As long as it's not Gary.

As it is from 2011, it surely is nothing new. ;-)

You mentioned one interesting point that made me think: is "friendship" really the same as "they love each other but without sex"?

If you have two men who love each other in a platonic way with no romantic and/or sexual attraction, that is to me the defintion of a close friendship.

Yes, I agree.  I know we've talked about this before, but sex is pretty much the defining thing that turns it from friendship to "romance".   Once you throw in sexual attraction, it changes the nature of the relationship, I think, even if it's never consummated or requited. 

I think some of the confusion is because they do love each other.  They aren't just friends in the usual sense.   So when I read those Johnlock metas, they'll often point out things that go beyond what you'd expect of the average pair of friends.   But to me, that's the point.  They're not showing a typical friendship, but a particularly strong, enduring, loving one, two people who banter but who love each other and would do anything for each other.  The "greatest friendship ever"  (I know Steven is prone to hyperbole, but I think he really does think this is a special friendship, that people fall in love with). 

And yes, I saw the piece was from 2011, but I thought it was being shown here as something new, when to me it's the same thing they've been saying all along.  They always say it's a friendship.  They always say that they love each other. 

Last edited by Liberty (August 7, 2016 9:20 am)

Interesting topic.
I'll take the challenge.
For me:
1. A friend is someone I love. They are not related to me and I am neither romantically or sexually attracted to them.
2. Romance: I always confess(and my husband would confirm this!)that I don't have a romantic bone in my body. But it's not entirely true. I do find it difficult to explain though and maybe to classify as romance. But I can read beautiful poetry, listen to a moving piece of music, look at a famous work of art or watch a ballet etc and feel emotionally moved by it, which could be seen as a form of romance. I can appreciate beautiful people or look at a sweet couple together and it stirs my heart...that kind of thing. I suppose traditionally and maybe for some strictly religious people, they will love somebody, though not consummate the love until married. I think sacrificing oneself for another, could also be seen as romantic.
3. Sexual relationship is what it is: you've had it, are having it, or are wanting it.

In terms of BBC Sherlock:
1. I prefer to think Sherlock is a virgin and at least has a very low sex drive. I don't think he seeks a relationship with anyone.  But even if I may be wrong in at least some of that, I do not feel he is at all attracted to John. I think he loves John more than anyone else on the planet and I think he would do anything for him. That could well be seen as romantic, but it is no way sexual and ALSO for me, not physical, that's the point.
2. John for me is in love with Mary(romantic), they have a sexual relationship.
I feel John loves Sherlock as his best friend and possibly would do anything for him...though I don't now know if he would go as far as risking his own life, because of his concerns for wife and child. But he is not physically attracted to Sherlock and does not seeks a sexual relationship as he does with Mary(and other women previously)

I feel two male friends can be demonstrably affectionate to each other: hugs and maybe even A kiss in extreme circumstances.
But they won't romantically want to hold hands, snog or want to be sexually active with each other.

That's my first shot at this, anyhow.

Last edited by besleybean (August 7, 2016 10:11 am)

Let's not accidentally erase asexuality, in our rush to define something as undefinable as 'love', by implying that sexual attraction is in any way prerequisite for falling or being in romantic love with someone.

(I am not saying either of them are asexual, just that the concept of 'love' comes in many flavours and does not conform to a universal standard.)

Last edited by GimmeCat (August 7, 2016 1:44 pm)

But being "in love" with somebody doesn't necessarily have to include a sexual element. I've been in love, and had a romantic relationship, with someone I had no sexual inclination towards. Hand holding, cuddling, intimate touches, all those things are romantic and things you only typically do with a "partner". I know that's ultimately subjective, but it convinces me that one is not a requirement for the other.

My posts are mostly directed at Liberty btw, not you Besley.

Last edited by GimmeCat (August 7, 2016 1:53 pm)

Forgive me for going slightly off topic but I promise I'll be brief. 

I honestly dislike the word "bromance" and I disliked it before I discovered Sherlock.

The word bromance was invented as a joke to be used when two male friends acted in any way too intimate with each other.  Not intimate as in sex but as in closer than society feels male friends should act toward each other.  Female friends are allowed to hug and cuddle and walk arm in arm.  There is a level of intimacy that men society denies men.  

In my observations, "bromance" is just another way to say "no homo"

Last edited by tonnaree (August 7, 2016 2:31 pm)

Gimmiecat, I wasn't trying to erase any form of sexuality.   Remember that we're talking about what the creators might be meaning when they call it a "friendship".  I did mention that in real life, there's a lot of variation and overlap, that there can be romantic friendships and so on.  The lines are pretty blurry, and even within a relationship things can change.  But I think what we are actually being shown is pretty straightforward. 

With asexuality, it doesn't help that the meaning is a bit blurry too.   Sherlock is shown as asexual in the sense of abstaining and removing himself from sex, but I think he's explicitly not asexual in the sense of desire and orientation.  John is shown as not asexual.   (Yes, he could be asexual and still having sexual relationships, etc., but I'm just talking about what we're being shown).   If there was no sexual attraction to each other, I'd see that as more of a friendship, possibly a romantic friendship. 

If we're talking about under-represented alternative sexualities, I do think there's a good case for seeing Sherlock as a sub/masochist, going by what's in the show.  There's no evidence for John on that spectrum, I don't think. 

But as for what we're being shown, and the story we're being told, I think that's a bit of a red herring.   There's no evidence that I can see of sexual attraction (alongside a ton of evidence for love, devotion, etc.).  It's consistently referred to as a friendship (whereas even if they were trying to show an asexual romantic pairing, "relationship" would have been a better and more ambiguous term to use). 

I do think it's possible that their close relationship with each other might end up meaning that they don't really need sexual/romantic partners, and end up "together", even though it's still a friendship.   And I kind of like that idea.  Not every story has to end up with the characters in "that" sort of relationship, despite what we're constantly shown on TV/film. 

@ Tonnaree, I'm not a fan of "bromance" either.  It tends to be used in a mocking way.