Sherlock - BBC [2]

remember the time holmes was written- Norc

I don't think that's really a factor in this case. Sexist is not perhaps the best word I could have chosen. Holmes is not sexist in the traditional way that he is dismissive of women- he is not, they just don't have any relevance for him outside of his work.
Watson is more traditionally sexist in that he is, in that Victorian manner, patronizing to poor, gentle womenkind and always keen to prevent them having to witness anything which might upset them.

petty wrote: the difference I see with Holmes is that he lacks sexual urges in the normal sense most people have them, for whatever they have them.

no, i disagree. Doyle does not say anything of that matter, just as he doesn't say when they take a shit, because it doesn't matter for the story. yes, he seems to not have a relationship and have sex with a lot of women and all that, but he is not asexual. he doesn't lack anything, he is fully aware of his body but he doesn't want the sex-part to take controll (Like most men  )

Eldo wrote:Well now I'm in the same boat as Norc in that I'm not sure what we were disagreeing about

i know what we're disagreeing about, Petty says Sherlock Holmes is asexual, i say he's not.

Petty wrote:Norc seemed to be saying that she felt Holmes had normal sexual urges, he just suppresses and controls them.
I am saying he lacks those normal sexual urges in the first place.

exaclty. he's like a mild monk.

Petty wrote:Norc- I dont think Holmes does have those urges. His mind is purely analytical, not sexual.

i think he has them. maybe he had them more when he was younger, but as he started his profession, he ignored them. i think he wouldn't be able to conclude stuff without knowing that sexual aspect of it (or maybe, one can learn whatever u want, if you got asberger u can learn how to function, though u might not understand every human interaction fully, which is a whole nother discussion, whether holmes has asberger or something)

also. this also feeds to the arguments of wheter he's gay or not.

'To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer -- excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained teasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory. '- A Scandal in Bohemia

yes. but it is all told from Watson's point of view, right?

Yes, he records the stories. So it is Watson's opinion of Holmes, he was a medical man too of course. But I think in Watson you do often get the voice of the author in terms of framing characters.
The style of the story telling dictates this, as they tend to follow the pattern f person turns up at Baker Street with a case, and the impression of the person ect is always conveyed via Watson as the readers view on proceedings.

As I said earlier- Watson does leave a tiny bit of wriggle room- 'He was, I take it,' or, 'would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his' which does not bar less strong emotions.
But the one statement he does make with seeming certainty is -'It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler.'

Personally I think you can go as far as to say that Holmes felt an attraction to her mind and how she put her mind into actions.
But that she was the exception even in that much emotional attachment.
But at no point do I think it was sexual.

nevertheless, i don't think he is asexual. he may be a faulted human being, one that "desires to play god", wants to keep himself above normal everyday trivia, but i don't think he lacks sexual urges because of that.

in the BBC series it also leaves some speculation, we never know what happened between them.

I dont think Holmes was in love with Irene in the traditional sense, but he wasnt a machine, he did feel compassion for victims if only in the sense he wanted to right the wrongs done to them due to his sense of justice, but I think he did love her, and it was the only time in his life that he felt anything similar. He also loved Watson like a Brother deep down he was capable of love but it was very deep down and never surfaced. I think he was afraid of losing control, he probably used drugs to keep things tightly bottled up or as a diversion, he needed mental stimulus constantly or he became depressed, I think Irene stimulated his mind and she was like a soul mate, she was pretty cold as well, not a traditionally feminine woman, because she didnt need him to protect her.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yes we can choose Mrs Figg, but there limits on how successful that is- and those limits are biological- there has to be a large stable genetic pool, larger the better in terms of variation within a species.
The bubonic plague wiped out a third of the population of Europe- what if the next thing to come along doubles that on a global scale, or worse? What if the planet is struck again by a meteorite and the population is dramatically reduced?
Then individual choice has a much more direct outcome on species success.
And humans under those circumstances are no different to any other biological creature.

Norc- I dont think Holmes does have those urges. His mind is purely analytical, not sexual.

so you are saying if the population was suddenly wiped out people would suddenly be forced to breed, I would like to see how you would force women to breed against their will.

I dont think you would have to force women do breed- I think they would see the need to so in the face of the species extinction otherwise.
If not then history show us there are several models for structuring breeding rights and access to females that sadly would probably come back into play once more if the need was pressing enough.
Civilization is a veneer created by stability and the reasonable certainty tomorrow will be much like today- take that certainty away and it doesn't take long for humans to act like the animals we are- territorial, violent, defensive of our own tribe ect.
We have current examples of this happening when stability is removed all over the world right now- children being gassed to death is not civilised rational behaviour- but it is animal behaviour.

