Sherlock Holmes is NOT Asexual

[timidcat]

I'm posting this in the hot box because there's an actual war going about this on tumblr.

I used to believe it too! There are a few reasons why Sherlock is believed to be asexual by some but it's only because no one bothered with the other options (that he's gay).

First of all I would like to announce that Elementary's Sherlock Holmes has concrete proof that he's not asexual. I've just started watching the series and I'm still in season 1. In the very first episode he does the dirty with a hooker and somewhere in the 14th episode he looks a woman up and down and casually suggests they do it, also stating that they can never tread into romantic territory. Yep you read that right, he had no ulterior motive such as to investigate a crime, just casual sex.

Now with the other adaptations, I know what you're thinking: "But he can be asexual and gay!" This is still incorrect.

Let me just state that yes I am a johnlock shipper, the only proof you need is the entire of show of BBC's Sherlock. video by Rebekah

This blog also has a lot to read about the subtext in the original Sherlock Holmes books.

Sherlock being gay and in a relationship with Watson has been speculated since the books were first written. Sir Arthur of course couldn't go beyond subtext and hints because being gay was actually a crime in his time. His friend (also an author) Oscar Wilde was actually charged for being gay and had his book The Picture of Dorian Grey successfully used against him in court. It is also worth noting that after Oscar Wilde's sentencing Sir Arthur actually married off Watson out of fear.

Even in the other adaptations of Sherlock Holmes the subject of him being gay is explored and his apparent lack of attraction to women is shown. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes movie depicts this beautifully. Here's the most important clip in the entire movie. The Sherlock Holmes TV show from 1984 also has a lot of subtext.

So far most of the adaptations respect the books by A) clearly stating Sherlock's lack of attraction to women. and B) Imply that he's gay and in love with Watson. For years no one bothered to even accept the possibility because they were probably homophobic. They would have rather seen Sherlock as asexual than gay.

I would just like to add a little something else about BBC's Sherlock. This interview from Steven Moffat states: "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!"

Furthermore there's Benedict Cumberbatch's hurtful comment in an interview. (I am really sorry I cannot find the source). It's something along the lines of: "He chooses to be asexual to focus on his work."

A) Yikes. This is cringeworthy.

B) Sherlock is not asexual. If he was don't you think the cast and crew would have some idea of what it means and talk about it in a more educated manner?

I would like to touch on another important subject. Be VERY wary of any villains/cold hearted characters that are hinted as asexual or aromantic. First of all I'm sure this isn't the ideal representation anyone is looking for. Second, the people who create these characters most of the time are not aware of these orientations. They make their characters repulsed/indifferent to sex and romance to further hammer in their cold/unfeeling personality. They lump sex and romance all in one thinking that they're the same thing and it perpetuates the horrible, dangerous notion that asexuals and aromantics aren't normal.

It's going to take a long time to have any good asexual representation in the media. I give it about 10 years. It needs time. People are just starting to accept homosexuality in the media, it's going to take time for the lesser known orientations to get known never mind actually represented.

I'm sorry if I broke any hearts with this. I definitely felt sad when I realised our no.1 mascot is a lie.

[poindexter]

He's a fictional character and the original ACD canon never states outright what his sexuality is (subtext is not proof), so the idea that he's one or the other is preposterous.

[Ricki]

He's not Asexual.

I think it's S2 or S3 of Elementary (by far my favourite adaptation) but he says something that links to any version.

He sees, hears, smells, feels, reacts, remembers completely differently to normal people. It makes his life a living hell, and he cannot bring himself to get close enough to a woman because he doesn't want to pass on his curse to any children, he doesn't want to burden a woman (or man if he's gay in another version) with having to deal with his mentality.
Not to mention he can tell when they're lying, where they've been and what they've done recently just by seeing them. That doesn't go well in relationships. The scene was so beautiful, but I can't find the clip anywhere.

In S4, he does this scene:

It speaks for itself. He's had "One great romance in my life, and you'd be hard pressed to call it a relationship". He is different. He is only comfortable with this woman because she is Autistic to the point that she resonates extremely similar to being like him. Blunt and honest. It's the only time he's felt compatible with someone and he doesn't know how to react to it.

Damn, I love that show so much.

EDIT: put the vid in spoiler to take less space.

[NoLongerActive1234]

It's all different versions, it totally depends what adaption you are referring to. The TV shows don't operate from the original books strictly. The creators take the characters/plots and making it their own. Besides like poindexter said in the original by ACD no one can say for sure, it is only speculation.

