tonnaree wrote:

Liberty wrote:

I kind of agree with both .. I think he's gobsmacked by seeing her naked because he didn't expect her to be so clever.  But later, he's flustered and stumbles over his words trying to attract her attention towards him. 

 
Of course he does.  Sherlock is an attention whore and must be the center of the room.

But he doesn't tend to do that with other people - just Irene. 

(Here's a quote from the commentary from http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/
Benedict seems to confirm that the stumbling is deliberate and about Irene in particular:
Benedict: “I do love the only moment [Sherlock] verbally stumbles – and I sort of did it deliberately – was because [he] sensed a bit of competition in Watson starting to turn on the charm, and in trying to desperately get in there to impress you, I went, [he talks gibberish].”)

Kittyhawk wrote:

tonnaree wrote:

 Can we acknowledge that, regardless of the gender and sexual orientation of the participants, if you're waiting for a meeting with someone you've never met and they walk in naked, you're going to be shocked and flustered.  I don't necessarily see attraction in Sherlock's reaction. ...

That would certainly be normal human behaviour, I agree. But how much of that does Sherlock normally show?

Incidentally, I had originally written "a purely physical reaction" - that's different from attraction in my book!  Though I do believe that there is attraction as well, at some point. (And that could be either sexual attraction, or the attraction of a gay man to her intelligence and determination - as you like.)

We desperately need John coming into the living room naked so we can observe Sherlock's reactions.

For science!

Schmiezi wrote:

We desperately need John coming into the living room naked so we can observe Sherlock's reactions.

For science!

YESSSSS!

Of course, for science, and to cover all the bases, we should then also have a naked Sherlock walking towards John and/or Irene...

Placebos??? 

Naked John walking toward naked Sherlock.
Isn't this what we've been asking for all along?!?!?

TOPIC!

One day Sherlock met a woman named Irene.  She was naked and distracted Sherlock.

DISCUSS

I just found this on Sherlockology:

http://www.sherlockology.com/news/2015/6/2/sherlocked-after-sherlock-rescued-irene-020615

Great find, Susi - thanks for posting!  I'd read the description of the scene before but hadn't read Steven's other comments.  I love the idea of Sherlock trying to act as if he just happened to be be passing and didn't know Irene was there, and particularly like the clothes switch at the end.  Of course Irene could have got a costume from one of the bodies, but that wouldn't have been nearly as good as echoing their first scene together (and I like the symbolism of Sherlock being exposed). 

I know not everybody was happy that Irene didn't win in the end, so maybe this would have worked better.  But even in the original episode, it's a draw at least - she gets freedom and safety in the end, with Sherlock helping her to essentially fake her death yet again, and Sherlock does almost lose by caring too.  I'd love to have seen this filmed.   But judging from what Steven says, it wasn't actually written when S2 was filmed.  (Although I suppose they could even get away with doing it in flashback, if they ever decide to bring Irene back?).
 

The Radio Times has just pissed me off!  Damndable clickbait.

They run this headline "Sherlock and Irene Adler meet up every six months for a night of passion revels Stephen Moffat."

With this article:  http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-06-03/sherlock-and-irene-adler-meet-up-every-six-months-for-a-night-of-passion-reveals-steven-moffat
 
Now, I hate to be nitpicky, but that's what we do. 

The headline says that Sherlock and Irene SHARE A NIGHT OF PASSION every six months.

This is what Moffat ACTUALLY SAID:

"And so Sherlock is left naked and Irene runs off dressed as him...
"And something like that happens between Irene and Sherlock every six months and THAT is their idea of a night of passion."

You know there will be people who read the headline and skip the article and use this are pro-sherlock/irene evidance from the creators.  But it's really not. Words are important and the small change in phrasing for the headline makes it mean an entirely different thing.  IMO

Last edited by tonnaree (June 3, 2015 2:10 pm)

At least "a night of passion" is in inverted commas - it's clear it's not the usual meaning of a night of passion!