Unofficial asexual & aromantic icons in pop culture, Part 2

Here we have a few more characters who would do wonders for Asexual and Aromantic representation in media, if only they could be canonically confirmed as such.

You can read the first part -which includes an uninitiated’s guide to the basic words of asexuality- by clicking on the Spade icon below:

PART II:

Jean Valjean (Les Misérables):

The earliest character in our list, he predates Holmes by over two decades, and thus comes from a period where the modern notion of asexuality was far from formed. Yet, like it happened with Doyle’s character, Valjean has become an icon of the asexual community.

It’s not just that Victor Hugo’s protagonist is explicitly stated to never have taken a lover in his long life -neither before, nor after his redemption-, but some of the author’s incursions in Valjean’s thoughts feel very familiar to the ace reader.

Notably, his interaction with Fantine lacks any kind of romantic or sexual component. Later, when he adopts her child Cosette and raises her into adulthood, there is a very interesting passage where he describes his deep love for her, equating it to that of a daughter, a mother and a sister figure all rolled into one person, and he even goes to realize he can hardly differentiate it for the love he would have had for a lover or a wife… something relatable for romantic asexuals or even platonic ones.

Even previously to his imprisonment, Jean was already a family man in the platonic sense: he lived with his sister and her child and in fact risked his life and freedom to steal a loaf of bread for them.

Luckily, most of the countless adaptations of Les Misérables, including the wildly popular musical, have stayed relatively faithful to this aspect of the character.

Elsewhere in the same novel, Enjolras' possible asexuality has long been the center of debate. Hugo drops lines like "Woe to the love-affair which should have risked itself beside him!" and "He hardly saw the roses, he ignored spring, he did not hear the carolling of the birds; the bare throat of Evadne would have moved him no more than it would have moved Aristogeiton; he, like Harmodius, thought flowers good for nothing except to conceal the sword. He was severe in his enjoyments. He chastely dropped his eyes before everything which was not the Republic. He was the marble lover of liberty." in relation to him, so there's a lot more to this idea than just headcanon.

Rey Skywalker (Star Wars):

This one still hurts. Back when The Force Awakens was released, the impact of the character of Rey couldn't be overstated. After 38 years, the series finally had a female lead. Thus, she instantly became an icon for some feminists (and a source of hate for misogynists). But the aro-ace community also found some representation on the girl from Jakku.

But first a bit of context: Star Wars has always felt like an asexual-friendly universe. Much like in Tolkien’s world, this is a franchise where the safe bet is “nobody is in a romantic relationship unless otherwise stated”, instead of the other way around, which is usually the norm.

Maybe it’s just for keeping with the wholesome tone Lucas injected his whole saga with, but the only romantic pairings in his movies come for plot necessities (Anakin/Padmé, no wonder it felt so uninvested) or character development (Leia/Han). I guess we can count Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru in the first category.

It certainly didn’t hurt that many characters come from a celibate order which valuated selfless love over desire. Remember, celibacy does not equate asexuality, but the two can come together, so in the minds of many, characters such as Obi-Wan (Satine ruled out his aromanticism, but not necessarily his asexuality) and Luke (we didn’t like Mara Jade even before she was ejected from canon) were always icons.

Instead of sex and romance, Star Wars has always given a much more relevant role to friendship and fraternity. Han and Chewie, R2 and C-3PO, Masters and Padawans. Even Leia’s sort of love-triangle never meant much, and certainly was never more prevalent than the idea of the core trio of heroes as deeply connected friends.

This trend is one Lucasfilm has kept alive in the New Canon. Finn connects immediately with everyone who sees him as an individual and not a numbered soldier. Rey looks for family surrogates in everyone, not lovers. The Mandalorian falls in parental love with Grogu after just one look at him. The Ghost crew is a found family. Chirrut and Baze share a deep bond akin to brotherhood, even during the latter’s crisis of faith. So does the whole Rebellion and other heroes, for that matter, while acolytes of evil have always lacked true bonds in this saga. For all the talk that love can lead to the Dark Side*, it seems that the opposite it the actual truth, except it’s usually love expressed platonically.

*After all, maybe Anakin didn’t really love Padmé. He just wanted her. It would have been great if Lucas had developed this idea, which would have certainly improved the Prequel Trilogy.

So, let’s go back to Rey. There have been many jokes about Rey “friendzoning” (stupid word, sorry) Finn in Episode VII, but to me, her lack of romantic vibes felt like a big win for the community, and also for the narrative. We had a heroine who wasn’t a love interest. Perfect and unusual.

One of the constants in The Last Jedi, like it or not, was presenting things that looked like something but were actually something else. Even the humor revolved around that idea (remember the spaceship/iron?). Rian Johnson plays with the audience's expectations that Rey’s interest in Kylo Ren is romantic, but Rey’s actions in the film, carefully read, support something else. Her search for redeeming Ben has different motivations than the old plain “fancying him” and had more to do with her sincere belief in the ways of the Jedi: she admires how Luke brought back Vader by appealing to the light in him and strives to do the same to his grandson

That film ends with Rey firmly closing a door in Kylo’s face, but The Rise of Skywalker finishes their story with a very different interaction, which I viscerally think is the greatest sin committed in the whole franchise, and which only functions to injure Rey’s character a lot.

I was never comfortable with the idea of Ben redeeming, but I admit the way it was presented in the film sold me a bit on it. I can understand Rey’s joy at being proved right all along: the light in him could be brought back by sticking to the true Jedi path of compassion, as shown when Rey heals Ren instead of taking his life (just like Luke refused to execute Vader, but Yoda and Obi-Wan had failed him by leaving him to die).

But I just won't buy that she would act the way she did. That passionate response is completely out of character (and distasteful in general), and it seems clear to me that Abrams just put it there to cater to the “Reylo” fans, and it was, according to the filmmakers an unplanned, late addition to the film.

Of course, you might have read the official novelization of Episode IX, where the action is explained like this:

"And then, wonder of wonders, she leaned forward and kissed him. A kiss of gratitude, acknowledgement of their connection, celebration that they'd found each other at last.

(…)

He had given Rey back to the galaxy. It wouldn't atone for the darkness he'd wrought, but it was what he could do."

I can live with this version, except it was obviously not the way the actors were asked to portray it by the director. The same book also explains that:

“She did not mourn Kylo Ren. She would never mourn Kylo Ren. But she dearly would have loved the chance to get to know Ben Solo.”

That’s right, because Rey never actually got to meet the real Ben, only the abuser he had become! That’s why her behavior is so unnatural and frankly disturbing.

That shot will probably remain the only part of the Star Wars films whose existence I will forever deny. If I could, I would edit it out of my copy, so that they simply embrace before his death.

Jyn Erso (Star Wars):

I didn’t want to write two Star Wars entries, but I realized the previous one was getting too long and acerbic. I promise that will the most scathing section I’ll ever write in this blog (almong with a small segment in the Ariadne entry. You'll know when you read it.

Let’s try to get back to positivity!

Bless Jyn Erso. Rogue One has some very asexual vives, even for Star Wars standards. Let’s be honest: mostly every other blockbuster would have paired Jyn and Cassian, and I was so grateful to see that they decided to go in a less traditional route.

At the end, when they achieve their mission and they await peaceful for their death on a paradisiac beach, they embrace platonically. Hear this again: they don’t share a Hollywood kiss, they embrace!

In fact, I remember that every time I went to a public screening of this film, there was a somewhat disappointed groan from the amatonormative audience when it was clear there wasn’t going to be a forced romance in the last minutes of the film. Others have complained about this directly. Their loss was my big win, I’m sorry to say!

That said, Jyn is not canonically an aromantic asexual. Sadly, a short novel by Beth Revis, Rebel Rising, took away the possibility, by giving her a love interest during a portion of her youth.

