King’s College London published a study in February regarding people’s attitudes about asexuality. The study found interesting results, including that nearly a third of respondents believed that asexuality could be cured through conversion therapy. I discussed the results of this study and more with the study’s sponsor, Yasmin Benoit. 

Benoit is an asexual activist and model who became the first asexual grand marshal at New York City’s Pride March in 2023. She also sponsored a student from Stonewall U.K. in 2024 that found asexual people are 10% more likely to be offered conversion therapy in comparison to other sexual orientations. We discussed this study and much more in an interview.

Related

Virgin-shaming hurts everyone, including asexual people like me
“Virgin” isn’t an insult. An asexual revolution would benefit everyone by letting us all live authentically.

Tyger Songbird: So, we’re both asexual. I came out years ago as asexual. There hasn’t been, in my opinion, as comprehensive a history of research regarding asexuality in comparison to other orientations. Asexuality is not something new, but only recently has gained greater awareness and gained a more concentrated focus in academia. You recently sponsored a gigantic study out of King’s College in the U.K., highlighting discriminatory attitudes and sentiments towards asexual people. How did this study come to fruition? 

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

Yasmin Benoit: So, I did Stonewall’s asexual study in 2023, and the policy institute at King’s College London reached out to me and essentially said that they were looking to do research into asexuality. They were seeking to do multiple research papers and offered me a visiting research fellow position so that I could be actively involved. I’ve got a two-year fellowship there.

The first thing that we wanted to do was to release a paper on public attitudes towards asexual people. We started working on that late last year. Obviously, we’ve been interested in doing more research since Stonewall, but we were a bit unsure of the best place to do it or what avenue would be best. So, it was great that King’s College London reached out to me.

Upon reading the study, one would find The King’s College Study uses a double-list experiment. Would you mind explaining the study’s methodology, including the motive behind using a double-list experiment?

The purpose of us doing a double-list experiment is because usually when you’re asking people for their opinions of what is essentially a sensitive subject, there’s always social desirability bias, as people try to give the most ideal answers. So, as a researcher, you want to avoid as much bias as possible.

A double-list experiment really anonymizes the responses because you’re not saying, “Tell me exactly what you think.” However, you’re giving people a list of statements and saying, “How many do you agree with?” If you give them one list of more palatable answers and then give them a double list with less palatable ones, you can gauge how the numbers change and use that to work out which new statements were agreed to and how they changed. 

So, we wanted to do that because we really wanted to make sure that we don’t have this bias, where people are going to hide their answers. 

When we got the results, the researchers were like, “Oh, wait, this doesn’t look right. Something must have gone wrong” because there was no social desirability bias. That didn’t surprise me in the slightest because I know that people will just come out and say all kinds of things about asexuality. They have no gauge of what is a bad thing to say about asexual people or what is acephobic.

The results were interesting. It wasn’t what we were looking for, but I knew that was a possible outcome.

Yes, and the results really portrayed that while there were some differences between the direct questioning and the list experiment. For instance, when it came to the question of whether one can have sex and be asexual, 41% in the direct list said “No,” compared to 24% in the list experiment section. So there was some sort of, you know, significant change in that one. 

Seeing such increases in the list sans social desirability bias displays a higher sense of discrimination. How did that go over with the experimenters in the study? Were they surprised? 

I wasn’t surprised. I think they were just more surprised by the lack of social desirability bias. I think they were surprised that we chose this method. It had never really been used in the study on asexuality before, but they’ve seen it used in another study about transphobia and trans people. So they were like, “Okay, well, if this is how it was for the trans community, we know people want to hide their feelings. So, let’s do this.” It was quite shocking for the other researchers, but not that shocking for me.

I mean, it’s disappointing to hear a quarter of people think that asexual people have a mental illness and that we can be cured with therapy, but I get all of that. I’m seeing the public find that quite interesting. Most of the press is focused on the aspect that many people think that asexuality can be cured, even though for me, it’s not that shocking. 

Yeah, so let’s talk about that exactly. The study found between both lists, 31% of the 400 people in the study believed asexuality could be cured by therapy. The concept of asexual people being discriminated against or having prejudices against them is so perplexing for many. Any time asexuality is brought up and asexual discrimination is brought up, people dismiss it because they struggle to imagine why anyone would discriminate against us.

When you’ve discussed the study’s results with people in the media, has it changed anyone’s minds, or are people still in that incredulous, dismissive mindset?

Currently, media outlets seem reticent to talk about LGBTQ+ topics due to the current political climate in the U.K. However, many outlets still picked up on this statistic. I feel like the fact that it came from King’s College London helped with this. My last piece of research was Stonewall U.K., and the fact that it was by an LGBTQ+ charity had people saying, “Of course it would say that!”. 

