![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[Last updated Feb 11, 2018]
I saw someone on Twitter basically say that a certain character from a book, who was aro-ace only by Word of God, had been "straightwashed" because "cis heteroromantic aces are more palatable to Straight people."
I mean, maybe that's true vis-à-vis aro-aces—though, technically, any alloromantic ace is going to be "more palatable to Straight people" than an aro-ace—but I don't know if that's really true in general. Personally, I don't feel like a completely sex-repulsed heteroromantic ace is "more palatable" to a Straight person than a gay demisexual or gray-ace.
I also feel like there's a misconception that among the tiny pool of asexual representation, sex-repulsed aces are well-represented, which is why there's often a push to represent demisexuals, gray-aces, and sex-positive asexuals. But that is actually pretty untrue. I can count on one hand the number of books I've read/am aware of that featured an asexual who managed to find a happy romantic relationship where sex wasn't required. Every other romance that I've read/seen with an ace-spectrum character (as a leading character, not a minor character) was about a demisexual, gray-ace, or sex-positive asexual.
( Books listed under the cut )
So...yeah, sex-repulsed asexuals are really not well represented, particularly in the romance genre. (I think, with regard to traditionally published books and non-romance books, sex-repulsed asexuals are primarily represented by aro-ace characters.)
Which sort of lends credibility to my argument that gray-aces/demisexuals/sex-positive aces of any romantic orientation would be more welcome by the general (presumed non-asexual) reader body than sex-repulsed heteroromantic aces—the idea of not desiring sex at all is seen as more subversive than a LGBP romantic orientation.
Yes, of course demisexuals, gray-aces, and sex-positive aces deserve representation too. But sex-repulsed aces currently have almost no fictional representation, and that's something I wish people would take into account.
When the vast majority of books with asexuals show those asexuals as only able to be in a romantic relationship if they're willing to have sex to some degree, that sends a message that alloromantic sex-repulsed aces have no hope of finding romance (unless they find another alloromantic sex-repulsed/indifferent ace—which is a fine solution, but in real life, the statistics of that happening are on the low side). It reinforces the idea that sex-repulsed asexuals (and sex-repulsed non-asexuals, for that matter) are still freakish deviants, as well as the idea that there's only One Real Way to have a romantic relationship, and that involves sex, instead of presenting different kinds of romantic relationships.
I'd hope that, in the future, we can get to the point as which writers can let go of the sex = love framework, because alloromantic sex-repulsed aces deserve to believe they can have happy endings, too.
I saw someone on Twitter basically say that a certain character from a book, who was aro-ace only by Word of God, had been "straightwashed" because "cis heteroromantic aces are more palatable to Straight people."
I mean, maybe that's true vis-à-vis aro-aces—though, technically, any alloromantic ace is going to be "more palatable to Straight people" than an aro-ace—but I don't know if that's really true in general. Personally, I don't feel like a completely sex-repulsed heteroromantic ace is "more palatable" to a Straight person than a gay demisexual or gray-ace.
I also feel like there's a misconception that among the tiny pool of asexual representation, sex-repulsed aces are well-represented, which is why there's often a push to represent demisexuals, gray-aces, and sex-positive asexuals. But that is actually pretty untrue. I can count on one hand the number of books I've read/am aware of that featured an asexual who managed to find a happy romantic relationship where sex wasn't required. Every other romance that I've read/seen with an ace-spectrum character (as a leading character, not a minor character) was about a demisexual, gray-ace, or sex-positive asexual.
( Books listed under the cut )
So...yeah, sex-repulsed asexuals are really not well represented, particularly in the romance genre. (I think, with regard to traditionally published books and non-romance books, sex-repulsed asexuals are primarily represented by aro-ace characters.)
Which sort of lends credibility to my argument that gray-aces/demisexuals/sex-positive aces of any romantic orientation would be more welcome by the general (presumed non-asexual) reader body than sex-repulsed heteroromantic aces—the idea of not desiring sex at all is seen as more subversive than a LGBP romantic orientation.
Yes, of course demisexuals, gray-aces, and sex-positive aces deserve representation too. But sex-repulsed aces currently have almost no fictional representation, and that's something I wish people would take into account.
When the vast majority of books with asexuals show those asexuals as only able to be in a romantic relationship if they're willing to have sex to some degree, that sends a message that alloromantic sex-repulsed aces have no hope of finding romance (unless they find another alloromantic sex-repulsed/indifferent ace—which is a fine solution, but in real life, the statistics of that happening are on the low side). It reinforces the idea that sex-repulsed asexuals (and sex-repulsed non-asexuals, for that matter) are still freakish deviants, as well as the idea that there's only One Real Way to have a romantic relationship, and that involves sex, instead of presenting different kinds of romantic relationships.
I'd hope that, in the future, we can get to the point as which writers can let go of the sex = love framework, because alloromantic sex-repulsed aces deserve to believe they can have happy endings, too.
