In many people’s minds, asexual people must lack sexual desire (i.e., have no interest whatsoever in sexual activities). Indeed, very low desire or a lack of desire is sometimes put forth as an important definition of asexuality (Prause & Graham, 2007). I, too, think this definition of asexuality is a reasonable one, at least in some ways (Bogaert, 2006b; Bogaert, 2008). For example, I think lack of desire is more viable than lack of sexual behavior in defining asexuality.
But why I do prefer to define asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction (Bogaert, 2006b)? For one, if a person truly lacks sexual desire, then there is likely no sex drive to fuel any underlying sexual attractions, if indeed such underlying (perhaps) hidden attractions exist; thus, someone with an absence of desire would lack sexual attraction for others as well, although they still might have romantic attractions. Second, the reverse is not necessarily true: if one lacks sexual attraction, one does not necessarily have no sexual desire or drive (see chapter 5 on masturbation). Third, sexual attraction captures the core element of sexual orientation, so, if one wants to argue that asexual people do not have a traditional sexual orientation (i.e., gay, straight, bi) but instead have a unique asexual one, then a lack of sexual attraction to others is the important criterion (Bogaert, 2006b). Fourth, I think that a lack of desire may not capture accurately the phenomenon of asexuality, at least based on existing research. There is support for this view in two recent studies. Recent research on self-identified asexuals (Prause & Graham, 2007; Brotto et al., 2010) shows that they do not necessarily have a lower desire for sexual activity, but they clearly have a lower desire for sexual activity with others; in other words, they lack sexual attraction to others. Thus, a lack of sexual attraction is likely a good overarching definition of asexuality from a number of perspectives.[10]
This is not to say that someone who has had an enduring lack of desire for all forms of sexual activities, including partnered sex and masturbation, should not be labeled asexual. They should, in my view. This is because, as mentioned above, this person would lack sexual attraction for others (although perhaps not lack romantic attraction), along with lacking additional sexual processes (e.g., no sex drive). In fact, using an enduring lack of sexual desire for all sexual activities is, perhaps, a more stringent definition of asexuality than the one I have proposed, because it would include a lack of sexual attraction and a lack of sex drive. Thus, a lack of sexual attraction may be construed as a “minimal” definition for asexuality.
A couple of miscellaneous factors remain. One concerns sexual identity. Why not define an asexual person as anyone who, in fact, defines himself or herself as asexual? This is a reasonable question, and self-definitions/identities are important in a number of ways. For one, considering self-definitions respects the way someone chooses to label him or herself. There are also many interesting research and health issues about forging a sexual identity, including an asexual identity, as we will discuss in chapter 7. But is self-definition the best way to understand the main factor(s) underlying asexuality as a sexual orientation and/or as a phenomenon? Because one’s sexual identity is often formed by a variety of factors—such as knowledge of a label or labels, comfort level with coming out, and political and other factors—many sexologists, including myself, are often wary of using self-identification as the key dimension in defining sexual orientation.[11] As mentioned above, many sexologists define sexual orientation in terms of sexual attraction, as we believe it is the “psychological core” of sexual orientation.
Another miscellaneous factor is pleasure. When we think of sex, we may think of sexual attractions, arousal, and desire, but we also think of pleasure. And when we do think of the pleasures of sex, we usually associate it with the arousal aspect (e.g., feelings of pleasure associated with erections and vaginal lubrication and the intense pleasure when physical arousal culminates in an orgasm). This makes sense because the organs of sex most directly associated with physical arousal (i.e., penis, clitoris, vagina) are brimming with nerve endings, which ultimately connect to the pleasure centers of the brain that are capable of making us experience intense pleasure. But all aspects of the sexual experience, broadly defined (including attraction, behavior, and desire), elicit a certain amount of pleasure. For example, a heterosexual man may experience pleasure at the mere sight of a beautiful woman (attraction) without ever—alas!—experiencing the physical pleasures (arousal/orgasm) of sex with her.
You may be thinking that this discussion on sexual pleasure is interesting, but also wondering, yet again, what all of this has to do with asexuality. Do asexual people lack sexual pleasure, and with all aspects of sex? It is likely the case that some asexual people may not have pleasure with many, if not all, aspects of sex, but a lack of pleasure does not seem to be the key defining factor associated with asexuality. Some asexual people do, for example, have arousal experiences and evidently receive pleasure from these experiences, as one of the quotes above, repeated here, demonstrates: “everything works fine, pleasurable and all, it’s just not actually attracted to anything” (Brotto et al., 2010, p. 612). How many asexual people do nonetheless receive some level of pleasure from their arousal is unknown, but it is clear that a lack of sexual pleasure is not a defining feature for all asexual people.
Summary
In this chapter we discussed the A (attraction and arousal), B (behavior), C (cognition), and Ds (desire) of sex. We also mentioned two miscellaneous factors: identity and pleasure. (I realize that by including I and P, I have ruined the alphabetical simplicity of my chapter title!) These are the key psychological processes of sexuality. They also help us to understand asexuality. Indeed, perhaps some asexual people are devoid of all these factors; that is, they lack sexual attraction, arousal, behavior, cognitions (e.g., fantasies), desire, and pleasure, and they also identify as “asexual.” But one of these—lack of sexual attraction—may be a core psychological factor among asexual people and may best define the phenomenon, from both a theoretical and a research perspective. Lack of sexual attraction is at least potentially independent of these other processes, and it is noteworthy that those who lack sexual attraction may not lack these other processes (e.g., desire, arousal). Also, at this point, although lack of sexual attraction seems like a reasonable definition for understanding asexuality, the phenomenon is likely diverse, so it is important to keep in mind that this is a working definition and open to change. Thus, although I give some priority in this book, as I have in my past publications, to defining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction, I think it is also reasonable to be sensitive to different definitions of asexuality (including a lack of desire for all sexual activities) and self-definitions. Another reason for being open to different definitions is that research on asexuality is just beginning.
10
That having been said, more research needs to be done on desire issues in asexual people. One issue that needs to be clarified is what asexual people mean by “no sexual desire” and “no sexual attraction,” along with how they discriminate between these two aspects of sexuality. Most sexologists would likely indicate that desire refers to sex drive and interest, while sexual attraction refers to one’s sexual inclination toward others. Most sexologists would also likely assert that there is a fair degree of overlap in what these two aspects capture about sexual expression for most people (Bogaert, 2006b). However, some (perhaps many) laypeople may use the terms “desire” and “attraction” differently than most sexologists do. For example, some people who identify as asexual may prefer to describe their asexuality as an issue of low/no desire, because they are more familiar with the word “desire,” rather than “attraction,” within the context of sexuality, and prefer the word “attraction” to describe romantic and affectionate orientations (and not necessarily a “sexual” inclination or orientation). Thus, these asexual people may have felt little “sexual” attraction for a partner of a particular gender (in the traditional sexual orientation sense), but still have strong romantic and affectionate attraction for these partners (see, for example, work by Lisa Diamond, 2003b). Consequently, they still describe their “attraction” for partners of a certain gender because of their romantic feelings/inclinations toward them. Note: A similar point was made earlier in the chapter on romantic versus sexual attractions.
11
This is true especially if you consider the various names people use to describe their identity if they have same-sex attractions: gay, lesbian, queer, butch, femme, queen, and so forth.