I know exactly what you mean, Harriet, but I am not sure which interpretation was intended by the makers. 
I would like to believe that he himself thinks he is straight and just does not know/accept/dare to admit to himself that he is romantically/sexually interested in Sherlock. That it collides with his self-perception. (But this idea might be influenced by reading fanfic.)
Moreover, I think that today there are still a lot of men that are afraid of finding such feelings in themselves and deny them towards themselves and others. 
And we see that in Hounds John has stopped his denials, for one or the other reason. 

 

Always seems to me that Gatiss and Moffat want to write an honest show that reflects complex truth,rather than politically correct truth--including the fact that sexuality and people's reactions to sexuality are often really, really layered. So on the one hand, "It's all good." On the other hand, acid teasing of Mycroft (come to see the Queen, SiB). Both Sherlock and John have gay sibs with whom they have complex and not entirely happy relations, and it appears it's mostly not about sexuality, but sexuality does seem to play a part. John can be comfortable more or less with the idea of a possible gay roomie, but be uncomfortable being repeatedly assumed to be part of a gay couple. He can have a dialog with Irene in which the entire question of gay/not gay is discussed on both sides, and buttons are mutually pushed--and, yet, for both it has more to do with that maddening, complex man Sherlock than with either of their sexual preferences.

To me that comes across as Gatiss and Moffat writing about how people--tolerant people of relative good will--can still get into strange, complicated, difficult tangles as they try to pick their way through all the minefields of love, friendship, sex, and social expectations. That's not homophobic, though it does reflect bits of society's homophobia sometimes. It's mainly loving: so many people trying so many different ways to work it all through. Instead of polemics or propaganda for any side, there's just this big-hearted affection for all those of good will--like John--who don't know quite where it all fits in or how to work with it.

I love that they're writing such a kind, generous understanding of how bloody complex it all is, rather than easy answers. I'd infinitely rather see John try to work through the implications of simultaneously adoring Sherlock while still knowing himself to be sexually straight, than see John "say the right thing" to please the politically correct. There's a kindness that ultimately they keep on coming back to a core truth: gay or not, straight or not, celibate or not, couple or not, John and Sherlock love each other, and it works, and in the end that's what they keep choosing to hang on to.

So much better, kinder, and more meaningful than PC propaganda ever is....and it says so much MORE about the truth of "it's all good," than PC propaganda could state in a million years.

Brillant TammanyT.  Just bloody brilliant.

The world is rarely black and white.

What we see in the media is in no way a correct representation of reality, and I think it is very important to point out and discuss issues like the ones mentioned in this thread. Not in order to force the writers of the show to take it into a certain direction, but to question things that are or could be problematic and to draw your own conclusions.

I think this statement makes it too easy...

I'm late to the thread, so haven't read all contributions. 
But a couple of points:
1.  We are so close to the new series, let's see what they do.
2. I consider homophobia a damn serious accusation and cowardly, if not said to someone's face.

This is very convincing, Swanpride. 

I agree with you that saying "we are not a couple" does not mean that one does not want to be together with a person of the same gender or has any homophobic tendencies but that one does wish to correct a wrong assumption. If I went to a party with a male friend and someone would address us as a couple I would correct them, too. As I would do if the same happened with a female friend. 

And I do not think that saying "I'm not gay" is a discrimination as such. John never shows any disrespect or other negative feelings towards gay people. The problems with his sister seem to be due to her alcoholism and not the fact that she is gay. 

I would really like to see Molly in your blog after series 3. 

Last edited by SusiGo (December 1, 2013 5:57 pm)

Swanpride wrote:

When it comes to being gay, the show could have chosen to not mention the issue at all. But apparently the maker felt (rightly) that it would have been wrong not to adress it. Two adult men who live together and do nearly everything together would cause question nowadays. At the same time, it is totally naturally to deny being in a relationship with someone, no matter if male or female. If someone would assume that John and Molly were a pair, John would correct this most likely, too.

That would work in the scene at Angelo's, for example, if Sherlock was a woman or if John was with Molly. "I'm not her date." Ok. That would be funny, too.
But what would you expect, for example, in the scene in SiB with Irene then? "If anyone out there still cares, I'm not actually straight." Hm ...

Swanpride wrote:

There are healthier methods to promote equality. I just started a blog about well-written female characters in the media. Because I think, it is a better idea to praise and promote them, then to complain about the bad examples, which get more attention than they deserve. If they do a good job with Molly next season, she will get an article, too. Because to me she deserves more attention for being well-written than Irene Adler for being problematic written.

That might work quite well with female characters (and thumbs up for your effort there; I'd like to read that blog). But if you tried to make a list of, for example, well-written non-straight or transgendered characters in the mainstream media, I'm afraid the list would be very short and you wouldn't find a lot of positive stuff you could write about. That's just the way it is at the moment.

I read a blogpost quoted somewhere which accused the show of queer baiting. That is all I have seen but there may be more out there on the Net. 

ok I am rephrasing: is there anybody here in this forum who accuses the show for homophobia? Or are we actually only agreeing on each other's opinion (with the exception of some minor interpretation issues)?