Jump to content
  • 0
confuzzledbeans

Aromantics in media

Question

Lots of characters fit the threshold for Aros in media. I'm thinking of Pidge Gunderson form the Voltron Reboot, who I totally see as Aro/Ace. For one they wear the Aro flag colours, and they don't have any relationships in the show or any 'crushes' (Unless you count their love of science). They are a great character and though they don't explicitly come out as Aro, do they still count as a kind of representation? I feel they do, because even one character breaking that expectation for everyone to need to be in a relationship means that aro people and people figuring out that their aro can see themselves in them. What are your guys thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I think characters that fit definitions for aromantics are good for variety within media but I don't really think they are representation because it being aromantic isn't taken into account for the future plans for the character the writers/creators may just make them fall in love (maybe to try and get more viewers/other plot lines finish/the actor is unhappy/fan pressure). That would be sending the worst messages to people questioning as it would just reinforce the tropes about not having met the right person yet. Plus whenever the word aromantic is not mentioned people lose the chance of discovering this identity. Aromanticism is hard to find if you don't know it exists and don't know where to look. Personally I believe strongly that to be representation they need to say the word and identify the community/identity by name. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No. Unless the word "aromantic" is said, or a character explicitly states that they do not experience romantic attraction, I don't consider that representation at all. I want my existence to be acknowledged. The absence of romance is not the presence of aromanticism, and no way in fucking hell am I ever going to give writers credit for representation they don't actually include.

Aro Pidge is certainly a nice headcanon, but it is in no way representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes if you are aro you will see yourself in them, but if you don't know you are aro it won't help realize that you are. And it won't help explaining to people that aromanticism is a thing. People will keep expecting the character to falloir in love in the future. So of course I will be happy to see such characters, but I won't call it representation.

 

No need to say the word aromantic, but just make it clear that the character doesn't feel romantic attraction or doesn't fit the amatonormativity. And dois that, make sûre that it doesn't look like a phase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

I think characters that fit definitions for aromantics are good for variety within media but I don't really think they are representation because it being aromantic isn't taken into account for the future plans for the character the writers/creators may just make them fall in love (maybe to try and get more viewers/other plot lines finish/the actor is unhappy/fan pressure). That would be sending the worst messages to people questioning as it would just reinforce the tropes about not having met the right person yet.

It's also reinforcing the tropes of "you'll change your mind" and that (interest in) romance is somehow related to "maturity"/
 

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

No. Unless the word "aromantic" is said, or a character explicitly states that they do not experience romantic attraction, I don't consider that representation at all. I want my existence to be acknowledged. The absence of romance is not the presence of aromanticism, and no way in fucking hell am I ever going to give writers credit for representation they don't actually include.

 

2 hours ago, nonmerci said:

No need to say the word aromantic, but just make it clear that the character doesn't feel romantic attraction or doesn't fit the amatonormativity. And dois that, make sûre that it doesn't look like a phase.

What could that actually look like? 
Also how likely would it be for alloromantic writers to come up with such a character?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Mark said:

What could that actually look like? 
Also how likely would it be for alloromantic writers to come up with such a character?

 

Jughead. Now we just need like, 100 more Jugheads and we're good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Jughead. Now we just need like, 100 more Jugheads and we're good

I don't think 100 effectively clone characters would be good representations of anything.

The other obvious problem is that this is an aro ace character.
Whereas what's most needed is aro allo (especially hetero) characters.
Since these will represent the majority of aros. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 12:36 PM, Mark said:

 

What could that actually look like? 
Also how likely would it be for alloromantic writers to come up with such a character?
 

I remember in BBT, Penny asks to who Sheldon is attracted, and his friends say to no one. Of course for them it was a joke, and then they ruined everything with Amy (I'm not saying that Sheldon should not have date Amy, but it would have been better if they treated it as demiromanticism instead of saying that Amy "cured" him…). But treated without judgment, this kind of dialogue can work.

  • Like 1

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

×