Archives of Sexual Behavior
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02194-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Concordance Between Romantic Orientations and Sexual Attitudes:
Comparing Allosexual and Asexual Adults
Alyssa N. Clark1
· Corinne Zimmerman2
Received: 17 December 2020 / Revised: 12 October 2021 / Accepted: 13 October 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022
Abstract
Sexual and romantic orientations are often considered one and the same, and attitudes about engaging in sexual behavior are
assumed to be predominantly positive. The current study explored the concordance between sexual and romantic orientations
among allosexual and asexual adults as well as the frequency with which they identify as having a sex-positive, sex-neutral,
or sex-averse attitude. As expected, allosexual adults were largely sex-positive (82%) and almost all (89%) had a romantic
orientation that matched their sexual orientation. In contrast, we found that only 37% of asexual adults had concordant sexual
and romantic orientations and that most asexual adults self-identify as either sex-neutral (41%) or sex-averse (54%). Further,
we used a semantic differential task to assess sexual intimacy attitudes and how they varied for adults based on sexual attitude.
Asexual adults, regardless of sexual attitude, had less positive attitudes overall than allosexual adults. Interestingly, aromantic asexual adults did not have more negative attitudes about sexual intimacy than romantic asexual participants. Although
asexual adults held less positive attitudes about sex than allosexual adults, there was considerable heterogeneity within our
asexual sample. The current study provides further insight into the concordance between romantic and sexual orientation,
and the associations among sexual and intimacy attitudes for both allosexual and asexual adults. These findings will have
implications for future research on how asexual adults navigate romantic relationships.
Keywords Asexuality · Sexual attitudes · Sexual orientation · Romantic orientation
Introduction
Asexuality has become a recognized sexual orientation and
topic of research interest in several disciplines (e.g., Bogaert,
2015), yet less is known about how asexual people identify
romantically, or what attitudes asexual people hold about
engaging in sex, especially in comparison to allosexual individuals. Within the allosexual population (e.g., heterosexual,
gay/lesbian, bisexual, pansexual), sexual and romantic orientations are often considered one and the same (Diamond,
2003; Thompson & Morgan, 2008), and personal attitudes
about engaging in sexual behavior are assumed to be predominantly positive. However, as researchers are only beginning
to document the variability within the asexual population,
* Alyssa N. Clark
alyssa.clark@uconn.edu
1
Department of Human Development and Family Sciences,
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal,
IL, USA
there is a need for research that addresses the concordance
between sexual and romantic orientations for asexual people
and how they negotiate aspects of sexuality and romantic
partner relationships.
Someone who identifies as asexual typically experiences
a lack of sexual attraction in a manner that is distinct from
individuals who experience hypoactive sexual desire disorder
(Bogaert, 2015; Brotto et al., 2015; Decker, 2015). Asexuality is considered a valid sexual orientation (Brotto & Yule,
2017), and asexual people experience a wealth of richly heterogeneous relationship experiences (e.g., Haefner, 2012).
Bogaert (2004) first used the term asexuality to describe
someone who did not experience sexual attraction, and asexuality is now conceptualized as a spectrum or an “umbrella”
term (Carrigan, 2011; Przybylo, 2016). The asexuality spectrum includes identities such as gray-A (a person whose experience of sexual attraction falls between asexual and sexual),
demisexual (a person who only experiences sexual attraction
after forming a deep, emotional bond), and A-fluid identities
(a person whose experience of sexual attraction is fluid; Carrigan, 2011; Przybylo, 2016). Common definitions of identity
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Archives of Sexual Behavior
labels shift with time and individual usage, again highlighting the heterogeneous experiences of asexual individuals
(Vares, 2018).
Previous research comparing allosexual and asexual adults
has examined physiological characteristics (Bogaert, 2004,
2015) and psychological measures (Borgogna et al., 2019;
Carvalho et al., 2017). Additionally, researchers examining
solely asexual samples have studied romantic relationship
navigation (Carrigan, 2012; Haefner, 2012; Scherrer, 2010),
coming-out (Robbins et al., 2016; Van Houdenhove et al.,
2015b), and sexual experiences (Carrigan, 2012; Dawson
et al., 2016; Prause & Graham, 2007). Yet, few studies have
compared more nuanced aspects of sexuality among allosexual and asexual adults, such as romantic orientation or attitudes about engaging in sex, which may differentially influence how asexual and allosexual adults navigate engaging in
sexual behaviors or romantic partner relationships (Antonsen
et al., 2020; Carrigan, 2011; Lund et al., 2016).
A person’s romantic orientation can be defined as whom
they experience romantic attraction toward and is considered distinct from sexual orientation (Diamond, 2003).
However, romantic and sexual orientations are commonly
expected or assumed to be concordant, despite evidence that
these constructs are separate (Diamond, 2003; Thompson
& Morgan, 2008). For example, someone who identifies as
heterosexual is expected to be romantically attracted exclusively to those of the opposite sex. In one of the few studies
to examine concordance rates, Lund et al. (2016) compared
adults’ sexual and romantic attractions and found that 89.4%
of adults reported concordant sexual and romantic attractions. However, Lund et al. did not allow participants to
self-identify with a specific romantic or sexual orientation
label; rather, participants had to select romantic and sexual
attraction based on sex using a list of provided categories
(e.g., opposite-sex, same-sex). It is an open question what
the concordance rates would be if participants were allowed
to self-identify, although concordance rates for allosexual
adults would be expected to be high.
In contrast, asexual adults are more likely to experience
discordant romantic and sexual orientations. Many asexual
people identify as having a romantic orientation such as heteroromantic, homoromantic, or biromantic, in comparison
with what would be considered a concordant romantic orientation (i.e., aromantic; Brotto et al., 2010; Chasin, 2011;
Ginoza et al., 2014). For example, the Asexuality Visibility
and Education Network (AVEN, 2017) conducted a largescale community census of asexual people and found that
only 19% identified as aromantic (Ginoza et al., 2014). Discordant romantic and sexual orientations were more common; 81% identified with a romantic orientation. Further,
22% identified as heteroromantic, 32.2% as biromantic or
panromantic, 5.1% as homoromantic, and 21.7% as other.
Zheng and Su (2018) found discordant orientations in the
13
majority of their asexual participants (n = 227), with 31.7%
identifying as heteroromantic, 14.1% homoromantic, and
26.0% biromantic. In this sample, 28.2% identified as aromantic. In a recent examination of a merged dataset that
included 1,475 asexual participants, Antonsen et al. (2020)
found that 74.7% of asexual adults had discordant sexual and
romantic orientations. Across these studies, asexual identification with discordant (non-aromantic) sexual and romantic
orientations ranged from 71.8 to 81%, indicating that asexual
people are more likely to identify as having discordant sexual
and romantic orientations compared to allosexual individuals. However, there are few studies that make direct comparisons between allosexual and asexual identification with
respect to concordance between sexual and romantic orientations. What does exist is based on varying methods of determining concordance and so further exploration is warranted.
Understanding concordant and discordant sexual and
romantic identifications would allow researchers to explore
diversity within asexual samples, especially when considering the characterization of asexuality as a spectrum. That is,
for asexual people, the intersection between romantic and
sexual orientation is complex, and those who identify as aromantic likely have vastly different experiences than those
who identify as one of many possible romantic orientations.
For example, Antonsen et al. (2020) indicated that romantic
asexual people were more likely to currently be in a relationship, to report more romantic and sexual partners, and to
report more frequent kissing than aromantic asexual people.
However, quantitative asexual research does not always make
a distinction between romantic and aromantic asexual people
(e.g., Brotto et al., 2010). The concordance between sexual
and romantic orientation may serve as an additional source of
variability within asexuality research. Thus, in the same way
that researchers make comparisons within allosexual samples
(e.g., heterosexual vs. gay/lesbian vs. bisexual), comparisons
within asexual samples may be necessary to capture a clearer
picture of the heterogeneity within these samples, and what
implications concordance rates may hold for experiences of
human sexuality and romantic partner relationships.
Another aspect of sexuality that must be considered is the
idea that asexual people may experience differing attitudes
toward engaging in sex. Some studies have examined how
asexual people describe experiences of sex (e.g., Dawson
et al., 2016; Van Houdenhove et al., 2015b), yet only one
study has actively categorized the sexual experiences of
asexual adults (Carrigan, 2011). Carrigan proposed a typological model of qualitative commonalities about engaging
in sex within an asexual sample. The model classified sexual
attitudes into four categories: sex-positive, sex-neutral, sexaverse, and anti-sex. Sex-positive describes an asexual person
without the sexual drive to seek out intercourse, but who may
have an interest in or enjoy sex. Sex-neutral indicates a lack
of interest in or indifference toward sex. Sex-averse describes
Archives of Sexual Behavior
an asexual person who feels distressed or disgusted by sex,
and, in the case of anti-sex attitudes, may be disgusted by the
thought of another person (or other people) engaging in sex
(Carrigan, 2011).
Carrigan’s (2011) typology aligns with subsequent qualitative and quantitative research that indicates asexual people
often describe sexual experiences in either a neutral or negative manner (Chasin, 2015; Dawson et al., 2016; Haefner,
2012; Van Houdenhove et al., 2015b). Although, it is important to note that not all asexual people describe negative
sexual experiences. Interestingly, although Carrigan (2011)
theorizes sex-positive as a distinct category, it seems counterintuitive that an asexual person would identify as such.
Indeed, only one asexual person identified as sex-positive in
Carrigan’s study. It may be the case that sex-positive asexual
people exist but are not very common, or, alternatively, they
might be hesitant to identify as such because they already
face disbelief from family, friends, and romantic partners
(Gupta, 2017; Haefner, 2012; Robbins et al., 2016; Vares,
2018). Thus, identifying as sex-positive might be further
misinterpreted as a negation of one’s asexuality.
Understanding an asexual person’s sexual attitude may
provide a novel understanding of how asexual people navigate sexual behaviors and romantic partner relationships. For
asexual individuals who desire romantic relationships, this
type of navigation may be particularly important because
frequency of sexual behavior and sexual satisfaction have
been shown to be correlated with relationship satisfaction
(e.g., Byers & Wang, 2004; Sprecher et al., 2018), and varying levels of attitudes toward engaging in sex may differentially impact a person’s sexual and relationship satisfaction
within a romantic relationship. Overall, a focus on sexual
attitudes is a novel approach to understanding asexuality.
However, it is still unclear at what rates asexual people can
be categorized as sex-positive, sex-neutral, or sex-averse.
Additionally, it is not common to explicitly ask allosexual
people to identify with different sexual attitudes, possibly
because the default assumption is that allosexual people have
a generally positive attitude toward sex, barring traumatic
circumstances (e.g., sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse)
or sexual dysfunction.
The Current Study
The goal of the current study was to further our understanding of the concordance between romantic and sexual orientations. We also examined how asexual and allosexual adults
self-identify with respect to their attitudes about engaging in
sex and the differences that exist in how people with these different identity labels feel about sexual intimacy. Understanding how sexual intimacy attitudes vary within asexual people
will add to the research literature on the heterogeneity within
asexual experiences with implications for understanding how
asexual people navigate sexual behaviors and romantic relationships. Our research hypotheses were as follows:
1. Allosexual adults will be more likely to have concordant
sexual and romantic orientations than asexual adults.
