Is Respecting Aspec Identities Really So Difficult?
 |
| Image description: Sasappis, one of the ghosts from the comedy series Ghosts, who is witty, drama-loving, creative... and, as the show is eager to keep reminding us, a virgin (gasp!). While I love Ghosts for its clever writing and tons of heart, watching Sas be treated as an oddity throughout season four due to not having had a romantic or sexual relationship was deeply frustrating and got me asking what feels like an age-old question: Is it really that hard to respect aspec identities? |
I would argue that, yes, they absolutely do. While a lot of
the things I discuss on this blog may seem like trivialities that I’m
nitpicking, these things do add up – even if they seem otherwise small and
insignificant. This is because aspec identities are still struggling, not only
for visibility, but for basic respect in many cases, and these instances of
subtle aphobia or dismissal can be like death by a thousand cuts. I am routinely
astonished by how often media blatantly disrespects aspec identities, or even
just the idea of being non-sexual and/or non-romantic, even in otherwise
diverse pieces of media, and it makes me wonder why it seems so difficult to
afford these identities even just a modicum of basic respect.
This question is not easy or straightforward to answer, and
I believe there are many different possible answers as to why it seems so
difficult for people – and especially popular media – to respect aspec
identities, as well as non-sexual and non-romantic characters of all kinds.
I’ve highlighted many examples of this on my blog over the years, from the
casual bigotry of how Sheldon Cooper is treated on The Big Bang Theory
to the blatant ignorance of the writing team behind Sherlock to the habitual
blindspot that seemed to plague the developers of the Dragon Age series
for years. And yet, these problems are still alive and well in current media, a
fact which proved to me that I need to look at this topic yet again and in
greater depth, exploring why it seems so strangely difficult for media to treat
asexuality, aromanticism, and their related identities with the decency they
deserve.
The Problem
with “Ghosts”
To start, I’d like to zero in on the current piece of media
that got me thinking more in depth about this topic in the first place – the
comedy series Ghosts, and especially its character Sasappis. Ghosts
is a show I’ve talked about a few times on the blog – in fact, the first time I
discussed it, I mentioned that I actually considered the show a piece of “Ace Safe Space” media because, despite some of its more ribald jokes, the show had
a wholesome core past all that. In that original post, I mention that Ghosts
came to me during a very difficult time in my life and made me laugh, so it
always holds a special place in my heart, even when it doesn’t quite seem to
love me back.
Unfortunately, despite how great and wholesome Ghosts
can be, there are plenty of instances where I feel the show veers off course.
Rather frustratingly, sometimes both of these things can be true within the
same episode, and a prime example of this is the 2024 Christmas episode. If
you’ve never seen the show or heard me talk about it, Ghosts is about a
young woman named Sam who gains the ability to see ghosts after a near-death
experience. This especially applies to the quirky cast of spirits dwelling in the
house that was bequeathed to Sam and her husband Jay after the death of one of
Sam’s relatives, and the show details the hilarious shenanigans that occur
between Sam, Jay, and the diverse ghosts.
As is often true with any episode of Ghosts (and any
good piece of media in general), this episode features several different
storylines running in parallel, and as such, we see both the good and the bad
play out in very stark ways. On the wholesome front, the main plotline for the
episode involves Jay accidentally getting possessed by one of the ghosts, Pete,
who takes advantage of having human form to go visit his daughter and grandson.
The way Pete reacts to finally being able to hug his daughter after decades is
so genuinely sweet and perfectly Christmas-appropriate that it’s effortlessly
tear-jerking, and perfectly encapsulates what the show can be at its best. But
what are the other ghosts doing during this main plot?
The episode’s B-plot, clearly meant for comedic relief,
centers on the character of Sasappis, who you may remember me discussing in my
most recent “Quirky Aspec Headcanons” post. One of the original ghosts on the
property, the dry, drama-loving Native American ghost from the Lenai Lenapi tribe
is one of my favorite characters in the show, but is also one of the least
fleshed-out ghosts when it comes to knowing much of anything about his
backstory. One thing we’ve been able to imply, as I discuss in that headcanons
post, is that Sas most likely never had a steady relationship during his life.
Although he harbored affections for another Lenai Lenapi named Shiki, he never
approached her while he was alive, and even in death, he proves to be unlucky
in love. In this episode, we get confirmation that Sas died a virgin, thanks to
Thor – a Viking ghost and the only ghost on the property who has been around
longer than Sas – telling Flower about it.
