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

[Quasar.w]

An article talking about the lack of representation in media, some of the few good examples as well as asexual erasure in the show "Riverdale"

 

https://thefulcrum.ca/opinions/opinion-why-is-asexual-representation-in-the-media-so-bad/

[trifasciata]

Its a great article, just a slow webpage

[Nowhere Girl]

I just "love" this fragment:

Quote

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.