BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Johnlock: The Official Debate

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 5:45 pm

According to Benedict, Sherlock doesn't want to have sex because he is scared of losing control.

besleybean · January 27, 2016 5:46 pm

Again, I could see that...but don't want to!

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 5:49 pm

It's not up to the people who are not queerbaited to say if others are being queerbaited.
The potentially queerbaited people have already presented objective proof. It's not up to debate this.
If somebody hurts somebody else, those who are hurt know not those who live far away, and in this case those who are hurt can even present objective proof. It is just wrong to say that this isn't happening to them.

Those who don't see the coding and as a consequence queerbaiting don't see it because of heteronormativity. Romantic coding it's not something that heteronormative people can see and heteronormative people is the majority of the population on different degrees, that's the whole point of the problem. The problem is exactly that objective romantic coding in relation to TV standard is not seen.

Everything happened on the show has until now being consistent with a romantic arc and everything happened in interviews has being declared by the writers has them often lying and sometimes they have even talked in favor of a romance.

Mothonthemantel · January 27, 2016 5:49 pm

I think Sherlock is just a very private person. There are hints he was bullied a bit from Wilkes "We all hated him..." and from Mycroft with his " How many friends do you think he has.." comment. So probably Sherlock just keeps his sexuality ( along with everything else ) to himself as back then it might have just been another difference. He is a bit trust issues also . Also , why should he tell us or anyone , it's none of our business and it really shouldn't matter we are all being very presumptuous thinking he is straight or he is gay are we not . Thats a bit of the point of ambiguity , don't just assume everyone is straight.

Last edited by Mothonthemantel (January 27, 2016 5:50 pm)

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 5:53 pm

Yes, it's up for debate. People have different opinions and viewpoints, which should be respected without being told that they are simply wrong.

Mothon: Yes, I agree. As Moffat has mentioned, for Sherlock to guard himself against emotions must mean he is actually a very sensitive and emotional person.

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 5:58 pm

Some opinions hurt lgbt community. Queerbaiting would be really there in case they are not a romantic couple and saying it's not would be denying the existence of harm towards individuals and a group.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 6:01 pm

I am not denying that some people might feel hurt or that hurtful things exist. I am denying that there exist only one, true interpretation of this show. Subjective emotions are real and true for whoever experiences them, but that isn't the same as objective truth.

For instance, if I were to say that I was hurt by your post (which I wasn't, but for the sake of argument), would that automatically make you in the wrong,and that there was something wrong with your post?

Schmiezi · January 27, 2016 6:05 pm

Liberty wrote:
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!

I hereby challenge all of you to present a meta based on analysing the tropes and other cinematographic devices like cuts and camera angles that rules out love and proofs that Sherlock and John are just friends.

mrshouse · January 27, 2016 6:07 pm

Personally, I would very much love to read this. In all honesty, no kidding.

Schmiezi · January 27, 2016 6:12 pm

Me too mrshouse. I am waiting for one for years now.

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 6:13 pm

I'm not saying there is only one interpretation, I'm saying that that is the interpretation supported by objective coding in relation to TV standards without counting in discrimination and that otherwise there would be queerbaiting.
I wouldn't care as much if they just misused coding, but I care a lot if they misuse it against a marginalized group (especially if I'm part of it).

And even if one can propose any interpretation, it cannot be said that those don't imply queerbaiting, which is something felt only by the queerbaited and that it has proof.

The post argument lacks similarity: One should make a good case proving why I am hurting them other than their perception. I have made a good case for there being queerbaiting and queerbaiting being hurtful.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 6:16 pm

Well, as for the argument about "if you don't see the queerbaiting, it's because you have ha heteronormative view", I can turn that argument around and say:

"It's understandable that because you belong to a community that is often misunderstood/made fun of, you become a bit sensitive to these matters. You might then not be entirely objective when it comes to how you view what is queerbaiting and what isn't due to oversensitivity".

So this goes both ways.

Harriet · January 27, 2016 6:19 pm

It's funny how things have to be turned around to fend off perhaps unwanted insights.
This way you don't even have to consider there might be some truth in what queer people say.

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 6:20 pm

Nope, I've offered references to objective coding in relation to TV standards in that famous list of tropes etc. that was posted already here. I'll repost it again as soon as I've updated it or you can find it again at the link in my signature.

Whisky · January 27, 2016 6:21 pm

I just want to drop the line, I just spoke with a friend who doesn't see romance. She isn't that heavily involved in fandom, but she is a big fan. She said she sees the friendship as in platonic, strong love, but not romance. She says it's because Sherlock is not experienced in romance so he is just learning emotions with John as the first person who gets really close to him. About the vetruvian man, she says the picture shows the anatomy of mankind and now he uses John as the first human he gets really close to as represntantive/stand-in because he knows no-one else that well.
John is the first one to whom he really opens himself, and the first he really gets along with. So it is affectionate but not romantic.
Of course it's speculation, she agrees, because we don't know a thing! :-)

I'm just saying (as myself now ;-) ) that there are indeed people who watch this show who don't immediatly jump to a romantic conclusion or interpretation. We discuss right now how we see things we want to see. I'm sure some people are even picking up on "romantic" tropes which the writers didn't even put there consciously.
We had the example of a poem interpretation, where the interpretation doesn't necessarily fits the intention of the author but still text evidence for our own interpretation can be found.

Whisky · January 27, 2016 6:25 pm

And also, can't there be queers who don't feel queerbaited?
I kind of agree with Vhanja here.

Apart from that, of course, what people feel is always true and shouldn't be judged.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 6:27 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
I hereby challenge all of you to present a meta based on analysing the tropes and other cinematographic devices like cuts and camera angles that rules out love and proofs that Sherlock and John are just friends.

Last edited by Vhanja (January 27, 2016 6:30 pm)

Ho Yay · January 27, 2016 6:30 pm

I agree, Sherlock and John are friends. Best friends. never doubted.

But in addition there is romantic coding.

Schmiezi · January 27, 2016 6:30 pm

Um, sorry, but listing tropes is not analysing.

Vhanja · January 27, 2016 6:31 pm

Just showing the objective coding of friendship.