@whisky

I didn't talk archetypes (I hardly ever do), I talk about sex positions.
And the request was to show a scene that excludes platonic love/friendship.
But if you think this position is part of platonic love/friendship, I would love to learn more about your definition of that 

Last edited by Harriet (January 27, 2016 7:50 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Let's turn the challenge around, then:

Can anyone give me an example of a scene between Sherlock and John that excludes platonic friendship?

This scene:



John Watson in the nude, as the object of admiration. Definitely nothing platonic in that. 

the answer is fun, for laughs, as Vhanja said. He's drunk. John doesn't even look.
why do people show their arses to the world on student parties? Because they are romantically involved? No, they are friends having fun. (even if a weird way of it)

nakahara wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Let's turn the challenge around, then:

Can anyone give me an example of a scene between Sherlock and John that excludes platonic friendship?

This scene:



John Watson in the nude, as the object of admiration. Definitely nothing platonic in that. 

 
post #5121

Whisky wrote:

nakahara wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Let's turn the challenge around, then:

Can anyone give me an example of a scene between Sherlock and John that excludes platonic friendship?

This scene:



John Watson in the nude, as the object of admiration. Definitely nothing platonic in that. 

 
post #5121

I´ve read it but sorry, I don´t believe Sherlock glues his best friends head on nude pic and add it to the "John" file because he wants to connect with mankind in general.
I am that base person who sees sexual hints in this act, not something lofly and philosophical.

Yes but my friend does. Just a different interpretation.
@nakahara

Last edited by Whisky (January 27, 2016 8:09 pm)

Harriet wrote:

Laughs for what? Laughs for 8 years olds? Or rather hints for grown ups? What do you think how old is the target group?
 

Well, the show even has a toilet joke, so I wouldn't put it past Moftiss to view a drunken ass to the camera as funny as well. 

Last edited by Vhanja (January 27, 2016 8:11 pm)

nakahara wrote:

Liberty wrote:

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.

But why would I want to rule out love when they so obviously and openly love each other?     There's tons of evidence for them loving each other and having a beautiful friendship in the show. 

On metas:
a) SH fandom exists for 120 years. I refuse to believe that absolutely no metas on S and J friendship were written during that time. 
b) The argument "there are no metas on the subject, because the subject is self-evident" is risky. Non-existence of something is not proof that some other thing is self-evident. I never saw meta on mutual love of Mrs. Hudson and Moriarty - does that mean people never bothered to write some, because the thing speaks for itself and Mrs. H and Jim are all over each other all the time? Such claims should be corroborated by the examples from the show, not just generally swept under the carpet, stating that it´s pointless.

On Sherlock-John connection:
Yesterday, I cited Elementary as an example of SH adaptation where Sherlock is obviously straight and S and J are definitely not romantically connected. No-one bothered to explain to me, why BBC Sherlock couldn´t be written in the manner of that show, in an honest and straighforward manner which would lead no doubt about the orientation and the attraction of the characters. Any thoughts on that? Any explanation from Moftiss why they couldn´t follow this path and avoid gay jokes and ambiguity?

I was answering the point about the lack of metas proving the friendship in the show.   I wasn't saying that a lack of metas mean something is self-evident, but that if something is self-evident, then there's going be a lack of metas!  Because what's the point in proving something that everybody sees?  For instance, I wouldn't expect to see many metas explaining that Sherlock is a detective.  I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all - it's just the friendship is SO obvious to everybody. 

Moftiss have talked about why there are gay jokes and ambiguity, but they haven't talked about why they couldn't follow the Elementary route - I would guess that's because they could have followed it, but didn't want to.  
 

Vhanja wrote:

Ho Yay wrote:

It's not that there aren't such scenes, there are many and I already listed them, but they are ignored or are ignored the reasons why it is discrimination for those scenes to mean something else.
 

No, there really aren't. It's not that they are ignored, it's that many people interpret them differently. Not because they are wrong, blind or heterenormative, but for the simple reason that they view the scene differently. Why is that so difficult to accept?
 

Listen, I didn't create the conventions of romantic coding or put them in the show. If there is discrimination in the perception of romantic coding it is heteronormativity, why is it so hard to accept?
 

Whisky wrote:

Yes but my friend does. Just a different interpretation.
@nakahara

It´s "ballance of probability". 
It´s possible that an advertisement like this:



has some deep spiritual message in it.
But in 99% of occassions it´s just nudity used in a sexual manner, to titilate and thus sell things.

And that´s why I interpret John´s photo glued to a nude pic in the most obvious sense possible. 
Also, John is hardly the first person Sherlock was friendly with - Lestrade, Mrs. Hudson and Molly preceded him, so why would Sherlock only glue his head to the pic and not theirs as well, if he wanted to honour friendship that way?