Sexuality, romantic orientation, and masculinity: Men as underrepresented in asexual and aromantic communities

Abstract

AbstractThis study examines men as a minority in asexual (experiencing low/no sexual attraction) and aromantic (experiencing low/no romantic attraction) communities. First, we situate our research in existing literature on asexuality, compulsory sexuality/compulsory romance, and hegemonic masculinities. In our analysis, we use survey data from the 2020 Asexual Community Survey (n = 4974) and 2020 Aromantic Census (n = 3018) to provide evidence that asexual and aromantic men are demographic minorities within asexual and aromantic communities. Next, we turn to two interview samples with 39 individuals who identify as aromantic and 77 individuals who identify as asexual. We analyzed these interviews to explore how sexuality and romance contribute to the construction of hegemonic masculinities. Our interviews reveal several important themes that highlight how asexual and aromantic men navigate their masculinity and identity amid asexual and aromantic communities as majority‐woman spaces. We focus on three main themes: (1) masculinity as inherently sexual; (2) masculinity, heteronormativity, and the gendered construction of romance; and (3) asexual/aromantic identity, masculinity, and the split attraction model. Taken together, our results show how (hetero)sexuality and romantic relationship formation are fundamental to hegemonic masculinity. We find that asexual and aromantic men face cultural pressures and social stigma around initiating sex and performing romance. Asexual men must contend with managing a sexual identity that runs counter to men's supposedly innate sexual desire, thus situating them as inadequately masculine. Aromantic men, meanwhile, must manage inhabiting an identity that is conflated with the fuckboy/player trope, situating them as excessively masculine. This study demonstrates how centering asexual and aromantic perspectives reveals complexities in the ways hegemonic masculinity relies on participation in both sex and romance. We conclude by relating our findings to larger conversations on gender and sexualities as well as implications for future research on marginalized sexual identities.