Asexuality and Sexual Normativity

An Anthology

Mark Carrigan, Kristina Gupta, Todd Morrison, Mark Carrigan, Kristina Gupta, Todd G. Morrison, Todd Morrison, Mark Carrigan, Kristina Gupta, Todd G. Morrison

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317748519
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The last decade has seen the emergence of an increasingly high profile and politically active asexual community, united around a common identity as 'people who do not experience sexual attraction'. This unique volume collects a diverse range of interdisciplinary empirical and theoretical work which addresses this emergence, raising important and timely questions about asexuality and its broader implications for sexual culture. One of the most pressing and contentious issues within academic and public debates about asexuality is what relationship, if any, it has to sexual dysfunction. As well as collecting cutting edge scholarship in the emerging field of asexuality studies, rendering it indispensable to any sexualities course across the range of disciplines, this anthology also addresses this urgent debate, offering a variety of perspectives on how and why some have pathologised asexuality. This includes a range of chapters addressing the broader issues of sexual normativity within which these contemporary debates about asexuality are taking place.

This book was originally published as a special issue of Psychology and Sexuality.

Who reports absence of sexual attraction in Britain? Evidence from national probability surveys

Catherine R.H. Aicken^a, Catherine H. Mercer^a and Jackie A. Cassell^a,b

^aCentre for Sexual Health and HIV Research, Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK; ^bDivision of Primary Care & Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, UK

There is little evidence about the prevalence of absence of sexual attraction, or the characteristics of people reporting this, often labelled asexuals. We examine this using data from two probability surveys of the British general population, conducted in 1990–1991 and 2000–2001. Interviewers administered face-to-face and self-completion questionnaires to people aged 16–44 years (N = 13,765 in 1990–1991; N = 12,110 in 2000–2001). The proportion that had never experienced sexual attraction was 0.4% (95% CI: 0.3–0.5%) in 2000–2001, with no significant variation by gender or age, versus 0.9% (95% CI: 0.7–1.1%) in 1990–1991; p < 0.0001. Among these 79 respondents in 2000–2001, 28 (40.3% men; 33.9% women) had had sex, 19 (33.5% men; 20.9% women) had child(ren), and 17 (30.1% men; 19.2% women) were married. Three-quarters of asexual men and two-thirds of asexual women considered their frequency of sex ‘about right’, while 24.7% and 19.4%, respectively, ‘always enjoyed having sex’. As well as providing evidence on the distribution of asexuality in Britain, our data suggest that it cannot be assumed that those reporting no sexual attraction are sexually inexperienced or without intimate relationships. We recognise the possibility of social desirability bias given our reliance on self-reported data, but suggest that its effect is not easily predicted regarding absence of sexual attraction.

Introduction

There is little known about asexual people (Bogaert, 2006; Prause & Graham, 2007), including whether asexuality is perceived as problematic or associated with ill-health. Asexuality itself is not a well-defined term or phenomenon, and a variety of definitions exist (Hinderliter, 2009), including engagement in no or few sexual behaviours with others (Rothblum & Brehony, 1993), and asexual self-identification. Definitions based on little or no sexual behaviour may be confounded by, for instance, lack of availability of sexual partners, or non-consensual sexual experiences (Prause & Graham, 2007). The term ‘asexual’ as an identity is relatively recent, despite the awareness-raising work of the online Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) (Hinderliter, 2009). Though it is defined on AVEN’s homepage as ‘Asexual: a person who does not experience sexual attraction’ (AVEN, 2011), use of the term ‘asexual’ may be problematic for identifying those who have not yet ‘come out’ to an asexual identity (Brotto & Yule, 2009). A common operational definition would greatly assist research in this area (Brotto & Yule, 2009). In this article we use absence of sexual attraction to others as a definition but recognise that this definition is contested.

Mixed-methods studies have used convenience sampling to study people identifying as asexual (Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007). There are limitations to this sampling method, in terms of the generalisability of findings (Brotto & Yule, 2009; Prause & Graham, 2007): it is not possible to know whether those recruited are representative of all asexuals, due to bias in participation. Prause and Graham (2007) conducted a small-scale qualitative study with self-identified asexuals followed by a survey with undergraduate psychology students in a town in the United States, which was also advertised online (without explicitly mentioning asexuality in the advert), thus aiming to reach a mixture of asexuals and sexuals. Brotto et al. (2010) conducted a survey on the AVEN website (AVEN, 2011), comparing this to ‘normative data’ (i.e. standardised clinical versus non-clinical ranges and cut-offs), followed by a nested qualitative sub-study (participants in the qualitative research were recruited from among the survey participants; for an overview of this type of study design, see Schatz, 2009). Brotto et al.’s study (2010) aimed to focus on asexuals and involved asking respondents to endorse an asexual ‘label’ to participate, yet 20% of males and 27% of females responded that they were not asexual. It was unclear why this was, but it may be that they assumed, given the context, that the question meant something different, for instance, romantic attachments (Brotto et al., 2010). The findings of these studies are largely congruent. Prause and Graham (2007) found that absence of desire for sex with a partner (measured using the Dyadic Sexual Desire subscale of the Sexual Desire Inventor: Spector, Carey, & Steinberg, 1996) was a particularly strong predictor of asexual self-identity, with lower solitary sexual desire and lower sexual arousability also differentiating asexuals from others with reasonably strong predictability. Brotto et al.’s (2010) findings broadly support this: absence of sexual attraction is a good predictor of self-identifying as asexual, and they also found a lower than normative sexual response among respondents. Meanwhile, a qualitative online survey of AVEN members used open-ended questions to explore the meaning of asexuality in greater depth, with absence of sexual attraction and desire common to the majority of respondents, and a minority reporting sexual activity with others (Scherrer, 2008).

