SusiGo wrote:

 Honestly, if I had neighbours - no matter if men or women - living together at that age I would they might be a couple. This is no prejudice, this is a permissible thought. And of course I would be absolutely okay with it. 
 

Of course it´s a permissible thought, actually it´s the most probable explanation. But it´s not the only realistic one, see my example above - both were in their mid-30s at that time. "Balance of probability" is not always the most reliable concept to apply to people.. sometimes the truth turns out to be something quite unusual and as such improbable. (I think it´s a great progress that LGBT-relationships are not regarded as outlandish and improbable anymore.. today intimate relationships without sexual interest are the exception from the norm it seems. ​)

Do we really know if intimate relationships without sexual interest have become less frequent? I would really like to know that because I am not sure if they really are or if our perception has changed and our society just become more tolerant. 

 

No, tolerant to same-sex sexual relationships. 
I wanted to say that maybe in former times same-sex relationships might have been sexual but the fact was hidden because society was less tolerant and the laws very strict (think of Wilde, Turing, and many others). 

SusiGo wrote:

No, tolerant to same-sex sexual relationships. 
I wanted to say that maybe in former times same-sex relationships might have been sexual but the fact was hidden because society was less tolerant and the laws very strict (think of Wilde, Turing, and many others). 

I think non-sexual intimate relationships are and always have been rather rare.. I don´t believe in the "good old times when people weren´t so focussed on sex". Probably a lot of the bachelor-arrangements in stricter times were actually something completely different. Still of course that doesn´t imply that all​ of them were just cover-ups..
 

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 5, 2014 6:00 pm)

Zatoichi wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

No, tolerant to same-sex sexual relationships. 
I wanted to say that maybe in former times same-sex relationships might have been sexual but the fact was hidden because society was less tolerant and the laws very strict (think of Wilde, Turing, and many others). 

I think non-sexual intimate relationships are and always have been rather rare.. I don´t believe in the "good old times when people weren´t so focussed on sex". Probably a lot of the bachelor-arrangements in stricter times were actually something completely different. Still of course that doesn´t imply that all​ of them were just cover-ups..
 

Actually not. Bachelor living together in a flat was a very usual thing, because afording accomodation in a single flat was not practicable for too many. If you were a worker, you might even sleep in same bed with other men in a flat of a widow or a poor family who needed some extra money. Also middle class had not so much space available to live, this became more and more with 20th century a case. Space in the cities was always very expensive, loads of families lived together in only one small room. 

 

Liberty wrote:

Kenogami wrote:

It is a possibility that John is bisexual. But why a bisexual person would be "offended" to be taken as a gay person, if it looks like he/she is in a homosexual relationship (at that time). Why say I'm not gay instead of it's not my boyfriend/girlfriend? And always, say that he/she is not gay. If someone is really bisexual and not just exploring, shouldn't he/she be comfortable being in a relationship with both sexes and identified with both?

I'm asking because the only person I know who is bisexual is a man that had relationship with girls but is now married with a man, and he dosen't bother being taken as gay. Because, it is not written on his forehead "I married a man but i'm not gay... I'm bisexual, you know i have dated woman!!!"

It is a possibility that John is bisexual. That's why I say that I could be wrong. But is denial of being gay looks, to me, more like he is straight than bisexual.
 

That's one of the clinchers for me.  If John was bisexual, he wouldn't claim not to be gay.  The subtext there is "I'm not gay or bisexual" (i.e. my attraction to Sherlock is not sexual, because I'm not orientated that way).  Like many people, he just leaves bisexuality out of the picture.  But it's implied that he's not. 

We also don't see any attractions to men.  He's clearly attracted to and dates women, but not a single boyfriend.  He's straight.
.

I would like to speak to this for a moment.
There is a tendency in both the straight and gay communities to act like bisexuality does not exsist.  Often it is treated as someone who is just confused or afraid to admit that they are actually gay. In many corners bisexuality is even looked down upon.
  As a result more and more bisexuals are quite vocal about the fact that they are NOT GAY.  

Also, and I'm not saying it's right, I have known bisexuals who do use the "not gay" as a partial truth when they are anyplace they are not comfortable being "out" as a bisexual.

So, although I will admit it is possible John is staright, I will still argue that using the phrase "not gay" is not necessarily a clincher.
 

Yes, I agree that bisexuality is sometimes hidden - not just because of disapproval, but because most people have a leaning one way or the other and the middle people tend to get forgotten about.  We tend to assume that a male/female couple are straight and that a male/male couple are gay automatically, when all could be bisexual. 

In John's case, though, I don't think we're given any other information to tell us that he has a reason to want to hide bisexuality (or in fact, any sign that he's attracted to men).

No, he just doesn't want to hurt them!

Liberty wrote:

That's one of the clinchers for me.  If John was bisexual, he wouldn't claim not to be gay.  The subtext there is "I'm not gay or bisexual" (i.e. my attraction to Sherlock is not sexual, because I'm not orientated that way).  Like many people, he just leaves bisexuality out of the picture.  But it's implied that he's not. 

We also don't see any attractions to men.  He's clearly attracted to and dates women, but not a single boyfriend.  He's straight.

He might be straight but still into Sherlock.. I don´t want to say he is, I don´t think he is, just that such things happen. So many people who identify as straight have experienced a crush on someone of the same gender.. so that´s not a clincher to me.

Liberty wrote:

Sherlock is more ambiguous, and I did think he was gay at the beginning.  But the only/main sexual attraction we see is to a woman (Irene).   His sexuality is clearly repressed, but I'm getting repressed heterosexuality, or possibly bisexuality (but heterosexuality is more common, so unless I see an attraction to a man, I'll stick with that for now).

I see sapiosexuality - I think he´s attracted to Irene´s brain, and only secondary to her body (if at all). Of course we can´t know for sure, but if I imagine a scenario with genderswapped Irene I can easily see his reactions to be quite similar. I think he has a very specific set of attributes that lead to sexual attraction, and gender isn´t necessarily one of them.
 

I never saw any sexual attraction to Irene in Sherlock.  As a matter of fact everytime she even aluded to having sex with him he looked at her like she had lost her mind.

I saw challange, curiousity, frustration and anger, but not sexual attraction.