Let's Talk About Visibility

Image description: As a person on the asexual and aromantic spectrums, something I hear all the time is the topic of "asexual visibility." But as we approach Pride Month, I want to have a discussion about this topic from an aspec perspective and take a look at if aspec visibility is really enough. Image obtained from Google Images.

At the end of Pride Month last year, the video game company BioWare showcased some of its LGBTQIA+ employees in an interview done on their blog. In it, various employees got to share their identities, how those identities are represented in various games, and what it’s like working at the company. The result was, in general, very heartwarming; it was sweet to hear how all these people loved games and how their hopes to see themselves represented in their favorite medium were met in different BioWare titles such as Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc. Indeed, many BioWare titles are noteworthy for their diversity, so it was nice to see the ways that diversity touched the lives of some of its LGBTQIA+ employees.

However, for as nice as the post was, I found myself disgruntled by the assertions that BioWare is dedicated to representing the entire LGBTQIA+ spectrum, since I’ve seen examples in which the asexual and aromantic spectrums – the “A” in that acronym – are not well represented at all. I love Dragon Age and talk about the series often, in large part because it’s full of amazing characters, many of whom I see elements of myself in (like Josephine Montilyet or Cole). However, it’s a tough pill to swallow when the same studio that’s proud of their diversity in other areas does so little for these characters who may or may not be aspec. It can be hard to feel like all is going well with representation at BioWare when, for instance, Cole being made more human means (spoilers) he gets a girlfriend, or when Sebastian Vael from Dragon Age II and the option for chaste marriage with him is treated by the game as a joke.

In general, aspec representation is still something we’re struggling to achieve, so an overwhelming majority of my favorite media is media that naturally doesn’t include aspec representation. And that’s okay. Personally, I believe that a piece of media is not required to include aspec representation if they don’t want. However, I also believe that if you want to say that you care about the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, you should at least try to care about the A in that acronym. By lauding all you do for representation, I feel it’s now fair game to look at that representation with a critical eye in a way I might not have otherwise.

This has been bothering me a lot lately. For as much as I’m excited by the new and unique ways asexuality, aromanticism, and their related identities have been visible in recent years, I can’t help but find myself frustrated with the many ways in which these identities are still treated as invisible – or worse, invalid. As we approach the beginning of Pride Month, I’m thinking about these topics even more, and want to discuss the concept of aspec visibility. The quest to make aspec people less invisible is still ongoing, and as such, visibility itself isn’t a bad thing; that’s why today’s post is not framed as “Dangers of,” but rather as a discussion. So today, I’d like to examine visibility – where it is, where it isn’t, and where it’s possibly going.

Spoiler warning! 

Downton Abbey (various, particularly season 6, episode 1)

Content warning: Discussions of Aphobia/Asexual Discrimination; Brief mentions of mental health struggles; Brief use of the word "abuse"

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

Inclusion Should Include Aspec People

To really illustrate the points I made in my intro, consider the following analogy. One day, a noted orchestra comes to your town and you, as a musician yourself, eagerly go to see them. When you get there, it’s hard to tell for certain, but you feel like you may see one or two people who play your instrument, waiting in the wings (for the sake of this analogy, let’s say your instrument is the harp). You didn’t come here with the intention of seeing someone play the harp and your enjoyment of the concert isn’t dependent on that, but it certainly would give the evening extra meaning for you. Not all orchestras have harp players, so seeing someone play the instrument is always special to you. However, throughout the concert, the harps stay off stage and their players just sit awkwardly in the back with nothing to do. All right, you tell yourself, that’s fine. Not every song has a harp part, and it’s a great concert even without a harp player.

However, during the concert’s intermission, the conductor gives a speech about how the orchestra is dedicated to showcasing as many instruments as possible and talks about how they are doing an excellent job of it. Except for the harp players, you think, who – unless you’re viewing the concert from a specific angle – don’t even seem like harp players. They’ve just been sitting aimlessly while the audience members who aren’t sitting at your vantage point wonder what the heck their role even is. Even though the concert isn’t required to feature harp music or parts in songs written for harpists, you can’t help but be annoyed that the conductor claims the orchestra is showcasing all its instruments and musicians, while there is a very clear group that is being entirely ignored. Even worse, this means they’re being ignored (and even ridiculed) by the audience as well. Unless something changes, you know these musicians like you are going to be virtually erased.

Now, I admit that metaphor isn’t perfect, and it does get quite belabored the longer you lean on it, but I hope it makes my point at least somewhat. While I never go into a piece of media looking for aspec representation (unless I know it’s there, like in a book review post), I can’t help but get disgruntled when I see media practically set aspec characters up only to mistreat, mishandle, ignore, or erase them. Beyond that, I can’t help but get especially upset when this is done by people who are otherwise vocally excited about their commitment to diversity. It’s the same issue I have with shows like Fox’s Glee, a show which wanted to be seen as being about acceptance, all while humiliating and ridiculing characters who were non-sexual. All this to say, you can’t claim to care about inclusion for all people and identities if your stories willfully exclude asexuality, aromanticism, and their related identities. Similarly, you can’t say you support the entire acronym, which includes these identities, all while ignoring and mistreating them at every turn.

Visibility is wonderful, and it proves great strides have been made over the years. In many cases, it may even be enough or a very good start; after all, aspec people can’t exist in spaces – whether they’re real-life spaces or fandom ones – unless they are first seen and acknowledged by other people. But just seeing and acknowledging aspec people only goes so far, especially in instances where people want to be viewed as accepting aspec people or being good allies. Claiming aspec people have a place in LGBTQ+ spaces or in fandoms can’t coexist alongside taking representation, safe spaces, or our voices from us. Caring about aspec identities can’t happen when you also demonstrate a perfect willingness to make fun of them or deride them as unnatural.

In the case of the BioWare example, I admit I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at least somewhat; after all, Dragon Age: Inquisition was released nearly ten years ago and Dragon Age II was released over twelve, so it’s possible the studio has learned from these less-than-stellar portrayals. Even in the case of Glee, the show often stereotypically portrayed its characters and thus it might not be the best place to search for good representation anyway. However, I believe my points are still valid in large part because they seem to point to an underlying attitude, one which makes it seem like portraying aspec identities isn’t really as important as just paying lip-service to the idea.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that aspec identities are mentioned in these conversations at all, since even that level of recognition has taken years. In fact, during Pride Month 2021, I wrote a post about how much it meant to me to see the asexual and aromantic flags included in Pride related content, and that’s still true. But if the goal is true diversity, acceptance, and representation, these require more than just including the flag amid pride celebrations and calling it a day. This is where a conversation about visibility needs to be had because, as I said, sometimes just acknowledging that aspec people exist is not enough. Despite the strides that have been made, I’ve still seen firsthand how often aspec people’s opinions are heard but not respected, where we are seen but not included, and where we are tolerated but not accepted – even while people claim we are.

Image description: A Pride background from Microsoft for Pride Month 2021. You can clearly see the asexual flag running across the bottom and up the middle. I used this picture during my Pride-specific post for that year.

In many cases, I can imagine how difficult these things must be. The asexual and aromantic spectrums are full of identities that are different not just from other queer identities, but even from each other, making it difficult to accommodate them all. For instance, I as a sex-repulsed AroAce am going to come at things from a different perspective and have different needs from someone elsewhere on the spectrum. Therefore, there is no "one size fits all" way of accommodating aspec identities; even many of the solutions I propose when I do posts about allyship are more extreme than many aspec people would likely deem necessary, since I’m discussing these things from my own unique point of view.

I don’t doubt that this struggle is the reason why many people stop at visibility alone. But I believe most people don’t realize the impact their actions can potentially have, even if they’re not overtly aphobic. Again, because there are many different aspec groups, their feelings on what makes something aphobic are likely not always going to be the same. However, at least in my experience, there are a lot of people who believe they are doing enough for aspec people by acknowledging their existence, while unknowingly doing things that make it difficult for aspec people to exist in certain circles. With one breath, these people seem to say aspec people are welcome, but with the next, they seem to entrench the same types of aphobic ideas that push us out of fandom, Pride, or other related spaces.

