Aromantic Fae

Aro awareness by an aro for allos and aros

[aro-fae]

Amatonormativity and Villains

Part 3: Demonization of Alloaros

Content warning: Mention of sex and predatory behavior

Okay, so let's go to part 3. As I've said before, the idea of this series is to point how, in fiction, many traits associated with the antagonist villainy have roots in amatonormative ideas. I'm not implying that all villains are aromantic or should be interpreted as such. Today I want to talk about a small "subtype" of villains: those who, in spite of not openly showing romantic attraction to anyone in the piece of media, they do feel sexual attraction towards a character in their world. Let's start by saying that, in most pieces of media with a black and white morality (such as family movies, children's books and fairytales), sexual attraction is rarely addressed in romantic relationships. Sex is still a very taboo theme, and most adults feel uncomfortable including it in love stories aimed at children. However, it's far less uncommon to see villains that experience sexual attraction. I mean, let's start with the basics: Disney. Frollo and Esmeralda, Jafar and Jasmine, Gaston and Belle and arguably Hades and Meg, all showed hyper-sexualized relationships between heroine and villain, as opposed as a much less sexual romance with the main heroes. This way, you create a comparison by contrast in which sexual = bad and romance = good. This idea is pushed further by the fact that usually, the sexual relationship between heroine and villain is very predatory. You know, bigger/older man, young woman, grooming, violence, sexualization, objectification, putting them in uncomfortable situations... The idea is to emphasize the antagonist's villainy, and yes, I do agree that being a predator makes you an awful person The problem here is that, when all the sexual attraction you feature is predatory, people are going to internalize that sexual attraction is inherently predatory. Of course, as kids we may not notice it right away, we are going to simplify it "He just likes her for his looks and that's bad". So, in our early childhood, we are already exposed to the idea that sexual attraction, especially without romantic feelings, is impure and degrading. Something just a villain would do. This is a sex-negative idea. There's nothing wrong with having sex or feeling sexual attraction, in fact, there is no reason to say that love without sex is inherently purer than sex without love. People don't have to justify their sexual attraction with romantic feelings. Heroes are allowed to feel sexual attraction, and, listen here, that sexual attraction is allowed to exist beyond a romantic hetero relationship between people that will marry at the end (which is, again, an idea with Christian roots). But sadly that's not what happens, and we have yet another vicious cycle: The early exposition of mostly evil-coded sexual attraction makes our children grow up with a prejudiced notion of it, in the context of a sex-negative society that allows and even encourages these ideas to exist without a healthy counterpart. And these kids become close-minded adults that demonize alloaros because they have this idea that sex with no love is dirty ingrained.

[aro-fae]

Amatonormativity and Villains

Part 2: Dehumanization and other issues

This is an overview on some common traits among villains and how their villainy is often associated with their defiance of amatonormativity and dehumanization, and how it harms loveless aros specially.

So, as I’ve mentioned before, in classical Good vs. Bad stories, it’s not uncommon to see villains who defy amatonormative ideals. I think it is important to keep in mind that this is part of a whole process of dehumanization of such characters. The idea is to make sure that no one agrees with or relates to or justifies the villain’s actions, so the creators try to make the villain seem less human when characterizing it.

A very evident example is the character design: how many Disney villains we know that, while supposedly human, have an unorthodox skin tone? Yzma is the only character in The Emperor’s New Groove with purple skin, Shan Yu from Mulan has grey skin, yellow eyes with black sclera, and claws instead of nails. Even Maleficent or Ursula, while non human, have more uncommon features than the other non human characters in their movies.

This is the exact same thinking process that makes a creator make their character loveless: the idea of someone not loving is so disruptive it immediately dehumanizes a character. Purple skin and lack of love, voîla, we have a villain no one can relate to, right? They’re too inhuman! And obviously, in contrast, the heroes are openly shown as people with the ability to love, and of course, most times is romantic love. Because it is what is considered “relatable”, “normal”, “human”.

