In psychological and spiritual academic circles, there remains considerable disagreement over the term asexuality. Often the confusion involves whether one’s behavior or identity distinguishes asexuality. Most definitions of asexuality have two dimensions in common – the absence of sexual orientation (asexual by orientation) and/or a pronounced lack of sexual interest or behavior (asexual by behavior). The first dimension involves people who are asexual by behavior such as celibates and virgins. These asexual by behavior individuals may or may not have low sex drive. This fact is especially true with those who have chosen to live an asexual lifestyle as part of a spiritual journey reporting an otherwise normal libido. Likewise, virginity alone is not a prerequisite for asexuality since many individuals who are asexual by behavior have engaged in sex in the past but have no current interest in or plans to engage in additional sexual behavior. Chaste ordained clergy and vowed religious...
- Bogaert, A. F. (2006). Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality. Review of General Psychology, 10(3), 241–250.Google Scholar
- Carrigan, M. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference and commonality within the asexual community. Sexualities, 14(4), 462–478.Google Scholar
- Przybylo, E. (2011). Crisis and safety: The asexual in sexusociety. Sexualities, 14(4), 444–461.Google Scholar
- Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783–792.Google Scholar