Steven Moffat Says Sherlock Is Not Asexual And That Asexuality Isn't Interesting

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.


"There is a Clue Everybody Missed"

Steven Moffat -- Trivia and Quotes


Share this post

Submit to Delicious Submit to Digg Submit to Facebook Submit to Google Bookmarks Submit to Stumbleupon Submit to Technorati Submit to Twitter Submit to LinkedIn

Community Builder Avatar
Alice (01.20.2012 (19:48:44))
Yes No That interview annoyes me no end. "not the choice of an Asexual" yes, because of course asexuality is a choice. In fact, this person says it much better than me:
Community Builder Avatar
Sharon (01.29.2012 (00:10:21))
Misreading the Interview Yes No The quote "if he was Asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that – it's someone who abstains who's interesting" does not equal "asexuals are boring." What he means is, tension is interesting, and tension comes from characters who are stuck in a challenging, testing, or unhappy situation. If he is an asexual who is not having sex with anyone, he is exactly where he wants to be. Characters who are exactly where they want to be are boring! There is absolutely no inner, psychological tension in such a situation. Tension can only from an outside source: another character has to attack Sherlock's asexuality or try to make him change.
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.
Community Builder Avatar
Kate (06.19.2012 (15:09:03))
...but it IS less interesting. Yes No Sorry, but I agree with Moffat.
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.
Community Builder Avatar
Mandi (07.18.2012 (23:30:10))
Stop Defending Moffat, and Stop Erasing Asexuality Yes No I shouldn't be surprised people are defending Moffat in this, I really shouldn't. I guess asexuals should just be erased from all media because it's a 'plot-killer', right? Even though an asexual character can have every single plot a sexual character can, because ASEXUAL DOES NOT MEAN AROMANTIC. Not to mention that romance is NOT the be-all and end-all of plots, ESPECIALLY not in a show like Sherlock where romance is never even a consideration, with the POSSIBLE exception of Sherlock and Irene Adler's interactions. (I maintain that Sherlock is asexual, but not entirely aromantic given his feelings for Irene that are entirely based on his attraction to her BRAIN. Her INTELLECT. Which is why he and Watson would never make sense as a couple.) Just... please, people, stop erasing entire sexualities just because you find it "boring".
Community Builder Avatar
Sara (09.23.2012 (10:32:16))
On the contrary... Yes No Moffat can obviously think and say what he wants, and I get that by "uninterest ing" he menta uninterestiong for him to write in his TV show. However, I think it's quite the opposite. Some forms of sexuality do not get often explored in TV shows, especially in their main characters; of course your two standard sexually active heterosexual individuales can make a great couple and great plots, but I think that it is especially interesting to write about things that are so far (almost) unexplored. In my opinion, all sexual orientations that differ from heterosexuality and all kinds of relationships that can't be put into traditional boxes (regardless of the orientation of the characters involved)offer great potential in a fictional story per se and it's up to the writer to use it or not. An asexual character and the way he interacts with close people in their life can be extremely fascinating to watch, not to mention that they could also have great plots unrelated to sex.
Community Builder Avatar
Kate (10.24.2012 (03:47:30))
Yes No Why is it offensive for Moffat to not make Sherlock asexual, but it's not offensive to not make him gay?

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.
Community Builder Avatar
Geesy (11.12.2012 (01:22:12))
Yes No I really wouldn't like to see him getting involved in some kind of romantic relationship. It's such a cliche that's done over and over and over in shows, and detracts from what the show is actually about. If I want to watch the ins and outs of dating and romance, I would be watching friends or a daytime soap opera, but I don't, because I find THAT sort of thing boring. Not to mention that it wouldn't be true to the book.
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.
Community Builder Avatar
Jen (11.12.2012 (01:26:33))
Not interesting eh? Yes No The characters on The Big Bang Theory have pretty much outright stated that Sheldon Cooper is asexual. Who is everyone's favourite character on The Big Bang Theory?
Moffat is wrong.
Community Builder Avatar
Lucy (02.20.2013 (23:18:27))
Mixed feelings Yes No So I'm, well, for all intents and purposes I'm asexual. I used to say sexually fluid, but the fluid seems to have settled in a place where I haven't been aroused or attracted to anyone in quite a long time.

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.



1000 Characters left

Antispam Refresh image Case insensitive