This is not my main blog, but only one of three blogs. The other two are my ancient HPoA blog on Wordpress (, and my main blog on Dreamwidth, which I've only ever made one post to and is still under construction.

Tune in later for more info. :)

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Oh my god why does no one understand this? Sherlock is not a gay postive show








The closest thing in Sherlock to queer representation was Irene Alder who said she was gay and then fell in love with Sherlock. (make of that what you will.)

The whole show is about two heterosexual men. And one of those men, Watson, spends about half an hour each episode telling everyone ever that he and Sherlock are not a couple.

That is not gay representation.

I repeat: that is not gay representation.

And fuck you if you think that is representation.

A show having a large slash fandom does not count as representation.

I’m sure there a many legitimate criticisms of Elementary, but accusing the show of being homophobic because Watson is played a women is not one of them.

I cannot say this enough times: Sherlock is not a gay positive show.

Sherlock is not a progressive show in terms of representation. It is about two white cis heterosexual men solving crimes.

The fact that Elementary has a women of color as a main character pretty much already makes it more progressive than Sherlock. 

And furthermore if you watch Elementary you are under no obligation to ship Sherlock/Watson. I’m sure that there will be at least one other dude you can find. 

And listen, Sherlock is a good show and Elementary existing  is not gonna change that. You are under no obligation to watch it. You are under no obligation to even acknowledge it.

Agreed, except for this part:  ”two white cis heterosexual men”.  I don’t think that you can necessarily say that with complete certainty.  Sherlock is disinterested in all genders; he’s more blatantly asexual in the pilot vs. ASiP, but assuming that disinterest = heterosexuality is wrong/incorrect.  John is the only one to deny that he’s gay; Sherlock never comments on his sexuality except to claim that he’s “married to his work”.  

I agree with the rest of this post and don’t want to take away from the excellent message in any way by being nitpicky.  I just think it’s something that we shouldn’t make assumptions about (though I know that most people IRL assume that a person is heterosexual until proven otherwise), especially since it is something that HAS been explored to some extent in the context of the show. 

Okay sorry to blog about this again. But I want to be really clear. I say this is a show about to cis  heterosexual white men because it is.

I would really, really like it is Sherlock was asexual on the show cannon but he isn’t. And it sucks that he isn’t because holy fuck does the media need more asexual representation.

Here’s a quote from Moffat:

“There’s no indication in the original stories that he was asexual or gay. He actually says he declines the attention of women because he doesn’t want the distraction. What does that tell you about him? Straightforward deduction. He wouldn’t be living with a man if he thought men were interesting…..It’s the choice of a monk, not the choice of an asexual. If he was asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that – it’s someone who abstains who’s interesting. There’s no guarantee that he’ll stay that way in the end – maybe he marries Mrs Hudson. I don’t know!”

Just popping in to say that Moffat has quotes coming out of HIS EARS. Seriously, we have quotes from the entire cast and crew, many that contradict each other, many from the same person (like Moffat) that contradict each other.

I don’t think one quote saying he’s not, when there are quotes saying he is, is actual proof anymore. ‘least, not credible. I’m not going to take one quote over another - let’s just say it’s up in the air over Sherlock’s sexual orientation.

Reblogging for commentary

(Source: rachaelrosens)

Saturday, January 21, 2012



Let’s talk about asexuality, the BBC’s Sherlock, and today’s interview with Steven Moffat*.

*In a totally, completely non-ad-hominem kind of way, because that doesn’t get anybody anywhere.

Read More

This is great. I especially like this part:

“Because if you’re asexual, you’ve ‘misplaced your mojo.’  Like, oops.  Put that down somewhere and forgot about it.  It’s just a mistake.  Mislaid something essential”

I don’t like feeling like I’m missing some essential part of being human, yet things tend to remind me that I am all the time. 

I know what you mean. But just remember, there is nothing essential to being human about feeling sexually attracted to anyone or wanting to have sex. Sex isn’t important to everyone. Full stop. 

There needs to be a letter-writing campaign: tell the BBC to keep Sherlock ace!


Let’s talk about asexuality, the BBC’s Sherlock, and today’s interview with Steven Moffat*.

*In a totally, completely non-ad-hominem kind of way, because that doesn’t get anybody anywhere.

Read More

Saturday, January 7, 2012
Attempted Danger: On Irene and Sherlock in "Scandal"


If I were someone less invested in Sherlock’s asexual identity and more inclined toward making boring assumptions about fictional characters’ feelings toward other characters (ie: everything they do is motivated by the desire to fuck or romance or romantically fuck) then I might despair over this…

This is awesome commentary, …and I haven’t even seen the episode yet! :D I’m amazed that Moffat and Gattis apparently have such a deep understanding of asexuality and aromanticism, and other forms of attraction, love, and relationship between people. I can hardly wait to see this season’s episodes.

Monday, November 7, 2011




(Source: lurlonde)

Friday, August 26, 2011
Powered by Tumblr. Lightie Futurum designed by Pavia Graphics.