Understanding Asexuality

Sometimes a lack of (partnered) sexual behavior has less to do with the characteristics of the individual per se and more to with the fact that abstinence is thrust upon them. Elizabeth Abbott, in her book The History of Celibacy (2001), gives a number of examples of this type of imposed abstinence. Ming emperors in China, for example, sometimes had young males in the court castrated. This rather harsh physical change was meant to encourage loyal service and discourage hanky-panky with the emperors’ wives and courtesans. Similarly, in the royal courts of ancient Rome and Europe, castration of males was not unknown. This procedure probably did reduce the sexual behavior of those subjected to it, as the testicles are the major source of the major sex-drive hormone, testosterone. It also effectively maintained the sweet-sounding voices of some of the top choirboys, who sang to please the upper classes, including royalty, in Europe. However, these castrati also attest to the fact that (testicular) testosterone is not the only influence on sexual behavior, as some of these castrated men seemed to be sexual, even several years after the procedure (Heriot, 1956).

A lack of sexual behavior based on one’s own choice has also been a historical reality. That this is so reflects the value that many societies and institutions, often religious in nature, have placed on abstinence. Celibacy or chastity has been a standard vow in many religiously devoted people—priests, monks, and nuns—for many years. And, of course, even today many contemporary clergy and other religiously devoted individuals still adopt a celibate lifestyle.

Many celibates do not lack sexual attraction or a sex drive, and thus are not asexual using the most common definitions of asexuality. So, we can now pose the question that is more relevant to the subject of this book: Is there good evidence of asexuality in the historical record? This is a difficult question, because human sexual behavior (or the lack of it), like animal sexual behavior, is more easily measured and recorded than are (internal) psychological states, such as attractions or desires. Except for having access to, say, love letters and diaries, such inner states are often hidden, or at least under the radar, and certainly not routinely recorded in the history books.

Even so, one’s attractions and desires may be inferred, albeit imperfectly, from behavior. If the historical record suggests that a man had a wife and numerous children, and that he had liaisons with prostitutes, and along with these liaisons a number of illegitimate children, it is very likely that he was heterosexual. In contrast, if the man shunned the institution of marriage, had no children, and there is little evidence of any liaisons with either sex, we could infer one of two things: either the individual was attracted to the same sex, and thus hid potentially socially undesirable sexual behavior, or he was perhaps sexually attracted to neither sex.

Based largely on reports of their behavior, it may be surmised that a number of famous figures throughout history, Isaac Newton and Emily Brontë among them, were asexual. Newton, for example, never married, lived a solitary life, likely died a virgin, and seemed completely preoccupied with his science (Christianson, 1984). Although evidence of a lack of sexual behavior with women suggests that Newton was asexual, such evidence may also be construed to mean that he had other atypical sexual inclinations (e.g., same-sex attraction). Indeed, some have suggested Newton eschewed the company of women because he was sexually attracted to men (White, 1999).

Emily Brontë also very likely lived a life devoid of sexual liaisons; indeed, she also probably died a virgin. However, if she was asexual, she likely was not aromantic (see chapter 2 for distinction between sex and romance), or at least she had a high-level understanding of romance, as she wrote one of the most intensely romantic novels of her time, Wuthering Heights. Thus, did she eschew the company of men for sexual reasons, but not necessarily for romantic reasons? Or did she perhaps have a special insight into the world of romance because she was an outsider (asexual/aromantic), as well as a keen observer of humanity? The novelist Stevie Davies (2004) argues that Brontë may have been sexual in some form (e.g., masturbated), and may have had sexual attraction, but this was not overtly expressed in her lifetime because it was directed toward women. Of course, as is the case with Newton, the assertion that Brontë had an atypical sexual orientation, either an asexual or same-sex one, is based on limited evidence.