I personally wouldn't hold my breath.

If it's a joke I find it tasteless.

I think it is more than the flatshare. When Irene states they are a couple she does not just talk about them living together. Then there are the two gay men in the hotel in HoB who assume that they are a couple the moment they walk into the lobby. And I think that Magnussen's words about the "damsel in distress" and "look how you care about John Watson" are not about flatsharing either. 

But an interesting choice of words, equating John with a woman who has to be saved.
Mycroft used the same words when berating Sherlock for helping Irene who was definitely not Sherlock's friend. And not his love interest but it seems that Mycroft got that wrong.
So this is a term used by Mycroft for a person he thinks Sherlock fell in love with. So why should CAM not use it for a man he thinks Sherlock fell in love with?
 

Last edited by SusiGo (June 13, 2014 8:03 pm)

Mycroft does not use the word for Sherlock and John but for Sherlock and Irene. And he thinks Sherlock fell in love with her. I quote:

The damsel in distress. (He smiles ironically.) In the end, are you really so obvious? Because this was textbook: the promise of love, the pain of loss, the joy of redemption; then give him a puzzle ... (his voice drops to a whisper while he twirls the end of his umbrella in the air) ... and watch him dance.
SHERLOCK: Don’t be absurd.
MYCROFT: Absurd? How quickly did you decipher that email for her? Was it the full minute, or were you really eager to impress?

(source: Ariane DeVere)

I know. I was just pointing out the parallels.

besleybean wrote:

The writers have spoken openly about having a running 'gay' joke through the series, just to address the issue of 2 men living together...but it is a joke.
And no they did not try to do something differently.
 

So is it a joke or not? I'm confused now by your changing opinions.
 

I think Johnlock is rather like beauty: it is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I just don't see it.

Wow, this guy seems to be really clever. Doing those deductions only by watching the episodes, not being influenced by any fandom activities ... that's impressing.

SusiGo wrote:

Exactly. And I repeat that the question of non-sexual close friendship or a loving sexual relationship is not about the one being not enough and wishing for more or whatever. These are two separate forms of relationship of equal value. 

But when so many people see evidence for the latter form of relationship one cannot simply dismiss all this as cheap teasing, joking or hallucinations. Just imagine what this would say about the makers' attitude towards their audience. 

The thing I have trouble with is how do you know it's "evidence" for the latter and not for the former? How do you know their actions and words indicate non-sexual love or sexual love- love is love, it's very hard to diferentiate between the two. What if the only way people in the show and audience can explain it is by labeling it sexual love? I feel like its feasilbe gay inferences made by Hudson, Irene, and others could be misinterpretations of an unconventional male relationship. Likewise, I think viewers could be misinterpreting because of these misinterpretations. the makers are being ambiguous with the inclusion of the jokes, but I think they do that to accurately depict the nature and intensity of real love. I may be erring on the "heteronormative" side, but it's because I agree with BB. I think it's depressing guys can't love each other without the suspicion that sex/sexual feelings are involved. We're used to seeing those dramatic tropes associated with sexual love in movies, so it's confusing, but what if the human heart is less comprehensible and predictable than romantic tropes = sexual intent? People say love has no boundaries, that it can defy convention, and I like to think that sexual feelings or familial relation shouldn't be a limiting factor that is required for deep love to make sense. 

Last edited by Lue4028 (June 28, 2014 6:43 am)