Women, Sex, and Power - A Rant

[hells_half_acre]

More Sherlock reaction...well, basically, this is my Reaction to Sherlock Reactions.


As I talked about a little bit previously, there are people who took issue with the way Irene Adler was handled in Sherlock. And SOME of the issues are valid - like for instance "How and why is she involved with Moriarty?" Yes, it ties the plot together nicely - but what does it mean about her motivations? Or, for instance, the debate about whether the very end of the episode made her a the victor or the loser in her game with Sherlock....(personally, I see her as being the victor, but again, I just like liking things.)

We get people who miss the point entirely and are mad that she seemed to have feelings for Sherlock even though she was a Lesbian...which I just roll my eyes at, because obviously they miss the entire point of her conversation with John.

And then we get people who are mad that she was a professional dominatrix. Ryan North of dinosaur comics, thinks it's an overused trope - uh okay, he's obviously watching different programs than me. Though, honestly, what would you have her be? An opera singer like she was in the ACD book who just HAPPENED to have a past affair with a member of a royal house? That plot wouldn't go very far - she wouldn't have the information needed to involve the Americans, or terrorists, or Moriarty. She wouldn't have enough clout to garner the interest of anyone, let alone Sherlock Holmes. There would be absolutely no intrigue - I mean honestly...go back and read the original story, it's fun, but there is NO INTRIGUE. "I have this photo, but I'm not going to give it to you and I'm never going to show it to anyone anyway, and you can't fool me with your disguises! Now I'm off to live happily ever after with my beloved husband and I'll never cause trouble again! Bye!" Oh, thrilling television, that.

And we get people who say stuff like this:

 I did side-eye the idea that a woman can only be powerful by being sexual

First off, she is not ONLY powerful by being sexual. She is powerful by being SMART and she just so happens to be sexual. Sexual arousal is her PROFESSION, it is not the source of her power. Her BRAIN is the source of her power, the sex is just a visual sign post - and I'll tell you why...

Completely ignoring Irene for a second... It pisses me off that when powerful women are overtly sexual, they are anti-feminist. That, for instance, Irene showing up naked to battle Sherlock is somehow a BLOW to womankind. Horseshit.

You know what women are supposed to be? Do you know what Victorian women are supposed to be? Do you know why so many of the worlds misogynist religions ask women to cover up? (My apologies to any of you who believe in misogynist religions and take offense that I just called them misogynistic twice). Do you know what the 19th and 20th century women were believed to be? Here's the answer: Women don't want sex. Men are the horndogs who defile them. You have to coerce your pretty girlfriend into letting you fuck her...pry those legs apart. Mini-skirts are scandalous. Bikini's even more so. My goodness, check out that whore in the low-cut top! God, did you see Stephanie the other day - she was dressed like a total slut. If a man has a one night stand, he gets high-fives - if a woman does, she's a slut. More than two boyfriends in your life? - whore. Enjoy threesomes? - whore. And let's not forget what it said in the sex book I found from the 1950s "Women on top is perverse and unnatural" so there you go girls - lie back and think of England. Sex is something done to you, not by you.

So, what is a sign of a woman in a position of power? What's a sign of a woman who is not only in control of herself, but also DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK? Maybe it's that she's HONEST. Maybe it's that if she wants to have you right here, on this desk, until you beg for mercy twice, she is going to fucking do JUST THAT. Maybe she is going to walk into a room completely naked just to freak you out - because she knows how you work already, Sherlock Holmes, and she knows a thing or two about disguises.

Have you ever walked into a room completely naked in a society that is constantly judging how you look when completely naked? If you can pull it off - climb up into a strangers lap - and not bat an eyelash, then you are a pretty goddamn confident girl, I'll tell you that much...but your ability to strut around naked does not make you confident and powerful. It doesn't work like that. Just because A causes B, doesn't mean B causes A.

So fuck anyone who complains about sexually confident women being a DETRIMENT to feminism. If I want to be sexy, I'm going to. If I want to whip people until they orgasm, I'm going to. If I want to sleep with someone, I'm going to. If I want to pick a fight with someone and then battle them with every single tool at my disposal, including my naked body and the fact that sex might alarm them, then I'm going to - because I can, because I'm confident and powerful and I can do whatever the fuck I want and be whoever the fuck I want.

It's one of those Madonna/Whore things...damned if you do, damned if you don't. You're either anti-feminist for being too demure, or your anti-feminist for being too sexual. Why don't we just let people be themselves? How about we stop making every single female on television the representative for all women? Is Sherlock the representative for all men? No? Why not? Oh, because he's a possible asexual sociopath and most men aren't. Well, most women aren't dominatrixes that want to blackmail the British government, so how about we stop forcing Irene to represent our ideal of the perfect woman. Why aren't we talking the same way about Mrs. Hudson? She's pretty badass - I mean, she was attacked by Americans and still managed to stuff that phone into her bra...she once got Sherlock to ensure that her husband was executed for murder... she's a woman who has managed to garner Sherlock's affections without being sexual at all. Maybe SHE can be your ideal of the perfect woman - or is she too old? Not intriguing enough? It's because she hasn't nicknamed herself "The Woman" right? You understand that that title was just a nod to ACD canon, which, quite frankly was WAY more misogynistic than what you just saw, right? Sherlock is not the perfect representation of all men, and Irene is not the perfect representation of all women...there, they really are perfect for each other - if only Irene weren't gay and Sherlock weren't Sherlock. Hamish is a very fine baby name. It's what I picture whenever I say "Jesus H. Christ!"...which is something I say, for some reason.

Anyway, now I'm just rambling. I'm just sick of it. You know what the day will look like when we're finally equal? No one will give a shit about crap like this - a character will just be a character, and not be an ambassador for every single person with the same genitalia, skin-colour, sexual-orientation, or pocket watch.

Comments

[missyjack.livejournal.com]

I actually thought there was a particular point to here being a dominatrix. She and Sherlock are mirrors of each other - and for each (both narcisissts I think) they love getting the better of people, love dominating if you will if in their work. The difference I would say would be that Irene actually gets people's consent, while Sherlock doesn't (and we see the negative effects of this for example in his interaction with Molly) .

And I thought the point of stating she was a lesbian, and John is straight, was to make the point that her/their connection to Sherlock wasn't sexual!

And seriosuly she can sit naked on my lap anyday!

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree - I really saw the episode as basically a battle between two Doms to see who was the ultimate Dominator :P

I really liked that slow walk she did into the other room at the very beginning of the show...I may be primarily heterosexual, but I enjoy a well sculpted ass on any human regardless of gender. ;)

And I thought the point of stating she was a lesbian, and John is straight, was to make the point that her/their connection to Sherlock wasn't sexual!

YES! EXACTLY! Oh man...that's why I said the people complaining about that missed the point of that conversation entirely. Moffat has continually said that Sherlock "is a love story, not a sex story." Just because a girl is naked on someone's lap, doesn't mean that there's sex involved. :P

[katsheswims.livejournal.com]

Completely agree.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Thanks...I obviously needed to vent all that. It's good to know I'm not on my own here. :P

[missyjack.livejournal.com]

Yes! And of course Sherlock's sexuality is a mystery because - the biggest mystery in the Show is Sherlock himself.

who was the ultimate Dominator exactly! And I think Sherlock and Irene were drawn to each other becasue it was like looking in a mirror - they "want" each other intensely because each is an affirmation of their own self image. John by comparison represents what Sherlock is not, so that both draws him in, but he also finds it uncomfortable becasue it brings up what might be lacking in himself - hence his harshness towards John's girlfriends.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

John by comparison represents what Sherlock is not, so that both draws him in, but he also finds it uncomfortable becasue it brings up what might be lacking in himself - hence his harshness towards John's girlfriends.

Very interesting point about John (and Sherlock's treatment of his girlfriends). I hadn't really thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense.

And I think Sherlock and Irene were drawn to each other becasue it was like looking in a mirror - they "want" each other intensely because each is an affirmation of their own self image.

That's one of the many things that is really well done in this episode. It's stated/shown fairly overtly in the episode that clothes say something about who you are - and how many times does Irene wear Sherlock's clothes? A lot. She deduces a crime-scene while wearing his coat after she has already bested him once. Towards the end, when the pull between them is the strongest, she is wearing his robe. They are both very narcissistic people - and what they are attracted (non-sexually) to in each other is fundamentally themselves. You could cut yourself on Irene's cheek bones too, after all.