King’s College London is more of a neutral ground. It’s a university; they research all kinds of things. King’s College didn’t have a vested interest in this subject. Therefore, they see it as being particularly legitimate. So I do think it’s helped in that sense. Also, when I speak to people,  I direct people to my social media comments and explain to them what acephobia looks like. 

Many outlets in the media when I speak up about acephobia are like, “Well, are there any studies? Is there any research?” With Stonewall and with the King’s College report, I now have facts and data to cite.

Speaking of facts to cite, the report not only found a high prevalence of people who said asexuality could be cured by therapy but also found that 27% of participants said asexual people just haven’t met the right person yet.

I’ve heard that quite often in my life. I’ve been told that I need to go to a therapist or that I need to have my hormones checked. I’ve been told countless times that I haven’t met the right person or that I’d stop being asexual if I had sex with them. My conversations with fellow aces have found they receive the same comments regularly. Yet,  if someone were to say that to someone of any other orientation, it would be considered a crude threat against them.

It’s a strange phenomenon. I do think people can gauge what not to say to other groups, but they will also replicate that same rhetoric to the asexual community. I can only put that down to just like a fundamental lack of understanding and lack of education about what asexuality is because I don’t think it’s always coming from a place of malice.

Societal messaging tells people that asexuality is a negative phenomenon instead of just a type of sexual orientation. I think some people are genuinely confused and concerned, and they see asexuality as being something that would be a hindrance to you, and they want you to be able to overcome that. They think they’re being helpful because the societal messaging they’ve received is that sexuality is a fulfilling, natural human experience, and everything else is inhuman and negative.

I interviewed you last year after you became the first asexual grand marshal of Pride NYC. We discussed compulsory sexuality. There’s a great book that you mentioned by Sherronda J. Brown titled Refusing Compulsory Sexuality. The results of King’s College report really reflect the pervasiveness of compulsory sexuality in our society.

Would you please describe what compulsory sexuality is and how it manifests in statements such as believing asexuality can be cured through therapy or “You just haven’t met the right person”?

Yeah, I would say it’s kind of comparative to the concept of compulsory heterosexuality or the concept of heteronormativity or amatonormativity for romantic orientations., It’s fundamentally this idea that our society communicates that there is one kind of right way to experience sexuality and that other ways of sexuality are wrong. It’s manifested in the fact all of the institutions in our society, whether it’s cultural or capital, try to steer people in one particular direction, and if you deviate from that, then there is stigma due to the fact society will say you are experiencing something differently (aka. incorrectly).

That is something that you see in the attitudes revealed in the research because they were almost all negative or just based on misinformation. The idea that you need to cure somebody’s asexuality or that asexual people should undergo conversion therapy to extract the asexuality out of them is a rhetoric that, if you applied it to gay people,  people would just straight up call that conversion therapy. However, they find it okay to antagonize asexual people that way. 

Related

Dating an asexual person 101: How to ace it
Relationships are no longer categorized into just heterosexual or homosexual – now, we have a spectrum of connections.

Yeah. I’ve written plenty of articles regarding asexuality. I even wrote regarding the Stonewall study that came out a year ago when I talked about how asexual people are 10% more likely to be subjected to or offered conversion therapy in terms of other orientations. Yet it never seems to gain traction in mainstream media.

So many people seem to have an attitude where they just don’t want to accept asexual people facing discrimination. Why do you believe that is? 

I just think our conversations don’t really get that far. I don’t think it’s on most people’s radar. A lot of the conversations about asexuality are still kind of stuck on asexuality 101. We’ve been having the same kind of basic awareness-folding conversations for decades now.

Even in the U.K., we speak about conversion therapy a lot. We’ve spoken about our proposed ban, not being very inclusive, and all these things. And yet, asexuality doesn’t really come up in conversation because we’re still having to educate the queer community, and even outside of the queer community, about what asexuality means. 

They’re still wrapping their head around asexuality existing, let alone the concept of asexual discrimination. Before you even start to talk about something as complicated as like the polarization, we have to move past the basic place with conversation. 

Well, let’s talk about the discussion surrounding asexuality. Another thing that was really eye-popping for me after reading the study’s results was that there were questions about whether legislation should protect asexual people. The study found that nearly 30% of respondents said no. In one vein, it’s positive that 70% said yes. Yet, in another vein, it’s only 70%. That means 30% of people did not believe that legislation should help protect asexual people. 

I understand we are in a time where there are powerful lobbying groups out there pushing against LGBTQ rights, such as marriage protections being under attack. There are certain groups in America attacking marriages, including asexual marriages. Then, this study says a large swath of respondents believe asexual people should be cured by therapy, with 30% saying legislation should not protect asexual people.

