I'm not sure about the "gay" message - I think that has been left deliberately ambiguous (again!).    Janine just says that she knows what kind of man he is (which is an odd way to put it if she simply meant that he was gay).   What makes it even more suspect is that I don't imagine Janine would have wanted to have sex with him if he was gay (i.e. not at all attracted to her).    But I think what it really means is that the writers didn't want to pin Sherlock down as gay - probably because they know we like to be able to imagine what we want, and because they like it being open to them writing what they want in future series' (I would guess). 

Seb - I don't know, there might be something odd on Sherlock's part, but I don't see it on Sebastian's part.   I don't think he's an ex.  There could have been something there, but maybe unrequited.  Sebastian makes the comment about Sherlock knowing who people had had sex with (implying that Sebastian was having sex with somebody else).  I don't think they've had sex. 

(I just watched that scene again.  Sherlock lets John do most of the talking, while he does a lot of thinking.  I think Sherlock's use of "Seb" might be just reminding Sebastian of their uni days, the reason Sebastian hired him, because he's better than police.   I think Sebastian then is more or less admitting [subtext] that he knows Sherlock is right, but saying that he doesn't want to deal with a murder case). 

Do you think Molly and Lestrade believe it?  I think the stories are so ridiculous that they make the whole thing look like a lie.   Lestrade's more likely to believe it than Molly. 

Last edited by Liberty (October 5, 2014 3:42 pm)

I ostensibly took it to mean Janine knew Sherlock didn't really do relationships...
But she could also have meant that he uses people for his own purposes.

I just took it that Sherlock considered Seb an old friend...

I don't think there's any huge mystery...
Maybe at uni all the cool kids called him Seb, so Sherlock just used it, too!

I'm thinking (maybe I'm not alone) that maybe Janine's line "I know what kind of man you are" refers to the fact that Sherlock did not use her sexually, therefore she was kind of saying "You're a good, honourable man, in a very weird way". She had time to think,"okay, he used me to get to my boss, but he did it with all the delicacy and care he could find".

Lestrade also told us that he thinks Sherlock is a "great man" and could even be "a good one". I don't think anyone would say that about a sad case of psychopathy...

Well, she does say something like "I'm the only one who knows what you're really like" at Baker Street.  I think she's on to him all along.  Magnusson is using her to get to Sherlock, Sherlock is using her to get to Magnusson.  But I think that she might be using Sherlock to get to Magnusson too ("Solve me a crime, Sherlock Holmes" - which, she says as Magnusson is on his way over to see Sherlock to flash the letters at him, Janine having already given Sherlock the information that Magnusson won't be in his office later). 

Actually, that exchange is kind of funny, because they both know they're going to see each other later at Magnusson's office!

I don't think he used the no sex before marriage excuse - I don't think he'd mentioned marriage.  Although he'd hinted at it by throwing her the buttonhole at the wedding, but she'd known at the time that was false (she goes off with somebody else).   The whole proposal was ridiculous as Janine was already going to let him in to Magnusson's office anyway.  It looks like Magnusson is there when Sherlock makes the proposal (we aren't shown who is with Janine, but Magnusson's seat is very warm when Sherlock arrives). 

At a stretch, "I know what kind of man you are" could mean that she knows he's Sherlock Holmes, the (apparently asexual) consulting detective and that it was obvious that that their relationship was for a case.   And "we could have been friends" meant that they could have collaborated. 

In the lift, Sherlock tells John that Janine will leave him when she finds out that their relationship was a ruse.   I think he's joking and winding John up, but it's funny that he hints that he would continue with the relationship if Janine didn't leave him.   I don't think he would but ... I think there's a little bit of regret there that he's not part of the "human relationships" world, by choice.  I felt that at the wedding too - that Sherlock becomes very conscious that by rejecting that world and being married to his work, he's missing out on something. 

Anyway, because Sherlock deliberately represses his sexuality, we don't get to know anything for sure.   I think not having sex with Janine is to protect her, or him, or both.  I think also, that Steven Moffat said he was shocked by Sherlock Holmes deception in the story and thought it was a terrible thing to do - and perhaps the fact that he had limits helps to soften the blow a bit. 

No, but that would have been quite acceptable in those days.  I could believe that canon Watson and Mary didn't have sex before marriage either. 

I like the modern twist that Janine would have been happier if they'd had sex. 

IMO it is a liberation that today women can principally choose between having sex or not. Not long ago rape in marriage was no crime. And women who chose to have sex before marriage or with people they did not want to marry were regarded as morally corrupt. I think we have come a long way since then. 

I was speaking of those. Sadly there are many countries in which it is different. 

It seems that in mix culture marriages, sometimes the guys just don't get it. It might be ok for you to smack your wife around in your home country but here in Australia, this is NOT legal.

Doesn't stop the guys from continuing this practice and using their religion to justify it. Before you say that it's okay according to your religion, please pick up your holy book and actually READ it. No where in the Quran does it say that it's okay to smack your wife around. What you consider to be a normal way to treat your girl is actually cultural problem not a religious one. Your culture is so backward that it can't tell the difference between cultural practices and religious practices. Using religion to justify your act doesn't make what you do right and it doesn't mean that it's sanctioned by God.

Last edited by saturnR (October 6, 2014 11:44 am)