Introduction

Asexuality has, for many years, been a highly overlooked phenomenon in research concerning variation in sexuality. However, over the past 10 years, asexuality has been the subject of an increasing amount of attention, both in popular media (e.g., DePaulo, 2009; Swash, 2012) and scientific research (e.g., Bogaert, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012; Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007).

Definitions of Asexuality

To date, no consensus exists among researchers on how to define asexuality; thus, asexuality has been defined multidimensionally in the literature. For example, Johnson (1977), Nurius (1983), and Rothblum and Brehony (1993) proposed definitions based on preference not to engage in sexual activity or a lack of sexual activity whereas Prause and Graham (2007) focused their definition on low levels of sexual excitement and desire. Bogaert (2004) defined an asexual individual as a person who has never felt sexual attraction to a partner of either sex. The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN, 2008) has proposed a similar definition. However, AVEN defined asexuality somewhat more broadly (an asexual person is an individual who does not experience sexual attraction). Brotto et al. (2010) suggested that asexuality is best conceptualized as a lack of sexual attraction, but also emphasized self-identification when distinguishing between asexual and non-asexual individuals. The definitions focusing on the lack of sexual behavior and sexual desire, on the contrary, are not agreed upon. It is highly challenging to form a definition of asexuality that is satisfactory and takes all of the aspects of asexuality into consideration. In the present study, we opted to use a definition focusing on the lack of sexual attraction during the past 12 months, similar to Bogaert (2004) and AVEN (2008).

Characteristics Related to Asexuality

Bogaert (2004) noted that hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) and sexual aversion disorder are two conditions adjacent to asexuality. In the recently published DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the HSDD and sexual aversion disorder (SAD) diagnoses have been amended into two gender-specific conditions: female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (fSIAD), and male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (mHSDD), both of which are thought to occur in lifelong and acquired subtypes. Diagnostic criteria for both conditions require both deficient and/or absent sexual fantasies and/or desire for sexual activity, as well as clinically significant levels of associated distress (see Brotto, 2010a, 2010b; Graham, 2010).

Brotto and Yule (2011) compared subjective and genital sexual arousal in asexual and non-asexual women, demonstrating that asexual individuals showed no increase in positive affect when watching an erotic film as the non-asexual individuals did (there were no significant group differences regarding anxiety or negative affect). Hence, Brotto and Yule concluded that sexual stimuli are not perceived negatively by asexual individuals, but neutrally. In another study, Brotto et al. (2010) reported that 15 asexual individuals showed no interest in sexual activity, rather than avoiding sexual activity, a finding previously suggested by Prause and Graham (2007). This suggests that asexual individuals do not avoid sexual contact due to anxiety or disgust; thus, SAD does not fit the characteristics of an asexual individual.

Bogaert (2006) noted that asexuality, defined as a lifelong lack of sexual attraction, most likely includes characteristics of HSDD and that the resemblance between lifelong HSDD and asexuality is probably high. Bogaert further concluded that HSDD is likely the most similar condition related to asexuality. Consequently, there have been discussions in current research about the similarities and differences between HSDD and asexuality (e.g., Bogaert, 2006, 2008; Brotto et al., 2010; Chasin, 2011). Although there is some resemblance between HSDD and asexuality, Bogaert (2006) stressed that there also are some differences that should be considered. Firstly, asexual individuals may still have some level of sexual arousal, activity or desire, but they do not direct it towards anyone. If asexuality is defined as never having felt sexual attraction towards either sex, a second difference would be that most individuals with HSDD do not have a lifelong absence of desire and have presumably had sexual attraction at some point in their life (although the DSM-5 definitions of mHSDD and fSIAD include “lifelong” and “acquired” subtypes) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Thirdly, HSDD includes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty and this is not necessarily the case for asexual individuals.

Brotto et al. (2010) found that many asexual individuals were opposed to the idea that asexuality was a symptom or component of a disorder, such as HSDD, with the majority of the participants (90 %) reporting no symptoms of sexual distress. Brotto et al. consequently supported Bogaert’s (2006) ideas and noted that asexuality and HSDD can be differentiated on the basis that the individual with HSDD experiences distress whereas the asexual individual does not. Bogaert (2006) concluded that asexuality should not be viewed as a pathological condition.