[candace hudnell (from livejournal.com)]

Thank you. I'm so glad someone doesn't get caught up in petty mess like that.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Thanks - I must admit, by posting this rant, I do feel a little caught up in it, because I'm responding to it.

[missyjack.livejournal.com]

Yes - good observation on the clothes. And of course they both appear naked to assert dominance. Notably noone is suggesting that in being naked at Buck House that Sherlock is sexually attracted to the Queen.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Notably noone is suggesting that in being naked at Buck House that Sherlock is sexually attracted to the Queen.

LOL Sex is the only thing that makes Sherlock powerful, after all.

(icon is a reference to them Irene haters, not anyone in this space :) )

[baruchan.livejournal.com]

First off, she is not ONLY powerful by being sexual. She is powerful by being SMART and she just so happens to be sexual.

THIS. THIS SO HARD. Sexuality is not the end-all and be-all of a person's identity!

I was debating with an RL friend the other day because I actually don't find the connection between Irene and Sherlock romantic, whereas she thinks that it is. I agree with what missyjack said about Irene and Sherlock being drawn to one another because they are basically mirrors of themselves.

They are each other's equals intellectually, and for Sherlock, who always feels like he's surrounded by idiots 24/7, Irene is probably like a breath of fresh air after years of muddling about in the muck. My friends and I call this feeling having a crush on someone else's brain, because all the signs and symptoms of infatuation are there, only you're not attracted to the other person sexually or even romantically, just intellectually.

[mymuseandi.livejournal.com]

I LOVE YOU FOR THIS. If I ever want to have a discussion like this, I don't think I can make it as clear.

First off, she is not ONLY powerful by being sexual. She is powerful by being SMART and she just so happens to be sexual. Sexual arousal is her PROFESSION, it is not the source of her power. Her BRAIN is the source of her power,

YES. Absolutely. I feel that Sherlock isn't attracted to her physically (not at first anyway, maybe later? Who knows) but it was her brain that fascinated him. And she managed to turn his words back to him in their first meeting. And she even managed to figure out how he solved the case of the dead hiker all by herself, which, again, not many people are able to do so. And he did take on the case because she had the guts to maneuver a power-play with royalty, something that caught his eye. So he was attracted to her intelligence and her audacity, I suppose.

This might be digressing a little, but I'm also not sure why he couldn't be attracted to her just because. Be it for her brains, her body, whatever. Some of those objections and reactions are because the painted Sherlock to be asexual, and that he is above all things sexual. I did look up its definition, and am still unclear to what it entails, but is it possible for Sherlock to maybe have a asexual desire for Irene Adler for that just small amount of time, maybe a spike of lust, or even a little sentiment, and then his admiration to her other attributes take over that? (sorry if this doesn't make any sense, i can't articulate it any clearer!)

Bottom line, I like her portrayal, I don't think that she is anti-feminism, and if being a dominatrix gives her an outlet for her intelligence, who are we to judge?

Re: (icon is a reference to them Irene haters, not anyone in this space :) )

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

I think for a lot of people just don't have experience with- or understand non-sexual/non-romantic attraction. This is the only thing that can explain the weird tendency people have to view all deep relationships in a sexual/romantic context.

But yes, you are completely right about Irene being a breath of fresh air for Sherlock...finally, an equal. John, of course, was his own breath of fresh air, but only in attitude - he wasn't on par with Sherlock intellectually and never will be. Irene, on the other hand, has the whole package - and is, arguably the very first person Sherlock meets that has the full package. (One could argue that Moriarty is also Sherlock's intellectual equal - but Moriarty is also TRULY sociopathic and therefore too crazy for Sherlock tastes.)

But yes, "having a crush on someone's brain" is a good way to describe it. I've had a crush on someone's brain before myself - and it's EXTREMELY similar to infatuation... because you might not be attracted to the body, but you want to get as close as possible to that brain...you want to wrap yourself around it and poke at it and stay with it forever.

*delurking*

[spvinter.livejournal.com]

Found my way here through missyjack and felt the need to step in here and give you a fistbump.

This is exactly what has been annoying me about pretty much all of the critique of Sherlock's Irene Adler that I've seen. Saying sex is her only power makes me wonder what the hell they were watching while I enjoyed Sherlock. Her intelligence is obvious throughout the episode.

I saw someone ask if Irene couldn't have been a crafty schoolteacher or something, because dominatrix was so obvious. How they expect a schoolteacher have access to the kind of blackmail material Irene needed I have no idea.

Although there are some valid questions about her motivation as well as the fact that, as intelligent as she was, she should have been able to come up with a plan on how to use her phone without Moriarty's help, she made sense in the context of the original Irene while being, IMO, a lot more interesting.

So yeah. *fistbump*

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

(ugh, just typed out a huge reply and then lost it...let's see if I can recreate it...)

If I ever want to have a discussion like this, I don't think I can make it as clear.

Thanks! I didn't think I was very clear, because I was in angry!rant mode - so yeah...thanks for saying I was!

This might be digressing a little, but I'm also not sure why he couldn't be attracted to her just because. Be it for her brains, her body, whatever. Some of those objections and reactions are because the painted Sherlock to be asexual, and that he is above all things sexual.

It's true, fandom has largely painted Sherlock as an asexual because of his statement that only the mind mattered and "the rest is transport" - but we don't actually know whether that means he's asexual or not. John and Mrs. Hudson don't even know. It could be that Sherlock WANTS to be asexual, because he believes sex to be beneath him - but wanting to be something and actually being something are two different things. The truth of the matter is that we won't ever know Sherlock's "heart" unless he himself tells us - after all, not even MYCROFT knows. So yeah, there IS a possibility that Sherlock is attracted to Irene...we shall never know, unless Sherlock tell us.

Where the difference between sexual/romantic attraction and intellectual/other attraction is important is when we look at Irene. This is what Irene's conversation with John is about in the empty power station - the fact that sexual orientation has nothing to do with her (or John's) "infatuation" (or love) for Sherlock. John is obviously a heterosexual - he dates girls, he SAYS he's not gay...yet the most important relationship in his life, the other half to the "couple" that he is in, is Sherlock. John might not want to have sex with Sherlock, but he IS in love with him.

Where the viewers of the show seem to have fallen down in their comprehension is the fact that love does not equal sex.

Back to Sherlock's asexuality though...it kind of annoys me that there's this belief that if you are intelligent, it means that sex is "beneath you" (and this is completely off topic...though, I think it's also one of the reasons why people are up in arms about Irene being in a sexual profession). Sex doesn't make you stupid. It's this whole sex-shaming culture we still have going. There is nothing horrible, bad, or barbarian about sex. Intelligent people want sex too, and it doesn't make them less intelligent if they have it. So, yeah, people assume Sherlock is asexual because he's smart...and Spock only had sex every 7 years, because he was smart...but damn it, if they were REALLY smart, they'd realize how goddamn awesome orgasms are.

Re: *delurking*

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Hi! *fistbump*

I saw someone ask if Irene couldn't have been a crafty schoolteacher or something, because dominatrix was so obvious.

LOL - yeah, in my mind, "schoolteacher" is such a female stereotype...that would have been 10x worse, not to mention, as you point out, it wouldn't have made any sense for blackmail material.

Although there are some valid questions about her motivation as well as the fact that, as intelligent as she was, she should have been able to come up with a plan on how to use her phone without Moriarty's help, she made sense in the context of the original Irene while being, IMO, a lot more interesting.

Yes, exactly. I'm all for discussions about her motivations, and why or how she ended up going to Moriarty (and what that says about her character)...these are all concerns and questions of mine too. But as you say, it all made for a very interesting episode, and much more intriguing than original Irene...who, I'm sure was an intriguing woman for Victorian times, but wouldn't make for a very interesting story these days.

[baruchan.livejournal.com]

I think for a lot of people just don't have experience with- or understand non-sexual/non-romantic attraction. This is the only thing that can explain the weird tendency people have to view all deep relationships in a sexual/romantic context.

Again, THIS. My sister said that someone once told her that they thought my best friend is my girlfriend because "we were too close to just be besties". She's not; we're just really, really close.

And thank you, you just described all my crushes on my teachers over the years. :D

[majorshipper]

Directed here via missyjack!

