Redefining Love
 |
| Image description: Emma and Henry in the show Once Upon a Time. Read a little further in this post to find where they show up and join me as I analyze how often this show - and other shows like it - pushed aside relationships like this one in favor of romance. |
If you’ve read my other blog posts, you know I often analyze
the way sexual tropes in media can lead to harmful repercussions for asexuals
and others with aspec identities. I tend to focus a lot of my analysis on sexual tropes in particular because they are the most easily recognizable and many can
clearly be seen as pernicious when you look closer. But romance tropes are much
harder – mostly because so many of them actually seem kindhearted, or even sweet. But I
would argue that’s actually a cultural blind spot that media has contributed to
for decades, if not centuries. That makes them harder to debunk and definitely
harder to offer solutions for, which is why I felt a post like this was
essential, but also knew it would be challenging. However, I hope these
examples showcase the ways our cultural definitions of love are flawed and how
we can start expanding our ideas of what it means to love and be loved.
Downton Abbey (various; MASSIVE spoilers for the end of seasons 3 & 6)
How Media
Defines – And Devalues – Love
At the risk of sounding like a 1990’s chart-topper, I pose
the following question: what is love? The peril of talking about a
subject like this is the fact that love is easily one of the most analyzed
topics on the planet – and some of that analysis already includes the idea that
popular assumptions about love are flawed. Therefore, I’m definitely not
treading any kind of new ground here. But I do believe it’s important to look
at how love is portrayed in modern media and ask ourselves what media is trying
to convey when it discusses the desire to find love. As I often say, media has
the power to shape how we look at the real world, which becomes especially
disappointing given the way media often seems to define love.
Recently, I was talking about this subject with my best
friend, who gave me a brilliant term to describe the problem. Keeping with my
previous trope series, she termed the romances we often see in media as
operating under the assumption that “Romance = Completion.” Chances are, you’ve
encountered plenty of media – and real-world attitudes – that act as though romance
is the ultimate pinnacle of one’s happiness and life. But I like the word
“completion” here because I think it goes further than just the notion that
romance equals happiness; I think it gets to the deeper and arguably more
pernicious notions that true understanding is achievable only through romance.
We often see media claiming that people can only discover
their real selves when they are romantically loved by another, which makes the
idea of going through life seemingly “alone” all the more frightening. This
devalues all other types of love and makes it seem like even people surrounded
by friends or people who cherish them will still live an empty life without
romance. I’ve previously discussed the pitfalls of trying to stretch romance so
it covers every aspect of a person’s life and how this is a futile effort that
often devalues love itself. But in addition to that, the idea that all other
relationships should be secondary to love carries with it this unspoken notion
that loving other people is pointless unless it’s romantically, which is a very
silly and shortsighted notion.
The idea that you can somehow be “doing love wrong” is
pernicious, but likewise nothing new, and many sexual identities have had to
struggle against that prejudice. But I feel it’s slightly different for aspec
people, chiefly those of us on the aromantic spectrum, because the idea of
being alone is so easily weaponized and its definition is so skewed. Which
brings me back to my question: when media talks about love, what are they
talking about? In my definition, there are many kinds of love that exist beyond
the romantic – love for one’s family, friends, and pets, or for hobbies,
places, creative endeavors, and much, much more. But when media talks about finding
love, they often push these things aside in favor of stories on romantic relationships.
While we were talking about this trope, my bestie also
reminded me of a very pronounced example of this phenomenon – ABC’s fantasy
series Once Upon a Time. The series follows protagonist Emma Swan, who
is found by Henry, the son she gave up for adoption ten years prior. Henry
tries to convince Emma that her parents, Snow White and Prince Charming, are
trapped in a town called Storybrooke with no memory of who they are, thanks to
a curse enacted by the Evil Queen, Henry’s adoptive mother. As the title
implies, the show makes heavy use of fantasy and fairy tale tropes, including
those that pertain to romance, and in early seasons, this was fine. At that
time, the primary romance was the one between Snow White and Prince Charming,
who found themselves drawn to each other despite having no memory of their
shared life.
 |
| Image description: Snow White and Prince Charming from Once Upon a Time. |
As the show continued, however, two things happened. The first was that the show began adding more and more couples, to the point of utter ridiculousness at times (in fact, some of these couples were also a little cringeworthy). Although the “real world” portions of the show took place in the modern day and many of the fairy tales were updated for a modern audience, the attitudes towards relationships and romance that permeated the plot often felt very antiquated. This was especially sad, because a lot the show’s early seasons centered on Emma’s relationship with her family – like Henry and her parents, chiefly her mother, with whom she was friends even before the fairy tale characters have their memories restored. But as the show became more and more romance-obsessed, these relationships were pushed to the side in favor of romance, whether for Emma herself or the continued exploration of Snow White and Prince Charming’s relationship.
That brings me to the second point, which is about the
relationship between Snow and Charming. As I mentioned before, this relationship
started as the show’s main pairing, but over the years it was so overdone that
many fans (myself included) grew tired of them. It serves as a great example of
the thing that is the most absurd about this trope and the ways media portrays
love in general – by portraying romantic love as the be all to end all, media
is actually devaluing it. I often find myself wondering, when I watch shows
like Once Upon a Time, what exactly media thinks love is and should be.
While some of the relationships throughout the show are built on mutual respect
and trust, there are others that aren’t. Meanwhile, other couples that I would
argue had a better relationship than Charming and Snow were treated as though their
love was secondary and that only the “Charmings” had managed to attain the truest
love, despite the show never really seeming to know what that meant.
Returning to Downton Abbey, we have another example,
this time in the show’s main couple, Mary and Matthew. The will-they-or-won’t-they
drama for these two stretches over two seasons, through war, sickness, and family
drama before they are finally married at the beginning of season three. And
while I love them, there are definite problems. For a start, the show’s writer always
seems to contradict himself when it comes to Mary; we see her character grow as
time goes on, yet we are constantly treated to other characters describing her
in entirely negative ways. This is all done to set up the notion that only Matthew
knows the real Mary. At times, this can be sweet – for instance, when Mary notes
Matthew always sees the best in her, and Matthew assures her that what he sees
is the real her. By contrast, some of Matthew’s other dialogue implies that his
understanding of “the real Mary” is linked to their physical intimacy.
 |
| Image description: Ah, Mary and Matthew from Downton Abbey, back in the good old days (don't talk to me I'm crying) |
Personally, I find this beyond cringey, mostly because the concept of understanding another person doesn’t need to default to a sexual connotation. In fact, the notion of “intimacy” being related only to sex and romance is disappointing in general, for there are many ways to accomplish “intimacy” that don’t involve either of those things. But even so, it could still be argued that Mary has a sense of self independent of Matthew despite this fact – and at that point, I would agree with you. [SPOILER WARNING] But shortly after this, when Mary loses Matthew to a tragic car accident, she finds herself wondering if she can be what he saw in her. “All the softness he found in me seems to have dried up and drained away,” she says. “Maybe it was only ever there in his imagination.” Such a trauma would shake up anyone’s worldview and make them question themselves, and it’s rewarding to see Mary pull herself out of that trauma; however, before she can be left to sit with her own self for very long, the show decides Mary needs another romance.
The irony here is stark. For three seasons, the show has
portrayed true love as being rare and precious, but then devalues it constantly
for the next three seasons. One of the characters even has a quote to this
effect, claiming good men aren’t easily found with the memorable line “they’re
not like buses, there won’t be another one along in ten minutes’ time.” And yet,
they seem to be everywhere when the plot deems them convenient, and the notion
of Mary picking one seems less like finding true love and more like an
obligation to fill a position left vacant by the previous “one true love.” The
fact that Downton Abbey is a period piece does make it a bit more
unlikely that living a single life would be possible for someone like Mary, I’m
sure. However, the way the show delivers Mary into her subsequent romances is
the thing that gives me the most issue, particularly because it’s the poster
child for the “denying yourself happiness” trope. Which begs a new question: what
does media want us to believe about the link between happiness and romance?
And They Lived
Amatonormativially After
If you’re a regular reader of the blog, you’ve heard the
term amatonormativity before – the idea that you have to make romance a
priority in your life, usually at the detriment of other things. This is a
struggle for aspec and arospec people, but it doesn’t just affect those of us
on these spectrums. Anyone who has, for instance, tried to focus on their
career, their own personal development, a creative project, etc. and has been harangued
by people to “settle down” can likely relate to why this is such a problematic
notion. But it also seems to be media’s favorite shorthand for telling us that
people are happy. Personally, I will always be a firm believer that a happy
ending is better in media than a sad one, but when the definition of “happy”
automatically means “in a relationship,” it can become harmful very quickly.
To illustrate my point, let’s go back to Mary in Downton
Abbey. When Mary eventually finds a suitor who is supposedly perfect for
her (I fail to see it, but I digress), she convinces herself it won’t work and
breaks things off. This is portrayed as “clearly the wrong choice” and that “she’s
afraid of being happy,” etcetera, etcetera. Now, in theory, there are plenty of
things that should give Mary happiness beyond another romance. Despite the limitations
she would have as a woman of the times, especially one from a noble family, she
is often shown to find great meaning in, for instance, helping with the
management of her family’s estate. But instead, the show chooses not to focus
on such things and focuses instead on the idea that Mary needs to have a
romance in order to have a happy ending. This is likewise true for a huge
majority of the characters in the show, but it’s especially egregious for her
because the show claims being without this romance will make her miserable and
that she in turn will make everyone else around her miserable too.
Phrases such as “ruining your own life” are used, and Mary is portrayed as
being so completely unreasonable about the situation that it makes her lash out
at other people in ways that destroy their happiness too. It leads to
intense upbraiding from not only her sister, but her trusted brother-in-law as
well, and because of this, Mary “sees the error of her ways” and marries her
suitor.
 |
| Image description: Downton Abbey's Mary with Henry Talbot during their wedding. I found this picture attached to an article from "The Mirror," the headline of which was "Lady Mary finally gets her happy ending." I love when things make my point for me. |
As you probably guessed, I have tremendous problems with this entire storyline. I feel this type of plot is entirely too common in media, especially when it relates to “happy endings,” and I will likely be exploring it more in a future post. But for now, suffice to say that by framing Mary’s “no” as just her being stubborn and stuck-up, the show makes it seem like rejecting relationships is a selfish, stupid, self-destructive decision. Even worse, it makes it seem like people have the right and the duty to meddle in the affairs of others to help them find happiness and completion, chiefly by ignoring their wishes.
For these reasons, this trope can make it difficult to
define love in ways free of sex or romance. But as bleak as this trope may
seem, there are examples of how love can be framed in ways that lead to
positive growth and self-reflection, rather than relying on amatonormativity. Because,
in my opinion, a true happily ever after is a gift to yourself first and
foremost.
Answer: Love
Myself
 |
| Image description: From left to right, BTS's Jungkook, RM, Suga, Jimin, V, J-Hope, and Jin performing "Boy with Luv." The Asexual Geek, talking about BTS again? It's more likely than you think. But let's face it, if you know me, you already knew it was pretty likely. |
The BTS message of “Love Yourself” has become a massive part
of who they are, and naturally, their music is saturated in it. Amid a desert
of media tainted by the idea that romantic love alone is the key to completion,
the BTS discography is full of the assertion that, to borrow from their speech at the United Nations, “true love begins with loving myself.” RM’s solo song
“uhgood,” for instance, is a song about discovering peace within yourself and
getting to the real you, standing in stark contrast to the notion that only
romance can get to the core of someone. Jin’s song “Epiphany” passionately
insists “I’m the one I should love in this world," while V and Jimin's song "Friends" (which, as the name implies, is about their friendship) has lyrics like "you are my soulmate," used in a way completely independent of romance. Even the 2019 hit “Boy With Luv” is not a love song even though it’s brilliantly couched in love language,
but rather uses the notion of love as a metaphor for their dedication to their
fans. Meanwhile, BTS’s first English song, “Dynamite,” has become a
smash hit without uttering a single word of love, unless you count a love for
life.
