I daresay they mixed it up a bit, but without getting into the kind of detail I was shying away from when I was writing that, it's a bit hard to tell, isn't it? ;D
At least two... It brings us back to that hardy perennial Time Lord sexuality, doesn't it? I lean increasingly toward the view that Looms are real (although they maybe make Time Tots rather than fully-formed adults as the novels seemed to suggest), and that Time Lords, ie fully-paid-up and fully-educated residents of the Citadel are supposed to be above sticky physicality. But as you point out, nature is nature, and the Time Lords are nothing if not hypocritical, so we have Academy students and the like sneaking off and doing untoward things with the Shobogans. Some of them like it so much they end up going on permanent walkabout in Outer Gallifrey.
So yes, Time Lord sexual mores = Victorian hypocrisy tuned up to the max. That's how I've come to see it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 08:16 pm (UTC)At least two... It brings us back to that hardy perennial Time Lord sexuality, doesn't it? I lean increasingly toward the view that Looms are real (although they maybe make Time Tots rather than fully-formed adults as the novels seemed to suggest), and that Time Lords, ie fully-paid-up and fully-educated residents of the Citadel are supposed to be above sticky physicality. But as you point out, nature is nature, and the Time Lords are nothing if not hypocritical, so we have Academy students and the like sneaking off and doing untoward things with the Shobogans. Some of them like it so much they end up going on permanent walkabout in Outer Gallifrey.
So yes, Time Lord sexual mores = Victorian hypocrisy tuned up to the max. That's how I've come to see it.