But we can't think of how we respond in situations, we have to think how the character would feel.
Now we are at a slight disadvantage with Sherlock in that we don't 100% know his sexuality, orientation etc....but if he likes anybody it has only be shown as being  a woman. So just maybe that's what he likes-women!

SusiGo wrote:

And yet they chose have him say in the first episode and the first time his orientation was touched upon that girlfriends were not his area while having a boyfriend would be fine. 

And the only person who is ever expressly mentioned as being loved by Sherlock is John. (Excluding the forced I love you to Molly because IMO this does not count). So even if he was sexually attracted to Irene, the scripts make it quite clear that his emotional/romantic attraction or whatever you may call it belongs to John. Which is further emphasis by the fact that no one can make him as happy or unhappy as John can. 

Yes to all this. :-)

Well, it's all about the definition of love.
BTW, who do you think, Sherlock had sex with, as Eurus' deduction seems to be right.

SusiGo wrote:

And yet they chose have him say in the first episode and the first time his orientation was touched upon that girlfriends were not his area while having a boyfriend would be fine. 

And the only person who is ever expressly mentioned as being loved by Sherlock is John. (Excluding the forced I love you to Molly because IMO this does not count). So even if he was sexually attracted to Irene, the scripts make it quite clear that his emotional/romantic attraction or whatever you may call it belongs to John. Which is further emphasis by the fact that no one can make him as happy or unhappy as John can. 

Well, John is the main person in his life, whereas he only has the occasional text contact with Irene - two very different relationships!   And obviously the focus of the show is John and Sherlock's relationship.  It depends what you mean by "romantic", but I do think they made it clear that Sherlock's love for John is platonic, whereas his attraction to Irene is romantic.

We were talking about something similar in the Mary thread, but I kind of like that they have kept Irene mostly to one episode, and then used her just to show that mostly hidden aspect of Sherlock (his sexual/romantic side).

Now that first conversation - I don't hear it that way.   Saying that boyfriends are fine didn't mean that he had (or was going to have) boyfriends, but was in response to John trying to make it clear that he wasn't homophobic!   He goes on to say that he considers himself married to his work i.e. he's not looking for/interested in romantic attachments.  In ASIB, John still doesn't know Sherlock's orientation (when he asks Mrs Hudson about him, IIRC), so obviously John didn't think that Sherlock was telling him he was gay in that Angelo's scene.  If there's any doubt about it (because I do see how people could interpret this differently), I think it's made clear throughout the show - he continues to avoid romantic attachment.

Only one person happens to break through (Irene), and even then he still tries not to text!   But she's definitely his romantic/sexual focus.   That's made clear in TAB in the greenhouse scene, I think, and in TLD, and in TFP when Eurus picks up on it, etc. 

Schmiezi wrote:

My take on the greenhouse scene is completely different and I remember being very surprised when I first read the reading you prefer, Liberty.

I see Sherlock strongly objecting the idea of needing a woman on his life.

Oh, he does object!  But it's not because he doesn't feel those "urges", I don't think.  It's implied that he does.   And I think that's backed up again in TLD. 

(But yes, I understand being surprised - I was surprised too, the other way round!  I remember coming here thinking "Oh, well, that puts the whole thing to rest" to find out that a lot of people read it in completely the opposite way!). 
 

But wasn't it this ambiguity that some people claimed where queer baiting?

Ah, ok. Yeah, me neither. And I feel we have that ambiguity back in the ending of TFP, seeing as just about any ship - or no-ship - can find what they are looking for.

I don't think the ending is particularly ambiguous, but I do think it leaves people free to imagine what comes after. 

I think that maybe the reason for S4 being less ambiguous was that they had to tie up loose ends and finish off.   There was no need to spell things out so clearly before. 

I suppose it comes down to interpretations and intentions again.   It's not really ambiguous when it comes down to the writers' intentions - they meant one thing or another, and I think they've made it clear which they meant.  But there are still possibilities for different interpretations.  And the writers' product isn't even the finished product - there is still all the slant put on it by actors, directors, and other crew - not to mention the fact that there is more than one writer!   I think I mentioned above that my gut feeling is that Steven and Mark have slightly different interpretations of Sherlock's relationship with Irene, for instance.  Obviously Steven has the bigger influence there (as he has written Irene), but Mark may have had something different in mind when writing other scenes. 

We were talking about Twin Peaks earlier, and what I'd read was that the actors only get to read their own parts/scenes.  They don't get the whole script.  Obviously it isn't considered necessary for them to know the whole "story", and perhaps it's even considered detrimental for them to know too much.   It reminded me of Amanda not being told Mary's secret.  Or Mark not knowing what was on Mycroft's screen (I'm hazy about this and have forgotten what it was myself!)  But in general, it made me think about how the different members of the team have different pieces of information,  and no doubt different interpretations. 

I do actually think Johnlock is one of the things that has been clarified when it comes to intentions - I don't think the writers or the actors were trying to show us it.   But in general, I don't think things are always clearcut. 

No, because they really don't do ships.

They write as everyone should: their own vision and damn the ratings.