There are still consummation laws still on the books in most places, including my home state in the United States. How big a cause of concern should that be for everyone in the LGBTQIA+ community? How high of a concern should that be, considering there are still no protections from things like consummation laws in most places?

I think it should be a big concern because, as I’ve kind of always said, just because things start targeting one group doesn’t mean that they’re not going to do the same things to other people. We see how the trans community gets weaponized, and now you’re seeing that they’re increasingly coming for the gay community as well. It’s just going to keep going on and on. I guess it’s that saying that “There needs to be equality for everybody, or there isn’t equality for anybody.”

When it kind of comes to the asexual community, we don’t even have the protections in the first place. We’re just trying to get those. We’re a particularly vulnerable group because we don’t even have like hate crime law protection, and as the research found, people are much quicker to say these things and think these things about asexuality than you expect. 

Other groups at present still do have some protections. We didn’t get any in the first. I do think it is a big concern, and it connects to the same conversation. But I don’t think that people are diversifying the conversation enough. I do worry because I think that what we’re seeing in the U.S., we’re probably going to see it in the U.K.  I think there’s a right-wing shift all over the world. It’s a cause for concern, in my opinion.

One of the things I’ve seen on internet circles (and I’m sure you’re quite aware of this) is that whenever the study is often brought up or anything is brought up regarding your involvement, instead of discussing the study, they attack you, and your presentation more appropriately. They attack you for being a Black woman who models lingerie, and they basically attack you in aspersive ways.

I don’t understand how to deal with that because I don’t deal with it myself. I’m not as visible. You’re one of the most visible people in the asexual community.? How do you manage to deal with such hate, and why do you think that happens? 

Regarding the backlash when I got the research fellowship and when the report actually came out, I definitely saw that coming. I was able to somewhat psychologically prepare myself. I did let my guard down a little bit because I thought enough time had passed, and then it did start up. 

I think a lot of the things that people say are very rooted in sexism, first and foremost, judging a woman’s intelligence or capability on her appearance. It’s pretty much what they interpret, even though I have multiple degrees from the top universities in the world. Yet, nobody cares about that.

So yeah, I did see that coming. I think for me, my main way of dealing with it is kind of using myself as a case study, showing people what acephobia looks like and how it manifests in an intersectional way. I think that puts the backlash to good use.

A lot of people have no idea what acephobia looks like. They don’t know when people are saying it, but it’s hard to ignore.

I guess focusing on the actual work is also my way of dealing with it because these people think I’m too dumb to do research, but I still did the research, and I’m still going to be doing more. We’re prepping the next one now. We’ve got two years to get as many papers out as we can.

So, their opinions don’t change anything in reality. They can stay as mad as they want, but it doesn’t make a difference. So, I find comfort in knowing that they’re not relevant enough to have a genuine impact on what I’m doing. That’s really awesome.

Even as asexual people fought for asexuality, people get offended by mentions of asexuality, even in the LGBTQIA+ community. I know, personally, that anytime we mention asexuality and compulsory sexuality, some people feel affronted by the mere mention of asexual people, as if we’re invading their space.

When you became the grand marshal at Pride NYC, there was a litany of comments baselessly claiming asexual people were trying to take away benefits or resources from the larger LGBTQ community. How do asexual people become more visible, because it seems like there is a lacking representation in all facets of life, in research, entertainment, and even in the LGBTQIA+ community? You seem to have done it throughout your career. How do other asexual people find a visible space or public platform?

This might sound basic, but I do think you just need to show up visibly. That can be just going to your local Pride and bringing a flag with you. Then, someone else who doesn’t have a flag might see that and think, “Oh, there are asexual people here. Next year, I’m going to bring a flag.”

If you’re in your workplace and you’re in a position where you could ask the Pride Network to do a little something for you, try to become part of the Pride Network as an asexual person and make a point of that. Then, more people will probably feel more comfortable being visible outside of online spaces.

I find activism in a public way or behind the scenes — not everything has to be as loud and as obvious as what I’m doing — is useful. I think that being willing to put yourself out there is pretty crucial. I know that, obviously, it comes with risks to your safety. I’m always careful in suggesting that. However, from an external perspective, people relate more when they can see actual people with actual faces being physically present, not just in the distant corners of a forum. 

I’ve had instances when I’ve tried to get people involved, they’re like, “Oh, but I don’t want to have my face in it!! I don’t want to have my name in it! Can we like anonymize everything?” It’s fine, but the audience isn’t going to relate so much to just a block of text as they would if there was a face.

I think as a community, we need to be more open to taking the risk just so that there is something that people can actually see, because I think that hiding and being as discrete as possible just makes the invisibility even more invisible, if you know what I mean. 

