Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

Also, I'm not arguing that what he gains is the 'hope' she will get better (though that can certainly be something he would want to gain).  The playing with her, the living life with her, the experience of being with her, is the gain - as it is with John.  Not any particular result.  His working with John is NOT a sacrifice if John doesn't achieve some particular goal in the future.  The friendship and love (for her, or John, or anyone else) is not a MEANS to some OTHER end.

 

IT is the value.

 

And it is MORE valuable to him than his solitude or any thing else he might give up to have that love and friendship.

 

THAT has been the whole point of the series (what we were saying before about love being the heart of the series).

 

 

That's quite lovely, and I like the thought. But I'm comparing what he gains and loses, frankly. I'm just thinking about how difficult it is for ordinary people to make such significant changes to their lives. But Sherlock's extraordinary, isn't he?

 

 

"I'm comparing what he gains and loses"

 

And you are saying the love and relationship he gains from his sister is worth LESS to him than, what exactly?

 

Are you similarly saying that Sherlock's relationship with John, which has caused him to lose SO much (to change so much), has NOT been a sacrifice by your definition of the term?  Or are you saying that his love and relationship for John is ALSO a sacrifice?  If the latter, I must COMPLETELY disagree.

 

 

[Arcadia]

I know, right what is wrong with both John and Stephen Moffat?! I do get how Irene has become this sort of romantic ideal for him- and why it would appeal to a man, and why he would be flattered by her interest. But, as you say, I don't picture Irene off pining for Sherlock anywhere- and I don't think he wants her to. Sometimes it's nice to just have an idea of someone you could be with, but to be alone, because you prefer to be alone, with a dream, and I kind of see her as that for Sherlock. I thought he kind of acknowledged that when he brushed aside John's guess so quickly- that he doesn't expect her to still be thinking of him.

 

I don't know what's wrong with them, but this isn't the first drama to have a strong, intelligent man become infatuated with a domin8trix. And frankly, I'm not sure I want to know why. I mean, ew ... seriously? But it's a thing, apparently. To each their own!

[BLS_Pro]

 

And then again, there is the possibility that he's not going for any gains or sacrifices, but rather because Eurus has brainwashed him. I wonder what she'll have him do next...

 

Kidding (mostly).

It's funny you mention that, because the whole time they kept going on about everyone being reprogrammed simply by being around Svengali Holmes, I kept thinking - BOY she spent a LOT of time with Watson, including as his THERAPIST!  What reprogramming and enslavement did she perform on him (and if not, WHY not)?

[sherlockandjohn]

 

At this point, I am not so bothered about 'cheapening' the show... sorry. I've seen too much If I was to worry about all the stuff that doesn't make sense in Sherlock, I wouldn't be able to enjoy it anymore, so somewhere along the way I decided to take it for what it is. Which is still incredibly entertaining and often very heart-warming and gut-wrenching!

This is possibly the most sensible comment I have ever read. :D Not that it will stop me from obsessing...

 

 

:D I don't think I've stopped obsessing... I mean, the episodes still really get to me. I get excited and heartbroken, in turns. But with this series, every time I've watched a new episode, I've calmed down much quicker than I did after each episode in series 3. I honestly think that HLV, in particular, shocked me so badly that I eventually decided: Okay, if this is where the writers are taking 'Sherlock' (both the show and the character), then I'll just deal with it. I willed myself to get over it, because I so wanted to keep on loving the show.

 

Of course, if series 4 hadn't turned out pretty much how I wanted it to, I might still have had a different reaction ;) Besides minor issues, I really love the arc of this series.

[Arcadia]

 

 

Also, I'm not arguing that what he gains is the 'hope' she will get better (though that can certainly be something he would want to gain).  The playing with her, the living life with her, the experience of being with her, is the gain - as it is with John.  Not any particular result.  His working with John is NOT a sacrifice if John doesn't achieve some particular goal in the future.  The friendship and love (for her, or John, or anyone else) is not a MEANS to some OTHER end.

 

IT is the value.

 

And it is MORE valuable to him than his solitude or any thing else he might give up to have that love and friendship.

 

THAT has been the whole point of the series (what we were saying before about love being the heart of the series).

 

That's quite lovely, and I like the thought. But I'm not comparing what he gains and loses, frankly. I'm just thinking about how difficult it is for ordinary people to make such significant changes to their lives. But Sherlock's extraordinary, isn't he?

