Part of the problem is that the actor used the word asexual to describe the character, but was probably not meaning it in the same way that AVEN does. More as a shorthand for celibate by choice instead of as orientation.
My read on the character, not that I've watched all the episodes many, many times (including the unaired pilot, which, no, does not count towards canon and has completely different characterizations of both Sherlock and John than does the aired versions), is that he's aromantic, but may well have been involved with men in the past in some format. He's very aware of men being attracted to him, seeming attracted to him, or playing attracted to him, and treats it differently than he treats female interest.
Write him as an asexual romantic, and I will, umm. Text Cass or Jilli and bitch about it. A lot. With irritated handmotions that are hard to convey with just thumbs and words. But I try. Hard. Dude, I get that you want to see your orientation represented, but SHERLOCK HOLMES IS NOT GOING TO CRY INTO HIS PILLOW BECAUSE HE LONGS TO CUDDLE JOHN AND HOLD HIS HAND AND WHATEVER. ALSO, HE IS WHAT HE IS AND ANGSTS MINIMALLY ABOUT IT. HIS EMO IS ABOUT THE VISCERAL TWITCH OF BOREDOM. THIS IS A LARGE PART OF HIS CHARM.
(Also, dude: he's grabby. Hilariously so at times. Those who write him as being tweaked by people touching him are not watching the same show that I'm watching. At all. To be fair, I think PBS cut the scene where he's at his most hands-on John. But the DVDs are out. So that is no excuse.)
Write him as an asexual romantic, and I will, umm. Text Cass or Jilli and bitch about it. A lot. With irritated handmotions that are hard to convey with just thumbs and words.
But he's so possessive of John -- doesn't that read as a type of romantic-ness, rather than aromantic?
CRY INTO HIS PILLOW BECAUSE HE LONGS TO CUDDLE JOHN AND HOLD HIS HAND
Is that what being romantic is, or is that being emo?
Hmm, other than the "everything else is transport" line, the two scenes read quite similarly to me. I don't read the unaired pilot as more ace than the aired scene; both read pretty ace to me. I'd say the biggest differences are in blocking and camera angles, which are pretty awkward in the pilot.
More as a shorthand for celibate by choice instead of as orientation.
That's what I was thinking. So bound up in the life of the mind that those pesky bodily urges are annoying interruptions. I didn't read the previous definition discussion, so is the Cliff Notes version that asexual is sort of the same thing as "does not feel sexual desire" as opposed to "not acting on sexual desire"?
Holmes would have made a terrific monk.
As for possessiveness of John, is it for John-as-person or John-as-useful-and-familiar-object?
But he's so possessive of John -- doesn't that read as a type of romantic-ness, rather than aromantic?
Not really, no. Possessive and desiring to be someone's main focus doesn't have to be romantic. It's frequently not. I've been jealously possessive of friends when they get new partners/love interests, but it's not always been because I've got any romantic stirrings for them. Often, it's because I enjoy their company, I'm lazy, and I'm selfish.
Hmm, other than the "everything else is transport" line, the two scenes read quite similarly to me. I don't read the unaired pilot as more ace than the aired scene; both read pretty ace to me. I'd say the biggest differences are in blocking and camera angles, which are pretty awkward in the pilot.
The pilot does, but obviously, for me, ASiP doesn't. The blocking, camera angles, acting choices, they all throw a more ho-yay frame around it. For which I blame Gatiss.
Is that what being romantic is, or is that being emo?
My shorthand for "writing him as wanting the standard and stereotypical trappings of romance, as defined by Every Kiss begins with Kay and the floral industry."
