But please stay here!
This is a fascinating discussion and on my other Sherlock forum we have an ' Asexuality' thread too.
It is such an important issue regarding Sherlock.
I will make my own personal confession now.  When I was 1st put onto the AVEN website and I began reading about asexuality...it was like a Road to Damascus experience.  I say that as a married woman with 2 kids!
I certainly found it most helpful on my other board, when an asexual member freely shared her experience with us. Gives one a whole new perspective.

Ok, PMd links to you, now for the rest of the discussion:

I think many of us here would say the show changed our lives...for the better.
I think Benedict doesn't really want to be an icon for the asexual community, but he does seem to at least acknowledge that Sherlock probably is asexual....tho maybe that should be either demi or sapiosexual!
I don't know whether people are using the possibility of Sherlock having had a girlfriend as a reason for him being with John or against!
I'll throw another spanner into the works:  on my other board, there was a huge fight about whether Sally was an ex-girlfriend!
I really hope they keep this as a bromance and actually have no doubt they will.
As I've said before. I have to accept Sherlock may have had a girlfriend, tho I would have thought the whole point with Irene was that she was the only one ever.
See I think we have to take Sherlock at his word:  sex doesn't alarm him...but then does that throw the confusion of celibacy into the pot?

Ok first of all, deep breath so I dont take this as a personal attack. I'm not very good at not taking " who told you and multiple question marks and questions without other commentary as not a personal attack, but I will try.
My definition of my sexuality comes from research on my part. A lifetime of it. No one told me what I was or wasn't. I think all labels are inadequate in some way.. people don't fit neat categories often. I also believe sexuality is fluid and moves along a continuum and can certainly change. Even catch you off guard. Is your issue with how I choose to self-define, or that someone else may have stuck this label onto me without my consent?
As far as lust goes, I said that people have it. Not everyone. I don't. But many do. Lust exists. Nothing wrong with that. 
I put "normal" in quotes for a reason. "Normal" is a loaded concept. There are things that are probably typical, or more or less common. I use the word in terms of " the norm", not to support some false normal vs abnormal dichotomy.

Last edited by Iwantthatcoat (October 27, 2012 3:31 pm)

Sally is definitely something. That degree of hostility is meaningful... and she is introduced as an "old friend". I think that means they likely have a past ( the "old" part), and were *once* friends .

Oh I didn't mean she was a girlfriend. I think maybe he might have manipulated her in some way ( like Molly) and it was a long time ago. I can't see him ever wanting any real relationship with her.

I imagine that Sherlock would think being in a relationship is trivial and boring. Personally, I believe that he is asexual. I don't think he veiws people sexually, but rather he sees them as puzzles to be solved and taken apart again. He doesn't need physical intamacy because he is satisfied by his own mental pleasures. If nothing else, Sherlock views sex as an unecessary distraction and an emotional vulnerability. As we all know, caring is not an advantage.

As far as Irene Adler goes, I don't feel like Sherlock is physically interested in her. Everyone else is so easy to read, but she's a challenge. He almost sees her as an equal, which is why he goes to great lengths to impress and protect her. He cares about what she thinks of him and what happens to her because she intrigues him.

My thoughts: 
 
1.  Cute as I am, I've never really had a romantic relationship and I'm approaching 50.  Abstinence isn't that tough.  I find it unbelievable that unmarried people actually uproot and move (or choose a university) just to maintain a relationship! 
 
2.  Sherlock is inexperienced because he has been a loner, something people choose when other humans have been a source of more pain than pleasure.  As he grows, he will learn how to prevent that pain, and that all worthwhile things in life come from other people.   
 
3.  Because of the criticism and coldness he endured growing up (criticism and coldness create loners) Sherlock probably assumed he was undesirable and therefore incapable of landing anybody he really wanted.  As a result, he probably didn't even try.  Attention and the occasionally stolen kiss from those who fancied him would have been insufficient to persuade him he was desirable.  He would have assumed anybody attracted to a loser must also be a loser.  
 
