Asexual Jekyll and Hyde?

[Custos]

Probably wrong forum?? Please just move me if I got this wrong ahah, thanks!

Alrighty, I am doing an English essay on the potential asexuality of the character of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde from "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". However this has to be stemmed from gender due to my question. Points I have already made relate to despite Hyde being the epitome of all "animalistic" pleasures, he lacks sexuality or sexual aggression" there are sections in the novel where he would rather kill or harm females and males instead of any sexual relationships or attraction. Asexuality in 1886 was probably something not known (though most likely experienced) so the desire for an understanding with someone else and a chance to release non-sexual pleasures is the reason for Hyde's existence? This is mostly theory at the moment and of course far fetched if you will but I wanted to present it.

Stemmed from gender, my main point is because there was a rather rigid gender binary in 1886, the fact Hyde/Jekyll fit into almost neither (what with Hyde being dominant and aggressive but at the same time emotional and 'irrational' - female traits) ((remember this is Victorian interpretation, not my own!)) so this conflict messes with the solidity of his masculinity. Why as a man does he not feel sexual? There's no education or explanation. There's times when he tries to fit in but it feels wrong. Hyde is the personification and almost a cry from loneliness, an escape from this confused repression. The whole book is rather asexual with lack of sexuality from most characters in favour of psychological aspects but I'm focusing on Jekyll/Hyde.

Any associations with the bedroom remain un-sexualised also which is unusual compared to other texts I have studied. There almost seems to be some kind of interest in wanting not to be desired but to desire the world in general (not for it's people in a sexual way, I mean in terms of loving life) which is why he becomes something so ugly and yet free.

Basically, if anyone has any criticisms, material, ideas or just opinions on this, I'd be very pleased!! My professor really liked the idea and there is sources on it, I'm just trying to make sense of it all. Please bear in mind the 1886 context is all aahaha :)

[AVEN #1 fan]

*Mind blows" I'm believing any asexual/aromantic theory ever since I heard a theory about that the character Elsa from the movie Frozen was an asexual aromantic, I think everything depends of different points of view and interpretations, nice theory though. *Applauds* I could have never thought of this. :)

[Hooded_Crow]

I'm a huge fan of Jekyll and Hyde, and Robert Louis Stevenson. This is very interesting. I've never seen the lack of mentions of sex as a hint of asexuality. I merely brushed it off as a byproduct of the Victorian mores. You know, "it isn't done" and all that.

But now I kinda want to go back and read it (yet) again.

As for Elsa in Frozen, I'm not convinced. A character isn't asexual just because they are single and don't want their sister to marry a man they just met.

No Disney character has ever displayed sexual attraction. It's always purely romantic. And we don't call them all asexual. Why do we suddenly call the ones that remain single aromantic?

[Kappamaki]

So I'm not gonna cite any sources or anything, and what I'm saying might just be wrong and should be backed up by real sources if you repeat any of it, but here's something that comes to mind:

So from a Victorian perspective, non-sexual behavior was seen as totally normal in women - that's just how women are, they thought - but in men, it was seen as a sign of intelligence. The archetypal non-sexual men in English culture were the chaste knight Sir Galahad and the scientist Isaac Newton, which both are exemplars of men's higher functions - one spiritual/religious, the other just super smart. We use Einstein as a shorthand for smart these days, but back then, it's Newton. And then Sherlock Holmes, who shares this trait with Newton. So a lack of sexual behavior in men is seen as a high-up thing.

What I'm saying is it makes total sense for rampant sexuality to be portrayed as a beastly characteristic of Hyde, and it's a really interesting observation that it's not. If you look at some contemporary male monsters, they're often pretty dang sexual, whether fictional like Dracula or nonfictional like Jack the Ripper. So a monster who's meant to exemplify the beast in man? You'd expect him to be really sexual.

Also, it'd be a good idea to mention in any essay about this that the concept of sexual orientation was just starting to kick around in psychologists' writings at this time and hadn't entered the British popular consciousness. So there's little chance that Stevenson wrote any character with the intent of them being of any sexual orientation, asexual or otherwise.

And the first critique that comes to mind is "Stevenson just didn't want to portray sexuality at all because he's a prude. I mean, this is the Victorian era." So if you can counter that, good job. Maybe point out sexual stuff in contemporary fiction, and ideally Stevenson's other works or elsewhere in this one.

[Hooded_Crow]

Hmm not much of Stevenson's work has any sexual undertones or overtones actually. There is romance but sexuality? Nothing comes to mind at the moment.

But Stevenson was far from representative of the typical Victorian man. He was rather bohemian, an atheist, and definitely not a prude. So yes, I do agree the lack of sexual behaviour in Hyde is odd.

[Guest]

Stevenson, most likely, left the "vices" of Jekyll vague on purpose. He wrote it for a society that repressed anything that was not acceptable by the majority. Many gentleman of his day had secret desires they could not talk about, or indulge in publicly. The book would have appealed to such an audience and they would be able to empathize with Jekyll. Give too much detail on those vices though and you begin to make it harder to see yourself in the character, because he would want specific things. So, he was able to write it in a way that made it appeal to the masses by leaving it vague. Kind of like Elsa in "Frozen" - homosexuals, asexuals, etc all can claim her because all she's saying is "I was born the way I am, it's OK to be different and I won't hide what I am anymore". ANYONE that feels not "normal" can identify with her. Whereas, if they had made her actually a lesbian or whatever, fewer people would identify with the character.

But, given there was no detail of exactly what vices Hyde let Jekyll indulge in (beyond violence, which is one thing that most people do struggle with), one could argue either way on his orientation. Sounds like you have a good outline and I am sure you can find sources to use for the paper with a little research.

[Custos]

Thank you so much for all the feedback!! I intend to post my final essay in this forum by tomorrow evening so I'd be so pleased to have some of you read it and comment perhaps. Thanks again! :D

[Gotsu]

Maybe Jekyll was just fine with sex and thus it was not present in Hyde. Also the mask is perceive as "evil", right? But what if the author did not consider sex as something wrong.

"Why as a man does he not feel sexual?" Well, why would he? Sex is not the only way men show their masculinity.

This sounds very interesting, I'm eager to read it. Good luck.

[Custos]

I have uploaded the completed essay on this forum as "Asexual Jekyll/Hyde Completed Essay", it would be wonderful if any of you took the time to read it and thank you again on here!! :D