This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]

On: 24 April 2015, At: 00:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Sex Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters

a
Anthony F. Bogaert
a
Department of Health Sciences, Department of Psychology, Brock University
Published online: 21 Apr 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Anthony F. Bogaert (2015) Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters, The Journal of Sex Research, 52:4,
362-379, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1015713

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1015713

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 52(4), 362–379, 2015
Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1015713

ANNUAL REVIEW OF SEX RESEARCH SPECIAL ISSUE

Asexuality: What It Is and Why It Matters

Anthony F. Bogaert
Department of Health Sciences, Department of Psychology, Brock University

In this review article, human asexuality, a relatively understudied phenomenon, is discussed.

Specifically, definitions and conceptualizations of asexuality (e.g., is it a unique category of
sexual orientation?), biological and historical contexts, identity issues, discrimination against
asexual people relative to other minorities, origins, and variations, including gender differ-
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015

ences, are reviewed. Whether asexuality should be construed as a disorder is also discussed.
The study of asexuality allows for a better understanding of an underrecognized sexual min-
ority but also affords a unique opportunity to examine and better understand human sexuality.

In 2004, an academic paper on human asexuality and historical contexts, definitions=conceptualizations,

appeared in the Journal of Sex Research (Bogaert,
2004), along with a media report on the phenomenon
in New Scientist (Westphal, 2004). Since that time, a
heightened degree of academic and public interest in this
relatively understudied phenomenon has occurred,
including the publication of a number of theoretical
papers (e.g., Bogaert, 2006b; Chasin, 2011), empirical
papers (e.g., Bogaert, 2013; Brotto, Knudson, Inskip,
Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007), a
special issue of a journal (Przybylo, 2013), a review paper
(Van Houdenhove, Gijs, T’Sjoen, & Enzlin, 2014b), and
many media reports (e.g., Bulwa, 2009), including a
full-length documentary (Chevigny, Davenport, Pinder,
& Tucker, 2011). There has also been a book on asexu-
ality written for both academics and nonacademics
(Bogaert, 2012b), and one written by a self-identified
asexual woman on the asexual experience (Decker, 2014).
In the present article, many of the issues raised in these
recent academic publications and media sources are
reviewed. There is a particular emphasis on issues
reviewed in the recent book Understanding Asexuality
by Bogaert (2012b), which was a broad overview of
human asexuality. However, this article addresses
additional issues, including some raised in more recent
literature since the publication of this book. In the first
part of the present article, introductory and contextual
issues on asexuality are presented, including biological
and prevalence. In the second part, issues related to the
development and psychological variations associated
with asexuality are presented, including its origins, gen-
der and other differences, and identity formation and dis-
crimination. In the third part, medical=clinical issues are
presented, along with a discussion of whether asexuality
should be construed as a disorder. Throughout these sec-
tions, illustrations are presented on how the study of
asexuality informs the nature of human sexuality, but a
separate, later section will review these examples and
expand on them further. In doing so, this paper addresses
in part why studying asexuality is of importance to sex
researchers and clinicians: Aside from gaining a deeper
understanding of an understudied sexual minority, it
affords a better view of sexuality. In part, this better view
of sexuality may be achieved if we attempt to see sexu-
ality from a distance or from an outsider’s perspective—
in other words, ‘‘through the lens of asexuality,’’ to the
extent this is possible. Finally, conclusions and future
research directions are presented. Note that this review
is meant to address a fairly wide range of issues and to
be of interest to scholars of different disciplines, but it is
also one written by a psychologist; thus, the psychology
and closely related biomedical=clinical aspects of asexu-
ality are emphasized throughout this review.
Introductory and Contextual Issues

Correspondence should be addressed to Anthony F. Bogaert, Biological and Historical Context

Department of Health Sciences, Department of Psychology, Brock
University, St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada. E-mail: In biology and related disciplines, the word asexual
tbogaert@brocku.ca usually describes organisms that do not use sex (e.g., male
 ASEXUALITY
and female variations) to reproduce. Indeed, asexuality
has been the predominant form of reproduction for the
majority of time that life has existed on the earth (e.g.,
Cowen, 2005) and still exists in many biologically simple
organisms. However, some complex, large-sized, but
phylogenetically older animals—sharks, for example—
have the capacity to reproduce asexually (e.g., Chapman
et al., 2007). In the majority of phylogenetically younger
animals, such as mammals (including humans), there is
no capacity to reproduce asexually; reproduction only
occurs sexually, through a combining of genes from male
and female variations (Cowen, 2005).
Within sexually reproducing species, such as mam-
mals, there is often evidence that a percentage of
animals have no interest in, or attraction to, potential
sexual partners and are thus construable as asexual (see
section on definitions of asexuality). Lab-based rodents,
for example, have been noted for their sexual variability.
Some rodents are sometimes labeled ‘‘studs’’ for their
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
hypersexualized behavior; others are labeled ‘‘duds’’
for their lack of sexual interest in partners (e.g., Adkins-
Regan, 2005). In sheep, another well-studied group of
domesticated animals, variation clearly exists in their sex-
ual interests=attractions (e.g., Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997;
Roselli, Larkin, Schrunk, & Stormshak, 2004). Using a
controlled experimental paradigm and special animal
pens, researchers can study rams’ sexual inclinations by
allowing them access to ewes in estrus or to other rams.
The sexual inclinations of the ewes are more difficult to
study in such a controlled setting. Most of the rams exhi-
bit behaviors that evince heterosexual attraction. How-
ever, a significant minority of rams exhibit behaviors
evincing marked attraction to the same sex (i.e., other
rams) or both sexes (rams and ewes). There is also a
significant minority of rams showing no interest or
attraction for either rams or ewes. For example, Roselli
and colleagues (2004) stated in their summary of research
on these animals: ‘‘Over the past 2 years, 584 rams were
tested. Of these, 12.5% were asexual’’ (p. 235).
Rams may provide an important animal model of
human sexuality in part because when same-sex attrac-
tions occur in these animals they seem to demonstrate
a pattern of behavior similar to same-sex behavior in
men (e.g., a percentage of rams actively pursue male
partners and demonstrate a seeming exclusivity toward
such partners; Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). As such,
other atypical orientations—no sexual attraction—in
rams may provide an important animal model of human
asexuality. Thus, there may be similar brain and other
developmental mechanisms giving rise to these atypical
sexual attractions in both species (see Origins section).
In a review of evidence of asexuality over human
history, Bogaert (2012b) drew a number of conclusions.
One was that throughout humans’ ancestral history it
is very likely that a significant percentage in each
generation did not mate, but this lack of sexual behavior
with partners in some individuals does not indicate they
necessarily lacked sexual interest or attraction for others.
Likely many factors beyond a lack of sexual interest in
(or attraction for) heterosexual partners have contribu-
ted to a lack of partnered heterosexual behavior through-
out human history, including same-sex attraction, the
often harsh exigencies of mating competition, and the
cultural influence on the importance of celibacy (or absti-
nence from sex; see Abbott, 2001). The latter factor—
the importance of celibacy or sexual abstinence—cannot
be overstated in human cultural history. In contrast to
the often-held view in modern Western society that the
absence of sex is a disorder, historically in many societies
or within segments of society (e.g., many religions)
celibacy has been seen as a godly virtue and something
to which humans should aspire (Sigusch, 1998).
A second conclusion was that much of the early
cultural record was spotty in providing evidence of his-
torical figures who were asexual, although there is some
evidence of asexuality among notable figures such as
Isaac Newton and Emily Bronte (but see White, 1999,
and Davies, 2004, respectively). The modern cultural rec-
ord is clearer in providing evidence of asexuality, includ-
ing famous mathematician Paul Erdos (Schechter, 1998).
A third conclusion was that, throughout human cul-
tural history, artists have depicted figures and characters
with an asexual aura in art and literature (e.g., Sherlock
Holmes). Modern popular media—for example, the
character Sheldon on the television show The Big Bang
Theory—also portray (quasi-)asexual characters. These
depictions of characters indicate that sexual variability,
including its extreme forms, have been recognized
throughout history. These depictions also illustrate that
art (e.g., literature) often requires variability among char-
acters to generate dramatic tension and that sexual varia-
bility can be a key weapon in the artist’s arsenal used
toward creating this tension. The latter point is also an
example of how understanding asexuality—in this case
how it plays itself out in art—provides insight into sexu-
ality, along with the human inclination for storytelling.
Finally, Bogaert (2012b) concluded that the history
of asexuality should include mention of the emergence
of modern asexual ‘‘identities,’’ and relatedly, the recent
visibility of individuals and groups providing information
and support to those who may fall under the broad aegis
of ‘‘asexual’’ (e.g., David Jay as the founding member
of Asexuality Visibility and Education Network [AVEN];
Bulwa, 2009; Chevigny et al., 2011).
Definitions/Conceptualizations
When is someone asexual? Or, in other words, what
best defines asexuality? In the previous section on bio-
logical and historical context, I suggested that asexuality
is construable as a lack of sexual attraction or a lack of
interest in others. Thus, this definition implies a lack
of lustful inclinations=feelings directed toward others.
This lack of sexual inclinations=feelings toward others
363
 BOGAERT
should be of an enduring nature or imply an enduring
disposition or orientation. For example, in Bogaert
(2004; see also Bogaert, 2013), asexuality was defined
as ‘‘never having felt sexual attraction to others.’’ This
definition of asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction
or desire for others has partly emerged in recent years
in response to theory (e.g., Bogaert, 2006b; Chasin,
2011) and empirical work (e.g., Bogaert, 2004; Brotto
et al., 2010) on asexuality, along with earlier theoretical
work on sexual orientation (e.g., Storms, 1980). This defi-
nition is consistent with how AVEN, the most influential
online community and Web site devoted to asexuality,
defines asexuality. A consistency with AVEN’s definition
does not provide any particular theoretical rationale for
the use of this definition, but it is notable that it resonates
with a number of influential asexual leaders and educators
and how they view the phenomenon.
As mentioned, usage of the term asexual as a lack of
sexual attraction for others has partly emerged from the-
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
ories of sexual orientation. For example, using Storms’s
(1980) two-dimensional model of sexual orientation,
heterosexual people are defined as those individuals
having high heteroeroticism (i.e., high on other-sex
attraction); homosexual people are those individuals
high on homoeroticism (i.e., high on same-sex attrac-
tion); bisexual people are defined as those individuals
high on both heteroeroticism and homoeroticism; and
asexual people are those individuals who are low on
both heteroeroticism and homoeroticism (i.e., low on
both same-sex and other-sex attraction). Note that
Storms’s model of sexual orientation has been argued
to be an advance over Alfred Kinsey’s traditional,
one-dimensional model of sexual orientation (i.e., a
scale from 0 ¼ Exclusive heterosexuality to 6 ¼ Exclusive
homosexuality; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948) for
a number of reasons. These reasons include the former’s
emphasis on sexual attraction=eroticism (e.g., fantasies)
over behavior, along with its ability to accommodate
asexuals when two dimensions are used. However, Kinsey
did recognize the existence of asexual (or nonsexual)
people and the fact that they did not conform to his
one-dimensional model of sexual orientation, calling them
‘‘Xs’’ (Kinsey et al., 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, &
Gebhard, 1953).
