Romantic orientation Asexuality is sometimes referred to as "ace" and the community as "the ace community" by researchers or asexuals. If at any point someone finds the word asexual useful to describe themselves, we encourage them to use it for as long as it makes sense to do so.
These other identities include, but are not limited to, how they define their gender and their romantic orientation. Regarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientation or sexual identity , for example, asexuals may identify as heterosexual , lesbian , gay , bisexual , queer ,   or by the following terms to indicate that they associate with the romantic, rather than sexual, aspects of sexual orientation: While the term gray-A may cover anyone who occasionally feels romantic or sexual attraction, demisexuals or semisexuals experience sexual attraction only as a secondary component, feeling sexual attraction once a reasonably stable or large emotional connection has been created.
One term coined by individuals in the asexual community is friend-focused, which refers to highly valued, non-romantic relationships. Other terms include squishes and zucchinis, which are non-romantic crushes and queer-platonic relationships, respectively. Terms such as non-asexual and allosexual are used to refer to individuals on the opposite side of the sexuality spectrum. The original scale included a designation of "X", indicating a lack of sexual behavior.
Smith of The Guardian is not sure asexuality has actually increased, rather leaning towards the belief that it is simply more visible. He also included a category he called "X" for individuals with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions. 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. The survey included a question on sexual attraction, to which 1. 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 sexuals, 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. Results showed that asexuals were more likely to have low self-esteem and more likely to be depressed than members of other sexual orientations; A similar trend existed for depression. Nurius did not believe that firm conclusions can be drawn from this for a variety of reasons.
The results of male and female participants were included in the findings. 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.
Those who identify as asexual usually prefer it to be recognized as a sexual orientation. 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.
Two Invisible Groups, by Myra T. Johnson, is explicitly devoted to asexuality in humans. She portrays them as invisible, "oppressed by a consensus that they are nonexistent," 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.
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. Based on the results, respondents were given a score ranging from 0 to for hetero-eroticism and from 0 to for homo-eroticism.
Respondents who scored lower than 10 on both were labeled "asexual". 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. 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.
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.
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.
Feminist and Queer Perspectives, a collection of essays intended to explore the politics of asexuality from a feminist and queer perspective. 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 , 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. Pryzyblo argues that asexuality is made possible only through the Western context of "sexual, coital, and heterosexual imperatives". Empirical Asexuality and the Scientific Study of Sex", Przybylo distinguishes between two different stages of asexual research - that of the late s to the early s, which often included a very limited understanding of asexuality, and the more recent revisiting of the subject which she says began with Bogaert's study see above 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. 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 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. 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". First, he suggests that there could be an issue with self-reporting i.