Monthly Archives: April 2014

Issues with Super-heroine Costumes

I’ve just watched Captain America: Winter Soldier, and as much as I love Black Widow, I can’t get over her hair.

As an active agent who is constantly fighting, Natasha should be dressing as such. She should be prepared for a fight, especially when she knows that she’ll be going on missions, but she never is. Regardless what hairstyle she’s been given over the three movies (and it does annoy me that she’s the only avenger who gets a makeover with every new movie), none of them are practical for combat.

This is something which can be applied to any of the female super-heroines: none of them would be ready for a real fight. As a black belt, I know what kind of things should be worn for fighting, so let’s go through some of the main aspects of super-heroine costumes:

Hair:

When fighting, it’s important that your field of vision isn’t restricted, and this is something really noticeable when Black Widow fights, because she incorporates a lot of turns. So every time she turns her head, her hair completely covers her face. This is great for dramatic shots, but ridiculous for a fight.

Image

A similar thing happens in the film Daredevil, Elektra keeps her hair tied up for training, but as soon as she goes out to fight, she lets it down. If you know that you train better with hair up, surely it makes sense that it should be tied up for real missions. Or are we just trying to look pretty for the bad guys?

Image

The best example I can find of how they should be wearing their hair is SHIELD agent Maria Hill, both her cropped hair in the comics, and low bun in the films are perfectly suited to combat. Unfortunately, we don’t get to see her in combat often.

Image

Material:

Characters like Captain America and Batman have costumes which are clearly adapted from various styles of armor and the material is designed to be combat ready and virtually bulletproof. And then you have costumes that are basically nothing more than spandex. Now with characters like Superman, this isn’t as big as a problem because he doesn’t need armor. But with characters like Batgirl or Catwoman, they appear to have chosen looking sexy over being able to fight.

And then there’s Powergirl. Who has a gaping hole is the chest of her suit because she can’t find anything to symbolize her or some other bullshit that they used to justify the continuous cleavage shots.

Image
Chest Plates :

There are some attempts to give the female characters armor, like with Lady Sif, but a lot of the time theres a lot of problems with the designs. Here’s a link to an article which explains how the ‘boob plate’ armor would actually kill the wearer.

Heels:

I don’t understand why every super heroine needs to fight in high heeled shoes. It’s ridiculously impractical. I mean, I can do a lot of karate moves in heels (how I found that out is a whole different story…) but it is a lot more difficult, and there’s a serious risk that the heroines could break their ankles. I get that some of the heroines like Wonder Woman aren’t constrained by the limitations of humans, but it would still be a lot easier for them to fight in flats like the boys.

Interestingly, this isn’t just restricted to super-heroines, it’s something I see a lot in police and detective shows as well. Which is odd because you’d think if your job requires running you would just wear trainers all of the time.

Capes:

I don’t think I have to go into this one. I think Edna has it covered…
Image

I do love the new designs for Wonder Woman which seems to have chosen practicality over pure sexualisation. Now all she needs is to tie her hair back properly and ditch the perfect nails and she’ll be perfect.

Image

Let me know what you think about these costumes? Does anyone else think they’re way too impractical? Are there any points that I’ve missed?

The Best Non-Disney Villain Songs

My dance class is planning to do a Halloween show, so recently I’ve been listening to a lot of villain songs from animated films. I know a lot of people are familiar with the Disney villain songs, but I also found a lot of other villains who I’d forgotten about. So here (in no particular order) are some of the best non-Disney villain songs that I’ve found;

Anastasia: In the Dark of the Night.

A song all about Rasputin’s desire for revenge against the Romanov family, which he plans to achieve by killing the final heir; Anastasia. As a kid, I always found this song quite frightening and I thought the villain was really threatening. Now.. . it’s just kind of campy. I can’t help but laugh when the bugs start to back him up, so it doesn’t quite have the same effect now as it did when I was younger. Regardless, this this songs great and the lyrics are pretty threatening when they’re not being sung by a chorus of animated bugs.

Bartok the Magnificent:

This is a tough one because a lot of the villains songs in this film were actually a double bluff designed to make you think that the wrong person was the bad guy. So some of these aren’t real villain song but the actual villain song sucked and this is my blog so I can do what I want.

In case you’re wondering, the real villain song in this film The Real Ludmilla, in which the villain drinks a potion to reveal her true nature and becomes a dragon. I feel any threat she poses is pretty diminished by the overtly comical effects, so it doesn’t really work as a villain song.