A definition of asexuality that centers on a lack of
sexual attraction—including sexual fantasies—to either
sex would not necessarily imply that an asexual person
would lack sexual experience with either sex, although
behavioral definitions of asexuality have been for-
warded (e.g., Poston & Baumle, 2010) and there is
evidence of reduced sexual behavior with others for
those lacking sexual attraction (e.g., Bogaert, 2004).
Thus, a definition of asexuality based on attraction
would not necessarily include those who are chaste
(e.g., prior to marriage) or celibate—those who actively
eschew sex altogether—if they are still sexually
attracted to others.
364
A lack of sexual attraction would not necessarily
imply a self-identification as asexual, although clearly
many people who lack sexual attraction would also
identify as such. Note that a self-identification of asexu-
ality would be defined as a labeling of oneself as asexual,
just as self-identification of a person with same-sex
attraction would entail labeling oneself as gay or lesbian,
etc. Why not give precedence to self-identifications in
defining=conceptualizing asexuality? A self-identification
as asexual is important from developmental and socio-
cultural perspectives, which are discussed in a later
section. Many major modern professional organizations
in the social sciences and in mental health also recognize
self-identifications and argue for sensitivity to anyone
who chooses to self-identify with a sexual orientation–
relevant label (e.g., the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders [DSM] by the American Psychiatric
Association [APA]). Yet a number of issues are
associated with defining asexuality merely by a self-
identification as asexual, including an inconsistent
awareness of a self-label(s), hesitancies in coming
out, fluctuating allegiances to a label, and political
motivations (e.g., Bogaert, 2012b). Similar issues often
occur, of course, in defining traditional sexual orien-
tation (e.g., gay, lesbian, queer) using self-identification
labels given the potential complexity and multidimen-
sionality of sexual identity formation in sexual minorities
(e.g., Diamond, 2003a; Seif, 1999; Vrangalova &
Savin-Williams, 2012).
Using a definition that centers on a lack of sexual
attraction would not necessarily mean asexual people
lack sexual desire. Sexual desire refers to an urge for
sexual stimulation (including potentially an orgasm)
and may include both partnered and nonpartnered
stimulation (e.g., masturbation). It is notable, however,
that one alternative but related definition of asexuality
is in fact a lack of sexual desire. For example, Prause and
Graham (2007) found evidence that many self-identified
asexual people report very low (or absence of) sexual desire.
More research needs to be conducted on the complex
relationship between attraction and desire (Bogaert,
2013; Chasin, 2011), but recent evidence and theory
suggest the lack of desire in asexuals may be primarily
a lack of desire for others—not lack of desire per se;
thus again, a lack of sexual attraction=desire for others
may be a defining characteristic of asexuality (see
Brotto et al. 2010; Chasin, 2011; Van Houdenhove, Gijs,
T’Sjoen, & Enzlin, 2014a). In short, when there is
evidence of a form of desire in asexual people, it is often
a ‘‘solitary’’ desire—a desire that is unconnected to
others or a nonpartnered desire. For example, there is
evidence that a significant number of asexual people
masturbate (e.g., Bogaert, 2013; Brotto et al., 2010),
and thus asexual people may not lack all forms of sexual
desire.
Having a lack of sexual attraction would also not
necessarily mean that these asexual individuals do not
 ASEXUALITY
have a romantic=affectionate attraction for others.
Indeed, it is important to make a distinction between
romantic attraction (e.g., ‘‘feelings of infatuation and
emotional attachment;’’ Diamond, 2003b), and sexual
attraction [‘‘lust lure (for others)];’’ e.g., Bogaert,
2012b). The traditional assumption is that one implies
the other, but this is not necessarily so (e.g., Diamond,
2003b). There is evidence that, in practical terms, one’s
romantic inclinations do not always align with one’s
sexual ones: We can have romantic inclinations toward,
say, men, even though our primary sexual attraction
is toward women (e.g., Diamond, 2003b). Similarly,
in relationship literature, there is often a distinction
made between love and sexual=passionate love (e.g.,
Fehr, 2013). Evidence from developmental psychology
and evolutionary=neuroscience studies suggests that
romantic=love and sexual attraction processes are
distinct; for example, lust=sex systems have a phylogen-
etically older history and primarily reside in different
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
brain structures than the phylogenetically younger
romantic=love system (e.g., Diamond, 2003b; Fisher,
2004), which may have evolved relatively recently from
our attachment processes=systems toward parents (e.g.,
Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
In line with the distinction between romantic and
sexual attraction, evidence suggests that asexual people
are not necessarily aromantic (e.g., Bogaert, 2004,
2006b; Carrigan, 2011; Hinderliter, 2009). For example,
although having a lower percentage than sexual people,
a significant percentage of asexual people have been
found to be in long-term relationships (e.g., approxi-
mately 33%; Bogaert, 2004). However, even a nontrivial
percentage of nonpartnered asexual people may still be
romantic, as a lack of long-term relationships among
many asexual people may partly reflect their (perceived)
inability to attract or maintain a partner who may want
a sexual relationship. Thus, some asexual people may
still have heteroromantic inclinations, others homoro-
mantic inclinations, while still others have biromantic
inclinations. Indeed, given the assumption of a close
alignment between romantic and sexual inclinations,
some asexual people may report their sexual orientation
as gay, straight, or bisexual based on their romantic
attractions (e.g., Bogaert, 2012b, 2013; Chasin, 2011),
insofar as the concept of a ‘‘romantic orientation’’
may be less familiar to people than the concept of
sexual orientation. In sum, it is important to keep in
mind that an asexual person may be romantically
inclined, despite his or her lack of sexual inclinations.
Similarly, the converse may also be true: A sexual
person may evince little romantic inclinations, despite
having strong sexual inclinations. This point is also
relevant to a main theme of this article (see also Bogaert,
2012b), in other words, understanding asexuality
informs our understanding of sexuality, as asexual
people demonstrate that romantic inclinations can be
decoupled from sexual inclinations.
Finally, the definition of asexuality as a lack of sexual
attraction (or lack of sexual desire for others) does not
necessarily imply that asexual people lack physiological
sexual arousal experiences. The capacity for erection
and vaginal lubrication in asexual people may be fully
intact (e.g., Brotto & Yule, 2011). For example, one
asexual person indicated: ‘‘I did, you know, test the
equipment . . . and everything works fine, pleasurable
and all; it’s just not actually attracted to anything’’
(Brotto et al., 2010, p. 612).
Additional Conceptual Issues
A number of other issues=considerations related to
the definition of asexuality include the following. First,
Bogaert (2006b) argued that ‘‘subjective’’ sexual attrac-
tion is the relevant psychological component in defining
sexual orientation, including an asexual orientation.
Subjective refers to one’s own internal or mental experi-
ence and does not necessarily include evidence of
physiological arousal=attraction. Often physiological
attraction is assessed by measures of physiological arou-
sal (e.g., erection, vaginal lubrication) using psychophy-
siological devices, such as the penile strain gauge and
vaginal photoplethysmograph. Note that not all sexolo-
gists would give precedence to subjective attraction over
physiologically based attraction in defining sexual orien-
tation (including asexual orientation), but Bogaert’s
(2006b) rationale for subjective attraction was as follows:
First, using a subjective definition of attraction seems to
best capture the ‘‘psychology’’ of sexual orientation
(e.g., the study of the ‘‘mind,’’ including perceptions).
Second, it may be more linked to actual sexual behavior
than physiological arousal=attraction. For example, a
person who does not perceive sexual attraction toward
women despite exhibiting physiological arousal patterns
toward them (e.g., in the laboratory) is unlikely to
engage in sexual behavior with these partners. Notable
in this regard is that women’s subjective sexual attrac-
tion patterns often do not match their genital arousal
patterns, which show arousal to female targets that is
nearly equal to arousal to male targets (Chivers, Rieger,
Latty, & Bailey, 2004). Despite this, the large majority of
these women would report their subjective sexual attrac-
tion patterns (and would identify) as heterosexual.
(p. 244)
Thus, genital arousal patterns are important and
informative in understanding sexuality, particularly for
men, but these patterns should not necessarily trump
subjective attraction in determining sexual orientation.
A related issue is whether including asexuality as
a separate and unique category of sexual orientation is
a conceptual=theoretical error, modern models of sexual
orientation notwithstanding. Bogaert (2006b, 2012b)
argued that it is not a conceptual error and that asexu-
ality can be construed within a sexual orientation
365
 BOGAERT
framework. Certainly asexuality can be described as
an absence of the three main designations of sexual
orientation—heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—
and even as an absence of an orientation altogether,
given that there is little or no sex-based orienting or
directionality to their sexuality (Bogaert, 2004). How-
ever, given that (subjective) sexual attraction arguably
defines sexual orientation (e.g., Bailey, Dunne & Martin,
2000; Bogaert, 2003; Money, 1988; Storms, 1980;
Zucker & Bradley, 1995), or is the psychological core
of sexual orientation (e.g., Bogaert, 2003), then if one
lacks (subjective) attraction for others, asexuality is
construable as a separate, unique category within
a sexual orientation framework (Bogaert, 2006b). Thus,
using a model similar to Storms (1980), asexuality is
construable as the fourth category of sexual orientation,
i.e., those evincing low or no (subjective) eroticism=
attraction to either sex, or those having an ‘‘orientation’’
to neither sex (see Figure 1).
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
In sum, in this article (see also Bogaert, 2006b, 2012b)
precedence is given to subjective sexual attraction (over
physiological attraction=arousal) in defining sexual
orientation; and asexuality can be understood within
a sexual orientation framework. Thus, if an individual
does not subjectively experience sexual attraction—his
or her mind is not registering (or attuned to) sexual
attraction to others—regardless of his or her physio-
logical experiences, he or she can be designated as
having an ‘‘asexual’’ orientation.
One possible counterargument against construing
asexuality as a separate category of sexual orientation
is that asexuality may be caused by an atypical biologi-
cal process (e.g., low levels of circulating hormones,
atypical prenatal mechanisms; see section on origins);
and, if these biological processes were altered, then the
true sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual,
bisexual) of an ‘‘asexual’’ person would be revealed.
Thus, it may be argued that it is wrong, or at least
premature, to indicate that an asexual person has a
Figure 1. Model of sexual orientation based on eroticism=attraction
toward the sexes (after Storms, 1980).
366
unique orientation that differs from the traditional three
designations. However, this reasoning may contain
a logical error, because the origins of asexuality should
not be confused with the phenomenology of asexuality.
Moreover, more broadly, we should unconfound the
origins from the phenomenology (or lived experience)
of sexual orientation (see Bogaert, 2006b).
As an example, if a man is attracted to other men
because of an atypical biological process—including
a biological process that is atypical for his sexual
orientation and that process may be alterable—does this
negate the lived experience of his (subjective) attraction
to men? In short, he no longer has (or had) same-sex
attraction; thus is not, or was not, homosexual? It is
argued here—and likely most would agree—that, no,
he is still homosexual because his subjective attraction
is to men, regardless of the cause of that subjective
experience, even if the cause potentially differs from
the main processes underlying homosexuality for most
individuals, and even if that process might be alterable
at some point in time.