 

 

"I'm comparing what he gains and loses"

 

 

Sorry, typo!! I meant to say is that I'm NOT comparing what he gains and loses. I've gone back and changed it.

 

I'm just thinking what a toll it takes on a person to care ... in whatever way ... for the mentally ill. Does that make more sense?

 

 

And then again, there is the possibility that he's not going for any gains or sacrifices, but rather because Eurus has brainwashed him. I wonder what she'll have him do next...

 

Kidding (mostly).

 

 

And then again, there is the possibility that he's not going for any gains or sacrifices, but rather because Eurus has brainwashed him. I wonder what she'll have him do next...

 

Kidding (mostly).

It's funny you mention that, because the whole time they kept going on about everyone being reprogrammed simply by being around Svengali Holmes, I kept thinking - BOY she spent a LOT of time with Watson, including as his THERAPIST!  What reprogramming and enslavement did she perform on him (and if not, WHY not)?

 

Oh god, I didn't think of either of those things! Stop it, you two, I'm crazy enough already!!!

[T.o.b.y]

I only got the bit about the plane being nothing but Euros' headspace this time round because of the awful quality I saw the episode in last night. But you know what? I wasn't surprised.

 

My first impression when the episode began yesterday was, oh - here's Euros as a child! And it felt wrong to me all the time that it wasn't. But it was! I was right all along! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha...

[Arcadia]

 

 

At this point, I am not so bothered about 'cheapening' the show... sorry. I've seen too much If I was to worry about all the stuff that doesn't make sense in Sherlock, I wouldn't be able to enjoy it anymore, so somewhere along the way I decided to take it for what it is. Which is still incredibly entertaining and often very heart-warming and gut-wrenching!

This is possibly the most sensible comment I have ever read. :D Not that it will stop me from obsessing...

 

 

:D I don't think I've stopped obsessing... I mean, the episodes still really get to me. I get excited and heartbroken, in turns. But with this series, every time I've watched a new episode, I've calmed down much quicker than I did after each episode in series 3. I honestly think that HLV, in particular, shocked me so badly that I eventually decided: Okay, if this is where the writers are taking 'Sherlock' (both the show and the character), then I'll just deal with it. I willed myself to get over it, because I so wanted to keep on loving the show.

 

Of course, if series 4 hadn't turned out pretty much how I wanted it to, I might still have had a different reaction ;) Besides minor issues, I really love the arc of this series.

 

 

Yes, exactly. HLV gutted me, and I was fairly new to the show at the time ... I didn't even have any ideas yet about where the show "should" go. But I'm okay with this season, in spite of all the flaws. And TLD is easily one of my 3 favorite episodes, I think. I'm content, which is a far better place than I was afraid I would be after T6T. (Whew! )

[Arcadia]

I only got the bit about the plane being nothing but Euros' headspace this time round because of the awful quality I saw the episode in last night. But you know what? I wasn't surprised.

 

My first impression when the episode began yesterday was, oh - here's Euros as a child! And it felt wrong to me all the time that it wasn't. But it was! I was right all along! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha...

 

Ha, that's what I thought too, that she was Eurus. But then it wasn't, and it sort of bugged me that she was even in this episode (I was almost on Mycroft's side ... oh fer gawd's sake, crash the plane so we can get on with the story!) Nicely played, Moftiss! :d (I seriously do not want to play p0ker with those guys!)

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

Sorry, typo!! I meant to say is that I'm NOT comparing what he gains and loses. I've gone back and changed it.

 

I'm just thinking what a toll it takes on a person to care ... in whatever way ... for the mentally ill. Does that make more sense?

 

Indeed, as I've stated, I agree it can cost one much.  I don't dispute it at all and have explicitly said so.

 

As I ultimately pinpointed, my complaint is with the term 'sacrifice' used to identify that cost - to identify loss.  My point was and is: if you are "NOT comparing what he gains and loses" then you should not be using the term sacrifice - any more than you should be using the term profit.  Both terms identify specific (and opposing) comparisons between gains and losses.  If that is NOT what you are doing - if you are NOT making a comparison - then neither of the terms apply.

 

As I said, loss (cost, toll, suffering, change - whatever term you wish to use which MEANS loss) is NOT synonymous with sacrifice.  While all sacrifice is loss, not all loss is sacrifice.  In fact, most loss is NOT sacrifice.

[J.P.]

