I'm not very good with tenses but does she imply a recent event or his being not a virgin in general?

As for Sherlock's assumption Eurus is straight - well, balance of probability.

You are not seriously counting Janine as evidence, are you? He'd have kissed a male PA too if need be.
I'm a little confused about other Sherlock's kisses. Do you mean Mrs. Hudson and Molly?

Also, Sherlock is shown fascinated by Moriarty in pretty the same way he's fascinated by Irene. He even bests them both in their games in the end. Doesn't mean he's spent a night of passion with Jim.

John had an ex. The discussion whether he was really an ex or a previous commander is the same fruitless exercise in rhetorics as the discussion about Sherlock's sex life with Irene. There's just not enough data to come to a solid conclusion.

I think it's only fair to count Sholto in as evidence for John's being bi if we count Mrs. Hudson as evidence for Sherlock's being straight

I feel a big post coming on, but maybe not tonight! 

There's no evidence that I can see for Sholto being an ex-lover.  And I know I keep saying it, but Moftiss don't seem like the type of writers to hide things like that away - to think that they want John to be bi, but they'd better not actually show it.  But also it would take away from TSOT - which seems to be about Sherlock and John's friendship.   It's the episode where they're really open about the depth of their friendship, and there's the best man/friend thing.  Sherlock wouldn't have been jealous of an ex-lover (male or female), but he's blatantly jealous of an ex best friend. 

In my opinion it has never been explicitly shown that Sherlock is/was romantically interested in men or women. I personally don't see his fascination with Irene Adler as romantic and it has never been categorically stated that it is and as I don't see anything romantic between Sherlock and Irene I don't count their relationship as evidence that Sherlock is straight. I think it would be believable for Sherlock to be either gay, straight or bi as we have nothing concrete to go on.

I agree with ewige in that if some people argue that the relationship between Irene and Sherlock is never actually shown on screen but could be perceived as romantic but then dismiss Johnlocker's arguments by saying a romantic relationship between Sherlock and John has never actually been shown and is only perceived that way by fans it seems a bit hypocritical. Also the argument that John is portrayed as straight so couldn't possibly be with Sherlock seems to go out the window when shipping Irene and Sherlock as Irene clearly said she was gay. If it is possible for a gay woman to have romantic feelings for a man why is it impossible for a straight man to have romantic feelings for a man. I'm not saying that Johnlock is what is being portrayed but just that some arguments for Irene and Sherlock but against John and Sherlock do not seem to add up.
 

besleybean wrote:

I am sorry there are differences:
1. The team have said they think Sherlock was attracted to Irene.
2. Sherlock is shown flustered by, gooey eyed over, writing a romantic tune for and texting Irene. He has only ever referred to John as his friend.
3. Whatever Irene identifies herself as, she is clearly interested in Sherlock.  We have never been shown any such interest between Sherlock and John.
4. It is hard to argue against a negative and normally in real debating, one in not required to do so. We don't see a relationship, there is nothing to argue for! It's like being asked to disprove unicorns, the tooth fairy or Santa.

I disagree.

1. The team may well have said so but it has never been said on the show which seems to be what the main argument against Johnlock is - it has never been shown on the show.
2. I don't see his reaction to Irene as gooey eyed (flustered maybe but again to me this doesn't necessarily confirm a romantic or sexual interest, you can be in adoration of someone and be completely flustered without being in love with them) so clearly this is up to viewer perception as I perceive his reaction completely differently to you. Writing a song, be it romantic or not, and texting someone is not concrete evidence of a romantic relationship.
3. "Whatever Irene identifies herself as" is gay so again, if she is in love with Sherlock why would it be impossible for John who is straight to be in love with Sherlock. I am not saying he is but theoretically if a gay woman can be in love with a man then a straight man can be in love with a man.
4. My post was not making an argument for or against Johnlock and I have said previously that personally I can understand the argument against Johnlock as it has never been explicitly shown on screen whilst at the same time I understand the the argument that some subtext supports Johnlock. What I do not understand is the argument specifically against Johnlock as it has never been shown but for Irene and Sherlock (what is their shipper name I can't remember haha) as a romantic relationship between Irene and Sherlock has also never been explicitly shown on screen.

Last edited by Lis (January 18, 2017 9:27 pm)

It's just occurred to me - like, 40 pages in (since I haven't been here from the start) - that I'm actually debating a fictional character's sexual preferences

I think we can go round and round for another 378 pages without a conclusion because we are debating each other's perception and understanding of the show.

It's been established last Sunday that "Sherlock" wasn't intended to be a LGBT respresentation gig so we are clear on the intent of the writers. I don't dispute that.

Still, the show is open to interpretation. We are invited to fill in the blanks all the time. We come to different conclusions based on the same evidence and our different preferences and backgrounds. If we see the same scenes but understand them differently - is there a way at all to convince each other in such case?

The truth lies in the eye of the beholder. For me, a life-long partnership is only possible between friends like Sherlock and John. If such a friendship is the end stop in your opinion, who am I to argue.

ewige wrote:

Lis, I believe it's adlock.

Ah that would make sense haha, thanks.  

ewige wrote:

The truth lies in the eye of the beholder. For me, a life-long partnership is only possible between friends like Sherlock and John. If such a friendship is the end stop in your opinion, who am I to argue.

I agree and think it should work both ways, how ever people want to interpret the show is up to them and just because someone views it differently to you (you in the general sense not you specifically ewige) does not in anyway diminish your own enjoyment of the show. I don't think either side of the argument really needs to convince the other that they are right/wrong, we just seem to like a good debate haha but at some point I think everyone needs to agree to disagree.

ewige wrote:

It's just occurred to me - like, 40 pages in (since I haven't been here from the start) - that I'm actually debating a fictional character's sexual preferences

I think we can go round and round for another 378 pages without a conclusion because we are debating each other's perception and understanding of the show.

It's been established last Sunday that "Sherlock" wasn't intended to be a LGBT respresentation gig so we are clear on the intent of the writers. I don't dispute that.

Still, the show is open to interpretation. We are invited to fill in the blanks all the time. We come to different conclusions based on the same evidence and our different preferences and backgrounds. If we see the same scenes but understand them differently - is there a way at all to convince each other in such case?

The truth lies in the eye of the beholder. For me, a life-long partnership is only possible between friends like Sherlock and John. If such a friendship is the end stop in your opinion, who am I to argue.

Very good post, ewige!

I no longer participate much here in this thread because I feel that not everybody here shares this idea of ... I don't know how to call it in English ... freedom of interpretation.

I often felt that some here are aware of the ambiguity, of the fact that you can see more than one truth in the show, while others just state they know how it really is and everybody who sees something else is wrong. :-(

Maybe your post changes that. :-)

I've always said things are open to interpretation.  There are some things I interpret differently than the writers. (I don't want to get into that discussion here, but one example is John's violence - I see it as shocking and disturbing, they see it as funny or cathartic.   I wouldn't argue that my interpretation is what they are showing us, but it's OK for me to see it that way.  There are some other points too - it would actually be an interesting discussion to have).   And I think what was debated here, was almost always whether Johnlock was intended by the writers and team - for instance, the comments about them lying to cover it up.  And I suppose it has moved now to whether there is deliberate ambiguity - did they intend two different interpretations. .  I don't think there is deliberate ambiguity created by the writers, and I think there has been less as the story has gone on - I think they are happy for people to interpret Johnlock, but looking at the whole thing, I don't believe they've written that in.