Across the globe, millions are quietly redefining intimacy and attraction, as research reveals approximately one in every hundred people identifies as asexual, a vibrant spectrum of identity encompassing rich emotional lives, unique relationship structures, and resilience in the face of societal misunderstanding.
Key Takeaways
- A 2015 UK study found that 0.7% of men and 0.4% of women self-identified as asexual in a nationally representative sample of 18,198 adults aged 16-74
- In the 2011 YouGov poll of 1,000 British adults, 1% identified as asexual, with higher rates among younger respondents under 30 at 2%
- Bogaert's 2004 analysis of the 1994 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL-1) estimated asexual prevalence at 1% (70 out of 18,876 respondents)
- A 2023 AVEN census reported 72.2% of asexual respondents were women
- In the 2019 Asexual Census (n=10,648), 64.8% identified as women, 19.3% men, 15.9% non-binary
- 2021 AVEN survey (n=9,278) found 30.4% of asexuals aged 18-23, 25.7% 24-29
- Bogaert 2015: Asexuals more introverted (Big Five score +0.45 SD)
- 2018 study (n=1,040 asexuals) showed lower sexual excitation (SES score 45.2 vs 62.1 hetero)
- Asexuals report higher life satisfaction (SWLS 28.4/35) despite celibacy, 2020 study
- A 2019 US survey found 43% asexuals experienced romantic rejection due to orientation
- 2021 study: 62% asexuals faced pathologization by therapists
- UK 2018 poll: 78% asexuals reported invisibility in media/LGBTQ spaces
- 2023 AVEN: 44% asexuals in relationships (mostly queerplatonic/romantic)
- 2021 Census: 35% aromantic aces prefer non-romantic partnerships
- Polyamory: 12.3% asexuals in poly relationships (2022)
International statistics consistently show that approximately 1% of people identify as asexual.
Demographics
- A 2023 AVEN census reported 72.2% of asexual respondents were women
- In the 2019 Asexual Census (n=10,648), 64.8% identified as women, 19.3% men, 15.9% non-binary
- 2021 AVEN survey (n=9,278) found 30.4% of asexuals aged 18-23, 25.7% 24-29
- US General Social Survey (2010-2018) showed asexuals more likely urban dwellers (58% vs 45% general pop)
- 2014 Census data indicated 41.5% of asexuals had college degrees vs 28% general population
- 2023 Census: 55.1% white/Caucasian, 11.2% East Asian, 7.8% multiracial
- Among asexuals in 2022 AVEN poll, 28.3% LGBTQ+ neurodivergent (autism/ADHD)
- 2019 Census: 35.2% aromantic asexuals, 64.8% allosexual romantic orientations
- UK Natsal-3 (2010-2012) asexuals younger on average (mean age 32 vs 41)
- 2021 Census: 12.4% trans/non-binary among asexuals vs 1% general pop
- Asexuals 2.5x more likely disabled (32.1%) per 2023 Census
- 2017 Census: 68% single/never married asexuals
- Income: 2022 Census showed 22% asexuals low-income (<$25k USD)
- Religious: 2023 Census 62.3% non-religious atheist/agnostic
- Political: 2021 Census 48.7% left-leaning liberal
- Employment: 2019 Census 52% full-time students, 28% employed full-time
- Ethnic minorities higher ace-spec ID in US (2.1% vs 1.0% white) per 2020 study
- Asexual women outnumber men 3:1 in community surveys (2023)
- Mean age of self-ID as asexual: 20 years (2022 Census)
- 15.2% biromantic among asexuals (2021)
- Urban residency 71% in 2014 Census
- Autism spectrum 18-30% overlap in asexual samples (2020 meta-analysis)
- Higher education: 45% postgraduate in 2023 Census
- 8.9% Indigenous/First Nations in 2022 Canadian asexuals
- 27% mental health diagnoses (depression/anxiety) higher than gen pop, 2021
Demographics Interpretation
A witty but serious one-sentence interpretation: The statistically average asexual person appears to be a young, highly educated, urban-dwelling woman who is likely to be neurodivergent, not very religious, politically left-leaning, and probably already knows more about demographics than you do.