Prevalence, Age, and Gender

Bogaert (2004) initiated a large-scale empirical asexuality investigation, using a sample of about 18,000 UK residents. Results suggested that 1.05 % (n = 195) of the participants between the ages of 16–59 reported never having felt sexual attraction to anyone and were consequently classified as asexual. Poston and Baumle (2010) extended Bogaert’s (2004) research and examined the prevalence rates and patterns of asexuality in 12,571 U.S. individuals. Poston and Baumle, however, used three different definitions of asexuality, generating prevalence rates ranging from 0.7 to 6.1 % (lack of sexual behavior, lack of sexual attraction, not perceiving oneself as hetero- or homosexual). A more recent, large-scale study analyzed data from two British cohorts (age 16–44 years) collected in 1990–1991 and 2000–2001 found prevalence rates of lifelong absence of 0.9 % in 1990–1991 (N = 13,765) and 0.4 % in 2000–2001 (N = 12,110) (Aicken, Mercer, & Cassell, 2013).

Both Bogaert (2004) and Prause and Graham (2007) reported that asexual individuals were, on average, older than non-asexual individuals. Bogaert (2004) also reported that women were more likely to be asexual than men, a finding corroborated by Brotto et al. (2010). However, results regarding effects of age and gender have been inconclusive. Prause and Graham (2007) did not report any significant gender differences and Aicken et al. (2013) reported no significant difference as a function of either age or gender in prevalence rates of asexuality.

Relationship Status and Characteristics

Bogaert (2006) emphasized that asexuality does not necessarily mean a lack of romantic attraction to others. While asexual individuals are less likely to be in long-term relationships, a significant number (33 %) of asexual individuals were currently married or cohabiting (Bogaert, 2004), while Brotto et al. (2010), on the other hand, reported that the majority of the asexual participants in their study, both women (79.2 %) and men (92.6 %), were single, a result corroborated by Scherrer (2010). An aspect possibly contributing to the relationship status differences could be the two identities found in Scherrer’s (2008) study of 102 self-identified asexual individuals. Scherrer distinguished between two different asexual identities: aromantic and romantic. Aromantic asexual individuals reported wanting only a friendship-like relationship (if at all) while romantic asexual individuals wanted a relationship based on emotional rather than sexual closeness. To our knowledge, no study has addressed sexual satisfaction in asexual individuals.

Sexual Characteristics

Bogaert (2004) reported that asexual individuals had had fewer sexual partners, less frequent partnered sexual activity, and later onset of sexual activity (if at all), although some still engaged in partnered sexual activity once every 5 weeks (likely motivated by a sense of obligation to the partner or curiosity) (Prause & Graham, 2007). Brotto et al. (2010) found that most asexual participants had never had sexual intercourse (and suggested that asexual individuals had displayed less sexual behaviors in childhood, implying temporal stability) and that for 85.7–93.8 % of asexual men and women the ideal frequency of sexual intercourse was 0–2 times a year. Although these results suggest lower levels of sexual behavior in asexual individuals, Prause and Graham reported no significant differences between asexual and non-asexual individuals regarding desire to masturbate, corroborated by Brotto et al. (2010). The participants in Brotto et al.’s study emphasized that sex with oneself was qualitatively different from sex with another person, since it can exist without sexual attraction (this suggestion has also been supported by empirical findings, with a factor analysis of an instrument measuring sexual desire suggesting that partnered and solitary sexual behaviors are different dimensions) (Spector, Carey, & Steinberg, 1996).

As some asexual individuals engage in sexual activity, it is of interest to know how they function sexually. Brotto and Yule (2011) compared hetero-, homo-, bi-, and asexual women on six subscales (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm satisfaction, and pain) of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) (Rosen et al., 2000). The results showed that scores on the desire subscale, but not the other subscales, were significantly lower in asexual individuals in comparison to the three other groups. However, Brotto et al.’s (2010) comparison between asexual women and a comparison group (women with HSDD and sexual arousal disorder) on the six FSFI subscales revealed that asexual individuals had more sexual dysfunctions on both the desire and arousal subscales.

