Vhanja wrote:

It doesn't have to be Sherlock thinking about receiving fellatio from any man. It could be as simple as Moriarty being Moriarty. That is to say - Moriarty has always toyed with sexual innunedo towards Sherlock, so it would be fitting that Sherlock saw him that way in his MP, in an exaggerated manner. 

(Also, the gun scene doesn't even have to be interprted sexually at all - it could just be the horror and shock factor of putting a loaded gun into your mouth and toying with it, to show how crazy Moriarty is - maybe even more crazy in Sherlock's mind than in real life).

Moriarty in Sherlock´s MP was very likely just Moriarty... nevertheless, it´s still interesting that Sherlock sees him in such a sexual, alluring light.... speaking about how he likes crispy skin, entering Sherlock´s personal space in an almost uncomfortable manner, speaking about how comfortable Sherlock´s bed was (!), fellating a gun... none of this is very neccessary when you are picturing your greatest enemy in your mind. He could envision Moriarty in thousand different ways - for example, like the clinical, ammoral genius - pure brain, like the face without the body, or like the boxer who beat him up at Reichenbach Falls, or in animal form etc.... But he chose this sexual image above all and the object of his uncomfortably sexual visions is the man...

No matter what you think about Johnlock it´s hard to deny these visions are very gay in their core.

While, here´s the example how Sherlock sees women:



Look at that hateful, sneering face. Bleh. Unpleasant and scary. And yet her RL counterpart is quite sweet and caring and has helped Sherlock a lot:



There must be some reason while Sherlock feels such fear of women and distrusts them and why he at the same time feels the magnetic allure coming from the man, even if the man is his enemy...
Sherlock being gay is one of those possible solutions.

Regardless of what one likes to see, what impresses me about Ho Yay's posts is that they include cinematographic arguments rather than "I don't see ..." or "I know that it is this or that way".

I always feel like that there are very little non-Johnlock interpretations that refer to cinematography at all.

Vhanja wrote:

I think that in shows as complicated and good as Sherlock, not to mention with such long hiatuses between new episodes, it's very easy to interpret it in many different directions. 

Also, as you mention a bit yourself, once you see the show through one "filter" if you'd like (whether that filter is Johnlock, nonlock, Irenelock or anything else), it's easy to find elements to support your view. It's a human trait.

For instance, I saw the serires before having ever heard of Johnlock and never considered anything romantic or gay in the show at all. Until I read all the "evidence" people had found. Once I read their interpretations, I could easily see the same.

TAB was the first episode I watched after being part of the fandom and being aware of Johnlock, the metas etc. So I consciously looked for it this time - and didn't see a thing. So I was a bit surprised when I read things like "TAB confirms TJLC as canon!"-stuff on Tumblr. And once again, once I read their interpretations, I could easily see what they saw.

So point is - I don't think anything is obvious as in: "There can only be one interpreation - Johnlock/nonlock is real and anything else is wrong". I think we interpret the show according to the filter we watch it through. We all do, with everything we watch.

I saw the same with Harry Potter. The amount of analysis (and quite often: over-analysis) and meta was astounding. Because the series was so complex and the hiatus so long, the fans had tons of wiggle room. And of course, considering the amount of metas and active fans analysing the show, it's not surprising that out of all of them, some got it right.

So it's not surprising either that Johnlockers got some stuff right about TAB - people have probably already forgotten all the things they got wrong. 

As Sherlock would say: Human error. 

Everybody uses some "filter" while watching shows and Sherlock, above all that, is deliberately written in an ambiguos way, still, I want to point out that in this case, "the filter" didn´t randomly appear with BBC Sherlock, but is much, much older....

a) in ACD´s original, Holmes is already a man who is not the least interested in women - people are so desperate to see him with some woman, that they invent Irene Adler - SH affair in direct breach with the actual content of the short story in which she originally appears...
b) many other SH adaptations are very Johnlock-y (not only TPLOSH, but also the Granada version, old Russian version, pastiche versions) which is surprising when we consider many of them were created at the time during which homosexuality was considered an illness or a crime... and people still shipped two leads...
c) Johnlocky "jokes" are very deliberately inserted into the narrative from the very start by Moftiss, whatever they claim otherwise...