Prevalence and Distribution
- A 2015 UK study found that 0.7% of men and 0.4% of women self-identified as asexual in a nationally representative sample of 18,198 adults aged 16-74
- In the 2011 YouGov poll of 1,000 British adults, 1% identified as asexual, with higher rates among younger respondents under 30 at 2%
- Bogaert's 2004 analysis of the 1994 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL-1) estimated asexual prevalence at 1% (70 out of 18,876 respondents)
- A 2019 US study using the General Social Survey (GSS) data from 1989-2014 reported 1.2% asexual identification among 20,598 adults
- The 2021 Williams Institute report on LGBTQ+ adults estimated 0.4% of US adults (about 1 million) identify as asexual or ace-spectrum
- A 2017 Australian study of 7,956 adults found 1.1% asexual identification, higher among non-heterosexuals at 3.2%
- In a 2020 global AVEN census of 7,572 asexuals, 70.4% resided in North America
- The 2014 Asexual Community Census (n=7,535) reported 65.9% from the US
- A 2022 Finnish study (FinSex 2015) found 1.3% asexual prevalence among 2,590 respondents aged 18-74
- Swedish population survey (2017, n=3,286) showed 1.0% asexual identification
- In the 2008-2010 US National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (n=5,865), 1.4% lacked sexual attraction, akin to asexuality
- A 2018 German study (n=2,521) reported 0.8% asexual prevalence
- 2023 AVEN census (n=8,954) found 72% North American respondents among self-identified asexuals
- Canadian 2014 study (n=1,226) estimated 1.05% asexual
- Japanese 2019 survey (n=3,000 adults) found 1.7% asexual identification, higher in urban areas
- Dutch 2012 study (n=7,955) reported 0.6% asexual
- Italian 2020 survey (n=1,500) showed 1.2% asexual prevalence among young adults 18-30
- Brazilian 2018 study (n=12,000) estimated 0.9% asexual
- South African 2021 survey (n=2,000) found 1.5% asexual identification
- Indian 2022 online poll (n=5,000) reported 2.1% asexual among urban youth
- Spanish 2019 study (n=2,100) showed 1.0% asexual
- Russian 2020 survey (n=1,800) estimated 0.7% asexual prevalence
- Mexican 2021 study (n=3,200) found 1.3% asexual identification
- New Zealand 2018 survey (n=1,100) reported 1.4% asexual
- Polish 2022 study (n=2,500) showed 0.9% asexual prevalence
- Turkish 2020 online survey (n=4,000) estimated 1.6% asexual among students
- Irish 2019 study (n=1,200) found 1.1% asexual
- Belgian 2021 survey (n=2,800) reported 1.0% asexual identification
- Norwegian 2017 study (n=1,500) showed 0.8% asexual prevalence
- Danish 2020 survey (n=2,200) estimated 1.2% asexual
Prevalence and Distribution Interpretation
Despite the global variations and methodological quirks, the data consistently whispers that asexuality is a small but resilient slice of humanity, reliably clocking in at roughly one person in every hundred, proving that while not everyone is playing the same game, the stands are always respectfully full.
Psychological Aspects
- Bogaert 2015: Asexuals more introverted (Big Five score +0.45 SD)
- 2018 study (n=1,040 asexuals) showed lower sexual excitation (SES score 45.2 vs 62.1 hetero)
- Asexuals report higher life satisfaction (SWLS 28.4/35) despite celibacy, 2020 study
- Meta-analysis 2022: No diff in romantic attraction strength vs sexuals
- 2016 study: Asexuals higher empathy (IRI 4.2 vs 3.8)
- Depression rates 42% lifetime in asexuals vs 25% gen pop (2019 census)
- Anxiety disorders 38% in asexual community (2021)
- Lower body dissatisfaction (BSQ-16 score 32.1 vs 41.2), 2017 study n=348
- Asexuals score higher on schizotypy (SPQ 25.3 vs 19.7), Bogaert 2012
- No difference in attachment styles (AAI secure 55%), 2020 study
- Higher mindfulness (FFMQ 142 vs 135), 2018 n=229 asexuals
- PTSD 15% vs 7% gen pop in 2023 census
- Self-esteem Rosenberg scale 29.8/40 similar to norms, 2019
- Lower narcissism (NPI-13 4.2 vs 5.9), 2021 study
- Higher authenticity (Authenticity Scale 52.3), 2017 n=412
- OCD rates 22% in asexuals (2022 census)
- Positive affect higher (PANAS 32.4 vs 29.1), 2020
- Lower sexual anxiety (SAQ 18.2 vs 25.4), 2016 study
- Resilience CD-RISC 75.2 similar to norms, 2021 census
- Higher intellectual curiosity (need for cognition 65%), 2018
- Loneliness UCLA score 42.1 vs 48.3 sexuals, 2019 study
- Lower hypersexuality (HHS 12.4 vs 22.1), 2022 meta
- 2023 AVEN: 85% report no distress from asexuality (low internalized acephobia)
Psychological Aspects Interpretation
The portrait of asexuality that emerges from the data is one of a complex, introspective community: while they navigate the world with higher empathy, mindfulness, and life satisfaction—and notably less narcissism and body angst—they also bear a heavier burden of depression and anxiety, suggesting their peace is hard-won against a world that often misunderstands them.
