sexuality

The Detective and the Dominatrix

Anybody who watched the triumphant return of Stephen Moffatt and Mark Gatiss’ Sherlock on New Years Day will not be surprised to learn that the naked dominatrix, Ms. Irene Adler, was the subject of some controversial debates around whether or not having a female character with no agency outside of her sexuality was a little bit, well, sexist. A great rundown of the points to be made on that side of the argument can be found over at the Guardian. The latest episode, Hound of the Baskervilles featured precisely two female characters, which can’t have helped matters either.

While it is a little weary that Irene had to be introduced to Sherlock as naked as the day she was born, there are some fascinating bits to be picked out of this arguably ill thought out use of stereotype. This was brought to my notice by the fannish safari park that is Livejournal which provided some thought provoking screen grabs.

Irene Adler is presented as the very personification of sex, and she’s a woman and that is reductionist and unfortunate. That is, after all, what many people and particularly in the media would list as a woman’s primary function. However, put in context I don’t think this particular characterisation is as tragic as all of that. What is arguably more tragic is the reaction provoked by carefully framed shots of a naked woman.

There is an important revelation minutes before Sherlock meets Ms Adler that throws each characters representation into a very different light: Sherlock is a virgin. Is Ms. Adler’s blatant sexuality not the perfect antidote for the bane of Sherlock’s stuttering, awkward virginity?

This creates a parallel and a juxtaposition between Adler and Holmes- a literal virgin/whore dichotomy, except with our dashing detective as the virgin and his intellectual equal as the whore. One is stripped naked and shamed, one declares nudity to be her battle dress. One is empowered by sexuality, one is “alarmed” by it (despite his protests to the contrary). Add to this their shared brilliance and mutual fascination and there is an argument for presenting them as two sides of the same coin, albeit with a controversial point of comparison. Although I suppose sex is always going the divide between great men and great women as far as many people are concerned. In the episode, it isn’t until Sherlock flirts back, uses his sexuality to his own advantage, that he manages to beat Ms. Adler at her own game.

They are also made to look alike. Adler has her hair in curls like Sherlock’s and the same length. She is even wearing his coat.

Looked at in this light, I think introducing Ms. Adler in the nude was a crucial point of comparison between predator and prey. While in this instance, nudity has its use and can be justified, it’s still getting a woman naked and making her sexuality her tool for making her own way. Yes, she manipulates powerful men and women, but without them she would have no secrets and be of no importance. She clearly has a powerful mind but, as Sherlock points out, she chooses to “take her clothes off to make an impression.”

Of course then it becomes about demonising the female form. I don’t recall seeing any complaints about Sherlock’s nudity, though it was more revealing. Is it sexist to present a woman in this way, or sexist to be outraged by a woman presented in this way? Is the female form really so horrific? Is it the fact that she uses it to her advantage or the fact that it’s there at all? There are too many points against Ms. Adler’s nudity that strike me as sexist in themselves that I don’t feel comfortable sticking to one argument or the other.

Both? Neither?

Not Gay Enough?

Very occasionally, I do a little search on Google, for news stories involving bisexuality. Sometimes it’s just to see if anyone else has come out as bisexual, and therefore giving our community a little media boost saying “Yes, we do actually exist, we’re not just undecided”, but usually just to have a look at how we’re being told we don’t exist.

By this point, you may have guessed that I am quite openly (and after this post, even more so) bisexual.

My search for bisexuality in the news wasn’t a fruitless one. A fair few articles came up, but one that really caught my eye was “Not gay enough ballplayers get the shaft” (nice shaft pun, by the way). Now, I’ll let you read the article yourself, if you want, but the long and short of it is that is that three bisexual men, who have been members of the San Francisco Gay Softball League  for quite some time… until 2008, when they were forced out of the league for not being gay enough.

How gay is gay enough? How straight is too straight? And why does the players position on the Kinsey Scale matter?

If a sports organisation is willing to take on bisexual (and up to two straight) players to compete, why does it matter how straight they are? Bisexuality, unlike heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t as black and white (although, there’s still grey areas in heterosexuality and homosexuality, for example, people who would consider themselves 1 or 5, they may consider themselves straight or gay, respectively). I am probably a 3, bang in the middle, but then I have known people who are more attracted to one gender than another.

I guess what I really want to highlight within this post, is the biphobia that bisexual people have to endure from within the LGBT “community” (some aren’t too keen on the T being part of the community, either). For example, I’ve been turned down by gay people for being a “breeder”. I don’t think there’s enough people talking about discrimination in the LGBT community, and I hope this post gets people thinking about it.

The last thing on my mind, is that if I wanted to join their league, would they rather I swung towards homosexuality, rather than bang in the middle of the road, which is where I feel like I belong?

Thankfully for them, I’m crap at sports, and was always last pick at school, so they don’t have to worry about me joining their ranks, and confusing them with my ways.