If they didn't want us to think about TJLC as a subplot why bring up sherlocks sexuality on the show at all? They gotta be tryin to throw us off. Its such a dense show that everything that happens means something, this should be no different. Even if they'

…This is something I think about a lot.

Because, even back when I was still an enthusiastic casual, before I tripped and landed eyeball-deep in TJLC, I always found this show’s presentation of Sherlock to be inordinately…sexualized.

I mean, we don’t call it “the purple shirt of monk-like asceticism,” do we?

And then of course, there’s the time they made Sherlock sexually unattractive–positively troll-like, in fact– by wrapping his naked, toned body in nothing but a bedsheet.

Wait, did I say “positively troll-like?” I meant “eminently fuckable eye-candy.” Easy to confuse the two, right?

And these are just two instances of a much larger pattern of sexualizing Sherlock in this iteration.

My point was…wait, I had a point? I got distracted.

Oh yeah. My point was, Sherlock’s sexuality, and more to the point, Sherlock as an idealized object of sexual desirability has been part and parcel of this show since day one, and for Mofftiss to claim otherwise is beyond disingenuous and well into fucking laughable, IMO.

This is just the jumping off point. There are mountains of evidence pointing to the idea that Sherlock’s sexuality (as shorthand for a sensualized, corporeal humanity) and its evolution has always been the focal point of this version of Sherlock Holmes. Since day one.

We did not invent this. It’s literally in front of our eyes, and Mofftiss saying differently is confusing and distressing BECAUSE it makes us doubt what is crystal clear in the visual narrative.