Plan for the week

Right so it turns out I was extremely optimistic about how much I'd be able to get done last week and the week before considering I spent a decent chunk of both of them fucking off to London and then to Spain. However this week I'm gonna turn everything around I promise.

TO DO THIS WEEK:

• FINISH MINIMIZING MARRIAGE AND ALL THOSE DOCUMENTARIES
• Start reading Thematic Analysis
• Get in contact with AUBSU and SUBU to ask if they'd be willing to advertise my focus groups - IN PROGRESS
• Start writing participant information sheet
• Do some research into interview structure and apply it to my rough plan
• Read more TV studies stuff - IN PROGRESS
• Start writing my actual thesis draft
• Print off and read the two billion articles I got from Phil - IN PROGRESS
• Finally actually transcribe Heartbreak High
• Rewatch Heartstopper season 2 - IN PROGRESS
• Start making presentation for next Wednesday - IN PROGRESS

I can do this. I can do at least 75% of this. I believe in myself.

Tutorial time!!

Had a tutorial with Willem and Emma on Tuesday, as usual we were focused on the issue of my focus groups. I've also sent off my current draft of my participant information sheet to them, as well as a list of my potential interview questions, but this is the feedback I got already:

• Recommended I hand in the information sheet, consent forms, and other focus group-related stuff with my draft - honestly this could be a lifesaver considering the draft itself currently doesn't fucking exist
• They recommended doing some more research into focus groups
• Helpful points about how to select the clips I want to use (I GUESS I'M COMMITTED TO CLIPS NOW LOL) - should think about what discussion I want to illicit and what questions I want to ask, then choose clips that will suit the Qs best and generate the best discussion, also think about which clips have enough context for people who haven't seen the whole show to understand what's going on
• Some of the questions I have atm are either a bit leading (patterns question), would probably cause people to get off topic (asking what could be improved), or a bit too interrogative ("why did you sign up?"), lowkey I thought that seemed like a nice icebreaker but considering how much I struggle with tone my thoughts may not count for much here
• Need to keep focus on how characterisation seems to be informed by creators attitudes
• Think about 2 way dynamic: Show influenced by creator attitudes -> audience's attitudes possibly influenced by show
• A really good suggestion I didn't think of: I could use one of our peer review sessions to test out my questions/clips/general focus group format (otherwise I'll probably just test it on my flatmates)
• Talked a bit on when I should be aiming to run them -> Emma recommended 2nd half of April. Which is like. super close. but whatever. it's fine. it's so fine
• "Have you seen any of these shows before?" could be a good icebreaker
• Emmma and Willem both recommended quality over quantity - for a focus group discussion I shouldn't need too many questions
• Emma recommended looking at Denzin and Lincoln's Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, as well as the Qualitative Inquiry and Qualitative Research journals
• Also interesting suggestion that I could think about ways to follow up with participants after - maybe have some way for them to send feedback or extra thoughts? Could be especially useful for measuring long-term impact, could be online, would have to give participants option to opt in to be contacted or not
• Willem also mentioned I might want to get in touch with the EDI team about them facilitating and what the ramifications of my project are for AUB. I have to say, I feel like I may be stumbling into something I did not prepare for. Let's go team I guess

Reading of the Week

Now that I'm from Barcelona, that means I can once again sequester myself in the BU library until I've exhausted their TV studies collection. I decided to start with The New Television Handbook (Fifth Edition) by Patricia Holland, as it seemed like the best broad overview, and was published in 2017 so should be relatively up to date with TV developments:

• Positionality!! "This is a book about television in the second decade of the twenty-first century, written from the point of view of practitioners and those who are aiming to become practitioners. However, it comes at a time when television itself is in a state of flux. Indeed, we must begin by asking whether it is still possible to speak of 'television' as a single, coherent medium" (p.xii) oh so I'm getting chucked in at the deep end I see how it is
• Expanding on that point - "Broadcast programmes are only part of an ever-developing group of media available across many platforms" (p.xii)
• Describes this "cluster of media grouped around television production" as "'New' Television" (p.xii)
• "The principles that were established when access to the airwaves (the electromagnetic spectrum that carries the broadcast signal) was restricted are under challenge now that cable, satellite, streaming and digital compression have made hundreds of channels possible and are replacing linear schedules with on-demand viewing and expanded choice. Television has become globalised" (p.xiii)
• Some great contextual quotes: "Television is a transnational business and a national institution. It remains our most-watched form of entertainment and our most important source of information. It is an outlet for creativity and a medium through which social concern and political views may be expressed [...] Yet changes in recent years have been so great that it has been questioned whether 'television' as a separate medium is still a viable concept" (p.3)
• However also points out that "Technologies and structures may be evolving, but many of the trends we see today have longer roots in the history of the medium" (p.3)
• "Since the 1950s, television has been a central and much loved part of British culture. It has developed from a comfortable, home-based medium [...] to the multiscreen, cross-platform phenomenon we know today" (p.4)
• "The expansion of the multichannel landscape has meant that UK television is now part of a global, largely American-based, system. The twentieth-century pattern, with a number of well-established and familiar channels, where most production was UK-funded and UK-based, has given way to the expanding universe of multiple channels and multinational business interests." (p.4)
• "In the 20teens television is undoubtedly more commercial and more troubled" (p.5)
• Considering how often we've talked about age as a factor I thought this was interesting: "The under-30s (often referred to as the 'millenials') tend to take global content for granted. They regularly access multiple sources, and do not identify 'television' as their most important source of entertainment or information. The older generation, by contrast, prefer scheduled programming and rely on television listings (Ofcom 2014: 1.15)" (p.5)
• Uses the term "tele-literacy" "rather than the more common 'media literacy', as this book is focused on television with its own specificty and history, as well as its contemporary extensions. We use the term to combine a knowledge of the skills of television practice with a critical appraisal of the content of television and an enthuisasm for the medium in all its responsible and irresponsible proliferations" (p.5)
• Talking about TV employment: "The hierarchies have (almost all) broken down (women and particularly people from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds are still underrepresented" I FEEL THIS MAY PROVE TO BE IMPORTANT (p.6)
• Chapter on the history of TV in the UK is interesting in showing how the principles behind television have changed - starts with the BBC in the 1920s (originally set up to manage radio) and John Reith's "famous formula [...] that the purpose of broadcasting was to 'educate and inform' as well as to 'entertain'" (p.11)
• First BBC television transmissions took place in 1936, were quickly halted by the Second World War, and started up again in 1946 (p.11)
• Crucially in the 50s there was "a significant campaign to break the BBC's monopoly of the airwaves. It was dominated by advertisers and entrepeneurs who wanted a share of the action, but joined by many who thought the BBC was too narrow and there was a need for a greater diversity" -> led to the advertiser-funded ITV network forming in 1954 (p.12)
• "Most historians accept that competition between th etwo channels was a productive one. The BBC became less elite and stuffy, while regulation meant that ITV would not only seek out the most profitable programmes" (p.12)
• Regulation introduced in 1960s stated that "companies must broadcast certain genres, including current affairs and children's, even if they did not attract the advertisers" (p.13) - another sign of TV being viewed as a public service
• 1970s were perhaps the first time that "There were pressures to appeal to a more diverse audience. The BBC and ITV were highly exclusive institutions, both in terms of those who worked for them and those who were able to express their opinions through them. Regional accents were rarely heard, women and members of the black and minority ethnic communities were seriously under-represented." -> push for more diversity led to setting up of BBC's Community Programme Unit (p.13)
• Channel 4 launched in 1982 and was required by regulators to "cater for tastes, interests and audiences not served by ITV (or other television channels) and to innovate in the form and content of programmes" - had a different business model to ITV (p.13) and so "it did not have to seek out the largest auidence and could serve minority interests" (p..14)
• All channels at this point "subscribed to the principles of public service broadcasting as expressed by the various government committees up to the Annan Committee (1977)" - notably one of these was "There should be special provision for minorities, especially disadvantaged minorities" (p.14)
• "By the mid-1980s, the cable industry was developing" and satellite broadcasting was introduced to UK in 1989 (p.15)
• "Marketisation of British television" in the 90s - becoming more commercialised (p.16)
• "Multichannel system continued to expand" in the 2000s (p.16)
• Most recent (at the time of writing anyway developments in the 2010s: "By 2012 all television sets in the United Kingdom had been converted to digital, and the analogue signals were switched off. Various types of set-top box now give access to the established channels and to 'on-demand' programmes streamed via the internet on channels such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. The introduction of the 'smart' television, integrated with the internet, has increased the range of material available and further blurred the distinction between television and other media" (p.17)
• "Today we take it for granted that television is one among many digital media, received on a number of different platforms, from mobile phones to television screens" (p.17)
• Next chapter looks at the contemporary state of TV in more detail: we are now in "what could be called 'the age of superabundance', bringing apparently limitless choice. With a multitude of channels on many different platforms and a disappearing schedule, viewing on demand is becoming the norm. And the age of superabundance is global" (p.18)
• On the other hand argues that "the domestic landscape is still dominated by the core terrestrial channels with their roots in the national psyche and their millions of loyal viewers" (core channels = BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5) - in 2015, "Ofcom calculated that, despite the proliferation of channels, the 'PSB [Public Service Broadcastr] channels still account for over half of all viewing" (p.22)
• On the other other hand even with those core channels "There is a move towards streaming original material online, as the youth-oriented BBC3 is now online only" (p.21)
• "Globalisation is the most significant factor in the television landscape of the 20teens." (p.35)
• "Today, a globalised landscape is a multichannel landscape. Increasingly, over the 2000s, viewers have gained access to hundreds of television and internet channels that circulate the globe with little respect for territorial boundaries" (p.35)
• "It is difficult to see television as a self-contained national industry controlled by national legislation when global players such as Google, Amazon, Apple and Netflix are providing easily accessible streams of content" (p.35)
• "Channels based outside the United Kingdom, beyond UK regulation, are part of our regular viewing diet [...] Series such as Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones are an important part of the UK television experience" (p.36)
• A crucial point: "On the whole, as far as the UK media are concerned, globalisation means American domination" (p.37)
• "The online screenscape is an important part of the television landscape in the twenty-first century, both from the point of view of the audience and the programme-makers. We have moved beyond multichannel to multiplatform" (p.37)
• Some important stuff about streaming: "Although internet-based media are distinct from television, a review of the television landscape would be incomplete without considering the role of online material. The internet expands the scope of television in three ways: first, as a distribution facility [...] second, as a supplement to popular programmes, expanding on them and providing extra material [...] Third, there is the television-like material made for the internet, including videos made for YouTube as well as dedicated websites" (p.37)
• "Video on demand (VoD) also gives access to a wide range of global programming [...] Increasingly these distributors are also becoming producers as they commission new series, such as Netflix's House of Cards. This was one of the first times a television-like series was not premiered on linear TV. It is a trend that is likely to be followed by the broadcasters. New programmes and series are likely to be made available online first, or even exclusively, especially following the move online of BBC3" - interesting that Holland doesn't seem to consider streaming shows as fully TV, rather as "television-like" - I may need to think about justifying judging both types of show together if I plan to do so... (p.38)
• Potentially important point to think about re: representation - "Some argue that the material that supplements and accompanies the texts is becoming as important as the programmes themselves (Gray 2010). Websites, books, DVDs, games and numerous other products (collectively known as the paratexts) enhance and interact with the television experience" (p.41)
• Jackpot: Paratext "includes parallel websites, related programmes, Twitter feeds, including material created by viewers and performers" - I feel like the Twitter point may be a surprise tool that will help us later (p.46)
• Genre points since I've been thinking about it a lot lately: "On the one hand, television genres are based on rules and conventions that are rooted in the history of the medium, but on the other, they have evolved and changed over the years" (p.47)
• "Familiarity with a genre means building up a set of expectations about style and content, both on the part of the producers and their regular audience. Certain conventions are recognised, like the audience laughter punctuating a sitcom" (p.47)
• Lists four main genres: Drama (including the subgenres of "one-off dramas", "serials", "drama series", (p.48) and "soap operas" - can be divided into further subgenres like "medical series, fantasy/sci-fi series, adaptations, costume dramas and more" (p.49)), News and current affairs, Comedy and entertainment (including the subgenres of "sitcoms", "quiz shows and games shows", "talent contests" etc.) (p.49), and Factual (p.50) - I do want to state that personally I find the decision to lump sitcoms in with talent shows and quiz shows instead of with dramas a bit odd. Like I feel like sitcoms do have more in common with other scripted shows both in terms of production and the audience experience, but I do sort of get where Patricia is coming from I guess
• Getting into some stuff about TV studies itself - "Television studies have had a contentious history. Despite its central role in global culture, politics and economics, for many years the 'box in the corner' was treated with amused condescension if not contempt by an academic community unwilling to take popular culture seriously. Now that television is part of aa powerful global media and communications industry, it cannot be ignored" (p.54)
• "We should note the three main areas within which television tends to be studied: production, text and reception" (p.55)
• "Studying production means understanding the everday practices of television production and the experiences of those who work within it [...] but it also involves tracing the cultural, social, political, technological and economic conditions within which creative writers, producers and technicians are placed" (p.55)
• Studying the television text means giving an account of the content available on the various channels and online platforms. Primarily this includes analysing and understanding programme genres (Creeber 2015)" (p.55)
• Finally, studying audiences involves counting heads [...] to produce the viewing figures and ratings that drive competition between the channels, and attract advertiseers. It also includes studying the preferences and opinions of individual viewers. The broader context of audience studies looks at how content is accessed, what viewers make of it and the role of media use within the wider culture" (p.57) - so basically all three of these are at least somewhat applicable to me
• Mentions "semiotic textual analysis" as a method for analysing television - "The aim was to demonstrate how 'texts', including television texts, construct their message. They are built up of 'signs', each of which carries a meaning: the camera angles, the use of colour, the accents of the performers - for a semiotic analysis, every detail is significant. This means that all texts can be analysed in a simliar wa, regardless of whether they are prestigious offerings or low-brow entertainment" - seems maybe a bit too in-depth if I want to make a broad overview of the state of the nation but useful to know! (p.59)
• "Another complication is that texts are multifaceted. They are more like a rotating mirrored ball in a dance hall, reflecting shards of light in many directions, than a linear sequence of clear-cut information. An analysis of any text will reveal aspects that toss our attention beyond the text itself. One face will reveal something about the conditions in which the text was produced - from the signs of an authorial voice to the visibility of lavish spending. Another will suggest something about the relationship between the text and the world it claims to represent - it may be a realistic portrayal, may exaggerate for the sake of humour, and so on. A third will reflect expectations of the intended audience - inviting us to ask who this programme is designed for" (p.60)
• IMPORTANT STUFF ABOUT IDEOLOGY YIPPEE: "When taking the first approach, and looking at the ways in which texts convey signs of their production, some critics, particularly in the neo-marxist mode, have noted the ways that a text may encode the 'ideology' of its makers or of its context, and hence convey the 'dominant ideology' of its times (Hall 1977). The concept of the 'ideological effect' became important as critical media theeorists scrutinised texts for bias, signs of bureaucratic control, and the hidden hand of power (Glasgow University Media Group 1976; Hall et al. 1980). Although this has been a hugely influential approach, it is one that most producers and other practitioners vigorously resist, refusing to see themselves as mere ideological agents" (p.60) - lowkey I think the producers and practitioners are being annoying for this like guys <3 We all have ideology. We all have beliefs. The things you make are probably gonna reflect your beliefs. This is not an insult god bless.
• STUFF ABOUT REPRESENTATION EVEN BIGGER YIPPEE: "Considering how texts look outwards to the real world has led to other important areas of study, in particular analyses of 'representation' (Hall 1997) - identifying ways in which various groups, including women and people from ethnic minorities, are portrayed, sometimes stereotypically, sometimes narrowly, sometimes negatively [...] the literature on misrepresented identities and communities continues to expand, focusing on sexuality, ethnicity, disability and other forms of discrimination" this woulda been a GREAT quote for contextual review god damn it (p.60)
• REMEMBER TO LOOK AT P.227 FOR MORE STUFF ABOUT STEREOTYPES
• "Finally, texts look outwards to their audience, to their 'readers'. Analysis can demonstrate that texts encode within themselves certain expectations of what their audience will be like" (p.61)
• Audience research: "In a discipline that has largely grown out of social psychology, researchers are more interested in what viewers make of television and what part it plays in their lives (Livingstone 1998). This has included a long-term concern with the 'effects' of television - which can be traced back to the deep suspicion of the 'mass media' among intellectuals in the early part of the twentieth century" (p.62)
• Back to genre stuff and different types of drama! Distinction between "serials" where "the plot develops over several episodes, usually between three and six, and comes to a conclusion in which the plot lines are (usually) resolved" (p.187)
and "drama series" where "there are many interweaving narratives, but there is no final resolution at the end of a run, so that threads can be taken up again when the series returns" (p.188)
• "Series may sometimes be structured so that it is possible to appreciate a single, relatively self-contained episode" or "Other series, such as Lost, develop complex, apparently insoluble, never-ending storylines which can run for years" (p.188)
• "Series are collaborative productions, using rotating teams of writers and directors working within the basic formula. They report to an executive producer, who may also be the main writer and is often referred to as the 'showrunner'" (p.188)
• "Jason Mittell has noted the 'narrative complexity' of American series such as Lost or the X-Files as 'an alternative to the conventional episodic and serial forms'. For Mittell this marks a 'new form of storytelling' (Mittell 2006)" - thought this was interesting because this style of drama series has kind of become the norm now (p.189)
• Ok important point about the status of sitcoms: "Situation comedies, [sic] are located in the entertainment rather than the drama departments of television organisations. Nevertheless they are fictional narrative series in which each week an impossible and insoluble situation reveals new comic possibilities. Although the comedy may be resolved in each episode, the situation never is. In the best of them, hilarity comes close to tragedy" (p.191) - FEELS SUBJECTIVE LMAO BUT. could apply to BJH very strongly
• "Generic realism means conforming to the conventions of the genre, rather than the realities of the world. Each narrative genre has its own set of established conventions and audience expectations which apply across narrative types, and each genre brings its own permitted deviations from realist representation" (p.201)
• "An ideological text conceals the underlying intentions and purposes of those who produce it. If those who produce it are not part of the ruling class themselves, it is argued that they are always in their pay" - seems like a fairly simplistic view (p.203)
• "However, thirty-five years later [after Channel 4 was formed], there still remain issues with the representation of diverse identities within the narratives on our screens. Repeatedly, the celebrated black actor Lenny Henry argued: 'If you have one set of people deciding what stories get told, you will always end up getting the same kinds of story' (BAFTA Television lecture, 18 March 2014)" (p.204)
• "Theorists have argued that the structure of narrative itself can influence the ways in which identities are portrayed" - discusses Mulvey as an example (p.204)
• "The scope, for both men and women writers, has become wider. Across the genres, dramas are now able to deal with issues of sexuality, exploring gay and lesbian themes as well as a more nuanced reflection of the relations between the sexes (Warhol and Lanser 2016)" (p.205)
• "Stereotypes strip participants of their individuality in order ot play up their common characteristics. Familiar stereotypes - the sexualised woman, the Asian shopkeeper, the lazy benefits claimant - are usually exaggerated and ferquently carry negative connotations. And stereotypes are perceived within particular social circumstances. As John Ellis pointed out, the (p.227) stereotype of the irresponsible work-shy claimant was current in the wider media when Benefits Street was broadcast. As they circulate, stereotypes reinforce a particular image" - about reality TV but still relevant! (p.228)
• "For many years, feminists, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups and campaigners from BAME, disability and other disadvantaged minorities have argued against the ways in which they have been stereotyped across the media, and real changes have been achieved" (p.228)

