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"?
More or less.
Don't let the space bugs bite!
Kaylee ,'Objects In Space'
Natter 68: Bork Bork Bork
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Steph L. - Jun 05, 2011 4:52:33 pm PDT #11494 of 30001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine
P.M. Marc - Jun 05, 2011 4:52:42 pm PDT #11495 of 30001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
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."
§ ita § - Jun 05, 2011 4:56:51 pm PDT #11496 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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."
Does that mean you twitch when he's written homoromantic, or when he's written emoromantic?
Steph L. - Jun 05, 2011 5:01:57 pm PDT #11497 of 30001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine
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."
Ah. That's why I have no trouble seeing him as asexual homoromantic, because I don't see "romance" as needing to be as described by your shorthand. It doesn't work for me as a demi/grey A/whateversexual, but I am not short on romance. So I figure Sherlock's "romance" would not look like DeBeers would like it to.
Dana - Jun 05, 2011 5:02:52 pm PDT #11498 of 30001
I haven't trusted science since I saw the film "Flubber."
So I figure Sherlock's "romance" would not look like DeBeers would like it to.
You wouldn't think so, but then there's fandom at large. Which has very strong instincts.
Amy - Jun 05, 2011 5:03:36 pm PDT #11499 of 30001
Because books.
So I figure Sherlock's "romance" would not look like DeBeers would like it to.
I think a lot of characters' wouldn't, and simply a lot of people. That shorthand is so old and so cliched, I don't know how accurate it is anymore.
§ ita § - Jun 05, 2011 5:11:07 pm PDT #11500 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
When I describe Sherlock as romantic I just mean as the opposite of aromantic, not as a lovesick tween.
Steph L. - Jun 05, 2011 5:11:50 pm PDT #11501 of 30001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine
So I figure Sherlock's "romance" would not look like DeBeers would like it to.
You wouldn't think so, but then there's fandom at large. Which has very strong instincts.
Are we talking about 2 different things? Thing 1: my opinion as to whether Sherlock is ace. Thing 2: fandom's opinion as to whether Sherlock is ace. (Thing 2, subhead a: fandom's definition of "romance.")
I wasn't even thinking about what fandom thinks. I was just talking about what I thought, and why.
Steph L. - Jun 05, 2011 5:12:14 pm PDT #11502 of 30001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine
When I describe Sherlock as romantic I just mean as the opposite of aromantic, not as a lovesick tween.
What ita said.
§ ita § - Jun 05, 2011 5:32:53 pm PDT #11503 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'm watching SaTC2 and wow, talk about aliens. The actress who plays Samantha looks horrible. I didn't really watch the show much before, but she looks stretched and awful.
But wow, talk about alien motivations. Is this supposed to be womenfolk?