 

Re Mycroft: it wasn't necessarily glorious how they have shown him, but I think it's still in character - he's a bit like all of us, meat eaters. We don't have a problem with a dead pig on our plate, but how many of us would ba able to make that pig into meat?

The analogy isn't a good one.  Most of us don't watch the slaughtering of animals either.  Unlike Mycroft, we are completely separated from the entire process - which is why it would be difficult for us to shoot a pig (though I suspect most of us could do it, and - more importantly - without moral qualm).  But, given his job, there is NO way Mycroft has escaped seeing all sorts of grotesque killings (via surveillance, both up close) as well as the bloody results afterwards in reports.  He has never been squeamish in his job - he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did if he had.  He is knee deep and up to his arms in the process.  So Mycroft is not like "all of us".

 

Sorry, really not good analogy. Not a mere meat eater. Rather the boss of... is there an equivalent to KFC for pork? The meat eater are us, people on the streets, depending on Mycroft doing the dirty jobs by delegating the dirty jobs to people like Mary. Better now? :D I know it sounds stretched, but it might be more real, than we like to admit.

[BLS_Pro]

 

Sorry, really not good analogy. Not a mere meat eater. Rather the boss of... is there an equivalent to KFC for pork? The meat eater are us, people on the streets, depending on Mycroft doing the dirty jobs by delegating the dirty jobs to people like Mary. Better now? :D I know it sounds stretched, but it might be more real, than we like to admit.

I know what you are trying to say with the analogy. It's basically saying he doesn't have the courage of his convictions.  He believes killing meat is right, but is too cowardly to do it himself (he can't act on his principles).

 

My point is that Mycroft explicitly states it is murder and he will not kill.  He doesn't say he agrees with murder and killing but won't do it himself because it sickens him physically.  He doesn't agree with it morally.  He shrinks from it because he considers it wrong.

 

He balks on moral grounds, not from lack of integrity.

[Caya]

While I like your analogy, J.P. (and have to admit that it fits me perfectly, sadly enough), I'm with Plaidder when it comes to the morals of this:

 

 

 

3) How noble they all are, as they refuse to do murder. Almost makes you forget Sherlock’s already a murderer because Steven Moffat already made him one. And Mary’s a murderer, for hire even, and she’s now apparently the good fairy of the Sherlock universe. She’d have blown the governor’s head off, no problem. She’s killed people just as undeserving of it on far less provocation. But she’s dead now, so everyone loves her. STOP talking about ETHICS, Moffat, you have WAIVED THAT RIGHT.

[BLS_Pro]

 

While I like your analogy, J.P. (and have to admit that it fits me perfectly, sadly enough), I'm with Plaidder when it comes to the morals of this:

 

 

3) How noble they all are, as they refuse to do murder. Almost makes you forget Sherlock’s already a murderer because Steven Moffat already made him one. And Mary’s a murderer, for hire even, and she’s now apparently the good fairy of the Sherlock universe. She’d have blown the governor’s head off, no problem. She’s killed people just as undeserving of it on far less provocation.

 

I have to disagree with Plaidders characterizations.  Sherlock isn't a murderer.  Mary is not a murderer for hire (so far as we've been shown).  And who exactly have we seen Mary kill who was "undeserving" of it supposedly?

 

Killing is not the same as murder. Equivocation between the two is the obliteration of justice. 

[J.P.]

Did it though?

 

What did love actually solve? Euros isn't magically cured just because her brother hugged her once in thirty-odd years. She's back at Sherrinford. For the time being, she just isn't talking any more. Big improvement?

 

And wasn't it maybe love, albeit a very twisted version thereof, that drove her to torture Sherlock in the first place? He seems to have been the only person she cared for. Then he was closer to someone else and she hated that and became jealous and killed the someone else. It was a crime of love, disappointed love, and I like that it wasn't of the romantic order.

 

I guess you can say that love made Sherlock's life better in the end. Having friends made him happier and more sane. But is that really so terrible? At least he didn't ride off into the sunset with a domesticated Irene Adler or something like that.

 

 

Oh, J.P. I am terribly sorry. I came on here just now, all elated and bubbly and giggly after a rewatch, a tear in each eye from the ending I didn't dare dream I'd ever get and then I found your post and thought - oh no. I can argue all I want, if the message is ruined for you, that's what it is and it is what it is. I won't offer a hug, not even a virtual one, because I have a feeling you wouldn't like it, but how about a

?