Flower, who in life was a stereotypical free-love hippie
whose sexuality is played up, is of course appalled by what she dubs Sas’s
terrible and embarrassing fate. Because the ghosts can have sex (something I’ve
always found equal parts bizarre and uncomfy), she takes it upon herself to try
and fix Sas up with anyone who is willing, which of course proves to Sas that
Thor has revealed this secret and leaves him feeling rightfully hurt and
betrayed. While the show does allow for Sas to feel these things and even
portrays that feeling of hurt as valid, this is nevertheless played for laughs
at several points, pretty much always as Sas’s expense.
There is, of course, a lot I hate about this plotline – so
much so that I actually started writing notes for this post while I was still
watching the episode. But I think perhaps the most frustrating thing about this
plot with Sas is that even it manages to have sweet and wholesome moments
despite how problematic the rest of the plot is, chiefly when it comes to Thor
and Sas’s relationship. Thor realizes that revealing this secret was wrong and
deeply hurtful to Sas, while Sas meanwhile remembers how much it meant to have
Thor’s friendship back when he had newly become a ghost, recalling how Thor
even went out of his way to learn Lenapi to be able to communicate with Sas.
It’s a sweet story, and had it ended there, I might have been able to be okay
with it.
 |
| Image description: Viking ghost Thor with Sasappis, easily one of my favorite odd-couple friendships in Ghosts. |
But the 2024 Christmas episode is only the beginning of a plot with Sas that ran through the rest of the season. Building off of Flower’s meddling, the entire cast of ghosts – and even Sam and Jay to a certain extent – begin pitying Sas, not just for being unlucky in love, but specifically being a virgin. For several episodes, trying to “get Sas laid” becomes a recurring B-plot or even just a throwaway joke at times, and these jokes are always used to make Sas feel uncomfortable. It got to the point where even reviewers who weren’t zeroing in on this plotline due to concerns of aphobia found these jokes overplayed and generally mean-spirited (no pun intended).
Once the jokes started, I knew they were likely to end in
only one way – Sas was going to have sex with someone at some point, and it was
just a matter of who and when. So it was not a surprise to me when the show
introduced a ghostly girlfriend for Sas in the form of Joan, a screenwriter
from the Golden Age of Hollywood, who is able to travel rather than being
tethered to her place of death, making her accessible to Sas – unlike Shiki,
who is tethered elsewhere. However, at one point, Sas becomes uncertain of Joan
and more certain of Shiki, and while these things make a lot more sense in
conjunction with the plot, I find it amusing that the show’s most aphobic plot
accidentally makes Sas even more aspec for a brief period of time.
The show of course likes to frame Sas being a virgin as him
being unlucky in love, but I would argue that Sas’s interest in Shiki, both in
life and in death, make a good case for him being demisexual and/or
demiromantic. To be clear, despite this and Sas’s very aspec-coded moments in
earlier seasons of the show – as well as my inclusion of him in my list of
aspec headcanon characters – I always knew that he would never be allowed to be
aspec, nor did I expect it. Although I find it ironic that the show came close
to letting him be aspec without even realizing, Sas not being aspec or having a
girlfriend are not really the issues here. Rather, the main issue is the way
the show frames Sas’s sexual inexperience.
As I mentioned earlier, this element of Sas’s personality
became such a focus for several episodes, that jokes regarding it were present
in nearly every episode from the Christmas special onward. Like other
non-romantic and non-sexual characters in comedies before him – Sheldon Cooper
in The Big Bang Theory comes to mind – the way the rest of the ensemble
cast treats Sas because of his sexual inexperience conveys not only how the
characters are supposed to feel, but how the writers and creative team behind the
show likewise feel.
 |
| Image description: Another image of Sas in Ghosts |
In an interview with the website TVLine, Sas’s actor Roman Zaragoza discusses the short love triangle between Sas, Joan, and Shiki, expanding on the plotline with observations that are actually pretty astute about Sas as a character. However, later in the interview, his thoughts on Sas being a virgin admittedly have me scratching my head a little. When asked, he mentions that it was his idea to have Sas be a virgin, something which the showrunners agreed with, but also discusses how it seemed like the showrunners were worried he might find it “weird” or that it might be a struggle for him as an actor. Personally, I find these descriptions to be the weird thing, and also a little frustrating.
