Ask the BBC  and read their concept, if you haven't yet.
You might do it here:
http://loudest-subtext-in-television.tumblr.com/post/88272799479/softly-softly-the-bbcs-2009-lgb-research
or search on their official website 

Whisky wrote:

Sadly I don't find as much meta on friendship evidence, because,
as you said, the majority johnlocks the hell out of things.

This is something I observe on tumblr and here in the forum. And it makes me wonder if maybe, just maybe, there is simply more evidence for the romantic interpretation to be found. I love reading metas, there is brilliant stuff out there, but almost all of it concentrates on a romantic reading of the show. Everyone is free to write friendship metas so there must be a reason why this happens only rarely. 
 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 27, 2016 2:21 pm)

So I gather this isn't really a thread for debate of various interpretations anymore, seeing as there seems to be a conclusion:

Either Johnlock will happen or Moftiss are doing some major queerbating. This is based on objective data and coding, so there is no room for different interpretations of the show.

Thread is closed then, I reckon.

Thread is open for discussion until infinity.............................................

We contrary lot will always have something to debate about.

 

I'd find it really mean rather than a bit, something I love would hurt me as a person and as a group, with consequences in real life, because media can encourage heteronormativity. For example it can reinforce the idea that there needs to be some extreme proof for people to be bi, like having kissed or dated both genders, which is an actual problem I'm having now in real life, people yadda-yadda my being bi all the time and then start talking to me again like if I was straight. Or for example it can reinforce the idea that queer love is a different kind of love for which apply different rules, that queer love is more sexualized, that it is less pure than friendship and all this because the same coding results in different relationships depending on gender.
Media is a powerful force.

The "softly, softly" quote comes from Mark Gatiss.   He wasn't talking about hiding gay relationships, or showing them in code - quite the opposite.  It was about openly showing gay characters, casually and unremarkeably.   He gave an example of the main male character coming home to a boyfriend (rather than a girlfriend).  Steven Moffat has had open and incidentally gay characters in Doctor Who (a children's programme), so I'm sure they would happily have shown the characters like this if they'd wanted to, rather than hiding it.   But Mark has said that it's not going to happen.

I don't see how this can be queerbaiting.  Everything they've said has been consistent with John and Sherlock not being a gay couple, and they have not shown anything definite on screen.  I know people here see it something going on, but nobody I know in real life has seen it.   (Which makes you think that if they were trying to show a developing romance, they've got it wrong). 

I think one of the reasons there aren't really metas about the friendship, is that it's just there and obvious.   It's not at all hidden.   We don't have to go looking for clues.   So there's nothing to write, nothing to prove (I'm sure even the people who think they will get together still see the friendship).    I suppose I could point out lots of instances where there's evidence of friendship and nothing sexual going on, but it's a bit pointless! 

Little Weed wrote:

Liberty wrote:

I'm not sure if I count as a possible LGBT friendshipper: I used to identify as bi for many years (kind of changed to straight when it became clear that my one same-sex relationship was becoming a happy memory rather than an ongoing pattern!).   I don't think it gives me any particular insight, but obviously I'm very aware of the possibility of people having relationships outside their usual "preferred" sex.   I just don't think we're being shown that in the show.   I think the friendship is beautiful, deep and intense, but I don't see anything that convinces me it's sexual. 

IF it was, I do think a kiss (or similar) could easily have been shown in the mind palace, without spoiling the story.  After all, it wouldn't really have happened, and Sherlock would have to deal with that self-knowledge in S4.    Also, it's possible to develop the relationship beyond the first kiss!  (Outlander springs to mind as an example of a "romance", where the protagonists are married very early on in the story, and their relationship develops from there). 

Harriet, I think it was you who asked why I saw an admission of being gay in TPLOSH but not in TAB.   In TPLOSH, Sherlock is being asked directly about sexual orientation - that's the point of the conversation.   In TAB, Sherlock is questioning himself about his avoidance of relationships. 
 

 

I think the biggest problem people have with this idea that Sherlock may be any shade of queer is they're so attached to his asexual status. Of course true ases really have no interest in anyone... but there are shades of everything... people have this notion that you can't have both same sex attraction and be a shade of ase. They're just labels after all... and labels and people change. I'm certainly not shipping for John and Sherlock to have rampant sex... Because I would pull that squicked out face Sherlock pulls when Molly says that her and Tom are having lots of sex...

Of course this is just my opinion... soft-ship for me with a side of rainbow sprinkles?

Sherlock could be romantically attracted without it being sexual - it does happen!   However, I personally don't think he's being shown as asexual (in the sense of orientation rather than practice).   I do think there are hints that he has a sex drive (especially in the greenhouse scene!  But also Magnussen believes he has a porn preference.   And I do see something sexual going on with Irene, although as I've said before, that might be due to the way Benedict plays it (he seems to have interpreted it as Sherlock being sexually attracted).   But also, if Sherlock is just lacking in sexual desire, then it isn't too much of a problem, it isn't something he has to repress - and I think that it's strongly suggested that he's repressing it, whatever we want to think "it" is! 
 

Vhanja wrote:

I agree, the friendship is all out there in the open - there is nothing to analyze or prove. It's spoken and shown that they have a close friendship. 

Hopefully, fans can be humble enough to see their interpretation for what it is - an interpretation. None of us are sitting on some blueprint or Unmistakable Fact. We might personally be convinced that Johnlock will happen, or that it won't. But they only ones who know what will happen for a fact, is Moftiss. 

Yes, definitely.   I think they've been very clear that it's not happening, but even if that's true it doesn't mean they couldn't change their minds in the future (although to me, Mark's comment sounded very sincere and earnest). 

The Indian video was the most convincing thing for me.
He was unequivocal.

Oh yes, I think so, Vhanja (I'm not keeping up - I meant a couple of posts up, what you posted about Sherlock and emotion).  In fact, it's particularly those emotions (the romantic ones associated with sex) that he's wary of.  (Personally, I think this could be why he avoided sex with Janine - he wanted to keep his distance for self-protection, she had to fall for him, but he definitely did not want to fall for her.   I know that will be an unpopular view, though!).

Besley, I wouldn't mind dwelling on Sherlock's urges! 

Last edited by Liberty (January 27, 2016 5:44 pm)