Due to the limited time I have to conduct my thematic analysis (It will essentially just be the final unit, when I will also be running and writing up the results of focus groups) and the amount of data (I've looked so far at 12 shows, many of which have multiple episodes addressing asexuality or aromanticism), I believe it would be in the best interests of both my sanity and the quality of my analysis to limit the full thematic analysis to a select few shows. Other shows I've watched may be used to support conclusions I draw, and as part of the content analysis I would also like to carry out, and some will be used as part of the focus group screening, but they will not be subject to a full thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke recommend balancing "depth and breadth" of data - as many of the data extracts I have looked at I think qualify as being fairly 'deep', at least compared to other examples of data in Thematic Analysis, such as short internet comments, I think it would be wise to limit the breadth to around six shows, and at most twelve episodes in total.
What criteria will I be using to select the shows for this analysis?
Considering these points, I have settled on the following shows and episodes to use for thematic analysis:
At this early stage, the dataset is open to alteration if the analysis requires it.
VIEWING FIGURE NUMBERS SO YOU CAN SEE MY STUPID MATHS AND SEE HOW I HAD TO SUFFER TO FIGURE OUT STREAMING SHOW VIEWING FIGURES:
QS TO CONSIDER: How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? In what different ways do different shows make sense of the topic? How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account?
General thoughts: This episode is just a mess! If it's trying to make a point about asexuality (or sexuality) in general, it seems very confused. At points, the episode seems to acknowledge asexuality as a sexual orientation, much like homosexuality ("It'd be like telling a gay person he's actually straight") but it also portrays the "asexual" couple as not actually asexual at all. The man has a tumour causing a loss of libido, and the woman is lying (could there perhaps be something to the gender difference there?). It positions sex as a natural human drive that motivates everyone, but the wife in the episode is shown to put her desire for sex aside for the sake of her (allegedly) asexual husband, which seems to contradict that basic idea. The gender politics is interesting too - the show gets into discourse about the notion of "men want sex and women want love" (to quote Hannah Tessler) but never seems to come down on any one side of that debate. Maybe it could be argued that the wife giving up sex disproves this notion, but then she has the line about "A girl has needs" so maybe not. Just very messy and confused. It may prove hard to pull any distinct themes out of it. I will say it unintentionally provides a very accurate reflection of ace people's of the medical system, from the distrust of the identity to asexuality's inability to fit into categories put forth by the medical establishment - "I don't know what box to tick for that" as Wilson says.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? The show very much comes at asexuality from an 'outsider' perspective, I would say. Wilson is initially confused by the concept, and it is fair to say the assumption is that the audience would also be confused. The show attempts to explain away asexuality as caused by a medical problem, or just being completely fake. However, it does at times try to make sense of it through the lens of sexuality e.g. Wilson compares telling an asexual man his "asexuality" was caused by a brain tumour to "telling a gay person he's actually straight", and it also may be notable that House's initial assumption is that the husband is secretly gay and trying to hide it. Either way, asexuality is something that needs to be investigated - it is not enough to simply let these two people be.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? One reason might be the genre - House is a medical drama/detective show, so the plots need to feature a medical mystery of some kind. However, the need for a mystery does not necessary entail the resolution to that mystery being that asexuality is fake. There is also clearly an assumption there that asexuality is suspicious and that (at least some) people who identify as asexual are either deluded or faking it. I think it is highly likely that the writers were not themselves asexual, and probably were not all that knowledgeable about asexuality.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? Extremely. Just look at the Ace in the UK Report and the distrust that ace people in real life report from the medical establishment. The notion of asexuality as a sickness is extremely widespread
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? Firstly, I would say they're definitely assuming no one in the audience identifies as asexual (at least I hope they're assuming that bc dear god). There is an assumption baked into the premise of this episode that asexuality, and the idea of a romantic relationship without sex, are both inherently suspicious. Not only suspicious, but in a more general sense they are strange and unusual - there needs to be some kind of explanation for them. It is also assumed that if someone's lack of sex drive has a medical cause, this is inherently at odds with them being asexual - the two are mutually exclusive. The final scenes also make clear an assumption that having sex is better than not having sex, and that sex is crucial for a relationship.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? A world where, as House puts it, anyone who doesn't want sex is "either sick, dead, or lying". The possibility of a legitimate asexuality is entirely denied.
