Harriet wrote:

Whisky wrote:

because it's not proof. I just wanted to make clear that it's as much proof as the other way round. So if saving people means romance - i didn't say that - it means it either way.

But the whole context of evidence is important. One cannot take each ingredient for itself, as you do when talking about marriage as evidence for romance, for example.
 

Maybe it would be better to cite some examples:

American show Elementary has the same characters as BBC Sherlock, yet I would never ship this Sherlock with this Joan together. Because this show is written and filmed in a way that leaves no doubt that their Sherlock is as straight as an arrow, that he and Joan are only colleagues and not lovers or friends and that they never ever wanted to introduce them as having romace together. The tropes surrounding the leads are never romantic and the authors never use "they are a pair" jokes, althrough it would be so much easier with these too (Joan is a woman, so no queerbaiting can apply).

Steven Spielberg´s Young Sherlock Holmes introduces young Sherlock being in love with a girl. It´s sweet and believable and again, the way action is coded here leaves no doubt that it´s this girl and no young Watson who captured Sherlock´s heart in this story.

BBC Sherlock, on the other hand, is coded as if Sherlock and John were romantically connected. It suffices to see it back-to-back with the aforementioned two and the difference is obvious. 

Same characters, but different conclusions about who is in love with whom - based on the content and the context of the shows and movie, not on some preordained decision to ship gays or whatever.

besleybean wrote:

All this talk of coding makes me think of Dan Brown's Da Vinci code.
Why would anything be coded?

"Featured", "styled"... choose another word if you like.

Because it's like real life... People come to different emotional conclusions,grow and change, and whilst Sherlock inhabits a somewhat impossible word he's still a living breathing man as TAB points out.

Whisky wrote:

I don't agree with you Liberty. Concerning the attraction. I think Sherlock makes no difference between woman and men. When it comes to attraction. But john does.

As I said, I don't think the scene is about sexual orientation, and Sherlock's sexuality is still a little bit mysterious (while ever becoming less so!).  But I'm curious, where do you see Sherlock being attracted to men?  The two examples of people he is attracted to (in the greenhouse scene) are both women.  
 

Liberty wrote:

Whisky wrote:

I don't agree with you Liberty. Concerning the attraction. I think Sherlock makes no difference between woman and men. When it comes to attraction. But john does.

As I said, I don't think the scene is about sexual orientation, and Sherlock's sexuality is still a little bit mysterious (while ever becoming less so!).  But I'm curious, where do you see Sherlock being attracted to men?  The two examples of people he is attracted to (in the greenhouse scene) are both women.  
 

 

i think Sherlock is not confessing to any attraction. john thinks it, but John would only see the women. E.g. he wouldn't list himself. Or anyone male. And as Sherlock already confesses at Angelos, to him gender doesn't matter so much. I just don't see that the attraction to the mentioned women is validated by Sherlock in the glasshouse scene. Personally I'd interpret, yes, Sherlock was in ways attracted to Irene. But he doesn't say so, not to John. I don't really see him giving in. I see him stating that he doesn't want to talk about it, which is not a yes. And as nobody mentiones a man, there is no comparison. But from earlier behaviour of Sherlock, I'd say it's about affection yes or no, and not about women or men. So Sherlock has this John in mind that links him to women. And he keeps denying and John keeps asking. As I said before, I see an annoyed Sherlock, not a Sherlock confessing to attraction to either of the women.
I think I'm expressing myself not very well, sorry.

You are expressing yourself well, Whisky, and thanks for the explanation!    I suppose the way I see it, John is actually an invention in Sherlock's mind palace - Sherlock is questioning himself.  So if John only asks about women, it's because it's women who are coming into Sherlock's mind (not that Sherlock couldn't also fancy men ... but he doesn't give himself any men as examples, so I don't think we can confirm for certain that he feels the same way about men as about women).   This mind palace John is particularly insightful (he deduced Molly and Lestrade, for instance), so it seems likely to me that his observation that Sherlock was attracted to the two women is correct.  (And what would be the point of Sherlock inventing a questioning John who got it wrong?). 

 

John always saves Sherlock.

Whisky wrote:

Indeed. or to lgbt friendshippers ideas, if we want to stay open minded.

Are you a lgbt friendshipper? You don't have to answer, I just want to know whether the latter is just hypothetical or based on experience. Because we do have lgbt Johnlockers here, and I hope we talk on the same level, to some extent at least.

"Any lgbt friendshippers here?" 
 

Mothonthemantel wrote:

and will let John help him , instead of the old alone is what I have protects me mantra.

 
Why didn't that occur to me? It's so obvious. Makes the Reichenbach scene really beautiful, with that quote in mind.

Oh, okay. Not on this board, because obviously, I haven't got a clue who is lgbt and who isn't, in here.

I wanted to emphasize that I don't believe that we jump to the conclusions that are closest to our own experiences by default. many do. not all.

Last edited by Whisky (January 26, 2016 10:28 pm)