Unofficial asexual & aromantic icons in pop culture, Part 1

Asexuality and aromanticism are so underrepresented that I wouldn’t be surprised if you haven’t even heard the words before or, if you have, you only have a very poor notion of what they really mean.

In that sense, this article will be more educational than usual, because I can’t speak about the issue without first defining the most important terms:

Asexual (often shortened to “ace”): A person who does NOT experience sexual desire towards anyone. Not as well-known as heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, it’s nevertheless considered to be a legitimate sexual orientation by the contemporary scientific community. It should not be confused with celibacy (the choice to remain sexually inactive despite possibly having the desire) or sexual dysfunction (the physiological incapacity to maintain sex despite having the desire). Asexuals simply aren’t interested in sex, though there are deegres: some are repulsed by the simple idea of sex while others can even have it, often to please their sexual partners or to procreate. It’s estimated that 1 to 3% of the world population is asexual, a percentage not that different from other minority sexualities, and yet much less known.

Allosexual: Somebody who’s not asexual, and thus experiences sexual desire.

Aromantic (or aro): Though both are often confused, sex is not the same as romance. You can desire one without desiring the other, just as you can desire both or none. An asexual can still experience romantic attraction; the desire to form a romantic partnership without engaging in sex. An aromantic, then, is someone who doesn’t want romance either.

Many allosexuals engage in sexual activity with someone without having the slightliest interest in having a romantic relationship with them. You can understand, then, that the opposite can be true for some.

Aesthetic attraction: Perceiving beauty is also very different from desiring sex, even though both are deeply connected in the allosexual mind. Many asexuals are capable of being aesthetically attracted to somebody’s appearance, without having the desire to engage in any kind of sexual activity.

If you’re allosexual and have a hard time understanding the concept, think of it like this: Do you really want to have sex with every person you find good-looking? Probably not. You can even find a little child cute, a family member attractive, a piece of art beautiful… and yet you don’t want to have sex with any of those.

Platonic relationship: A close relationship between people that doesn’t involve sex or romance (some elements of romance can be seen as platonic depending on the person). The relationship between very close friends or family members is a form of platonic love, but there can also be platonic couples, who share a life but never engage in sexual or romantic activities. Remember, being asexual doesn't mean being unable to love. They just don't need intercourse to express it.

This is far from being a comprehensive glossary. There are many nuances and variations within the asexual and aromantic spectrum, just as there’s not only one type of heterosexual or one type of homosexual. If you want to expand your knowledge, there are so many other relevant terms you can research, but these are the most important ones regarding the article and my personal experiences (I’m both aromantic and asexual, and I’ve been one openly and proudly all of my life).

The fact that so many people don’t know about these concepts can be harmful for us, because it leads to misunderstandings and misconceptions about who we are. Some people will go as far to claim these orientations don't exist, which has been a debunked belief by proper, recent studies. Others think we’re weirdos or sick people, which is not the case either. We’re just as normal and diverse as everybody else is; we’re just not interested in something most people are. If we seem weird is only because our surroundings are so extremely sexualized, and that makes us feel a bit out of place.

Obviously, media representation of diverse aro and ace characters would be incredibly helpful to educate the allosexual public about their asexual peers, not to mention help those who don’t even know they are aro or aces realize what is going on with them. Think how much the public awareness and acceptance of the LGTB community has improved since the media started improving their depictions. And yes, I know it’s still far from perfect, but at least they’re on the path.

Asexuals, on the other hand, haven’t even started. Their presence in mainstream media is pretty much non-existent, and there’s only a tiny handful of characters who have been explicitly confirmed as such (thank you BoJack Horseman, Emmerdale, etc.). For this reason, in order to have icons, the community has had the need to force the definition of aro or ace upon characters who at least seem to fit the description a bit, even if they have never been officially named as such by their creators. This kind of practice is commonly known as “headcanon”.

Even counting these headcanon representatives, it’s still impressive how few there are. The allosexual, romantic-centric narrative dominates fiction in a way that pretty much invisibilizes the fact that there are people in the real world who don’t care about such things. The prevalence of the belief that everyone needs a love interest, by the way, is called Amatonormativity.

I decided to put together a list of our favorite unofficial“icons”; Pop Culture characters that should be canonized as asexuals or aromantics in order to give us a bit of representation. Some of them have already failed us, but I remain convinced that they would have been better characters if a romantic plot hadn’t been forced upon them.

The arguments are based on my opinion, but almost every character listed here is relatively popular among aces other than myself, so I give a big thanks to everyone in the community who has ever shared their headcanon in order to broaden our representation.

You’ll notice that, in many of these entries, I mention that the gay community has tried to claim those characters as theirs, because there’s the misconception that if someone doesn’t show attraction towards the opposite gender, then they must be homosexual. I have every sympathy for LGTB* groups looking for their own representation, but: a) assuming a character needs a love interest of any kind is very reductionist and a way to disavow asexuality as a valid option, and b) we need said representation more than they do. There’s no shortage of explicitly gay icons, while we have next to nothing.

*I don’t consider asexuals as a whole as a part of the LGTB community. Some clearly are and others are not. It’s just a matter of applying intersectionality when necessary.

If you still have doubts about the very complex topic of asexuality, don’t hesitate to comment (in a civilized and friendly way). Nothing would make me happier than at least one person understanding something new about this.

PART I:

Every Sherlock Holmes ever:

If there’s a famous character who has always been the ultimate aromantic and asexual icon, that is Arthur Conan Doyle’s original depiction of Sherlock Holmes. Anyone with a proper knowledge of the full canon knows that he fits the description perfectly, and I’m convinced the author would have referred to him as such had the term existed back then. In any case, he shows a great understanding of what this orientation entails.

The literary Holmes, who is emotionally difficult but rarely the "sociopath" that most adaptations show him to be, is completely uninterested in romantic relationships and, one must presume, sexual ones. He can develop feelings of admiration and friendship, and even cares about people he barely knows in many instances, but they are always firmly on the platonic side.

But why has it been so difficult for so many adaptations to stay true to this aspect? Of course, there’s that absurd belief that audiences won’t be able to connect with a character if they don’t hook up with someone. And thus, many versions have forced him into at least borderline romantic if not sexual relationships. These usually have their origin in the misreading of Holmes’ relationships with two original characters:

1- Irene Adler: There is a character -who appears in only ONE short story- who has a special place in the canon: Irene Adler is a minor adversary of Holmes in one of his cases, but she’s able to outsmart him, which gains her the detective’s eternal admiration. The author explains how fascinated Holmes becomes with her abilities, but if you read the original tale it’s quite clear that his veneration is entirely platonic, almost professional. Sadly, because people need to couple single characters, Adler has passed into the public’s mind as Sherlock’s lover, a misrepresentation many adaptations have willingly followed.

2- Dr. Watson: Sorry, but the close friendship between Holmes and Watson was never meant to be some kind of disguised homoromantic one. As I said earlier, I understand that people from the LGTB circles also need their representation, and much like I’m doing in this article, they sometimes project it into characters who weren’t really created with this intent.

In the books, not only is Watson clearly heteroromantic; he’s in fact something of a ladies’ man. The fact is more alluded than fully explored, but it’s still there. He and Holmes form a very close, codependent relationship over many adventures, but it is enterally platonic: Watson feels an extreme curiousity about his friend’s skills and unusual customs, and he needs to stick close to him to satisfy it (this has been explored beautifully in BBC’s Sherlock, where the doctor is portrayed as some sort of excitement junkie). Holmes, on the other hand, has come to need the company of the mundane, human mind of his partner in order to properly process the racket of his own extraordinary brain. It’s a symbiotic relationship that is much more significant because there’s no romance involved.

Adaptations need to cater to their public, and the clamor for gay representation is more noticeable than its asexual equivalent. That’s not to say many adaptations have made these characters actually homosexual, but they’ve toyed enough with the idea to give it credibility in the minds of many.

The problem with doing that in this particular case is that one of the only recognizable asexual icons is being stolen from its actual community. Holmes needs to stay there.

The same goes for Sherlock’s brother, Mycroft Holmes, and should be true for those imagined Holmes siblings that pop up in pastiches. Enola Holmes, who is so far a fun character (I’ve seen the film but I’m not familiar with her books, sorry), should remain on platonic terms with everyone, especially with that nobleman who is romantically interested in her and who annoyed me thoroughly in the Netflix adaptation. Hopefully, the sequels will stray away from this, but I know better than raising my hopes.

Hercule Poirot:

Poirot is pretty much Agatha Christie’s version of Sherlock Holmes, and she heavily borrows from Doyle in order to make her Belgian detective intentionally recognizable.

One of the clear parallels is Poirot’s lack of romantic and sexual interest. Like Holmes, he instead surrounds himself with platonic companions to help him solve his cases, though there’s no direct Watson figure. Captain Hastings fills the role for many early years, but he is far from being a permanent fixture in Poirot’s life.

There is a clear Irene Adler equivalent, though: Countess Vera Rossakoff, an adversary who is admired by the detective. In this instance, Poirot is more clearly smitten. He is obviously attracted intellectually, and maybe even aesthetically by the woman, but there’s no explicit romantic or sexual desire either.

Tintin:

Let’s talk about that other famous little Belgian.

Granted: there are not many women of his age in Tintin’s comics, nor does he ever show any factual homosexual tendencies towards his older, male friends (sorry again, LGTB crowd), but the reality is that, if Hergé had wanted to give his young reporter a romantic interest, he would have.

Like the previous two detectives, Tintin is one of those characters who is simply too hard to visualize in any kind of non-platonic relationship. If you want to have a horrifying peek at how unnatural it looks, you have Yves Rodier’ version of The Alph-Art, where a girl flirts with him and it feels utterly... untintinish.

Elsa (Frozen):

The popular Ice Queen is one of the few Disney heroines who doesn’t fall in love with a guy. So that must mean she’s a lesbian, right? At least that’s what many in the gay community are campaigning for, except it doesn’t make any sense. She displays as much attraction to women as she does to males: none at all. So please, let it go already. This one is ours.

She a much better fit as an aromantic and asexual. Of course, she does love a girl: her younger sister Anna, and she forms a close platonic relationship with her and her friends, but that’s it. Coupling her with anyone on a sequel would be a big mistake, and they should officially announce she’s ace, seeing as she’s the first character on my list whose creators are still alive and thus something canonical could be done.

Merida (Brave):

Another princess who is a big icon for the community is Merida, and in an even bigger way. It’s true that she’s a bit younger than Elsa (this in itself is not a deterrent. I can testify that many aromantics are aware of their orientation even during childhood), but the fact remains that the whole plot of the film rests on her absolute refusal to be paired with anyone, way before even meeting the candidates.

This can be seen as her simply wanting to be her own person and waiting until she finds “true love”, but the film implies that maybe she never will, and thus she resonates very strongly as an asexual icon.

And since we’re on the topic of Disney heroines, am I the only one who thinks Mulan would have been better served by having no romantic subplot at all? Another princess who the ace community has kind of adopted is Belle from Beauty and the Beast. The idea is that she’s asexual but romantically attached to the Beast. Remember the distinction.

A lot of people from Middle-Earth:

J.R.R. Tolkien’s universe feels so aromantic in general that only a bunch of main characters who are actually involved in non-platonic relationships: both Aragorn and Sam marry in Return of the King, as do Eowyn and Faramir. Other than them, every other coupled character is relatively minor. The Appendices reveal that some others, like Pippin, also marry eventually, but it’s interesting that prominent figures like Frodo and Bilbo never do.

