The Dangers of Aspec Stereotypes

 

Image description: Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory. Although Sheldon does not feature in today's post (surprisingly), I feel he embodies many stereotypes people associate with aspec people. I talk about the negatives ones in my tropes series. But are there "good" stereotypes for aspec people - assumptions that, while not overtly aphobic, can lead to aphobic attitudes? Today I discuss that very topic and try to define a few stereotypes I feel I've seen and experienced in my own life.

Over the years, so much of my analysis has centered on tropes that are often used to mock, belittle, or dismiss asexual and/or aromantic people – or even just people who don’t have or prioritize sex/romance. While tropes as a concept are neither inherently good nor inherently bad, the tropes I discuss are almost always overwhelmingly negative and they often have overwhelmingly negative results. Rather sadly, many of these tropes can lead to problematic assumptions about aspec people or people of various identities who may likewise get caught up in them.

Oftentimes, these tropes have come into our culture and media because asexual and aromantic identities are not yet widely known, or they came from a time when knowledge about these identities was virtually non-existent and have been reproduced countless times. But as awareness of aspec identities begins to increase, there can come entirely new types of problematic portrayals – ones that aren’t negative tropes per se, and which many people likely think aren’t harmful at all. I would categorize these as aspec stereotypes, assumptions that are made about aspec people or people who don’t prioritize sex and/or romance which, while not as overtly negative as many of the tropes I discuss, nevertheless have problematic elements.

There are many types of stereotypes that can and do exist about different groups of people, and I believe aspec people are no exception to this. And if people do fall into some of these stereotypes, there’s nothing wrong with that. Rather, I believe the danger lies in assuming that all aspec people can be generalized in these ways, and I worry about the impact this will have both in real life and in media. In a world where aspec people are already trying to navigate the often unrealistic expectations society has on them to live “normal” or more traditionally recognizable lives, I don’t think we also need to try and navigate the framework of these assumptions.

As I said, some people may indeed fall into these categories, but they are certainly not the “only” way to be aspec and, from what I’ve experienced in my own life, I fear that people may treat them as such. Not only does this limit the way aspec characters can be portrayed in an already difficult media landscape, but it may also begin entrenching the idea that there is a set “correct” way to be aspec in real life, which is of course not the case. So today, I want to discuss a few stereotypes I’ve noticed and discuss why they are not inherently bad, but can become dangerous slippery slopes if not handled properly.

Spoiler warning! 

Dragon Age: Inquisition (Josephine's romance)

Star Trek: Voyager ("Author, Author")

Content warning: Discussions of Aphobia/Asexual Discrimination

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

“The Innocent Aspec”

In my Tropes series, I discussed harmful tropes such as the “childish” aspec and the “prudish” aspec, both of which assume that people with aspec identities (or tendencies) are unpleasantly childish and can be treated as such, often leading to their thoughts, feelings, and wishes being dismissed. I feel like the idea of an aspec person being “innocent” is a spiritual successor of these two tropes, but rather than being used as a justification for allosexual people steering aspec people in a direction that they feel is more relatable, I feel it can be used in a way that – whether intentionally or unintentionally – sets allosexual people up as aspec people’s protectors. While this isn’t inherently bad, it is inherently dismissive, and this is where the problem lies.

For an example of this, the term “innocent” always makes me think of one of the characters in Dragon Age: Inquisition who seems to be on the asexual spectrum – romance option Ambassador Josephine Montilyet. If you as the player character begin romancing Josephine, you will receive a stern talking-to from Josephine’s good friend (and the Inquisition’s spymaster) Leliana, who notices what’s been going on and has a warning for you. The first part of this warning is very much in keeping with what a best friend or a big sister might say – chiefly in telling the player character not to toy with Josephine and her emotions. I have no problem with that; rather, the potential issue comes when, as you might have guessed based on the title of this section, Leliana goes on to imply that Josephine is an innocent.

Image description: Ambassador Josephine Montilyet from the video game Dragon Age: Inquisition

“Josephine is no stranger to courtly intrigue,” Leliana tells us about the ambassador. “But love? There she is an innocent.” She then goes on to clearly explain and emphasize that Josephine “has no idea you are truly attracted to her,” and although Leliana explains – understandably so – that she’s just looking out for her friend, the choice of language is unfortunate. Even Josephine herself takes offense to the remark when it gets back around to her, and is clearly annoyed not only by Leliana’s meddling, but by her assumptions.