Visibility in Fandoms

If visibility in real life is difficult, then it feels nearly impossible in fandoms. For instance, I’ve met many people in fandom spaces who are willing to listen to my aspec headcanons, or who even headcanon certain characters as aspec themselves. This is an amazing and welcoming thing to do, and it certainly increases aspec visibility. However, there are plenty of other people who will vehemently deny a character’s aspec tendencies and will shout down anyone who tries to advance them. Sure, they can see we as aspec people exist and they may even acknowledge the validity of our identity, but they refuse to accept that we may view a character a certain way if it goes against their own headcanons.

This is an unfortunate problem in any fandom and it naturally doesn’t just affect aspec people and their headcanons – there are plenty of instances where people headcanon a character in ways that are completely unrelated to identity and it still leads to friction. But when it comes to denying aspec people the ability to tell their own stories or carve out our own spaces, there is a layer of unseen damage that can occur. I think allosexual people can sometimes not realize these impacts and think that, because these things are not directed at an aspec person specifically, there is no harm done. In my experience, however, that isn’t necessarily the case.

Think, for instance, of someone in fandom spaces discussing how a character “can’t possibly be aspec,” or saying that a real person should date, get married, and/or have children “to be happy.” These things are usually not targeted at an aspec person specifically, but the attitudes that underpin them still have an impact. These attitudes may not be intentionally harmful, but they still reinforce the notion that “normal” people live in a certain manner, and that people who don’t live like that must somehow be unhappy or unfulfilled, that they must somehow be living an “unnatural” life. For some aspec people, this may not be of great cause for concern for them, but in my experience, it can be exhausting to know that even people who “see” me may not be willing to acknowledge the validity of my experiences. When I say “validity,” I don’t mean that I require their validation or permission to live my life; rather, when I discuss the concept, I’m referring to the idea that someone like me may actually have my right to experience a fandom in peace taken away or have my safe spaces and headcanons slowly pried from my hands because my opinions don’t match up with the opinions of the larger majority.

For example, it’s a common fandom occurrence that people turn to fanfiction as an escape from something they don’t like in a piece of media, taking solace in a well-told story by a like-minded fan. However, even this simple comfort is often difficult for someone like me because it feels like aspec fans must constantly demonstrate the “validity” of their claims. To use myself as an example, I point to a fanfic I wrote a few years back as an asexual take on something from the sixth season of the British period drama, Downton Abbey, a show I’ve discussed before. However, something I haven’t discussed yet are the characters of Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes, and the notion of having a marriage that is a “lie.”

Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes are two of the senior staff members of the house whose relationship eventually becomes a romance and culminates when Mr. Carson asks Mrs. Hughes to marry him. She gladly accepts, but begins to worry that Mr. Carson, a bit of a traditionalist, will want a “full marriage” – meaning one that involves sex. As such, she asks her good friend, Mrs. Patmore, to discover his intentions on her behalf. Unfortunately, Mrs. Patmore essentially frames the choices as either a “full marriage” or companionship, but specifically calls it “warm friendship,” ignoring the notion that the two could love one another even if sex was not involved. This then acts as a springboard for Mr. Carson to say he wants “a real marriage, a true marriage” – to the point where, despite his deep love for Mrs. Hughes, he would gladly see her walk away.

Image description: Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes from Downton Abbey

A few things with this. Firstly, I rarely go into period pieces expecting aspec representation so as it is. Secondly, although there were a few instances early in the plot point where it seems like this could have had aspec vibes even so, the show makes it clear that it’s not that Mrs. Hughes is against the idea of having sex, just that she worries she won’t live up to Mr. Carson’s expectations somehow and will be embarrassed. This could actually be somewhat sweet (since he assures her that he finds her beautiful and that she would never be a disappointment) were it not for the notion of framing a non-sexual marriage as a lie and everything else as “real” and “true.” This, to me, is a prime example of a scene that isn’t aspec but nevertheless makes use of a lot of language that devalues aspec experiences. This is somewhat par for the course from Downton Abbey and yes, it is a period piece; however, despite its period setting, it is being watched and interpreted by modern audiences who are being encouraged to see this plot point as not just understandable and inevitable, but also romantic.

