How to Not “Ace” Asexual Representation in Media

 ─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* :☆ﾟ. ─── 

The sparse asexual representation in film and entertainment correlates with society’s pressure for people to perform sexually; thus, if someone doesn’t wish to perform their sexuality through sexual acts, they are deemed “unnatural.” In turn, the tv shows and movies often depict asexuals as people who are “nonhuman,” “unfeeling and robotic,” and “late-bloomers.” Examining the characters of Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory, Spock from Star Trek, and Jughead Jones from the CW’s Riverdale, the negative depictions of asexuality either persist or are stripped away from the character for the sake of marketability. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sheldon Cooper is a character that the ace community has dubbed “ace-coded” from his lack of interest in sex or women compared to his other male leads: Howard, Raj, and Leonard, leading to many negative statements on what it means to be ace. His character finds joy in his scientific work and playing tabletop RPGs with his friends. His sexuality is discussed in the Season Two episode, ‘The Cooper-Nowitzki Theorem.’ Their neighbor, Penny, asks the group what Sheldon’s “deal” is and insists that “everyone has a deal,” implying that Sheldon is the strange one for not being sexually attracted to anyone. The men then poke fun of Sheldon and how he will reproduce in nonhuman ways: they state, “I believe Sheldon will eat an enormous amount of Thai food and split into two Sheldon’s” and “I think Sheldon might be the larval form of his species.” The “scripts” tied to asexuality is that ace people are “incomplete” without experiencing sex or sexual attraction, and thus open to ridicule and alienation from the dominant group who enjoys sex. The “type” that both Sheldon and Spock share are the Robot or the Strange Alien. 

Spock’s reserved and logical character is often contrasted with Kirk’s charm and romantic relationships, justifying the “scripts” that ace people are tied to nonhumans and do not fit the norm of sexually active people. In Rowan Ellis’s video on The Rise of Asexual Representation, they describe Spock’s asexuality as tied to his species, being half-Vulcan, a species that “prioritizes restraint and suppressed emotions and passions” so next to the human Kirk, he is the outlier.

╭── ⋅ ⋅ ── ✩ ── ⋅ ⋅ ──╮

     

    ╰── ⋅ ⋅ ── ✩ ── ⋅ ⋅ ──╯  

As the science and first officer of the USS Enterprise, his job is tied to being logical therefore people equate being robotic and unfeeling to being ace. In the episode ‘The Apple,” the characters come across a civilization called the Vaalians, who are asexual, and Spock talks  about their culture: "You insist on applying human standards to non-human cultures. I remind you that humans are only a tiny minority in this galaxy... these people are healthy and they are happy. Whatever you choose to call it, this system works, despite your emotional reaction to it." Ellis then describes the episode’s message on asexuality being undermined because the Vaalians were being mind controlled by a computer god named Vaal, linking their asexuality with their “enslaved innocence.” This return of the “norm” hammers home that being ace should not be the norm for these human-like civilizations. 

    If the norm is that “sex sells,” look no further than Jughead Jones, a character who, in the comics, is canonically ace but is stripped of his asexuality in the TV adaptation to be in a romantic and sexual relationship with Betty Cooper. It was confirmed in a 2015 interview with comic writer Chip Zdarsky that his iteration of Jughead is ace, which many of the Archie comic fans accepted.

☾ ⋆*･ﾟ:⋆*･ﾟ

☾ ⋆*･ﾟ:⋆*･ﾟ

    However, in the CW’s TV adaptation of the Archie comics, Riverdale, Jughead’s asexuality is nonexistent. The erasure of his identity stings even more, knowing that Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, the chief creative creator of the comic and series developer of the show teased the character’s asexuality early on, "Rather than have everything fully formed — for instance, we're not going to start with [.] Jughead's asexuality or any of the things that have become canon." However, in a Glamour interview with Jughead's actor, Cole Sprouse, who had done research on asexuality when he got the role stated, "'I think in this show, he is not a romantic and not asexual.'" What tied the fandom to comic Jughead was that he found joy in things outside sexual or romantic relationships, which many could relate to. Throughout the TV show, however, Jughead is never given a chance to explore his asexual identity. To tease a point when Jughead “might” explore asexuality when there are sparse ace representations or characters are “ace-coded” is already damaging to the outside perceptions of what asexuality is. 

    Analyzing these characters, canonical or ace-coded, displays the ways the ace community has had to search for ace representations in mainstream media. Even so, in that media there are multiple occasions where being ace is dismissed or undermined.  

