besleybean wrote:

So more like Irene and Sherlock?

Yeah! As well as Sherlock and Moriarty. 

Anyone who can stand up to Sherlock and someone who can be seen as an equal I can see sherlock actually putting with more than John. 

But even then, I can see those have their moments of tragedy. 
 

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (May 12, 2014 8:18 pm)

besleybean wrote:

I have always been of the mind that Sherlock really does not do relationships and nothing  has swayed me from that.
John is the person Sherlock loves most in the world and it is beautiful, true bromance.

LOL me too, but I love to indulge in what ifs, but mostly, yeah, Sherlock won't do relationships and I don't really see any pairing even Johnlock become canon in this show. 
 

LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:

...The idea of shipping Sherlock and John on the show would be wrong in my opinion, especially due to the subway scene and sherlock's drugging. I mean if someone I was in an intimate relationship was drugging me without my consent and emotionally manipulated me to do things or say things they want to hear from their own benefit, I would want to get out of the relationship fast. If Sherlock and John ever pursued a relationship, John would have to grow a spine and tell Sherlock to stop drugging him and establish boundaries. If he lets Sherlock do this to him, John would not last long.

That is what is keeping me from shipping these two together now. Even if I did want to indulge myself in it, it would be protrayed as tragic and destructive.

A lot of that is simply the writers playing with the fans' emotions, IMO. Sherlock has always been a right bastard on and off, treating John like a stray dog, IMO. He did that in "Hounds"-- what he did to John in that episode, my god, Sherlock should have been kicked to the curb and left there. It infuriated me, and it still does. But juxtapose that with the *other* "Hounds" scenes, including the lovely morning-after-in-the-cemetery scene. Sometimes I feel very, very manipulated while watching the actual show. And I 100% believe that's the writers' intention.

I can't tell if John has a spine or not-- he certainly does about some things, and at some times! But he's attracted to Sherlock, like a magnet is to true north, and I believe he doesn't understand it himself most of the time, why and how he keeps going back for more. Anyone else would have run for the hills by now.  But like Jessica Rabbit, it's that John's "drawn that way." And meanwhile, we viewers are very much liike puppets on strings.

 

Last edited by ancientsgate (May 13, 2014 10:57 am)

I don't see Johnlock dripping in every scene.  Like I said, I believe the relationship would end destructively if they did decide to go into such an intimate relationship, which I pointed out is why I don't put them together.

But hey, it's okay. You are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. 

 

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (May 13, 2014 12:14 am)

A lot of Johnlocking? 
There certainly is.
And all's fine.

Ha.
Well, I love Sherlock the brain machine, too.
But he can't help being human and loving his John.
But that love doesn't have to be messed up with sex.
To borrow from real life for a moment, as Benedict said in interview recently: you can have sex with anybody.

Yes, an interesting thought.
I'm not sure off the boundaries between a deeply loving bromance and romance ot a realtionship.
But I don't think our boys routinely snuggle...gosh it was 3 series to get a hug!

Wow, I love that distinction between agape and eros. Our languages should invent that too, it should definately be part of our jargon. Maybe calling both things love gives us the impression that eros is a more intense form of agape, while in fact they are qualitatively different. Food for thought. 

Yes, philia (love stemming from deep friendship) is nice too - that´s also something John and Sherlock can actually share. And I think this form of love includes both spiritual and physical connotations...

Storge (love between people connected by family relations) - that´s something you can find between Mycroft and Sherlock mostly. The word conveys not only love itself, but also a sense of duty, since it´s your duty to love your siblings and parents.

That´s why I love classical Greek culture - they had categories for every thing imaginable.

What´s beautiful - when you say "I love you" in modern Greek language, you say "s´agapó" (I love you selflessly), not "s´eró". Their preference for spiritual kind of love took dominance and surpressed other forms of love in their language.

silverblaze wrote:

So I assume s'ero would mean 'I fancy you'? I'm just trying to get a feel for the words, does 'eros' mean 'lust' or is that too vulgar a word for eros? Or is this a shifting of the meaning of words over time? And what is the distinction between agape and philia? 

I think those categories help me to make sense of the fact that I don't really care for johnlock. Not that some of those stories aren't beautiful, but there are more interesting forms of love than romantic love and they don't get a lot of airtime. Something what I find fascinating about it is the fact that John can use their bond to give Sherlock the socialisation he somehow seemed to have missed out on. Making it sexual would add absolutely nothing to that relationship imho. 

The bond between Sherlock and Mycroft I find even more intriguing than the bond with John; there's the bond and the understanding, but also pain and distrust (at least that's why I read into it). It just gives that interesting tension. I wonder what will happen, somehow I can't believe two geniuses wouldn't be able to resolve that, on the other hand, being a genius doesn't make you better at handling your own emotions, those two characters surely aren't too talented in that area. So anything could happen.

I like the idea that the Eskimos (supposedly) had so many different words for snow, and the ancient Greeks had so many different words for love. 

The meaning of the words shifted a bit over time, so I even don´t know if Greeks use "eró" as a verb anymore (they definitely did in the past). 

The substance of eros is nicely defined in Greek mythology: god Eros (passionate love) is a child of godess Afrodité (sex). Eros marries a young woman called Psyché (a soul) and they have a daughter named Hédoné (pleasure). As you can see, the mythology doesn´t really describe physical gods, but rather some states of human body and mind that were believed to be of a godly origin.

Philia in ancient Greece usually bound two men and it could be a purely mental love, born out of mutual social activities, but also it could describe a physical love shared by some pairs of men. Harmodios and Aristogeiton, Athenian fighters against tyranny, who were also lovers, were good example of a philia. Difference between philia and eros lays in passion, I think: philia is more about emotional connection and is less passsionate, so it stands more firmly against adversity (too much passion can cause strife between lovers, even if they love each other).

Agape, on the other hand, can bind anybody, of any age, sex or status, because it´s selfless and unconditional and as such, it has no boundaries. This is probably why it became to be valued as the highest form of love and eventually became main word for love in a Greek language.

You are right that the bound between Sherlock and John is already so beautiful, it doesn´t need to assume some sexual form to be valid.

And I really love how this show expanded Mycroft´s personality. It´s one of the reasons why I immediately liked this BBC version of Sherlock Holmes´ stories.