Little is known about the occurrence of sexual dysfunctions in asexual men. Brotto et al. (2010) suggested that the scores regarding erectile function are comparable to men without erectile dysfunction (ED). This finding corroborates some recent reports that suggest that ED is highly biological in nature and likely to occur due to old age or underlying somatic pathology, particularly cardiovascular disease or type II diabetes (e.g., Inman et al., 2009). To our knowledge, no study of ejaculatory dysfunction in asexual men has been conducted.

Aims and Hypotheses of the Present Study

The first aim was to investigate the prevalence of a proxy measure of asexuality (reporting no sexual attraction to women or men in the past year) and its association with age and gender in a population-based sample of Finnish women and men aged 33–43 years. We hypothesized, based on Bogaert (2004) and Prause and Graham (2007), that absence of sexual attraction to women or men in the past year would be associated with older age and that women would have higher prevalence rates.

Our second aim was to compare individuals who did and did not report sexual attraction to women or men in the past year regarding relationship status and, for those in a relationship, level of relationship satisfaction. We hypothesized that these individuals would be more likely to be single. As the majority of asexual individuals report feelings of romantic attraction to others but not elevated sexual distress (Bogaert, 2006; Brotto et al., 2010), we hypothesized that we would find negligible (if any) difference in relationship satisfaction between participants who did and did not report sexual attraction to women or men in the past year.

The third aim was to compare individuals who did and did not report sexual attraction to women or men on a number of sexual characteristics (e.g., frequency of sexual fantasies, kissing and petting, masturbation, etc.). We expected individuals who reported no sexual attraction to women or men to engage in sexual behaviors less frequently than individuals who reported sexual attraction (Brotto et al., 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007). Further, we hypothesized that the former group of individuals would be older at their first sexual experience and would have had fewer sexual partners during the last year (Bogaert, 2004). We anticipated that the same individuals would also have displayed less sexual behavior in childhood (Bogaert, 2004; Brotto et al., 2010).

We expected that women who reported no sexual attraction to women or men over the past year would have higher sexual dysfunctions scores overall compared to women who reported sexual attraction (Brotto et al., 2010; Brotto & Yule, 2011). We expected no difference between men who did and men who did not report sexual attraction during the past year regarding erectile dysfunction (Brotto et al., 2010). Furthermore, we hypothesized that premature ejaculation (PE) would be less prevalent, and delayed ejaculation (DE) more prevalent, in men who reported absence of sexual attraction in the past year than in matched controls. We based this hypothesis on the assumption that ejaculatory problems may be associated with sexual arousal, which is indirectly suggested in, for example, pharmacological studies (Jern, 2009). Since asexual individuals may engage in partnered sexual activities for reasons not directly related to personal sexual pleasure (e.g., Brotto et al., 2010) and since faking orgasm is rather common (Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010), we expected that individuals who reported no sexual attraction in the past year would be more prone to faking an orgasm.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The present study was based on a total of 3,540 participants, 1,304 men and 2,236 women, with 19 men (M = 36.78 years, SD = 2.82) and 73 women (M = 38.97 years, SD = 2.67) who reported absence of sexual attraction to either women or men during the past 12 months.

The questions used in the present study were: “How often have you, on average, felt sexual attraction towards men during the last 12 months?”, “How often have you, on average, felt sexual attraction towards women during the last 12 months?” The seven response options to these questions ranged from “not at all” to “every day.” Furthermore, the following two questions were presented: “How many different men have you felt sexually attracted to during the last 12 months?” and “How many different women have you felt sexually attracted to during the last 12 months?” The eight response options ranged from “none” to “100 or more.” Participants who responded with “not at all” and “none” on all the questions referred to above were coded as individuals with absence of sexual attraction. These questions were derived from a questionnaire developed by Sell (1996). The remaining participants who reported having felt sexually attracted to women or men during the last year were categorized as individuals who reported sexual attraction in the past year. Participants (n = 40) who did not respond to the questions regarding sexual attraction were excluded from the study.

