The DVD set has a commentary track, in which they mention several other in-jokes. One that I didn’t catch was that the kid in the early sequences who goes to get an umbrella during the rainstorm was named Phillimore, referencing an untold Watson story referenced in the opening of “The Problem of Thor Bridge” about “Mr. James Phillimore, who, stepping back into his own house to get his umbrella, was never more seen in this world.” Now THAT’S obscure.
Supposedly, in the original stories, Arthur Conan Doyle married off Watson to either prevent or end such rumors - as a gay hero in Vicotrian times would simply not have been acceptable. So the issue of “gay” isn’t a new one, but since Doyle clearly (in my mind) did not envision Holmes as gay I’d have to say that, any appearances, rumors, or quirks to the contrary, he’s not gay. So I view it as the man being so assured of what he actually is (either straight or asexual) that he’s not worried about other peoples’ wrong conclusions.
Do you have a cite for that? It strikes me as pretty unlikely for a number of reasons. First, Watson married very early on in the Holmes canon. He meets and falls in love with Mary in The Sign of Four. Second, Watson’s wife (or wives, it’s implied that Mary died and he later remarried) isn’t much of a beard because she’s barely mentioned in later stories. Finally, a heroic homosexual in mainstream Victorian fiction would have been so unlikely that I doubt many readers of the time would ever have even entertained the notion that the two bachelor roommates might actually be in a romantic/sexual relationship.
Lamia’s right - in the time the books were set, for the classes that Holmes/Watson belonged to men ONLY spent time with other men and their wives (unless they were courting). The sexes were pretty much completely segregated socially as was becoming and Christian.
Gentlemen’s clubs existed not because men liked to get fruity with each other, but because they’d spent their entire lives in other males’ companies and didn’t know anything else.
If I could recall where I read that and who wrote it from 30 years ago, sure, I don’t think it will resurface in my memory at that point. It’s not original with me - at the time it never occurred to me, either.