But back to the clinical literature on paraphilias: Ray Blanchard (1991) argues that some of these unusual sexual phenomena reflect alterations in the typical “targeting” process in human sexual attraction and sexuality in general. Our sexual attractions might occur when we connect our sexual feelings to others, as when we see or fantasize about someone, or perhaps our attractions are more responsive in nature, occurring when another person sees us and that incites or engages our sexual attractions to him or her. This “responsive” targeting system includes receptivity and object-of-desire mechanisms, and is more likely to occur in women (see also chapter 6 on gender). Both the more male-oriented and female-oriented target processes may ultimately relate to basic “mate-recognition” mechanisms (Bakker, 2003). In other words, these target processes are part of a larger mate-recognition system that humans use to seek out and choose reproductive partners.
But what if an individual’s targeting system does not operate in this way? What if, for example, the “I” in “I am attracted to him or her” in a typical targeting sequence does not operate in a traditional way? In some asexual people, the disconnect between identity/self (the “I”) and a sexual object seems to be this kind of target alteration: the identity or self is not connected to or “targeted” to a sexual object.
I am not aware of a specific name for this paraphilia. However, using a traditional Greek nomenclature, I have named it autochorissexualism: the quality of having sex without (choris) one’s self/identity (auto), or “identity-less” sexuality (see also Bogaert, in press-b).
People without sexual attraction to others may also have other target-oriented paraphilias. For example, my experience is that some self-identified asexual people may have automonosexualism, in which the person is attracted to him- or herself sexually (Rohleder, 1907).[38] Blanchard argues that these paraphilias also reflect directional/target issues because, instead of directing one’s sexual interests outward, one targets his or her sexual interests inward. Automonosexualism is rare and has sometimes been associated with transgendered individuals (Hirschfeld, 1948; Blanchard, 1991; Blanchard, 1989; Freund & Blanchard, 1993). For example, the phenomenon of autogynephilia (in which a man is sexually attracted to himself, but as a woman) is a type of automonosexualism (Blanchard, 1989; Lawrence, 2011).
But aren’t these paraphilias—specifically, autochorissexualism and automonosexualism—disorders? So, one might agree that asexuality per se is not a disorder (see chapter 9), but surely these exotic paraphilias imply a disorder? Perhaps, but paraphilias are tricky mental health issues. Sexologists Charles Moser and Peggy Kleinplatz (2005), for example, have argued that paraphilias, or at least the original definition of them (as unusual sexual phenomena), should not necessarily be construed as disorders, partly because there is murkiness as to what construes a healthy sexuality in the first place. I agree. In fact, one might be so bold as to turn this issue on its head, expanding the definition of disorder to include not just atypical sexual fare but also sex in general, as it all may be construed as a form of madness (see also chapter 8).
To test more formally some of these ideas on autochorissexualism and automonosexualism, more research needs to be done on the sexual fantasies of masturbating asexuals. Some interesting studies examining the arousal responses of asexuals in the laboratory to various images, with narrations of the individual as a fictional character, and/or with images of the individual himself or herself (to assess for automonosexualism), could be conducted. In this way, we could find out more about any sexual proclivities, even secret ones, in asexual people.
Speaking of secrets, let’s end with a bit more discussion on this issue: Are there any secrets left? Modern technology and communications have created the potential to expose one’s inner life to probing and wide dissemination. Hence, even if one is highly motivated to keep one’s life private, this may be hard to do, or at least harder to do than it once was, especially if the details of that private life are juicy. This is particularly true for sex, and other people’s motivation to expose sexual details, especially if they are embarrassing or run counter to one’s public profession, is often as strong as the individual’s motivation to keep these details a secret. Even if others’ motivation is not as strong as one’s own motivation to maintain a private life, it is notable that we, as single individuals, are outnumbered by the throng, and thus there are lots of chances of exposure by one of the many people in the throng. The Internet, and Facebook in particular, are good examples of how quickly secrets are revealed in the modern world.
Interestingly, sex still makes good content as a juicy secret, but I expect that it is not as juicy as it once was. I think this is in part because modern communication has exposed so many “private” lives; thus, few sexual secrets shock anymore. Indeed, it is part of postmodern culture to be jaded and unfazed by sexual secrets. Sex is less of a big deal, and not to be hidden away in the same way as it used to be. So, it is still a monster, but one with less ferocity.
Why am I telling you all this? And what does it have to do with asexuality? Because the two points I have made here—there are no more secrets, and sexuality is less of a taboo to keep hidden than it once was—are both relevant to the issues of paraphilias and asexuality. First, people are less motivated to keep their sexual lives, or the lack thereof, hidden. So, do I believe people when they tell me that they are asexual? Well, yes, even if it is a bit of a qualified “yes.” Moreover, self-identified asexuals may not hide unusual sexual interests, if they do have them. Second, if people have a secret sex life (e.g., a paraphilia that they don’t want to reveal), this can still be found out. With their secrets revealed, these people will join the throng of others displaying sexual monsters on their backs, even if these monsters are less ferocious and less unspeakable than they once were.
CHAPTER 11
Art and Food on Planet Sex
In chapter 8, I introduced an old man who said that, nowadays, the bathing beauties in the famous Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue “did nothing” for him. I suggested that his newfound sexless world had something in common with a lifelong asexual person’s world. I also suggested that average sexual people may also have glimpses of this world when their normally sexed brains are turned off for brief periods.
Though sexual people may have temporary glimpses of what asexual people experience, this is not to say that sexual people’s brushes with sexual disinterest capture perfectly the true “phenomenology” of the asexuality. Recall that asexual people are likely a diverse bunch, so one type of lens on the world of sexuality (or asexuality) does not fit all. In addition, for many asexual people, an even deeper level of disconnection to the sexual world occurs than what is suggested by, for example, the old man’s current take on sex, or other sexual people’s bouts of sexual disinterest. This is because many asexual people have a complete (or nearly complete) lack of sexual attraction, not just a lack of current sexual interest. Thus, returning to our example of the old man, he did recognize that these swimsuit models were sexually attractive. Perhaps he could have mustered some level of sexual interest if one of these bathing beauties magically appeared in his apartment, ready for some action. Or perhaps he would have been titillated by these images if he were given a booster shot of testosterone, as there is evidence that this hormone is linked to sex drive and declines with age (Lamberts, van den Beld, & van der Lely, 1997).
38
Automonosexualism might still retain the characteristic of a lack of sexual attraction to others, but, technically, there would still be a sexual attraction to someone, even if it were only to oneself. Thus, automonosexualism is not a case of asexuality using the strict definition of “lacking a subjective sexual attraction.”