Recommended Posts

That's the thing, we kinda don't have genderless pronouns. You can identify as genderless or asexual and still fall in love and be romantic, you just aren't attracted sexually? 

 

You can be asexual without being genderless, but I don't think you can be genderless and not asexual, gender implies sexual attraction? 

 

I'm beginning to think that genderlessness and asexuality is just a too novel concept, I mean, from I'm hearing you're actually surprised and pleased to see lesbians in your cartoons, while I've been seeing them in out cartoon since the 90's thanks to anime on our TV.

 

So yeah, I guess that if people are still shocked to see a lesbian romance on TV, we are still pretty far away from the rest of the LGBT spectrum.

 

I keep forgetting that in America they censored anime so that lesbians become "cousins"... And frankly, it guess it doesn't really matter what the Gems are, either way, it IS a big step forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you're coming from, but I'm hesitant to support the idea of representing asexuals in cartoons by making people genderless. That implicitly highlights a narrative where you can be asexual but it's because you're biologically different by lacking a gender. A big issue with the representation of asexuality is the idea that if you don't want sex in any way at all there must be something wrong, whether it's psychologically, physically or whatever.

 

I'd personally like it much more to see asexuality represented as a complement to other people with differing relationship interests. Show that asexuality is a perfectly normal way to be even if people around you are into all sorts of relationships. Don't make that person asexual because of something inherent to them or something that happened to them. Just make them that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point too, 

 

Ha, yeah. That was in Sailor Moon, wasn't it? I'm just listening to podcast, and coincidentally they mentioned that another anime did the same thing but made them step-siblings but kept all the now-weird romantic themes.

 

I mean, the show's up for interpretation anyway, you could look at the characters as being asexual, or gender-fluid would probably describe amethyst better. People are going to project whatever they have experience with onto the things they watch, which doesn't make their interpretation any more valid than yours, though I understand it not being as satisfying as something more concrete.

 

What I heard about Korra, of which I've seen nothing, is that they couldn't show a homosexual relationship as it would have gotten the show banned in certain countries, but they were could show it once they switched to digital distribution? Though that's unrelated to the localization of anime for English speaking audiences.

 

Yeah, Sailor Moon was one of the LGBT friendly shows we had, but "shojo" in general in pretty LGBT friendly in general.

 

I see where you're coming from, but I'm hesitant to support the idea of representing asexuals in cartoons by making people genderless. That implicitly highlights a narrative where you can be asexual but it's because you're biologically different by lacking a gender. A big issue with the representation of asexuality is the idea that if you don't want sex in any way at all there must be something wrong, whether it's psychologically, physically or whatever.

 

I'd personally like it much more to see asexuality represented as a complement to other people with differing relationship interests. Show that asexuality is a perfectly normal way to be even if people around you are into all sorts of relationships. Don't make that person asexual because of something inherent to them or something that happened to them. Just make them that way.

 

I guess that's true too, it's not an ideal scenario to have the first asexual couple show up because the species is genderless, but I realize this territory is so unexplored that even a genderless species saying it's genderless is shocking. 

 

The only asexual character I know is from a webcomic... it's a start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are reading this in the complete opposite way I intended it...

 

Asexueals are LBGT too and have ZERO representation, so it is kinda frustrating to see an asexual romance turned into a lesbian one. I'm pretty sure some poor kid who identifies as asexual is crushed to hear everybody insist they are actually lesbians. 

 

I'm not sure if I'm simply looking for nomanclature that doesn't even exist yet? I mean, people can't even decide what's the proper genderless pronoun. An asexual couple would be called "in an asexual relationship", right? 

 

I've seen lesbians in cartoons since I was young since I was raised with anime, but asexuals? This would have been a first, which is why I'm kind frustrated.

 

So, yeah, I'm mostly upset because the first asexual couple I knew of is now just another lesbian couple.

 

I've been treating the Steven Universe lesbian/asexual relationship the same way I've been treating the Korra lesbian/bi one: I feel like both interpretations are valid and -while I personally have a clear idea in my head about which I personally prefer to read it as- I don't like the idea of deciding that if one reading is correct, the other should therefore be treated as "wrong."

 

Also, gay relationships are absolutely a new thing for western cartoons, so I'm pretty pleased that we're starting to see them outside of anime; especially since most of the gay character depictions in anime either end up getting butchered by the time they reach North America, typically only reach much older niche audiences, or have inherent problems that come with Japanese societal views on homosexuality (namely that it's deserving of ridicule, simply a phase for teenage girls, or built on a strict power relationship in the case of gay men).

Keep in mind that it was a pretty big deal when two men kissed on the cheek in Clarence (after being cut down from having it be a kiss on the mouth with one of them holding flowers), and that was just last October. Adventure Time was allegedly explicitly not allowed to say that two of its female characters were once in a relationship. Gravity Falls had to straightify an elderly lesbian couple and remove a transgender symbol from an episode that aired in November. Kids aren't getting anywhere near the levels of representation that you think they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like "asexual" and "non-gendered" are getting conflated at points here. Correct me/apologies if I'm wrong/grossly simplifying, but "asexual" means not being sexually interested in any group; non-gendered is not identifying as any gender. You can identify as a particular gender and be asexual; you can be non-gendered (or intersex or hermaphrodite - the acceptable terms get confusing when we're specifically talking about shape-shifting alien rock creatures) but have a sexual preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like "asexual" and "non-gendered" are getting conflated at points here. Correct me/apologies if I'm wrong/grossly simplifying, but "asexual" means not being sexually interested in any group; non-gendered is not identifying as any gender. You can identify as a particular gender and be asexual; you can be non-gendered (or intersex or hermaphrodite - the acceptable terms get confusing when we're specifically talking about shape-shifting alien rock creatures) but have a sexual preference.

That's how I understand it, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, being asexual doesn't rule out romance, either. It's just that you don't have a pressing need to acknowledge intimacy with your genitals.

 

Further, I understand that a lack of interest in attraction or other people in general is a disorder that should probably be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess part of my point above is that ascribing asexuality to (at least nominally) children's cartoons seems like a strange endeavor. By and large, children's cartoons have never really featured sexuality in any form. We can joke about how Teela and Prince Adam were totally boning behind the scenes, but that's a completely a-textual inference.

 

With regards to Stephen Universe specifically, fusion is clearly a metaphor for intimacy divorced from sexuality. When people say there's a lesbian couple, what they're really saying is that there are 2 people who present as women who are in a stable, intimate relationship. That's consistent with both a lesbian and an asexual metaphor, so people are just using the metaphor that's most familiar or attractive to themselves.

 

The question of sexual attraction vs asexual intimacy just seems entirely foreign to the text of the show, and the genre in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess part of my point above is that ascribing asexuality to (at least nominally) children's cartoons seems like a strange endeavor. By and large, children's cartoons have never really featured sexuality in any form. We can joke about how Teela and Prince Adam were totally boning behind the scenes, but that's a completely a-textual inference.

 

Yeah, I think for a children's cartoon to be credited with actively portraying an asexual relationship, it really needs to point to the potential for sex in that relationship and the lack of interest in it from the participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, I understand that a lack of interest in attraction or other people in general is a disorder that should probably be addressed.

 

Oh? Which disorder would that be? And why should it be addressed? (Also you can google "aromantic").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Merus's comment doesn't read the way it's supposed to, but I suspect he was indicating that having no social interest at all in other people is often a sign of depression or a social anxiety disorder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a tricky stance to make a definitive statement on even when you're talking generally. Just because society is structured with socialising as the default does not mean that everyone needs it, wants it or should want it. I understand that it can be an indicator of other issues. But as a trait a person can have it is totally healthy and shouldn't be assumed to always indicate an underlying problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Merus's comment doesn't read the way it's supposed to, but I suspect he was indicating that having no social interest at all in other people is often a sign of depression or a social anxiety disorder.

 

I had to do a doubletake, but ultimately I read it the same as you (in part informed by Merus' past posts on other topics and the thought brought to them). 

 

 

I think it's a tricky stance to make a definitive statement on even when you're talking generally. Just because society is structured with socialising as the default does not mean that everyone needs it, wants it or should want it. I understand that it can be an indicator of other issues. But as a trait a person can have it is totally healthy and shouldn't be assumed to always indicate an underlying problem.

 

We are social animals though.  I've never seen anything (anecdotally or science based) to indicate that a lack of regular social contact has anything but negative long term impacts on someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social isolation (to an extent it could cause mental issues) and not being attracted romantically/sexually to people are very different things though (not that you claim otherwise). I'm pretty sure the studies you mention deal with quite severe cases of isolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social isolation (to an extent it could cause mental issues) and not being attracted romantically/sexually to people are very different things though (not that you claim otherwise). I'm pretty sure the studies you mention deal with quite severe cases of isolation.

 

Yeah, I don't want to equate generally asocial behavior (in the, "I don't want to be around other people at all") with asexuality or aromantic, I was just reading Merus' comment as having to do with being asocial more than the other two.  But the negative health outcomes don't actually have to involve severe cases of isolation at all.  I'd need to go searching for some of the stuff I've read, but on average most of us need a minimum amount of positive social interaction a week, or it can start a trend towards negative health effects.  Particularly with depression, a feedback loop (depression makes you not want to socialize, less socializing makes depression worse, rinse, repeat) can set in over the course of months or a year can see social interaction steadily dwindle to almost nothing, but the process starts on the small scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, romantic attraction is just a specific kind of feeling love. I imagine there would be people who don't feel "romantic" love as Hollywood would define it, but they'd still feel attachment and derive belonging from someone who's not their family, so from their perspective, what's the difference.