2. Allosexual adults will more likely identify with a sexpositive sexual attitude, whereas asexual adults will more
likely identify as either sex-neutral or sex-averse.
3. Allosexual adults will have more positive sexual intimacy attitudes than asexual adults, and this difference
will be evident for all three attitudes (i.e., sex-positive,
sex-neutral, and sex-averse).
4. Romantic asexual adults will report more positive sexual
intimacy attitudes than aromantic asexual adults, and this
difference will be evident for asexual adults who identify
as sex-neutral or sex-averse.
Method
Participants
A total of 616 participants were recruited through a combination of targeted websites (asexuality.org, asexuality.livejournal.com), general social media sites (Tumblr, Facebook), and
a Midwestern university’s school-wide e-mail system. We
excluded 104 participants who did not provide consent or
did not answer the sexual orientation question.
Because heterosexual women were over-represented in
our comparison group of sexual participants, we randomly
sampled 121 of the 182 heterosexual women who responded
to match the sample size of 121 heterosexual men who
responded to the survey. We retained 449 participants for the
current study’s analyses. Descriptive statistics for the demographic characteristics of the sample of 109 asexual and 340
allosexual participants are shown in Table 1.
Measures
Sexual and Romantic Orientation
Sexual and romantic orientations were assessed with two
separate single-item questions that asked participants to selfidentify with various identities. For sexual orientation, participants were asked, “With respect to sexual orientation, how
do you self-identify? (As in, who are you physically attracted
to?).” Participants could respond with Heterosexual, Homosexual (Gay), Homosexual (Lesbian), Bi-sexual, Pansexual,
Asexual, Asexual (Gray-A), Asexual (Demi-sexual), Asexual
(A-Fluid), or Other. For analyses, Homosexual (Gay) and
Homosexual (Lesbian) were combined into one category,
Gay/Lesbian. Asexual participants were categorized as
13
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Table 1 Demographic
characteristics
Gender identity
Woman
Man
Transgender
Non-binary
Genderfluid
Agender/genderless
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Gay/Lesbian
Bisexual
Pansexual
Asexual
Asexual—gray-A
Demisexual
Other
Romantic orientation
Heteroromantic
Homoromantic
Biromantic
Panromantic
Aromantic
Race/ethnicity
White/European American
Black/African-American
Latinx
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American
Multiracial/multiethnic
Other
Relationship experience
Past romantic relationship experience
Previous sexual experience
Currently in a relationship
Current relationship—average length
Age
Asexual (n = 109)
Percentage
Allosexual (n = 340)
Percentage
58.7
21.1
0.9
11.9
3.7
3.7
49.4
45.4
2.1
1.5
1.5
–
–
–
–
–
61.5
17.4
19.3
1.8
71.5
6.1
15.6
6.2
–
–
–
0.6
25.7
3.7
14.7
16.5
35.8
72.6
5.5
12.4
7.1
0.9
80.7
3.7
6.4
3.7
0.9
3.7
0.9
83.8
3.2
4.7
3.2
0.3
4.1
0.6
54.0
43.0
23.0
M = 7.5 years (SD = 8.39)
M = 27.7 (SD = 9.28)
Range = 18–62
87.4
79.4
60.0
M = 8.8 years (SD = 12.31)
M = 29.0 (SD = 13.6)
Range = 18–77
The aromantic category includes demi-romantic, lithromantic, quoiromantic, and cupioromantic. The average age of sexual and asexual participants was not significantly different, t(265.8) = .94, p = .35
anyone who responded with a sexual orientation of Asexual, Asexual (Gray-A), Asexual (Demi-sexual), or Asexual
(A-Fluid), using a methodology similar to Rothblum et al.
(2020). All other participants were categorized as allosexual.
For romantic orientation, participants were asked, “With
respect to romantic orientation, how do you self-identify?
(As in, who are you romantically attracted to?).” Participants could respond with Heteroromantic, Homoromantic
(Gay), Homoromantic (Lesbian), Bi-romantic, Panromantic,
Aromantic, Other, or Prefer not to answer. Participants were
13
considered to have a concordant sexual and romantic orientation if their sexual orientation and romantic orientation
aligned (e.g., heterosexual and heteroromantic).
Sexual Attitude
To measure general attitude toward engaging in sexual intercourse, one question directly asked participants, “What is
your general attitude about engaging in sexual intercourse?”
Four response choices were provided: positive, neutral,
Archives of Sexual Behavior
averse, or none of these apply to me. Note that we assumed
that the positive, neutral, and averse categories refer to how
someone feels about themself participating in sex. The term
anti-sex has been used to refer to someone who is against
sex regardless of who is engaging in it (Carrigan, 2011);
however, anti-sex was not used as a distinct category in the
current study. This decision was not intended to diminish
the variability within an asexual sample, but to assess sexual
attitudes that relate to personal feelings about engaging in
sex, as opposed to an inherent universal dislike.
Sexual Intimacy Semantic Differential Task
To measure sexual intimacy attitudes, a semantic differential
task was employed. The semantic differential task created
for the current study used word pairs that relate to constructs
associated with asexuality and its defining features, such as
attraction, desire, interest, avoidance, arousal, and disgust
(e.g., Carrigan, 2011; Van Houdenhove et al., 2015a; Yule
et al., 2015). Participants were presented with six dichotomous antonym pairs: negative/positive, disgusted/pleased,
uninterested/interested, not aroused/aroused, averse/not
averse, and unwilling/willing. For each pair, they were asked,
“How would you label your attitude or feelings about engaging in sexual intimacy?” They were provided with a sliding
scale of 0 to 100, with the lower bound consisting of the more
aversive word in each pair (e.g., negative = 0, positive = 100).
