fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3015 ]

[ SECRET POST #3015 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3015 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Puzzle & Dragons (Japanese Mobile Phone game)]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Thunderbirds]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Avenged Sevenfold]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Umineko no Naku Koro ni]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Donald Tusk, President Of The European Council)

__________________________________________________

07.

[The Hobbit]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Nicholas Lea]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Vocaloid]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Grimm/Angel]

__________________________________________________

11.

(the Tale of the Princess Kaguya)

__________________________________________________

12.

[Jimmy Carr and Sarah Millican]

__________________________________________________

13.

[The Phantom of the Opera]

__________________________________________________

14.

[How to get away with murder/Liza Weil]

__________________________________________________

15.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

16.

[Inazuma Eleven]

__________________________________________________

17.

(Aiden Turner in Poldark)

__________________________________________________

18.

[Star Trek: Into Darkness]

__________________________________________________

19.

[Nathan Fillion]

__________________________________________________

20.

[Harry Potter]

__________________________________________________

21.

[Sherlock]

__________________________________________________

22.

[MCU/The Avengers (film series)]

__________________________________________________

23.

[Gillian Anderson]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 106 secrets from Secret Submission Post #431.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Going through every excuse imaginable to claim Moffat doesn't know his character's sexuality or behaviors, from lack of knowledge to understanding, is pretty dickish if you ask me.

Going through every excuse imaginable to claim Moffat doesn't know his character's sexuality or behaviors, from lack of knowledge to understanding, is pretty dickish if you ask me.

Anon, you're fighting straw claims. I've said Moffat is not well-informed about asexuality. The other claim I've made is that if a writer doesn't know about X, they can write a character who is X, and not realize it, because they do not know about X. For instance, you can write about a character who thinks they are fat and deliberately starves themselves, without knowing that anorexia is a thing.

The author would certainly know their character's behavior, but if someone asked "Does Kyla have an eating disorder?" the author might answer no, because they don't really know what that is.

You have yet to offer a rebuttal of that argument.

Edited 2015-04-07 00:06 (UTC)

And you haven't explained how you simply know beyond any doubt that Moffat just doesn't know a thing about asexuality.

I haven't argued that Moffat doesn't know anything about asexuality. I've argued that he's poorly informed about asexuality. And I have explained upthread how those who are familiar with asexuality can tell that Moffat is poorly informed on asexuality.

There are several things Moffat has said that shows his lack of knowledge, but I've mentioned one here: http://fandomsecrets.dreamwidth.org/1192716.html?thread=827642636#cmt827642636

No, those things show that your decree of how asexuality should be depicted doesn't match his.

It's not the same thing.

And you're really not speaking for all asexuals either, so don't even try.

And you're really not speaking for all asexuals either, so don't even try.

Of course I'm not.

However, I have literally never seen an asexual argue that asexuals cannot marry. If you have any links or evidence you could share that suggest that some asexuals believe that asexuals are incapable of marriage, I would be grateful if you shared them.

Edited 2015-04-07 00:21 (UTC)

Are you genuinely taking that marriage comment out of the "There's no guarantee that he'll stay that way in the end – maybe he marries Mrs Hudson. I don't know!" line?

Oh, honey... was that sense of humor bypass you had painful?

When Moffat's talking about Sherlock possibly marrying, he's not qualifying the asexuality issue, he's qualifying the abstinance issue.

As in, he might not abstain forever. That quote clearly delineates between choosing to abstain (because women and relationships are a distraction from Sherlock's main focus, his work) and being asexual.

It was also meant to be a joke, which seems to have passed you by somewhat.

As in, he might not abstain forever. That quote clearly delineates between choosing to abstain (because women and relationships are a distraction from Sherlock's main focus, his work) and being asexual.

Yes, and according to Moffat, that tension [of whether he will remain without relationships or enter a relationship] doesn't exist for an asexual character--as if asexuals cannot abstain from relationships and then give up their abstinence.

It was also meant to be a joke, which seems to have passed you by somewhat.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I missed that the comment was made lightheartedly. A joke playing on ignorance is still a display of ignorance.

But how did Moffat and Gatiss solve the most vexing mystery, Sherlock's sex life? "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."

Moffat is not saying that Sherlock, like Austin Powers, misplaced his mojo. "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!"

Emphasis mine. He's talking specifically about sex, not exclusively about relationships.

Emphasis mine. He's talking specifically about sex, not exclusively about relationships.

I don't think you can conclusively argue that. For one thing, this statement indicates otherwise: "He actually says he declines the attention of women because he doesn't want the distraction."

Moffat said "declines the attention of women" not "declines sex".

I think that would indicate he doesn't want the distraction of a relationship, which is notoriously a lot of work. How would having sex be distracting? I would think it would be more distracting to live with sexual frustration, rather than having no-relationship sex once in a while.

If women were just trying to get him in bed once in a while, that wouldn't be significantly distracting. You can easily tell a FWB you're unavailable for sex. You can't easily tell a girlfriend you have no time for her whatsoever, sorry, there's a case.

Edited 2015-04-07 01:20 (UTC)

So now your argument is reduced to semantic nitpicking (and "attention of women" is a perfectly understandable British euphemism for sexual relations, btw) and assumptions about a character you've said yourself you haven't even paid attention to based solely on how you'd feel about a certain thing ("well I'd imagine relationships were more distracting, therefore everyone must feel that relationships would be more distracting!") and even more blanket generalizations.

Okay then.

based solely on how you'd feel about a certain thing ("well I'd imagine relationships were more distracting, therefore everyone must feel that relationships would be more distracting!")

Nah, there's hard data out there on how much time people put into platonic, romantic and sexual relationships. Some studies even break it down really specifically by action ("on average women spend X amount of hours per week communicating with partners") etc.

Edited 2015-04-07 01:39 (UTC)

Have you ever had one of those arguments where you took a position and halfway through you realized just how ridiculous it was, but you'd already invested all this time in the conversation to it, and you just kept having to find more and more pedantic shit to keep even a half-foothold with your argument, and you're getting more and more tired and exhausted but you just can't back off, so in your dizzy and exhausted state you just become more and more of an asshole trying to split hair after hair in your argument?

I think that's Blitz's thing.

I think that's Blitz's thing.

Nah, that's not my issue. The nonnies in the other post had it right: I'm an arrogant person who can easily fall into acting condescending and pompous. I've noticed several times on here people have mentioned that they think I am right, or they agree with me, but that I'm so smug in the way I state my arguments that it disgusts them.

Or that, I guess.

No, people don't think you're right or a decent person.

You're the only one who thinks those things.

Your arguments, just like your abhorrently unpleasant personality, are deeply flawed.

No, people don't think you're right or a decent person.

Nice try anon. Unfortunately for you, the evidence is all over the place on this comm--I could link you to multiple comments where people have said variations of "you're right but your attitude is awful".

In other words, you've made an argument without providing any evidence to back it up, in an attempt to counter a statement that has plenty of evidence readily available in support of it.

And your evidence is... where? In a single quote you misinterpreted and based your whole argument upon.

And your evidence is... where? In a single quote you misinterpreted and based your whole argument upon.

Nope, the evidence is in almost every single conversation I've been in in the last week, someone has said something along those lines. Surely you've read those conversations, since you're speaking authoritatively about what people think about me, and what they have and have not said about me.

A sweet nonny like you wouldn't let a girl down by making silly baseless assumptions, would they?

Believe it or not, the whole world doesn't hang on your every word and reads your every comment. This is the only thread where you've been involved that I've read in a very long time. I tend to avoid your name like the plague. Actually no, scratch that, I think the plague would be more enjoyable than anything involving you.

Or do you think that only people who somehow have it in for you will argue with you?

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-04-07 21:48 (UTC) - Expand

Yep.

Living with sexual frustration really isn't all that distracting. Hell, for a lot of people, having a fuck buddy is way more distracting than just masturbating.

A lot of your argument centers around people talking about things they don't know a lot about. It's clear you don't know a lot about what it feels like to be sexual, so please don't make assumptions about it.

It's clear you don't know a lot about what it feels like to be sexual

And what makes you think that? Have we met in a crowded bar before, nonny?

From your earlier comment- "If he was asexual..."

If he was asexual.
IF he was asexual.

Implying that he is not, as 'if' is most often used as a word of speculation in this kind of structure.

He's not asexual and Moffat said that. You're the one fighting straw claims. It sounds like you're just nitpicking because Moffat didn't say "OKAY GAIZ HE'S TOTES NOT ASEXUAL THERE I SAID IT BOLD AS BRASS!".

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only