If theres no ambiguity...and its all a joke.....and if gay...were a race..religion..colour.. ..or nationality...and a joke was made about Xpeople..every episode...

Harriet wrote:

Liberty wrote:

There's no agreeing or disagreeing with people's sexual orientation. It just is And it's fine.

I think you confuse the term sexual orientation with a type of preference when you are speaking of bdsm context.

A bit simplified as well. Many researchers found that childhood abuse often leads to this preference.

So then it's not simply a sexual orientation, as in "being born queer or straight", but acquired.

While in fact one could argue that ongoing humiliation and violence even if in consensual role play are mere re-enactments of former suffering, and therefore harmful for a healing process.

Just a different opinion on that matter.

"Orientation" doesn't fit everybody well, but I think it's a good description for those whose inclinations developed in childhood, and are unchangeable and are an integral part of their sex life and sexual identity.  It's not a preference if it is sex for you.   It seems to be just as fixed as the conventional idea of sexual orientation (male/female).   And yes, there will be a lot of experimenters and dabblers and people who enjoy 50 Shades or dip in and out of mild bondage or spanking or more, but for some it absolutely is something they're stuck with for life and that is more important to them than "normal" sex.  If you read accounts or speak to people you'll find that it's common for people to have been aware of their leanings very early, before puberty, so young that it does seem to be an orientation rather than a preference.  (Max Mosley is a celebrity example who said at 70 that he was aware of his inclinations at age three or four.  That's a long time to hold a preference).  It's what you are, rather than what you do. 

(BDSM can be practiced in private, so I'm not suggesting for a minute that practitioners have or are going through the same battle that gay men and women have bravely fought over the last years.  SM can be a private sexual identity, being gay is a public identity as soon as you want to have a relationship.  But there are parallels, in that some aspects of sexuality seem to be innate or formed very early.  You wouldn't call being a gay a "preference".)

It really goes against the grain for most people to want to inflict pain and humiliation or experience it - if somebody is craving that and seeking it out in every relationship, then it's more than just a preference, in my opinion. 

I did link to an abstract of a study in my post (not a brilliant one) which found that BDSM practitioners scored better on psychological measures of health than controls.  There's another abstract here of an Australian study that didn't find a link between past sexual coercion and BDSM.  It seems a huge leap to assume that if somebody enjoys BDSM they were abused as a child and another leap to assume that the abuse caused their orientation, or leaning, if you prefer. 

There's nothing to indicate that in the show.  We don't know anything about Irene's childhood.   About Sherlock, we know that he seemed to have nice parents, an overbearing brother and his biggest childhood trauma was losing his dog.   There's nothing to tell me he was abused. 

Actually I'm disturbed by the thought that people are thinking that Irene's suggestions are about implied childhood abuse.   We do all know that this is a consensual, "normal" (i.e. not pathological) thing that people do, don't we?  Ordinary people in happy relationships?  (As well as not so ordinary people in unhappy relationships, but you could say that for sex in general.  And some people who have been abused as children, because sadly, a lot of people are abused as children).   I can imagine that if it wasn't your leaning and it was the first time you'd ever heard of it, it might seem strange and even shocking.  But it's really OK.  Honestly. Just a healthy expression of sexuality between consenting adults. 

I don't think we're going to be told the truth about the characters' leanings in the show, though.  I think they like to cover all bases and keep it ambiguous.

Last edited by Liberty (September 16, 2014 7:37 am)

SusiGo wrote:

Yes, exactly, lil. What then? An outcry.

Well idk... it would validate the accusations of queerbaiting and offensive or w/e ....and prob quite a bit of fuss yes....

I think they passed the reasonably doubtful / quash point ......they can't really make a..we'r going to make a gay accusation/implication and laught at it ....every single episode ..because being gay is always funny argument valid can they....
 

Last edited by lil (September 15, 2014 10:48 pm)

Harriet wrote:

Liberty wrote:

There's no agreeing or disagreeing with people's sexual orientation. It just is And it's fine.

I think you confuse the term sexual orientation with a type of preference when you are speaking of bdsm context.

A bit simplified as well. Many researchers found that childhood abuse often leads to this preference.

So then it's not simply a sexual orientation, as in "being born queer or straight", but acquired.

While in fact one could argue that ongoing humiliation and violence even if in consensual role play are mere re-enactments of former suffering, and therefore harmful for a healing process.

Just a different opinion on that matter.

Oh wow, so much for being informed and tolerant about differing sexual orientations..
(I won´t even begin to imagine the (rightful) outcry it would cause if someone suggested being queer was acquired because some very few of the people living that livestyle do it because of childhood traumata with the opposite gender).

As for the queerbaiting: It´s only a bad thing if it´s played for laughs at the expense of gay people, not if it´s shown in a way that makes everyone and their grandmother think how nice and wonderful it would be. I fail to see how that´s offensive (mabe an actually gay person cares to enlighten me).

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 16, 2014 5:38 am)

Exactly. Many of the people involved are gay and so presumably have no issue with what BBC Sherlock does. I always think it strange when people assume that proves BBC Sherlock will be the flagship of queer representation, as if it´s imposible for them to have other agendas..(bit of a stereotype in itself if you ask me).

I´d love to hear from the gay community, too.. not just "if I was gay I imagine I´d feel this way.."

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 16, 2014 5:56 am)

Liberty wrote:

Zatoichi wrote:

Oh wow, so much for being informed and tolerant about differing sexual orientations..
(I won´t even begin to imagine the (rightful) outcry it would cause if someone suggested being queer was acquired because some very few of the people living that livestyle do it because of childhood traumata with the opposite gender).

Yes, shockingly, this is this is the kind of thing that used to be suggested, and not that long ago.  When I was growing up, sex between men was still illegal in Scotland and some people were worried that if it was legalised gay men would try to turn boys gay.  There was an idea that an early same-sex experience would make you gay.  

Actually, I find it rather problematic to categorise people into little neat boxes labeled "heterosexual", "homosexual" and "bisexual" - to take such nebulous things as emotions and attractions and fetishes and to organise them as if they were some stone or plant samples in the museum of natural science.

Yes, some people know about their inclinations from their very early age.

But there are some who are not sure and they define themself differently in the various stages of their life (the partner of the singer Melissa Etherige defined herself as gay at first and then married a man and started to define herself as a heterosexual woman).

Then there are people who would probably live a heterosexual life if it was possible, but some circumstances (for example, living in a repressed society where free contacts between men and women are not allowed) lead them towards forming a gay relationships:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

People living in such relationship often form real affection and deep feeling to their gay partners even if they would not consider themselves gay.

And then there are transgendered people.

Or people who can only be sexually satisfied with the help of some fetish or strange sexual technique (BDSM, power play, frothing, bondage, fetishism towards things like shoes or underwear... you name it).

And what about demisexual people? (People who only form sexual attachment to the person they are already closely emotionally connected to?)

Or people who really don´t feel the need to have such things in their life - asexual of celibate from some other reason?

Every person is so unique that I would rather refrain from presenting "sexual orientation" and "sexual attraction" as something carved into stone and unchangeable over time - or at least would not present those things as a norm for the whole of the human race.
 

Last edited by nakahara (September 16, 2014 9:13 am)

Zatoichi wrote:

I agree, nakahara, human sexuality is incredibly fluid and complex.. labels and fixed definitions often scare me, because while I understand that many find them useful to find their own identity and contact to people who share similar preferences there´s always the danger of them including stereotypes that have nothing to do with the individual.

nakahara wrote:

Every person is so unique that I would rather refrain from presenting "sexual orientation" and "sexual attraction" as something carved into stone and unchangeable over time - or at least would not present those things as a norm for the whole of the human race.

I don´t think anyone did that.. 

Oh, I wasn´t accusing somebody, it just occured to me when I was reading this discussion on homosexuality above.
 

"Every person is so unique that I would rather refrain from presenting "sexual orientation" and "sexual attraction" as something carved into stone and unchangeable over time - or at least would not present those things as a norm for the whole of the human race."

Another reason I believe Johnlock is possible no matter how many times John says he's "not gay."
Many people in real life have found that their orientation is not carved in stone.

True, they showed all the girlfriends, relationships that never worked or never even got started - in one or the other way because of Sherlock. True, they showed him marrying Mary (and dreaming of Sherlock only a month later followed by irritated discussions chez Watsons leading us to believe that this is not the first time he got on Mary's nerves with Sherlock talk). 

And as for the advance - the Angelo scene in ASiP is a classic example of that. John testing the water and being rejected by Sherlock. 

Last edited by SusiGo (September 16, 2014 2:17 pm)

Indeed, nakahara.