The internal consistency for these items was α = 0.96.
Demographics
Participants were asked to respond to demographic questions about age, biological sex, gender identity, and current
relationship status. To measure previous relationship experience, participants were asked, “Have you previously been in
a romantic relationship?”. To assess previous sexual experience, participants were asked, “Have you previously engaged
in any consensual sexual experiences?”.
Procedure
The current study was approved by the lead researcher’s
institutional review board. The questionnaire was administered through an online survey using Qualtrics. Participants
answered questions about their attitudes toward engaging in
sexual intimacy and sexual intercourse. After this, participants
were asked demographic and other open-ended questions not
reported here. Upon completion of the survey, participants
were thanked for their time, debriefed, and given the opportunity to provide an e-mail address if they wished to be entered
into a gift card raffle. The raffle was for one $20 Amazon gift
card. Participant e-mails were stored separately from their
surveys, and no other identifying information was collected.
Results
Associations Between Sexual Identity
and Sexual‑Romantic Concordance
Within our sample of allosexual participants, 99.1% selected
a romantic orientation (three identified as aromantic). There
was a clear trend for allosexual participants to choose a
romantic orientation that matched their sexual orientation.
Overall, 89% of allosexual participants had a concordant sexual and romantic orientation. Almost all heterosexual participants (96%) identified as heteroromantic; the majority of gay/
lesbian participants (81%) identified as homoromantic. Most
pansexual participants (71%) reported being panromantic.
For bisexual participants, 64% identified as biromantic (23%
identified as heteroromantic).
Within the asexual sample, of the 105 asexual participants
who selected a romantic orientation, 37% had a concordant
aromantic orientation. For Hypothesis 1, we predicted that
allosexual adults would be more likely to have concordant
sexual and romantic orientations than asexual adults. We
examined the association between Sexual Identity (allosexual, asexual) and Concordance (concordant, discordant)
and found support for Hypothesis 1, χ2(1, N = 440) = 39.4,
p < 0.001. As a follow-up, we examined the two common
categories of sexual attitude for asexual participants to
determine if there was an association between Attitude and
Concordance; 36% of sex-neutral and 40% of sex-averse
individuals had concordant sexual and romantic orientations,
χ2(1, N = 91) = 0.91, p = 0.66. The six asexual participants
who identified as sex-positive (two concordant) were not
included in this analysis because of a violation of the minimum expected cell size assumption of the χ2 test.
Sexual Attitudes
For our second hypothesis, we predicted that allosexual adults
would more likely identify with a sex-positive sexual attitude,
whereas asexual adults would be more likely identify as either
sex-neutral or sex-averse. Participants were asked a forcedchoice question to identify as sex-positive, sex-neutral, sexaverse, or none of these apply to me. Fourteen participants
selected none of these apply to me and were excluded from
subsequent analyses. The majority of allosexual participants
identified as sex-positive (82%; n = 274), with 15% (n = 50)
identifying as sex-neutral, and only 3% (n = 10) as sex-averse.
In contrast, asexual participants identified as either sex-averse
(53.5%, n = 54) or sex-neutral (40.6%; n = 41), with only six
participants (5.9%) identifying as sex-positive. A chi-square
analysis confirmed an association between Sexual Identity
(allosexual vs. asexual) and identification with sexual attitude
13
Archives of Sexual Behavior
sub-categories, χ2(2, N = 435) = 228.37, p < 0.001. This pattern was consistent with our prediction for Hypothesis 2.
Sexual Intimacy Attitudes
For Hypothesis 3, we predicted that allosexual adults would
have more positive sexual intimacy attitudes on the semantic differential task when compared to asexual adults and
that this difference would be evident across all three Sexual
Attitudes (i.e., sex-positive, sex-neutral, and sex-averse).
Descriptive statistics for the six word pairs for the sexual
intimacy semantic differential task are given in Appendix
A for allosexual participants and in Appendix B for asexual
participants.
For the sake of parsimony and because the internal consistency was so high (α = 0.96), we computed an overall
semantic differential score across the six pairs. We conducted
a 2 (Sexual Identity: allosexual vs. asexual) × 3 (Sexual Attitude: positive, neutral, averse) ANOVA on overall mean
scores. For Hypothesis 3, the expected main effect of Sexual
Identity was evident, F(1, 429) = 55.4, p < 0.001, ηρ2 = 0.11.
Allosexual adults (M = 81.97, SD = 19.24) had more positive sexual intimacy attitudes than asexual adults (M = 27.23,
SD = 22.98). The expected main effect for Sexual Attitude
was also evident, F(2, 429) = 97.5, p < 0.001, ηρ2 = 0.31.
Sex-positive adults (M = 87.03, SD = 14.43) had the most
positive sexual intimacy attitudes, followed by sex-neutral
(M = 52.58, SD = 19.70) and then sex-averse (M = 15.24,
SD = 15.39) adults. As shown in Fig. 1, there was no interaction between Attitude and Identity, F(2, 429) = 0.26, p = 0.77.
Fig. 1 Overall mean scores for
the sexual intimacy semantic
differential task as a function of
Sexual Identity and Sex Attitude. Note. The mean semantic
differential score represents
the average across the six word
pairs used in the task. Error bars
represent ± 1 standard error
13
Simple effects analyses indicated that adults with sex-positive attitudes had intimacy scores that were significantly more
positive than sex-neutral (p < 0.001) or sex-averse (p < 0.001)
adults, and intimacy attitudes for sex-neutral adults were
significantly more positive than those of sex-averse adults
(p < 0.001).
Asexual Romantic Orientation and Sexual Attitudes
When considering only our asexual participants, we predicted
that romantic asexual adults would report more positive sexual intimacy attitudes than aromantic asexual adults and that
this difference would be evident for those who identify as
sex-neutral or sex-averse. That is, we predicted that aromantic sex-averse individuals would have the lowest scores on
the sexual intimacy semantic differential task. We conducted
a 2 (Sexual Attitude: neutral vs. averse) × 2 (Romantic Orientation: romantic vs. aromantic) ANOVA on mean scores
on the semantic differential task. For this analysis, we did
not include two sex-positive aromantic and four sex-positive
romantic asexual participants. As expected, the main effect
of Sexual Attitude was significant, F(1, 87) = 76.3, p < 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.47. Sex-neutral adults (M = 41.31, SD = 17.33) had
more positive sexual intimacy attitudes than sex-averse
adults (M = 12.69, SD = 12.00). However, we did not find
the expected main effect of Romantic Orientation, F(1,
87) = 0.72, p = 0.40, and the interaction term was not significant, F(1, 87) = 0.73, p = 0.39 (Fig. 2). Thus, Hypothesis
4 was only partially supported.
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Discussion
The goal of the current study was to examine and compare
allosexual and asexual adults’ sexual and romantic orientation concordance. An additional goal was to better understand
how allosexual and asexual adults identify with respect to
sexual attitudes, as well as how people with different sexual
attitudes feel about sexual intimacy. For our first hypothesis,
we explored concordance rates in a sample of allosexual and
asexual adults and our results supported our prediction that
allosexual adults would be more likely to select a concordant
romantic and sexual orientation. Our findings mirror previous
research on the concordance between sexual and romantic
orientation among allosexual people (Lund et al., 2016), but
in our methodology, participants were free to self-identity
with respect to their sexual and romantic orientations separately. Although allosexual people reported higher concordance rates, concordance differed based on sexual orientation. That is, heterosexual adults had the highest concordance
rate, whereas bisexual adults had the lowest concordance
rate. Considering that people typically experience romantic
feelings toward those whom they are sexually attracted to
(Diamond, 2003), it is particularly interesting that bisexual
people were less likely to report romantic attraction to both
sexes. In the Lund et al. (2016) sample, most individuals who
had discordant romantic and sexual identities identified as
bisexual. Very few allosexual adults in our sample reported
an aromantic identity, in contrast to over one-third of asexual
people. It is possible that experiencing any form of sexual
attraction intuits experiencing romantic attraction; however,
considering the inverse is experienced by a majority of asexual people (i.e., experiencing romantic, but not sexual attraction), it is remarkable that more allosexual individuals did
not choose an aromantic identity. That is, given the current
Western cultural milieu that supports “friends with benefits”
or “hooking up,” it is interesting that more allosexual people
in our sample did not self-identify as aromantic. However, it
is also possible that despite aromanticism being commonly
understood in the asexual community (e.g., Vares, 2018), the
term may be unfamiliar to allosexual individuals, and more
allosexual people might self-classify as aromantic if they
were familiar with the concept and the term for it.
As predicted, asexual people in our sample reported more
discordant orientations; thus, supporting previous research
that discordant orientations are more common among asexual people (e.g., Antonsen et al., 2020; Brotto et al., 2010;
Ginoza et al., 2014; Scherrer, 2008; Zheng & Su, 2018).
That is, asexual people may identify with discordant orientations in an effort to understand their attractions based on the
romantic feelings they do have instead of the sexual feelings
they lack. Especially for individuals who desire a romantic
partnership, the dissonance between their sexual feelings and
romantic desire may impel them to consider various romantic
orientations, similar to how allosexual people may explore
different sexual orientations. Interestingly, the concordance
rate within our sample (37%) was greater than that found in
other samples (i.e., 19–28%), but it is unclear why this difference occurred.
Fig. 2 Overall mean scores for
the sexual intimacy semantic
differential task for asexual
participants as a Function of
Sexual Identity and Romantic
Orientation. Note. Error bars
represent ± 1 standard error.
Four asexual participants
identified as sex-positive with a
romantic orientation (M = 76.21,
SD = 13.6); two asexual participants identified as sex-positive,
but aromantic (M = 37.42,
SD = 51.5)
13
Archives of Sexual Behavior
We examined the frequencies with which allosexual
and asexual adults identify as sex-positive, sex-neutral, or
sex-averse. We hypothesized that allosexual adults would
be more likely to identify as sex-positive, whereas asexual
adults would be more likely to identify as sex-neutral or sexaverse. As predicted, our allosexual participants were more
likely to identify as sex-positive, whereas the majority of
asexual people identified as either sex-neutral or sex-averse.
Of note, there were very few allosexual people who identified
as sex-averse. It is possible allosexual people who identify
as sex-averse do so due to negative sexual experiences or
trauma, although, as discussed in more detail below, we did
not assess trauma history. The discrepancy in sexual attitudes
between allosexual and asexual individuals is enlightening,
but at the same time, it is still unclear why there may be such a
fundamental difference in how allosexual and asexual people
experience and perceive sexual intercourse. For example,
attraction or lack of attraction may have biological or physiological underpinnings, but it is not clear what may cause
these physiological differences to be expressed in levels of
desire or attraction.
