BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Johnlock: The Official Debate

SusiGo · April 22, 2014 8:23 pm

It is a shame that we do not have more m/m romances/love stories (and f/f as well), that it is not a natural thing to show and still needs a political or social background story like AIDS or something like that. Why not just show two people in love whatever their gender and build a good story around it?

Btw, the guy responsible for BBC Drama (i.e. Sherlock) said just that not a long time ago.

besleybean · April 22, 2014 8:25 pm

A lot of people have said it, I,like you, await it.

SolarSystem · April 22, 2014 8:27 pm

SusiGo wrote:
It is a shame that we do not have more m/m romances/love stories (and f/f as well), that it is not a natural thing to show and still needs a political or social background story like AIDS or something like that. Why not just show two people in love whatever their gender and build a good story around it?

It's true, it always has to have some sort of special setting if they decide to tell such a story. Why can't a police detective in a CSI show be gay...?

ancientsgate · April 22, 2014 8:28 pm

KeepersPrice wrote:
The final scene at the airstrip: So funny to me that when my husband watched it he thought that was one of the best scenes in the show. He said it was "real" and their conversation was "natural". That definitely has to be a male point of view. There I am, pissing and moaning because I wanted "more emotion" from both of them and he thinks it was all just fine.

Yes, definitely a male POV. Especially a straight male POV. They'd rather gouge out an eye with a sharp stick than do or say anything with a male friend beyond a handshake, perhaps a one-armed hug, and keeping-it-light talk about sports, work, and "have you seen Joe around lately?"

My husband won't watch the show. At all. So I don't have his input, but I'm sure he'd agree with your husband.

Oh god, that, "John, there's something I never told you" line made my heart leap right into my throat! I was on the edge of my chair holding my breathe only to be completely crushed and deflated. What an blatent, in-your-face, intentional Johnlock tease - those bastards!!

I did feel as though I'd been slapped across the face with a cold, dead haddock. The whole scene was awkward to the max, dead-hearted, and yes, that line was cold.... cruel, IMO. I do not bow down at the feet of The Great Two-Headed God Moftiss in the first place, but even for them, that scene felt like they were throwing a pail of ice water on the whole lot of us. They must be mightily pissed off at us, that's all I can say. I deal with it by not thinking about it, most of the time anyway.

ancientsgate · April 22, 2014 8:30 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Ah, sorry, misunderstanding. You said that you don't trust male writers to get romance right, you didn't specifically talk about male/male romance. So I was thinking about romance in general.

Yeah, I don't even know if they get M-F romance "right", but I do realize that everyone's idea of right is different. "Right" is a subjective thing.

besleybean · April 22, 2014 8:30 pm

I think he was just going to say 'thank you.'

ancientsgate · April 22, 2014 8:34 pm

SusiGo wrote:
It is a shame that we do not have more m/m romances/love stories (and f/f as well), that it is not a natural thing to show and still needs a political or social background story like AIDS or something like that. Why not just show two people in love whatever their gender and build a good story around it?
Btw, the guy responsible for BBC Drama (i.e. Sherlock) said just that not a long time ago.

It's an idea whose time has come, I believe, so it'll happen. I hope it's handled by someone who actually knows something about M-M relationships, when the time does come, and that they don't just show a typical M-F romance, only with the F part played by a male. Don't turn one of the male partners into the little wifey or girlfriend, please. *rolls eyes*

besleybean · April 22, 2014 8:35 pm

But that's for another show...

SusiGo · April 22, 2014 8:36 pm

Well, this is exactly what the good fanfics do not do and I love them for it.

ancientsgate · April 22, 2014 8:37 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
It is a shame that we do not have more m/m romances/love stories (and f/f as well), that it is not a natural thing to show and still needs a political or social background story like AIDS or something like that. Why not just show two people in love whatever their gender and build a good story around it?
It's true, it always has to have some sort of special setting if they decide to tell such a story. Why can't a police detective in a CSI show be gay...?

