I also found my way here via missyjack; and I’m glad to read something that actually makes sense, thank you for that.:)
The conversation between Irene and John was so very telling that I would think it would have managed to stay in viewers minds as they continued watching as it mirrors Irene and Sherlock as well. There are many types of attraction, not all of them sexual regardless of a person’s state of dress. That’s a point that has done, and continues do a lot of damage I think, the belief that nakedness is automatically sexual.
I think it’s clear that Sherlock chooses who he spends time with within a clear set of ground rules, he only has patience to deal with a few people and the scene in Mrs Hudson’s kitchen made a point of this. John sees Mrs. Hudson as a sweet old lady that would probably benefit from going out of town for some days, but Sherlock has righty judged her to be made of sterner stuff. Irene is the same as Mrs. Hudson and John as in that Sherlock sees something interesting in them, something that for whatever reason appeals to him. Irene differs because he’s not able to read her and because her intelligence matches up to his. That alone should make it obvious as to why his interest is piqued, and Sherlock never does anything half way.
It baffles me, saddens me and makes me angry how people can’t just be taken for who they are and has to be judged and held up to a specific standard, women especially. And the one standard in anything but, and if women can never be a dominatrix, a mother, a school teacher, a lover, or any other thing people perceive as being degrading because women are often put in those boxes then we’ll just continue as we are. I agree that women in general needs to be given larger roles, and better ones in many cases, but that will do little if any role will be only be seen and understood by one or two factors regarding that role and not the character as a person. If all a person sees is the dominatrix in Irene they’re missing out, she’s so much more than that, but people are blinded by that one aspect of her.
I hope some of this makes some sense; I’m finding it difficult to express what I’m thinking very well.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 02:20 pm (UTC)The conversation between Irene and John was so very telling that I would think it would have managed to stay in viewers minds as they continued watching as it mirrors Irene and Sherlock as well. There are many types of attraction, not all of them sexual regardless of a person’s state of dress. That’s a point that has done, and continues do a lot of damage I think, the belief that nakedness is automatically sexual.
I think it’s clear that Sherlock chooses who he spends time with within a clear set of ground rules, he only has patience to deal with a few people and the scene in Mrs Hudson’s kitchen made a point of this. John sees Mrs. Hudson as a sweet old lady that would probably benefit from going out of town for some days, but Sherlock has righty judged her to be made of sterner stuff. Irene is the same as Mrs. Hudson and John as in that Sherlock sees something interesting in them, something that for whatever reason appeals to him. Irene differs because he’s not able to read her and because her intelligence matches up to his. That alone should make it obvious as to why his interest is piqued, and Sherlock never does anything half way.
It baffles me, saddens me and makes me angry how people can’t just be taken for who they are and has to be judged and held up to a specific standard, women especially. And the one standard in anything but, and if women can never be a dominatrix, a mother, a school teacher, a lover, or any other thing people perceive as being degrading because women are often put in those boxes then we’ll just continue as we are. I agree that women in general needs to be given larger roles, and better ones in many cases, but that will do little if any role will be only be seen and understood by one or two factors regarding that role and not the character as a person. If all a person sees is the dominatrix in Irene they’re missing out, she’s so much more than that, but people are blinded by that one aspect of her.
I hope some of this makes some sense; I’m finding it difficult to express what I’m thinking very well.