How to Write Non-Aspec Stories That Are Aspec-Friendly

Image description: Cassandra Pentaghast from Dragon Age: Inquisition claims writing does not come naturally to her. But she is an avid reader, and I bet she would gladly read or write stories that were friendly to her aspec friends, even if they were about non-aspec characters. Am I stretching the point in order to use a picture of one of my favorite characters writing? Probably. Can the tips in this post make you a kick-butt warrior like Cass? Probably not? But hopefully they can teach you how to be a good ally too and write stories aspec and non-aspec folks alike will enjoy.

If you have been reading my series on “How to Write Aspec Characters,” I figure you’re either a writer who wants to write better aspec representation in your stories, someone who wants to look for good aspec representation in the media you’re consuming, or just someone who likes reading my posts (if it’s that last one, thank you!). But maybe you’re someone who is not actually looking to include an aspec character in your story specifically. Maybe since the story you’re writing or the media you’re consuming has no aspec characters to speak of, you figure these posts aren’t made for you and they have no bearing on your own experiences. If so, today’s post might come as a bit of a surprise – but I hope maybe it can be a pleasant one for aspec people and allosexual people alike.

I think it’s quite easy to assume that the things I’ve discussed on the blog only apply to characters, stories, or circumstances that are specifically asexual or aromantic. After all, I myself am aspec, so my analysis is of course heavily through that lens. But I believe that the things I discuss on this blog are important in a broader sense, not just for asexual or aromantic people, but all people of all identities. This is something I will be diving into more in a future post about how aphobia can hurt allosexual people too, but for now, I want to approach this topic specifically from a writing standpoint. Should writers be mindful of being “aspec-friendly” even in stories without aspec characters? What does that look like? Is it even possible?

If you’ve been reading the other posts in this series, you know everything I’m about to say is highly subjective and not every aspec person will agree with my assessment. But if you’ve been reading those posts and finding them useful, I hope you’ll find this post useful as well and that it might encourage you to think about non-aspec stories in a new light. Even if a story does not contain aspec characters, I believe the way allosexual characters act and are written nevertheless can be vital, whether we’re talking about a small fanfiction or a blockbuster movie. So here are a few of the ways I believe you can make your story aspec-friendly for the aspec people that might be coming into contact with it, and in my opinion, these things are as easy as they are impactful.

-------------------------

What I mean when I say “aspec-friendly”

Before I get too much further into the core of this post, I want to pause briefly to define what I personally mean when I describe a story as “aspec-friendly,” because that will look very different to different people. For instance, if you’ve ever read my “Ace Safe Space” posts, you know that what I find friendly has to be very devoid of sexual content, whereas some aspec people are perfectly fine with media of a more graphically sexual nature.

So, when I say “aspec-friendly” in the context of this post, I am primarily referring to the idea of media that allows aspec people to interact with it – which is to say, media that does not dishonor us, other us, or exclude us, even if it isn’t necessarily about us or our identity. This could happen in various ways depending on the genre and type of media we’re talking about, but I do think there are a few different general forms this could take.

For instance, something I talk about a lot on the blog, especially in the Trope essays, is being mindful of the way non-aspec characters react to aspec ones, but I think this can be relevant even if there are no aspec characters to react to. Speaking of tropes, I also feel many of the tropes I explored previously offer a good template of what not to do, even to characters that aren’t aspec. This can be in general character interactions, plot points, or even in romance. In my own personal experience, despite my identity, I am a sucker for a well-told romance, but I can only really get involved in a romance story if I am allowed to do so – I need to feel like my identity is not being dragged through the mud or I will immediately disengage from the story as fast as humanly possible, and I would be willing to bet I am not the only aspec person who feels that way. In short, whether you want to be a good ally or you just want to make sure the people consuming your media stick around, I think allowing aspec people to engage with your media is important, and takes a few different forms which I will discuss in this post.

If a character is aphobic and there’s no aspec character around to hear it,
does it still have an impact?

I would argue that the answer to this question is yes. For a start, even if your story is not geared towards aspec themes, there is an excellent chance that an aspec person will be coming into contact with it in some way, shape, or form. Now, that does not mean you should pander, or wreck your plot and character development in an attempt to keep everyone happy. Making everyone happy is an impossibility, after all. But I think there are a few things with universal application that can go a long way towards making your story aspec-accessible.

To illustrate this point, let me return to my perennial example of what not to do – The Big Bang Theory. For now, let’s set aside the sexual nature of many of the show's story lines or the sex jokes or the fact that Sheldon – the character who demonstrates non-sexual or non-romantic tendencies – eventually finds a relationship. In general, I would argue the show gives us a very clear example of a piece of media that is very aspec-unfriendly, and not specifically for any of the things I just mentioned. Those things on their own are not inherently problems; the problems lie in a few different things tangential to them, primarily in the way Sheldon is treated by the other characters.

