Asexual People are NOT 1% of the Population.

Photo on 2012-05-07 at 23.19

WHY? Let me give you the quick and dirty of it.

1. The data set that this statistic comes from was collected in 1994. NINETEEN NINTY FOUR peoples. Even IF 1% of the population in 1994 was asexual (this stat was not even true then), would there STILL be only 1% in 2013?? No new asexually-identified people in almost 20 years? That is one stable statistic.

2. The guy that “counted” the number of asexuals from the data set (that he did not even personally collect) did NOT interview people. These “asexuals” did NOT self-identify as asexual.

3. The answer that meant a person in the data was an asexual (according to the author): “I have never felt sexually attracted to men nor women.”

IF you were choosing who you felt sexually attracted to (men or women) PRIOR to any understanding of what asexuality was, even hearing the term, PRIOR to self identifying as an asexual, what would you have put? I would personally have put “I have always been sexually attracted to men” back in the day BECAUSE I would have not distinguished between romantic and sexual attraction and because, growing up in a heteronormative society where it was assumed I would have crushes on boys and eventually get married and have sex (I also grew up Christian), I never really questioned I was heterosexual. SO, THEREFORE, I don’t think you can assume that everyone who was an asexual person in 1994 would choose this answer. Besides NEVER felt sexual attraction? This cuts out all the demi-sexuals, etc. Yeah.

4. IF you accept from this study that asexuals make up 1% of the population, you MUST ALSO accept the conclusions the author makes while looking at this 1% of the data. These are that “asexual people” have:

1. adverse health

2. later onset of menarche

3. short height

4. and low weight

DO you accept these conclusions? You can’t just pick and choose.

Q: How Many Asexual Peoples are there REALLY in the World?

A: Too fucking few. But growing every day! :)

(Sorry, I just had to edit this to be more direct. Bad research just makes me angry. Below, you will find the previous version of this post:)

I have read that “1% of the population is estimated to be asexual” pretty much everywhere people are interested in noting the prevalence. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but I think people should really know where this stat comes from.It comes from Mr. A. Bogaert’s 2004 article “Asexuality: Prevalence and Associated Factors in a National Probability Study.” Mr. B did not actually DO a study. Not his own, at least. He looked at data from ANOTHER survey collected in the UK in 1994 (10 years before he published his article). In this study, people were NOT asked if they were asexual, nor did they otherwise self-identify in anyway.Mr. B simply looked at those who answered “I have never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all” and called them asexual.About 1% of the respondents gave this response. Why is this problematic? Saying that an absolute, lifelong lack of sexual attraction is the definition of asexuality is kind of narrow and reductive. And you can’t really just call someone asexual. They really have to have the opportunity to identify themselves as such.Secondly, generally, people who do have a lack of sexual attraction and find this distressing and wish to be treated/changed, do not take on the asexual identity. Those who chose the answer they did might have chosen it for a number of reasons. Third, “sexual attraction” was the only choice and not clear. Some asexual people might have chosen their relational attraction based on the gender(s) they are attracted to sexually, romantically, platonically, etc. This was not a survey that had asexuality in mind. In 1994. So having a researcher make conclusions about the asexual population based on a study that did not look at asexual peoples is problematic.Some of the other conclusions Mr. B made from looking at the 1994 UK survey data? He said was a relationship found between “asexuality” and certain health/biological issues. So. . . . I figure not many people have read the article from which the 1% statistic came. This is it. So 1%? I personally don’t care what percentage of people are what. I just know there are too fucking few.(By the way, the author of this post has good health, her first period at 12 [yes, you needed to know], is average height, and well, I wouldn’t say low weight.)

5 thoughts on “Asexual People are NOT 1% of the Population.

  1. It’s true that the survey wasn’t specifically checking for asexuality and people often overlook that.

    My guess, though, is that there would probably be a lot of people identifying as nonsexual and happily living their entire life without sex, if it wasn’t for the mainstream constantly reminding us of how important sex supposedly is. People just don’t usually ask themselves whether they have a sexual orientation or want sex to be a part of their lives, it’s mostly imposed on them. I bet many (though not most) sexuals simply start out undecided, and it’s their environment that tips the scales heavily towards sexual. Sometimes you can still catch them speaking of sex as transactional, something they engage in to get something else.