In Elementary Sherlock is not asexual, as he is into both casual sex as well as has romantic feelings and forms romantic relationships (like Ricchan shows in their post too). I love this show a lot also! ^_^ One of my favorite things is the relationship between Sherlock and Watson. How they are both straight yet it has not turned into a love story between them, very refreshing thing to see in the TV world (I say this as someone who still loves to watch cheesy romances lol). Instead it is a beautiful friendship and a partnership and succesfully portrayed too with all the intricasies of relationships.
In Sherlock I don't know really, I did not continue watching that after a few episodes as it was a bit too bloody for me at the time.

[Leolith]

He's a fictional character and the original ACD canon never states outright what his sexuality is (subtext is not proof), so the idea that he's one or the other is preposterous.

thank you

A few weeks ago I stumbled across those videos and a 127 page (or longer) document trying to prove that Sherlock and Watson are indeed in love and how Mycroft is the big mastermind behind EVERYTHING. I think I managed to read the first 30 pages but then gave up. Too much speculation in my opinion.

[Skycaptain]

In the original books, Sherlock doesn't have any relationships. He only shows admiration for two people in all the books, Irene Adler, and of course Dr Watson. But Dr Watson marries, and remains with his spouse until the books finish. Dr Watson does use the word love in relation to Holmes at one point.

Note I'll have to put the book references in later.

[poindexter]

In the original books, Sherlock doesn't have any relationships. He only shows admiration for two people in all the books, Irene Advertising, and of course Dr Watson. But Dr Watson marries, and remains with his spouse until the books finish. Dr Watson does use the word love in relation to Holmes at one point.

Note I'll have to put the book references in later.

Actually I think Mary Watson dies at some point, but they definitely were happily married.

[just an owl]

"Well then, he's obviously still a-spec!"

Eh, feels like a lot of (if not too much) effort to put into to "(dis)prove" a fictional character's sexual orientation.

[Deebee]

Oh dear. Fiction really isn't the best vessel to express your hostility in, particularly when that ire is directed at your fellow fans who share some of your tastes. I'm never happy to see these kinds of exchanges happen.

[WinterWanderer]

It's hard to pin down a character's sexuality. And Holmes has been reused and adapted so many times, that we all have a slightly different perspective of him.

I don't think Sherlock Holmes is asexual. But I'm also not convinced that he is gay.

In BBC "Sherlock," there are definitely hints that he has feelings for John, but it seems more like "teasing the fangirls" to me, rather than actual evidence. I think the creators of the show go out of their way to attack our feels. "How can we make the fangirls think Sherlock is gay?" "Oh, let's include a fan-made scene where Moriarty and Sherlock kiss! That'll have the fangirls rolling in their seats." Lol.

And don't forget that the show also had a scene in which he was aroused by Irene Adler. (Yeah, I know, arousal doesn't always equal sexuality. But that whole episode, and others after, suggested that he had romantic, if not sexual, feelings for her.)

*shrugs* It's hard to say. I'm not sure we could come to a consensus on it.

[Ricki]

I don't know much about it, but I believe in the original books, and older TV shows he comes across more as a Sapiosexual. I have no proof of this, and I haven't read/watched them for years. Just he was always fascinated with Irene - possibly because she outsmarted him on several occasions.

Indeed if there actually is any base evidence of him liking Moriarty or Watson, then they too are meant to have above average intelligence.

And to anyone saying it's pointless to speculate about it, then no. It's as pointless to do it as it is to watch it in the first place. It creates an air of mystic around the character that lets people identify to him in different ways.

Also, in the clip of him saying he's gay to those Russians - then to me he was clearly thinking on his feet to escape having to be rude to the woman, or give them any way to try and talk him round.

[verily-forsooth-egads]

I think he is somewhere in the middle, and also secretly a Time Lord, and Time Lords have quadrants. Johnlock is a moirallegiance. This is fact.

[ChillaKilla]

I think he is somewhere in the middle, and also secretly a Time Lord, and Time Lords have quadrants. Johnlock is a moirallegiance. This is fact.

Are you referencing Doctor Who or Homestuck?!

[(A) & A]

...I will never understand shipping. Especially shipping that exists almost entirely in the heads of fandom.

In the original stories, Sherlock Holmes is a celibate hero. Whether he's secretly in love with Irene Adler or John Watson doesn't matter since the stories aren't about his love life. In fact, they go out of their way to show that he doesn't care much romance. While you can read subtext in various ways, the "canon" Sherlock Holmes' sexuality is not an issue.