While this was the most up-to-date version of the Television Handbook I could find, I did also want to look at the previous edition because it seemed like it might go a bit more in-depth on some areas, particularly in its discussion of the sitcom genre (which a lot of the shows I'm looking at fall into). Notes from The Television Handbook: Fourth Edition by Jeremy Orlebar:

• Genre "can be defined as the sharing of expectations between audience and programme makers about the classification of a programme" (p.35)
• "Genre is a democratic concept, since it takes account of viewers' preconceptions, expectations and demands of television" (p.36)
• "Theorists of genre have struggled to pin down where genre resides. It can be argued that genre forms arise from the properties of texts, so that identifying genre means listing elements of a text that determine its membership in one genre rather than another. However, the listing of constituents is not always reliable" (p.36) - genre is messyyyyyy
• "The ideological functions of programmes cross genre boundaries" - uses police dramas vs news programmes as an example - "Although these are different genres, the ideological oppositions between order and disorder, continuity and disruption, structure both" (p.37)
• The sitcom "is one of the most popular and enduring of television genres" (p.38)
• "Both British and US sitcoms have recognised the need to engage with cultural change, especially the changing position of women (see Hallam 2005), if only as a response to broadcasters' need to deliver a new generation of affluent and confident women consumers to the advertisers who sponsor or support programmes" (p.38)
• "Some components of sitcom can be identified as key elements of the genre, but even these are not exclusive to it. Sitcoms have a situation, like a house or workplace where the action happens and where characters seemed trapped together" (p.38)
• "The genre of sitcom is a particular combination of elements such as scripted fictional narrative, self-conscious performance by actors, jokes and physical comedy, and studio audience laughter. Focusing on performance discourages the audience from judging speech and behaviour according to the norms of everyday behaviour" - the studio laughter point seems a bit outdated, even in 2011 I'm pretty sure that was becoming way less common in sitcoms but whatevar (p.39)
• "By definition, the situation that gives the programme its setting and main characters must be preserved no matter what challenges are introduced in a particular epiosde [...] So there are firm limits on the possibilities for change, and only limited narrative progression that would affect subsequent episodes. However, as Barry Langford (2005) points out, certain sitcoms [...] have made room for some narrative progression that reflects on and challenges the series' premise" - DEFINITELY more common now especially with streaming shows, see BJH, The Good Place, etc. (p.39)
• "Analysing narrative requires the distinction between story and discourse. Story is the set of events that are reprsented [...] Discourse is the narrating process that puts story events in an order, with a shape and direction. In any medium, someone or something must be doing the storytelling, and this agency is the narrator, whether it is a voice, on-screen performer, or simply the agency which viewers reconstruct as the force which controls the arrangement of camera shots, sound and music that deliver the story" (p.48)
• "Television viewers make an identification with the audience position laid out for them. In other words, the television viewer has occupied the role laid out for him or her by television, which is doing the looking on his or her behalf. It is often hard to specify what this individual narrator is, whether for instance it is the production team who made the programme, or the channel on which it is broadcast" (p.49)
• Stuff about semiotics: "In television, the images of people, places and things are termed iconic signs, which means that they resemble what they represent. A TV image of a tree looks like the real tree. But of course the image is two-dimensional, in a frame, with a certain composition, colour, depth of focus and perspective. The way the image of the tree has been constructed can shape the viewer's understanding of its meaning. Perhaps the shot will make the tree seem beautiful, magical, mysterious or threatening, especially if music or sound effects have been added to the shot. Signs give form and meaning to thought and experience instead of just showing what is already there, so the study of television signs in semiotics is a crucial tool for explaining how meanings are made" (p.50)
• "TV images never simply show in a neutral way. They always suggest shades of meaning, as in the example of the tree above. The shades of meaning are called connotations, and semiotics concerns how these connotations appear in single shots and how they are connected with the connotations of the shots before and after, and in comparable shots, sequences, whole programmes or whole genres" (p.50)
• "The meanings conveyed by signs often have much to do with how they are used according to the rules or conventions of a code" (p.50)
• "Codes of camerawork, costume and language" are different in different genres (p.50)
• "The semiotic concept of code is useful in dividing signs into groups, and working out how their meaning depends on their membership of codes. Individual signs become meaningful because of their difference from the other signs that could have been chosen in any shot or sequence. But the role of signs as members of code groupings means that many signs are heavily loaded with a significance that comes from the code in which they are used" (p.51)
• "Semiotic methods would involve asking why a certain shot was selected at this moment rather than another shot, and what the effects of the selection are" (p.51)
• "The meanings of television depend on the selection and combination of visual and aural signs, and how these signs connect with codes that viewers recognise" (p.51)
• Ideology time yippee!!! "Ideology refers to the 'natural' and common-sense values that keep civil society running. It was an idea most thoroughly developed by radical Marxist writers who looked for ways of explaining how social injustice can continue without people recognising it and changing things. What ideology does is to make ways of thinking about ourselves and others seem self-evidently right, whereas a more careful analysis of the way things are might reveal that there is much that should be changed" (p.53)
• "In relation to television, the study of ideology looks at how people and ideas are represented in programming, to identify whether such concerns as race, gender, age-group or ethnicity are being distorted in ways that need to be modified" - oh hey that's what I'M doing (p.53)
• "This ideological conception of the place of television in people's lives and homes focuses on television's cultural role: it emphasises how television has become embedded in people's lives, in the places they live, the social structures to which they belong, and how television forms and reinforces the expectations about home, work and leisure that they hold" (p.53)
• "The structure of the narrative supports the structure of ideology" (p.54)
• Potentially useful point: "As John Corner (1992: 98) notes, realism has been regarded as 'television's defining aesthetic and social project'" The notion of realism operates as a standard of value within television institutions and for audiences, since each of these regard the connection of television programmes with reality as a basis for judging the value of television programmes" (p.54)
• "Three features in realism: it is contemporary, it is concerned with actions that can be explained and which take place in the material world, and thirdly it is socially extended in that it has an ambition to represent ordinary people. As a consequence, a fourth element of realism is its ambition to interpret the world in relation to a certain political viewpoint in order to produce understanding" (p.55)
• Discusses how "binary oppositions" are used in sitcoms: "Humour derives from contrasting these values when they are each embodied in a character, and also from aligning a character who might be expected to represent (p.58) one side of a binary with the other side" (p.59)
• "The simplified character-positions in sitcom are too excessive to be 'realistic' because it is important to the comedy for a character's place in a system of binary oppositions to be clear in contrast to another character. Sitcom narrative sets up oppositions and compositions, which by the end of an episode have been laid to rest" (p.59)
• Discusses active audience theory: "Audiences make all kinds of meanings out of watching television, rather than just consuming what they are given" (p.87)
• "The television text will exhibit resistances to coherence and internal contradictions, such that no single meaning can be imposed or received, and instead meaning is produced by programme-makers and understood by audiences in a wide range of ways" (p.87)
• "For Fiske (1987: 95) television offers a 'semiotic democracy', meaning that the signs and meanings in television's images and sounds are interpreted with a certain freedom by each viewer" (p.87)
• "By focusing on the audience, often by setting up situations in which researchers listen in person to the talk of actual viewers, Television Studies granted more power and authority to viewers, in particular viewers belonging to ethnic subcultures, women and children. Audience studies also provided an opportunity to find new sources of potential resistance to the ways that the television business is organised, and to the conventional and ideological meanings discovered by close analyis of programmes" (p.88)<.li>
• HOWEVAR, "The more that an audience is identified by researchers as an emblem of resistance to the dominant norms of television and contemporary society, the less likely it is that this audience group will be able to exert any actual power to create change in either television or society" (p.89)
• Finally some stuff about representation: "In relation to the already valued television form of the authored drama series, quality depends not only on the production values of a programme but also on its contribution to the politics of representation and the debates over public issues that are the province of public service broadcasting" - uses Queer as Folk as an example (p.180)
• "The series drew on Channel 4's institutional remit to address new configurations of audience and hitherto under-represented social groups, and established patterns of relationships between characters that explored gay identity and the tensions and contradictions around sexuality" (p.180)

