Asexual is not quite the right term. Self-fertilizing would be more accurate, but I'm not sure if hermaphrodite Hutts were specifically noted as being capable of self-fertilization.

Yea, I thought asexual meant you weren`t atracted to anyone...

It depends on how it's used. Asexual reproduction fits what was being talked about, but it's not the same thing as hermaphroditic sexual reproduction with self-fertilization. The key difference is that asexual reproduction typically results in clones identical to the parent whereas the latter process can show variance.

Too bad the love of your life is currently dancing for a rival hutt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAQIALDeSI

:|

I think good old fashion narcissism would be hilarious.

Actually... the correct term for being able to reproduce without an exchange of genetic material is parthenogenic. Technically, if the Hutts were asexual, they would be a race of clones, which they are not.

Given that there are Hutts that 'express' as male and female (and that those 'genders' can change over time subject to the individual's needs and desires) my guess would be that they are hermaphroditic at the very least (which would require sexual relationships of some sort, most likely an arrangement of mutual fertilization similar to worms/slugs), and possibly parthenogenic, but not specifically asexual.