Miscellaneous Tropes I Hate

 

Image description: I talk about The Big Bang Theory and tropes a lot on this blog. But Sheldon is not the only character who is plagued by bad tropes; Raj (on the right) falls victim to one I hate and seems a perfect example to use in today's topic, which is all about, well, tropes I hate. Keep reading to find out which one it is (hint - Raj is not the problem here; his friend Howard, pictured on the left, is).

Back in 2020, I did a series of posts about tropes often used against aspec people in media, and have referenced them many, many times since. These tropes vary from genre to genre and are different in scope, but they all rely on aphobia to devalue non-sexual and non-romantic characters, and often fly under the radar as harmless storytelling conventions. As I’ve said before, there is nothing wrong with a trope per se; in fact, on its own, a trope is exactly what I just described it as – a storytelling convention, no more, no less. But the ones I discuss on this blog are, in my opinion, among the worst of the worst.

However, because the term “trope” is a wide and general catch-all, it’s impossible to cover them all, and I’ve only scratched the surface when it comes to cringe-worthy cliches and problematic motifs in media. Therefore, I want to look at some storytelling shorthands I’ve yet to discuss in great detail on the blog by lumping a few of the worst offenders under the umbrella of “Tropes I Hate.” Now, you may be thinking, haven’t you made it pretty clear you hate all the tropes you’ve discussed on the blog so far? And you would be completely correct. But I hate those tropes specifically for the way they treat non-sexual and non-romantic characters, and the implications that has for aspec people of all kinds. Today, I want to focus on tropes that are slightly different for a few reasons.

In some respect, although these tropes may have some shades of aphobia or affect aspec people, they're often not specifically targeted at those groups. They may, in fact, be tropes that affect allosexual people too, or that are perhaps not fleshed out enough to be given their own separate post. They may be tropes I don't feel entirely qualified to speak about or may not have enough examples to base a whole post around. For whatever reason, these tropes are only going to get discussed slightly in today’s post, but I wanted to give them even this slight acknowledgement because I feel they are an important continuation of many of the topics I’ve discussed on the blog before, or will serve as important prefaces for topics still to come. So, all that being said, let’s dive into some miscellaneous tropes in media that I truly, truly hate.

Spoiler warning! 

Star Trek: The Original Series ("The Apple")

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

Glee ("The First Time")

The Big Bang Theory (various)

It's a Wonderful Life

Content warning: Discussions of Aphobia

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

“Sex as Knowledge”

Many of the tropes I’ve discussed in the past are incredibly specific, as their names often imply. However, what I'm calling “Sex as Knowledge” is a lot vaguer and a lot broader. In some senses, I’ve covered this notion in posts such as my post about adulthood, where the popular notion is that adulthood and sexual maturity are one and the same. Other tropes, such as the “childish” trope, likewise overlap with this notion, as the implication is almost always that non-sexual people are children because they haven’t attained a sexual nature and thus they can be talked down to or ignored. In my opinion, there are two ways the “Sex as Knowledge” trope often manifests – the first is “sex as knowledge of the world” and the second is “sex as knowledge of other people.” I’d like to talk about the former first, because it’s a manifestation of everything I just mentioned. It’s the notion that non-sexual people are automatically “innocent,” and that “innocence” is automatically a shorthand for “unknowledgeable.” By comparison, it frames sexual people as “experienced” and by extension “knowledgeable.”

The idea of innocence versus maturity is a time-honored, classic, and often important storytelling device that can be done in so many amazing ways that aren’t sexual. I think, for instance, of the Harry Potter series, and just how different the Wizarding World, Hogwarts, and even magic itself feel at the beginning of Harry’s journey versus at the end of it, and how Harry’s own maturity as a wizard and as a person makes him realize the faults and failings even of people he’s admired since childhood. This transition from the innocent wonder of Harry’s childhood to the stark reality of his adulthood is an important part of his journey as a character and our journey as readers. Thus, as this example proves, there is nothing wrong with the notion of innocence versus experience, the way these things mingle and overlap, or the changing between these things – quite the opposite, in fact, as these things can be valuable to portray.

So why am I talking about this particular spin on a very common convention and why is it such a problem? The issues with this trope occur when sex is the main driving force behind these changes, or sometimes is the only source. Of course, for many people, sexual maturity is indeed a clear boundary line that marks their transition from adolescence into adulthood. But that isn’t true for everyone, nor should it be. The main and most important word in that sentence is “their.” The notion that all people have to view it that way – and that if they don’t, there must be something wrong with them – is extremely aphobic, often unknowingly so. Sex, sexuality, and discovering those things are important for some people, but they shouldn’t be the only things that are used as a factor of determining how much a person knows about life. Believing that it is or that it should be leads to a lot of unhealthy potential scenarios.

Additionally, this first facet of “Sex as Knowledge” makes it clear that this “innocence” is a bad or otherwise undesirable state that people shouldn’t want to stay in, can’t be allowed to stay in, and worse, should be forced out of if necessary. Think, for instance, of the Vaalians from Star Trek: The Original Series episode “The Apple,” who are literally portrayed as a savage child race whose innocent life is actually slavery to their false god Vaal, and who are “saved” and thus “corrected” by the crew of the Enterprise. “The Apple” is a very obvious example of why this and any tropes that employ similar beliefs can be so troubling, because they often carry with them the idea that, because non-sexual people are “like children”, it’s up to allosexual people to influence their behavior because “they don’t know what’s good for them.”

Image description: The members of the Enterprise's away team interacting with the non-sexual alien race known as the Vaalians in "The Apple," an episode of Star Trek: The Original Series. Please, someone tell me why. Why are they so orange?

The second facet of this trope – “sex as knowledge of people” – is a bit harder to explain. If done well, sex and knowledge can actually be aspec friendly. Even someone like me, who is personally sex-repulsed, has absolutely no problem with sexual plotlines for characters, and if these sexual plotlines come about specifically because characters truly know each other, then I’m all for it. But often times, this trope takes that notion and flips it – thus, rather than characters having sex because they know and understand each other, they only know and understand each other because they’ve had sex (again, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, because sexual compatibility can be a huge factor in the relationships of allosexual people, but this trope usually doesn't portray it well). It can also be an important part of certain aspec identities, but not in a way this trope usually describes. For instance, in an identity such as demisexuality, knowledge of a person needs to come before sex. Knowing that person does eventually lead to sexual attraction, but the act of knowing and understanding them is independent of having sex with them. On the opposite end of things, this trope is also a great example of how these types of things can impact allosexual people as well, as there are doubtless allosexual people out there for whom sexual relationships are casual and who don’t see these relationships as great beacons of knowledge.

In general, this trope is so troublesome because it treats sex as something like a magic key of knowledge. For example, Mary Crawley in the show Downton Abbey is often misunderstood by the people around her and something I really like is that her love interest and eventual husband Matthew is one of the only people who really seems to get her, which is a huge part of why she loves him. This is often portrayed beautifully through heartfelt scenes and great chemistry between the actors, and there are many events throughout the show that I would say contribute to the belief that Matthew knows the real Mary. But after they’re together, Matthew has a line of dialogue that seems to imply he knows the real Mary because he’s “seen her naked.” There is… a lot to unpack with that. It’s not a problem that part of Mary and Matthew really understanding each other comes from being intimate with each other, nor is it unexpected. However, it is a bit disheartening to see that so much of their emotional depth seems to be ignored in this scene, instead making it seem like attraction or sex is what’s really important between them, rather than that shared history.

However, if you want a gold medal example of both elements of the “Sex = Knowledge” trope, you can see it taken to what I feel are ridiculous and nonsensical heights in the Fox series Glee. In an episode specifically called “The First Time” (no prize for guessing why), the student director of the school’s production of West Side Story tells the student leads that they can’t possibly portray the romance and passion between Tony and Maria if they’re virgins. Yes, you read that right. Despite the fact that these two characters are already in committed romantic relationships, their director tells them they need to have sex with their partners if they hope to be successful in their roles. Although Glee is known for its often silly plots and dramatic staging, I don’t think a moment such as this one can be chalked up to just “Glee being Glee.” Rather, I think it needs to be analyzed for what it is, which is a prime (if not a bit foolish) example of this very trope. The assumption is that both Rachel and Blaine are missing out a key and important element of life, emotion, and awareness because they haven’t had sex yet, and that is an incredibly problematic portrayal.

