sj4iy wrote:

Jonquille wrote:

josabby wrote:

An old college friend of mine wrote an interesting essay on the topic. http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/08/because-they-are-not-gay-why-forcing.html

Thanks for that most interesting link.

He does a perfect job of illustrating a big problem with society.  It's actually the same view that society takes about a man and woman.  I had a friend at work who was male, and we were really good friends, so we would often go to lunch together and sometimes even dinner.  I am happily married, but that didn't stop people from asking or just assuming things about us.  Honestly, I've always felt he was a little brother type.  But women and men can't have a close friendship and just be friends in society's view.  He moved away years ago and married his longtime girlfriend, and even though we haven't seen each other in years, he and I still call each other up to chat.

So no, John's not being a homophobe, he's just being realistic about how the world sees him.

I think it goes back to the original post.  There was the example of the Doctor and Donna, people always assumed that they were a couple as a running gag just like people assuming John and Sherlock are a couple.
As a kid, I was a bit of a tom boy and had more fun hanging out with the boys my age than the girls.  People in my grade school swore up and down that I was dating various guys, but we were just friends.
There is a huge difference between people who ship Johnlock, and people who insist that they are gay.  Back to Harry Potter, when HBP came out and Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermione, and Lupin/Tonks became canon; many people who had become attached to the Sirius/Lupin or Harry/Ron or Harry/Draco accused JKR of being a homophobe because she wrote the characters that she created the way she intended to write them.  I'm thinking "you don't like it, stick with the fan fiction"
 

Last edited by josabby (August 8, 2013 10:04 pm)

I really want to come back to the ideas about race. Obviously, we come from different viewpoints here but I'd see race representation as important. 

London is a city where white British born people are in the minority. (incidentally, as a Londoner that statistic gives me nothing but pride, I'm so proud of our diversity-I really love it). Sherlock is set in 21 st century London. Even aside from my feelings around the importance of representation, to have an nearly-all white London feels enormously inauthentic. Why on earth not have more black extras? I can't see a reason on this earth not to have black lead characters, or symathetic secondaries, but even if that's felt not to be ok, why not have extras in the crowd scenes that actually reflect London-particularly the North and Central London which I'm familiar with, and in which Sherlock is set?  Make a positive decision to recruit a good percentage of black actors? This isn't actually about pcness, its about making a show that reflects 21st century London. 

Regarding the portrayal of the Chinese characters in the Blind Banker. Well first off, they were all villains, with the possible exception of Soo Lin. But also, the idea of sinister, yet agile, Asians infiltrating the West really is an unfortunate stereotype that I'm honestly surprised they showed. I'm all for being as authentic as possible to the stories, but Conan Doyle's casul, 19c racism-not so much. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril). Its 21st century Holmes and that means more than smartphones. 

What I truly think is going on here is not that the showrunners are covert racists, but that this isn't something that registers for them. I think, as someone else said, if you are white its enormously easy not to notice how many people of colour there are in the show. And I do understand how that seems to be a good thing, how being "colour blind" might seem to mean you are also not prejudiced, but I think unfortunately it can also mean you don't realise how poor the representation actually is. Discounting the Blind Banker, in the remainin 5 shows we have something like 4 or 5 people of colour in the whole show. That's around one per episode. Not cool.

To put this into perspective, its as inauthentic a representation of London, and feels about as grating to me, as if there were only one white British born person in each episode. 

 

Last edited by beekeeper (August 9, 2013 7:05 am)

What about John's girlfriend Jeanette in Scandal? She was black and that didn't seem to bother him too much!

Weather or not John and Sherlock are Gay is no big deal to me. What I do see is that they do love each other, but love is not sex. You can still love anther person with all your hart and not want to sleep with them. Just as you can sleep with some one and not love them. 
Yse John and Shelock love each other and may even be soalmates, but that does not mean that thay will end up in bed. Or and I do think this is very possable that the both of them are bisexal. This is what I am getting from what I have seen. 

