Understanding Asexuality

Although they are the best data available, these modern prevalence figures of same-sex sexuality come with a few caveats. First, they are largely, but not exclusively, based on same-sex behavior or on having a same-sex identity. Yet how should we best define homosexuality: as same-sex behavior, as a same-sex identity, assame-sex attraction, or as perhaps all three? As discussed earlier, in chapter 2, many sex researchers, including me, place a high value on attraction over overt behavior (or even identity) in defining a traditional sexual orientation (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000; Bogaert, 2003; Money, 1988; Zucker & Bradley, 1995). I continue this emphasis on attraction in the present book on asexuality. I do so because sexual attraction is, in my opinion, the “core” psychological element of sexual orientation; it is less changeable and less subject to influence by social and political conditions than one’s behavior or how one chooses to define oneself. Based on same-sex attraction figures alone, the estimates tend to be slightly lower than, for example, those based on behavior: about 2 percent of men and 1 percent of women are predominantly or exclusively gay/lesbian (Laumann et al., 1994).

A second caveat is that there is still stigma about admitting to same-sex sexuality, so even if these modern samples represent their populations well, these figures likely underestimate the prevalence of homosexuality. Third, non-Western societies are not considered in these figures, and it is important to remember that the majority of the people in the world do not live in Western societies, although most people in Western societies behave as if they do. For example, I do not know of a good estimate of homosexuality in India, Russia, Iran, or countless other non-Western societies. A recent exception is China. The estimate of same-sex sexuality in China is lower than estimates for most Western countries, with, for example, approximately 1 percent of men and women indicating that they identify as homosexual. The question was: “Some people regard themselves as homosexual. Do you so regard yourself?” (Parish et al., 2003; Parish, Das, & Laumann, 2006; Parish, Luo, Laumann, Kew, & Yu, 2007). Slightly fewer, just less than 1 percent, indicated that they had sexual attraction for (i.e., wanted to have sex with) the same sex. The stigma associated with same-sex attraction is likely high, so one expects that these figures are underestimating same-sex sexuality, even more so than in Western societies. However, even factoring in this underestimate, I expect that it is unlikely that predominant or exclusive same-sex sexuality would reach the memorably round 10 percent figure in either Western or non-Western societies.

Why is this prevalence research on homosexuality important for understanding the prevalence rate of asexuality? It is important because it allows a broad context to understand the prevalence rate of asexuality and, more specifically, provides a comparison to another sexual minority.

Given our discussion of Kinsey, we should give a nod to his data before we discuss modern samples and their evidence for the prevalence of asexuality. As you may recall, Kinsey called asexual (or nonsexual) people Xs, because they did not conveniently correspond to a number on his seven-point scale of sexual orientation. Kinsey tallied his numbers for Xs, just as he did for people with traditional sexual orientations. In the male sample, 1.5 percent were Xs (Kinsey et al., 1948). In his female sample (Kinsey et al., 1953), he reported different rates of Xs depending on their marital status. For example, 14–19 percent of unmarried women were Xs, whereas 1–3 percent of married women were Xs.[15]

In the post-AIDs era of good sampling, few social scientists would dare to make estimates on asexuality without resorting to findings in national surveys with modern sampling methods (e.g., probability sampling), such as the one I will use here. As mentioned, in the first published study using a British national sample, the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL-I) (Johnson, Wadsworth, Wellings, & Field, 1994), I found that 1.05 percent of the population reported that they had “never felt sexual attraction to anyone at all.” This rate was very similar to the prevalence rate of same-sex attraction (i.e., predominant homosexuality and bisexuality combined) in this survey, which was 1.1 percent (Bogaert, 2004).