Image description: Blaine and Rachel from Glee portraying Tony and Maria in their school production of West Side Story. According to their director and fellow Glee Club member Artie, this is something that is only possible if they have sex with their respective partners - Blaine with his boyfriend Kurt and Rachel with her boyfriend Finn.

For as silly as examples like the one from Glee or the Vaalians in Star Trek may seem, this trope is a very real and present problem in a lot of media – and in real life as well. It’s true that people can use sex and sexuality as a way of getting to know their partners, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s true that some aspec identities like demisexuality are dependent on knowing someone and then developing sexual attraction for them, linking sex and knowledge in a far better way than this trope portrays. But when media deals with the conflation of sex and knowledge in the ways I’ve described here, what we get is the very unfortunate assumption that without sex in your life you are lacking some great and fundamental knowledge, which is one of the many reasons why I hate this trope so deeply.

“You’re Denying Yourself Happiness”

Moving on, one of my least favorite tropes of all time, the “denying yourself happiness” trope, has a great deal in common with the aforementioned “you don’t know what’s good for you” vibes of “Asexuality = Childish”. But for as much as we see it used against aspec characters, it’s not uncommon to see this trope used against allosexual characters as well. For example, this is another trope we see lobbed at Downton Abbey’s Mary Crawley (often in paradoxical and contradictory ways) as I discussed a bit in my last post, which proves that I loathe this trope whether used against aspec people or allos.

Downton Abbey is a period drama, taking place in the 1910’s and 1920’s, and following the lives the aristocratic Crawley family as they navigate the ups and downs of these tumultuous years. Mary is the Crawleys' eldest daughter, and when we first encounter her, she has some moments of being haughty and a bit sharp-tongued. Although a lot of this is a defense mechanism for her own insecurities, her brusqueness does tend to get her into trouble and also causes her to lash out at the people she loves. However, throughout the series, we see Mary relax a bit in ways that actually feel authentic and well-done. It’s very common to see characters who are acerbic – especially women – who are “softened” (another trope I absolutely hate, don’t even get me started). But although Mary stops being quite so destructive in many cases, it’s never done in a way that makes her “softer” per se.

Rather, these changes in character come because she actually has things she comes to care about deeply and major events in her life cause these things to come into clearer focus for her. World War One, for instance, changes her thoughts and feelings on many things and she does her part to help when Downton Abbey is made into a convalescent hospital. Some of her changes come about after the death of her youngest sister, which leads to her wanting to try and bury the hatchet a bit with her remaining sister Edith, with whom she often spars. In general, there are many ways we see Mary grow, evolve, and become a better version of herself over several seasons, and these are often done well. However, there is one huge way in which it is done horribly, and that’s because it doesn’t feel like Mary is doing the changing at all; rather, it feels as though the people around her are forcing her to change because they deem it necessary.

I mentioned this in detail in last week’s post, but just to briefly recap this event: by this point in the series, Mary’s husband Matthew is deceased, killed in a tragic car accident. Mary has mourned him and has thought about potential new romances several times, often rejecting them because they’re not the right fit. This includes a romance with Henry Talbot, whose hobby is racing cars (see why that might cause Mary some distress?). For this and other reasons, Mary decides to break things off with Henry, despite their feelings for one another. In my opinion, this could be handled in one of two ways by the story, either of which would be valid – the first being to let it stand that Mary and Henry simply were not meant to be, and the second being to have Mary come to realize she actually does want to be with Henry and ask for a second chance. To be clear, I have no problem with this second option. I don’t even have a problem with this second option being aided by someone in Mary’s family. Indeed, something similar happens to Mary and Matthew earlier in the series when Matthew’s worries are soothed by Mary’s brother-in-law Tom.