Aside from these conceptual=theoretical arguments,
recent research also gives support to the idea that
asexuality is understandable within a sexual orientation
framework. Specifically, the same biological factors under-
lying differences in traditional sexual orientation (e.g., gay
versus straight) may also underlie asexuality (e.g., Yule,
Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2014a). Moreover, results from one
small study on arousal patterns in asexual women (n ¼ 7)
are consistent with a traditional sexual orientation model
of asexuality, not a sexual dysfunction one (Brotto & Yule,
2011). Thus, there is some additional empirical evidence
from research studies—albeit with one of the studies being
of small sample size—in favor of asexuality as a separate
category of sexual orientation, even if one is not convinced
by these theoretical arguments.
In summary, there are a number of definitions of
asexuality, although a lack of sexual attraction (or a lack
of desire for others) is, arguably, the most common defi-
nition in both recent literature and among individuals
who support the most popular chat=Web site (AVEN)
devoted to asexuality issues. Also notable is that a lack
of attraction is, at least to some degree, independent of
other facets of psychosexual functioning (e.g., sexual
desire, sexual behavior, physiological arousal, romantic
inclinations). It should also be noted that other
definitions of asexuality (e.g., no sexual desire, self-
identifications) have been forwarded. Moreover, given
that research on asexuality is relatively recent and that
the phenomena of asexuality are likely diverse, it is best
to construe a lack of sexual attraction as an open defi-
nition that may fluctuate over time (Bogaert, 2012b;
see also Van Houdenhove et al., 2014b). The degree to
which the definition does change over time may have
interesting implications for studying asexuality’s origins,
for clinical issues, and for how we view asexuality
as a unique category of sexual orientation.
 ASEXUALITY
Prevalence of Asexuality
How many people are asexual? Bogaert (2012b) sum-
marized the available data and discussed issues related to
prevalence rates of sexual minorities, including asexual
people. Of historical interest, Kinsey reported that
1.5% of his male sample were Xs (Kinsey et al., 1948),
whereas the number of asexual women in his sample var-
ied depending on whether they were married or not, with
1% to 3% of women designated as Xs if they were mar-
ried, and 14% to 19% designated as Xs among unmarried
women (Kinsey et al., 1953). Kinsey’s definition of
asexuality was largely, although not exclusively, beha-
vioral in nature (see Poston & Baumle, 2010), which, as
mentioned, differs to some extent from most modern
definitions (e.g., a lack of sexual attraction). In addition,
most modern researchers interested in the prevalence of
sexual minorities, including asexual people, typically rely
on information from national probability samples,
which better represent the population than convenience
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
samples do. In the first study examining this issue in
a national probability sample, Bogaert (2004) found that
1% of a British national sample (National Survey of
Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles [NATSAL]-I) reported
that they had ‘‘never felt sexual attraction’’ to others.
Analyzing a subsequent national sample from Britain
(NATSAL-II), albeit with a sample having a more
restricted age range than the original sample, Bogaert
(2013) found that 0.5% of the sample reported never hav-
ing felt sexual attraction to others (see Aicken, Mercer, &
Cassella, 2013; for a similar figure in Australia, see
Smith, Rissel, Richters, Grulich, & de Visser, 2003). In
a national cross-sectional population-based sample of
high school students in New Zealand, 1.8% reported no
sexual attraction to either sex (Lucassen et al., 2011).
In a recent population sample of Finnish twins, 3.3%
of the women and 1.5% of the men reported having
experienced no sexual attraction within the past year
(Höglund, Jern, Sandnabba, & Santtila, 2014). The latter
two studies are limited in the age range of participants
(i.e., high school students) and in the time span of inter-
est in the questioning (i.e., one year), respectively.
There are also national samples containing data on
low or absent desire, and usually these figures are higher
than the figures reported previously for an enduring lack
of sexual attraction (e.g., 3% to 11% in Ventegodt, 1998;
14% to 33% in Laumann, Paik, and Rosen, 1999; 7% in
Parish et al., 2003; see Bogaert, 2008). However, some of
these studies may have limited applicability to the ques-
tions of prevalence of asexuality (even if one assumes
a ‘‘desire’’ definition of asexuality), given that some of
these studies did not assess a total absence of sexual
desire—only ‘‘low’’ desire. Moreover, like one of the
studies on sexual attraction mentioned (Höglund et al.,
2014), there is no way of knowing whether those who
have a low (or absent) desire do so beyond a limited
period specified in questioning (e.g., in the past year).
Bogaert (2012b) concluded that 1% may be a reasonable
‘‘working figure’’ for the prevalence rate of asexuality,
but at this point we cannot be sure of an exact figure
for a number of reasons (see also Van Houdenhove
et al., 2014b). The reasons for this ambiguity include
the complication of different assessments of asexuality,
reflecting the fact that there is not a consensus on
a single, definitive conceptualization of the phenom-
enon. There are also sampling and recruitment issues,
even in national or probability samples. For example,
many sexual surveys, even if well conducted, may under-
estimate the number of asexual people, because there
may be a lack of interest=motivation for asexual people
to participate in such sexuality-based surveys (Bogaert,
2012b). Interestingly, this issue raises again a main
theme of this review paper—that studying asexual
people affords a better understanding of sexuality—as
a methodological weakness may occur in our studies
of sexuality, potentially affecting our understanding of
sexual people. For example, those with (temporary)
low desire and those with other sexual dysfunctions
may actively avoid being recruited for sexual studies
for similar reasons (see related research on volunteer
bias in sexuality studies; e.g., Bogaert, 1996; Boynton,
2003; Strassberg & Lowe, 1995).
Development and Variation
Identity Issues
In a number of recent publications (e.g., Bogaert,
2012b; Emens, 2014; Gressgård, 2013; Scherrer, 2008; Van
Houdenhove, Gijs, T’Sjoen, & Enzlin, 2014c) researchers
have addressed issues related to the development of an
asexual identity. Some periods of time throughout history
are likely to be particularly relevant to understanding the
emergence of a minority identity, as these time periods
offer individuals heightened information about them-
selves, such as how similar they are to other minorities
and=or how distinct they are from the majority. Certain
time periods may also offer strong challenges to, along
with increased opportunities for, the advancement of min-
ority human rights, and thus these time periods are rel-
evant to understanding identity formation, as identities
often serve political ends aside from psychological ones.
For example, the 1970s (post-Stonewall in 1969) and
1980s and 1990s (AIDS crises) may have been particularly
important for understanding the emergence of identities
associated with same-sex attraction (e.g., coming out as
gay, lesbian, queer; see Terry, 1999). Similarly, the current
period in Western society may be particularly important in
understanding the emergence of asexual identities (Bogaert,
2012b), as an unprecedented array of information on sex-
ualities is available through the Internet; hitherto such
information has likely been essentially invisible in all socie-
ties. It is often more difficult to recognize the absence of
367
 BOGAERT
something, sexual or otherwise, than it is to recognize the
presence of something. Asexual identities may also have rel-
evance in a modern context, as they offer a political rallying
point against being perceived by the public and the clinical=
medical community as having a sexual disorder, such as
hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), in the face of
the modern medicalization of sexuality (Bogaert, 2012b;
see also Cacchioni & Tiefer, 2012).
Similar to other sexual minorities, asexual people
stand in contrast to a heterosexual majority. As such,
sexuality is the key characteristic in what makes them
different from the majority group, and hence sexuality
may become a very relevant ‘‘personal construct’’ for
some asexual people, even if they have never engaged
in sex (Bogaert, 2012b). In addition, asexual people
may face similar discrimination challenges to other
sexual minorities. Thus, Bogaert (2012b) speculated that
some identity issues and stages of development—
recognizing one’s own attractions, identifying=labeling
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
oneself, public disclosures or coming out, and identity
pride (e.g., Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1982; Floyd & Stein,
2002; Troiden, 1989)—theorized to occur in lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people—may
also occur in the development of some asexual people’s
identity formation.
On the other hand, in contrast to other sexual mino-
rities, asexual people are, by definition, not sexual beings
(e.g., lacking in sexual attraction for others and=or
potentially having no sexual desire whatsoever). Thus,
for at least some asexual people, sexuality is likely
a nonissue in their lives and thus does not take center
stage when their (broader) identities are being formed.
Consider this quote from one asexual person discussing
identity: ‘‘Outside of AVEN or conversations specifi-
cally about sexuality, I don’t really consciously think
of myself as asexual. Like being an atheist or non-
Hispanic or a non-driver (all apply), asexuality is some-
thing I’m not and never was, rather than something I am.
The label is mostly a useful marker. So, my asexual
identity is important in certain contexts, and I can’t
imagine my life if I weren’t asexual, but it is not specifi-
cally important to me’’ (Scherrer, 2008, p. 630).
Discrimination
A number of publications have addressed discrimi-
nation toward asexual people (e.g., Bogaert, 2012b;
Emens, 2014; MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). On the one
hand, it may be the case that asexuals—as a relatively
invisible minority—may be assumed to be less at risk
for overt discrimination than other, more visible sexual
minorities (see Bogaert, 2012b for a discussion). On the
other hand, there is evidence that asexual people may
suffer similar challenges to other sexual minorities (see
Scherrer, 2008). There may also be unique facets to
asexuality that bring special and intensified forms of dis-
crimination. At a structural level, there is evidence that
368
many societies’ legal systems privilege sexual over
asexual people (Emens, 2014; Gressgård, 2013). For
example, those in conjugal partnerships (e.g., marriages)
often have additional rights and benefits over single
individuals or those in nonsexual partnerships.
Although not all asexual people are single and, of
course, not all single people are asexual, there is evi-
dence that asexual people are less likely to have had a
long-term relationship than sexual people (e.g., Bogaert,
2004); thus, this form of structural discrimination
against nonconjugal people may have a heightened rel-
evance to asexual people. On an individual, psychologi-
cal level, MacInnis and Hodson (2012) found evidence
that heterosexual people often view asexual people with
more disfavor than other sexual minorities (e.g., gays,
lesbians) and may characterize them as ‘‘less than
human.’’ The MacInnis and Hodson study again illus-
trates how the study of asexuality helps us to better
understand sexuality, in particular how sex influences
prejudice along with, more broadly, how people perceive
the nature=essence of humanity. As MacInnis and Hod-
son (2012) wrote: ‘‘Sexuality appears to be perceived as
a key component of humanness. The dehumanization
measures employed did not explicitly reference sexuality,
yet asexuals were strongly biased against on these mea-
sures. Thus, characteristics=emotions representing
humanness are clearly intertwined with sexuality and=
or sexual desire’’ (p. 734).
Variation
Masturbation is an important activity in a number
of ways for understanding the significant variation that
likely exists among asexual people (Bogaert, 2012a,
2012b). For one, variability in masturbation demon-
strates that not all asexual people exhibit a complete
absence of activities construable as sexual. For example,
a significant number of asexual people masturbate
(e.g., Bogaert 2013; Brotto et al., 2010), although the
evidence, particularly data from a national sample, sug-
gests it is at a lower level than sexual people (Bogaert,
2013). The lower rate of masturbation among asexual
people relative to sexual people suggests that many asex-
ual people may find masturbation less intensely reward-
ing and pleasurable than sexual people. For example,
masturbation is less likely to occur at a high frequency
when it is not accompanied by intensely rewarding,
pleasurable feelings (e.g., Clifford, 1978). Indeed, when
masturbation occurs among some asexual people, this
activity may merely serve an utilitarian=health function.
