Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Removing the OP example- first, it seems implausible for someone as sex-positive as Oda to make his two main male characters asexual. (He's the same guy who implied that Luffy not showing sexual interest would make him seem unhealthy.) Luffy's just innocent and dumb, and Zoro probably has a crippling case of Unlucky Childhood Friend that makes him overly repressed. There's nothing complex going on here, seriously. I've read and watched tons of Japanese fiction from varying genres and media, and these types of characters occur often; they're always simply innocent and/or immature and haven't learned how to appropriately express their desires.

((Ceruleanshipper)): I know Stephen Fry was celibate for a long time, but does he identify as asexual currently? I mean, I've read "Moab is My Washpot", and I'm pretty sure that he wasn't asexual during his youth.

Sneebs: Could someone exlain to me how Lloyd Asplund being listed here counts as Critical Research Failure? Throughout the series he shows not an ounch of sexual attraction to anyone - fiance nor assistant nor 'devicier'. What is so failure about him being here?

Lockea: Can we remove psychopaths from the examples (including Light)? This (asexual) troper finds it highly offensive that psychopaths are being linked with asexuality when they have a totally different problem. Asexuality is characterized by the ability to form romantic bonds with a person (or, an apathy towards these same bonds), but uninterested in sexual ones. They may have a boyfriend or girlfriend, but more often than not they end up more like heterosexual life partners, even when one is gay or bi. The wikipedia article does a good job describing it. Pyschopaths, on the other hand, have a contempt for humanity that may interfere with their sexuality. It is not the same thing

Antheia: Any and all examples that are just cases of "has no love interest/object of lust", rather than actually being confirmed asexuals, should be removed, regardless if they're psychopaths or not.

Ramidel: Thing is, as far as we can tell, Light is simply uninterested in love or lust. My first piece of evidence is that he simply ignores any fanservice directed at him by Misa, such as her climbing all over him in her underwear. Secondly, I cannot name one instance, conversely, in which he ever showed any kind of sexual affection that wasn't done solely to manipulate or control the girl in question.

Removing anyone who's psychotic from the list of asexuals simply because they're psychotic doesn't make sense. If the writers of a work use asexuality as an easy coded sign of psychosis (which I'll be the first to admit happens a lot more often than it should), we have another trope for that. I've returned Light to the list.

Seikai: I have to agree with Ramidel about the Light example. Just because he's dated girls doesn't suddenly make him super interested in having sex. And just because people have Fanon theories that he must've done Misa at some point in time (ignoring that the manga / anime never actually showed this) doesn't mean that, even if he did, he would've actually wanted to have sex for any purpose other than manipulating her. And then there's the whole thing about the porn magazines. Let me point out this page in the manga, where the author had him explicitly state that he stockpiled these magazines just so he could use them for the purpose of tricking people. Knowing Light, I'm not about to doubt that.

Adam850: I vote for no real life examples. Any objections?

Duckluck: Yeah, I'm really not sure what this trope is going for. Is it only for characters who are explicitly not interested in sex? Do nuns and other people who are celibate for ideological reasons count? What about characters that have No Hugging, No Kissing, but never explicitly say they don't want sex? What does any of this have to do with how characters act in fiction?

I'm also not clear whether this trope is for characters who are explicitly uninterested in sex, or the lack of such characters in fiction. The latter is already somewhat covered by A Man Is Not a Virgin. As for the former, something needs to have some examples in fiction or it's not really a trope. I think there is a real trope in here somewhere, but without any examples it's difficult if not impossible to really pin it down. I think this probably should have been bounced though YKTTW so we could get some examples and really figure out what the whole thing is about (and come up with an interesting name. No Asexuals, maybe?), but I guess we'll just have to believe in the Wiki Magic.

Vree: Actually, there are many examples of people thorough history who had little or no interest in sex. It's just what it says on the box: not impotence, does not outrule romantic love, it just means that there are more fun and important things in that person's life leading to an absence of sex in it. This is more common than you'd think. And also rarely acknowledged in fiction. A Man Is Not a Virgin is not exactly fitting, as an asexual may in fact have a sexual life. This is about people who have no real personal interest in sex. Since media would like us to think that we are all horndogs, I think it is justified.

Also, cut: "Real Life

...because this trope could easily turn into just a list of people who aren't interested in sex if we aren't careful. Plus, I suspect that not everyone has the same definition of "asexual." Besides, we try not to make these pages be about the editors, if we can help it.

Meiriona: Sorry, this sort of started as a sort of 'useful notes on' thing in a halfassed kinda sleepy state of mind. I don't know where the actual description came from, because it is TERRIBLE and I apologize for writing it. I'll see if I can't make this a bit clearer, as in some VERY small webcomics I can't even remember, asexual characters explicitly exist. I was trying to go for the sexual orientation, that is, persons who have no desire for sexual intercourse, not those who simply do not have sex. and then there's possible confusion with sexless characters. Argh. Sorry.

Gambrinus: The write up on this comes across as a bit, I don't know, defensive? Also, just because Aoba in Evangelion is never shown to have interest in the other cast members, does that make him asexual? He was a pretty minor character to begin with.

  • It's all because of one scene at the end of the movie, where he freaks out over getting turned into Tang. It's pretty damn ambiguous, since it could just mean he had nobody he cared about, not that he wasn't interested in sex...but hey. Freud Was Right (well, except for asexuals).

Light Yagami? Didn't they throw in a whole heaping of Ho Yay in the anime between him and L?
  • One can be asexual and into one's same sex. Just... in a different way. What most foe yay is, this troper thinks.
  • It was also stated that he dated quite a few girls in high school. I'm of the opinion of taking his example out.

fleb: Sooo.... how exactly do we tell the difference between this and No Hugging, No Kissing? A lot of these examples, like the Nintendo section, look that that trope, and if those are taken out, I'm not sure that what would be left example-wise would actually amount to anything.

Antheia: Perhaps the trope should be renamed No Asexuals, in analogy with No Bisexuals, which is thematically extremely similar, and then only list very obvious exceptions (e.g. people who actually say they're asexual).

bluepenguin: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Even if we don't rename it, I think we ought to cut all the examples that are just speculation — it should cut down on the natter and argument.

ThaliaAerith: Thirded for the No Asexuals idea and cutting down of page. Or maybe we could rename the No Bisexuals trope to Bisexuality. Or just make No Asexuals an alternate trope title.

Dikiyoba is trying to clean the article up some and so pulled this for sounding like speculation but is saving it here just in case someone wants to argue for it:

  • Laharl from Disgaea appears to be. He is already 1313 years old, but can't stand sexy women, and doesn't appear to be attracted to non-sexy women either. This might also have something to do with the fact that he is Allergic to Love.
    • Considering that Laharl is physically the equivalent of a 13 year old child, it might not be asexuality but more of the fact he hasn't gone through demon puberty yet. Double that with his allergy.
      • Yeah, it's definitely more the fact that he was consciously repressing his emotions...and that seems to have passed by the end of the game, at least in the good endings. Take a good look at his reaction and tell me that's not love.

  • Rorschach from Watchmen. In his case, it may well be due to the trauma of having a mother who was an abusive prostitute. He isn't so much asexual as misogynistic, self-denying, and possibly even closeted. He sublimates everything sexual into violence; that doesn't mean it's not there, though.

  • Tom Ripley is another asexual sociopath character although he's sometimes understood as Ambiguously Gay, as he seems to have the most emotionally-committed relationships with male characters. He does marry and has sexual relations with his wife, but thinks at one point that he doesn't enjoy the act because of the emotional investment it requires, and generally, despite being nice for a VillainProtagonist, has very little understanding of human emotion.

Also, the Doctor Who example needs trimming (or removal, if it turns out it doesn't fit), but Dikiyoba doesn't know enough about the series to do it effectively. As for the Death Note mess: No Just No, okay?

  • brokenwit: I'm ready to drop a few irrelevants, in particular Red Adept...all it is saying is that Red Adept is a subversion of the Psycho Lesbian trope, and does not make any statements invoking this trope. Any complaints?

Celinra: I learned in a theater class in college that George Bernard Shaw was an asexual. I'd add this to 'real life' examples, but I haven't seen this said anywhere else, so I'm mentioning it here in case someone can verify it one way or another.