I much prefer the opening of the film Baba Yaga, and the song sung by Baba Yaga herself Someone’s In My House. Since these songs are designed to make you think that she’s the villain, they’re a lot creepier and make Baga Yaga seem more threatening than the actual villain.

Pebble Penguin: Don’t Make Me Laugh.

Jesus Christ this song is awful. The main villain is basically the Robin Thicke of the animated world.

The villain Drake is trying to convince Marina to mate with him and when she says no, Drake sings; “Don’t make me laugh, don’t make me laugh, my funny friend, don’t make me bend in half”. This soon leads to “Don’t make me laugh, don’t pull my leg, may I suggest you would do best to beg”. Anyone else seeing the similarities between this and Blurred Lines? Drake escalates quickly and threatens to kill Marina if she says no “Say no, poor dove, And you’re a shark’s dinner.” So yeah… a bit rape-y for a kids animated film…

Troll in Central Park: The Queen of Mean.

Gnorga is the queen of the trolls, and her attitude really comes across in this song. She’s the kind of villain who is presented as being from a different culture where all things gross and despicable are just the norm and this is something that she reveals in, making her a brilliant villain. The song perfectly sums up the troll culture, and Gnorga’s motivation for banishing Stanley from the kingdom.

Cat’s Don’t Dance: Big and Loud.

This films’ villain is Darla Dimple, a Shirley Temple style child actress who in her song ‘Big and Loud’, tries to convince the main character to do something which will ruin the careers of him and the rest of her competitors. This song is brilliantly jazzy, and I love how it’s acted out. This is soon followed by the reprise (skip to 0:50 for the song), in which the song is twisted to reveal Darla’s ulterior motives. This is one of the few songs in the list which actually creates a really threatening atmosphere which causes you to fear for the safety of the main characters, which is surprising given that the villain is a tiny little blonde girl.

Thumbelina:

There are multiple villains in Thumbelina so arguably there are a lot of villain songs. The first villain is Mama Toad, who kidnaps Thumbelina and tries to convince her to travel with her in the song On The Road. Thumbelina later ends up with Berkeley Beetle, who places her in his show and sings Yer Beautiful, Baby. Later in the film, Thumbelina stays with Ms Fieldmouse who tries to convince her to Marry The Mole.

Probably the most threatening of these songs is Marry the Mole, purely because of it’s dose of realism. It’s the first time a lot of children are introduced to the idea that maybe they won’t marry their true love, and instead they should marry for money and stability instead. Ms Fieldmouse makes a pretty convincing argument and although she isn’t outright exploiting her like the other villains of the film, he song is definitely the most powerful.

Quest for Camelot: Ruber

This song probably could have done with a real title…

I really like this song, it starts out with Ruber arguing that he wants to take them back to the dark ages, and preferred it when things were chaotic. Unfortunately, the song gets really weird pretty fast. Ruber takes out a potion he bought from some witches, (which just says “acme” across the side.They must have gotten it from the same store Wile.E. Coyote goes to…) and dumps it in a pit. He then throws his henchmen into the pit with some weapons to create weird hybrids who then dance around the pit like they’ve been rehearsing.

The song is a good lyrical depiction of his madness, with the song quickly escalating as Ruber gets more and more frantic. But the underlying plot is just too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

Let me know what you think of these songs in the comments. Which villain songs are your favourites? Are there any that I’ve missed off? Feel free to leave me a message.

Tricks to Coping with Raynaud’s Phenomenon

Raynaud’s phenomenon is reduced blood flow in response to the cold (or stress) which causes discoloration of the extremities such as fingers and toes.

Image

After some researching on the subject, I figured out that I had this a few years ago and after a few years of having the circulation cut from my fingers, I’ve developed quite a few tips for dealing with it;

Cut out the caffeine – I’ve always found that hot drinks help, since you’re holding onto something warm. Just try to avoid drinks with a high caffeine content. I don’t really follow this guideline, but I have cut back a lot. I don’t drink energy drinks anymore and I get decaffeinated tea bags. Since doing this, I’ve found that my hands don’t go numb as quickly and that decaf tea actually tastes better than the regular stuff.

