Discussion Main / Asexuality

I agree for exactly the same reasons; you can find examples of ace characters on LGBT Representation in Media.

See the entry on Tropes Needing TRS. This trope will probably need a TRS thread and a wick check beforehand.

Every time somebody has tried, it has gotten shot down!

Because the cleanup efforts haven't gotten to it yet. It'll probably get turned into a disambig after we're done with Transgender.

You'll notice that the last TRS thread is linked below.

Sousuke from Full Metal Panic! is linked multiple times to this article. It is also blatantly obvious in the series itself - even with his romantic attraction to Kaname, he doesn't have any sexual attraction to her (or anyone else for that matter), and any one attempting to put the moves on him (Tessa, Tessa, TESSA) are usually met with a very frosty reaction. One particular instance that comes to mind is one of the early episodes of Fumoffu, in which Kaname specifically wears a skimpy swimsuit to get his attention...except that it doesn't. At all. No luminescent blushing, nothing. He's like a brick wall, practically.

That I have seen (proof: that was the third episode, with the weirdo in the cliff mansion), and I have to disagree. Part of the problem is that it seems to change from episode to episode, but in more than a few he does blush, or worse, at the sight of a girl with a low clothing/skin ratio. That variability, combined with the severe social dysfunction he displays anyway, led me to take him off the page.

That I have seen (proof: that was the third episode, with the weirdo in the cliff mansion), and I have to disagree. Part of the problem is that it seems to change from episode to episode, but in more than a few he does blush, or worse, at the sight of a girl with a low clothing/skin ratio. That variability, combined with the severe social dysfunction he displays anyway, led me to take him off the page.

I will add this to the discussion: I'm inclined to believe that Sousuke IS asexual.

Why? Because along with the aforementioned reasons listed by Silverevilchao, the parts where you claim that Sousuke "blushes"... the only times I recall are when it can actually be chalked up more as embarrassment than as sexual desire. Example: Kaname dressing up as an older housewife that's pretending that he asked her out. Sousuke blushes... but you see into his thoughts, and instead of "Whoah, she's hot! I'm going to get laid! Woo-hoo!" It's more along the lines of: "Who the hell is this woman? Oh my god, is my mind going? *Heart pounds, leading to blood rushing to face*" Another example: Kaname yelling at thugs that she'll call Bonta-kun to come beat them up. Cue Sousuke blushing to his ears out of embarrassment that Bonta-kun is him.

In two other examples (involving Tessa): He isn't actually really shown to blush so much as turn pale and sweat. Like the part where she fell on top of him during his AS training with her, and he started turning pale and sweating, trying to get away from her out of fear. And in the OVA, where she was dressed in her underwear and tried to seduce him, instead of actually blushing, he again turned pale and started sweating, being scared if someone like Mardukas thought he was doing something to her.

Also, just because he has a severe social dysfunction doesn't mean that he can't be asexual. Severe social dysfunctions can LEAD to being asexual. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If he has no sexual desires or impulses as a result of hating human contact and not caring about people, how exactly does that suddenly make him not asexual?

I know dysfunction does not exclude asexuality, but his dysfunction is so overriding it's hard separate his sexuality, or lack of it, from that dysfunction with any certainty without directly addressing it. As is, all the situations that he gets embarrassed in most guys would be embarrassed- just not in his way or to his degree. The light novels, which as the source material are further along, are definitely setting up for Sousuke and Kaname to be together at the end and have had Sousuke say that he loves her, so short of Word of God that he's asexual, I have to chalk it up to 'people issues', not 'sex issues.'

I know dysfunction does not exclude asexuality, but his dysfunction is so overriding it's hard separate his sexuality, or lack of it, from that dysfunction with any certainty without directly addressing it. As is, all the situations that he gets embarrassed in most guys would be embarrassed- just not in his way or to his degree. The light novels, which as the source material are further along, are definitely setting up for Sousuke and Kaname to be together at the end and have had Sousuke say that he loves her, so short of Word of God that he's asexual, I have to chalk it up to 'people issues', not 'sex issues.'

