Some national surveys have also included information on low or absent sexual desire. Low or absent desire is not completely overlapping with a lack of sexual attraction—my preferred definition of asexuality—but it is clearly related, particularly in the case of absent desire, and may serve as a good proxy for lack of sexual attraction, especially when no specific information was collected on sexual attraction. Moreover, the absence of desire is an alternative way to define asexuality (see chapter 2 on definitions of asexuality) (Prause & Graham, 2007). Thus, figures on low/absent desire should also give us pause about the true number of “asexuals,” broadly defined. Using a national survey of Danish residents, Soren Ventegodt (1998) found that 11.2 percent of women and 3.2 percent of men had “low sexual desire.” In one of the best sex survey samples from the United States, the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), Laumann and colleagues found that approximately one-third of women and one-seventh of men had “low desire” in the past year (Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999). In a recent national sample of China, 7 percent of participants reported “no” desire for a year or more (Parish et al., 2003; Parish et al., 2006; Parish et al., 2007; Bogaert, 2008).
Although these studies are interesting, it should be noted that in two of the studies (those by Ventegodt and Laumann and his colleagues), low desire is not necessarily the same as absence of desire. Also, it is important to consider the time frame in these studies, as it is unclear whether these individuals would report low or even absent desire over many years. I think it is reasonable, after all, to define asexuality as a relatively long-term, or stable, characteristic (see chapter 2 on definitions).
There has never been a national survey assessing an asexual “identity.” However, there are intriguing sexual identification data from the U.S.-based National Survey of Family Growth, mentioned above (Mosher et al., 2005; Poston & Baumle, 2010). Like in many large-scale surveys, the respondents were asked to define their sexual orientation. In addition to the option of endorsing one of the three traditional categories of sexual orientation—heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual—the respondents could choose “something else.” Among female participants, 1.3 percent identified as homosexual and 2.8 percent identified as bisexual, while 2.3 percent of male participants identified as homosexual and 1.8 percent identified as bisexual. Interestingly, a mighty minority (3.9 percent) of participants (combined male and female) chose “something else” as their sexual orientation. A further 1.8 percent did not endorse any of the categories offered to them (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or “something else”). These figures may represent an important piece of the prevalence puzzle of asexuality. However, it is also important to bear in mind that “something else” (or a nonresponse) is vague, and using “identification” is problematic if one wants a relatively conceptually clean definition of sexual orientation that would also encompass an asexual orientation (see also chapter 2).
Now let’s consider a general issue that may affect the reporting rate of asexuality, regardless of how it is defined. This issue is volunteer bias, and it is related to an issue mentioned above: people who choose to participate in sex studies (relative to those who choose not to) are more liberal in their sex attitudes, more interested in sex, and have more sexual experience (e.g., Bogaert, 1996; Morokoff, 1986; Saunders, Fisher, Hewitt, & Clayton, 1985). This issue is called volunteer bias because there is bias in favor of recruiting certain types of participants over others in human research studies. Volunteer bias is a potential problem in all human studies, but it has been argued to be especially problematic in studies of sexuality, which, as mentioned previously, seem prone to over-sample sexually liberal people. If so, the rate of asexuality may be higher than reported in sexual surveys, because people with less liberal sexual attitudes/behavior often decline to participate in such surveys. This is even true in the best studies we have: national probability samples, such as NATSAL-I and NATSAL-II. For example, the so-called refusal rate—those who were contacted to participate but chose not to—in NATSAL-I was about 30 percent; in NATSAL-II, it was even slightly higher (around 35 percent). Thus, a high number of asexual people may not have agreed to participate in past sexual surveys because they were uninterested in or uncomfortable with the subject matter of these surveys: sex. A sex survey? Why on earth would I want to do that? It is a bit like getting a call from the Professional Golfers Association wanting to talk about your favorite courses, your handicap, the type of clubs you use, and your preferred brand of ball, and you declining to participate because you don’t play and, frankly, don’t want to start playing. What! You don’t want to talk intimately about golf for an hour? (I use this as an example because I am a golfer but have, over the years, somewhat reluctantly come to terms with the fact that the game is, evidently, not of interest to everyone.)
