Frustrating representation

[daveb]

5 hours ago, CBC said:

Fox News tried

Claimed to; but never tried  

 

5 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Faux News is just so painfully politically correct

FN is pc?!  

(I'd much rather be compared to CH than to FN anyway)  

 

Back on track - I think what we're seeing with asexuality in fictional media is what often happens with the "other". I'm sure there is a general pattern to these things where it starts out as being weird or odd that is the focus of jokes and/or a plot device and is often depicted incorrectly, gets a bit more normalized over time as some people learn more about it, and eventually becomes just another aspect of life that may or may not be part of some character's character more or less on the level of things like eye color. 

[Philip027]

Quote

I've never made the connection between characters being seemingly uninterested in sex to asexuality. I guess I've just always thought that what they do in the bedroom isn't relevant to the story they're telling. 

This.  Unless their lasting disinterest is clearly and explicitly made a point of (whether in-universe or out), I've found most cases of people claiming story characters as "asexual" are simply because no relationship prospect happened to be featured or focused on in the story, which is... not really good evidence of such a thing.  Sexual people don't become "asexual" just because they were never in a relationship for a year, or just because another character generally considered "conventionally attractive" happens to be of no interest to them.

[I'mTheDecoy]

On 7/12/2019 at 6:56 PM, BumbleBeee said:

Robots are great an all, but being compared to a hunk of metal literally incapable of having sex isnt exactly very flattering.

It's basically being told that you aren't human.  Unbelievably demoralising.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 6:58 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I'm honoured to be compared to "hunks of metal", they're far superior to humans.

Haha, sounds like we know which side you'll be on come the revolution.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 6:58 PM, Philip027 said:

"Media" is primarily exaggerated caricatures; rarely a good idea to take any of it seriously, even the characters not pertaining to asexuality.

 

True, but not easy.  Media is there, everywhere, often easier to connect to than reality, and also some people's main way of viewing different cultures other than the strict one within their own family.  That's where many of us look as we are developing to see what else is out there.  Maybe not healthy, but to be honest media showed me a greater variety of people than school or family managed.  I think I'd be even more repressed than I am without it, even though I also blame it for false values and not having enough representation and reinforcing 'norms' than are unhealthy.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 7:29 PM, MCLoves said:

I really want more ace representation. I think it’s good to show aromantics too, but it would also be super cool if a show would represent those of us who still have romantic orientations and the challenges that come with that in relationships.

As someone else said above that representation happens slowly and small until it gets accepted into mainstream, the trouble with the asexual umbrella is that there is such variety between us.  So even when a show does decide to have an ace character, the chances are that they are only going to represent a small percentage of our small percentage.  It will be a long time before there are enough characters, let alone positive ones too, to cover aces and greys and demis and aros and ace but heteroromantic or ace but homoromantic etc etc and then of course there's the sex-repulsed or not etc etc, so many flavours of us, and barely anything on the screen.

 

 

On 7/12/2019 at 7:57 PM, Ninouk said:

But what surprises me too is that there are no asexual celebs that I've heard of. I mean, I can't imagine there are virtually no asexuals in Hollywood or music, fashion, etc. Famous people being "out" about their asexuality could also help a lot in increasing awareness and acceptance.

Wouldn't it!  Sometimes I see lists of ace celebrities and it is either dead people that people are just guessing about or really obscure 'celebrities' I have never heard of.  Give me some A-listers.  or even C-listers.  At the moment I get excited when anyone comes out as enby.  Give me some aces too.

 

 

On 7/12/2019 at 9:31 PM, ElasticPlanet said:

Ah. I rejected it for a similar amount of time but for a completely different reason. I assumed it meant no attraction to other people at all. Because nobody had ever explained what sexual attraction actually was (yep, there we are on the representation thing again!) and that there were different kinds of attraction, how was I supposed to know I was missing one of them?

