Introduction

​

Within the past two decades, asexuality has received significant academic attention. As more and more individuals publicly identify as asexual, it has become increasingly evident that asexuality warrants academic acknowledgment and examination (Prause & Graham, 2007). Demographic studies estimate that 1% or more of the population meet criteria for asexuality (Bogaert, 2004; Poston & Baumle, 2010). Though there is no single agreed-upon definition for asexuality, scholars frequently cite a lack of sexual attraction, interest, or desire (Bogaert, 2006; Brotto et al., 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007). Some experts attest that the definition should involve other factors, such as one’s sexual behavior, number of sexual partnerships (Prause & Graham, 2007), and self-identification as asexual (Brotto et al., 2010). Regardless of the specific traits involved, most research affirms asexuality as a type of sexual orientation (Brotto et al., 2010), though not as exclusive (i.e., there are homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual asexuals). While not all literature on asexuality is in agreement, much of the academic discourse surrounding it features a number of common themes. Generally, these themes pertain to the social and personal experiences of asexual individuals, the nature of asexuality, and even how sexuality itself should be modeled. 

​

Pathologization of Asexuality

​

In a highly sexual culture, asexuals have often been pathologized for not conforming to the sexual norms of society (Gressgard, 2014). Within clinical settings and in the media, asexuality is often viewed as being synonymous to a disorder of sexual desire/attraction, such as hypoactive sexual desire disorder (Brotto & Yule, 2011). While both phenomena involve a lack of sexual attraction, many scholars have rejected the notion that asexuality is a disorder (Bogaert, 2006; Brotto & Yule, 2017; Gressgard, 2014). In fact, there is an abundance of literature aimed at empirically distinguishing asexuality from disorders of sexual desire, as well outlining theoretical models of sexuality that legitimize asexual orientations (Brotto et al., 2010; Brotto & Yule, 2017; Storms, 1980).

​

Asexuality and Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD)

​

In particular, Brotto et al.’s (2010) research provided valuable data differentiating asexuality from hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). Their assessment revealed that asexuals generally cite less sexual desire and arousal than women with HSDD and typically do not feel distressed by their sexual orientation. Prause and Graham’s (2007) analysis of undergraduate college students supported the claim that asexuals are not distressed by their lack of sexual desire. As distress is necessary to be diagnosed with HSDD (and asexual people typically do not experience distress about their sexuality), Brotto and colleagues (2010) assert that asexual people differ significantly from those with HSDD. Furthermore, they claim that individuals with HSDD do experience sexual attraction, while asexuals generally do not (Brotto et al., 2010). It is important to note that Brotto et al.’s (2010) study participants were recruited from an internet community designed for asexual people. Communities may offer support and guidance to members regarding their sexual identification, allowing a reduction in distress (Gazzola & Morrison, 2012). Asexuals who do not belong to communities like this may not have access to the same resources for managing their distress, and thus Brotto et al.’s findings could underestimate how much distress asexual individuals experience (Gazzola & Morrison, 2012). 

​

Bogaert (2006) made further distinctions between asexuality and disorders of sexual desire. He proposed that asexuality is a lifelong experience, while HSDD often is not (Bogaert, 2006). Moreover, Bogaert (2006) argued that characterizing asexuality as a disorder (such as HSDD) pathologizes asexuals’ experiences and unnecessarily exposes them to stigmatization. Chasin (2015) added to this discourse with the assertion that asexuality and HSDD differ markedly in their history and purpose. In his discussion comparing asexuality with a disorder of sexual desire, Chasin states: “asexuality was created by and for people building a community about shared experience. Meanwhile, HSDD was constructed by clinicians and pharmaceutical companies working, for profit, to delineate and cure a problem” (2015, p. 173). Asexuals themselves generally reject the notion that their lack of sexual desire is a symptom of HSDD (Brotto et al., 2010), indicating the need to avoid false-comparisons between HSDD and asexuality. Despite these important steps toward depathologizing asexuality, “the cultural context is still such… that new sexual orientations [such as asexuality] are classified as perversions or illnesses by the medical establishment” (Cowan & LeBlanc, 2018, p. 32). 

​

Models of Asexuality

​

Researchers like Storms (1980) and van Anders (2015) have proposed models of sexuality that do not pathologize asexual behavior and identification. These models consider asexual orientations as normal, natural, and potentially inherent aspects of sexuality (Storms, 1980; van Anders, 2015). Storms’ (1980) model of sexual orientation defined asexuality in relation to previously-established sexual orientations (e.g. heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality). Most notably, it expressed hetero/homo/bi-sexuality in terms of attraction to either men, women, or both, and asexuality as the absence of attraction to men and women (Storm, 1980). Storms’ (1980) model challenged the sexual dysfunction view common at the time, and proposed looking at asexuality as a sexual orientation instead. 

​

Asexuality as a Continuum

​

While many researchers agree with classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation (e.g. Brotto & Yule, 2017; Yule et al., 2014, 2015), Storms’ model garnered significant criticism because of its binary structure and its exclusion of asexuals who experience sexual attraction (Chasin, 2011). Rather than the categorical characterization proposed in Storms’ model, some researchers have argued that asexuality is best modeled as a continuum (Chasin, 2011; Cowan & LeBlanc, 2018). Chasin (2011) contended that “people are not merely sexual or asexual, but instead there is a continuum along which people may fall” (p. 717). He further suggested that using a continuous perspective is theoretically essential to achieving an accurate analysis of asexuality. Cowan and LeBlanc (2018) specifically addressed the drawbacks of the “static categorization” commonly employed in psychology (p. 31). They argued that while static categorization has some benefits (e.g., it is easier to analyze statistically, it allows for simpler treatment, and can promote community among those with the same label), such perspectives do not account for sexual fluidity (Cowan & LeBlanc, 2018, p. 39). Paralleling Chasin’s (2011) assertion, Cowan and LeBlanc claimed that asexual and allosexual orientations are best represented on a spectrum (2018). 

​

Diversity in the Asexual Community

​

This push to view asexuality as a continuum was due in part to an increasing awareness of the considerable diversity present within the asexual community (Chasin, 2011). In fact, there are actually numerous identities that fall under the umbrella construct of asexuality (Pasquier, 2018). Identities recognized as part of the asexual spectrum include, but are not limited to: asexuality, aromanticism, demisexuality, demiromanticism, grey asexuality, grey aromanticism, aceflux, and aroflux (Pasquier, 2018). Each of these identities involves varying degrees of sexual and romantic attraction, and attraction may be gated by things like the presence of particular circumstances and/or an emotional bond (Pasquier, 2018). According to research conducted by The Trevor Project (2019), categorical models often fail to represent the lived experiences of many people (The Trevor Project, 2019). In an analysis of LGBTQ+ youth, The Trevor Project (2019) determined that “when given more expansive and inclusive methods to describe their sexual orientation, youth provided more than 100 different terms'' (para. 1). These findings uphold claims by Pasquier (2018) regarding the diversity of asexual identification, and demonstrate the need for continuous representation asserted by Chasin (2011) and Cowan & LeBlanc (2018). 

Van Anders’ (2015) Sexual Configuration Theory (SCT) addressed many of these concerns about categorical models. Operating on the principle that everyone has a sexual configuration comprised of positions in various sexual dimensions, SCT offers a comprehensive, multifaceted, and empirically-based way to classify sexual variety (van Anders, 2015). Most notably, it accounts for sexual fluidity across the lifespan and provides a continuum to convey the degree of one’s erotic and nurturant attractions (van Anders, 2015). Moreover, SCT theoretically separates solitary sexuality from partnered sexuality, behavior from orientation, and eroticism from nurturance (van Anders, 2015). In doing so, it provides a way to inclusively model all identities that fall on the asexual continuum (van Anders, 2015).

​

Measures of Asexuality

​

Similar in their aim of promoting diversity in sexuality research, Yule, Brotto, and Gorzalka (2015) created the Asexual Identification Scale (AIS). Concerned with the fact that many studies on asexuality rely on recruitment from established asexual internet communities (limiting the diversity of the sample), Yule et al. (2015) sought to make sampling asexuals easier by creating an unbiased measure of asexuality. Using feedback they had acquired from both asexual and nonasexual participants, Yule et al. (2015) designed a 12-item self-report test to assess asexual orientation. While it demonstrated notable reliability and validity in research, it is worth mentioning that this measure was based on a primarily female, caucasian, and heterosexual sample (Yule et al., 2015). This may limit how applicable or accurate this scale is for people of color, men, and LGB individuals, potentially minimizing sample diversity. 