When we look at these descriptions, it puts all the jokes at
Sas’s expense into context. Clearly there was a sentiment that Sas being a
virgin was an oddity, so much so that they were worried it might make the actor
playing him uncomfortable, as if being sexually inexperienced is something that
people have to wear as a mark of shame. To me, it’s such a big missed
opportunity to have that be how this plotline played out, instead of allowing
this to be something Sas was able to own as a part of himself, even if he
wasn’t aspec per se. Instead, the show allowed Sas to be ridiculed for this
fact, with characters implying that it’s sad and pathetic that he’s never had
sex, or else treating him like a child because of it. Of course, treating
non-sexual and/or non-romantic characters as children is one of the earliest
tropes I explored on this blog, so while it’s not surprising to see the others
treat Sas like this, it is disheartening.
But ironically enough, the fact that Sas actually does seem
to be quite young should have been taken into account. While Sas’s age is never
really confirmed one way or another – and he’s certainly not a child nor should
he be treated like one – it seems to be implied that Sas died before he was
able to reach many major life milestones. More than that, while an actor’s age of
course doesn’t mean their character is the same age, Sas’s actor Roman Zaragoza
was born in 1996 (meaning he’s actually younger than I am!). Given Ghosts
began in 2021, he certainly couldn’t be more than 25 when the show started filming,
and thus we can potentially imply that Sas is supposed to be around that age,
give or take a few years.
Although people can, of course, have their first sexual
encounter at any age, not having had sex in one’s early to mid-twenties is
really not that strange, despite the show trying to imply it is, and so it
actually becomes a little creepy when some of the chronologically older ghosts
mock him for this inexperience. This whole thing also becomes extra ironic when
you consider how the show then also treats Sas like a much older virgin given
he’s been dead for so long. In my opinion, this is perhaps an example of the
show wanting to have its comedic cake and eat it too, treating Sas both as a
child and as a sort of “40-year-old virgin” stand-in at the same time –
something that was all but confirmed to me when I read the article I reference
earlier in the post, in which the author mentions that Sas’s eventual sexual
encounter does in fact make references to the film The 40-year old Virgin.
Again, am I surprised that the show eventually has Sas get
sexual with Joan? No, I can’t say I was. Once the jokes started, I knew they
wouldn’t stop until Sas was no longer a virgin, since the show was determined
to treat his virginity as a “problem.” Thus, when Sas finally does have his
first sexual encounter with Joan in the penultimate episode of the season, I of
course felt disappointed, but also somewhat grateful that this will hopefully
put an end to the jokes at his expense. But I also knew, above all, that this
entire arc had given me a topic that I desperately need to discuss in greater
depth.
A Lack of
Respect
As I’ve said before on the blog, I can, on some level,
understand why it’s difficult to portray aspec identities in media. Especially
when a piece of media is not specifically about a character wrestling with that
part of themselves and instead features this part of them as simply one part of
the whole, it can be tough to adequately portray these elements to everyone’s
satisfaction. However, when it comes to instances of blatant disrespect against
not only aspec identities, but also just non-romantic and/or non-sexual
characters – or virgin characters like Sas – this is not something I can easily
reconcile or explain. And, as I’ve said many times before, this becomes even
more frustrating when a piece of media is otherwise diverse, as is the case in Ghosts.
Ghosts is not ignorant of diversity and several
characters or plotlines openly celebrate the diversity of their characters.
Isaac is a gay man who, due to living during the American Revolution, had to
keep his identity secret until Sam and the other ghosts help him come out and
admit his feelings for Nigel, a British soldier whom he knew during his
lifetime and who also lives on the property. Their romance went so far as to
see the two almost get married. Flower routinely discusses having both male and
female sexual partners and, although this is clearly played for laughs and to
fit into the notion of her being a stereotypical hippie, it’s not something the
show ever shies away from. Nancy, one of the “basement ghosts,” not only
likewise is shown to be comfortable with both male and female partners, but a
short-lived plot of the show features her, Flower, and Thor in a polyamorous
“throuple.” Meanwhile, there are other same-sex couples – both among the ghosts
and among the living around Sam and Jay – who have appeared in the show on
numerous occasions.
