Let's Talk About Ace Characters in Media

Ace representation in media is something that's really important to me, because I believe it's a vital aspect of awareness. However, it's really rare to come across an actual canon asexual character. I've been consciously trying to read more books with ace main characters, and I still can only really find the same few books (I've reviewed a couple already). So, that being said, ace communities get kind of protective over the rare canon ace characters we do get. This post is going to cover a variety of topics, including (but not limited to): canon ace characters I like and why, issues that occur with a lack of representation, and ways I create my own representation.

Canon Ace Characters I Like

Two of my all-time favorite canon ace characters are Reyna Ramirez Arellano from the Percy Jackson books (Rick Riordan) and Amanda Lumbard from Dumplin' and Puddin' (Julie Murphy), mostly because these books are directed to a younger audience. This means that these characters will end up being some of the first asexual characters people read about, including me. Minor spoilers for each book incoming.

Reyna from the Riordanverse

There's a lot of valid criticisms for Reyna's character, and if I wanted to take a feminist approach I would probably have more complaints. However, looking exclusively at ace representation, I really like how Rick wrote her. For those unfamiliar with the series, we first meet Reyna in the Heroes of Olympus series, where she is one of the praetors of Camp Jupiter, the Roman demigod camp. After she (unsuccessfully) flirts with Percy in The Son of Neptune (Book 2) and has an awkward encounter with Annabeth in The Mark of Athena (Book 3), we don't see much of her until The Blood of Olympus (Book 5) when we really get a lot of backstory and character development from her perspective. Her story then gets wrapped up in The Tyrant's Tomb, the fourth book in the Trials of Apollo series.

At the very end of The Blood of Olympus, Reyna asks Piper (daughter of Aphrodite) about a conversation she had with Venus (Aphrodite's Roman equivalent):

"'Once, in Charleston, Venus told me something. She said: You will not find love where you wish or where you hope. No demigod shall heal your heart. I--I have struggled with that for ...' Her words broke." (Blood of Olympus, 492)

Piper gets really angry with her mother for always butting into people's lives, and assures Reyna that she's an incredible person and there is someone out there for her, just maybe not a demigod. When I first read this exchange, I didn't pick up on the Ace Subtext, but now I definitely get it. Maybe Venus didn't phrase this sentiment perfectly without Reyna understanding her identity, but the thought is certainly there. I've talked about it before (and I think many ace people will agree) that this exchange is similar to an internal monologue we experience. It takes effort to reframe asexuality from being something that makes you unlovable to something that changes the context around how you experience love. And before we are able to contextualize this thought process with asexuality, we just think there's something wrong with us for not feeling attraction the way others do.

In Reyna's case, she had the goddess of love tell her that she wasn't going to find love where she wanted or hoped -- Reyna thought this meant she was unlovable, but it actually just means that love for her won't look like the heteronormative dream she's been imagining. She has friends (some that are like family) who all love her. And if she decides to have a relationship one day, it won't be someone "healing" her because she isn't broken. It really is a nice sentiment, although I wish Venus had waited a few years to share it with her. Or at least been a little bit less cryptic about it.

Anyway, Reyna's story continues in The Tyrant's Tomb where she has to help Apollo (stuck as a mortal as punishments for the prior series -- he's given the name Lester Papadopoulos, which isn't relevant but is quite funny) on his quest. At one point, Apollo asks her out and she bursts out laughing in his face. Apollo is alarmed with the rejection, but they later have this exchange:

"'But the whole time I've been a leader here,' she forged on, 'I was looking for a partner. Praetors often partner up. In power. But also romantically, I mean. I thought Jason. Then for a hot minute, Percy Jackson. Gods help me, I even considered Octavian.' She shuddered. 'Everybody was always trying to ship me with somebody. Thalia. Jason. Gwen. Even Frank. Oh, you'd be perfect together! That's who you need! But I was never really sure if I wanted that, or if I just felt like I was supposed to want it. People, well-meaning, would be like, Oh, you poor thing. You deserve somebody in your life. Date him. Date her. Date whoever. Find your soul mate.'" (Tyrant's Tomb, 405)

And then a little later.

"'I don't need another person to heal my heart. I don't need a partner ... at least, not until and unless I'm ready on my own terms. I don't need to be force-shipped with anyone or wear anybody else's label.'" (Tyrant's Tomb, 406)

If we listen to the feelings she's conveying here combined with Venus' message from earlier, this is undeniably someone who is just coming to terms with their asexuality. Even before sex is really on someone's radar (for example, when they're a teenager in a book made for children), crushes are different when you're ace. It's a little hard to explain -- maybe I'll try at a different time -- but I think Rick really encapsulates the feeling well.

In the story, Reyna ends up joining the Hunters of Artemis -- in the Riordanverse canon, the Hunters are a group of young women who swear off all forms of relationships in exchange for immortality (so long as they are not killed in battle, or until they leave the Hunters). A lot of people criticized Rick's choice to put Reyna in the Hunters because he has a tendency to put single women into the Hunters. However, as someone who was a 16-year-old ace girl, I can confirm that I would have loved the opportunity to go off with a group of other women to figure out exactly who I am and what a relationship would actually mean for me.

The one change I would've made would be using the actual word "asexual," but I understand why he didn't. His books are for a young audience, so it makes sense why he wouldn't want to specifically get into discussions of sex. Also, within Reyna's story, it wouldn't make sense for her to know the actual word yet. Maybe if we see more of Reyna in the future, we can get an update. In the meantime, I'll accept this (now-deleted? -- screenshot from Google) tweet as enough:

Amanda from Puddin'

The other character is Amanda, who appears in both Dumplin' and Puddin' by Julie Murphy. She has a bit bigger of a role in Puddin', as she's the main character's (Millie's) best friend. In her case, she comes out as "technically biromantic asexual" at a slumberparty. For reference in the quotes, Will is Willowdean, the main character from Dumplin'. Bo is Will's boyfriend. Hannah is another friend of the girls (she's also queer -- specifically a lesbian).

"Amanda pulls her knees in to her chest, doing her best to make herself smaller. 'Oh, I've totally had crushes.' She rests her chin between her two kneecaps. 'I can still look at people, like Bo or even girls, too, and find them attractive. But there are lots of different kinds of attraction. And I think I want to be in a relationship one day. I just don't know what that will look like for me yet. I guess what it comes down to is I don't experience sexual attraction, and also I don't really have any interest in sex. At least not right now. I think if I knew someone really well and was attracted to them in other ways, that might change.'" (Puddin', 102)

And when Willowdean asked for a more clear definition of her identity:

"'I can experience different kinds of attraction, but I personally don't have sexual feelings for anyone.' She turns to Will. 'Maybe it sounds complicated. But it feels pretty simple to me. And I guess that's all that matters.'

'But you said you might want to have sex,' says Will, 'so how can that happen without sexual attraction?'

Hannah opens her mouth again, but looks to Amanda first, who nods an approval. 'It's like not being hungry, but still being okay with eating pizza or even enjoying it. And then there are some people who just don't like pizza no matter what.'" (Puddin', 103)

I think that Amanda might be the first canon ace character I both read about and knew I was reading about (Reyna was chronologically first, but we didn't know until more recently). I think she's fantastic representation. She and Hannah do a fantastic job of explaining asexuality and it's complexities to the other allo people in the room. The analogy of being hungry is something we use a lot to explain the relationship between attraction and desire. And I especially love how Amanda tells Will that it doesn't really matter if other people don't understand it because it's about her experiences.

Amanda isn't really the focal point of the story as she is just a side character, but I was really impressed with the way her character was handled. A lot of people read Julie's books for the awesome representation she includes (which is incredibly well-deserved), and I'm happy that this could be the way some people learn about asexuality for the first time.

Erasing Canon Asexuality

It is absolutely true that asexual people can be in relationships that are whole and healthy. We know this, and we've been over this many times. However, that doesn't mean that an ace's romantic attraction is more important or more relevant. Something I see happen a lot is people focusing way more on an ace character's romantic orientation than their asexuality.

