Main Asexuality Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

10:48:32 PM Oct 6th 2015
edited by ScotieRw
I added a line stating that asexuality is not caused by sexual abuse and removed some characters who were uncomfortable with sex because of abuse.
04:20:06 AM May 18th 2017
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.
01:28:22 PM Sep 16th 2015
This is a great article. Really gives a good overview of asexuals in general but I think it might be a bit too expansive. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I feel like this page should be more about how it works as an element in fiction. It bombards you with information, good accurate information but not information I'd expect to see on a main trope page. I think moving most of the information on this page to a Useful Notes variation would work better.
09:22:31 AM Apr 15th 2015
Considering how the entry for him is worded, I'm removing Light Yagami from Death Note since it comes off more as Ambiguously Asexual. Unless there's more definitive proof of him being ace, in which case someone should put him back and add it.
01:50:20 PM Sep 12th 2014
edited by
I added/changed the following a while ago, and just realized that I never came to the discussion with it (I like to do so when I change a trope's description):

"Many asexuals consider asexuality to be a spectrum, with "gray asexuality" and "demisexuality" residing somewhere between "full" asexuality and fully sexual. Gray, or borderline, asexuals would be those who are capable of sexual arousal, and even often have a sexual orientation, but not to the same degree as fully sexual individuals. Demisexuals are those who do not experience sexual attraction until an emotional connection has been established, and may similarly have a preference for one or more genders. Some asexuals are "aromantic", too — not only are they uninterested in sex, but also in romance. Human sexuality being ridiculously complicated, there are a few people who are aromantic but not asexual, and some are sexually attracted to certain genders but romantically oriented towards certain others.

Finally, asexuals (or their aforementioned ilk) are often fully capable of determining whether someone is or is not "attractive;" they simply (categorically) do not have any inherent sexual (emotional or physical) response to said attractiveness."

"It should be noted that, in Real Life, no person is entirely defined by their sexual preferences, and everyone is different. The details laid out here are entirely for casual education and understanding purposes, and are not to be taken as set-in-stone rules regarding asexuality. There has never been and never will be a group of people who behave entirely identically."

06:51:26 AM Jun 25th 2014
Concerning BBC Sherlock : "It has since been shown, very briefly, that Sherlock's 'porn preferences' are 'normal', so presumably he is not." I don't see why it excludes him from asexuality. A lot of asexual persons watch/read porn, and it doesn't make them less asexual, since they don't feel the need to act out.
11:04:59 AM Mar 10th 2014
I can see the points but I personally disagree with APH Russia being asexual. He's been shown to be a mere prude in some moments (he was angry when he saw Italy running around naked, and didn't want to discuss who invented the condom) while being possibly hypocritical about it in other moments (sending America "extra small" condoms, stalking and possibly flirting with other countries)

And turning down France hardly counts. Even then, in the aftermath of that instance, he wrote in his diary about "returning it to him next year".

So I don't know. Should I delete that from the examples?
07:24:17 PM Jul 30th 2012
edited by jillianimal
What happened to all the Real Life examples? The only thing there now has something to do with schizoids, which I don't see how it's really relevant since it does not apply to most asexuals & vice versa I'm sure. It just looks like it's pathologizing asexuality if anything by just being there since it starts with "There are a few disorders that can cause people to generally avoid sexual intercourse" & makes it sound like celibacy.
02:54:34 AM Jul 31st 2012
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.
07:45:01 AM Apr 10th 2013
Why isn't that tropeworthy? It's not like we're insulting them.
10:24:38 AM Apr 10th 2013
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.
10:42:30 PM Jun 17th 2012
edited by AltoonaMan
IMO, there should be a distinction between asexuality and celibacy on the main page so that people aren't confused when they add examples. I would, but being asexual myself there might be too much of a conflict of interest (I'm close 30 and have had long term relationships before, in case anyone feels the need to ask). Or isn't that an issue here like it is on the other wiki? Most people assume they're one in the same, but I think the cake analogy is pretty good (with a nice touch of irony there). But personally the biggest misconception that bugs me after "asexuality doesn't exist" is "asexuality is celibacy".
01:28:32 PM Jun 13th 2012
The Religion entry is completely wrong, that's not what Jesus meant there, we clearly Will be Reproducing in the Resurrection. He's talking about the Institution of Marriage.
10:45:04 PM Jan 29th 2012
edited by SpiritOfSahara
Removed from article:

"On the other hand, this trope is Truth in Television in the form of hypoactive sexual desire disorder."

I think it's pretty clear that the trope Asexual is about the sexual orientation asexuality, and not the sexual dysfunction HSDD. If nothing else, I'm removing it because HSDD has so far helped pathologize asexuals, as is mentioned in the above link. If you consider my edit wrong, feel free to undo it.
10:58:57 PM Jan 29th 2012
Oh, definitely not wrong. Thanks much.
04:13:04 PM Nov 29th 2011
I removed these lines since they're pretty much just discussion on the main page. If he's actually an example, add him back in with some more description, please.
  • Andy Warhol.
    • Probably because he was both homosexual and a devout Catholic.
      • So the example is non-applicable as he was still sexually attracted, he just didn't act on it.
09:16:41 AM Nov 10th 2011
What about H. P. Lovecraft? I've seen it suggested/discussed several times even if it isn't outright confirmed, and plus, his name makes it rather ironic...
08:46:09 AM Jun 1st 2011
Is there a reason the Doctor isn't listed as an example?
02:06:26 PM Jun 1st 2011
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.
06:57:50 PM Dec 28th 2011
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...
10:34:06 PM Apr 22nd 2011
edited by SpiritOfSahara
Can anyone tell me why there are examples that include genderless octopi and a Truth in Television-line in the Real Life-folder with a link to
09:02:00 AM Apr 22nd 2011
Edward Heath wasn't asexual. He was very gay and very closeted (because of his political ambition) That article is just one of many examples.
09:18:46 PM Mar 7th 2011
I say we petition for a month dedicated to asexuals the world over. Asexual Pride Month....maybe we should call dibs on December?
03:32:16 AM Apr 25th 2011
This isn't really the place for that. This is TV Tropes, and it's supposed to be all about the tropes.
10:38:10 PM Sep 19th 2010
Seriously, tropers need to stop throwing people in just because there wasn't any 'activity'. I've put a notice and deleted a couple from Real Life, but more need deletion and the intro needs to be fixed; as it stands, I could qualify- and I really don't qualify.
07:44:27 AM Jan 4th 2011
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?
03:58:18 PM Apr 1st 2011
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.
12:33:11 PM Jul 5th 2010
All right, I need to get this out here. I see an awful lot of awkward teenage boys on the internet claiming asexuality. However, I want to put out something and then you all can tell me what you think. If you spend half your free time wanking to porn on the internet and the other half pining over the girls who reject you for less-awkward older boys, you are not asexual, you just suck at dating.

There's no "just bugs me" page for this trope, but when I saw yet another awkward teen boy claim it on their bio it was the last straw. So what do you all think of it?
05:45:02 PM Jul 7th 2010
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.
08:40:26 AM Jul 25th 2010
edited by Lauralot
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?
01:22:08 PM Jul 25th 2010
edited by
>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?
01:34:43 PM Jul 25th 2010
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.
03:59:10 PM Jul 25th 2010
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.
04:16:06 PM Jul 25th 2010
>there is a difference between arousal and attraction.
Can you explain this difference?
04:21:15 PM Jul 25th 2010
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.
05:03:57 PM Jul 25th 2010
edited by Westrim
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.
05:04:51 PM Jul 25th 2010
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.)
05:17:52 PM Jul 25th 2010
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.
07:44:40 PM Jul 25th 2010
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?
09:23:56 PM Jul 25th 2010
edited by Westrim
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."
04:16:30 PM Jul 26th 2010
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?
10:01:46 PM Aug 7th 2010
edited by
> "the pleasure they might gain from sex or masturbation is purely a physical thing for them, not a sexual one"

Say what?
10:14:46 AM Oct 8th 2010
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
02:19:30 PM Nov 11th 2010
Y'know, there's lots of other forums better suited for these kind of conversations. Such as
06:53:59 PM Mar 3rd 2010
edited by Westrim
Far too many of these examples are Fanon and and assumptions with little or no evidence one way or the other. As far as I know, we really shouldn't be including anyone who isn't explicitly or heavily hinted at being asexual. Feel free to put them back in, but a lot of these examples are about to get gone. Sorry if this offends anyone whose entries I'm deleting. Also, understand that I haven't seen many of these works so I'm mostly going by how the entries are written. If it turns out that I delete one that was blatantly obvious to someone who has seen it, sorry.
10:34:21 PM Apr 26th 2010
edited by Silverevilchao
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.
10:55:23 PM Apr 26th 2010
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.
12:31:17 PM Apr 27th 2010
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?
10:30:15 AM Apr 29th 2010
edited by Westrim
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.'
05:46:00 PM Apr 29th 2010
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.
09:47:09 AM May 3rd 2010
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.
01:24:58 PM May 3rd 2010
edited by Seikai
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?
09:13:00 AM May 22nd 2010
edited by Silverevilchao
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!
11:15:58 AM Sep 3rd 2010
edited by mallpsychic
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.
Collapse/Expand Topics