How Aphobia Hurts Allosexual People Too, part 2

Image description: Mary Crawley from British period drama Downton Abbey. When I think of allosexual characters - characters who experience sexual attraction - who are nevertheless hurt by aphobic tropes, Mary comes to mind in more ways than one. As such, she will be a big focus of this week's post, my second fore into the topic of how aphobia affects allosexual people as well as aspec ones.

Obviously, as a blog about aspec representation in media, I tend to focus on, well, aspec representation in media. Thus, my analysis is almost always centered on the ways non-sexual and/or non-romantic characters are often portrayed in erroneous or trope-filled ways that contribute to harmful real-world attitudes. However, I am reminded of a saying I’ve heard related to how women are portrayed in media – that bad representation for women tends to be bad representation for people in general. I believe something similar applies when it comes to aspec representation, and that there are many ways in which bad aspec representation is bad representation for allosexual people too, because it likewise portrays them in ways at that limiting at best and harmful at worst.

A few months ago, I did a post exploring this exact phenomenon, centered on the ways that aphobia affects allosexual people. In it, I focused on how the tropes and amatonormativity I discuss for aspec or aspec-adjacent characters apply to allosexual ones too, how media encourages people to meddle in the personal lives of aspec and allospec people alike, and how aphobia creates a false dichotomy between those very same groups. When I did that post, I noted that I might come back and revisit the topic in the future, and that time is now. While writing some of my latest posts, I was struck by the ways the issues I was discussing either affected allos too or unjustly set allos up as the bad guys in ways that are completely unnecessary and unproductive. So, while I already highly expected a second version of this topic would be coming, it felt like a perfect opportunity to dive back in now and explore some more ways that aphobia hurts and misrepresents allo people of all kinds.

Spoiler warning! 

Downton Abbey (various; MASSIVE spoilers for the end of seasons 3 & 6)
The Big Bang Theory (various)

Content warning: Discussions of Aphobia

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

How Bad Aspec Representation Casts Allos in a Bad Light

In most media where aphobia is rampant, the common narrative is that aspec people are in the wrong. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re portrayed as bad people, but oftentimes they are portrayed as misguided, uninformed, abnormal people who need to be corrected “for their own good.” And just as often, media believes allosexual people must be the ones to do this for aspec people in a variety of ways. This can then trickle into real life, setting up situations where allos disregard aspec people because that’s what media has taught them to do. While I know some allosexual people do this with deliberate malice, I wholeheartedly believe that a majority of aphobia comes about simply because most people are never shown otherwise. As a result, these are the only parameters allosexual people are given, which is extremely unfortunate and paints allosexual people in an unjustly negative light. For an example of this, I recently mentioned how The Big Bang Theory treated the relationship between Amy and Sheldon, and how they often framed Amy’s many attempts to trick, bribe, or guilt Sheldon into sex as “humorous.” Although I am, of course, approaching these things through an aspec lens and am thus choosing to focus on how these things affect Sheldon, there is just as much to analyze when it comes to how these things reflect on Amy, and thus on allosexual people.

For a start, the way Amy is portrayed in these scenes and episodes makes it seem as though allosexual people respecting the identities of aspec people is completely unheard of. Any reader of my blog knows I discuss many instances where allosexual people indeed don’t respect aspec identities, and we’ve explored many pieces of media where that is indeed the case. However, I’ve also discussed just as many real-life instances where mutual respect is alive and well. I have many allosexual people in my life who are amazing allies, and they strive to do their best to be open and accepting every day; thus, I can’t help but bristle on their behalf at the portrayal of allosexual people as being narrow-minded, or the societal notion that they should find these types of portrayals funny, the way shows like The Big Bang Theory encourage.

Image description: Sheldon and Amy from The Big Bang Theory

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with portraying characters who are indeed sexual, even voraciously so, whether in a serious or a comedic context, because there are obviously people in real life who value sex and sexuality highly. However, I believe there is something very wrong when you automatically assume these types of characters – and thus real-life people – would never get along with aspec characters or people; or worse, believe that they should actively disregard the wishes of their aspec friends, family members, or partners. When it comes to couples that have both allosexual and non-sexual aspec members, this becomes even more pronounced, because media often portrays relationships without sex as empty shells. In general, these depictions should be deeply troubling for allos willing to be allies because it sends the message that you are not safe for aspec people, and that should be upsetting to you.

