AWESOME!!!!!! 

Thanks for posting, liked it very much. 

And here I found a little gem, not new but still interesting. Now I wonder what this real agenda could be … 

http://darlingbenny.tumblr.com/post/129314581377

Yes, that is my impression, too.
 

mrshouse wrote:

Gosh, it's always the same he's saying about this show.... Not a bit in-depth or somehow enlightening.
Hmmm.....

It´s a conspiracy!
 

ukaunz wrote:

Wow, thanks for posting that Susi. I clicked on the link to watch that YouTube video of the interview the gifs came from, I hadn't seen it before. It's very interesting... Benedict was asked about Martin but instead he starts saying something about Sherlock and John's relationship, maybe more than what he meant to say, it's almost like he realises he's said too much and has to stop himself.

"Everything was there about his [John's] relationship with Sherlock but at the same time... you know... this fantastic bit of writing, of what the agenda really is between the two of them... um... I thought he was brilliant, anyway that was just ..." (Turning away, glancing at Mofftiss, looking very uncomfortable)

I think all of a sudden he was trying to back peddle and change the subject!

 
Bless him.  Ben is such a bad liar.  

picking up sth from last page...

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I agree-- sex is the game changer. It makes it glaringly, unamibigously obvious that it's a Romantic Love, not a "bromance". 

Not so sure about that. Sex is not a proof of romance. It can also be just about the needing, can't it? We don't know what John is up with his girlfriends, but I think there is less innuendo towards Sherlock when John has a girlfriend - maybe because he has someone else to play, frankly put. Also I'm thinking fanfiction. How many times is there Johnlock sex after they both have been on a case and high on adrenaline. It's not that far-fetched that two people who are close and like each other and live for a long time without sex realise that they can easily get together to fulfill their needs. It can lead to a romantic relationship. It can be the step from hidden love to open confession. It doesn't have to. To me, a Johnlock kiss would mean far more than Johnlock sex, and little confessions of love in everyday life would be stronger proof than any physical contact. Simply because these things aren't means to an end, which sex can be (but doesn't have to be of course). There are people out there sleeping with each other not being in love, not being in a relationship, just having sex. I'm just saying that sex is not the best proof. I also think it wouldn't fit the writing style of the Johnlock arc, because the whole arc (assuming it is there) is more subtle (e.g., yes, even the groping is kind of subtle, if you think about how else groping could look like between two drunk people who are supposed to have the hots for each other). It could also be that two people in a Bromance overstep the thin line, have sex, and realise that it isn't what they wanted. If love is involved, be it romantic or friendship, the lines can be blurry. Even more with John and Sherlock who seem unable to name their feelings - I don't mean calling it love, I mean making sure which kind of love they are talking about.
 

Last edited by Whisky (September 18, 2015 5:37 pm)

Liberty wrote:

the first interview I was talking about I was thinking more of Mark Ravenhill's words than Steven Moffat's.   So if you really believe Steven is lying there, then just ignore that part and listen to what Mark was saying about Sherlock being shown in a traditionally "female" way.   (I believe Mark Ravenhill is gay, not that it matters, but I get the impression that some people think only straight people don't see Johnlock, so I thought I'd mention it!).

Doesn't really matter the sexuality of who sees it or who doesn't. Some LGBT people might not see it for various reason, some of which are not being socialized with romantic arcs from a young age (usually those who were not females as kids), internalized heteronormativity and subconsciously feeling like fools to believe in something that has never happened before in the past. In order for there to be queerbaiting it's enough if a large number of queer people has been baited, not necessarily all.

Liberty wrote:

The other interview I mentioned was Mark Gatiss at Mumbai.  If you watch it, do you really believe he's lying?  He's talking about this in the context of gay rights - it's not an appropriate point to lie, and he sounds completely sincere to me.   It also fits well with what he's said in the past about not wanting to make being gay the issue (not talking specifically about the plot of Sherlock, so not lying to avoid spoilers).

I know that interview and the way he said it made me doubt, this is the reason why my point isn't "they are going to be together" but "if they aren't going to be together it's baiting", because the relationship should be conveyed within the show, not digging interviews after vieweing the show, especially when we know all TV writers lie about future couples and the Sherlock creators above all lie and there's many instances of them saying they lie (and he's an actor who could make it convincing).
Queerbaiting is an offensive marketing tecnique and if they hand't realized the series could queerbait in series 1, they had two other series to stop the involontary baiting after they became aware of it. But it just got more heavy after they've been told and I really wish this isn't the way they want to treat their queer audience.

The way Sherlock is now it would not be an issue, they would just confess their (romantic) love at one point. If the general public were to have now a confirmation that Sherlock is gay, there is a risk of it being labeled a gay show and make an issue out of it and that's one of the reasons why the creators may not want to talk about it before it gently happens on the show.

Liberty wrote:

I don't see John having a sexual attraction to Sherlock, so that isn't enough to show him as being bisexual.   (It ends up being circular - Johnlock can exist because John is bisexual, and John can be bisexual because of Johnlock . )

John can be bisexual because everyone can be bisexual, so it's not circular, bisexuality doesn't show. Even if he wasn't interested in Sherlock it could be bisexual.
Johnlock doesn't exist because John is bisexual, but because, even if you don't see it, there is coding that has been see by many other people. So even this is not a consequence. But, after we have the coding and we see him interested in both females and males, we can deduce he is bi or pan.

Liberty wrote:

Just another little point I wanted to make about romance/sexual attraction in the show.  There are elements that are very much like romance there - courtship, seduction, etc.   Except without the sex!  Try replacing "recruit" with "seduce" in "I'm trying to recruit you" and it kind of works.  The thing is, it's not sex that Sherlock is offering there.  I find it interesting that he uses a military term ("recruit").  He does know what John wants: two of us against the world, the battlefield, etc.  Whatever you want to call it - that's what is the "sex" of their relationship, I think (if you were looking at how it compares to conventional romantic relationship).  And the same way that sex isn't the be all and end all of a loving, sexual relationship, the thrills and dangers aren't the be all and end all of their loving friendship.  It's an important aspect, something that draws them together, and something they don't really find with other people ... but there is a lot more to their relationship.

I don't think it's necessary to replace that with sex (including sexual attraction).  But I think we are seeing something that sometimes fits a kind of romance template, but without the sexual element. 

kornmuhme wrote:

Liberty wrote:

I know I've said this before, but the reason sex is important is that without it, we all pretty much see the same thing.   And without sex there's no Johnlock, is there?  If there is no sexual attraction between them, then there's "just" the special, loving friendship that we all see.  And (I know I'm repeating myself again, sorry, but it does keep coming up), that's not because sex is the focus of a relationship, necessarily, but it's what changes the nature of a relationship (from friends to lovers). 

I could see them happily being together without sex - that's not what they want from each other, I don't think.  John does want sexual relationships, but he could continue to have those.  I don't think he ever craved or planned a family life before Mary's unexpected pregnancy, so I could see him living without that.     I don't think it needs to be a sexual relationship to be a fulfilling one.  It's a different kind of thing. 

In the Mumbai interview, Mark said that they thought ACD realised he made a mistake by marrying off John, and that he needed him back at Baker Street.   I think that means that they won't be making the same  mistake and have a solution in mind. 

 
I couldn't agree more! Sex IS the one thing that changes a relation - not always completely, but rather overwhelmingly. And as long as Sherlock and John don't end up in bed together I myself wouldn't call their relationship "Johnlock".
Don't get me wrong, I share your opinion: They LOVE each other - but to me that's not equal to a romantic/sexual relation, it's just something different.

And, by the way, I don't see John ever being unhappy with Mary! Certainly, he is "pissed off", but he truly loves her and is happy being together with her. I don't see any sign of suppressed homosexual/bisexual feelings ...

Actually romance and sex are two different spectrums and sex is not at all the defining element of a romantic relationship.
People in the asexual spectrum still may want romance, so that's not an argument at all, Johnlock was never about sex.
 I think that they eat each other with their eyes in the show, that there's a lot of visual elements about sexual attraction (I may try to make a list, but since there's the chance of the special being visibly gay I don't feel too much like wasting time for something that it's useful only for a couple of months), but it's not about it, many johnlockers headcanon Sherlock as completely asexual too.
The difference between the romantic spectrum and the sexual spectrum is something that society needs to learn, not only to discuss shows, but also for everyday life. Still from life experience, one way allosexual-aromantics and alloromantic-asexuals can be hurt by this difference not being uknowledged by society is, especially when they are young, faking the attraction they don't feel to get the result of the other attraction, or repressing the attraction they have so they don't have to give the result of the other. 

Liberty wrote:

People don't need to know anything about tropes to pick up on them.  I'm sure saving each other is some sort of trope, and it's romantic, but I don't need to think that through - it just tells me that this is no ordinary friendship.  And that's what I'm trying to say - everybody involved seems to say that this is no ordinary friendship, this is two men who live together, love each other, have a connection they have with nobody else, would kill and risk their lives for each other, and are partners for life.   That's the dilemma - add in sexual attraction, and it would completely be a "romance".  It's not usual (although I'm sure it sometimes happens) for two men to have that sort of relationship.  Romantic tropes help to show it.   But sexual attraction is not shown.   And I'll start another post about that, because it's not so much answering your points as a separate point!

We are back to the coding argument and how much doesn't matter how else those tropes could be perceived since they are a code/language (that works on a subconscious level even if you are not acquainted) and you should give a very strong reason to make the viewer doubt that code, for start, not using that code everywhere and denying that code with more romantic tropes like "not my date".
The "saving trope" is only one of the many tropes and there are also countless specific stuff I haven't listed.
If the sexual element is the only thing that one doesn't see, there it's nothing against a romance, since sex doesn't define romance, or it might define be an element but sexual tropes might be left out.
There are actually sexual tropes too, but sexual tropes are usually visual and it takes a lot of time to make list them with pictures or remember exactly where they are, Some are specific tropes but most could be filed under the Unresolved Sexual Tension trope.
 

Ho Yay wrote:

The way Sherlock is now it would not be an issue, they would just confess their (romantic) love at one point. If the general public were to have now a confirmation that Sherlock is gay, there is a risk of it being labeled a gay show and make an issue out of it and that's one of the reasons why the creators may not want to talk about it before it gently happens on the show.

I would like it very much if that is what they're doing, because I think you are right. But I feel the moment of confession would have to be very soon to make it plausible. Too late would just create talk of another kind. (like: they had to give in, it was the only way out, etc.)
And then again I wonder if there is the "proper" way at all. People will talk and discuss anyway. We do.
 

Last edited by Whisky (September 18, 2015 6:54 pm)

This is not what I am saying but I think that sex is not the defining element. It is the romantic attraction, the "saving each other", not feeling whole without the other, etc. etc.. I would be fine with them having sex but I do not think they will show it because they usually do not show any sex scenes at all. And their relationship would have to be exclusive. I keep saying that. 

Interesting point, Whisky. I like it.