For as much as I enjoy Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes together, this scene was obviously difficult to stomach as an aspec person. Thus, to drown my sorrows, I found some aspec fanfic of this couple in order to wash the taste of calling non-sexual marriage a “lie” out of my mouth. Afterwards, I was then inspired to write my own in which I reimagined their concerns as more aspec in nature and ended with the idea that they both discover that loving one another is the most important thing, not whether they are intimate with each other. This story was written almost seven years ago, so I admit it’s not nearly as nuanced as something I might try to craft today, but I was pleased with how it portrayed the characters and I even got a few very lovely comments. But I also got a few comments that, while not bad, also reinforce my ideas about aspec people’s struggles in fandom spaces.

One comment ran as follows: “The great thing about fanfic is everyone can express their own ‘take’ on shows and relationships. This was well-written, but in my opinion, the Carson and Mrs. Hughes romance is one of TV’s greatest love stories.” As I said, this comment is not malicious or even especially rude, but it does confuse me even to this day. The implication seems to be that portraying a character as asexual or portraying their romance as not involving sex automatically devalues it; that, by showing these characters as accepting one another and loving one another without sex, there is something inherently incomplete about their romance. Another commenter, although they very kindly admitted the story helped them see how finding romance without sex must be difficult, also said they "don’t understand how not wanting to do something is a titled thing,” referring to the label of asexuality in general, once again making the task of “Fandoming While Aspec” to be a somewhat confusing experience.

Again, much like my Dragon Age/BioWare examples, these comments did occur almost seven years ago, and as such it’s certainly possible to imagine fandom spaces have evolved and improved over the years. And, while that may be true, it’s not the case in every fandom nor in all instances. Even if aspec acceptance has grown leaps and bounds, there are plenty of circumstances that prove aphobia still exists in the fringes of a lot of fandom culture and culture in general. Indeed, there are plenty of examples from the here and now where aphobic or “normalizing” attitudes are still alive and well, often accidentally, unknowingly, or even couched as something positive.

The Slippery Slope of “Positive” Aphobia

Because aphobia can be deeply rooted, many of the things that I find the most harmful or disturbing as an aspec person are framed as being “good,” “beneficial,” or “positive.” As I’ve discussed on the blog before, society tends to entrench the ideas that sex is standard practice, romance is naturally more fulfilling than anything else, and that “normal” life means things like marriage and children. Therefore, it’s common practice that when people don’t want these things, they’re either treated as “strange” and “abnormal,” or else are framed as not knowing what’s best for themselves, allowing anything from “well-intentioned meddling” to unbridled ridicule and maltreatment. Even worse, sometimes these non-sexual or non-romantic people are not only portrayed as bizarre, but are portrayed as having ill-intentions.

For instance, something I’ve mentioned before is the idea of allosexual people looking at certain aspec ideas as threatening – especially when those allosexual people are part of other historically underrepresented groups. In my life, I have seen instances where someone (whether aspec or not) expresses the desire to not see content that’s oversexualized, and they are immediately accused of various forms of prejudice. Likewise, I have seen plenty of things that are non-sexualized be treated as suspect because of that fact, as if their non-sexualized existence is going against the natural order of things and is therefore suspicious. This is something that I think is especially prevalent in fandoms related to real people, as it becomes easier to frame these attitudes as a good thing.

I’ve had the misfortune of seeing this time and again when it comes to things like K-Pop fandoms. As a BTS fan only, I admit I’m a bit of an outside observer when it comes to other groups or the K-Pop industry, but I have nevertheless picked up on a trend I find rather distressing. Because the K-Pop idol system requires its trainees to make many sacrifices, some people automatically assume that one of the things they sacrifice is dating. Like I said, I know very little about the system as a whole or other people in it, but what I do know is that many K-Pop fans lament the system’s restrictions and claim that the system forces their favorite idols to not date. Whether or not that’s true (as I've seen plenty of conflicting information), their reactions to this are what’s troubling, since many of these fans then say idols need to be allowed to live “normal” lives and that “falling in love” or “dating” is not just normal, but essential. Whenever an idol struggles, there is inevitably a bevy of people who claim these struggles exist primarily because said idol isn’t allowed to date, or who postulate that their lives would be better if they had romance.