As we see in the example with Sheldon, The Big Bang Theory makes it clear that the allosexual people in Sheldon’s life (which, the show tells us, is basically everyone because Sheldon is supposed to be seen as “abnormal”) should be allowed to control him. We see this with Amy demanding certain things out of their relationship, even though she likely entered into the romance knowing he was not someone who wanted physical intimacy. We see this in Sheldon’s friends trying to forcibly educate him about sexual topics, despite his insistence these things and their methods make him uncomfortable. We see this when the people around Sheldon dismiss his non-sexual nature and when the show frames this as Sheldon being “wrong,” or having some sort of defect he must correct. The narrative paints the allosexual characters as “correct” and Sheldon as an aspec-adjacent character as “incorrect,” which in turn sends the message to aspec people that they must conform if they want to be friends with allosexual people or even date them.

Not only is this portrayal completely false, it’s also damaging on a lot of levels. Although I have never navigated (and very likely never will navigate) the experience of dating an allosexual person, I can just imagine the ways these tropes and portrayals affect couples where someone is allo and someone is aspec. Obviously, there are many aspec people who are fine with sex and do ultimately choose to have sex with allosexual partners, and in general it’s important for aspec people to be clear about their boundaries and limits so their allo partner(s) can enter into a relationship knowing all the facts. But these types of portrayals in media make it seem like allosexual people will dismiss the boundaries of their aspec partners out of hand and will force them to change, which I imagine can lead to very unhealthy relationships. Although these tropes are aimed at aspec people, allosexual people are collateral damage, and it sets them up at an unfair disadvantage that many of them don’t want or deserve. Although there are plenty of people like Sheldon’s allo friends, there are many more allos who want to be accepting and don’t know how to be because media doesn’t want to teach them that. Not only would more openness about aspec concepts benefit aspec people, but it would benefit these allos as well for a number of reasons.

The Limitations of Allo-Only

As an aspec person myself, I know that asexuality, aromanticism, and their related identities are indeed a small minority. As such, I likewise know and accept that most stories that are told in various forms of media will indeed center on allosexual characters or concepts. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As mentioned in the previous section, there is likewise nothing wrong with portraying characters who are allosexual, have sex, or who have strong sex-drives, because those things are valid parts of everyday life for many people. Additionally, as I’ve said in posts such as my “Writing Non-Aspec Stories” post, it’s totally fine if aspec characters don’t fit into a specific type of story or if their experiences aren’t the main focus. But there is a huge problem when media chooses to see the potentially aspec-adjacent nature of a character and crush those aspec tendencies in favor of more traditionally recognizable stories.

I discuss these things a lot when talking about characters like Seven of Nine from Star Trek or Cole from Dragon Age, both of whom have aspec tendencies and both of whom are pushed into romantic relationships, often due to aphobic attitudes. As an aspec person, these portrayals bother me deeply because not only do they take away the aspec natures of characters I find identifiable, but because they perpetuate stereotypes about things like what it means to be human or feel emotion. They also set limitations on these characters by making these types of relationships seem mandatory, as we see with characters like the aforementioned Sheldon Cooper. But the problem goes deeper than these instances of characters being forced to give up their aspec-adjacent natures, troubling though those portrayals are; when you look at the way allo characters are likewise treated under this same paradigm, media teaches some truly abysmal lessons to people of all kinds.

This is what I mean when I say “Allo only” and describe it as limiting. I don’t mean that portraying allo characters is a problem or should be avoided; that would just be absurd and unproductive. What I mean is two-fold – first, the tendency of some media to portray sexual and romantic storylines as the only valid options for characters, regardless of circumstances; and two, making it seem like there’s only one correct way to be allosexual. For instance, when media makes it seem like it’s a sexual storyline or nothing, this makes it seem like it’s sex or nothing in the real world too. The same thing is true with romance, and this is where amatonormativity comes into play, which I discussed in the previous post about this topic. In general, there are many valid reasons why someone might not be ready for a relationship of any kind at a particular juncture in their lives, but media makes it seem like it’s okay to decide when others are ready. Although I’ve discussed this for aspec characters, I have seen just as many instances where allo characters do this to other allo characters – or, more accurately, where allosexual writers do it to allosexual characters.