Absolutely.  No one teaches this stuff, or didn't when I was at school.  So many years of thinking what I feel must be the same as everyone else and unable to understand why the results were so different!  I knew I had sexual feelings and I knew I was attracted to people, it just didn't occur to me that those two things weren't connected and that that was what asexual meant.

 

On 7/12/2019 at 10:09 PM, BumbleBeee said:

Ah. I almost forgot to mention that one House MD episode. We can all agree that we hate it, right?

Okay, you are all talking about this.  Please explain what happened.

[I'mTheDecoy]

Oh good.  Now I'm angry.

 

Then again, what I saw of the show anyway made me pretty angry.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

1 hour ago, I'mTheDecoy said:

Haha, sounds like we know which side you'll be on come the revolution.

I already am, always have been.

[Evobessive]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 6:56 PM, BumbleBeee said:

Yeah! That is an extremely frustrating point as well. Robots are great an all, but being compared to a hunk of metal literally incapable of having sex isnt exactly very flattering.

Very true, there's actually a whole point about that in a video by a youtuber by Overly sarcastic productions who states how the only positive representations that people that appear asexual are robot charecters, and it's basically seen as a sign of their inhumanity.  This is the link. 

 

[Evobessive]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 7:04 PM, BumbleBeee said:

 

Yes, that is true, but it's still frustrating that media representation of aces is so inherently negative. The only good example of an ace on television I can think of is bojack horseman, and that doesn't have a young enough target audience for it to help developing teens see themselves reflected in the media. We aren't the only group severely lacking representation. 

Another good show with an asexual character is shadowhunters. The word asexual is not used but it's pretty much stated outright anyway that one of the charecters Rapahel, is asexual and he's not seen as broken because of it. 

[I'mTheDecoy]

It seems that most asexual or assumed-asexual characters in fiction tend to be male,  Whereas I believe generally statistics for real life tend to show that more female people are asexual.  Whether that is true or not, I have certainly seen much fewer female 'ace'-seeming characters, broken or otherwise.  Probably due to sexism inherent in media.  Women often only appearing when they are romantic interests.

[Philip027]

That's likely due to the fact it isn't as "surprising" for females to be asexual, for whatever reason.  There's a number of female aces here that can attest to having their identity dismissed due to being "normal" for females to not experience/express sexual desires.

 

Males can get dismissed too but it's almost always rooted in outright disbelief instead.

[Tunhope]

Not going to argue with that @I'mTheDecoy and @Philip027 but here's a different slant on why characters might usually be  male. I'm female. My characters are always male. Totally to do with the fact that my fantasies never ever involve myself or other women.  Yuck. Can't go there! I fantasise in the third person  - and because I can't imagine women, I have to write about men. I've read research that shows that it's not at all uncommon for females to fantasise exclusively about  men. Both asexual women and sexual women do it.  (If it's labels, then anegosexual or autochorrisexual will do - if I've spelt them right) I've often wondered if it's relevant to the fact that a heck of a lot of M/M stories are written by women. 

[Philip027]

There's a difference though between writing for yourself and writing for an audience, and what we see in "the media" is predominantly written by people in the latter group, because they need to draw viewership in order for their projects to not just be money sinks.

 

Simply put, it won't be as "compelling" to an audience to make a female character's asexuality a noteworthy plot point in your story because of the stereotype I mentioned above.  It won't turn/tilt nearly as many heads.  This sort of thing will influence the final product, often whether writers wish it so or not.

[katinthehat]

I don't watch this show, but Riverdale is based off the Archie comics where the character Jughead is canonically asexual. Yeah, they completely ignored that. I was looking forward to some direct representation, and not anything just hinted at.

[I'mTheDecoy]

2 hours ago, katinthehat said:

I don't watch this show, but Riverdale is based off the Archie comics where the character Jughead is canonically asexual. Yeah, they completely ignored that. I was looking forward to some direct representation, and not anything just hinted at.