Image description: (TW: Mental health struggles; Indirect aphobia) The above image is a compilation of comments from a YouTube video. Many of these comments, seemingly with no proof, center on the idea that the mental health of idols is related to whether or not they date. You can see many of these comments say that because idols are "human" they need "love," which is often described as dating, marriage, having girlfriends, etc., things which are in turn described as "healthy."

I’m sure this may be true for some idols. I’m sure there are performers within the idol system who do wish they had more freedom to date or who do feel bad that they don’t have romance in their life, and it’s perfectly valid if they do indeed feel that way. It’s also valid if a fan believes in their own life that dating and romance are normal, or if their life has been personally improved by these things. But two things – firstly, it’s a mistake to think that sentiment is shared by everyone; secondly, it’s an even bigger mistake to claim that dating and romance are “normal” or “necessary.” Beyond that, when someone like me tries to point out these things, we once again see issues with visibility. People will see and even acknowledge the opinions of someone like me, but then immediately wave them away. We are the exception to the rule, they seem to think, and thus we don’t have to be taken all that seriously. Our opinions are treated less like actual valid things and more like sideshows, weird aberrations that don’t fit with the established “normal” worldview, and thus can be dismissed.

I’m always very alarmed by these things because I have to wonder how people who do this online react to people in real life. While online opinions are typically exaggerated over ones we’d hold in the real world, I don’t think they exist in a vacuum. Therefore, if a person online is willing to dismiss these ideas and opinions as not real or worthy of respect, I believe they’re likely to do it in real life as well. So again, this makes me feel like visibility is not enough. Merely seeing someone’s opinion, shrugging, and saying “agree to disagree” when it comes to aspec issues isn’t bad per se, but it also leaves a lot of room for this supposedly well-meaning or positively-tinted aphobia to creep in. And when that impacts people in everyday life, the result is anything but positive.

Image description: (TW: Use of the word "abuse"; indirect aphobia) From the same YouTube video, the commenter named "Rachel D." is actually me. You can see someone replies to me and, while their response is somewhat unclear, I believe it can be interpreted as follows: "I know that not everybody is dating. But that doesn't mean you should forbid your stars from dating girls or boys, that is abuse. The K-Pop music industry has to give the artists/trainees the freedom to find out how they want to be so they can grow to be normal humans. Every artist/trainee has the right to be supported and loved, whether it's in an innocent way or not. It doesn't surprise me that they are looking for that with each other. That's the abuse the K-Pop music industry is doing to their artists." There are several issues with the language used here, as I point out in my reply to them and which I have highlighted in the image above.

I know today’s post was a bit more of a rant or venting session than my posts sometimes are. Usually when I do a post like this, I try to end it with some sort of solution or idea for the future; in fact, I wanted this post to include the ways we can maybe improve the concept of visibility. If I had any solution in mind, it would be for aspec people to keep raising our voices as best we can, to keep bringing these issues to people’s attention as calmly, respectfully, and precisely as we can. But unfortunately, I don’t think this is something we as aspec people can solve on our own because, if people continue to just see our comments and then ignore them, well, that’s exactly the problem I’ve been discussing here today. We’ll stay visible, but we won’t really be seen.

As I said earlier, I’m not expecting perfect representation all the time. There are plenty of things that aren’t meant for me and that’s okay. I’m not looking to belong everywhere; I’m just looking to belong somewhere. Allosexual people aren’t required to inherently care about aspec issues or to do things to please aspec people, but I do hope they take a closer look at the struggles of aspec life and consider how their own actions may occasionally make things harder. I hope they consider that celebrating the Pride acronym means celebrating all of us. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a little bit more acknowledgement than what visibility alone would afford us. I don’t just want to be visible, I want to be allowed to live my life in peace, to exist in fandom spaces, and to have things I can claim for my own, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that. With a little bit of mindfulness and a little bit of deference, I do believe this goal is possible for people like me – not just during Pride Month, but all the time.