We're starting to see gay characters in supporting roles here in the US, but not in macho roles like cops or military guys or anything. I watch Chicago Fire, and there is a lesbian EMT character in that show. When in doubt, when TPTB decide to include a gay character, they seem to gravitate to lesbians rather than gay men. most of that stuff is produced, written, directed by men, and the idea of two hot women in bed together is very interesting to them-- OTOH, two hot men together? That's like cooties, and it might be catching, don'tcha know. *rolling eyes again*

ancientsgate · April 22, 2014 8:41 pm

besleybean wrote:
But that's for another show...

Don't be so sure. We don't know what lurks in the heart of the Great God Moftiss, after all. And yeah, yeah, I know what they've said publicly, blah, blah.... but they do like to surprise us, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in ways we don't like. So don't be so sure.

SolarSystem · April 22, 2014 8:42 pm

Even in shows which are written or created by women, like "Grey's Anatomy", you tend to have two women in a romantic relationship rather than two men.

besleybean · April 22, 2014 8:42 pm

I trust in Ian.

ancientsgate · April 22, 2014 8:50 pm

besleybean wrote:
I trust in Ian.

OK, I give up. Who is Ian?
*slithering back into my cave to await the answer*

SusiGo · April 22, 2014 8:51 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Even in shows which are written or created by women, like "Grey's Anatomy", you tend to have two women in a romantic relationship rather than two men.

It seems it is still more acceptable to many people. Have no idea why. Just like lesbian sex was not regarded as a crime in former times because it did not exist.

tonnaree · April 22, 2014 8:52 pm

SusiGo wrote:
It is a shame that we do not have more m/m romances/love stories (and f/f as well), that it is not a natural thing to show and still needs a political or social background story like AIDS or something like that. Why not just show two people in love whatever their gender and build a good story around it?

Btw, the guy responsible for BBC Drama (i.e. Sherlock) said just that not a long time ago.

Madlori needs to go ahead and write a script for "To a Stranger" and then we can crowd source funding to get it filmed.

SusiGo · April 22, 2014 8:53 pm

Good idea. And for PIALR as well.

KeepersPrice · April 22, 2014 11:16 pm

SusiGo wrote:
The drawing is meant to show the ideal proportions of a naked man. Just saying.

In case you missed it, proof that John is Sherlock's ideal man :

Lue4028 · April 23, 2014 12:20 am

“almost can't believe that once again we're comparing deep friendship to a sexual relationship in a way that says "one of those things is superior to the other", we've been over that again and again and again. That's not what Johnlock is about, at least not to me. I am not saying that a deep friendship can't be enough and is only worth something when sex comes into play as well. But why does sex have to ruin everything? I'll never understand why to some people sex seems to be the worst thing that can happen to a friendship.”

Well if you don’t think it’s superior, why do you support it/need it/ even consider it? I could write my thesis on why sex is the worst thing that could happen to J and S’s relationship. Because sex is selfish and friendship is selfless. Why is sex done? As a favor? No, it’s done because you want it. And it’s not you, the human, its you, the animal, the summation of your instincts and nothing more. Selfish. And that kills everything that matters to me about John and Sherlock. Because their love is so selfless is confounds people. Its shocking how they betray the instinct of self-preservation in the name of devotion. It beautiful and sex, lust, greed - whatever you call it, would break that, run a crack right down its center.
And what is it you want from sex? You may confuse it with the person, but sexual actions are done because you want the body. A person isn’t a physical thing you can have. The closest you can come to touching a person is doing what J and S do, move each other’s emotions.
Sex literally kills John and Sherlock, they stop acting like themselves, you might as well have shot their brains out. There was a point where I was reading a rather long Johnlock sex scene, and I was surprised J called S “sherlock” in the middle of it, because I had forgotten he was supposed to be Sherlock. I didn’t even recognize him. I couldn’t make myself recognize him. His brain, his heart, everything I know about Sherlock wasn’t there. When John stares at Sherlock’s bloody corpse in reichenbach, that’s what Johnlock looks like to me.
Sorry, I had to say all that.. I’m in pain, and pain makes me snappy. Don’t take offense, and feel free to laugh at me. I don’t dislike sex-based behaviors if its done selflessly, not for personal pleasure. But I don’t think that ever happens. Also, there can be love in sex scenes that can be very valuable. But take away the sex, and it stands just as strong.