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* :☆ﾟ. ─── 

6th sept. 2018- A Landmark judgement for queer people in India

The decriminalisation of homosexuality in India on 6th sept 2018 was my most significant LGBTQ event in my lifetime The Supreme Court's ruling, which overturned a colonial-era law (Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code) that criminalised same-sex relations, marked a pivotal moment in the fight for LGBTQ rights. The five-judge bench reached a unanimous decision in the capital New Delhi. Delivering his decision, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said, “The LGBTQ community has the same fundamental rights as citizens. The identity of a person is very important and we have to vanquish prejudice, embrace inclusion and ensure equal rights.” It was a triumph for human rights and personal freedom, offering legal recognition and protection to millions of LGBTQ individuals. This watershed moment initiated a more inclusive and accepting society, fostering greater visibility and acceptance of the LGBTQ community, challenging deep-seated prejudices, and setting the stage for further legal and social progress in India and up to date is aiding changes to LGBTQ law in India. 

June 26th, 2015: a Turning Point for Queer Liberation

     In the years before 2015, there were many historically significant events for queer people. While we still faced much legal and intense social oppression, the fight for queer rights and liberation began to pick up speed in the 1960s, and has not stopped since. From the martyr of Harvey Milk that sparked outrage across the country, to the repealing of the homophobic Sodomy Laws in 2003, huge strides were being made to lift queer people, especially gays and lesbians, out of the erased and oppressed state that they suffered through most of the 20th century. 

    In my opinion though, the landmark Supreme Court decision to actually write gay marriage into law was the most historically significant event for the advancement of LGBTQ rights in the 2010s, and maybe even since Stonewall in 1969. While the Supreme Court cannot create social change immediately or lift biases from the minds of America, they do create a solid ruling to go back on. Solidifying the right of gay marriage into the books was, in my view, the government's way of saying "you are equal, and if anyone tries to deny it, then they are wrong." I remember hearing about the law being passed and thinking to myself (before I knew about the nuanced systems of oppression that affect queer people) that me and every other queer person were truly liberated in the United States. It was just such a moment a moment for celebration, happiness, and feelings of victory that it could be felt even by children like me who weren't educated at all on politics. The knowledge that gay people have this law codified by the Supreme Court is and always will be an inspiration for us, making us feel supported and validated. 

Deception of Racial Minorities in Media as seen in "Ethnic Notions"

The documentary "Ethnic Notions" delves into the deep-seated issue of racial stereotypes and caricatures that have pervaded popular media throughout American history. It reveals how these stereotypes perpetuated harmful narratives about various racial minorities, particularly African Americans, and conveyed negative messages to the audience. In this reflection, we will focus on one specific type of racial stereotype, the "Mammy," and analyze the social meaning associated with it in the context of the film.

The "Mammy" stereotype is a demeaning and dehumanizing portrayal of African American women as loyal, submissive, and content in their role as domestic servants to white families. This stereotype reduces Black women to one-dimensional, docile figures whose primary purpose is to serve and nurture white families. In "Ethnic Notions," this stereotype is vividly portrayed through historical advertisements, minstrel shows, and cartoons, where Black women were often depicted as obese, with exaggerated features and an ever-present smile. These caricatures reinforced the idea that Black women were satisfied in their subservient roles and were, in fact, fulfilled by their servitude.

The social meaning associated with the "Mammy" stereotype was deeply insidious. It normalized the idea that Black women were inherently inferior, submissive, and incapable of aspiring to anything beyond servitude. By depicting Black women in this manner, media perpetuated a dangerous narrative that justified and romanticized the oppression and exploitation of African Americans. This portrayal not only stripped Black women of their individuality but also played a significant role in justifying the continuation of slavery and later, racial segregation.

Additionally, "Ethnic Notions" provides a powerful and unsettling portrayal of how the "Mammy" stereotype was communicated to the audience. Through a collection of historical artifacts, advertisements, and film clips, the documentary unveils the relentless propagation of this stereotype in popular media. The images of Black women portrayed as devoted housemaids, often willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the comfort of white families, were incessantly disseminated in newspapers, films, and various forms of entertainment.

One particularly disturbing example featured in the film is the Aunt Jemima character, whose image was used to market pancake mix. The character's grinning, maternal demeanor served to convince white consumers that the product was both delicious and a taste of "Old South" nostalgia. This grotesque distortion of a Black woman's image effectively masked the harsh realities of racism and inequality in the United States. The "Mammy" stereotype in "Ethnic Notions" highlights the broader issue of how racial minorities have been deceived and dehumanized in the media. It is important to understand that these stereotypes were not just isolated depictions but contributed to systemic racism and discrimination. They played a role in shaping public perception and influencing policies that perpetuated racial inequality.

In conclusion, "Ethnic Notions" serves as a stark reminder of the power of the media to shape and perpetuate racial stereotypes and the harm these stereotypes inflict on marginalized communities. The "Mammy" stereotype, with its demeaning portrayal of Black women, exemplifies how media has been used to deceive the audience and convey a negative message about racial minorities. This deception was not confined to a single caricature; it was part of a broader system of racism that, to a significant extent, still impacts society today. Recognizing and confronting these harmful stereotypes is a vital step towards dismantling systemic racism and promoting equality for all.

BY- Mayara Neeraj Sharma

The Killer Lesbian: a Trope We Love to Hate

 A common experience shared between many queer women is a cold, apprehensive stare from straight women, a physical awkwardness that builds and makes you feel like you’re not a fellow woman. But why is this feeling of being dangerous, or predatory so prevalent for queer women? This essay seeks to explore the ancient “killer lesbian” troupe; how it was developed and for what reasons, and where it appears in society today.  

In The Celluloid Closet, a collection of movies featuring lesbians were shown that depicted them as violent, predatory, or insane in some way. The movie explains that depictions of lesbianism often came with the implication that the woman was not only sick (as homosexuality was considered a mental illness at the time), but also “spoiled”, or having lost her femininity. In her article about the killer lesbian, Marakay Rogers explains the patriarchal reasons for this depiction. “The very challenge to order contained in representations of lesbians is restrained by depictions that[…]disenfranchise the out-of-the-law as the outlaw. This is why lesbians are often figured as murderers and vice-versa. The murderous lesbian characters in Paul Verhoeven's BASIC INSTINCT (1992), as well as the association of lesbians with vampires...highlight fears that lesbians threaten the death of patriarchy.” (Rogers) To men, women who love women are an upset of the natural order, a danger to the rule that a woman’s role is to love a man. In a kind of public service announcement to all women, the idea that queer women were to be viewed as dangerous was spread through their depiction as monstrous, insane, or most commonly vampiric. In Dracula’s Daughter, Countess Zaleska’s vampirism is mostly directed at women, and seen as a sickness she must overcome to be accepted by society, and men. This sickness, a thinly veiled metaphor for homosexuality, results in the death of a “pretty, young woman,” depicted as the perfect American beauty with all of the eurocentric beauty standards of the time. The message is clear: “Pure, virtuous young women beware of this deadly disease.” 

Dracula's Daughter, vampire attack scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1uvgx3NUR0

an link to Rebecca, (1940) one of the original examples of this troupe

Today, the killer lesbian can still easily be found in popular media. While there are more feminist undertones behind the murderous queer women of today’s shows, they feel old and overused. In her article about the killer lesbian, Bryony White explains this idea further through the lens of popular shows like Killing Eve. “[R]ecent appearances of the murderous queer feel like lazy iterations of a potentially liberatory politics. Destruction and disorder might signal the abolition of heteronormativity in favor of alternative kinships and non-normative desires. [...]But what we’re left with when the dust settles are glossy, recuperative projections of flattened, liberal #girlboss feminism.” (White) In Killing Eve, Villanelle is a beautiful, glamorous killer. She is someone who kills without abandon, sometimes for the fun of it. Killing is like an addiction for her, or something to be fixed. As Eve, the detective on Villanelle’s case, chases her around the world, she is shown to be drifting away from her heterosexual relationship, and into Eve’s world of depravity.  This depiction of queerness, while iconic, is still shown as something that taints relationships, a sickness that can draw others in. 

Killing Eve: Villanelle killing a man(left) and threatening Eve(right)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PMVFp529is

Jennifer's Body, Jennifer's death scene. A queer coded character is killed by her best friend/lover to stop her murderous rampage

                                                              Jennifer, from Jennifer's Body

It’s no wonder that lesbians and queer women in general are viewed as dangerous still by straight women. For years, cinema and T.V. have drilled the script of the killer lesbian into their audiences, and the implications that come along with it. Especially in countries with strong religious backgrounds that enforce purity culture and traditional femininity, lesbians are a threat that must be villainized and warned against. To uphold traditional gender roles means to uphold heterosexuality, and lesbians have to fit into that somehow. Queer women will have true representation only when we are not depicted as the monsters, the vampires of society, only when queerness is no longer considered a sickness. We need to continue fighting for shows and movies that show queer people as normal characters: not the gay best friend, not the killer lesbian, but just the person existing in the world with everyone else. 

          Throughout the history of film, the depiction of minority groups in media constantly fluctuates due to the majority's cultural and societal norms. A few examples that are depicted in The Celluloid Closet are: the “sissy,” a gay man who is made to be a joke; “Killer Lesbian,” who invokes harm and pain because she isn’t sexually free; and the “tragic lovers,” where one on them inevitably dies off because they are gay. In my life experiences, I have seen certain movies and television shows change their depiction of the LGBTQ community from types and tropes that were in The Celluloid Closet into ones of optimism and inclusivity. 

