[ SECRET POST #1998 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1998 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Peter Gabriel]


__________________________________________________













[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]












10. [SPOILERS for the Hunger Games]



__________________________________________________













[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]













11. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for rape]

[Hetalia]


__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for gore, animal abuse]
http://i.imgur.com/SjfD3.jpg
[images of actual dead animals and stuff.]



__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for rape]

[Video Games Awesome Live]


__________________________________________________



16. [WARNING for abuse]

[Avatar: the Last Airbender]


__________________________________________________



17. [WARNING for rape]

[American Horror Story]


__________________________________________________



18. [WARNING for dub-con, grooming, brainwashing]



__________________________________________________



19. [WARNING FOR general discussion of triggery topics (there's bound to be triggering material in the comments)]


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #285.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 (warning for rape) - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's not a done deal that Sherlock Holmes is asexual in ACD canon. This isn't an attack on you or on asexuality, but it was never explicitly started that Holmes was asexual, so it's not ridiculous that other people would interpret the character differently.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I'm pretty sure it's not confirmed in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's version, either. It's just that Holmes is misogynistic, thinking women are unintelligent, weak, and easy to alarm, and doesn't have time for "the fairer sex". His opinion of Irene Adler could be considered attraction.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pretty sure it's not confirmed in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's version, either.

Psst. That's the version I'm talking about. :)

I don't know if it's actual canon in any other version, either, although it would be a perfectly valid interpretation if it were. I think I read somewhere that Benedict Cumberbatch considered the Sherlock version of Sherlock asexual, but his is not the only opinion that matters with regards to the show and I don't what Moffat and Gatiss prefer for the character (if they even care). There are multiple ways to interpret Holmes' behavior and yeah, which one you prefer may have a lot to do with your own experiences. That means these interpretations are valid, but not unbiased or Absolute Truth.

[(Anonymous)]

Jeremy Brett played Holmes as bisexual. He flirts with Watson in several key scenes. There are many ways to interpret Doyle's text.

[fenm]

Does he portray Holmes as being attracted to any women, though? I do;t recall that happening, though that could be selective memory

[fenm]

Steven Moffat has stated that Sherlock's not asexual, but his reasoning is so stupid ("asexuals are boring to write for"), I pretty much disregard it.

Benedict Cumberbatch's views of asexuality are even more ridiculous. The way he talks about it, it's like something you turn off and on. Namely, he said [pre-S2] that Sherlock was asexual because he got burned by a woman, then recently he said Sherlock stopped being asexual when he met Irene... yeah, that's not how it works.

When one of them expresses a view about asexuality that suggests they actually understand what the fuck it even IS, I'll care. Until then, I just watch show and base my views about the characters from that.

[(Anonymous)]

lol specialest of snowflakes! you're a dick.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS!

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, Jesus, I can't do anything involving words today. I thought you were talking about one of the television versions I haven't seen.

[(Anonymous)]

S'okay!

[(Anonymous)]

Like the Doctor [Who], who in many ways was modelled on Holmes.

Look at what more recent interpretations did, and I'd say a lot of that was down to modernity.

[(Anonymous)]

asexuality was not a thing in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.

so no, it's absolutely not a done deal that holmes was asexual in the original canon.

[lielac]

Yeah it was a thing. It was a nameless thing, but it was something humans could be because I seriously doubt humans only started being capable of being asexual in the last less-than-hundred years. Just because something doesn't have a name doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things are given names because someone realizes this thing needs a term to tie a definition to, the name doesn't create what it's connected to.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, but your knowledge of cultural anthropology is severely lacking if you think such absolutist statements as the ones you've made here are really how it works. People absolutely do look to established cultural patterns to try and figure out who they are; they don't work out who they are in a vacuum and say "Well, if there's an existing identity that matches me in every detail, I'll accept it; otherwise I'll create a new category for myself!"

Now, your point that frequently the phenomenon exists long before the words to describe it is well-taken. But you can't do as OP did and say "The fictional character Sherlock Holmes absolutely without question belongs to this category of 'asexuality' that was only recognized long after Holmes' creator had died." There is simply no way to be that sure that what Doyle had in mind back then falls within the circles as we draw them more than a century later.

[(Anonymous)]

It was probably included under "celibate" or "confirmed bachelor". Was there a distinct term for not having an interest in sex? No. Did a lack of interest in sex exist? Yes.

[(Anonymous)]

Ever heard of monks? I'm pretty sure a lot of them were asexual.

NAH

[(Anonymous)]

PEDERASTS AND PEDOPHILES. You might want to look up residential schools, fool.

Re: NAH

[wauwy]

Monks, seriously? They have hardly any access to young boys and girls. Most of them I've known are clearly gay, yes, but gay =/= pedophile.

Priests, on the other hand...

[(Anonymous)]

More politely than the above anon, but how on earth do you know? Monks were celibate (or suposed to be) but the literature is full of stories of temptations and falls from grace.

[(Anonymous)]

There were/are a lot of different reasons for entering the priesthood or a monastic order.

There could be pure religious devotion (and I'm sure there was more than a little "My devotion is greater than yours because I gave up something [sex] I actually want" going on).

There was the whole "You are the youngest son and as such you inherit nothing and we can't afford to get you started in a trade. Go be a monk or something, I guess?"

Depending on the situation, a woman could actually have had more autonomy as a nun than if she married, so I can see why it would be an appealing choice, even if it meant no sex or children.

Meanwhile, there would have been plenty of people with no interest in sex who had to have it anyway because they had to produce an heir or please their husband or otherwise do their duty.

[(Anonymous)]

+100500

[luxshine]

This. Not only that, ACD explicitly said he didn't care what people did or thought about his creation. He gave permission to do whatever they wanted in adaptations. So I think that that means that he wouldn't care if we write him gay.

(Also, as a reader, I never got him as asexual in ACD's version. More like a general misantropist)

[(Anonymous)]

Just letting you know that your icon is amazing.

[luxshine]

Thanks :) I still have hopes that if WB decides to do the americanized Death Note movie... it will be before Efron is too old to play Kira.

[kelincihutan]

Agree. Reading Holmes as asexual is a perfectly valid and legit interpretation. But it's not hard-and-fast, and it's certainly not the last word on the subject.