Sennkestra Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I've been doing some digging around old asexuality sites, and I stumbled across this fun little tidbit if anyone's interested:Report on Asexuality from the 2000 COMPAS and Toronto Sun Sex Survey: http://web.archive.org/web/20020601172146/http://www.compas.ca/html/archives/asexuality_surv.html Using slightly different questions, the 1999 and 2000 Sun/COMPAS sex surveys yielded somewhat different measures of the size of the community of people lacking a sexual inclination. Last year, respondents were asked if they were “sexually attracted to…only men, mostly men, both men and women, most women, or only women?” In 1999, respondents were not asked if they lacked sexual interest but a volunteered response to that effect was recorded as such. In 2000, respondents were explicitly asked if they non-sexual as opposed to being heterosexual, gay or homosexual, or bi-sexual or attracted to both sexes. In the 2000 study, the number of non-sexuals was 5%, up from 2% the previous year. The increase in non-sexual responses in 2000 may arise simply because non-sexual respondents no longer had to volunteer their lack of interest. In the year 2000 study, a lack of sexual interest was proffered as an option.[/size] If you follow the link above, there’s more of a breakdown on why these respondents report a lack of interest in sex, as well as data on rates of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality for comparison; and if you want more info on the rest of the survey I have more links in the original post: http://nextstepcake.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member54880 Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Very interesting! I see that during that time, the definition of being asexual or non-sexual, which were pretty much interchangeable at the time, was definitely in the early stages, and got lumped together with other factors. A lot of those people fell under the non-sexual/asexual category weren't actually asexual, but I can see which ones are. It may not capture all the individuals in the sample that actually are asexual, but among the asexuals would be those who answered 'truly not interested in sex'. Incidentally, that makes up about 1/5th of the respondents in the non-sexual/asexual category, or about 1% of the overall sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sennkestra Posted November 9, 2013 Author Share Posted November 9, 2013 Very interesting! I see that during that time, the definition of being asexual or non-sexual, which were pretty much interchangeable at the time, was definitely in the early stages, and got lumped together with other factors. A lot of those people fell under the non-sexual/asexual category weren't actually asexual, but I can see which ones are. It may not capture all the individuals in the sample that actually are asexual, but among the asexuals would be those who answered 'truly not interested in sex'. Incidentally, that makes up about 1/5th of the respondents in the non-sexual/asexual category, or about 1% of the overall sample. Finding this was also especially cool because it was before any kind of unified community or resources like AVEN even existed - (AVEN forums didn't show up until about 2002); even the earliest asexual/nonsexual pages don't really show up until 1998-2002 so it's cool to see that even before communities formed the concept of "Asexuality" as a well known identity there were already people identifying along similar lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest member25959 Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Pretty interesting find. Damn! I really ought to update that articles list on the Wiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts