So girls don’t wanna swallow but expect us to eat out their nasty vagina?????????????
more like, so you want me to swallow but wont go down on me???????????????
jj abrams: if i give you that benedict shower scene will you guys stop calling me sexist????
jj: oh i know ill show them the much-talked-about shower scene and they’ll forget about carol marcus
everyone: takes the shower clip, throws him out of the car onto the road, drives away laughing
wait jj abrams is really releasing this scene to combat the criticism of the alice eve scene????
dude no you can’t fucking bargain that isn’t how this works you fucking apologize and own up to your mistake and move on
also no you’re not “balancing” anything out because chris pine was in his underpants earlier in the movies YOU WENT OUT OF YOU HAD ALICE EVE GET UNDRESSED FOR NO REASON IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING
|—||Adrienne Rich (via virginwhoreofbabylon)|
hold up guys not so fast we have a shocking new development here
if we can show chris pine in his underwear in a scene where he’s just fucked an alien then it’s only fair to show alice eve in her underwear for no reason whatsoever!!!!
that’s how equality works right?????
so that kind-of-apology for the gratuitous sexism in stark trek into darkness *pours a shot glass of bleach*
also on that note i don’t quite believe that sherlock is strictly asexual
i think i’ve always viewed him as a guy so deep into his own head and other matters that he kind of let sexuality take a back seat, simply because he really dismisses romance in general as bothersome to his line of work (unless, of course, if you count the irene incident where, AGAIN, irene won in the end by finally making sherlock feel something for her enough to rescue her; and john, don’t forget i’m-not-gay-john)
i would really just love to have a big discussion group about sex and sexuality in sherlock like that’s my idea of a fun friday
Look! Lady Lovin’ Ladies just got its first submission! By the wonderful sometimescoherent!
So I finally saw the latest episode of BBC Sherlock, and one word I can sum up the episode with is: gay. Gay gay gay gay gay. Did I mention gay? Clearly Steven Moffat has been paying attention to the fandom. John really is such a good boyfriend and Sherlock is really a lucky guy. But wait! There’s more! *audible gasp* Besides our (un)ambiguously gay duo, we have Irene Adler. Madam Adler (rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?) is first introduced in full on Lesbian Dominatrix mode (tm) or, as Mycroft delecatly puts it: she performs professional scoldings for those who are into that sort-of-thing. How British.
However, there is clearly more to this character and her sexuality than at first blush. Clearly, she is a complex character and that complexity extends to her sexuality. So to what extent is her lesbian identity actually respected by the writers? Is she caught in the trope of a lesbian who has “found the right man?” Or can her character’s sexual development positively represent sexual fluidity and non-gender based sexualities?
The big L-word is only implied until most way through the episode when, while confronting Irene about hurting his boo (Yeah, totally not gay), John asks if anyone cares that he is not gay (no we don’t, John). Irene Adler’s response is: you may be in denialtotally not gay, but guess what? I am! Gaaaaa (*cough* sorry). So up until this point her sexuality is speculative: is she bisexual, is she straight for pay, or is she gay and just fine with kinky D/s play with men? Could be a lot of things, but it seems that with this scene she is identifying to the audience that she sexually prefers women and does kink play professionally with anyone.* Her relationship with her live-in (assistant? secretary? lover?) is unclear, but we can imagine (get on that fandom!). In any case, she is portrayed as a savvy and ambitions woman who uses her position (insert low brow humor here) to gain an advantage. Something she is competently unapologetic about. After all she is gleeful at the idea of being a powerful enough woman to bring Britain to her knees. Ow Ow!
However, even with all this John may be onto something. There is something between Irene and Sherlock. Perhaps it is something she is not herself willing to admit to herself, or perhaps something she does not quite understand herself.
I was worried while watching that this was going to build to her admitting to herself that she had just “found the right man” and that all her lady lovin’ was just a phase. Sadly this is a trope that is far too often used to erase lesbian sexuality and by extension any sexuality for women that does not center around a man. It seems lesbians are only acceptable (i.e. not a stereotype ripe for ridicule) in most media when 1) conventionally attractive 2) traditionally feminine and 3) secretly love the cock. Sure we might not be busting out of the first two anytime soon (though Brittana is also promising), but I don’t think Irene plays the third one. I think there is another aspect to Adler’s character that is just as important as her lesbian identity and her role as a powerful independent woman. Irene Adler is a lesbian, but a lesbian with a Sapiosexual twist! Like a orange wedge in my nice cool pint of Blue Moon. Mmmm.
