TBH I don't much care either way. I think good writing is the thing. If someone can compellingly write Holmes as a woman, or as a dog, I am up for it. I am a bit of a connessoir of pastiches, ie stories written in the style of the originals, as well as pretty well knowing the originals by heart (i've been reading them a LONG time!), and I've seen writers like Neil Gaiman pull off some great stuff - the Emerald Isle,for example, which places Holmes in the Cthalu mythos is amazing. 

I actually agree that a lot of gay men are extremely conservative generally and also can be quite into the idea of sexuality as fixed. In the bisexual movement, possibly the strongest resistance comes from gay men, and Gatiss himself has said that he doesn't believe in bisexuality or fluid sexuality. TBH, that's quite a statement to make-that he believes that people's identified sexuality is not real or valid. (I think it was some years ago, pre Sherlock). So he is possibly not going to be your person writing about discovering that your sexuality is more complex than you thought. Or maybe he's thought better of those comments. I could be utterly wrong but I think the comments most often identified as queer-baiting are coming from the Moffat written episodes-Study in Pink and Scandal in Belgravia. 

I am not a shipper, not at all, rather someone who identifies with the LGBT community. I have no problem with shipping but I'm not the target audience. What I'd like is an acceptance that the lines between friendship, love, and sexual attraction are not lines in stone, that an awful lot of heterosexual identified people have same-sex attractions or experiences at times (I am told) and that this is just one of those rich and interesting things about human sexuality.

The other issue with the whole "I am not gay" thing is that it is a bit stereotyping of gay men. John clearly loves Sherlock on SOME level. Whether he loves him as a friend, or has a co-dependent need for him, or loves the adventures he takes him on, or whatever. We are told, again and again, "He is not gay because he does not want to sleep with him.". But, just as straight relationships are complex, and sex is not always their defining characteristic, just as in the long term in any relationiship what keeps it going is caring deeply for each other and wanting to have some kind of life together, and sexual desire often builds from these things as much as anything, so same sex relationships aren't always about pure sexual attraction.  So for that reason and that reason alone, I don't like the will-they-won't they because I think the underlying message-that same sex relationships are defined by sexual attraction-is not one I like.

And also, tbh, I really do like the character of Mary Morstan. It is SO refreshing to see a complex and interesting female character on that show. She almost (not quite) makes up for Irene Adler.

Last edited by beekeeper (January 4, 2014 1:05 pm)

But they DO love each other. Not all love is sexual.

I'm wanting to see it as the people who really believe it do.  I mean, I get the jokes, and inuendo.  But I don't think it's real.  But it makes me curious as to why others HONESTLY think it's real.  Perhaps then it would change my mind.  Right now, though. It's just funny jabs mixed with wishful thinking.

besleybean wrote:

I think 2 reasons.
People are just not used to beautiful, loving male freindships.  Everything these days is sexualised and in your face.  So when modern readers look at  The Canon, that's what they look for/see.
Humans are generally sexual, so that too is what they look for.  Most animals look at another animal and either want to eat it, shag it, fight it or run away from it...
But as humans, we have the benefit of being able to have more nuanced relationships.
But certainly, everything does not have to be about sex.

 
I think it's the opposite so to speak. We have countless numbers of TV-series and movies with male/male friendship, I'm not even going to bother listing any because you know them already, but so far nothing really where the main characters are lovers. Particularly male lovers. Unless that is what the TV-series/movie is about.
Sherlock and canon Holmes and Watson aside I would love to see, just once, such a TV-series or movie. Heck I'd even take a published book at this point. (Hey, why do you think I love reading Sherlock fan fiction, particularly the stories that put equal emphasis on cases and relationship) But of course as homophobic as the world is, that isn't going to happen any time soon.

besleybean wrote:

Excuse me?
Not wishing to portray a relationship as gay, does not make you homophobic.

 
What else do you call it? After all part of homophobia is discrimination, and not being willing to portray an open gay relationship when one is perfectly willing to portray and open straight relationship is homophobia.
Also in the last part of my post I spoke in general terms. That is not just about John/Sherlock or Holmes/Watson, but about TV-series, movies in general. And there really aren't all that many that have done this, that is portray an openly gay couple as main characters. Not unless the theme of the TV-series, movie, whatnot.
I assume they don't portray it in the common course of fiction becuase there are a lot of homophobic twats out there that writers, producers, etc don't wish to offend. After all BBC got a virtual storm of offended comment when a scene in Torchwood contained a kissing scene between two blokes.

Am I the only one who thinks the words "homophobe" and "homophobic" get tossed around way too much in these discussions?

@sj4iy
Yep,
It's the equivalent of racist/rascism, to anybody who dares mention immigration.

Just wanted to say I agree with Ormond Sacker. Molly and Sherlock are definitely not canon and in my opinion have far less chemistry than John and Sherlock, but no one ever complains about Sherlolly shipping, (not even non shippers) why? Because heterosexual relationships are the accepted norm , and Johnlock is seen as some sort of perversion. Homophobia is strong word and I honestly don't think anyone in this forum is homophobic. But just like Sherlolly shippers are entitled to believe in and hope for romance between their fave pairing so too should Johnlock lovers be allowed to ship their ship without continually being told they are being ridiculous, seeing things that aren't there, perverting canon etc...

Ormond Sacker wrote:

Also I stated I wanted a TV-show or movie that wasn't about relationships, so soap operas don't really apply, from the bits of the few I have watch they seem to be about little else. I was thinking of all the detective, fantasy, sci-fi, etc. series and movies out there, and 'nary a non-straight character in sight. That was what I refering to.

- Buffy (Willow and Tara)
- Warehouse 13 (Jinks)
- Boardwalk Empire (Angela Darmody)
- ER (Dr. Weaver)

Not sure if Big Bang Theory (Amy's interest in Penny) and How I met your mother (Lilly's interest in Robin) also count because they are comedy shows.

Just saying ...

Thanks for adding those shows, TeeJay. I'm sure there are even more.

BTW, being a full-fledged Star Trek fan, I am really sad that no Star Trek show can be named here. IMO they really missed something!