It is interesting to speculate on whether some individuals who may have been asexual in the past—that is, experiencing no sexual attraction or no desire for any sexual activity—may have been sexual if they had lived in contemporary Western society. This assumes of course that environmental and cultural factors play some role in sexualizing individuals (see chapter 13), and that these factors are (more) prevalent in modern Western society relative to other time periods and societies. For example, there is some evidence that, at least up until recently, there may have been more asexuals, broadly defined, in China than in the West (see chapter 4), and that this may reflect more restrictive sexual norms in that society. Thus, could the social environment of the Victorian era in England have contributed to Emily Brontë’s asexuality (if she was in fact asexual)? And if so, had she lived in modern Western society, and was exposed in childhood and adolescence to its sexualizing influences, such as Lady Gaga videos, would she have developed into a sexual person? Of course, we also have to recognize that some people with strong predispositions to be asexual, because of the prenatal influences mentioned above, may be immune to such forces. But it is worth considering how cultural forces, as they have changed over time, can contribute to the sexualization, or the lack of it, of individuals.
As we move into very recent history, the evidence for the existence of asexual people becomes more solid. This is because the modern age of communication provides a rich source of information on people’s lives, including recordings of individuals talking candidly about their sexual feelings.
Paul Erdos, one of the most famous mathematicians of recent history, was asexual (NNDB.com, 2011). Like Newton, he was profoundly preoccupied with his science. One of his biographies is aptly named
Throughout history, artists have produced figures in paintings and sculptures and portrayed characters in fiction that project an asexual aura. Not only do such depictions reflect the artist’s sensitivity to existing human variability—a variability that the audience can understand and respond to—but they also serve two dramatic functions: first, to emphasize a value that the artist or his or her patron holds dear, and second, to increase the conflict or tension that makes storytelling work.
As an example of the former, an asexual portrayal may serve to reinforce the notion that a character is immune to worldly temptations, or perhaps is completely consumed or driven by one goal and motive. So, the portrayal of a character may de-emphasize secondary sex characteristics (e.g., women’s breasts), or perhaps present them in an androgynous manner. The Virgin Mary, saints, and angels have often been portrayed in this way throughout the history of European Christian art.
It was also for this reason that Arthur Conan Doyle gave his fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, an asexual aura: to portray his character as being driven by intellect. Interest in the flesh could potentially compromise Holmes’s power of reasoning. Indeed, Holmes is presented as being above (or somewhat immune to) most other pleasures of the body, including eating. In Watson’s words: “It was one of his peculiarities that in his more intense moments he would permit himself no food, and I have known him to presume upon his iron strength until he has fainted from pure inanition” (Doyle, 2003, p. 32).
The second reason for portraying asexual characters—to increase tension and conflict in drama—is something artists (particularly writers) understand implicitly, as character is often a driving force in storytelling. Indeed, theorists of fiction have pointed out the important role of character in effective storytelling (Morrell, 2006), and human variability (sexual and otherwise) is the raw material for the development and portrayal of character.