Diversity, equity, and inclusion (usually abbreviated DEI) refers to organizational
frameworks which seek to promote "the fair treatment and full
participation of all people", particularly groups "who have historically
been underrepresented or subject to discrimination" on the basis of identity or disability. These three notions (diversity, equity, and inclusion) together represent "three closely linked values" which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks, even if some scholars argue that, for instance, diversity and inclusion should be decoupled in some cases. Some frameworks, primarily in Britain, substitute the notion of "equity" with equality: equality, diversity, inclusion (EDI). Other variations include diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB),justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI or EDIJ), or diversity, equity, inclusion and access (IDEA, DEIA or DEAI).
Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity (i.e. gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, class etc.), age or opinion. Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and "decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged",
and taking "into consideration a person's unique circumstances,
adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal." Finally, inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where "all employees feel their voices will be heard", and a sense of belonging and integration.
DEI is most often used to describe certain "training" efforts, such as diversity training. Though DEI is best known as a form of corporate training, it also finds implementation within many types of organizations, such as within academia, schools, and hospitals.
In recent years, DEI efforts and policies have generated
criticism, some directed at the specific effectiveness of its tools,
such as diversity training,
its effect on free speech and academic freedom, as well as more broadly
attracting criticism on political or philosophical grounds.
Overview
In 2003 it was estimated that corporations in the United States spent $8 billion annually on diversity. After the election of Donald Trump and the ascent of the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, Time magazine stated in 2019 that the DEI industry had "exploded" in size.
Within academia, a 2019 survey found that spending on DEI efforts had
increased 27 percent over the five preceding academic years.
One 2020 estimate placed the size of the global diversity and
inclusion market at $7.5 billion, of which $3.4 billion was in the
United States, projecting it to reach $17.2 billion by 2027. DEI is more common than D&I, and represents many different methodologies.
In 2021, New York magazine stated "the business became astronomically larger than ever" after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. The Economist
has also stated that surveys of international companies indicate that
the number of people hired for jobs with "diversity" or "inclusion" in
the title more than quadrupled since 2010.
In a 2018 article, proponents of DEI argued that because businesses
and corporations exist within a larger world, they cannot be completely
separated from the issues that exist in society. Therefore, the authors
argue the need for DEI to improve coworker relations and teamwork.
Through a DEI plan, organizations outline measures to be taken,
including recruiting and retaining personnel, fostering effective
communication channels, imparting relevant training, and regulating
workplace conduct.
As of 2022 many academic institutions in the US have also started
making commitments to DEI in different ways, including creating
documents, programs and appointing dedicated staff members especially in
the US. Many accreditation agencies now require supporting DEI.
As of 2014, information on DEI for both students and professors was
widespread in colleges and universities, with many schools requiring
training and meetings on the topic. Many scholarships and opportunities
at universities even have a secondary purpose of encouraging diversity.
Diversity in higher education can be difficult, with diverse students
often feeling reduced to fulfilling a 'diversity quota,' which can carry
a high emotional tax.
DEI positions also exist with the goal of creating allies for public school students through resources and staff training, in order to support students facing social disparities.
Other proponents of allyship consider impromptu speaking a key skill
for allies to operate on authenticity in everyday words and reactions.
Diversity training, a common tool used in DEI efforts, has repeatedly come under criticism as being ineffective or even counterproductive. The Economist
has stated that "the consensus now emerging among academics is that
many anti-discrimination policies have no effect. What is worse, they
often backfire". A regular claim is that these efforts mainly work to protect against litigation. It has also been criticized that there has been limited progress in
achieving racial diversity in corporate leadership, particularly for
Black professionals, due to a lack of diverse Chief Diversity Officers
and a broad DEI focus that overlooks specific issues Black professionals
face.
A 2007 study of 829 companies over 31 years showed "no positive effects
in the average workplace" from diversity training, while the effect was
negative where it was mandatory. According to Harvard University
professor in sociology and diversity researcher Frank Dobbin, "[o]n
average, the typical all-hands-on-deck, 'everybody has to have diversity
training' – that typical format in big companies doesn't have any
positive effects on any historically underrepresented groups like black
men or women, Hispanic men or women, Asian-American men or women or
white women."
Mandatory diversity statements within academia
The
use of mandatory "diversity statements" within academia, wherein an
applicant or faculty member outlines their "past contributions" and
plans "for advancing diversity, equity and inclusion" if hired, has
become controversial and sparked criticism. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has called such practices an attack on academic freedom, stating that "[v]ague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests
for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI" and "penalize
faculty for holding dissenting opinions on matters of public concern". According to a 2022 survey conducted by the American Association of University Professors,
one in five American colleges and universities include DEI criteria in
tenure standards, including 45.6 percent of institutions with more than
5000 students. Some universities have begun to weigh diversity statements heavily in hiring processes; for example, University of California, Berkeley eliminated three-quarters of applicants for five faculty positions in the life sciences exclusively on the basis of their diversity statements, in the hiring cycle of 2018–2019.
The Academic Freedom Alliance
(AFA) has called for the end of required diversity statements, stating
it "encourages cynicism and dishonesty" and erases "the distinction
between academic expertise and ideological conformity". Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who resigned from the SPSP
in protest against mandatory diversity statements, has stated that
"most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory
statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to
the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous
connection to diversity". Other criticisms include that it "devalues merit", is connected to affirmative action, that it violates the First Amendment, or function as loyalty oaths.
A 1500-person survey conducted by FIRE reported that the issue is
highly polarizing for faculty members, with half saying their view more
closely aligns with the description of diversity statements as "a
justifiable requirement for a job at a university", while the other half
saw it as "an ideological litmus test that violates academic freedom".
Several U.S. states have implemented legislation to ban mandatory diversity statements.
Equity versus equality
According
to DEI frameworks, "equity is different than equality in that equality
implies treating everyone as if their experiences are exactly the same." A common identification, especially among critics, is of equality as meaning "equality of opportunities" and equity as "equality of outcome".Some have criticized this focus on equity rather than equality, arguing
that the former runs contrary to a focus on merit or
non-discrimination. Political scientist Charles Lipson has called "equity" a "mandate to discriminate", threatening the principle of "equality under the law", while Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, a frequent critic of DEI, has called equity "the most egregious, self-righteous, historically-ignorant and dangerous" of the three titular notions of DEI. The debate has also branched into the realm of politics. Commenting on Governor of TexasGreg Abbott
calling DEI initiatives "illegal", a spokesperson for his office stated
"[t]he issue is not diversity — the issue is that equity is not
equality. Here in Texas, we give people a chance to advance based on
talent and merit".
Effects of DEI policies on free speech and academic freedom
In
recent years, high-profile incidents of campus conflict have sparked
debate about the effect of DEI on the campus environment, academic
freedom and free speech.
The 2021 cancelling of an MIT guest lecture by astrophysicistDorian Abbot after he criticized DEI programs led to media attention and controversy. As a result, MIT empaneled a committee to investigate the state of academic freedom at the university.
The 2023 disruption of a talk by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School
sparked criticism and discussion in the media, with many focusing on
the role of Associate DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach, who joined protesters
in denouncing Duncan's presence on campus. In the wake of the incident, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal opined that DEI offices have "become weapons to intimidate and limit speech". Steinbach replied with "Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford", published in the Journal the following week. Dean of Stanford Law School, Jenny S. Martínez,
also published a ten-page document addressing the situation and
clarifying Stanford's position on free speech. In it, Martinez stated
that the university's commitment to DEI "can and should be implemented
in ways that are consistent with its commitment to academic freedom and
free speech" and that she believed that "the commitment to diversity,
equity, and inclusion actually means that we must protect free
expression of all views."
She added that the commitment would not take the form of "having the
school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range
of current social and political issues, make frequent institutional
statements about current news events, or exclude or condemn speakers who
hold views on social and political issues with whom some or even many
in our community disagree", criticizing this definition of an "inclusive
environment" by stating it "can lead to creating and enforcing an
institutional orthodoxy."
In April 2023, a group of 29 scientists, including Nobel laureatesDan Shechtman and Arieh Warshel, published a paper which outlined what the authors see as a "clash in science between classical liberal values" and a "new postmodern
worldview", which, they argue, is "enforced by 'Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion' (DEI) officers and bureaucracies" and "threatens the entire
scientific enterprise." Two of the authors, Anna Krylov and Jerry Coyne, subsequently argued in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that their emphasis on merit
– "once anodyne and unobjectionable [...] now contentious and outré,
even in the hard sciences" – led to its refusal by major journals and
subsequent publication in the Journal of Controversial Ideas.
The 2023 suicide of former Toronto
principal Richard Bilkszto led to a new wave of controversy surrounding
DEI in the workplace and its impact on freedom of expression. Bilkszto had earlier filed a lawsuit against the Toronto District School Board
in the wake of a 2021 incident at a DEI training seminar; Bilkszto was
later diagnosed with "anxiety secondary to a workplace event", and
claimed the session and its aftermath had destroyed his reputation.
Bilkszto's lawyer has publicly linked this incident and its aftermath
with his death. In the wake of Bilkszto's death, Ontario minister of education, Stephen Lecce,
stated he had asked for a review and "options to reform professional
training and strengthen accountability on school boards so this never
happens again", calling Bilkszto's allegations before his death "serious
and disturbing". Bilkszto's death generated international attention and renewed debate on DEI and freedom of speech. According to The Globe and Mail,
the incident has also been "seized on by a number of prominent
right-wing commentators looking to roll-back [DEI] initiatives."
The anti-racism trainer involved in the incident has stated they
welcome the review by Lecce, and stated that the incident has been
"weaponized to discredit and suppress the work of people committed [to
DEI]".[69][70]
Antisemitism
DEI has been accused of ignoring or even contributing to antisemitism.
According to Andria Spindel, of the Canadian Antisemitism Education
Foundation, antisemitism has been largely ignored in the DEI curriculum. The relationship between DEI and campus antisemitism came under further scrunity after the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, and the subsequent war in Gaza.
Tabia Lee, a former DEI director at De Anza College in California
turned critic, has claimed that DEI frameworks foster antisemitism due
to its "oppressors and the oppressed" dichotomy where "Jews are
categorically placed in the oppressor category", and described as "white oppressors". She has claimed that her attempts to include Jews under the "DEI" umbrella was resisted.
When her critics asked the college trustees to oust her from her role,
one counselor explicitly referenced her attempts to place Jewish
students "on the same footing as marginalized groups". The Brandeis Center likewise notes how the DEI committee at Stanford University
alleged that "Jews, unlike other minority group[s], possess privilege
and power, Jews and victims of Jew-hatred do not merit or necessitate
the attention of the DEI committee", after two students complained about
antisemitic incidents on campus.
Following a wake of antisemitic incidents on American campuses in
2023, several Republican congressmen laid the blame at DEI, with Burgess Owens stating DEI programs "are anything but inclusive for Jews". DEI's lack of inclusion for Jews, and contribution to fueling antisemitism, was similarly criticized by businessman Bill Ackman, and columnist Heather Mac Donald.
Following the anti-semitism controversy at Penn University, one donor
pulled a $100 million donation "because he thought the school was
prioritizing D.E.I. over enhancing the business school's academic
excellence."
Politicization and ideology
DEI has according to some critics become a distinct ideology or "political agenda", leading to a politicization of universities. CNN's Fareed Zakaria
has criticized American universities for "[h]aving gone so far down the
ideological path", that "these universities and these presidents cannot
make the case clearly that at the center of a university is the free
expression of ideas", opining that "[t]he most obvious lack of diversity
at universities, political diversity, which clearly affects their
ability to analyze many issues, is not addressed".
Disability community
According to some critics, DEI initiatives inadvertently sideline disabled people. Writing for The Conversation
in 2017, college professor Stephen Friedman said that "organizations
who are serious about DEI must adopt the frame of producing shared value
where business and social goods exist side-by-side". According to a Time article in 2023, "people with disabilities are being neglected".
This view has been echoed by a number of DEI leaders and activists. Sara Hart Weir, the former president and CEO of the National Down Syndrome Society,
and co-founder of the Commission for Disability Employment, argues that
when deliberating on the vision of DEI success in the United States,
policymakers and employers need to take proactive measures to engaging
with people with disabilities who they historically ignored. Corinne Gray has argured that "if you embrace diversity, but ignore disability, you're doing it wrong."
Political and public backlash
Entertainment and media
Within
the film industry, several prominent actors and directors have
criticized recently implemented diversity standards, such as at the Academy Awards.
Beginning in 2024, to be eligible for a best-picture nomination at the
Academy Awards, a film must meet two of four diversity standards in
order to qualify.
Actor Richard Dreyfuss
stated the Academy Award's diversity and inclusion standards "make me
vomit", arguing that art should not be morally legislated.
Several major film directors, who are voting members of the Academy
Awards, anonymously expressed their opposition to the new diversity
standards to The New York Post, with one describing them as "contrived". Film critic Armond White attacked the new standards as "progressive fascism", comparing them to the Hays Code.
Conservative media sources, such as National Review, have also been frequent critics of DEI, with contributor George Leff arguing it is authoritarian and anti-meritocratic.