I saw a poll on twitter or somewhere the other day, from an asexual source, that said should they have Jughead come out as ace and the overriding response was no.  That was disappointing.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

On 7/12/2019 at 1:02 PM, BumbleBeee said:

they were respectively a psychopath and a 'high functioning' sociopath. For the longest time I was terrified that I was a sociopath, unable to feel certain emotions and connect to others.

I can completely relate to that. As often as the question of "did you think you were bisexual before discovering asexuality?" makes rounds on here I am amazed this one has never. I did think, for a very short bit (less than a day) that I might be a sociopath once I realized that people really did feel sexual attraction and it was not just culture (there were other reasons besides simply that, but they are irrelevant for this conversation). But good news to anyone who fears this, if you fear you are a sociopath or psychopath then you cannot be one. Also helps that 'highly-functioning' sociopaths do not actually exist amongst the more academically-strenuous side of psychology, so that can be discounted as a possible option.

[I, Joan]

Little bit off topic, but after I realized I was ace, I was looking back through one of my stories...my main character is very much so ace and aro, just like me. My goal was for her to be in a romantic relationship with one of the other characters, but it ended up being a queerplatonic one, which is honestly so much better for the story and maybe someone will read it someday and feel less broken. I know I'd love to find just one book with a decent human-human QPR, because the only ones I can think of are between people and dragons, so.....

[Mythos1]

6 hours ago, Faylinn said:

Little bit off topic, but after I realized I was ace, I was looking back through one of my stories...my main character is very much so ace and aro, just like me. My goal was for her to be in a romantic relationship with one of the other characters, but it ended up being a queerplatonic one, which is honestly so much better for the story and maybe someone will read it someday and feel less broken. I know I'd love to find just one book with a decent human-human QPR, because the only ones I can think of are between people and dragons, so.....

I live for QPR's. I would love to read your novel. There should be more stories out there with this relationship in mind. 

 

But going back on topic: 

A few weeks back a colleague of mine was discussing asexuality, which I thought strange because he is anything but. Apparently he saw a documentary or interview on TV about it. I couldn't believe how misinformed he was. So, I burst into the conversation to tell him how wrong he was on pretty much all points and outed myself in the process, but he was surprisingly cool with it and he wanted to know more about it. 

[AceMissBehaving]

7 hours ago, Aebt said:

I can completely relate to that. As often as the question of "did you think you were bisexual before discovering asexuality?" makes rounds on here I am amazed this one has never. I did think, for a very short bit (less than a day) that I might be a sociopath once I realized that people really did feel sexual attraction and it was not just culture (there were other reasons besides simply that, but they are irrelevant for this conversation). But good news to anyone who fears this, if you fear you are a sociopath or psychopath then you cannot be one. Also helps that 'highly-functioning' sociopaths do not actually exist amongst the more academically-strenuous side of psychology, so that can be discounted as a possible option.

I have definitely spent way more time worrying I might be a sociopath than I did wondering if I might be bisexual.  

 

My therapist said the same thing, that worrying about being a sociopath/psychopath means you’re not one, but I still took a bunch of tests just in case.

[I'mTheDecoy]

8 hours ago, Mythos1 said:

A few weeks back a colleague of mine was discussing asexuality, which I thought strange because he is anything but. Apparently he saw a documentary or interview on TV about it. I couldn't believe how misinformed he was. So, I burst into the conversation to tell him how wrong he was on pretty much all points and outed myself in the process, but he was surprisingly cool with it and he wanted to know more about it. 

Well done on helping the cause!  Do you think it was the documentary that was misinformed or his interpretation of it?

[Mythos1]

17 hours ago, I'mTheDecoy said:

Well done on helping the cause!  Do you think it was the documentary that was misinformed or his interpretation of it?

I think it was more down to the documentary than anything else. The programme seemed very black and white, apparently it never mentioned a spectrum, and it lead him to believe we were all alike. But what caught my attention was the fact it stated that we don't experience romance!...like, excuse me, what? I had to explain that romantic attraction was a completely separate thing, he had no idea! 

[Mythos1]

36 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

For sexual people, it's not a separate thing. They're deeply entwined together.

I didn't think about that at the time, but I guess you're right. I was going by my own personal experience.

[I'mTheDecoy]

9 hours ago, Mythos1 said:

I think it was more down to the documentary than anything else. The programme seemed very black and white, apparently it never mentioned a spectrum, and it lead him to believe we were all alike. 

That's very misleading because the more I learn about the aspec is that we are all so varied and different that it is almost impossible to find anyone who experiences the same levels of aceness or aroness or opinions and attitudes to sex and romance!

 

 

9 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

For sexual people, it's not a separate thing. They're deeply entwined together.

But presumably it can be separate.  I mean, if it is possible for an asexual person's romantic orientation to conflict with their sexuality, then it must be possible for an allosexual person's romantic orientation to conflict - and that must be even more confusing.  Of course there are for example aromantic heterosexuals but since there are for example homoromantic asecuals does that mean there are homoromantic heterosexuals?

[Guest]

On 7/16/2019 at 10:13 AM, AceMissBehaving said:

I have definitely spent way more time worrying I might be a sociopath than I did wondering if I might be bisexual.  

 

My therapist said the same thing, that worrying about being a sociopath/psychopath means you’re not one, but I still took a bunch of tests just in case.

I can relate to that. I used to think my behaviour towards sex was strange. So I concluded that I was sexually repressed. Which was a bit weird since I had no idea what had caused it! Needless to say, it wasn't quite right. 😊

[Mythos1]

10 hours ago, I'mTheDecoy said:

That's very misleading because the more I learn about the aspec is that we are all so varied and different that it is almost impossible to find anyone who experiences the same levels of aceness or aroness or opinions and attitudes to sex and romance!

Exactly my point! Did they only interview one asexual and guess that's it or something? Madness.

[I'mTheDecoy]

20 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Why?

 

Another way of seeing the romantic orientation conflicting with sexual orientation is that asexuality is actually an absence, so there's only a romantic orientation, effectively, so nothing for it to conflict with. It doesn't logically necessarily follow that because someone can not want sex, but still want romance (aka a relationship, effectively) that there must be people who want straight sex but a homosexual relationship, or that people who want a homosexual relationship but a heterosexual relationship.

 

And then, what would homoromantic heterosexuals look like? Straight men with close friends, so yes, if you want to slap that label on them, fine, but it just leads to more confusion, not less.

 

Think about behaviours rather than labels. This is one of those AVEN things that's technically possible but never actually seen in real life.

 

Haha, I've no idea.  i didn't realise that cross orientation was considered unique to those on the aspec.  Being one of those people whose sexual and romantic orientation match, I struggle to understand what it is like for those who have cross orientation.  Although that said, I believe it is also experienced by those on the pan spectrum.  I certainly know someone who is heterosexual but panromantic, and I recently read an article by someone who is pansexual but biromantic.  Then again, pan and ace are in some ways just opposite sides of the same coin.  Pansexuality and asexuality are easy for me to grasp, whereas binary sexualities are baffling to me.

 

Labels are always troublesome but many of us find them empowering, especially when you are in that sticky questioning stage.  Trouble is when it comes to romantic and even sexual orientation, there's really no way to find out the black and white, mathematical, scientific answers, because the only data we have is that of each individual's interpretation of their own inner feelings and that comes down to where each person draws the line between romantic and sexual attraction and platonic and romantic attraction.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  We can only be who we are and hope to be respected for it.

 

As for viewing asexuality as an absence, while that is a valid perspective, it could be tricky.  While it may be freeing to describe oneself in such terms, as in casting off a burden, to be described so by another could come across as offensive - an absence carries the connotation of something lacking, something lesser, something missing, something broken, and the last thing we of the asexual community need is to be called broken again.  Oddly, I would certainly happily say I don't have a gender, but I would not say that I don't have a sexual orientation.  Since I am still capable of experiencing sexual feelings both physically and theoretically, there is no absence as such, only a different direction, which is what I guess orientation means in the first place.