This post(and the comments!) are so fascinating when it comes to sexuality vs. intelligence in fandom and RL. I for one thought the episode and Irene's portrayal as fantastic, with only a couple little nitpicks that I'd have to rewatch to catch and expand on.

*shrugs* Haters are always gonna hate Irene, either because she gets in the way of their OTP, or because she's too feminine/modest/whatever(or not enough!). I've liked her in practically every incarnation I've seen or read, so I never questioned that I'd like this version.

I just know I really like the way they threw out the whole "If you're attracted to someone, it must be sexual, and if you're not, then you obviously can't love them" thing that fandom seems to love.

Going off on a tangent, that's always been one of the biggest things that annoys me about some fandoms; if there's a bond/relationship/love, even, then it must absolutely be sexual. And I say that as a shipper and slasher of less-than-canon pairings! But there's a difference between seeing the world through your rosy porn-filled shipper glasses all the time and being able to take them off. And I think that may be tripping up a lot of Sherlock fans.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

*shrugs* Haters are always gonna hate Irene, either because she gets in the way of their OTP, or because she's too feminine/modest/whatever(or not enough!). I've liked her in practically every incarnation I've seen or read, so I never questioned that I'd like this version.

It's true. As I said in a previous post - a lot of the time it seems like these people were determined to hate ANYTHING they saw far before the episode even aired. It's doomed from the jump.

I'm actually really picky about my Irenes - because I don't like it when she's made out to be a career criminal (as in the ritchie!verse) but I DO like this Irene, and I think that says a lot about how awesome she is.

I just know I really like the way they threw out the whole "If you're attracted to someone, it must be sexual, and if you're not, then you obviously can't love them" thing that fandom seems to love.

Oh man, me too! I LOVE that scene between Irene and John.

Going off on a tangent, that's always been one of the biggest things that annoys me about some fandoms; if there's a bond/relationship/love, even, then it must absolutely be sexual.

Yes, me too! I've spoken about it before on my journal, in my entries http://hells-half-acre.livejournal.com/tag/on%20love%20%28and%20slash%29 I think it's all well and good to have a bit of fun with hot gay sex and writing bonds in sexual terms as a way of bringing them to a VISUAL level (because I think that's what sex becomes in slash, it's a VISUAL for a love-bond)...but I also think that the tendency to slash everyone, to not be able to take off those shipper glasses, speaks to this weird tendency in our society to place romantic love over all other forms of love - to say that it is somehow better or MORE than friendships/family/other-bonds. And it's a tendency that I feel works to the our detriment, because it's a belief that may cause us to give less attention to these other bonds in our own lives, that might cause us to not put as much value in them as we should. But, that's me extrapolating to the extreme...basically, I'm saying I agree with you. I like Sherlock/John as much as the next shipper, but not to the point where I can't see that it's not ACTUALLY the relationship that John and Sherlock have.

(ETA: sorry about the multiple edits - I was trying to make my link all fancy, but it won't work :( )

[claudiapriscus.livejournal.com]

I'm leaving a comment because I think I have to show up whenever you have these conversations- I'm pretty sure that's a rule somewhere.

But I don't follow the show, so i don't actually have anything to say!

So I guess I'll do this instead:

>Insert somewhat contrary opinion here, with points of agreement<

;)

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

lol - I thought of you when I posted this, and wondered if you watched the show, so I'm glad you stopped by!

>Insert reply here about how I understand your point of view, but beg to differ on a few points, then go on to mention that I appreciate your input and feel as though my mind has been enriched from this intelligent discussion<

;)

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

The best part about close non-sexual/non-romantic relationships is that they are also non-monogamous. You get a friend for life, but you're still able to date! It's the best of both worlds! ;)

I too have a best friend who people assume is/was/should be a boyfriend. No. Just...no. I'll love him forever, but NO. So, basically: I completely understand.

[majorshipper]

To be frank, that's the nature of introducing a female character into a show where the fandom is already large and well established - and already has dominant slash pairings(that the female would possibly come in the way of). There's always going to be a large group of people willing to write her off, find any excuse to hate her, or turn her into their generalized punching bag. It happens a lot, but I have faith that the writers of Sherlock will be able to avoid compromising her character to acquiesce to the haters. I'm looking at you, SPN.