Most of our asexual sample identified as sex-neutral or
sex-averse, which aligns with previous qualitative research
(Carrigan, 2011; Dawson et al., 2016; Van Houdenhove et al.,
2015b). More specifically, asexual people identified as sexneutral and sex-averse in similar frequencies, at around half
of the asexual sample. Both identities are prevalent, but it
is unclear why asexual people appear to be equally likely
to identify as sex-neutral or sex-averse, at least within our
sample. Additionally, it is unclear whether identifying as sexneutral or sex-averse equally is a pattern more indicative in
the asexual population overall. Future research exploring the
distinctions between these two identities in asexual samples
would help to better understand why an asexual person identifies as sex-neutral or sex-averse and how common identifying with either sexual attitude is. The commonality of either
sexual attitude likely holds implications for asexual adults
engaging in romantic partner relationships, where navigation
of sexual behavior might drastically vary based on identifying as sex-neutral or sex-averse.
Interestingly, approximately 6% of our asexual sample
identified as sex-positive. Although sex-positive asexual
people were not common within our sample, the fact that
a few asexual adults self-identified as such denotes that this
category likely exists as a small, but legitimate self-identity
category. Granted, the idea of a sex-positive asexual identity
may seem counterintuitive; however, there may be more complicated mechanisms to explain the relation between sexual
attitudes and sexual orientation. That is, because one does
not experience sexual attraction does not mean one will not
enjoy engaging in sexual intercourse. Clearly, more research
is needed to understand more about the relationship experiences of people who self-identify as sex-positive asexual
13
to better understand how their sex-positive attitudes might
interact with their asexuality in relation to sexual behavior
and experiences.
For our third hypothesis, we predicted that allosexual
adults would have more positive sexual intimacy attitudes
regardless of sexual attitude (i.e., sex-positive, sex-neutral,
and sex-averse). We found support for our hypothesis, in that
semantic differential scores for sexual intimacy attitudes
were, on average, more positive for allosexual people than
for asexual people. Additionally, allosexual people—regardless of sexual attitude—had higher scores than asexual people. It is important to highlight that allosexual and asexual
people within the same sexual attitude sub-group in our
sample did not score similarly on the semantic differential
task. For example, sex-neutral allosexual people reported
more positive intimacy attitudes than sex-neutral asexual
people. Despite both groups identifying as sex-neutral, the
discrepancy between them indicates that for asexual people,
there might be an underlying difference in how they perceive sexual intimacy that is reflected in their more negative
sexual intimacy attitudes. Future research should attempt to
understand these differences, and whether they stem from
physiological reactions, subjective opinions, or a combination of the two. A better understanding of the underpinnings
of these differences might hold implications for relationship
functioning and satisfaction in asexual–allosexual couples
and may better explain how these couples negotiate sexual
intimacy discrepancies.
Given that our asexual participants did make a distinction
between their sexual and romantic orientations, we further
explored the sexual intimacy attitudes of our asexual sample.
Our final hypothesis predicted that romantic asexual people
would have more positive sexual intimacy scores than aromantic asexual people, regardless of whether they identify
as sex-neutral or sex-averse. Interestingly, our hypothesis
was only partially supported. Asexual people who identified as sex-neutral held more positive views of sexual intimacy than those who identified as sex-averse. However,
there were no significant differences between romantic
and aromantic asexual people. It is possible that the lack
of relation between romantic orientation and sexual attitude
may indicate there are factors that influence both orientations separately. Regardless, that in our sample aromantic
asexual people did not experience more negative attitudes
about sexual intimacy has implications for future asexual
research. Although romantic and aromantic asexual adults
have been found to differ in relation to a variety of characteristics (e.g., Antonsen et al., 2020), our results indicate that
in certain cases, both subgroups may be similar enough to
warrant them being combined. More specifically, no differences or distinctions between the subgroups appear to be lost
when considering sexual attitudes. Although, future research
should further endeavor to replicate and expand upon these
Archives of Sexual Behavior
findings to better understand similarities and dissimilarities
between romantic and aromantic asexual people within larger
and more diverse samples.
Limitations
In the current study, because we were interested in the experiences of asexual people, we did not ask questions pertaining
to childhood sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, or trauma.
This was a deliberate decision made to avoid the implication that these events may be a cause of one's asexuality or
to potentially pathologize asexuality in any way. We consider the decision to avoid this topic both a strength and a
limitation of the current study. Asexual people often face the
assumption their lack of attraction was caused by previous
trauma (e.g., Gupta, 2017), and although previous trauma
has been considered, researchers have not found a relation
between trauma and asexuality (e.g., Brotto et al., 2010).
However, for our allosexual participants, it may have been
useful to know if these factors were more common among
those who identify as sex-neutral or sex-averse. As this was
an initial exploratory study about identification and attitudes,
we recognize this limitation.
Our measure of sexual attitude was based on interest in
sexual intercourse, specifically, as opposed to sexual behavior
in general. Some asexual people might hold more favorable
attitudes toward sexual behaviors (broadly defined) than to
sexual intercourse. A more nuanced examination of attitudes
toward the range of sexual experiences within a romantic
partnership is a beneficial avenue for future research. Similarly, we did not assess participants’ degree of interest in
romantic relationships. An item to assess level of romantic
interest would have provided additional insight into the concordance of attitudes between allosexual and asexual adults.
It is possible, for example, that individuals who identify as
heterosexual and heteroromantic may vary in the amount of
interested in pursuing a romantic relationship. Allosexual
individuals (regardless of orientations) with lower interest
in romantic relationships may hold attitudes similar to those
of aromantic individuals. Future relationship research, especially with asexual individuals, would benefit from including
a measure of future interest in romantic relationships to help
understand possible similarities or differences within these
orientations.
Given that 14 participants did not identify as sex-positive,
sex-neutral, or sex-averse, we were curious as to why none of
these labels applied. For example, these participants were not
all in one identity group; six were allosexual and eight were
asexual. We then theorized that not having any past consensual sexual experience may explain not having an opinion
about one’s sexual attitude. However, there were no clear
patterns; half of the allosexual participants and one asexual
participant had previous sexual experience. Thus, we have
insufficient evidence to determine why these participants
were not able to identify with a sexual attitude.
Lastly, our sample overall was predominately White, and
our allosexual sample was predominantly heterosexual. It is
possible that discordance in sexual and romantic orientations
is more apparent for non-heterosexual people or that there is
more variation within certain subgroups of allosexual people
(e.g., bisexual and pansexual adults). Similarly, our mostly
White sample does not reflect current population statistics of
race within the USA, and there may be more within-group
variance in non-White samples that we failed to capture
within our current sample.
Conclusion
The current study highlights how allosexual and asexual people vary with respect to the concordance (or discordance)
between romantic and sexual orientation. We provide supporting evidence for heterogeneity in the asexual population,
with only a third of our sample identifying as both asexual
and aromantic. We also see variability within the allosexual
population, with the highest concordance rates for heterosexual participants and the lowest concordance rates among
bisexual participants. Further, we explored self-identification
with respect to sexual attitudes and differences in attitudes
about sexual intimacy. The current study contributes to
the literature on relationships and sexuality by providing a
more nuanced examination of within-group and betweengroup variations and their implications for romantic partner
relationships.
Appendix A
Means, standard deviations, range, and median for the
engagement in intimacy attitude semantic differential task
for sex-positive, sex-neutral, and sex-averse allosexual
participants.
Sex attitude
Sex-positive
(n = 274)
M
(SD)
Sex-neutral
(n = 50)
Range
M
(median) (SD)
Negative/ 90.00 20–100
positive (12.27) (92)
88.57
3–100
Disgusted/ (16.48) (92)
pleased
88.14
2–100
Uninter(17.14) (93)
ested/
interested
Sex-averse
(n = 10)
Range
M
(median) (SD)
Range
(median)
61.00 18–100
(19.76) (65)
61.44 10–100
(23.41) (60.5)
28.70 0–85
(25.00) (27.5)
38.90 0–85
(25.87) (45)
59.88
1–100
(22.44) (59.5)
26.90 0–83
(29.76) (20)
13
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Data Availability Data files are available upon request.
Sex attitude
Sex-positive
(n = 274)
M
(SD)
Not
aroused/
aroused
Averse/
not
averse
Unwilling/
willing
Sex-neutral
(n = 50)
Range
M
(median) (SD)
Sex-averse
(n = 10)
Range
M
(median) (SD)
Range
(median)
85.17
3–100
(18.03) (90)
63.94
1–100
(24.25) (69.5)
44.10 0–90
(37.36) (45)
84.31
1–100
(21.68) (91)
60.31
0–100
(23.46) (60)
25.10 0–53
(23.38) (24.5)
88.61
1–100
(17.40) (95)
62.76 15–100
(21.36) (60.5)
23.40 0–50
(18.83) (23)
For each semantic differential pair, the positive term was anchored at
100 and the negative term was anchored at 0
Appendix B
Means, standard deviations, range, and medians for the
engagement in intimacy attitude scale semantic differential
task for sex-positive, sex-neutral, and sex-averse asexual
participants.
Sex attitude
Sex-positive
(n = 6)
M
(SD)
Negative/
positive
Disgusted/
pleased
Uninterested/
interested
Not
aroused/
aroused
Averse/
not
averse
Unwilling/
willing
Sex-neutral
(n = 41)
Range
M
(median) (SD)
Sex-averse
(n = 54)
Range
M
(median) (SD)
Range
(median)
65.33
1–92
(35.09) (79.5)
66.33
1–92
(33.68) (75)
48.46
0–85
(20.89) (50)
47.41 0–100
(18.99) (50)
20.09 0–83
(20.36) (15.5)
17.65 0–60
(17.16) (15.5)
52.83
1–90
(38.61) (65)
25.88
0–80
(23.62) (20)
4.65
(7.62)
61.67
1–85
(31.30) (74)
27.61
0–80
(24.56) (20)
9.52 0–70
(16.02) (1.5)
71.33 1–100
(36.56) (81)
51.05 0–100
(25.93) (50)
10.17 0–60 (5)
(14.87)
62.17 1–100
(35.03) (65.5)
49.37
0–91
(24.61) (50)
11.63 0–75 (1)
(18.76)
0–30 (1)
For each semantic differential pair, the positive term was anchored at
100 and the negative term was anchored at 0
Funding No funding was received for conducting this study or to assist
with the preparation of this manuscript.
13
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article and certify that they have
no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with
any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or
materials discussed in this manuscript.
Ethical Approval The questionnaire and methodology for this study
were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Illinois
State University (ethics approval number: 2018-277).
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Antonsen, A. N., Zdaniuk, B., Yule, M., & Brotto, L. A. (2020). Ace
and aro: Understanding differences in romantic attractions among
persons identifying as asexual. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49,
1615–1630. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10508-​019-​01600-1
Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN). (2017). Overview. Retrieved from http://​www.​asexu​ality.​org/​home/​overv​iew.​
html
Bogaert, A. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors
in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex Research, 41(3),
279–287. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00224​49040​95522​35
Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Asexuality: What it is and why it matters. Journal
of Sex Research, 52(4), 362–379. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00224​
499.​2015.​10157​13
Borgogna, N. C., McDermott, R. C., Aita, S. L., & Kridel, M. M. (2019).