In contrast to data collected from convenience samples, data from population surveys using probability sampling methods enable prevalence estimates to be obtained that can be considered broadly representative of the general population. Bogaert (2004) conducted what appears to be the first study designed to estimate how common absence of sexual attraction is and to compare those reporting this to the rest of the general population. He used data from the first British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-1, Johnson, Wadsworth, Wellings, & Field, 1994) conducted in 1990–1991. Another study, the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG, conducted 2002 in the United States) purports to explore asexuality also using national probability survey data (Poston & Baumle, 2010). It used a question about sexual identity with pre-defined responses, which lacked the response option ‘asexual’. In the analysis, it was assumed that asexuals would respond ‘something else’, instead of heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (Poston & Baumle, 2010). However, in order to pick responses that best fit their experience, asexuals may in fact categorise romantic relationships in which they do not necessarily feel sexual attraction, as hetero-, homo-, or bisexual, and not ‘something else’ (Brotto et al., 2010). Similarly, a question in the NSFG about sexual attraction had no response option to indicate no attraction, and in the analysis of this study it was assumed that asexuals would respond ‘not sure’ (Poston & Baumle, 2010). The measure may therefore be over-inclusive, as respondents who do experience sexual attraction, but are not sure about their sexual preference, may also select ‘not sure’, as the authors recognise, or may not respond at all (Poston & Baumle, 2010). Thus, until now, Bogaert’s (2004) study has been the only one to measure reported absence of sexual attraction in the general population, as far as we are aware. The question it relies upon, and which has been used in the more recent Natsal-2 survey in 2000–2001, is an adaptation of the Kinsey scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948), which rates sexual attraction and experience, from entirely homosexual through to bisexual to entirely heterosexual, only sometimes referred to as including an asexual category. In the Natsal surveys, a five-point scale of sexual attraction is used, ranging from only to the opposite gender to solely to the same gender, with a sixth option ‘I have never been sexually attracted to anyone at all’ (Johnson et al., 1994) to make the question more widely applicable.

Bogaert’s (2004) work based on Natsal-1 is often cited in the small literature on asexuality. As such, later studies refer to Bogaert’s use of this definition in such a way that it seems that the formulation of the question in the Natsal survey, which serves a variety of medical and social purposes, may have driven the operational definition used in subsequent debate. Despite the finding that lack of sexual attraction to others has a high sensitivity yet poor specificity relative to self-identifying as asexual (Prause & Graham, 2007),¹ it is reassuring that absence of sexual attraction to others does seem central to a definition of asexuality based on others’ findings (Brotto et al., 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007).

In this article we estimate the prevalence of absence of sexual attraction in Britain using data from the most recent Natsal study (Natsal-2, 2000–2001). We examine change in this prevalence since 1990–1991, using the earlier Natsal-1 data, which Bogaert used (2004). In the more recent data from Natsal-2, we compare those reporting no sexual attraction with other respondents, in terms of socio demographics, sexual behaviours, and attitudes.

Methods

Population and study design

The National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal) are stratified probability sample surveys of the general population resident in Britain undertaken in 1990–1991 and 2000–2001, and are to date the largest surveys of sexual behaviour anywhere in the world. Details of the methodology and question wording are published elsewhere (Economic and Social Data Service, 2011; Erens et al., 2001; Johnson et al., 1994; Johnson, Mercer et al., 2001). Briefly, in 1990–1991 Natsal-1 interviewed 13,765 people aged 16–59 years (Johnson et al., 1994; Wellings, Field, Johnson, Wadsworth, & Bradshaw, 1994), while a decade later in 2000–2001 Natsal-2 interviewed 12,110 people aged 16–44 years (Johnson, Copas et al., 2001; Johnson, Mercer et al., 2001; Wellings et al., 2001), reflecting the concentration of sexually transmitted infections (STI)/HIV risk behaviours in those aged under 45 years observed in Natsal-1. Natsal-1 and Natsal-2 achieved similar response rates, 66.8% and 65.4%, respectively, which are in line with other major British surveys (Lynn & Clarke, 2002).

Respondents were interviewed at home with a questionnaire, which involved a face-to-face interview carried out by highly trained interviewers and then a self-completion module, using pen-and-paper interviewing in Natsal-1 and computer-assisted self-interviewing in Natsal-2. Towards the end of the face-to-face interview in both Natsal-1 and Natsal-2, all respondents were given a show card with a question and coded response options shown below, and were given the following instruction:

Now please read this card carefully as it is important that you understand it and are as honest as you can be in your answer. When you’ve finished reading, tell me which letter represents your answer.

I have felt sexually attracted …

(1) (K) Only to females, never to males

(2) (C) More often to females, and at least once to a male

(3) (F) About equally often to females and to males

(4) (L) More often to males, and at least once to a female

(5) (D) Only ever to males, never to females

(6) (N) I have never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all

From the responses to this question, we created a binary variable to identify respondents who reported that they had never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all, referred hereon for brevity as an absence of sexual attraction.

Natsal surveys use a broad definition of sexual intercourse, and respondents are asked to include as sexual partners anyone with whom they have had oral, vaginal, and/or anal sex.

Statistical analyses

Analyses were performed using STATA 9.2 to account for stratification, clustering, and weighting of the samples (Stata Corporation, 2006). Each survey’s data were weighted to correct for unequal selection probabilities and to match the corresponding age/sex population profile (Erens et al., 2001; Johnson, Mercer et al., 2001).

We compared the percentages reporting an absence of sexual attraction in Natsal-1 and Natsal-2 by gender and then used logistic regression to obtain age-adjusted odds ratios for reporting this in Natsal-2 relative to Natsal-1, which we treat as the reference category.

We then compared the reporting of selected socio demographics, sexual behaviours, and attitudes by respondents in Natsal-2 according to whether or not they reported an absence of sexual attraction. We used the chi-square statistic to determine whether differences between categorical variables were statistically significant, and the t-test statistic to determine whether differences between normally distributed continuous variables were statistically significant, which we considered to be p < 0.05 in all analyses.

Ethical approval

The Natsal-2 study was approved by the University College Hospital and North Thames Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee and all the Local Research Ethics Committees in Britain.

Results

Prevalence of asexuality

From the most recent Natsal data (Natsal-2, 2000–2001) it is estimated that among those aged 16–44 years, 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2–0.5%, weighted/unweighted N: 20/26) of men and 0.5% (95% CI: 0.4–0.7%, weighted/unweighted N: 30/53) of women had never been sexually attracted to anyone (no statistically significant gender difference; thus the overall prevalence is estimated to be 0.4% [95% CI: 0.3–0.5%]). This prevalence estimate is significantly smaller than estimated from Natsal-1 in 1990–1991 among those aged 16–44 years: 0.8% (95% CI: 0.6–1.1%, weighted/unweighted N: 73/72) among men; 1.0% (95% CI: 0.8–1.3%, weighted/unweighted N: 95/128) among women; 0.9% (95% CI: 0.7–1.1%, weighted/unweighted N: 168/200) was the overall prevalence in 1990. The corresponding age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) are 0.44 (95% CI: 0.25–0.80) and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.35–0.78), among men and women, respectively. There is no statistically significant gender difference in the magnitude of this decline between 1990 and 2000.

In 2000, men who experienced sexual attraction to others had a mean age of 28.5 years (95% CI: 23.7–33.3 years), while those with an absence of sexual attraction had a mean age of 30.6 years (95% CI: 30.3–30.8 years; t-test statistic –0.86; p-value for difference: 0.392). The corresponding mean ages for women were: 30.7 years (95% CI: 30.4–30.9 years) among those who experienced sexual attraction; and among those with an absence of sexual attraction, 29.4 years (95% CI: 26.3–32.5 years; t-test statistic –0.80; p-value for difference: 0.426).

Sexual experience, sexual partnerships, and relationships of asexuals in 2000–2001

Among those with an absence of sexual attraction in 2000, two-thirds of women (66.1%) and a slightly smaller proportion of men (59.7%) reported never having had a sexual partner of either gender, in contrast to 4.9% of women and 6.0% of men who had experienced sexual attraction (Table 1). Among both men and women, we found no statistical evidence for a difference in the proportion ever having had a same-sex partner, between those reporting no sexual attraction, and those reporting sexual attraction to either or bot...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• 1. Who reports absence of sexual attraction in Britain? Evidence from national probability surveys
• 2. Mental health and interpersonal functioning in self-identified asexual men and women
• 3. HSDD and asexuality: a question of instruments
• 4. How is asexuality different from hypoactive sexual desire disorder?
• 5. Asexuality: from pathology to identity and beyond
• 6. Sex as a normalising technology: early-twentieth-century public sex education campaigns
• 7. The average and the normal in nineteenth-century French medical discourse
• 8. From pre-normal to abnormal: the emergence of a concept in late eighteenth-century France
• 9. Afterword: some thoughts on asexuality as an interdisciplinary method
• 10. A mystery wrapped in an enigma – asexuality: a virtual discussion
• Index