As I’m sure you can guess, however, we get option three instead. Mary’s rejection of Henry is treated as a toxic and self-destructive instance of her denying herself happiness that sets her right back into her old ways of hurting the people around her simply because she herself is miserable. Although the show makes us understand why Mary would be reluctant to commit to Henry, we are likewise supposed to understand that she “is in the wrong” for allowing these feelings to “stand in the way of her happiness.” Additionally, by making Mary lash out at others because her own decisions have left her unhappy, we are supposed to view Mary as not only being wrong, but also being in need of correction, which is portrayed when Mary lashes out at Edith in a very destructive way and is called on the carpet not only by Edith herself, but also by Tom, whom Mary trusts deeply.

Image description: Henry and Mary from Downton Abbey. Although not a bad character per se - and not even really involved in the problems I discuss here - I feel Henry is ruined because of these events, and the entire "denying yourself happiness" trope makes it impossible for me to enjoy anything about his relationship with Mary at all.

I have a lot of problems with this portrayal of Mary, many of which I discussed in my last post. But I have even more of an issue with the trope it points to, for a number of reasons. By writing characters as denying themselves happiness, media (whether intentionally or unintentionally) perpetuates a lot of negative stereotypes about relationships, being alone, and what it means to be happy – and, by extension, aspec issues. It plays a bit with the notion that asexuality, aromanticism, or their related identities are punishments, and furthermore frames "being alone" as a huge personal and/or moral failing that will leave you and everyone around you miserable. Because of this, people are then allowed the meddle in your personal life in an effort to “save you from yourself.”

Tropes like these, used in the types of ways I describe in Mary’s example, make it so that “no” can never truly mean “no.” The show refuses to believe that Mary and Henry wouldn’t work together and refuses to see any other alternative plot point for them – something I find baffling, given Mary’s own journey to be with Matthew was tumultuous in large part because of her own bad decisions, which she had to bear with as much grace and understanding as she could. Thus, instead of seeing Mary work through either the issues or the emotions, the “denying yourself happiness” trope allows her to be bullied, derided, and generally forced into an outcome. This is justified as necessary and even helpful, because this trope makes us believe that this is what Mary really wants and she simply needs other people to help her get there.

While I don’t doubt that may indeed be the case for some people and a little assistance might be exactly what they need, it’s definitely not the case for everyone. This trope makes it seem like people can only be happy when they’re in relationships, and that if they don’t have a relationship, reject one, end one, etc., then they’re probably just self-sabotaging. It makes it seem like the act of someone experiencing "negative" emotions is directly tied to these things as well, which of course isn’t automatically true. It sets aspec people and allosexual people alike into a sort of unwinnable scenario wherein you can’t be trusted to make your own decisions about your own relationships if someone else decides that relationship is what would make you happy. In my opinion, it’s not just a very problematic trope, but a very odd one, and one I’m surprised is as widely accepted as it is.

“The Old Maid”/“Crazy Cat Lady”

For the previous trope, I mentioned the phenomena I like to call “aspec-ness as punishment,” and one of the best examples I can think of is the “old maid” or “crazy cat lady” portrayal. As the names of these tropes imply, they quite often employ a level of sexism or even misogyny, but variations of them effect people of all genders. Likewise, just like the previous trope, it can be lobbed against aspec people or allosexual ones. At its core, the “old maid” (or any similar non-gendered variant) is essentially the age-old notion of “dying alone,” especially when used as a cautionary tale to pressure people into relationships. Also like the previous trope, it completely ignores alternate forms of happiness or love, and instead assumes that happiness can only be attained by romantic and/or sexual relationships or that people without these relationships are likely to become bitter and broken.

I think this type of mindset is not only toxic to aspec people of all kinds and allo people who aren’t prioritizing romantic or sexual relationships in their life, but is also toxic for people who do want a relationship but don’t yet have it. For a start, it puts pressure on them to find one perhaps at a faster pace than they feel comfortable with and, beyond that, it also makes it seem like their lack of relationship is somehow their fault, or that they should be treated poorly because of it. In some ways, it has shades of the previous trope, except it’s often seen as a consequence of the previous trope’s actions, or as the outcome of one’s standards being “too high.” In other portrayals, being an “old maid” or “lonesome bachelor” is almost seen as some sort of inevitable fate for those deemed conventionally unattractive or who don’t otherwise fit a perceived standard of supposed desirability. Despite these dark elements, however, this trope can and often does get presented in silly ways. But even when it’s done in a humorous manner, I believe there is a darker undertone, one that usually seems to say, “have this relationship right now or you’ll end up alone” or even “alter yourself dramatically or no one will love you.” That type of mindset is neither funny nor healthy, and yet this trope has become an accepted part of many comedic stories.

Additionally, beyond just the relationship implications, I absolutely hate that this trope is used to mock people’s relationship with their pets or with animals in general. Up until the passing of my beloved cat Hermione in October of 2021, I’d had pets literally my entire life; as such, I am a very passionate believer in the bond between humans and animals, and often believe that the purity of that bond surpasses most human interactions. Therefore, I really hate when media chooses to reduce that bond to jokes at a pet owner’s expense, or frames these bonds as pale substitutes for “real relationships.” For an example of this, look at The Big Bang Theory – not at Sheldon Cooper this time, but at the character of Raj. As the one who is the unluckiest in love of the friend group, Raj is routinely made fun of by both the show’s writing and its characters, and one way this manifests is by making fun of how much he loves his dog, Cinnamon. The show routinely frames Raj’s love for her as over-the-top at best and kind of pathetic at worst, and even when Raj has a girlfriend, his friends still make fun of the way he spoils Cinnamon and use this as an excuse to belittle him, needlessly and somewhat cruelly.

Personally, I find this trope to be extremely problematic, but there is hope it can be reclaimed, and we do see examples of that very phenomenon – such as the fabulous and fancy Madame Bonfamille from Disney’s animated film The Aristocats. Additionally, as people look back on older media where this trope is portrayed and come to reframe it, I have a tentative sort of hope that maybe this will lead to fewer portrayals like that of Raj and Cinnamon and more portrayals where being single – with a pet or without – is seen as a source of strength like it is for Madame Bonfamille. I think a good example can be found in the film It’s a Wonderful Life, where it’s portrayed that George Bailey never being born would leave his wife as a spinster librarian. Some modern audiences reinterpret what the movie deems a sad fate, instead noting that Mary is independent and spends her days surrounded by books, which I’m very inclined to agree is a fate I wouldn’t mind at all. This is a humorous example to be sure, but I admit it does give me hope that we could see more portrayals where that type of life is appreciated, which might go a long way to leaving this trope behind.

Image description: Madame Bonfamille and Duchess from The Aristocats. To me, nothing flies in the face of the "crazy cat lady" trope more than the way Madame Bonfamille is portrayed. Rather than cold, lonely, and bitter, she is warm, elegant, charming, kind-hearted, and utterly comfortable in herself. She is also my answer when people ask where I see myself in the future.

As I stated in my introduction, there are thousands of tropes out there. Spend a few minutes (or hours) on a website like TV Tropes and you’ll see how futile and impossible it would be to try and critique them all. In a similar way, it would be impossible to change all the negative tropes out there, nor would it necessarily be productive. When it comes to my own analysis of these three tropes, however, I hope that the more we talk about them, the more we can pull at their threads. Like any trope, these and other aphobic stereotypes have power only because they are accepted, reproduced, and woven into the fabric of our storytelling and culture. But if we can indeed pull those threads, we can maybe begin to unravel them in the hopes of stitching them back together to make something better.

We don’t have to accept a world where aspec and allo people alike are told they’re going to die alone if they don’t alter themselves against their will. We don’t have to laugh at comedies that force their characters into poorly planned sexual or romantic relationships just because they don’t want to "end up with twenty cats." We don’t have to be content with sex and sexuality as the only way to gain knowledge or maturity. Rather, we can choose to take steps for not only better storytelling, but better understanding of our world, ourselves, and each other. That won’t happen overnight, but a good first step may be understanding tropes like these, and in turn working to create a new pattern in the tapestry that is our cultural landscape.