![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/woman-and-man-dating-750x375.jpg)
New research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior has found that asexual women seek emotionally close relationships but tend to prefer non-traditional setups like platonic companionships over traditional monogamy. The findings highlight how expectations for intimacy and partnerships follow distinct paths when sexual desire is not a primary factor.
Asexuality is generally defined as experiencing little to no sexual attraction to others. Importantly, a lack of sexual attraction does not necessarily mean a lack of romantic attraction, as many asexual people still experience a strong desire for emotional intimacy.
The authors of the new study sought to better understand how sexual attraction influences the way people envision an ideal partnership. By investigating the preferences of asexual individuals, researchers can examine how partner selection and relationship goals change when sexual attraction is reduced or absent.
“Many people assume that everyone experiences sexual attraction and much prior research suggested sexual attraction as a major driving force behind partner and relationship preferences. But that leaves out asexual individuals who experience little to no sexual attraction,” explained study author Paula Bange, a PhD candidate at the University of Tilburg.
“It also raises the question of what drives partner selection processes for these individuals for whom sexual attraction likely plays a minimal role in dating and relationship contexts. To address this, we examined whether preferences for an ideal long-term partner and for specific relationship types (e.g., traditional relationships, hook-ups, platonic relationships, and being single) are different for asexual and heterosexual women. That way, we hoped to gain a better understanding of the full spectrum of human (non-)sexuality.”
To investigate these differences, the scientists utilized data from the Ideal Partner Survey, which is a large multinational online questionnaire. The initial data included 51,775 participants who identified as women, with 51,328 identifying as heterosexual and 447 identifying as asexual. The heterosexual participants were 25.13 years old on average, while the asexual participants were slightly younger at 24.03 years old.
Comparing these two groups directly can be challenging because they might differ in other ways, such as age or geographic location, which could skew the results. To solve this problem, the scientists used a statistical technique called propensity score matching. This method involves finding a statistical twin for each asexual participant by pairing them with a heterosexual participant who shares similar traits, such as age, country of residence, language, and relationship status.
By creating these closely matched pairs, the researchers could be confident that any differences in relationship preferences were driven by sexual orientation rather than outside factors. The matching process resulted in three slightly different sample sizes depending on the specific survey section being analyzed. There were 646 women in the relationship options sample, 780 women in the partner preference sample, and 772 women in the self-rating sample.
The scientists found that asexual women were less interested in purely sexual relationships and traditional monogamous relationships. They also showed much less interest in becoming parents compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Instead, asexual women tended to be more open to non-sexual romantic relationships, being single, and engaging in consensual non-monogamy.
“One of the strongest effects that we saw was that asexual women were less interested in becoming parents compared to heterosexual women,” Bange told PsyPost. “Having children is often linked to traditional forms of relationships which typically include sexual intercourse–which may not be what asexual women are striving for in the first place.”
“In addition, finding a partner with whom one wants to raise children with as well as maintaining this partnership may appear more challenging to asexual individuals as they may have to negotiate the level of physical intimacy they are comfortable with, especially when in a relationship with an allosexual partner. Anticipating these challenges, asexual women may prioritize alternative, perhaps less conventional life paths over parenthood.”
Alternative committed relationships were particularly popular among the asexual participants. These setups often involve deep, platonic companionships that provide emotional closeness without the expectations of a traditional romantic or sexual partnership. This provides evidence that asexual women still seek strong bonds but prefer to construct them outside standard cultural expectations.
When asked to describe an ideal long-term partner, both asexual and heterosexual women highly valued kindness, supportiveness, education, and intelligence. The two groups ranked these traits as the most desired qualities, suggesting a nearly universal preference for emotional support and cognitive ability. However, asexual women placed much less importance on partner traits that align with traditional dating expectations.
Specifically, asexual women cared less about a partner being physically attractive, sexually experienced, confident, assertive, or financially secure. In evolutionary psychology, traits like financial security and physical attractiveness are often viewed as indicators of reproductive fitness and the ability to support a family. The reduced emphasis on these traits suggests that when reproduction and sexual intimacy are not the primary goals, other factors drive partner selection.
The survey also asked participants to rate their own personal traits on the exact same scale. Asexual women consistently rated themselves lower on all attributes compared to the heterosexual women. They viewed themselves as less confident, less physically attractive, and less sexually experienced.
This pattern aligns with previous research indicating that asexual individuals may experience more negative body image and social withdrawal. People generally tend to seek partners who hold similar traits and overall desirability to themselves. As a result, these lower self-ratings might help explain why asexual women placed less importance on these specific traits in an ideal partner.
“Experiences around intimacy are diverse, and expectations and desires for partnerships may follow different paths when sexual attraction is reduced or absent,” Bange said. “Our findings highlight that asexual women want emotionally close relationships but are less interested in purely sexual relationships and traditional monogamy. They are more open to being single and to non-traditional partnerships such as platonic companionships and consensual non-monogamy. They also appear to place less importance on partner characteristics that are often emphasized in traditional dating culture, such as physical attractiveness and confidence.”
A potential misinterpretation of these findings is the assumption that all asexual women want the exact same type of relationship. Asexuality is highly diverse, and the umbrella term covers many distinct identities and variations in romantic attraction.
“While we found distinct differences between asexual and heterosexual women, it is important to recognize that asexual experiences are diverse and asexuality includes many subidentities,” Bange noted. “Some asexual individuals never feel sexual attraction, others feel it only after forming an emotional bond (such as demisexual individuals), and some fall in-between asexual and sexual (such as gray-sexual individuals). Some experience romantic attraction, while others do not. We could not distinguish between these nuances of asexual identity in our study, but they likely influence what someone is looking for in a partner and a relationship.”
The study has some limitations, including the fact that the researchers could not distinguish between these specific romantic sub-identities in their data. The survey relied on a single self-assessed question regarding sexual orientation without providing a strict definition of asexuality. This means participants might have interpreted the label differently, depending on their own personal experiences with intimacy.
Additionally, the sample consisted almost entirely of women, and the majority of the matched participants lived in Western countries like the United States and Germany. Information regarding ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education level was also unavailable. Future research will need to include more diverse demographics, particularly focusing on men and gender-diverse individuals from various cultural backgrounds.
“Expanding future research to include more nuanced measures of asexuality and its subdimensions, such as romantic orientation, will help us better capture the diversity of asexual individuals’ experiences,” Bange explained. “It would be especially interesting to see how sexual and romantic attraction, both separately and in combination, influence people’s partner and relationship preferences.”
“Only a small proportion of the population identifies as asexual but this small group is heavily understudied and therefore poorly understood. Closing this research gap matters because assuming sexual attraction is universal overlooks diverse relationship experiences and reinforces norms and health frameworks that don’t fit everyone. Research on asexuality broadens how we understand intimacy and wellbeing, and challenges overly narrow ideas of what a ‘good’ relationship is.”
“I would like to thank all participants who shared their experiences with us,” Bange added.
The study, “What Do Asexual Women Want? A Propensity Score Matching Study of Preferred Relationship Options and Ideal Partner Preferences,” was authored by Paula C. Bange, Laura J. Botzet, Amanda A. Shea, Virginia J. Vitzthum & Tanja M. Gerlach.
