#asexualitynet

           Asexuality-- what is it, where did it come from, what exactly does it mean? For most people, this a term that they have not heard before, or have only heard in regard to plants. However, asexuality is so much more than that; it is a growing concept, a unique sexual orientation, and a new group of individuals which is increasing in popularity and public notice every day. Though it is a difficult subject to research, and an even harder one to define, asexuality is an incredibly interesting and increasingly relevant subject that affects more people than ever thought before.

            Asexuality is not a new term, and there have been mentions of it for decades. One of the earliest notations of the concept of asexuality was around the 1950’s, by Kinsey and his team of researchers. The team noted that “not all individuals could be situated on the Kinsey scale”, and the team then “created a separate category to describe individuals ‘without socio-sexual contacts or reactions’”, as Houdenhov notes in her article (Many Questions, 3). The third edition of the DSM was the first to have a category of illnesses regarding psychosexual disorders and inhibited sexual desires, also known as HSDD (hypoactive sexual desire disorder). This disorder is defined as “a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity, which causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty” (Classification, 1). To this day, however, there is not one single definition to asexuality, however, the most common (and most simple) definition is that it is when an individual experiences no sexual arousal. As more and more research and investigation on the matter is done, however, there appear to be many more facets. An asexual person can still experience sexual arousal, but not attributed to any one person or persons. On the other hand, an asexual person can still form romantic attachments to, and even stable relationships with, other people without experiencing the sexual aspect of it. The spectrum varies greatly; most asexuals are self-identified, so in consequence there are many, many different definitions.

             There is in general four accepted approaches to defining and studying asexuality. These are, as stated in Houdenhov’s article, “(a) absence of sexual behavior, (b) absence of sexual attraction, (c) self-identification as asexual, or (d) a combination of these”, and are viewed as the different aspects of asexuality (Questions, 4). Asexuals have many different reasons for identifying as such, and many different views on what it means to be asexual. A person can be sexually aroused, but not attracted to the one doing the arousing, and therefore will refuse to participate in sexual activities. In addition, they may have had sexual attraction or activity in the past, and do not anymore, or they participate in sexual activity only to please their partner or to be “normal”. On the other hand, an asexual can experience romantic attraction, but not connect or relate it to sexual attraction in any way. Houdenhove states in her article that a “differentiation needs to be made between romantic attraction and sexual attraction”; asexuals often desire the closeness and intimacy of a close relationship, merely without the sexual aspect of it. (Questions, 14). Self-identification is another complication in the study of asexuality, wherein each person has their own opinion on what constitutes asexuality, and may misinterpret or inaccurately represent their current or past feelings.

            As research and experiments are being done, one “explanation” for asexuality has been HSDD. HSDD is described as “persistently or recurrently deficient (or absent) sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity” in the DSM-IV, the manual responsible for categorizing all mental disorders. While there may be some overlap, and as Bogaert says in his article, “Asexuality… likely encompasses forms/variations of HSDD,” (Conceptual Understanding, 3), it is certainly not an explanation for all cases. There have been disagreements in regards to the very definition of HSDD, specifically the mark about “personal distress”. As Prause says in her article, “evidence does not suggest that cognitions and behaviors associated with asexuality necessarily signal a problem”, though asexuality is regarded as a negative issue. (Classification, 2). There is no concrete evidence that asexuality has any negative effects, or causes any sort of “personal distress”, as would be included in the diagnoses of HSDD. In addition, there is no link between psychopathology and asexuality, as this diagnoses would suggest.

            However, not much yet is known about this grouping of people, as new research techniques and methods must be used to study them. For example, an issue found with exploring asexuality is presumptuous statements in surveys, such as ones that begin with “When I am attracted to someone, I…” As Hinderliter explains in his article, “these may be appropriate for studying sexuals, but asexuals would likely be confused how to answer because the item asks about agreement or disagreement with the main clause when the subordinate clause is true” (Issues, 3). In these cases, asexuals would feel pressured to answer the question, even if it does not actually apply to them. Another complication that has been found in studying asexuality is the argument over what constitutes a “normal” amount of sexual desire, and if the definition of asexuality is “little to no” sexual attraction, then when is a person scientifically considered asexual?