In a study that included interviews and qualitative
analyses, one asexual person reported that masturbation
was used to ‘‘clean out the plumbing’’ (Brotto et al.,
2010, p. 611). However, the finding that a significant
number of asexual people masturbate is also consistent
with the notion that some asexual people may contain
a non-partner-oriented (or nondirected) sexual desire.
 ASEXUALITY
In other words, for some asexual people, there may be
lustful feelings=sensations that are ‘‘diffuse’’ and with
no direction toward, or connection to, others. Finally,
and related to this last point, these findings reinforce
the need to be sensitive to different definitions of asexu-
ality (e.g., some who evince some solitary, nondirected
desire and some without desire altogether), although,
as mentioned, both of these variations may be compat-
ible with a definition of a lack of sexual desire for (or
attraction to) others, at least at some basic sexual level.
Masturbation in asexual people, particularly if in
conjunction with sexual fantasies (see Brotto et al.,
2010; Yule, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2014b), also raises
questions about the possibility of some asexual people
having a paraphilia, an unusual sexual attraction
(Bogaert, 2008, 2012a, 2012b). Bogaert (2012a, 2012b)
suggested that some asexual people may have a
‘‘target-oriented’’ paraphilia, in which there is an inver-
sion, reversal, or disconnection between the self and the
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
typical target=object of sexual interest=attraction (e.g.,
Blanchard, 1991). For example, some asexual people
may be attracted to themselves, called automono-
sexualism (Bogaert, 2008), in which the target of their
sexual attractions may be turned inward onto them-
selves. A variation on automonosexualism occurs in
the phenomenon of autogynephilia, a target-oriented
paraphilia in which a man is sexually attracted to him-
self but as a woman (e.g., Blanchard, 1989; Lawrence,
2011). Some asexual people may have other similar
paraphilias in that they themselves, or their identities,
are disconnected from their sexuality; in other words,
there is no identity or ‘‘self’’ or ‘‘I’’ involved with their
sexual expressions (e.g., in their fantasies). This discon-
nect between the ‘‘self’’ and a sexual target=object has
been termed autochorissexualism (Bogaert, 2012a). For
example, an asexual person wrote this about his mastur-
batory fantasies on AVEN: ‘‘I almost invariably think
of fictional characters. My thoughts have never involved
people I know, and they have never involved myself’’
(Vicious Trollop, 2005). Similarly, another AVEN
participant wrote: ‘‘It’s scenes in the third person;
I may have a generic male character which is kind of
me, but it’s still separate from me, mentally watched
rather than participated in’’ (Teddy Miller, 2005).
If these individuals have, arguably, some form of
sexual attraction to others, for example, by generating
sexual stimuli (e.g., fantasy) that contain other people
or perhaps view sexual imagery of people in pornogra-
phy, then it raises a question about whether these indivi-
duals do have a (traditional) sexual orientation—
whether they are ‘‘sexual’’ with an inclination toward
others and thus are not ‘‘asexual’’ as defined as lack
of sexual attraction (to others). As Bogaert (2012b; see
also Bogaert, 2008) suggested, this is an interesting
conceptual=definitional issue in sexuality, particularly
in understanding what is and what is not a sexual
orientation. Bogaert (2012b) also suggested, however,
there is an argument in favor of construing such indivi-
duals as asexual (including a lack of sexual orientation
to others), because they still lack a form of ‘‘subjective’’
attractiveness (to others), given that the ‘‘I’’ or ‘‘self’’ is
missing from their sexuality. In other words, there is no
‘‘self’’ sexually connected to others, even though there
may be some level of physical response (and some level
of brain regulation) responding to sexual stimulation.
Bogaert (2012b) concluded that more research needs
to be conducted on this potential sexual ‘‘disconnect’’
between the self and others in some asexual people,
including examining additional content in their sexual
fantasies (if they exist) or in their use of pornography,
along with their physiological arousal behavior.
Understanding identity-less sexuality in asexual
people may help illuminate typical processes in sexual
people. Thus, it reveals what is implicit in most sexual
expressions, in other words, that sexual individuals
usually have a ‘‘self’’ engaged in and connected to their
sexual objects=targets. In one’s sexual fantasies, for
example, sexual individuals usually assume the role of
a protagonist in engaging in sexual behavior with others.
Thus, although people’s fantasies may vary in the degree
to which the protagonist is proceptive (initiating=directing
the action) or receptive (responding to other’s actions)
and, relatedly, whether the protagonist views others or
presents himself or herself as an ‘‘object of desire’’
(e.g., Bogaert, Visser, & Pozzebon, 2015), there still is
usually a ‘‘self’’ (or ‘‘I’’) as the protagonist in people’s
sexual fantasies. Yet as the fantasies mentioned suggest,
some asexual people evidently do not have this ‘‘I’’
connected to their sexuality.
Second, understanding identity-less sexuality puts
into relief other identity-related phenomena that charac-
terize human sexuality. For example, in many hetero-
sexual men’s sexual targeting of women, there is an
objectification where men may visualize female bodies
or parts of their bodies without a face or any semblance
of a personality; and thus their sexual targets can be
perceived to be devoid of any discernable identity.
Thus, identity issues are very relevant and worthy of
understanding in both the subject (e.g., ‘‘I’’ or ‘‘self’’
as a protagonist) in sexual activities, including fantasies,
and in the perception of the object=targets in human
sexual expressions. Much still needs to be understood
about how the self operates within sexual expressions,
and the study of asexuality may help illuminate these
processes.
There is also notable variation in asexuality based on
gender. For one, there is evidence more women than
men are asexual (e.g., Bogaert, 2004, 2013; Brotto
et al., 2010; Höglund et al., 2014). For example, Bogaert
(2004) found that approximately 70% of the asexual
people in NATSAL-I were women (i.e., reported never
experiencing sexual attraction to others). In several
publications Bogaert (2004, 2012b, 2013) raised a
number of possibilities for why this gender difference
369
 BOGAERT
in asexuality occurs. One of these possibilities was
related to masturbation. Men masturbate more than
women do, particularly during adolescence (e.g.,
Petersen & Hyde, 2010). Such self-stimulation may be
construed, at least partially, as ‘‘learning=conditioning’’
trials leading to enduring sexual attractions to others
(e.g., Bogaert, 2012b). If people of a particular gender
are regularly the object of one’s desire in fantasies
(e.g., self-induced imagery or imagery in viewed
pornography) during masturbation, then people of that
gender may become part of one’s permanent sexual
attractions. If so, in some women who do not mastur-
bate, or do so very rarely, there may be little develop-
ment of strong sexual attractions.
Another possibility is related to women’s sexuality,
relative to men’s, being more flexible, responsive, and
open to social=cultural influences (e.g., Baumeister,
2000). If so, women may have an increased likelihood
to developing asexuality if life circumstances are
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
atypical or perhaps not conducive to traditional
sexualization. An additional related consideration
includes the possibility that women are less socialized
to be sexual beings and=or have more atypical sexual
socialization experiences relative to men (e.g., Aubrey,
2004; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010),
and thus an absence of sex (e.g., lacking in sexual
attractions to others) may be compatible with how
they describe their inclinations and their overall sense
of (sexual) selves.
In a number of publications Bogaert (2004, 2006b,
2012b) argued that our conceptualization and measure-
ment of sexual orientation might also play a role in
finding a gender difference in asexuality. As sexologists,
we have traditionally viewed sexual orientation in
a ‘‘target-oriented’’ way, in other words, people’s sexual
orientation is construed as being directed sexually
toward or to others, either men or women, or both if
bisexual. Our questions assessing sexual orientation also
imply this target-oriented view of sexual orientation.
For example, consider the often-used sexual orientation
question: ‘‘To whom are you sexually attracted?’’ This
type of question implies a ‘‘target’’ group of individuals
(men, women, or both) to whom we direct sexual inter-
ests. This question assumes our sexuality is inherently
directed toward others. However, such a conceptualiza-
tion may be unduly influenced by a male model of
sexuality, because men are usually more category spe-
cific in their arousal (e.g., Chivers et al., 2004) and are
more proceptive (versus responsive) and objectifying in
their sexuality (e.g., Basson, 2002; Baumeister, 2000;
Bogaert & Brotto, 2014; Diamond, 2003b; Meana,
2010; Wallen, 1995) relative to women. Thus, men are,
arguably, more target oriented in their sexuality (e.g.,
Bogaert, 2004, 2012b, 2013) than women are. If so, tra-
ditional, target-oriented questions of sexual orientation
may not resonate with some women and their subjective
experience of sexuality. As a consequence, some of these
370
women may report not being sexually attracted to others
(hence asexual).
A second gender-related variation concerns gender
roles=identities. It is clear that some sexual minorities—
for example, gay and lesbians—on average do not con-
form to traditional gender roles (e.g., Rieger, Linsenme-
ier, Gygax, & Bailey, 2008). It is unclear, however,
whether asexual men and women on average also do
not conform to traditional gender roles. For example,
to the author’s knowledge there is no research examining
how asexual people score on traditional measures of gen-
der roles. Bogaert (2012b) did speculate that asexual
people are likely untraditional in some aspects of gender
roles, in part because sexual development may make boys
and men more traditionally masculine and girls and
women more traditionally feminine (see Hundhammer
& Mussweiler, 2012). In addition, there is some evidence
that an elevated percentage of asexual people do not
identify as either male or female, thus having a nontradi-
tional gender identity (Brotto et al., 2010; Gazzola &
Morrison, 2012). For example, approximately 13% of
the asexual people studied in Brotto and colleagues’
(2010) research did not identify as male or female. These
figures reinforce a main idea forwarded in this section on
variability: that asexual people likely form a very diverse
group—in other words, ‘‘one size does not fit all’’—but
also that one of the important variations may run along
basic gender identity lines.
There is also some noteworthy evidence that asexual
men and women may share some aspects of sexual func-
tioning with sexual individuals of their same gender. For
example, using psychophysiological measures of sexual
arousal, self-identified asexual women have been found
to evince patterns of arousal similar to other women;
in other words, they are non–category specific in their
response (see Brotto & Yule, 2011). To date, there is
no published research on patterns of psychophysiologi-
cal sexual arousal in asexual men. Similarly, evidence
suggests that both asexual men and women share some
patterns of masturbation with their biological sex
(men > women), with asexual men having an elevated
frequency of masturbation relative to asexual women
(e.g., Bogaert, 2013; Brotto et al., 2010). The fact that
asexual men masturbate more than asexual women sug-
gests that paraphilias—to the degree that they exist in
asexual people (e.g., Bogaert, 2012a)—may be elevated
among asexual men relative to asexual women. Such a
conclusion may be warranted for two reasons. First,
the content of one’s masturbatory fantasies is related to
one’s sexual attractions=inclinations (e.g., MacCulloch,
Snowden, Wood, & Mills, 1983; Storms, 1980). As such,
asexual men’s elevated rate of masturbation, some of
which is accompanied by fantasy (Yule et al., 2014b),
is not likely of typical content, given that asexual
people do not exhibit sexual attractions to people. Thus,
asexual men may have elevated paraphilic attractions
relative to asexual women, given that they masturbate
 ASEXUALITY
more than do asexual women, and such masturbation
may, at times, be accompanied by atypical fantasies.