Anxiety and depression across gender and sexual minorities:
Implications for transgender, gender nonconforming, pansexual,
demisexual, asexual, queer, and questioning individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 6(1), 54–63.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​sgd00​00306
Brotto, L. A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., & Erskine, Y. (2010).
Asexuality: A mixed-methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 599–618. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10508-​008-​9434-x
Brotto, L. A., & Yule, M. (2017). Asexuality: Sexual orientation,
paraphilia, sexual dysfunction, or none of the above? Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 46(3), 619–627. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10508-​016-​0802-7
Brotto, L. A., Yule, M. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2015). Asexuality: An
extreme variant of sexual desire disorder? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(3), 646–660. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jsm.​12806
Byers, E. S., & Wang, A. (2004). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from the social exchange perspective. In J. H. Harvey,
A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in
close relationships (pp. 203–234). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Carrigan, M. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference and
commonality within the asexual community. Sexualities, 14(4),
462–478. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13634​60711​406462
Carrigan, M. A. (2012). “How do you know you don’t like it if you
haven’t tried it?” Asexual agency and the sexual assumption. In T.
G. Morrison, M. A. Morrison, M. A. Carrigan, & D. T. McDermott
(Eds.), Sexual minority research in the new millennium (pp. 3–20).
Nova Science Publishers.
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Carvalho, J., Lemos, D., & Nobre, P. J. (2017). Psychological features
and sexual beliefs characterizing self-labeled asexual individuals.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(6), 517–528. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1080/​00926​23X.​2016.​12086​96
Chasin, C. D. (2015). Making sense in and of the asexual community:
Navigating relationships and identities in a context of resistance.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 167–
180. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​casp.​2203
Dawson, M., McDonnell, L., & Scott, S. (2016). Negotiating the boundaries of intimacy: The personal lives of asexual people. Sociological Review, 64(2), 349–365. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1467-​954X.​
12362
Decker, J. S. (2015). The invisible orientation: An introduction to asexuality. Skyhorse Publishing.
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire.
Psychological Review, 110(1), 173–192. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
0033-​295X.​110.1.​173
Ginoza, M. K., Miller, T., & AVEN Survey Team. (2014). The 2014
AVEN community census: Preliminary findings. Retrieved November 25, 2020 from https://a​ sexua​ lcens​ us.fi
​ les.w
​ ordpr​ ess.c​ om/2​ 014/​
11/​2014c​ensus​preli​minar​yrepo​rt.​pdf
Gupta, K. (2017). “And now I’m just different, but there’s nothing actually wrong with me”: Asexual marginalization and resistance.
Journal of Homosexuality, 64(8), 991–1013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​00918​369.​2016.​12365​90
Haefner, C. (2012). Asexual scripts: A grounded theory inquiry into the
intrapsychic scripts asexuals use to negotiate romantic relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section b. Sciences
and Engineering, 72(8B), 5025.
Lund, E. M., Thomas, K. B., Sias, C. M., & Bradley, A. R. (2016).
Examining concordant and discordant sexual and romantic attraction in American adults: Implications for counselors. Journal of
LGBT Issues in Counseling, 10(4), 211–226. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​15538​605.​2016.​12338​40
Prause, N., & Graham, C. A. (2007). Asexuality: Classification and
characterization. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(3), 341–356.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10508-​006-​9142-3
Przybylo, E. (2016). Introducing asexuality, unthinking sex. In N. L.
Fischer & S. Seidman (Eds.), Introducing the new sexuality studies
(pp. 181–191). Routledge Taylor.
Robbins, N. K., Low, K. G., & Query, A. N. (2016). A qualitative
exploration of the “coming out” process for asexual individuals.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(3), 751–760. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10508-​015-​0561-x
Rothblum, E. D., Krueger, E. A., Kittle, K. R., & Meyer, I. H. (2020).
Asexual and non-asexual respondents from a U.S. populationbased study of sexual minorities. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
49(2), 757–767. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10508-​019-​01485-0
Scherrer, K. S. (2008). Coming to an asexual identity: Negotiating identity, negotiating desire. Sexualities, 11(5), 621–641. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1177/​13634​60708​094269
Scherrer, K. S. (2010). What does asexuality have to do with polyamory? In M. Baker & D. Langdridge (Eds.), Understanding nonmonogamies (pp. 154–159). Routledge.
Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., Regan, P., Orbuch, T., & Cate, R. M.
(2018). Sexuality in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti &
D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 311–326). Cambridge University Press. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1017/​97813​16417​867.​025
Thompson, E., & Morgan, E. M. (2008). “Mostly straight” young
women: Variations in sexual behavior and identity development.
Developmental Psychology, 44, 15–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
0012-​1649.​44.1.​15
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., & Enzlin, P. (2015a). Asexuality: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Sex Research,
52(6), 669–678. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00224​499.​2014.​898015
Van Houdenhove, E., Gijs, L., T’Sjoen, G., & Enzlin, P. (2015b). Stories
about asexuality: A qualitative study on asexual women. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(3), 262–281. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
00926​23X.​2014.​889053
Vares, T. (2018). ‘My [asexuality] is playing hell with my dating life’:
Romantic identified asexuals negotiate the dating game. Sexualities, 21(4), 520–536. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13634​60717​716400
Yule, M. A., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2015). A validated measure of no sexual attraction: The asexuality identification scale.
Psychological Assessment, 27, 148–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
a0038​196
Zheng, L., & Su, Y. (2018). Patterns of asexuality in China: Sexual
activity, sexual and romantic attraction, and sexual desire. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1265–1276. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s10508-​018-​1158-y
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13