“A relationship is not automatically better or worse depeneding on if it includes a physical aspect. Yes, sex in our society has been abused and sensatonalized but it is not in and of itself bad. It is a beautiful part of our human nature. And it is best when shared between two people who already have a deep emotional/intellectual connection. When friends turn into lovers it is as much spiritual as physical.
I do not have to see a sex scene. I would be happy with a small but unmistakable gesture making it clear that they belong to each other and will stay together and not leave each other again. All other things can be left to my imagination.”

Do you think plugging your computer cable into an outlet is a beautiful part of human nature? I’m being mean. Sorry. But actually, that’s honestly what I see when I look at sex objectively. Friends are lovers. When they become sex partners, it’s not spiritual. It’s biomechanical, superficial, and fleeting. A sexual gesture does not mean they won’t leave each other, or screw each other over, or kill each other. When one person lays down their life for the other, now that’s a little more convincing. Oh. I think that happened.

“I just wish they'd stop being so damned awkward around each other. The airport scene in ep 3.3 made me cringe, the way John couldn't even look Sherlock in the face. Good lord! I'm not sure what I really wanted to see, but it wasn't that stiff, stupid scene they were given to do. And including a line about Sherlock being a girl's name, really? REALLY? Um, Sherlock was going away, supposedly never to return, and that's what the writers gave them to say and do? I am still frustrated by that scene.”

The awkward is part of their personality. You take that out, they aren’t themselves anymore. I respect stiff. Jeez, I love stiff. Stiff means you don’t spew your emotions like a sellout.

“There is an element of this fandom that considers itself "above all that", who are intrigued with an asexual Sherlock, a life of enforced sexual abstinence, and yes, who do think that life as a non-religious monk is far superior than getting wet and nasty with someone you care about. I don't get that, but.... I do defend their right to think so and to say they think so. I don't think most people have any objection to a having a sex life (at least from what I can see, here in the back of the cave where I live), but.... each to his own, eh? “

Fewph. I’m not the only one. Most people don’t understand. Oddly enough, I find it’s the only logical understandable perspective. Being sexual is something you have to feel to understand, its probably impossible to explain.

“Mmm. Well, maybe that's what the good Lord intended, but.... recreational sex is pretty marvelous, too. lol I don't know that it needs a spiritual connection between two like-minded consensual people to make it pretty wonderful. We don't, after all, live in Victorian times anymore, plus nowadays most people wouldn't know they had a "spirit" if it reached out and slapped 'em upside the head. Naturally it's important for it to be adults-only and consensual, of course. OTOH, maybe I've read too much romance fiction. I dunno. I do agree that a spiritual connection, along with the emotional and physical, makes it mighty fine!”

Sigh. I still fight for spirit, even if it's a lost cause.

“I don't know why they wouldn't manage to get it right, I just feel down in my gut that they wouldn't. I wish they'd get a female writer on staff, honest to god. I don't trust men to get romance right, I just don't. I do trust them to get sex right, but not the subtleness of a romance.”

Uh….. what? They have been doing a great job with the romanctic/emotional elements so far. Half the world is reeling.

“I would just like to state for the record that I am emphatically Pro-Sex.
(Just in case anyone was wondering.)”

Hello nemesis. Pro-sex has been a torn in my side since I was 11.

“I'm in the anti camp.
I mean I'm anti-sex, not anti-camp!”

Um, BB, did you say you were married?

Last edited by Lue4028 (April 23, 2014 12:24 am)

ancientsgate · April 23, 2014 1:23 am

Lue4028 wrote:
Well if you don’t think it’s superior, why do you support it/need it/ even consider it? I could write my thesis on why sex is the worst thing that could happen to J and S’s relationship. Because sex is selfish and friendship is selfless.

And where did you get those ideas? Just curious. Sex is selfish and friendship is selfless? I think either can be either. I also think, in complicated human relationships, that any relationship between two unique individuals can contain elements of either, especially long term. Part of the traditional Anglican marriage vows for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death means....long term, one will probably, at some time or other, end up being selfish (ie, be more in need than the other) and then maybe later the other partner will be the needy one. And sex, consensual sex, is not just for the benefit of one and not the other; it's for both people, simultaneously. Yes, there is such a thing as bad sex, and there is such a thing as having sex just to satisfy the other's momentary desires, but that's not selfish, for one to ask, and for the other to choose to give-- next time, it might be vice versa with the two people. It just is what it is--- a partnership, a give and take.

Why is sex done? As a favor? No, it’s done because you want it

And also, hopefully, because the other person wants it as well. Sex can feel pretty lonely if only one party is interested and the other is doing it because of some other reason or other.

.

And it’s not you, the human, its you, the animal, the summation of your instincts and nothing more. Selfish.

Are you talking about rape? Because if you're not talking about rape or pedophelia (sex with a person who cannot consent because they're not an adult), or prostitution (sex for money), then that's not the kind of sex we talk about in Johnlock discussions. People who have consensual sex with adult friends or lovers or partners or spouses do not feel like and shouldn't be accused of acting like animals, IMO.

And that kills everything that matters to me about John and Sherlock. Because their love is so selfless is confounds people. Its shocking how they betray the instinct of self-preservation in the name of devotion. It beautiful and sex, lust, greed - whatever you call it, would break that, run a crack right down its center

I'm curious, then, why you're still here. Why are you taking part in a Johnlock discussion at all? If your heart is far, far, far away from even a hint of romance/sexual union between the guys, that's fine, and it's certainly your right, but why are you here? You won't change our minds, and I doubt you want yours changed either, am I right? That doesn't make you correct and us wrong, or vice versa, by the way. Different opinions are natural and to be expected.

And what is it you want from sex? You may confuse it with the person, but sexual actions are done because you want the body. A person isn’t a physical thing you can have. The closest you can come to touching a person is doing what J and S do, move each other’s emotions.

Once someone has experienced sex in a long term love relationship, then they can start to understand what's happening, what's at stake, and why it's important to both people. Of course no one can have (own) another person completely, but they sure can have a big chunk of their heart and at least part of their mind, and they sure can experience what it's like to belong to someone else "in that way", as well as their partner to them. It's very special.

Sex literally kills John and Sherlock, they stop acting like themselves, you might as well have shot their brains out. There was a point where I was reading a rather long Johnlock sex scene, and I was surprised J called S “sherlock” in the middle of it, because I had forgotten he was supposed to be Sherlock. I didn’t even recognize him. I couldn’t make myself recognize him. His brain, his heart, everything I know about Sherlock wasn’t there.

So that author didn't sell it to you. You couldn't buy what she was selling. That happens with any kind of literature. Some people will LOVE a certain book, while others want to throw the same tome out with the trash; that's what makes a horse race. If you're reading something you hate for whatever reason, then delete, delete, delete. No harm, no foul.

I don’t dislike sex-based behaviors if its done selflessly, not for personal pleasure. But I don’t think that ever happens.

Of course it happens occasionally. Everyone in a long-term relationship has sex at some time(s) or another when they'd rather be making out the week's grocery list, or watching a game on TV, or sleeping. At times, it's something you do for the other person, because he or she needs it right then, and you know that at some time or other, those roles will be reversed. That's not the usual way of things, but it does happen.

Sigh. I still fight for spirit, even if it's a lost cause.

Can you tell us what you mean by spirit? As opposed to emotions or mind (intellect)? I'm curious.

Sorry to the list, I think all of this is way off topic.