But he wore it before. Constantly. 

I actually don't know how long they were married canonically...
But I'd be surprised if the show have it more than a few years...

And we don't know how long they will be together, may depend on what her fate is.

besleybean wrote:

And we don't know how long they will be together, may depend on what her fate is.

That's not what I've been talking about anyway.
 

Side of Angels wrote:

As far as using the word "cute" to describe John... I wish I could find it, but I saw a pic somewhere (I think on this forum) that had a photo of a kitten on one side, and Martin Freeman on the other side. It said something like, "There is no difference." I know it's not much of an explanation, but it's the best I can think of at the moment.
 

Oh I see. John makes you feel warm and fluffy inside^^ like cute things. It's a bit demeaning to John though.. I think he'd resent being compared to a kitten XD

SolarSystem wrote:

Just for the record: In my experience the word 'special' is mostly used by non-Johnlockers in discussions about Johnlock. It seems that non-Johnlockers assume that Johnlockers think that a relationship that is more than just platonic is more special. Maybe some Johnlockers think so, but on this forum I've not met one single Johnlocker who says that a platonic friendship is not special enough.
In my opinion every close friendship/relationship is special. Romance or sex coming into play doesn't make it more special, it just makes it different. And agreed, taking the step towards romance/sex might not always be a good step, sometimes it might do more harm than good.
But everything I have seen so far on "Sherlock" tells me that in case of Sherlock and John that step would do good, no harm.
 

Yeah, it surprised me that the overall opinion of Johnlockers is not that the friendship isn't enough. They actually value this tremendously, as it's the inspiration and actually part of johnlock itself.
So you think there are situations where something platonic shouldn't be made sexual? Like what?
I have to say I see a lot of harm that could be done.. the type of love and essence of the relationship would change. I feel like it would be a detriment to all of the beautifully inexplicable and selfless moments in their relationship that I've seen so far. 
If two people are sexual and romantic partners, it's expected and practically conventional when the situation arises in a film for one partner to sacrafice his life for the other. That's cliche, I mean. If two people are platonic, and one partner does sacrafice his life, its not entirely expected. It's remarkable that it defies convention. To me, that novelty is what makes J and S' romance matter so much.
If all the romantic tropes could be explained away with a sexual relationship, it would make it very simple to understand (and dimish the story, imo). But it can't. The only thing that can is love. And it's baffling. I think that's a crucial element and only one reason why I think sex would do damage.

besleybean wrote:

What sexual references?

The gay jokes, Irene saying they are couple, Hudson and her "if you'll be needing two bedrooms". I think they add the stuff in to latch on to the natural intrigue of sexual relationships- something that friendship isn't known for.

Last edited by Lue4028 (July 20, 2014 11:55 pm)

That brought tears to my eyes, Schmiezi. 

Fan fic and blogs are not BBC Sherlock's work and vision.

Well some of us obviously are.
Either the guys wiill end up together or they won't.
Because apparently there will be a reason they won't show them actually together, like a real couple and looking happy.
But maybe on that one occasion it will just because they want to leave it interpretation.

Well, I thought this was about two fanboys creating their own kind of fan fiction. They said so themselves. But then of course they are lying constantly. 

I agree with all your sentences, Susi.