BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Character Analysis » D'you think Sherlock has ever had a girlfriend? » October 27, 2012 6:57 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 261

Go to post

Iwantthatcoat wrote:

VivaCohen:
I am demisexual/asexual. And I went my whole life thinking what you said was true, but apparently it isn't exactly. People do feel lust for strangers. We are talking about /attraction/ here, not / behavior/. That is the key point. A "normal" person wanting to jump someone's bones doesn't mean they actually do it; but a demi doesn't feel the /urge/ to jump strange bones. I think it is similar to being sapiosexual (which is also a very real possibility for Sherlock). A sapiosexual sees intelligence as the most important factor and does not care much about other things ( including gender). Now as far as our dear Sherlock is concerned, I think it is very possible he is a sapiosexual who thinks everyone is an idiot.

Sapiosexual lol I like that... he could be

It just seems odd to me as I know so many people who only lust over people they have an emotional bond with. It's as if half the people I know are demisexual then. And it's almost a female stereotype to only lust over someone you have an emotional bond with. I'm just surprised it's in a category of its own. For one thing, many people have "types" and don't lust over anyone but someone who is their "type" tall, blonde, short, brunette for example... so why is there not a category like "demisexual" for them? Only feeling that type of attraction for someone a person has an emotional bond with is the same thing, in a way. It's feeling attraction only under certain conditions. Yet only feeling attracted to one "type" still falls strictly under heterosexual or bisexual or homosexual etc. while type doesn't even have it's own term. I guess what it is is that all sexuality is on a sliding scale and everyone is just somewhere in between so it doesn't work so well to try and make it black and white.

Anyway, I'm rambling, possibly incoherently. I guess I need to go find a forum about this instead of a Sherlock forum before I derail everything

Character Analysis » D'you think Sherlock has ever had a girlfriend? » October 27, 2012 4:11 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 261

Go to post

Wholocked wrote:

VivaCohen wrote:

Iwantthatcoat wrote:

Basically: Someone who does not feel primary sexual attraction, but can react sexually (in response). Somewhere in between a traditional asexual and a fully sexual person. A Demisexual usually needs to be tuned into a relationship before they feel sexual connections. They wouldn't look at a random person and go "wow that person is hot, I want to sleep with him."

.... I think I may be demisexual then.

Hahaha Ditto

ha I just read up on it and I kind of assumed everyone was this way. Like, I look at people and I think "well, they are very attractive to me." but I've never lusted for someone unless I was in love with them. I always assumed when people say they're lusting for someone that they're taking the idea that the person is attractive and combining it with the fact that they have a libido. Like, they're making a decision that the person is lust-worthy. I always assumed when people talk about being attracted to someone they mean they just find them attractive. Do they actually feel a sexual pull toward them? lol I'm sorry... my mind is just blown. Do people actually lust for people they don't know without talking themselves into it?

Anyway... I think Sherlock is a virgin. I don't think he ever dabbled or experimented. My reasons are far less clever than everyone elses but I'm basing this on the fact that the writers wrote Mycroft and Moriarty explicitly stating that he was a virgin. If anyone were to know his sexual history, it would be those two (that sounded weird) but really, it's true. They're great writers, and great writers don't put extraneous writing into the work. So they apparently wanted the viewers to believe Sherlock was a virgin. That's my take on it

Character Analysis » D'you think Sherlock has ever had a girlfriend? » October 27, 2012 3:20 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 261

Go to post

Iwantthatcoat wrote:

Basically: Someone who does not feel primary sexual attraction, but can react sexually (in response). Somewhere in between a traditional asexual and a fully sexual person. A Demisexual usually needs to be tuned into a relationship before they feel sexual connections. They wouldn't look at a random person and go "wow that person is hot, I want to sleep with him."

.... I think I may be demisexual then.

The Reichenbach Fall » At the cemetery, do you think Sherlock was close enough to hear John? » October 11, 2012 9:28 pm

VivaCohen
Replies: 86

Go to post

Sam wrote:

VivaCohen wrote:

Sherlock84 wrote:

Even Cumberbatch and Gatiss are laughing.