 

They have thorns, you know.

 

Oh, dear! What a drama, huh?

 

Well, I actually like hugs. If they are planned in advance. Did I write I was attending cuddle meetings (hate the name cuddle parties)? I'm a bag of contradictions, I know. :lol:

 

I actuall felt quite nice about it, (for reasons listed here), until suddenly it all crashed down, as if someone swiched off the light. It felt complete for a moment and than it only felt over. And the part of the sadnes is a sadness for it being a farewell to this Sherlock.

The end of laughter and soft lies

The end of nights we tried to die

 

I wasn't so completely wrong with the Apocalypse Now poster, huh? Even if actually apocalipse means revelation. :D

 

Funny thing my brain. I should donate it to science.

 

It really don't belong to this thread… and I intended to post it ages ago

[sherlockandjohn]

I cannot keep up with you guys! :D But that doesn't stop me from trying, so here goes:

 

I get why Sherlock smashed up the coffin after his agonizing conversation with Molly. (Oh, Moftiss, that conversation was just cruel!) But I'm not sure about his reaction after, why he lapsed into a sort of stupor afterwards. I get that he felt bad about doing that to Molly, but not why it almost rendered him dysfunctional. Thoughts?

 

Maybe it was not all about Molly, but an accumulation of everything Eurus had put him through so far? I don't know. Personally, I like to think that he did get just that upset about what he had to do to (and for) Molly. BC played the scene with Molly masterfully! I felt Sherlock's agony and read so many complex emotions in his face. For a moment there, I actually started to wonder if he was having a realisation about his feelings for Molly! Maybe he was, but probably not on a romantic level - rather that in this life or death situation it made him realise just how much he cares for her as a friend.

 

 

I think the writers definitely view Eurus as an alternative version of Sherlock.  What is the difference between them though?  Love.  Sherlock had a best friend then - and has a best friend now.  It is the lack of such a love which is the difference.  Watson "saved" Sherlock BY being his best friend.  Eurus wasn't saved BECAUSE she had no such friend - certainly not the one she wanted: Sherlock.

 

I've been thinking this, too - and it really gets to me. Sherlock could have turned out so differently. He surely knows that himself, and that's a big part of the reason that he still loves her, in spite of everything. I have never loved Sherlock (the character, not the show) as much as I do this series!

 

 

 

Here's a question for you all.  I'm really undecided on this.
 
Did you get the impression that John moved back into 221B, or do you think he maintained a separate home for Rosie?  In the final montage, Sherlock and John are in John and Mary's house a couple of times, especially to start the "Miss You" DVD.  There is the scene that will launch a thousand Parentlock fics where Sherlock is handing Rosie to John as he walks in the door of 221B, but I read that on the first two viewings as Sherlock and Mrs. Hudson pitching in to help mind Rosie while John is at work.  I asked Mr. Boton, and he noted, "of course, John will raise Rosie in their own house and visit Sherlock."  That's what I felt like last night; that John would be a frequent visitor to 221B but not a resident.  And that kind of jibes with ACD canon.
 
But today I see a lot of people saying that they are living together, so I was wondering if I missed something?

 
No, IMO it's just people seeing what they want to see.

 

Oh, you guys... I never even considered that it could mean anything else than that John moved back into Baker St.! I guess that makes me one of those who only sees what they want to see ;) Not surprised, there! Story of my life.

 

@Boton: I think you were being observant, and it is as Arcadia says! There is a pointer, though, that John is back in Baker St, when Mary called them her 'Baker Street boys'. But, of course, that's just her version of it! Sherlock and/or John might choose differently. Either way, they are continuing on as a team.

 

 

Oh, J.P. I am terribly sorry. I came on here just now, all elated and bubbly and giggly after a rewatch, a tear in each eye from the ending I didn't dare dream I'd ever get and then I found your post and thought - oh no. I can argue all I want, if the message is ruined for you, that's what it is and it is what it is. I won't offer a hug, not even a virtual one, because I have a feeling you wouldn't like it, but how about a

?

 

They have thorns, you know.

 

So sorry, J.P. I remember how badly HLV hit me. Hated it at first - felt betrayed.

