love is so short -- forgetting is so long
"

Also I don’t understand this universe you appear to live in where wanting a queer adaptation of Holmes and being okay with a hypothetical het!Holmes/Watson relationship are somehow mutually exclusive. If the creators of Elementary were taking a pairing who were actually gay in the text and genderflipping half of said pairing in order to make their existing romance conform to heterosexual norms, then yeah, that would be hugely gross and awful, and I would be calling for heads to roll at CBS right along with the rest of the internet. But guess what? If CBS were to make an explicitly queer m/m adaptation of Holmes, it would not be ‘acknowledging’ anything; it would be no less of a change than making an explicitly het adaptation, because neither of those things exist in the original text.

You are 100% free to want a queer m/m adaptation of Sherlock Holmes more than an adaptation with a WOC Watson and an as-yet-entirely-hypothetical het romance. If I were given the option to make one of the two come magically into being with the power of my mind, I would be hard-pressed to choose! But raging against Elementary for not being that adaptation is about as logical as… well, raging against a genderbent adaptation for not being a gay adaptation.

If anything, said rage would be far more logically directed towards Sherlock and the recent RDJ film series, both of which openly acknowledge the possibility that there might exist a gay relationship between Holmes and Watson, and which capitalise on the popularity and profitability of queer-baiting - only to turn around and thumb their noses at that same idea, and play it for laughs. But FOR SOME MYSTERIOUS REASON, very few people ever seem to mention that when ranting about how omg homophobic of CBS it is to not make Holmes and Watson gay men.

"
-

sophistory

oh my god

THIS

I cannot tell you how goddamn offended I am that my queerness is used for laughs and money by BBC Sherlock, and at least, if they actually gave a shit about queer rep, they wouldn’t let Moffat say that Sherlock can’t be anything but 100% straight because no homo!!1!!1! and also asexuals are boring as fuck.

I happen to see Sherlock as ace and maybe biromantic, but that’s neither here nor there because that’s ALL FANON. Sherlock being any sexuality other than hetero is FANON, and how do I know that? Because subtext is just a cheap ploy for ratings, guys.

If you think that bringing a woman of color into a traditionally white male role and thus creating a potential for het!Holmes/Watson is more offensive than QUEER PEOPLE BEING APPROPRIATED AND USED FOR LAUGHS AND/OR MONEY, YOU’VE GOT ANOTHER FUCKING THINK COMING.

  1. drunkenfrenzy reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  2. n0th1ngt0s33h3r3 reblogged this from minionier
  3. robbiebaldwin reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  4. mrajolras reblogged this from endquestionmark
  5. notcuddles reblogged this from evillordzog
  6. minionier reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  7. evillordzog reblogged this from northstarfan
  8. servethenuts reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  9. wickedcorsair reblogged this from endquestionmark
  10. boosaris reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  11. greatscottdoc reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  12. scaryshawnspencer reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  13. endquestionmark reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  14. zoobaby reblogged this from cankerinahedge
  15. cankerinahedge reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  16. desidia5ever reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  17. scyllass reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  18. cuaron reblogged this from orbitingasupernova
  19. orbitingasupernova posted this