Politics
In
the 2020s, DEI came into the spotlight in American politics, with
several prominent Republicans positioning themselves as critics,
including Governor Ron DeSantis, Governor Greg Abbott, and presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.
Several U.S. states are considering or have passed legislation targeting DEI in public institutions. In March 2023, Texas's House of Representatives passed a bill with a rider banning the use of state funds for DEI programs in universities and colleges. In May 2023, Texas passed legislation banning offices and programs promoting DEI at publicly funded colleges and universities. In Iowa, a bill to ban spending on DEI in public universities was also advanced in March 2023.
Another significant point of political controversy has been the
implementation of DEI frameworks in the military, with Republican
politicians frequently criticizing the efforts as "divisive" and as
harming military efficiency and recruiting, while Democrats have
defended it as beneficial and strengthening. On 14 July 2023, the House of Representatives voted to ban all DEI offices and initiatives within the Pentagon and military along partisan lines, with four Republican members also opposing.
Public boycotts
Political opposition to corporate DEI efforts in the United States, particularly marketing criticized as "woke", have led to calls for boycotts of certain companies by conservative activists and politicians; with notable examples being Disney, Target, Anheuser-Busch, and Chick-fil-A. Commentator Jonathan Turley of The Hill described such boycotts as possessing "some success".
Some of these companies' responses to the controversies have, in turn, sparked criticism from progressives of "walking back" or failing DEI commitments.
Diversity training is any program designed to facilitate positive intergroup interaction, reduce prejudice and discrimination, and generally teach individuals who are different from others how to work together effectively.
Diversity training is often aimed to meet objectives such as attracting and retaining customers and productive workers; maintaining high employee morale; and/or fostering understanding and harmony between workers.
Despite purported and intended benefits, systematic studies have
not shown benefits to forced diversity training and instead show that
they can backfire and lead to reductions in diversity and to
discrimination complaints being taken less seriously. As of 2019, more than $8 billion a year is spent on diversity training in the United States.
History
1960s
In
the 1960s, the concept of promoting diversity in the workplace was
prompted as a result of the societal and legal reforms that followed the
civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted by the 88th US Congress,
made it illegal for employers with more than 15 workers to discriminate
in termination, hiring, promotion, compensation, training, or any other
term, condition, or privilege of employment based on race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. Since its enactment, Title VII has
been supplemented with legislation that prohibits discrimination on the
basis of pregnancy, age, and disability. After the Civil Rights Act came
to be, activists protested organizations who refused to hire blacks,
planned jobs banks, and filed charges against employers that discriminated against their employees.
1970s
D.C. reinforced civil rights policies in the early 1970s with the Supreme Court extending the definition of discrimination in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Company;
the Court overruled employment practices that ostracized black
employees without evidence of intent to discriminate. The civil rights
movement helped to recreate its momentum for a new round of movements in
the 1970s for the rights of women, the disabled, Latinos, and others.
With shifts in societal and legal reforms, Federal agencies took the
first step towards modern day diversity training, and by the end of
1971, the Social Security Administration
had enrolled over 50,000 employees through racial bias training.
Corporations followed suit and, over the next five years, began offering
anti-bias training to their employees. By 1976, 60 percent of large
companies offered equal-opportunity training.
1980s to Present
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan tried to reverse affirmative action regulations put forward by JFK and appointed Clarence Thomas to run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
As a result, diversity trainers in the U.S. began calling for diversity
training arguing that women and minorities would soon be the backbone
of the workforce and that companies needed to determine how to include
them amongst their ranks. By 2005, 65 percent of large corporations
offered their employees some form of diversity training.
Impact
Findings
on diversity trainings are mixed. According to Harvard University
sociologist Frank Dobbin, there is no evidence to indicate that
anti-bias training leads to increases in the number of women or people
of color in management positions. A 2009 Annual Review of Psychology
study concluded, "We currently do not know whether a wide range of
programs and policies tend to work on average," with the authors of the
study stating in 2020 that as the quality of studies increases, the effect size of anti-bias training dwindles.
According to a 2006 study in the American Sociological Review,
"diversity training and diversity evaluations are least effective at
increasing the share of white women, black women, and black men in
management."
A meta-analysis suggests that diversity training could have a
relatively large effect on cognitive-based and skill-based training
outcomes.
An analysis of data from over 800 firms over 30 years shows that
diversity training and grievance procedures backfire and lead to
reductions in the diversity of the firms' workforce.
A 2013 study found that the presence of a diversity program in a
workplace made high-status subjects less likely to take discrimination
complaints seriously.
Alexandra Kalev and Frank Dobbin conducted a comprehensive review
of cultural diversity training conducted in 830 midsize to large U.S.
workplaces over a thirty one-year period.
The results showed that diversity training was followed by a decrease
of anywhere from 7.5–10% in the number of women in management. The
percentage of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent. Similar
effects were shown for Latinos and Asians. The study did not find that
all diversity training is ineffective. Mandatory training programs
offered to protect against discrimination lawsuits were called into
question. Voluntary diversity training participation to advance
organization's business goals was associated with increased diversity at
the management level; voluntary services resulted in near triple digit
increases for black, Hispanic, and Asian men.
A 2021 meta-analysis found a lack of high quality studies on the efficacy of diversity training.
The researchers concluded that "while the small number of experimental
studies provide encouraging average effects... the effects shrink when
the trainings are conducted in real-world workplace settings, when the
outcomes are measured at a greater time distance than immediately
following the intervention, and, most importantly, when the sample size
is large enough to produce reliable results."
In addition to increasing workforce diversity and reducing
discrimination, diversity training is often intended to prevent
successful discrimination lawsuits: corporate diversity training first
became common in the United States after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a way to protect corporations from lawsuits,
and although promoting respect and appealing to minority employees and
customers became significant goals of diversity training starting in the
late 1980s,
an expansion of diversity training in the early 2000s was prompted by a
series of high-profile discrimination lawsuits in the financial
industry.
A 2013 study found that white men were less likely to think a complaint
of discrimination by an employee was accurate when they were told that
the employer used diversity training, even when they were presented with
evidence of discrimination,
and several studies of the results of discrimination lawsuits in the
United States have found that official diversity structures, including
diversity training, have increasingly been accepted by judges as
evidence of a lack of discrimination regardless of their effectiveness.
Indeed, according to Nakamura & Edelman's (2019) summary of
corporate diversity policies, "[i]n the twenty-first century, diversity
commitments and policies are standard and firms that lack such
structures look suspect."
