[ SECRET POST #2601 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2601 ⌋

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: 04 pages, 098 secrets from Secret Submission Post #372.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

13. http://i.imgur.com/9FonckD.png

[(Anonymous)]

Apparently he couldn't help your secret design skills. I can't read most of this

[(Anonymous)]

I lol'd (sorry OP).

[diet_poison]

I can read it, but I agree that it's pretty awfully designed.

[(Anonymous)]

Lord, yes. I was so glad that I read your comment before I tried to read the secret. Much, much funnier that way.

[dreemyweird]

Aw, I'm glad you feel better about yourself, anon! As a fellow asexual, I can sort of sympathize (I've never gone through any identity struggles, but it always comforts me to see asexual characters who are fine with who they are).

That being said, IDK about Sherlock. I see canon!Holmes as an asexual aromantic (as much as these terms could apply to a fictional Victorian), but Sherlock sounds straight to me. One of the facts I'm very bitter about, tbh. It's a blatant simplification of his character and just overall a stupid and unnecessary move.

Warning for possible spoilers season 3

[(Anonymous)]

Not trying to be a smart-arse but I don't get what you mean by 'sounds straight'? Do you mean you haven't seen the show but are judging from what you've heard about the show and his character?

or do you mean because of his interactions with women like Irene, Molly and Vanessa (Is that right? Can't remember her name and can't be bothered looking it up, sorry).

All his romantic interactions with women have had a an ulterior motives. Sherlolly, Sherlock/Irene and even Sherlock/Vanessa (or whatever her name is) shippers certainly have room for interpretations that support their ship/s. But Sherlock himself has declared he has no interest in sex or sexual relationships and said that women aren't his area.

It's implied that he may be a virgin or at least that his brother has never known him to be in a sexual relationship.

Obviously this isn't proof that he's supposed to be asexual but I'd certainly think it means that declaring him clearly straight and sexual would be a huge simplification of what's been presented in the show.

Re: Warning for possible spoilers season 3

[dreemyweird]

Oh no, I have seen every episode, and I actually enjoy it (for most part). It's a nice piece of TV, really, even though the plots are kind of stupid at times and Sherlock has approximately nothing in common with his Canon counterpart. My only serious complaints would be the portrayals of Irene Adler and Moriarty.

It is true that he is consistently shown as not having much interest in romantic relationships at all, and it is true he has never been in a proper romantic/sexual relationship on-screen. If I were one of those folks who only watch the show itself and do not care what the creators say, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. Sherlock's on-screen interactions are more complex than they would've been if he were just your average straight guy.

However, I tend to pay much attention to the authorial intent behind works of fiction, and I know (see rubbertea's post, for example) that the creators of Sherlock do not consider him an asexual; that they do consider Adler to be a love interest; and that they most certainly do not see him as bi or gay (which I would've objected to with just as much bitterness as to his being straight, btw). This utterly prevents me from interpreting Sherlock as asexual or seeing his relationships with women as "complex".

I just worded that post badly. Sorry.

Transcription

[rubbertea]

Transcription of the secret for people with non-laser eyes:

I've always seen people go on about how Sherlock Holmes had helped them become more content in their asexuality.
But I didn't believe it. There was no way that one man, one silly fictional icon could help me understand myself.
I am happy to say that I was wrong about this. Ever since I finally watched Sherlock, I've been more confident and positive in my asexuality than I've ever been before. This work gave me hope. Not a hope that I would find "My own Sherlock", or anything like that but it gave me proof that it is an intelligent, fulfilled human being who is so sure of who he is and so uncaring of how others label. I owe my current sanity to this character.

edit: added subject so ppl who are looking for a transcript find it

Re: Transcription

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you so much! Wow. That is actually a beautiful secret. I'm so glad you did this, because I was genuinely doing to skip trying :)

Re: Transcription

[rubbertea]

You're welcome, anon!

Re: Transcription

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you!

Where's the chap on your avatar from, btw? I'm feeling a need for some period drama.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm really glad that Sherlock helped you be more comfortable with who you are OP, but I don't think Moffat and the writers believe Sherlock is asexual in the slightest? At least from what I've read and recall.

[(Anonymous)]

Please elaborate.

[(Anonymous)]

na

They certainly seem to like to imply it in the show, but then go word of god in interviews with statements equating to 'he's just a bloke, even if he's obsessed with other things'.

I'm sure someone else will come along with quotes.