Whaaaaat? Sheesh lol Yeah I assume there's some ashes on some mantle or some guy's body in the ground or an empty coffin or nothing at all but they stuck a gravestone up so I assumed the scene took place pretty soon after they put it up. Why is everyone laughing at me??? *cries* same ole, same ole

They are referring to: "I think he just pushes them aside or buries them out of necessity". The fact you chose "buries them" as the metaphor for his emotions is funny when the topic is Sherlock's grave site, not you idea

At least I think I'm right on this, haha

If you're right, then that was a bit slow of me. And I think you're right I completely forgot that I posted anything at all about his emotions!

The Reichenbach Fall » At the cemetery, do you think Sherlock was close enough to hear John? » October 11, 2012 1:36 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 86

Go to post

Sherlock84 wrote:

VivaCohen wrote:

besleybean wrote:

' buries them'?!  You made a funny!

"buries" him yeah lol Because its not really his body but they put a gravestone up Then they visited it. I made a funny? lol

Even Cumberbatch and Gatiss are laughing.

Whaaaaat? Sheesh lol Yeah I assume there's some ashes on some mantle or some guy's body in the ground or an empty coffin or nothing at all but they stuck a gravestone up so I assumed the scene took place pretty soon after they put it up. Why is everyone laughing at me??? *cries* same ole, same ole

The Reichenbach Fall » At the cemetery, do you think Sherlock was close enough to hear John? » October 10, 2012 9:54 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 86

Go to post

besleybean wrote:

' buries them'?!  You made a funny!

"buries" him yeah lol Because its not really his body but they put a gravestone up Then they visited it. I made a funny? lol

The Reichenbach Fall » At the cemetery, do you think Sherlock was close enough to hear John? » October 10, 2012 2:11 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 86

Go to post

The Doctor wrote:

The bit that doesn't sense to me is that Sherlock sports his trademark hairstyle and coat - but isn't the scene about 3 months after the fall?

It would make more sense to me to see him in disguise..

Three months??? I always thought they were in the graveyard right after "Sherlock" was buried. Why do you say three months? I especially thought this because John says he can't go back to the flat, which I don't think he would decide three months after the fall.

Also, I think a lot of what Sherlock does makes him seem callous but I think he really does feel emotions. I think he just pushes them aside or buries them out of necessity. Like when they were looking at the stars and John assumes he couldn't care about the stars and Sherlock makes his point about the fact that he can appreciate those things.

Current Affairs » American Presidential Elections » October 7, 2012 2:00 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 29

Go to post

I'm voting! I'm voting for Obama. I agree with his views, he's intelligent, and while he hasn't ended all of the world's suffering over the past few years, if you look at the facts he has done a LOT. Plus, Romney? I think not. Ever. Even if I was Republican. I am, however, a bit disappointed about how the first debate went.

Other Adaptations » "My Elementary Review:" » October 7, 2012 1:35 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 122

Go to post

I'm watching the pilot right now. If I didn't know this was a Sherlock Holmes adaptation, the only way I would know would be because of the random cliche Sherlock Holmes stuff like when Johnny Lee Miller says "It's elementary" or talks about bees and stuff like that. The characters don't bug me as much as I thought they would, but I found myself bored with them and feeling like I was watching CSI: Baker Street. It wasn't horrible in my opinion, but nothing special. I think what's special about ACD and Sherlock Holmes is the characters... so while BBC Sherlock seems to be Character then Plot, Elementry goes opposite with Plot then Character. I think this kind of took away from the whole idea of a modern Sherlock Holmes in New York. Also, in comparison, BBC Sherlock is just so much more artistically done than Elementary. I know I shouldn't compare the two but it was hard not to notice the massive difference in this aspect in scenes where Johnny Lee Miller recited lines that were almost word for word identical to lines from BBC Sherlock. So, in conclusion, I don't think Elementary is awful but I don't think it will last.

Reichenbach Theories » Go on then...what are your theories? » August 1, 2012 7:14 pm

VivaCohen
Replies: 991

Go to post

tobeornot221b wrote:

Leaving behind his phone, his "physical" note to John can also been seen as a reference to ACD's The Adventure of the Empty House:

"No, Watson, I never was in it. My note to you was absolutely genuine. I had little doubt that I had come to the end of my career when I perceived the somewhat sinister figure of the late Professor Moriarty standing upon the narrow pathway which led to safety. I read an inexorable purpose in his grey eyes. I exchanged some remarks with him, therefore, and obtained his courteous permission to write the short note which you afterwards received. I left it with my cigarette-box and my stick and I walked along the pathway, Moriarty still at my heels."