Anyways, Irene Adler is, in my mind, a character conflicted about a burgeoning aspect of her own sexuality and coming to terms with her attraction to Sherlock (not to men in general). Rather than seeing this as an erasure of her sexuality one can see this as recognition that sexuality is complicated. One is rarely X and only X. Sexuality really is wibbly wobbly after all! Her attraction to Sherlock is fraught with internal strife. It’s not the fact that Shurlock is a man that attracts Adler but it’s because smart really is the new sexy. None of this means Irene Adler can no longer identify as a lesbian. Quite to the contrary, BBC Sherlock demonstrates that sexuality is complex: one can have multiple identities, can have exceptions to who they are attracted to, and that attraction can come in many forms. I’d like to take this time to state for the record that I am cuddlesexual!
I’ll admit I’m still conflicted, but I’m willing to give Moffat the benefit of the doubt here and see where he takes Irene Adler’s character (I very much hope that she will actually be back). There of course have been improvements over the years around the representation of sexualities in the media, but we still have a ways to go. I’ve very much appreciated the way that sexuality is depicted in BBC Sherlock. Sherlock himself is being continuously played up as asexual in a pretty damn positive light. Adding other forms of Asexuality, Demisexuality, or Pansexuality is promising. Let’s just hope this is not just one big cock tease for sexual inclusiveness… to use an inappropriate metaphor.
*I’m in no way saying that kink cannot be an expression of sexuality and love. It just seems Irene Adler has a professional detachment with her male clients.
hOW DID THAT SLIP PAST ME WAS I NOT PAYING ATTENTION????
i always thought of irene as bisexual, at least???? i am kicking myself how did i miss that OnEE LINE>???
idk man it changes my whole perspective now because i am very interested not only in the sexuality of fictional characters but their own concepts of what gender and sexuality are as well.
and i really don’t want to say that in irene’s case, sherlock was just a case of the “gay until she met the right one” bullshit trope because i think it was deeper than that???? sexuality is complicated and never concrete??? like a woman so proud of her ability to ooze sexuality and use it to her advantage probably has a perspective in regards to that sexual attraction is not limited to gender appearance or physical sex.
believe me, i’m not trying to assign to her a sexuality or be like “no she can’t be a lesbian because of SHErLOCK wHINEEEEEEEEES” because that’s gross of anyone to do. rather, when i take her entire character into account as a whole, i really think she more or less fell in love with sherlock because he was so much like her and that him being a man had shit to do with it.
anyways irene is boss bow down.
I sincerely hope that Benedict Cumberbatch is not getting hate for playing Khan because even if he was aware of the villain-capabilities-by-race-representation issues of being a white guy in the iconic previously-PoC-played role according to interview he was asked to join without even being told who the character was.
a man can spit in public and tug at his junk in public but if i breast feed my child in public suddenly everyone’s grossed out
When white liberal feminists label Beyoncé as anti-feminist, they are simply perpetuating the same racist partiarchy they’re supposed to be combating.
Beyoncé is at the center of her own media empire, no small feat for a woman of color in a racist, patriarchal society. Equally important, she embodies empowered sexuality. When she dances, the passion and commitment exudes in her every step. Her body is her own; she owns it and uses it as she sees fit. When she wears a unitard or “skimpy” outfit, something many dancers wear, mind you, she is showing off her impeccable body, her temple, her source of strength, and all that it can do. She is forcing those of us who are clinging to our puritanical notions of propriety to sit down, shut up, and watch raw, unbridled talent and skill. And yes, she is a feminist while doing it.
When white women get to decide who is “feminist enough,” particularly around women of color, they are perpetuating racism. They are policing the boundaries of who is acceptable and who isn’t. This is nothing more than a tool of racist patriarchy wrapped in feminist rhetoric. Yes, racist. It is decidedly racist the way white mainstream feminist organizations police women of color’s feminist credentials, the way white liberal feminists reduce Beyoncé to a gyrating slut with a potty mouth.
If white feminists want to be seen as inclusive, as truly revolutionary, as working to end alloppressive power systems, they must stop perpetuating those oppressions themselves. Exclusionary boundaries of who is an acceptable feminist and who isn’t does nothing for feminism except perpetuate racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, and other forms of bigotry and oppression. The incessant questioning of Beyoncé’s character and choices is simply a reflection of the latent bigotry that exists in feminist spaces.
Until white feminists stop policing women of color’s feminist credentials, they are doomed to repeat the same racist patriarchy we are supposed to be combating.
love this! recommend reading the whole thing at the source.