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty much. Moffat's already said that he finds the idea of asexuality boring, so I sincerely doubt that in his mind Sherlock is asexual (even if we haven't actually seen a sexual side of him yet).

[(Anonymous)]

I'm glad you found something that helped you, OP.

Personally, I never got that kind of comfort from BBC Sherlock. Canon Holmes, yes, because canon Holmes just cheerfully did his own thing and seemed to find Watson's hopes of his finding romance no more than vaguely amusing. BBC Sherlock, though, kind of struck me as belligerant in the opposite direction? He seems to go out of his way to mock or belittle people for their romantic/sexual hopes or illusions. I know he seems to do that just generally, but it always gave me the impression that he was less confident in who he was and more smugly sure that everyone else was being led around like idiots by their emotions/libido. It didn't even feel like it was about sexuality, more about how his lack of care for/attraction to others made him coldly superior in his own mind.

I can do without that element of mockery in my heroes. I'd rather find someone who was simply confident in their own sexuality than one who seemed to delight in putting other people down for theirs, if that makes sense?

(Also, I only watched S1/S2, gave up after that. Maybe he got better in S3?)

[(Anonymous)]

seems to go out of his way to mock or belittle people for their romantic/sexual hopes or illusions.

This would be because they have decided that BBC Sherlock is a psychopath. So.

[(Anonymous)]

(He pretends to have a relationship and supports Mary/John, so technically?)

Well, OP

[(Anonymous)]

I hate to tell you this, OP, but your last sentence actually sounds like the description of a normal human being, not an "asexual."

Just because you're not as obsessed by all the sexual imagery, concepts and general perspective/perception that the mainstream media/movies/books likes to peddle/shove in our faces 24/7/365, that doesn't make you extraordinary, nor even different from the vast majority of humanity, for not having the same outlook.

What it does mean is that the mainstream media/movies/books are very unbalanced and overly obsessive with/towards sex/sexuality/sexualization of children (real big NO for me right there), which is, IMO, extremely unhealthy.

The thing is, the attitude is so utterly pervasive, especially with the Internet ramping it up even more, that it makes people who are not as sex-obsessed as the media tells us we should be (if you listen to/are influenced by the media in the first place, that is), feel as though they have something lacking, which is only reinforced, by those who ARE influenced towards having that perspective.

TL;DR: OP, did you ever consider the fact that you might just have a healthy, normal, attitude towards sex, and it's the media/the Internet that is screwed up?

Re: Well, OP

[littlestbirds]

the last sentence of this secret is "I owe my current sanity to this character" so where did you get all this insight exactly?
Using this secret as an excuse to go on your "asexuality isn't real" rant is kind of an asshole move, you know.

Re: Well, OP

[(Anonymous)]

Ah yes, because you know so much more about OP from their secret than they know about themselves from living their entire life. Rude.
Don't worry OP, asexuality is real and if you identify as such there are plenty of people who will be supportive of you, even though there will be people like this^ who will try to 'talk you out' of your sexuality. They can't believe sexuality is real or for some reason think that people who identify as asexual are just trying to be 'different' or 'special' rather than describing their own legitimate experiences. They're no good for your mental/emotional health, it's best to ignore them.
I'm glad you found something that put you at peace with your identity. There aren't that many, if any, asexual role models in the media, and the characters who don't have sex/romantic relationships are usually portrayed as 'bad' or 'defective' in some way, so I get that just seeing a character who could be asexual who's NOT a complete mess could be comforting. My favourite author, Alastair Reynolds, writes hard sci-fi, and he doesn't often feature romantic relationships and even less often does he focus on them, and I interpret a good number of his characters as asexual to give myself a bit of 'representation'. I wish I could recommend something else to you but the only book I've read that has an explicitly asexual character (The Bone People) is garbage.

Re: Well, OP

[diet_poison]

what

sexual people can be sexual people without being "obsessed" with sexual imagery/media, and I'm pretty sure not being "obsessed" isn't what makes you asexual

that's...not even close to what that means

your last sentence is especially skeevy

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah? Well get ready for Moffat to change all that in 5..4..3..2..1

[(Anonymous)]

Long long before I had any idea that asexual was a thing or that there were other people like that out there or that it even had a name, I used to describe myself as "just not interested, like Sherlock Holmes".
The BBC's Sherlock, as much as the creators try to insist that their Holmes isn't ace, owes far too much to Doyle's character for him to not come across as ace.