I actually think it's been remarkably civil compared to most examples of online interaction - especially considering this is a topic people feel very strongly about.

tonnaree wrote:

When I stated that Sherlock is a bottom I meant it humorously, but I also just meant it is an accurate description of how I have viewed the character.

Sherlock presents a hard cold surface.  He likes to dominate in any social interaction he has to participate in.  But in those rare moments when he is able to let his guard down he is very soft.  I see in him a need to be vulnerable and let someone else take control.  It is also something I don't think he's ever found, but that he shows signs of trusting John enough to let him.

I intended none of this as a joke or a stereotype.  As a "B" in the LGBTQ community I am all too aware of how it feels to have your sexuality made fun of and the valid points that have been made about devaluing the "feminine."  But we in the community do have a sense of humor.  As a self-proclaimed bottom myself, I did not mean it as an insult to Sherlock.

I'm not disagreeing with this at all, but to me, this is not really to do with sex, sexual positions, or BDSM orientation.  And I think that's another common misconception, to be honest.  I can see that it would make sense that somebody who wants to hand over control in "real life", might want to do it sexually, but we're odd creatures and it just doesn't seem to follow as logically as it should.   

I think the only way to know what's he's like sexually, is if what we see (wanting to give up control, for instance) is directly related to sex.   That's why I'm referring to the interaction with Irene - because her approach is blatantly sexual.   If she's so perceptive, and she takes a dominant approach, then it's likely he has submissive tendencies.  (But he could be a switch, of course.   And what's probably more interesting, is that she also takes a very cerebral approach, matching his own skills in deduction, and being almost a version of him at times - she appeals to his mind and his narcissism). 

Funnily enough, we don't have the same information on Irene.   When we know she's aroused, it's when she's proposing vanilla sex (presumably).  Sherlock is actually the only character that we have any information on, in terms of BDSM orientation.  Well, apart from the partially seen young royal, I suppose. 

But this is just a bit of fun (I agree, it's good to be light-hearted sometimes!).   I do have my suspicions that Irene is presented in this way partly as a generic male fantasy - a kind of female Mr Grey. 

Last edited by Liberty (August 8, 2016 5:12 pm)

Yes, as we haven't even had one single sex scene in BBC Sherlock(thank goodness)...I am baffled at the discussion.

Interesting musings. I think both you, tonnaree and Vhanja, have a point.... so maybe Sherlock is a switch? Or a category of his own?

Well, Benedict did also say that Sherlock would lose control.  "Very much so". 

http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/news/a23415/benedict-cumberbatch-talks-sherlock-and-sex/

But I have to say, just from reading what he said, I get the impression he's talking entirely about vanilla sex.  His headcanon Sherlock does not come across as a sub or a masochist, in my opinion.   More of a top, if anything, but only in a very vanilla sense of being the sensation-giver.  There's also a comment he made about the night in Karachi that suggests he doesn't see either of them that way. 

Vhanja, where do you see evidence for him being a top/dom? I completely agree that he could be a switch, but I don't really see anything in Irene's approach that would suggest that he swung the other way. 

Which I personally, don't think ever happened.  It's not my headcanon, I tell you!   But it probably gives an insight into how he sees the character.  Possibly that means that he and Moftiss (well, Steven mainly, as ASIB was his, wasn't it?) don't exactly align, or it just means that Irene's approach = generic male fantasy, rather than suggesting a BDSM orientation.

Last edited by Liberty (August 8, 2016 7:46 pm)

And for science, of course.

I had actually planned on going through the list and commenting each point - but the list was so long. 

But I think all these have perfectly viable explanations without TJLC. Some of them I don't see have anything to do with John at all (for instance, the first one is easy: It's the first moment of a new tv show, meaning they are establishing characters. And they are establishing Sherlock Holmes as a slightly rude person with little care for social niceties and with no romantic/sexual interest in women. (To be honest - the only thing we can read out of that one scene is that he isn't interested in Molly, by then we know nothing about other women - or men). 

The rest can either be just as easily explained by a close friendship (you can have jealousy in friendships too, perfectly normal and understandable).

And some of them I don't get why they are there. "Why did John look so heartbroken?" (Sherlock jumping). Anyone would look heartbroken if your closest friend commited suicide in front of your eyes. You don't need a romance conspiracy for that.

 

Liberty wrote:

Answers for all of those?  I'll give it a go, but it might be several posts over several days! 

I love your spirit!

Schmiezi wrote:

Indeed. Isn't that rather telling?

No, I wouldn't say so. Everyone can put up a long list of pros or cons towards anything. That the list is long doesn't say much, the important thing is the content. And the majority in that list is thing that to me speaks of a close relationship, the rest I don't see having much to do with their relationship at all but more to do with Sherlock as a character.