That would be like saying someone isn't truly homosexual (despite showing no attraction to females and always showing attraction to males) because the circumstances by which he was appearing homosexual were due to psychological issues (such as fear of females). Does it matter how someone came about to being a certain sexual orientation? Hell, there was even talk of making a special section for the Depraved Asexual (due to how numerous they appeared to be) - characters who undoubtedly have loads more human contact issues and sociopathy, and yet are still considered asexual nonetheless.

Meh, I suggest that it might be a better idea to just put him in as an example, but add a YMMV to it or some sort of disclaimer.

I'm saying that there's not enough evidence to tell whether he is asexual or just phobic of the social aspect of situations, and that the developing relationship between him and Kaname indicates strongly that its just phobia. They kiss. He pines. He even BSO Ds when he thinks she's dead. It's pretty clear to me that that the writer does not intend for him to be asexual, just dysfunctional, and theirs is the opinion that matters most here- not fanon.

I'm saying that there's not enough evidence to tell whether he is asexual or just phobic of the social aspect of situations, and that the developing relationship between him and Kaname indicates strongly that its just phobia. They kiss. He pines. He even BSO Ds when he thinks she's dead. It's pretty clear to me that that the writer does not intend for him to be asexual, just dysfunctional, and theirs is the opinion that matters most here- not fanon.

In other words, it's a YMMV. A lot of people believe that he has a lack of sexuality in addition to psychological problems. You believe that it's social phobia and that he has a sexual appetite that's just obscured by phobia, thereby making him not asexual. Shouji Gato has not made a direct Word of God statement telling everyone outright whether or not Sousuke is.

I'm advising that we compromise and add the example, but put a YMMV side to it, addressing the possibility you're saying.

But to add to the issue you're saying later, they haven't kissed yet - and even if they eventually do, again, asexuals are fully capable of kissing and having sex. They just don't have a great desire to, and can be just as happy not having sexual relations. And asexuals are fully capable of pining, and feeling sad when someone they like is dead. And how exactly can you say that the writer didn't intend for him to be asexual and that everyone else's ideas (which are backed up with a heck of a lot more examples and solid evidence) are just fanon, and that your theory is clearly what the author wants and is canon?

Being asexual doesn't mean lacking romantic attraction (that's being aromantic), it means lacking attraction towards sex; the desire to have sex with others isn't there. Thus it is perfectly fine for Sousuke to pine over Kaname, who he thinks is dead, as he is romantically attracted to her. Even when Kaname is not around and other female characters try to seduce him, embarrassment aside, the guy really is like a brick wall; he's never shown or mentioned to be turned on by anything, he doesn't read porn, etc.. It's something he doesn't think about unless someone brings it up (heeeey, that sounds a lot like myself!), and he doesn't intentionally go seek it or try to pick up chicks (like Kurtz) or guys (like...Gauron?) like other characters in the series.

And as Seikai said, asexuals are perfectly capable of physical contact, kissing, hugging, having sex, etc.. It's that they don't think the entire thing is a big deal, but even this differs among asexuals: you have people who don't even like to be kissed, you have those who do but can't stand sex, etc.. Sousuke, IMO, combined with this fear of people, is on the far end of the scale in that he is afraid of, and is not interested in (even with his love interest!) kissing or sex. Hell, the guy never even has sexual dreams!

You beat me to it. Just going through the anime examples, I was perturbed by lack of romantic attraction as being used as evidence of asexuality when asexuality only deals with sexual attraction and NOT romantic attraction or even what characters look at and do and think alone in their free time (whether it is sexual or not). :facepalm:

Overall, I find this page more misleading than anything and the obvious lack of understanding on what asexuality constitutes by reading the page examples and reading the discussion, particularly the discussion below, saddens me greatly. The explanation of the trope wasn't terribly off, but could be shortened down to key points and without linking to other tropes which over-assume (such as being married to the job). It was a bit much to read and really didn't clarify the trope as well as it could have.

Edit: Nevermind, I never noticed I was replying to a 10 year old discussion by mistake.

I deleted the entries for Joffrey under "Literature" and "Live-Action TV" because I don't believe that he is an asexual character, and the examples in question didn't make a strong enough argument to convince me otherwise.

The claim that Joffrey's sadism is not sexually motivated is dubious at best, since he clearly gets a kick out of fantasizing about sexual violence, as evidenced by his constant threats to rape Sansa once her menstrual cycle sets in. He also humiliates her by ordering her to strip naked in front of him – allegedly as a "punishment" for her brother's recent victory over the Lannister armies – and is only stopped by Tyrion, who later suspects that Joffrey just wanted to ogle her naked breasts. The example acknowledges these sexually charged threats, but then completely dismisses them by claiming that he is "likely just pretending in order to get under Tyrion’s skin", which seems rather disingenuous and doesn't take into account that Joffrey makes the same threats even when Tyrion is not present.

The more likely reason why he never actually rapes Sansa is that, even as a member of the royal family, Joffrey cannot get away with everything and is occasionally reined in by other characters, such as Tywin and most notably Tyrion. Sansa is still considered an underage girl for the majority of the first two books in the series, and even in a deeply patriarchal and misogynistic society like the Seven Kingdoms, Joffrey has to wait for her first period to start before he can invoke his Marital Rape License. She doesn't "become a woman" until halfway through the second book, and by the end of it, her engagement to Joffrey is dissolved in favour of a more profitable marriage contract with Margaery Tyrell. Even then, he makes it clear that he still intends to rape Sansa in the future. It should also be noted that Joffrey himself is just 13 years old at the beginning of the series, and the fact that he already has rape fantasies at such a young age is everything but a sign of asexuality.

The original example under "Literature" also refers to scenes from the TV series that have nothing do to do with the original books. Joffrey's torture and murder of prostitutes? Not in the books. Margaery failing to manipulate him via sexual means? Not in the books. His homophobic remarks? Also not in the books, and as paperjamrachel has pointed out, the implication that homophobia and asexuality are related to one another is not only nonsensical, but outright offensive.

In short, I maintain that nothing we know about Joffrey from the books or the TV series indicates that he is asexual and that his behaviour is more in line with sexual sadism.

I assumed those scenes were in the books, because they're inaccurate to the series. He does kill Ros with his crossbow... but that is way after the incident with the two prostitutes (and I don't think the other one dies).

So, yeah. If the entry applies at all, it's incredibly poorly done for the abovementioned reasons.

I'm also unconvinced by the "for a work where everybody Really Gets Around" argument, primarily because it's also a work that has a blatantly asexual character to the point that he provides the page quote. It's not like the work didn't know how to portray asexuality. And as a nitpick, the trope is Everybody Has Lots of Sex, not Really Gets Around.

I am SO, SO sorry. I was the one who made the edit. I didn't realise that those incidents didn't happen in the book. I've seen it be speculated elsewhere on this wiki that his sadism is non-sexual in nature and that he only threatened to impose La Droit de Seigneur on Sansa in order to get under Tyrion's skin. Nor did I intend to suggest that there was a correlation between asexuality and homophobia. I just meant that Joffrey's homophobia seems to imply that he is not gay, unless of course he's in the closet. I used to identify as asexual myself and I'm in no way a homophobe. In any case, I didn't mean to edit war. I just noticed that the entry had been taken out without explanation and as there was no explanation, I decided to put it back in. Anyway, I've been procrastinating about dealing with this so anyway, if you would prefer to, we'll just leave it out. Again, I apologise.

Thanks for clarifying that. I did not mean to imply that you are a homophobe or prejudiced against asexuals, but the entry could be read this way due to the somewhat unfortunate wording.

I also want to mention that I gave my reasons for deleting the entries, which you should be able to see in the main page's edit history.

Yeah, more clear definitions are a good thing.

That's definitely a lot clearer.

Should the RWBY fanfic example be removed? I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know if the character is explicitly called asexual and it's just a bad description or not.

I removed that — it was false and misleading. The Real Life section was probably removed because it may have turned into a list of people who were asexual, which isn't tropeworthy.

Why isn't that tropeworthy? It's not like we're insulting them.

I know it's not insulting, but that doesn't mean they belonged. A real person having a natural sexual orientation is not a trope. Being straight is not tropeworthy; being ace is not tropeworthy.

Oh, definitely not wrong. Thanks much.

The examples are supposed to be when it's explicit that a character is asexual. He more of falls into the Ambiguously Asexual category (which there isn't a trope page for, if I recall correctly). That's the reason I never added him.

The whole case gets muddled with the reboot, too. Rose seemed determined to push him onto the heterosexual team (as does River). The series four episode Journey's End makes everything really unclear, too.

There's also the whole 'grandfather' thing...

...Not to mention the actors have stated they were playing 2 and Jamie as close to a gay couple they thought they could get away with at the time for that timeslot...

This isn't really the place for that. This is TV Tropes, and it's supposed to be all about the tropes.

Agreed. I think I busted a nerve when I saw the Buddha on there.

Perhaps we need an Ambiguous Asexuality page to put all of these: nothing happens so they could be anything points. Whereas Ambiguously Gay would be for those which do suggest points to homosexuality... Just the thought. OR (another idea) we could spilt it on this page between: 'DEFINITE REASON TO PEOPLE' and 'lack of sex/speculation' or would that only make more people right up Wild Mad Guesses?

That's a good idea - we have Ambiguous Gay and Bi for people who seem to tend toward those respective 'ways,' but for people who show indifference to everyone should get their own trope.

I totally feel what you're feeling. It just bugs me that the troper tales page is as long as it is. I know that one's sexuality is their business, but I can't help but think that David Langford, from the quotes page, was right. Either this site attracts an odd bunch or the troper tales page has a serious case of Unreliable Narrator.

Nothing to say on the pining, but I need to say this: Being aroused by pornography or fanfiction or anything else does not negate asexuality. We all have fantasies, but that doesn't mean we all want to act out on them. The pleasure of arousal and masturbation is a purely physical response and saying that someone doesn't count as an asexual because they enjoy it is like saying that gay male isn't really gay because he can find women beautiful. And if the argument is that it's the porn that negates the orientation, not the masturbation, then that's like saying a woman who reads femmeslah has to be a lesbian.

And now that I think of it, I do have something to say on the pining. There's such a thing as romantic attraction, and unresolved romantic attraction hurts just as much as unresolved sexual attraction.

I can't speak for everyone on the Troper Tales page. Maybe some of them aren't asexual. Maybe they're still struggling to understand what their orientation is. But who are we to tell them what they are or aren't? If this site had pages for tropers identifying themselves as straight/gay/bi/etc, would you call them into question?

>Being aroused by pornography or fanfiction or anything else does not negate asexuality.
If something turns you on, that's basically the definition of sexuality.
Are you saying the difference between asexual and celibate is whether you imagine yourself having sex?

>like saying that gay male isn't really gay because he can find women beautiful.
If he is physically aroused by women, and masturbates to pictures of women, I would say that.

>like saying a woman who reads femmeslah has to be a lesbian.
No Bisexuals?

Asexuality is generally a lack of desire for sex, not lack of sexual arousal or even lack of sex. Pining after someone isn't a sign of sexual attraction, it's just a sign of attraction of some sort and asexuality =/= to sociopathy. Sure, a lot more people identify as asexual than really are but your reasons for saying someone isn't asexual aren't good ones.

Exactly what Game_Fan said. Asexuals can be aroused. Asexuals can have sex or masturbate. Asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction, and there is a difference between arousal and attraction. As long as the attraction to have sex is not there, it doesn't matter how hot and bothered a porn video can make an asexual. They don't have the desire to go out and initiate sex, and that's what asexuality is.

