life (Carrigan,
2011). A controversial aspect of AVEN is the
definition of asexuality provided on the front
of the website. AVEN’s definition (“a person
who does not experience sexual attraction”)
seemingly takes an absolutist approach that
asexual people do not ever experience any level
of sexual attraction. This narrow definition
does not represent the heterogeneity of
people who identify with asexuality (Prause &
Graham, 2007; Van Houdenhove et al., 2014)
or within the spectrum of asexual identities
(Carrigan, 2011).
The asexual lexicon is rapidly expanding,
and the asexual spectrum commonly includes
people who self-identify with asexuality,
including people who may experience some
sexual attraction (e.g., Gray-A) or who must
have a deep emotional connection before exper­
i­encing sexual attraction (e.g., demisexual).
Many asexual people also distinguish between
sexual and romantic attraction, which, although
190 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
often conflated, can be distinct constructs that
need not be mutually inclusive (Carrigan,
2011; Scherrer, 2008; Van Houdenhove
et  al., 2014). Researchers have taken many
approaches to operationalizing asexuality,
many through post hoc classification based
upon the absence of sexual behavior (e.g.,
masturbation, sexual intercourse), lack of
sexual thoughts, or lack of arousability (Prause
& Graham, 2007; Van Houdenhove et  al.,
2014). Moving away from prior conceptions,
Scherrer and Pfeffer (2017) conceptualized
asexuality as an identity inclusive of “the ways
that people understand themselves and the
language they use to explain themselves to
others” (p. 645). Examining asexuality as a
sexual identity returns autonomy and efficacy
to asexual people.
Racial Contexts of Asexuality
The term asexual dates back to the 19th
century when it was applied to the stereotype
of the Black mammy (Owen, 2018) as a
tool of racial oppression (Owen, 2014).
Owen (2014) detailed distinctions between
today’s conception of an asexual identity
and the racial history of the term: “The
term asexuality [said] nothing about the
mammy’s own desire and everything about
the White male master. . . . Her so-called
asexuality is not agentive but restrictive
and stands as evidence of her subjugation”
(p. 123). This historic racial context remains
important to the continued racial context of
asexuality today. Whiteness remains centered
in asexual spaces and discourses; for example,
AVEN perpetuates Whiteness through color-
evasiveness by centering an “‘asexuality first’
ideology” (Foster, Eklund, Brewster, Walker,
& Candon, 2019, p. 127). The phrase color-
evasiveness describes the belief or attitude of
some people who contend that they do not
see or distinguish people based upon race.
Annamma, Jackson, and Morrison (2017)
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
provided the term as a preferred alternative
to the ableist term color-blind, which is often
used to describe this perspective.
(A)Sexual Identity Development
For many college students, the years that they
are in college coincide with a time of sexual
identity development (Patton, Renn, Guido,
& Quaye, 2016). Indeed, “understanding
identity, or answering the question ‘Who am
I?’ is the central developmental task of late
adolescence” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 29).
Many of the sexual identity development
theories (e.g., D’Augelli, 1994; Diamond,
2008) commonly highlighted as college student
development theories (Patton et  al., 2016)
were developed with narrow foci (e.g., lesbian,
gay, bisexual) using participants who were
not in college, and none explicitly included
asexuals. To expand the considerations of
sexual identity development, particularly
for heterosexuals, Dillon, Worthington, and
Moradi (2011) developed a model intended as
a “model of sexual identity that offers a more
global (i.e., non–sexual identity group specific)
perspective in comparison to existing sexual
identity group–specific sexual identity models”
(p. 648). Without naming or specifically
including asexual perspectives in their model,
the contention of a global perspective further
contributes toward the erasure of asexuality.
Acknowledging the previously limited
scholarship about race and asexuality, Foster
et  al. (2019) conducted a study on the
identity construction of asexual Women
of Color (WOC). Their qualitative study
included interviews with 11 asexual WOC,
ranging in age from 18 to 51. They identified
general, variant, and typical responses in
6 influential domains for the participants’
identity formation: degree of belonging, stages
of identity, visibility, stigma, intersections of
identity, and interpersonal connections.
Beyond the contributions of Foster
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 191
et  al. (2019) only one model of sexual
identity development exists that explicitly
includes and centers asexuality. Robbins
et  al. (2016) compared and contrasted the
uniqueness of asexual development with
previous sexual identity development models
(e.g., Coleman, 1982; Troiden, 1988). One
important characteristic of the Robbins
et  al. model was the acknowledgment that
asexuality does not exist as an “available
social construct” (p. 758), which influenced
how people found the identity and educated
themselves about it. Secondly, they described
how asexual peoples’ romantic attraction (or
lack of ) might provide varying motivations for
identity exploration. Third, they troubled the
importance and role of coming out as part of
asexual identity development.
The works of both Foster et  al. (2019)
and Robbins et  al., (2016) make multiple
contributions while also highlighting the
importance of research specifically focused
on college student asexual identity develop­
ment. The purpose of this study was to
develop a theory of asexual college students’
identity development considering the influ­
ence of their multiple identities and the
collegiate environment.
METHOD
This study involved the use of constructivist
grounded theory methodology as detailed by
Charmaz (2014, 2017), which acknowledges
the subjective coconstruction of theory
between the participants and researchers. The
epistemological beliefs guiding this study began
with constructivist-interpretivist perspectives
that the social construction of realities is
influenced by the contexts, environments,
and subjective understandings of the people
involved (Charmaz, 2014; Ponterotto, 2005).
Although the study did not begin with a critical
perspective, “constructivist grounded theory

facilitates defining and developing emergent
critical questions systematically” (Charmaz,
2017, p. 35). During the process of analysis,
I integrated critical perspectives for emergent
questions examining oppression, power, and
structural inequalities within the findings.
Participants
Seeking students who self-identified within the
spectrum of asexual identities, I sent an e-mail
to all current students at Midwest University
(MU), a large research university. Respondents
completed an interest survey providing
general information related to the scope of the
research. I used maximum variation purposeful
sampling (Creswell, 2013) to select the initial
participants. I initially selected students with
a variety of asexual identities (e.g., asexual,
demisexual, gray-A) as specified in the interest
surveys. I also considered the participants’
other identities, with an emphasis on race,
gender, and ability status, by oversampling
students who identified beyond the gender
binary (e.g., transgender, gender queer,
gender nonconforming), had a disability, or
identified as a Student of Color. The intent
of this purposeful sample was not to create
a generalizable theory; rather, I endeavored
to expand the likelihood that other asexual
students might see people who share their
identities represented within the study.
Of the 133 potential participants who
completed interest surveys, I initially selected 5
to participate. I then transitioned to theoretical
sampling (Charmaz, 2014) based upon parti­
ci­p ants’ ability to contribute to concepts
and categories generated from previous
analyses until I reached saturation. The final
sample included 12 students. Unlike many
studies wherein students’ identities were
treated as stagnant, the fluidity of students’
identities remained ever-present during
this study. In multiple instances students
shared new, different, or additional identities
192 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
from those included in their demographic
form (e.g., identifying with another gender,
faith tradition). Table 1 includes students’
language for describing their identities during
their interviews.
The information about students’ identities
is not intended to limit the identities of partici­
pants, rather, to enhance awareness about the
multiple identities of asexual students.
Data Generation and Analysis
The simultaneous collection and analysis of
data supported the development, analysis, and
interpretation of data during this study (Bryant,
& Charmaz, 2007). The primary instrument
for data generation was through individual
interviews with open-ended interview guides
(Charmaz, 2014). Each of the students
participated in 1 individual audio-recorded
interview lasting 42–125 minutes. The final
com­ponent of data generation was a 90-minute
audio-recorded focus group for participants
to learn about and respond to the theory in
progress with 3 of the 12 participants.
The tools of memos and diagrams repre­
sented two of the primary ways of engag­
ing analytically with the data across the
three phases of analysis: (a)  initial coding,
(b) focused coding, (c) and theoretical coding
(Charmaz, 2014). The initial open-coding
process commenced soon after each interview.
This coding process involved a quick reading
of transcripts in a line-by-line fashion (Jones,
Torres, & Arminio, 2014). As the foundational
way of engaging with data, this approach
allowed me to begin considering emergent
ideas. As the initial codes and memos began
to reveal potential patterns, the coding process
advanced to focused coding. Writing memos
during the process of focused coding further
enhanced reflexivity and allowed me to
explore how my perspectives influenced the
meanings I saw within the data (Charmaz,
2014). I continued the use of analytic tools
 TABLE 1.
Participants’ Social Identities at Time of Interview

Sexual Romantic Gender Student Racial Limited Faith/ Religion/

Identity Identity Identity Pronouns Status Identity Abilitya Spirituality

Adler Queer Queer Man, Transgender, he, him, his Sophomore White Autism Agnostic
Asexual Agender
Angela Demisexual Heteroromantic Cisgender Woman she, her, hers Senior Chinese None Specified Atheist
Griffin Pure Asexual Aromantic Agender, he, him, his or Senior White Obsessive- Atheist
Transgender they, them, Compulsive
theirs Disorder
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys

Jane Asexual Panromantic Cisgender Woman she, her, hers Graduate Multiracial (White, Psychological & Technically
Student American Indian, Physical Roman Catholic
Latinx)
Jenny Asexual Homoromantic Cisgender Woman she, her, hers Senior White Depression, Ex-Christian;
Anxiety Universal Agnostic
Max Asexual Grey-Biromantic Agender, he, him, his Junior White Depression, Mix of animism
Transmasculine Anxiety and northern
heathenism
Nelle Demisexual Biromantic/ Genderqueer, they, them, Senior White Physically Irish Catholic
Panromantic Transgender theirs Disabled
Nicole Gray A Straight Cisgender Woman she, her, hers Graduate Black None Specified Atheist
Student
Nikolai Demisexual Heteroromanic Cisgender Man he, him, his Junior White None Specified Prefer Not
to Answer
Ryan Demisexual Pan/ Biromantic Nonbinary they, them, First-Year Filipino None Specified Roman Catholic
theirs or she, Student
her, hers
Sam Greysexual Demiromantic Nonbinary they, them, Junior White None Specified Christian
theirs
Stevan Demisexual Heteroromanic Cisgender Man he, him, his First-Year White None Specified Atheist
Student

March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 193

a
Physical, cognitive, or other limited ability.

to examine the focused codes and identify
additional questions and areas for exploration
within the final interviews and the focus group.
For example, a focused code of navigating
asexual disclosure emerged from students’
reflections about how their multiple identities
(e.g., gender, race, ability) influenced their
actual and ideal interactions with others.
In response, during subsequent interviews I
asked participants how their other identities
influenced their disclosure decisions. This
final phase explored the relationships and the
associated properties (e.g., points of transition,
arrival, departure) of the concepts.
Tools for Evaluating
For the purposes of evaluating the trust­worthi­
ness and quality of this study, I encourage
readers to consider two sets of tools. Charmaz
(2014) provided four criteria for evaluating
grounded theory: credibility, originality,
resonance, and usefulness. I addressed credi­
bility by using an auditor and providing thick,
rich description. The originality emerged by
returning to literature to contextualize the
new contributions of the theory. Finally,
the focus group provided an opportunity to
respond to the resonance and usefulness. I also
employed multiple techniques focused on each
of the above trustworthiness criteria including
member checking, reflective journaling, peer
debriefing, maintaining a document trail,
and using an auditor. Both the auditor and
peer debriefer were White cisgender men.
As an asexual person with a degree in higher
education and experience in student affairs,
the peer debriefer brought multiple lenses
applicable to the study.
LIMITATIONS
Although all 12 participants were invited, only
3 students participated in the focus group. The
attendees did not recommend any changes to
194 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
the model; they exhibited emotional reactions
(e.g., smiling, laughing, hugging, crying) when
they realized that they were not alone—that
their experiences fit with others’ journeys.
THEORY AND FINDINGS
The narratives of the asexual students illumi­
nated the heterogeneity of asexual people and
the influences of students’ multiple identities
in how they found, learned about, identified
with, and contextualized asexuality within the
college context. These findings and how they
relate represent the theory of asexual identity
development generated from this study.
Asexual Student Expatiation Model
Asexual student expatiation (ASE) model,
depicted in Figure 1, is the compilation of
the theory, empirically grounded in students’
experiences and movement through this
process. The figure is encompassed within
a rectangle, indicating that the model is
situated within social and contextual influences
including, but not limited to, allonormativity,
White supremacy, cisnormativity, ableism,
and heteronormativity. The boxes and circles
indicate the theoretical categories of what
and how within students’ experiences. The
arrows represent the points of divergence,
arrival, recurrence, and departure as points
of action. The model celebrates the fluidity,
complexity, and messiness of asexual identity
development akin to a wandering journey. The
model includes three cycles: gaining awareness,
identifying with asexuality, and reconciling
asexuality. Each cycle includes one or more
processes (represented in boxes or circles).
Social and Contextual Influences
Students consistently described the oppressive
nature and influences of their ecological
environments within and beyond the higher
education context. All 12 students discussed
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
allonormativity; although some students were
not familiar with the word, their narratives
were wrought with societal perceptions,
language, and contexts that reinforced the
omnipresence of sexual attraction. Three
interwoven aspects of allonormativity influ­
enced students: (a)  asexuality invisibility,
(b) invalidation and erasure of asexuality, and
(c) pervasiveness of sexuality.
First, the invisibility of asexuality is one
of the tools reinforcing allosexism. When
asexual-spectrum identities are not mentioned,
discussed, or acknowledged, allosexual iden­
tities are the only conceivable options during
identity exploration. Ryan highlighted how
invisibility felt isolating: “When was the last
time you heard about an asexual person?
Have you? No? I haven’t. I haven’t.” They
then continued describing the multifaceted
FIGURE 1. Asexual Student Expatiation (ASE) Model
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 195
nature of how incorrect assumptions advance
asexuality invisibility: “There’s just not a lot
of information on asexual people, because
we’re still labeled as prudes. We’re still labeled
as weird. Still labeled as like celibates and
stuff.” Ryan’s comments demonstrate how
the strands of allonormativity can reinforce
each other with invalidation and erasure
perpetuating asexuality invisibility, which
left Ryan assuming no one else on campus
shared their identity.
In addition to the invisibility and erasure
of asexuality through allonormativity, Students
of Color described how the intersection of
their race and asexuality influenced their
identity journey. Again, Ryan shared a salient
personal example: “I’m in that kind of group
that isn’t always celebrated in society. . . .
That obviously affects me because all of my

identities, obviously you can see I’m a Woman
of Color. I’m not a White man.” They then
emphasized the cumulative oppression of race,
gender, and sexual identity: “I already have this
stacked up against me, and then my sexual
orientation isn’t even known.” Jane similarly
discussed the influence of race and asexuality:
Asexual is not really prevalent in my life.
I guess I just tether my identity to other
things like race or gender, and those kinds
of things. . . . I’ve had a lot of Latinos
[say], “You don’t look Latino.”. . . I feel
like that would happen too if I revealed
I was asexual.
Invalidation of Jane’s racial identity influenced
her decision not to share her asexual identity.
Others’ universal assumptions of allo­
sexism and ableism also emerged as people
pathologized asexual students. Jenny, who
experienced depression and anxiety, recalled
a conversation in which she tried to discuss
her potential asexuality with her counselors:
“People I know who are very informed
on gender and sexuality issues don’t know
anything about asexuality. Even my therapists
when I have talked to them, they’re like, ‘Well,
maybe it’s just something else that’s wrong.’”
The invalidation from her therapists did not
support Jenny in understanding her identity,
and instead reinforced Jenny’s internalized
perception that she was broken. Adler also
acknowledged social pressures but believed
being neuro-atypical aided his ability to
understand all of his identities:
Trans, sexuality, and gender, and mental
health stuff are like all super wrapped up
for me, because I have been diagnosed as
autistic. . . . I see these things as the social
constructs that they are, because I am a
person whose ways of thinking are just by
nature the way my brain works—slightly
removed from those social constructs.
Although Adler felt distanced from the
196 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
social oppressions, his comment reinforced
the intersections of ableism, cisnormativity,
heteronormativity, and allonormativity.
Finally, the omnipresence of sexuality
and sexualized content within and beyond
college contexts also influenced the students’
experiences coming to and making meaning
of their asexual identities. For example, when
asexual students disclosed their identities,
other students offered recommendations to
“cure” the asexual students, such as having
better sex or finding “the right person.”
Multiple students in the study also discussed
sexual violence against asexuals broadly and
personally. Griffin shared: “[People] say you
should go get raped, because there’s obviously
something wrong with you.” These comments
highlight the pervasive and problematic nature
of sexual violence and the assumption that
sex will fix asexual people. Sexusociety—sexual
normativity in society (Przybylo, 2011)—was
particularly evident within the collegiate
environment in which other students were
more open in discussing sexualized topics and
engaging in sexual behavior.
Gaining Awareness of Asexuality
The first cycle within the ASE model is
gaining awareness of asexuality, characterized
by students’ unconscious acquiescence of
allosexism. Stevan provided a strong example
of this cycle: “I’m not gay, so I must be straight.
. . . That whole ‘I’m not that [so] I must
be this,’—because I figured there were two
options.” Stevan’s comment exemplified the
two processes of this cycle: assimilating in an
allosexual society and searching for meaning.
The unidirectional arrow from searching
for meaning is the point of departure when
students see the myth of allosexism and gain
awareness of asexuality.
Assimilating in an Allosexual Society.
During the process of assimilating in an
allosexual society, students are unconsciously
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
absorbed into the allonormative societal
structures. Students receive messages from
family, peers, media, and education that
perpetuate allonormativity. Students in this
process strived to fit or align with normative
thoughts and actions associated with their
ecological environments. Nelle chuckled as
they recalled a high school relationship:
I definitely dated someone for a year of
high school, and we just went to prom and
danced, and that was it. I was good with
that. We were just friends who said we
were dating, which . . . it worked out for
both of us, because he’s gay, and neither
of us are attracted to each other in that
way, so, we were mutual beards.
In this context beard refers to a person who
poses as a partner or date for an asexual or
LGBQ person for the purpose of appearing
allosexual or heterosexual. In addition to engag­
ing in nonplatonic relationships, students’
enactment of norms also included engag­ing
with peers in conversations about crushes or
desiring sexual contact with pop culture icons
or peers. Another normative enact­ment of
assimi­lation emerged for some students from
their faith or religious tradition. Engaging in
a religious, faith, or spiritual tradition that
emphasizes the importance of abstinence
provided another way for asexual students to
align with norms. For example, Jenny recalled:
“I always assumed I was a really good Christian
and was doing the whole abstinence thing, even
though it wasn’t a conscious decision.” She
credits involvement in a Christian organization
for helping her understand the difference
between choosing abstinence and lacking
sexual attraction.
The intersection of students’ (a)sexual
identity and their gender also became salient
for several participants in this process. It was
not until Max started exploring his gender that
he began learning about and reconsidering his
sexual identity as well. He detailed his various
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 197
thought processes: “‘Well, maybe I’m bi and I
just like girls more,’ and then I was like, ‘Well
maybe I’m a lesbian.’ Then I was like, ‘Well
maybe I’m actually, like, trans and I’m a guy,
so then I’m straight.’” Max and other students
tried to make meaning of who they were using
the knowledge and context they had available
within allocisheteropatriarchal society. Across
these experiences, students began to acknowl­
edge a sense of difference between themselves
and others (e.g., peers, siblings, media por­
trayals), which they then explored.
Searching for Meaning. When students
sought information and knowledge about
their identity(ies), they were searching for
meaning. This process represents the initial
research and education process of finding
information about identities that students
find they relate to. Students would begin
with a broad search, commonly within
LGBT-related topics, and continue investing
time and energy until they found others who
shared common­alities with their experiences.
Adler discussed how his activity on Tumblr
contributed to discovering his identities: “The
internet became my primary resource of LGBT
education. I encountered people talking about
the broad range of terms that [most] people
don’t know exist, and identities people don’t
realize people have. . . . I discovered that I
fit into those more.” For students who had
gender or sexual identities that remain largely
invisible in society, this process represented
a space of possibility. Some students entered
this process focused on seeking information
about one topic, and then discovered other
knowledge concurrently.
For Angela, the recruitment e-mail for
this study motivated her to begin researching
asexuality. Before seeing the study recruitment
e-mail, she looked for meaning with her
doctors, questioning if something was physi­
cally wrong with her. She recalled her thoughts
when reading the e-mail:
 Mollet

