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

SolarSystem · May 14, 2014 12:06 pm

I actually don't mind a good discussion, not even about Johnlock.
It's just that for me personally it's not interesting anymore as soon as we're going in circles (and I don't mean the Greek way we've had here yesterday ), but when for example we're always coming back to the point where Johnlock is merely reduced to sex and sexuality. That's not what Johnlock is about, at least not exclusively! But it seems that some people simply prefer to ignore this, and this means that we're not talking about the same kind of Johnlock here. So for me it's a useless discussion, basically.

SusiGo · May 14, 2014 12:10 pm

Nobody has to unsubcribe anything. Just for the record.

LoveIsAViciousMotivator · May 14, 2014 12:34 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
It's just that for me personally it's not interesting anymore as soon as we're going in circles (and I don't mean the Greek way we've had here yesterday ), but when for example we're always coming back to the point where Johnlock is merely reduced to sex and sexuality. That's not what Johnlock is about, at least not exclusively! But it seems that some people simply prefer to ignore this, and this means that we're not talking about the same kind of Johnlock here. So for me it's a useless discussion, basically.

Then please explain to me, how do you see Johnlock? I'm not going to bite! XD

What Johnlock am I supposed to be talking about? I just don't get it. Lots of people see Johnlock differently.

gently69 · May 14, 2014 1:00 pm

LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
It's just that for me personally it's not interesting anymore as soon as we're going in circles (and I don't mean the Greek way we've had here yesterday ), but when for example we're always coming back to the point where Johnlock is merely reduced to sex and sexuality. That's not what Johnlock is about, at least not exclusively! But it seems that some people simply prefer to ignore this, and this means that we're not talking about the same kind of Johnlock here. So for me it's a useless discussion, basically.

Then please explain to me, how do you see Johnlock? I'm not going to bite! XD

What Johnlock am I supposed to be talking about? I just don't get it. Lots of people see Johnlock differently.

Johnlock can be everything. From just cuddleing to sex. It's about deep emotions which can express themselves in all kind of "actions". I am a "beginner" in Johnlock and prefer the "soft" version with touchs, huggs and maybe a kiss ... so far.
But I also don't judge anybody who see them having sex. And I wouldn't discuss this to death, just because "I" can't imagine going further.
Tbh I don't understand the problem, the fuss about that. I don't want to defend my opinion but I also don't expect it of anybody else.

SolarSystem · May 14, 2014 1:13 pm

My personal Johnlock consists of two men who
- repeatedly save each other's lives (ASiP, TRF, ASiB)
- are willing to go to certain death together (TGG)
- commit murder in order to ensure the other one's happiness (HLV)
- are proud of each other (where shall I begin...?)
- are jealous when the other one is with a woman (TBB, ASiB, HLV)
- just can't be without one another (TRF, TEH, HLV)
and lots, lots more and
- who are flatmates, best friends, lovers.

gently69 · May 14, 2014 1:17 pm

That's meaningful, Solar. *thumbs up*

SusiGo · May 14, 2014 1:18 pm

Well said.

SolarSystem · May 14, 2014 1:21 pm

Thanks, ladies.

Oh, and one more: in my personal Johnlock world sex doesn't destroy the deep, close, powerful and very special friendship these two men have. It's a beautiful part of it and one doesn't exclude the other. And they definitely have lots of fun when they're getting into each other's pants.

Last edited by SolarSystem (May 14, 2014 1:22 pm)

SusiGo · May 14, 2014 1:22 pm

Where can I sign this?

SolarSystem · May 14, 2014 1:25 pm

I could devise a form...

SusiGo · May 14, 2014 1:27 pm

Brilliant idea.

gently69 · May 14, 2014 1:28 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
And they definitely have lots of fun when they're getting into each other's pants.

LOL ... sorry, I don't laugh about THAT you said this. Just about the description.

SolarSystem · May 14, 2014 1:30 pm

Well, gently, it's a totally accurate description, because that's what they're doing.

tonnaree · May 14, 2014 1:32 pm

gently69 wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
And they definitely have lots of fun when they're getting into each other's pants.
LOL ... sorry, I don't laugh about THAT you said this. Just about the description.

If it's not fun you're not doing it right. *giggle*

nakahara · May 14, 2014 1:35 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Well, gently, it's a totally accurate description, because that's what they're doing.

I want photographic proofs!
Only in the interest of science, of course.

gently69 · May 14, 2014 1:37 pm

Sorry again, Solar.

And tonnaree ... Moffat already said that they are both very happy. So there MUST be fun.

gently69 · May 14, 2014 1:40 pm

nakahara wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
Well, gently, it's a totally accurate description, because that's what they're doing.
I want photographic proofs!
Only in the interest of science, of course.

Photographic? I think you still have to content yourself with photoshop and drawings.

SolarSystem · May 14, 2014 1:42 pm

nakahara wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
Well, gently, it's a totally accurate description, because that's what they're doing.
I want photographic proofs!
Only in the interest of science, of course.

That would be rather indiscreet, don't you think...?

nakahara · May 14, 2014 1:43 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
nakahara wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
Well, gently, it's a totally accurate description, because that's what they're doing.
I want photographic proofs!
Only in the interest of science, of course.

That would be rather indiscreet, don't you think...?

Too bad. My little scientific heart cries.

SusiGo · May 14, 2014 1:47 pm

Oh, we are still doing science.