Always have a pair of gloves in your bag– During the winter, I wear a pair of close fitting gloves and then have a bigger thermal pair in my bag just in case the weathers bad. I’d recommend having a pair in your bag all year round, just in case.I’m pretty forgetful so I own countless amounts of gloves so that I have a pair permanently in each bag.

Invest in hand warmers– This one requires trial and error. I found that for the 30 minute walk to my classes, one pair of hand warmers would work, but I’d also need to keep a pair in my bag to use on the way home.Make sure you get ones that fit underneath your gloves, a lot of them are way to big to allow you to wear gloves over them. I have these ones, and I’ve found that they work great;

Image

If anyone has Raynaud’s Phenomenon, have these tricks worked for you? Let me know if there are any other tips that you guys have used.

Robin Thicke Number One in the Downloads Charts.

I recently read an article stating that Robin Thicke’s song ‘Blurred Lines’ has become the most downloaded track in British music history, which I think really says a lot about the odd mentality of Britain.Thankfully, instead of skating around the issues which surround the track, the article points out that despite the songs success, it was “banned at several universities after campaigners said the lyrics were sexist.”

However, Sexism isn’t really the problem. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex. And that’s not really what Robin Thicke is doing. The song is in fact; misogynistic, chauvinistic, and promotes rape culture. And that’s an issue that not a lot of the media addresses, possibly because they don’t want to offend singers by calling them out on their rape-promoting songs.

Thankfully, comedians aren’t quite as worried about the repercussions and are free to give their honest opinions. Which is why I loved the most recent Big Fat Quiz of the Year:

ImageImage

ImageImage

Now, I’ve seen a lot of articles about how the song relates to rape culture due to my time spent studying criminology, but I know a lot of the general public haven’t and in general it’s just viewed as being a catchy pop song. Essentially, by promoting the attitude that “no” isn’t actually a no because ‘you know she wants it’ means that the song is promoting an unhealthy attitude towards consent where the ‘blurred lines’ constitute a justification for assaulting women. Unfortunately, until the media allows themselves to talk about the actual underlying messages of these songs, people are just going to be ignorant of its effects.

If you haven’t seen it already, go watch the Law Revue Girls parody ‘Defined Lines‘. I’m hoping that the more exposure parodies like this get, the more people will be aware of how creepy Robin Thicke actually is.

Adaptions of Fullmetal Alchemist; 2003 vs Brotherhood.

If you’re reading this post, then you’re probably aware that there are two separate versions of the anime ‘Fullmetal Alchemist’. The original manga version was first published in Square Enix’s magazine Shōnen Gangan between August 2001 and June 2010. The first version of the anime was broadcast from 2003 to 2004, and since the manga wasn’t completed at this time, the anime was free to develop it’s own plot separate from the source material. In 2009, Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood was premiered and this was designed to more closely follow the plot of the manga.

There are a lot of debates within the fandom about which adaption of the story is best and which version should new fans start with, so I’m going to outline the main advantages and disadvantages of each and hopefully come to some conclusion.

(Warning: Plenty of spoilers ahead!)

1. Plot

The plot of Brotherhood makes a lot more sense and is a lot better thought out, which makes sense as it’s the plot which was created by the original author. The 2003 version got a bit weird and tried too hard to come up with an interesting ending for the story, taking far too many liberties with the science behind the universe. Dropping Edward in our world in the middle of World War Two was certainly original, but also pretty absurd and a lot of the rules of the Gate weren’t really established. Whereas Brotherhood made sure that the rules of equivalent exchange and how they were applied by the Gate would be fully understood.

Winner: Brotherhood. Hiromu Arakawa is a queen. Her plot is far superior and it’s clear why people felt they needed to make a new series to follow what she wrote.

Image

2. Character Development

The first episode of Brotherhood got a lot of bad reviews saying that repeating events lead to a lack of suspense and because of this, a lot of key events in Brotherhood were glossed over because they assumed that their audience had already watched the 2003 version. For example, in Brotherhood Maes Hughes pops up briefly three or four times before he dies, whereas in 2003 the audience is given time to see his relationships with all of the other characters before his death and his character is developed in a lot more depth. This means that his death is a lot more hard-hitting in the 2003 version, because they’ve allowed the audience to become attached to him, whereas in Brotherhood, it’s just assumed that you already know who he is and how important he is to the other characters. Therefore, anyone who has only watched Brotherhood won’t find Hughes’ death nearly as traumatic as the 2003 viewers would.

Winner: 2003. I will never get over Hughes’ death.

Image

3. Unique characters.

I  will always love the 2003 version of Wrath. He was adorable and you really felt for him and sympathised with him regardless of what he did. But I have to give this one to Brotherhood. If you missed out on Ling and his guards, then you really need to give Brotherhood a watch.

Image

Plus, 2003 missed out the Armstrong sister Olivier, a high ranking military officer with a great deal of power who isn’t once sexualised (a rarity for any form of media).

Image

Winner: Brotherhood.

4. Character Design

Brother definitely has an advantage with the character designs. For one thing, Edward actually grows up and it has a much more realistic grasp of time and aging.

Image

There’s also the way that the two animes deal with the restored version of Alphonse. In the 2003 version, his body hasn’t aged since he performed the human transmutation, and he dresses like a miniature version of Ed.

Image

Whereas in Brotherhood, there’s a much more realistic depiction of what happened when Al’s body was left at the gate, and he initially appears incredibly malnourished, which better ties into the theory that Edward eats and sleeps so much because he’s providing the nutrients for both of them.

Image

Winner: Brotherhood. A far more realistic depiction of how the characters would look.

5. Hohenheim’s Back story

Both plots heavily rely on the reason behind Ed and Al’s father Hohenheim abandoning them while they were young.

In the first anime, Hohenheim used the Philosopher’s Stone for hundreds of years to switch from body to body in order to prolong his life with his lover Dante. After meeting Trisha, Hohenheim decides to stay in his current body but as his body started deteriorating, he realizes that he can’t lead a normal life and has to leave his family.

Whereas in Brotherhood, Hohenheim is originally a slave from Xerxes, known as “Slave Number 23”. Hohenheim was used for an experiment by his master who his blood to create a Homunculus. The Homunculus helps Hohenheim to raise his status and teaches the King of Xerxes how to achieve immortality. The attempt backfires on the king, and the immortality goes to Hohenheim and the Homunculus (now known as ‘Father’), sacrificing the citizens of Xerxes in the process. Hohenheim is possessed by half of the citizens of Xerxes and after discovering that Father plans to sacrifice Amestris, Hohenheim leaves his family to travel around the country to leave shards from his Philosopher’s Stone in strategic places around the city.

The 2003 version is certainly more sympathetic, he physically couldn’t stay with his family without his skin rotting off so him leaving is pretty justified. But Brotherhoods version better ties into the plot, and is a better depiction of the emotional struggle that Hohenheim goes through and his intense survivors guilt.

Winner: Brotherhood. Sorry Dante.

6. The Homunculi

In the 2003 anime, the homunculi are presented as being the results of failed attempts at human transmutation. This allows for more human characterization, especially with Lust being bombard with flashbacks of her past life. It also presents a very obvious weapon for dealing with the homunculi, as they’re vulnerable to their own human remains. It also means that the Elrics mother Trisha became a homunculus since she was also the product of a failed transmutation. This plot development doesn’t really make sense. Trisha is designed the sin of Sloth, and given the powers of water, which doesn’t match her sin.

Whereas in Brotherhood, the homunculi are the manifestations of Father’s sinful aspects, which he removes from himself. This better explains why the homunculi are named after the seven deadly sins, and the designs of the characters better match their aspects. For example, instead of having the power of water, Sloth is a towering creature, bulging with muscle mass, who has absolutely no desire to do any work, but is forced to against his will. This is far better suited to the characterization of the sin, and just makes more sense. We also get the same human/homunculi moral dilemna, as Ling freely chooses to become the homunculi Greed, and constantly switches between the two personalities.

Winner: Brotherhood.

7. Opening.

As far as I’m concerned, the best part of the original openings was the repetition. You could always reply on Alphonses’;

“Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy’s first law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world’s one, and only, truth.”

And for that quote alone, I’m giving a point to 2003.

Winner: 2003.

8. Ending.

2003 ended with it’s sequel film Conqueror of Shamballa, which kind of ended on a cliff-hanger. The film ends with Edward and Alphonse trapped in Germany, trying to figure out how they’re going to demolish a portal to their own world without the use of alchemy. It basically ends with the pair never seeing their friends again. Which is pretty depressing and doesn’t actually feel like an actual ending.

Brotherhood kind of has the same feel. The brothers are going to go their separate ways to travel and amalgamate the worlds knowledge about alchemy. This also feels like it deserved a sequel, however it was far better at tying up loose ends, and giving the characters their happy endings, something sorely missing in the 2003 version.