In that previous post, I also briefly touched on Mary Crawley from Downton Abbey. Downton Abbey takes place in the early 1900’s and deals with the British aristocracy; as such, it’s not surprising that Mary, as the eldest daughter of the Crawley family, would be expected to find a husband and produce an heir. When I look at Mary’s example, I am neither demanding a deviation from this nor expecting it, especially because it seems like Mary would be an allosexual character even without the demands of her society. However, what I am looking at is the way Mary is written by series creator Julian Fellowes and how his idea of sex and romance restrains Mary. [Warning: MASSIVE spoilers – and The Asexual Geek being salty – ahead]

Image description: Like all of us, Mary Crawley isn't perfect, but she deserves better than what the show gave her and you can't change my mind

To me, the most notable example of this comes near the end of the show’s run. At this point, Mary has loved, lost, and mourned her beloved husband Matthew, and although she is at a point where she feels ready to move forward – even going to far as to dabble in dating again – finding another partner doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Then she meets Henry Talbot, whom the show apparently wants me to believe is a character with any actual substance. While he and Mary toy with the idea of having an actual romance, Mary struggles with the idea of fully committing. There are a number of valid reasons for this, not the least of which is Matthew’s death, but also includes things like the fact that Matthew was killed in a motor vehicle accident and Henry races cars as a hobby. Add into this the recent death of one of Henry’s closest friends during a race, and Mary is understandably reluctant. The show had any number of options for how to portray this feeling – previous sorrow, new fears, a reluctance based on the way other relationships both before and after Matthew have not gone at all well for her. But how does the show choose to portray this instead? As Mary denying herself happiness.

For context, Mary is not a saint, and this is part of what I love about her. She can be incredibly sharp-tongued and downright abrasive, especially in the show’s early seasons. She can sometimes be haughty or arrogant as defense mechanisms, and her tendency to push people away leads to near disaster several times – both for her and the people around her, such as her younger sister Edith, with whom she routinely spars. However, I believe the show goes to great pains to show how Mary grows from season one and the journey it takes to get there, to the point where the show shouldn’t want to actively punish Mary or frame her as the bad guy. And yet, in my view, that is exactly what happens in order to break Mary’s deadlock regarding the relationship with Henry.

We see Mary, in her misery at the break-up, lashing out at Edith and trying to ruin her happiness, which in turn leads to Mary being intensely upbraided, not only by Edith, but by her brother-in-law Tom as well, someone whom she deeply trusts. Seeing Mary shouted at by Tom of all people is extremely difficult to watch, made worse by the fact that it changes her mind almost immediately, entrenching the notion that Mary is indeed denying herself happiness and would have become a horrible person if left to her decision. We see this trope a lot with aspec people – the notion that being “alone” is punishment and that people who end up alone are often cold and miserable – but Mary’s example shows us clearly how this can happen to an allosexual person as well. Personally, I admit I know virtually nothing about what societal attitudes would have been for someone in Mary’s position during that time period and I have no idea if Mary remaining single would have been an option, nor am I even saying that’s what should have happened. But this plotline feels to me like an attempt to portray Mary as a self-destructive shrew who needs an attitude adjustment because she refuses to set her own wants and fears aside, and that’s what I find so appalling. To me, this feels on the same level as when aspec characters are pushed into relationships against their will; even though the show wants me to believe that Mary is willing but needs to be convinced of that, I can’t believe it when it seems like coercion is what gets her to see the “error of her ways.”

The problem of being pushed into relationships you don’t feel ready for has tremendous real-world potential for harm. Sometimes, media may choose to show why these things are dangerous on a physical level through things like abuse storylines or stories about the potential risks of unprotected sex, for instance. However, I feel there are many times where the mental or emotional ramifications of being pressured into a relationship are ignored, and Mary’s storyline provides a clear example of that. If anything, Downton Abbey portrays the exact opposite, and makes us believe that not being in the relationship would be the thing that has greater mental and emotional ramifications for her and everyone around her. And while that may indeed be the case for some people, I believe portrayals like this are an oversimplification of the many complex factors that may surround a relationship. We don’t live in a melodrama like Downton Abbey, but this nevertheless has implications for how people enter into relationships – not to mention, it’s far from being the only example of this problem.

Let’s return briefly to The Big Bang Theory, only this time let’s not look at Sheldon; let’s instead look at his friends and how romantic and sexual relationships are framed as something they are absolutely required to have, or else their lives are incomplete. The other three guys in the friend group are allosexual in the extreme, but the minute one of them is not in a relationship, this fact is used to mock and belittle them, making them feel miserable and useless for this perceived failure. There is some great analysis out there about the way this plays into masculine stereotypes, but for the purpose of my own analysis, I think it plays into stereotypes about being allosexual. The examples found in The Big Bang Theory are just some of many, as this type of treatment is rampant in media of all kinds, but they all share the common assumption that sexual and romantic relationships are required as soon as possible, whether you feel ready for them or not, and you should settle if you must in order to not “be alone.” The real-world implications of that are disturbing for allosexual people on a number of levels.