It was a fantastic breath of fresh air to see that ridic theory disposed of! I've always been more of a het/gen fangirl in previous fandoms(even when they were slash-dominated, like SGA), so when I stumbled across SPN, I didn't get why I couldn't find some awesome fics where Dean and Castiel or Dean and Sam loved each other without it being all about the sex. Fandom in general likes to paint things in very stark blacks and whites(which I guess reflects society), and that will always cause problems, no matter what side you're on. But I have to say, it's nice to see someone else speak out about it and take a stand against the silliness.

to place romantic love over all other forms of love - to say that it is somehow better or MORE than friendships/family/other-bonds.
This is such an interesting point, because SPN is a perfect example of non-romantic love between people, be it Dean and Sam or Dean and Cas or any number of characters on this show all about family bonds. And yet, fandom consistently turns it all into slash (which isn't to say I have a problem with the romanticization of some of these relationships; hell, I slash like a boss in this fandom). It's a nice reflection on society in a subculture that tries to be nothing like society, though. and like you mentioned, it does effect your RL if you take it in a lot (and especially if you get involved in fandom as a teen, when you're developing all your worldviews and individualism). It's like a constant spiral down, sometimes.
IDK. I could talk for ages, literally, on the subject, because I feel like I have a fantastic example in my own life of how bonds(familial and between not-blood family) can be incredibly strong and incredibly close without taking on any kind of sexual nature. And my own situation just makes me look at fandom and think "wtf r u doin?" sometimes.

(I just have to flail at you that it's so nice to have an intelligent conversation on the topic. I've yet to find anyone else who gets why I'm the way I am with my shows and fandoms. Now I'm off to read those posts you linked!)

[claudiapriscus.livejournal.com]

My sister loves this show...when we get the new episodes, I will watch them with her and then try to form an opinion. :)

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

There's always going to be a large group of people willing to write her off, find any excuse to hate her, or turn her into their generalized punching bag. It happens a lot, but I have faith that the writers of Sherlock will be able to avoid compromising her character to acquiesce to the haters.

Very true. Very true. And yes, I personally, kind of like Moffatt "fuck you" attitude when it comes to the fandom. I'm probably in a minority on that, but I like that he stays true to his vision (even if I don't agree with his vision), despite what "the fans" want.

I've always been more of a het/gen fangirl in previous fandoms(even when they were slash-dominated, like SGA), so when I stumbled across SPN, I didn't get why I couldn't find some awesome fics where Dean and Castiel or Dean and Sam loved each other without it being all about the sex.

See, I was a big slasher before I found SPN, and then suddenly I was like "hold the phone, why aren't I enjoying all this sex?" and I had to take a step back and really analyze myself and why slash wasn't sitting right with me anymore. If you're interested, all my fanfic is Gen - and I'm all about the bro-love. ;)

It's a nice reflection on society in a subculture that tries to be nothing like society, though. and like you mentioned, it does effect your RL if you take it in a lot (and especially if you get involved in fandom as a teen, when you're developing all your worldviews and individualism).

It's true. Fandom likes to think of itself as subversive - but in many aspects, it's not.

I was also someone who did come to fandom as a young teen, when I was still developing my worldviews and individualism. Thankfully, I'm the self-analytically sort...but I have noticed that I have really odd ingrained reflexes, like my tendency to distrust people's affections unless they are gay. Seriously, I'll see a heterosexual couple and I'll think "I wonder if they really love each other, or if they are just faking..." and then I'll see a gay couple (male only) and think "awww, true love." It's frickin' weird.

I could talk for ages, literally, on the subject, because I feel like I have a fantastic example in my own life of how bonds(familial and between not-blood family) can be incredibly strong and incredibly close without taking on any kind of sexual nature. And my own situation just makes me look at fandom and think "wtf r u doin?" sometimes.

ME TOO! Man...yeah, I mention it in one the posts that I linked.

I just have to flail at you that it's so nice to have an intelligent conversation on the topic. I've yet to find anyone else who gets why I'm the way I am with my shows and fandoms. Now I'm off to read those posts you linked!

I hope you like them! It's great to talk to you too! I love intelligent conversations...especially with people who agree with me. ;)