Understanding Asexuality

consider the time frame in these studies, as it is unclear whether these individuals would report low or even absent desire over many years. I think it is reasonable, after all, to define asexuality as a relatively long-term, or stable, characteristic (see chapter 2 on definitions).

There has never been a national survey assessing an asexual “identity.” However, there are intriguing sexual identification data from the U.S.-based National Survey of Family Growth, mentioned above (Mosher et al., 2005; Poston & Baumle, 2010). Like in many large-scale surveys, the respondents were asked to define their sexual orientation. In addition to the option of endorsing one of the three traditional categories of sexual orientation— heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual—the respondents could choose “something else.” Among female participants, 1.3 percent identified as homosexual and 2.8 percent identified as bisexual, while 2.3 percent of male participants identified as homosexual and 1.8 percent identified as bisexual. Interestingly, a mighty minority (3.9 percent) of participants (combined male and female) chose “something else” as their sexual orientation. A further 1.8 percent did not endorse any of the categories offered to them (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or “something else”). These figures may represent an important piece of the prevalence puzzle of asexuality. However, it is also important to bear in mind that “something else” (or a nonresponse) is vague, and using “identification” is problematic if one wants a relatively conceptually clean definition of sexual orientation that would also encompass an asexual orientation (see also chapter 2).

Now let’s consider a general issue that may affect the reporting rate of asexuality, regardless of how it is defined. This issue is volunteer bias, and it is related to an issue mentioned above: people who choose to participate in sex studies (relative to those who choose not to) are more liberal in their sex attitudes, more interested in sex, and have more sexual experience (e.g., Bogaert, 1996; Morokoff, 1986; Saunders, Fisher, Hewitt, & Clayton, 1985). This issue is called volunteer bias because there is bias in favor of recruiting certain types of participants over others in human research studies. Volunteer bias is a potential problem in all human studies, but it has been argued to be especially problematic in studies of sexuality, which, as mentioned previously, seem prone to over-sample sexually liberal people. If so, the rate of asexuality may be higher than reported in sexual surveys, because people with less liberal sexual attitudes/behavior often decline to participate in such surveys. This is even true in the best studies we have: national probability samples, such as NATSAL-I and NATSAL-II. For example, the so-called refusal rate—those who were contacted to participate but chose not to—in NATSAL-I was about 30 percent; in NATSAL-II, it was even slightly higher (around 35 percent). Thus, a high number of asexual people may not have agreed to participate in past sexual surveys because they were uninterested in or uncomfortable with the subject matter of these surveys: sex. A sex survey? Why on earth would I want to do that? It is a bit like getting a call from the Professional Golfers Association wanting to talk about your favorite courses, your handicap, the type of clubs you use, and your preferred brand of ball, and you declining to participate because you don’t play and, frankly, don’t want to start playing. What! You don’t want to talk intimately about golf for an hour? (I use this as an example because I am a golfer but have, over the years, somewhat reluctantly come to terms with the fact that the game is, evidently, not of interest to everyone.)

Interestingly, then, some of the best sexuality data, including the best data on the prevalence of asexuality, may come from national samples that are not, per se, sex surveys. Thus, the NSFG survey mentioned above may be a better survey to assess asexuality than the NATSAL surveys, because the former was a “general health survey.” However, as mentioned, this study also has its problems: no clear asexuality measure and a restriction of age range.

So, how many people are asexual? We do not know for sure, as there are different problems—such as volunteer bias, lack of a long-term time frame, and questions about how best to define asexuality—with each of the national studies mentioned above. However, the original estimate (Bogaert, 2004) of 1 percent may not be a bad one, all things considered, and it is possible that it may underestimate the true number of asexual people.[16]

