Understanding Asexuality

Intriguing as this 1 percent figure is, it does not necessarily represent a definitive statement on the prevalence of asexuality across societies, or even across time within the same society. I recently reanalyzed the ten-year follow-up to this national British sample (NATSAL-II) (Johnson et al., 2001; National Centre for Social Research et al., 2005), and found that approximately 0.5 percent had “never felt sexual attraction to anyone at all” (Bogaert, in press-a). Also, as a comparison, the prevalence rate of same-sex attraction (again, predominant homosexuality and bisexuality combined) was higher in NATSAL-II (2.3 percent) than in NATSAL-I and was significantly higher than the rate of asexuality in NATSAL-II.

Why the difference in prevalence rates of asexuality and homosexuality between these two national British samples? The difference likely occurred because the two samples varied in meaningful ways (Johnson et al., 2001). First, only sixteen- to forty-four-year-olds were recruited for NATSAL-II, whereas NATSAL-I had a broader range of ages, sixteen to fifty-nine. In my original study, I found that asexual people were more likely to be older rather than younger. Thus, the prevalence of asexuality may have been lower in NATSAL-II because it contained a restricted age range. Second, NATSAL-II participants, relative to NATSAL-I participants, may have been somewhat more sexually liberal in a variety of dimensions (e.g., attitudes, interests, and behavior). Thus, asexual people—who have, for example, less sexual experience relative to sexual people—may have been less extensively recruited to participate in NATSAL-II relative to NATSAL-I. Similarly, people with more liberal sexual attitudes and behavior, including gays and lesbians (who often have more sexual experience and are more liberal), may have been more extensively recruited in NATSAL-II relative to NATSAL-I. But is there evidence that NATSAL-II indeed surveyed more sexually liberal people than NATSAL-I? Yes, there is some. First, there was a ten-year span between recruitments for NATSAL-I and NATSAL-II, and sexual attitudes and behaviors often change across time, and usually in the more liberal direction. Second, there was a more extensive survey of greater London in NATSAL-II relative to NATSAL-I (see National Centre for Social Research et al., 2005), and urban people are often more liberal and sexually experienced relative to more rural people. However, the researchers did attempt to account for the greater recruitment of Londoners in NATSAL-II versus NATSAL-I using statistical methods (Bogaert, in press-a). Another consideration is that the method of assessment in NATSAL-II was likely more private than in NATSAL-I, and thus NATSAL-II participants may have been potentially more open to revealing sensitive information (e.g., same-sex attraction) (Copas et al., 2002).

How about societies beyond Britain? There is a representative sample of Australia with relevant information on sexual attraction, the Australian Study of Health and Relationships (ASHR). Like NATSAL-I, the ages surveyed were sixteen to fifty-nine, and the sexual orientation question allowed for the response “I never felt sexual attraction to anyone at all.” Approximately 0.4 percent reported never having felt sexual attraction to others, as compared to the 2 percent rate of same-sex attraction in this sample (again, same-sex and bisexual attraction combined) (Smith, Rissel, Richters, Grulich, & de Visser, 2003).

In addition to the NATSAL studies in Britain and this national sample of Australia, there are important data on sexual attraction (or the lack of it) in the U.S.-based National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005; Poston & Baumle, 2010), also a national sample. When asked about their sexual attractions (to men, women, or both), 0.8 percent of female participants and 0.7 percent of male participants reported that they were “not sure.” This is in contrast to 1.5 percent of female participants who reported predominant or exclusive attraction to women and 1.9 percent who reported equal sexual attraction to both sexes, and also in contrast to 2.2 percent of male participants who reported predominant or exclusive attraction to men and 1 percent who reported equal sexual attraction to both sexes. Assuming that “not sure” is a reasonable proxy for a lack of sexual attraction, these figures should be considered as “in-between” the prevalence rate of asexuality that I reported in the NATSAL samples (Bogaert, 2004; Bogaert, in press-a). However, “not sure” is a vague answer and could mean, at least for some, something beyond a lack of sexual attraction for others. Also, like NATSAL-II, the age range was restricted in NSFG, in this case to only those between fifteen and forty-four.