Share Your Head Canon!

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

John is clearly a man who wears those old fashioned white and tight briefs.

 

John [...] I've always seen as a boxer-shorts kinda guy -- which may be because that's what I consider old-fashioned, and I think you're right, John is something of a traditionalist.  So I guess the true answer depends on what he considers old-fashioned!

 

This question has been percolating in the back of my head fort the past few days, so I finally looked up the history of men's underwear on the internet.

 

According to this article:

 

 

 

"Boxers or briefs?" Before the 1920s, this question would have gotten you little more than a blank look, mostly because neither boxers nor briefs had been invented yet. From Victorian times into the 1930s, men had mostly worn tight-fitting knee-length flannel "drawers" beneath their pants and donned similarly snug flannel tops as undershirts.

 

It goes on to say that "boxer" shorts really were developed for boxers, starting in 1925, but didn't really catch on as underwear till the late 1940's, by which time briefs had been introduced (according to this article, in the late 30's).

 

So, although we now know what the Victorian Watson wears under his trousers, we still have no real answer to the briefs or boxers question.  Both arose circa 1930, so both are equally "new" or equally "traditional" (depending on your point of view).

 

 

I seem to recall that Hollywood (on screen) generally put their men in boxers back in the day, maybe as a way to keep things "modest" when they weren't fully dressed.

[Lalarun]

It never really crossed my mind (about whether he is a go commando guy or not), but I always wonder, everytime I see SIB, did those Palace guys pack his underwear too? Because I don't see it in the pile. However, they might keep it folded among the other clothing items.

I never really thought about the underwear of anyone in the show, but like you I always wonder about that part of the Palace scene. I mean, they probably haven't asked him or anything like that (at least I cannot imagine it, it would be a bit too weird, I guess), so they just had to pack something based on what they think what he wears under the sheet.

But then I think for the Palace guys this question doesn't really matter, it's just about having some appropriate clothes for Sherlock and packing no underwear wouldn't matter anymore if Sherlock wore trousers (which they brought).

[Carol the Dabbler]

... we now know what the Victorian Watson wears under his trousers...

We do??

 

Presumably.  According to this article, which I quoted above, Victorian men wore "tight-fitting knee-length flannel 'drawers'," or at least most of them did, and Watson doesn't strike me as the avant-garde type.

 

I seem to recall that Hollywood (on screen) generally put their men in boxers back in the day, maybe as a way to keep things "modest" when they weren't fully dressed.

 

I do believe you're right.  Seems like men didn't wear briefs in the movies till maybe the late 60's, and even then only if they were of a questionable character.  (According to this article, that's because the MPAA movie rating system was adopted in 1967, replacing the moralistic Hayes Code.)  Not sure what the implications are for real-life underwear.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

It never really crossed my mind (about whether he is a go commando guy or not), but I always wonder, everytime I see SIB, did those Palace guys pack his underwear too? Because I don't see it in the pile. However, they might keep it folded among the other clothing items.

I never really thought about the underwear of anyone in the show, but like you I always wonder about that part of the Palace scene. I mean, they probably haven't asked him or anything like that (at least I cannot imagine it, it would be a bit too weird, I guess), so they just had to pack something based on what they think what he wears under the sheet.

But then I think for the Palace guys this question doesn't really matter, it's just about having some appropriate clothes for Sherlock and packing no underwear wouldn't matter anymore if Sherlock wore trousers (which they brought).

 

 

I wonder if Mycroft told the guys what to grab in the case that Sherlock wasn't dressed.  One of those "if you find my brother in...then grab..." or "You'll likely find him in... so grab..." scenarios.

 

 

I seem to recall that Hollywood (on screen) generally put their men in boxers back in the day, maybe as a way to keep things "modest" when they weren't fully dressed.

 

I do believe you're right.  Seems like men didn't wear briefs in the movies till maybe the late 60's, and even then only if they were of a questionable character.  (According to this article, that's because the MPAA movie rating system was adopted in 1967, replacing the moralistic Hayes Code.)  Not sure what the implications are for real-life underwear.

 

 

I want to go back to the Hayes Code as the MPAA rating is very subjective.  What is rated PG-13 now would have been rated R when I was a kid.

[Grey]

I imagine that John likes to head down to the pub for a quiet pint or two a couple of nights a week, and although he tries to persuade Sherlock to come with him every now and then, he knows it's never going to happen :(

[Arcadia]

I imagine Mike Stamford sometimes joins him, and they watch football together and talk about the job, their wives and Sherlock.

[LadyCumberBunny]

I know I'm several months late to the discussion, but I have this head cannon that Sherlock experimented on John when they live together and he was bored...but nothing obvious to John.

[Arcadia]

You're never too late. As Carol likes to say, sometimes new input can revitalize an old thread, so we encourage you to respond to old threads!

 

I think I have a similar head canon. Poor John! Although as he told Mycroft, at least he was never bored!

[ElementaryDearWatson]

Call me weird if you must, but I headcanon that RDJ's Sherlock is an older, post-BBC, version of Benedict's Sherlock.

[J.P.]

Recently, watching pictures of other film Sherlocks, I realized that Mark Gatiss' Mycroft could be another, classical Sherlock.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Strong family resemblance, then!

[Boton]

Call me weird if you must, but I headcanon that RDJ's Sherlock is an older, post-BBC, version of Benedict's Sherlock.

 

I sort of have a similar head canon.  I feel like every Holmes really is every other Holmes, just in a different set of circumstances. So, it's almost like I feel like Holmes is immortal, and he just keeps living his life in different eras and situations.

 

Come to think of it, that's not that far off a couple of Dr. Who plots, so could be!

[J.P.]

A different art of Wholock. :D