An interesting observation

[EmpathyAce]

So I've noticed a lot of recurring facts and statistics here on AVEN and elsewhere that makes me wonder things about asexuality.

For example, a majority of asexuals are female, or females that identify as otherwise. It is quite a bit rarer to find a cis male asexual, though they do of course exist.

A lot of asexuals are also white, though the other races have their fair share too.

Also, regarding romanticism in regards to asexuality, there are more asexuals who are also alloromantic as opposed to aromantics, though there are interestingly a good amount of them as well.

There are more as well, but those are some that come off the top of my head.

I just have to wonder what it is that causes these common factors. Could it be a genetic predisposition? An environmental or psychological thing?

I would love to hear the genetic/developmental reasons as to why asexuality exists if there are said reasons. That sounds very interesting.

In terms of it being an environmental, post-birth thing, I have thought on that before. For example, in my situation, in the time of psychological development where sexual development is said to begin (around toddler years), I had no father around and my mother isn't exactly the best figure to look up to. That said, there would be no parent for little me to dote upon, meaning no sexual development for me psychologically at that time. I would not have had an attraction to either gender because neither of them were favorable.

However, contradicting that, I do have a friend that has a similar situation and is straight. A possible error in this connection, though, could be that they are a male, and it seems that females are more likely to be asexual than males.

Does anyone have any idea of what causes asexuality and why it seems to occur mostly in these specifics? I would love to know.

[Scottthespy]

If it IS a genetic thing, it would have to be a gene that we ALL, as humans, have, but its a mutation to have it switched on...or in this case, to have the sexuality gene switched off. Maybe the overpopulation and crowding could be related to the switching off of this gene? The problem with using genetics in asexuality is...well, genetics works by passing on the genes. A mutation that makes the bearer less likely to reproduce and pass on those genes, whether thats for physical, mental or societal reasons, doesn't get passed on as much, and dies out eventually. And these mutations are ALL random, with no end goal, so a mutation that's beneficial wasn't 'designed' to be that way. There's no way a gene could be purposefully moulded to switch off in case of overcrowding, though there IS the chance that it randomly happened that overcrowding can have an effect on this mutation, like toxins in a frogs environment will trigger mutations. Possible does not equal plausible, however, and that chance seems small.

[Lost247365]

So I've noticed a lot of recurring facts and statistics here on AVEN and elsewhere that makes me wonder things about asexuality.

For example, a majority of asexuals are female, or females that identify as otherwise. It is quite a bit rarer to find a cis male asexual, though they do of course exist.

A lot of asexuals are also white, though the other races have their fair share too.

Also, regarding romanticism in regards to asexuality, there are more asexuals who are also alloromantic as opposed to aromantics, though there are interestingly a good amount of them as well.

There are more as well, but those are some that come off the top of my head.

I just have to wonder what it is that causes these common factors. Could it be a genetic predisposition? An environmental or psychological thing?

I would love to hear the genetic/developmental reasons as to why asexuality exists if there are said reasons. That sounds very interesting.

In terms of it being an environmental, post-birth thing, I have thought on that before. For example, in my situation, in the time of psychological development where sexual development is said to begin (around toddler years), I had no father around and my mother isn't exactly the best figure to look up to. That said, there would be no parent for little me to dote upon, meaning no sexual development for me psychologically at that time. I would not have had an attraction to either gender because neither of them were favorable.

However, contradicting that, I do have a friend that has a similar situation and is straight. A possible error in this connection, though, could be that they are a male, and it seems that females are more likely to be asexual than males.

Does anyone have any idea of what causes asexuality and why it seems to occur mostly in these specifics? I would love to know.

It is probably like homosexuality in that it is a combination of genetic and fetal development factors. There probably is a gene that causes the wrong amount of hormones to be applied to the fetus at the wrong time.

All vertebrates start out morphologically female during the earliest stages. They can only become male if they are exposed to and receptive to androgens (male hormones) at the right time. This causes two functions to occur, defeminization and masculinization.

What probably happen with XY asexual males is that for the part(s) of the brain that control orientation defeminization partially or fully occurs while masculinization is initialized only minimally if at all. This causes the male asexual not to be sexually attracted to males but also not develop a sexual attraction to females.

Asexual XX females probably get blasted with androgens (both males and females have androgens but in different amounts) due to some gene and depending upon the stage of development it causes defeminization but not masculinization. Thus making a female asexual.

There are probably an almost limitless number of ways this can happen and to different extents which would explain the different forms of asexuality and gray-asexuality we see.

[Gatik]

I've heard someone theorize that it could be a developmental factor and despite the decreased likelihood of offspring being conceived, in a state of nature asexuals would benefit the group greatly. For instance, it has been thought of that asexuals could benefit in taking care of existing children in times when producing more offspring would be unsafe or would otherwise not benefit the group. I don't like the 'over population solution' scenario since there isn't any sort of genetic communication happening there. But stressors from outside situations can effect behavior, even genetics. For instance, if your mother was stressed while carrying you it can effect your personality. That being said perhaps asexuality results from a social climate of hostility or otherwise non-child-safe environments.

[Lost247365]

I've heard someone theorize that it could be a developmental factor and despite the decreased likelihood of offspring being conceived, in a state of nature asexuals would benefit the group greatly. For instance, it has been thought of that asexuals could benefit in taking care of existing children in times when producing more offspring would be unsafe or would otherwise not benefit the group. I don't like the 'over population solution' scenario since there isn't any sort of genetic communication happening there. But stressors from outside situations can effect behavior, even genetics. For instance, if your mother was stressed while carrying you it can effect your personality. That being said perhaps asexuality results from a social climate of hostility or otherwise non-child-safe environments.

There are a few other ways a gene for asexuality to survive.

One is that the gene is on the same loci and linked to a different gene that is beneficial and its survival is a matter of piggybacking off the other. Another possibility is that the gene gives some benefit elsewhere or when it is in a hybrid form.

Sickle cell anemia is a deadly condition when it homozygous in an individual, but in its heterozygous form makes the individual far more resistant to malaria and its symptoms. This creates an evolutionary advantage that keeps the trait from dying out.

[Lost247365]

Double post...

So ummm....

/awkward silence

[AshenPhoenix]

Tbh. I don't think there is any actual, fundamental difference.

Most of the statistics you're putting down can be influenced by three things. Internet access/ probability to go on forums, willingness to accept and explore asexuality, and education.

Women are more likely to explore forums than men, statistically, males are less likely to accept asexuality due to masculine pressure to want sex all the damn time (in the same vein, the large amount of pressure/emphasis on romance in most societies could be the same explanation for aromantics, though it might just be aromantics are indeed less common), there are a larger amount of white people in most countries that are heavily educating about asexuality. And probably a myriad of other things I can't even confirm myself without going to do some digging. I don't really think there's any genetic dispositions. IMO, it's a pretty safe assumption, especially the male V female and the romantic V aromantic thing

[UncommonNonsense]

The Developmental Neurologist who diagnosed my autism said that people on the autism spectrum identify as asexual at a higher rate than the general population. Granted, we're still very much a minority, but instead of being only 1% of the general, non-autistic population, we're something like 5% of the autistic population.

He had many theories as to why this is, including the idea that since sexuality is so tied up with being social, and autism is an impairment of that social ability, our sexuality *had* to be impacted.