Reyna is a great example for this. A lot of people headcanon her to be an ace lesbian, which is valid and makes a lot of sense. However, most fans that I see are significantly more excited about talking about her non-canon lesbian-ness than her canon asexuality. I understand that shipping is a big part of fandom culture, but not every character needs to be shipped. It feels as though asexual representation is a consolation prize for us while her homoromanticism is the fun part for everyone else.

Here's a secret about asexuality: not everyone subscribes to the Split Attraction Model. This is a huge topic that I will certainly make a post about, but I'll give you a quick run down of what's important to know now. Some aspec people will describe their orientation as both romantic and sexual: biromantic asexual, pansexual aromantic, heteroromantic demisexual, etc. However, some people just say "ace" or "aro." That doesn't necessarily mean they're aroace, it just means that one label is enough. I do this, and I have a very specific reason as to why. I'll often call myself asexual and heteroromantic, but I don't feel as connected to the latter. I feel as though describing myself as a "straight ace" makes people focus on the wrong part: yes, I am alloromantic, but my asexuality defines my relationships and experiences. I call myself just asexual because that's the thing I want people to hear. I'm not just "straight with extra steps." I'm asexual.

Anyway, my point with all of that is that ace characters are not just their romantic attraction plus something else. They are asexual -- full stop. And it's okay to headcanon ace characters as having a romantic attraction, but not at the expense of their canon identity.

I'm also already seeing this happen with Yelena, our newest MCU character introduced in the Black Widow movie. There's not really a spoiler warning here because I'm talking about the comics (and we know how well the MCU translates comic book queerness into the movies, she says sarcastically). In the comics, Yelena is canonically asexual and aromantic. She's also not interested in relationships.

We've had her in the MCU for, like, 90 minutes total? And people are already erasing her asexuality and aromanticism in favor of what a "better" identity would be.

Let asexual characters exist in peace. Value them for their asexuality or don't talk about them at all. Joking! ...mostly.

Issues with a Lack of Representation

I think that when there's a lack of representation, we really cling to the representation that we do have, and we ignore the quality of it. This isn't something specific to asexuality, by the way, but that is how I'll be discussing this idea.

We would rather see bad representation than no representation at all. Unfortunately, not everyone bothers to understand asexuality, which means they portray it incorrectly: asexuality as something to be fixed or outgrown by the end of the story. More often, though, we see ace representation that is either robots/otherwise nonhuman beings or villains whose inability to love is seen as part of the reason they're evil. Two of the most well-known characters who have been confirmed as asexual that I can think of are Spongebob (the titular character from the cartoon) and Perry the Platypus (from Phineas and Ferb). Spongebob is a sponge, and his asexuality is a reference to actual marine biology. Perry is, obviously, a platypus; he's iconic, don't get me wrong, but he's just a platypus. They don't do much.

Okay, okay, that was a joke from the show. But really! Why are the two most mainstream ace characters a sea sponge and a platypus? That's not good representation, because their asexuality is not actually relevant to their character. Nothing would change if the sexuality of these characters was unspecified.

Frankly, the next most mainstream representation I can think of is Voldemort -- yeah, the villain from Harry Potter. The man who is a loose allegory for Hitler. Rowling makes his inability to love the way to prove to us that's he's a monster. It's viewed as a horrible and awful thing. There have been headcanons for years about how he's physically incapable of love because of how he was conceived. I actually saw a TikTok comment on a post talking about Harry Potter characters that are queer calling Voldemort "aroace," as if that's a win for representation for our communities.

People will see these characters in mainstream media and believe that's what asexuality is. They don't hear Reyna's monologue about the stress she feels in being so different than others, or Amanda's in-depth analysis of what asexuality actually means -- they see us as inhuman, or as evil people incapable of love. But we don't have much else, so we try to celebrate what we have. Not Voldemort, though.

Making My Own Representation

Because we don't get a lot of quality ace representation, our community gets creative. As with many other identities that are underrepresented in media, people tend to headcanon characters as having certain identities. In my case, I have a whole list of characters that I believe are acespec. To be fair, I do actually have some criteria that I use to determine this. You can decide for yourself how much validity it holds.

