The Difference Between Asexuality and "Celibacy" - And Why It Matters
 |
| Image description: Yes, I'm using this picture once again. In "Sexy," an episode of Fox series Glee focused on sex education, the "Celibacy Club" shown here is humiliated by their "wholesome performance" of "Afternoon Delight," a song actually about sex. Not only is the show's portrayal of celibacy offensive, it's also not even an accurate use of the term "celibacy." Why does this matter? I'll be exploring that in today's post. |
I’m not sure if every asexual person has had this experience, but it seems to me like it’s something of an asexual rite of passage to have our identity mistaken for celibacy. In my experience, this usually leads to many of the usual retorts – such as “that will change” or “you just haven’t found the right person yet.” While the latter is true for identities like demisexuality, when most people use this line it’s because they assume asexuality is about preference, rather than an inherent part of who we are as people. When I first began identifying as asexual, I was often tasked with correcting this very basic and fundamental error. It was not unusual that people I told often got confused about what made asexuality and celibacy different, and indeed for many people to not actually even know what celibacy really is (more on that in a minute).
But in today’s blog post, I don’t just want to focus on the
very distinct and clear difference between asexuality and celibacy, nor do I
want to focus exclusively on why they should not be conflated. Rather, I want
to explore how celibacy is often treated in media and pop culture, and why that
should be concerning – not just for people who choose to be non-sexual, but for
aspec people, and even allosexual people too. Whether choice or innate
identity, being a non-sexual person is valid. But, as I often discuss on this
blog, there are countless times throughout media where neither the identity nor
the choice are treated that way. Just like aphobia affects allosexual people too, the way celibacy is portrayed in media does not exist in a vacuum, and so
the way the choice to be non-sexual is treated has implications for all of us.
-------------------
Terminology
Time!
Before we truly dive in, a quick essential note on the
terms I will be using throughout this post. During the writing process, I
realized that, as often happens with many ace and aro identities, there is some
disagreement on terminology when it comes to celibacy too. The dictionary
definition of the word “celibacy” actually means “abstaining from both sexual
relations and marriage.” Meanwhile, the dictionary definition of the
word “abstinence” or “abstaining” defines it as “the practice of restraining
oneself from indulging in something.” So, although the latter seems more in
line with what I want to discuss in today’s post, there is still some grey
area.
In some cases, I saw the difference between these two terms described
by saying abstinence is just that – the choice to abstain from sex that is
typically limited to a specific period of time, such as until marriage –
whereas celibacy is a vow to continually abstain (think, for instance, of the
vow of certain religious figures like Catholic priests or nuns, who remain
celibate for life). However, other definitions I saw said the main difference
between celibacy and abstinence is that abstinence can apply to anything – such
as abstaining from alcohol, for instance – while celibacy almost exclusively
deals with sex. In fact, the online version of Oxford Languages (which shows
you definitions when you Google the definition of a word) defined “abstinence”
using refraining from drinking alcohol as its primary definition, although
words related to sexual abstinence could be found in the “similar words”
section.
However, despite the fact that “abstinence” is probably
closer to what I’ll be talking about in this post, I’ve decided to use the term
“celibacy,” not just in the title of the post but throughout its content, for a
few reasons. First: more often than not, media uses the term “celibacy,” even
though they’re often using it wrong (this will come up later when I get to Glee),
and so I will also use it when discussing these examples. Second: more often
than not, most people I’ve encountered who don’t understand asexuality mistake
it for celibacy specifically, rather than abstinence. In fact, I would be
willing to bet that most people don’t really know the difference – I know I
didn’t until I looked it up while writing this post – and so, because they
often use the term “celibacy” when making their arguments, I will likely also
end up using that term while debunking their arguments. In general, I may end
up using both terms interchangeably for these reasons, but I did want to pause
and point out the differences between them so their definitions don’t get any
muddier than they already are.
