The One Percent Figure

[Disco+]

I often see the users of this forum state that asexuals comprise one percent of (some) population. I don't know if this is an earnest claim or a ballpark figure that is similar to saying "I'll be done in five minutes" (which never means five minutes).

If this statistic was anywhere near true, I'd probably meet more people who were genuinely disinterested in (or indifferent to) intercourse than I would meet people who were autistic (unrelated). If anything, I'd say the actual figure is closer to 1 in 1,000 or even 10,000.

So, I'd like to ask everyone: is "one percent" said simply because it's easier to say? I mean, the base-10 number system is as arbitrary as anything else, so I wouldn't blame any of you.

EDIT: Article links can be found in this post - http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/64990-the-one-percent-figure/page__view__findpost__p__1944583

[Guest]

There have been surveys that established that percentage. Some even went as far as 3% or 4% of the population. There's no evidence they're right, but I think the 1% percentage sounds fine; you probably don't know some of the people you know are ace, or maybe they don't know themselves because they're just indifferent or something. I discovered one of my friends was asexual by coming out to him, and I sort of think another of my friends is a gray-A as well.

[PiF]

given how many confuse so many things with asexuality..i suspect it maybe much much lower than 1%

[Redbeard]

The figure is from a study by Anthony Bogaert that looked at the responses to another sex study and decided that a subgroup of those respondents sounded asexual.

I didn't find the study, but here's an article about it:

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-14/tech/asexual.study_1_sexuality-new-study-new-scientist?_s=PM:TECH

At this point, I think it's just the best number we have, but not necessarily correct. As the original study wasn't designed to investigate asexuality, there may be issues with the data. Some sources indicate that Bogaert himself thinks the 1% figure underrepresents the actual number because asexual people are less likely to respond to a sex survey (After all, there's only so many times you can check the "None of the Above" box on the form).

As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a more comprehensive study specifically looking at asexuality.

[Disco+]

@Redbeard:

Thank you for the article, I was able to find Dr. Bogaert's work, though I'll be unable to review it until I get back to school next week. I'm looking forward to it.

Here is the info if anyone else is interested:

Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10, 241-250.

Anthony Bogaert's Profile

Anthony's Article

[Covalency]

In the world: Probably not.

In my country: Hell no. Our people are culturally :licks finger: inclined to revolve around sexual activity.

Enough about that. There are a lot of people that can confuse asexuality with something else, and I won't say anything specific to step on anybody's toes to have them raging at me, but there's a lot of them that just use it as an excuse.

Using surveys and questionnaires have always been flawed because people can just lie, make up excuses or be different people to what they remember themselves as, and thus all the answers would be wrong. (You remember doing a good deed to someone but the person can regard you as evil because what you did wasn't what they wanted you to do. Even Adolf thought he was a good person.)

Edit: I typed more words but it went too far so I'm deleting it.

[Sockstealingnome]

I don't think it's accurate only because, as others have stated, there haven't been any studies that focus on asexuality. Maybe in the future as asexuality becomes more well known, there will be studies but for now, 1% is the base number I find given for everything. You can probably safely assume that at least 1% of the world's population qualifies for just about anything.

[Kelsea]

I think there are probably a lot of people who are asexual but don't know it. Since my own discovery (after 13 years of marriage! DOH) I've talked to my mom about it, and she actually feels a lot like me, when it comes to sex. She's happily married, but definitely fits the description of an indifferent asexual. No burning desire to have sex, but she'll do it to keep her partner happy. (And in fact on their wedding night she was completely traumatized over it - even though she loved my dad, they'd been dating for 4 years, and he was totally gentle with her).

Then again I think(?) I read somewhere on here that asexuality can be inherited? (Or did I completely make that up? Sorry!) When my husband and I look at our families, it's uncanny: my mom seems possibly asexual, and my dad does not have an incredibly high sex drive. Whereas my husband's parents both had extremely high libidos, the same as him.

[Addicted2Oreos]

I'm sure lots of people who are ace don't know it. They might be in denial, or confusing romantic attraction for sexual attraction, or thinking they have a dysfunction, or think they are gay, or they've just never heard of the term.

[lunasspecto]

or confusing romantic attraction for sexual attraction

I did that for years...

[Sennkestra]

@Redbeard:

Thank you for the article, I was able to find Dr. Bogaert's work, though I'll be unable to review it until I get back to school next week. I'm looking forward to it.

Here is the info if anyone else is interested:

Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10, 241-250.

Anthony Bogaert's Profile

Anthony's Article

I believe the actual figure comes from this other study by Bogaert:Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. (I think this link should be accessible w/o needing to pay, but I'm not sure.) If you google scholar it I think you can find it easily.

The number was for the ratio of people who answered to something like "I have no sexual attraction to anyone", not people who actually openly identified as ace. The number of open/aware aces is probably a lot smaller, b/c most possibly ace people don't even know the concept exists.

Although, that other Bogaert paper is actually a really good read, so i'd still recommend it.

[Disco+]

@Redbeard:

Thank you for the article, I was able to find Dr. Bogaert's work, though I'll be unable to review it until I get back to school next week. I'm looking forward to it.

Here is the info if anyone else is interested:

Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10, 241-250.

Anthony Bogaert's Profile

Anthony's Article

I believe the actual figure comes from this other study by Bogaert:Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. (I think this link should be accessible w/o needing to pay, but I'm not sure.) If you google scholar it I think you can find it easily.

The number was for the ratio of people who answered to something like "I have no sexual attraction to anyone", not people who actually openly identified as ace. The number of open/aware aces is probably a lot smaller, b/c most possibly ace people don't even know the concept exists.