Furthermore, in order to investigate prevalence of sexual dysfunctions and tendency to fake an orgasm in women and men who did and did not report sexual attraction in the past year, individuals who had not engaged in partnered sexual activities during the last 12 months were excluded from these analyses. Next, a control group consisting of individuals who reported sexual attraction in the past year was created; this control group was matched on age, gender, and relationship status. Each individual who reported absence of sexual attraction was matched with three controls who did report sexual attraction. The final sample for these analyses consisted of 9 sexually active men and 44 sexually active women who reported no sexual attraction in the past year, with 27 male and 132 female controls.

The present study was a subsample of the “Genetics of Sexuality and Aggression” research project, conducted at the Centre of Excellence in Behavior Genetics at Åbo Akademi University in Finland. The data collection was carried out in 2005 and consequently questionnaires regarding sexuality and aggression were sent to a total of 10,000 Finnish twins, between the ages of 33–43 years (women M = 37.54 years, SD = 2.91; men M = 37.62 years, SD = 2.99). An equal number of questionnaires were sent to both women and men. After the questionnaires were sent, they were followed by a reminder letter and later a new questionnaire was sent. The questionnaires were finally returned by 45 % of women and 27 % of men, resulting in a lower response rate for men in comparison to women. As a result, a total of 3,604 individuals participated in the research project, resulting in an overall response rate of 36 %. All the twins in the data collection were identified from the Finnish Central Population Registry and all were native speakers of Finnish. The research plan was accepted by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology and Logopedics at Åbo Akademi University and all participants supplied informed consent.

Measures

The entire questionnaire contained 22 different measures (Johansson et al., 2013). In the present study, six of the measures were used and are described below. A background questionnaire, including demographic information, relationship status, and sexuality-related questions, was also included in the study. Therefore, a summarizing review of these variables will be presented first, followed by the psychometric measures and a question designed to measure the tendency to fake orgasm.

Demographics, Relationship Status, and Sexuality-Related Questions

The participants were asked to complete information regarding age, gender, and relationship status (the forced-choice options were: divorced, not seeing anyone right now, I have never had a sexual relationship, widowed, married/living together/engaged, seeing only one person, married/registered relationship, seeing multiple individuals) as well as age of the first sexual experience and the number of sexual partners during the last 12 months.

Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory

The participants’ satisfaction with their current intimate relationship was assessed using a short form of the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (PRQC) (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000). The original PRQC inventory consists of 18 items and has been shown to have good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s α’s ranging from .85 to .88. The short version of PRQC also proved to have good internal consistency in the present sample (Cronbach’s α = .89). Participants who were not in a relationship did not respond to this questionnaire.

The short form consisted of six items: How satisfied are you with your relationship? (Relationship satisfaction), How committed are you to your relationship? (Commitment), How intimate is your relationship? (Intimacy), How much do you trust your partner? (Trust), How passionate is your relationship? (Passion), and How much do you love your partner? (Love). The questions were answered on a seven-point Likert-type scale, with high scores indicating more satisfaction with the relationship. The items were added together and divided by the number of items, creating an averaged variable.

Actual Sexual Activity Scale

Actual frequency of sexual behaviors was evaluated using a modified version of Section III from the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI) (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1979), referred to here as the Actual Sexual Activity Scale (ASAS). The DSFI inventory has proved to be a highly reliable and valid measure of the construct of sexual functioning. Derogatis and Melisaratos have reported internal consistency reliability coefficients, with Cronbach’s α’s ranging from .60 to .97, and test–retest coefficients ranging from .70 to .90. In the present sample, internal consistency was acceptable, with Cronbach’s α’s ranging from .56 to .73.

The original version of the DSFI consisted of four items: “sexual fantasies,” “kissing and petting,” “masturbation,” and “intercourse.” In the ASA scale, however, some changes were made to these items. The item intercourse was divided into “vaginal intercourse,” “anal intercourse,” and the item “oral sex” was added to the inventory. The item masturbation was also specified as solo masturbation. The individuals were asked how frequently they engaged in each type of behavior using a nine-point scale, where “0” equaled “not at all” and “8” equaled “≥4 a day.” Consequently, higher scores indicated more frequent sexual behavior.

