can't think of a good title

HIATUS. One day I'll be back...
baskervillles: Upon hearing a smoke alarm, a mother would look towards her child…I really hope you don’t have a baby in here.

baskervillles:

Upon hearing a smoke alarm, a mother would look towards her child…I really hope you don’t have a baby in here.

(via bnedict)

It’s so weird because I didn’t like to label her. Yes, she says, “I’m gay.” But what is she actually saying? “I meet people and I fall in love with them and they happen to be of the same sex?” I don’t know. I’ve literally just seen the interview with Barack Obama backing gay marriage and I’m thinking, we’re in 2012, what’s the big deal? People fall in love and I think more harm is done from suppressing your true identity than being given the freedom to just be. So I never felt like I was hugely flying the flag for gay rights or trying to be this iconic gay figure in any way because what’s being gay? It’s just a label, isn’t it? Because, at the end of the day, I think she had feelings for Sherlock. So then people say, “Well, so she’s obviously not gay. She must be bisexual.” But actually, let’s not label this. Let’s just know that human beings fall for other human beings. I think I’m a bit of an anti-labellist, if there’s such a phrase.

colinfirth:

jamesbonds:

So you know what’s frustrating? 

So Natasha Romanoff (who I adore) is a super badass amazingly powerful and well written female character who also uses her gender and sex appeal and emotions to get what she wants and hey you know what else? Sometimes she gets some help from guys too and despite that she’s still just as badass as before. And the fandom loves her and Joss for writer her and yay go Avengers fandom and go Joss Whedon and go ScarJo! 

But you know who else had all these qualities (except the Joss Whedon part)? Irene Adler. And yet the fandom completely hated her and accused Moffat of being sexist and I just don’t get it. 

It seems like that just because Moffat has done a poor job of writing female characters before and Joss has always been pretty kickass at it, that we automatically accept Joss’ as being appropriately badass and scrutinize Moffat’s until we can find something to bitch about and idk maybe this isn’t the case and if so let me know but this is how it seems and it bothers me a lot. 

Fandom seems to think there’s something more redeemable about the fact that Natasha was “saved” by a man off camera, rather than on camera like Irene Adler was. Were anyone else’s name listed as screen writer for that episode, it wouldn’t have been an issue at all, point blank. And the excuse that “Irene Adler’s ending was ruined” doesn’t fly, because technically, were the story true to canon, Irene never would have appeared again after throwing herself out the window. That was her ending, and she got it, and she beat Sherlock Holmes. Being saved isn’t being beaten, it isn’t losing, it’s putting a character on so high a pedestal that she’s some untouchable god like creature, which dehumanizes her.

(via sotherbyhasremade)

I don’t know how on Earth anyone could interpret Irene Adler as a weak character when she risks everything and is that kind of brave and authentic. I never felt like she needed to be rescued by Sherlock. I think it was more a testament to the effect that she’d had on him that he risked everything to go and save her. I think it says more about his character and the journey he went on from meeting her than it says about her, because actually, she was saying “Goodbye Sherlock Holmes”, she was sitting there ready to die, it was the end of the road for her. I think it says a lot more about what he was willing to risk than her strength or her weakness. In my opinion.

—Lara Pulver (x)

(Source: iceinherheart-kissonherlips)