authors argue that their results give support to the notion that asexuals do not have a “disorder” as currently defined. For example, asexual women do not show low arousal (i.e., abnormally low vaginal responses) to sexual activity, as some women with sexual dysfunction do (see also chapter 11). Relatedly, the authors argue that their study provides some evidence that asexuality should be understood as a true sexual orientation, because asexual women respond in similar ways as sexual orientation groups—in other words, (nondysfunctional) lesbians and heterosexual women. Finally, this study supports the notion that non-category-specific responding (at least in terms of physical arousal) is common among women, including asexual women, and may serve a common, ancient function: to prevent injury (Brotto & Yule, 2011).
Now let’s address one of the most enduring (and endearing?) gender differences in sexuality— masturbation—and examine patterns of this behavior in asexual men and women. As mentioned in chapter 5, many asexual men and women masturbate, although they do so less frequently than sexual people (e.g., Bogaert, in press-a). But most pertinent to the present chapter, asexual men report a higher frequency of masturbation than asexual women. For example, about 50 percent of asexual men report masturbating two or more times per week, versus 7 percent of asexual women (Brotto et al., 2010).
Masturbation, then, is clearly a popular pastime for both sexual and asexual men. Thus patterns of asexuality play themselves out differently in men and women, and these patterns often mirror differences between sexual men and women. The reasons why sexual men and women differ in masturbation may also explain the differences between asexual men and women in this behavior. For example, if men and women differ in sex drive (e.g., strength and/or frequency of sexual urges), then asexual men, even if they do not direct those urges toward others, may be impelled to masturbate more frequently than asexual women. Also, the inherent differences in the way men and women’s bodies work—erections are obvious, whereas vaginal responses are more subtle—may be relevant. Thus, if asexual men, relative to asexual women, receive more obvious feedback that they are sexually aroused (e.g., notice their erections), they may be more likely to act on it (by masturbating), despite their lack of attraction to others.
As mentioned in chapter 5, masturbation, particularly with fantasies of recurring themes, is of interest to sexologists in part because it can reveal clues about sexual attraction. Thus masturbation among asexuals raises questions about whether some do indeed have sexual attraction to others or perhaps to something unusual (i.e., paraphilia). Given that asexual men masturbate more than asexual women, it also raises questions about whether asexual men have a potentially higher rate of paraphilias than do asexual women (also see chapter 10). If so, this pattern would also be consistent with differences between sexual men and women, as sexual men are much more likely than sexual women to have paraphilias (Cantor, Blanchard, & Barbaree, 2009).
Let’s now turn to gender roles. There is evidence that gays and lesbians often do not conform to traditional gender roles, with lesbians adopting less feminine behavior patterns and gay men less masculine behavior patterns than their heterosexual counterparts (Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax, & Bailey, 2008). Thus, some sexual minorities do not necessarily conform to traditional gender roles, but what about asexual people? At this point, we do not know whether asexual men are less masculine than heterosexual men, or whether asexual women are less feminine than heterosexual women. There are standard techniques to assess whether someone conforms to traditional gender roles—for example, if a boy or man is interested in sports, is drawn to traditionally masculine occupations, is more aggressive, and so on—but such techniques have never been applied to a group of asexuals.
My hunch is that asexual people are less conforming to traditional gender roles, on average, than heterosexual people. One of the reasons is because traditional sexual development often may make females more feminine and males more masculine. For example, asexual women may be less feminine in attire, manner, and language because they lack what Lori Brotto and I call
But what does this research on women and object-of-desire self-consciousness have to do with asexuality, and with asexual women in particular? To be sexual (and romantic) for women often emerges out of their sense of themselves as objects of desire. So, if asexual women are not interested in being objects of desire (and have not had socializing forces acting on them in the same way, because of a lack of interest in sex), then all those elements of femininity typically linked to sexuality in sexual women will be different in asexual women. I expect, using language as an example, that words and phrases describing beauty, attractiveness, and body image, particularly regarding areas normally related to sexuality (such as their curves, hair, breasts, and vulva), would be different in asexual versus sexual women. But more than language, I expect that asexual women’s manner and attire would be different from that of average sexual women. For example, relative to sexual women, asexual women may dress in a less sexualized manner (e.g., not showing cleavage). This expected difference between sexual and asexual women in manner, attire, and language partly reflects the idea that gender (i.e., femininity) is often driven by sex and sexuality.
Related to gender roles is gender identity, the very basic sense of oneself as male or female. Of course, most people take their gender identity for granted, breezily checking off either “male” or “female” on surveys that ask about one’s gender. However, as mentioned above, this is not so for a small group of people. Transgendered and intersex people, for example, often believe that their sexual anatomy is inconsistent with their gender identity; a simple “male” or “female” label may thus be inadequate.
But what about asexual people? Interestingly, although the majority of asexual people seem to identify as male or female, there is evidence that a surprisingly high percentage do not want to categorize themselves in this way. In fact, Brotto and colleagues found that approximately 13 percent did not want to identify as male or female (Brotto et al., 2010). This may not seem like an overly large percentage, but consider what proportion of the general population would not want to identify as either male or female: a small percentage (i.e., 1–2 percent or less) (Veale, 2008; Fausto-Sterling, 2000). Thus, a nontraditional gender identity is likely significantly related to asexuality. At this point, however, we do not know whether transgendered or intersex individuals make up a large proportion of asexual people.
Does the fact that gender roles and identities relate to asexuality give clues to its origin? It may. First, let’s consider the potential role of biological factors—in particular, the systems involved with sexual differentiation. Sexual differentiation is the biological process whereby males become males and females become females. It occurs primarily prenatally (before birth) and then secondarily at puberty.
In sexual differentiation, some components are involved with producing female features (feminization) and male features (masculinization), but there are also processes that prevent or remove female features (de- feminization) in male fetuses and prevent or remove male features (de-masculinization) in female fetuses.
The exposure to hormones prenatally (in the womb) contributes to male and female sexual differentiation of both the body and brain. In other words, prenatal hormones (e.g., testosterone) will help to create male internal and external genitalia in male fetuses, while an absence of these hormones will help to create female internal and external genitalia. There is a critical time during gestation when this occurs, when fetal body tissues are sensitive to the levels of these hormones. Prenatal testosterone also affects the brain and potentially helps to create a gender role/identity and a sexual orientation. There is also a critical time during gestation when this occurs, when fetal brain tissues are sensitive to the level of these hormones. Thus, male (XY) or female (XX) fetuses exposed to atypical levels of this hormone during critical time periods of prenatal development can have altered differentiation of the body (e.g., intersex characteristics). Similarly, atypical levels of these hormones during critical time periods may also alter brain development, thus leading to atypical gender identity (e.g., transgendered) and sexual attractions (e.g., being gay or lesbian). If so, one might also speculate that male (XY) or female (XX) fetuses exposed to atypical levels of prenatal hormones, again at critical time periods, may develop an atypical gender identity (not feeling “male” or “female”), in addition to a lack of sexual attraction (i.e., asexuality).
The traditional scientific wisdom was that female sexual differentiation, including brain differentiation, would occur if these male hormones (e.g., testosterone) were absent. Indeed, females were once seen as the “default”