Sexual Interaction in Childhood

To measure sexual interaction with other children in childhood, a number of items from Larsson and Svedin’s (2002) study were used. Men were asked to respond to 9 items and women were asked to respond to 11 items. Examples of the questions included “I talked about sex with another child,” “I imitated intercourse with another child,” “I kissed and hugged another child,” “Another child touched my genitals,” and “Another child put/tried to put his penis in my vagina or anus.” These items were responded to with “yes” or “no.”

Participants answered whether they had engaged in these behaviors with other children before the age of 12 years. The variables were collapsed into one variable for men and one for women measuring sexual interaction in childhood. In the present study, higher scores indicated more frequent sexual behavior in childhood. This instrument proved to have good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .80 for men and α = .72 for women).

Female Sexual Function Index

In order to assess difficulties with sexual functioning in women, the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) self-report questionnaire was used (Rosen et al., 2000). The scale consists of 19 items that assess sexual function during the past 4 weeks and involves six key domains: sexual desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain. The FSFI has excellent internal reliability (Cronbach’s α > .9, for all subscales), high test–retest reliability for each domain (r = 0.79–0.86), and excellent validity (Meyer-Bahlburg & Dolezal, 2007; Rosen et al., 2000; Wiegel, Meston, & Rosen, 2005). The 19 items were added together to form six composite variables (in line with the six key domains presented above) for female sexual dysfunctions. However, some of the items were reversed prior to computing the composite variables, since their direction was different from the other variables in the FSFI scale. The items have previously been subject to extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using the same sample as in the present study, suggesting high internal consistencies for this factor solution with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .72 to .96 (see Witting et al., 2008).

The answers were scored on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to 5 for Items 1, 2, 15, and 16. For all other items, the range was from 0 to 5, with an additional option of “No sexual activity.” A response option “no partner” to Item 16 was also added (“Over the past 4 weeks, how satisfied have you been with your sexual relationship with your partner?”), which, equivalent to the response options of other questions, was given the value of zero. In the present study, higher scores on the FSFI scale indicates better levels of sexual functioning.

International Index of Erectile Function-5

A 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) (Rosen, Cappelleri, Smith, Lipsky, & Peña, 1999) was used to assess erectile dysfunction (ED). The IIEF-5 includes five items: erectile dysfunction, orgasmic dysfunction, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction. Participants were asked to respond to the items concerning their erectile function during the past 4 weeks. The internal consistency of these five items in the study sample proved to be excellent (Cronbach’s α = .92). The five items were added together to form a composite variable for erectile dysfunction. Four out of five IIEF-5 items have a supplementary response option 0 = did not attempt intercourse (note that individuals who had not been sexually active during the last year were excluded from further analyses). For the remaining items, the range was from 1 to 5, which results in a maximum score ranging of 25. In the present study, higher scores on the items indicate a better level of sexual functioning. Rosen et al. suggested five different cutoff scores for different degrees of severity of ED, with a cutoff score of 22 distinguishing between men with and without erectile dysfunction.

Ejaculatory Dysfunction

In order to assess ejaculatory function (i.e., premature and delayed ejaculation; PE and DE, respectively), an adaptation (see Jern, Piha, & Santtila, 2013; Jern et al., 2009) of a 10-item questionnaire originally developed by Grenier and Byers (1997) was used (see also Jern et al., 2008). This instrument measures multiple facets of ejaculatory function during partnered sexual activity for the duration of the last 12 months. All items were responded to on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5, except the items “tried to slow down intercourse,” “tried to speed up intercourse,” “subjective perception of ejaculating too slowly,” and “subjective perception of ejaculating too rapidly,” which were responded to on a scale from 0 to 2. These items have previously been subject to extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in the present sample, suggesting good reliability for the measure (two-factor model) (Jern et al., 2009).

The items were subsequently added together to form two composite variables measuring symptoms of PE and DE, with higher scores on the variables indicating more difficulties. In the case of PE, seven of the 10 items were used to create a composite variable, with the individual items designed to capture both objective and subjective indicators of ejaculatory function. In a similar fashion, three items were summed to form a composite variable measuring DE symptoms. This resulted in a total score ranging from 7 to 29 for the composite variable measuring PE and a total score ranging from 1 to 9 for the composite variable measuring DE.

