This story probably won't provoke much fist-raising political enthusiasm, shock, or social controversy. It may not even surprise many at all. It appears that about 1% - a sizeable portion of the human population, about 60 million people if I'm calculating correctly - are not interested in doing the 'wild thing' at all, with anybody:

About one percent of adults have absolutely no interest in sex, according to a new study, and that distinction is becoming one of pride among many asexuals. The new study was conducted by Anthony Bogaert, a psychologist and human sexuality expert at Brock University in St. Catherines, Ontario.

It was published in the latest issue of The Journal of Sex Research and is the focus of a report in this Saturday's issue of New Scientist. Bogaert's analysis looked at responses to another study in Britain, published in 1994. That study was based on interviews of 18,000 people about their sexual practices....

New Scientist says such studies offer insights into sexuality, the results remain controversial. "The closest we have got to understanding human asexuals comes from studies -- mostly surveys - of people who report not have sex," it says. A 1994 survey, published by The University of Chicago Press, found that 13 percent of 3,500 respondents had no sex in the past year. Forty percent of those people said they were extremely happy or very happy with their lives.

"If asexuality is indeed a form of sexual orientation, perhaps it will not be long before the issue of 'A' pride starts attracting more attention," New Scientist says. Activists have already started campaigning to promote awareness and acceptance of asexuality, it reports.

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network has an online store that sell items promoting awareness and acceptance on asexuality. Among the items is a T-shirt with the slogan, "Asexuality: it's not just for amoebas anymore."

How about a T-shirt that plays off the [a]sexual habits of yeasts... "Hey, Baby, Let's Bud"? Or, more succinctly, "I'm 'A'." No, but all facetiousness aside - how should we view the phenomenon of asexuality? Is it a maladaptive disorder or deficiency, or simply a normal variation on the continuum of human sexuality? Must a person have sexual desire of some sort to be happy and "fully human"?

To the latter question, I would emphatically say 'no'. Certainly there are those disturbed by their low libido or lack of sexual desire, and there may be biological, hormonal or psychological reasons which merit intervention. But these folks generally wouldn't call themselves 'asexuals'. On the other hand, people who self-identify as asexual overall don't seem to be unhappy with their status - so are we to judge, really? To me, it's akin to admonishing happy vegetarians that they are missing out on carnivorous delights: "But meat's delicious, and full of protein! Why on Earth would someone not want to eat meat?"

With all the moralistic emphasis currently being placed on abstinence and chastity (cough, cough) why should there be any stigma attached to a person's nonsexuality? Perhaps there is also the underlying view that if you aren't struggling with your duty to chastity (a la Kant) against your "baser nature", then where's the valor? Our society seems to have an odd "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" view of human sexuality: you can't have too much or too little, and it can't be too hot or cold, or too hard or soft. It needs to be juuuust riiight, or we need to pop a pill or make a Constitutional Amendment to fix matters. Bonnie Raitt once sang on her hit "Thing Called Love":

Don't have to humble yourself to me,
I ain't your judge or your king
Baby, you know I ain't no Queen of Sheba
We may not even have our dignity,
this could be just a powerful thing
Baby we can choose - you know we ain't no amoebas

More in The Scotsman: "Sex? No Thanks."

---