Being An Asexual History Geek

Image description: Although the movie 1776 does not feature into today's post topic, it is influential to my love of history, which is the focus of today's post topic, so it kind of works, especially this weekend (happy belated 4th of July). Today I'm exploring what it means to me to be both aspec and a history nerd, from looking for aspec people in history to the very idea of how these things can exist side by side.

Those closest to me know that the best job I ever had was when I worked as a tour guide in my hometown for two and a half years. Before I moved out of state, I was primarily based out of a museum housed in my town’s oldest remaining building, which dated from the mid-1700s, and I was responsible for giving guests an overview history of our town’s unique origins. Even those guests who had lived in the region all their lives were often surprised as I relayed to them the story of our Moravian founders – a group of religious missionaries who came from Moravia in Europe (the modern-day Czech Republic). When the Moravians eventually arrived in Pennsylvania and established their closed community, they set up a unique system that was unlike anything their neighbors – or we today – could even begin to consider familiar.  

My guests were always surprised as I told them about how the Moravians separated everyone in their communities based on age, gender, and marital status, having these different groups live in different buildings. This separation began even with young children, seeing youngest girls and youngest boys separated into two distinct groups, as were single men and single women, even widows and widowers too. Even married couples were separated based on gender, meaning nuclear families did not live together. This type of separation was always hard for my guests to imagine – especially couples and families – but it was a system that actually made Moravian society a friendly one for those people who were otherwise marginalized in 18th century life.  

For instance, widowed and single women were often considered a burden in other parts of the world, since they were reliant on people in their families to take care of them; not so in Moravian society, where everyone contributed to the work and where everyone’s skills were utilized. That is not the only way in which this seemingly odd religious community was in fact quietly revolutionary. In fact, much of their history paints a rich picture of people who were far ahead of their time – their desire for advanced medical care, their emphasis on education for all people regardless of gender or race, the way they endeavored to treat all people as dignified equals and thus considered freed slaves, Native Americans, and others who joined the community as equal brothers and sisters, the list goes on.  

They were not perfect, of course, but Moravian history shows numerous times when mistakes were learned from and those elements that were not working in their society were reconsidered and revised. Part of why I loved my job so much and why the Moravians made me so proud of my town was because somehow, I found myself able to relate to them. Nowadays, although it feels nearly impossible to imagine such a society, I nevertheless felt a connection to these people and their culture. Would I have wanted to live in Moravian society? Well, considering part of my job involved sometimes wearing a replica of Moravian attire, I can tell you I most certainly would not. But the fact that I could have lived in their society as myself and likely could have lived the way I desired is something that has always stuck with me. 

So why am I telling you all this? For one main reason: because I believe that history is too often considered unrelatable and thus too easily dismissed. But something that I’ve loved about history from my earliest days until now is the fact that historical people were still people. Just like modern people, they had hopes and dreams, things they liked and disliked, routines that either comforted or bored them, friends they relied on, books they loved to read, and things they fought for in their society. And, just like us, they were diverse in all things, including in identity, sexuality, and orientation. While of course many periods throughout history saw people having to hide their true identities in order to fit into society or culture, I believe people of all kinds can still look at history and find themselves within its stories, and that is one of many reasons why I love history. 

While my love for history long predated me knowing I was asexual, it has never once wavered or abated over the years, and has honestly only gotten stronger. So today, I thought it would be fun to explore the intersection of those two identities, looking at history – especially aspec history – and exploring what being aspec and a history nerd means to me. Do I look for myself in history? Have I ever found people like me? Is it a net positive to look at history with this lens? This post won’t really answer any of these questions definitively, because one thing history gives us is a lot of mysteries, but it felt appropriate for this time of year. So, let’s take a look at what it’s like being an asexual history geek. 

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

Like I said, I loved history long before I knew I was aspec; in fact, my love of history traces its roots back to my childhood. In addition to growing up in the aforementioned historic town and experiencing a lot of historical media because of my parents (who themselves are also history nerds), I was also reading books, playing games, and watching shows or movies with historical themes for years before asexuality was ever a part of my life. But naturally, once I discovered this vital element of my life and personality, I also began seeing history in a new light as well, and began analyzing it through a new lens. So too, I began getting interested in where asexuality comes from in the historical sense. 

One of the most commonly parroted aphobic attitudes is the mistaken belief that asexuality and its related identities are modern inventions – that they’re “meaningless terms” that first appeared on the internet within the past two decades, and therefore surely must be false. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. While trying to dive into asexual history is unfortunately kind of fraught, just as talking about many aspec topics is, there is a precedent for asexuality throughout history, ranging back centuries, depending on what you’re looking for and how you choose to analyze things.  

As is to be expected, a lot of early depictions of asexuality were – as they tend to be today – misunderstood as physical and/or mental ailments, but nevertheless the notion of people who do not feel sexual attraction was being described by name as early as the mid 1900’s. When it comes to identifying a lack of sexual attraction without the benefit of the label of asexuality, you can go back even further to studies conducted in the late 1800’s, or even earlier. According to YouTuber Jessica Kellgren-Fozard in a series about queer history, one of the uses of the term most relevant to how asexuality is treated today comes from 1981, far predating the supposed “internet invention” of the term.

As far as I’m concerned, there’s absolutely no reason to doubt that aspecness existed throughout history. Even in time periods throughout history where people did not have this terminology or where being non-sexual and/or non-romantic was discouraged or even forbidden, I firmly believe there were still people who lived this way. However, in many instances, I’m sure their society may have forced them to treat it like a choice rather than an identity, or they may have had to play along with societal expectations for their own safety, much as other marginalized identities did and still do to this day.

So, all of this raises the question: how do we go about approaching the idea of aspecness throughout history? Unfortunately, there is always the potential when trying to analyze history that we as modern people will unfairly judge the past through our modern lens. It’s all too easy to look at something in history and apply our own context on top of it, assuming that certain things must be a certain way because that’s how we expect them to be nowadays. There is likewise a danger in not understanding certain historical things in their context, and thus dismissing them because they do not match our modern values, which makes this question all the more difficult to answer.

Just like in my earlier example of my previous historical workplace, in which people would often be shocked and even dismayed to hear about a system they themselves could not imagine, it’s so easy to do this with so many things throughout history, whether in a good way or a bad way. All that to say, there are definitely potential pitfalls when looking at history and assuming that we can make certain interpretations, including when it comes to assuming identity. In the case of asexuality, this becomes even more difficult, largely because asexuality is still very misunderstood and misrepresented even in our modern contexts, and thus it becomes next to impossible to try and accurately map asexual concepts onto the past. 

Something I’ve mentioned a lot when analyzing fictional characters is the fact that having so little canonical representation in media often means simply looking for “vibes.” Oftentimes, if a character seemed thoroughly disinterested in sex and/or romance, seems happier by themselves, or otherwise expresses their doubts about the importance of romantic relationships, aspec people will begin seeing them as aspec. While there is, of course, no single universal aspec experience, many times these characteristics jump out at aspec people because they nevertheless remind us of our own journeys. As my blog proves, vibe-spotting can often be a frustrating experience, not only because the media these characters are in doesn’t often respect these so-called aspec vibes, but because they’re likewise easily dismissed by non-aspec fans for any number of reasons.

Similarly, it’s difficult to engage in vibe-spotting in history for many of the same reasons, and for many of the reasons I’ve already mentioned. There are plenty of reasons why a historical figure might have chosen not to get married or have romantic relationships, of course – for example, men or women who chose to remain single their whole lives might have been a different queer identity and, because living openly in this way would have been forbidden, simply chose to remain unattached. But nevertheless, I think there are some historical figures who exhibit “aspec vibes.” 

Before I turn to some of my personal beliefs for historical aspec vibes, I’d like to include a few I’ve seen from online sources. First of these sources is from history YouTuber Lindsay Holliday, creator of “History Tea Time,” who, in a video from 2024, explored the concept of potentially aspec royals throughout history. As per the video, Lindsay accurately points out that it is not only difficult for historians to be able to pinpoint aspec historical figures due to these people not having a true ability to express what they were feelings, but because a lack of sexual attraction often leaves less evidence than sexual attraction does; whereas a sexual liaison might have people who vouched for the bond at the time or other physical evidence like love letters, a lack of sexual attraction would have no such thing. 

As Lindsay also points out in this royalty-themed video that these questions are especially difficult to answer when it comes to royalty, nobility, and the aristocracy, since people of noble or royal birth often had very little choice when it came to sex or romance, especially for women. These people would have often been told who they were marrying and when, and a sexual element would have been demanded of these relationships, meaning it would have been extremely dangerous for any alternate ideas to be expressed, including asexuality. But there is some potential evidence for all of the people mentioned in Lindsay’s video and she gives a great overview of many royals that may have been aspec, as well as spectacular discussions of asexuality, presented with thought and care. 

In her video, Lindsay highlights six royals throughout history – Athelstan (king of England, 894 – 939), Louis the 7^th (king of France, 1120 – 1180), Elizabeth the 1^st (queen of England, 1533 – 1603), Maria Anna of Austria (archduchess of Austria, 1738 – 1789), Louis the 16^th (king of France, 1754 – 1793), and Helena Victoria (princess of Schleswig-Holstein, 1870 - 1948). As I have said thought this post and as Lindsay makes clear in her video, there are arguments that can be made for and against all of these – for instance, her comments section seemed to push back against Elizabeth I, noting that the virgin queen had her reasons for choosing not to marry which may have had little to do with identity, while others say that Louis the 16^th and Marie Antoinette had a well-documented sex life. So too, many of the other examples can be seen as having a lack of sexual desire rooted more in piety than anything else. However, I still think these are interesting examples and the historical evidence and logic she applies to these examples is compelling.

Athelstan, for instance, seemed to have no interest in marriage or children. His reasons were religious in nature and could be seen as merely being a choice – as I’ve explored on the blog before, of course, celibacy and asexuality are not the same thing for exactly this reason – but it’s the fact that he was a king that makes this noteworthy, since having an heir would have been seen as a duty. So perhaps it can be said that part what inspired him to make this choice was an aspec identity underneath all of that. Similar logic is applied to Louis the 7^th, who seemed to have to be cajoled into producing heirs and was described as being very monk-like. 

Part of what I love about this video is that I hadn’t considered most of these figures, and even was introduced to some figures I’d never heard of before. Of course, as an aspec history geek, there are plenty of figures I’ve heard about online, heard from friends, or that I’ve researched myself who jump out at me as having aspec vibes, but I’m always happy to learn about more. To that end, I’d like to talk next about some of the historical figures that have always coded to me as potentially aspec. Much like Lindsay says in her video, I acknowledge how difficult it is to look at historical figures and try to make these “vibe” based guesses – especially since, as much as I love history, I am no historian, and I am doubtless lacking a lot of the context of these people’s lives when I say they seem to have aspec tendencies. Therefore, I highly suggest taking my thoughts here with a grain of salt.

When it comes to historical figures who I think bear exploring when it comes to asexuality, my mind goes to inventor Nikola Tesla, aviator Amelia Earhart, authors Edgar Allan Poe and J.M. Barrie, and Thaddeus Stevens (who was suggested to me by my good friend and favorite history blogger, Laura). Like I said, I don’t know enough to really go in depth with many of these, but I can at least give some reasons for each. For example, something that many of these figures share is that, while they were married, their marriages were not exactly the stuff of romantic legends. Amelia Earhart, for instance, seemed to be in a marriage of convenience more than anything, while J.M. Barrie’s marriage produced no children and some historians even believe the marriage was never consummated. Meanwhile, although Poe married his young cousin, there is some speculation that he did so in order to protect her from being married off to a much older man, and both Nikola Tesla and Thaddeus Stevens never married at all.

There are even historical figures who you might not expect who make me wonder. For instance, about a year ago, I stumbled across something that suggested Marilyn Monroe could have been aspec – possibly demiromantic and/or demisexual – because some of her journals seem to indicate she did not particularly enjoy sex nor even fully understand the societal desire for it until she met someone whom she truly came to love. None of these attributes, of course, prove conclusively that these people were aspec, but these notions serve as interesting starting points for discussion.

I could talk about all of these examples endlessly, but today I want to highlight J.M. Barrie and Thaddeus Stevens. There isn’t much I can say about Stevens that hasn’t already been said better by Laura in her blog, so I highly recommend checking out her posts about him, but suffice to say that his prominent lack of a spouse or children makes it very easy for both Laura and myself to believe Stevens was aspec. Naturally, there were those – even in Stevens’ day – who believed his relationship with his housekeeper Mrs. Smith was sexual in nature, and so this will forever be a mystery. But Stevens was, by all accounts, an incredible man, and the idea of him being aspec is deeply appealing to me.

