BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Who would suit Sherlock in a relationship?

Mary Me · January 10, 2014 6:27 am

I also think it is more characteristic for Sherlock to stay off relationships but if I was to see him involved in a romance with someone I'd choose Molly.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 7:02 am

For Molly's sake, I wish I could agree. That poor girl deserves a little attention from our boy...but I just don't see it. At the very begining I wanted it badly. Then I met Irene, and I wanted him to boff her brains out.....and that was about it. Pehraps if he were polyamerous it would work. More than one person, so he would have choice. Even then I don't really see him getting pinned down.

Ozma · January 10, 2014 8:22 am

I am actually quite happy to be fan of a series which doesn't feel the need to show sex and people spectacularly at it in every episode. It's refreshing.

I hope Sherlock stays the way he is. I never wanted him to do anything with anyone.

Kerkerian · January 10, 2014 5:21 pm

I keep thinking that my husband would suit him. There are frightening similarities sometimes.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 7:46 pm

Kerkerian wrote:
I keep thinking that my husband would suit him. There are frightening similarities sometimes.

HA! I don't know why, but that's funny. Your husband sounds fun.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 7:47 pm

Ozma wrote:
I am actually quite happy to be fan of a series which doesn't feel the need to show sex and people spectacularly at it in every episode. It's refreshing.
.

I agree. I don't want to see it. Just imply it happened so the sexual tension is gone, and move along. I want them to do it just to have it done with.

besleybean · January 10, 2014 7:53 pm

But why should they?
Holmes has no relationships in The Canon, so I want BBC Sherlock to be exactly the same.
There is no sexual tension...well only John wanting to shag women.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 8:05 pm

Yes. But I feel that at some point they are going to make up their own versions of these people. Take artistic liscence. Because canon is finite, I think they are going to have to make things up as they go along. Besides, as a writter, where is the fun of basically doing STRAIGHT sourse material? It would be easy, granted...but what would really be the point of writting at all? Just hand the actors the books, and call it a day? Nah. I think our boys want to have a bit of fun. Look at Gatiss. The League of Gentlemen? He's a guy who likes to have some fun. If ALL Sherlocks are the same...why bother?

besleybean · January 10, 2014 8:09 pm

Fun doesn't necessarily = sex.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 8:11 pm

When I say fun, I'm not just talking about sex. I'm talking about the whole creative process. Which includes the licence to add things that may not be there. Or perhaps take some things away. Canon is not LAW.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 8:16 pm

BTW, I myself happen to be primarrily aesexual. Which is why I suppose I want them to just do it,and have it done. They've obviously written it in. It's there. The only way to get rid of it is to do it. That or have one of them die. How many ways are there to write away sexual tension that aren't far fetched? They've written it in so plainly that it can't just disolve away. No one would believe it.

besleybean · January 10, 2014 8:18 pm

Well I would, as I see no sexual tension whatsoever.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 8:20 pm

They could always hook her up with a new man. All "Tom" style. That would work for me.

besleybean · January 10, 2014 8:22 pm

I think Molly and Sherlock would be great, I just don't see it happening.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 8:25 pm

I don't think Molly is "enough" for him. She lacks a certain spark of adventure. But I agree. It would be rewarding to see Molly "get her man." But unlikely.

sj4iy · January 10, 2014 8:29 pm

besleybean wrote:
Well I would, as I see no sexual tension whatsoever.

This. Not everything is 'sexual tension', and I've read nothing of the sort into either of the characters.

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 8:33 pm

Perhaps. But her whole being is that of sex. It's how she is. It's who she is. It's what she does. She is this programs human embodyment of sex. And she is thrust at the main charachter. You may not preceve it as recipricated...but you cannot deny her whole exsistence is to add the element of sex.

besleybean · January 10, 2014 8:40 pm

Wasn't that Irene's role?

VaticanCameoBrooch · January 10, 2014 8:44 pm

besleybean wrote:
Wasn't that Irene's role?

Yup. That's my point.
She IS sexual tension.

Last edited by VaticanCameoBrooch (January 10, 2014 8:50 pm)

besleybean · January 10, 2014 8:54 pm

Oh right, sorry...
But she's long gone.