In other stories, it all depends on the writer. Since he's public domain you could write a gay Holmes, a straight Holmes, an asexual Holmes, etc. And whatever you write, would be canon. But honestly, this hardcore shipping is just people reading what they want into a character rather than anything that is actually "canon". So please, stop thinking the ideas in your head have to be the ideas in my head or anyone elses head.

[Luftschlosseule]

Sorry, as a Fan of the books you lost me as you mentioned Elementary as an argument, because this guy called "Sherlock" doesn't work for me as Sherlock Holmes. I can't take him serious, neither the one by Robert Downey Jr.

B) Sherlock is not asexual. If he was don't you think the cast and crew would have some idea of what it means and talk about it in a more educated manner?

Because the crew doesn't know about asexuality it simply means they don't mean him to be asexual, that doesn't mean that he can't be asexual nor that every Sherlock interpretaion can't be asexual.

Let me just state that yes I am a johnlock shipper, the only proof you need is the entire of show of BBC's Sherlock. Rebekah's TJLC Explained is an excellent channel discussing the narrative, subtext, writing, acting, cinematography and symbolism of BBC's Sherlock that ultimately point to a developing romance between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.

Yeah, well, romance means they have to want sex, I know.

Personly, I read it as a very deep platonic friendship. But exactly that's the problem: Since we can't ask Arthur Conan Doyle, everybody has his or her own interpretation and stating that you have solved the problem debated for a long time is... how should I put it without offending you? I don't think it's wise.
It's like a dog chaising his own tail and will get nobody anywhere.

[Skycaptain]

If we're considering Sherlock Holmes orientation can we please remember that only the original books are authentic. Every TV series is at the whim of the writer of the screenplay, and the company financing the production. If they think a frisson of sexuality will increase the number of viewers they will include this and to hell with authenticity

[MoraDollie]

I haven't read the original books. Though for my two cents on it, screw all the adaptations and look at the original book series. Unless there's a line SPECIFICALLY saying SOMEWHERE in the original series "I don't experience those feelings like you do" (or something to this effect), no one has any confirmation (unless author themselves spoke on the matter in say, an interview) of what their sexual orientation is. It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people try so hard to figure out fictional characters gender ID and/or sexual orientation, cause honestly that's none of our fucking business.

[Randomchaos]

Can I just say that if Mary Watson does end up dying I would love to see Sherlock and Watson together?

[NerotheReaper]

Does it really matter what his orientation is or what it isn't, Sir Arthur Colin Doyle was a brilliant man and writer. The character Sherlock Holmes is amazing and I wish I could have the intelligence he does. Romance was not the reason he wrote his stories, if he did the books would be very different.

[loomborn]

Sherlock is a character, I'm very clear that no fact is solid and everything can be interpreted however one wants in fiction. So not letting people address their favorite characters as their orientation, when they see themselves as broken, unreal or discriminated and oppressed by their own society, is not fail, and a rude thing to do. If they want to call him ace and/or aro they will do it, no matter how much you insist that he's not.

[(A) & A]

Sherlock is a character, I'm very clear that no fact is solid and everything can be interpreted however one wants in fiction. So not letting people address their favorite characters as their orientation, when they see themselves as broken, unreal or discriminated and oppressed by their own society, is not fail, and a rude thing to do. If they want to call him ace and/or aro they will do it, no matter how much you insist that he's not.

For public domain characters, sure. But when it comes to copywritten characters, that's a different boat. If someone decided to say one of my characters was <insert sexual/gender orientation>, when I didn't intend for them to be that, it's not rude to them otherwise. And if you, disrespect me as a creator, because it doesn't fit with your headcanon, it's equally rude... If not more rude.

Secondly, people often get a little crazy when it comes to shipping and deciding character's orientations... I mean, look at Supernatural fandom. Folks love to ship Dean and Castiel, even though Dean has never shown a lick of sexual interest in men, and Castiel has shown no interest (or understanding) when it comes to human sexuality. Yet there will be people who SWEAR by it, despite the fact there is absolutely nothing to suggest it.

[loomborn]

Sherlock is a character, I'm very clear that no fact is solid and everything can be interpreted however one wants in fiction. So not letting people address their favorite characters as their orientation, when they see themselves as broken, unreal or discriminated and oppressed by their own society, is not fail, and a rude thing to do. If they want to call him ace and/or aro they will do it, no matter how much you insist that he's not.

For public domain characters, sure. But when it comes to copywritten characters, that's a different boat. If someone decided to say one of my characters was <insert sexual/gender orientation>, when I didn't intend for them to be that, it's not rude to them otherwise. And if you, disrespect me as a creator, because it doesn't fit with your headcanon, it's equally rude... If not more rude.