This article
is about humans who lack sexual attraction or interest in sexual
activity. For the lack of romantic attraction, see Aromanticism. For the lack of a gender, see Agender. For other uses, see Asexual (disambiguation).
Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal, social, or religious beliefs. Sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring". Some asexual people engage in sexual activity despite lacking sexual attraction or a desire for sex,
for a number of reasons, such as a desire to physically pleasure
themselves or romantic partners, or a desire to have children.
Acceptance of asexuality as a sexual orientation and field of scientific research is still relatively new, as a growing body of research from both sociological and psychological perspectives has begun to develop. While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, other researchers disagree. Asexual individuals may represent about one percent of the population.
Because there is significant variation among those who identify as asexual, the term asexuality can encompass broad definitions. Researchers generally define asexuality as the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of interest in sexual activity,
though specific definitions vary—the term may be used to refer to
individuals with low or absent sexual behavior or exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships in addition to low or absent sexual desire or attraction.
The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), an online forum
dedicated to asexuality, defines an asexual as "someone who does not
experience sexual attraction", as well as adding that asexuality "at its
core" is "just a word that people use to help figure themselves out",
and encourages people to use the term asexual to define themselves "as long as it makes sense to do so". Asexuality is often abbreviated as ace, a phonetic shortening of asexual, and the community as a whole is likewise referred to as the ace community.
Despite lacking sexual attraction, some asexuals might engage in purely romantic relationships, while others may not.
Some who identify as asexual report that they experience sexual
attraction, though lack the inclination to act on it, citing no desire
to engage in sexual activity—some asexuals also lack the desire to
engage in non-sexual physical activity such as cuddling or hand-holding, while others choose to do so. Asexual people may seek relationships without romantic or sexual activity, known as "queerplatonic relationships". A squish is a term used by the asexual community to describe a non-sexual crush.
Certain asexuals may participate in sexual activity out of curiosity. Some may also masturbate as a form of solitary release, while others may not feel a need to do so. The desire for masturbation or other sexual activity is often referred to as sex drive
by asexuals, who disassociate it from sexual attraction and being
asexual; asexuals who masturbate generally consider it to be a normal
product of the human body rather than a sign of latent sexuality, and
others do not find it pleasurable. Some asexual men are unable to get an erection and are unable to attempt penetration.
Asexuals also differ in their views on performing sexual acts — some
are indifferent and may engage in sexual activity for the benefit of a
romantic partner, while others are more strongly averse to the idea,
though they are not typically against sex as a whole.
Many who identify as asexual may identify with diverse gender identities or classifications of romantic orientation. These are often integrated with a person's asexual identity, and asexuals may still identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or bisexual regarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientation or sexual identity in addition to identifying as asexual. The romantic aspects of sexual orientations may also be indicated by a variety of romantic identities, including biromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic, or panromantic, and those who do not experience romantic attraction may identify as aromantic. This split between romantic and sexual orientation is commonly explained as the split attraction model,
which states that romantic and sexual attraction are not strictly
linked for all people. Individuals who are both aromantic and asexual
are sometimes known as "aro-ace" or "aroace".
The term "gray asexuality" refers to the spectrum between asexuality and non-asexuality (also referred to as allosexuality).
Individuals who identify as gray asexual may occasionally experience
sexual attraction, or only experience sexual attraction as a secondary
component once a reasonably stable or large emotional connection has
been formed with the target, known as demisexuality.
Research
Prevalence
Kinsey scale of sexual responses, indicating degrees of sexual orientation. The original scale included a designation of "X", indicating a lack of sexual behavior.
Most scholars agree that asexuality is rare, constituting 1% or less of the population. Asexuality is not a new aspect of human sexuality, but it is relatively new to public discourse.
In comparison to other sexualities, asexuality has received little
attention from the scientific community, with quantitative information
pertaining to the prevalence of asexuality low in numbers. S. E. Smith of The Guardian is not sure asexuality has actually increased, rather leaning towards the belief that it is simply more visible. Alfred Kinsey rated individuals from 0 to 6 according to their sexual orientation from heterosexual to homosexual, known as the Kinsey scale. He also included a category he called "X" for individuals with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions." Although, in modern times, this is categorized as representing asexuality, scholar Justin J. Lehmiller
stated, "the Kinsey X classification emphasized a lack of sexual
behavior, whereas the modern definition of asexuality emphasizes a lack
of sexual attraction. As such, the Kinsey Scale may not be sufficient
for accurate classification of asexuality." Kinsey labeled 1.5% of the adult male population as X. In his second book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,
he reported this breakdown of individuals who are X: unmarried females =
14–19%, married females = 1–3%, previously married females = 5–8%,
unmarried males = 3–4%, married males = 0%, and previously married males
= 1–2%.
Further empirical data about an asexual demographic appeared in
1994 when a research team in the United Kingdom carried out a
comprehensive survey of 18,876 British residents, spurred by the need
for sexual information in the wake of the AIDS pandemic.
The survey included a question on sexual attraction, to which 1.05% of
the respondents replied that they had "never felt sexually attracted to
anyone at all". The study of this phenomenon was continued by Canadian sexuality researcher Anthony Bogaert
in 2004, who explored the asexual demographic in a series of studies.
Bogaert's research indicated that 1% of the British population does not
experience sexual attraction, but he believed that the 1% figure was not
an accurate reflection of the likely much larger percentage of the
population that could be identified as asexual, noting that 30% of
people contacted for the initial survey chose not to participate in the
survey. Since less sexually experienced people are more likely to refuse
to participate in studies about sexuality, and asexuals tend to be less
sexually experienced than allosexuals, it is likely that asexuals were
under-represented in the responding participants. The same study found
the number of homosexuals and bisexuals combined to be about 1.1% of the
population, which is much smaller than other studies indicate.
Contrasting Bogaert's 1% figure, a study by Aicken et al.,
published in 2013, suggests that, based on Natsal-2 data from 2000 to
2001, the prevalence of asexuality in Britain is only 0.4% for the age
range 16–44.
This percentage indicates a decrease from the 0.9% figure determined
from the Natsal-1 data collected on the same age-range a decade earlier. A 2015 analysis by Bogaert also found a similar decline between the Natsal-1 and Natsal-2 data.
Aicken, Mercer, and Cassell found some evidence of ethnic differences
among respondents who had not experienced sexual attraction; both men
and women of Indian and Pakistani origin had a higher likelihood of
reporting a lack of sexual attraction.
In a survey conducted by YouGov
in 2015, 1,632 British adults were asked to try to place themselves on
the Kinsey scale. 1% of participants answered "No sexuality". The
breakdown of participants was 0% men, 2% women; 1% across all age
ranges.
Sexual orientation, mental health and cause
There is significant debate over whether or not asexuality is a sexual orientation. It has been compared and equated with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), a diagnosis which was in the DSM-4, in that both imply a general lack of sexual attraction to anyone; HSDD has been used to medicalize asexuality, but asexuality is generally not considered a disorder or a sexual dysfunction (such as anorgasmia, anhedonia, etc.), because it does not necessarily define someone as having a medical problem or problems relating to others socially.
Unlike people with HSDD, asexual people normally do not experience
"marked distress" and "interpersonal difficulty" concerning feelings
about their sexuality, or generally a lack of sexual arousal; asexuality is considered the lack or absence of sexual attraction as a life-enduring characteristic. One study found that, compared to HSDD subjects, asexuals reported lower levels of sexual desire, sexual experience, sex-related distress and depressive symptoms. Researchers Richards and Barker report that asexuals do not have disproportionate rates of alexithymia, depression, or personality disorders.
Some people, however, may identify as asexual even if their non-sexual
state is explained by one or more of the aforementioned disorders.
Since the release of the DSM-5 in 2013 which split HSDD into diagnoses for female sexual arousal disorder and male hypoactive sexual desire disorder, both disorders have been criticised for similar issues to HSDD.
Although the DSM-5 mentions asexuality as an exclusion criterion for
these two disorders, it is necessary for individuals to self-identify as
asexual to meet the differential diagnosis and this requirement has
been criticised for imposing a diagnosis on people who are possibly
asexual but do not yet identify as such. As of 2021, HSDD continues to be used to describe transgender women.
The first study that gave empirical data about asexuals was
published in 1983 by Paula Nurius, concerning the relationship between
sexual orientation and mental health.
689 subjects—most of whom were students at various universities in the
United States taking psychology or sociology classes—were given several
surveys, including four clinical well-being scales. Results showed that
asexuals were more likely to have low self-esteem and more likely to be
depressed than members of other sexual orientations; 25.88% of
heterosexuals, 26.54% bisexuals (called "ambisexuals"), 29.88% of
homosexuals, and 33.57% of asexuals were reported to have problems with
self-esteem. A similar trend existed for depression. Nurius did not
believe that firm conclusions can be drawn from this for a variety of
reasons.
In a 2013 study, Yule et al. looked into mental health variances
between Caucasian heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals.
The results of 203 male and 603 female participants were included in the
findings. Yule et al. found that asexual male participants were more
likely to report having a mood disorder than other males, particularly
in comparison to the heterosexual participants. The same was found for
female asexual participants over their heterosexual counterparts;
however, non-asexual, non-heterosexual females had the highest rates.
Asexual participants of both sexes were more likely to have anxiety
disorders than heterosexual and non-heterosexual participants, as were
they more likely than heterosexual participants to report having had
recent suicidal feelings. Yule et al. hypothesized that some of these
differences may be due to discrimination and other societal factors.
With regard to sexual orientation categories, asexuality may be
argued as not being a meaningful category to add to the continuum, and
instead argued as the lack of a sexual orientation or sexuality.
Other arguments propose that asexuality is the denial of one's natural
sexuality, and that it is a disorder caused by shame of sexuality,
anxiety or sexual abuse,
sometimes basing this belief on asexuals who masturbate or occasionally
engage in sexual activity simply to please a romantic partner.Within the context of sexual orientation identity politics, asexuality
may pragmatically fulfill the political function of a sexual orientation
identity category.
The suggestion that asexuality is a sexual dysfunction is
controversial among the asexual community. Those who identify as asexual
usually prefer it to be recognized as a sexual orientation. Scholars who argue that asexuality is a sexual orientation may point to the existence of different sexual preferences.
They and many asexual people believe that the lack of sexual attraction
is valid enough to be categorized as a sexual orientation.
The researchers argue that asexuals do not choose to have no sexual
desire and generally start to find out their differences in sexual
behaviors around adolescence. Because of these facts coming to light, it
is reasoned that asexuality is more than a behavioral choice and is not
something that can be cured like a disorder. There is also analysis on whether identifying as asexual is becoming more popular.
Research on the etiology of sexual orientation when applied to
asexuality has the definitional problem of sexual orientation not
consistently being defined by researchers as including asexuality.
While heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are usually, but
not always, determined during the early years of preadolescent life, it
is not known when asexuality is determined. "It is unclear whether these
characteristics [viz., "lacking interest in or desire for sex"] are thought to be lifelong, or if they may be acquired."
One criterion usually taken to be defining of a sexual orientation is that it is stable over time. In a 2016 analysis in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Brotto et al. found "only weak support" for this criterion being met among asexual individuals. An analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health by Stephen Cranney found that, of 14
individuals who reported no sexual attraction in the study's third wave
(when subjects ranged in age from 18 to 26), only 3 continued to
identify in this way at the fourth wave, six years later.
However, Cranney notes that asexual identification in the third wave
was still significant as a predictor of asexual identification in the
subsequent wave. In a subsequent commentary, Cranney stated that the
interpretation of this data was complicated by the absence of any "set
quantitative standard for how long a sexual desire must last before it
is considered stable or intrinsic enough to be considered an
orientation".
Sexual activity and sexuality
While some asexuals masturbate as a solitary form of release or have sex for the benefit of a romantic partner, others do not (see above).
Fischer et al. reported that "scholars who study the physiology around
asexuality suggest that people who are asexual are capable of genital
arousal but may experience difficulty with so-called subjective
arousal." This means that "while the body becomes aroused, subjectively –
at the level of the mind and emotions – one does not experience
arousal".
The Kinsey Institute
sponsored another small survey on the topic in 2007, which found that
self-identified asexuals "reported significantly less desire for sex
with a partner, lower sexual arousability, and lower sexual excitation
but did not differ consistently from non-asexuals in their sexual
inhibition scores or their desire to masturbate".
A 1977 paper titled Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two Invisible Groups, by Myra T. Johnson, is explicitly devoted to asexuality in humans.
Johnson defines asexuals as those men and women "who, regardless of
physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital
status or ideological orientation, seem to prefer not to engage in sexual activity." She contrasts autoerotic
women with asexual women: "The asexual woman ... has no sexual desires
at all [but] the autoerotic woman ... recognizes such desires but
prefers to satisfy them alone." Johnson's evidence is mostly letters to
the editor found in women's magazines written by asexual/autoerotic
women. She portrays them as invisible, "oppressed by a consensus that
they are non-existent," and left behind by both the sexual revolution
and the feminist movement. Johnson argued that society either ignores or
denies their existence or insists they must be ascetic for religious
reasons, neurotic, or asexual for political reasons.