4.  The show's creators will maintain Sherlock's virgin status because Moffat is correct.  "...it's someone who abstains who's interesting."  Dangle something desirable in front of the fandom, say "No one can have him," and watch the obsession proliferate.  Everybody wins!

Even if Sherlock is unattached, maybe he had one experience because he wanted to try...

Which kind of ruins the impact of Molly in Reichenbach and(I hope in) the new series.

I am asexual myself, but I classify as demi heteroromantic (yes, let's hope I never fall in love with a non-asexual. That would be problematic).

I can definitely see Sherlock as being asexual. I can also see him as possibly having romantic attraction to others. One of the things that always gets confused is that most non-asexuals (maybe I should just write sexuals? ) assume or tend to think that asexuals can't have romantic feelings for others. They can. But it's tricky. Many asexuals are afraid to act because, as another poster wrote - we are in the minority.

That said, this could explain why Sherlock seems highly possessive of John (imho) and has crashed John's dates/ said inappropriate things in front of John's girlfriends etc. I don't think he's doing it to be a jerk. I honestly think he's very fond of John, and deep down - he fears possibly losing John.

Also, Sherlock sees and observes everything he possibly can. When Irene Adler confronts him naked, her willingness to show off her body is revealing about her nature and about how she views power. She has no fear in that regard, and Sherlock correctly deduces that her measurements could be the code for the safe. I don't think he was looking at her for any sexual reason.

I do think he was attracted to the idea that she was witty and clever and he found her engaging and interesting. And Sherlock isn't the most in touch with his emotions -- he tries to divorce himself from his feelings, and this seems to be a trait Mycroft encourages (telling his little brother on Christmas that ''caring isn't an advantage'' - to which Sherlock changes the subject and complains about his 'gift' being ''low tar.'')

My guess is, deep down, Sherlock could have been much better with emotions - but he's written them off as irrelevant. However, he's not a robot - and his passion for many subjects and areas comes through loud and clear. Also, I sense a loneliness in him, which isn't atypical - especially for those who may be asexual but want a relationship or romantic connection with someone else. (When Molly said something about Sherlock looking sad - when he thought no one else could see (paraphrasizing)...that could also confirm he's confused by his own feelings).

Sherlock, for all his brilliance, may not even understand the various ways romantic feeling, affection, and sexuality can be expressed. If he's demiromantic, he wouldn't even realize, perhaps, that he could have stronger emotions for someone yet - because demiromantics never feel romantic affection for anyone right away. It's not immediate, like sexual attraction is for some (for most?) By definition, demiromantics have to have established an emotional bond or connection with someone else. Additionally - if Sherlock is not asexual - he could be demisexual - which would mean he wouldn't quickly develop sexual attraction, either. Many people go for a long time considering themselves to be asexual and later learning that they are in fact, demisexual. I guess this is another possibility.

Yet Sherlock often acts so immaturely or says things that push other people away, that perhaps John is one of the first - if not the first person - to really get Sherlock to consider that he can feel something more for someone else.

Just throwing out ideas. Sherlock is asexual in my headcanon, of course - but I can also see why some people feel he could simply be repressed. I think, even if he is asexual - he still represses certain emotions and certain needs (not just hunger, but the human need for friendship: before John, you really get the sense that he's not had any friends. Mycroft even laughs about it).

Anyway...I haven't read through the entire thread, so I hope I haven't just repeated what another poster has already written.

P.S. Romantic affection can exist as heteroromatic, homoromantic, demi-hetero, demihomo, panromantic etc. If Sherlock is capable of experiencing romantic affection, I would still have no idea where he'd fall! XD

P.P.S The idea of 'romantic friendship' was quite common in the Victorian era, especially between members of the same sex. I wouldn't be surprised if ACD was writing Sherlock and John as romantic friends. He seemed to partner them up for life.

And I do think, as much as Sherlock can love anyone, he loves John. That may be the romantic in me, though ;)

Last edited by Manticone (October 3, 2013 7:41 am)