Now, despite the aspec parallels I often draw from Sheldon, let’s go with what the show tells us and say he is not actually aspec. Even though he’s not ever identified as an aspec character and the creators clearly had no intention of doing such, the way he is treated by his friends is nevertheless relevant to this conversation because of the fact that they constantly treat him as freakish. Despite Sheldon not being aspec, the fact that the show’s narrative very clearly says he’s different from everyone else because he doesn’t have sex or romance, and that he should be ridiculed until he changes, is a huge problem. Not only does it send the message to aspec people that we’re freaks, it sends the message that we should be treated as such.

I know this might seem a little overly dramatic, but media influences culture and the way people think, and I don’t doubt we could all come up with examples of that in our own lives or the lives of people around us. Therefore, I think it’s important for content creators to consider the way characters treat the notions of not having sex, romance, or traditional relationships, and decide if they're creating a negative influence through their writing or through reproducing these themes without realizing it. Do your characters treat sex, romance, etc. as necessary for all people? Do they harass people around them because of that belief, or withhold respect from people who don’t fit that definition? Are they ever shown as wrong to do so?

In one of my favorite Ted Talks, spoken word poet Sarah Kay has the audience go through an exercise of listing three things they know to be true. She then notes that, if they were to go around the room, they would see some interesting intersections – some people would have the same or similar things, some people would have opposite things, some people would have things you’ve never heard of before, etc. I think it’s important to remember that something that’s commonplace to us might be foreign to someone else; our reality might be unfathomable to them, and our dreams might be their nightmares. And if this is important to consider when dealing with the lives and opinions of real people, it is likewise important to consider when writing characters.

Also remember that “aphobia” by definition means disliking and discriminating against aspec people simply because they are aspec and thus different from other types of people. So when writing your allosexual character, it’s a good idea to consider if they are disliking and discriminating against someone else simply because that character doesn’t fit their definition of life. Even if those characters aren’t aspec, or even if your character is talking to other characters like them, the things they say and the way they behave matter to the people consuming media. A little mindfulness goes a long way when portraying characters, and it’s always a good idea to think twice before your characters treat others like freaks because they live a lifestyle you maybe never considered before. A simple way to do this is to not make light of it.

Beware of aphobia for “humor’s sake”

Image description: A scene from Glee in which non-sexual character Emma Pillsbury is ridiculed after misunderstanding the sexual nature of a song (she thinks it's about dessert) and performing it with the "Celibacy Club". If you want an example of what NOT to do when writing humor, this is a pretty good one.

Aphobia is no laughing matter, but so much of our media landscape has made us think it is. This is something I bring up in many examples covered previously on this blog – the laugh track in The Big Bang Theory showing us real people reacting to Sheldon in mocking ways, the reviews of the House episode “Better Half” that describe the rampant aphobia using adjectives such as “goofy,” or the way the non-sexual Emma Pillsbury is repeatedly humiliated for the sake of cheap jokes in Glee all come to mind. In all of these examples, we are supposed to laugh at these non-sexual/non-romantic characters, and the comedy is built on the premise that the things that make them different also make them ridiculous. The characters around them, the plot, and the writers themselves often don’t take these characters seriously or respect them, and by extension, they encourage viewers to do the same.

Thanks to a lot of personal reflection (and, I’ll be honest, BTS songs), I’ve come to redefine the notion of what “respect” looks like in many situations, aspec ones included. In my opinion, the best way to “respect” aspec people and characters is by “acknowledging” them. That will look different depending on the situation, but it often generally means acknowledging the validity of their identity, their experiences, and their lives. But more importantly, it also means taking their feelings and wishes seriously, rather than assuming they simply don’t know what they’re talking about and thus can be dismissed for the sake of a cheap laugh. While all the previous examples I just listed constitute instances where this is writ large, in my own personal belief I think this can even be something as simple as a character who very clearly doesn’t want children being harassed by their parents to settle down with the usual interjection of “we want grandchildren!” – something which can plague people of all identities, especially women. Harassing people to do things they don’t want to do is not funny, but somehow it’s become a usual shorthand trope for comedy.

I think the worst part is that these things could actually land if they were played correctly. For instance, the “we want grandkids” joke could still be viable if it is very clearly shown that the character who doesn’t want kids is not in the wrong for their decision. That doesn’t mean you have to make their parents bad people or knock them down a peg, it just means you give the power back to your character who is making the decision to not take that path. In my opinion, there are many tropey jokes that can actually become funny through the easiest creative alchemical formula out there – turning the joke around.

This is something we see in the character of Cole from Dragon Age: Inquisition. Cole is by and large a non-romantic and non-sexual character, despite the narrative never really identifying him as such. In one scene, a character who is kind of hypersexual tries to hire Cole a prostitute in order to “get him sorted out” – a moment that could be played as so cringey in so many ways. But instead, writer’s alchemy saves the day and Cole turns the joke back around. Rather than sleep with the woman, he uses his supernatural powers as a spirit of compassion to help the woman get over the pain of her past and move on. It’s sweet and funny, and spares Cole from being the punchline of an aphobic joke. Even better, it is not done in a way that paints the other character as a bad person, simply a misguided one.