In a study published in 1979 in volume five of Advances in the Study of Affect, as well as in another article using the same data and published in 1980 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Michael D. Storms of the University of Kansas
outlined his own reimagining of the Kinsey scale. Whereas Kinsey
measured sexual orientation based on a combination of actual sexual
behavior and fantasizing and eroticism, Storms used only fantasizing and
eroticism. Storms, however, placed hetero-eroticism and homo-eroticism
on separate axes rather than at two ends of a single scale; this allows
for a distinction between bisexuality (exhibiting both hetero- and
homo-eroticism in degrees comparable to hetero- or homosexuals,
respectively) and asexuality (exhibiting a level of homo-eroticism
comparable to a heterosexual and a level of hetero-eroticism comparable
to a homosexual, namely, little to none). This type of scale accounted
for asexuality for the first time.
Storms conjectured that many researchers following Kinsey's model could
be mis-categorizing asexual subjects as bisexual, because both were
simply defined by a lack of preference for gender in sexual partners.
In a 1983 study by Paula Nurius, which included 689 subjects
(most of whom were students at various universities in the United States
taking psychology or sociology classes), the two-dimensional
fantasizing and eroticism scale was used to measure sexual orientation.
Based on the results, respondents were given a score ranging from 0 to
100 for hetero-eroticism and from 0 to 100 for homo-eroticism.
Respondents who scored lower than 10 on both were labeled "asexual".
This consisted of 5% of the males and 10% of the females. Results showed
that asexuals reported much lower frequency and desired frequency of a
variety of sexual activities including having multiple partners, anal
sexual activities, having sexual encounters in a variety of locations,
and autoerotic activities.
Feminist research
The field of asexuality studies is still emerging as a subset of the broader field of gender and sexuality studies. Notable researchers who have produced significant works in asexuality studies include KJ Cerankowski, Ela Przybylo, and CJ DeLuzio Chasin.
A 2010 paper written by KJ Cerankowski and Megan Milks, titled New Orientations: Asexuality and Its Implications for Theory and Practice, suggests that asexuality may be somewhat of a question in itself for the studies of gender and sexuality.
Cerankowski and Milks have suggested that asexuality raises many more
questions than it resolves, such as how a person could abstain from
having sex, which is generally accepted by society to be the most basic
of instincts. Their New Orientations
paper states that society has deemed "[LGBT and] female sexuality as
empowered or repressed. The asexual movement challenges that assumption
by challenging many of the basic tenets of pro-sex feminism
[in which it is] already defined as repressive or anti-sex
sexualities." In addition to accepting self-identification as asexual,
the Asexual Visibility and Education Network has formulated asexuality
as a biologically determined orientation. This formula, if dissected
scientifically and proven, would support researcher Simon LeVay's blind study of the hypothalamus in gay men, women, and straight men, which indicates that there is a biological difference between straight men and gay men.
In 2014, Cerankowski and Milks edited and published Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, a collection of essays intended to explore the politics of asexuality from a feminist and queer perspective.
It is broken into the introduction and then six parts: Theorizing
Asexuality: New Orientations; The Politics of Asexuality; Visualizing
Asexuality in Media Culture; Asexuality and Masculinity; Health,
Disability, and Medicalization; and Reading Asexually: Asexual Literary
Theory. Each part contains two to three papers on a given aspect of
asexuality research. One such paper is written by Ela Przybylo, another
name that is becoming common in asexual scholarly literature. Her
article, with regard to the Cerankowski and Milks anthology, focuses on
accounts by self-identified male asexuals, with a particular focus on
the pressures men experience towards having sex in dominant Western
discourse and media. Three men living in Southern Ontario, Canada, were
interviewed in 2011, and Przybylo admits that the small sample-size
means that her findings cannot be generalized to a greater population in
terms of representation, and that they are "exploratory and
provisional", especially in a field that is still lacking in
theorizations.
All three interviewees addressed being affected by the stereotype that
men have to enjoy and want sex in order to be "real men".
Another of Przybylo's works, Asexuality and the Feminist Politics of "Not Doing It",
published in 2011, takes a feminist lens to scientific writings on
asexuality. Pryzyblo argues that asexuality is made possible only
through the Western context of "sexual, coital, and heterosexual
imperatives".
She addresses earlier works by Dana Densmore, Valerie Solanas, and
Breanne Fahs, who argued for "asexuality and celibacy" as radical
feminist political strategies against patriarchy.
While Przybylo does make some distinctions between asexuality and
celibacy, she considers blurring the lines between the two to be
productive for a feminist understanding of the topic.
In her 2013 article, "Producing Facts: Empirical Asexuality and the
Scientific Study of Sex", Przybylo distinguishes between two different
stages of asexual research: that of the late 1970s to the early 1990s,
which often included a very limited understanding of asexuality, and the
more recent revisiting of the subject which she says began with
Bogaert's 2004 study and has popularized the subject and made it more
"culturally visible". In this article, Przybylo once again asserts the
understanding of asexuality as a cultural phenomenon, and continues to
be critical of its scientific study. Pryzblo published a book, Asexual Erotics,
in 2019. In this book, she argued that asexuality poses a "paradox" in
that is a sexual orientation that is defined by the absence of sexual
activity entirely. She distinguishes between a sociological
understanding of asexuality and a cultural understanding, which she said
could include "the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps,
dissonances and resonances".
CJ DeLuzio Chasin states in Reconsidering Asexuality and Its Radical Potential that academic research on asexuality "has positioned asexuality in line with essentialist discourses of sexual orientation" which is troublesome as it creates a binary
between asexuals and persons who have been subjected to psychiatric
intervention for disorders such as Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder.
Chasin says that this binary implies that all asexuals experience a
lifelong (hence, enduring) lack of sexual attraction, that all
non-asexuals who experience a lack of sexual desire experience distress
over it, and that it pathologizes asexuals who do experience such
distress.
As Chasin says such diagnoses as HSDD act to medicalize and govern
women's sexuality, the article aims to "unpack" problematic definitions
of asexuality that are harmful to both asexuals and women alike. Chasin
states that asexuality has the power to challenge commonplace discourse
of the naturalness of sexuality, but that the unquestioned acceptance of
its current definition does not allow for this. Chasin also argues
there and elsewhere in Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance
that it is important to interrogate why someone might be distressed
about low sexual desire. Chasin further argues that clinicians have an
ethical obligation to avoid treating low sexual desire per se as
pathological, and to discuss asexuality as a viable possibility (where
relevant) with clients presenting clinically with low sexual desire.