Interestingly, then, some of the best sexuality data, including the best data on the prevalence of asexuality, may come from national samples that are not, per se, sex surveys. Thus, the NSFG survey mentioned above may be a better survey to assess asexuality than the NATSAL surveys, because the former was a “general health survey.” However, as mentioned, this study also has its problems: no clear asexuality measure and a restriction of age range.
So, how many people are asexual? We do not know for sure, as there are different problems—such as volunteer bias, lack of a long-term time frame, and questions about how best to define asexuality—with each of the national studies mentioned above. However, the original estimate (Bogaert, 2004) of 1 percent may not be a bad one, all things considered, and it is possible that it may underestimate the true number of asexual people.[16]
But why is the prevalence of sexual minorities of interest at all? Does it matter how many people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, or asexual? Yes, it does—both to scientists and nonscientists alike, and for a variety of reasons. One scientific reason is that sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of human variability, and thus understanding the prevalence of heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality helps to map the distribution of human sexual variability. Second, the prevalence of sexual minorities is of interest to groups who want to use the figures to support a political cause or a social issue. For example, some anti-gay groups are interested in the rate of homosexuality (particularly if it is low) to try to demonstrate that homosexuality is statistically rare and thus gay people should be considered abnormal, pathological, or at least a fringe element of society.[17] In contrast, gay, lesbian, and asexuality advocacy groups are interested in the rate (particularly if it is high) to demonstrate the opposite: that being a sexual minority is not uncommon or statistically abnormal, and that sexual minorities form a significantly large segment of society. A third reason why the sexual minority prevalence rate is of interest is because of the science of demography. As mentioned in the introduction (chapter 1), demographers are interested in how many members of sexual minorities there are, because their prevalence relates to, among other things, trends in marriage and fertility (how many people marry and/or have children). Fourth, the prevalence of sexual minorities relates to physical health issues and, thus, is of interest to epidemiologists and health-care workers. A recent example concerns male homosexuality and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. HIV/AIDS in Western societies has been largely related to male-male sexual contact. As such, understanding the prevalence of male homosexuality can help with understanding the causes of this disease and tracking changes in it in Western societies. Indeed, some of the national probability surveys of human sexuality mentioned above (e.g., NATSAL-I, NHSLS) (Johnson et al., 1994; Laumann et al., 1994) were funded by government agencies wanting accurate information on people’s behavior as it relates to HIV/AIDS. Fifth, prevalence rates of sexual minorities are also important from a mental health perspective. As many people are aware, discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is still a societal problem (Herek, 2000; Herek, 2002). Moreover, the “coming out” process is often stressful for sexual minorities. For example, one study found that a very high percentage of gay men (approximately 90 percent) felt troubled, many “extremely so,” when coming out to their parents (D’Augelli, 1991). But what about asexuals—are they also subject to discrimination and to significant stress in coming out? There is much less research on this issue but, interestingly, there is recent evidence that asexual people may, in fact, be viewed more negatively than gays, bisexuals, and lesbians (see more in chapter 7) (MacInnis & Hodson, in press). Thus, accurate knowledge of sexual minority prevalence rates helps workers in mental health care gauge the size of, and potentially address, this mental health concern facing society.
16
Although they should be viewed with a high degree of caution, there have also been a number of relatively modern nonrepresentative surveys that provide some information on the prevalence of asexuality. In late 2004, when the popular press surrounding the issue of asexuality became heightened, CNN conducted an Internet poll on sexual identity. They asked people to report their sexual orientation using four categories (straight/heterosexual, gay/homosexual, bisexual, or asexual). Approximately 110,000 people responded, of whom 6 percent reported that they identify themselves as “asexual” (CNN.com, 2004, October 14). Furthermore, using a U.S.-based convenience sample of adults, one researcher reported that about 10 percent of women and 5 percent of men indicated that they lacked sexual attraction to either men or women (Nurius, 1983).
17
It should be pointed out that interest in these figures for political purposes is partly based on faulty logic. Statistical rarity, at least by itself, is not a good criterion for demonstrating pathology or the lack of it—consider, for example, extreme musical talent (see more on this in chapter 9). It is also illogical (and insensitive) to treat a group of individuals unfairly and inhumanely based solely on their prevalence rate in society.