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. |
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.
Downton Abbey (various; MASSIVE spoilers for the end of seasons 3 & 6)
-------------------------------------------------------
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
Post a Comment