@ Liberty: That's where we differ. I mean, we use the same words, but apparently they have very different meanings for different people. For me romance is always connected to the human mating ritual, courtship etc. If it's not, it's not romance but friendship. So romance always has something to do with sexual attraction. 

I really believed that everyone used this word in the same way. But you're saying that romance can be platonic? Then how do you distinguish romance from a deep friendship? 

'Recreational scolding' makes me laugh. Maybe Moffat also has a kink. Not that I want to know. 

Last edited by silverblaze (December 14, 2014 3:07 pm)

I don't see their relationship as purely platonic, but I don't think the sexual bit is the thing that comes first. I think that would evolve later on, as a "byproduct" of their bond.

Sherlock has locked away any kind of interest or want in a relationship many years ago, so it would take him quite a while to get himself back in that frame of mind again. John has always been interested in women, so having a relationship with a man has never crossed his mind. Maybe he is bisexual, maybe it's just Sherlock... either way, it will also take him quite a while to sort this out. 

That is why I think the sexual bit will come later, because they both need time to process what this is. 

besleybean wrote:

How is their relationship not purely platonic?

Well, that is what we are discussing, isn't it?
 

I have written several posts on what it is I find to be more towards a romantic relationship instead of "just" a friendship. 

Very true. It's also clearly stated by Irene:

"We are not a couple"
"Yes, you are"

"... I am not gay!"
"Well, I am. Look at us both"

I think this sums it up perfectly. 

I think exlusivity in ACD wasn't an issue, because you couldn't be in an openly gay relationship at that time. 

 

So did the friendship between Martin Amis and Christopher Hitchens, but they weren't a couple. 

@Besley: I remember an exchange that went roughly like this:
Interviewer: If you would play a Sherlock character, who would you play?
Sue: Mrs. Hudson maybe.
Steven: Nah.
Sue: What?
Steven: Irene Adler.

Yes, the longevity of a relationship doesn´t say anything about it being romantic or not.. when I was younger the saying "lovers come and go, but a true friend stays forever" was popular, I think it applies quite nicely to their relationship.

A really good friend like that is hard to find, especially when you are a little damaged and anti-social like Sherlock and John are - for me that´s the reason why they depend so much on the other being around to be happy. Both are not used to being liked and accepted, and both don´t like and admire easily.. so for them it´s a wonderful and miraculous thing that it happened - which leads to strong and tender affection between them. For me this very special and exclusive affection is romantic.. (love and courtship etc. is only one definition of romance, it can also mean, according to the free dictionary, "ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people", "a mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic or strangely beautiful" etc..).  But still won´t lead to more earthly desires normally connected with the concept of romantic love. I know I´m a minority here, but for me their relationship as we see it on screen is just perfect (or rather will be perfect again as soon as everyone truly got over the Reichenbach-aftermath), and every addition to it would just mess with it. John has always been Sherlock´s conductor of light, and I neither want him to become "grit in a sensitive instrument" by adding couple-romance and its side-effects (positive and negative) to Sherlock´s life, nor do I want Sherlock to become a "normal yet intelligent guy" who just happens to solve crimes for a living (in other words fully invites every human emotion into his life and lives in a socially accepted classical couple-romance).

Sherlock is learning to deal with his emotions the best he can....
John has learned to deal with Mary's past and his need for adventure.

SusiGo wrote:

I agree as far as I am sure that they will not be fluffy and there are several way of showing a romantic attachment. You can be in love and still remain who you are. But we see over the episodes that there are indeed changes to their relationship and I am convinced that there will be more. There has to be room for an overall story arc, nothing remains static, so why should their relationship?
 

Oh, absolutely. They do change and develop, both of them. And so does their relationship. I just wouldn't want them to switch a light switch, and change their personalities over night.