Image description: From left to right, Raj, Howard, Sheldon, and Leonard from The Big Bang Theory


How Aphobia Is the Natural Enemy of Good Consent

As a small-time fanfiction writer, one of my proudest moments is thanks to a comment on a romance fanfic I co-wrote with a close friend of mine a few years ago. In the comment, one of our readers told us we portrayed the clear consent between our two leads perfectly and she appreciated the way we made consent an important part of their relationship, as many stories that employed similar plot conventions to the ones we used often ignore consent entirely. When I shared this comment with some other people online, they in turn were inspired to start a fanfic writing event centered around the notion of good consent, thus creating even more content concerned with this important topic.

As a topic, consent probably seems like one that is fairly easy to portray – it involves people who willingly agree to sex and/or romance, right? But as the things I’ve discussed in this post probably make clear, it’s not always so black and white. Consent in general has a lot of complexities, whether portrayed in media/fan works or as a real-life concept, and I wholeheartedly believe that aphobia, even unintentional aphobia, is the natural enemy of good consent. In many of the examples I’ve discussed in this post and on the blog in general, we see instances where aphobic pressures from society and from other people trap aspecs and allos in no-win scenarios where sex and/or romance are seen as necessities in order to hit certain metrics or overcome certain barriers. As such, it becomes less about whether a person wants to attain these things and more about the manufactured need to attain these things.

As I’ve said many times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with truly longing for and hoping to find a sexual or romantic relationship. But there is everything wrong with society and other people putting pressure on someone for not wanting these things – whether right now or ever – and as a result people sometimes enter into these types of relationships in a hurry without knowing all the facts, sometimes when they don’t even want them. A lot of factors can be at fault and often are, but I believe aphobia is a big one. Aphobia says to people of all kinds that your comfort, personal sense of safety, standards, wishes, desires, or needs are not important; it says instead that the only thing that matters is that you attain the societal standard that involves sex and/or romance if you want to be seen as valid. That type of pressure does not stay just within aspec identities or communities, but every group of people faces these types of logical fallacies at some point or another.

As mentioned in the previous section, aphobia contributes to the notion that it’s “a relationship or nothing,” and that in turn makes romance, sex, and anything related to them seem more like an obligation than a choice. The minute these things become a requirement or a pressure, true consent immediately becomes tarnished, and that is a problem for all people. In order for consent to be true consent, it has to be given freely from a place of genuine willingness, openness, and desire, not because society says you must give your consent if you want to be seen as an adult or part of a peer group or so you don’t end up alone. Oftentimes, media portrays these types of relationships – sexual ones especially – as things that are easy and simple to give, receive, and use up, with absolutely no consideration to good, freely given, unencumbered consent. Again, just like consent, sex and sexuality are complicated, multi-faceted things, but as an outside observer seeing how these things are portrayed in media, I can imagine the extremely unhealthy ways they contribute to how people view sex and romance, which has unfortunate implications for people of all kinds.

As I likewise mentioned in the previous section, the notion that there is only one right way to be allosexual is problematic, just like it’s problematic to believe there is only one right way to be aspec. All of the characters I’ve mentioned today – whether we have Mary, whose entire relationship with Henry feels unpalatable following her family shouting her, or Sheldon, whose eventual sexual relationship with Amy seems to lack any basic respect for his needs – are harmed by this notion. Rather than let these characters and their emotions be valid, aphobia makes good consent impossible for them, because the media they’re in doesn’t allow them the space to explore their emotions and themselves. I’ve heard the phrase “staying means nothing if you’re not free to leave”; similarly, I believe that "yes" means nothing if there was never a clear and valid way of saying "no", a phenomenon that happens in media more often – and to more characters – then we might want to admit.

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

Like I said in my previous post on the topic, having fallen victim to any of these things should not make allosexual people feel bad about themselves or cause them to feel guilty. Rather than guilt, I hope discussing these things causes people to become aware of them and gives them some tools to combat said problems in future. I believe doing so will lead to better situations for all of us, regardless of orientation. This is also the reason why I believe that bad instances of aspec representation or clear aphobia deserve to be called out in media in productive and thoughtful ways. By allowing these things to pass under the radar, we hurt everyone and create issues with implications that have a reach far beyond just a few minority groups.

Media tends to assume that being allosexual is a monolith and that everyone will experience similar needs and desires that can be summarized under one umbrella. Just like aphobia leads to hurtful assumptions about aspec people, it likewise leads to the same beliefs about allos, which are often absurd and damaging. We live in a diverse world, full of diverse people; we live lives of emotional complexity, where people are not so easily distilled into stereotypes, nor can they be described by only using a notion of how people are “supposed to be.” Whatever metrics we use to define ourselves and our relationships, these tropes and archetypes should not be a part of it, and should not be allowed to influence our behavior. All people – whether aspec or allosexual – deserve better.

Comments

Popular Posts