[ SECRET POST #2080 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2080 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #297.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 4 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT

[(Anonymous)]

I think the only thing I can say on this subject is that the quotation of "lesbian" is a bit indicative of the feeling on lesbians who find themselves in sexual situations with men, or in a romantic situation with a man. Lesbian can be both a sexuality and a political identifier in the context of feminism, but I don't believe Irene is being political here. Above all, she is a sex worker and a part of her living is being available to her clients, whether they are male or female. Furthermore, she doesn't have to have sex with the men or the women, so I just kind of feel that we don't really know who she has sex with or not.

Being a person who is not that romantic and not that sexual, I don't know what attraction means to most people or what the 'true nature' of it is. Does anyone, really? Even the people who experience it 'normally'? Irene and Sherlock are certainly not examples of people with socially acceptable feelings, pastimes or thoughts. Their relation to these aspects of themselves might be very different than what is considered healthy or normal. Again, the sort of budding interest/attraction she had may not conquer the need for survival. It rarely does. But this largely comes down to a person's definition of attraction/love/lust and so I find it hard to really define what it was versus what it could have been. People have very different definitions of love, there are those who say that if a person is in love, they will never fall out of it and if they do, it's not really love. Some say that love can be a strong feeling, but not all-important or capable of conquering human necessity. Attraction, though, interest, can be very powerful for the easily bored and can take a relatively short amount of time. All I know is that Irene admitted freely that she felt something for him that went deeper than a predator instinct and that her body betrayed her interest, whatever it was. Again, though, this is my opinion and you have stated yours… and so, opinions are very hard to argue with, considering the variety of the schools of thought on this subject. There's not really one study to point to that can prove or disprove this, given that we don't really know Irene's thought process.

The power is in John not addressing it, I think. Silence says a lot. And as far as the character development, he does not correct the inn-keeper in Baskerville. Of course, he may not have wanted to get into it, but I don't believe we see him justify himself to another person after that, aside from the indignant, "Bachelor!" comment in Reichenbach. It seems like a small thing, but it's a deviation from the compulsive corrections he makes earlier on. So I do believe there is a bit of development on John's part.

I do believe that John's silence shows fluidity in a man who is highly uncomfortable with himself and unconscious, until that point, of how he might deviate from the standards of strict heterosexuality. It's all in Freeman's performance, though, not quite the writing, which is why I judge the final product and not the creators as much. I believe it takes on a life of its own due to the actor's interpretation and Martin, thus far, I believe has been very open to the interpretations of Sherlock and John's relationship. Much more so than others on the show.

Over all, I'd say that most of this comes down to how a person views the character's motivations, which cannot really be confirmed or denied until all sources (creators, actors, editors) are consulted. I would not say Moffat is well-informed of the issues at hand and addresses them shoddily at times and I'm not saying Gatiss is innocent of this either. Gay men do not inherently free themselves of potential prejudice, even though they are more able to speak of gay issues/struggles/feelings more accurately than an ally or outsider. But I would say the episode itself was far more interesting than maybe it was intended to be and it can be empowering to some rather than a shameful representation.

I am in the US and… ugh, ugh, UGH, THIS. THIS ALL OVER. I JUST WANT THEM TO BE OVER. PLEASE MAKE THIS ALL STOP. POLITICAL PARTIES ARE THE WORST PARTIES.

Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT

[fenm]

I think the only thing I can say on this subject is that the quotation of "lesbian" is a bit indicative of the feeling on lesbians who find themselves in sexual situations with men, or in a romantic situation with a man.

The quotes are because I'm talking about fictional lesbians, who are only really with women to give men spank material. Real life is much more complicated.

The power is in John not addressing it, I think.

I'm talking about the fact that the show refuses to address is, actually.

And as far as the character development, he does not correct the inn-keeper in Baskerville.

Yes, he does, actually. And he starts to a second time later on.

I believe it takes on a life of its own due to the actor's interpretation

And the fact that the actor has to "interpret" it is the problem. I'm sick of this "open to interpretation", subtext, bromance-y bullshit. Why is it that, in 20-fucking-12, we can't just have them be a openly, obvious, TEXTUAL goddamn gay couple already?!

Re: TL;DR POST ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY UNIMPORTANT

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I just see a little more to Irene's sexuality than spank material, considering I do think she's a rather complicated character. Again, I think this is more in what we don't see/what is implied rather than what we explicitly see, because we see the results of her actions more than her actions in the episode.

The show still has episodes yet, I do hope they will address this further though, considering it was a really nice little spark. I hope it becomes more of conversation, but like you, I don't have any high hopes. This stuff is what keeps it from falling into the procedural show formula, in my opinion.

He starts to correct the inn-keeper but has a moment where you can just see him go, 'Screw it', and leave it at that. It's a bit of a change from his arm-waving, "NOT GAY!", response.

Amen. I mean, there are some representations of GLBTQ people as main characters on shows, but I don't think they're necessarily awesome or enough. The characters are never really fleshed out to the extent of straight characters and their sexuality is a HUGE DEAL to their character usually. I don't know that I necessarily want to see Sherlock and John 'together' in a traditional sense, considering I don't think either of them are that good at being normal in this regard. But I wouldn't mind if, hey, the attraction became text or apparent. Or there was some real tension without it being deflated by humor. That would be very nice and I wouldn't mind one character expressing what they feel. I'm just a person who is not a romantic/relationship oriented person and I guess I have some desires to see my sexuality/romantic inclinations depicted on a show as well, haha! As any person, does, really. It's just kind of like, "OH COME ONNNN" as Sherlock is so... possibly many things, regarding his sexuality/romantic identification. I want to see more thiiiiings.