The Ice Man and The Virgin

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree that he's probably never had a satisfactory love affair, but I do think that it's possible he had a disastrous one, or that he merely attempted to woo someone and failed.  But I also agree that his apparent disillusionment may well have stemmed from some other sort of experience altogether -- or even from witnessing someone else's unfortunate experience (his parents, perhaps, as has already been conjectured).

 

[T.o.b.y]

... or simply his experiences with clients. He must see a lot of ugly byproducts of love in his work.

 

Oh dear. On this wonderful lazy Saturday morning, I ventured too far into the crazy corners of the internet again in a desperate attempt to pick up any news on a possible series 4 (yeah, I do that, way too often...). And I read one of those "Sherlock is gay because" things. And my blood pressure went up to the point where I simply need to rant a bit, so I'll do so here, 'cause hey, that's what an addiction support group is for, right?

 

Okay. First of all, let me make this quite clear: If they meant Sherlock to be gay, I would not mind. In fact, I'd be thrilled, for a ton of reasons, among them the fact that I have always wanted to see a major character on a mainstream TV show be gay without that being what defines the character or the series. But. But: I simply do not see any hints on Sherlock that the main character is meant to be homosexual. I just don't. It's not that I don't want to or refuse to, I simply do not see it. What I see is plenty of implications that sex is an uncomfortable subject for him and that he associates sex with attractive women and so behaves like a complete asshole around them sometimes. He went to considerable lengths to push Molly away, the more advances she made towards him, while when she was simply acting as a good friend or when she got engaged to another guy, he became much more relaxed and mellow around her. Irene set him on edge until he was downright cruel to her. When Janine started flirting and mentioned sex, he quickly tried to deflect that to somebody else. On the other hand, Sherlock had zero problems living with John and running around their shared flat half dressed, he didn't seem to object to being hugged by Lestrade or Anderson and he's lovely and close with Mrs Hudson, who is clearly a motherly figure instead of a potential bed mate. And he kisses and hugs Mary too, who never made any advances and who is safely married to another man. All this does not spell "gay" to me, it spells "finds sex disturbing and associates certain women with sex".

 

When I read arguments like Sherlock is meant to be gay because he dresses nicely, he can distinguish lilac from purple and he's not too bad as a wedding planner, then, sorry, I simply want to run and puke. Yeah, I know stereotypes are often correct, but still. Come on. It's not that simple.

 

Simple is actually my main problem here. I want Sherlock to be Sherlock, a unique, enigmatic, very individual figure. The less labels that fit him, the better. Sexual orientation isn't that cut and dried, anyway, as Irene kindly pointed out (just for that, I'll always love her as a character).

 

Rant over. Thank you.

[Arcadia]

I love your rants, you said pretty much what I've been thinking all along. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that he's gay, but I don't really see it. Except when I do. Mostly I just think he's emotionally immature for his age. Except when he isn't.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Little kids can be very perceptive.  They can also be completely oblivious.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I know the reference has always been that if a man is sensitive then he must be gay.....but boy does someone have to do something about that stereotype. I'm a woman and I would be horrible at trying to put a wedding together. I have no fashion sense and little taste in color schemes. If my husband to be or his father could do a better job I'd give them full control.

 

We had a guy at work who mannerisms were so....well....feminine.  The elegant hand flip and the whole nine yards, happily married with children and wouldn't he go off on a guy if they made any kind of pass at him.....whoa....

 

Nope I see nothing gay about our Sherlock any more then I did in Sherlock Holmes the elder.  So he likes to dress nice....apparently he could more then afford to. If I could afford silk and a fine wool I would be wearing that instead of poly blends and flannel shirts. I wouldn't be working at a processing plant either.

[Arcadia]

I know the reference has always been that if a man is sensitive then he must be gay.....

Well, that rules out Sherlock then! He's anything but sensitive... except, of course, when he is....

 

I think a lot of this show is a celebration of eccentricity. (Or in Moftiss-speak, "sociopathy".) Sherlock's odd, but he's no less brilliant for that. John's attracted to danger, but he's still a decent soul. One, both or neither of them maybe straight/bi/gay, but they both are on the side of the angels. Mrs. Hudson's a complete flake, but she's wonderful to her boys. Molly's awkward, but she genuinely cares about Sherlock's welfare. Etc.

 

I always go back to ASiP, when Lestrade says (roughly, cuz I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote  "if we're lucky, someday Sherlock will be a good man." To me that's the central question; Sherlock's already achieved greatness, but can he achieve a much more valuable quality -- goodness? (Up until CAM, I would've said yes. Now I'm wondering if they will have him settle for "greatness." Which would be an interesting story also.)

 

And whether they're gay or not, or a virgin or not, or knows the earth goes around the sun or not, does that have any bearing on whether someone can be a good person? And to me that's the point; labels obscure, not reveal, what people really are. Much more important to look at what they do with their talents, how they treat others, what they are willing to sacrifice to reach their goals. And I think that's a major theme here. I love that about this show.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

And to me that's the point; labels obscure, not reveal, what people really are. Much more important to look at what they do with their talents, how they treat others, what they are willing to sacrifice to reach their goals. And I think that's a major theme here. I love that about this show.

 

   I think you are absolutely right. Labels were never a good thing. People have always wanted to stick other people in neat little boxes......to heck with that. Variety is the spice of life. It's what makes people special and the world along with it. Why do we need to be the same was anyone else. What is so appealing about a cookie cutter world?  As Sherlock is want to say....dull....bbbooorrrrring.

[T.o.b.y]

I think a lot of this show is a celebration of eccentricity.

 

... and that is why I love it so, and why it is absolutely fitting that Sherlock hates Magnussen: He prays on people that are "different" and those are the kind of people who make up Sherlock's circle of friends.

 

[sfmpco]

I don't see him as gay at all despite the many references from other characters who believe he possibly could be, not the least of which is Mrs. Hudson.  However, he sized up Irene's measurements, and this dialogue transpired:

 

"If I wanted to look at naked women, I'd borrow John's laptop."

"You do borrow my laptop."

"I confiscate it."

 

And CAM's reading on Sherlock listed Sherlock's porn preferences as "normal."  So clearly he DOES on occasion look at naked women and also porn.

 

Plus, he's completely flummoxed by the naked Irene, so much so that he trips over his own words.  He was at some point attracted to her, certainly enough to rescue her at the end (and BC has said that he knows what happened after that between Sherlock and Irene and it was very loving).  Even BC doesn't see him as gay.

 

I see him as emotionally stunted, maybe even backward.  He is a man whose extreme intellect is the highest form of pleasure he knows.  Intimate relationships are a lower form of pleasure, plus he's socially inept so why bother.  If he knew how to stop repelling, which he does unwittingly, he might be able to attract, but he simply has little tolerance for lesser intellect.

 

Virgin?  Maybe.  Inexperienced, definitely.  Irene thinks he's a virgin, but that's what Moriarty told her.  However, Irene can spot inexperience across the room.  Moriarty thinks he's a virgin as does Mycroft, but even in TEH in his deduction game with Mycroft over the hat, he underhandedly comments that Mycroft has never even spoken to a woman (which is not technically true but is meant in the more relationship vein), and this equally implies that Sherlock has experience in that area.  Sherlock one-ups Mycroft.  

 

Just let him be what he is.  Sherlock.  

[Arcadia]

Yeah, and while we're at it, let's ditch the "high-functioning sociopath" joke!

I'm having a hard time imagining what CAM thinks is a "normal" porn preference. On the other hand, I don't exactly want to imagine it....

 

Both Moffat and BC have strongly denied "the boys" are gay. Why, I'm not sure, since the show still plays around with it. But my impression is that it's a joke that got picked up and taken in directions they never imagined.

[T.o.b.y]

 

Both Moffat and BC have strongly denied "the boys" are gay. Why, I'm not sure, since the show still plays around with it. But my impression is that it's a joke that got picked up and taken in directions they never imagined.

 

Well, they also said Moriarty was dead... Okay, he may be. We'll find out (or not... I really should give up hope that questions raised in one series will be answered in the next).

 

I share your impression about the joke. Mainly because I just don't see that kind of attraction being acted out on screen and also because I think if they wanted them to be a couple, they would be one. It's not something you'd need to make a big fuss over or lie about or whatever.

 

I do see the love story, though. And I think it is kind of hypocritical for the people who wrote The Sign of Three (or, come to think of it, the entire third series), to call viewers who see "more" than friendship going on "absurd" or their interpretation "bizarre".

[Arcadia]

 

 

Both Moffat and BC have strongly denied "the boys" are gay. Why, I'm not sure, since the show still plays around with it. But my impression is that it's a joke that got picked up and taken in directions they never imagined.

 

Well, they also said Moriarty was dead... Okay, he may be. We'll find out (or not... I really should give up hope that questions raised in one series will be answered in the next).

 

I share your impression about the joke. Mainly because I just don't see that kind of attraction being acted out on screen and also because I think if they wanted them to be a couple, they would be one. It's not something you'd need to make a big fuss over or lie about or whatever.

 

I do see the love story, though. And I think it is kind of hypocritical for the people who wrote The Sign of Three (or, come to think of it, the entire third series), to call viewers who see "more" than friendship going on "absurd" or their interpretation "bizarre".

 

Exactly!

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think the "are they or aren't they?" jokes are simply a continuation of fannish tradition -- and I'm not talking about internet forums (or not just those at any rate).  The question has apparently been bandied about for many decades, and was a major theme of Billy Wilder's Private Life of Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

The question of where they or where they not a couple goes back to at least the 60's and 70's.  I recall one book that came out in the 70's on the subject and if I recall correctly the author was pretty convinced that they were. I think I read the book....being on Holmes and Watson but since I didn't believe the premise I didn't hang on to it very long.

 

 I don't think Doyle would have broached the subject since in Victorian times and even up to very recent times...as many can attest to....being gay was illegal and in some cases punishable by death....especially in the day of Holmes and Watson. I really wouldn't think that Doyle would have made them gay in that kind of cultural and legal atmosphere.

 

 

[Caya]

Not necessarily ... Maurice was written around the same time, iirc, for instance, even if it wasn't published for decades. And some of Oscar Wilde's works contain only barely veiled allusions to homosexuality (Dorian Gray comes to mind).

 

Also, just because Doyle might not have intentionally written them as gay doesn't mean that there was nothing going on. We all know that characters tend to develop a life of their own and don't always behave like the author intended them to .

 

I just don't think that this is a question that can be answered in any definite fashion. People have tried for over a century now and failed, I doubt we'll fare any better.

[T.o.b.y]

Not necessarily ... Maurice was written around the same time, iirc, for instance, even if it wasn't published for decades. And some of Oscar Wilde's works contain only barely veiled allusions to homosexuality (Dorian Gray comes to mind).

 

... and we all know what happened to Oscar Wilde.

 

The problem with trying to understand Victorian literature is that there were so many things you couldn't spell out back then. Towards the end of his writing career, Dickens wasn't even allowed to write the word "trousers" in anything he wanted published in a respectable magazine, so he laughingly called them the "unmentionables". His novels are also full of prostitutes, but since he never explicitly calls them by that name or says what it is that makes them "fallen women", I had a lot of question marks floating around in my poor little brain when I first read those books as an innocent teenager. Then I got an annotated edition and - well, end of the age of innocence, I guess.

 

I seriously doubt Doyle would have wanted readers to imply there was anything "improper" going on between his heroes. But the thing is, if he had wanted that, he would've hardly written them any differently! In a world where playing with hair is code for making out, what am I supposed to make of a guy paying a fortune to get another guy to buy a third guy out of his practice so he can come back and live with him and be at his disposal 24/7? And why is it important information what Holmes' arms feel like through his shirt, how cold his fingers are, how close his mouth comes to the narrator's face in a whispered conversation in the dark etc?

 

Actually, I think such straight-forward and detailed descriptions of physical contact are a good indicator that Doyle wasn't trying to imply anything sexual at all, because if he'd wanted that, he'd have had to be a lot more careful and a lot more discreet. It'd all have been just looks and hair. Or something like that.

 

A similar course of thought leads me to think that if Sherlock was meant to be gay, he'd be portrayed as a lot more insecure and nervous around men, he wouldn't have gone looking for a male flatmate and he wouldn't do things like just grab John's head or teach him to dance. Not because I think he's meant to be homophobic, but because I think he's meant to find sex disturbing despite all his protestations to the contrary, and I think he's comfortable around men (and older women like Mrs Hudson or married women like Mary), because they're not potential love affairs.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yes, Mr. Wilde's court case ruined him.....financially and it broke his health. Spending two years in prison for just publicly "coming out".  His being gay was known.....an open secret.....so why he thought he needed to bring it out in a court of law knowing what could happen......his reputation in England was shot and he had to move to Paris.

 

 

Mofftiss has said that if Sherlock was gay and having an affair with John Watson the last thing Sherlock would do was have the man move in with him.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Also, since he apparently finds sex distracting (and who doesn't, come to think of it?), if he were gay and didn't want to be distracted, he'd hardly have chosen a male flatmate.  (I was going to say, especially one as manly and attractive as John Watson -- but then I have no idea what Sherlock's "type" might be -- if he were gay, that is.)

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Hopefully in Season 4 or 5 might we get some insight into this?  But then again....as has been posted above.....not knowing is part of the Sherlockian mystique. In the words of Mofftiss, Sherlock Holmes chose to live the life of a monk.  Why.....we really don't need to know.

[Arcadia]

The Holy Order of Monastic Detectives, founded by Brother Cadfael in 1142.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I adore the Brother Cadfael mysteries! Wonder if they would allow women to join at this late date?

[Arcadia]

I think that would sort of negate the point of being a monk in the first place....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Hey...woman can be recluses too!  There were a good many convents as well as monasteries. Some early ones even housed men and women together....all being celibate, I'm sure.......

[jesskayding]

Mmmmm hmmmmmm.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Do I catch a note of sarcasm here?