Secondly, people often get a little crazy when it comes to shipping and deciding character's orientations... I mean, look at Supernatural fandom. Folks love to ship Dean and Castiel, even though Dean has never shown a lick of sexual interest in men, and Castiel has shown no interest (or understanding) when it comes to human sexuality. Yet there will be people who SWEAR by it, despite the fact there is absolutely nothing to suggest it.

Re: Copyright I guess it would be an inconvenient if the author had ever stated Sherlock's sexuality, but as far as I know he never did, and now he is dead. Another thing is that one's work is always subjected to other people interpretations: you see that in art, you see that in literature, and you see it in music. The author may have had one intention and people could respect that and not theorise further, but in reality people don't always know what the author wants to say so they start interpreting it in their own way. Sometimes the views they offer can even be more interesting than the original meaning, and as a result, they end up enriching the work and the discussion of it.

Even though, if the author was alive and had stated the facts, drifting from the original charaterization of a copyrighted fictional character is not illegal. It may be a whole range of rude in the worst scenario, perhaps, but it literally depends on the context of the situation, to be honest.

Re: Shipping. Should I mention a good portion of the fandom who ships M/M characters is usually straight women whose only intention is to keep fetishing gay relationships? They are not gay people who want to see themselves represented in media, their objective is not normalization, but objetification, which is an entire different issue I don't agree with.

Actually gay people who seriously ship same gender characters, on the other hand, usually do it because it is implied in the script, because they feel related to them on a personal level. To this, I remit to my first post: if they think a character is gay, of course they are gay. There's no discussion to it, what they're doing is completely harmless.

The issue comes, and I have to mention this, when sometimes the writers tease LGBT+ people with something they can feel related to, but never actually reveal it in the actual work. They have intentions to make them cis straight but play with the idea of an alternative without materialising it for the wider audience. That's called queerbaiting, and in theory we should respect author's decisions, since it's their Work, but the nature of them makes them so despicable that mantaining respect for them is ridiculous and offensive. In this case, it is comprehensible that this people are so raging wanting their ships back, that's basically erasure.

[Telecaster68]

Sherlock is not asexual. If he was don't you think the cast and crew

Cast and crew have nothing to do with it. They're there to translate the script into something that can be recorded on camera. The third lighting rigger has no input whatsoever on story, character, plot, or whatever. The idea they sit round discussing themes of the piece is risible. A big name actor might have some input on their own character at script stage, but that's it.

Any creator will tell you that once their work reaches an audience, that audience will effectively recreate that work in a way that makes it most meaningful for them, and that's fantastic. It means you've connected in a big way with your audience. Sherlock, like other fictional characters who've taken on a life of their own, is a different Sherlock to every reader. Some of the attraction is that in many ways he's a blank sheet of paper on which readers/viewers project their own concerns, and different versions reflect different societal concerns over the years. It's silly to try to pin down an Ur-Sherlock, just as it would be a definitive James Bond, Frankenstein, Hamlet, or whoever.

[NoLongerActive1234]

^I agree with all said above by Telecater68 although I don't think it is silly to have a discussion and brainstorm about a character, plot, scene, shipping etc if one likes that. I think it gets wrong when it becomes a 'war' though instead of a casual discussion. That is why it seems odd that this topic should have to be in HoTBox even.

[(A) & A]

Re: Copyright I guess it would be an inconvenient if the author had ever stated Sherlock's sexuality, but as far as I know he never did, and now he is dead. Another thing is that one's work is always subjected to other people interpretations: you see that in art, you see that in literature, and you see it in music. The author may have had one intention and people could respect that and not theorise further, but in reality people don't always know what the author wants to say so they start interpreting it in their own way. Sometimes the views they offer can even be more interesting than the original meaning, and as a result, they end up enriching the work and the discussion of it.

Even though, if the author was alive and had stated the facts, drifting from the original charaterization of a copyrighted fictional character is not illegal. It may be a whole range of rude in the worst scenario, perhaps, but it literally depends on the context of the situation, to be honest.

Re: Shipping. Should I mention a good portion of the fandom who ships M/M characters is usually straight women whose only intention is to keep fetishing gay relationships? They are not gay people who want to see themselves represented in media, their objective is not normalization, but objetification, which is an entire different issue I don't agree with.

Actually gay people who seriously ship same gender characters, on the other hand, usually do it because it is implied in the script, because they feel related to them on a personal level. To this, I remit to my first post: if they think a character is gay, of course they are gay. There's no discussion to it, what they're doing is completely harmless.

