Wiggins wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

Someone questioned on another thread whether Irene's "recreational scolding" involved sex. I thought this line to Sherlock was referring to sex, the idea was that he would beg for mercy because it would be so pleasurable it wouldl be painful (or exhausting). 

Because she was impressed with him at that moment, (or wanted him to think she was.) I didn't think she was literally threatening to hurt him.

And I thought the point of her blackmail was that she had compromising pictures of sexual situations?

I felt that one reason they had Irene say this to Sherlock is that female fans seem to have that reaction, either to Sherlock, or to Benedict.

Someone who posted the scene on Youtube commented that if John hadn't been in the room, Sherlock and Irene would have...that's why this episode is problematic for us Johnlockers.

Sherlock said, "I've never begged for mercy in my life." And not very long afterwards, begged John for cigarettes (twice.)

If Sherlock is attracted to Irene, even after she drugged and beat him (shouldn't that make him see her as an enemy?) than his own...tastes...must be pretty....out there?

 

Of course it's about sex. I think only johnlockers who refuse to see any scene except through the lens of a sherlock Watson love fest could see that.

Maybe people who have never flirted or been flirted with perhaps? High school kids? Sexually uninitiated?

But it's a sexually charged scene-just watch John in it lol. 

Yes, I get what "beg for mercy" refers to. I've actually read that expression, something liked, "screwed him until he begged for mercy" in a different story. Referring to good sex. It's just that, given Irene's particular...varations...and what she actually ended up doing to Sherlock....the object of her interest... might be begging for mercy from her for a different reason.

Yeah, the Sherlock/Irene thing is certainly problematic for us Johnlock-ers. 

Their interaction is minimal in canon, and she's in love with someone else altogether...but just about every adaptation ships them.

I think it may be Irene's way of saying "Wow you're clever". This is how she shows emotions. 

I did a bit of 'field research' in dominatrixes, doms and subs a while ago... it's especially important for most Dominatrixes not to show emotion or what they actually feel... they need to be in total control and one way to do that is to fluster their sub. They need to be in their head.

She was well informed of Sherlock's innocence and that was what she used to put him under her boot. To be 'stronger' than him and I bet she hoped being sexual with him would take away his strongest asset. His sexy brain.

But would sherlock and irene actually have sex if john wasn't there? It to me doesn't seem like the sort of thing sherlock would do. Mainly because he is so uptight with emotions and about showing his emotions to people, and would irene let her heart rule her head if she really did love him and be that weak?

belis wrote:

anniea wrote:

But would sherlock and irene actually have sex if john wasn't there? It to me doesn't seem like the sort of thing sherlock would do. Mainly because he is so uptight with emotions and about showing his emotions to people, and would irene let her heart rule her head if she really did love him and be that weak?

Sex isn't always about emotions. I could see Sherlock being curious and intrigued leading to wanting to 'experiment' with Irene. lol I don't think they would jump straight at it though if John wasn't there to chaperone.
I don't think Irene  is in love with Sherlock. There is some attraction there, chemistry, maybe even fascination but I wouldn't call that love.

Neither would I; the question of what constitutes love is something Moftiss seem fascinated by...
 

I don't know, and it intrigues me.  I think it was definitely sexual, but I thought there was a strong BDSM element, and I thought that was what she was referring to. I thought she'd already established for herself that he had a masochistic streak.   Right at the beginning she asks if he wants her to slap his face.   She believes that talking about slapping him, beating him (how she wants him to remember her) and making him beg for mercy will push his buttons.   She's meant to be so good at knowing what men like: surely she's onto something?  And his pause and eye contact when she says it also makes it look like she's on the right track. 

Later, he switches things around, and makes her beg, in a non-sexual situation.  (I say non-sexual, but I definitely see a sexual charge in that scene).   They both use humiliation as part of the game, and maybe it's just about SM being some sort of metaphor for their power play, rather than an indication of what Sherlock "likes". 

To be honest, I suspect that we, the audience, may be being played with a bit.  The idea of Sherlock having hidden dark desires is pretty hot, I have to say, but it's easy enough to throw that in there for titillation without ever resolving it for us! 

I would say that although BDSM often doesn't involve sex, that the drive is sexual, or something very close to sexual.  (I don't actually know the "chemistry"). 

I think a desire to be submissive or dominant (or both!) is again, a sort of sexual drive, rather than something which reflects "real life" and work.   A normally dominant leader might love to submit.  (Many of Irene's clients might be powerful people).   And masochism and sadism are usually related, but not always.  It's possible to be masochist without being submissive, and vice versa. 

To complicate matters further, being a dominatrix is Irene's job, and so isn't necessarily any reflection on her orientation (she's providing a service, which in my opinion is one which includes acting). 

I think one thing that is intriguing about BDSM is that it can be so exciting!  It can involve playing with "dangerous" things: fear, humiliation, pain, exposure, vulnerability, control, etc. and getting a thrill from them, and also involving extremes of sensation.  I can see this aspect being appealing to somebody like Sherlock who craves excitement (although I still think it's more of an orientation - if you don't already have an inbuilt craving for being beaten, then you're probably not going to enjoy it in the same way if you do it just for the "excitement"). 

I'm still working my way through the episodes and trying to spread them out as much as I can, so I haven't seen Sherlock's reaction to the torture.  Obviously, real life torture is completely different to consensual BDSM.  Do you mean that a masochistic streak might make somebody better able to withstand torture?  I honestly don't know.   What you said reminds me of the film Lawrence of Arabia, which involves Lawrence being beaten - earlier in the film there's a scene where he shows his ability to withstand pain, and says that the trick is not minding that it hurts.   I believe Lawrence was known to be a masochist, and that was what the film was hinting at. 

I definitely can see Sherlock as a suppressed masochist.  That's partly because I don't think Irene would "use" that aspect if she didn't think it was part of his sexuality.  But also because I can see him being drawn to something more dark and dangerous than sex, and craving more extreme sensations (better than the drugs  ). But it does seem that some things are left open ended so that we see what we want to see . 

And he complains about being not helped by Mycroft earlier.

Last edited by Harriet (July 4, 2014 2:02 pm)

But in real life, people are assaulted and carry on wanting consensual SM if that's what they wanted beforehand.  It's a bit like saying that people who have been sexually assaulted wouldn't ever have consensual sex.  (And of course some might be so traumatised that they might not, but it's not a given).  If anything, I'd see him continuing to have that interest (if he'd had it before) as normal and healthy, rather than emotionally different. There's just such a world of difference between non-consensual and consensual.

But I haven't got to that part of the series yet (still trying desparately to savour each episode for an extended period) so what do I know?   I'm just generalising. 

I would say that in this situation (professional dominatrix), the subs do have the power as they're the ones wielding the money.  She has to provide the service they want, or they'd withdraw their custom.  In Irene's case she emphasises that her forte is knowing what people want, so it seems as if it's the subs' desires which dictate what happens. So any suggestions Irene makes to Sherlock in that context are tailored to what she thinks is his kinks are, rather than what her own kinks are. 

(I do wish that when the media showed this aspect of sexuality, they would let us see a bit more of women who genuinely get off on it rather than always women who are paid to pretend they do.  But that's another issue!)

I haven't read the Milverton story yet (looking forward to it), or seen the episode.    But Irene claimed that what she was doing wasn't blackmail, but protection.   I don't completely agree, but I suppose her actions were more similar to espionage - but for protection purposes.  She could have worked by seducing clients, which would have been just as underhand.   I do think it's unethical to provide a paid service, and use it in the way she did - but then it seems that people were voluntarily giving her information to show off.   Anyway, I didn't get the impression that Sherlock hated her for it.  He seemed to buy the protection aspect. 

I did read a good fanfic where Irene and Sherlock got it together after the rescue.  I prefer to think that they didn't.   But I think this whole episode completely plays with our sexual fantasies and desires.    If you want to imagine that they "had dinner" it can easily fit with what we're given.  If you want to think about a straight couple, a male couple (all the Johnlock hints), a female couple, a dominant woman, a submissive woman (the royal), a dominant man (honestly, Sherlock in the  "I took your pulse" scene - be still my heart!), a submissive man - it's all there, for the audience to expand on.   I'm well aware that they are playing with our desires as surely as Irene plays with her clients and that what we see is what we want to see, to some extent. 

Last edited by Liberty (July 10, 2014 7:14 am)