Last edited by madwitch58 (September 10, 2013 4:53 pm)

SolarSystem wrote:

I can understand those homophobic accusations to a certain extent, but not because of how it's dealt with in the show. It's more because of what Moffat occasionally says in interviews. There was one (or was it a press conference or was it at Comic Con? Don't remember...) just quite recently where you got the impression that he finds the idea absolutely absurd that Sherlock and John could eventually end up together in the show. Which is fine with me, I ship them, but I don't need to see them together in the series, it's fine the way it is.
I was just wondering why he reacts to the idea in such a "that's total nonsense and will never happen"-fashion. Would he react like that if we talked about, let's say, Molly and Sherlock? I really got the impression that the idea of two guys getting together is almost unthinkable to him.
But maybe I'm totally on the wrong track here. And like I said: I'm absolutely fine with the way in which they portray it on the show.

And it was already said: There still is Mark Gatiss, isn't there?
 

 
Moffat can seem almost snarky in certain interviews with fans. Even if he didn't mean anything by it, he probably has a different direction he wants to take the show and doesn't want fans dreaming for a reality he'll never create? Maybe?

Mark Gatiss is MUCH warmer, friendlier with fans. Steven Moffat doesn't always seem to like talking to everyone. Mark Gatiss seems to realize that most fans...are going to be a little intense, a little obsessed even, and have their own ships and heck - as creators - that's flattering. It means they love your show ;)

Just a difference in personality. I don't think Steven Moffat actually was perturbed by the idea of someone thinking of two male characters as being 'shipped' as being outrageous. More that he doesn't want that in this instance, and he wants the fans to keep up with him. I get a note of impatience from him, sometimes....

Hey guys. It's so neat to read all these different opinions -- there's so much I didn't think about until you pointed it out. To me, the title of this thread addresses two very different things; John's little not-a-couple asides, and homophobic accusations. I only feel qualified to express an opinion about the former, so let's start there.

To me, it's simple: John's little we're-not-gay asides just seem like tongue-in-cheek. Like he's saying Hey, society, there's more than one way to be close to someone. When we're bombared with stories of romantic love it's so easy to forget that friendship can be real, and meaningful, and powerful. And I think it's awesome that the writers are reminding us of that.

Also sad that we need to be reminded. 

Also encouraging (from a more selfish point of view) that so many of you guys had the same friendship-interpretation as I did. Maybe we got it right, if 'right' exists at all in this case.

I quite see it like you, Marva. Only that to me this "defending his heterosexuality" seems all in vain.
To me those scenes seem to make fun of his denial. Or make fun of some men's I-Must-Be-Straight attitude.

Harriet wrote:

I quite see it like you, Marva. Only that to me this "defending his heterosexuality" seems all in vain.
To me those scenes seem to make fun of his denial. Or make fun of some men's I-Must-Be-Straight attitude.

yeah, that's true. The problem that I have with it that in the end you get the impression that you have to defend the "accusation" of being gay, or that it is some kind of an insult if somebody says you are gay. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that you can (or even should) make fun of everything and anything. Just with the background that homophobia is still widely spread in the society (fortunately not in this forum), teenagers are bullied because they are gay and some of them even committ suicide, this type of "fun" is not something I particularily like. If you make fun of some kind of minority or group that is not equally accepted it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I should add that these remarks are totally nitpicking from my side. Of course I still love the show very much (why else would I be here) and this is complaining on a very high level. I just wanted to say that in my opinion there are some issues regarding these "I'm not gay"-jokes.

I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure if they don't actually turn it into some: Come on, John, what exactly is YOUR problem with these comments?
This I find quite hard to tell.

But, there is the show, and then again how some people perceive it, and I also often feel uncomfortable being told "this is just a gay joke, don't you get it?" - makes me wonder: What is the joke about?

John acts as if he was insulted. Does it mean they want us to accept/understand/share his resentment?
Or is it shown as his (and not his alone) problem/weakness/denied truth?

(Sorry I find it so hard to find the right words.)