Not with the dominatrix part- I'm not a major stickler for canon, and I am fascinated with re-imaginings, especially when you're bringing a story like Doyle's into the 21st century. I did not like or dislike anything about her being a dominatrix. I did not appreciate the way they changed her character- I thought Irene Adler was, in many ways, a very admirable character in the book whereas this one consorts with terrorists, particularly Moriarty, and has no issues giving away a secret that will, apparently, set back anti-terrorism efforts decades. There was a fundamental change in her character that bothered me and had nothing to do with her dominatrix-ness. Like you, I felt that they made her a very powerful woman and I appreciated that, even if I didn't appreciate a lot of other things about her.
But there were problems with the portrayal of sexuality. I felt that there was a constant shaming of Sherlock in this. Sexual freedom, in my opinion, includes the choice not to indulge, and if we aren't shaming people for indulging then we shouldn't shame people for choosing not to. Asexuality is a valid choice, and it fits on the spectrum of sexuality that should be respected and appreciated, IMHO.
I also became annoyed with the sort of cop-out that they did with Irene Adler's alleged homosexuality. I say alleged because we never really saw any evidence of it (yes, women were her clients but so were men), and it's possible it was the smoke-screen that Sherlock talked about, the lie she told that gave him a clue to the truth. It's the same sort of thing that annoyed me about Torchwood. Jack Harkness was supposed to defy all stereotypes and be out and proud, and yay he's in same-sex relationship, but the show kept trying to force down my throat this idea that there is a very cliche, predictable pairing between him and Gwen that defines who he is in the show, and that was such a cop-out. This felt a little similar, but about her and not him. I would have respected the writers much more if she had just been ironic in her password choice.
So yes, I had issues with sexuality as discussed in this episode, but different ones from those you discuss. I completely agree with you about your points! And yes, I am stalking you, but I am kind of on my third re-read of random chapters of your demented verse and always feel the need to pop-in and tell writers that ;)
Okay I had issues with the way sexuality was portrayed in this episode
But there were problems with the portrayal of sexuality. I felt that there was a constant shaming of Sherlock in this. Sexual freedom, in my opinion, includes the choice not to indulge, and if we aren't shaming people for indulging then we shouldn't shame people for choosing not to. Asexuality is a valid choice, and it fits on the spectrum of sexuality that should be respected and appreciated, IMHO.
I also became annoyed with the sort of cop-out that they did with Irene Adler's alleged homosexuality. I say alleged because we never really saw any evidence of it (yes, women were her clients but so were men), and it's possible it was the smoke-screen that Sherlock talked about, the lie she told that gave him a clue to the truth. It's the same sort of thing that annoyed me about Torchwood. Jack Harkness was supposed to defy all stereotypes and be out and proud, and yay he's in same-sex relationship, but the show kept trying to force down my throat this idea that there is a very cliche, predictable pairing between him and Gwen that defines who he is in the show, and that was such a cop-out. This felt a little similar, but about her and not him. I would have respected the writers much more if she had just been ironic in her password choice.
So yes, I had issues with sexuality as discussed in this episode, but different ones from those you discuss. I completely agree with you about your points! And yes, I am stalking you, but I am kind of on my third re-read of random chapters of your demented verse and always feel the need to pop-in and tell writers that ;)