So, children grow up seeing that the only characters that do not openly show love towards anyone are awful green-skinned people that kill puppies or transform people in llamas, while all the pretty and good ones fall in love or at least have supporting families and friends who love them. These kids become teens and adults that associate being loveless with being evil.

This is something that harms everyone on the aro spectrum, but very specially loveless aros, since it contributes to their demonization. People just can’t accept that you can be a decent person and not love anyone, because they’ve internalized the idea that lack of love = evil. Loveless aros are either 1) Deemed bad or mentally ill, or 2) Dismissed (of course you can love, when you open the door for an elderly woman or when you pet a cat you are loving them!).

At the end, is a vicious cycle. Kids grow up watching loveless people exclusively as villains, they learn that not loving makes you evil, and when they grow up and make content for children or teens, they include these ideas and educate the new generations to believe this way. And of course this makes it harder for aro kids (especially, once again, loveless aros, aplatonic aros or aro kids who have abusive families and/or do not have friends) to accept themselves and come to terms with their identity.

Besides this whole process of dehumanization, there are other traits villains share that defy amatonormative ideas.

For example, they are usually middle aged or elderly (it’s strange to see a villain under the age of 40), but still single and probably with no interest of pursuing romance. This helps reinforce the amatonormative idea that there is a certain age where not having a SO or being rather lonely is weird, worrying, and means that there’s something inherently wrong with you.

Another thing is how in villains, usually, you can spot well the prioritization of some kinds of love over the others. It’s almost impossible to find a villain with a significant other (putting aside abusive relationships). It’s less uncommon to see villains that care for a family member. I can name a few villains that have friends, and when it comes to pets, a lot of them have them. This is because, again, there is this idea that romantic love is somehow “purer” and more noble than other types of love, and therefore it is more suitable for redemption, which is something we want to avoid. On the other hand, you can probably give them a pet and no one will find it a proof of humanity or kindness.

Last, but not least, even those villains that seem to be able to experience some kind of love, rarely have love as their motivation or goal. This is something reserved to heroes, because of course a character doing evil things for love would make them somehow less awful because...? Amatonormativity? No, really, I don’t get it.

At the end, while these may seem very minor and unimportant things, the truth is, they dominate family oriented media. And when almost every single movie or book gives a distinctive message that hurts a minority (aros in general and loveless aros specially), kids are more likely to internalize that message and be dismissive, prejudiced or straight up hateful towards that minority.

[aro-fae]

Aro-Coded Villains

Part 1: Introduction

Amatonormativity is ingrained in our society, and, by extension, in our fictional works. The idea of someone unable to fall in love is strange to most people, and so, it is incredibly uncommon to find aromantic/arospec characters in media. However, if we analyze more carefully books, TV shows and movies, we will be able to find some characters who are implied not to love romantically, or sometimes not even at all. Great, one may think, free representation. But is it really positive representation? Sadly, most times it isn't. They're usually characters who are unlikable, unpopular or evil. Villains. This is due to a very simple, amatonormative reason: love, especially romantic love, is considered to humanize people, makes it easier to forgive their mistakes, and is a path to redemption. To the eyes of most people, a villain who loves is a villain who isn't completely lost. So, if you want to emphasize the fact that your villain is a very bad and unredeemable person indeed, make them loveless, or at least romance-less. This trope is more commonly used in pieces of media with a black and white morality, books and movies that want their good guys to be almost perfect and the bad guys to absolutely suck: such as children's movies (the classic Disney villain), and fantasy and Sci-Fi genres. Of course, this idea is wrong and harmful. The ability to love and morality have nothing to do the one with the other. Everyone with a free will can make the choice to be a decent person, and love does not provide protection from evil (Tr*mp does love his children, after all). Love may even make a person do horrible things in its name. Personally, I think this notion that love=good has Christian roots. As you may know, God is considered by Christians to be the absolute Good. God is Good. And, as stated in 1 John 4, God is Love. The association is right there. If God is good is because he is love. And while I’m not the one to question it, I think it’s safe to say that it doesn't mean that people who love are necessarily good, or viceversa. But in a society built on Christian values, it’s hard to eliminate this from people’s minds. What's important here is that this harmful idea is deeply ingrained on media our children consume, and it needs to be acknowledged. In order to end amatonormativity, we need to get rid of these ideas and make sure that our kids do not grow up internalizing arophobic tropes. In the following posts, I will explain some examples of aro-coded villains and why they are harmful. Stay in tune :)

[aro-fae]

Friendly reminder that is 100% okay for arospec people to project their identity onto fictional characters, and they don’t need to explain why.

In a world that offers us almost no representation, we are allowed to reclaim characters that bring us comfort and/or we can relate to, and we are allowed to headcanon them as arospec, even if other people “don’t see it”. You don’t need to give reasons in order to justify your feelings.

[aro-fae]

I don’t think people truly grasp how harmful is the aphobic argument that “everyone waits to form strong bonds before having sex: it’s called having standards”, used by many demisexual exclusionists.

Not only it invalidates and excludes demisexual people, which is already awful enough, but when you note the implications this statement has it becomes even worse.

First, it reinforces the (wrong) idea that action equals attraction. Demisexuality is not a choice. Waiting to have sex is. The two situations can’t be compared. But this concept that action equals attraction harms all people in the ace and aro communities. Either by invalidating those of us who engage in sexual and/or romantic behavior, or downright incorrectly reducing our identities to a simple choice (as if we were nuns), this idea is among the most used by exclusionists and we need to get rid of it.

Second, it is literally slut-shaming? And this affects people of every sexuality. As long as there’s consent and mutual respect, there is nothing wrong with two people having sex with no other kind of bonds or feelings. The idea that a consensual sexual relationship is somehow less valid or less “pure” because of the lack of a strong bond goes against sex-positivity. You wait until the third date? Congrats! That does not make you a better person!

Third, and this idea is connected to the previous one, usually, by “strong bond” people mean romantic feelings because... amatonormativity I guess? And this is harmful due to two things: 1) It’s not supposed to be romantic feelings. A demisexual person can feel sexual attraction towards someone they’re not romantically attracted to (and in the same way, they won’t necessarily be sexually attracted to all the people they’re romantically attracted to). 2) It demonizes alloaros. By saying that it is only right to engage in sexual behavior when you have strong romantic feelings towards the other person, you are attacking alloaros who have sexual lives (again, distinction between action and attraction). And again, there’s nothing wrong with an alloaro acting on the attraction they do feel because there’s nothing wrong with people having consensual sex. Full period.

This statement, as many other used by exclusionists, is rooted in amatonormativity, sex-negativity and aphobia. It goes deeper than just your disgusting demisexual exclusionist argument.

[aro-fae]

Valentine’s Day

Hey, fellow aro.

It’s okay to dislike Valentine’s Day.

Even if you are romance-favorable. 

Even if you are demi or grey romantic.

Even if people try to make it inclusive to all types of love (love you may not feel! Loveless aros, we’ve got your back). 

Even if people give you a thousand reasons why to celebrate this holiday.

This is a celebration with amatonormative roots and you are allowed to dislike it.

This is a celebration that is still focused in romantic love and you are allowed to dislike it. 

Heck, even if people encourage you to celebrate “other types of love”, you are still allowed to dislike it. 

People love to force love on aro people. You don’t have to like it. 

[aro-fae]

I wish an excellent day to all arospec people

Aros, aro aces, alloaros, demi and grey aros, demi and grey aros who are also demi/grey aces, non SAM aros, loveless aros, aplatonic aros, cupioromantic people, lithromantic people, frayromantic people, quoiromantic people, aros who want a QPP, aros who don’t want a QPP, aros who aren’t sure yet about wanting a QPP, aros who have a partner, neurodivergent aros, disabled aros, POC aros, religious aros, non religious aros, trans aros, non binary aros, aros who love being aro, aros who have a hard time accepting they’re aro, aros who are out, aros who are in the closet, and every other aro or arospec person I haven’t mentioned, I hope you are having a good day. It’s hard to be yourself in an amatanormative world, and I’m so proud of you.