 

There are people who don't feel attachment to other humans, because they're incapable of seeing the response to those other humans. Our society is not set up to accommodate these people, and they're capable of doing a lot of damage to others' lives because the system as it stands also bizarrely rewards people who are capable of making detached decisions. Generally we ask that they become aware that they're missing an expected part of the human experience before they do too much damage.

 

Even these people, though, have a psychological need to belong. Like Bjorn said, I've seen no evidence to suggest that social isolation is anything but harmful in the long term.

 

One of the problems I have with attempting to have these discussions while being inclusive is that it requires a lot more work than I'm willing to put into a forum post to make something be specific enough to read well but general enough to not be dismissive.

 

I had to do a doubletake, but ultimately I read it the same as you (in part informed by Merus' past posts on other topics and the thought brought to them).

 

It's nice when the occasional sloppy post is ignored because you have a reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Look, ma, I'm actually posting!)

 

I've yet to catch up with Steven Universe but I feel compelled to chime in here due to the current conversation.

 

As someone who is aromantic and at least to a certain degree asexual (I'm not totally turned off by the idea of my reproductive bits engaging in physical contact with someone else's reproductive bits but I've never really felt any desire to seek that sort of thing out), better representation in media feels like a bit of a pipe dream at the moment because so many people still get utterly confused at the simple idea of asexuality or aromaticism, some refusing to believe that it's real at all or convincing themselves that it's a mental disorder. I definitely have a desire to be around people (I have a tight-knit group of friends and I get lonely fairly quickly if I don't have an opportunity to interact with any of them, either over the internet or IRL), just not in a romantic or sexual way.

 

Something I would love to see in media, and it feels like an simple baby step that can be taken towards better representation of asexual and aromantic people, would be more platonic friendships between men and women without one of them having to have the "excuse" of being LGBT. Much of media in general (and a worrying number of actual people) seems convinced that it's impossible that men and women can just be friends without sexual tension (such as one side getting "friendzoned" (I abhor that word with a passion)) or an inevitable romance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's antisocial, which in extreme cases can be called a disorder because it can be harmful and/or disruptive to the person who has it and the society around them. I think the concept of being aromantic or asexual is pretty far removed from being a disorder.

 

Also: seconding everything Syd said above really hard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... did anybody see the Steven Universe/ Uncle Grandpa crossover? Nobody seems to be talking about it, it was supposed to be an April Fool's joke and non-canon. 

 

it did seem to poke a little fun at the fans about shipping and gemsonas though.

 

As for the latest episode about how Greg met Rose:

 

My first thought was: Wait, Amethyst is a kid? Gems grow up like humans? Didn't we see them as adults in what seemed like a civil war or earlier?

Oh, color photography didn't exist then, so the photo can't be real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanukitsune

 

it's not so much that she's a kid, as that losing Rose and having real interactions with humans has forced the Gems to mature. This is true not just of Amethyst, but of Garnet and Pearl too. The Gems may be thousands of years old, but until Greg, they were sheltered (they literally had a fence around the temple. As for images, I don't think we've ever seen any images of them from the rebellion, but even so, they can change their physical forms at will, so that doesn't really mean much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response to the episode was more of a

Oh, I guess that's why Sour Cream's stepdad doesn't want him to be a DJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's antisocial, which in extreme cases can be called a disorder because it can be harmful and/or disruptive to the person who has it and the society around them. I think the concept of being aromantic or asexual is pretty far removed from being a disorder.

 

Also: seconding everything Syd said above really hard!

 

Pretty sure you mean asocial? Anti-social behaviour is pretty clearly harmful/disruptive to society as it typically refers to criminal activity, manipulation and similar behaviours rather than an individual being less sociable than others.

 

As for cartoons, it's been a long time since I've been able to follow any. I do remember very much enjoying Adventure Time for the duration I followed that, but I can't even remember where I left off. Finding that point again seems like an annoying task considering the weird way that the episodes were ordered when I saw them. Is Steven Universe something similar? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about Uncle Gramdpa so that episode was just sheer wackiness to me, which I guess is the point?

 

As for the other stuff

Amethyst was "born" on Earth in the Kindergarden, so she's chronologically younger than Rose, Garnet, or Pearl.  For a seemingly immortal race, perhaps several millennia is like childhood to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me, or do we know almost nothing about the Crystal Gem's past? The Gem Wars they mentioned could have been anywhere from before humans existed to right before Rose met Greg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now