General thoughts: Asexuality is not a major part of this episode - its relevance is limited to one scene, which does not have an effect on the plot. It also doesn't refer to asexuality by name, but instead has Varys talk about how he wasn't "interested" in either girls or boys. I think it's interesting that the show does align asexuality with queerness generally - Oberyn immediately just vibe checks Varys as being gay, and when he realises Varys isn't interested in boys, he assumes that he's straight and is extremely surprised by this. Varys' asexuality is complicated by the fact that he's a eunuch, but the scene seems to go out of its way to make clear that he never had any interest in anyone even before.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? Compared to House, I don't think GoT portrays asexuality as quite as unusual or suspicious, but it does still understand asexuality as something that's remarkable in some way. Oberyn is shocked by Varys' claim to have no sexual interest in anyone, exlclaiming "Everyone is interested in something!" However, the show never goes as far as to imply that Varys is lying - Oberyn's surprise is seemingly a product of his own worldview. What I do find interesting is how the show tries to present asexuality as an advantage of some kind, at least in Varys' eyes. Varys claims that he is "glad to have no part" in desire, because of the things he's seen people do for the sake of sex. He also implies that because he has no interest in sex, he can devote himself more fully to trying to achieve the throne. Also, as mentioned, asexuality is not mentioned by name, and instead is invoked as a lack of interest in either boys or girls
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? I believe the lack of any explicit reference to asexuality can be put down largely to the show's genre and aesthetic - it is a medieval-inspired fantasy show, and it is likely that the writers would want to avoid any references to modern conception of sexuality, as they would be perceived as 'out-of-place' in a show like this. Much like with House, it also seems likely that the writers were not asexual themselves, and this may contribute to asexuality being portrayed as remarkable. That being said, an asexual writer might also portray it that way, as it may be seen as an accurate portrayal of how people would react to asexuality.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? This depiction is arguably non-normative, as it does not portray sexual desire as something everyone has, which is the typical view. However, the fact that the writers seem to feel the need to justify Varys' asexuality could undermine this (though of course, it's hard to tell how much of that is what the writers think vs what Varys thinks)
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? If someone is asexual, then that must mean they have something else they desire (e.g. the Iron Throne). Asexuality is unusual/remarkable in some way.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? The world constructed here is one in which sexual desire is normal and normative, but not universal. Some people may have an absence of desire. These people are likely to think of desire as a weakness or disadvantage, and will probably have other desires - things they see as more important
General thoughts: The thing that stands out to me most about this portrayal of asexuality is how it doesn't treat asexuality as a big deal, or as something that needs to be explained. Abbi simply says that she's ace, and the other characters immediately understand what that means. Abbi's awkwardness when she says it suggests that her telling them this is important and personal, but beyond that it isn't treated as something that requires a major discussion.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? There isn't much "making sense of" asexuality at all - instead it is treated as a given. The fact that the show treats asexuality as relevant to the conversation about Abbi's succubus powers is notable - there is a clear implication that Abbi's asexuality makes having these powers even more awkward for her than it would be otherwise, and that if she weren't asexual she might even want these powers.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? The show seems to assume that the audience will already be familiar with asexuality and not need an explanation - perhaps this is due to an awareness of other shows that have tackled the subject. It is probably worth noting that The Imperfects was released on Netflix, which at this point had already platformed two other major shows that featured asexuality in the form of BoJack Horseman and Sex Education. Perhaps there was an assumption of a similar audience
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? I personally find this depiction highly unusual. In my (considerable) experience, most shows that depict asexuality make at least some attempt to educate the audience on what it is, but The Imperfects treats it as something people would already know. It also doesn't treat it as something particularly remarkable - neither of the two other characters in the scene seem surprised by Abbi's coming out. Tilda's only response is to say "copy that" while Juan doesn't even react
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? Again, there is a clear assumption that the audience already know what asexuality is and don't need it explained. Within the world of the show, this assumption also extends to the characters. The overall assumption is that asexuality is something that people (at least people in the demographics the characters are in, and the assumed demographic of the audience) know about. That said, there is still an assumption that asexual is not the default, and if someone is asexual, that is something they would have to state. It would not be assumed. There is also an assumption regarding Abbi's powers. Abbi has the powers of a succubus, where people who smell her pheromones become instantly attracted to her. Abbi's assertion that "it can be a little more complicated if your ace" and the other characters' seeming lack of understanding of why this would be a problem for her implies that someone who is not asexual would perhaps not be bothered by these powers, or at least not bothered as much. I find that interesting.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? While I wouldn't go so far as to say The Imperfects portrays a world where asexuality is normal, it is certainly more normalised than in the previous two shows. It is treated as fairly analogous to being gay - it is something that you would have to admit to being, while straight is still the default, but it is also shown as something that people will automatically understand once told about.