​

Physiological Aspects of Asexuality

​

While these new models and measurements are helpful for changing the outdated theoretical definitions of sexuality, they do not determine if a physiological link is present in asexuality that would inform its classification. Yule, Brotto, and Gorzalka (2014) and Brotto and Yule (2011) examined this idea by assessing physiological factors in both asexual and non-asexual individuals. In an internet study of 325 asexuals and 268 nonasexuals, Yule et al. (2014) determined that asexuals differed from nonasexuals in handedness, number of older siblings, and sibling birth order. In fact, asexual men and women were 2.4-2.5% more likely to be non-right-handed (Yule et al., 2014). According to Yule et al. (2014), these findings suggest a potential neurodevelopmental basis for asexuality. By measuring asexual and non-asexual women’s vaginal pulse amplitude (a predictor of genital arousal) while they watched erotic films, Brotto & Yule (2011) discovered that asexual women had a normal capability for subjective and physiological arousal, though they “showed significantly less positive affect, sensuality-sexual attraction, and self-reported autonomic arousal to the erotic film” (p. 699). While Brotto & Yule (2011) findings may be an important step toward further understanding the physiological basis of asexuality, results should be taken with caution. As the sample of asexual women Brotto & Yule (2011) used was very small (n=7), it is difficult to determine if these findings would apply to the larger population of asexual women. 

​

Asexual Discrimination

​

Though these empirical discoveries have legitimized asexuality in academia, asexuals have still not been fully accepted by society (Chasin, 2015). Often, asexuals face significant discrimination at the hands of their peers, family, and even the norms of their culture (Chasin, 2015). MacInnis and Hodson’s (2012) research specifically identified a bias against asexuals, with heterosexuals in this study evaluating asexuals more negatively than people of other sexualities. Furthermore, heterosexual participants judged asexuals to be less valuable partners, and even less human than heterosexuals and other sexual minorities (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). While these results do empirically validate the discrimination surrounding asexuality, Chasin (2015) suggests that these findings don’t represent the more often direct discrimination faced by asexuals (e.g., having one’s asexuality rejected by family). Robbins, Low, and Query (2016) addressed these more direct forms of asexual discrimination in their research on how asexuals experience the “coming out” process. In their assessment of 189 self-identified asexuals narratives, Robbins et al. (2016) found that coming out as asexual often entailed: skepticism from family members and friends about their asexuality, a lack of acceptance from others, frequent misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding asexuality, and having to keep their asexual identity hidden (Robbins et al., 2016). 

​

These findings mirror assertions by Chasin (2015) about the forms of discrimination asexuals face. Chasin (2015) argued that many intentional and unintentional means of asexual discrimination stem from systemic sexual norms, particularly those that view sexuality as inherently moral normal or superior to asexuality. While these norms are generally not explicit, they may cause asexuals to feel distressed about their asexuality, potentially causing them to be wrongfully diagnosed with HSDD (Chasin, 2015). Asexuals also experience homophobia and heterosexism, especially those who do not present as cis and straight (Chasin, 2015). This is especially significant because many asexuals report non-heterosexual and transgender identities. As determined by the Asexy census project, up to 30% of asexuals identified as LGB “and another 30% reported experiencing ‘other’ (non‐exclusively hetero or homo) romantic attractions” (Asexual Awareness Week, 2011, as cited in Chasin, 2015, p. 171). Furthermore, between 10-20% of asexuals identified as transgender (Asexual Awareness Week, 2011, as cited in Chasin, 2015). As many asexuals do not engage in heteronormative activities (e.g., sexual behaviors, ‘sexy’ dress, and/or dating), they may also be subject to asexual-related homophobia, even if they are not homosexual themselves (Chasin, 2014). Thus, Chasin (2014) argues that asexuals may experience both homophobia, transphobia, and asexual-related homophobia, situating them in a complicated intersection of systematic oppression. 

