We all seem to be getting a tad lost with each other's thought processes here...
John at least had a sexual relationship with Mary,,,
We don't know what will happen when she goes...
John will need Sherlock for support, but it won;t transform into a smilar relationship to that of John and Mary.

besleybean wrote:

John will need Sherlock for support, but it won;t transform into a smilar relationship to that of John and Mary.

Hopefully.
 

There will alway be love, but never sex or even desire..

Well, who cares, we all know that all our opinions are just opinions and not facts, even if they are stated as facts.

Like Martin: "It’s the gayest story in the history of television… People certainly run with that, which I’m quite happy with!"

Well one day we'll find out one way or another.

Harriet wrote:

Like Martin: "It’s the gayest story in the history of television… People certainly run with that, which I’m quite happy with!"

What do you think that means, though?   Would he say that if they were actually lovers?  I don't think so, myself.   Is this another British humour difference? .

I can't speak for Martin, obviously, but other things lead me to believe that he doesn't believe the characters are gay.   These are two men who love each other, living together, with a special relationship - the obvious conclusion people jump to is "gay", and we see that all the time in the series.  Martin seems to be open to people seeing what they want to see, but doesn't claim to be playing them as lovers:
“If you want to think that they’re secretly in love with each other, then you can,” Freeman says. “But we’ve never played anything like that. I don’t really think they are, but there’s enough of that for people to see it if they want. I think they’re just really interested in each other because they give something to the other that is lacking in their life.”

Liberty wrote:

Of course a friendship can become sexual, and it could still be special, of course, but the nature of the relationship would change if there was a load of sexual tension, and unfulfilled lust and longing.   I suppose that's one of the differences - I think there are points when they are fulfilled when they're together.  I don't think there's something missing (at the moment, anyway).    But all I'm really saying is that I don't see the sex on the show - I see it alluded to, of course, but I don't see us being shown sexual attraction. 

The nature of relationships change all the time, and the nature of Sherlock's and John's relationship has changed during those three series, as well. Just take S3, they definitely have a different relationship now than they had in S1/S2. Sexuality coming into play will certainly change their relationship once again, but why should it inevitably be a change for the worse? It might not be everybody's cup of tea, but nothing ever is, so... that's how it goes.
And I don't think that anybody said anything about "unfulfilled lust and longing" - where does that even come from? When sexuality comes into play, there still are lots of possibilities in which to show this. But since you mentioned the "longing": in my opinion they are longing for each other already. I see it. If others don't see it, so be it. 
 

This is quite obvious to me: Sherlock's behaviour towards John has changed drastically, especially in TSoT. He is willing to compromise, he goes out of his way to make John's wedding as perfect as possible although he himself is not happy. The moment with the chair, the "into battle", the phone call (!) to Mycroft, his face when talking about Sholto, him openly acknowledging his feelings in a room full of people, the intimacy of the stag night (and I not just talking about the knee thing), his face on the dance floor … this is a behaviour nobody would have expected from Sherlock in series 1 or 2. 
And so not even get me started on HLV. But I think you either want to read between the lines (as interpreters of film and literature have been doing for ages) or you don't. 

Interesting comments on sex @ relationships...but theres got to be a bigger picture...I think there always is.

The John/Mary relationship when paralleled with John/Sherlock...comes off badly...it's another society bash?

John has a string of meaningless sex and relationships and ends up drifting into marriage with a baby on the way and tied to a woman he barely knows...an exaggeration of the modern take on meaningless sex and relationships......and all of it a bit not good.
Usually they resolve arcs like this...the not good and the good.

The way Marys attemped murder/Shooting Sherlock was contrasted with Sherlocks murder...
Mary..selfish/flimsy motives/collateral damage/alternative options./not good.
Sherlock.....wider reaching motives nationally /minimal chan5ce collateral damage / no alternatives.....so ok bit good
The not good shown.....as good....the bigger point/picture of course government assasinations and collateral damage...how to how not to.
They did the same thing with the media...Kitty Riley / Magnusson......expose the bad...provide the solution...bigger point/picture here being get rid of the too powerfull corrupt media moguls..information is free anyway....etc this is what they are doing.
The guide to the metamorphosis.....a great society  becoming a good society....

So I wonder...at sex and relationships....they did the John/Mary not good bash.......whats the bigger picture...the good....the right way.....for Sherlock to solve/find....because personally I think an endlesssly platonic but definatly loving friendship.......doesn't solve the bigger picture problem.....the oversexualised sexually corrupt society Sex Q needs a good Sherlockian solution...because the sex ed classes that went.....just don't do it....didn't work.....obviously.

Last edited by lil (October 1, 2014 4:01 pm)