If you haven’t seen Cole Sprouse’s responses to questions in his recent AMA, you might have also missed some of the commentary from fans of the series who feel dissatisfied with his answers about the character Jughead, who he plays in the series Riverdale.

When so many of the last Archie issues have given a frame of reference and obvious definition to Jughead’s asexuality, Cole Sprouse’s comments about this in the AMA are vague at best, disappointing at worse. He dances around the question of asexuality, justifying it to himself in the way hollywood-ites often do — it’s not the right time, the context of the adaptation changes the way the characters have shifted, that “Riverdale is a new universe” and storylines need to adapt to television. Even Cole’s comments that “as an actor (he) can only lend so much” is dubious when white actors usually have no issue co-opting stories outside their experience to deny more marginalized actors film parts and roles.

The lack of explicitly and openly asexual characters in the media means that the need for these stories on TV is even more urgent, given the kind of self-worth issues that so many asexual teens face, and it even makes this seem like this was a purposeful erasure. When the opportunity to so clearly outline asexuality on-screen, or to offer an example of aromantic life is given so precisely, choosing to avoid that path in the adaptation can have harmful consequences.

This avoidance is made so clear when Cole commented in the AMA that “Betty and Jughead's coupling are a great example of such an informed decision (to update the character.)” – which sounds a lot like saying “we made the mindful decision of erasing the character’s queerness so it could be more relatable to straight, non-asexual viewers.” In the comics, Jughead’s asexuality has essentially become “canon” – a term used to refer to the legitimacy of events/characteristics within the main universe endorsed, and verified by the creator of that universe. So why is Jughead’s depiction, and specifically Cole Sprouse’s take on Jughead, inadequate? Throughout the majority of Archie's run, he has been fiercely vocal about not liking woman, not having crushes, not being 'a romantic', or not “liking other people in that way.” This isn’t just an offhandedly referenced part of his personality – it defines the way he engages with others and seeks relationships in general, and is part of his appeal as a character.

“Allosexual” is a term frequently used in asexual circles to define someone who is not asexual. The discrimination against asexual people may be different from the specific discrimination allosexual LGBTQ people face, but similar structures dehumanize them and affect their self-esteem, social mobility and community acceptance. Asexual people are still treated as “not human” because they do not satisfy the requirements of “normal people”, which is to say, valuing others based on their sexual attractiveness. This whole frame of reference is missing in Cole Sprouse’s portrayal of Jughead. When Sprouse inferred in the AMA that sexual alignment/lack of it is irrelevant because he is just “human” is dangerously close to equating humanity with allosexuality, and dismissing any other sexual identities.

While there is already conversation and acceptance surrounding many forms of relationships — open ones, queer ones, and even the nuance of pansexuality — the range of asexuality is still not very well understood by the general public. This may be because what asexuality truly refers to is not clear to some people. And to a good deal of people, they still subscribe to a belief that the options are either (a) a relationship or (b) the absence of a relationship. We don’t have a language for the more complicated reasons we might not seek out certain partnerships or encounters.