Sissy 

Killer Lesbian

Tragic Lovers 

    

    

    

Growing up, I watched many Disney Channel shows that were supposed to teach children big life lessons, but there were never any queer characters. Partially due to Disney's lack of queer characters, it didn't depict the queer community, it wasn’t until much later in life that I realized there was an option to be anything other than straight. Not depicting any queer characters in kids' television negatively affects everyone because the majority will believe that there isn’t a queer community, and LGBTQ people feel alienated. Later on, I finally encounter a queer character, Mitch, from Paranoman.

    

        Paranorman is a stop-motion film about a boy who can see and interact with the dead. Mitch is a side character who helps the character Paranorman stop the spread of evil. He is scripted as a dumb jock and described as a straight white dude who will get the cheerleader. However, at the very end of the movie, he tells the cheerleader, “you’re going to love my boyfriend”(1:23:23https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nel883o_6SA ). I was shocked to find out he was gay because of the hetero-normative scripts associated with him. Mitch having straight stereotypes while being gay normalized being queer. Even though he wasn’t the main character, Mitch's role in the film wasn’t to be a token gay–having a gay character to just have a gay character– but to bring awareness to the queer community and show that your whole identity isn’t just based on who you love.

Mitch 

     

    It wasn’t until the past couple of years that Netflix started making films and Television shows that have gay lovers as the main characters. In the television show, Heartstopper

the two main characters, Nick and Charlie, follow the rom-com trope and fall in love with each other, and this shows that gay lovers, too, can have a happily ever after. This changes the queer narrative from when gay love stories ended with one character dying never being allowed to have their happily ever after to one of love and optimism. 

    Overall, because the media is so present in our daily lives, it standardizes our view on the nature of the world around us. The more media bedbugs certain “types” that are associated with queer minorities there will be more accepted by society. ParaNorman and Heartstopper are off to a good start, but there is still a long way to go. Based on my personal experiences, I believe we have entered a time of optimism and more inclusivity in media and film.

Work Cited: 

1. Friedman, Jeffrey. The Celluloid Closet. New York, NY: Sony Pictures Classics, 1996. Film.

2. Alice Oseman, creators. Heartstopper. Netflix, 2022. Film

3. Chris Butler, and Sam Fell. ParaNorman. LAIKA studios, 2012. Film.

       

Thoughts on Queer Nation's "Outing"

  From the 1980s reading, I was particularly intrigued by the fact that Queer Nation outed many public figures using New York City as a platform to plaster photos with the phrase “Absolutely Queer.” Then, Washington Queer National Michael Petrelis held a news conference in which he attempted to out many closeted politicians. While the media went to this conference, no names were ever leaked. As long as I’ve been aware of “outing”, I’ve believed that it was a bad thing. I’ve always thought it was terrible for an aspect of someone’s identity to be exposed like that, especially when they might not yet be comfortable with sharing it with people yet. I’ve always believed that we should allow people to come out on their own terms and when they are ready to, instead of forcing them to accept the public knowing. 

When I realized that this outing came from a queer group, rather than a homophobic one, I was confused. I suppose I’ve never really thought about why they may have tried outing these celebrities and politicians. They assumed that because they were in a position of power and wealth, they would have the ability to change laws and societal expectations of queer people. While I’ve never thought of it like this, I still condemn outing in most scenarios. One’s sexuality is such a personal thing that has the ability to carry so much weight for someone; it could ruin or reinforce a relationship with a friend, family member, or community. Ultimately, I feel as though while I can see where Queer Nation was coming from at the time, modern society would most likely never accept that as an attempt to further gain queer rights.

Discussion Questions:

1. What were your thoughts on outing before reading this piece? 

2. How about after? Are you able to understand why Queer Nation felt the urge to out these people?

October 11 is National Coming Out Day!

National Coming Out Day is October 11th!

This year is the 35th anniversary of the first National Coming Out Day (NCOD), which occurred on October 11 1988, which itself was the first anniversary of the 2nd National March on Washington held in 1987 (Wikipedia). In recent times, NCOD has been a project of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ political advocacy organization in the United States. 

The logo was specifically created for NCOD by openly gay artist Keith Haring.

In more recent years, there have been debates in the LGBTQ community about the utility of the event. For example, last year the Washington Blade published an article that discussed how for different segments of the LGBTQ community (especially those who had other marginalized identities) coming out can have complications.

Here are some discussion questions for the comments:

1. What do you think about this idea (that coming out may be more difficult for different segments of the LGBTQ community) included in the Washington Blade article? 
2. What are your thoughts about the phrase "inviting in" versus "coming out"?
3. Do you think NCOD still serves a useful purpose?
4. When was the first time you heard about NCOD?