You were? I wasn't. I felt something on the way.... I never went out searching for it.

I'm now wondering what actually qualifies as a "romance"? People can love each other very deeply, and even verbalize it, but it doesn't always mean a romantic relationship ... a sexless romance for tv--- what exactly is the difference between that and a "bromance"?  I'll say this--in a classic bromance, one of the partners would never forgive and live in a marriage with the woman who shot their bromantic partner! 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (September 18, 2015 8:01 pm)

The b-word! 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I'm now wondering what actually qualifies as a "romance"? People can love each other very deeply, and even verbalize it, but it doesn't always mean a romantic relationship ... a sexless romance for tv--- what exactly is the difference between that and a "bromance"?

I cannot answer this. If I think about it, most of the stuff we do here is fit something in categories we already know so we can name what we see. It's fun. But if we were consequent and strong-minded, we could also say: it's some kind of love appararently, and it doesn't need a name.
I don't know a good definition of romance, because from my experience, it can be so many things. The only kind of "easy" definition for me are relationships, because two people decide themselves to name it that way. But then again there are exclusive relationships, open relationships, ... there is no end to the limits each definition has.
I think what we are trying to do is to fit John and Sherlocks behaviour into a category we already know. But of course they could also be a new category, the John-and-Sherlock-category, and we would never come to an end with this discussion. But luckily we only have to rely on the writers to present to us what is meant to be. Easy way out I would love it if they would resist the temptation to name it, be it bromance or romance or whatever, I just don't think they will. And thinking about it, we poor humans love categories, and fandom would be sad not to know what was meant to be going on all that time. It's the reason why I also love and hate the Reichenbach solution. It's brilliant yet annoying.

But I would say, romance is romantic love. It's a question of definition. Didn't we discuss it some plenty pages ago somewhere (without the sex though)?

Sexless romance vs bromance... well, personally don't see a difference. That might also be because the definition of Bromance isn't really clear to me.

edited to add: I didn't understand bromance in the way Susi did, though. But then again, I am one of those people who considers friendship being just another form of love, and therefore if two males are close friends I assume they love each other in a friendship way, and if they start kissing maybe they love each other in a homosexual way, but then again I have seen men and women kiss each other for the fun of it, or because they just wanted to express affection. I think I would assume romance over bromance if people started holding hands in the street, because that's a relatively widely known sign for displaying a romantic relationship. If two men were just embracing, or sharing kisses on the cheek, I would assume friendship. Bromance sounds to me like someone tries to put the love into friendship without calling it love. Or maybe Bromance is something like platonic love? Honestly I have no idea. Where does it come from? Why is it so popular?
Wikipedia (yes, often useful) tries to equal it with romantic friendship. Oh, and indeed mentions your definition, Susi.
 

Last edited by Whisky (September 18, 2015 8:27 pm)

Liberty wrote:

So are you all saying that sex doesn't come into it?  That there's no sexual attraction between them, just a deep, unique friendship, with romantic elements?   I'd agree with all that: it's just not what I'd call Johnlock!    But it is what I see.  They love each other, would kill or risk their lives for each other, fill a part in each other's lives that nobody else can, are central for each other and will stay together into old age.  They just don't fancy each other. 

I don't know about the others but I'm saying that sex can or cannot be in a romantic relationship.
I think that in their case it's sexual too and that it's also coded sexually (might make a list of for sexual tropes in the future with pics), but even if it wasn't sexual, it's not an argument against the romance, which is a different thing. That they fancy each other romantically (which doesn't exclude nor imply sexually).

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I'm now wondering what actually qualifies as a "romance"? People can love each other very deeply, and even verbalize it, but it doesn't always mean a romantic relationship ... a sexless romance for tv--- what exactly is the difference between that and a "bromance"? I'll say this--in a classic bromance, one of the partners would never forgive and live in a marriage with the woman who shot their bromantic partner!

Romance is a term that has no precise qualifications because the word hasn't being created with a scientific approach. As a word "romance" relies a lot on the perception of the individual who's living the situation. To imagine what romantic attraction is just imagine what you feel for a romantic significant other and that it's not necessary to have sex with your significant other. Of course one could tried to scientifically extrapolate qualifications for a romance like spending live together in the same house, wanting to cuddle, loving like family and others (just the first things that popped into my mind), but what counts the most is what you perceive. How do you know you are in love with your significant other and not having sex with a really close friend? Because you perceive it.

John and Sherlock are not in a relationship when John is with Mary, so they are not partners when he forgives Mary.
John might have forgiven Mary because Sherlock encouraged it (because he didn't know John was in love with him), Mary was pregnant and he didn't know Sherlock was in love with him.
There is also a chance that Mary isn't forgiven and we will only discover in s4.
 

Last edited by Ho Yay (September 18, 2015 8:35 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

Seeing that the term has also been used to describe the relationship between Chancellor Schröder and Vladimir Putin, I definitely would not apply it to Sherlock and John. 

And so I spilled my tea over my laptop again. Oh god, that's a picture I didn't need. I see your point, I definitely see it
 

Last edited by Whisky (September 18, 2015 8:41 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Ho Yay wrote:

I think that in their case it's sexual too and that it's also coded sexually (might make a list of for sexual tropes in the future with pics)
 

I would be very interested in such a list (with pics). Because even though I see tons of love and affection between them, I have to be honest and say I don't see too many sexual tropes or sexuality at all. So I would be very interested in learning what you see.

I would also be interested. I also think it will still be useful after the Special.

But for that to happen, it needs ambiguity. I'm just not sure if in the Johnlock case, the ambiguity is in the show itself or in the viewers mindset. Evidence (=thousands of Johnlockers) suggests that it is actually in the show. I mean, why would so many people come to the same conclusion? (okay, it's the main characters, it's hot, ... but still)
 

Last edited by Whisky (September 18, 2015 9:01 pm)

It might have got an impetus of its own but again: I feel it started by what we were given.
I never shipped RDJ and JL, though the movies were entertaining enough.

mrshouse wrote:

I never shipped RDJ and JL, though the movies were entertaining enough.

Well, do you find RDJ and JL as hot, cool, awesome and charming as Ben and Martin?