Bloody hell, not this crap again. For the last bloody time, Marc Platt has /never/ vilified Asexuality. Never, weird factions of the fandom seem to think that Marc Platt’s intention, while writing Lungbarrow, was to portray Asexuals in a negative light. It’s not the Asexuality that Marc highlights as a problem, it’s the fact that Gallifreyans have become reliant on Looms, technology and tradition, leading for them to oppose change or reevaluation of social order. Lungbarrow works because it shows many of the short-comings of Gallifreyan culture, the Looms themselves aren’t the problem, it’s not the fact the most Gallifreyans are Asexual that Gallifrey’s dysfunctional, it’s the stifling culture and lack of individuality, NOT sexuality. The Doctor is shown to be Asexual, yet he’s a positive, well rounded and multi-faceted character. If Marc Platt was Acephobic he would have pushed the Doctor in a heteronormative direction. The fact the Doctor, Romana and Innocet, the three most important Gallifreyans in the story, are presented as Asexual shows that Platt had no intention of “vilifying Asexuality.” A small number of fans use the fact that the curse being lifted and Leela and Andred supposedly having a child is part of some Acephobic rhetoric. It simply isn’t, the Curse being lifted is good because it means properly new life can exist for the first time in millions of years, it means the people have the freedom to have children if they so choose, the EDAs make it very clear, especially in The Taking of Planet Five and The Shadows of Avalon, that Looms are still in use, that solidifies the idea that many Gallifreyans are Asexual and would rather not procreate through sex. Honestly, some fans look into the negative connotations of Gallifreyan culture and think it has any relevance to real human issues, such as Acephobia. I’m saying this as an AroAce person myself.
blakekathryn
tangentwithtanner
andulkaphoto
jacobvanloon
turnnoffyourmind
snowghoul