Johnlock is already here for 120 years and as long as the stories will continue to be about Sherlock and John, it hardly disappears just like that...

There is a Johnlock lens and there is a heteronormative lens , but the greatest lens when watching Sherlock is the asexual, not interested in any relationship ever, logical machine Holmes that's been around for a hundred years and more lens .
One of the things BBC Sherlock is doing is trying to break that mould and show more of the human behind Holmes . Often comments on BBC Sherlock seem more suited to Doyle or Rathbone or Brett , and seem to forget that this Sherlock is more a comedy au fanfic Sherlock.

But the Johnlock interpretation is not based on bias but objective romantic coding. You can actually point the exact coding that has been used, actual devices that are known and studied. To dismiss this coding as anything other than romantic is to use a double standard.
The non-Johnlock interpretation is based on dismissing objective coding, context and I often see heteronormative arguments like those of some pages before which I already explained.
It is not a stretch to attribute a romantic interpretation because objective coding points to that, it is a stretch to attribute another interpretation because there is coding and context against it and dismisses the possibility of perfectly fitting queer readings.

When I first started seeing Sherlock I didn't even know that Watson existed, so I could certainly not have bias. I knew nothing about the show as well, I just put it on because I was "a detective" in my group of friends and I knew Sherlock was a detective. By the first episode I was under the impression that I was watching something very gay ad they were totally in love, I also for a while thought that I was watching the wrong show because there are so few gay people on TV that I would have heard it if the main character was gay. I obviously had not idea what heteronormativity and queerbaiting were.

Yes I mean the tropes (both those who make it to the wiki and those who are not wikied yet), the priming (which are not tropes but unmistakable romantic references intended for the viewers) and any unmistakable romantic reference that does not fit inside the tropes or priming.

Interpretations are never objective, but can be supported by objective data or not supported by objective data or having objective data against them.

I've seen a good list of romantic tropes being used in Sherlock. However, I believe some of those tropes are also used on friends. No matter what interpretation people have, I am sure just about everyone will agree that the friendship between Sherlock and John are different (ie closer/deeper) than most regular friendships we have ourselves. It has been like that ever since ACD times. 

That can explain why some romantic tropes are used - to show that their relationship is something more/deeper/closer than the average pub mate kind of friendship.

An example: Sherlock being very uncomfortable with Mrs Hudson's talk about how "everything changes when two people get married", his fading smile with the "Sign of Three" scene, ending with him leaving the wedding early. 

To me, there are two equally possible explanations for his reaction to the wedding:

1. Sherlock is afraid his relationship with John will change. John will be married, move in with a woman, have a child and family. He won't have the time to spend with Sherlock as he did before, and Sherlock is again alone as he was before meeting John.

2. Sherlock is jealous over Mary because he has realised too late his feelings for John and that he will now lose John not only as a flatmate-type of friend, but also lost his chance for them to become something more. The pregnancy is the final nail in the coffin for whatever the two of them could have developed together, and Sherlock lives early full of heartache.

Taken in context with everything else we've seen in the show up until that point, I think both interpretations are valid, and are both based on "objective data". 

I agree Ho Yay and Nakahara.I was recently reading the newspaper articles and interviews and comments from before and after Pink and have been catching up , in the comments everyone thinks they already know Holmes , even people who have never even watched Sherlock S01 comment .When last year the Daily Mail published an article saying fans want Holmes and Watson to be gay The comments  are very revealing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2708469/Make-Sherlock-Holmes-Dr-Watson-gay-lovers-fans-urge-BBC.html
When MG said Wilders tplosh Holmes was gay , most people never noticed or knew and are surprised or even disagree.

Vhanja wrote:

1. Sherlock is afraid his relationship with John will change. John will be married, move in with a woman, have a child and family. He won't have the time to spend with Sherlock as he did before, and Sherlock is again alone as he was before meeting John.
. 

This interpretation dismisses the romantic coding and uses romantic tropes with a double standard depending on the gender. Romantic tropes are not for friendship. Tropes don't exist in real life and they are only used in media to convey a message in a code everybody understands, or should, without heteronormativity.
 

Most of the tropes/priming and unmistakable references, only some of them could also be applied to friendship, but the way they are acted, not really even those, because they come with other romantic tropes attached.

I have the famous list that was posted on here, I will repost once I update that with TAB.