What if never having sex isn’t rare—or isn’t only about choice? Welcome, friends of FreeAstroScience.com. Today we’re unpacking fresh research on “life without sex.” We’ll keep it clear, kind, and evidence-based. T with us to the end for the big picture—and one surprising “aha” about evolution and modern life.
What did the big new study actually find?
A new open-access paper in PNAS analyzed ~405,000 UK adults and ~13,500 Australians. About 1% reported never having had sex—men and women alike. The team mapped links with health, psychology, local demographics, and DNA. Genetics mattered, but the story is broader and more human than a headline can hold.
Key takeaways, in plain words
- Prevalence: ~1% had never had sex across both datasets.
- Wellbeing: Those who’d never had sex were, on average, lonelier, more nervous, and less happy, and had fewer close confidants. Effects were small but consistent.
- Substances & education: Less alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use; higher education on average.
- Physical traits: In men only, lower grip strength and arm lean mass were linked to sexlessness. Women showed no such pattern.
- Where you live matters: Sexless men tended to live where there were fewer women; sexlessness was higher in areas with greater income inequality.
- Genetics: Common DNA variants explained a modest share of differences: hSNP2 ≈ 0.17 (men), 0.14 (women), ~0.12 pooled. No single “sexlessness gene.”
To make this scannable, here’s the study at a glance:
| Domain | What stood out | Notes | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence | ~1% never had sex | Similar for men & women | PNAS 9/16/2025; The Conversation 9/17/2025 |
| Wellbeing | More loneliness, nerves; less happiness | Small effects; still meaningful | PNAS |
| Substance use | Less alcohol, smoking, cannabis | Genetically and phenotypically linked | PNAS |
| Education | Higher educational attainment | Also seen in genetic correlations | PNAS |
| Physical traits | Lower grip strength (men) | No similar effect in women | PNAS |
| Place factors | Fewer women; higher inequality | Small but robust associations | PNAS |
| Genetics | Polygenic, small effects per variant | h²SNP ~12–17% | PNAS |
A little deeper on the numbers
Regional ecology – Male sexlessness rose where fewer women lived (r ≈ −0.07 for % women vs. male sexlessness, p=0.0004). – Sexlessness tracked higher income inequality (Gini): pooled r ≈ 0.15, significant for both sexes.
Genetics, carefully – One genome-wide significant region popped up, but effects were tiny. The broad signal is polygenic. – Genetic correlations showed links with cognitive ability and SES, and with introversion, autism spectrum, and anorexia (positive), while correlations with ADHD, depression, anxiety, PTSD, and substance use tended to be negative. That’s nuanced—and not what many expect. – In an independent Australian sample, a polygenic score related to later age at first intercourse and fewer partners, aligning with the main results.
Evolutionary twist (our “aha” moment) The team found an allele (rs4654352 A) whose frequency appears to have declined steadily over the last ~12,000 years in European ancient DNA—a hint that variants nudging toward sexlessness may have been selected against historically. It’s one data point, but it’s intriguing.
We’re not glorifying or pathologizing anything here. The clear message from the authors: no value judgements. Understand, don’t stigmatize.
How should we interpret genetics and causality here?
Short answer: with humility.
- Correlation ≠ causation. We can’t tell if sexlessness causes unhappiness, if unhappiness makes partnering harder, or if a third factor affects both. The design can’t pin down direction.
- Polygenic ≠ predictive. Even a decent polygenic score says little about you. It’s fuzzy at the individual level and culture-specific. The authors stress this in their caution box.
- Sexlessness ≠ asexuality. Some people don’t desire sex—that’s valid. Others might desire sex but lack opportunities, resources, or confidence. The dataset can’t perfectly separate these groups.
A simple mental model
Think of partnering like ecology. Species thrive when habitat, ratios, and resources line up. Humans aren’t species in a petri dish, of course—but local sex ratios, income inequality, social networks, and personal traits can either widen or narrow the path to intimacy. The study’s “mating ecology” signals—sex ratios and inequality—are small but telling.
What this means for health & society
- Loneliness deserves attention. People without partners often report fewer confidants and social visits. That’s a public-health signal, not a moral one. Community programs and low-barrier mental-health support can help.
- Place-based levers exist. Policies that reduce inequality and improve social infrastructure (safe meeting spaces, inclusive events, transit) can expand opportunities. The data nudge us there.
- Narratives matter. Early life experiences—being labeled “nerdy,” wearing glasses young, feeling excluded—can echo into adulthood. Changing school and community culture can change trajectories.
If this is you—or someone you love
- Try broad, low-pressure social settings (classes, clubs, volunteer work).
- Build confiding ties first; intimacy often follows trust.
- Consider strength-building (if you’re a guy and it feels right); it’s about confidence as much as muscle.
- Be gentle with yourself. Desire varies. Asexuality is valid. So is wanting sex and struggling to find it. The study respects both truths.
Fast facts & figures
| Measure | Estimate | Who/Where | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lifelong sexlessness | ~1% | UK & Australia | PNAS; The Conversation |
| DNA contribution | h²SNP ≈ 0.17 (men), 0.14 (women) | UK Biobank | PNAS |
| Sex ratio link | r ≈ −0.07 (males; fewer women → more sexlessness) | Current residence | PNAS |
| Inequality link | r ≈ 0.15 (pooled; higher Gini → more sexlessness) | Current residence | PNAS |
| Genetic overlap | ↑ cognition/SES; ↑ autism/anorexia; ↓ ADHD, depression, anxiety, PTSD | LD score regression | PNAS |
| Australian PGS | Later first sex; fewer partners (directionally) | Independent cohort | PNAS |
Why FreeAstroScience cares
Because science is for everyone. And because myths thrive when minds go idle. At FreeAstroScience.com, we translate complex findings—like polygenic scores, sex ratio gradients, and evolutionary fitness—into everyday language you can use. We’ll always encourage you never to turn off your mind. Keep it active. As Goya warned, the sleep of reason breeds monsters.
What should we remember—and what should we question next?
Sex, love, and partnership sit at the crossroads of biology, culture, and chance. Genetics plays a role, but small and plural. Local ecology nudges outcomes, but doesn’t dictate them. Meanwhile, social fabric—friendships, meaning, dignity—matters immensely.
If there’s one question to carry forward, it’s this: How can we design communities where more people can form the kinds of connections they want—sexual or not—without shame or barriers? That’s a scientific question and a human one.
Thanks for reading with us. Come back to FreeAstroScience.com to grow your knowledge, stay curious, and keep your reason wide awake.
Post a Comment