Criteria

• I have to like the character. I'm not going to add someone to the already-small list of ace characters if they're annoying. Yes, I know aces can be bad people. But not in the universe that exists in my head. Also, this is admittedly sometimes the only reason I will headcanon a character as ace. As far as I'm concerned, "because I'm asexual and said so" is a perfectly valid reason. This also goes for bad representation. Only I am allowed to say the emotionless character is ace. If you do it it's aphobic (half joking), if I do it I'm projecting onto a beloved character.

• Having a disinterest in relationships. To be clear, asexual people can (and do) have healthy relationships. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with a person's desire for a romantic relationship. But, especially in media aimed at kids, if someone is disinterested in relationships, I'm more likely to interpret that as asexuality. Having crushes when you're ace is a different experience, and it's often reflected in this way.

• The character's experiences with attraction seem very specific. This usually happens in books when a character (without a POV) is being described by the main character. Whenever a character's love or attraction to someone else is only pointed out in specific circumstances, I'm more likely to read that as someone who is asexual. For example, if Character A seems most attracted to Character B's intellect or compassion than anything else.

• No comment on looks. Ace people can (and often do) experience aesthetic attraction, but if a character has no reaction to someone's appearances and instead focuses on their personality, I'm going to call that ace. This is especially true for characters who are in relationships and clearly experience some form of attraction.

• The vibes. Look, I don't know how to explain it. I think that, in some ways, I can just sense other aces in the wild. Therefore I am going to apply the same logic to fictional characters. If I have a gut feeling, I'm deciding to make it canon.

Invalid Headcanons

I'm not saying all my criteria is valid, but my at least it's coming from a perspective that is educated on what asexuality is. If you're allo and want to headcanon characters as asexual, here are things to avoid:

• The emotionless, inhuman characters. We've talked about this already, so I won't dwell here. But really, I don't want to hear your headcanon about how someone is ace/aro just because they don't feel love (unless you're ace/aro yourself -- project away, my friends).

• Touch averse characters are not all asexual. Just because someone is uninterested in (or scared or grossed out by) sex does not mean they are asexual. Just because someone dislikes physical touch it does not mean they are asexual. Unless you have other reasons to explain their asexuality, you cannot use these things as proof. That is not a qualifier for asexuality, and it just proves to me that you don't know what it is.

• They're single. Or a virgin. I shouldn't have to explain this one to you again. Ace characters can be in a relationship. Just being single doesn't qualify you for asexuality.

• They're neurodivergent (more specifically autistic) or disabled. Just because someone has an identity that is often de-sexualized by society does not guarantee them to be asexual. Doing so does a disservice to both communities.

Basically, all the invalid takes come down to the point that you need to have real reasons why someone would be asexual that have to do with sexual attraction. Refer to my list above for some vague ideas if you must. People in fandom spaces, although they have good intentions, have this tendency to water down asexuality to make it easier to digest. Yeah, it's a complicated thing. Learn about it or stay quiet.

Characters I Believe Are Asexual Because I Said So

Anyway, let's wrap up on something a bit more fun. Here is my (ever-growing) list of characters that I headcanon to be on the ace spectrum. We can make this a game: look at my List of Criteria and try to identify what reasons apply to each of these characters if you know them. I'm not going to give you any context (for now at least), but if you ask me I will absolutely explain any of them.

• Hermione Granger (Harry Potter)

• Charlie Weasley (Harry Potter)

• James Potter (Harry Potter)

• Fleur Delacour (Harry Potter)

• Mateo Torrez (They Both Die at the End)

• Belle (Beauty and the Beast)

• Will Byers (Stranger Things)

• Jesus (Yes, from The Bible)

• Enola Holmes (Enola Holmes)

• Max Caulfield (Life is Strange)

• Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games trilogy)

Hopefully we start to see more quality asexual representation. In a time where representation is being seen as more important, I'm optimistic for the future of aces in media. For now, I'm grateful for those we do have.

From yours truly,

Kendall