Still, I don’t think the original intent of the Rogue One creators was to give her a romance. As I said, they could have easily gone the Abrams’ way and putting a kiss at the end. The fact that they didn’t shows a different kind of goal. She will forever remain one of my aro/ace icons.

Nicholas Angel (Hot Fuzz):

I will keep this one short, because I don’t have strong arguments to explain why Simon Pegg’s righteous policeman should be in this list. He even has an ex-girlfriend, Janine (a pre-COVID but already-facemask-wearing Cate Blanchet), so theoretically he still could be asexual, but not aromantic. For some reason, he keeps popping up in the community’s list of headcanon aces. And I have to agree: he gives the right vibes.

I just don’t know why.

Jessica Rabbit (Who Framed Roger Rabbit?):

Jessica Rabbit is a sex symbol. She’s also, believe it or not, an asexual icon.

Remember her most famous line, “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way”? The same could be said about her sexuality. Being born attractive doesn’t equate to being sexual at all.

There’s a myth among people who don’t understand asexuality: “aces must be all very ugly people and that’s why they don’t “want” sex. Actually, they simply can’t find anyone willing”. This is poppycock, because even unattractive people can find partners. On the other hand, asexuals come in many forms: like everyone else, some of us are ugly and some of us are incredibly beautiful. Some are models. Some dress “sexily”, except it’s only an aesthetic choice; they are not doing to look for sexual attention.

Let’s think about Jessica's behavior despite her looks, then, which as I said have nothing to do with a person's orientation. In the film, other characters presume that she’s a woman of loose morality who sleeps around with everyone in town, except we find out that this is simply an assumption derived from her appearance, which is sadly something that happens in real life. Mostly every pretty girl gets to be called a "slut" at some point, depite her actual behavior.

Jessica receives attention from absolutely everyone: she’s a toon, but even regular people are attracted to her, yet she doesn’t return their affections (in fact, she places bear traps on her body to avoid touchy men). Jessica only has eyes for her husband… who is a cartoon bunny.

Now, Jessica is clearly infatuated with Roger Rabbit, and we must assume that their relationship is purely romantic, not physical or sexual. In fact, she states that she loves him because he “makes her laugh”, which is very removed from bodily attraction.

Humans tend to see their own feelings reflected in other people. Maybe that’s why some allosexuals are so ready to believe someone who is attractive to them must be sexually willing. As someone ironized on another website: “I can only see her as a sexual object so I can’t imagine her not wanting to have sex.”

But that line of thought, if not kept in check, is exactly what devolves into a validation of rape culture. Looking desirable or dressing alluringly, does NOT equate consent. It's a pity real people can’t protect their bodies with bear traps.

Ariadne (Inception):

In the years since Inception was released, Elliot Page (credited as Ellen in the movie) has come out as both homosexual and transgender, but before that, their character in Nolan’s hit film was already an ace icon.

The interesting thing is that probably the first time Ariadne was associated with the word “asexual” was in the form of an insult. Some bigoted fashion writer criticized the costume choices of her character and decided to baptize her style as “asexual chic”. She goes to write pejorative stuff like “asexual sidekick”, “looks like a little boy” (she surely must be regretting that after Page was revealed as trans) and worst of all, this gem:

“Regardless, there are better ways to signify that Page is smart and not the female character whom DiCaprio wants to sleep with than sticking her in unattractive, earth-tone duds. Like, say, giving her a pair of glasses.”

A colleague of this person agrees on another article and adds:

"The curious thing is why Ariadne’s character was female at all (other than to kiss Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Arthur – which was just a gentle reminder that Ariadne is, in fact, a female".

So now you know, my dear women: apparently the only possible use of your gender is to be someone's romantic interest. The saddest thing is that both writers are, I’m sorry to say, female themselves.

Then again, and I’m sorry if I'm generelizing with this, but those “Fashion Police” types don’t tend to be the most enlightened crowd. The asexual community on the other hand, apparently decided to take the affront proudly and adopted Ariadne, even though the film doesn’t really prove anything about her orientation, other than the fact that she has no romantic plot at all (her kiss with Arthur was stolen by him).

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