General thoughts: As of this episode, the topic of aromanticism/asexuality is kept quite vague. This makes sense as Isaac has at this point not realised he's aromantic/asexual. I still thought it would be worth looking at as it provides the first clear hints that Isaac may be aromantic or asexual. Also I think it's interesting that like in Game of Thrones, the asexual character is initially assumed to be gay, though Isaac seems a little troubled by this assumption, perhaps because he is still unsure himself.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? The show hints at Isaac's aroace identity by portraying him as being confused by romance - he asks Charlie how he knew he liked his boyfriend, and seems a little confused by Charlie's answer. However, I think it's worth noting that at this point, it's still ambiguous how Isaac feels. The scene on the train could also indicate that Isaac has feelings for James and is trying to work them out. Compared to the other shows I've looked at, I'd say this is more of an 'insider' perspective - the show puts us in Isaac's POV as he's going on this emotional journey.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? I believe that writer Alice Oseman is openly aroace herself, so it makes sense that the show would take more of an insider perspective. Isaac's portrayal is also once again influenced by genre - Heartstopper is a show for teenagers and can in part be considered a coming of age story, so his initial confusion about his own feelings is part of an arc about him discovering who he is - similar to how Nick got an arc in the first season about realising he's bi.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? I think the idea of Isaac's confusion here is kind of a common-sense element. Feeling romantic attraction is assumed to be the norm/default, so someone who doesn't have those feelings would therefore be confused by it. However, it could also be argued that this is merely reflecting real people's experiences with realising they're aromantic or asexual.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? Aroace people are confused by the concepts of romantic/sexual attraction. They also can't really relate to people who aren't aromantic/asexual about their feelings.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? In this world, aromanticism and asexuality are depicted as confusing experiences, particularly if someone doesn't have the language for them. I think the later episodes will make the show's worldview clearer.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? The show continues to drop hints that Isaac is aroace - he is uncomfortable being around couples, he is made uncomfortable by the idea of someone having a crush on him, he doesn't enjoy kissing, he doesn't have a celebrity crush. This is all shown as reasons why he is different to his peers - this seems to be very upsetting and isolating for him. Again, it also shows asexuality/aromanticism from an insider perspective - Isaac is our POV character here, that the audience is intended to sympathise with.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? Again, a lot of these choices seem to come down to the coming of age story being told - Isaac is shown struggling with his identity because this creates a conflict that can then be resolved at the end of the show. The insider perspective and the fact that it was written by an aroace person suggests that the show may be inspired by the writers' real life experiences
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? I would say that as Isaac's story goes on, it becomes less common-sense. Of course, to an extent, you could argue that any depiction of asexuality/aromanticism that treats these identities as legitimate is going against common-sense to some degree. Here, the show depicts Isaac as not being interested in kissing and not having crushes - which would be seen by a lot of people as unusual. From a genre perspective, it could also be considered non-normative, as teen shows generally focus a lot on romance etc.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? Aroace people are uncomfortable being around couples and with romantic actions like kissing. Furthermore, it is remarkable that someone would be uncomfortable with these things, and there must be some kind of reason for it (in this case, being aroace).
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? This is a world where aromanticism and asexuality exist, but in an obscured form. They are not (yet) named, and might be misunderstood and seen as unusual.
General thoughts: I think this episode is most critical to understanding the show's portrayal of aromanticism and asexuality, as it represents a kind of denoument to this arc. We get the emotional low point of Isaac feeling completely lost, not understanding himself and lashing out at his friends, and we then get a form of resolution in him learning about asexuality and aromanticism. I think that compared to the previous shows discussed, this one feels a fair bit more didactic - there's a sense of wanting to educate the audience on what asexuality and aromanticism are (which I guess is also true of House but House was just. bad at it).
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? The show presents a narrative where asexuality and aromanticism are both things that set a person apart from their peers, and cause them to experience isolation and distress, until they are able to gain an understanding of themselves. In many ways it's a typical narrative of self-fulfilment or self-actualisation, where the character goes from not knowing who they are, to realising something important about themselves and experiences a sense of peace, euphoria, and understanding as a result. Again, asexuality and aromanticism are both explained very explicitly, with a character in the show who seems to only exist to give a definition of these terms.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? Heartstopper is aimed at children and teenagers, and so the writers' intention was likely to write a story here that would be relatable to teenagers. The idea of self-discovery is one that is very typical to media aimed at teenagers, as it is assumed that teenagers themselves are also in a process of figuring out who they are. I think the teen target audience also has a great deal to do with the didactic nature of this explanation - it is assumed that the audience won't already know what asexuality and aromanticism are, and the show is required to explain it to them.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? I would say that at this point the show is actively trying to refute common-sense understandings of the world and of relationships e.g. "If someone's not interested in relationships, it's because they haven't met the right person yet". The show refutes these ideas by offering asexuality and aromanticism as alternative paths. However, it could also be argued that in a way this is still somewhat normative, as it implies that you need to identify in a certain way if you have these experiences, and the only way for this to be a valid way of living is if you put yourself in a specific box.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? That the audience do not already know what asexuality and aromanticism are. Again, we see the assumption that sexual and romantic attraction are confusing to aroace people - Isaac says that he doesn't know how he's "supposed" to feel. Learning about asexuality and aromanticism will cause euphoria and happiness to aroace people and resolve their sense of internal struggle. It is better to be able to put a name to your experiences than to not.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? Heartstopper as a whole presents us with a fairly simple narrative of asexuality and aromanticism.. These are identities that, while the show affirms them as legitimate, are also unusual and a source of social isolation and social difference for aro/ace people. These feelings of difference and experiences of isolation are upsetting and distressing, until they can be alieved by an understanding of their own asexuality and aromanticism.
General thoughts: Immediately, I can notice many parallels between Sex Education and Heartstopper in terms of how they handle asexuality. Florence has a similar arc to Isaac, where she is initially confused by her lack of attraction, feels different from everyone around her and is upset and isolated as a result, receives well-meaning but not very helpful advice from one character, and finally is informed about the existence of asexuality, at which point she gains a new understanding of herself and is at peace. Obviously there are some key differences - Sex Education more clearly delineates between asexuality and aromanticism, and the scene in question is arguably even more didactic than in Heartstopper. While in Heartstopper asexuality and aromanticism are explained by an aroace artist talking about their artwork, in Sex Education they are explained by a school sex therapist (who it seems worth noting, is not asexual herself).
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? Sex Education is very similar to Heartstopper - asexuality is once again depicted as distressing/upsetting/isolating when it is not understood, but as not posing a problem once it is understood. The show has a very affirming tone, reiterating that asexuality doesn't make someone "broken". Overall it is a very didactic approach - this is obvious in how Florence reacts to the advice she gets from Otis vs from Jean, one is clearly portrayed to be the "wrong" advice to give, and one is the "correct" advice to give.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? Much like Heartstopper, Sex Education is aimed at teenagers, though I would say at a slightly older audience than Heartstopper due to how explicit about sex it is. The title alone suggests a desire on the part of the show's writers to educate teenagers about the reality of sex, and with the portrayal of asexuality in this episode the main goal certainly seems to be educational.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? There are many respects in which this episode explicitly rejects social norms - for example, Jean rejects a pathologised view of asexuality that would describe anyone who doesn't want sex as broken. The show also challenges the idea of sex being a requirement for a romantic relationship, as Florence is depicted as asexual but not aromantic, and Jean affirms this. Like Heartstopper, it also implicitly rejects the idea that someone not being interested in sex simply means they "haven't met the right person". However, like Heartstopper, it could be argued that to at least some extent it still upholds social norms with the assumption that if someone is not interested in sex, then this is something remarkable about them that needs to be labelled.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? The audience does not already know what asexuality is. Asexuality is remarkable. Learning about asexuality will help asexual people understand themselves and make them happy. It is better to put a name to your experiences than to not. There is a right way and a wrong way to respond to asexuality. If someone doesn't want to have sex, that must mean they're asexual. Asexuality = Not wanting sex.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? I would say that Sex Education reveals a very similar world to Heartstopper. In this world, some people may be asexual (or aromantic, though this is less explicitly addressed) and while this is perhaps rare or unusual, it is still legitimate. However, because it is unusual, it can cause distress for asexual (and presumably aromantic) people if they do not understand their identity. In the world constructed by these shows, learning what asexuality and aromanticism are is key to the happiness of asexual/aromantic people.