Mrs Figg wrote:I dont think Holmes was in love with Irene in the traditional sense, but he wasnt a machine, he did feel compassion for victims if only in the sense he wanted to right the wrongs done to them due to his sense of justice, but I think he did love her, and it was the only time in his life that he felt anything similar. He also loved Watson like a Brother deep down he was capable of love but it was very deep down and never surfaced. I think he was afraid of losing control, he probably used drugs to keep things tightly bottled up or as a diversion, he needed mental stimulus constantly or he became depressed, I think Irene stimulated his mind and she was like a soul mate, she was pretty cold as well, not a traditionally feminine woman, because she didnt need him to protect her.

i think you're spot on there figg  

i think he was eccentric but not cold and had no feelings, and therefore i also think he surpressed whatever sexual urges he had, ignored them, because u kinda loose control, and yeah. but i totally agree about the falling in love/not falling in love thing

''being gassed to death is not civilised rational behaviour- but it is animal behaviour''. Petty

  I dont think animals kill out of hate, they kill for food or because their cubs are threatened only man uses torture like gas.

In that case what was one of my cats doing with a vole last night? She didnt need to eat it, She had just eaten perfectly good cat meat.
She wasnt even trying to kill it, she was experiencing heightened levels of concentration and awareness and having her brain flooded with hormones- or in human terms- she was having fun and enjoying it.
Toying with it, wounding it and generally abusing it with fear and pain until it died of a heart attack.
Just the sort of behaviour humans exhibit to other humans in times of severe stress and conflict.

i think you're spot on there figg - Norc

I just dont think the text at all supports you or Mrs Figg's position. And I dont think the text could be much clearer-

'It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind.'

Abhorrent to him even.

I think Sherlock could probably separate the higher type of cerebral love from animal sex urges, I believe he was capable of love of a sort but not sexual attraction for another person. I think the thought of touching another human being in that way was a bit repulsive to him. He was a very elegant fastidious man, I think he looked on sexuality as the more bestial side of human nature something he would find in 'low company' or in taverns, brothels something that turned men into beasts. Bram Stoker used the psychosis of the age, homosexuality and veneral disease to tell the story of Dracula, vampires sucked your blood and gave you 'diseases' that robbed you of your soul, they infected you with poison, its a kind of sexually transmitted disease, vampires are seen as sexually predatory. The Victorians were very fascinated by all things pertaining to poisonous miasmas and infections, veneral disease was seen as a retribution for being sexual, Sherlock was written in that age, and had to be seen as Beyond reproach, he did live with another man after all, no charge of homosexuality should be seen to sully him so he was made asexual.

I agree with you there Mrs Figg.
Both on your general analysis of Victorian writing on the matter- and on Holmes being asexual for those very reasons.

 

*staggers to velvet chaise longue for a quick sit down*

{{{{Every so often, declare peace, it confuses the hell out of your enemies- Ferengi rule of Acquistion  }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:i think you're spot on there figg - Norc

I just dont think the text at all supports you or Mrs Figg's position. And I dont think the text could be much clearer-

'It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind.'

Abhorrent to him even.

yeah sorry, english...  but i meant he may not have loved her in a romantically fashion or a friend thing, more like admired and respected her.

for instant. i think he loves watson far more than irene. whether or not that's romantic is another discussion, but my statement still stands.

I think there is a male sexism behind that Norc.

Especially in Doyles time love with a women was seen as a bit, silly, a frivolous if necessary period in a mans life, it was seen as illogical, you fell in love with a woman and you became less rational, less in control because as everyone knows women are irrational, gentle, slightly silly creatures.
In a sense Doyle entirely discounts Holmes feelings towards Watson in terms of touching on them at all.
Its simply accepted that he can have strong ties to Watson without those interfering with his logical calculations because Watson is a man, and therefore there is no need for all that illogical, faeires and flowers nonsense assosiated with women. From a Victorian perspective of course.

Two men sharing rooms would however not have been seen as unusual at all- unmarried men often would for reasons of cost and lack of decent housing back then as well as for company.

I think from a Victorian perspective the Whole bromance thing was highly romanticized. From Ivanhoe to the Houses of Parliament, all things medieval and King Arthur and his gallant knights in particular, was seen in a romantic light. male bonding was highly desirable specially in Empire building, there was a network of clubs and sports that built up the myth of male friendship as being sacred. men being slightly in love with other men was pretty much all part of the ambiguity of the Victorians.

Indeed, but it wasnt seen to impinge on a mans faculties or ability to function. Quite the opposite in fact, another steady, trusted male mind about the place could only help.
Love with women was seen different. More detrimental, like a temporary insanity. A persistent notion even into the early 20th Century- look at how love is treated in Jeeves and wooster for example.

only have one thing to say to that:
https://youtu.be/pDxjFIOxw4c?t=14s


aaaaand... just.. this one