To be honest, I still have real problems in defining "bromance", this just as an aside. I do not really get the concept. 
But based on what I read about it, bromance is just what we do NOT see in "Sherlock". It is not an easygoing close friendship, they are not relaxed about touching each other, etc. For example there is a palpable tension on John's side when Sherlock is dealing with Irene and Janine, something that in a bromance probably would not exist.  
For me this is mutual love that for different reasons is suppressed by both men but quite often shines through.
So, no, as long as no one can explain to me what exactly a bromance is and how this is shown in the series, I am not going to believe it. 

So I think we all see the romance in the friendship, but some see it as sexual too?   A bromance would probably be non-sexual (although I don't know what the actual definition is - possibly suppressed same-sex attraction could come under it too?  I don't know).    Yes, I have seen it in real life. 

Edit: I should have just gone for the dictionary.
"a relationship or friendship between two men that is extremely close but does not involve sex" (dictionary.com)
"A close non-sexual friendship between men." (Merriam-Webster).

The series has made me think about my own friendships.   More than once, they've progressed to sexual attraction on my part.  (Mainly male friends, but once, when I was very young, with a female friend. We did take it further and I identified as bisexual for a few years - so I am open to the idea of falling for somebody who doesn't fit the usual preference). 

But I've also had friendships that were romantic but not sexual.  Friendships where meeting up feels like a date, where we'd write love letters,  and sometimes be totally loyal, defend each other and be prepared to help each other out as far as we could.  Not all friendships, just a select few.  A female bromance.  A sismance?  So I'm also totally sold on the idea of romance within a friendship.

And that's what I see with Sherlock and John (not the love letters, of course, but the sentiment that they wouldn't commit to paper is definitely there).   The love, the admiration, the protectiveness, the longing, etc. - none of it comes from sexual attraction, or needs sexual attraction. 

 

Last edited by Liberty (September 13, 2014 10:19 am)

besleybean wrote:

 @A lovely light
Only if we follow 2 criteria:
1.  Don't take any notice of what writers and actors say about their intentions with the characters.
.2  Accept that they're only lying anyway...well.only when they say something we don't want to hear of course.

I prefer for now to don't take too much notice about what they say, frankly. Because they said that and this and you can pick whatever you like or be confused. I prefer to take what i see, what i feel when i see it, the cinematographic methods they use to tell us the story, the music and music cuts related to the acting. And in all these things i see a certain degree of ambiguity, at least for me, as i am not accustomed with such kind of deep friendship between men. Perhaps for people with other life experiences, there is none, but i bet that for a lot of people this ambiguity exists like for me. Because this friendship is extraordinary on many levels, it is hard to put it in a box with a label on it. If one tries to label it, it may be bromance, it may be romantic love, it may be unrequired love, it may have also other labels. At this moment in the serie it is hard to be definitive and say, no it won't be this or that, as we are not the creators and don't know their intentions. There are many paths they can go further, so i am open to whatever they will do. And i try to stay unbiased in my expectations which would allow me to enjoy what will came (this is very hard, as for example i am not fond of the idea of having a baby in this serie).

Oh I see, so that's the criteria we use now is it?
Just because other people allude to a gay romance betwee them, that obviously means it's true?
John has continuously been is heterosexual relationships and who knows about Sherlock?
But he appears to be an asexual virgin.

Last edited by besleybean (September 13, 2014 10:34 am)

Well let's hear a halleluljah and praise the lord for that...we're part way there, at least!

I see him attracted to Sherlock. He gives him looks Mary never gets.

besleybean wrote:

Oh I see, so that's the criteria we use now is it?
Just because other people allude to a gay romance betwee them, that obviously means it's true?
John has continuously been is heterosexual relationships and who knows about Sherlock?
But he appears to be an asexual virgin.

It would be nice if you answered to my statement that there seems to be bromance in "Scrubs" but not in "Sherlock" (as you have said more than once). That was the essence of the tumblr post as well. To point out the difference between the shows, not the similarities. 

And, yes, it is one criterion if other characters (and the audience) see a love relationship between the characters. Not the only one, but it definitely is one to me. And it is in the script.

The thing is...Mary would more than likely never have happened if Sherlock hadn't left...

Before TRF it had become increasingly clear John and Sherlock were a pair..with no room for anyone else..a couple as Irene said.
John was jealous of Irene and even Moriarty..and later Janine. Sherlock scared off all of Johns girlfriends...and John seemed quite prepared to continue putting his relationship with Sherlock before all others..and happy that way.

Mary took advantage of Sherlock being gone....once Mary is gone..do we really see anyone else being allowed into John and Sherlocks lives again...?

That leaves them ..as a couple of men who love each other..want to be together..need each other..live together...and with no room between them for anyone else..and are happy that way..for the foreseeable future.

Sex or no sex..they are a couple and they love each other..
In a society where everything seems to be sexualised..and sex can be as meaningless as having met someone ten minutes ago..and never seeing them again......John and Sherlocks relationship seems to be yet another zeitgeistist and disdainful comment @ modern life...a this is what a meaningful relationship should like....
Thats the core theme of the whole thing.

Johnlockers are just putting the cherry on the cake the writers already made...

Last edited by lil (September 13, 2014 12:47 pm)

johnlockislove wrote:

 I think u right  and if they will be a couple it will be a big step for LGBT characters and this sherlock will be a first bi/gay sherlock

I don't know if you have seen this here already, but you might be interested in the Report of the Research Commission on the Representation of LGB characters in BBC Programmes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/audiences/lgb-consultation.html

(aka BBC policy and Johnlock )

 http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=5303

Last edited by Harriet (September 13, 2014 1:35 pm)

Davina wrote:

Setting aside the completely different genres of Scrubs and Sherlock, the situations JD and Turk find themselves are not as perilous as those encountered by Sherlock and John. In some ways it is apt that John, as an ex-soldier, has now a 'bromance' (for want of a better word) with Sherlock. Rather than 'bromance' perhaps a term more closely associated with the armed forces would be more appropriate: comrade. Even this does not evoke the true bond that exists between those who are in combat alongside each other. Men (and women) fight for their 'mates', their friends, their brothers/sisters-in-arms. Those for whom they are willing to lay down their lives. This is more than 'bromance' and it does not have to be sexually based (in some cultures it was though e.g. The Spartans) but these relationships are incredibly, vitally close.

Very interesting point made here.

And I think it explains what John missed the most. Not the battlefiels, but the intensity of people relationships in this kind of situations and why he trusted Sherlock so quick.