But why is the prevalence of sexual minorities of interest at all? Does it matter how many people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, or asexual? Yes, it does—both to scientists and nonscientists alike, and for a variety of reasons. One scientific reason is that sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of human variability, and thus understanding the prevalence of heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality helps to map the distribution of human sexual variability. Second, the prevalence of sexual minorities is of interest to groups who want to use the figures to support a political cause or a social issue. For example, some anti-gay groups are interested in the rate of homosexuality (particularly if it is low) to try to demonstrate that homosexuality is statistically rare and thus gay people should be considered abnormal, pathological, or at least a fringe element of society.[17] In contrast, gay, lesbian, and asexuality advocacy groups are interested in the rate (particularly if it is high) to demonstrate the opposite: that being a sexual minority is not uncommon or statistically abnormal, and that sexual minorities form a significantly large segment of society. A third reason why the sexual minority prevalence rate is of interest is because of the science of demography. As mentioned in the introduction (chapter 1), demographers are interested in how many members of sexual minorities there are, because their prevalence relates to, among other things, trends in marriage and fertility (how many people marry and/or have children). Fourth, the prevalence of sexual minorities relates to physical health issues and, thus, is of interest to epidemiologists and health-care workers. A recent example concerns male homosexuality and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. HIV/AIDS in Western societies has been largely related to male-male sexual contact. As such, understanding the prevalence of male homosexuality can help with understanding the causes of this disease and tracking changes in it in Western societies. Indeed, some of the national probability surveys of human sexuality mentioned above (e.g., NATSAL-I, NHSLS) (Johnson et al., 1994; Laumann et al., 1994) were funded by government agencies wanting accurate information on people’s behavior as it relates to HIV/AIDS. Fifth, prevalence rates of sexual minorities are also important from a mental health perspective. As many people are aware, discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is still a societal problem (Herek, 2000; Herek, 2002). Moreover, the “coming out” process is often stressful for sexual minorities. For example, one study found that a very high percentage of gay men (approximately 90 percent) felt troubled, many “extremely so,” when coming out to their parents (D’Augelli, 1991). But what about asexuals—are they also subject to discrimination and to significant stress in coming out? There is much less research on this issue but, interestingly, there is recent evidence that asexual people may, in fact, be viewed more negatively than gays, bisexuals, and lesbians (see more in chapter 7) (MacInnis & Hodson, in press). Thus, accurate knowledge of sexual minority prevalence rates helps workers in mental health care gauge the size of, and potentially address, this mental health concern facing society.

In the final part of this chapter, I explore people’s reactions to the idea that a certain percentage (e.g., 1 percent) of humanity is, in fact, asexual, including the “As if!” reaction mentioned earlier.

At the outset, though, let me offer one qualification. Despite the “As if!” reaction introduced this chapter, I do not want to leave the reader with the impression that all people have reacted with disbelief—many, if not most, people have seemed to accept that a small minority of humanity is asexual. Also, as I will discuss later in the chapter, some have actually indicated surprise that the original figure (1 percent) is so low. Relatedly, my sense is that some people have reacted with relief to the suggestion that a certain percentage of humanity is asexual. Why relief? I think some people may feel relieved, if only secretly, to know that not all people are extremely sexual beings, or that one does not have to be extremely sexual to be a contented, functioning person in society. There is a lot of pressure to be very sexual in our society (e.g., from the mass media; see also chapter 7 on identity formation), so knowing that some people are completely asexual, and perhaps relatively happy being so, may be a bit of a relief for some (average) sexual people. It takes the pressure off them to know that, by comparison, their sex lives are fairly active, and that they do not have to be the super-sexed athlete the media often suggest is the norm.

But let’s come back to the doubters and deconstruct the “As if!” reaction: Why do some people feel that less than 1 percent of the population is asexual, and who exactly are these doubters?

One explanation for the “As if!” reaction is that the doubters are right, and thus their skepticism of this figure may not be misplaced. After all, we may not have an accurate tally of the number of asexual people. Even the sarcasm inherent in this “As if!” reaction may not be misplaced, as the figure could be lower (perhaps even much lower) than 1 percent. Thus, these doubters could be wise people, knowledgeable in the ways of the world, and not easily taken in by potentially misguided scientific claims.

A second explanation is that this skepticism reflects, at least partly, a human tendency to believe that everyone must be just like us. Social psychologists have labeled this bias the false