In general, I think that’s one of the best pieces of advice I can give – you don’t have to show misguided characters as bad people, but you should show that they’re not in the right. Media often frames non-sexual and non-romantic people as being wrong somehow; maybe they’re shown to be “denying themselves happiness,” or the allosexual people around them are framed as being “normal” and they are shown to be “abnormal.” Whatever the method, it is very common that non-romantic or non-sexual people are portrayed in ways that encourage us to not identify with them or not take them seriously, and which lets allosexual characters do the same. A very easy way to sidestep this is by having your allosexual characters who don’t understand other ways of life either be respectful in their confusion or come to realize that they meddling wasn’t the answer. All of this can be done in ways that are poignant or funny, heartfelt or silly, and they can all be done without making anyone the punchline.

How to make your romance aspec-friendly (even with allosexual characters)

If you are writing a romance plot where non-sexual or non-romantic natures never once entered into your characters’ personalities, it’s pretty obvious you are not writing an aspec story. But what if you want these characters to be romantic or even sexual, yet you want to be a good aspec ally and avoid some of the pitfalls that lead to a romance becoming “bad” from an aspec perspective? As I’ve said many times, being aspec-friendly is not going to be possible at all times, nor does it mean the same for all aspec people. For example, I have aspec friends who have absolutely no problem reading or writing smut, and there are plenty of aspec people who are comfortable with sexual topics or who have even had sex themselves for any number of reasons. Their definition of what is friendly is going to be completely different from my version. And because the world is not built specifically with my comfort in mind, there are some types of content I know I will never engage with (Harlequin romance novels, for instance, or sexually explicit fanfic). But even within these genres – and with romance in general – there are still a few good rules of thumb for how to make sure you aren’t being aphobic in your storytelling, even if there are no aspec characters in your work at all.

In general, I think the temptation exists to ask why any of this matters. What does it matter if a romance is well-told from an aspec perspective if the characters aren't aspec? As I mentioned in the intro of this post, I firmly believe that some of these tricks are universal. A great example of a trick for making aspec-friendly romance by doing something that’s a good idea for the genre in general is the notion of portraying clear consent. Making sure the characters in the romantic relationship are all comfortable with the same level of physical or emotion intimacy is a great way to avoid the common aphobic tropes we see with characters like Sheldon and others, who seem to be shamed into their romantic and sexual relationships. But beyond just avoiding aphobia, clear consent is a vitally important thing to include in romance of any kind, both in fiction and in real life. This can be as simple as having a scene where "yes or no" questions are clearly asked or where boundaries are clearly honored, and that no one is shamed for saying no or expressing the desire to take things more slowly.

Another way to strengthen your allosexual romance in a way that is aspec-friendly too is to ditch the notion of characters “needing” to be in relationship. This takes many forms – it can be as subtle as other people excluding your character because they’re not dating anyone, to making jokes about them ending up as sad and lonely. Rather, when your characters enter into a relationship, show that it’s one that they want. The notion of needing sex or romance in order to be complete is a terrible trope that is often lobbied against non-sexual or non-romantic people. It also has a fancy name, one I’ve referenced before: amatonormativity, or the societal pressure to make romance a priority in your life, often at the determent of other things. Even for people who aren’t aspec, this is a huge problem – such as, for example, for people who make the decision to prioritize their careers rather than their romantic life.

In many ways, both the idea of letting your characters “want” rather than “need” a relationship and the idea of consent go somewhat hand in hand, because many “romance tropes” toss both of these things out the window. One of my personal pet peeves is the “you’re denying yourself happiness” trope, which often leads to other people haranguing a character (or a real person) whenever they reject a relationship. This blatant disrespect of someone’s ability to say no is not just a problem from an aspec perspective, but in general. The notion that any romance is “for someone’s own good” is a pretty cringeworthy notion, and one that tends to show up all too often in media.

In my opinion, a better way to do romance is to show why your characters click. What makes them work together as a unit or a team? There can be passion there of any kind – be it romantic, physical, or even intellectual – but there should also be development and personal growth. They should be allowed to explore themselves and their relationship in ways that are free of judgement and pressure. They should not have to change their personality for the sake of their relationship(s), nor should they be shamed into doing things they don’t feel comfortable doing. To me, some of the most romantic stories do not involve making a character change until they tick all the boxes or forcing them into a relationship because of the pressure to do so or the fear of ending up alone. Rather, they are stories about people who understand one another and who love each other because of that shared understanding.

In general, when characters come to understand and respect (“acknowledge” or “admire”) one another, that is where great storytelling of all kinds is truly born. And it’s also the foundation of most great relationships. Even if you don’t know what someone’s life is like or you don’t share their experience, you can still endeavor to understand a little of what makes them tick and do your best to honor their boundaries. You may not succeed all the time. You may not be able to do that for everyone with your art. But I believe that keeping some of these tips in mind will not only help writers give some safety to aspec communities, but will also help them create deeper relationships between characters, better plots, and more well-told stories. Nothing that I discussed today is a magic formula for a great story or good representation, but it is my sincere hope that it can maybe help writers, readers, and content creators of all kinds see their stories through a new and helpful lens.