In-Who-Endo

What is with all the sexual innuendo on Doctor Who? Even taking out the Companion love and the other Hunka hunka burning Doc situations we're still left with quite a few instances of sexual innuendo ranging from fairly innocent to Carry On.

I would watch the hell out of this

Is this, as others have often said, a sign of the changing times, or is it an unnecessary inclusion in what is supposed to be a family program? Am I being prudish in my annoyance at the sex references? I worry I may be, but allow me to explain myself.

First up, I'm not saying Doctor Who needs to be 100% kid friendly. I quite enjoy when I see a masterfully crafted adult joke included in something that kids could watch and totally miss. There's a bunch of things I used to watch as a kid that going back as an adult I noticed contained some delightful gems that just flew straight over my younger self's head. However I do feel that many if not all of these innuendos are gratuitous or laboured. And why does all this innuendo seem to contain so many gay references?

A great example is in The Unicorn and The Wasp when The Doctor and Agatha Christie interview suspects. One them, Roger Eddison lies about their whereabouts because he was having it off with Davenport, one of the male servants. We know this because we are shown a long and blatant shot of Roger leading Davenport off into the woods. This in itself wouldn't that much of an issue if it was a major plot point. Instead it seems to boil down to, "look, they had gay people then too, but they had to lie about it!" which I feel is actually rather patronising.

It's not the gayness that annoys me, because even visualising the scene with Davenport replaced with a scullery maid, it still seems clumsy. Perhaps it's the lingering nature of the flashback, or perhaps it's just that the tryst adds nothing to the story. The 45 minute format is already constraining without wasting screen time like this.

Another major In-Who-Endo that had me palming face was during A Good Man Goes to War when Madame Vastra delivers the line, "I don't know why you put up with me," to Jenny before lashing out with her hyper-long tongue for a quite horrendous lesbian joke. Don't get me wrong, I love Vastra and Jenny, but that was just so over the top it hurt. It's like if that quip was made before a gay male character was shown to press a button from three feet away with a thrust of his hips, or save the day by sucking a golf ball through a garden hose.

By contrast the references to their relationship made in The Snowmen and it's prelude webisodes were much better. Rather than forcing in a crude sex joke, they played with the reactions of others by juxtaposing them with the frankness and normalcy with which Vastra treats the relationship. I particularly liked the line:

I resent your implication of impropriety. We are married.

Witty without being gratuitous and delivered wonderfully. Absolutely spot on for that kind of thing.

Many of River's flirtations with The Doctor are borderline too. She can get away with much of it because she's supposed to be a bit of a Vamp, but references to handcuffs are pushing things a bit for me. Jack Harkness' broad sexual appetites are an interesting commentary on the loosening of sexual morals and were not too gratuitously played (in Doctor Who at least), except for the time he implied fantasising about being the meat in a Doctor sandwich. These references are subtle and amusing, but are they necessary?

Can we fix it?

This is one of those tough ones, simply because it's hard to tell what's being included to make some kind of statement, and what's being included just because of changing degrees of normalcy. Some of the gay references in particular are subtle enough that if it wasn't for the gratuitous ones putting me on my guard, I likely wouldn't notice them. I seem to remember a passing reference to a same-sex wedding in (I think) The Power of Three which I probably wouldn't recall even that vaguely if I hadn't already been put in the frame of mind that whenever homosexuality is mentioned on the show I immediately think, "Not again."

I think those references don't need "fixing". Homosexual relationships should be represented in the same way as heterosexual ones. It's a sign of the times that we can now replace a straight couple with a gay one with little to no impact on the plot. The Fat One and The Thin One from A Good Man Goes to War are a reasonable (although not perfect) example. They could have been any kind of couple, but were a gay couple. Their sexuality was fairly inconsequential. The execution of that is another story, as they were rather clichéd gay guys, they were constantly reminding us they were married, and I had the sneaking suspicion they were some kind of political commentary, especially considering their connection to the Anglican Church.

That said, if the fact that a character's sexuality isn't integral to the plot, why mention it at all? I'm not a Torchwood fan (only seen one episode), but I imagine when Jack has more screen time his sexuality becomes just another character trait. His charm and willingness to crack on to anything is a tool writers could use to further the plot (again, I don't know if they did or not though). Roger and Davenport though? Not so much, in my opinion.

So if they were set on having Roger be gay and for The Doctor to instantly realise that was the reason behind his (quite obvious) lie during questioning, then the wandering off into the woods scene could have been a bit more subtle. The Doctor and Donna had already noticed his flirtations with Davenport earlier in the episode, so perhaps a glance at Davenport through the window during questioning would be enough, or a brief shot of them walking together as flashback before the Doctor gets a knowing look and moves things along.

A better solution (apart from cutting it altogether) would be if Roger's lie kept The Doctor and Agatha focused on him instead of the real killer until eventually they uncover his deception and switch focus. If it was only Donna who noticed Roger's interactions with Davenport earlier and she was busy investigating the house during questioning, she could be the one to explain it to The Doctor after he had wasted time trying to solve that little mystery. This would allow The Doctor to be seen as fallible, something which is desperately needed more and more these days.

So that was pretty rambling and convoluted, but what I'm getting at is that overt sex jokes are tacky and don't need to appear in a family show like Doctor Who. Forcing gay relationships into episodes is equally tacky, as it reeks of political posturing; showing how hip and PC the writers are. Sexual equality is important in shows that are accessible to younger audiences, as it helps to normalise all types of people and relationships. Overcompensation isn't helpful though, as it can make it seem like a joke of some kind.

So, if the writers are making someone gay, they need to ask themselves, "why does the audience need to know?" If their sexuality affects the plot, make sure it's in a significant way. If it doesn't, reference to their sexuality may not be required at all. If they want to include a sex joke (which shouldn't be very often), make it short and subtle. It should sail far over younger viewers heads and only be enough to cause adults to share a knowing look.

In the meantime, I look forward to a new Companion:

Ooooh, Matron!