To me, I think this scene and Josephine’s entire romance are prime examples of why the “innocent” stereotype, while not as bad as many of the tropes I’ve discussed previously, can be an issue both for representation and for real life aspec people. Now, I think Josephine’s romance is wonderful, and I absolutely love her as a character, as I’ve discussed on the blog before. In fact, I think one of the best things about Josie and her aspec tendencies is that they actually work to dismantle some of the other negative assumptions that are made about aspec people. Rather than be cold, emotionless, or lacking in personality, Josephine is warm, vivacious, likeable, and capable – all of which are things aspec people don’t often get to be.

Therefore, the fact that she also comes across as innocent and the fact that her romance is sweet are not the problems here. The main problem is that scenes like the one with Leliana undermine some of Josie’s ability to be seen as a serious character, despite how good other scenes with her are. If you look at the comments on videos of her romance, you can see examples of this. While so many of the comments are positive, discussing how much they enjoy Josephine’s romance or the character herself, you do often see “innocent” get thrown around a lot, often with varying results. While some people are discussing how they enjoy the innocent vibes, the problem is that “innocent” often means very little and these scenes/terms are an example of something I’ve taken to calling “vague representation,” which I discussed in a previous post.

I’ve mentioned Josie’s “aspec vibes” a few times and, although nothing is canon, many people (myself included) view Josephine as an aspec romance option in the game due in large part to the fact that she doesn’t have a clearly portrayed sex scene in her romance. Unfortunately, using the word “innocent” to describe that fact or her romance in general immediately opens up a can of worms, with some players arguing those innocent vibes add to the idea of the romance being aspec – or, at the very least, non-sexual – while others argue that they believe the characters are “definitely sleeping together,” and that it’s just not shown.

Image description: Content warning - Slightly Not Safe For Work language/descriptions. A screenshot of some comments on Josephine's romance. Some comments are positive and some are... not. I'm also entirely baffled by the comments I've highlighted in red, during which the original poster says Josie and the Inquisitor are "sleeping together, no doubt," but then also goes on to reply to someone who says they "definitely weren't" by saying that seems a bit strong. As for the last comment... well, I have no idea if that person is joking or not. But based on my experiences with fandom, I'm going to guess not.

In this way, “innocent” has a two-pronged problem attached to it. The first problem is that it allows that frustratingly vague representation to creep in, allowing people to dismiss the aspec vibes of the romance or the headcanons of aspec players more easily than they otherwise might due to the fact that “innocent” has such a vague meaning too. The second problem is that even just mentioning “innocent” vibes makes people want to disprove said vibes, or causes some people to immediately need to go in the opposite direction.

This is where these stereotypes become especially frustrating, because “innocent” carries with it a certain unpleasant connotation that many people dislike. Alternately, it also opens characters up to even more tropes, where their supposed “innocence” is seen as something they can or should be broken of. It reminds me a little bit of what I discuss whenever I bring up the insidious topic of “fixing” aspec people; while not nearly as dark or problematic as that topic, it nevertheless seems to imply that this innocence is a bad thing or something that can be dismissed, changed, altered or grown out of, rather than a part of a character’s personality.

When this is tied to aspec identities – whether explicitly or implicitly like Leliana’s “innocent in love” comment does for Josephine – it becomes even worse, and makes it seem like innocence is a childlike thing that can be grown out of as a character or a real-life person grows and becomes “more aware.” It also puts me in mind of an admittedly sillier example, but one that nevertheless relates to this conversation, which is that of the holographic doctor from Star Trek: Voyager, particularly in the episode “Author, Author.” In this episode, The Doctor writes an overdramatic holonovel about his life and struggles, during which he describes himself at the moment of his first activation – the beginning of his life – as being “completely innocent.”

I’ve mentioned this in previous posts and as I said then, this can be somewhat forgiven because the entire point of The Doctor’s holonovel is that it’s supposed to be obviously over-the-top and schlocky. Additionally, given the substance of the holonovel involves The Doctor’s character as being at the center of dramatized events of great hardship and woe, it’s entirely possible that he’s using “innocent” here to mean he does not yet know the hardships he will face. But even so, The Doctor – in his own dramatic way – is trying to portray a representation of his own feelings and struggles. So when he describes himself in the novel’s beginning as “fully programmed and completely innocent” but we know that The Doctor has added sexual function to his programming and even brags about having sex when asked (it’s even mentioned in the holonovel itself), the use of the word “innocent” feels dubious.

As I’ve mentioned through this section, the implication seems to be that this supposed innocence is a starting point, one which people should eventually grow out of, and again, this is where the problem lies. In fact, I have plenty of posts that explore this topic in more depth – whether the aforementioned tropes post, my post about “Redefining Adulthood,” or any number of others – so I won’t belabor the point here. However, in my own life, some of my biggest sources of pain and consternation as a sex-repulsed aspec person is the assumption that if you don’t have these things or if you don’t want to see them portrayed, you’re just an “innocent” baby and can be excluded from conversations, ignored, disrespected, and pushed out of fandom spaces. So believe me when I say that this stereotype is anything but kind or flattering. Rather, it has the power to not only be limiting, but offensive, and can have potentially profound real world impacts on aspec people and, in my experience, our mental health.

“The Pure-Hearted Aspec”

The next stereotype is somewhat similar to the previous one – and I believe it too shares some overlap with the “childish” and “prudish” tropes – albeit it takes things a step further. If the previous stereotype assumes that aspec people are innocent and that can lead to vague misinterpretations, the next stereotype feels, at least to me, like it leapfrogs over the idea of aspec-ness being an identity and just assumes that aspec people are somehow “pure.”

This is a problem for a few reasons. For a start, as with the last stereotype, what does “pure” mean? The notion of being “pure” is not only one of those things that is so vague that it becomes undefinable, but it also has a lot of baggage associated with it. Some people associate “purity” with some sort of inherent ethical and moral goodness, and if that standard is a sexual purity, that means people who don’t meet this standard are “impure” and therefore “amoral.” It’s an archaic and insulting definition and, as an asexual person, I don’t like being roped into it – especially because I believe this attitude makes people assume aspec people are judging them when that is often not the case. I’ll talk about this a bit more in the next stereotype, because these things are closely related.

Beyond the idea of being “sexually pure,” however, the stereotype of being “pure-hearted” just because you’re aspec is incredibly limiting and once again makes aspec people seem somewhat childish. And, while there’s nothing wrong with viewing the world through a more childlike lens, not everyone on the asexual and/or aromantic spectrums will fall into that category. These two things are not mutually exclusive, and this is the reason why I appreciate and cherish some of my aspec headcanons like Star Trek: Voyager’s Seven of Nine or Dragon Age: Inquisition’s Cole.

These are both characters who approach the world in a manner that might be considered more childlike – in Seven’s case, being a de-assimilated Borg trying to become human again means she has to relearn a lot of things the way a child might, and for Cole, his role as a spirit of compassion means he longs to be helpful and kind. However, both characters also have dark, complicated, and even violent pasts which contrast to their more “innocent” or “pure-hearted” tendencies. And while the writing for both characters does fall into the assumptions of these stereotypes on occasion – as well as various tropes – the concept is nevertheless a promising one.

In my own life, I’ve also experienced this stereotype when I approach things that are commonly sexualized and take a non-sexual angle. Obviously, I’m not trying to be pure-hearted when I don’t sexualize these things; as a sex-repulsed AroAce, it’s just the way my own personal lens works. One of the best examples I can think is when I interact with certain fellow ARMY – that is to say, other fans of the Korean group BTS. BTS are all good-looking young men in their twenties, so it’s natural that fans of various ages would find them attractive; even I can certainly admit they’re often stunningly gorgeous. But that is not the reason why I’m a fan, and there have been times where I’ve expressed appreciation for things that don’t relate to (for example) their physique or other typically attractive qualities, and fellow fans have mentioned that my love for them is very pure-hearted.

Image description: BTS in a promo picture for their album Map of the Soul: 7. Obviously different people are attracted to different things, so not everyone will find the members of the band attractive. But to assume that this is "pure-hearted," "unique," or "unusual" feels odd to me.

While that’s a kind enough thing to say, it’s not as though I’m trying to be pure or that I’m seeking that kind of praise. Furthermore, it makes me feel a bit like a weird outlier – like surely everyone else must be ogling them and I’m a unique special person for not doing so. However, the diversity of BTS’s fanbase makes it so that there are plenty of people like me who aren’t here because they’re attracted to the boys, but because they’re looking for something else, so the idea that my “pure-hearted” way of seeing things is somehow unique isn’t even accurate. I – and many other people – are just approaching things in a way that is true to us. That isn’t inherently a good or bad thing, and yet society often tries to quantify it as such. The tropes I often reference make it seem like these things are bad things; but the stereotypes I’m discussing today somehow try to make it seem like a good thing, as the next stereotype is built upon.

“The Good/Correct Aspec”

This last stereotype is probably the most insidious, but also the one that probably requires the most explanation, because I feel it has two meanings – hence the two adjectives used to title it. I also think it’s one of those stereotypes that aspec people can potentially get tricked into thinking about ourselves, rather than one that other people force onto us. On the one hand, I think this stereotype can be a little like the “pure” stereotype and thus it can be applied to how aspec people are compared to non-aspec people; but on the other hand, I think it can be a stereotype we may potentially fall into when thinking about other aspec people.

Let’s start by discussing the first part of that stereotype, the idea of “good.” To start, I believe this isn’t just something that can affect aspec people, but rather a stereotype I think people of all backgrounds can fall into if they don’t prioritize sex and/or romance. Again, this is something I’ve mentioned in other posts and that I alluded to in the previous section: society seems to have these things divided into artificial metrics of “good” and “bad,” where none really need to exist.

I believe this also contributes to a problem I’ve experienced a lot in my life, where allosexual people assume that aspec people are bigoted or are judging them for their own lives/relationships. And, while some aspec people might do exactly that, I’m sure most of us are not. But stereotypes like these play into that concern, because they make it seem like, in this dichotomy, we are trying to be “good” and everything else is “bad.” Much like with the other stereotypes, I think this belief devalues the idea of aspec identities being actual identities and makes them seem instead like preferences or moral choices, which is obviously not accurate.

However, I feel it’s also a surprisingly easy stereotype to fall into because so much of our society is obsessed with sex and romance, so at times distancing yourself from these things can feel like some sort of weird crusade. Naturally, not all aspec people have a problem with sex and/or romance, but if you do dislike or find yourself made uncomfortable by these things, our society doesn’t really have a lot of language to describe that, nor does it have a lot of understanding for these attitudes. As such, saying these things don’t really appeal to you can implicitly and unintentionally play into this stereotype.

The second prong of this stereotype is the idea of being a good or correct aspec among other aspec people. This is absurd, of course, because there literally is no singular way to be aspec and so it is completely impossible to do aspec-ness “correctly.” And yet, once again, I feel this is a stereotype that society and the culture around us can contribute to in ways that can be difficult to resist. Because aspec identities are still largely misunderstood, these misunderstandings can lead to aspec people trying to distinguish themselves in ways that can make this stereotype fester.

This is one of the reasons why I felt it was important to discuss celibacy/abstinence and how it differs from asexuality and other aspec identities, as I did in a post last year, because I feel these conflating attitudes contribute to this problem. Many people still believe that aspec identities are actually choices, as I just mentioned, and even people who do understand that these things are identities fail to consider the nuance that is often present in them. For instance, plenty of aspec people still participate in sex and/or romance for one reason or another, but that doesn’t make them less aspec. And yet, I think many allosexual people are confused by this, and assume that surely these people are indeed less aspec because of that.

And so, I think this is where the “correct” aspec assumption can come into play and again, I blame societal attitudes. For instance, I’m reminded of a comment I got on Tumblr once when I was discussing my review of the book “Let’s Talk About Love.” The main character of that book is asexual, but she’s not aromantic – rather, she’s biromantic, and romance is a large part of her story. This Tumblr commenter shared their own story of how having a parent read the book to try and understand their own identity didn’t work because instead their parent took the lesson that they’d “find the right person eventually.”

Similarly, when society sees people who identify as aspec but who nevertheless have relationships – even sexual ones – they seem to treat those people as “less aspec” than others, or assume that they’re not aspec at all. Indeed, those attitudes can then affect other aspec people, and society will assume that if some aspec people have sex or romance, or if some aspec people are comfortable with those things, then surely all of them will be. Even worse, they may assume that aspec people who have sex or romance are proof that aspec identities are something to grow or evolve out of, and that plays into many of the tropes I’ve discussed previously.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an aspec person who has sex or romance for any reason, just like there is nothing wrong with being an aspec person who doesn’t have them, or who feels uncomfortable with these things. No aspec person is “good” or “better” or “more aspec” than another just because of how they present their identity or how their identity functions for them. And above all, each aspec person should be able to choose how they see themselves and present their identities because, while our identities are not a choice, how we live them is.

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

All of the tropes discussed here today are just based on my own observations, and I've given them names that make sense to me, but I suspect that many other aspec people have experienced something like them. Overall, aspec identities are unique, varied, and vast, so it’s pretty much impossible to summarize the aspec experience with just a handful of buzzwords or types of portrayals. Although not done maliciously, these types of assumptions take what are essentially very different identities and experiences and tries to distill them down into something that is massively oversimplified. That is why I wanted to discuss this topic, because the stereotypes I discussed here are problematic precisely due to this limiting nature, and I hope to not limit things myself in so doing but rather open this topic up for deeper thought. 

Aspec people don’t have to be only one thing, and I hope that by discussing the ways these stereotypes contribute to negative beliefs, we can try to break out of them moving forward. I know that will likely take time and effort, but as aspec identities become more visible, I think conversations like these are important so that aspec individuals and their life stories don’t get crushed into a stereotypical idea people have of them. Much like other minority groups have fought for years to be seen as complex and multi-dimensional, I think the time has come for aspec people to do likewise. And, although it will be a long road, I believe it will be worth the effort.