I’ve written specifically about asexual representation in television, movies, music, etc.  I mentioned in the GLAAD report last year that there were zero asexual characters in mainstream primetime television.

Asexual representation is lacking in every facet of media. You’ve mentioned before about how so much of asexual representation is geared towards younger audiences, sans adult-aged asexual characters that can reach older audiences. I’m a 34-year-old aromantic asexual myself who’s never been married and has no plans to be. A show like Heartstopper does not have me as its target audience, particularly. I love Heartstopper, personally. However, it still is a show for young adult audiences, particularly.

I know you had worked with the Netflix team on the show Sex Education, and there was an asexual character in the role of O. I also saw how you expressed your dissatisfaction and fans’ dissatisfaction with the O character. But it seems that asexual representation has been very few and far between. 

How would you advise media figures or anyone who’s looking to depict asexual characters and storylines related to asexuality, to where it has the appeal to not only reach younger audiences but also all ages?

I think that’s kind of one of the more complicated things. When it comes to asexual representation, everyone wants it to be representative, thorough, and educational,  all wrapped in one bow. However, in the world of TV, it also has to be fast and entertaining because no one wants to sit there and have the fourth wall broken for a public service announcement. 

I think that’s what’s difficult about when you’re representing an orientation that is kind of new to a lot of people. I think Heartstopper did a good job, but they played it so safe. Heartstopper used a white male character, and nobody had a problem with him the way they did the Asian female character on Sex Education.

Sex Education went further outside the box, having someone that’s in the drama and her asexuality not even being a huge part of her storyline. People didn’t really like that. They didn’t like that it wasn’t all about her. They didn’t like that O’s asexuality just came up at a particular point, and it wasn’t as palatable as people expected it to be. 

So, it’s difficult because you can’t impress everybody. You can’t have one example that resonates with everyone. I think that that’s kind of what people are expecting. On TV, you want a flawed, complicated, dramatic character. Otherwise, it’s not interesting. Yet, we’re also like, we want to have good, wholesome representation that’s very informative — it’s hard to do both. So, I feel like TV is such a difficult medium. I think all of entertainment is a pretty difficult medium in that sense. 

Plus, people are generally unwelcoming to things that don’t fit the box. I feel like the only thing that places can do that’s most important is to involve asexual people in the conversations. When that happened in my case, it did not lead to something well-received. However, I know that BoJack Horseman actively involved asexual people in the writing process. That came out well.

Related

Five people who are putting a face to asexuality
We’re celebrating Ace Week by spotlighting boldface names who identify on the asexual spectrum.

Do you think that attitudes would change if media representation of asexuality was written with asexual people in consultation?

Partially, but I think it isn’t something that we can rely upon too much. The study highlighted that a lot of people aren’t even entirely sure about what asexuality is. When that is a very common thought, why would they then invest time in resources and thinking that this is a valuable thing to represent in their creative outlets?

So, I do think media representation matters in a way, but I also think it’s going to matter as much as people think it is. I think just like the media landscape has changed a lot over the years. I think things come and go from people’s consciousness so quickly.

I remember before the latest Heartstopper season came out, I remember hearing people being like, “Oh my God, there’s an asexual character in this show! That’s going to change everything! This is such a popular show!”

So many people were saying Heartstopper was going to really put asexuality on the map. While it is a very successful show with a nice character, I think in the grand scheme of things, everyone just moves on to the next show. I don’t think it hits the way people would expect it to. I don’t know.

Friends in the ’90s had like a billion people tune in for the finale. TV doesn’t have that kind of impact nowadays. Also, I think that TV is so kind of segregated in terms of asexual stories since they’re almost entirely on teen-based shows, which isn’t a bad thing because there are lots of teenagers who watch those. However, it’s not every other demographic’s cup of tea.

Also, if you’re watching that kind of show anyway, you probably already have quite a liberal and inclusive mindset. So you’re preaching to the converted a little bit. I think our media tends to do that a lot. Asexual representation plays it very safe nowadays. I don’t think it’s breaking as many boundaries as we would probably hope it would. 

One last question: What would a society fully inclusive of asexuality look like, in your eyes?

I guess one where it’s depathologized. I’d say it’s a world where asexuality is recognized in legislation all over the world, where our relationships are seen as equal, where our sexuality is seen as equal, where it’s as much of a given as being heterosexual is or being gay in whatever spaces that you’re in. 

I’d say it would be a world where asexuality is something that you could include in the education system, so asexual people wouldn’t have to take so many years to discover who they truly are. I’d say it would be something where asexuality is accessible to people of different languages and different accessibilities. 

The end goal is where it just doesn’t have to be a big deal, and people can just live freely with it. It’s a world where asexuality is something people aren’t judged for because there’s no stigma around it. I feel like that’s not a far-fetched world.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.