Tendency to Fake Orgasm

In order to measure the tendency to fake an orgasm during partnered sexual activity, the following question was used: “How often during sexual interaction with a partner have you faked having an orgasm?” The association between this five-category ordinal variable (response options ranging from 1 = rarely or never to 5 = almost always or always) and asexuality was calculated independently for both men and women.

Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses in the present study were performed using SPSS 19.0. In order to examine the prevalence of asexuality and its association with age and gender, χ 2 as well as Pearson’s correlation tests were computed. To compare asexual individuals and non-asexual individuals regarding different sexual behaviors, time of first sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners during the last 12 months, sexual behavior in childhood, and relationship satisfaction, the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model was used. This model takes into account between-subject dependence, which is necessary as the sample in the present study consisted of twins. However, the GEE regression procedure does not produce effect size estimates. Therefore, effect sizes (partial η 2) were computed using the General Linear Model of SPSS 21.0 with one randomly selected member per family in order to control for dependence. In order to compare asexual individuals and non-asexual individuals concerning relationship status, χ 2 tests were used. Furthermore, to compare sexually active asexual individuals with matched controls regarding sexual dysfunctions and the tendency to fake orgasm, a series of independent t-tests were conducted separately for women and men.

Results

Prevalence, Age, and Gender

Of the total number of participants (N = 3,540), 19 (1.5 %) men and 73 (3.3 %) women reported absence of sexual attraction during the past 12 months. Absence of sexual attraction was more prevalent among women, χ 2(1) = 10.63, p < .01. Pearson correlations revealed a significant association between absence of sexual attraction during the past year and age for women (r = .09, p < .001), such that women were more likely to report absence of sexual attraction with increasing age. There was no such significant correlation for men (r = −.03).

Relationship Status and Satisfaction

As shown in Table 1, there were significant differences between individuals who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction during the past year regarding relationship status variables “not seeing anyone right now” and “never have had a sexual relationship” for both women and men. Individuals who reported an absence of sexual attraction in the past year reported higher percentages on these variables than individuals who reported sexual attraction. There were also significant differences on the variables “Seeing only one person” and “Married/registered relationship” for women, with women reporting absence of sexual attraction during the past 12 months being less likely to have been seeing only one person or married/in a registered relationship.

Table 1 Relationship status differences between individuals who did and individuals who did not report absence of sexual attraction in the past year as a function of sex
Full size table

Regarding satisfaction with their relationship, results indicated no significant difference between women who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction, χ 2(1) < 1. The corresponding analysis for men yielded similar results, χ 2(1) < 1.

Sexual Behavior

As shown in Table 2, results indicated significant differences between women who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction during the past year regarding frequencies of all sexual behavior. Women who reported no sexual attraction during the past year reported significantly less frequent sexual behavior overall. Comparisons between men who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction regarding frequencies of sexual behavior also showed significant results, except in the case of masturbation. Men who reported absence of sexual attraction also reported significantly less frequent sexual behavior overall.

Table 2 Differences in sexual behaviors between individuals who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction in the past year
Full size table

Age at First Intercourse and Number of Sexual Partners

As shown in Table 3, the results showed no significant differences between individuals who did and individuals who did not report absence of sexual attraction during the last year regarding age at first intercourse. The results, on the other hand, revealed a significant difference between women who reported absence of sexual attraction and women who did not report absence of sexual attraction during the last year regarding the number of sexual partners during the last 12 months. The results were likewise significant for men.

Table 3 Differences in age at first sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners, and sexual interactions in childhood between individuals who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction in the past year
Full size table

Sexual Interaction in Childhood

As shown in Table 3, individuals who reported absence of sexual attraction during the last 12 months reported a significantly lower frequency of sexual behavior in childhood in comparison to individuals who did not report absence of sexual attraction.

