I understand the confusion.
Possibly we have to separate feelings of love from those of a need for sexual gratification.  Not everybody needs another person to satisfy the latter feelings!
I also get what you're saying about assumptions over portrayed relationships.
I personally would never assume anything, but try and judge by what we are shown/told.
The advanatge we have with BBC Sherlock, is that it is based on The Canon.
But we also know what the writers and actors have said about the characters.
My 1st Canon was when I read The Sogn of Four at around 14.  To be honest, If it hadn't been for Mary, I possibly would have thought Holmes and Watson were gay. Looking back, maybe I still did think Holmes was.
It's only in the last few years I discoverd asexuality existed and I now feel this is the possibly the closest description of Sherlock.  But yes, we are all unique and shouildn't have to fit in any boxes.
All I'm sure of is that the boys don't want to have sex with each other.But I think they love each other very much.
I have said it before and will say it agin:  if BBC Sherlock had been a  full on gay sex romp between Sherlock and John, I would have loved every minute.
But it isn't and yet I love it just as much for that.
As regards Mycroft, Mark has stated he considers the man is gay.
As regards any other character, including Mrs H, to be fair The Canon was never about their relationships- but was everything about the relationship between Holmes and Watson.
I personally don't think Sherlock had ever been intimidated by any woman, until he met Irene. I certainly don't think their relationshiop was consumated.  Tho I may have to accept Benedict's view that Sherlock was attracted to her.

Well I might agree with you on the point about John, but not so much the one with Sherlock.
As John and Mycroft have both intonated: who knows about Sherlock...
I would tend to the view that Sherlock is asexual. It is Benedict who has stated that because he sees the Canonical attraction of Holmes to Irene, that's how he played it.
I actually disagree with him on this point, but then maybe a man is better placed to read Sherlock Holmes...I don't know. Maybe a straight man is even better to read him, I repeat, I just don't know.
Yes I certainly agree on the major point of that brilliant Battersea power staion scene:
Irene has always thought she was gay, I suspect largely because of the quality of men she has met to date.  But Sherlock is like no other man.  I think to begin with she finds that a  challenge, but eventually does actually fall in love with him.
I think for John.  Irene is pointing out to him just why the rest of the world think he and Sherlock are gay.  They clearly love each other and in all ways, they act like a couple.  Possibly Irene can only understand love in terms of sex.
Oh yeah I'm not at all denying the existence of bisexuality and I strongly suspect Irene may be...
 I am also not questioning that John could love both a wife and Sherlock.  To date, he has not yet met anybody he loves as much as Sherlock.
I thought Lara was brillaint as Irene, but I have always had a problem with Irene Adler as a character.
Despite my knowing this episode is brilliant, it is one of my least favourite.

Last edited by besleybean (March 30, 2013 5:08 pm)

Except Irene doesn't see it that way at all.
She is purely trying to disarm Sherlock and it works.

Depends if you consider ' love' to always be a ship!
To me Irene implies that John didn't want to hurt his friend.
But yeah, she may well be joining in with the running ' gay' joke.
However she definitely does know John is a hot blooded ladies man(and yes, I hate that term, too!), with the: ' I think he knows exactly where to look' comment.

Well we're OT for Battersea, but seeing as you mentioned it.
To the outside world, Sherlock and John's life could very much resemble that of a married couple,,,including the ' no sex' part!
I actually just think Irene meant they are inseparable, which again, I don't think has to imply sexually so
I reiterate: fantasies, fan art/fic etc are fine.
But as Ian Hallard so beautifully wrote about:  as long as people don't actually think there is going to be Johnock in BBC Sherlock, ain't gonna happen.

I thought it was brilliantly written by Steven and well acted.

I know I'm going to do my reputarion further damage by saying this.
But one of the things I like best about Sherlock so far, is that we've had no sex.
That's not what Sherlock is about and I can do without it,
Much modern TV involves graphic sex. but Sherlock is different.It's bigger and better than that,.
Here we have the best writers writing for the top actors, so it's smart.I only say all of this by way of explanation to my view.Nuditity is not sexual, or doesn't have to be.
In addition, I have my own issues with Irene Adler,anyway.Yet I still defended Steven on this one straight away.
How the heck can a modern woman be portrayed as scandalous?
Plus, Lara was only as nude as she was, because she offered.But at no point is she totally naked.  
We know this by one of the howlers, when we get a clear view of black knickers when Irene joins Sherklock and John in her bedroom.
The apparent nudity was used for appropriate shock value, to shock asexual Sherlock and it worked.

Last edited by besleybean (June 9, 2013 12:49 pm)

I just feel so far BBC Sherlock has dealt with human emotions/relationships in a very adult and honeat way.
Sherlock did keep the upper hand wirth Irene(altho some argue she won by making him save her!), but he knew in different cicumstances, she could have been the one for him.
Sherlock so far has been scathing of John's relationships, but then he knows John hasnt' yet found Mrs Right...this could change.
Sorry I know I'm OT here, but just another thought.
Sherlock is cruel to Mrs Hudson over her dallaince with the gentleman in Speedy's...but then Sherlock knew the guy was a double adulterer.

Quite so...and I love the teddy!

I would like to share my interpretation of the nude scene:

I am not saying that there is no sexual tension or that the above mentioned implications are not important, but there is more. The writers play with us. They deliberately plant clues and they communicate and hide clues quite well.
When we get sentimental scenes, sexual tension or Sherlock being cute, arkward or apologetic it is done to distract us. Look at Sherlock in Hounds when he makes coffee to say sorry. He uses John for an experiment. When we see the "intimate" scene at the fireplace with Sherlock and Irene in 221b we are supposed to think that Sherlock is seduced by Irene. At the end it is just him cold-bloodedly taking her pulse.

When we see Sherlock with the nude Irene we better take two metaphorical steps back from the TV screen and just look at it from the distance.
Sherlock uses just a tiny detail at his collar to perform and be in disguise. Irene goes a step further.
Irene is naked. Irene: You know the problem with a disguise. It is always a self-portrait.
Conclusion: She doesn't wear anything. She wants to hide behind the nudity. And she has sucess because Sherlock sees ??????.

What is the real meaning of this scene?
IMO, a disguise while being naked is a metaphor for telling the truth and misleading through the truth.
This is a clue for TRF when Sherlock talks to John in the few seconds before he jumps.
IMO, Sherlock tells John the truth, but at the same time misleads him totally with the truth. John doesn't understand it because he looks at it from a different perspective and he doesn't have all information. Sherlock doesn't need to tell a lie.  

The naked/disguise might also refer to a book by Samuel Rosenberg called Naked is the best Disguise. The author sees canon as an allegory. He sees references to Sokrates, the Bible, Nietzsche and others in the original stories.

The original quote with "naked is the best disguise" is probably by William Congreve the Double Dealer (1694). It's in my signature.





 

Last edited by Be (June 11, 2013 7:38 am)