Second, this conclusion is consistent with evidence that
men exceed women in the incidence of paraphilias
(Cantor, Blanchard, & Barbaree, 2009). However, an
increased incidence of paraphilias among asexual men
relative to asexual women remains a speculation, as
limited research exists on the content of sexual fantasies
(Yule et al., 2014b), along with other evidence of
unusual attractions, in asexual people.
As a final note in this section, a theme in this article
is, as mentioned, that understanding asexuality helps
us understand sexuality, and this is certainly true
in the context of gender differences in sexuality. For
example, we may understand better how women’s
sexuality, relative to men’s, may be less target oriented,
which may have implications for a number of aspects of
sociosexual functioning, including women’s reporting of
sexual attraction (or their lack of attraction) to others.
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
Origins
A number of research studies have addressed the
origins of human asexuality. One line of research focuses
on markers=correlates of early biological development,
similar to work on traditional sexual orientation
(e.g., LeVay, 2010; Wilson & Rahman, 2005). Bogaert
(2004, 2013) found evidence that asexual men and
women have, on average, a shorter stature than sexual
people. Bogaert (2004, 2013) also found evidence that
asexual women have, on average, atypical menstrual char-
acteristics relative to sexual women (see Ingudomnukul,
Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, & Knickmeyer, 2007). These
correlates are suggestive of early biological influences
on asexuality, as both are potential markers of early
biological determinants, including prenatal factors
(e.g., Bogaert & Liu, 2013; but see Bogaert & McCreary,
2011). Yule and colleagues (2014a) found evidence
that non-right-handedness in both men and women
and the number of older brothers in men are associated
with asexuality. Handedness is particularly relevant to
explanations of early biological determinants in asexual
development, because it is a clear marker of prenatal
development (e.g., Hepper, Shahidullah, & White,
1991). Handedness patterns have also been linked to
other nonheterosexual sexual orientations and other
sexual inclinations (e.g., Bogaert, 2001; Lalumière,
Blanchard, & Zucker, 2000), suggesting that asexuality
shares a common origin with these other sexual
orientations=inclinations. An elevated number of older
brothers may also be relevant to prenatal influences on
sexual orientation development, as it has been linked
to homosexuality in men (e.g., Blanchard & Bogaert,
1996) and this linkage is likely the result of prenatal
influences (Bogaert, 2006a). The most well-articulated
prenatal explanation of the ‘‘older brother’’ (or ‘‘fraternal
birth order’’) effect is the maternal immune hypothesis,
where a mother develops an immune response against
a male-specific protein important in brain development
after being exposed to one or more male pregnancies
(Blanchard & Bogaert, 1996; Blanchard, 2004; Bogaert
& Skorska, 2011).
The biological research on low desire issues—such as
evidence of low circulating testosterone (e.g., Bolour &
Braunstein, 2005; Riley & Riley, 2000)—may be rel-
evant as well, if we are to define asexuality broadly
and to include instances where individuals evince no
or very low desire (e.g., Prause & Graham, 2007), or
if such conditions ultimately contribute to a lack of
(subjective) sexual attraction and=or to an asexual
identity in some people. There is also some evidence
that at least some asexual people (i.e., those who report
no sexual attraction for others) have elevated physical
health issues (Bogaert, 2004, 2013), with some con-
ditions potentially impacting adult testosterone levels.
On the other hand, to the author’s knowledge, there is
no direct research on those individuals who report a
lack of sexual attraction for others, or self-identified
asexuals, having lower levels of testosterone. In
addition, assuming that animal models are applicable
to understanding human asexuality, there is no or little
evidence that ‘‘asexual’’ (noncopulating) rodents differ
from sexual ones in their testosterone levels (e.g., Alex-
ander, Stellflug, Rose, Fitzgerald, & Moss, 1999).
Moreover, as mentioned, there is evidence that many
asexual people still exhibit solitary desire and mastur-
bate (e.g., Bogaert, 2013; Brotto et al., 2010); thus,
altered testosterone levels may not be applicable in most
cases.
Interestingly, some qualitative research on asexual
women (Van Houdenhove et al., 2014c) suggests that
a high percentage of asexual people may have ‘‘always
felt different,’’ similar to the often-reported sense among
many gays and lesbians of always ‘‘being different’’
from the heterosexual majority (see Sage, 2013; Wilson
& Rahman, 2005). Such reflections suggest, although
they do not demonstrate, that the origins of asexuality,
like other enduring sexual orientations, may reflect in
part very early influences, including potential prenatal
ones.
Bogaert (2012b) also speculated that some psychoso-
cial factors might be relevant, including atypical or
extreme environmental conditions, such as early sexual
trauma. Such early sexual influences have been argued
to play some role in other atypical sexual inclinations
of an enduring nature (e.g., Seto, 2008). However, there
is little evidence that self-identified asexuals are moti-
vated by avoidance=aversion issues (Prause & Graham,
2007), assuming, for example, that sexual trauma is
sometimes linked to avoidance=aversion issues. It is also
important to note that no research to date has examined
the impact of such environmental influences on
asexuality directly, although there is some evidence that
broad societal or macrolevel environmental variables
371
 BOGAERT
(e.g., lower socioeconomic status and education, higher
religiosity) may be correlated with asexuality (e.g.,
Bogaert, 2004). Assuming such influences do play a role
in some forms of asexuality, again some sensitivity to
variability and different patterns of expression of
asexuality is warranted, as some asexual people may
be more ‘‘hardwired’’ while others may reflect respon-
sivity to certain strong environmental factors. If there
are different ‘‘forms’’ of asexuality based on origins,
does this mean that the potential ‘‘hardwired’’ form is
the ‘‘real’’ form of asexuality while the more responsive
form is an ‘‘unreal’’ type? As suggested, the perspective
taken in this article (also Bogaert, 2006b, 2012b) is that
such distinctions are dubious. It is necessary to uncon-
found the origins of asexuality from both the phenom-
enology of asexuality as an orientation and, relatedly,
with whether it may be construed as a disorder. Thus—
again using homosexuality as an example—if two people
have an enduring subjective sexual attraction toward
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
the same sex, yet the origins of that subjective attraction
differ for these individuals, it does not negate the
‘‘realness’’ (or phenomenology) of their orientation as
homosexual for either one of them.
Prause and Graham (2007) found evidence that
self-identified asexuals have lower sexual ‘‘excitatory’’
propensities but not necessarily higher ‘‘inhibitory’’
ones. Bancroft, Graham, Janssen, and Sanders (2009)
have argued in their dual control model that sexual
functioning is influenced by both excitatory (high) and
inhibitory (low) mechanisms. Thus, from a developmen-
tal perspective, processes related to lower excitatory
(versus higher inhibitory ones) may be particularly rel-
evant to understanding asexuality. Both excitatory and
inhibitory processes are likely influenced by multiple
factors, including biological and sociocultural ones. As
such, Prause and Graham’s (2007) research, although
not isolating a specific causal factor underlying asexu-
ality per se, may provide some direction for specific cau-
sal factors within a broad model of sexual functioning.
Bogaert (2012b) argued that understanding gender
differences in asexuality may also offer clues to under-
standing the origins of asexuality. Potential causal
explanations were raised in the gender section in this
article, but here two more are discussed. As mentioned,
there is some evidence that an elevated percentage of
asexual people eschew identifying as either male or
female (e.g., Brotto et al. 2010). There is also evidence
of a somewhat higher rate of asexuality among trans-
gender individuals (4%; Grant et al., 2011) relative to
the rate of asexuality in general populations (e.g., 1%,
Bogaert, 2004). From a biological perspective, these
findings suggest there may be both demasculinizing
and defeminizing prenatal mechanisms (e.g., alteration
of hormones, male- and female-specific proteins) operat-
ing in some asexual individuals; and as a consequence
these mechanisms also ‘‘desexualize’’ the individual.
Implicit in this perspective is that biological processes
372
related to sexual differentiation not only create biological
sex=gender but also underlie sexual orientation and,
ultimately, sexualize the individual (e.g., Bao & Swaab,
2011; Breedlove, 2010). From a psychosocial perspec-
tive, there may be socializing factors related to gender
that may make individuals more or less sexualized.
For example, Bogaert (2012b) speculated that not
identifying with one or both of the two traditional
genders may reduce traditional sexualization, given that
gender roles contain sexual expectations that girls and
boys may internalize.
Medical/Clinical Issues
Asexuality and Its Relation to Sexual Problems/
Disorders
What is the similarity between asexuality and various
forms of diagnosable sexual dysfunctions, such as
HSDD as defined by the DSM-IV and the DSM-5, or
female sexual interest=arousal disorder (FSIAD) as
defined in the DSM-5? HSDD is defined by the DSM-
IV-TR as ‘‘persistently or recurrently deficient (or
absent) sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity’’
(American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 539). Note
HSDD, still diagnosable in men, no longer exists for
women in the DSM-5, but similar criteria for sexual
interest issues exist for FSIAD in the DSM-5. For
example, one of FSIAD’s criteria is ‘‘Absent=reduced
interest in sexual activity’’; another is ‘‘Absent=reduced
sexual=erotic thoughts or fantasies.’’ A clinician must
make the judgment of what entails a reduced or absent
interest. A diagnosis also includes a symptom duration
of at least six months.
Both HSDD and FSIAD can be divided into certain
subcategories or specifications, such as generalized ver-
sus situational and lifelong versus acquired. For HSDD
and related FSIAD variations=disorders, a diagnosis is
only applied if the patient=client is in distress. Certain
medical conditions, along with depression and the use
of certain drugs known to lower sexual desire are
excluded from a main diagnosis of HSDD or FSAID.
Thus, if such conditions fully explain the low=absent
desire, a separate diagnosis is applied (e.g., FSIAD or
HSDD due to major depressive disorder).
Notably, in contrast to previous DSM editions, the
wording in the DSM-5 now allows for someone to
‘‘self-identify’’ as asexual and thus not be diagnosed as
having lifelong HSDD or FSAID (e.g., ‘‘If a lifelong
lack of sexual desire is explained by self-identification
as ‘asexual,’ then a diagnosis of female sexual interest=
arousal disorder would not be made’’ (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 434). Some recent
literature on theoretical issues (Bogaert, 2006b),
research on distress in self-identified asexual people
(e.g., Brotto et al., 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007), as
 ASEXUALITY
well as the work of asexual activists (e.g., Brotto, 2010;
Bulwa, 2009; Hinderliter, 2013), were likely influential in
the decision to add this provision to the DSM-5.
Given the DSM-5’s recent exclusion criteria on
self-identification as an asexual, does there remain any
overlap between asexuality, as defined previously (e.g.,
as a lack of sexual attraction or a lack of desire for
others), and HSDD=FSAID and related diagnoses?
There is indeed still potential overlap between asexuality
and forms=variations of HSDD=FSAID, at least on
a theoretical level (Bogaert, 2006b, 2012b; Flore, 2013;
Hinderliter, 2013). For example, people who have had
a lifelong absence of sexual thoughts=fantasies and=or
sexual desire and are markedly distressed about this
situation (lifelong SIAD or HSDD) would not likely
have had any sexual attraction to (or desire for) others.