    Why do readers need to know about your health, puberty, height and weight?

      • .I’m asexual, but by deauflt, people assumed i am a stereotypical heterosexual woman. I have never ever claimed to be part of the GLBT movement, and any real life asexuals i know who are not G,L,B, or T as well, do not try to be part of the movement.Im not sure it needs to be included, purely because im not sure i want to be attached to the GLBT community. Im not saying i dont, and i think everyone should be treated equally regardless of their orientation. More because i dont feel part of the community because im not attracted sexually to either gender, and am romantically attracted to men. Therefore i pass as straight.This said, i think that it can be beneficial for us to gain recognition, particularly when many Asexuals support GLBT rights. What i do object to is being told that asexuality doesnt exist, that im missing out on something, that im broken, and need fixing.Im not missing out on anything, for the record ive had over 8 sexual partners in my lifetime, and have held healthy sexual relationships with these people.Where i differ to anyone else who is straight is that i dont view people in a sexual sense. I emotionally and romantically connect with them.I know how to have sex, i can play the sexual game, i can talk, walk, appear straight.I make the guys blush, imply more sexual innuendo than you can poke a stick at. I just dont see people in a sexual sense. And am not terribly fussed in engaging in sexual anything with anyone. But i can, have, and will, if the relationships i form with people require this of me and i want to at that particular point in time. I do think that you are narrowminded, unjustifably having a go at a community who you know sweet FA about, rude, ignorant, and accusing Asexual people of things they as a whole are not doing.Yes we do want recognition. It is imperetive that people recognise asexuality exists. We live in a highly sexualised world, sex is everywhere, and it can be incredibly distressing to feel like there is something wrong with you, that you are broken as a person, or that you are in someway made differently to 99% of the people around you.Sure, there are prolly people who are repressed or there is something wrong with them who identify as asexual. It is suggested and expected that asexuals will get them selves checked out medically to make sure nothing is wrong. If there is nothing wrong medically, and they clearly dont find other people sexually attractive, where is the harm in allowing them to identify with a community who doesnt try and make them feel broken for not wanting it? There is such a nasty connetation that if you dont want sex then you are missing out. I know it, i experience it every time a talk to a male friend. Some friends i dont bother telling cos they have called me freak. Ive been called weird, a freak, that im broken, that it cant possibly be true. That i need to try sex first. Does the GLBT community NEED to stick their toes in the straight pool just to make sure they fit in?? No. some do, some dont. same with asexuals.I get told – go try more sex. I with hold the amount of times ive had sex because people are baffled. For your information, in 2004 i worked it out to be over 700 times. Yes, i got lots of practise in.In fact, i still have sex. There are so few asexuals that i know i will have to compromise in a relationship about sex. This is unbelievably complicated because people take it as a personal insult when you dont want to sleep with them. Still asexual.Still attracted romantically to men, but dont want to have sex with them.Is it so hard to understand that people can NOT want sex? It especially sucked when i was still working myself out and i was the one bugging the sexual boyfriend for sex, not the other way around, cos i thought that it was what i was supposed to do. My body works for sex, but i just dont like sex that much.

  2. Reblogged this on Asexual Cupcake and commented:
    Hasn’t that statistic been repeated in other experiments though? I seem to have a vague recollection that Kinsey’s, waaaay back in the day, came up with a similar number. As for the things like short heigh/late menarche, they’re fairly irrelevent. For all I know, they are correct, and more asexuals than the norm are short/have late menarche. Just because I don’t does’t disprove the significance, if there is any. Rarely is anything 100% for a group.

    • I am not aware of a study that has conducted a census of people’s sexual orientations that was consciously inclusive of asexuality, therefore making allowances for the distinction between romantic and sexual and other attractions, etc. Kinsey did allow for an absence of sexual attraction (one would be a 0 on the scale), but again, stats, even if they are accurate, are only relevant for a certain time length, especially when you are talking about a marginalized orientation that is unknown. But accuracy: If “Kinsey” did a study on me prior to me understanding asexuality was an option, I would not be a 0. I would explain, even though I just haven’t done certain sexual things, I was pretty attracted and experienced with guys, and I would answers all questions via this context. Therefore, that “stat” would have left me out, depending on how he did his study (I have not studied it in detail, so I can only say so much) and probably many others as well.

      Thanks for your comment!!! :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s