Hiding a main character's sexuality.

There's plenty of stories where the main character doesn't think about romance or express attraction to others. It's perfectly fine.

I really wish the world had fewer stories where romance was arbitrarily shoe-horned in (The Matrix would have been a better movie without any, for example), so I say go for it!

BeautifulRoses said:

Would it bother you as a reader to know nothing about the romance side of a main character, not even their sexuality? I'm cautious about having the character have too many aspects as it's fantasy so they're already very special in other ways. If you don't have anything to say that you haven't said with other characters, do you think it should be left out entirely or a quick nod to how they feel about love and all that. The technical writer in me tells me not to set something up that doesn't pay off.

Click to expand...

First off, not every story needs or wants romantic subplots, just as not every character is defined by their love life. I've read several books where romance never became involved, or was mentioned but kept firmly off-page. (Just like you don't need to follow characters to the grocery store or bathroom, you don't need to be privy to every moment in their lives, just the ones relevant to the tale you're telling about them.)

On the bolded, though... sexuality (or lack thereof) and romance (or lack thereof) are normal parts of real life, and thus tend to be considered normal parts of characters' lives, not a "special" thing at all. Yes, even in fantasy. Even gods and goddesses suffer pangs of love and broken hearts. It's only "too much" if you force a subplot or focus where it isn't needed, where it distracts from rather than adds to the story or character arc. A comment in passing about a past boy/girlfriend, or the odd remark about finding someone attractive (or not understanding why a person is considered attractive) would be all it takes to establish how they feel about the subject... though even that isn't strictly necessary, unless it feels like a hole in the character's personality.

I would be fine with that.

jjdebenedictis said:

I really wish the world had fewer stories where romance was arbitrarily shoe-horned in

Click to expand...

ditto

jjdebenedictis said:

I really wish the world had fewer stories where romance was arbitrarily shoe-horned in (The Matrix would have been a better movie without any, for example), so I say go for it!

Click to expand...

same. I love romance plots/sub-plots, but for a love story to be interesting it needs to make sense for the story and characters. When a love story is an afterthought, it's usually better skipped, in my opinion.

jjdebenedictis said:

I really wish the world had fewer stories where romance was arbitrarily shoe-horned in (The Matrix would have been a better movie without any, for example), so I say go for it!

Click to expand...

This

So long as it had no reason to come up.

You don't need to mention sexuality or romantic attraction in stories where it doesn't fit, but you should consider what you're doing it you're removing things purposefully to hide it. A character isn't "special" because they're any particular sexuality. A brief mention is not the promise of a romance story. No need to dance around the roses if it's something that'd come up.

I would be perfectly happy to read a story with no romance for the main character. I have, indeed, read many of them. And read stories where the romance ruined the book - look'in at you cozies-which-shall-remain-nameless.
Although totally hiding male/female/gay/straight or other is more of an irritating prank than anything else. But that can be briefly mentioned as we read along.

BeautifulRoses said:

Yeah it's not that sexuality is special per se, but that it commands attention. So when there's alot going on and the character's already a big part of that, I risk splitting the reader's attention with the main character trying to cover everything and stepping on other character's toes. I could see how it could get annoying. But not mentioning it at all is seen as an irritating prank by some. Thing is I love my characters so I can't have an unbiased lens to see it, so it'll rely on perfect timing. At an especially down point of the story and cleverly done so it's not disproportionatey self pitying, resentful, whiny or unnecessary. How that scene would go I have no idea, but if I'm meant to have it it should come naturally, if not it won't. From now on I won't spend time looking for the answer but I'll be open to it if it comes to me. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily; it's a matter of how it's presented. If there's no need for a romantic scene, and if it doesn't fit the story you're telling, don't put one in just to have one - that would indeed command attention, and possibly the wrong kind ("Why'd they stick a lame love scene in the middle of the shark fight?".) Though I am wondering from this if you're using the term "sexuality" to mean "steamy romantic scene," a.k.a a sex scene - which should command at least some attention, and should also serve a plot/character purpose and not just be thrown in for titillation. From your original post, I was thinking you meant "sexuality" as in "romantic life and/or sexual orientation of your character in general."

