An ace-friendly deconstruction of the more obnoxious lines in the interview is online. This one really caught my attention:
“Moffat is not saying that Sherlock, like Austin Powers, misplaced his mojo. ‘It’s the choice of a monk, not the choice of an asexual. If he was asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that – it’s someone who abstains who’s interesting. There’s no guarantee that he’ll stay that way in the end – maybe he marries Mrs Hudson. I don’t know!’”
Is sex really the ONLY thing some people can rate as interesting? What is this, high school? Let's leave room for some variety in storytelling. No matter how much popular a given motif is, a steady supply gets boring and people want something else. We really need more positive portrayals of the full range of human sexuality, including asexuality; and while we're at it, also more nonsexual intimacies. Mix it up. And do your research.
I am suddenly extra glad that I have a fishbowl coming up that features Hart's Farm, a setting with two asexual characters, lots of other sexualities, and a penchant for showing affection outside of sex. I'm tired of dysfunctional families, uncommunicative relationships, and characters whose people skills all suck. We do not need any more of this kind of thinking. Stab it with pencils and beat it to death with merry bundles of cash. Meanwhile -- The Odd Trio and Path of the Paladins also feature some asexual characters, available on the Serial Poetry page.
I haven't seen season 2 of Sherlock yet. I loved season 1. I do plan to watch season 2 when I have the chance, but I have mixed feelings about it given what I've heard so far. Perhaps if I throw my expectations down the basement stairs before watching, I'll be pleasantly surprised.