As I briefly mentioned before, one pattern that has emerged in my research is that a lot of the most popular and notable shows to depict asexuality/aromanticism in recent years have been teen shows. Sex Education, Heartstopper, Heartbreak High: these are all shows aimed at teenagers, with teenage protagnonists and secondary/high school settings. In light of this, I decided to look at some of the essays in Teen TV: Genre, Consumption and Idenity, edited by Glyn Davis and Kay Dickinson. While obviously the teen show as a genre has evolved a lot since 2004 when this collection was published, I still hope that looking at some of the literature around this genre will prove useful for analysing it, or at least will provide useful context.

• I figured a great place to start would be 'Saying It Out Loud': Revealing Television's Queer Teens by Glyn Davis, all about "teen television's representation of queer adolescents" (p.128)
• Possible useful contextual fact: apparently "the first regularly appearing gay teen ... in a prime time American television series" was Rickie Vasquez in My So-Called Life (p.127, quoting Edwin J Bernard, interview conducted 1996)
• Possibly interesting description of Rickie: "Rickie was always fairly coded as queer. That we, the audience, knew of Rickie's orientation before he named it, places us with Delia as knowing subject" (p.128)
• Davis criticises the fact that Rickie's final scene is "centred around his coming out, which would seem to suggest such a confession as a potential narrative end point [...] But should it not have been a beginning?" (p.128) - later lists Elliot from Party of Five as an example of the same phenomenon (p.133)
• Brings up several main questions: "First, is it possible to depict overt homosexuality in television drama as any- (p.128) thing other than a revelation, an issue? Second, what are we to make of the overdetermined narrative emphasis placed on coming-out scenes, what do they imply, and how are they structured?" Finally, what are the political ramifications of depicting queer teen desires on TV?" (p.129)
• "A number of theorists have argued that television as a medium has developed in such a manner that its institutionalisesd fomrm is antipathetic or inimical to queerness. As Anna McCarthy has written in relation to the ABC sitcom Ellen, 'same-sex desire plays a deeply agonistic role in the unfolding of temporal structures associated with television's modes of (auto)historiography - the media event, the television schedule, the season run, the final episode'. In addition, she goes on to identify 'the problem that queerness poses for television's representational politics: the difficulty of making same-sex desire uneventful, serial, everyday'. That is, it is not solely that television's (hetero)structural form is, however covertly, hostile to queernes, but that the formats adopted by television programmes and the matters they address [...] struggle to integrate depictions of homosexuality" (p.129, quoting McCarthy 2001)
• "The revelation of homosexuality is the only story that can be told about it ... [P]recisely because homosexuality is not assumed but is itself the secret that produces narrative complication, the disclosure of homosexuality is continually substituted for any possible narrative, romantic or otherwise, predicated on such a sexuality" (p.129, quoting Allen, Homosexuality and Narrative, 1995)
• "The problem is, of course, that even though queer characters now appear on television in notable numbers, they are absorbed into the heterosexuality of the medium and its representations. In relation to television, that is, queers always have to find a place in the heterosexual structure and system. As Larry Gross (p.129) notes, '[g]ay and lesbian characters have become familiar visitors and even regulars on several sitcoms and dramatic programmes but they are still odd men and women out in a straight world'" (p.130, quoting Gross, Up From Invisibility, p.257)
• "This means that only certain types of queers get represented, and only certain issues are addressed by the programmes in which they appear. Queer sexual activity, for instance, is minimal [...] On the whole, drama series individualise the struggle of characters like Rickie Vasquez; any wider examinations of power are beyond the representational regimes of the programmes, the networks and the medium. This is part and parcel of what I would like to call the general 'liberal conservatism' of television's representations of queerness. If the teen series has the potential to tell us things about queer teens, it will only tell us certain things, and not others" (p.130)
• Davis then acknowledges that this view "is perhaps unfairly pessimistic, underestimating the potential of the medium [...] Indeed, surely some of the concerns raised above by McCarthy, Kennedy and Allen are difficult to maintain following the production of a number of television series which have features gay core characters - Tales of the City, Queer as Folk, Six Feet under [sic], Dawson's Creek - all of which have had openly gay personnel working on them, and which have attained critical adulation and solid, appreciative audiences" (p.130)
• Makes the interesting point about "the thorny, troublesome intersection of queerness and television" that "these comments echo similar insights proffered by Karen Lury about the intersection between 'youth' and television" (p.130)
• To quote Karen: "Generations of youth are often seen by observers (and are frequently articulated as such by young spokespeople themselves), as bein opposed to a dominant or mainstream culture [...] which, more often than not, is identified with its presentation through the compromised medium of television ... television and youth are naturally, and diametrically, opposed social and theoretical constructs" (Lury, 2001, quoted p.130)
• Both 'youth' and queer people are "outside the mainstream, not wishing to be compromised by the representational regime of the popular medium" (p.130)
• "Theoretically, then, this makes the queer teen spectator doubly distanced from television and its representatives" (p.131)
• However does note that "teenagers do take pleasure in the commodities and culture marketed to them, despite its production by adults, and adolescent adulation for specific television programmes can be emphatic and heavily invested. Perhaps the distrust of television evinced by critical commentators on adolescence such as Gove and Giroux once again serves to underestimate the potential of the medium. Indeed, the teen series seems to embody great promise for bringing to the screen lives, desires and issues that are often ignored, stymied or cursorily treated by television (and other media)" (p.131)
• "One key element here is longevity: the sheer length of a long-running series allows for the development of characterisation, and substantive narrative depth and complexity; further, particular issues and storylines can breathe and evelop in some detail and at a slow (and thus potentially more realistic) pace" (p.131)
• Concludes from this that the genre of the teen show "offers great potential for the representation of teen lives and desires, including those of queer teens" (p.131)
• "Coming out as gay, declaring one's queer identity, occupies a pivotal position in the teen series' narrativisation of queer adolescent subjectivity. This makes sense: what is usually captured in these sequences is the first experienced instance of coming out, a self-conscious taking-on of a new, specific identity (and thus the one that is potentially emotionally more resonant for the character and/or for the programme's audience) [...] the contemporary teen series (and other television series) now often depict coming out as the major problem for queer individuals to overcome" (p.131) - potentially also true of portrayals of asexuality/aromanticism now? Though that's just a gut instinct with no basis LOL
• "Coming-out scenes in teen series seem to reinforce the act as an individualised one, and as an exultant liberationist confession of one's essential(ised) identity. However, in addition, they enact a complicated enunciation of queerness, in which, despite privileging a liberal paradigm, a (p.131) range of different models of homosexuality are brought into play" (p.132)
• Tension "between language as a tool used to reveal an essential pre- or super-linguistic truth, and speech acts as the very iterative creator of truth, repetitively producing (an always partial and somewhat elusive, semiotically slippery) factuality" something something performativity theory (p.132)
• During depictions of coming out "speech becomes a sexualised act" (p.133)
• Methodological shtuff: "It is extremely tempting to offer evaluations of each queer teen character that has appeared in a teen series (and there are such a small number that it would be perfectly possible to do so). And yet to judge individual portrayals as 'positive' or 'negative' is a complex, contradictory effort, and often a personal one which, in recent years, has been subject to much criticism. Authors such as Ellis Hanson, B. Ruby Rich and Clare Whatling have argued that it is possible, and acceptable, for queer audience members to take pleasure in the representation of queer villains in films such as Basic Instinct. As these critics note, what constitute positive representations, which audience they are being produced for and why that audience should even want them are all contentious issues. And yet this particular polemical analysis does not seem to apply to child and adolescent audiences. Indeed, what they watch - and are allowed to enjoy - remains carefully policed and much debated. It tends to be assumed, for instance, that children are susceptible to television imagery in a way that adults are not. And if the media can influence people's opinions regarding social and cultural groups, directly and/or cumulatively, then the educative potential that lies behind the representation of queer individuals cannot be ignored" (p.134) - lot of relevant points there but the first part in particular feels like it could have been written about my research project LMAO
• "Almost all televisual representations of queer teens are remarkably 'positive': their potential as role models or transmitters of politicised messages messages seems to have been recognised by liberal drama writers, service producers and television executives. It is possible to detect here the Reithian 'public service broadcasting' notion that television can serve as an educative tool to improve and inform its audiences" - to be clear such representations I'm sure do have value (especially during the 90s jesus christ) but I do thank god every day that as much as you can criticise many many many things about how Buffy portrayed queerness they did just let Willow be a little fucking freak who kind of sucks 50% of the time while still always being sympathetic (or at least clearly intended to be sympathetic. obviously people's reception may differ). Women's wrongs especially when they're gay etc. (p.134)
• "What is significant about the representation of queer teens on television is that they may provide representational examples to audiences who are unable to learn about homosexuality from more traditional sources of education" (p.134) - another statement that could be applied to asexuality/aromanticism now... at least things are a bit better in terms of education about other LGBT identies... kinda... I mean we don't have section 28 anymore so y'know. bare minimum
• "'Given this critical state of affairs,' writes Ben Gove, 'popular representations and debates hold an especially intense significance as informal methods of sex education, and as self-validation, for gay and lesbian youths'" (Ben Gove, 1996, p.179, quoted p.135)
• "One focus of the analyses of these critics in relation to the representation of queer teens - and this is connected to the desire to portray 'positive images' - is the need to avoid stereotyping" - oh hey that's my thing!! (p.135)
• "A further concern for adult critics is presented by those teen series that complicate their representation of adolescent queerness by conflating it with other variables" - uses Willow and Tara from Buffy as an example (see I wasn't just bringing up Buffy for no reason this time I knew those two would come up) because "the show connects the girls' sexuality to their status as witches" (p.135) - personally I think this is like. a bit of a weird criticism. Again, many many things you could criticise Buffy for on this front (the writer does acknowledge in the footnotes that they were unable to discuss Tara's death in this essay because it hadn't aired in the UK at the time of writing, so I'll give them a pass there) but this feels like kind of a bizarre one. Idk maybe I'm just being naive from my privileged position in 2024 when if someone were to genuinely seriously try and connect gayness with witchcraft they would probably be laughed out of town even by those who aren't particularly gay-positive and perhaps in the 90s/early 2000s when queerness was SO much more demonised this would be more of a serious concern. But at the same time it's a fantasy show, half the main cast are vampires and demons and people with magical powers, this doesn't feel like the show is making some kind of huge statement even inadvertantly. Whatevar. I do kind of get where they're coming from I don't think it's a particularly objectionable point to make but I just think it's odd.
• The other example they give that I do find a bit objectionable is that of Rickie from My So-Called Life (again) - "Arguably, by having a working-class, Hispanic, gay man as the main queer character in the show [...] homosexuality can be seen to be predominately a concern of less socially empowered and/or non-WASP cultural groups, thus marking queerness as 'other' to a presumed WASP majority" - Buddy I don't know how to tell you this but last time I checked I'm pretty sure working-class Hispanic gay people do in fact exist in real life. Like at the end of the day I don't actually care about whether or not having gay witches in a show is problematic or not because witchcraft isn't real, but this argument just feels weirdly limiting of the kind of experiences that can be portrayed. Especially since the majority of the characters mentioned in this essay seem to be white - surely if, as Davis argues, there is an important educational value to TV depictions of queerness, that means there is value to showing an audience that gay people can come from a wide range of backgrounds. That said, I think the criticism that Rickie's family "are demonised as judgmental, in favour of the understanding white folk" is more of a fair criticism. (p.135)
• Davis prasies shows like Dawson's Creek and Buffy because for how they "while recognising the 'difference' of these individuals' sexuality, attempt to make their queer characters ordinary, and their lives as everday as those of their friends (and thus contradict the arguments put forward by Allen, Kennedy and McCarthy raised earlier)" (p.135)
• Ok credit where it's due Davis does acknowledge what I thought about Rickie - "Rickie, despite the short-lived nature of the series in which he appeared, and the complications noted above which are posed by his race, can be seen to have troubled the whiteness of TV's queerness - as Gross notes, 'television's queers are as white-washed as their straight counterparts'. (Indeed, Rickie could be seen as a bold challenge to predominant stereotypes of [straight] Hispanic machismo.)" (p.135)
• Speaking of Buffy, I then read Chosen Ones: Reading the Contemporary Teen Heroine by Jenny Bavidge. Willing to admit that I only read this essay because I wanted to read about Buffy but this specific bit did make me feel a bit insane: Bavidge defines Buffy as an example of the archetype of the "Anglo-American Girl", a character who "is the embodiment of an ideal female adolescence: her defining characteristics are intelligence, independence and playfulness. Stories in which the Girl features dwell on her education or her struggles, rather than romance; she ultimately turns away from a period of adventurousness, back towards a life of domesticity". Anyway then they mentioned Louisa May Alcott's Little Women and Good Wives as "key texts in this lineage", a parallel which feels designed in a lab to make me lose my marbles. Anyway. Potentially interesting gender stuff going on there (p.42)
• Quote about the American Girl archetype: "The active, intelligent, playful, and loving tomboy, a popular conception of nineteenth-century girlhood, embodies, in part, the ideals of Real Womanhood and conduct ideology, even as she strains against their boundaries. She will become, with time and training, a capable American woman" (Lynne Vallone, 1995, p.119, quoted p.45) - ok cool guess I'm gonna feel insane about Jo March today. Probably worth noting that in most of the texts mentioned, becoming "a capable American woman" entails romance
• Another quote about the similar archetype seen in girls' magazine stories like Jackie: "The heroine 'replaces all vestiges or traces of adolescent sexuality ... with concepts of love, passion, and eternity" (Angela McRobbie, 2000, p.92, quoted p.46)
• SORRY TO BE A SAP ABOUT BTVS IN MY RESEARCH JOURNAL BUT THIS BIT GOT TO ME (I promise this is also relevant to my research somewhat I'm not completely going off course: "Although at the point of writing, we are unable to say for sure what Buffy's eventual fate will be, the fantastical metaphysics of the show demand and enable a different end for its Girl heroine than was possible for her forebears, or is likely for her contemporaries in other teen TV shows. This has been recognised by (p.49) Catherine Driscoll, who points out that Buffy 'exceeds the teen TV genre' in its parodic use of the generic 'frustrated romance' narrative: 'Buffy remains an exception to the generic convention of romance as growing up because she cannot proceed to any absorbing future domesticity. The destiny articulated for Buffy is magical and deathly rather than heteronormative bliss'" AND THEN SHE GETS TO BREAK FREE OF THAT DESTINY AND BECOME A KIND OF A NORMAL GIRL (NO LONGER THE ONE GIRL IN ALL THE WORLD BUT ONE OF MANY) WHILE ALSO ENDING THE SHOW HAPPILY SINGLE AND NOT DEFINED BY ANY OF HER RELATIONSHIPS BUT BY HER OWN GROWTH. SHE'S COOKIE DOUGH. SHE'S NOT DONE BAKING YET. SHE'S STILL GROWING UP AND HER STORY IS ONLY JUST BEGINNING. WHAT IF I CRIED FOR FIVE BILLION YEARS (p.50)
• Argues that most teen TV walks a "conservative path" - "Such narratives tend to celebrate difference and individuality, while encouraging an ultimate reconciliation with societal codes of propriety" (p.50) - seems like it could be relevant to me!
• 'We Don't Need No Education': Adolescents and the School in Contemporary Australian Teen TV by Kate Douglas and Kelly McWilliam discusses the original Heartbreak High, so I figured it would be useful context for any analysis of the more recent reboot
• Apparently Heartbreak High was "arguably the most significant Australian 'quality teen television drama' of the 1990s" (p.151)
• First fascinating fact I learned: "Heartbreak High was a spin-off from a play and, later, a successful Australian film titled The Heartbreak Kid (1993)" (p.152) - I was so stunned by this I immediately went to Wikipedia to try and confirm and got wacked in the face by this line from the film's summary: "It stars Claudia Karvan as Christina Papadopoulos, a 22-year-old Greek-Australian teacher who falls in love with her 17-year-old, soccer-obsessed student, Nick Polides, played by Alex Dimitriades. The portrayal of a sexual relationship between an underage student and a teacher would be a crime, a fact not mentioned in the film. " So. Ok. Guys idk if this is clear from me being a Buffy enjoyer but I think it's so wonderful when extremely dubious films get spun off into TV shows that end up having way more of a cultural legacy
• "Heartbreak High focused on contemporary teen issues, anticipating an empathetic target audience, and was underscored with a chic soundtrack" - all descriptions one could also make of the reboot! (p.152)
• "It became the first Australian television programme to have multiculturalism as a central theme" (p.152)
• Dealt with issues like "drug abuse, racism, violence, homophobia and poverty" as well as teen pregnancy and other "adolescent personal and social problems"(p.153)
• "In early seasons in particular, Heartbreak High also covers a range of relatively daring topics, including racism and homophobia (experienced by both students and teachers), interracial teenage romances, sexualities, drug abuse, self-supporting teens, students who financially support their families and school-related issues (such as selective versus state schools). Almost all of the adolescent characters in the early series are sexually active, which allows the programme to cover such issues as condom-vending machines in high schools, the socialisation of sexuality and teenage pregnancy" (p.154)
• Points out that Heartbreak High's portrayal of sexuality was a break from the norm of Australian soap operas that portrayed teen characters - "Heartbreak High regularly discusses casual teen sex, promiscuity and STDs. Perhaps most significantly it depicts frank dialogue about all of these issues between a range of characters, from teens to teachers" (p.155)
• "Heartbreak High, particularly in the early seasons, depicts more active, even 'taboo' sexualities - sexualities that exceed institutional discipline (medical, cultural, family or religious)" (p.156)
• "Interestingly, Australian teen TV programmes and soaps present queer sexualities in relatively similar ways. While there have been only a small number of teen queer characters - usually minor characters who do not last beyond one or two episodes - regular queer characters tend to be adults" (p.156) - ok so that's definitely something that's changed between the original and the reboot
• "In a general sense, queerness [...] was effectively removed from Heartbreak High, like the more visible elements of multiculturalism, in a bid to increase ratings" (p.156), again very clear divide between the old show and the new one
• "Heartbreak High posi- (p.156) tions itself against the white, middle-class affluence of conventional soap opera suburbs" (p.157)
• "The use of Australian ideals in characterising both Hartley High and its students serves a number of purposes. First, it displaces other markers of difference, and locates Heartbreak High teens, particularly non-Anglo teens, as 'real Aussies'. Indeed, in some ways, it rewrites national character: in Heartbreak High the 'Aussie battler' - quintessentially white, male, heterosexual and adult - is rewritten as non-Anglo, non-gender-specific, non-sexuality-specific and adolescent" (p.157) - now I don't know enough about Australian culture to comment on how this could apply to the reboot but I did find it interesting
• "The status of post-school teens as 'not-quite-adults' is fundamentally ambiguous and narratively problematic: these teens are no longer at school, but not yet marked by conventional adult institutions such as employment and marriage (the two most common narrative possibilities for late teens and early adults on fictional television" (p.160) something something chrononormativity something something
• 'So Who's Got Time for Adults!': Femininity, Consumption and the Development of Teen TV - from Gidget to Buffy by Bill Osgerby also discusses how girlhood and femininity are portrayed in teen shows, this time in terms of a history of 'teen girl' shows
• "Surveying contemporary 'girlie culture' more widely, McRobbie identifies a shift towards 'sex, having fun and enjoying a sense of freedom' - with mainstream commercial culture eschewing representations of 'ladylike' sweetness and innocence in favour of constructions of teen femininity predicated on energy, independence and pleasure" (McRobbie, 1999, p.128, 129, quoted p.71)
• "The earlier 'teen girl' shows, especially, could be interpreted as offering representations of femininity that were passive, conformist and subordinate through their emphasis on the importance of (p.75) 'winning a man' and their depiction of a woman's place as being 'in the home'." (p.76)
• "Girls' integration into the world of heterosexual relations was a recurring theme, with the young protagonists habitually presented as boy-obsessed and desperately anxious about their appearance." (p.76)
• On the other hand... "as in many of the 1960s 'teen girl' sitcoms, same-sex friendship was a central theme in Patty Duke. This was partly a strategy through which the programme-makers could avoid dealing with the still relatively taboo subject of girls' sexuality - emphasis on characters' friendships with female friends displacing the potenitally risqué subject of relationships with boys. Nevertheless, the consequence was that the narrative ultimately expelled male figures 'in order to underline the importance and pleasure of female bonding" (p.76, quotes Moya Luckett, 1997, p.101)
• Mentions the "oppressive 'code of romance'" - pretty sure this is a McRobbie thing? (p.77)
• By the 90s, there were some big changes in 'teen girl' TV: "Political struggles around gender and ethnicity had left their mark, so that much greater cultural and ethnic diversity was apparent. Young African-American women, for example, were central characters in sitcoms [...] Teenage girls' sexuality, meanwhile, was still treated with caution but was much less taboo" (p.83)

