If the child being Nancy's was meant to be part of this grand exploration of sexuality you say the episode is, then it was certainly lost on me. Indeed, I can't see much exploration beyond showing a vision of wartime London where every man is secretly gay and trying to apply sexuality to the Doctor in a way not done in the show's 40 years outside of bad fanfics.
That's because you're operating from a very limited definition of "sexuality." The term does not only encompass the sex act or things related to physical attraction between adults. Sexuality is an entire spectrum of topics related to sexual attraction, emotional attraction, romantic love, reproduction, parenthood, and family. After all, what is sexuality? It is the characteristic of a species reproducing through the exchange of genetic information between two individuals rather than by simply copying genetic information from one individual; as such, the inherent consequence of sexuality is that it encompasses far more than simply the sex act. You're limiting the concept to mere attraction and the sex act -- the sensual aspects of sexuality -- when in fact the concept encompasses an entire spectrum of non-sensual, reproductive, familial behavior.
Sure, but notice you can leave any reference to sexuality out of that paragraph and it still makes sense. Indeed, I don't recall the episode making any reference to sexuality in regards to Nancy being the child's mother.
No, it doesn't make sense, because parenthood and sexuality are inextricably linked. There is no such thing as a virgin mother. When Nancy denies her motherhood, she retreats into the role of an asexual child because she appears young to other people -- denying her parenthood is, for her, equal to denying her own sexuality. It is the denial of sexuality that is the source of everyone's problems in that episode -- from the Doctor's emotional problems not knowing how to deal with his feelings for Rose because he's spent so long hiding his sexuality from others, to Nancy denying her sexuality because she doesn't want to be a mother.
Secondly, trying to turn the character of the Doctor into a sexual or romantic figure (with regards to humans at least) makes the character less mysterious, is a cheap way of manufacturing drama on the level of bad slash fiction, and makes little sense when you consider Time Lords as more advanced than humans.
The Time Lords are apparently more
intelligent than Humans, but that doesn't mean they're more "advanced." The concept of being "more" or "less" advanced doesn't exist in evolution; organisms simply develop traits that are advantageous to survival and reproduction and therefore get passed on to the next generation.
Time Lords are apparently able to hold more information in their brains than a Human brain is capable of containing, but that doesn't mean they're more "advanced" than Humans. Indeed, the Doctor, in "Utopia," argues that Humans are more compassionate than Time Lords, because, had a Time Lord looked into the Heart of the TARDIS the way Rose did, he or she would have turned vengeful and destructive. Which, of course, is exactly what happened to the corrupt Time Lord society in the end under Rassilon -- they attempted to destroy everything other than themselves. They're a deeply corrupt society.
I don't think it's a great idea to fill a kids show with innuendo and smut just to look modern and as a way to disassociate itself from the classic series.
1. If you think that
anything on
Doctor Who qualifies as "smut," then you've been watching some
incredibly tame porn.
2.
Anything nuWho can do to dissociate itself from the passionless, emotionless, sexless excuse for "characterization" seen in the original series is fine by me.