I saw this study, and then I looked more involved relating asexual definitions and other
into [asexuality]. . . . When I first heard asexuals’ experiences with their own thoughts
of this study, I was like, “I know I’m not. and experiences. When students went through
I don’t think I’m asexual.” But then when
the stage of putting the pieces together and
I read the e-mail further it said degrees of
it, and so I was like, “Okay, let me look at began to see asexuality as a potential picture
the degrees of it.” Then, I was like, “Okay, of themselves, they were able to begin the
this sounds more like me.” reconciling asexuality stage by integrating it
with their other identities and in their lives.
Seeing “spectrum of asexual identities” men­
Identifying with asexuality was commonly a
tioned in the e-mail provided the impetus for
personal identity without necessarily becoming
her to begin researching online, because she
a social identity. The departure from putting
finally had the language to know what terms
the pieces together did not exclude returning to
to include in her search. For other students,
this process. Some students began reconciling
finding information about asexuality was
their asexual identity seeking answers to
generally more of a happy accident than an
questions about their identity or how their
intentional focus, if they did not have the
thoughts and experiences fit within asexuality.
language needed to search.
As students sought additional information
Exploration of students’ asexual and other
to make meaning of their asexual-spectrum
identities continued in the later processes (and
identities, they returned to or continued
may continue further) as students put the
engaging in putting the pieces together.
pieces together and reconciled their asexual
Putting the Pieces Together. The metaphor of
identities following the proverbial “light bulb
putting the pieces together represents students’
moment” or an “aha” of gaining awareness
cognitive processes in this model. For a few
of asexuality through searching for meaning.
students, they moved through this process
This awareness is the transition to the cycle
very quickly when they discovered asexuality,
of identifying with asexuality. Once students
read the definitions, and almost concurrently
gain awareness of asexuality, they can no
identified within the ace-spectrum. Other
longer return to an unconscious acquiescence.
students engaged in extended reflective
Although, the ways they make meaning of and
processes considering their pasts or trying to
reconcile their asexual identities may include
envision their futures. During the process of
decisions and behaviors that seemingly mimic
putting the pieces together, students generally
how they presented and engaged in society
continued their research and exploration of
while retaining allonormative assumptions.
asexuality beyond their initial awareness of
Their consciousness of asexuality marks the
the identity. Online communities played an
critical point of divergence.
important role in helping students to find
how they related to asexuality. Multiple
Identifying With Asexuality
students found the reading stories of other
After students learn about asexuality and asexual people helpful as they began to see
begin considering asexuality as a potential commonalities with their own lives. Often,
identity, they transition towards identifying students were seeing narratives inclusive of
with asexuality. Nicole felt “a sense of relief their experiences for the first time.
and kind of like connecting my experiences Applying an asexual lens to reflect on their
to just feeling better about myself and my past experiences, participants began to see
experiences.” For Nicole and others, this cycle prior experiences differently. In this process

198 Journal of College Student Development

Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
they looked back and identified specific times
when they felt like they were out of place,
did not belong, or that something was wrong
that they could not name. Their asexual
awareness helped them to reflect on and
identify “asexual moments” from their past. To
highlight the importance of reflection in this
way, Angela provided the following advice for
people who may think that they are asexual:
“Don’t be afraid to piece together random
experiences that you’ve had, like maybe all
these random experiences form a cohesive
picture and help you identify as one way or
the other.” Participants who had previously
problematized their lack of sexual attraction
and assumed they were broken were able to
see how they fit within the spectrum of asexual
identities. They recounted prior experiences
that came together as an amalgamation of
ace-spectrum experiences that contributed to
their identifying with asexuality.
Students’ efforts to understand their
sexual identity and put the pieces together
also intersected with their other identities.
As Sam continued learning about asexuality,
the pieces fit when they realized asexual was
also an umbrella term: “I was like, ‘Oh, this
is a spectrum thing. I’m not up here. I’m
over—okay.’” After that realization, Sam
tried to make meaning of their identities in a
sequential order:
After I’d figured out sexuality and romantic
orientations, then I was like, “Okay, that’s
good. That’s totally 100% correct. Let’s
go on to gender.” Then it was like, “Oh,
crap, let’s bring this back in. It was not
correct. Let’s readjust all these.” Turns out
you can’t do them separately.
For Sam, their gender influenced how they
understood their ace-spectrum identity and
the two could not be examined in isolation.
Sam’s gender was salient during their asexual
identity exploration, while Nicole found her
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 199
race a salient aspect of her identity exploration.
Even when she would relate her experiences
with those of other ace-spectrum people,
Nicole struggled to imagine herself within the
ace spectrum. As a Black woman, she was never
represented in asexual discourses: “When I do
read articles or see someone that’s talking about
[asexuality], when I have noticed [asexuality],
I don’t think it’s ever been someone that has
been Black, or like a minority.” The invisibility
of People of Color who identify with the
ace spectrum further complicated the puzzle
Nicole was trying to put together, as if she
had pieces but no picture of the final puzzle.
Learning that sexual and romantic attrac­
tions were not mutually inclusive was pivotal
for many students in this process. Max
was first exposed to the idea of multiple
types of attraction when he attended an
educational program with his campus LGBTQ
center: “That makes sense that all this stuff is
separate—That makes so much sense now that
you say it, but I would not have come to that
conclusion by myself.”
Before Max knew sexual, platonic, and
roman­tic attraction could be distinct constructs,
he was confused trying to understand his
various feelings. Allonormative assumptions
also influence asexual students’ assumptions
that the way they experience attraction is the
same way everyone else experiences attraction
(i.e., sexually). Knowing that they could
experience romantic or platonic attraction
without sexual attraction further enhanced
their ability to understand their identities.
Reconciling Asexuality
The final cycle of the model is where students
inte­grate their asexuality. Reconciling asexuality
is a time where students seek to create thoughts
and actions that bring harmony to their lives
as they seek to integrate their asexual identity
in ways that affirm all their identities, even
within an allonormative society. In resistance

to assumptions about asexuality, Stevan
joked: “I have a lot of feelings, just none in
the genitalia region.” This joke captured his
desire for connecting with others and forming
relationships that affirmed his identities.
Students entered the cycle experiencing
one, two, or three processes. They also entered
the cycle at different processes based upon their
individual journeys. The processes are neither
mutually inclusive nor exclusive. The cycle of
reconciling asexuality represents a continual
process through which students entered,
departed, and persisted across the processes.
Contextual factors, experiences, and students’
other identities influenced the ways they
reconciled asexuality within their lives. The
cycle includes three processes: experiencing
wholeness, internalizing allonormativity, and
situating self in allosexual society.
Experiencing Wholeness. When students
put the pieces together, many found a sense
of wholeness, despite societal influences. Nelle
addressed the macro influence of pervasive
allonormativity in their understanding of self:
There’s a way that sexuality is talked
about, that it’s human and innate, and
to be a person you have to have sexu­
ality. And, like, the absence of that in
a lot of cultural texts is monstrous and
[represents] someone who’s broken, who
hasn’t developed fully. So, in a lot of ways
I felt that way, and then finding that it
wasn’t [they pause] it wasn’t that is what
made me feel like an actual human, and
not like I was broken and having to hide
something or pretend.
Identifying with ace-spectrum identities
enabled the students to see their thoughts
and experiences in relation to an identity
instead of as a problem they needed to resolve.
Students in this process frequently felt a sense
of assurance, relief, or affirmation. They also
acknowledged feeling comfort in knowing
others experienced life in similar ways. Despite
200 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
positive feelings during this process, none of
the students described their identity journey
as complete upon experiencing wholeness;
they continued reconciling asexuality in their
lives while also experiencing continued societal
oppression and expectations.
Internalizing Allonormativity. During the
process of reconciling their asexual identities,
the omnipresence of allonormativity emerged
as a salient influence in the students’ lives.
Allosexist ontological assumptions created
boundaries and limited possibilities in their
minds of how they could exist and move
through society. As students resisted allo­
norma­tivity by sharing their identities,
imagining new meanings and patterns of
relation­ships, or even educating others about
asexuality many experienced reciprocated
allonormative pressure. Griffin described his
thoughts after sharing his identity with others:
“It’s like I have to become re-comfortable with
the idea of being asexual now after having to
experience what society has to say about it.”
The questions, erasure, and invalidation from
others negatively influenced Griffin’s sense of
wholeness around his asexual identity. Other
students also internalized the allonormativity
and began to doubt or question themselves.
Common questions included: How did I know
that I am asexual? Am I really asexual? Am
I asexual enough?
Romantic and sexual relationship con­texts
contributed additional dimensions of inter­
nalized allonormativity. Relationships created
additional contexts in which students needed
to make meaning of their identities. Several
students espoused their choice to have sex with
a partner. Jane used a simile to compare her
decision to have sex with her boyfriend: “It’s
like, you eat kale because your best friend really
likes making kale dishes, . . . but even then I’m
still kind of grossed out by it. [she pauses] I’m
still really grossed out by it.” Jane internalized
the allonormative assumption that she should
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
be nice and have sex in her relationship because
her boyfriend liked it, even though she was
grossed out by sex. Later in her interview she
commented about how having sex influenced
thinking about her asexual identity: “It’s an
area of dissonance. You don’t feel as authentic
as you once were [before having sex], . . .
because obviously people assume if you’re
doing sex then you obviously must like it.” In
addition to the influence of allonormativity in
Jane’s decision making, she and other students
also internalized allonormative assumptions
that if they ever engaged in any sexual behavior
they could not be asexual. The conflation of
sexual and romantic attraction entwined with
allonormativity generated a pervasive thought
students worked to overcome.
Situating Self in Allosexual Society. Students
described how their knowledge and awareness
of asexuality allowed them to begin identifying
and constructing ways of existing within the
allosexual society that affirmed their identities.
For example, the asexual lexicon includes terms
to describe multiple types of attraction (e.g.,
sexual, romantic, aesthetic), levels of attraction
(e.g., demi-, gray-), and which gender(s)
people are attracted to (e.g., bi, pan, hetero).
As a tool to accurately describe their identities,
students selected labels that clearly described
their identities and attractions; however, their
personal and social identities did not always
align, as they often selected personal identity
labels for themselves and labels for external
contexts and conversations. Ryan explained:
Coming-out-wise, I’ve always felt more
comfortable just saying that I’m bi,
because I feel like that’s just so much
[they pause] easier. Which, again, sucks.
. . . I feel like it’s so hard for me to be like,
“Hi, I’m biromantic and demisexual. How
about you?”
Instead of sharing all of their identities,
Ryan focused specifically on their biromantic
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 201
identity. To avoid confusing others and
potentially having to explain their identity,
they simply say that they are bisexual, because
people are more familiar with the term. Three
of the students who identified as transgender
or agender specifically acknowledged that
they generally self-identity as “queer” instead
of sharing the specific labels for each of
their identities.
Part of situating within an allosexual
society also included students’ strategies and
approaches for navigating relationships and
seeking community. A common consideration
was engagement with the LGBTQ community
as a space for students with minoritized sexual
identities. In this area, students’ thoughts
and experiences varied widely. For example,
as a heteroromantic cisgender man Nikolai,
considered himself an LGBTQ ally but did
not expect inclusion with the community;
however, he felt included when his RA created
a bulletin board for LGBTQ history month:
“There was a little section about asexuality. I
was like, ‘Hey, that’s me.’ Exclamation point
over my head!” The presence of asexuality on
the board helped him feel included. When
students who had other minoritized identities
of gender or sexuality (e.g., transgender,
agender, biromantic, panromantic) commonly
engaged with the LGBTQ community based
upon their other identities, they refrained
from sharing their ace identities in these
spaces. Ryan’s reflections about engaging
with the LGBTQ community provided yet
another perspective:
I’ve always been wary about connecting
with the LGBTQIA community. I’ve
always felt weird about it, and I don’t
know why. I’ve always felt like—as bad
as it sounds, like this might be some, you
know, internalized—phobia to me. But
I feel like if I start participating in [the]
LGBTQIA community, then it becomes
apparent that I’m part of it. And I know

