Asexuality: An Extreme Variant of Sexual Desire Disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Human asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction to anyone or anything. Various theories have been proposed to explain how asexuality should best be classified, and some have maintained that asexuality is an extreme variant of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD)-a sexual dysfunction characterized by a lack of interest in sex and significant distress. To date, this has never been empirically examined. AIM AND METHOD: Using measures of sexual desire and behavior, sex-related distress, personality, and psychopathology, the aim of the current study was to compare individuals scoring above the cutoff for asexuality identification (AIS >40) (n = 192) to sexual individuals (n = 231). The sexual group was further divided into a control group (n = 122), a HSDD group (n = 50), and a group with symptoms of low desire that were nondistressing (n = 59). RESULTS: Analyses were controlled for age. Individuals in the AIS >40 group had a greater likelihood of never previously engaging in sexual intercourse, fantasies, or kissing and petting than all other groups and a lower likelihood of experiencing sex-related distress than those with HSDD. For women, those in the HSDD and AIS >40 groups had significantly lower desire than the subclinical HSDD and control groups. Men in the AIS >40 group had significantly lower desire than the other three groups. Symptoms of depression were highest among those with subclinical HSDD and HSDD, whereas there were no group differences on alexithymia or desirable responding. A binary logistic regression indicated that relationship status (long-term dating/married), sexual desire, sex-related distress, and lower alexithymia scores were the best predictors of group membership (HSDD vs. AIS >40). CONCLUSION: Taken together, these results challenge the speculation that asexuality should be classified as a sexual dysfunction of low desire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".