Intersections with race and disability
Scholar Ianna Hawkins Owen writes, "Studies of race have revealed the
deployment of asexuality in the dominant discourse as an ideal sexual
behavior to justify both the empowerment of whites and the subordination
of blacks to uphold a racialized social and political system." This is partly due to the simultaneous sexualization and de-sexualization of black women in the Mammy archetype, as well as by how society de-sexualizes certain racial minorities, as part of a bid to claim superiority by Whites. This is co-existent with the sexualization of black female bodies in the Jezebel archetype, both utilized to justify slavery and enable further control.
Owen also criticizes the "...investment in constructing asexuality upon
a white racial rubric (who else can claim access to being just like
everyone else?)".
Ben Brandley and Angela Labrador argue that asexual identity may be
more accessible to white people than people of color because of how
people of color are sexualized. Michael Paramo argues in an article for Aze
that this can create a "cyclical perception" that the asexual community
is dominated by white people which can make people of color continue to
feel excluded from it.
Eunjung Kim comments on the intersections between disability or crip theory and asexuality, saying disabled people are more frequently de-sexualized. Kim compares the idea of frigid
women to asexuality and analyzes its history from a queer, crip, and
feminist angle. Scholar Karen Cuthbert comments on "providing the first
empirically grounded discussion of this intersection of asexuality and
disability (and to a lesser extent gender and 'race')."
Anna Kurowicka identifies various forms of tension that emerge between
the intersections of asexuality and disability, noting that asexual
people may sometimes reject the notion that their asexuality is related
to disability in an effort to avoid unwanted medical intervention while
disabled people may reject the assumption that they are inherently
asexual.
Kurowicka argues that contemporary discourses should trouble the desire
to separate asexuality and disability, attributing the source of the
issue of negating connections between asexuality and disability to compulsory sexuality.
Bogaert's psychological work and theories
Bogaert argues that understanding asexuality is of key importance to understanding sexuality in general.
For his work, Bogaert defines asexuality as "a lack of lustful
inclinations/feelings directed toward others," a definition that he
argues is relatively new in light of recent theory and empirical work on
sexual orientation. This definition of asexuality also makes
clear this distinction between behavior and desire, for both asexuality
and celibacy, although Bogaert also notes that there is some evidence of
reduced sexual activity for those who fit this definition. He further
distinguishes between desire for others and desire for sexual
stimulation, the latter of which is not always absent for those who
identify as asexual, although he acknowledges that other theorists
define asexuality differently and that further research needs to be done
on the "complex relationship between attraction and desire". Another distinction is made between romantic and sexual attraction, and he draws on work from developmental psychology, which suggests that romantic systems derive from attachment theory while sexual systems "primarily reside in different brain structures".
Concurrent with Bogaert's suggestion that understanding
asexuality will lead to a better understanding of sexuality overall, he
discusses the topic of asexual masturbation to theorize on asexuals and
"'target-oriented' paraphilia,
in which there is an inversion, reversal, or disconnection between the
self and the typical target/object of sexual interest/attraction" (such
as attraction to oneself, labelled "automonosexualism").
In an earlier 2006 article, Bogaert acknowledges that a
distinction between behavior and attraction has been accepted into
recent conceptualizations of sexual orientation, which aids in
positioning asexuality as such.
He adds that, by this framework, "(subjective) sexual attraction is the
psychological core of sexual orientation", and also addresses that
there may be "some skepticism in [both] the academic and clinical
communities" about classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation, and
that it raises two objections to such a classification: First, he
suggests that there could be an issue with self-reporting (i.e., "a
'perceived' or 'reported' lack of attraction", particularly for
definitions of sexual orientation that consider physical arousal over
subjective attraction), and, second, he raises the issue of overlap
between absent and verylow sexual desire, as those with
an extremely low desire may still have an "underlying sexual
orientation" despite potentially identifying as asexual.
Community
The history of the asexual community is presently undocumented in academic work. Although several private websites for those who fall under the modern definition of asexuality existed online in the 1990s,
scholars believe that it was not until the early 21st century when a
community of self-identified asexuals began to form, aided by the
popularity of online communities.
Several small communities existed online, such as the "Leather
Spinsters", "Nonolibidoism Society", and "Haven for the Human Amoeba",
documented by Volkmar Sigusch. In 2001, activist David Jay
founded the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), whose
stated goals are "creating public acceptance and discussion of
asexuality and facilitating the growth of an asexual community".
Some asexuals believe that participation in an asexual community
is an important resource, as they often report feeling ostracized in
broader society. Communities such as AVEN can be beneficial to those in search of answers when questioning their sexual orientation,
such as providing support if one feels their lack of sexual attraction
constitutes a disease. Online asexual communities can also serve to
inform others about asexuality.
However, affiliating with online communities among asexual people vary.
Some question the purpose of online communities, while others heavily
depend on them for support. According to Elizabeth Abbott,
asexuality has always been present in society, though asexual people
kept a lower profile. She further stated that while the failure to
consummate marriage was seen as an insult to the sacrament of marriage
in medieval times, and has been sometimes used as grounds to terminate a
marriage, though asexuality has never been illegal, unlike homosexuality. However, the recent growth of online communication and social networking as facilitated the growth of a community built upon a common asexual identity.
The asexual pride flag features four horizontal stripes: black, gray, white, and purple, from top to bottomA black ring may be worn on one's right middle finger to indicate asexuality.
In 2009, AVEN members participated in the first asexual entry into an American pride parade at the San Francisco Pride Parade. In 2010, after a period of debate surrounding the existence of a pride flag
to represent asexuality, as well as a system to create one, the asexual
pride flag was formally announced. The final design was a popular
design, and received the most votes in an online open-access poll.
The flag's colors—four horizontal stripes of black, gray, white, and
purple from top to bottom—represent asexuality, gray-asexuality,
allosexuality, and community, respectively. They have also since been used as a representation of asexuality as a whole. Some members of the asexual community additionally opt to wear a black ring on their right middle finger, colloquially known as an "ace ring", as a form of identification. Some asexuals use ace playing card suits as identities of their romantic orientation, such as the ace of spades for aromanticism and the ace of hearts for non-aromanticism.
Events
On June 29, 2014, AVEN organized the second International Asexuality
Conference, as an affiliate WorldPride event in Toronto. The first was
held at the 2012 World Pride in London. The second such event, which was attended by around 250 people, was the largest gathering of asexuals to date.
The conference included presentations, discussions, and workshops on
topics such as research on asexuality, asexual relationships, and
intersecting identities.
Ace Week (formerly Asexual Awareness Week) occurs on the last full week in October. It is an awareness period that was created to celebrate and bring awareness to asexuality (including grey asexuality). It was founded by Sara Beth Brooks in 2010.