And no, the difference between celibacy and asexuality is that celibate people experience sexual attraction and abstain from it, whereas asexuals don't experience it at all. It's the difference between refusing cake because you're on a diet and refusing cake because you don't like cake.

And my entire point with the femmeslash example was to point out that it's stupid to put people's sexuality in a box (i.e., you must be a lesbian because you read about lesbians) just because of something they participate it. Reading slash about your gender doesn't automatically make you gay, just as viewing sexual material doesn't disqualify you as asexual.

>there is a difference between arousal and attraction.
Can you explain this difference?

I would define arousal as physical sensation of being turned on and attraction is the desire to act on that arousal with another person, the desire for sexual contact with another person. So any asexual can be aroused, but they don't feel the desire to find someone else and act upon that arousal with a partner. They can have sex to satisfy a partner, but it's not something that they desire to have, and the pleasure they might gain from sex or masturbation is purely a physical thing for them, not a sexual one.

People, most of this is beside the point. It might matter to the intro, but we could just cut most of that and put a link to The Other Wiki. The forum thread here indicates that it's best to just leave the Troper Tales page alone.

For the examples, the only relevant ones are when the story or Word of God say- not imply, not fanon- say that a character just isn't interested in sex. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that, because of the Law of Conservation of Detail.

People, most of this is beside the point. It might matter to the intro, but we could just cut most of that and put a link to The Other Wiki. The forum thread here indicates that it's best to just leave the Troper Tales page alone.

For the examples, the only relevant ones are when the story or Word of God say- not imply, not fanon- say that a character just isn't interested in sex. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that, because of the Law of Conservation of Detail.

So an extremely antisocial person who Hates Being Touched in general is automatically asexual no matter how perverted I... they are in private?
(There's no good place to discuss these things anonymously.)

I didn't say asexuals hate to be touched. They just don't experience sexual attraction. You can be as antisocial as you want, but you're not asexual if you experience sexual attraction. And if by perverted you mean masturbates a lot (because I'm honestly not sure what that's supposed to mean), masturbation has nothing to do with sexual attraction unless you are sexually attracted to yourself, which is autosexuality and a different kettle of fish entirely.

I wasn't talking about all asexuals, do I have to draw a goddamn Venn diagram?
If a hypothetical person, while desiring the results of sex, desires neither the intermediate steps to obtain sex nor the violation of personal space involved, does this person experience sexual attraction? This hypothetical person does not "feel the desire to find someone else and act upon that arousal with a partner", but only because of the "find someone else" part.
To continue your cake analogy, what if the only way to obtain cake were to climb a mountain, and be covered in bees while eating it?

Guys! This is, not the place for this discussion; this is for discussion of the page about the trope, not the trope itself. I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: "People, most of this is beside the point. It might matter to the intro, but we could just cut most of that and put a link to The Other Wiki. The forum thread here indicates that it's best to just leave the Troper Tales page alone.

For the examples, the only relevant ones are when the story or Word of God say- not imply, not fanon- say that a character just isn't interested in sex. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that, because of the Law of Conservation of Detail."

Guys! This is, not the place for this discussion; this is for discussion of the page about the trope, not the trope itself. I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: "People, most of this is beside the point. It might matter to the intro, but we could just cut most of that and put a link to The Other Wiki. The forum thread here indicates that it's best to just leave the Troper Tales page alone.

For the examples, the only relevant ones are when the story or Word of God say- not imply, not fanon- say that a character just isn't interested in sex. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that, because of the Law of Conservation of Detail."

Fine, I'll take it to IJBM then. Oh wait, I can't. Do you know any other website where I can ask this kind of question without a username?

> "the pleasure they might gain from sex or masturbation is purely a physical thing for them, not a sexual one"

Say what?

I am interested in a discussion of the real life version of this trope, since this is supposed to be about the trope in fiction, how would I make a non fiction forum for it on this site if possible

Y'know, there's lots of other forums better suited for these kind of conversations. Such as asexuality.org