​

Asexuality and the Internet

​

In spite of these experiences of marginalization, the internet has offered asexuals a means of acceptance and community. In Robbins et al.’s (2016) research, it was found that “one of the most prevalent themes in the process of discovering, accepting, and sharing an asexual identity was the significant role played by the internet” (p. 756). Asexual online communities, such as AVEN (asexuality.org), have served to validate asexual experiences and assist asexuals in discovering their identity (Robbins et al., 2016). To many questioning asexuals, these sites have been valuable resources of community, acceptance, and information (Robbins et al., 2016). According to Chasin (2015), “AVEN is this first and often only point of contact many people have with the asexual/ace community” (p. 175). As such, AVEN and other similar communities have played an essential role in asexual self-identification (Chasin, 2015). Moreover, asexual-oriented internet communities have been vitally important in conducting research on asexuality, as they provide a means for recruitment of self-identified asexuals (Chasin, 2015).

​

Conclusion

​

With growing social and cultural awareness surrounding asexuality, many researchers have sought to better understand what it truly means to be asexual. In their pursuit of empirical knowledge on asexuality, researchers have established certain themes and explanations regarding it. Most notably, these endeavors have shed light on the pathologization of asexuality, the social and physiological experiences of asexuals, the diversity of the asexual community, and even the discrimination faced by asexuals. Such insight has allowed theorists to create models of asexuality and find ways to define the asexual experience. Ultimately, these conclusions have proven valuable to furthering academic understandings of human sexuality, informing both future research and clinical practice. 
 

References

​

Bogaert, A. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 279-287. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1080/00224490409552235

 

Bogaert, A. F. (2006). Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10(3), 241-250. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.241

 

Brotto, L. A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., & Erskine, Y. (2010). Asexuality: A mixed-methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 599-618. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-008-9434-x

​

Brotto, L. A., & Yule, M. (2017). Asexuality: Sexual orientation, paraphilia, sexual dysfunction, or none of the above? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(3), 619-627. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-016-0802-7

​

Brotto, L. A., & Yule, M. A. (2011). Physiological and subjective sexual arousal in self-identified asexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 699-712. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-010-9671-7

​

Chasin, C. D. (2015). Making sense in and of the asexual community: Navigating relationships and identities in a context of resistance. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 167-180. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1002/casp.2203

​

Cowan, T., & LeBlanc, A. (2018). Feelings under dynamic description: The asexual spectrum and new ways of being. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 38(1), 29-41. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1037/teo0000076

​

DeLuzio Chasin, C. J. (2011). Theoretical issues in the study of asexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 713-723. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-011-9757-x

​

Gazzola, B., & Morrison, M. (2012). Asexuality: An emergent sexual orientation. 

​

Gressgård, R. (2014). Asexuality: From pathology to identity and beyond. In M. Carrigan, K. Gupta & T. G. Morrison (Eds.), Asexuality and sexual normativity: An anthology; Asexuality and sexual normativity: An anthology (pp. 68-81, Chapter xi). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.

​

MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2012). Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(6), 725-743. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1177/1368430212442419

​

Pasquier, M. (2018, October 27). Explore the spectrum: Guide to finding your ace community. https://www.glaad.org/amp/ace-guide-finding-your-community. 

​

Poston, D., & Baumle, A. (2010). Patterns of asexuality in the United States. Demographic Research, 23, 509-530. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26349603

​

Prause, N., & Graham, C. A. (2007). Asexuality: Classification and characterization. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(3), 341-356. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-006-9142-3

​

Robbins, N. K., Low, K. G., & Query, A. N. (2016). A qualitative exploration of the “coming out” process for asexual individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(3), 751-760. doi:http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-015-0561-x

​

Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783-792. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.783

​

The Trevor Project. (2020, November 19). Research Brief: Diversity of Youth Sexual Orientation. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/2019/09/30/research-brief-diversity-of-youth-sexual-orientation/. 

​

van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177-1213. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8

​

Yule, M. A., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2015). A validated measure of no sexual attraction: The Asexuality Identification Scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 148-160. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1037/a0038196

​

Yule, M. A., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2014). Biological markers of asexuality: Handedness, birth order, and finger length ratios in self-identified asexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(2), 299-310. http://dx.doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.1007/s10508-013-0175-0