that sounds bad . . . that I shouldn’t be
ashamed of who I am, but I kind of am.
Ryan did not express concern about being
welcomed, but instead admitted to feelings
of shame and internalized homophobia.
Collectively, these stories underscore asexual
students’ complicated considerations relating
asexuality and LGBTQ contexts and spaces.
In the lives of asexual students, the term
relationship extended beyond romantic and
sexual contexts. Pushing the boundaries
of platonic relationships, asexual students
imagined and created relationships that met
their needs for companionship, ranging
from deeply emotional friendships with or
without physical intimacy (e.g., cuddling,
hand holding), romantic relationships, sexual
relationships, and partnerships based on
physical closeness. After describing her ideal
relationship Nelle joked: “I don’t really know
what [polyamory] could look like, because
I’ve never seen a relationship like that. I’ve
also never really seen healthy heterosexual
relationships, and people try that all the
time.” Pushing the bounds of allonormative
relationships enabled students to find fulfilling
relationships that worked for them.
DISCUSSION
The students’ asexual identity development
experiences were circuitous processes of
cognitive, biological, and psychosocial com­
po­n ents, which extended beyond societal
bounds of allo­normativity as they engaged a
personal discourse focused on understanding
themselves. Those working with college
students should have knowledge and com­
petency to support students’ identity devel­op­
ment (American College Personnel Association
& National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, 2015; Jones & Abes, 2013).
Without adequate knowledge about asexual
student development theory, educators’
202 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
ability to support students’ development
is limited. This qualitative study amplifies
asexual students’ voices to bring visibility and
greater understanding about their experiences,
establishing a foundation for understanding a
population of students who are largely invisible
in society, literature, and in higher education.
The findings from this study suggest that
despite several areas of commonality (e.g.,
acknowledging nonlinear processes, presence
of unconscious externally imposed identity,
ecological influences), the Dillon et al. (2011)
unifying model, which was intended for
application across all sexual identities, may
not fit for ace-spectrum college students.
For example, the unifying model advances
allonormativity through the exclusive focus
on “sexual needs, sexual values, preferred sexual
activities, preferred characteristics of sexual
partners, preferred modes of sexual expression”
(emphasis added; p. 658) with a repetitious
use of “sexual” without integration of other
dimensions of attraction. Additionally, both
Mollet and Lackman (2019) and Robbins
et al. (2016) acknowledged the invisibility of
asexuality within sexual identity development,
which represents a hallmark point of divergence
between the theories. The Robbins et al. model
of asexual development aligns with the ASE
model in multiple areas (e.g., the roles of
asexuality invisibility, influence of identity
salience, and identity disclosure) but remains
limited by the a priori associations with
previous linear sexual identity development
models. The ASE model begins with examining
the influence of students’ multiple identities
and the societal influences of intersectional
oppression for asexual students with multiple
minoritized identities.
My research also brings awareness to
pervasive allonormativity and the negative
influences asexuality invisibility, invalidation,
and erasure have in the lives of asexual
students. Max provided an important sum­
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
marizing comment: “Being invisible isn’t
a privilege, and it’s not—[pause]—I don’t
know how to describe it, because I feel like
it’s too obvious for words in a lot of ways.”
Max’s words underscore the narratives of
participants who collectively felt they were
broken and struggled with obstacles to their
development and experiences of oppression
fueled by the invisibility of asexuality. These
findings align with perceptions about invisi­
bility described in Robbins et  al. (2016),
including the unique role of the internet in
discovering asexuality and students’ likelihood
to pathologize their lack of attraction before
gaining awareness of asexuality.
In a 2015 online survey of asexual college
students, 70% of participants identified
increased awareness of asexuality as a top
priority for improving higher education for
asexual students (Mollet & Lackman, 2019).
The findings from this study further illuminate
the imperative of asexuality visibility. Increased
visibility represents a pivotal tool for sup­
porting asexual students in finding and
understanding their identities. If participants
had known the identity of asexuality existed,
perhaps their journeys through the gaining
awareness of asexuality stage would have
included more personal authority and fewer
feelings of uncertainty and inadequacy. This
is not to suggest that all institutions should
do to support asexual students is increase
visibilty; rather, acknowledging that asexual
students exist and creating awareness represent
a necessary foundation to begin deconstructing
allonormativity and supporting identity
development of asexual students.
In students’ expatiation, the salience of
their asexual identity, as well as their other
identities, influenced their processes and
experiences of asexual identity development.
These findings clearly indicate the inextricable
connection between asexuality, students’
multiple identities, and the multiple oppressive
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 203
societal influences. Across the entire ASE
model, students’ multiple minoritized iden­
tities influenced their identity journey from
how they found asexuality, the salience of their
asexuality, and how they integrated asexuality
into their lives. Students with multiple
minoritized identities often engaged in more
expansive identity exploration as they tried
to put the pieces together, inclusive of all of
their identities.
Students with multiple minoritized iden­
tities discussed ways oppression of their
multi­ple identities, in conjunction with their
asexuality, created cumulative marginalization.
Of parti­cular note, the experiences of inter­
sectional invisibility described by the Students
of Color emphasize the lasting effects of
Whiteness associated with asexuality. The
participants in this study did not specifically
mention the overt omission of race from AVEN
or the historic foundations of asexual as a
racialized term; rather, they acknowledged the
broad invisibility of asexual People of Color in
all contexts they had discovered. Gender and
ability stereotypes influenced students through
the entire model. The experiences of asexual
students with multiple minoritized identities
underscores the continued importance of
examining students’ identity development in
ways that are not fragmented or isolated.
The findings integrating students’ multiple
identities align with the findings in the study
from Foster et  al. (2019) of asexual WOC.
They similarly identified participants’ feelings
of isolation, particularly in struggling to find
asexual Communities of Color. Within the
domain of identity development processes, the
ASE model supports several of their findings,
including experiences of making sense of
differences, negotiating personal definitions
of asexuality, and acceptance of their asexual
identity. These similarities highlight areas for
continued research centering asexual College
Students of Color.

