Does Not Illustrate: Asexuality

Multiple strikes against this one. First, it apparently uses an entire comic which is against our fair use policy. Second, as a result it's far too long, going on for several paragraphs to get the point across. Third, it's mostly just text anyway, virtually nothing illustrative.

My first inclination is to vote BUPKIS for this one. I think trying to picture this will be too close to tropes like Celibate Hero or Not Distracted by the Sexy, but maybe someone else has a good idea.

Frames 1,5 and 6 of the current could work. I think they'd be better than nothing. Or even 5&6 without 1. It is text-heavy, but I don't have any idea how you'd convey "not interested at all" without talky.

Maybe this one?◊ It's still talky, and it's the full work so we'd have to get permission....

I'm almost inclinded to vote no image for this trope because of the sensitivity of the issue and the trouble illustrating something like this.

Vote against, being asexual doesn't mean you're incapable of telling when someone is attractive, nor does not being so mean all you think about is sex.

edited 3rd Apr '17 5:16:53 PM by shoboni

I looked through the webcomics examples and didn't find anything that got the point across with less talking than the current or Madrugada's suggestion, so I'm leaning making this a BUPKIS page. The thing that comes to mind is a stick figure with a face looking back and forth at hearts with the male and female symbols then giving an shrug and saying "Meh."

See — that would be aromantic, not asexual...

BUPKIS. This may be either too difficult or, as points out, too nuanced to find a good image for.

edited 30th Mar '17 4:41:30 PM by WaterBlap

Doubling down on my vote no image, because like says, it's to complicated a sexuality to distill into a single graphic.

BUPKIS

BUPKIS.

BUPKIS. Most images would be dubious at best, or illustrates aromanticism rather than asexuality.

Clock is set. Anyone else agreeing with BUPKIS'ing this page?

I still think frames 1,5 and 6 would do quite well. For what it's worth, that strip appears to have come from an Asexuality-positive website, so I don't think that 'sensitivity' is an issue with it.

And after getting some sleep, and therefore having more than one functional brain cell., I would also argue that removing a serviceable image in favor of leaving the page blank is not doing any favors. The copyright issue can be solved by using only frames 1, 5 , and 6, or even just 5 and 6.

After reconsideration, perhaps having panels 1,5, and 6 could make an adequate image.

That's 1,5,6.

1 and 5 without 6 might also work. In fact, it might work better.

edited 10th Apr '17 2:10:33 PM by Madrugada

Is there a way to make the quality not look like a mixed bag of blurriness and jagged edges?

Here's just 1&5 to compare.

I can link to the original comic, but all I have to work with is Irfan View and by the time I'd moved frames to make it vertical it was artifacted. That was more to offer the idea.

link to original

That, I think, works well. It addresses all of the objections in the OP (full comic, poor quality, too long) except "talky". And "talky" isn't always a bad thing, especially when there's really no way to demonstrate the trope without talk. As when you're working with something that is defined by its absence.

edited 10th Apr '17 2:25:21 PM by Madrugada

After thinking about it, I'm not sure the imagery adds anything of significance. There are those stars around him, but that's about his attractiveness, which isn't really part of the trope. Otherwise it's really just talking. On the other hand, I find it makes for a better page quote than the current. On the third hand, the shortened version in 17 is a clear improvement over the current, so I probably wouldn't vote against it either, considering the difficulty in illustrating the concept.

The wingding eyes don't add anything? And the current page quote would be better cut off at "Nothing."

edited 10th Apr '17 2:31:38 PM by Madrugada

Same deal as the stars. It establishes her attraction to him, but that's not related to the trope. It's an important part of the joke, but not of the image as an illustration for this trope.

Yeah, cutting off there would be better. Or if you're more conservative with the cutting, after "Not me," to drive the point home better. The rest more distracting than helping.

I did a quick mock up in illustrator, but figured using AVEN's asexuality triangle might be useful. I can add more detail if need, but wanted to gauge what others thought.

^{based on original triangle} 

^{version with gender colors} 

Searching "asexuality" in GIS yields the following◊ images◊. Anything we can use from there?

Between those two, I would scrap the first one, but second one seems good as it illustrates a point fairly well.

The second is amusing but I'm not sure how we'd translate it to a wiki-sized image. The first kinda overwhelms the asexual part with everything else.

17 works well enough for me, on further consideration.

edited 11th Apr '17 4:28:24 AM by Willbyr