The issue comes, and I have to mention this, when sometimes the writers tease LGBT+ people with something they can feel related to, but never actually reveal it in the actual work. They have intentions to make them cis straight but play with the idea of an alternative without materialising it for the wider audience. That's called queerbaiting, and in theory we should respect author's decisions, since it's their Work, but the nature of them makes them so despicable that mantaining respect for them is ridiculous and offensive. In this case, it is comprehensible that this people are so raging wanting their ships back, that's basically erasure.

Drifting away from the original characterization isn't illegal, but it is "disrespectful", at least when you think your headcannon is more important than a creator's view... Which often becomes the case in a lot of fandoms. People start thinking their vision is the true vision and some ever get to the point where they attack creators when they bring stories.

And I'm familiar with "queerbaiting". But like most things related to fandom, a lot of its. See: Supernatural. The Dean/Castiel pairing was something that popped up in shipping communities almost the moment the characters where introduced, or at least started having a close relationship in the end of Lucifer... But it was never anything that any serious fan of the show should have ever took seriously. Dean was always protrayed as very much hetrosexual and Castiel was show to have no interest, or understanding, with human sexuality.

And yes, there have been some teases and a lot of people read Dean and Castiel's very close relationship as romantic... But as a long time fan of the show, a lot of people are reading into things that aren't there. They see them because they want to and then they get pissed when creators say "no".

[(A) & A]

Any creator will tell you that once their work reaches an audience, that audience will effectively recreate that work in a way that makes it most meaningful for them, and that's fantastic.

There's a lot of creators that aren't keen on fans twisting their own creations.

George R.R. Martin isn't a big fan of fan fiction and neither was Anne Rice for a very long while. Various bands have been against certian sorts of people finding messages in songs they didn't imply or condone. J.R.R. Tolkien was infuriated anytime anyone claimed that Lord of the Rings was an allegory for anything. Some creators are uncomfortable when people depict their characters in sexually explicit situations.

[nanogretchen4]

Actors can have more or less onscreen chemistry. They can probably do things to encourage or discourage the shippers without departing from the script. But when you start with an intense bromance like Johnlock nothing could possibly stop the slashfic. There was a lot of gay erotica about Holmes and Watson circulating long before the show started. The way Watson talks about Holmes in some of the original stories is very romantic. I picked up on that when I was twelve. Arthur Conan Doyle didn't know about slashfic, but the makers of Sherlock certainly know what's up and address the issue early in the pilot episode. I would say Sherlock on the show is celibate because he's married to his vocation and can't sustain a relationship anyway.

[Sally]

I haven't read the original books. Though for my two cents on it, screw all the adaptations and look at the original book series. Unless there's a line SPECIFICALLY saying SOMEWHERE in the original series "I don't experience those feelings like you do" (or something to this effect), no one has any confirmation (unless author themselves spoke on the matter in say, an interview) of what their sexual orientation is. It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people try so hard to figure out fictional characters gender ID and/or sexual orientation, cause honestly that's none of our fucking business.

I've read the original books and there's no such line or even intimation.

[Sally]

Furthermore there's Benedict Cumberbatch's hurtful comment in an interview. (I am really sorry I cannot find the source). It's something along the lines of: "He chooses to be asexual to focus on his work."[/size]

Cumberbatch is playing a character, not living the character. He simply said what occurred to him at the time, and it certainly wasn't meant to be his opinion about asexuality, about which he probably knows very little.

[Ricki]

I haven't read the original books. Though for my two cents on it, screw all the adaptations and look at the original book series. Unless there's a line SPECIFICALLY saying SOMEWHERE in the original series "I don't experience those feelings like you do" (or something to this effect), no one has any confirmation (unless author themselves spoke on the matter in say, an interview) of what their sexual orientation is. It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people try so hard to figure out fictional characters gender ID and/or sexual orientation, cause honestly that's none of our fucking business.

Well that's dumb. a) the books and Sherlock (and at least a few older show versions) are written from the perspective of Watson, so things are warped and twisted to fit what someone who isn't Sherlock sees.

b) If I go through my life and tell no one that I'm Homo/Hetro/Ace, does that mean that I am not one of them? Even if my actions make it obvious one way or another?

c) Linking them together. Would Watson know Ace exists? Would he publicly expose that his friend is gay? It was illegal at the time and would have been worse than a death sentence to a friend. No. But that doesn't mean that Sherlocks actions can't suggest one way or another about orientation even if the real author at the time was trying to hint it as propaganda