Throughout their journeys of identity
development, asexual students demonstrated
resilience, self-awareness, creativity, and
brilliance. They engaged time and labor
during the cognitive process of understanding
themselves while also developing strategies to
thrive in spaces that were not meant for them.
They persisted despite the omnipresence of
allonormativity. Sam reflected on the ASE
model during the focus group: “If the box of
allonormativity went away, then [we] could
proceed outward. . . . [We] keep just looping
back. . . . [But we’re] in a box that we can’t get
rid of.” Despite students’ labor in reconciling
their asexual identities, they remained within
systems that marginalized and oppressed them.
They found who they were and expanded
possibilities and potential through their
expatiation of wandering, seeking, and sharing
to create greater understanding. Individuals
and institutions must take action to create
educational spaces where asexual students do
not feel trapped or confined within the box of
White, ableist allocisheteronormativity.
IMPLICATIONS
This study provides implications for student
affairs practitioners and the faculty who educate
practitioners. The experiences of 12 asexual
students, the aforementioned trustworthiness,
and Charmaz’s (2014) conditions of goodness
are strengths that should be considered for the
potential application of this theory with other
students or in other institutional contexts.
Formal theories are important for advanc­
ing student affairs work beyond practitioners’
informal theories about students (Reason &
Kimball, 2012). As the first theory of asexual
college student identity development, the
ASE model has multiple implications. The
context of allonormativity in conjunction with
other social oppression discussed in this study
begins to highlight the presence, prevalence,
204 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
and breadth of ways asexuality is marginalized
and people who identify with the spectrum
of asexual identities experience oppression.
The students’ experiences of dehuman­
ization align with MacInnis and Hodson’s
(2012) findings about the predominance
of students’ allonormative assumptions and
indicate the need to disrupt systems of
allonormativity on campus.
As institutions consider implementing
findings from this study, it is important to
institutionalize ways to educate administrators,
faculty, and students. The 12 participants
indicated the need for broad responses to
increase asexual visibility, to educate about
the distinction between sexual and romantic
attraction, to promote diverse models of
healthy relationships, and to develop ace-
specific services and resources. Institutional
agents have great power to increase awareness
and visibility of asexuality and asexual students
by including asexuality as a demographic
option in campus studies. As evidenced by
Angela’s discovering asexuality because of this
study, the simple act of including asexuality
in research can profoundly support asexual
students’ development. Data gathered about
asexual students should not be aggregated
with LGBTQ students’ data based exclusively
on students’ asexual identities. Although
some asexual students identify with the
LGBTQ community, aggregating asexuality
with LGBTQ students can contribute to
allonormativity and erasure of asexual students
(Mollet, 2018). The heterogeneity of asexual
students necessitates opportunities where
asexual students can share their experiences,
see themselves represented, and have their
voices amplified. Due to the limited infor­
ma­tion about asexual students, even general
demographic information about asexual
students plays an important role in contributing
toward dismantling systems of allonormativity.
Despite the single-institution scope of
Asexual College Students’ Identity Journeys
this study, it extends prior research about the
demographics and characteristics of people
who identify as asexual. Continued research
is needed beyond this sample focused on
understanding who asexual students are
as well as the influences of their multiple
identities within their lives. This study began
with my identifying influences of students’
multiple identities, but researchers should
continue viewing asexual people inclusive of
all of their identities. The process of this study
and considering the complexity of students’
identities further illuminates the fluidity of
students’ identities and the inadequacy of
traditional methods of describing participants’
identities (e.g., a table) for capturing the realities
of how students conceptualize their identities.
This qualitative study provides evidence
to support the continued focus on creating
definitions of asexuality that represent the
diverse experiences of people who identify
along the spectrum of asexual identities.
Specifically, this study furthers Carrigan’s (2011)
characterization of asexuality as an umbrella of
identities by expanding understandings of
the self-identified asexual students’ identities,
attractions, and behaviors. I also extend the
call by Van Houdenhove et  al. (2017) for
REFERENCES
American College Personnel Association & National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators. (2015, August). ACPA/​
NASPA professional competency areas for student affairs educators.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www​.naspa​
.org​/images​/uploads​/main​/ACPA_​NASPA_​Professional_​
Competencies_​FINAL.pdf
Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017).
Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/ability critical
race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education
and society. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 20, 147‑162.
Bogaert, A. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated
factors in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex
Research, 41, 279‑2 87.
Bogaert, A. F. (2012). Asexuality and autochorissexualism
(identity-less sexuality). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41,
1513‑1514.
March–April 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 2 205
researchers and asexual people to come together
to develop a positive definition of asexuality
that does not center an absence of something.
CONCLUSION
The goal of this study was not to proclaim a
universal truth about asexual identity devel­
op­m ent, but to create a theory rooted in
and resonant with the experiences of the 12
participants. The resulting theory represents
one plausible interpretation of the data that
simultaneously acknowledges the potential
for other possible constructions. This theory
should be viewed as a starting point for
thinking about asexual students’ identity
development—not an end point. I present the
model open to critique, review, and revision
as guided through my continued research
as well as others’ research. May this theory
be a springboard to generate ideas, tools,
and theoretical perspectives that contribute
towards further research and understanding of
asexual college students to create educational
experiences where they can thrive.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Amanda Mollet at amollet@ku.edu
Brotto, L. A., Yule, M. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2015). Asexuality:
An extreme variant of sexual desire disorder? Journal of Sexual
Medicine, 12, 646‑660.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook
of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Carrigan, M. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference
and commonality within the asexual community. Sexualities,
14, 462‑478.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded
theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 34‑45.
Chasin, C. D. (2011). Theoretical issues in the study of
asexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 713‑723.

Chasin, C. D. (2015). Making sense in and of the asexual
community: Navigating relationships and identities in a
context of resistance. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 167‑180.
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out
process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2‑3), 31‑43.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual
orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman
(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series.
Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312‑333).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity. Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L., & Moradi, B. (2011). Sexual
identity as a universal process. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx,
& V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and
Research: Vol. 1. Structures and processes (pp. 649‑670). New
York, NY: Springer.
Foster, A. B., Eklund, A., Brewster, M. E., Walker, A. D., &
Candon, E. (2019). Personal agency disavowed: Identity
construction in asexual Women of Color. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 6,127‑137.
Ginoza, M. K., & Miller, T. (with others). (2014, November).
The 2014 AVEN community census: Preliminary findings.
Retrieved January 25, 2017, from https://asexualcensus.files​
.wordpress.com/2014/11/2014censuspreliminaryreport.pdf
Hinderliter, A. C. (2009). Methodological issues for studying
asexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 619‑621.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college
students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the
complexities of qualitative research in higher education (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004, January). Learning reconsidered:
A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington,
DC: American College Personnel Association and National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Retrieved
from http://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Learning_
Reconsidered_Report.pdf
MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2012). Intergroup bias
toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization,
avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 725‑743.
206 Journal of College Student Development
Mollet
McAleavey, A. A., Castonguay, L. G., & Locke, B. D. (2011).
Sexual orientation minorities in college counseling: Prevalence,
distress, and symptom profiles. Journal of College Counseling,
14, 127‑142.
Mollet, A. L. (2018). “Maybe all these random experiences form
a cohesive picture”: Towards a grounded theory of asexual
college students’ identity development (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Mollet, A. L., & Lackman, B. (2019). “I thought I was the
only one”: Asexual student invisibility and erasure in higher
education. In E. M. Zamani-Gallaher, D. D. Choudhuri,
& J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Rethinking LGBTQIA students and
collegiate contexts: Identity, policies, and campus climate (pp.
78‑98). New York, NY: Routledge.
Owen, I. H. (2014). On the racialization of asexuality. In K. J.
Cerankowski & M. Milks (Eds.), Asexualities: Feminist and
queer perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Owen, I. H. (2018). Still, nothing: Mammy and Black asexual
possibility. Feminist Review, 120, 70‑84.
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016).
Student development in college: theory, research, and practice.
San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling
psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy
of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126‑136.
Prause, N., & Graham, C. A. (2007). Asexuality: Classification
and characterization. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 341‑356.
Przybylo, E. (2011). Crisis and safety: The asexual in sexusociety.
Sexualities, 14, 444‑461.
Reason, R. D., & Kimball, E. W. (2012). A new theory-to-
practice model for student affairs: Integrating scholarship,
context, and reflection. Journal of Student Affairs Research
and Practice, 49, 359‑376.
Robbins, N. K., Low, K. G., & Query, A. N. (2016). A
qualitative exploration of the “coming out” process for
asexual individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 751‑760.
Scherrer, K. S. (2008). Coming to an asexual identity: Nego­
ti­ating identity, negotiating desire. Sexualities, 11, 621‑641.
Scherrer, K. S., & Pfeffer, C. A. (2017). None of the above:
Toward identity and community-based understandings of
(a)sexualities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 643‑646.
Troiden, R. R. (1988). Homosexual identity development.
Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9, 105‑113.
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., & Enzlin, P. (2014).
Asexuality: Few facts, many questions. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 40, 175‑192.