Okay, here’s the thing.
Back in the day, the BBC had a bit of a problem with the idea of the Doctor being romantic with his companions. They made up an actual official rule stating “no hanky-panky in the TARDIS”. Some writers ran with it and intentionally wrote the Doctor as asexual — in some cases citing his Time Lord heritage as the reason, others making his orientation part of his character.
Some other writers (and actors) didn’t care for the idea at all, and portrayed the Doctor as someone who’s not at all averse to getting physical with his friends. This idea especially took hold when Paul McGann was cast in the part and, after those first couple of snogs with Grace, he spent much of his time in the novels kissing (and being kissed by) everyone under the sun.
So the short answer is, it depends on the writer. And even then, it depends on when the story is written, since writers are just regular people who can change their minds over time. For example, Paul Cornell explicitly used the word “asexual” when describing his Shalka Doctor — and can also talk your head off at conventions nowadays about how much he loves the idea of the Doctor and the Master doin’ it.
Marc Platt rather infamously came up with the looms, as a way for Gallifreyans to reproduce without the BBC getting all angry about it. What a lot of people don’t realise is that looms and sex are in no way mutually exclusive. Looms were created because the Time Lords were cursed to be infertile. Infertility led to a distaste for the physical, the biological. But when Lance Parkin writes about looms, he also writes about illegal brothels in the Citadel lowtown; when Lawrence Miles discusses looms, he elaborates on how the War eventually forced the Great Houses to re-evaluate their stance on natural reproduction and to create biological children again, the old-fashioned way. Much of Who lore points to Time Lords being culturally asexual
instead of
innately, and simply really, really out of touch with physical pleasure.
We’ve seen plenty of characters with Gallifreyan genes — Iris Wildthyme, Robert Scarratt,
River Song — who are intensely sexual. We’ve seen the Doctor being
emotionally
attracted to his companions, and perhaps romantically or physically as well. For the moment, no, we don’t know if he’s asexual or not. We don’t know if he’s aromantic or not. It’s all still left for the fans to interpret. And if he’s ever revealed to be one thing or another, we will always have the freedom to say: but that’s only in this regeneration, or in these circumstances, or in this timeline for these reasons.
So, yes, I believe the Doctor can be seen as asexual and there’s nothing in canon to contradict that. I also believe that the Doctor can be seen as pansexual, panromantic, polyamorous and a little bit in love with just about everyone he meets, and there’s nothing in canon to contradict that either.
Because in the end, that’s what Doctor Who is about — it’s a series so malleable that no matter what happens, everyone can see aspects of themselves reflected and represented by the characters. And the show will never stop changing. And it’s all good.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1nNtrW8