实证研究揭示中国无性恋者的行为模式
近日，郑丽军教授与其指导研究生苏艳辰的一项有关中国无性恋者的研究成果——《Patterns of Asexuality in China: Sexual Activity, Sexual and Romantic Attraction, and Sexual Desire》发表在《Archives of Sexual Behavior》上，该杂志为国际性/性别学会官方期刊，是性/性行为研究领域的顶级杂志 (SSCI Q1, IF5 years = 3.626)。
该研究首次在中国通过实证研究的方式，对无性恋者这一社会可见度较低的性少数群体进行了探究，研究对象包括227名无性恋者，57名疑似无性恋者以及217名异性恋者作为对照组进行比较，主要关注了以下几个方面：无性恋的定义、性吸引和浪漫吸引以及性欲和性活动。研究发现，无性恋是指一点都感受不到或仅能感受到很少的性吸引，这一现象存在跨文化一致性。同时无性恋者的性吸引和浪漫吸引[1]并不总是保持一致，他们中有很多人虽感受不到性吸引，但依然能感受到不同类型的浪漫吸引例如异性浪漫吸引、同性浪漫吸引等。研究还发现无性恋者因感受不到性吸引，在“他人性欲[2]”水平上会显著低于异性恋者，但在“个人性欲”水平上，两组人群的差异并不明显，这突出表现在无性恋者的自慰频率上，如下图所示，超过一半的无性恋者报告有过自慰行为。这表明无性恋者的性欲更多的是一种非伴侣指向性的性欲 (non-partner-orientated sexual desire)，他们的性被称为较少自我卷入的性 (identity-less sexuality)。
以上发现揭示了无性恋者独特的行为模式，同时该研究还关注了无性恋群体的异质性：在无性恋群体中，女性的比例要远高于男性，同时不同浪漫取向的无性恋者在性活动和性欲等方面也存在差异。对无性恋群体内部异质性的研究，有助于我们更深刻、完整地了解无性恋。
注[1]：性吸引是有关情色和肉欲的诱惑程度，而浪漫吸引则更多的是一种迷恋的感觉和情感上的依恋，浪漫吸引或浪漫取向并不总是和性吸引或性取向保持一致，两者之间存在一定的分离性。
注[2]：他人性欲是指与他人发生性行为的欲望，包括两性性交、抚摸、前戏等；而个人性欲是指没有他人参与，独自一人进行性行为的欲望例如自慰等。
文章索引：
Zheng, L., & Su, Y. (2018). Patterns of Asexuality in China: Sexual Activity, Sexual and Romantic Attraction, and Sexual Desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1265-1276. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1158-y
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1158-y
原文摘要：
This study examined patterns of asexuality in Chinese asexual people in terms of sexual activities, sexual/romantic attraction, and sexual desire. The sample included 227 (64 men and 163 women) asexual participants and 57 (26 men and 31 women) uncertain asexual participants recruited from social networks for asexual people. The control group included 217 (115 men and 102 women) heterosexual participants recruited from general social networks. Participants scoring 40 or higher on the Asexuality Identification Scale were classified as asexual. Asexual participants reported having less frequent masturbation, sexual intercourse experience, and sexual and romantic attraction compared to heterosexual participants. Lower sexual attraction among asexuals indicated that “people who experience little or no sexual attraction” would be a more appropriate definition of asexuality. The pattern of uncertain asexual participants’ sexual/romantic attraction and sexual desire was intermediate between heterosexual and asexual participants. Asexual participants scored significantly lower on dyadic sexual desire and slightly lower on solitary sexual desire than heterosexual participants. There were significant differences in sexual activities and solitary sexual desire among romantic orientation categories. Homoromantic participants showed higher dyadic sexual desire and were more likely to engage in masturbation, indicating the heterogeneity among asexual people. The findings indicated that Chinese asexual people showed similar patterns of asexuality as in Western nations. Specifically, asexual people have little or no sexual attraction, non-partner-orientated sexual desire, and are heterogeneous in sexual activities and sexual desire. This implies similar mechanisms underlying the etiology of asexuality across cultures.