These are just a few of their many songs about loving yourself
and finding happiness or value in your own life rather than waiting for romance
to unlock your truth. Their dedication to this theme makes it all the more
disappointing to see them routinely asked interview questions about if they have love
lives, all when they are trying to promote their “love yourself” message. A recent
Time Magazine compilation about the band even includes an article that waxes on
about this, using the term “asexuality” in what I would argue is an incredibly
demeaning way by stating, “K-Pop idols typically maintain a modest veneer of
asexuality, with public relationships a no-go (a CNN headline once asked Can
K-Pop Stars Have Personal Lives?).” Articles and interviews like these
demonstrate something very clearly: Media has taught us to not just expect
romance, but to demand it, even from things that function perfectly well without
it.
In BTS, we see an example of how people can live their lives
in ways that don’t have romance as the central focus. We see examples of loving
the people who matter most to you, loving your work, and generally loving your
life for both the opportunities and hardships it presents. I would argue all of
this is far more valuable than romance, but our cultural landscape portrays
these things as not nearly as fulfilling as a relationship. In fact, this cultural
landscape makes it so that we find these things almost suspicious, and it encourages
us to hunt for ways to disprove them if we can. But if we really want to find
the true definition of love, what we need to encourage is the example of people
like BTS or examples in media that show people connecting in loving ways that don’t
automatically involve romance.
 |
| Image description: From left to right, Jungkook, Jin, V, Jimin, RM, Suga, and J-Hope - aka, BTS; aka, my method of happiness and love that has nothing to do with romance. |
As I said at the very beginning of this post: I’m a sucker
for good romance. I support romantic relationships of all kinds and can
appreciate both works of fiction and real-life examples where romance brings
out the best in people to form partnerships of mutual respect and understanding.
But I want it to be known that love for another person is not the only thing
that can accomplish that; love of all kinds, in both big things and small things,
in both everyday moments and in once-in-a-lifetime settings, is how we should
truly define love.
I’m not asking to live in a society where someone’s love for
a really good stapler is elevated to be on par with someone’s fifty-year
marriage; what I am asking is that society begins to realize that happiness and
fulfillment can come from a wide range of sources and that there is value in
the non-romantic. When a person is focusing on a passion project instead of
marriage and family life, that does not automatically mean they are “missing
out” or “giving up an important part of life.” When a person shows up to a
restaurant alone, that doesn’t automatically mean they are sad and lonely. People
without romance in their lives are not automatically unloved and they shouldn’t
be treated as such, nor should their behavior be something we strive to change.
To end with BTS’s example, I point to a song by RM from the
band’s “Love Yourself” series of albums. The song is titled, appropriately
enough, “Love,” (slight language warning) and it presents a clear idea in its refrain: “I live, so I
love.” These lyrics speak to me, not about romance, or sex, or amatonormativity
like most of the bad examples I’ve discussed in this essay; rather, they convey to
me the idea that being alive means loving things, life, people, and myself in
ways that don’t necessarily involve “typical” relationships. For some people,
love means romance or sex. But sometimes it doesn’t. We all love, we just love
differently, and that is my hope for how we can eventually redefine love. It
will take time and effort, especially because we live in a society that has
been taught to value these things above all. But it’s a worthwhile fight if we
want to truly appreciate what love means and seek to experience the full range
of things we can love while we live.
Comments
Post a Comment