Additionally, I’d like to make an important clarification
about the asexual spectrum. Because the asexual spectrum is diverse and broad, it
is common for people to think their identity is one thing on the spectrum and
it actually turns out they’re another identity entirely. But in general,
whereas abstinence and celibacy are choices – active decisions to not be sexual
for whatever reason – asexuality and its various related identities are just
that: identities. For instance, people who are abstinent, perhaps for a
religious reason, nevertheless have a sexual identity in all likelihood. Therefore,
although they choose not to engage in sexual activity, they could identify as
heterosexual or bisexual or any other type of romantic or sexual orientation,
and they may feel attractions that they make the active choice not to act on.
On the other hand, I myself don’t identify using any of these other terms; I
identify specifically as an aromantic asexual because these things are a part
of how I relate to the world, and I don’t control them. Even if their identity
may change over the course of their lifetime as they figure themselves out, the
root of an aspec person’s identity is an inherent part of who they are rather
than a choice.
Okay, back to my regularly scheduled analysis.
Confusing
Asexuality for Celibacy in Media
One of the best examples I can think of to make my point
about conflating asexuality and celibacy/abstinence is a quote from Sherlock
co-creator Steven Moffat. Sherlock is a modern-day adaptation of Arthur
Conan Doyle’s famous stories staring Sherlock Holmes as the titular brilliant
sleuth. I’ve mentioned Holmes as an example of a character with aspec
tendencies before, both in the original stories and in the modern adaptation,
but in addition to the inherent problems with his portrayal, the way Holmes is
conceptualized by Moffat offers a clear example of the blurring of the lines
between asexuality and celibacy. When asked in an interview about Sherlock
potentially being on the asexual spectrum, Moffat once described the
character’s non-sexual nature by saying it is “the choice of a monk, not the
choice of an asexual.”
 |
| Image description: A promo image for Sherlock, a modern-day adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes stories |
Right away that quote stands out because describing asexuality as a choice shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what asexuality even is. While it’s possible the use of the word “choice” is just poor phrasing, it does raise questions, especially paired with the rest of the interview. “If [Sherlock] was asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that,” Moffat continues. “It’s someone who abstains who’s interesting. There’s no guarantee that he’ll stay that way in the end.” Right off the bat, I find this entire sentence a bit baffling. If Moffat believes both asexuality and celibacy are a choice, wouldn’t that mean they are both essentially the same thing, as most people tend to assume at first? And, if he believes they’re both choices/both similar in scope, why would he describe abstention as interesting and asexuality as uninteresting?
Even setting aside these confusing logical gaps, there are
several other problems with this line of thinking. For a start, Moffat’s
statement that Sherlock being asexual wouldn’t be interesting or “fun” is
disappointing on a number of levels. It’s disheartening to think aspec people
are losing out on representation simply because allosexual people don’t think our
identities are “interesting enough”; it likewise plays into the stereotypes
that asexual people are bland and boring, and thus their stories aren’t worth
telling or relating to, a problem that trickles into real life. Additionally, I
believe this philosophy puts celibate people into a trope of their own.
I don’t consider myself celibate because, as someone who
doesn’t actually even experience sexual or romantic attraction, there’s really
nothing to abstain from, and thus I can’t speak with authority on the
experiences of real-life celibate people. However, I feel like it’s common for
media to portray celibacy and abstinence with the exact type of “dramatic
tension” Moffat is describing here. By saying it’s interesting to see someone
abstain because there’s no guarantee that character will stay that way, it
implies that the drama of their character, story arc, relationships, etc. will
be framed with the question of “will they give into temptation?”. To me, that frames
abstinent characters, and thus real-life people, as #1, chaste crusaders in
a world of temptation, #2, people bound to be seduced and corrupted, or #3, prudes who
need to learn about the world in order to be fully accepted.
Some people may choose to portray celibacy and abstinence as
inherently good, while many others choose to portray celibate people as either
bad or misguided, and I believe both of these things devalue the experiences of
individuals. It creates a false dichotomy – either of “normal people vs. prudes”
or of “pure vs. impure,” neither of which are good metrics to measure people
by. In some cases, stories about temptation and trying to resist it can be interesting
and well done. But it also seems like these tropes take something that is a
common reality for many people and turns it into some sort of gauntlet of
challenge – a thing to resist, overcome, fight, or give into. Whatever way it’s
framed, it’s used as a thing that makes them other.
Why Shaming Celibacy
is a Bad Thing
Speaking of othering people because they’re celibate: I’ve
referenced it a few times before, but there is absolutely no way I could get
through a post like this without referencing “The Celibacy Club” on Glee.
In the episode “Sexy,” an episode about sex education, guidance counselor Emma
Pillsbury forms this club after being concerned that the school’s recent sex ed
lessons are inappropriate. As mentioned
earlier in this post, this use of the term “celibate” is a prime example of how
the definitions of these words get tangled. If I had to guess, due to the
nature of the club and the episode’s overall theme about sex ed, I’d say Emma’s
“Celibacy Club” is supposed to be a representation of the abstinence side of
sex education, and they just chose to use the word "celibacy" because celibacy has
more of a chase and virginal sort of connotation than abstinence. Besides, “Abstinence
Club” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
So, to combat the overly sexualized lessons, Emma decides to
have her club perform a “wholesome song,” and ends up picking a song called “Afternoon
Delight.” Why? Because she thinks the song is about the dessert of the same
name, when it is in fact about sex, much to her eventual disbelief and horrified
denial. There's so much to unpack just with this one segment of this one episode
that it’s hard to know where to even begin. The strangest thing to me about
this whole number is that I don’t think the writers hate Emma or want to make
her suffer, and yet the entire thing is set up to humiliate her and make fun of
her in the extreme. I suspect that, rather than want to make fun of Emma
specifically, the writers want to make fun of her non-sexual nature, and that presents the biggest problem.
I’ve postulated in previous posts that Emma might be
demisexual or a similar identity on the asexual spectrum. Practically from the
beginning of the series, Emma is shown to be in love with the teacher who leads
the glee club, Will Schuster, and eventually ends up with him. Thus, it is
entirely possible that her non-sexual nature with other people is because only
she and Will share the type of emotional bond that would make her want to be
intimate with someone, or that she’s only attracted to him. As I point out in
those previous posts, even if Emma was aspec, there would be definite problems
with how the show chooses to portray this, because they often make other
characters shame her and her non-sexual nature, and often choose to link it to
her OCD. Obviously people who suffer from OCD or similar conditions who are
also ace or aro exist and are valid; that is not the problem. The problem with
how the show portrays this is two-fold problematic – first by portraying these
conditions as a nuisance to others and allowing Emma to be treated poorly
because of it, and second by acting like this "problem" needs to be fixed before
Emma can have a happy life and that her non-sexual nature is a part of it,
meaning that should be fixed too if she ever wants to be happy.
But let’s put aside the notion that Emma is aspec for a
minute and go just on what the show tells us. The show seems to want us to
identify Emma as "celibate" – hence the whole Celibacy Club debacle – and that
presents just as many issues. The entire “Afternoon Delight” number is not only
designed to make Emma’s celibacy funny and prove how naïve she is, but it’s
also meant to cast Emma and the students in the club as being out-of-touch and
outdated. After all, what are the homey little outfits supposed to convey?
They’re meant to add to the “humor” of the situation, surely, but they also
send the message that Emma’s virginal, celibate attitude is completely out of
place, which is further highlighted by the fact that Emma is indeed still a
virgin, despite her recent marriage to a man who is not Will Schuster.
 |
| Image description: Emma Pillsbury during the "Afternoon Delight" number in Glee episode "Sexy" |
The plot points used for Emma in “Sexy” remind me of Steven Moffat’s quote about Sherlock. Much like Moffat’s quote seems to imply he believes only in using abstinence as a dramatic plot point, it seems like the writers for Glee did much the same when they chose to have Emma marry someone who was not Will for the sake of drama and then have her remain celibate even within that marriage because she is still in love with Will. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good star-crossed lovers story, but to me, this isn’t that; it’s more closely in line with a trope such as “you’re denying yourself happiness.” Because Emma and Will just keep missing the moment, Emma ends up with someone else, but she’s not happy, and her not being intimate with her husband is framed as an ultimately selfish decision. And certainly, in some ways it is – it’s definitely not fair to her husband that she wouldn’t be honest with him about her feelings. But the way he’s able to annul their marriage on the grounds that they haven’t been intimate yet feels unsettling from an aspec point of view.