Winner: Brotherhood. “A heart made fullmetal.”

Image

9. Movie.

Each of the series has an accompanying film. For the 2003 version, we have the sequel ‘Conqueror of Shamballa’, in which Edward attempts to get home after finding himself in Germany. Whereas after Brotherhood, we got the mid-quel ‘The Sacred Star of Milos’.

The 2003 movie wins hands down. As odd as the premise was, it was well executed and built up to an impressive climax. Whereas Star of Milos was by far the worst thing produced by the company. The animation is crude in comparison to Brotherhood, and the plot doesn’t really fit into the overarching storyline.

Winner: 2003.

Image

Final score: 2003-3. Brotherhood- 6.

So Brotherhood wins!

Image

Now, this is all just my opinion, so feel free to argue with me in the comments. Let me know if you think I’m right, or if you think that I’m missing some of the advantages that the 2003 version had. I’d love to hear from you guys.

Nostalgia Time: ‘We’re Back: A Dinosaur Story’

I recently realised that my 10 year old step-sister has seen none of the films that I watched as a child. This is naturally a disaster and I needed to intervene. So we’re revisiting some of the old classics, most of which I haven’t seen since I was her age. I figured that while I’m re-watching the films, I might as well write up what I think about the films, particularly whether or not they’ve stood the test of time.

So first up; ‘We’re Back: A Dinosaur Story’

dino1

I found this film in the supermarket the other day for only £2, and the nostalgia was too great so I just had to buy it.

I hadn’t seen this film since I was a kid, and could just vaguely remember not really understanding the plot. Re-watching it… I still don’t understand the plot.

If you haven’t seen it before, let me break it down for you:

• An alien and a scientist (Captain Neweyes) got back to find some dinosaurs and give them cereal which makes them smart.
• Captain Neweyes shows them a wish radio, and apparently all of the children in the 90’s were wishing that they could meet a dinosaur.
• The dinosaurs go to the future, and are dropped in the middle of New York so they can meet the museum curator for the Museum of Natural History.
• They miss the curator and meet a young boy (Louis) instead.
• They become friends with the boy, and another girl (Cecilia) they meet.
• The kids run away to the circus which is run by the bad guy (the scientists brother; Professor Screweyes).
• The bad guy predictably tricks them. He gets the kids to sign a contract and turns them into monkeys, blackmailing the dinosaurs by offering to rip up the kids contracts if the dinosaurs take the antidote to the brain cereal.
• The dinos take the antidote, and become an act in Screweyes Fear Circus. But don’t worry, the children fix it by Cecilia wishing “let no bad happen” and Louis healing the dinosaurs with the power of love and cuddles.

I’m not joking about any of that. This is the plot of a movie produced by Steven Spielberg. To quote the Nostalgia Critic; “This is the Land Before Time on crystal meth!”

Basically, it’s premised on the fact that kids are stupid.

The plot is repeated a ridiculous amount of times. And there’s even a moment when one of the dinosaurs spots a poster of the antagonist, turns around, looks at the camera and says “Professor Screweyes? That’s the bad guy!” As if it wasn’t painfully obvious already.

Weird thing is, as pandering and childish as it is, this film has one of the creepiest villain deaths I’ve ever seen.

The climax of the movie takes place in Screweyes circus, and as the good guys leave in their UFO/steampunk aircraft, Screweyes is left alone, stood in a spotlight in the darkness. And then we get this: “Brother! Brother, wait! When I am all alone… when I have no one to scare, I get very frightened myself.” Screweyes was driven mad after the incident in which he lost his eye, and his entire life has been spent scaring other people so that he doesn’t feel as frightened. When he’s in a position of power he’s incredibly confident, but now he’s compleetely broken. His crows start to circle and suddenly cover him. Then, while the circus audience watches, he’s devoured by the crows, leaving nothing but the screw that took the place of his eye. Words cannot do this creepy, creepy scene justice.

The film is incredibly dated. (I went to look up when it was made and found that it was created in 1993. The same year which I was born, which made me feel really old.) And a lot of the old American slang went way over the head of my little sister.

All in all, it’s a great mindless film for children, but it’s not the kind of fun-for-the-whole-family entertainment that Disney provides. I can’t see parents sitting though this film and laughing at jokes carefully weaved in for the adult audience, it’s just very obviously nothing more than a child’s film.