Thus, these individuals may be construable as asexual,
even if, for example, at this point in their lives they
may not self-label or identify as such. In short, the
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
overlap or similarity between asexuality and a lifelong
HSDD and FSIAD (and related conditions) is notable,
at least theoretically.
On the other hand, there are also important differ-
ences between some forms of asexuality and FSAID=
HSDD (along with related disorders). First, it is impor-
tant to remember that most forms of HSDD=FSIAD
are not necessarily lifelong in duration. As asexuality
is an enduring lack of sexual attraction or desire for
others, it may not overlap with the most frequently diag-
nosed forms of HSDD and FSIAD.
Second, it is important to remember that additional
conditions=criteria (e.g., marked distress) must occur
before a diagnosis of HSDD=FSIAD is established. If
so, likely many people who have enduring lack of sexual
thoughts=fantasies and=or sexual desire (and hence are
asexual) would not be diagnosable with HSDD=FSIAD
because they are not distressed.
In summary, there is some theoretical overlap
between lifelong HSDD and FSIAD and asexuality,
and some asexuals, broadly defined (e.g., lifelong lack
of sex attraction; lifelong lack of desire for others)
may still be diagnosed if, for example, they exhibit dis-
tress, while others (e.g., who have no distress or who
self-identify) would not. Part of this overlap may cause
some confusion among clinicians as to when a diagnosis
of HSDD=FSIAD should apply—a confusion that
stems in part from a largely research-based definition
of asexuality that is centered on a lack of sexual attrac-
tion to others while the DSM-5 largely focuses on desire
(e.g., HSDD) and an exclusion criterion based on
self-identification.
Is Asexuality a Disorder?
A broader but related issue is this: Should asexuality
be viewed as a pathology or a disorder that needs cor-
recting? For example, was the DSM-5 committee wrong
in adding language to allow self-identified asexuals to not
be diagnosed as having a sexual problem? Conversely,
has the DSM not gone far enough, and thus should
there be a full depathologizing of asexuality, as occurred
for homosexuality in 1973 in the DSM-II? In a series of
publications Bogaert (2006b, 2008, 2012b) addressed
empirical research and theoretical issues on whether
asexuality should be construable as a pathological state.
He concluded that asexuality, per se, should not be
construed as a pathology. Some of the evidence and
arguments consistent with this perspective are given here
(see Bogaert, 2012b, for additional arguments).
One argument against pathologizing asexuality was
that although only a small portion of the population is
asexual, statistical rarity, at least by itself, is a poor basis
for pathologizing a condition or variation. For example,
other sexual variations are also rare, but individuals
having these variations (e.g., gays and lesbians) are not
construed as pathological merely because of their
minority status. Also, it is important to recognize that
statistically rare conditions in various domains of life
are, at least at times, valued and life-enhancing (e.g.,
exceptional musical talent).
Another issue raised was whether distress and
other mental health issues in people lacking sexual
attraction=desire should be used to determine pathol-
ogy. As mentioned, most modern medical and psycho-
logical approaches, including those informing the
diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5, often limit sexual
pathology=dysfunction (and the need for treatment)
to when these inclinations entail distress. Although
more research is needed, there is some evidence that
self-identified asexual people are not significantly
distressed by their lack of sexual interest=attractions
per se (Brotto et al., 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007).
Some research has also addressed whether asexual
people have other mental health and interpersonal
problems. There is evidence that certain mental health
issues, such as depression, anxiety, and interpersonal
problems, are elevated in asexual people relative to other
groups (Brotto et al., 2010; Yule, Brotto, & Gorzalka,
2013). There is also some evidence of elevated rates
of asexuality among individuals with autism spectrum
conditions (Gilmour, Schalomon, & Smith, 2012;
Ingudomnukul et al., 2007). However, it is also impor-
tant to note that elevated rates of mental health issues
in asexual people do not necessarily mean that all (or
even a majority) of asexual people have these issues.
For example, the significant effects associated with
group differences in Yule and colleagues’ (2013) study
were typically small in terms of effect size. Research
on mental health issues in other sexual minorities is also
worthy of considering in this context. Lesbians, gays,
and bisexuals have been found to have elevated mental
health issues, including sometimes experiencing distress
about their sexual orientation (e.g., Meyer, 2003). How-
ever, it is also true that many individuals with same-sex
373
 BOGAERT
attraction have mental health within the normal range
(e.g., Busseri, Willoughby, Chalmers, & Bogaert, 2006).
Moreover, modern medicine and clinical psychology
excludes homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder and
thus does not view homosexuality as pathological.
Similarly, even though mental health issues seem to
occur in asexual people at an elevated rate, this does
not necessarily mean that we should use this information
to pathologize asexuality, generally speaking.
Also, the distress and mental health issues in sexual
minorities have an additional complication. Should we
pathologize someone for feeling distressed (or having
other mental health issues) if it is a response to a society
that does not value them—and, indeed, may actively dis-
criminate against them? In other words, it is important
to consider the sources of the distress and mental health
issues in sexual minorities. Distress and other mental
health issues may be very understandable (and even
rational) responses to a society that discriminates
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
against and devalues these individuals (Bogaert, 2012b;
Yule et al., 2013).
An additional consideration is associated with the
origins of asexuality. If atypical prenatal development
(along with physical health considerations) underlies at
least some forms of asexuality (e.g., Bogaert, 2004; Yule
et al., 2014a), should such a linkage imply that asexu-
ality is a pathology? Such associations are, of course,
important for understanding the origins of asexuality,
but it is also important to keep in mind a number of
qualifications relevant to this linkage. First, these
markers of physical health and atypical prenatal devel-
opment, at least currently, account for only a modest
amount of variation in asexuality. Thus, even if research
demonstrates that a percentage of asexual people have,
for example, serious health problems, this does not
imply that all asexual people, or that asexuality per se
should be pathologized. Second, and perhaps more
important, using a research finding that an unusual pre-
natal event is (causally) associated with a trait to imply
that someone with that trait currently has a disorder is
problematic. Again, research on other sexual minorities
is worthy of considering in this context. For example,
there is evidence that unusual prenatal events—such as
developmental instability; maternal immune response,
maternal stress (e.g., Blanchard, 2004; Bogaert &
Skorska, 2011; Ellis & Cole-Harding, 2001; Lalumière
et al., 2000)—may play a causal role in same-sex attrac-
tion, and yet we currently do not pathologize homo-
sexuality. In addition, returning to another example
mentioned previously, it is possible that some forms of
high musical talent are determined by unusual prenatal
events (e.g., higher-than-typical exposure to testoster-
one; Manning, 2002), yet we do not pathologize high
musical ability. In short, it is important to caution
against confounding origins, atypical or otherwise, with
an understanding of what is construable as a current
pathological state (Bogaert, 2006b, 2012b).
374
In addition, existing psychophysiological research
does not support the notion that asexual women have
what would be currently regarded as a diagnosable
physical arousal disorder. For instance, Brotto and
Yule’s (2011) research indicates that self-identified asex-
ual women have similar arousal responses to sexually
functional women (i.e., non-category-specific arousal).
Based on these findings, the authors suggest asexuality
should not necessarily be construed as a (physical
arousal) disorder, as asexual women do not evince
abnormally low arousal responses. Instead, as men-
tioned, these authors suggest the patterns of arousal
responses in their data are consistent with a sexual
orientation model of asexuality in women. As a caution-
ary note, to date there are no published data on the
psychophysiological arousal patterns of asexual men
and, as mentioned, Brotto and Yule’s (2011) study,
although interesting, contained only a small sample of
asexual women (n ¼ 7).
As an additional argument against pathologizing
asexuality, Bogaert (2012b) suggested that, in a thought
experiment, if we view broadly and ‘‘deconstruct’’ sexu-
ality, it can be viewed as a debilitating behavior with
odd, even bizarre, rituals and movements. Bogaert
(2012b) also provided evidence that sexuality is often
associated with extreme and risky behaviors along
with impaired cognitive functioning. Bogaert (2012b)
concluded that sexuality is suggested as a form of
‘‘madness’’ (broadly defined). Bogaert also concluded
that, although sexuality is often a source of intense pas-
sion and pleasure and a ‘‘condition’’ most sexual people
suffer from gladly, it should give us pause about what is
and what is not a disorder.
Why Asexuality Should Matter to Sexologists
Why should the absence of sexuality be of interest to
sexologists, those scholars devoted to studying sexuality,
construable as the polar opposite of asexuality? For one,
it allows us to understand an understudied sexual
minority. In recent years, research on asexuality has
increased (e.g., Przybylo, 2013), but asexual people are
still not well understood as a minority on the sexuality
spectrum. Related, asexual people highlight the broad
range of this spectrum and, more fundamentally, the
nature and extent of human variability of which both
sexual and asexual people belong. Finally, and perhaps
equally as important for sexologists, is that under-
standing asexuality can increase our understanding of
sexuality. This idea is discussed in the following sections.
Through the Lens of Asexuality
In the same way that studying homosexuality allows
us to examine and potentially better understand hetero-
sexuality and vice versa, the study of asexuality allows
 ASEXUALITY
for a broader view and, potentially, a deeper under-
standing of sexuality. Examples were given throughout
this review paper, and this conclusion—of providing a
deeper understanding of sexuality—should be seen as a
main theme throughout. One example was that studying
asexuality can provide insight into the difference
between romance and sexuality; for example, asexual
people demonstrate that these processes are potentially
de-coupleable. It was also suggested that studying
asexuality allows for a better understanding of metho-
dological weaknesses present in the study of sexuality,
such as volunteer bias. Moreover, studying asexuality
reveals insight into gender differences in sexual function-
ing: how, for example, an (implicit) target-oriented view
of sexuality and sexual orientation in particular—as an
attraction to something—may not apply as directly to
women as it does to men. It was also suggested that
literature and other forms of dramatic arts=media often
require variability in characters to generate dramatic
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
tension and that use of sexual variability in charac-
ter—including ones with an asexual aura—is a literary
technique of creating this tension. Thus, how asexuality
plays itself out in art provides insight into sexuality
and, more broadly, human nature. In addition, it was
suggested that prejudicial views against asexual
people—viewing them as ‘‘less than human’’—indicate
that sexuality is a key element that humans use (perhaps
implicitly) to understand what comprises the nature
of being human. It was also suggested that studying
asexuality and considering whether it should be
construed as a disorder may reveal the strangeness (even
the ‘‘madness’’) of sex.
Beyond the examples presented throughout this
article, Bogaert (2012b) also suggested that studying
asexuality—for example, taking an asexual person’s
perspective, to the degree that such a view is possible
for a sexual person—reveals how sex is deeply embed-
ded in our worldview=culture. For example, for centu-
ries artists needed to walk a very fine line in how they
portrayed the human body, specifically to avoid appeal-
ing to prurient interests. Thus, artists often felt
compelled to avoid presenting an unclothed human
body in a ‘‘naked’’ way, which implied some (explicit
or shameful) sexuality, and instead portrayed ‘‘nude’’
bodies, which were construable as a nonshameful
celebration of the human form (e.g., Clark, 1956). Yet
the ubiquity of the unclothed female body—be it in a
‘‘naked’’ or ‘‘nude’’ form in art, particularly as depicted
by heterosexual male artists—shows that our sensibil-
ities, including our artistic ones, are deeply influenced,
likely in hitherto unrecognized ways, by sexuality. Simi-
larly, in the news and popular media, the interest in sex
scandals, even in an arguably postmodern Western
world presumably jaded by such information, provides
another example of how enduringly and intricately embed-
ded sexuality is within our psyches and culture. Bogaert
(2012b) also examined sexual humor: its ubiquity and
function. Modern psychological models of humor are
often consistent with the notion that it may serve in
part as a (coping) mechanism that helps us negotiate
our way through tensions and complex social rules
(e.g., McGraw & Warren, 2010). Sexuality is an activity
fraught with tensions and complex social-cultural rules
and thus lends itself particularly well to the subject of
humor. If so, one might speculate that asexual people
do not appreciate sexual humor given their lack of need
to negotiate the tensions and complex social-cultural
rules associated with sex, or at least not to the same
degree as average sexual people. However, Bogaert
(2012b) suggested that many asexual people likely
appreciate, or at least understand to a degree, sexual
humor because everyone—sexual or not—is inundated
by sexual references and information in our culture.
Given how embedded and influential sex is in our cul-
ture, along with how sexual humor is likely a coping
mechanism to deal with tensions and socio-cultural rules
surrounding sex, Bogaert (2012b) also suggested it is an
interesting question to ask what our humor would be
like without sex.
Summary and Future Research
Although a wide range of sexual variability has been
recognized throughout human history, and asexual
people were noted by pioneering sexologists such as
Kinsey, asexuals remain an understudied sexual min-
ority. In the present article, empirical research and
theoretical perspectives on human asexuality were
reviewed. This review concentrated on four main areas:
introductory and contextual issues (i.e., biological and
historical contexts, definitions, and prevalence), psycho-
logical development and variations (i.e., identity and
discrimination, origins, variation based on gender and
masturbation), medical=clinical issues (DSM diagnoses,
whether asexuality is a disorder), and why sexologists
should study asexual people.
Many research questions and scholarly issues remain
(e.g., Bogaert, 2012b; Van Houdenhove et al., 2014b),
and sex researchers as well as colleagues of allied disci-
plines may be able to address a number of gaps in the
literature on asexuality in future work. First, conceptual
and definitional issues still exist, as there is no consensus
on how to best define asexuality. Such definitional issues
present challenges in a number of domains, including in
the meaning and conceptualization of sexual orientation
and how sexual disorders such as HSDD and FSIAD
are construed and diagnosed. Methodological chal-
lenges include a heavy reliance on one Web site=forum
for participants (AVEN; see Brotto & Yule, 2009;
Hinderliter, 2009), and the potential undersampling of
those who would likely never participate in a sex-related
study, including asexuals (Bogaert, 2012b). The study of
asexuality’s origins, identity formation, and variation
375
 BOGAERT
also remains in its early stages. Using other sexual mino-
rities as models of development (e.g., on origins, identity
formation) may be helpful to a degree, but asexual
people likely have unique aspects to their psychology
toward which researchers need to act sensitively. New
research on gender and masturbation=fantasies, along
with other sources of variability among asexual people,
will also help to understand the range of asexual expres-
sions. Asexuality will also likely continue to challenge
medical scholars and clinicians as to what is or is not
a sexual disorder. In addition, more research is needed
on the mental health of asexual people, along with
whether a potential increased incidence of mental health
issues occurs in asexual people, in part as a result of
a society that often mistrusts and devalues them.
Finally, the degree to which sexuality is embedded in
our society will likely make the study of asexuality an
important counterpointing view for scholars of culture.
These and related future research questions=
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
endeavors will help to understand this understudied
sexual minority, but studying asexuality may also reveal
a rich cache of untapped knowledge on sexuality,
including psychological and sociocultural aspects—a
main theme of this article. Thus, the asexual world is
worth exploring (or at least considering), even for those
primarily interested in understanding the sexual one.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Kelsey Fallis and Katie Ross
for their comments on a previous draft of this manu-
script. I would also like to thank four anonymous
reviewers for their suggestions.
References
Abbott, E. (2001). A history of celibacy. New York, NY: Da Capo
Press.
Adkins-Regan, E. (2005). Hormones and animal social behavior.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Aicken, C., Mercer, C., & Cassella, J. (2013). Who reports absence of
sexual attraction in Britain? Evidence from national probability
surveys. Psychology and Sexuality, 4, 121–135. doi:10.1080=
19419899.2013.774161
Alexander, B. M., Stellflug, J. N., Rose, J. D., Fitzgerald, J. A., & Moss,
G. E. (1999). Behavior and endocrine changes in high performing,
low-performing, and male-oriented domestic rams following
exposure to rams and ewes in estrus when copulation is precluded.
Journal of Animal Science, 77(7), 1869–1874. doi:=1999.7771869x
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text revision). Washington,
DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Aubrey, J. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual
consequences and the sexual double standard in teen program-
ming. Sex Roles, 50, 505–514. doi:10.1023=B:SERS.0000023070.
87195.07
376
Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and
environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates
in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 524–536. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.78.3.524
Bancroft, J., Graham, C. A., Janssen, E., & Sanders, S. A. (2009). The
dual control model: Current status and current directions. Journal
of Sex Research, 46, 121–142. doi:10.1080=00224490902747222
Bao, A. M., & Swaab, D. F. (2011). Sexual differentiation of the
human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation,
and neuropsychiatric disorders. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology,
32, 214–226. doi:10.1016=j.yfrne.2011.02.007
Basson, R. (2002). Women’s sexual desire—Disordered or misunder-
stood? Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 17–28. doi:10.1080=
00926230252851168
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The
female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 347–374. doi:10.1037=0033-2909.126.3.347
Blanchard, R. (1989). The concept of autogynephilia and the
typology of male gender dysphoria. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 177, 616–623. doi:10.1097=00005053-198910000-
00004
Blanchard, R. (1991). Clinical observations and systematic studies
of autogynephilia. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17,
235–251. doi:10.1080=00926239108404348
Blanchard, R. (2004). Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the
relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men.
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 230, 173–187. doi:10.1016=j.jtbi.
2004.04.021
Blanchard, R., & Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Homosexuality in men and
number of older brothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153,
27–31. doi:10.1176=ajp.153.1.27
Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Volunteer bias in human sexuality research:
Evidence for both sexuality and personality differences in
males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 125–140. doi:10.1007=
BF02437932
Bogaert, A. F. (2001). Handedness, criminality, and sexual offending.
Neuropsychologia, 39, 465–469. doi:10.1016=S0028-3932(00)00134-2
Bogaert, A. F. (2003). Number of older brothers and sexual orien-
tation: New tests and the attractive=behavior distinction in two
national probability samples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 644–652. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.84.3.644
Bogaert, A. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors
in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex Research, 41,
279–287. doi:10.1080=00224490409552235
Bogaert, A. F. (2006a). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers
and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 103, 10771–10774. doi:10.1073=
pnas.0511152103
Bogaert, A. F. (2006b). Toward a conceptual understanding of
asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10, 241–250. doi:10.1037=
1089-2680.10.3.241
Bogaert, A. F. (2008). Asexuality: Dysfunction or variation? In J. M.
Caroll & M. K. Alena (Eds.), Psychological sexual dysfunctions
(pp. 9–13). New York, NY: Nova Biomedical Books.
Bogaert, A. F. (2012a). Asexuality and autochorissexualism (identity-less
sexuality). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1513–1514. doi:10.1007=
s10508-012-9963-1
Bogaert, A. F. (2012b). Understanding asexuality. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Bogaert, A. F. (2013). The demography of asexuality. In A. Baumle
(Ed.), International handbook on the demography of sexuality
(pp. 275–288). New York, NY: Springer Press.
Bogaert, A. F., & Brotto, L. (2014). Object of desire self-consciousness
theory. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 40, 323–338.
doi:10.1080=0092623X.2012.756841
Bogaert, A. F., & Liu, J. (2013). Physical size and sexual orientation:
Analysis of the Chinese Health and Family Life Survey. Archives
 ASEXUALITY
of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1555–1559. doi:10.1007=s10508-013-
0110-4
Bogaert, A. F., & McCreary, D. (2011). Masculinity and the distortion
of self-reported height in men. Sex Roles, 65, 548–556.
doi:10.1007=s11199-011-0003-8
Bogaert, A. F., & Skorska, M. (2011). Sexual orientation, fraternal
birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: A review.
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 247–254. doi:10.1016=
j.yfrne.2011.02.004
Bogaert, A. F., Visser, B. A., & Pozzebon, J. A. (2015). Gender
differences in object of desire self-consciousness sexual fantasies.
Archives of Sexual Behavior. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1007=s10508-014-0456-2
Bolour, S., & Braunstein, G. (2005). Testosterone therapy in women: A
review. International Journal of Impotence Research, 17, 399–408.
doi:10.1038=sj.ijir.3901334
Boynton, P. M. (2003). ‘‘I am just a girl who can’t say no’’: Women,
consent, and sex research. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,
29, 23–32. doi:10.1080=713847130
Breedlove, S. M. (2010). Minireview: Organizational hypothesis:
Instances of the fingerpost. Endocrinology, 151, 4116–4122.
doi:10.1210=en.2010-0041
Brotto, L. A. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for hypoactive
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
sexual desire disorder in men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7,
2015–2030. doi:10.1111=j.1743-6109.2010.01860.x
Brotto, L. A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., & Erskine, Y.
(2010). Asexuality: A mixed methods approach. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 39, 599–618. doi:10.1007=s10508-008-9434-x
Brotto, L. A., & Yule, M. A. (2009). Reply to Hinderliter [Letter to the
editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 622–623. doi:10.1007=
s10508-009-9514-6
Brotto, L. A., & Yule, M. A. (2011). Physiological and subjective sex-
ual arousal in self-identified asexual women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 699–712. doi:10.1007=s10508-010-9671-7
Bulwa, D. (2009, August 24). Asexuals leave the closet, find com-
munity. SF Gate. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/24/MNC6194GN4.DTL
Busseri, M., Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Bogaert, A. F. (2006).
Same-sex attraction and successful adolescent development.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 563–575. doi:10.1007=
s10964-006-9071-4
Cacchioni, T., & Tiefer, L. (2012). Why medicalization? Introduction
to the special issue on the medicalization of sex. Journal of Sex
Research, 49, 307–310. doi:10.1080=00224499.2012.690112
Cantor, J., Blanchard, R., & Barbaree, H. (2009). Sexual disorders. In
P. H. Blaney & T. Millon (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopath-
ology (pp. 527–548). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Carrigan, M. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference and
commonality within the asexual community. Sexualities, 14,
462–478. doi:10.1177=1363460711406462
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.
Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. doi:10.1300=J082v04n03_01
Chapman, D. D., Shivji, M. S., Louis, E., Sommer, J., Fletcher, H., &
Prodöhl, P. A. (2007). Virgin birth in a hammerhead shark.
Biology Letters, 3, 425–427. doi:10.1098=rsbl.2007.0189
Chasin, C. J. D. (2011). Theoretical issues in the study of asexuality.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 713–723. doi:10.1007=s10508-
011-9757-x
Chevigny, K., Davenport, B., Pinder, J. (Producers), & Tucker, A. (Direc-
tor). (2011). (A)sexual [Documentary]. United States: Arts Engine.
Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex dif-
ference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science,
15, 736–744. doi:10.1111=j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x
Clark, K. (1956). The nude: A study in ideal form. New York, NY:
Pantheon Books.
Clifford, R. (1978). The development of masturbation in college
women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 559–573. doi:10.1007=
BF01541922
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process.
Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 31–43. doi:10.1300=J082v07n02_06
Cowen, R. (2005). History of life (4th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Davies, S. (2004). Emily Bronte: Heretic. London: The Women’s Press.
Decker, J. S. (2014). The invisible orientation: An introduction to
asexuality. New York: Carrel Books.
Diamond, L. (2003a). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment
of lesbian=bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364. doi:10.1037=
0022-3514.84.2.352
Diamond, L. (2003b). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobeha-
vioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire.
Psychological Review, 110, 173–192. doi:10.1037=0033-295X.
110.1.173
Ellis, L., & Cole-Harding, S. (2001). The effects of prenatal stress, and
of prenatal alcohol and nicotine exposure, on human sexual orien-
tation. Physiology and Behavior, 74, 213–226. doi:10.1016=
S0031-9384(01)00564-9
Emens, E. F. (2014). Compulsory sexuality. Stanford Law Review, 66,
303–386.
Fehr, B. (2013). The social psychology of love. In J. A. Simpson &
L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships
(pp. 201–233). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, H. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic
love. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Flore, J. (2013). HSDD and asexuality: A question of instruments.
Psychology and Sexuality, 4, 152–166. doi:10.1080=19419899.
2013.774163
Floyd, F. J., & Stein, T. S. (2002). Sexual orientation identity forma-
tion among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Multiple patterns
of milestone experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
12, 167–191. doi:10.1111=1532-7795.00030
Gazzola, S. B., & Morrison, M. A. (2012). Asexuality: An emergent
sexual orientation. In T. G. Morrison, M. A. Morrison, M. A.
Carrigan, & D. T. McDermott (Eds.), Sexual minority research
in the new millennium (pp. 21–44). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science.
Gilmour, L., Schalomon, P. M., & Smith, V. (2012). Sexuality in
a community-based sample of adults with autism spectrum dis-
order. Research in Autism Spectrums Disorders, 6, 313–318.
doi:10.1016=j.rasd.2011.06.003
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., &
Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the
National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Retrieved from
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_
full.pdf
Gressgård, R. (2013). Asexuality: From pathology to identity and
beyond. Psychology and Sexuality, 4, 179–192. doi:10.1080=
19419899.2013.774166
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 511–524. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.52.3.511
Hepper, P. G., Shahidullah, S., & White, R. (1991). Handedness in
human fetus. Neuropsychologia, 36, 531–534. doi:10.1016=
S0028-3932(97)00156-5
Hinderliter, A. (2009). Methodological issues for studying asexuality
[Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 619–
621. doi:10.1007=s10508-009-9502-x
Hinderliter, A. (2013). How is asexuality different from hypoactive
sexual desire disorder? Psychology & Sexuality, 4, 167–178.
doi:10.1080=19419899.2013.774165
Höglund, J., Jern, P., Sandnabba, N. K., & Santtila, P. (2014). Finnish
women and men who self-report no sexual attraction in the past
12 months: Prevalence, relationship status, and sexual behavior
history. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 879–889. doi:10.1007=
s10508-013-0240-8
Hundhammer, T., & Mussweiler, T. (2012). How sex puts you in
gendered shoes: Sexuality-priming leads to gender-based
377
 BOGAERT
self-perception and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 103, 176–193. doi:10.1037=a0028121
Ingudomnukul, E., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & Knickmeyer,
R. (2007). Elevated rates of testosterone-related disorders in
women with autism spectrum conditions. Hormones and Behavior,
51, 597–604. doi:10.1016=j.yhbeh.2007.02.001
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948).
Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B.
Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H.
(1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA:
W. B. Saunders.
Lalumière, M. L., Blanchard, R., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Sexual
orientation and handedness in men and women: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 575–592. doi:10.1037=0033-2909.
126.4.575
Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. C. (1999). Sexual dysfunction
in the United States: Prevalence and predictors. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 281, 537–544. doi:10.1001=
jama.281.6.537
Lawrence, A. A. (2011). Autogynephilia: An underappreciated
paraphilia. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine, 31, 135–148.
doi:10.1159=000328921
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
LeVay, S. (2010). Gay, straight, and the reason why: The science of
sexual orientation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lucassen, M. F., Merry, S. N., Robinson, E. M., Denny, S., Clark, T.,
Ameratunga, S., Crengle, S., & Rossen, F. V. (2011). Sexual
attraction, depression, self-harm, suicidality and help-seeking
behaviour in New Zealand secondary school students. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 376–383. doi:10.3109=
00048674.2011.559635
MacCulloch, M. J., Snowden, P. R., Wood, P. J. W., & Mills, H.
E. (1983). Sadistic fantasy, sadistic behaviour, and offending.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 20–29. doi:10.1192=bjp.
143.1.20
MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2012). Intergroup bias toward
‘‘Group X’’: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance,
and discrimination against asexuals. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 15, 725–743. doi:10.1177=1368430212442419
Manning, J. T. (2002). Digit ratio: A pointer to fertility, behavior, and
health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations: Making
immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science, 21, 1141–1149.
doi:10.1177=0956797610376073
Meana, M. (2010). Elucidating women’s (hetero)sexual desire:
Definitional challenges and content expansion. Journal of Sex
Research, 47, 104–122. doi:10.1080=00224490903402546
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual and research
evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. doi:10.1037=
0033-2909.129.5.674
Money, J. (1988). Gay, straight, and in-between. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. doi:10.1037=
0033-2909.114.1.29
Parish, W. L., Laumann, E. O., Cohen, M. S., Pan, S. M., Zheng, H.
Y., Hoffman, I., . . . Ng, K. H. (2003). Population-based study of
chlamydial infection in China: A hidden epidemic. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 289, 1265–1273. doi:10.1001=
jama.289.10.1265
Perkins, A., & Fitzgerald, J. A. (1997). Sexual orientation in domestic
rams: Some biological and social correlates. In L. Ellis & L. Ebertz
(Eds.), Sexual orientation: Toward biological understanding
(pp. 107–127). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of
research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 21–38. doi:10.1037=a0017504
378
Poston, D. L., Jr., & Baumle, A. K. (2010). Patterns of asexuality
in the United States. Demographic Research, 23(18), 509–530.
doi:10.4054=DemRes.2010.23.18
Prause, N., & Graham, C. A. (2007). Asexuality: Classification
and categorization. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 341–356.
doi:10.1007=s10508-006-9142-3
Przybylo, E. (2013). Afterward: Some thoughts on asexuality as an
interdisciplinary method. Psychology and Sexuality, 4, 193–194.
doi:10.1080=19419899.2013.774167
Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A.W., Gygax, L., & Bailey, J. M. (2008).
Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity:
Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology, 44, 46–58.
doi:10.1037=0012-1649.44.1.46
Riley, A., & Riley, E. (2000). Controlled studies of women presenting
sexual drive disorder: I. Endocrine status. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 26, 269–283. doi:10.1080=00926230050084669
Roselli, C. E., Larkin, K., Schrunk, J. M., & Stormshak, F. (2004).
Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology, and
aromatase in rams. Physiology & Behavior, 83, 233–245. doi:10.1016=
j.physbeh.2004.08.017
Sage, B. (Director). (2013). Nature of things: Survival of the fabulous.
Canada: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Schechter, B. (1998). My brain is open: The mathematical journeys of
Paul Erdos. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Scherrer, K. S. (2008). Coming to an asexual identity: Negotiating
identity, negotiating desire. Sexualities, 11, 621–641. doi:10.1177=
1363460708094269
Seif, H. (1999). To love women, or to not love men: Chronicles of
lesbian identification. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3, 33–44.
doi:10.1300=J155v03n03_04
Seto, M. C. (2008). Understanding pedophilia and sexual offending
against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sigusch, V. (1998). The neosexual revolution. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 27, 339–351. doi:10.1023=A:1018715525493
Smith, A. M., Rissel, C. E., Richters, J., Grulich, A. E., & de Visser,
R. O. (2003). Sex in Australia: Sexual identity, sexual attraction,
and sexual experience among a representative sample of
adults. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
27, 138–145. doi:10.1111=j.1467-842X.2003.tb00809.x
Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 783. doi:10.1037=
0022-3514.38.5.783
Strassberg, A., & Lowe, K. (1995). Volunteer bias in sex research.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 369–382. doi:10.1007=BF01541853
Teddy Miller. (2005, July 25). Masturbating A’s: What do you think
about when masturbating? [Online forum post]. Retrieved from
http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/9980-masturbating-
as-what-do-you-think-about-when-masturbating/
Terry, J. (1999). An American obsession: Science, medicine, and homo-
sexuality in modern society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal
of Homosexuality, 17, 43–73. doi:10.1300=J082v17n01_02
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., & Enzlin, P. (2014a).
Asexuality: A multidimensional approach. Journal for Sex
Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080=00224499.
2014.898015
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., & Enzlin, P. (2014b).
Asexuality: Few facts, many questions. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 40, 175–192. doi:10.1080=0092623X.2012.
751073
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., & Enzlin, P. (2014c).
Stories about asexuality: A qualitative study on asexual women.
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080=0092623X.2014.889053
Ventegodt, S. (1998). Sex and quality of life in Denmark. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 27, 295–307. doi:10.1023=A:1018655219133
 ASEXUALITY
Vicious Trollop. (2005, July 25). Masturbating A’s: What do
you think about when masturbating? [Online forum post].
Retrieved from http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/
9980-masturbating-as-what-do-you-think-about-when-masturbating/
page__p__237288#entry237288
Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual
and mostly gay=lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation iden-
tities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 85–101. doi:10.1007=
s10508-012-9921-y
Wallen, K. (1995). The evolution of female sexual desire. In
P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature=sexual
culture (pp. 57–79). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Westphal, S. P. (2004, October). Glad to be asexual. New Scientist,
184, 40–43.
White, M. (1999). Isaac Newton: The last sorcerer. Reading, MA: Helix
Books.
Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 00:55 24 April 2015
Wilson, G., & Rahman, Q. (2005). Born gay: The psychobiology of sex
orientation. London, UK: Peter Owen.
Yule, M., Brotto, L., & Gorzalka, B. (2013). Mental health and
interpersonal functioning in self-identified asexual men and
women. Psychology and Sexuality, 4, 136–151. doi:10.1080=
19419899.2013.774162
Yule, M., Brotto, L., & Gorzalka, B. (2014a). Biological markers of
asexuality: Handedness, birth order, and finger length ratios in
self-identified asexual men and women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 43, 299–310. doi:10.1007=s10508-013-0175-0
Yule, M., Brotto, L., & Gorzalka, B. (2014b). Sexual fantasy and
masturbation among asexual individuals. Canadian Journal of
Human Sexuality, 23, 89–95. doi:10.3138=cjhs.2409
Zucker, K. J., & Bradley, S. J. (1995). Gender identity disorder and
psychosexual problems in children and adolescents. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
379