And yet, despite all this terrific diversity, we have Sas
being mocked and treated like a child simply due to being a virgin. Setting
aside my own personal headcanons or aspec concerns, this is not okay,
especially in a show that otherwise seems to strive to be open and tolerant. Usually,
when the show pokes fun at the ghosts, it is more poking fun at specific
stereotypical attributes about them, such as Thor being hilariously and glibly
gruesome because he’s a Viking, Flower being spacy to play on the stereotype of
hippies and recreational drugs, or Trevor being an oversexed finance bro. The
sex lives of the ghosts have always been allowed to be part of the joke – as I
mentioned earlier with Flower – but rarely do these jokes come at the expense
of the ghosts themselves.
 |
| Image description: All the main ghosts of the show, all of whom are friends with each other and usually support each other in heartfelt and funny ways - which makes the treatment of Sas in season four all the more baffling. |
For instance, earlier in the series there were several plots about Hetty, the manor’s Victorian era ghost, being sexually repressed, again to play on the stereotype that Victorians would even see a glimpse of ankle as scandalous. Helping Hetty embrace her sexuality was played for laughs, certainly, but it was also meant to be seen as a sort of empowerment for her, taking back her sexuality from the confines of her society. While there are problems to be had with this portrayal for sure, which I discuss in another post, it doesn’t seem like we’re meant to laugh at Hetty during this journey.
But the jokes in the Christmas episode and beyond absolutely
do come at Sas’s expense. Even if they’re not meant to diminish Sas as a
character in our eyes or make us dislike him, the way he’s treated and
disrespected by the other characters and thus by the show’s writers is honestly
baffling to me. Like I said, although I wasn’t exactly expecting the show to
make Sas aspec – and indeed assumed that at some point they would probably
erase his aspec tendencies – I certainly wasn’t expecting there to be an entire
plotline essentially dedicated to making fun of him for these tendencies, and
that’s where the real issue lies.
Originally, I had intended for this post to be a much
broader look at the blatant disrespect media seems to have for aspec people,
and instead it largely ended up focusing on Ghosts and on Sas’s plotline
in particular. But honestly, my entire blog seems to be built on the theme of
how non-sexual and/or non-romantic characters get disrespected, and I therefore
think my heavy focus on Ghosts was essential because of how recent it is
and how well it makes my point. That being said, however, I would like to
expand my analysis briefly to point out why I think this disrespect is allowed
to go on.
Diving Deeper
As mentioned earlier, I acknowledge that such representation
can actually be very difficult. I understand the challenges that exist when it
comes to writing good aspec characters or when it comes to trying to honor all
the identities on this very broad spectrum, and that there will likely be bugs
to work out as media attempts to reconcile these differences. But although basic
representation may be difficult to get right, I can’t help but ask: is
basic respect really so difficult? Is it really so hard to accept that
some people, even if they’re not aspec, might not want sex or romance in their
life? Why is it such a struggle to treat these people with human decency and
not assume they’re somehow lacking?
While it can indeed be hard to pinpoint exactly why respect
seems so difficult to come by, I believe there are several reasons why media
doesn’t seem concerned with respecting these identities. While sometimes this
answer can be as simple and pedantic as the age-old excuse that “sex sells,” I
think the issue is a bit more complicated than that. It’s not just that sex
sells, which of course it does, but what I tend to see in media is the
determination to downplay things that are non-sexual and/or non-romantic so
that buying into sex and/or romance ends up being the only option.
This is done in a few different ways. One of the most
obvious is simply by pretending these things don’t exist, which is why we still
see people doubting that asexuality and its related identities are even a
thing, or why people who do not prioritize sex and/or romance are treated as if
something is wrong with them. Whenever these attitudes are allowed to exist,
they are nevertheless made unappealing chiefly through the act of making them
look childish, antiquated, or even downright bigoted; I believe this is why we
sometimes see non-sexual and/or non-romantic characters treated so poorly even
in otherwise diverse media.
One of the best examples I can think of to summarize and
explain this phenomenon is “Canticle,” an episode of the British detective
series Endeavour. In this episode, the titular main character is asked
to guard a local moral crusader named Joy Pettybon, whose upcoming appearance
on a TV show is being met with death threats. Joy’s crusade primarily centers
on the music of a young pop group called The Wildwood, which she considers to
be immoral. When she finally does make her appearance on the TV show, she
describes one of the group’s songs by saying “It’s about S-E-X” and decries
that “it’s disgusting.”
Everything about Joy is designed to be an unpleasant
stereotype. From her look to her manner of speech to her desire for censorship,
she is what most people would likely picture when thinking about anyone who
raises concerns about sex in media. Although some of her objections to the
music come from its use of swear words, based on the above scene and how she is
concerned with “decency,” it’s clear the show intended this, and wanted Joy to
be seen as a stereotypical “prude”.
 |
| Image description: Joy Pettybon in the Endeavour episode "Canticle." While most of the substance of this post has been about Ghosts and thus most of the pictures have been from Ghosts as well, I simply had to include a picture of Joy to visibly demonstrate what I'm talking about in this section. |
In the case of the episode, it’s supposed to be a commentary on the complicated social interplay of the 1960s, during which enforced morality clashed with the newer ideas of self-expression as presented by counterculture movements of the time. While it’s a bit heavy-handed to have a slightly Beatles-esque band going toe-to-toe with a self-proclaimed Christian morality crusader, the episode does play out that struggle rather unabashedly. My issue is not with the fact that they chose to explore this dynamic, nor even that they chose to portray it in this way. Rather, I dislike that Joy being portrayed as ignorant and repressed reinforces the idea that people who don’t want oversexualization in media are also like this.
To put it bluntly, this is a prime example of why it’s so
difficult to analyze media and discuss aspec issues: the minute you mention
oversexualization, you begin to sound like Joy Pettybon, and most people treat
you the same way she is treated in the episode – even though most of us who
bring up these issues wouldn’t even agree with someone like Joy. This is
because a lot of people like her exist, to the point where portraying her in
media is easy, since so many people have met someone like her. Intentionally or
not, having any critique of oversexualization be portrayed in ways that bring
an old moral crusading busybody to mind makes it difficult to ever have a true
conversation. Furthermore, the reluctance to discuss these things makes it even
more easy to assume they’re “not that deep,” which makes it even more
impossible to talk openly about them, creating a vicious circle.
This inability to talk openly about these problems leads to
the other reason why it’s so easy for this disrespect to keep continuing – the
idea that these things are just jokes and don’t really matter. A lot of times, jokes
about aspec or aspec adjacent characters are treated like they don’t have an
impact outside of the media itself, as if these remarks begin and end with these
characters and won’t affect anyone else. This is the same type of attitude I
see all the time in online fandom spaces, where people say aphobic things
(either knowingly or unknowingly) and think it isn’t a problem because they’re
not saying these things about or against any specific person.
But jokes and remarks that disadvantage non-sexual and/or
non-romantic people are damaging whether or not they carry specificity – precisely
because they demonstrate an unwillingness to show these identities basic
respect. If media is willing to make fun of a character for being non-sexual,
like Ghosts did with Sas, and if fans find those jokes hilarious, what’s
stopping them from reproducing those attitudes in their day-to-day life, or
worse, making those jokes themselves?
On the opposite extreme, imagine what would happen if fans
decided they didn’t want to engage in that lack of respect. For me, seeing that
some fans of Ghosts actually disliked the jokes at Sas’s expense and
wanted them to stop was a surprising silver lining. While that doesn’t erase
the fact that the show did this in the first place, of course, it gives me hope
that maybe people can become more aware of why these things are hurtful. There’s
nothing wrong with a character being sexual or having romantic relationships,
but there’s also nothing wrong with a character not having those things,
and I think it’s time media embraced true diversity in allowing these
characters the chance to be respected.
 |
| Image description: Another promo image from Ghosts, this one featuring all the ghosts, as well as Sam and Jay. |
As I said in my intro, it’s so easy to ask if these issues are really that big of a deal. In the age of social media, I always find myself worried that bringing up these issues will make me sound like a whiner or a narcissist, trying to make mountains out of molehills the way you see in comments sections of YouTube videos or in extremely pedantic threads on popular websites. This is something I’ve wrestled with for many years and have often explored in my posts, trying to find a balance between knowing that certain things just aren’t meant for me and being able to talk about actual instances of ignorance, misinformation, or blatant discrimination.
I, of course, I’m not conceited enough to think that me
complaining about these things will make a difference, nor do I expect these
things to just magically happen overnight. But that’s sort of the point. These
things require effort, but they can’t happen at all if that effort is never
made. In my opinion, step one has to be basic respect upon which a
strong foundation can be built, and that can only happen if we discuss these
things and explore them.
As much as I always talk about representation and as much as
I hope for aspec representation in media in the future, I’d like to see respect
become a focus first, and I truly believe this doesn’t have to be difficult or
complicated. By choosing not to mock non-sexual and/or non-romantic characters,
by not relying on aphobic tropes to craft jokes, and by eschewing character
archetypes that are meant to misrepresent people, we can make our media better.
And, if fandoms like the Ghosts fandom can learn to reject media’s
tendency to do these things, we can make our media more respectful – something
that can only be a net positive for everyone, whether aspec or not.
Comments
Post a Comment