BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » All the "gay" references to John

Sam · October 5, 2012 9:08 pm

^ Haha, that one is good too. Tumblr one is spot on.

I don't get the Mrs Hudson or the Ben/Martin one though?

Harriet · October 5, 2012 9:24 pm

Maybe it's the Eyes of the Beholder ?

besleybean · October 5, 2012 9:42 pm

Ok I only joined here yesterday, so I don't want to ruffle any feathers!
But we have the Canon and we have 2 series now.
This is apart from then various commentaries, interviews...
John is straight. As he would say: who knows about Sherlock Holmes?
My personal opinion is that he is asexual.
But there is no relationship between our boys, other than a beautiful, loving bromance.

Sam · October 5, 2012 10:43 pm

I don't mean to speak for anyone but I believe it's not a matter of them thinking for sure that the show will portray them as actually gay at some point and trying to prove it. It's more them taking the subtle hints and cues as them being romantic with each other and them being together that way in their eyes only

besleybean · October 6, 2012 7:24 am

For me it's all about making distinctions.
I can(and indeed do!) have my own Sherlock fantasies, tho I would largely keep those private.
But I KNOW for BBC Sherlock, the situation is as clear as it can be.
I hope nobody is awaiting a blossoming romance between Sherlock and John, because that is not going to happen.

kazza474 · October 6, 2012 8:04 am

besleybean wrote:
For me it's all about making distinctions.
I can(and indeed do!) have my own Sherlock fantasies, tho I would largely keep those private.
But I KNOW for BBC Sherlock, the situation is as clear as it can be.
I hope nobody is awaiting a blossoming romance between Sherlock and John, because that is not going to happen.

LOL!
Welcome & good luck.

Harriet · October 6, 2012 8:20 am

besleybean wrote:
But I KNOW for BBC Sherlock, the situation is as clear as it can be.
I hope nobody is awaiting a blossoming romance between Sherlock and John, because that is not going to happen.

Well, let's put it like this: The situation is in fact that clear that John even drops all his girlfriends just for being with Sherlock.
What was her name again told John he was indeed a great boyfriend. But not to her.
"Sherlock Holmes is a lucky man."

We also have Martin Freeman's own ideas about their relationship.
Nobody needs to consider them, though, but one might like to know.

I'm not expecting a blossoming romance nor do I secretly hope for it - not at all.
And if you read our posts here before you will find that hardly anyone here does

But I can't get how one can be so sure about this matter.
If you'd say 80%, I might join you. But clear? Think it over...

kazza474 · October 6, 2012 9:01 am

Harriet wrote:
The situation is in fact that clear that John even drops all his girlfriends just for being with Sherlock. ....

No, he doesn't 'drop' his girlfriends at all.
They 'drop' him in fact. For what reasons we don't know, only one (Jeanette) has made it clear why she won't be seeing him again.

It could be that they don't like ex-army men ( some people are like that) or that they cannot cope with his PTSD problems (very likely if the romance is just trying to start) or perhaps he is dating 'anyone' without trying to get some compatibility going between them (also likely in his situation)

So there's more 'factual' reasons why John has not formed a more permanent partnership with a woman other than an immature assumption that 'he must be gay then'.

As for being sure it won't happen; for me, it all comes with the trust I place in Moftiss' hands whilst they nurture ACD's baby. That storyline would detract from the whole premise of the canon and would just make it into another trashy show for the masses.

Harriet · October 6, 2012 9:19 am

It is Sherlock the girlfriends don't want in their life with John.
Because Sherlock comes first, alas. (Whatever that says about them.)

And John - he lets them leave, otherwise he would make different decisions and put Sherlock 2nd place in his life.

We have Jeanette's words, no hint about PTSD or ex-army issues in the relationships.

kazza474 wrote:
That storyline would detract from the whole premise of the canon and would just make it into another trashy show for the masses.

Right, that's one point why hardly anyone here wants this to happen, wonder why you act like anyone here suggested it?

Davina · October 6, 2012 10:07 am

Because people have suggested it in the past. I think the girlfriends get sick and tired of John putting his work with Sherlock before his relationship with them. Apart from Sarah, perhaps, who may have been just a little put off by being kidnapped, bound and threatened with death by crossbow bolt ( I have to say that would probably put me off too, just a bit).

besleybean · October 6, 2012 10:12 am

Do people not read interviews with the writers?
I am really sorry, I have just arrived here.
But I honestly have to be firm on this point, because it actually makes me quite cross.
Apart form the fact that we have the best TV ever and apparently it's wasted on people, if they are just not getting it.
To me, Holmes and Watson and Sherlock and John are the same.
They are the perfect example of the most beautiful, loving male friendship.
But you know what. Ignore everything I say. Let's just watch the show shall we and we'll soon find out who's right.