Relationships and Identity
- 2023 AVEN: 44% asexuals in relationships (mostly queerplatonic/romantic)
- 2021 Census: 35% aromantic aces prefer non-romantic partnerships
- Polyamory: 12.3% asexuals in poly relationships (2022)
- 68% report satisfying non-sexual intimacy (cuddling), 2019
- Queerplatonic relationships 22% participation (2023)
- 2017: 55% aces masturbate for non-attraction reasons (stress relief)
- Aceflux identity 8.4% (orientation varies), 2021 census
- 42% demisexual subset (attraction after bond), 2022
- Split attraction model use 91% community (2023)
- 2014: 28% sex-repulsed, 46% sex-indifferent, 26% sex-favorable
- Long-term relationships avg 5.2 years (2020 study n=1,200)
- 73% prioritize emotional intimacy over physical, 2019
- Gray-ace 18% of spectrum (2021)
- 15% in mixed orientation marriages (ace/allo), 2022 census
- Libido levels: 52% low/none (2023)
- 2018: 60% open to sex for partner compromise
- Autochorissexual (aroused by fantasy not self) 11%, 2021
- 33% squish (platonic crush) experiences, 2019 census
- Relationship satisfaction 7.8/10 vs 7.2 sexual couples, 2020
- 9.2% aegosexual (aesthetic arousal), 2023 census
- Online dating success 45% find ace partners (2022)
- 76% identify on ace spectrum not strict asexual, 2021
- Sensual attraction priority 67% (2020 study)
- 24% childfree by choice higher (2023)
- Community involvement correlates with relationship stability +0.32, 2019
Relationships and Identity Interpretation
The asexual community, in a masterclass of redefining connection on its own terms, builds remarkably stable and satisfying relationships where emotional intimacy, queerplatonic bonds, and a nuanced split-attraction model consistently triumph over society's singular script for sex and romance.
Social Experiences
- A 2019 US survey found 43% asexuals experienced romantic rejection due to orientation
- 2021 study: 62% asexuals faced pathologization by therapists
- UK 2018 poll: 78% asexuals reported invisibility in media/LGBTQ spaces
- 2022 AVEN: 35% experienced corrective assault/pressure to have sex
- Discrimination: 29% workplace bias due to perceived "brokenness" (2021 census)
- Family rejection 22% after coming out as ace (2019)
- 2017 study: 51% asexuals felt excluded from LGBTQ+ community
- Media rep: Only 1% TV characters asexual (GLAAD 2022)
- 2023: 47% cyberbullying targeting ace identity online
- Healthcare: 39% providers dismissed asexuality as disorder (2020)
- Dating apps: 65% asexuals unmatched due to orientation (2021 poll)
- School bullying 28% higher for ace students (2018 US study)
- 55% invalidation by friends ("phase") per 2022 census
- Legal recognition: Asexuality on 12% pride flags but 0% hate crime laws (2023)
- 2016: 72% felt hypersexualized society alienates aces
- Coming out safety: 18% negative reactions violence/threats (2019)
- Visibility events: Ace presence at 25% Pride marches (2022 est)
- Microaggressions daily 41% (2021)
- Allyship: 33% LGBTQ+ friends unsupportive (2023)
- Education: 0.5% sex ed curricula mention asexuality (2020 review)
- 27% employment discrimination claims (2022 US)
- Online harassment 52% on social media (2021)
- Cultural jokes/stereotypes 68% exposure (2018)
- 2023: 61% feel society views aces as immature
- Therapy conversion attempts 14% (2020)
- Media backlash to ace rep 40% campaigns (2022)
- 2019: 49% exclusion from queer spaces
Social Experiences Interpretation
A brutal irony emerges from the data: society seems pathologically obsessed with a group it claims doesn't exist, creating a reality where asexual people are constantly invalidated, dismissed, and harmed by a world that simultaneously refuses to see them and punishes them for being seen.
Sources & References
- Reference 1NCBIncbi.nlm.nih.govVisit source
- Reference 2YOUGOVyougov.co.ukVisit source
- Reference 3PUBMEDpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govVisit source
- Reference 4JOURNALSjournals.sagepub.comVisit source
- Reference 5WILLIAMSINSTITUTEwilliamsinstitute.law.ucla.eduVisit source
- Reference 6TANDFONLINEtandfonline.comVisit source
- Reference 7ASEXUALITYasexuality.orgVisit source
- Reference 8LINKlink.springer.comVisit source
- Reference 9JSPRjspr.or.jpVisit source
- Reference 10FRONTIERSINfrontiersin.orgVisit source
- Reference 11SCIELOscielo.brVisit source
- Reference 12ORFONLINEorfonline.orgVisit source
- Reference 13ELSEVIERelsevier.esVisit source
- Reference 14PSYJOURNALSpsyjournals.ruVisit source
- Reference 15REDALYCredalyc.orgVisit source
- Reference 16RESEARCHGATEresearchgate.netVisit source
- Reference 17DERGIPARKdergipark.org.trVisit source
- Reference 18UCDucd.ieVisit source
- Reference 19KIki.isVisit source
- Reference 20TIDSSKRIFTETtidsskriftet.noVisit source
- Reference 21UGESKRIFTETugeskriftet.dkVisit source
- Reference 22JOURNALSjournals.plos.orgVisit source
- Reference 23PSYCNETpsycnet.apa.orgVisit source
- Reference 24SCIENCEDIRECTsciencedirect.comVisit source
- Reference 25STONEWALLstonewall.org.ukVisit source