Ooohhh, I like that idea.

Other Adaptations » Steampunk Holmes » August 1, 2012 5:07 pm

VivaCohen
Replies: 8

Go to post

Oh I saw something about this a while back. I'm down for anything Steampunk

Reichenbach Theories » Go on then...what are your theories? » August 1, 2012 5:00 pm

VivaCohen
Replies: 991

Go to post

ancientsgate wrote:

VivaCohen wrote:

I did, however, think it was very uncharacteristic of Sherlock to throw his phone on the roof when he jumped instead of putting it back in his coat or something. What's the point of leaving his phone on the roof, especially when it's filled with texts relating to murders and Scotland Yard lol

His phone would be SHER LOCKED  Seriously. No one except the most skilled hacker could get into it.

It was done for effect. His back to us, the watchers, perched on that awful edge, he said good-bye to John, started to stretch out his arms, and threw the phone down because he was done with it. Without it, no one could use its GPS to track him, wherever he planned to go. Without it, he couldn't use it and its easily recognizable phone number to make calls or texts. There's no way he could have used it again, paid the bills for its service, etc. So we got to see the very dramatic throw-down (if he's leaving his phone, he must really be going....) and he left that part of his life behind, as he had to.

He thought of everything else, he probably wiped the phone's memory (all except John's number on speed dial) before he ever went up on that roof anyway.

That makes sense.

Reichenbach Theories » Go on then...what are your theories? » August 1, 2012 7:49 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 991

Go to post

kazza474 wrote:

VivaCohen wrote:

I did, however, think it was very uncharacteristic of Sherlock to throw his phone on the roof when he jumped instead of putting it back in his coat or something. What's the point of leaving his phone on the roof, especially when it's filled with texts relating to murders and Scotland Yard lol

What would he need his phone for if he was going to die?
The texts would have been solved cases for the Yard & unlike ordinary people I am sure he would never have been reckless enough to have anythhing on his phone that others could use. That's why they have delete buttons.

Well I mean maybe he needed his phone to stay on the roof because he knew he wasn't really going to die. Why? I don't know why lol. Mostly I'm just mindlessly rambling about things that seem odd to me lol.

Character Analysis » D'you think Sherlock has ever had a girlfriend? » August 1, 2012 5:23 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 261

Go to post

monitaa wrote:

He must've.. probably in school.. He has strong opinions about women..likes to stay away from them.. so there must be some solid reason for that.. I think he's had a past.. maybe no sexual relationship...but jst a school/college crush or a gf..

I doubt that comes from bad relationship experiences though. I can't imagine him getting hurt by a woman. I'd think he'd just call her stupid and move on lol... I also can't imagine any woman remaining with him long enough to be in a relationship with him if he can't even manage to keep a flatmate. Maybe his strong opinion about women comes from the idea that women operate more from an emotional perspective than a mental one and he finds it very annoying.

Reichenbach Theories » Go on then...what are your theories? » August 1, 2012 5:05 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 991

Go to post

sherlockskitty wrote:

hmmmmm...but maybe the tears  are  out of character for Sherlock?   ahhh,  this waiting for a simple explanation is hard.

I think the tears were real because 1. John can't see his face that far away and 2. The crying is actually mostly silent, and he seems to be trying not to cry (sniffing) etc. He doesn't seem to be going to any effort to have John realize he's crying. I also just think the writers love having John and Sherlock's relationship be the center of the series, as they've stated before.

I did, however, think it was very uncharacteristic of Sherlock to throw his phone on the roof when he jumped instead of putting it back in his coat or something. What's the point of leaving his phone on the roof, especially when it's filled with texts relating to murders and Scotland Yard lol

Benedict's Non-Sherlock Work » Frankenstein Spoilers Thread (For those who've seen it) » August 1, 2012 4:46 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 16

Go to post

Sherli Bakerst wrote:

Just saw this last night for the first and only  time and wanted to offer some impressions:

I was surprised at how it began; it was very different from what I was expecting.  I thought it would start off with how Viktor made the Creature and go from there.  And after his brief entrance, I then kept waiting to see more of Ben.  I thought his characterization of Viktor had a lot of Sherlock in it, and I kept finding references to Sherlock in many of his lines.  I thought the set design was amazing and also really liked the music; I could see how the Opening Ceremony for the Olympics had some of its origins in this production.  I thought Ben portrayed the mad scientist really well, especially as he spiralled downwards out of control and into complete insanity.  That's how I interpreted it, anyway.  Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature was great, the tragedy of his existence really came through.  I would have loved to have seen Ben play that role; oh well, sigh.

