Jump to content

thefulcrum.ca - Opinion: Why is asexual representation in the media so bad?

Recommended Posts


Its a great article, just a slow webpage

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl

I just "love" this fragment:


According to an interview with Stephen Hillenburg in 2002, SpongeBob SquarePants is asexual, as are all real-life sea sponges.

And this is a stupid result of "plant jokes": using the term "asexual" in two different meanings without even noticing it!!!

In Polish, for example, these are just two completely different words. Asexuality as an orientation is called "aseksualność", adjective: "aseksualny/-a/-e/-i" (depending on gender and number). However, asexual reproduction is called "rozmnażanie bezpłciowe" (word structure: bez - without, płeć - sex/gender, -owe - adjective-forming suffix, so closest to English "genderless"). Sea sponges reproduce asexually (in a "genderless" way), but they cannot be asexual in the identity sense because they are primitive creatures which lack a level of consciousness necessary for experiencing sexual attraction, not even to speak of a level required for reflection on sexuality and for being able to recognise one's own sexual disinterest and/or aversion. Sure, SpongeBob is not a realistic sea sponge, but a reasonable text should at least remark that "asexuality" of SpongeBob and "asexuality" of real sea sponges are two completely different phenomena.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...