Although, that other Bogaert paper is actually a really good read, so i'd still recommend it.

Thank you Cleander. For those wondering, the charts in the link are located on page 8 of the article.

[Vampyremage]

or confusing romantic attraction for sexual attraction

I did that for years...

Or confusing aesthetic for sexual attraction. That's what I did for years.

[Guest member25959]

given how many confuse so many things with asexuality..i suspect it maybe much much lower than 1%

This.

But I suspect it could be higher than 1% personally.

The 1% article from CNN

From what I understand, the 1% figure comes from a study (by Anthony F. Bogaert) that was released in 2004, that was based on another study conducted way back in 1994.

So.....I think it's safe to say that we shouldn't be taking this figure so literally.

[nleseul]

What I would personally love to know is if that 1% actually extends across all cultures, even those that don't fall under Western hegemony and the associated commodification of sex. Homosexual behavior (or what we'd describe as such) shows up in some form in a lot of human cultures, (and even in plenty of animal species!). Can we similarly identify asexuality in other cultures? I'd love to know if it's actually a fundamental feature of human sexuality, or if it's just something that developed in our particular culture as a reaction to the way that culture conceptualizes sex.

[Måskemigselvetsted]

What I would personally love to know is if that 1% actually extends across all cultures, even those that don't fall under Western hegemony and the associated commodification of sex. Homosexual behavior (or what we'd describe as such) shows up in some form in a lot of human cultures, (and even in plenty of animal species!). Can we similarly identify asexuality in other cultures? I'd love to know if it's actually a fundamental feature of human sexuality, or if it's just something that developed in our particular culture as a reaction to the way that culture conceptualizes sex.

If it was "just" a reaction to our culture, wouldn't asexuality be something we learned (maybe early in life) and not something we were born? And if it's something we learn, does that mean we can change it? It would mean that, wouldn't it? Probably not easily, but still..

[nleseul]

If it was "just" a reaction to our culture, wouldn't asexuality be something we learned (maybe early in life) and not something we were born? And if it's something we learn, does that mean we can change it? It would mean that, wouldn't it? Probably not easily, but still..

I don't think that necessarily follows; it's pretty much impossible to "un-learn" something completely.

Still, though, if you accept that connection and reverse the logic, you see why it's an important question for us. If we hypothesize that asexuality is unchangeable, and as such is an innate thing separate from any social learning we may have, then it can be predicted that all human cultures should have something fairly close to the 1% or whatever that is observed in modern Western-influenced cultures. Cross-cultural studies of asexuality would help to validate it as an identity.

Of course, I don't think it needs to be unchangeable or innate to qualify as a valid identity anyway. Still, though, it would be a very interesting research question for someone to ask.

[eamonn]

People who've never felt sexual attraction at all? Probably less than 1%, to be honest.

There's the whole issue of "gray-a" people possibly simply blending in with the rest of society.

[Sennkestra]

What I would personally love to know is if that 1% actually extends across all cultures, even those that don't fall under Western hegemony and the associated commodification of sex. Homosexual behavior (or what we'd describe as such) shows up in some form in a lot of human cultures, (and even in plenty of animal species!). Can we similarly identify asexuality in other cultures? I'd love to know if it's actually a fundamental feature of human sexuality, or if it's just something that developed in our particular culture as a reaction to the way that culture conceptualizes sex.

If it was "just" a reaction to our culture, wouldn't asexuality be something we learned (maybe early in life) and not something we were born? And if it's something we learn, does that mean we can change it? It would mean that, wouldn't it? Probably not easily, but still..

I would say that the underlying behaviour - not being attracted to others - would still be there.

However, what might not be there is the conceptualization of asexuality as differing from the norm. One of the reasons that asexuality has become more prominent is, in fact, in response to movements which increased acceptance of talking about and exhibiting sexuality. As healthy sexual attraction became the norm, there came a need to articulate the differences of those who remained asexual.

However, in a more conservative culture, where people may be expected to behave in an asexual manner (whether or not they are), asexuality would not need to be differentiated - because it would be perceived as the standard, even if it was not. (Does that make any sense?)

[DarkPower]

Maybe these surveys also include people who suffer from reduced libido due to medical issues?

[Sally]

What I would personally love to know is if that 1% actually extends across all cultures, even those that don't fall under Western hegemony and the associated commodification of sex. Homosexual behavior (or what we'd describe as such) shows up in some form in a lot of human cultures, (and even in plenty of animal species!). Can we similarly identify asexuality in other cultures? I'd love to know if it's actually a fundamental feature of human sexuality, or if it's just something that developed in our particular culture as a reaction to the way that culture conceptualizes sex.

Homosexuality can be identified in cultures by behavior -- asexuality can't, because it's a lack of attraction, and also because some asexuals marry. There's no way for someone to "know" who is asexual.

But I don't see why it wouldn't occur in all human cultures. Those of us who have been asexual all our lives, despite the highly-sexual culture we've lived in, surely prove that it isn't culturally-based.

[Lady Heartilly]

Actually, I know lots of aces in real life. I've lived in three states and met at least one in each state, some of whom I knew before either of us had ever heard of asexuality. I don't think it's that far off.

[slytherin]

1% makes sense to me.. I have yet to personally meet anyone in my life who was asexual, but they may not even know it exists.

We're getting there though.

[UraNepu]

I think the one percentage comes from the kisney scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

[sinisterporpoise]

The numbers of people who were labeled as X in the Kinsey report were not much higher than 1% so I'd say it sounds about right.