So I went down a bit of a history of sexuality rabbit hole tonight, specifically the history of sex education, because a friend in a RoL server is interested in writing a fic about Thomas Nightingale's canonical asexuality and wanted some idea of what boys his age might (or might not) have been taught about sex in school in the 1910s.
Which has been fascinating, but I also absolutely have to draw all your attention to a passage I found in Robert N. Willson's "The education of the young in sex hygiene: a text-book for parents and teachers" from 1913 (which is conveniently available on the Internet Archive here).
Now this book is, as would be expected, an absolute mess -- heavily Christian AND written at the height of the eugenics era, which means it's ostensibly kind of progressive goals are uh. There's room for improvement, is all I'll say, while still leaving room for the fact that it's complicated. That's just history for you. I also want to stress that I was NOT actually looking for information on asexuality, just skimming the book to get a sense of what sexual education might have looked like for students in the Anglosphere around the relevant time period. So you can imagine my surprise when I came across this passage, on page 86:
I present this condition of affairs, then, as a simple fact and pass on to another phase of interest and difficulty in the sex question. Certain women and an occasional man are peculiar in their entire lack of sex instinct or interest, and in their failure to experience the sex stimulus that is such an important factor in the perpetuation of the race. Were it only the rule for two such similar sexless or sex colorless animals to mate and exhaust one another’s lack of naturalness, the world would be happier by far, and perhaps such a pair might even enjoy the absence of enthusiasm and interest in one another. Such a state of affairs is conceivable. Unfortunately this sort of pairing is never seen in actual life. The mathematician, who has by close, analytical work so worn out his humanness as to be practically impotent, usually consorts with an intense and passionate vixen of an altogether contrasting type. The result in terms of the home is a foregone conclusion. Or a strong, active, inconsiderate ox of a man marries an aesthetic, supercilious orchid of a woman, and in a short time learns that he can cause her and his life-circles to interweave in no possible manner. He is of the earth earthy, she is spiritual, and as far as we have the ability to speculate there will be neither sex passion nor earthly comradeship since there is to be no real marriage either here or in heaven.
Which is hardly a rousing endorsement of asexuality, sure, but it's also a fascinating counterpoint to the idea that a lack of sexual desire or sexual incompatibilites are somehow new, or that asexuality is an identity without any real history. As I said to another friend -- it's almost like it's been an obvious part of the sexuality spectrum to anyone who was paying attention for a long, long time.
Anyway this is why I love doing primary source research. You almost always find something that runs contrary to popular accounts of the past, if you poke around enough. This isn't even my era but I knew the general shape of it, and sure enough, it didn't take much sifting for something really, really interesting to emerge!
(And I'll personally be laughing for a while over "perhaps such a pair might even enjoy the absence of enthusiasm and interest in one another" -- hashtag my queerplatonic marriage).