 

 

While I like your analogy, J.P. (and have to admit that it fits me perfectly, sadly enough), I'm with Plaidder when it comes to the morals of this:

 

3) How noble they all are, as they refuse to do murder. Almost makes you forget Sherlock’s already a murderer because Steven Moffat already made him one. And Mary’s a murderer, for hire even, and she’s now apparently the good fairy of the Sherlock universe. She’d have blown the governor’s head off, no problem. She’s killed people just as undeserving of it on far less provocation. But she’s dead now, so everyone loves her. STOP talking about ETHICS, Moffat, you have WAIVED THAT RIGHT.

 

In all fairness, Sherlock, John and Mary lead very dangerous lives, and they are the ones who have killed... Mycroft probably hasn't killed anyone in person, but surely must have issued orders to have people killed. And John has probably only killed in war and in saving Sherlock from a serial killer. I find it interesting to explore their moral values on another level. Sherlock himself probably would have pulled the trigger on the first guy, while Mycroft and John couldn't.

[MycroftsUmbrella]

 

 

the thing that did annoy me a little was the end of Eurus seeking Sherlocks love, after basically being portrait as a cold completely emotionless person. Not as in Mycroft cold, but as in intelligence having completely taken over emotion and left her literally void of any humanity just like a computer trying to make sense of the world without any moral compass. So her emotional breakdown at the end, for a lack of a better word, seemed like a complete break im character and didn't really work for me to be honest.

And Mycroft being 'squeamish' is completely out of character - given what he undoubtably has had to do for the government. Look at how quickly he was willing to kill the little girl in the plane for the 'greater good'. He didn't care about the blood on his hands there. So not only was the squeamishness out of character overall, it was contradicted IMMEDIATELY. More of the show's BAD writing.

 

.

I don't think Mycroft not wanting literal blood on his hands is out of character actually once you think about it. It did surprise me initially as I said, but I don't think it's necessarily bad writing or contradictory to his character set up.

 

As it's become pretty obvious Mycroft moral code can be discribed as somewhat dubious. He clearly has no problem making decisions that mean certain death to a lot of people if it saves others or helps whatever he sees as right. However I doubt he rarely actually ever has to face the direct consequence of his decision in person and see someone die and would usually acknowledged it but not actively watch it.

So physically killing someone with his own hands doesn't seem like something he'd do unless forced to or ever had to do much (he hates leg work after all). He probably hasn't really seen a person die before, not face to face anyway and the reality of it might still come as a shock, even to 'cold' Mycroft.

[knocknock]

Hi all,

New to this forum. I just wanted to ask if anyone noticed that in the episode "His Last Vow" (Season 3 Episode 3), when Sherlock meets with Charles Magnussen, the "Napoleon of Blackmail", Magnussen can be seen "scanning" Sherlock's pressure points, and among the rather extensive (and repetitive) list, one thing stands out — "Redbeard". 

 

Was this a sneaky easter egg that the creators snuck into an early episode of Sherlock? Sorry if this is common knowledge — just kinda got excited when watching reruns to see such an important plot element in "The Final Problem" show up in an older episode. :P

 

Cheers,

L

[bedelia1984]

 

I don't think Mycroft not wanting literal blood on his hands is out of character actually once you think about it. It did surprise me initially as I said, but I don't think it's necessarily bad writing or contradictory to his character set up.

 

As it's become pretty obvious Mycroft moral code can be discribed as somewhat dubious. He clearly has no problem making decisions that mean certain death to a lot of people if it saves others or helps whatever he sees as right. However I doubt he rarely actually ever has to face the direct consequence of his decision in person and see someone die and would usually acknowledged it but not actively watch it.

So physically killing someone with his own hands doesn't seem like something he'd do unless forced to or ever had to do much (he hates leg work after all). He probably hasn't really seen a person die before, not face to face anyway and the reality of it might still come as a shock, even to 'cold' Mycroft.

 

 

I agree with this. I also wanted to add- there is subtext here too that is being ignored. When Mycroft tells Sherlock he'll have to save him (in the Mycroft or John scene- another of MG's brilliant moments)- he's manipulating things through his words. I think Mycroft does not want blood on his hands, yes, but he also wants to put up a fight- to show Eurus he won't be walked on, or turned into her puppet, and also to show a bit of strength for Sherlock too.

 

It is sort of interesting ethically- they don't kill him, so she dies- are they responsible for her death? But then again, Eurus is so unpredictable, maybe they were both doomed from the start anyway.

[Caya]

Hello lostnotstranded and welcome to the forum!

 

As per current spoiler rules, I have moved your post to the episode thread.

[J.P.]

He saw Mary die.

Moral codes are strange animals. They are very elastic.

 

But you can still see Mycrofts refusal as having nothing to do with ethics, but a gut reaction to the immadiate danger and gore. He just didn't had the "guts" to do it himself, and he looked for excuses. And the first he could find was "it's murder".

 

It's not fair, there are many of you. I cant't keep the pace.

 

Relax everybody, we have years to discuss it. :P

[Caya]

What are you trying to do to this forum, J.P.? :lol:

 

[J.P.]

I agree with this. I also wanted to add- there is subtext here too that is being ignored. When Mycroft tells Sherlock he'll have to save him (in the Mycroft or John scene- another of MG's brilliant moments)- he's manipulating things through his words. I think Mycroft does not want blood on his hands, yes, but he also wants to put up a fight- to show Eurus he won't be walked on, or turned into her puppet, and also to show a bit of strength for Sherlock too.

 

It is sort of interesting ethically- they don't kill him, so she dies- are they responsible for her death? But then again, Eurus is so unpredictable, maybe they were both doomed from the start anyway.

 

 

I think they were both dead people walking.

 

As for the subtext I would have to watch it again, because I don't remember it. But you surely have something here, It's a power-play and Mycroft is not the worst player.

[MycroftsUmbrella]

He saw Mary die.

Moral codes are strange animals. They are very elastic.

 

But you can still see Mycrofts refusal as having nothing to do with ethics, but a gut reaction to the immadiate danger and gore. He just didn't had the "guts" to do it himself, and he looked for excuses. And the first he could find was "it's murder".

 

It's not fair, there are many of you. I cant't keep the pace.

 

Relax everybody, we have years to discuss it. :P

I agree about the blood and gore. Yes, he saw Mary die, but she didn't shoot her brain out. Not that bleeding out is much less bloody, but something about someone shooting themselves through the head is pretty nasty. There was certainly an element of excuse as well as fear in there. You could just tell how much better adjusted John was to the entire situation having been in a war zone and being used the stress of immediate danger instead of abstract danger.

 

I also think that Mycroft was really not used to the lack of being in control and clearly couldn't deal with it well, to the point where it affected his normal judgment and intellectual response time to problems. I guess there kind of was a glimpse to his problem of being challenged when Mrs. Hudson laughed at him in the previous episode telling him how stupid he was, which will for sure be one of my favourite Mrs Hudson scenes ever.

[Slithytove]

 

I know, right what is wrong with both John and Stephen Moffat?! I do get how Irene has become this sort of romantic ideal for him- and why it would appeal to a man, and why he would be flattered by her interest. But, as you say, I don't picture Irene off pining for Sherlock anywhere- and I don't think he wants her to. Sometimes it's nice to just have an idea of someone you could be with, but to be alone, because you prefer to be alone, with a dream, and I kind of see her as that for Sherlock. I thought he kind of acknowledged that when he brushed aside John's guess so quickly- that he doesn't expect her to still be thinking of him.

 

I don't know what's wrong with them, but this isn't the first drama to have a strong, intelligent man become infatuated with a domin8trix. And frankly, I'm not sure I want to know why. I mean, ew ... seriously? But it's a thing, apparently. Dopes. (And before anyone jumps on me, yes, I know some women are fascinated by it too. Dopes. :D

 

Not jumping, but I do find this sort of comment rather offensive.  I've known quite a lot of people in the BDSM community and they're not dopes.  They're just people whose sexuality happens to work that way.  They're no more dopes than people whose sexual tastes are vanilla.  They're unorthodox, I grant you, and most people don't understand their feelings, but the same could have been said at one time about people in the LGBT community.  In fact, it would be fair to say that many people still regard anyone whose sexuality isn't heterosexual and vanilla as dopes.

 

Though I'm pretty much a Johnlocker, I can imagine Sherlock being fascinated not only by Irene Adler's intelligence but also by the way she plays with power and the renunciation of power.  I could well believe that his fascination with mind games could apply in his emotional and sexual relationships too and I don't think that that would mean he was a fool.

[Caya]

I'm not Arcadia, of course, but I think what she meant in her post was not to disparage BDSM folks (hey, kink and let kink) but to make fun of this:

 

 

As in, men who are in all likelyhood unaware of their own fetish (but no less fascinated by it).