I also briefly looked at the essay Lost in Transition: From Post-Network to Post-Television by Roberta Pearson in Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond edited by Janet McCabe and Kim Akass (2014). I mostly just read it because I am (regrettably) a Lost fan, but it did contain this great quote about the then-current TV landscape, which I think applies even more today: • “Says Spigel, ‘If TV refers to technologies, industrial formations, government policies, and practices of looking that were associated with the medium in its classical public service and three-network age, it appears that we are now entering a new phase of television – the phase that comes after TV’ (2004: 3)” (Spigel, Television After TV, quoted p. 239)

In addition to all this wonderful TV studies stuff, I also spent this week reading all the academic articles about aromanticism I obtained from Phil, which have been great for beefing up my sources on aromanticism in particular.

Notes from Sexuality, Sexual Behavior, and Relationships of Asexual Individuals: Differences Between Aromantic and Romantic Orientation by Ana Catarina Carvalho and David L. Rodrigues:

• "Asexuality is a complex construct with a considerable lack of research until recently" AND DON'T I KNOW IT (p.2159)
• Summary of findings: "Results showed that aromantic asexual individuals identified more with asexuality, reported a more avoidant attachment style, and were more concerned with relationship commitment. In contrast, romantic aseuxal individuals reported less sex aversion, more sexual experiences (both past and current), and more sexual partners in the past. These individuals also engaged in romantic relationships more frequently in the past, had a stronger desire to engage in a romantic relationship in future (either with or without sexual intimacy), and were more concerned with sexual performance" (p.2159)
• "There has been an increased interest in the study of asexuality over the last 15+ years, along with a change from a pathological to a more affirming perspective [...] This change is arguably linked with the increase presence of asexuality in online communities, such as the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), and the inclusion of asexual characters in mainstream media (e.g. BoJack Horseman TV show). Despite this growing visibility, a nationally representative poll by Sky Data showed that 53% of British adults were confident they could define asexuality, but 75% were unable to explain what asexuality is or did not know that some asexual individuals experience sex drive" (p.2159)
• "Asexuality was orignially defined by AVEN as the absence of sexual attraction to others [...] However, this definition does not exhaustively ocver prevalent attitudes and orientations within the community [...] Some asexual individuals identify as graysexual and experience low levels of sexual attraction, and others identify as demisexual and experience sexual attraction as a result of an emotional connection with others" (p.2159)
• "Available research showed that romantic asexual individuals are more interested in finding a romantic partners than aromantic asexual individuals" (p.2159) no fucking way dude
• "Asexual individuals vary in their perceptions and behaviors toward sexuality and have different perspectives on sexual behavior and relationships" (p.2160)
• "Asexual individuals can consider certain aspects of a relationship as desirable (e.g., closeness, companionship) and strive to establish emotional intimacy with others [...] some asexual individuals have indicated to consider love and sex as incompatible, and that sexual involvement diminishes feelings toward the partner" (p.2160)
• "Some romantic asexual individuals are more willing to engage in sexual activities to satisfy the desires of non-asexual partners" (p.2160)
• "Studies suggest that up to 79% of asexual individuals experience romantic attraction [...] up to 22% are in romantic relationships [...] and up to 43% have engaged in dyadic sexual activity in the past" (p.2160)
• "Asexual individuals who are aromantic tend to establish emotionally intimate relationships wihtout romantic or physical intimacy (e.g. friendship-like relationships [...]). Arguably, then, they can have more negative attitudes toward sex and even be troubled by the idea of having sex (i.e., be more sex-averse ]...]). In contrast, romantic asexual individuals have no interest in sexual intimacy [...] and do not typically initiate sexual behavior [...] However, they can have interest in physical intimacy and desire a romantic relationship" (p.2160)
• "For example, Brotto et al. (2010) suggested that asexuality can be related to avoidant attachment style, given that these individuals are uncomfortable with romantic relationships" KILL BILL SIRENS GOING OFF IN MY BRAIN LOL. this is starting to feel like it may stray into pathologising a lil bit (p.2160)
• "In the absence of both dimensions [anxiety or avoidance], individuals have a secure attachment style and high-quality romantic relationships" (p.2161) Don't really like that this system seems entirely based on romantic relationships. Again feels like a risk of pathologising aromanticism
• "Because asexual individuals scored higher on the social withdrawal and inhibition personality traits, Brotto et al. (2010) argued that they may develop an avoidant attachment style during their childhood, leading them to be insecure and have difficulties developing or sustaining romantic relationships" YEAH THE KILL BILL SIRENS WERE CORRECT. ANY TIME SOMEONE STARTS TRYING TO FIND A REASON FOR PEOPLE'S SEXUALITIES IT'S NEVER GOING ANYWHERE GOOD LMAO (p.2161)
• "Research has shown considerable variability in the way asexual individuals perceive and behave in romantic relationships. Some authors acknowledge romantic orientation as an important part of the identity within the asexual community [...] However, little research has focused on this distinction" (beating my head against a wall) I'M AWARE (p.2161)
• "Even though both aromantic and romantic asexual individuals desire emotional intimacy with other people [...] aromantic asexual individuals are not interested in romantic relationships nor physical intimate activity" (p.2161)
• "Romantic asexual individuals are more likely to have romantically intimate relationships and may be more open to the possibility of having sexual activity" (p.2161)
• REALLY interesting gender point: "Aromantic asexual individuals were more likely to be agender or questioning their gender identity" (p.2162)
• On that note, the trans vs nonbinary stats were interesting: of the aromantic participants, none were binary transgender, 5.2% were nonbinary, 12.4% were agender, 4.1% were questioning, and 6.2% were 'other'. Of the romantic participants, 0.7% were binary trans, 6% were nonbinary, 1.8% were agender, none were questioning, and 2.8% were 'other' (p.2162)
• The study "defined 'significant relationship' as an intimate relationship with another person besides family or close friends. These could include, but were not restricted to, marriages, domestic partnerships, boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, or other" (p.2162)
• "Aromantic asexual individuals scored higher on the AIS [Asexual Identification Scale] compared to romantic asexual individuals" (p.2163)
• "Results showed that romantic (vs. aromantic) asexual individuals were less sex averse [...] had more sexual experiences [...] and more sexual partners in the past [...] and engaged more often in romantic relationships in the past" (p.2163)
• "Romantic asexual individuals were also more likely to be sexually active" (p.2163)
• "Romantic (vs. aromantic) asexual individuals indicated greater concerns with sexual performance in a romantic relationship [...] Against our hypothesis [...], however, aromantic (vs. romantic) asexual individuals indicated greater commitment concerns" (p.2164)
• "Aromantic asexual individuals scored higher on avoidant attachment style" and there were "higher scores in avoidant (vs. anxious) attachment for both aromantic [...] and romantic asexual participants" (p.2164)
• "Assuming that aromantic asexual individuals experience sexual and romantic attraction to a lesser extent and are less interested in close affectionate attachments [...] they may be more detached from conventional social norms regarding sexuality and romantic relationships, and have greater identification with the construct of asexuality" (p.2165) I would like to point out that this notably doesn't take into account the existence/experiences of non-ace aros
• "Our findings suggest that the idea and actual practice of sexual activities are less problematic for romantic asexual individuals, converging with past research showing that asexual individuals differ in their reactions to sexual activities (Carrigan, 2011), and that these individuals can sometimes engage in sexual activity for specific reasons (e.g., pleasing their partner, curiosity, social expectations) (p.2165)
• However, acknowledges that "this greater openness to, and practice of, sexual activity by romantic asexual individuals is still rather infrequent, but less so when compared to aromantic asexual individuals" (p.2165)
• "Aromantic (vs. romantic) asexual individuals indicated greater concerns about commitment. Aromantic asexual individuals establish aromantic relationships with significant others (e.g., queerplatonic relationships) [...] Hence, our findings may be explained by a lack of support and visibility of aromantic (p.2165) relationships. Society tends to value romantic above non-romantic relationships and considers sexual behaviors as a fundamental aspect of those relationships" (p.2166)
• "Aromantic asexual indivdiuals seem to to keep some distance from their romantic partners when compared to romantic asexual individuals" again. shocking. (p.2166)

Notes from Aromanticism, asexuality, and relationship (non-)formation: How a-spec singles challenge romantic norms and reimagine family life by Hannah Tessler:

• Summary of findings: "Alloromantic (non-aromantic) asexual singles are most likely to express interest in romantic relationships, followed by aromantic allosexual (non-asexual) singles, whereas aromantic asexual singles showed little interest in romantic relationships" AROALLO MENTION RAHHHHHH, also the first article I've read that uses the term 'allo'!! Thank GOD I really need a precedent for using that so I don't have to write out 'non-asexual' and 'non-aromantic' a billion times in my thesis (p.1)
• "Aromantic and asexual spectrum interviewees (1) subvert expectations for normative sexual and romantic partnership, (2) untangle notions of sex, romance, and family, and (3) reimagine relationship and kinship to form their own intimacies" (p.1)
• "In recent years, there has been increased visibility on diverse sexual identities, including a rise in the study of asexual spectrum identities" (p.1)
• "The first scholarly mention of aromanticism was a study on asexuality, where the researcher described being aromantic as 'another dimension of asexuality' and noted, 'I did not know to include questions regarding romantic identity, however, as this data suggests, this theme emerged as important for many participants (Scherrer, 2008:633).' Sexual attraction and romantic attraction often get conflated, but desire for sex and desire for romance can exist independently. Thus, the aromantic is distinct from the asexual spectrum, and romantic orientation is separate from sexual orientation" (p.2)
• "Estimates suggest that 1%-3% of adults identify as asexual [...] but the percentage of individuals who identify as aromantic remains largely unknown, due in part to the fact that existing empirical studies that measure aromanticism are all based on asexual samples" - the state of the nation dear lord (p.2)
• Uses "the commonly used abbreviation 'a-spec'" to describe the ace and aro spectrums (p.2)
• "There has been a significant increase in relationship options available to individuals who do not fit into the marrie and nuclear family ideal [...] relationship structures such as chosen family, queerplatonic partnership, and relationship anarchy" (p.2)
• "Romantic attraction (distinct from sexual attraction) can be defined by physiological responses such as 'butterflies in the stomach' or the idea that 'I can't get them out of my mind,' but can also be defined using cultural scripts such as wanting to go on a date with someone or envisioning a future married life with that person. The same behavior, such as wanting to hold hands or going to the movies one-on-one together, can be interpreted as a romantic or platonic gesture depending on the context" (p.2)
• "Normative expectations around union formation presume that the transition from single to partnered includes forming a sexual and romantic relationship with another person [...] deviation from the marriage and nuclear family pathway is often stigmatized and pathologized" (p.2)
• "I argue that the increased visibility of and identification with asexual and aromantic spectrum identities has led to a further expansion of the relationship options, where intimate relationships involve disentangling and potentially excluding sex or romance" (p.2)
• "Researchers have observed how children as young as preschool and early elementary school enact and [SIC?] heterosexual scripts around sex and romance, where girls are positioned as passive targets and objectified through both physical touching and 'crushes'" (p.3)
• "Remaining single (i.e., not in a committed romantic partnership) historically has been a marginalized position, while heteronormativity privileges couple relationships by offering social, economic, and symbolic benefits" (p.3)
• "Asexuality is a term that generally refers to people who experience low to no sexual attraction. Aromanticism, which is less widely known than asexuality, is most commonly used to describe people who experience low to no romantic attraction. The term allosexual refers to people who are not asexual, while the term alloromantic refers to people who are not aromantic" (p.3)
• "While some individuals identify as both aromantic and asexual, others identify as aromantic but not asexual (allosexual), or asexual but not aromantic (alloromantic). These people have different experiences of sexual and romantic attraction, which is referred to as 'differentiated attraction' (Winer et al., 2022)" (p.3)
• "In recent decades, tehre has been an increased representation and consumption of sex, and sexuality has taken a more central role in the public sphere [...] However, not everyone is equally interested in pursuing partnered sex or building relationships and kinship networks based on sexual ties. Asexual identity and the asexual spectrum challenges the concept of compulsory sexuality, the idea that everyone desires sex" (p.3)
• "While asexuality falls under the LGBTQIA spectrum, the experiences of asexuals have often been marginalized and stigmatized based on norms that sexual desire is normal" (p.3)
• "Many asexual people only learn about asexuality later in life, and therefore navigate complex sexual identify formation process" (p.3)
• "Research on asexuality has been limited until recent years, but evidence suggests asexuals have a range of preferences in terms of their desires for romantic and/or partnered relationships. Prior studies in the field of asexuality studies have found that the majority of asexual respondents were interested in romantic relationships despite their lack of interest in sex" (p.4)
• "Aromantic asexual participants expressed low desire for romantic partnership" (p.4)
• "Some evidence suggests that while alloromantic asexuals desire partnered relationships with children, aromantic asexuals do not" I think one of the other studies I looked at disputed this but whatevar (p.4)
• "Romantic identiy is separate from sexual identity [...] while an aromantic person may not have a crush on or want to date someone, they may still experience sexual attraction [...] People who identify as aromantic have a range of experiences in terms of romantic relationship and sexual activities" (p.4)
• "Asexual identities make explicit a romantic dimension of asexuality as distinct from an asexual identity based on lack of sexual desire" (Scherrer, 2008:636, quoted p.4)
• "Recent scholarship focuses on aromantic identity as not only subset of asexual identity, but instead as a separate parallel identity spectrum" (p.4)
• "I argue that the fact that aromanticism and interest in romantic partnerships first appeared in a study of asexuality is significant because this highlights how romantic behavior is inherently linked with sexual behavior. In addition, many people learn about sexual and romantic orientation on the internet, and learning about asexuality is one way that people learn about aromanticism" (p.4)
• ANTONSEN CALLOUT LMAO: "Unfortunately, some of the limited research that does exist on aromantic populations reinforce stereotypes of aromantic people as cold and unfeeling (Antonsen et al., 2020)" (p.4)
• "In the 15 years since Scherrer's (2008) study was first published, aromanticism research has been limited to aromantic individuals as a subset of an asexual sample [...] none of these existing studies include aromantic (p.4) allosexual perspectives" (p.5)
• "Aromantic allosexuals, that is, aromantic individuals who do experience sexual attraction, must navigate how to engage in sexual relationships outside of traditional (monogamous) romantic relationships" (p.5)
• "Aromanticism also describes people whose experience of romance is disconnected from normative societal expectations. Aromantics may choose to build their life around friendships and may not be interested in a long-term cohabitating, monogamous romantic partnership. Detaching sex and romance from relationships helps people think more deliberately and allows for the potential for nonromantic kinship and care networks" (p.5)
• "There may be distinct gendered penalties for violating norms around romantic partnership, particularly for aromantic women, as she found that asexual aromantic women may face greater marginalization than their asexual alloromantic counterparts. This parallels the gendered stigma on single women for not sufficiently prioritizing finding a romantic partner" (p.5)
• "Amatonormativity is a term that describes the presumed superiority of and desire for romantic relationships above other types of love and caring relationships [...] One assumption of amatonormativity is that intimacy, care, and kinship will be cultivated within the context of a monogamous romantic partnership [...] The nuclear family norm is built on a heterosexual, long-term, sexually monogamous, romantic partnership" (p.5)
• "Not all relationships fit neatly into the boundaries of sexual and non-sexula, and while intimate relationships often get classified as romantic, these categories may not be adequate to understand the complexity of different realtionships" (p.5)
• "Non-heterosexual older adults rely on broader forms of support and care in later life compared to their heterosexual counterparts, who are more likely to rely on nuclear family or family of origin ties [...] Rather than 'having no family,' LGBT+ older adults rely on (p.5) creative approaches for caregiving and end-of-life planning beyond the heteronormative social and legal structures" (p.6)
• Study used a "flexible coding approach" to analyse interviews: "I developed index codes through open coding of the interviews by subgroup. I used an abductive theoretical approach to develop my thematic analysis [...] I applied analytic codes based on themes that emerged from the data" (p.7) - possible approaches to look at
• "In the 2020 Aromantic Census, 45% of sample respondents identified as both aromantic and asexual, while 55% of respondents identified as allosexual [...] compared to aromantic asexual participants, the percentage of aromantic allosexual respondents who were not interested in a romantic relationship was significantly lower (66% vs 53%" (p.7)
• "Aromantic individuals who experience sexual attraction and perhaps want to have a sexual partner may be more interested in romantic partnership" (p.7)
• "In the 2020 Asexual Community Survey, 34% of sample respondents identified as both aromantic and asexual, while 66% of respondents identified as alloromantic" (p.7)
• Interesting gender stats: 52% of respondents to the 2020 Aromantic Census identified their gender as 'Other', as did 37% of respondents to the 2020 Asexual Community Survey - v high compared to general population! (p.8)
• "Overall aromantic survey respondents were less interested in partnership than asexual survey respondents. Aromantic asexual respondents were least likely to report interest in romantic partnership, followed by aromantic allosexual respondents, whereas alloromantic asexual respondents were most likely to report interest in a partnership [...] Aromantic asexual respondents demonstrate reduced preference for partnership comapred to their respectvie mixed identity (aromantic allosexual and alloromantic asexual) counterparts" (p.9)
• "While women were most likely to identify as asexual only (alloromantic asexual), respondents who identified beyond the gender binary were most likely to identify as aromantic only (aromantic allosexual)" (p.9)
• "Approximately two-thirds of asexual survey respondents in the 2020 Asexual Community Survey identify as alloromantic (i.e., asexual but not aromantic), while over half of aromantic survey respondents in the 2020 Aromantic Census identify as allosexual (i.e., aromantic but not asexual). This suggests that there may be less overlap to aromantic and asexual identities than previous research would suggest, as prior studies have considered aromantic respondents only as a subset of an asexual sample" (p.9)
• In Tessler's study, "Alloromantic asexual respondents were most likely to express normative romantic relationship and family desires compared to all aromantic participants" (p.10)
• "Seventy-five percent of the interview sample alluded to heterosexual assumptions of marriage and nuclear family being present in their lives growing up, including their own childhood assumptions [...] Some examples of heteronormative assumptions include comments such as 'when you get married,' or 'when you have kids' rather than 'if you get married...' and this was particularly salient for singles who grew up in religious families" (p.12)
• "Interview respondents described thinking marriage and children were 'inevitable', 'assumed', 'by default,' and as something they were 'supposed to' or 'eventually' would do" (p.12)
• "Romantic love, marriage, and nuclear family were often presented together as a set of expectations, without further consideration of compatibility on shared values or goals, or discussion of desires around sex and romance" (p.12)
• "Even outside of religious upbringings, there is often an assumption that 'growing up' involved getting married and having children" (p.13)
• Aro allo respondents "found it frustrating to be aromantic but not asexual, because dating norms often assume potential relationship progression from casual dates (and sex) to commitment and marriage" (p.14)
• Interviewees "challenged definitions of romantic and platonic relationships" (p.14)
• "Identifying as aromantic allowed them to unpack the norms and boundaries that exist in traditional romantic relationships. Here, physical non-sexual intimacy, shared leisure trips, purchasing housing, childrearing, combining finances, and joint life decision-making are all examples of activities that are typically reserved for romantic (p.14) couples. In addition, some aromantic allosexual participants regarded sex and/or sexual intimacy as possible within friendships or other non-romantic relationships. These examples resemble the logic of relationship anarchy, where individuals negotiate their relationships based on terms they agreee on rather than predefined relationship categories such as 'romantic relationship'" (p.15)
• "Aromantic asexual interviewees were most likely to allude to wanting a QPR, while alloromantic asexual interviewees were least likely to express desire for a QPR. In addition, it is important to note that some aromantic individuals stated they did not want any type of partnership and described a close friend group or found family as their ideal relationship structure" (p.17)
• "Other aromantic allosexual participants echoed Tyler's experience in that they also had to unpack their desires around sex, intimacy, and reproduction in ways that subvert traditional narratives of marriage and nuclear family formation [...] For example, Sandra, Rowan, and Steve, three other aromantic allosexual interviewees, all identified as polyamorous but do not want to build their futures around a central committed romantic relationship" (p.18)
• "Research on asexuality and aromanticism is still in its nascent stages, with few empirical studies on aromantic populations. In the existing studies, aromantic individuals are taken as a subsample of a larger asexual sample, therefore, there is no data on allosexual aromantic individuals" (p.19)
• "Although there has been increased visibility on a diversity of family forms and relationship options, romantic relationships, marriage, and nuclear family are still idealized and treated as normative and aspirational" (p.19)

Notes from The investment model of commitment: examining asexual and aromantic populations using confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis by Lijing Ma, Hailey A. Hatch and Eddie M. Clark

• Interesting tidbit: "Many asexual and aromantic individuals practice non-monogamous relationships" (p.38)
• "Asexual and aromantic individuals do not experience sexual or romantic attraction, respectivel; however, some of them are in romantic relationships. Individuals who do not experience romantic attraction can still be in romantic relationships for different reasons (e.g. long-term companionship)" (p.38)
• "Asexuality can be defined as a lack of sexual attraction [...] The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) also proides a definition of asexuality, which is 'someone who does not (p.38) experience sexual attraction or an intrinsic desire to have sexual relationships'" (p.39) - I do really like the use of the word 'intrinsic' there, I think it's a good way of thinking about ace people's attitudes towards sex
• Others argue that "the definition of asexuality should be based on self-identification; therefore, tehy define an asexual person as 'a person who describes himself or herself [themselves] as asexual'." (p.39)
• "Approximately 1% of individuals in North American and European nations identify as asexual, with estimates ranging from 0.4% to 3.3%" (p.39)
• "Although asexuality may have once been confused with sexual disorders, researchers have investigated the difference between asexuality and symptoms of Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder and suggested that they are different" - god I'm too far deep in this rabbit hole for this. Can we please get more radical about this? Throw the whole diagnosis out fr (p.39)
• Also mentions "grey areas" of asexuality: "Graysexual (also known as grey-asexual) describes someone who may experience some sexual attraction under certain circumstances", "Demisexual individuals, who report that they do not experience sexual attraction towards someone unless a strong affectionate bond has first been established" (p.39)
• "Similarly to asexuality, the level of romantic attractoin among aromantic individuals can vary; however, broadly, aromantic individuals do not experience romantic attraction nor have romantic desire towards other individuals [...] aromantic can also describe someone whose romantic experience is different from societal expectations due to a lack of interest in or feeling repulsed by romantic relationships" (p.39)
• "In the 2019 Asexual Community Survey Summary Report, 40% of asexual individuals also identified themselves as aromantic" while "Antonsen et al. (2020) found that 26% of their asexual participants also identified as aromantic. Although there may be an overlap between individuals who identify as asexual and aromantic, sexual orientation and romantic orientation are different; therefore, individuals who identify as aromantic do not necessarily identify themselves as asexual. Further, aromantic people can have any type of sexual orientation" (p.39)
• Mentions a study by Antonsen which found that "Aromantic asexual individuals were colder, (p.39) less nurturant, and less intrusive (e.g. less likely to open up to people too much) than romantic asexual individuals" which is just.... SORRY???? This Antonsen paper is on my list of papers to read so guess I'll be finding out where the FUCK they're getting that info but not looking forward to it (p.40)
• A study using the Investment Model of Relationships for "both romantic relationships and friendships [...] found that for both types of relationships, asexual individuals had lower satisfaction, investment, and commitment; however, they (p.40) had a higher quality of alternatives compared to allosexual individuals" (p.41)
• Mentions some possible explanations for the discrepancy between ace and aro participants and non-ace/aro participants: "A possible explanation is that asexual and aromantic individuals may have a different understanding of the concept of commitment compared to allosexual and alloromantic populations. Perhaps they do not distinguish between satisfaction and commitment", alternatively, "because only half of the participants practiced monogamous relationships, it could also be that people who practiced non-monogamous relationships may view commitment differently" - In my non-professional opinion, I have to say the second option feels a lot more likely. Frankly it feels like the researchers fucked themselves a little for not controlling for the fact that half their participants were practicing a completely different type of relationship to the other half. idk why you wouldn't do that in a study about people's relationships (p.48)
• Mentions that "the sample size was too small to conduct an EFA only for participants who practiced non-monogamous relationships", which I guess is why they didn't control for that? (p.49)

Overall, the findings of this paper seem a bit limited, the authors acknowledge the limitations of their small sample size, and I feel like the difference between monogamous vs non-monogamous participants would make it hard to draw strong conclusions. It was useful to get at least some data on the prevalence of non-monogamy among a-spec people, though (even if, again, the small sample size means these numbers are a bit dubious)!

Notes from The stability of singlehood: Limitations of the relationship status paradigm and a new theoretical framework for reimagining singlehood by Hannah Tessler:

• Main argument is that "The term single is limited as it is defined as the absence of a romantic partner, which places one's relationship status within a binary, assumes availability for romantic partnership, and implies single is a transitory state preceding union formation" (p.444)
• "The implications associated with the term single do not represent the experiences of all singles" (p.444)
• "The conventional couple is a well-defined construct that functions as a composite of romantic, sexual, economic, and platonic relationships, and its longevity, exclusivity, and superiority over other types of relationships is assumed" (p.444)
• "To be single, however, is to be stigmatized and stereotyped as dysfunctional, as is the case particularly for single Black women with the trope of the welfare queen (Moorman, 2020). Single women often face intense pressure and stigma for not fitting into gendered expectations of marriage and motherhood as the pathway to adulthood" (p.445) It's kind of surprising how much the welfare queen keeps haunting my research, as I suppose she does the western popular consciousness. I guess you don't realise how pervasive the trope is unless you're actively looking into it
• "In contrast, the conventional couple assumes that one person will meet all their partner's needs, and language like 'soulmate' and 'other half' reinforce this" (p.445)
• References the construction of the "Standard North American Family (henceforth SNAF)" - "The SNAF is defined as a first marriage nuclear family with shared children and is positioned as natural and normal even though this has never been the modal family form. Family scienc has historically conceptualized theories emphasizing the White, middle class SNAF as the ideal and superior family (Walsdorf et al., 2020), while neglecting to acknowledge, and sometimes pathologizing, other forms of family arrangements, such as single parent families, extended families, and LGBT+ families" (p.445)
• "There are four mechanisms that the term 'single' operates on. First, being single is defined as the absence of a romantic relationship and implies being kinless and alone. Second, there is a binary between being single and being partnered that does not fully capture (p.445) relationship possibilities beyond these broad relationship statuses, as singles can be in relationships without being partnered. Third, the term single implies availability for a romantic relationship, but not all singles are available as potential partners. Finally, the relationship status of single is treated as a transitory state with the goal of futrue romantic partnership, but romance is not aspirational for everyone" (p.446)
• Some good stats: "According to the General Society Survey, 35% of Americans have no steady partner, a record high", "35% of never-married single adults have never been in a committed romantic relationship", "data also show that 67% of singles who have never been in a relationship are not interested in going on dates or starting a romantic relationship" (p.446)
• "The term single is limited as it is typically used to describe the absence of a romantic relationship and is often interpreted as being alone [...] An individual who is single is concurrently not in a relationship, not partnered, not couped, not married, and not a family [...] Many people regard the absence of a romantic relationship as a a negative, particularly in relation to the normative life course trajectory" (p.447)
• "The perception of singlehood as absence relies on stereotypes about singlehood and the concept of single as a 'nonidentity.'" (p.447)
• Discusses singlism: "Singlism leads to, and reflects, the belief that a romantic partnership leads to a happier, more adjusted, and more fulfilling life than singlehood (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). In one survey, some respondents evaluate singles as more lonely, more miserable, and less sociable than someone in a romantic relationship (Slonim et al., 2015). Being single as a 'nonidentity' also implies that an individual needs to be in a romantic relationship before being given a legitimate identity such as girlfriend, wife, partner, or spouse. In the same way that asexuality is (p.447) marked as a nonidentiy and nonevent, singlehood is a relational nonidentity based not on what one is but on what one is not" (p.448)
• "The interpretation of single as absence also positions singlehood as a 'deficit identity', defined in terms of lack (Reynolds & Taylor, 2005). Being single is regarded as deficit or lacking particularly for women" (p.448)
• "Single women face more pressure to conform to norms of romantic partnership, marriage, and nuclear family formation compared with single men [...] In one study, interviews with White middle class single women reveal that these women felt intense pressure to conform to the SNAF ideal (Sharp & Ganong, 2011). Women who remain unmarried are seen as incomplete, and the greatest accomplishment for which women are celebrated is often getting engaged or married" (p.448)
• "While some studies suggest being partnered is associated with better health, financial, and subjective well-being outcomes [...] recent evidence suggests that relationship status itself does not predict subjective well-being or life satisfaction" (p.448)
• "The term 'single' does not provide recognition of nonromantic relationships that may serve similar functions as a romantic partner such as companionship, emotional support, caregiving, and other forms of (p.448) intimacy" (p.449)
• "Being single gets conflated with being available and receptive to being (p.449) asked out on a date or starting a romantic relationship. Singles who describe themselves as uninterested in being in a romantic relationship are often met with hostile reactions or offers to set them up on a date [...] The term single implicitly places the individual within a dating and marriage market framework, even if they have no intent to start a romantic relationship or get married. An individual is 'single' until they enter a romantic relationship and their relationship status changes to 'taken'." (p.450)
• "Surveys of singles have consistently shown that over half of singles are not looking for a romantic partner [...] Pew Research Center data suggest that among single adults who are not in a committed relationship, less than 20% are looking for a romantic partner" (p.450)
• Also perhaps off-topic but one nuance that isn't brought up here is that just like not all single people are available, not partnered people are inherently unavailable e.g. polyamorous people
• "Through socialization processes across generations, marriage has been regarded 'not only a desirable state, but also the only natural one' (Stein, 1975, p.496). The 'ideology of marriage and family' refers to the unquestioned belief that everyone wants to and eventually will get married (DePaulo & Morris, 2005; Sharp & Ganong, 2011)" (p.450)
• "Those who remain 'ever single' are perceived as a failure or as undesirable" (p.450)
• BRAKE MENTION "Amatonormativity is a term coined by Elizabeth Brake that describes the presumed superiority of and desire for long-term, monogamous, romantic partnership above other types of love and (p.450) caring relationships" (p.451)
• "The idea of being single as a phase rather than a permanent state is linked to amatonormativity because in both social and legal contexts, single is not affirmed as an end goal; rather singles are expected to seek romantic partnership and settle into family life" (p.451)
• "The phrase, 'she hasn't found the one... yet' is an example of an amatonormative statement (Brake, 2012), as it assumes that romantic partnership is aspirational. The implied sentiment is first, that the single is 'looking' for 'the one' and second, that hopefully the single will be able to 'find the one' and transition into partnered life" (p.451)
• "There are numerous other ways of conceptualizing singlehood that are already in use, however these terms largely reflect singlehood that is desired and chosen. Bella DePaulo has coined the term 'single at heart' to describe an approach to living life that de-centers romantic partnership and allows singles to live their most authentic lives", also mentions "'solo' rather than single. 'Solo - the single person's guide to a remarkable life' is a podcast and online community for the unapologetically unattached [...] The Today Show describes Solo as a new movement that embraces being 'solo' in adulthood and feeling empowered as a way of changing the stigma of not having a romantic partner (Shriver, 2022) [...] Eric Klinenberg defines solohood as separate from singelhood, and points to the need for new housing arrangements in order to accommodate singles and particularly aging singles [...] Emma Watson famously used the term self-partnered, and sologamists have self-weddings for their self-marriage. There is even an online group of people who call themselves quirkyalones" I would like the record to show that people shit on Emma Watson for that and WHY it was CUTE fuck this stupid world (p.451)
• "Asexuality is a sexual orientation that is characterized by experiencing little to no sexual attraction to others regardless of gender, and someone who is asexual does not experience sexual desire in the same way as allosexuals (non-asexuals). Aromanticism is a romantic (p.452) orientation that is typically defined as experiencing little to no romantic attraction or romantic desire, though individual definitions of romance can differ [...] while some people identify as both aromantic and asexual, others identify as aromantic and heterosexual, bisexual, or gay [...] while an aromantic person may not have a crush on or want to date someone, they may still experience sexual attraction. Some people who identify as asexual also identify as aromantic, while other asexual people experience romantic attraction and may desire a nonsexual romantic realtionship [...] Aromantics and some asexuals are often closed to the possibility of a romantic relationship" (p.453)
• "For stable singles, being single can mean autonomy, including freedom to spend one's time as they wish, independence, and self-sufficiency. This autonomy emerges as a trade-off to the commitment and companionship of being coupled [...] For some individuals who are willing to make this compromise, being single can be empowering, particularly for those who value these characteristics (Simpson, 2016). Stable singlehood can also mean participating more in larger community than one dyadic relationship, as many singles are surrounded by and care about their families, friends, and community members [...] Singles can choose what they want to put their energy into, whether it is relationships, career, hobbies, or anything else" (p.454)
• "Many singles prefer being single to being in a romantic relationship based on their perceived benefits and costs" (p.456)
• "People who identify as aromantic and/or asexual have a range of experiences with intimate relationships, but some aromantic and asexual singles express lower desire for romance and sex and are less open to romantic relationships than people who do not identify with these orientations [...] Aromantic singles may choose to build their life around friendships and may not be interested in a long-term, cohabiting, monogamous romantic partnership (Scherrer, 2008). Some aromantic individuals also identify as nonpartnering, which (p.456) describes a person who does not wish to form a significant partnersship with others [...] some people who identify as aromantic can exist outside of conventional measures of relationship status entirely" (p.457)
• "Representations of single women in pop culture show how singlehood is temporally celebrated for young women but ultimately pathologized as deviant from heteronormative romantic and nuclear family desires" (p.458)
• "There are currently over a 1000 [SIC] benefits that married couples have compared with single counterparts (DePaulo, 2006). Singles are treated differently in housing, work, and healthcare in ways that are legally admissible, such as being denied a rental contract for living with a friend or not being able to take time off work for illnesss or bereavement of a friend [...] Current housing policy often restricts the possibilities for living arrangements beyond the single-family home designed for the nuclear family (Wilkinson, 2014). Some researchers have already proposed social policy changes in terms of accommodating living arrangements and family formation outside of a romantic couple" (p.460)

Notes from the infamous Ace and Aro: Understanding Differences in Romantic Attractions Among Persons Identifying as Asexual by Amy N. Antonsen, Bozena Zdaniuk, Morag Yule, and Lori A. Brotto:

• "First characterized by Kinsey in 1948, asexuality can be broadly defined as an absence of sexual attraction, with approximately 1% of the population identifying as asexual. While asexuality research has flourished recently, very few papers have investigated the unique mechanism of romantic attraction in asexual people, notably that some experience romantic attraction (romantic asexual) while others do not (aromantic asexual)." - HATE the implication that only asexual people can be aromantic. Maybe I wouldn't be complaining a few days ago but Hannah has officially spoiled me. I throw your article into traffic 12 motorbikes run it over at once and 500 bears attack you (p.1)
• Stats and stuff: "After combining data from seven previous asexuality studies (n = 4032 total), we found that 74.0% of asexual people reported experiencing romantic attraction. No significant difference was found in distribution of men and women between the aromantic and romantic asexual groups, though the asexual group showed higher proportions of women and non-binary genders compared to the allosexual comparison group. Romantic asexual participants reported a diverse range of romantic orientations, with only 36.0% reporting a heteroromantic orientation, compared to 76.2% of allosexual participants. As predicted, romantic asexual individuals were more likely to have been in a relationship when completing the survey, reported more past romantic and sexual partners and more frequent kissing than aromantic asexual people, and experienced more partner-oriented sexual desire than the aromantic asexual group." (p.1)
• "There were also differences in personality as romantic asexual people were less cold, more nurturant, and more intrusive than the aromantic asexual group." AMY BABY WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. AMY!! AMY YOU'RE FALLING INTO STEREOTYPES AMY NOOOOOOOOO (p.1)
• "No difference was seen between romantic and aromantic asexual individuals in demographic characteristics, likelihood of having children, solitary sexual desire, physiological sexual functioning, frequencies of masturbation and sexual fantasy, or depression. (p.1)"
• "Asexuality is broadly defined as a lack of sexual attraction to anyone or a disinterest of being sexual with others" (p.1)
• "First characterized by Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) as “group X,” it garnered little academic attention until Bogaert’s (2004) analysis within a national probability sample." (p.1)
• "Bogaert’s (2004) survey found asexual individuals to be of shorter stature, lighter weight, and poorer health status than allosexual people, that asexual, [SIC] people were less likely to be Caucasian, reported lower levels of education and socioeconomic status compared to allosexual individuals, and that asexual people reported a later age of menarche. Many studies have reported that women were more likely to identify as asexual than men (e.g., Bogaert, 2004; Zheng & Su, 2018), and trans and non-binary genders have also been observed to be more prevalent in asexual people, with up to 24.6% of asexual individuals reporting a gender other than what they were assigned at birth (Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010; Gazzola & Morrison, 2012; Ginoza, Miller, & AVEN Survey Team, 2014)." ok sorry "asexual people are shorter than allosexual people" is in fact sending me into the stratosphere. Bogaert what are you fucking talking about wait was that controlled for the fact that women are more likely to identify as ace. Bogaert talk to me please (p.2)
• "Interpersonal functioning has been found to have elevated scores in the cold, socially avoidant, and non-assertive zones among asexual people over allosexual people (Yule et al., 2013). " guys please think about what you're putting out there for five seconds (p.2)
• "Few studies have sought to explore and quantify the diversity within asexuality from a non-medical, non-pathologizing, person-centered perspective, an area of research called for by the asexual community" (p.2)
• "Only two studies have explored the prevalence of romantic versus aromantic attractions among asexual persons (Ginoza et al., 2014; Zheng & Su, 2018), and neither sought (p.2) to compare the two groups on personal characteristics. " MAYBE BC THAT'S KIND OF A WEIRD THING TO DO GUYS IDK. (p.3)
• "Those who answered “sometimes,” “often,” “always,” “neither true nor false,” “somewhat true,” or “completely true,” in response to “I experience romantic attraction in the absence of sexual attraction” were placed in the romantic group" (p.3) this is just like. a methodology point bc I'm feeling petty and I want to be, to quote podcaster Michael Hobbes, a methodology queen about it, but it feels really weird that they'd put people who answered 'neither true nor false' in the romantic group. Like that's very much not a yes. What was the logic behind that?
• "Finally, if data were not available for either of those two questions, asexual participants who indicated that they had ever had a romantic partner were categorized as romantic (n = 7)." ALSO FEELS FLAWED BUT WHATEVAR (p.3)
• "Of the asexual participants who provided information regarding their romantic orientation, 332 (26.0%) were classified as aromantic and 943 (74.0%) as romantic. This proportion did not vary significantly across the studies (χ2 (5) = 9.11, p > .05, n = 1275)" (p.7)
• "Aromantic and romantic asexual participants reported comparable demographic characteristics, with similar age, income, education, and ethnicity." (p.7)
• "Our study did not replicate Bogaert (2004) reported differences—there were no significant differences between asexual and allosexual participants on any of the demographic characteristics." (p.7)
• Vaguely interesting - "We did, however, observe that asexual participants were 1.8 times more likely to have a medical condition than allosexual participants" (p.8)
• "asexual participants reporting more non-binary (other than woman/man) gender identities than allosexual participants" (p.9)
• "Romantic and aromantic asexual groups were similar in their distribution between men and women, and between binary and non-binary genders. However, asexual participants were more likely than allosexual participants to identify as a woman instead of a man, and asexual participants were more likely to identify as a non-binary gender than allosexual participants" (p.9)
• "allosexual participants were 0.08 times as likely (or 12.7 times less likely) to identify as a non-binary gender compared to asexual participants" (p.9)
• "romantic asexual participants reporting higher levels of dyadic sexual desire compared to the aromantic asexual group" (p.10)
• "We found that approximately one in four asexual individuals fell into the aromantic category of asexuality, and that some significant distinctions existed between romantic and aromantic asexual groups in addition to many similarities" (p.12) NOT A CATEGORY OF ASEXUALITY. EXPLODES YOU WITH MY MIND
• "We found that nearly one in five aromantic asexual participants and more than one in seven romantic asexual participants identified as a gender other than man or woman, though the difference between the two asexual groups was not significant." (p.12)
• "Romantic attraction among asexual participants was seen to be less gender specific than among allosexual participants, with asexual people 2.1 times more likely to report a biromantic orientation than their allosexual counterparts" (p.12)
• Ok to be fair they do establish some potential reasons for the apparent difference in personality between alloromantic and aromantic participants: "Aromantic asexual participants were colder, less nurturant, and less intrusive than romantic asexual participants based on the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. These significant group (p.13) differences may be accounted for by the wording of items on the IIP-SC given that two of the four questions on the cold subscale asked about feelings associated with romantic love: “It is hard for me to show affection to people,” and “it is hard for me to experience a feeling of love for another person” (Soldz et al., 1995, p. 57). While love and affection could refer to familial love or love between friends, it was possible that participants interpreted these questions to ask about romantic love in particular. As such, heightened coldness among aromantic asexual partici- pants may have reflected their lack of desire to form romantic relationships more than a distinctly cold personality. " (p.14)
• "No difference was seen in age, income, education, ethnicity, height, weight, medical conditions, gender (men/women and binary/non-binary), likelihood of having children, amount of solitary sexual desire, sexual function, frequency of masturbation or sexual fantasy, or the endorsement of having sexual concerns or seeking professional help for sexual concerns" between alloromantic and aromantic participants (p.14)
• "closer similarity between romantic and aromantic asexual participants than between allosexual and asexual groups" (p.14)
• "We did not separate allosexual participants into romantic and aromantic groups, even though a very small proportion of the allosexual participants were likely to be aromantic, limiting our ability to compare the effects of romantic attraction between allosexual and asexual populations." DOES AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE IT LOL (p.14)

In conclusion, I feel pretty weird about this article: It was good for stats but I do think it's perhaps a little irresponsible to put out an article claiming that aromantic people are statistically colder etc. Like they do acknowledge that there may be other factors at play there but only towards the end, not in the introduction or abstract. It just seems like kind of an irresonsible thing to be putting out there if you haven't replicated it or explored all the possible factors, you know? Especially if other people are then gonna be citing you as saying that aro people are colder and less nurturing than non-aro people, which people are demonstrably doing. Also as I said, limited in how it only talked about aromanticism as a subset of asexuality.

MOVING ON to Sexuality, romantic orientation, and masculinity: Men as underrepresented inasexual and aromantic communities by Hannah Tessler and Canton Winer:

• "asexual and aromantic men are demographic minorities within asexual and aromantic communities" (p.1)
• "“Men want sex and women want love.” Although crude, contested, and at least partially unfounded (Allen, 2003, 2007), this cultural narrative plays an important role in constructing gender identities " this is already so banger I love you guys (p.2)
• "it is perhaps unsurprising that men are far outnumbered by women and nonbinary individuals in identifying as asexual (experiencing low/no sexual attraction) (Bogaert, 2004, 2013; Greaves et al., 2017; MacNeela & Murphy, 2015; Weis et al., 2021). More strikingly, survey research has found that men are similarly outnum- bered in identifying as aromantic (experiencing low/no romantic attraction)" (p.2)
• "We find that while sex is fundamental in both constructing and reflecting masculinities, romance is another factor that shapes masculinities, and thus asexuality is positioned as inadequately masculine and aromanticism as excessively masculine" (p.2)
• "Asexuality is a spectrum and an umbrella term that refers to those who experience low/no sexual attraction." (p.3)
• "until recently, research on asexuality has been limited. Nonetheless, various studies have found asexual men are markedly outnumbered by both women and individuals who are neither men nor women" (p.3)
• "Aromanticism “describes people whose experience of romance is disconnected from normative societal expectations, commonly due to experiencing little to no romantic attraction… or being uninterested in romantic relationships” (AUREA, 2022b; see also Antonsen et al., 2020; Przybylo & Jacob, 2021)." (p.3)
• "Aromanticism, like asexuality, is an identity spectrum and individuals who identify as aromantic (or “aro”) have a range of experiences related to romance and sex. It is important to note that it is possible to experience romance and/or be in a romantic relationship without experiencing romantic attraction. Here, we define romance as symbolic gestures or activities which signify desire for, intent to pursue, or participation in a romantic relation- ship. We define a romantic relationship as a monogamous, long-term, committed partnership between two people" (p.3)
• " men remain the minority within the aromantic community " (p.3)
• "Within the asexual and aromantic communities, it is common to conceive of various attractions as distinct from one another. This is often referred to as the “split attraction model” (SAM), which differentiates between types of attraction (e.g., sexual, romantic, esthetic, etc.), arguing that various attractions may or may not align. " (p.3)
• "These presumed desires are also associated with status, where men often gain status from having sex with multiple women, while women gain status from “locking down” and forming stable romantic partnerships with men. Therefore, it is somewhat unsurprising that men are the (p.3) demographic minority in identifying as asexual, since sexual activity is more central to masculine capital than to feminine capital. [...] It is less clear, however, why men are also the minority in identifying as aromantic, given the greater centrality of romance to feminine capital than to masculine capital." (p.4)
• "Academic and popular discourse often assume that mature, healthy, moral adulthood should include participation in romantic and sexual partnership [...] As a result, people who identify as asexual or aromantic can be stigmatized as falling outside of normative adulthood." (p.4)
• "Although pressures to be sexually and romantically active are powerful, they also shift throughout the life course. For example, hook up culture during emergent adulthood encourages sex without committed romantic relationships (Wade, 2017). Meanwhile, at other points in the life course, such as during childhood and older adulthood, sex is often pathologized" (p.4)
• "Although sexual and romantic desire are often positioned as “natural,” they are also rigorously enforced (socially, culturally, and institutionally), reflecting that monogamous romantic partnership and marriage are embedded within white supremacist, colonial, and imperial projects" (p.4)
• "At a micro level, the practice of promoting, normalizing, and enforcing heteronormativity begins as early as preschool and continues into adolescence and young adulthood, as romantic relationships are regarded as a central developmental task (Gansen, 2017; Korobov & Thorne, 2009). As such, a lack of sexual/romantic desire is pathologized and medicalized" (p.4)
• "Pressures surrounding romance and sex are gendered in multiple ways (Richardson, 2010). Culturally, women are stereotyped as “less sexual” than men (Cott, 1978; Farvid & Braun, 2006; Gupta & Cacchioni, 2013; Spurgas, 2020; Wiederman, 2005), and women and girls are often socialized to neither recognize nor acknowledge their own sexual desires (McCabe et al., 2010; Tolman, 1994). Conversely, sexual “conquest” often plays a key role in constructing hegemonic masculinities (e.g., Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009; Illouz, 2012), particularly in Western contexts “with prestige conferred on boys with heterosexual partners” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 851)" (p.4)
• "Men in heterosexual relationships at times may even feel pressure to initiate sex and even feign sexual desire to appear masculine" (p.4)
• "At the same time, racialized gender stereotypes of (p.4) Black men as hypersexual “players” (Clardy, 2018; Schippers, 2016), alongside stereotypes of Asian men as asexual or sexually emasculated (Eng, 2001; Kao et al., 2018), underscore that sexuality is simultaneously gendered and raced." (p.5)
• "we argue that asexual/aromantic masculinities are marginalized masculinities because of their distance from normative (hetero)sexuality, building on prior work that acknowledges nonhegemonic masculinities as a response to stigmatized sexuality" (p.5)
• "We might see aromanticism stereotyped as “excessively” masculine (through association with the “player”/“fuckboy” trope) and asexuality as “inadequately” masculine. Thus, each would fall outside the idealized “goldilocks zone” of masculinity" (p.5)
• "While women are culturally stereotyped as desiring romance more than men, men are nonetheless socially expected to perform romantic scripts and form romantic partnerships. Heterosexual men and women rely on a framework where men are expected to take the lead pursuing relationships with women " (p.5)
• "While 48% of asexual respondents in the ACS identify as women only and 41% identify beyond the gender binary, only 11% of asexual respondents identify as men only (548 men). In terms of the aromantic community, while 33% of respondents in the AC identify as women only, the majority of respondents identify beyond the gender binary, and only 8% of respondents identify as men only (237 men). " (p.7)
• "sex and romance remain largely coupled in the public imagination, thereby positioning both asexual and aromantic masculinities as marginalized and non-normative." (p.7)
• "Collectively, respondents share that masculinity is closely tied with cultural notions of sexual voracity. They explain that asexuality can be perceived as violating the notion that men are inherently sexual. " (p.8)
• " Other respondents also felt that these expectations impede men from identifying as asexual." (p.9)
• "In contrast, many asexual women describe difficulties figuring out their asexual identity because of the cultural expectation that women “aren't supposed to like sex.” Generally, in both interview samples participants first learn about asexuality online, which requires making an active effort to conduct an internet search. " (p.9)
• "Gender also plays an important role in structuring expectations around romantic attraction and romantic relationships. Multiple interviewees allude to Disney movies, the notion of “happily ever after,” and the gendered scripts of Prince Charming as active agent and the Princess as passive recipient to describe how romance constructs masculinities (and femininities)" (p.10)
• "In many cases, part of “being a man” involves being a gentleman and romancing a woman. We argue that the performance of romance—and not just the performance of sexual attraction—is core to hegemonic masculinity. Modern courtship and romantic relationship norms require men not only to take part in romantic relationships, but to fulfill a particular role within the relationship" (p.10)
• Alice Oseman mention rahhhh: "For example, Nathaniel describes not being able to identify with a character in popular media despite being “a white male” until he read Alice Oseman's Loveless, a novel about an aromantic asexual young woman coming out. " (p.11)
• "The normative “white male” experience includes heteronormativity, as men are expected to eventually partner with (white) women and manhood is often synonymous with being a husband/father" (p.12)
• "Our findings suggest that sex without romance and romance without sex can both create masculinity threats (Vandello et al., 2008) for men at the margins of sexual normativity" (p.14)
• "Our results suggest that men face pressures to perform romance as well, and that this helps solidify men's claims to hegemonic masculinity. Previous work has emphasized romanticism as something that is available to hegemonic masculinity; our findings emphasize that romanticism is compulsory to hegemonic masculinity. In our interviews, respondents repeatedly indicate that they feel pressure to perform romance in order to be a “normal” man." (p.14)
• "asexuality and aromanticism run against hegemonic masculinity in different ways: whereas asexuality conflicts with the notion of masculine sexual voracity, aromanticism is often (mis)perceived as complementing that notion, perhaps even akin to the “fuckboy” stereotype. Our interview data shows many individuals are only exposed to the concept of aromanticism (and romantic attraction in general) after becoming aware of asexuality. This suggests that men may be less likely to become aware of aromanticism due to the gendered nature of asexual identification." (p.15)
• "our findings suggest that framing romantic attraction as a solely feminine pressure is overly simplistic. Although men may face less pressure (and certainly less structural violence) to participate in romantic relationships than women, the performance of romance fits well within hegemonically masculine tropes. Instead, we find that compulsory sexuality and compulsory romance norms persist regardless of gender, which renders illegible alternative forms of intimacy and connection beyond sexual/romantic partnerships." (p.15)

Possible further reading:

• The Television Genre Book by G Creeber
• Television Studies: The Key Concepts by B Calvert
• Critical Ideas in Television Studies by J Corner
• Pierre Bourdieu - culture and its links to social privilege
• Television Culture by John Fiske - survey of television theory, discusses active audience
• Up From Invisibility by Larry Gross - discusses queer stereotypes as they appear in teen shows
• Singlehood, waiting, and the sociology of time by K Lahad - portrayals of single women in pop culture
• Single Women in Popular Culture by Anthea Taylor
• Thinking relationship anarchy from a queer feminist approach by R De las Heras Gomez - relationship anarchy

On a final reading note, and not to bring up the Buffy family of shows again (SORRY EVERYONE) but I did finish reading the collection of essays about the show Angel I've been slowly crawling through for months this week. Mostly bringing this up because there was some very interesting stuff written in there about the gender politics of the show and how the show portrays female characters. In particular, the essay Angel’s Monstrous Mothers and Vampires with Souls: Investigating the Abject in ‘Television Horror’ by Matt Hills and Rebecca Williams discusses at length how when women are presented as "monstrous" in horror it is almost always linked to reproduction and them being mothers. Which I think sucks quite badly but also considering how much of the feminist writing I've read for this project boils down to "WOMEN ARE OFTEN REDUCED TO SEX OBJECTS AND/OR THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE CHILDREN" it's not exactly surprising. Anyway I think TV studies is a beautiful field.

TV of the Week

In terms of the TV side of things, I rewatched the second season of Heartstopper this week, which includes a storyline about secondary character Isaac discovering that he is both aromantic and asexual. I have pretty mixed feelings about this storyline: on the one hand, it was nice finally getting an aromantic storyline and I think at least some parts of it are very resonant and a lot of people could see their experiences in them, on the other hand, I think for the most part it's a pretty bare-bones and basic plot. Isaac isn't a very well-developed character - we don't know much about him other than he's aromantic, he's asexual, and he likes to read - and he seems to get less focus than the other characters do. Admittedly, the show is ongoing, so maybe these problems will be resolved in a third season? But for now I'm not thrilled with what we have.

Dug up my initial thoughts on the season from when I first watched it last summer and immediately went to complain to the group chat about it. Honestly my position hasn't really changed.

Other than that, I have transcripts of the show here!

Other Events of the Week

• On Tuesday we had a peer review session, which we used to prepare outlines for our presentations next Wednesday and give each other some advice. Found it pretty useful and I'm feeling less stressed about the presentation after that, and we're now talking about making these peer review sessions a weekly event!
• Got in touch with AUBSU and SUBU about them possibly advertising my focus groups! Vee from AUBSU has got back to me and they're happy to help, which is great news! I've also got contact details for people in SUBU I can speak to, but I still need to actually email them with the details (as well as sending the full details to the AUBSU)
• This week's macro lecture was from the artist Yu-Chen Wang, who does a lot of commissioned work with scientists and stuff like that! I thought her work was a really interesting example of using art as a form of investigation, sort of similar to what Sam Moore did with her film! I also thought it was interesting how a lot of the stuff she worked on was stuff you wouldn't typically think of as a subject for art, like peat bogs! Overall I just thought it was really fascinating, and I even got the chance to chat with her after, which was very cool!
• Other than my reading, my main activity of this week was writing the participant information sheet for my focus groups. I think it's fairly close to being completed, hopefully after I respond to feedback on it and add in more detailed information next week I'll have it finished!
• Had a fascinating debate society session this week on the topic of sex education in schools - it was my honour to be the guy who brings up asexuality and talk about how I felt it should be something teenagers are educated about the existence of. I know for me personally that might have been quite helpful. Had a good conversation with one of my debate friends, who said that a lot of the ace people he knew were really messed up by the lack of education around it and trying to figure themselves out without that knowledge. Maybe this is proof of how relevant it is that people are given an accurate understanding of asexuality by mainstream media? Not that I think it should be up to TV to educate people on these things, far from it, but it probably wouldn't hurt, right?

Previous week

Next week

Back to weekly journal

Back to home