Likewise, Gimli and Legolas remain platonic friends for life and travelling partners. Again, some people think they sense homoromantic undertones there, but I find it much more likely that Tolkien, a World War veteran, is emphasizing the bonds of brotherhood between fellow soldiers, one of the themes of the series. This case is especially important since these two come from races who had mutual enmity.

Although the term hadn’t been coined back then, there’s reference to something akin to aromanticism in Tolkien’s Appendix A - III. Durin's Folk:

"It is because of the fewness of women among them that the kind of the Dwarves increases slowly [...]. For Dwarves take only one wife or husband each in their lives [...]. The number of dwarf-men that marry is actually less than one-third. For not all the women take husbands: some desire none; some desire one that they cannot get, and so will have no other. As for the men, very many also do not desire marriage, being engrossed in their crafts."

Carol Danvers (MCU):

The big screen version of Captain Marvel is one of the rare superhero leads who has no romantic interest at all... at least so far. She’s shown to form caring friendly relationships rather quickly with Nick Fury, Dr. Lawson and even former adversary Talos, not to mention the sisterlike connection with Maria Rambeau.

I half-expected they would show her flirting with Jude Law's Yon-Rogg before realizing his ultimate betrayal, setting her up for another future romantic partner. Instead, they had a playful dynamic that is most reminiscent of that of siblings or master and apprentice. I hope this is a sign that she is intended to remain unattached going forward.

Of course, at the rate the MCU grows, it’s probably a matter of time before they decide she needs a “squeeze”. I think she’s doing much better like this, just like Black Widow was before that odd Bruce Banner romance in Age of Ultron. Would you be surprised to know that Natasha used to be an aromantic icon once? Keep in mind I’m only talking about the films here, never the original comics.

Elsewhere in the MCU, I wouldn’t mind having another great character officially revealed as ace: Shuri, especially if she's going to be our next Black Panther. She would also be a good representative for the racially diverse asexual population. Mantis seems very ace too.

Arya Stark (Game of Thrones):

NOTE: Yet again take in consideration that I’m only referring to the TV version of the character. There are certain plotlines I allude here that haven’t happened in the novels, where Arya remains a (murderous) young child.

It’s interesting that Game of Thrones, often regarded as an overtly sexual show, has one of the few popular characters that can be considered a confirmed asexual: Lord Varys. Some propose that, being an eunuch, he can’t be called ace, yet we know that characters like Grey Worm do desire both sex and romance despite their castration. Varys, in conversation with Oberyn explains that he, on the other hand, was never interested in either gender before becoming an eunuch. The very pansexual Oberyn is shocked, giving way to this nice exchange:

Oberyn: What then?

Varys: Nothing.

Oberyn: Everybody is interested in something.

Varys: Not me. When I see what desire does to people, what it’s done to this country, I am very glad to have no part in it. Besides, the absence of desire leaves one free to pursue other things.

Referring of course to his unrivaled political shrewdness and to his cunning orchestration of many of the series’ events. While they don’t use the words “asexual” or “aromantic”, which would be completely out of place in that world, his description puts him firmly in the spectrum.

But we’re here to mention another, less official character that many in the aro-ace community used to claim as their own: vengeful Arya Stark. Then, Season 8 happened and there was that Gendry scene, which even many allosexuals agree was among the most objectionable parts of the season.

It’s a pity, for Arya’s fierceness and independence would have made her a great ace icon, and she was always one of the most beloved characters from the franchise. At least, the way this plot is framed in the series doesn’t entirely discount her as a possible aro/ace: she states she wants to have sex to know what it feels like (something many young aces think they need to do in order to “confirm” if they are asexual or not), and later on she rejects pursuing a romantic relationship with Gendry. Still, it would have been better if the showrunners had committed to a more direct representation, but then again, we’re talking about a series in which mostly everyone had a hard time keeping their pants on. A girl had no chance.

To read PART II, click on the Ace of Spades below: