John Watson

[Pseudonym]

Did I? What did I say?

 

Yup, it's very cold here today but I am very warm and cosy and furry. It's a bear, fairly low key though except for the ears. 

[Van Buren Supernova]

I think you did?

Since we are both too lazy to check, let's say you did. Obviously.

 

Now can't stop picturing Sherlock with onesie. Dressing gown (a pretty weird term to me as well) doesn't look warm enough at certain weather.

I always like him in sheet, but going to Buckingham Palaca in onesie doesn't sound bad at all, for the sake of Mycroft's face!

 

Back to John, please. :p

One last John's related question, does he need to ask about pants for Sherlock in onesie?

[Pseudonym]

I suspect so. He needs to know for some sort of medical related reason. 

[J.P.]

Re Mark Gatiss. I've seen a lot of his work and I never noticed any kind of bias or agenda.
The only thing I cannot put in a context right now is the line he said about pronouncing his name: "It's Gay-tiss".

[Carol the Dabbler]

"Gay agenda" is a pretty loaded term though. And personally, I think it makes people who use it sound like conspiracy nutters, pardon, theorists. As if they believed every gay person gets a copy of the collective agenda in the mail, like a letter from Hogwarts, together with a rainbow colored Gay Card and a glittery Gaydar.

 

But Hikari didn't say "gay agenda," she said "Mark Gatiss .... his agenda."  So, just Mr. Gatiss's own personal agenda, not a conspiracy.  We all have our own personal agendas, really, and very few of them involve conspiracies.

 

Re Mark Gatiss. I've seen a lot of his work and I never noticed any kind of bias or agenda.

The only thing I cannot put in a context right now is the line he said about pronouncing his name: "It's Gay-tiss".

 

Have your heard his funeral story?  Seems his father's brother had died, and the clergyman officiating at the funeral kept pronouncing the family name "Gatt-iss."  And every time he said it, Mark's father would bellow from the back row "It's GAY-tiss!!!" until it was hard not to laugh.

 

So no, I don't think that's part of any gay agenda, just how the name happens to be pronounced (appropriate though it may be in Mark's case).

[T.o.b.y]

That's a funny story!

 

Carol, it was Mr Gatiss' "agenda" as a gay man, but I hear your voice of reason and will let it go. Let it go, let it goooo.... Damn, now I have that song stuck in my head.

 

Anyway. John. John Watson. Do you guys think he will remarry eventually? This particular incarnation of the character, I mean. I can't make up my mind. I certainly think he will eventually date again but I can't quite see him finding another wife. Not for a while at least.

[Pseudonym]

Maybe when he's old, but I don't think so. I think the massive f*ck up of his marriage to Mary would put him off for a good long while. I think we would casually date but that's it. 

[J.P.]

Sherlock is back. Which woman can compete with this? John will most probably date women, because… well, he's John. But unless he finds someone who'd accept and get accepted by Sherlock the way Mary did (and is a special agent or a spy in disguise), I highly doubt there will be anything more permanent than affairs.
 
The Gay-tiss moment - I think I remember something more specific…
Wait a moment… *goes searching*

Here it is.
https://twitter.com/Markgatiss/status/21095809055

 

Mark Gatiss‏Verified account @Markgatiss

Replying to @TheDailyCrumb

@TheDailyCrumb It is pronounced GAYtiss and no other way. Just think gay. I always do.

11:12 PM - 13 Aug 2010

 

[Artemis]

This incarnation of the character, I highly doubt it.  The first one was enough drama.

 

 

[Janyss]

I went a little through John's topic (and surprisely what a fun with "gay-tiss"!). I love this Dr Watson, too. I think I won't add anything very original, but starting with the idea of a character missing the war so as to explain why a modern young man would match with Sherlock is so brilliant! And the portraying of the " ordinary man", who catches our identification, relies both on the actor playing surprise, being fed up, surprise again...and on the writers' work. Besides, he is much more complexe than this ordinary man. What a blast compared to the transparent narrator in Conan Doyle's work!

[Hikari]

 

John Watson is not gay, whatever Mofftiss says/does/thinks.  Mark Gatiss *is* a gay man, and I think that his agenda has colored the writing of John to some degree.

How do I say this nicely? Um... Oh heck. Hikari, there is no "gay agenda". So it's highly unlikely that Mr Gatiss infused the character of John Watson with it because it just doesn't exist. Okay? I get that you're tired of political correctness and so am I to a degree but implying that all non-straight people have some kind of common plan to change the world is ridiculous.

 

Tobe, I don't think that's what Hikari meant.  She wasn't talking about any overall "gay agenda," but rather about Mr. Gatiss's possible *personal* agenda, and we all have those, of one sort or another.

 

Mostly, as you say, she was just talking about the current atmosphere of hyper-correctness, which I am just about as tired of as she is.

 

 

I was offline over the weekend, and I come back with some relief to see that the forum is still standing after my attempt at levity directed toward Martin Freeman which not everyone was able to appreciate.

 

As it happens, my dearest male friend is a gay man, and I have an invite to his wedding happening next summer.  I wouldn't dream of not being there, and am glad that he has found someone that makes him that happy.

 

I believe that there is an agenda, from which I exempt regular civilians, among the movers and shakers of show biz and media (of which Mofftiss is part) to represent gay characters and themes given any and all opportunities to do so.  I'm sympathetic to the fact that this was a segment of the population so underrepresented until fairly recently so as to be rendered invisible, and worse--criminal.  That was an agenda of the opposite kind, wielded by the hetero status quo, and had to end.   The pendulum has swung the other way now, at least in terms of media saturation and popular entertainment, giving the impression to the casual reader/viewer that at least 1 in 3 people identify as gay, when the reality is nothing like it.  Indeed, being just a garden-variety homosexual isn't enough for ratings any more;  they've had to switch their attention over to the transgendered people--a statistically miniscule part of the real population, as opposed to the population of our televisions.

 

I'm glad that the Dark Ages are over for gay people, to large degree.  The prevailing atmosphere now, though, seems to be that people who identify as heterosexual and have no personal stake in the gay community are made to feel like caustic bigots at worst, or at best, hopelessly un-cool, if they don't have any affinity for the rainbow coalition.  And if that's the way things are, maybe it's just our turn to feel a bit marginalized and misunderstood.

 

So to head off any future misunderstandings, you won't hear me making any more cracks about John's club boi hairstyle in S4.

 

[Boton]

 

John Watson is not gay, whatever Mofftiss says/does/thinks.  Mark Gatiss *is* a gay man, and I think that his agenda has colored the writing of John to some degree.

How do I say this nicely? Um... Oh heck. Hikari, there is no "gay agenda". So it's highly unlikely that Mr Gatiss infused the character of John Watson with it because it just doesn't exist. Okay? I get that you're tired of political correctness and so am I to a degree but implying that all non-straight people have some kind of common plan to change the world is ridiculous.

 

Tobe, I don't think that's what Hikari meant.  She wasn't talking about any overall "gay agenda," but rather about Mr. Gatiss's possible *personal* agenda, and we all have those, of one sort or another.

 

Mostly, as you say, she was just talking about the current atmosphere of hyper-correctness, which I am just about as tired of as she is.

 

 

My impression from a very few comments and interviews is that MG is pretty cautious about using homosexuality as some sort of humorous trope, possibly because he is well aware that gays have been the butt of jokes in some pretty un-funny situations. I truly think his "agenda" is to write good quality stories that people enjoy.  SM, on the other hand, I feel often writes this show as if he were the 12 year old him with no sense of historical context:  "Hey, look, Watson says, 'my dear Holmes' - that must mean they're gay!"

 

Regardless, I thought maybe having two or three "John is gay" jokes was funny, just because it was so meta.  It's true, Victorian literature can make male relationships seem gay when they are not, just because of the way the culture and language have evolved. So having everyone "in on" the joke except John was funny for a while, until it just started being annoying.

 

But the PC thing is annoying not just because it imposes an ever-shifting speech code, but also because it keeps people from having important discussions about how we talk about sensitive topics.

 

The question raised above, from my perspective, is: Is there a difference between "Don't worry, dude, no one thinks you're gay," and "Don't worry, dude, no one thinks you're straight." From where I sit, in the right context, they are equally funny. But PC might make us shy away one or the other in fear of thinking that what is implied is that being gay is an insult. We need to be able to talk about when/if that happens and when it doesn't.

[T.o.b.y]

 

I believe that there is an agenda, from which I exempt regular civilians, among the movers and shakers of show biz and media (of which Mofftiss is part) to represent gay characters and themes given any and all opportunities to do so.  I'm sympathetic to the fact that this was a segment of the population so underrepresented until fairly recently so as to be rendered invisible, and worse--criminal.  That was an agenda of the opposite kind, wielded by the hetero status quo, and had to end.   The pendulum has swung the other way now, at least in terms of media saturation and popular entertainment, giving the impression to the casual reader/viewer that at least 1 in 3 people identify as gay, when the reality is nothing like it.  Indeed, being just a garden-variety homosexual isn't enough for ratings any more;  they've had to switch their attention over to the transgendered people--a statistically miniscule part of the real population, as opposed to the population of our televisions.

 

I'm glad that the Dark Ages are over for gay people, to large degree.  The prevailing atmosphere now, though, seems to be that people who identify as heterosexual and have no personal stake in the gay community are made to feel like caustic bigots at worst, or at best, hopelessly un-cool, if they don't have any affinity for the rainbow coalition.  And if that's the way things are, maybe it's just our turn to feel a bit marginalized and misunderstood.

 

Can you give me an example of how heterosexual people are made to feel like caustic bigots or hopelessly uncool by the numeric over-representation of non-heterosexual people in popular media? Because I am having a hard time trying to imagine how that works.

 

Btw, I just did the math for Sherlock: Imdb says the show has a cast of 278. Gay, lesbian, bi or otherwise not straight are, as far as I can remember: Harry and Clara (off-screen only), Hrs Hudson's neighbor's "married ones" (off-screen only), Jim from IT (only pretending, although Moriarty himself doesn't exactly have "straight dude" written all over his forehead), Irene Adler and her assistant Kate, the innkeepers in "The Hounds of Baskerville" and maybe Eurus. I mean, who the heck knows what Eurus' sexual orientation is and if it can be classified in any ordinary way, but she makes a statement indicating she doesn't much care what genitals her partners have so I counted her too. That's ten people which means approx. 3,6% of characters on Sherlock are not straight.

 

Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation suggests that the prevalence of homosexual and bisexual people in western populations is somewhere between 1 and 10%.

 

So I wouldn't say the show presents a very distorted image of reality on that front.

 

 

Meanwhile, John Watson is still straight and his hair in series 4 is still ugly. Agreed.

 

Edited to add: Boton, what you say above about the way Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat approach the topic of Holmes, Watson and modern audiences vs Victorian writing is funny and I am willing to believe spot on. Btw, I am apparently juvenile enough to not tire of the jokes before the showrunners themselves did. But then, it's not hard to make me laugh.

[Hikari]

 

 

John Watson is not gay, whatever Mofftiss says/does/thinks.  Mark Gatiss *is* a gay man, and I think that his agenda has colored the writing of John to some degree.

How do I say this nicely? Um... Oh heck. Hikari, there is no "gay agenda". So it's highly unlikely that Mr Gatiss infused the character of John Watson with it because it just doesn't exist. Okay? I get that you're tired of political correctness and so am I to a degree but implying that all non-straight people have some kind of common plan to change the world is ridiculous.

 

Tobe, I don't think that's what Hikari meant.  She wasn't talking about any overall "gay agenda," but rather about Mr. Gatiss's possible *personal* agenda, and we all have those, of one sort or another.

 

Mostly, as you say, she was just talking about the current atmosphere of hyper-correctness, which I am just about as tired of as she is.

 

 

My impression from a very few comments and interviews is that MG is pretty cautious about using homosexuality as some sort of humorous trope, possibly because he is well aware that gays have been the butt of jokes in some pretty un-funny situations. I truly think his "agenda" is to write good quality stories that people enjoy.  SM, on the other hand, I feel often writes this show as if he were the 12 year old him with no sense of historical context:  "Hey, look, Watson says, 'my dear Holmes' - that must mean they're gay!"

 

Regardless, I thought maybe having two or three "John is gay" jokes was funny, just because it was so meta.  It's true, Victorian literature can make male relationships seem gay when they are not, just because of the way the culture and language have evolved. So having everyone "in on" the joke except John was funny for a while, until it just started being annoying.

 

But the PC thing is annoying not just because it imposes an ever-shifting speech code, but also because it keeps people from having important discussions about how we talk about sensitive topics.

 

The question raised above, from my perspective, is: Is there a difference between "Don't worry, dude, no one thinks you're gay," and "Don't worry, dude, no one thinks you're straight." From where I sit, in the right context, they are equally funny. But PC might make us shy away one or the other in fear of thinking that what is implied is that being gay is an insult. We need to be able to talk about when/if that happens and when it doesn't.

 

 

Thanks, Boton, well stated.

 

Very astute analysis of Stephen Moffat.  Mark G. is gay and has never shied away from saying so, but neither has he played it up intentionally, either.  I like him very much and it goes without saying that of the two, I'd much rather spend time with MG.  Moffat grates on me like sand in my underwear, and he comes off as a narcissistic tool.  Both have written an equal number of scripts, so both have participated in the 'Watson is (not) gay' jokes . . but I imagine that a few instances of these may have put MG in an uncomfortable spot, perhaps.  He'd be the one with more at stake in the 'gay-baiting' charges now swirling around the duo.

 

Moffat strikes me as a bit of a neaderthalic clod who will do anything for a laugh, even at the expense of his writing partner and presumptive friend.  I find it a bit amazing that Mark was able to work productively with such a person for so long.  I wish him all the best in his future independent endeavors . . and Moffat can go to the dickens as far as I'm concerned.

[Boton]

 

Moffat grates on me like sand in my underwear, and he comes off as a narcissistic tool.  

 

...

 

Moffat strikes me as a bit of a neaderthalic clod who will do anything for a laugh, even at the expense of his writing partner and presumptive friend.  I find it a bit amazing that Mark was able to work productively with such a person for so long.  I wish him all the best in his future independent endeavors . . and Moffat can go to the dickens as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

From personal experience, let me say that the first bit is no joke.     ;)  :D

 

Anyway, I can see how a MG/SM partnership could work.  I think creatively, it might be nice to have someone who is continually pushing boundaries and failing to self-edit, because that can generate some really effective or funny scenes.  It has to be really annoying sometimes, but it might make the end product better.

 

However, by the time we've gotten to the end of Sherlock and the end of the 12th Dr. on Dr. Who, I'm happy for SM to take a vacation and perhaps get a grip.  

[J.P.]

I can see why SM might be perceived as narcissistic clod. Yes, I think he likes to show off the way Sherlock does. His abrasive sense of humour isn't everyone's cup of tea either, but, well, I like him because he's clever (sounds familiar!). And we've already agreed that he's better to look at than to read. On the paper his words come differently very often.

[Hikari]

 

 

I believe that there is an agenda, from which I exempt regular civilians, among the movers and shakers of show biz and media (of which Mofftiss is part) to represent gay characters and themes given any and all opportunities to do so.  I'm sympathetic to the fact that this was a segment of the population so underrepresented until fairly recently so as to be rendered invisible, and worse--criminal.  That was an agenda of the opposite kind, wielded by the hetero status quo, and had to end.   The pendulum has swung the other way now, at least in terms of media saturation and popular entertainment, giving the impression to the casual reader/viewer that at least 1 in 3 people identify as gay, when the reality is nothing like it.  Indeed, being just a garden-variety homosexual isn't enough for ratings any more;  they've had to switch their attention over to the transgendered people--a statistically miniscule part of the real population, as opposed to the population of our televisions.

 

I'm glad that the Dark Ages are over for gay people, to large degree.  The prevailing atmosphere now, though, seems to be that people who identify as heterosexual and have no personal stake in the gay community are made to feel like caustic bigots at worst, or at best, hopelessly un-cool, if they don't have any affinity for the rainbow coalition.  And if that's the way things are, maybe it's just our turn to feel a bit marginalized and misunderstood.

 

Can you give me an example of how heterosexual people are made to feel like caustic bigots or hopelessly uncool by the numeric over-representation of non-heterosexual people in popular media? Because I am having a hard time trying to imagine how that works.

 

Btw, I just did the math for Sherlock: Imdb says the show has a cast of 278. Gay, lesbian, bi or otherwise not straight are, as far as I can remember: Harry and Clara (off-screen only), Hrs Hudson's neighbor's "married ones" (off-screen only), Jim from IT (only pretending, although Moriarty himself doesn't exactly have "straight dude" written all over his forehead), Irene Adler and her assistant Kate, the innkeepers in "The Hounds of Baskerville" and maybe Eurus. I mean, who the heck knows what Eurus' sexual orientation is and if it can be classified in any ordinary way, but she makes a statement indicating she doesn't much care what genitals her partners have so I counted her too. That's ten people which means approx. 3,6% of characters on Sherlock are not straight.

 

Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation suggests that the prevalence of homosexual and bisexual people in western populations is somewhere between 1 and 10%.

 

So I wouldn't say the show presents a very distorted image of reality on that front.

 

 

Meanwhile, John Watson is still straight and his hair in series 4 is still ugly. Agreed.

 

Edited to add: Boton, what you say above about the way Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat approach the topic of Holmes, Watson and modern audiences vs Victorian writing is funny and I am willing to believe spot on. Btw, I am apparently juvenile enough to not tire of the jokes before the showrunners themselves did. But then, it's not hard to make me laugh.

 

 

In answer to your question T.o.b.y, I can't really give you a single example because everyone's personal experience is going to be different.  Unless somebody confides in me, I can only give examples out of my own experience.  Let's just say it's happened to me on this board very recently.

 

In case I was not clear before, I was referring to a more widespread pattern across multiple media, not "Sherlock BBC" solely.   I do not claim that *this* show in particular is distorted.  I'm talking about the wider entertainment culture.

 

My favorite 'gay joke' at John's expense was written by Mr. Gatiss for the Hounds episode.

 

Concierge at the Keys hotel:  Sorry we couldn't do a double bed for you boys.

JW:  We're not . . . it's fine.

 

Chef to JW:  Is yours a snorer?  Mine's a snorer.

JW:  Have you got any crisps?!

 

:lol2:

[Pseudonym]

Since that was aimed at me, I'll just say that I hardly think commenting on a bit of possibly dubious wording is on par with calling you a caustic bigot. 

 

Anyway, since none of this has nothing to do with John can we just get back on topic now?

[Hikari]

Since that was aimed at me, I'll just say that I hardly think commenting on a bit of possibly dubious wording is on par with calling you a caustic bigot. 

 

Anyway, since none of this has nothing to do with John can we just get back on topic now?

 

Actually it was not aimed solely at you, Pseud.  I did not use any names, but you still identified yourself. 

 

Nor did I accuse you or anyone, of calling me names.   I was speaking of how the tone of some comments made me feel--my interpretation.  Since no one can make us feel one way or the other without our consent, I am only stating the fact of my feelings.  I hope you or anybody else here will agree that that flows both ways and if I blunder into a comment which you deem gay-insensitive, you'll remember this conversation and give me the benefit of the doubt.

 

I would be delighted to get back on topic . .let's do.

[Boton]

 

 

My favorite 'gay joke' at John's expense was written by Mr. Gatiss for the Hounds episode.

 

Concierge at the Keys hotel:  Sorry we couldn't do a double bed for you boys.

JW:  We're not . . . it's fine.

 

Chef to JW:  Is yours a snorer?  Mine's a snorer.

JW:  Have you got any crisps?!

 

:lol2:

 

 

I love that.  Just the whole, "I no longer have the energy to correct people I'll never see again after this weekend."

 

I also liked the last gay joke, where Mrs. Hudson says, "A woman?!?! You really have moved on!" And John drops his head and says, "Mrs. Hudson, how many times....?"  It's like he's correcting his aunt or something, and he doesn't want to get upset with her, but she's just not getting it.  Meanwhile, you will never convince me that Mrs. Hudson isn't taking the piss, at least a little.

[Hikari]

 

 

 

My favorite 'gay joke' at John's expense was written by Mr. Gatiss for the Hounds episode.

 

Concierge at the Keys hotel:  Sorry we couldn't do a double bed for you boys.

JW:  We're not . . . it's fine.

 

Chef to JW:  Is yours a snorer?  Mine's a snorer.

JW:  Have you got any crisps?!

 

:lol2:

 

 

I love that.  Just the whole, "I no longer have the energy to correct people I'll never see again after this weekend."

 

I also liked the last gay joke, where Mrs. Hudson says, "A woman?!?! You really have moved on!" And John drops his head and says, "Mrs. Hudson, how many times....?"  It's like he's correcting his aunt or something, and he doesn't want to get upset with her, but she's just not getting it.  Meanwhile, you will never convince me that Mrs. Hudson isn't taking the piss, at least a little.

 

 

I love how John and Sherlock's supposed domestic intimacy has followed them all the way to Devonshire, which is hours from home, and in which they don't know anybody except their client!  Of course, the hotelier and his lover, the chef d'atelier assume that two young(ish) guys from London travelling together to a tourist spot in the country aren't there for a work conference.  Not at their vegan boutique hotel.  One can only imagine the stir Lestrade made when he strode into that little hothouse enclave.  I can hear it now and it sounds like  . . "Yummy!"  Lord knows that's what *I* always say when RG has a scene.  Not the super-short buzz cut though . . hate it.

 

"Hounds of Baskerville' doesn't get a whole lot of love, and I suppose that overall, it is a weaker episode than the two that bookend it.  Gets really heavy into the sci-fi stuff.  It's a bit too Dr. Whoey for my taste . . .but I award all the laurels to MG for his opening setpiece, "A Young Man from Devonshire calls into Baker Street to Discuss the Footprints of a Gigantic Hound".  Henry is my favorite client, and the Baker Street double-act is in great fizzy form.  And Devonshire is stunning to look at.  Then there's the humor at the hotel . . all the misunderstandings about John and Sherl's preferred sleeping arrangements . . . Sherl making his flatmate poisoned coffee (as far as he knows) . .the whole 'Bacon Sandwich at Carol's Wedding' scene . . 'Is that why you're calling yourself GREG?' . .I could watch those parts a million times. 

 

Re. Mrs. Hudson taking the p!ss . . do you think?  I believe she's absolutely sincere, and has shipped JohnLock since John first came to look at the flat.  She is the original JohnLock shipper.  After all, Mrs. Turner next door has *married ones* . . and who wants to be outdone by Mrs. Turner?

 

I have learned since that 'Mrs. Turner' is the name of Mrs. Hudson's sister, also a London landlady, and into whose care Martha commends Holmes and Watson if she has to be away for any extended period of time.

[Boton]

 

 

 

 

I love how John and Sherlock's supposed domestic intimacy has followed them all the way to Devonshire, which is hours from home, and in which they don't know anybody except their client!  

 

...

 

Re. Mrs. Hudson taking the p!ss . . do you think?  I believe she's absolutely sincere, and has shipped JohnLock since John first came to look at the flat.  She is the original JohnLock shipper.  After all, Mrs. Turner next door has *married ones* . . and who wants to be outdone by Mrs. Turner?

 

Regarding the domestic intimacy, I actually have always thought that people accuse S/J of being gay because they project an intimacy of relationship that is discernible to others. So, maybe the hoteliers don't necessarily know their living situation, but they pick up on that sense of "couplehood." 

 

And yeah, I absolutely think by S3 that Mrs. Hudson knows perfectly well that those two are straight, but she knows that it bothers John to be labeled otherwise. And she owes him one after he just dropped off the radar following Sherlock's "death," so she decides to get him where it will bother him. (I think in SiP she wasn't sure and didn't want to guess wrong, hence her overly-welcoming explanation of the "married ones" next door. But I also think she caught on after she saw the stream of women come and spend the night with Three Continents Watson.)

[Pseudonym]

You think John brings a lot of ladies back to 221B? I always think of him as going to their place as often as possible rather than risk Sherlock scaring them off, either directly or by leaving out body parts, or exploding something, or tormenting them with a discordant violin concerto all night. 

[Hikari]

 

 

 

 

 

I love how John and Sherlock's supposed domestic intimacy has followed them all the way to Devonshire, which is hours from home, and in which they don't know anybody except their client!  

 

...

 

Re. Mrs. Hudson taking the p!ss . . do you think?  I believe she's absolutely sincere, and has shipped JohnLock since John first came to look at the flat.  She is the original JohnLock shipper.  After all, Mrs. Turner next door has *married ones* . . and who wants to be outdone by Mrs. Turner?

 

Regarding the domestic intimacy, I actually have always thought that people accuse S/J of being gay because they project an intimacy of relationship that is discernible to others. So, maybe the hoteliers don't necessarily know their living situation, but they pick up on that sense of "couplehood." 

 

And yeah, I absolutely think by S3 that Mrs. Hudson knows perfectly well that those two are straight, but she knows that it bothers John to be labeled otherwise. And she owes him one after he just dropped off the radar following Sherlock's "death," so she decides to get him where it will bother him. (I think in SiP she wasn't sure and didn't want to guess wrong, hence her overly-welcoming explanation of the "married ones" next door. But I also think she caught on after she saw the stream of women come and spend the night with Three Continents Watson.)

 

 

Actually I think 'Three Continents' tends to stay over at the lady's place if there's going to be any kit-off.  The one woman who was tramping around undressed in 221b was Janine--Sherl's alleged GF.  Bet that threw Mrs. Hudson for a loop.  Janine's presence 'bout made Watson's head explode. 

 

I once had a notion to write a fan-fic where Sherlock discovered that Mycroft was bugging his (Sherl's) underpants in order to keep track of his little brother.  I posited that this bugging occurred when the lads sent out their laundry.  Do you see a washing machine in 221b?  Because I do not, and I don't think Mrs. Hudson would be amenable to washing Sherlock Holmes's soiled underpants, designer or no.  Mycroft was apprehending the laundry courier (we do not for one moment think that SH condescends to go to the launderette, do we?) and replacing the items with others that had had a tiny GPS chip sewn into the waistbands.  The reasoning being that SH sheds clothing/disguises with regularity, but he'd be very unlikely to change his underpants for a disguise.  Only, Mycroft underestimated his little brother, because SH sussed that his shorts were bugged in the second week.  So now Sherl hides a stash of new unsurveilled underwear in a niche behind the periodic table in his bedroom and the bugged underpants coming back from the laundry he gives to Billy to pass out to the male homeless network.  Sherlock's underpants sure do get around, all over London, keeping Mycroft's minions busy.  Being thorough, M. also bugged John's skivvies.  Watson's underpants adhere to a more set routine:  the clinic, the pub, the Tube, home in Baker Street . .and once in a while, another address which is where his current girlfriend (this was all pre-Mary) is living.  Three Continents is pretty predictable.

 

BC and MF do share a lot of eyesex for allegedly straight guys--in character, I hasten to add.  Well, John's straight and Sherlock is, if not John-curious, a dedicated asexual.  Who could fail to read something into all that intense and meaningful close-range staring into each others' eyes they are always doing? 

 

I still think Mrs. Hudson has convinced herself so thoroughly of JohnLock, she stubbornly clings to her vision of things even as John is in the act of telling her he's engaged to  . . a Woman.  Mrs. Hudson has some surprisingly crafty hidden depths (the racy X-rated dancing past, the shockingly cool car), but I feel she's too far straightforward a personality to play the kinds of mind games that Sherlock plays with John.  She was mad and she let him know it by banging the tea things on the table so hard he might have lost an eye.  Then she got it out of her system and, once they were back in 221b, started in on her old familiar refrain--John and Sherlock are Made for Each Other.

 

They are each other's soul mates, so she's right at least that far.

 

[T.o.b.y]

I suspect Mrs Hudson may be a bit of a shipper. I mean, she should know John is interested in girls, after all, she met Sarah and whatsherface who came to the Christmas party, for example. But she really likes this idea of herself being a cool, progressive, open-minded landlady who rents her property out to a gay couple and she also probably thinks her two handsome tenants would be cute together.

 

Poor John. I think once he married Mary, she got the message though.

 

I really like the relationship between John and Mrs Hudson, btw. Makes me wonder what kind of a mother John has and on what terms he is / was with her.