Sexual Dysfunctions and Tendency to Fake Orgasm

As shown in Table 4, no significant differences were detected between individuals who reported absence of sexual attraction during the last year and their matched controls regarding sexual dysfunctions. In the case of erectile dysfunction, it is perhaps noteworthy that neither the group that reported absence of sexual attraction nor their controls had ED scores indicating any erectile problems, according to diagnostically relevant cut-off scores, as a score lower than 22 is required for mild ED (Rosen et al., 1999). There are no similar, standardized cut-off scores for the PE questionnaire used in the present study; however, mean scores for both groups suggested normal ejaculatory function compared to population-based samples (see Jern et al., 2009). This was also true for DE.

Table 4 Differences in sexual dysfunction scores between women and men who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction in the past year
Full size table

As Table 4 shows, women who reported absence of sexual attraction during the last year reported significantly more sexual dysfunctions than matched controls on the following subscales of the FSFI: desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm and pain. On the satisfaction subscale, however, no differences between the two groups were detected

None of the eight men who reported absence of sexual attraction during the last 12 months or their 26 matched controls reported having faked an orgasm. No significant association between faking orgasm and the lack of sexual attraction was detected in women (partial η 2 < .001).

Discussion

Prevalence, Age, and Gender

The first aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of absence of sexual attraction during the past 12 months and its association with age and gender in a population-based sample of Finnish women and men, with 1.5 % of men and 3.3 % of women reporting absence of sexual attraction. It is, however, problematic to compare our prevalence rates of asexuality with prevalence rates from other studies since our definitions were dissimilar. The prevalence rates in the present study were slightly higher than Bogaert’s (2004) prevalence rate of 1.05 %, as our definition focused on sexual attraction for the last year whereas Bogaert defined asexuality as a lifelong condition. The prevalence rates in the present study were also slightly higher than that reported by Poston and Baumle’s (2010) (0.8 % for women and 0.7 % for men).

The definition used in the present study could arguably be problematic as it focused on the lack of sexual attraction only for the duration of the last year, which may lead to an overestimate of the true prevalence of asexual individuals, and inclusion of individuals with HSDD. Bogaert (2006) stressed that one of the differences between asexuality and HSDD is that asexuality is a lifelong condition while HSDD is an acquired condition. However, it should be noted that asexuality was a relatively rare condition also in the present sample and in addition, as mentioned above, prevalence rates of asexuality in the present study were within 2 % units in comparison to Bogaert’s (2004) study. To facilitate comparisons with other major studies in the field and (arguably) to obtain a more objective measure, we opted to use a definition based on sexual attraction in the present study, as advocated by AVEN (2008), Bogaert (2004), and Brotto et al. (2010).

In the present study, women were more likely to be asexual and asexual women were also older than their non-asexual counterparts. These results were consistent with some previous studies (Bogaert, 2004; Brotto et al., 2010), but contradicted the results from a recent British survey, in which neither gender nor age were associated with asexuality (Aicken et al., 2013).

Relationship Status and Satisfaction

The second aim was to compare individuals who reported absence of sexual attraction during the past year to individuals reporting no such absence regarding relationship status and, for those in a relationship, level of relationship satisfaction. As expected, results indicated some significant differences between individuals who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction. Individuals who reported an absence of sexual attraction during the past 12 months were more likely to be single and were more likely to never have had a sexual relationship than individuals who reported sexual attraction in the past year. Women who reported no sexual attraction in the past 12 months were also more likely not to be married or in a registered relationship. These results were in line with previous findings by Bogaert (2004), Brotto et al. (2010), and Scherrer (2010). Even though a higher number of individuals who reported no sexual attraction in the past year reported being single, roughly 30 % of both asexual men and women reported that they were currently in committed relationships, mirroring Bogaert’s (2004) results. Fewer asexual women than non-asexual women also chose the response option “Seeing only one person.” While this could, in principle, indicate that women who reported no sexual attraction were more inclined to see more than one person, a more likely explanation is that women who reported an absence of sexual attraction in the past year were more likely not to be seeing anyone rather than seeing multiple individuals. There are some reasonable motives to why some individuals who report absence of sexual attraction would want a relationship even though not feeling sexually attracted to a partner. These individuals may feel a romantic attraction or may want to have a feeling of companionship. Another reason could be the desire to start a family and have children. There might also be a willingness to conform to a standard that is generally accepted in society.

Sexual Characteristics

The third aim was to compare individuals who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction during the past year on a number of sexuality-related characteristics. As expected, individuals who reported absence of sexual attraction tended to engage in all measured sexual behaviors less frequently than individuals who reported sexual attraction, with the exception of masturbation in men, corroborating, for example, Bogaert (2004) and Brotto et al. (2010). However, on the item inquiring how often the participants engaged in masturbation, the results differed significantly between women who did and did not report absence of sexual attraction, contradicting our hypothesis. Our failure to replicate Prause and Graham’s (2007) finding could simply be explained by issues of statistical power.

Surprisingly, our results did not reveal any significant differences between individuals who reported absence of sexual attraction during the past year and individuals who reported no such absence regarding age at first intercourse, thus contradicting Bogaert’s (2004) findings. Although not significant, mean age differences showed that both asexual men and women were slightly older at the time of first intercourse, indicating this association could be significant in a sample size as large as Bogaert’s (2004). Regarding the number of sexual partners during the last year, individuals who reported an absence of sexual attraction during the past 12 months had had significantly fewer sexual partners, confirming our hypothesis. A possible explanation for this result is that individuals who do not feel sexual attraction are less interested in partnered sexual activity, thus spending less time looking for sexual partners. However, it is also possible that, for example, dissatisfying early sexual experiences could lead to relative asexuality in the future.

Women who were sexually active despite reporting absence of sexual attraction during the past 12 months reported more sexual dysfunctions than a group of matched controls on the desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, and pain subscales on the FSFI, verifying our hypothesis. However, no significant difference was detected on the sexual satisfaction subscale, a finding which corresponds well with our finding regarding relationship satisfaction reported above. Regarding male sexual dysfunction, no significant differences for ED were found between the sexually active men who reported an absence of sexual attraction in the past year and a group of matched controls. The result of the ED analysis reflects the findings of Brotto et al. (2010) and confirmed our hypothesis. Also, none of the men had clinically relevant symptoms of ED, likely due to the relatively young age of the men in the present sample (e.g., Jern, Gunst, Sandnabba, & Santtila, 2012). No differences were detected between the sexually active men who reported an absence of sexual attraction during the past year and a group of matched controls regarding neither PE nor DE. However, this does not exclude the possibility that there might be some differences between the groups but these would perhaps require a larger sample size in order to be detected.

Limitations

The overall response rate was 36 % in the present study, with a somewhat higher response rate for women. Although this could potentially jeopardize the generalizability of our results, a number of factors suggest that our results were reliable. Firstly, the response rate was largely comparable with previous sexuality related survey studies (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000; Långström & Zucker, 2005). Our sample has also been shown to be comparable with other representative Finnish population samples on several sexuality related characteristics (see Johansson et al., 2013). Research shows that the individuals who participate in sexuality studies often have higher interest in sexual variety and more positives attitude towards sexuality than individuals who do not participate (e.g., Wiederman, 1999; for a review, see McCallum & Peterson, 2012); hence, individuals lacking feelings of sexual attraction could be underrepresented in our study.

Our data were exclusively based on retrospective self-report data, which may lead to recollection bias. Asexual individuals may also have more difficulties remembering different sexual experiences if sexual contact does not interest them, as shown by Brotto et al.’s (2010) study. Another limitation was the low number of asexual men (n = 19) and the especially low number of sexually active asexual men (n = 9), which results in low statistical power for any analyses involving these. However, as asexuality is theoretically expected to be less frequently occurring in men, a proper quantitative analysis of this group of individuals would require a significantly larger sample than that of the present study or a case–control design.

Conclusions and Future Research

The present study indicated that asexuality may be a lifelong phenomenon that does not necessarily affect the asexual individual’s relationship satisfaction, but does affect various sexual behaviors. Some issues regarding asexuality are still poorly understood and the underlying mechanisms behind the development of asexuality have yet to be identified. Thus far, very few researchers have investigated whether asexuality could be rooted in biology. Future research could therefore focus on investigating underlying genetic or endocrine causes. Also, longitudinal studies of asexuality could be useful to elucidate the development and characteristics of asexuality and could capture causal factors and environmental correlates.