SolarSystem wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

"How can it be wrong to assume that something is going on when all involved people in the series (Mrs. Hudson, Irene, Mycroft e.g.) do remarks about a relationship between Sherlock and John" ? Because I read that (or at least something similar) several times in different posts, I have to ask now: And what´s about Molly? She never assumed that Sherlock and John are a couple. She´s in love with Sherlock (not really successful as we know ). And since TRF we know that she is extrem sensitive. Could be an argument against the other argument. . 

Yes, but really, what about Molly? In TRF she does make a remark about Sherlock and John. Granted, she doesn't explicitly say they're gay, but she acknowledges that they do have a very special relationship. And she basically says that John counts for Sherlock, but she herself doesn't count. So I'm not so sure if the way in which she sees John and Sherlock is so different from the way Mrs. Hudson or Mycroft see them.

Then again, she is in love with Sherlock. The question is: would she even want to see what's really going on between Sherlock and John - if indeed there is something going on between them?


 

I just wanted to say that she is not part of the "gay jokes". And she isn´t, your examples show only that she IMO knows about their extraordinary friendship. And yes, I am convinced she would see if there is something going on and she would also say so, clumsily and frankly like always. 
Btw. besides the first episode neither Mrs. Hudson nor Mycroft are making any jokes anymore - they got familiar meanwhile with that friendship. Quite the opposite: In ASiB she is talking to John about Sherlock´s "love life" before they met (or non-existing love-life).

Last edited by anjaH_alias (October 1, 2013 5:01 pm)

anjaH_alias wrote:

Btw. besides the first episode neither Mrs. Hudson nor Mycroft are making any jokes anymore - they got familiar meanwhile with that friendship. Quite the opposite: In ASiB she is talking to John about Sherlock´s "love life" before they met (or non-existing love-life).

True, and I'm glad they don't continue to make those jokes, I think it wouldn't work, it would get boring and predictable. So we don't really know what they think about Sherlock and John after the first episode, I suppose. They accept their relationship as normal and good and okay - whatever that actually means.
And what Mrs. Hudson says about Sherlock's "love life" prior to John basically means that she doesn't know anything about it. Could be this way, could be that way, doesn't mean he's gay, doesn't mean he's heterosexual, doesn't mean he's asexual. 
 

That's why I just wrote:
Could be this way, could be that way, doesn't mean he's gay, doesn't mean he's heterosexual, doesn't mean he's asexual. 
 

NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

It's easy for me...as long as John is only interested in woman, he isn't gay. As long as Sherlock is only interested in his work, he isn't gay. As I said before, there are a lot of variations of love which are not sexual at all.
If other people like to play with the fantasy, or point out untertones, that's their fun. But as long as John and Sherlock don't share at least a romantic kiss, their love is entirely platonic for me.

 
Sorry to have to be the devil's advocate here, but I think this argument is a bit simplistic. Sexuality is not just about action, just because someone is absorbed by their work and not in a sexual relationship does not mean they are asexual or gay or straight. Being interested in women sexually does not mean that under no circumstances would you ever have a gay relationship. Conversely, two men sharing a romantic kiss does not mean that they are both gay. I really think we need to investigate the relationship itself and the emotions expressed to decide what Johnlock is.

Under no circumstances would Sherlock and John share a kiss in the canon or the show.  And neither man has been interested in the other's sexuality.

Last edited by sj4iy (October 1, 2013 11:24 pm)

NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:

I think the restaurant discussion in SIP clearly shows John was interested in knowing Shelock's sexuality!

And in that same conversation he also makes it clear that he wasn't interested IN Sherlock.  He had just met Sherlock and was thinking about moving in with him.  It's an important fact to know about someone you are about to move in with.

Last edited by sj4iy (October 1, 2013 11:36 pm)

I actually think that example is a good one of dialogue that can be read in a few different ways.   Emotionally Sherlock just needs John and a good excitng case to be happy. John thinks he needs to find a female partner, but when it comes down to it he allows his whole date to be completely manipulated by Sherlock. Why? Basically John needs Sherlock more than a girlfriend. will be very interesting to see how Mary fits in the equation...

Swanpride wrote:

Sherlock is not "absorbed by his work". He considers himself married to it and says that relationships are not his area.

Well what Sherlock actually says in that scene is that he's married to his work and that girlfriends are not really his area - not relationships! When John asks about a boyfriend, Sherlock just says no and kind of leaves open if boyfriends aren't his kind of area, either. This dialogue really leaves quite a lot open to interpretation. To me it means (but that's just me) that Sherlock definitely isn't interested in women and that his work is the most important thing to him and that he's flattered by John's 'interest'. Nothing more, nothing less.

Swanpride wrote:

Sherlock is not "absorbed by his work". He considers himself married to it and says that relationships are not his area. And John is so fixated on woman that he remembers to have seen the one female assassin, but none of the male ones.
Sure, there are a lot of bromance scene in the series. But when it comes to romance, it has been pretty clear. For example in the Blind Banker:
JOHN: Actually, I’ve, er, got a date.
SHERLOCK: What?
JOHN: It’s where two people who like each other go out and have fun.
SHERLOCK: That’s what I was suggesting.
JOHN: No it wasn’t ... at least I hope not.


 

 
Sorry, I don't get the difference between "absorbed in his work" and "married to his work".  It means the same thing.  Sherlock is obsessed with his work, and he doesn't want to compromise on it by getting involved in a relationship.

In fact they are not nearly as affectionate with each other as many guys are.
Benedict and Martin are much more demonstrably affectionate with each other in real life, than they are in character.

kittykat wrote:

sj4iy wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

To me "absorbed" simpy means "I'm too busy for relationships", while "married to" means what you just said, that he is obsessed with it and doesn't WANT anything or anyone to come between him and his obsession. It's a small difference, but for me the way Sherlock talks about his work (which is "all that matters" to him) makes very clear that everything else (even friendship, at last during HoB) is secondary to it. It is not the work who absorbes him, he seeks it out and willingly puts it above everything else.

I have no wish to argue semantics when my phrasing was perfectly valid and applicable.

In any case, neither man has expressed an interest in having a romantic relationship with another.  My husband even said "They have a perfectly normal male friendship".

Meaning that a romantic relationship between two men is NOT normal? 
 

And where did I say that a romantic relationship wasn't normal?  I said it was a normal male friendship, because it is normal for males (who are just friends) to show the sort of repressed affection that Sherlock and John do for one another without it meaning anything romantically.  I don't mind debating the subject, but please don't take what I say out of context to make it sound like I was insinuating that there is something wrong with homosexual relationships.  If the characters were written as gay men, I would have absolutely no problem with it.  But they aren't written that way.  They are written as two straight male friends who show nothing but friendly affection for one another.

Personally, I agree with Gatiss' husband on the subject...I'd much rather see two gay characters in an open, loving and healthy relationship than see two straight male characters harbor sexual tension for one another.  I don't think we see nearly enough of the former in television or movies.

Last edited by sj4iy (October 2, 2013 6:16 pm)