Mattlocked · October 6, 2012 10:27 am

I don't get the point now. Are you seriously arguing now if John and Sherlock are gay or not?

kazza474 · October 6, 2012 10:34 am

Harriet wrote:
It is Sherlock the girlfriends don't want in their life with John.
Because Sherlock comes first, alas. (Whatever that says about them.)

Where do we see or hear about any other girlfriends' reasons for not dating John anymore?
I must have missed something.

kazza474 wrote:
That storyline would detract from the whole premise of the canon and would just make it into another trashy show for the masses.
Right, that's one point why hardly anyone here wants this to happen, wonder why you act like anyone here suggested it?

I 'act like that' probably because I've read everything posted on this forum. You should take a look around sometime.

kazza474 · October 6, 2012 10:39 am

besleybean wrote:
Do people not read interviews with the writers?
I am really sorry, I have just arrived here.
But I honestly have to be firm on this point, because it actually makes me quite cross.
Apart form the fact that we have the best TV ever and apparently it's wasted on people, if they are just not getting it.
To me, Holmes and Watson and Sherlock and John are the same.
They are the perfect example of the most beautiful, loving male friendship.
But you know what. Ignore everything I say. Let's just watch the show shall we and we'll soon find out who's right.

I'm with you 100% (I've agreed with everything you post trust me! and I understand where you are coming from) ; but there's this big push to fantasise about the duo's sexuality, it's 'the latest craze apparently. You'll soon learn (as I did) to ignore that chat as much as possible.I understand why you are cross; the whole thing detracts from the masterpiece we could be exploring.
Just learn to back out of some threads here.

SusiGo · October 6, 2012 10:45 am

Although no reasons are given for the women breaking up with John, we should be allowed to think about it. Sarah was nearly killed by Chinese gangsters and it only happened because she dated John who works with Sherlock. And Jeanette said quite clearly why she's breaking up with John. She seems to feel that there's something special about their friendship (and I expressly do not allude to anything sexual) and that Sherlock is far more interesting to him. A man who can't tell his girlfriends apart and goes on living and working with a man who insults them to their faces might not make a very attractive boyfriend.

Harriet · October 6, 2012 10:50 am

Mattlocked wrote:
... Are you seriously arguing now if John and Sherlock are gay or not?

I can only speak for myself now, I'm not discussing this.
I just doubt that things are so obvious as been said here.
Like I said, 80% certainty, fine with me, 100%, no.

Mattlocked · October 6, 2012 11:25 am

Harriet wrote:
Mattlocked wrote:
... Are you seriously arguing now if John and Sherlock are gay or not?
I can only speak for myself now, I'm not discussing this.
I just doubt that things are so obvious as been said here.
Like I said, 80% certainty, fine with me, 100%, no.

I understand what you mean.
What I don't understand is that people (again) are cross because others are having different fantasies.
To be honest: without fantasy (started by ACD) this whole thing would not have happened!!
But of course one can keep away from accordant threads. That's what I do, too.

But let me bring out one more point: I fully agree here with Kazza:
"As for being sure it won't happen; for me, it all comes with the trust I place in Moftiss' hands whilst they nurture ACD's baby. That storyline would detract from the whole premise of the canon and would just make it into another trashy show for the masses."

But still, let people have their fantasies. As long as not everything will appear in the show.......

Harriet · October 6, 2012 11:34 am

Mattlocked:

I'm convinced defining them straight or asexual or whatever is yet another "fantasy" or "label" that is no more or less(!) valid than the others.
See, I'm thinking constructivist. I respect those ideas and wish others to be respected as well.
Which I can't see at times, I'm afraid. And which could hurt, esp. when it comes from moderators, kazza.
Coming up with terms like "immature" doesn't seem a good style to me.

So, in the name of respect of other opinions, and to make sure they are not getting neglected here,
I need to make a polite little statement from time to time,
and be it at least for me, to be able to look into the mirror.

SusiGo · October 6, 2012 11:38 am

Thanks for your post, Harriet. I'm absolutely with you.

Mattlocked · October 6, 2012 11:40 am

Harriet, again, I understand what you mean.
Maybe it wasn't clear, I was mostly referring to besleybean's (and meanwhile also to Kazza's) latest post-s.