My world is simply not that black and white and I refuse to paint sex with such broad negative strokes.  You cannot say that all sex is absolutely one thing or the other.  It's positive and negative aspects are as wide and varied as the human race.

Mattlocked, very well put.

I am a Johnlocker at the beginning, didn't read that many fan fics of this direction so far.
My clear statement also is, sex in "good-written" fan fiction is a treat, but I don't need this in the show, because I want it to be left by my imagination. And I don't want anything sooo predictable, which perhaps could disappoint me.
 

tonnaree wrote:

My world is simply not that black and white and I refuse to paint sex with such broad negative strokes.  You cannot say that all sex is absolutely one thing or the other.  It's positive and negative aspects are as wide and varied as the human race.

Right, and you can't paint it with broad positive ones, either. Human beings are complicated. Some of the things that make us all alike also make us all very different-- infinite variety is what makes us tick.

Mattlocked wrote:

Tonnaree, I agree with you.
And just to make it clear: I'm not against sex in general (or in tv-shows).
I like those scenes in Johnlock fanfics very much - as long as they are good written, which of course isn't always the case.
But the reason for not recognising John or Sherlock - or both - in those scenes can be because it's a "bad-written" fanfic. Or it's just because you get to know a complete different aspect of them and their relationship which you didn't knew before. It's "new" and therefore maybe sometimes hard to imagine. But very interesting, too, IMO.

Why I am against sex between them in the show might be also because I'm a bit "fed up" with it in other shows. Seen far to many where you can tell right from the beginning who will end up with whom. And then, sooner or later, it happens. Of course. How boring. So it is always a nice surprise if it ends different. Not only a surprise but also a delight sometimes.

AND imagination: Also very often it happened to me that I loved a book and didn't like the film to it. I don't always blame the film makers, at it is really hard to match with my very vivid imagination. So what I'm trying to say is that I might also be a bit afraid of being disappointed when I finally can see in the show what is only in my imagination so far.
And please bear in mind: What I imagine comes from well-written fanfics, where sex is not only a matter of "being an animal" or "wanting the other's body", selfish and maybe brutal; it's far far more than that, like "being connected as close as possible" and "burying one's body AND soul into the other's" and "sharing a beautiful and very intimate moment with the person you love", "hand yourself completely to the other and show him/her you trust him/her" and and and... and now I'm running out of vocabulary. Bit I think you've got my point.

All well said! Bravo. And I'm with you, I'm also afraid of being disappointed if the showrunners ever decide to go there. It may have sounded harsh, when I said I didn't trust them to handle it right, but...  yeah. Handled in the wrong way(s) it could end up being boring and cliched, and what a shame that would be!!
 

That is why I said the best writers, meaning those that describe a relationship like the one I talked about. I do not read BDSM or those weird Omega things either. 

And where did you get those ideas?  Just curious. Sex is selfish and friendship is selfless? 

Where? Do you think I got them from a religion or something? because I get that alot. But I'm agnostic. That's just how I think. Those are my initial reactions to friendship and sex.
My reasoning is
Sex is motivated by "I have a need (desire or craving), and I stand to benefit if I act upon it- my need will be satisfied and I will be awarded pleasure"
Friendship is motivated by "he has a need. And I'm going to do this for him even if I have nothing to gain. Even if it hurts me"

I'll answer the rest later cuz I gtg.

 

Last edited by Lue4028 (April 23, 2014 2:55 pm)

A friend of mine told me just recently about a very selfish friendship. She almost felt abused by her so-called friend over months. Until she found it was enough and e.g. stopped answering the phone each time it rang. As a result her friend ended the complete friendship. (In a not-very-nice way.)

So if you want to, you can call both of them selfish. The girl for abusing my friend by always and only complaining about her own problems, as well as my friend herself by stopping to answer the phone for her own sake and health.

Just saying....

@mattlocked That doesn't seem like a friendship. A "so-called friend" isn't a real friend. In your example selfishness destroyed the capacity to have a friendship.  I'm not criticizing ur friend, I think she made a reasonable choice. The friends friend seems to be the more selfish one. But there is a more selfless choice than ignoring her calls, just saying. Being selfless in that case would be going above and beyond the line of duty, imo, saint-like really.
@belis
"There are time in frienship when we do what we do for the other person for selfish raesons."

Hm.. but with motives like that, would that make you a very good friend?

"Most people have a need to be liked. They may have a desire to be seen as generous or to be appreciated."

It’s so much more significant when a friend does something for you because they care about you, and not how they look. When friends do things even if they are not appreciated. When a friend does something because they ardently believe in you and nothing will make them give that up. I guess I’m really talking about love. I chose the word friendship because love and sex get mixed up all the time, but there’s really no replacing that word.

"both parties get a lot out of frenship. It's not something that I see in terms of selfless devotion."

I think John and Sherlock’s friendship is huge on selfless devotion. They stick by each other not because they want to look good and be liked, but because they honestly think the other is beautiful. I agree with some of your statements about friendship, but John and Sherlock go way deeper than that definition… I guess, that’s not very surprising. What they really value and get out of the relationship is simply being able to witness the beauty of the other person.  They live to protect that intoxicating humanity they see inside each other.
They need and rely on each other I suppose, but … I don’t even think they realize it. When one is in serious need, the other steps up without being asked. And the one in trouble would never ask for it, because they don’t want to drag the other down with them. There are some petty selfish things they do, but in the end I think its the tidal wave of selflessness that dominates, and that’s why the relationship is so powerful and speaks volumes. Sherlock plays on the idea of convincing you he’s selfish and incapable of being selfless, which is why its particularly surprising when he contradicts that to incredible extremes.
They are, they’re getting so much out of it. Except they’re not. They think they are. They’re delusional and infatuated and think the existence of the other person is the best thing that ever happened to them. They think by being selfless they are actually making a profit, by protecting the other they are fulfilling their life’s meaning. They think that’s all they could possibly want. They are so hopelessly confused.

"Sex can be motivated by 'he has a need'. It's uncommon for partner's libidos to match exactly and in a long term relationships there are often times when one partner may not be 'in a mood' but they will go ahead becouse they want to satisfy the other person and show their love in a physical way."

Agreed. You know, I agree. I guess my point was, sex is bad for S and J because, while that’s selfless on the part of one, it’s selfish on the part of the other. Selfishness is why the sex is happening. It’s just not their pattern, to impose their needs on the other like that. It wouldn’t get the spirit of their relationship right. That’s just not what they represent, for me. And the danger of them doing something they don’t represent is that the message doesn’t come out as strong. Specifically sex, because the fact that they’re not having sex and not affected by mind-changing hormones makes the message ring all the more true.
Also, to enter into a sexual relationship it would be necessary for both of them have to start out with sexual needs they want to satisfy. They would start with a short term relationship built on selfishness. If they succeed in making sex selfless, neither would derive physical pleasure, and you’d question why they are doing it…
If it’s to express love… that’s of the few things I reluctantly approve of (it’s still more convincing to use rational, reason-backed actions, like biting a bullet for someone <3 It doesn’t really have to be done with sex) Additionally, there’s some part to sex that people call “passionate”, where it stops being about expression and starts being about needs and cravings. The part where you stop thinking straight, you know what I mean?
 

 

Last edited by Lue4028 (April 24, 2014 1:53 am)

@Ag
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.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.

I guess I meant the mentality behind devotion is selfless, while the mentality behind lust is selfish. Not the actual relationships. Awk. You're right, relationships are usually a mixed bag. J and S have a devotion-based relationship. The only reason to add a sexual element is to confer lust, because they have shown they can love each other just as much as two people who are sexually involved.

 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.

Then that's great, if you're doing it out of the goodness of your own heart, and not because you want a reward. Not lusty or greedy. But the person asking is, extremely so. I don't think sex is usually done as favor tho, and usually not in Johnlock. It's very lust driven, I'm assuming that's half the fun.

And also, hopefully, because the other person wants it as well. 

Yes, it's a mutually beneficial and self serving arangment. Self, self, self. I mean, maybe there are times when you're thinking about the other person.. maybe you like how they look or some primitive aspect about them. Those are too base and superficial. If you're looking at their humanity, you can do that without having sex. God, I'm sick of using that word! 

Are you talking about rape?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, 

No, not at all. No rape. Johnlock isn't rape. Who said rape? No one's talking rape. There is no sick, deranged universe were either of J or S would do that to the other. God I hope FF doesn't do that. Alright, sorry about the animal comment, but animals do share that interest with us humans. We like sex is the same way a lizard likes sex. There's no helping that. *shrug*

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.

I would like my mind to be changed. For sure. And for the right reasons, specifically. I'd like to be able to look at Johnlock and not feel pain. But I'm here because I thought we were debating Johnlock. Is there not a pro and anti side to this debate, or is everybody pro johnlock here? 

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. 

... "belong to somebody else in that way". So many euphemisms for such a silly simple action. It's amazing how we all worship a plug in the wall. Sorry, sorry. I'm offending the meaning of life, and what not, right? I like to think the part of a human that matters, that is a sin to kill, can't be objectfied and owned, not by means of sex or torture. But that might be over estimating humans and their humanity. Perhaps the weak hearted and weak minded can sell those organs in return for biochemical pleasure, but a least Sherlock has restored my faith that humanity isn't so cheap. He is.. the odd man out tho. 

So that author didn't sell it to you. You couldn't buy what she was selling. ... If you're reading something you hate for whatever reason, then delete, delete, delete. No harm, no foul.

No she's a really good author. All of the johnlock writers I read were. The premise was the problem. A writer can write a good sex scene, but it's usually only good because of the emotion and romance. Her romance writing was excellent and completely on character. And the sex was exactly what it should be. You might be wondering why I read Johnlock... sigh.

Right, but the other person is doing it for selfish reasons.. great. Can you tell us what you mean by spirit? As opposed to emotions or mind (intellect)? I'm curious.
oh.. haha they aren't the same? What I think people are missing is a little humanity and honor. What did you mean by spirit?

Last edited by Lue4028 (April 24, 2014 3:37 am)

On a lighter note - I saw a tumblr post the other day according to which John has change his hairstyle between series 2 and 3. Now he parts his hair on the same side as Sherlock. Anybody willing to check this?