Your plan to play it by ear is probably the best one. You may find your character needs a love interest/interlude. You may find they don't. You may find they do, but it's not something you need to linger on more than a sentence or two/occasional comments about it as an off-page thing... or you may find that there are things you need to resolve (or complications you need to introduce) that require more attention and lingering over details.

BeautifulRoses said:

I meant the explanation for why they're unattached attracting attention cos people like to try to poke holes in it. Because the character is against the idea of having limitations, if the character said I couldn't be X or couldn't do Y with a partner around, that would be a self imposed limitation, for reasons that's debatable and therefore it's a contradiction.

It was suggested once to acknowledge the character as asexual and aromantic, but it feels like too much to have a character with alot of rare privileges have a rare sexuality too.

A theme in the story is the plans of the heroes - each one thinks only their plans will work so end up sabotaging the others and ironically none of their plans work because of that.
So I'm probably going to go for the idea that the when the idea of a romance is suggested the response is there are enemies everywhere and everybody's out to get me.

That way it's tied to the narrative, spells out that all the relationships we thought were safe, aren't any more and thus ups the tension. It also implies they can be attracted to the suggested romance, as the character wouldn't respond with I don't swing that way or I'm not interested in such things.

Click to expand...

You don't need an explanation. The character doesn't need to justify to the reader why they don't have any interest in a romantic relationship at the time. They don't have to be asexual/aromantic just because they aren't seeking a romantic relationship during the time that the story takes place.

Some people prefer romance in what they read, but most readers aren't going to be bewildered by the idea of a protagonist who doesn't pursue romance during the events of the story.

BeautifulRoses said:

I meant the explanation for why they're unattached attracting attention cos people like to try to poke holes in it. Because the character is against the idea of having limitations, if the character said I couldn't be X or couldn't do Y with a partner around, that would be a self imposed limitation, for reasons that's debatable and therefore it's a contradiction.

It was suggested once to acknowledge the character as asexual and aromantic, but it feels like too much to have a character with alot of rare privileges have a rare sexuality too.

A theme in the story is the plans of the heroes - each one thinks only their plans will work so end up sabotaging the others and ironically none of their plans work because of that.
So I'm probably going to go for the idea that the when the idea of a romance is suggested the response is there are enemies everywhere and everybody's out to get me.

That way it's tied to the narrative, spells out that all the relationships we thought were safe, aren't any more and thus ups the tension. It also implies they can be attracted to the suggested romance, as the character wouldn't respond with I don't swing that way or I'm not interested in such things.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure aromantic/asexual is quite as rare as popular media - which emphasizes sex and sensual obsession because it's a proven seller - suggests. What definitely isn't particularly rare is people having other concerns, or personal hang-ups prompting them to not seek partners, or simply not making romance/sex a priority, even if they don't identify as asexual. From the sounds of it, the character would have trust issues if they're convinced everyone's out to get them, making romance highly unlikely and sex... well, maybe they might consider the odd one-night stand (the sort of encounter that doesn't need page time, save maybe a passing comment), or they may consider it a potential weakness and not indulge, unless they're ruthless enough to use sex (or just the promise of sex) as a tool to manipulate others. In any event, I, as a reader, wouldn't find it unusual that such a person doesn't have a love affair during the story. As mentioned previously, not every character needs their love lives (or lack thereof) explicitly explained unless it needs to be explained for the story.

What readers have you had who tried to poke holes in an unattached character being unattached, incidentally? Are they more used to romances or genres where romance/sex are common, or is there something about the way your story plays that sets up a relationship/need for a relationship? As I said previously (and others have said), there are other stories without relationships or romance that don't feel lopsided or lacking at all; the focus was simply on other things.

So, basically, a +1 to what lilyWhite says:

lilyWhite said:

You don't need an explanation. The character doesn't need to justify to the reader why they don't have any interest in a romantic relationship at the time. They don't have to be asexual/aromantic just because they aren't seeking a romantic relationship during the time that the story takes place.

Some people prefer romance in what they read, but most readers aren't going to be bewildered by the idea of a protagonist who doesn't pursue romance during the events of the story.

Click to expand...

BeautifulRoses said:

I could see how it could get annoying. But not mentioning it at all is seen as an irritating prank by some.

Click to expand...

This seems directed at my previous comment, and I should have been clearer: I was thinking of those stories where, for example, great efforts are made to hide the characters gender - not merely not spelling it out, but contorting the story and language for the big 'reveal' at the end.
Your idea of:

So I'm probably going to go for the idea that the when the idea of a romance is suggested the response is there are enemies everywhere and everybody's out to get me.

That way it's tied to the narrative, spells out that all the relationships we thought were safe, aren't any more and thus ups the tension. It also implies they can be attracted to the suggested romance, as the character wouldn't respond with I don't swing that way or I'm not interested in such things.

Click to expand...

sounds like character development. Like Sherlock Holmes, really. Reasonable development of a quirky character.

BeautifulRoses said:

Wasn't a reader, was posters on another writing forum. We had a debate about it, essentially their position was sexuality is such a fundamental part of the human condition, to ignore it is to ignore one of the fundamental axioms that motivate people to do anything. It was a very Freudian argument that priorities human authenticity above all in characterization.

Click to expand...

Authenticity is when different people have different aspirations, different interests, different priorities—all of which can change throughout a person's life.

Of three stories and three protagonists I'm writing:

• One notes the heroine always having found one of her female friends to be quite cute, and her relationship with another character she doesn't exactly have a traditional "attraction" to (said love interest isn't human) ends up turning into romance.
• Another has the heroine attracted to a few female characters throughout the story, though she doesn't pursue romance because her priority is the journey she's on and none of the people who join her are really her type.
• The third has a protagonist who never expresses or thinks about attraction or desire for a relationship—because she's depressed, doesn't want to become close to others for personal reasons, and spends a good amount of the story in a role that takes up most of her thoughts and focus in her life.

BeautifulRoses said:

Wasn't a reader, was posters on another writing forum. We had a debate about it, essentially their position was sexuality is such a fundamental part of the human condition, to ignore it is to ignore one of the fundamental axioms that motivate people to do anything. It was a very Freudian argument that priorities human authenticity above all in characterization.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the idea that the authenticity of an individual person depends on their needs/wants/thoughts fulfilling *every* piece of a perceived fundamental experience of all of humanity. That kinda makes it a generalization based on a possibly artificially limited definition stuck in the conceptual confines generated by whoever is thinking and communicating that definition, which makes it...less authentic, doesn't it?

Natch, I say that as an asexual aromantic areligious childless teetotaling apathy gremlin who doesn't like coffee; I might be biased.*

Still, if one tried to define what a "person" is, in a way that encompasses literally every possible person, I don't think one would require "a sexuality of constant consequence to themselves" as a necessary part of the definition? I mean...I guess you could argue that, if you wanted But to me there's a difference between "this is something that is true for a lot of people" and "this is something that *defines* a person as a person and without it they are not real", yanno?

(Of course, how you approach it in your work here is up to you, and you're not obligated to go any specific way Just addressing the overall...uh, debate? Idk)

*granted I do frequently question whether I am a real person, but as I'm not a bot and I am currently posting on a forum, I'm going to go with that as the simplest explanation for now

MonsterTamer said:

I would be fine with that.

Click to expand...

But I'd wonder. . .

To get this clear, you want the character to be aroace, but you think they'll come across as more human if people think they're denying themselves a relationship (rather than just not being interested). The basic assumptions need unpacking here. Aroace people aren't less human. You don't need to imply some sort of forbidden romance malarky to make them relatable. Just have them say, "Eh, not my thing." Then move on to smiting things with magic powers.

This also goes against the original question, as this is drawing more attention to their sexuality and romantic attraction, not less. You're setting up some sort of "will they or won't they" theme, rather than just cutting it off with "nope" and moving on.

I'd strongly suggest you read up on stereotypes common to aromantic and asexual characters, because what you're saying is going that way. People will end recommending the stereotypes to you because they don't know better, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Polenth said:

I'd strongly suggest you read up on stereotypes common to aromantic and asexual characters, because what you're saying is going that way. People will end recommending the stereotypes to you because they don't know better, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Click to expand...

This is the core takeaway. It's much more common than people think to be ace/aromatic. It's not at all rare.

It's not even rare in fiction. Some people just aren't interested. It doesn't mean they can't love or aren't 'normal.' It just means it's not their thing.