There is also a subjective or purely psychological component to arousal. Most people have a sense of their own arousal (“feeling” aroused), and this can be simply measured by asking someone, for example, “How aroused or turned on are you by what you are watching?” People will typically use their own genital changes as a marker, but there is not necessarily a perfect correspondence between physical changes and psychological arousal. This is particularly true for women, for whom subjective arousal often does not match bodily changes that may or may not be occurring (Heiman, 1977). Thus, there can be an arousal disconnect between what happens in our bodies and what happens in our minds.
How are arousal and attraction related? Typically, our level of arousal, both physical and subjective, reflects our sexual attractions. So, if Joe is sexually attracted to women, then his physical arousal patterns (i.e., erections) will likely correspond to that fact. That is, he is going to be aroused in the presence of women, especially if they are attractive, unclothed, and/or engaging in sex with him. Indeed, because of this reasonable linkage between our arousal and attractions, psychophysical measures have often been used for detecting a person’s deep-seated attractions, including whether the person is gay or straight. But, given that there is a potential decoupling between physical and subjective arousal (particularly in women), there is also a potential disconnect between one’s physical arousal and one’s attractions. So, this physical arousal cannot necessarily be seen as a mirror reflecting one’s basic attractions, especially in women. Even in men, there can a decoupling between attraction and arousal. Men can have spontaneous erections without having a corresponding attraction to an object of desire. For example, a man may wake up with a morning erection without necessarily having an object of desire prompting its appearance. So, one can have a mere physical arousal experience not necessarily attached to an attraction object, or for that matter to even subjective arousal.
Again, you may be thinking, What does all this have to do with asexuality? Well, plenty. First, if a common definition of asexuality is experiencing a lack of sexual attraction, being asexual doesn’t necessarily mean that one is incapable of being sexually aroused. In fact, for many asexual people, physical arousal is not an issue. As one asexual person describes, “I did, you know, test the equipment… and everything works fine, pleasurable and all, it’s just not actually attracted to anything” (Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010, p. 612). Note that this quote also suggests that there may be subjective arousal as welclass="underline" knowing that one’s body is aroused and even liking this feeling (pleasure). In short, a lack of sexual attraction does not automatically mean a lack of physical or subjective arousal.
Having finished with the two A words of sex, let’s move on to B: behavior. Behavior is what we do—that is, our actions. There are a variety of overtly sexual activities, both solitary and partnered: masturbation, fondling, oral sex, intercourse, and so forth. However, it is not just the acts themselves but also with whom we do them that comprises our sexual behavior. Thus, a sex researcher interested in behavior may ask participants about their frequency of oral sex and also with whom they do this activity (e.g., men, women, or both). Indeed, there has been a tradition in the social sciences to use behavior as the main focus of study or interest, or as the key dependent variable. People’s thoughts and feelings were not of primary interest, in large part because it was felt that these aspects of the mind, although obviously important, were not amenable to clear measurement. Alfred Kinsey, the twentieth century’s well-known pioneer of human sexuality, was of this tradition and was most comfortable with assessing and discussing (sexual) behavior. It is not surprising that his famous books have the word behavior in the titles: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953).
Kinsey described people’s sexual orientation on a point scale from zero to six, again mostly based on their behavior (what they did and with whom). Kinsey sixes are exclusively gay/lesbian, while Kinsey zeroes are designated as exclusively heterosexual. Those in the middle (e.g., two to four) were designated as bisexual. This scale assumes that all people have a high level of sexual interest in their preferred sexual partners. Thus, it does not accommodate asexuality. However, Kinsey did have a name for those who just didn’t fit on this scale: Xs. So, at a party (okay, a rather unusual party), someone asks, “Are you a Kinsey zero (exclusively straight)? Perhaps a Kinsey three (bisexual)? Or perhaps a Kinsey six (exclusively gay)?” An asexual person schooled in the Kinsey scheme may reply, “Well, actually, I am a Kinsey X.”
Most modern sexologists—and, for that matter, social scientists (e.g., psychologists, sociologists)—believe that the study of behavior by itself is too limiting. They happily include in their research the mind’s other key processes, including its attractions, thoughts, and desires. These other aspects of the mind are widely accepted today, in part because we now have better ways of measuring them. Modern sex researchers also know that making conclusions about people based only on behavior is often fraught with problems. Here’s an example. Let’s say you know a man who has had in his lifetime one sexual partner, his wife, with whom he has sexual intercourse once a week. Based on this behavior, you should conclude that his sexual orientation is heterosexual. And yet, somehow, you later find out that this man’s sexual fantasies (reflecting his attractions), including while having sex with his wife, are exclusively of men. A shocker, to be sure! Later, you notice that, when drunk at parties, he also seems to stare rather longingly at attractive men.[5] So, what is his sexual orientation: still heterosexual? I know no one who would suggest that this man is, in fact, heterosexual. This is because people implicitly believe that one’s deep-seated sexual attractions always trump overt behavior when attempting to understand the essence of a human being’s sexual orientation. Most modern sexual orientation researchers agree (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000; Bogaert, 2003; Storms, 1980; Money, 1988; Zucker & Bradley, 1995). They suggest that if we want to know whether someone is gay or straight, we should assess his or her attractions (and not necessarily his or her behaviors). In actuality, having more information, rather than less (including information about behavior), is important, but if you were to rely on only one aspect in assessing someone’s sexual orientation, it would be the person’s attractions, and to exclude this aspect is very problematic.[6]
An important reason why sexual behavior is an imperfect reflection of one’s true sexual desire and attractions is that sexual behavior often reflects a compromise between one’s own inclinations and that of others. A wife’s sexual behavior (e.g., frequency of intercourse) reflects not only her desires and inclinations but also her husband’s, and vice versa. A teenage boy’s sexual behavior (frequency of masturbation, intercourse) reflects his desires and inclinations as well as the availability of partners and the social constraints imposed by his parents and peers.
5
By the way, I call this “the drunk test.” Armchair psychologists can use it to assess the deep-seated attractions, sexual and otherwise, of their friends, family, and acquaintances.
6
This is not to deny that there are times when we may not be able to know about a person’s true inclinations and desires, because he or she may lie (or may not know) about them. Thus, if the behavior is “observable” in some way (e.g., getting caught with a prostitute), this may provide more accurate information than what people “report” on their attractions and desires. But this does not mean that if we had a faithful window into their minds, their attractions would be a worse indicator of who they are (as a sexual being) than their behaviors. Indeed, it would not. So, I reiterate: An accurate assessment of a person’s attractions always trumps an accurate assessment of his or her behavior when it comes to understanding the true nature of that person’s inclinations.