It doesn’t help that a lot of the movie makes no sense. Like how the dinosaurs can just wander around New York without being noticed.

dino1

And I have no the hell what little alien guy was, he looks a bit like a Space Jam reject…

dino 2

Although I will always love Rex’s song…

Dino 2

So I suppose the film does have some redeeming features. Has anyone else seen this film recently? Did it live up to your expectations? Let me know in the comments!

Asexuality in Popular Media

I love seeing asexuals represented in the media, unfortunately it literally never happens.

The three main examples of asexuals that we have right now are Dr Who, Sherlock Holmes and Sheldon Lee Cooper from the Big Bang Theory. These three are the only asexuals that I’ve been able to find. (I’ve excluded cartoon characters, since their young audience tends to mean that their inherently asexual.) It is possible that there are other asexual characters out there, but these are the only ones that I see on a daily basis.

One of the main problems here is that asexuality is largely constructed as being something absurdly different. According to TV, normal people can’t be asexual. So the only examples we have are either alien (Dr Who) or possibly aspergic (Sherlock and Sheldon). Asexuals also can’t be female according to the medias representation, because god forbid a woman wouldn’t want to have sex. What a terrible message that would be to send out.

There’s also a massive issue in that although these characters were originally created to be asexual, recent writers and directors have ruined the characterisation.

Dr Who:

The Doctor started off as an asexual. His relationship with his companions was strictly platonic. It can be argued that since Susan is his granddaughter, then he must have had sex at some point however, he also had a daughter by accidently using a progenation machine, so anything is possible.

Matt Smith has been reported as saying that he deliberately played the Doctor as asexual, however the recent episodes have made it clear that the Doctor is very into kissing, regardless as to whether or not he has consent. In fact, this goes so far that it can easily be argued that he sexually assaulted Jenny (a queer, married woman) in the episode Crimson Horror.

Sherlock:

Sherlock is an asexual/aromantic character, regardless as to what the fanfiction tells you. Unfortunately, a lot of adaptions misinterpret his relationship with Irene Adler. In the story, Irene intrigued Sherlock purely because she was the only person to outsmart him. Here’s an extract from the beginning of Scandal in Bohemia;

To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind.

And equally, Irene has no interest in Sherlock and at the end of the story, she escapes with her husband Norton.
The BBC series tries to keep in aspects of Sherlocks original characterisation, but they were waaaay off base with Irene.

However, that’s not nearly as bad as the portrayal in the American series ‘Elementary’. In Elementary, they make it incredibly obvious that Sherlock has an incredibly active sex life, and he even refers to Watson as a “prude” after she questions him exchanging erotic letters with a woman he’s never met.

There’s a fine line between developing a character and going overboard with the development. The writers of Elementary appear to have missed this line completely.

Big Bang Theory:

At the start of this post I mentioned that there are no female asexuals in media, which is a shame, because we used to have a great one.

When Amy Farrah Fowler was introduced, she and Sheldon made the perfect couple because they were equally uninterested in physical contact and equally uninterested in social interactions.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t interested enough, and in the space of one episode Amy suddenly developed a sex drive. Now, watching the new episodes, there are an average of about five ‘Amy is frustrated’ or ‘Sheldon doesn’t understand sex’ jokes every episode.

Asexuality isn’t being represented as a liveable life choice. It’s being represented as a joke. And in an episode that hasn’t aired in the UK yet, the couple kiss. Now, I haven’t seen this episode yet, but I really hope that it isn’t going to be the case that Sheldon finally understands Amy’s nagging and gives in to placate her. If it’s the case that Sheldon develops his own desire to have physical contact, then that’s not quite as bad. But I still don’t see why these characters need to have a sexual relationship to be ‘normal’.

EDIT: Never mind. Big Bang sucks.

Let me know what you think. Are there any asexual characters that I’ve missed off? Is there a decent depiction out there? I’d love to find any other adaptions.

EDIT:

Shortly after writing this blog post, I came across this tumblr post about the tv show Sirens which includes a female asexual character. This hasn’t come over to the UK yet, but I’m really hoping it does as it appears to go against everything that I’ve written about in the post as it includes a female asexual character, whose asexuality isn’t linked to any social disorder. If you have access to it, go check it out and let me know if it’s as good as it seems.