Although Will and Emma do, as I said, end up together
despite the long and winding road it takes to get there, the plot of “Sexy”
seems to want to punish Emma on a number of levels. Again, I don’t
think this is because the writers hate Emma, but through her I do think they
want to make a commentary about being non-sexual – or “celibate,” in this case. I
don’t really feel qualified to talk about the challenges and tensions of sex
education versus advocating for abstinence, so I won’t really get into those;
however, I do feel this was the show’s way of making fun of an “abstinence only”
approach. I can understand why they would feel that way, but the outcome is unfortunate,
because not only does it ridicule, mock, and belittle Emma, making her look
ridiculous and childish, but it also belittles non-sexual people of all kinds.
What conclusion are aspec people supposed to draw when watching Emma’s husband
annul their marriage? What are people who abstain from sex for whatever reason
supposed to feel when watching the “Celibacy Club” get humiliated with their “wholesome”
performance of a sexual song while pictures of dessert flash on screen behind
them? The message seems to be that being non-sexual is ridiculous, and that is a
problem.
I’ve talked about this very thing from an aspec lens consistently
for the last two years of running this blog. But recently, I was speaking to someone
who is not on the asexual spectrum but who is non-sexual at this point in their
life simply because they are waiting for marriage. Despite not being aspec,
they were experiencing many of the same things I myself have experienced as an
aspec person. For instance, I recently did a post about how it can be difficult
to feel like an “adult” when many facets of society choose to conflate maturity
with sexuality. This is something the non-aspec person I was speaking to has
experienced as well. As someone in her 30s who is not yet married and thus
still a virgin, this person shared that they too have often been made to feel “unadult”
by people around them.
When I say aphobia affects even allosexual people, this is a
prime example of what I mean. And I believe that treating celibacy/abstinence
as foreign or weird contributes to that. By framing any non-sexual person as an
oddity – whether being non-sexual is their choice or their identity – we hurt
everyone. Thus, the problems that aspec people face should be concerning to
celibate people and the problems celibate people face should be concerning to
aspec people because they all stem from the same types of tropes, stereotypes,
and hurtful assumptions.
-------------------
Overall, I know I am not terribly qualified to talk about what
it’s like to be abstinent – and, if we choose to use the definition of celibacy
as a vow, I am certainly not qualified to talk about that. In general, I also
know these issues can be very complicated, as they often intersect with social topics
like religion, culture, and societal beliefs. For that reason, there are
certainly gaps in my analysis of this topic. But I hope I was nevertheless able
to demonstrate not only the differences between aspec identities and celibacy/abstinence,
but also why shaming one group is a problem for both groups. Although it can be
extremely frustrating to have our identity mistaken for a choice, the way
celibate people are treated should nevertheless concern us.
Although these issues are complex and sometimes muddy ones,
it is not okay to discriminate against people solely on the basis that they are
non-sexual for whatever reason. Using these things as humor furthers harmful
aphobic stereotypes and makes it harder for people, whether aspec or not, to truly
live their truth. What's more, it’s entirely possible for media to portray non-sexual characters
in ways that show they’re worthy of respect, no matter what the reason is for
their non-sexual nature. By showing their stories are valid, interesting, and
worthy of respect, the narrative can start to gradually change. It may take a
long time before people stop confusing asexuality with being celibate or until
both of these things stop being fraught issues, but we can at least take the first
step on that path.
Comments
Post a Comment