Discrimination against asexual people

Asexual people may be socially discriminated against due to beliefs of heterosexuality being the default sexuality, or the belief that asexual people are just gay or lesbian people in denial of their "real" identity.[13][24] Some have argued that asexuality has also been used as a tool in anti-blackness to "de-sexualise" some black people through racist stereotypes, such as in the mammy archetype in the United States.[25]

Two studies found that asexual people are more dehumanised than heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals, often being compared to animals or robots due to their sexuality.[26][27][28]

Having emerged more recently as an identity, asexual people often have less legal protection than gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.[29] They may be pressured into engaging in sexual activity or into going to a doctor to have their asexuality "fixed".[30] Asexuals have also been known to have been subjected to corrective rape.[31][17][22] A 2015 survey found that 43.5% of the almost 8000 asexual people polled had encountered sexual violence,[22] despite the misconception that asexual people never encounter or are involved in sexual situations and are therefore unable to be sexually assaulted.[22]

Some, such as the sociologist Mark Carrigan, believe that discrimination against asexual people has more to do with marginalisation than the typical hatred associated with other forms of sexuality-based discrimination such as homophobia, and that much discrimination against asexual people results from a lack of understanding and awareness of asexuality.[32][33]

A study of 248 asexual college students shows that some asexual people do not identify with the LGBT umbrella.[34] There is also controversy over the inclusion of asexuality in the LGBT and queer umbrellas for a variety of reasons, including the belief that asexuals do not experience oppression akin to homophobia and transphobia,[18][17] and the belief that asexuality is not a sexual orientation.[35] Sherronda J. Brown of Wear Your Voice stated that some people who oppose the inclusion of asexual people in the LGBT community have been known to argue that asexuals are not discriminated against at all, and that asexual people experience straight privilege.[36] Brown criticised this view as erasing the asexual identity on the assumption that asexual people are fraudulent infiltrators of the LGBT community, and because it assumes that everyone is straight unless proven otherwise.[36]

A study of 148 undergraduates at a Canadian university found evidence to suggest that negative attitudes towards asexuals were higher than that of homosexuals and bisexuals. The study also showed that participants were less likely to rent to asexuals than their heterosexual counterparts. However, they were more likely to rent to asexuals than bisexuals. In addition, the study found a positive correlation between right-wing authoritarian identification and negative attitudes towards asexuality.[27]

In another study, 101 participants (none of whom belonged to a sexual minority) were asked to complete an online survey on SurveyMonkey. To rule out unfamiliarity as the cause of negative attitudes, they included questions on sapiosexuals. The study showed that people were less familiar with sapiosexuals. However, attitudes towards asexuals were less positive than that of sapiosexuals which suggests that unfamiliarity may not play a significant role in aphobia.[27]

In March 2018, the Dutch Council of State refused an asylum application by an Algerian national who feared being persecuted due to his asexuality, stating that asexuality does not fall under the LGBT exception to the safe country of origin concept because it is not punishable in Algeria and that asexual people are not discriminated against there. The ruling was overturned by the District Court of The Hague, who said that asexuality does fall under the exception because they considered "social discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation" to include "deviation from traditional relationships" as well as sexual acts.[37]

In the same year, the UK's LGBT Foundation stated that, because of a lack of awareness and apprehension, asexual communities are frequently overlooked in the LGBT community.[8]

A study published by Nova Science Publishers found little evidence of institutional discrimination against asexuals because of their asexuality.[38] The authors of the study theorised that this may be because most sexual orientation-based discrimination is religious in nature, while asexuality may be considered "morally justifiable given that a lack of sexual attraction/desires has been considered a desirable state by many religious institutions for hundreds of years."[38]

In some jurisdictions, marriages can be voided if not legitimised by consummation.[39] This has been viewed as being discriminatory to asexuals.[40] Sex education programmes in schools have also been claimed as discriminatory to asexuals.[41][42]

In early 2015, Russia passed a law banning, amongst others, people with "disorders of sexual preference" from obtaining driving licences. The Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights stated that it effectively banned "all transgender people, bigender, asexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, and people who need sex reassignment" from driving.[43]

Asexuals are less-well represented by mainstream media and services, facilitating hostility and prejudice towards asexuals, and can lead to their rejection from both the straight and LGBT communities. Some online dating services, including Bumble and Match.com lack the option for users to identify as asexual, which obstructs their ability to find romantic partners.[44]

Asexuality is sometimes represented in media as undesirable.[45] In 2012, the TV medical drama House was criticised for its portrayal of asexuality within the medical profession and encouraging scepticism on the legitimacy of asexuality. The storyline centred on the assumption that the asexuality of the episode's patients – a married asexual couple – was the result of a medical condition, with one asexual character being described as a "giant pool of algae" and the titular character betting $100 on finding a medical reason behind another's asexuality; the show was criticised by AVEN founder David Jay for its depiction of asexuality as a "problematic and pathological" medical condition.[46] In 2017, the decision to turn the character Jughead in Riverdale (a television programme based on Archie Comics) from asexual to heterosexual was met with disapproval, with one branding it "asexual erasure".[47]

In 2019, the video game Death Stranding was criticised for portraying asexuality as a lifestyle, implying that whom one is attracted to is a choice, mistaking asexuality for not wanting emotional bonds, and insinuating that asexuality is responsible for the decline of the birth rate in its world.[48][49] When the game released a director's cut version in 2021, the data log describing these views is updated and contains an addenum that notes the log "advances a controversial thesis widely regarded as unsubstantiated and discriminatory". This change was praised by critics for acknowledging the criticism that the game originally had, correcting their mistake, and further expanding on why the original log was problematic.[50][51]