(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 05:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foomf.livejournal.com
Only if one is thinking of a woman in the incredibly sexist context of the 1940s American urban middle-to-upper-class.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 07:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] masonk.livejournal.com
No. No, I don't have to admit that at all.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 07:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kjc.livejournal.com
It is, actually, an interesting argument.

The acrostic is totally random, but rest is entertaining.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 09:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lil-shepherd.livejournal.com
Blast! That's what I was going to say.

Word, anyway.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 11:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foomf.livejournal.com
Note that nowhere in my response did I say anything about Holmes and Watson NOT being lovers. Although even that much is probably excessive.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 12:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robotech-master.livejournal.com
Which was, oddly enough, still less so than Victorian England.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 12:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] foomf.livejournal.com
In some ways, yes. It depends on which social stratum.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 06:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lil-shepherd.livejournal.com
Probably - but that idea dates back a l-o-o-n-g way.

Personally, I see Holmes as asexual.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-10 07:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robotech-master.livejournal.com
Yes, but a sexual what?

(no subject)

Date: 2007-10-11 06:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lil-shepherd.livejournal.com
Not touching that one with the proverbial barge pole.

August 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425 26272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags