That’s not what asexual means


I love Benedict Cumberbatch. Who doesn’t get a little thrill at those sharp cheekbones and piercing eyes? Unfortunately, the dear Bendydick Cuminyourpants is not always the person we hope he will be. This was the sad case a few weeks ago when Barleycorn Fannypack informed us all that his character Sherlock is asexual. Now that in and of itself is not a problem. Many fans read Sherlock as asexual, and joyfully appreciate seeing a decent representation of someone who doesn’t seem interested in sex on mainstream TV.

Where the problem came in was when Ballsnickety Camelsnatch explained why he believed Sherlock to be asexual. “He’s asexual for a purpose. Not because he doesn’t have a sex drive, but because it’s suppressed to do his work. Cold showers, looking at a lot of dead bodies … that’ll do it for you,” No, Blasphemy Chowderpants, no. That is not what it means to be asexual and you are actively harming people who are asexual by continuing to misrepresent them as repressed, cold, and broken. Asexuality is not the repression of an active sex drive. It is a lack of sexual attraction. Huge difference.

Considering how important Sherlock as a character is to many asexual nerds, Tiddleywomp Cabbagepatch’s comments are just another blow after all the gay-baiting that show runner Stephen Moffat has thrown in to the script. There are so few characters, particularly heroes, who are not driven by sexuality in media today that Sherlock gets a lot of attention from asexual fans. So please BBC Sherlock, stop destroying this character. And pretty, pretty please Blubberwhale Frumblesnatch, stop talking about things that you know nothing whatsoever about.