            In recent years, there has been a great increase in studies and public awareness of asexuality. There has been many programs on television in regards to this, as well as increased research groups. Anthony Bogaert conducted an enormous study in Great Britain in 2004, which included over 18,000 people, and which showed that one percent of people were asexual. He also stated from his study that “A number of factors appeared to be related to asexuality, including gender, religiosity, shorter stature, lower education level, lower socioeconomic status, and poor health” (Questions, 2). There is much to take into consideration about this study, as Bogaert used an incredibly general definition of asexuality. In addition, AVEN, a website dedicated solely to asexuality, has found footing in the general public. It is the largest forum for asexuals today, and it is a place for asexuals to come together and discus issues and questions they have about their self-identified asexuality.

            In a series of studies done by Lori A. Brotto, Gail Knudson, Jess Inskip, Katherine Rhodes, and Yvonne Erskine, they researched demographic information, sexual responses, personality characteristics, and physiological symptoms of self-identified asexuals. Their findings supported Bogaert’s definition of asexuality (a lack of sexual attraction), and they stated that this definition “should not depend upon (absence of) sexual activity”, as there are many reasons why asexuals would still be involved in sexual acts (Mixed-Method, 16).  Additional findings include, but are not limited to: less than 10 percent of participants showed signs of distress (fitting the diagnoses of HSDD), seventy percent of participants had been previously involved in romantic relationships, and that all participants involved believed that “asexuality was biologic and that there may be a genetic component to it [deserved] further study” (Mixed-Method, 17). This study supports many popular opinions/views on asexuality today, as well has introduces more facts about the personalities and beliefs of self-identified asexuals.

            In regards to asexuality being regarded as its own sexual orientation (i.e. along with homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.), there are many arguments for and against this classification. Should a complete (or severe) lack of sexual attraction constitute a sexuality, or do all asexuals have an underlying sexual orientation? The latter point is a very large opinion against asexuality being categorized as an orientation, and as Bogaert reports in his article, according to this view, asexuals “do have an underlying sexual orientation, despite reporting no attraction” (Understanding, 5). This can be explained by the fact that self-reported asexuals can still experience sexual arousal without being subjectively attracted to the person who is arousing them (such as in an experiment). This underlying attraction would then negate the unique asexual orientation, and treatments could be used to increase (and thus reveal) the “true” orientation (such as in individuals with HSDD).

            In my experience, asexuality has appeared to have a multi-faceted definition, and is made up of many different parts. These articles are correct; there is no simple definition, and that is why asexuality is so hard to study.  As with the other “main” sexualities (homo, hetero, and bi), there are many different aspects to it, and different types of attractions. For example, since this past summer, I have identified as a heteroromantic asexual, which means that while I experience romantic attraction to the opposite sex, I have no sexual attraction or desires for them. It does not affect my life in anyway, and I have always found it to be interesting and fun to talk about. Not many people share this viewpoint, however, and I wish that more research and awareness could be spread. But, the advances that have been made in the recent years have been amazing, and public knowledge is spreading such as never before. I didn’t even know about asexuality until this past year, and learning about it allowed me to realize that I wasn’t just “emotionless” or strange; there was a definition for it, and there were other people who experience it as well.

Works Cited

Bogaert, Anthony F. "Toward a Conceptual Understanding of Asexuality." Review of General Psychology 10.3 (2006): 241-50. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Brotto, Lori A., Gail Knudson, Jess Inskip, Katherine Rhodes, and Yvonne Erskine. "Asexuality: A Mixed-Methods Approach." Archives of Sexual Behavior 39.3 (2010): 599-618. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Hinderliter, Andrew C. "Methodological Issues for Studying Asexuality." Archives of Sexual Behavior 38.5 (2009): 619-21. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Houdenhove, Ellen Van, Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen, and Paul Enzlin. "Asexuality: Few Facts, Many Questions." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (2013): 131017084123008. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.