International Asexuality Day (IAD) is an annual celebration of the asexuality community that takes place on 6 April.
The intention for the day is "to place a special emphasis on the
international community, going beyond the anglophone and Western sphere
that has so far had the most coverage".
An international committee spent a little under a year preparing the
event, as well as publishing a website and press materials.
This committee settled on the date of 6 April to avoid clashing with as
many significant dates around the world as possible, although this date
is subject to review and may change in future years. The first International Asexuality Day was celebrated in 2021 and involved asexuality organizations from at least 26 countries.
Activities included virtual meetups, advocacy programs both online and
offline, and the sharing of stories in various art-forms.
Arts and literature
Darcie Little Badger is asexual and has written various short stories that explore asexual experiences.
In 2022, the academic journal Feral Feminisms covered authors and content created by and about the community in a special issue, which included reviews of Aze magazine, Darcie Little Badger's short stories, Sayaka Murata's Convenience Store Woman (2018), Seanan McGuire's Every Heart a Doorway (2016), Nilah Magruder's graphic novel M.F.K. (2017), Mackenzi Lee's historical fiction The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy (2018), Chuck Tingle's romance novella Absolutely No Thoughts Of Pounding... (2021), Cressida Cowell's How To Train Your Dragon series (2003-2015), Claire Kann's young-adult fiction Let's Talk About Love (2018), Angela Chen's cultural criticism Ace (2020), YouTube content by Jaiden Dittfach, and others.
Religion
Studies have found no significant statistical correlation between religion and asexuality, with asexuality occurring with equal prevalence in both religious and irreligious individuals. Asexuality is more common among celibate clergy, as non-asexuals are more likely to be discouraged by vows of chastity. According to Aicken et al., a higher proportion of Muslim respondents reported that they did not experience any form of sexual attraction compared to Christian respondents.
Because the application of the term asexuality is relatively recent, most religions do not have clear stances on it.
In Matthew 19:11–12, Jesus mentions "For there are eunuchs
who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made
eunuchs by others – and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Some biblical exegetes have interpreted the "eunuchs who were born that way" as including asexuals. While Christianity has not directly mentioned asexuality, it has revered celibacy; the apostle Paul, writing as a celibate, has been described by some writers as asexual. He writes in 1 Corinthians 7:6–9,
I
wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God;
one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the
widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if
they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to
marry than to burn with passion.
A 2012 study published in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations reported that asexuals are evaluated more negatively in terms of prejudice, dehumanization and discrimination than other sexual minorities,
such as gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Both homosexual and
heterosexual people thought of asexuals as not only cold, but also
animalistic and unrestrained. A different study, however, found little evidence of serious discrimination against asexuals because of their asexuality. Asexual activist, author, and blogger Julie Decker has observed that sexual harassment and violence, such as corrective rape, commonly victimizes the asexual community. Sociologist Mark Carrigan sees a middle ground, arguing that while asexuals do often experience discrimination, it is not of a phobic nature but "more about marginalization because people genuinely don't understand asexuality."
Asexuals also face prejudice from the LGBT community. Many LGBT people assume that anyone who is not homosexual or bisexual must be straight and frequently exclude asexuals from their definitions of queer. Although many well-known organizations devoted to aiding LGBTQ communities exist, these organizations generally do not reach out to asexuals and do not provide library materials about asexuality. Upon coming out
as asexual, activist Sara Beth Brooks was told by many LGBT people that
asexuals are mistaken in their self-identification and seek undeserved
attention within the social justice movement. Other LGBT organizations, such as The Trevor Project and the National LGBTQ Task Force, explicitly include asexuals because they are non-heterosexual and can therefore be included in the definition of queer.
Some organizations now add an A to the LGBTQ acronym to include
asexuals; however, this is still a controversial topic in some queer
organizations.
In some jurisdictions, asexuals have legal protections. Since 1999, Brazil has banned pathologization or attempted treatment of sexual orientation by mental health professionals through the national ethical code, and the U.S. state of New York has labeled asexuals as a protected class.
However, asexuality does not typically attract the attention of the
public or major scrutiny; therefore, it has not been the subject of
legislation as much as other sexual orientations have.
Asexual representation in media is limited and rarely openly acknowledged or confirmed by creators or authors.
In works composed prior to the beginning of the twenty-first century,
characters are generally automatically assumed to be sexual and the existence of a character's sexuality is usually never questioned. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle portrayed his character Sherlock Holmes as what would today be classified as asexual, with the intention to characterize him as solely driven by intellect and immune to the desires of the flesh. The Archie Comics character Jughead Jones was likely intended by his creators as an asexual foil to Archie's
excessive heterosexuality, but, over the years, this portrayal shifted,
with various iterations and reboots of the series implying that he is
either gay or heterosexual. In 2016, he was confirmed to be asexual in the New Riverdale Jughead comics. The writers of the 2017 television show Riverdale, based on the Archie comics, chose to depict Jughead as a heterosexual despite pleas from both fans and Jughead actor Cole Sprouse
to retain Jughead's asexuality and allow the asexual community to be
represented alongside the gay and bisexual communities, both represented
in the show. This decision sparked conversations about deliberate asexual erasure in the media and its consequences, especially on younger viewers.
Anthony Bogaert has classified Gilligan, the eponymous character of the 1960s television series Gilligan's Island, as asexual.
Bogaert suggests that the producers of the show likely portrayed him in
this way to make him more relatable to young male viewers of the show
who had not yet reached puberty and had therefore presumably not yet
experienced sexual desire.
Gilligan's asexual nature also allowed the producers to orchestrate
intentionally comedic situations in which Gilligan spurns the advances
of attractive females.
Films and television shows frequently feature attractive, but seemingly
asexual, female characters who are "converted" to heterosexuality by
the male protagonist by the end of the production. These unrealistic portrayals reflect a heterosexual male belief that all asexual women secretly desire men.
Asexuality as a sexual identity, rather than as a biological
entity, became more widely discussed in the media in the beginning of
the twenty-first century. The Fox Network series House represented an "asexual" couple in the episode "Better Half"
(2012). However, this representation has been questioned by members of
the asexual community, as the episode concluded that the man simply had a
pituitary tumor that reduced his sex drive and the woman was only
pretending to be asexual to please him, leading to controversy over the representation and a change.org
petition for Fox Network to reconsider how it represents asexual
characters in the future, stating it "represented asexuality very poorly
by attributing it to both medical illness and deception." Other fictional asexual characters include SpongeBob and his best friend Patrick from SpongeBob SquarePants and Todd Chavez from BoJack Horseman (generally well-accepted by the asexual community as positive representation).
