- Category: Entertainment
- Published on Friday, 20 January 2012 19:09
- Written by Lara Landis
- Hits: 12771
Steven Moffat, a writer for Doctor Who and Sherlock recently said that Sherlock is not Asexual. The interview appeared in a recent edition of the UK newspaper The Guardian. Moffat's reasoning may be a little convoluted, or he may not grasp the idea of Asexuality. It does not matter whether or not the Doctor or Sherlock are Asexual. Cumberbatch and Smith have described their characters as Asexual. Sherlock described himself as a “high functioning sociopath” in the first season.
“”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”! said Moffat.
Moffat did not explain why he thinks Asexuals are not interesting, or anything else Sherlock might have in common in a monk. Sherlock's asexuality has never been cannon. Doyle wrote the original stories long before the creation of Asexual communities.
Steven Moffat has said he does not see the Doctor as Asexual either. It seems that whether or not Moffat wants characters he is associated with to be seen as Asexual icons, he must deal with it, and if he were wise, he would leave the character's Asexuality ambiguous if he wants to please as many fans of his work as possible.
On the other hand, if he is a sexual person who chooses to repress his feelings, there is an inherent tension in that situation. Moffat did not say "sexual people are interesting," he said "people who ABSTAIN are interesting," because abstinence, if one's sexual impulses are strong, is a challenge and a constant source of tension.
I don't think asexuals aren't interesting, but from a writers point of view, there's a lot more room for plot if you don't make Sherlock asexual.
He could be celibate because he's had bad past experiences (drug addict, and drugs often involve sex)
He could be celibate for the same reason Dexter is celibate (frightened of letting someone close when he knows he's a sociopath)
Saying 'he's celibate because he's asexual' is kind of a plot-killer. It explains everything too neatly.
I would prefer him to remain ambiguous so I can keep imagining him as gay (since I'm gay) but I know that would be too easy as well.
It's Moffat's show. If he wants to make Sherlock gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, biromantic asexual, whatever, he can.
If the lack of asexual characters in books and TV bothers you personally, write your own show/book/movie with an asexual character. Prove to the world that asexual lives are equally interesting. I would totally watch that. But don't blame other writers just because YOU assumed their characters were asexual, and were wrong.
The gay hints are also a bit tiring, since they've made it clear the characters are not gay, that stuff doesn't add anything to the storyline and I hardly see the point of it. If they want a light homosexual theme, they should just put in a few characters who really are gay.
Furthermore, I'm not asexual, but who wouldn't think that's really interesting? It's so uncommon, I'm way more fascinated by characters who are much different from everyone one else then I am by your average oversexed tv hero.
Moffat is wrong.
I wish there were more asexual characters in the media, especially women. But, honestly, watching 'Sherlock,' I never got the vibe that he was asexual. I always figured he was repressed, I guess. The tension always existed, Moffat's not just inventing it now.
Honestly, I was more upset about the House episode where the ase characters turned out to be lying.