Asexuality

[Porcelain Hearts]

I've recently been fascinated with asexual studies and their community. Like homosexuality, it adds more anomalies to evolution. If this sounds more like novelty to you, rest assured this is a legitimate sexual orientation that probably deserves more coverage.

Now it's interesting to assume if there's a common type among asexuals. I searched up the correlation and found an Asexual forum with members casting their types in a poll.

With a total of 315 votes, here were the results:
INTJ: 25%+
INFP: 19%+
INTP: 17%+
INFJ: 10%+
*the rest of the results made a lack of impact on the scale (lower than 5%).

With an overwhelming 25%, INTJ disproportionately dominated the asexuality thread. Because it's not exactly an MBTI forum, many expressed their skeptical opinions due to the recurrent results.

Does anyone feel surprised with this finding? Let us discuss why this is...
Are there any asexuals that will comment on how they relate to their type?

 

[strychnine]

This forum is not an asexual-specific forum, and yet we are dominated by INxx too. The test posted there [like most online tests] is not accurate. There is a tendency for ISxx, especially ISxP, to test as INxx. Tests make it sound like N > S so that is no surprise. ENxP often test as INxx so there is that error as well. The asexual forum members seem to have taken the test and just posted/polled their results, they probably have not looked into their results the way many folks on this forum have.

I am not surprised with their finding given that THIS forum is largely INxx too, and many ISxx and ENxP test as INxx.

 

[Porcelain Hearts]

Oh I'm not at all surprised this website is filled with Introverted iNtuitives. You're probably right that MBTI enthusiasts operate with those functions.

You have to consider that asexuals are tiny minority in this population, and most of them in the closet like homosexuals, so it's not irrational to assume a high prodigy of them would connect with a community online. Just knowing some of them are seeking love, but will not compromise their sexual orientation - much like gay people.

 

[strychnine]

That is a good point, the community is largely online, so it might represent all asexuals fairly well.

But, I think there are also asexuals who are not familar with the term "asexual"; they might believe they are just broken, damaged, something medically wrong, etc. Since they don't know the term, they can't identify as asexual, they would not be on the asexual forum, and they would not be in the poll there.

I think the best way to get around this is to conduct an in-person survey on people of all orientations, without using terms like "asexual" (which can be misleading due to other meanings of the word, and it can also be used offensively, so someone who is actually asexual might be disinclined to identify with the term).

I remember once I took a survey about something completely different, I think it was academic performance, and it had demographic questions about degree of sexual attraction toward your same sex and your opposite sex (in separate questions). It gave you a "no or little attraction" option. Those who put "no or little attraction" for both questions would be considered asexual, I think. An asexual who was not familiar with the term "asexual" might still answer those questions with "no or little attraction", which would maybe allow one to correlate sexual attraction/orientation and MBTI type. But, if they were given an MBTI-style test it would have to be accurate enough, too.

Romantic and sexual attraction actually stem from different brain systems, so I have no doubt that there are asexuals seeking love without sex. I hope they can find it. [I would like that too, actually... I experience some sexual attraction but it's not very strong or distracting, so I really would have no problem dating people who don't want to have sex.]

 

[Porcelain Hearts]

Hm that's right. Many would assume perhaps they haven't found the "right one" and adhered almost congenitally to a religion that rang closest to their nonsuperficial values (hey, I wonder how true that is seriously...).