Now I have to read the novel.

I wish you could have seen Benedict as the creature! Every pair of eyes in the theater were fixated on the screen when I saw it and no one moved for the first 20 minutes of him writhing around on the ground when he was being born as the creature. The physicality was really amazing, which I think really helped him take the role too a whole other level.

I agree with you about the Olympic ceremony! The first half hour of the ceremony could have been taken from the play. Very much a good thing, in my opinion

Character Analysis » D'you think Sherlock has ever had a girlfriend? » June 29, 2012 1:01 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 261

Go to post

deerstalker wrote:

In Sherlock's case, though, intellect predominates to such a degree that the calculation of trouble and distraction that is a relationship  makes it not worth it in his system of values.

This.

Long answer: I don't think that A) if he can't even keep someone around long enough to share a flat with him, let alone keep a friend around until John, that he would be able to keep someone around long enough to enter into a relationship with them and B) I can actually imagine him going through his entire life up until now not even thinking about the idea of having a relationship. He's entirely focused on ("married") to his work. I doubt he ever really thought about it until Irene Adler kind of started pushing herself on him, and even then I think he was only intrigued by her, as opposed to attracted to her. I don't think this makes him asexual at all. Maybe he hasn't even thought too much about his sexuality.

I don't think he would be totally straight though because technically no one really is, studies show. And I think he would probably know about those studies and decide that, scientifically, he must be somewhere in between straight and gay, but never cared enough to put too much thought into it. Or have I thought about this too much?

Short answer: no, I don't think he's ever had a girlfriend lol

Character Analysis » Discussions on the John and Sherlock relationship » June 29, 2012 12:49 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 421

Go to post

Davina wrote:

I don't think this point has been raised here but it specifically to do with Sherlock's handling of the situation with Irene when she appears in the nude in ASiB. He seems to project his own awkwardness and bafflement onto John.

He says, " I don't think John knows where to look."

To which Irene replies, remember she is also very, very good at assessing people," He knows exactly where. Not sure about you...".

Sherlock then tries to deflect his 'embarrassment'/'bafflement' further by saying that if he wanted to look at naked women all he would have to do is look at John's laptop. John has a quick retort ready for that.

So, my point is, in this scene Sherlock is using John to deflect Irene's attention away from himself and what is for him a very unusual situation where he actually feels somewhat out of his depth. I think he does this partly because he believes that John being a 'man of the world' will somehow be able to handle the situation in someway. In fact John does just that by suggesting Irene puts something on, albeit he suggests a table napkin at first.

Very keen observation That makes a lot of sense. I think he probably did feel very much out of his comfort zone and probably was using John as an excuse to rectify that problem. I hadn't thought about the idea of Sherlock trying to get John to handle it though. I forgot about the napkin!  haha

Character Analysis » Discussions on the John and Sherlock relationship » June 27, 2012 3:21 pm

VivaCohen
Replies: 421

Go to post

KeepersPrice wrote:

and know that it's all fine

touche lol.

I don't think his girlfriends actually think he's gay (but one can hope lol) I just think they all realize that while John may be straight, he still cares a lot more about his relationship with Sherlock than with any of them.

Sarah probably wasn't thinking John was in love with Sherlock lol but you're right, maybe she knew it wouldn't go any further between them because of his relationship with Sherlock. And good riddance lol I find her incredibly dull ha

Character Analysis » Discussions on the John and Sherlock relationship » June 27, 2012 3:29 am

VivaCohen
Replies: 421

Go to post

imane nikko wrote:

Wikipedia has a nice rundown of the term "ship" (and related words like slash and yaoi).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_(fandom)#section_3

"Shipping, derived from the word relationship"... now I feel a bit dim for not figuring that out on my own ha

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_%28fandom%29

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum