Yes, I know we all see love there (I was about to go back to correct before I saw your post, to make it clear that I see just love and affection).  But I thought you were seeing something different - the comments about it being non-platonic and in vino veritas and all that.  If you're saying that you only see love and affection, then I agree, they're more affectionate when drunk - and more like average drunk guys . 

I know I keep going on about the (lack of) sex (in the broad sense), but that's because I think it's the only aspect of their relationship we don't agree on i.e. it's more or less the subject of this debate. 

@ Lil, I don't think Sherlock is ever a sociopath.  He does show (veiled) concern for other people before S3.  Particularly in TRF, but there are other points too.

Last edited by Liberty (September 15, 2014 3:50 pm)

Yes and I say  there won't be a sexual element to their relationship at any time.
Love and affection, yes.

SusiGo wrote:

Liberty wrote:

@Tonnaree Where you (and others) are seeing sexual desire, I see love and affection.  They do love each other, after all.

And this is exactly what always upets me in this discussion - people forcing us Johnlockers in a certain corner - let me call it the sex corner. Strangely, most of the time it the non-Johnlockers bringing up sex and sexual desire (here on the board, not in general).
We do see love and affection between them. And we do not exclude a future relationship encompassing physical and emotional love and desire and thereby also sex. But the starting point - and I am speaking for all of us Johnlockers - is always love and affection. But of course it is much easier to refute our arguments by saying it is mainly about sex. 
 

 
And I don't understand why this complaint keeps popping up, because the sexual desire is the one and only point of disagreement between shippers and non-shippers, so it's only natural the discussion revolves around it. Everyone sees love and affection between them, not to see it would just be plain stupid. So if Johnlock just means seeing their relationship as wonderful, affectionate, loving and commited, then everyone is a Johnlocker..

Nothing  would change.
I just don't think either of them are made that way.

I've seen that film and I agree that it's very good and very sad.  It's a different sort of story to Sherlock, though.  Sherlock and John are in a time and place where it's acceptable for them to be in a relationship, and in fact people often think they are and are fine about it. 

I do think that Johnlock changes things, depending on how it's done.  If, for instance, the drunk scenes show a sexual awakening between John and Sherlock and John knowingly goes into the marriage with Mary whilst in love with Sherlock in "that way" and perhaps hoping/planning for more, then that gives me a different view of John's character.  I don't think it's amazingly evil, or that it would make him worse than Mary, but it just seems not the sort of thing that John would do.  And it makes Sherlock's vow to John and Mary rather creepy (if he's knowing too). 

Or if I think Sherlock has been pining for four years ... maybe at the beginning he could possibly be oblivious.  Possibly.  But not after ASIB and taking Irene's pulse.  He absolutely can tell if somebody is attracted to him or not. 

There are loads of things that would change, mainly to do with how I would see the characters.

Probably the best way to introduce it would be for it to be something completely new - an attraction that begins only in S4.    But I don't think the story needs it.  And I would be sad to lose the friendship.  I like that they are devoted to each other without all the rewards that a conventional relationship would bring. 

SusiGo wrote:

Liberty: I see love and affection and definitely something more - John overcoming his inhibitions and Sherlock being welcoming. And of course this is pure speculation, but they moved on from their chairs to the sofa, the first time in the whole series, I think, and Sherlock clearly puts his arm over the backrest behind John's shoulders. So we can only imagine what would have happened if Tessa had not come at such an inconvenient time.

What do you think - that they would have kissed/had sex?  I think they might have fallen asleep .  I agree that there's definitely more physical closeness - but it strikes me as relaxed, rather than sexual tension.   It's something lots of people do when they get drunk, they get physically closer and touch more ... often hugging and saying "I love you! You're my best friend!", etc.  (Sherlock and John don't get that far).  I thought it was sweet that Sherlock and John turn out to be friendly, good-natured drunks rather than aggressive or maudlin drunks. 

Last edited by Liberty (September 15, 2014 7:32 pm)

@BB do you think the writers will keep the ambiguity going..endlessly...and is that feasible. ?....or will they do something to quash it...

Liberty wrote:

There's no agreeing or disagreeing with people's sexual orientation.  It just is And it's fine.

I think you confuse the term sexual orientation with a type of preference when you are speaking of bdsm context.

A bit simplified as well. Many researchers found that childhood abuse often leads to this preference.

So then it's not simply a sexual orientation, as in "being born queer or straight", but acquired.

While in fact one could argue that ongoing humiliation and violence even if in consensual role play are mere re-enactments of former suffering, and therefore harmful for a healing process.

Just a different opinion on that matter.

But if it continues..as is atm..and the writers keep feeding johnlock....the johnlock elephant will no longer fit in the room...

Good...hopefully it will explode...or at least break out and float away...
I never see it so much  as an elephant,anyway, but  rather a phantom menace.

Good question.
I suppose a real one isn't ever...
But an imagined one could be.

Last edited by besleybean (September 15, 2014 8:58 pm)