Haha besleybean, I think we're on the same side. You seemed very keen on defending Sherlock's virginity too.
@Solar That was a response to Kaye saying she/he wanted to see Sherlock and Adler in bed together

tonnaree wrote:

SolarSystem wrote:

tonnaree, you naughty girl...! 

 
I try to be good but I get bored.  

Well, don't worry, I'm not really convinced it would make you 'good' if you didn't mention Sherlock, sex and pants in the same sentence. Naughty'n'nice. 
 

SusiGo wrote:

Kaye, do you realise that Sherlock is only uncomfortable when a) women talk to him about sex or b) the subject comes up in connection with women? 
He never ever seems embarrassed when people think that he and John are a couple. He remains totally cool when "Jim from IT" slips him his phone number. He never corrects Mrs Hudson or even Kitty Riley - and that from the man who would outlive God to have the last word. 

And how do we know that Moffat et al will not let him become a sexual person? It is possible but not a fact. We can never know what they are going to come up with next which makes the show so exciting. 

About Jim from IT giving him his number, if you look closely at Sherlock's expression when he finds out that Jim give him his number, Sherlock looks so shocked. XDDDD His eyes are blinking rapidly and his mouth is so wide open there. XD Loved that face.

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (April 16, 2014 3:14 pm)

kaye wrote:

What we don't know is why Sherlock is the way he is about sexual relationships - espeically when he has such close, emotional friendships.  Could be he views sexual, romantic love as something especially dangerous.  That is one question that has never been answered.  

I do find it frustrating that Moffat et al will not let Sherlock ever become a sexual person, because I think that side of him would be so fantastic.  I was half hoping that at the beginning of TEH, we'd find Sherlock in bed with Irene in some hideout! 
But I think they will be true to canon and not let something like that happen. 
 

It′s not that Mofftiss abhore the idea of Sherlock in a loving relationship. The reason they do not want to involve Sherlock in such situations is much simpler: it′s the very structure of a detective story that prevents that. The detective story mixes very badly with different genres. The moment you start adding romantic subplots, overly long descriptions, deep psychological analyses, long social conversations and such stuff into the detective story, you will inevitably dilute the mystery and suspense that should be standing at the centre of this genre and you will risk your audience (or readers) being slightly bored or disappointed. The best classical detective stories – like those of Arthur Conan Doyle or Agatha Christie – are very plot-centric and their characters are deliberately left to be mysterious (in ACD stories) or are just archetypes without deep psychology (in Agatha Christie stories). It would be a bit not good in any other genre, but the detective story actually profits from that.
 
And of course, if your detective is madly in love, his deductions or investigation will stand in the shadow of that and once again, the detective part of your story will suffer because of that fact. That′s the reason why most classical detectives like Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Nero Wolfe etc. are bachelors or old maids.
 
Plus, in BBC version of SH adventures, Sherlock is actually even more alluring when he is so out of reach for everybody, so inaccessible and with an ambiguous sexual orientation. If the authors definitely defined him and clearly got him in some relationship, his character would loose his mystery and allure. So they can′t do that without sacrificing much of that which makes him interesting for the audience. 
 

JNinSoCal wrote:

The writers have said that Sherlock is not a detective series, but a series about detectives. 

Mycroft defined the overarching theme of the series:  What might we deduce about his (Sherlock's) heart?

Yes, but if you take Sherlock Holmes (a detective!) too far from the detective story, your series will someday jump the shark inevitably.

Some people are bitching even now that they didn´t like S3 of Sherlock because it had not such gripping mysteries as S1 and S2. The authors added some character development into the series 3 and with that, they automaticaly weakened the detective side of their creation. I personally liked it but not everybody has the same view of that. Inolving Sherlock in a relationship (with somebody onther than John ) would be a blasphemy, most fans would probably hate that. 

I think "bitching" is quite a strong word, nakahara. Not everybody who miss the mysteries act like that. I see your point, though.
Still, I would want it all 

And this is what would happen if Sherlock really had a girlfriend :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vd0-0nJDj8 

Quite so.

"The detective story mixes very badly with different genres. The moment you start adding romantic subplots, overly long descriptions, deep psychological analyses, long social conversations and such stuff into the detective story, you will inevitably dilute.."
I kind of get what you're saying- don't mix jane austen with sir aurthur conan doyle because it will draw it out and make it boring. However its important to note, there are romantic and character aspects in the show. I think it's the relationship between Sherlock and Watson (which I consider romance), their conversations and psychology, that makes the show a real hit. The detective component is entertaining,but it's the human element that makes it meaningful.

"And of course, if your detective is madly in love, his deductions or investigation will stand in the shadow of that and once again, the detective part of your story will suffer because of that fact."
Lol Sherlock does tend to put human matters on the back burner while he's running around solving cases. But in the end, what's the plot climax about? Love! And people. In the end I think he is very deeply in love with his friends, and thats what ultimately draws people to the story.

Also, more words from Moffat... sorry.. but it's relevent!
One other topic of conversation that fans engaged in following the series premiere of Sherlock was the seeming shift to more character-focused stories."It’s interesting, when were we that mystery-driven?" Moffat said when asked if he felt that the series had changed its direction this season. "The only totally mystery-driven story I can think of is "The Blind Banker." I mean, "A Scandal in Belgravia," which is outrageous from that point of view, has a crime story going for about, what, 25 minutes? Then it’s about a boy and a girl missing each other. That’s it for now. Then the plot, more or less, wakens up towards the end. I think we’ve always favored the characters, because that’s the vivid thing in Sherlock Holmes stories. At the beginning of every Sherlock Holmes story, there are two or three pages of just Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson having a chat by the fireside. That’s what people fell in love with. So we’ve always favored that. As we keep proclaiming to anyone who’s not completely bored of it by now, it’s not a detective show; it’s a show about a detective. That’s why it’s a hit. That’s why it’s exciting."

Makes me wonder why we need to put him in a sexual catagory... is it really that important?
By labeling John, I think we're just trying to understand what he is to Sherlock.. to understand the show Sherlock. We want to do this so we can feel secure about their relationship. I don't think throwing our hands up and admitting we've been challenged is a satisfactory enough answer, at least for me. Is this thing between John and sherlock real or a trick of the light? What is the nature of it? I really care to know about the the truth behind that question.. and I'm sure there must be one. There must be some definition to their relationship if it's sustaining the entire show and the key to its popularity.