Ace Admiral

hernameishelen:

aceadmiral:

Well, I haven’t been around very much because of finals and stuff, but I have been vaguely aware of this thing that was said in an interview about BBC Sherlock the other day, and the surrounding reaction. I apologize if someone has already said this, but the reaction posts I’ve read have all taken issue with one thing in particular that I think is actually correct. Here is the quote in question:

“Moffat is not saying that Sherlock, like Austin Powers, misplaced his mojo. ‘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!’”

(Taken from this reaction post)

Look, this quote and the accompanying commentary from the newspaper is not cool. Did you know, guys, that the reason why people don’t write asexual characters is because there are no interesting stories to tell about them?? It all makes sense now!

But putting that aside for just one moment: Moffat is right to use the word ‘choice’ there.

I know many of us suffer an aversion to seeing the word “choice” in the same sentence as asexuality, it is one I share, but it does us a disservice to pretend like there is no choice involved with asexuality, because there is. Specifically, the choice of whether or not we want to try our hand at the dating game anyway.

I know this is a particular crusade of Greg’s so let me borrow it here: orientation =/= behavior. There are people who are asexual who choose not to date. There are people who are poikkisexual who choose not to date. The motives behind not dating are probably different (which is the nuance Moffat was presumably trying to get at), but the fact is that I and my celibate classmate from this summer both have chosen not to get involved with the romance and sex thing.

This is the source of the problem with the tweet of one of the producers of Dr. Who (sorry, I don’t remember which one) a few weeks ago, don’t you remember? The tweet said something like, “Well, he was married and has had children, ergo he is not asexual.” No, wrong! Because aces can choose or not choose to get married just like poikkisexual people.

So, no, asexuality is not a choice. No, I am not happy with Moffat right now (if I ever was; probably not). But not dating can be the choice of an ace just as much as the choice of a monk (or, you know, other people as well, but let’s compare aces to monks, it’ll be awesome.)

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I guess I have to go back to living my entirely uninteresting life that is completely devoid of tension between myself and the people I’m certainly not pining for or anything :/

While I agree with the basic principle of this post, dear, he also made a tweet talking about asexuality as a lifestyle.

I don’t trust him enough to be making a nuanced point about asexuality and our diverse choices in the relationship world when he just used the word “LIFESTYLE” in caps like that.

Actually, I think that tweet is just another clumsy phrasing that points back to the salient criticism of the comments in the interview, which is that he cannot conceive of anything but an aplatonic aromantic asexuality. He assumes that all aces will without exception make the choice to be Forever Alone, hence the “boring” asexual “lifestyle.” Which you and I both know is a dump truck’s worth of BS. I think it’s important to point out that even though he thinks he knows what asexuality is, he very much does not, because otherwise people like him will be like, “oh, well, clearly this is not addressed to me, as I already know all about asexuality!” Or, at least, that’s the impression I’ve gotten of him watching him react to other criticism and seeing the “oh, but I’m too ENLIGHTENED to do something like that” stuff come back.