General thoughts: I know it's been almost a year or whatever and I should be over this but I truly cannot get over how baffling this whole storyline is. Why is school sex therapist an elected position? And why is it a position held by a student? I know this is only tangentially relevant to the asexuality stuff but it's just so strange. Anyway, there's a very noticeable difference between Sex Education's first portrayal of asexuality back in season 2 and it's portrayal in season 4. Firstly, season 4 is much less didactic, now assuming that the audience will understand asexuality (perhaps assuming they learned what was explained in season 2). Secondly, while Florence's main role as a character was as a vessel to discuss asexuality, O's asexuality is less central to her character. Her main role is as a rival sex therapist to Otis (which again, is an insane sentence, but let's just roll with it). Her asexuality clearly has an impact on her character, but it's not her main storyline.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? As mentioned, it's a less didactic approach. Asexuality is discussed in a (comparatively) more natural context than in season 2, through O's coming out. Interestingly, it is also less concerned with the distinction between asexuality and aromanticism - it is not clear if O is aro as well as ace or not. She doesn't use the word, but some of her lines imply she might be aro. Compared to season 2, the portrayal of O could perhaps be seen as a next stage in an asexual journey - she already knows that she is asexual, but mentions that she is still working on "accepting" herself, which complicates the image the season 2 episode gave of simply learning about asexuality being an easy solution. Arguably there is still at least some element of trying to be educational - the show is very explicit that Otis making O feels like she has to come out is bad, so this could perhaps be an example of the show trying to educate its audience in the proper way to treat asexuality.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? This could be considered as building on the groundwork laid in season 2. The show assumes that the audience already understand what asexuality is, and are now trying to depict it in a (comparatively) more casual and nuanced way, without the need to explain it to the viewers.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? In many ways, season 4's portrayal of O could be said to challenge stereotypes of what an asexual person is like. O is a sex therapist, which for a lot of people is probably the last role they would expect an asexual person to be in. It could be argued that her being both asexual and Asian is a bit of a stereotype, as Asian people are often desexualised (NOTE: this is true of Abbi as well actually I forgot to mention that), however the fact that she is a sex therapist and is portrayed as being very knowledgeable about sex despite her personal disinterest does complicate this. Another way in which the episode goes against 'common-sense' is that it portrays asexuality not as something that isolates people, but as something that can be celebrated - as all the other students are very supportive of O's coming out, and in fact it wins them over to her side.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? The audience knows what asexuality is and what it means. Learning you're asexual is a "journey". Asexuality is something that an ace person needs to come to terms with and accept. Asexuality is not assumed - it is not the norm, still remarkable. Ace people are not comfortable with "intimate" relationships. Asexuality is accepted by most people. Having a name for your experiences is important.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? The world constructed here is more complicated than the one constructed in season 2. In season 2's view of asexuality, labelling your sexuality was the most important thing, and having a name for your experiences was implied to solve most problems. While having the label is still shown as important for O, it is also clearly not the perfect solution, and she is depicted as still struggling with her sexuality. However, at the same time, the world of Sex Education is shown as very positive towards asexuality (and queerness in general) as O is greeted with support from the other students after coming out.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? In this episode, the focus is once again on asexuality being isolating and ace people feeling different from others, but with less focus on the importance of naming the experience. It implies that even after O realised she was ace, she still felt like she couldn't tell anyone, and so she was still lonely. Another interesting thing about this episode is that it explicitly calls attention between the intersection between her being ace and her being a person of colour - she says she wanted to hide her asexuality because her race (and accent) already made her different to everyone else, and she didn't want to be seen as even more different.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? Again, O's depiction as a whole goes against various stereotypes - she is asexual, but she's also knowledgeable about sex and relationships and is (or was) one of the popular kids, which are traits you might not expect to go together. It does draw attention to the perceived discrepancy between her being asexual and a sex therapist this time, as she assumes no one would want her advice if they knew she was ace.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? Being asexual is a very isolating and lonely experience. It is better to be open about who you really are.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? Interestingly, in some ways this episode could be seen to contradict the previous one. In the previous episode, O was celebrated for coming out, while in this one she reveals how she had to hide her asexuality and pretend to be "like everyone else" when she was younger in order to avoid getting bullied. Of course, this could perhaps indicate how inclusive Cavendish is meant to be. It also continues to complicate the idea that understanding asexuality will make ace people happy, as the episode implies that O knew she was asexual for a while when she was younger, but still felt alone and miserable because she didn't think she'd be able to be open about it to anyone without getting bullied.
General thoughts: Sort of similar to Heartstopper and Sex Education in some senses, in that it seems to be very focused on the ace character needing to "figure themselves out" - seems to be a pattern for the teen shows in specific. Doesn't mention asexuality by name and instead just invokes the idea of a lack of interest in sex, or sex not being enjoyable. In the same way, it isn't explicit about asexuality being distinct from aromanticism, but does imply it - Cash does enjoy kissing and wants to be in a relationship, but has no interest in sex.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? The portrayal is similar in many ways to Heartstopper and the second season of Sex Education. We have a character who is not interested in sex, and has not labelled themself as asexual, but is trying to figure themself out. I suppose a potential difference is that Cash despite not having a label does already seem fairly confident about his sexuality - there's no sense of him feeling "broken" and instead the difficulty comes from how his lack of interest in sex affects his relationship with Darren. In this sense, the main role of asexuality in this show is as an obstacle in a relationship.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? Genre once again seems to be important. Being a teen drama, Heartbreak High's portrayal of asexuality has to fit within the parameters of that genre. One way in which this affects the show is in the idea of the journey of self-discovery narrative - Cash trying to figure himself out. The other way this can be seen is how asexuality is mainly important in this show as a source of relationship drama, as romance drama is a pretty central element to most teen shows.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? I feel like the idea of asexuality being an obstacle in a relationship is a fairly normative portrayal, as the idea that sex is vital to relationships is a common one. On the other hand, in portraying asexuality it is inherently defying at least some ideas about sex - specifically the idea that everyone wants it, and that if someone is interested in romance they must be interested in sex as well.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? Not being interested in sex is non-normative/remarkable. Not wanting sex can cause problems in a relationship. It would be difficult for someone who does want sex and someone who doesn't to have a relationship.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? Despite some similarities, I think there are some crucial differences between how Heartbreak High constructs a-spec identity and how the other teen shows do it. Primarily, Heartbreak High is less focused on the importance of naming/labelling the experience/identity. Cash's distress doesn't come from not being able to describe his sexuality, but from the conflict it is causing in his relationship. This suggests that the problems ace people face are more interpersonal - lack of acceptance, understanding, etc.
General thoughts: Season 2 supports my assertion that the show is less interested in whether or not asexuality is labelled as such. I think it's notable that while by this point Cash is at least aware of asexuality as a label and is questioning if it is something he could identify with, this clearly doesn't do anything abou the heart of the problem, which is Cash's worries that his relationship with Darren is doomed. Again, his conflict is less over finding the right label or anything like that, and more about how to make a relationship work with someone who does want sex, feeling pressured to have sex for the sake of his partner, and his fear that he is making Darren miserable - anxieties that are all personified in Dusty and his criticism of Cash. Like season 4 of Sex Education, this offers perhaps a more nuanced view of issues ace people might face.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? Asexuality does get explicitly named here - I do think it's interesting that the writers, like in The Imperfects, don't assume that the audience would need an explanation of what 'ace' means and would immediately know what it means and how it connects to Cash not wanting sex. Cash's reaction to the word is also notable - he gets defensive before admitting that he doesn't know. This builds on the idea from season 1 of Cash needing to figure himself out - it seems that this process is difficult and frustrating. Like before, the main conflict around asexuality is how it affects Cash's romantic relationship, and whether it can work without sex. Asexuality, or perhaps more specifically the difference between Cash and Darren, is presented as one of the main obstacles to their relationship. Dusty is also an important character here because his dialogue represents Cash's worries, or perhaps a more normative view of sex and relationships.
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? There is clearly an assumption that the audience has some understanding of asexuality, the fact that the possibility of Cash being ace is brought up fairly casually implies that the show assumes the audience would already be considering that possibility for him. The importance of romantic conflict is also again a genre staple, and continues the pattern set out in the first season.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? The main thing that stood out to me here is how the show deals with the topic of consent, and normative ideas about sex and consent. Dusty could be seen as representing a more normative view - for example, he espouses the view that withholding sex from a partner is "selfish". However, the show itself challenges these ideas - Dusty is not portrayed in a positive light here, so it seems fair to say we are meant to disagree with his assessment of the situation.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? It is difficult for someone who wants sex and someone who doesn't to have a relationship. It is also difficult to figure out if you're asexual. Ace people may feel pressured to have sex. Cash's uncertainty about whether he's asexual or not also implies that there are other reasons why someone might not be interested in sex aside from being asexual, which I think is an interesting departure from other TV shows I've looked at. Wanting sex and not wanting sex can both be positive things - equally legitimate. Ace people are not necessarily completely uncomfortable with the idea of sex - Cash clearly respects that Darren is interested in sex and sees it as part of "who they are". The audience knows what ace means.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? Season 2's worldview when it comes to asexuality is very consistent with season 1. We do see an explicit naming of asexuality, but it is not the focus, and is not presented as a solution to the problems Cash is facing. Not to bring up a show that's not in the case study sample, but this could align Heartbreak High more with a show like Sirens, where the character of Voodoo already knows she's asexual at the start of the show, and the conflict is whether she can make a relationship work with Brian, who isn't asexual. We also see more of the idea of interpersonal problems being an issue for ace people - Dusty's behaviour embodies a lack of understanding, while Cash ends up breaking up with Darren over not wanting sex. Within this show, sexual difference is a huge problem for a relationship.
General thoughts: Cash's sad cringefail broken heart stick and poke tattoo is so incredible to me. Sorry that has nothing to do with anything I just wanted to announce it.
How do the writers make sense of the topic the show is discussing? This episode sees the show grappling with the question of: What is the solution to making a relationship work when one of you wants sex and the other doesn't? While the show presents this difference as a problem, this episode makes it clear that the writers do not see trying to make yourself less interested in sex as a viable solution, and it's already been made pretty clear that Cash can't become more interested in sex. I would say the show doesn't really come to an actual answer to this question - Cash and Darren are back together by the end but it's unclear how they're going to overcome the problems that led them to break up in the first place. We're kind of back where we started. I guess they do attempt to address it with the idea that basically every relationship has difficulties to overcome, and what matters is being willing to fight for that relationship, but that does also seem to be kind of a vague idea. A bit platitude-y. Another interesting thing is how the episode does draw attention to asexuality being unusual, but puts a more positive spin on it: Cash's asexuality is seen as an example of him "not playing by the rules"
Why might they be making sense of things in this way (and not in another way)? Why does the show provide no satisfactory solution to the relationship problems? Two options here: First, this is something they're saving for the next season. There was plenty of other stuff in this episode that seems to be setting up arcs for the next season, so this could be one of them. Second option, the writers had no idea how to resolve this.
How ‘common-sense’ or socially normative is this depiction or story? Rejects normative ideas about relationships and the importance of sex in romantic relationships - "There's more than one way to love someone". Generally the episode seems to reject the idea of going along with what is normal - Cash's Nan praises him for how he doesn't follow the rules. Though I guess it could be argued that the idea of asexuality not being normal is kind of a common-sense/normative idea anyway.
What assumptions do the writers make in describing the world? Asexuality is something that can't be changed. Asexuality is unusual - not playing "by the rules". Asexual people face pressure to have sex. It is important to be true to yourself - shown with both Cash and Darren.
What kind of world is ‘revealed’ through their account? I think the side that Heartbreak High really ends up coming down on is a common teen show message (in fact it's one you also see in Sex Education) - the importance of being true to yourself. Darren is depicted as being misguided in trying to make themself less interested in sex, while Cash is depicted as needing to accept his asexuality. It is this self-acceptance, and not being able to put a label on an experience, that is a kind of solution to the problems in Heartbreak High.
In what different ways do different shows make sense of the topic?
What overall patterns can be identified?
Following Braun and Clarke's advice, I also tried drawing out a diagram of my initial thoughts.
Gonna be honest, I don't think this really clarifies much. I'm in kind of a tough position at the moment because I don't feel great about this analysis - it feels like just a lot of random threads that don't join together at this point. Hopefully as I continue the analysis and start actually coding things will become clearer? But honestly at the moment I'm not sure if any of this even means anything. If I had more time maybe I'd be able to go over it again and see if I can develop anything here, but in case you hadn't noticed, I have to hand in my work in in less than two weeks.