Next, the more complicated story of J.M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan. The story of the boy who never grew up was inspired by Barrie’s friendship with the Llewelyn Davies family, especially their five young sons, to whom he liked to tell stories. As I said before, there is always the potential of placing our modern values over top of historical people, and J.M. Barrie suffers from that quite a bit, as his bond with the Llewelyn Davies children has, over the years, led to accusations of pedophilia. However, the youngest of the Llewelyn Davies brothers not only spoke against this as an adult, but his remarks actually make me even more convinced that Barrie could have been aspec. Nico Llewelyn Davies was quoted as saying “I don’t believe that Uncle Jim ever experienced what one might call ‘a stirring in the undergrowth’ for anyone – man, woman, or child. He was an innocent, which is why he could write Peter Pan.”

I don’t, of course, know for sure what can be said of J.M. Barrie’s feelings. But if I were to look at him through my own lens, I could easily see him as feeling connected to the idea of a boy not wanting to grow up, especially if he did not desire or even understand sex or romance as Nico Llewelyn Davies seems to imply. If that were the case, it would make sense that he wanted to tell stories, play games, and write such a magical tale, rather than be bogged down by the things society – both then and now – would consider more “adult.” I believe Barrie represents part of why it can be so difficult to search for aspec historical figures, because we just really never know, but he always stands out in my mind as someone who fits the bill.

To me, I believe that perhaps the best thing we can do as history geeks is to embrace this sense of not knowing, but also embrace looking back to the past with a mind for inclusivity. Rather than focusing on labels as being the only thing that can give us a clue to someone’s identity or getting lost in the weeds of mistaking societal expectations for what a person truly wanted, it might do to remember that the world of the past was more diverse than we know – indeed, more diverse than can be expressed. Are all these potentially aspec people actually aspec? Probably not. But the point is that the potential is there. And more to the point, would it really be so bad to imagine they were?

Just as with fictional characters, people often seem quick to dismiss the idea of aspec historical figures and I just don’t understand why. There’s no reason to dismiss the idea of aspecness existing throughout history, not only for these famous historical figures, but for so many people throughout history whose names and stories were not known. I believe we owe it to those people to at least consider the fact that asexuality and its related identities existed through time. And we owe it to all aspec people to allow their identities to be valid, now and into the future - or in the past.

Image description: A picture from my hometown's historic district (picture not mine) - the white building on the right is where I used to work and give tours. 

Although the show has been off the air now for almost a decade, I, as a history buff, will always think fondly of a show that aired on NBC back in 2016 called Timeless. This sci-fi tale involved a team of heroes trying to stop a villain who was hellbent on altering history, often meeting incredible historical figures, connecting with them on a human level, and learning things along the way. One of the scenes that I always come back to is a scene in which one of the characters, Rufus, is lamenting a trip back to the old West to find the lawman who would eventually go on to serve as the inspiration for the television show, The Lone Ranger. As a black man, Rufus is less than thrilled to be in the old West, and figures the man they seek – Bass Reeves – is going to be a stereotypical white cowboy. However, when Rufus learns that Reeves is black, his delight is so clear and so infectious that it has stuck with me to this very day.

This scene from Timeless reminds me of what I think so often happens with history. It’s an unfortunate truth that history as presented to us often comes across as stuffy and unrelatable, with no one whose story mirrors ours and with no ability to see our own values reflected in such a different time and place. And while it’s certainly true that history can be unrecognizable or even unpleasant to look at sometimes, there’s also so much of history that could speak to us and to our experiences. At its core, history is composed of great stories with incredible people at the forefront; so too, history is also smaller moments of ordinary people living their lives as best they can. Both of these things are admirable and deeply worth exploring.

So, my advice as an aspec history geek? Look for yourself in history. Look for people who were like you who did amazing things and strove for a better future and were unapologetically themselves. It might take you a while to find someone – and when you do, they likely won’t think exactly like you think or believe exactly the same things you believe – but I promise you can find someone whose story will inspire you. I often told people who took my tour at the Moravian Museum that history is the great equalizer, because it shows us all the ways we are similar and that the past and the present have far more in common than we believe. And that, I believe, is one of the greatest gifts history can give those of us in the present.