1 Freedom, Invisibility, and Community: A Qualitative Study of Self-Identification with Asexuality Pádraig MacNeela1, 2 and Aisling Murphy1 1School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway 2To whom correspondence should be addressed at the School of Psychology, NUI Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland; email: [email protected] 2 ABSTRACT A significant body of research is now emerging on the subjective meaning of asexuality. This study explored how self-identification as asexual is managed, both as a threat to the self- concept and a source of personal meaning. A total of 66 self-identified asexuals were recruited from an asexuality internet community and responded to open-ended questions on an online survey. Of these, 31 participants identified as female, 15 as male, 18 gave a different label such as genderqueer or androgynous and two did not provide information on gender. A thematic analysis of the transcripts resulted in three themes: Socially, asexuality attracted denial and resistance due to incompatibility with heteronormative societal expectations (“They don’t believe you: Social invisibility, denial, and limited disclosure”). Despite the threat to self-integrity arising from asexuality being socially rejected, it was typically assimilated as a valued and meaningful orientation on an intra-personal level, aided by information and support from the online community (“New meaning: Discovering asexuality and being asexual”). A second level of threat to self arose whereby other self- identifications, especially gender, had to be reconciled with a non-sexual persona (“One identity among others: Negotiating gender and age”). The accommodation made to other elements of the self was reflected in complex sub-identities. The findings were interpreted using identity process theory to understand how threats arising from self-identifying as asexual are managed. Although asexuality emerges as an orientation to sexuality that can be reconciled with the self, its invisibility or outright rejection in society constitute an on-going challenge. KEY WORDS: asexuality; sexual identity; internet communities; identity process theory. 3 INTRODUCTION The adoption of a sexual orientation that is inconsistent with heteronormative expectations can constitute a threat to the maintenance of a stable and coherent identity (Coyle & Rafalin, 2000; Jaspal & Cinnirella, 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007). In the case of asexuality, one source of tension between self-identification and social acceptability arises from its position relative to heterosexual relationship forms and sexual practices. Whereas identifying as sexually active and gay entails a divergence from heterosexual norms in the script for sexual expression, asexuals differ through omission, by identifying with not engaging in sex. Asexuality therefore constitutes a unique threat to the sexual identification component of the self-concept, given the nature of its departure from the accepted societal norm. Moreover, asexuality has implications for other facets of self-concept that overlap with sexual identity. In particular, being asexual is at variance with expectations for gender roles, age-based norms, and can complicate interpersonal relations with non-asexuals (Carrigan, 2011). Despite these issues, there has been a lack of development of research on how asexual individuals cope with and respond to threats to a stable, well-integrated self- concept. Therefore, in this article, we consider how potential threats to self-coherence arising from asexuality are managed. Self-identification as asexual is distinct from having a low or absent desire for sex. While it is comparatively common to experience low desire for sex for periods of time, it is much less common for adults to self-identify as asexual and not sexually attracted to males or females. In the past decade, U.S. and UK population survey data suggest that the prevalence of identifying as asexual is approximately one percent, similar to same-sex attraction (Bogaert, 2004; Poston & Baumle, 2010; Smith, Rissel, Richters, Grulich, & De Visser, 2003). By comparison, one indicative survey of British women found that 10.7% reported a 4 lack of interest in having sex for six months or more in the previous year (Mitchell, Mercer, Wellings, & Johnson, 2009). The critical point of interest in this article is self-identification as asexual, which researchers and community websites use as a marker of asexual status together with low reported subjective arousal and non-engagement in sex (Asexuality Visibility & Education Network, 2011; Brotto, 2010; Poston & Baumle, 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007). It is noteworthy that asexual self-identification is not regarded as precluding actions or responses with sexual connotations. One survey reported a similar frequency of masturbation among a sample of male asexuals compared with heterosexual males (Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010). Brotto and Yule (2011) found that self-reported and physiological arousal among asexual women were not significantly lower compared with heterosexual or bisexual women, following exposure to pornography. Thus, self- identification with the label of asexuality is the crucial distinction and is the focus of this article. Self-identifying with asexuality has numerous implications for the individual. It could be a source of meaning, allowing some individuals who lack interest in sexual expression to name this orientation and accept it as integral to their self-concept. Our position is that, regardless of the positive contribution that identifying as asexual might bring, self- identification places the person in a threatening position that has to be managed. Identifying as asexual is likely to generate intra-personal challenges to reconcile it with components of the self, such as gender, that include expectations for sexual identification. Interpersonal challenges are likely as well, such as social stigma or lack of awareness, given that the asexual community lacks visibility in mainstream media and communications. In this study, we utilize a social psychological theoretical framework, Identity Process Theory (IPT) (Breakwell, 1986), to explore how these threats are managed. IPT has been used in several other contexts to explore adaptation in the face of threats to the self-concept. 5 The available evidence suggests that, in common with other sexual identifications, asexuality is a complex self-categorization. For instance, the asexual sub-identities described in the literature often refer to relationship preferences (Carrigan, 2011; Diamond, 2004). Asexuality is consistent with preferences for romantic, non-sexual relationships with the same or opposite gender, with an aromantic orientation, or a preference somewhere between these poles. These complex intersections highlight the enmeshment of asexuality and gender role identification, further attested to by the potential for asexuality to prompt questioning of traditional gender roles (Brotto et al, 2010). A significant proportion of Brotto et al.’s survey participants identified with gender-neutral, genderqueer, or androgynous labels over traditional male and female categories. Identifying as asexual may be threatening not alone due to its divergence from the heterosexual norm but because it threatens the stability of traditional gender role identification. Consequently, the implications of asexuality for gender role identification require further critical exploration (Bogaert, 2012). Asexual Identity Much of the research carried out on asexuality has focused on its clinical implications and links to psychiatric conditions such as hypoactive sexual desire disorder (Brotto et al., 2010). Consistent with a framework oriented to the exploration of the self, we chose not to consider the clinical aspects of asexual identification in this study. Our intention was to explore how individuals describe the management of threats to the self arising from identifying as asexual and seek meaning from asexuality as an important component of personal identity. Research into self-identifying as asexual has attracted growing interest in the past decade, aided by access to participants recruited from online asexuality communities that have emerged over this period. There is evidence to suggest that asexuality can be reconciled as a self-identification. Comparing self-identified asexuals with heterosexual participants, 6 Brotto et al. (2010) found no significant differences in reported mood or interpersonal functioning. Qualitative research with a similar population described asexuality as a positive contribution to self-understanding and personal coherence (Scherrer, 2008), suggesting that its potential as a threat to identity can be overcome. The most ambivalent recent findings on the implications of identifying as asexual are not from research on asexuals recruited online, but from a study of participants recruited via flyers in a mid-Western U.S. city (Prause & Graham, 2007). This mixed-methods study included interviews with four self-identified asexuals. Although asexuality was described as a meaningful self-identification, Prause and Graham also found expressions of uncertainty and concern (“Is there something wrong with me?”, “I kind of worry for not being like everyone else,” “Am I the only one who’s not doing this?”). Negative appraisals reported in studies of online samples are linked to the lack of social acknowledgement of asexuality as a legitimate orientation (Carrigan, 2011), rather than the