Another rant about Irene
thecutteralicia:
I guess this an Irene themed Thursday after my last post and now this. But there’s something I’ve come across before and I recently saw it again. And it pisses me off every time. It’s the dismissal of Irene’s character because she’s supposedly “a lesbian who turns for the right man.”
I’m sorry but
I understand that people have varying views on the exact nature of Sherlock and Irene’s feelings for each other. As it’s left open to interpretation in the episode, that’s fair game. But what’s not open to interpretation is that Irene identifies as gay in the episode. Not straight, not bisexual. It’s implied that she may have had sexual contact with both men and women in her work, but if she’s a professional domme that’s not a given (pro dommes will often do the disciplining of the client but not the actual sex). Even if she does, that has no bearing on her personal life or how she identifies sexually. Sex workers often do things that aren’t their personal cup of tea because the goal is to satisfy the client.
Back to the point. Irene is gay. Gay gay gay. Why? Because she says so.
There is exactly zero evidence in the episode that she suddenly “turned straight.” She and Sherlock didn’t sleep together. They didn’t date. They didn’t even kiss (unless you count her giving him a peck on the cheek). They didn’t ride off into the sunset together. Maybe she goes back with Kate or maybe she ends up single, who knows, but nowhere at the end of the episode does it say Irene turned her back on her sexuality and went to spend the rest of her life with a man.
So why does a female character who identifies as gay - and who does nothing more intimate than touch wrists with a male character - get saddled with an “ex-lesbian” label? My theory relates to the way lesbianism is portrayed in TV/film. Irene doesn’t pop up every five minutes to do or say something that announces, “Still gay.” She even flirts with a man. It’s for ulterior motives but still! She flirts with a man! The media has told us that is not how lesbians act. Lesbians don’t like men, lesbians are cold and uptight. They’re only allowed to be flirty within a narrow parameter, usually when hitting on straight women.
It’s not enough for Irene Adler to state outright that she’s gay. She only said it once and without constant repetition, certain viewers can just toss her statement aside once she doesn’t conform to lesbian stereotypes. Meanwhile heterosexual female characters are allowed to flirt, kiss, even have sex with other women and their heterosexuality is never in doubt. Remember when Phoebe kissed Rachel on Friends?
Or when Rachel kissed Winona Ryder in the same episode? Where was the hand-wringing over what that said about Rachel and Phoebe’s sexual identities? Who wondered whether that meant Rachel and Phoebe were gay now? No one. That’s because heterosexuality is still considered the natural default, while if you’re a queer character, you have to prove it. A character who steps out of the pre-drawn gender and sexuality boundaries must be able to explain. That’s why we have Irene Adler, a self-identified gay female character, stripped of her sexual identity by certain viewers. Not for having sex, a relationship or even kissing a male character, but for being flirty and maybe possibly having some sort of positive (not necessarily romantic) feelings for someone other than a woman. Straight female characters, OTOH, will continue to be allowed to toy with other women while keeping their heterosexual identity intact.
thecutteralicia:
I just realised something. I reblogged this before because I thought that it was a good, valid point. And it still is - you’ve certainly explained yourself eloquently. Nonetheless,there is something that has been annoying me.
Yes, Irene identifies as gay. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, even she had spent the rest of her life with Sherlock it is still completely acceptable for her to identify as a lesbian, regardless of who “she ends up with.” And yes, that comment about her “turning straight” was foolish and it ignorant. But that is partly because of Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat.
They made it clear in the episode that Irene Adler was in love with Sherlock (that was how he solved the case). She didn’t just touch his wrist or flirt with him. She was in love. No, that doesn’t mean that Irene isn’t gay. It doesn’t justify that silly comment. But it does mean that Irene was written to be in love with a man, and you can’t disregard that or blame everything on the media.
fangirlingforboys:
Well, Mark Gatiss had one of my favorite quotes about Scandal: “It’s about Sherlock and love, not Sherlock in love.” He’s also consistently described Irene as a lesbian when referring to why she would never be with Sherlock. And Moffat and Gatiss called Scandal “a non-love story.” That’s why I said in the original post that people have varying interpretations. I personally don’t think they were in love nor do I think they were intended to be depicted that way, but I don’t have a problem with people who do see it.
professorfangirl:
Yes, I love this. But could you say more about her attraction to Sherlock? I want to resolve that…Because the crux and climax of the whole episode, the solution to the mystery, Sherlock’s triumphant deduction, is to read in her body the signs of desire. The pulse, the flush, the dilated pupils, all tell him the key to her code—him. Are you saying that this isn’t sexual? I could see that, I guess. But it seems deeper than “maybe possibly having some sort of positive (not necessarily romantic) feelings.” I’m just so struck by the fact that she says she’s gay, and then it looks as if heterosexual desire is her downfall. [...]
thecutteralicia:
[...] I’d argue that there are different kinds of attraction and sexual attraction is only one of them. I think the point of the scene between Irene and John at the power station was meant to illustrate that. Irene insisted John and Sherlock are a couple and John denied it on the grounds that he isn’t gay, no matter what Sherlock is. Irene’s reply of, “Well, I am. And look at us both,” basically meant, “I didn’t say either of us wanted to have sex with Sherlock, you dolt.” John was expressing the view of mainstream culture, which often makes sex the be all and end all of adult relationships. She was drawing the line between sexual and other kinds of attraction.
Was the pulse, etc. a sign of sexual attraction? It could’ve been. I’m gay but if Benedict Cumberbatch stroke my wrist and whispered in my ear I’d melt into a puddle of goo. That kind of goes back to my point about the way society boxes up certain sexuality. As if gay people can’t experience even fleeting sexual attraction to someone of the opposite sex, it must be all or nothing. No wavering on the Kinsey scale.
But my personal opinion is that Irene was mainly attracted to Sherlock’s mind, his skill, and the fact that he’s probably unique among the people she deals with in her circles, most of whom are probably obsessed with sex and power and angling for both. Sherlock OTOH is interested in neither of those things. I think she was attracted to him as an adversary and someone who played the game with pretty pure motives. She probably has her pick of sexual partners and I don’t think an emotionally stunted virgin is probably her ideal in that area. I think the bedroom is probably the last place Irene would like to get to know Sherlock.
No comments:
Post a Comment