Since when is it certain that they're both straight?
(sorry for the nitpicking but the choice of words upsets me)

No, you raise a fair point.
Sherlock doesn't seem to be anything.
Tho I'm not a gambling girl, I'd put money on John being straight.

sj4iy wrote:

QuiteExtraordinary wrote:

Since when is it certain that they're both straight?
(sorry for the nitpicking but the choice of words upsets me)

To which "choice of words" are you referring?  That I said they were straight?

The writers have said they are straight men.
John has stated numerous times "I'm not gay".
Sherlock said he wasn't interested in any relationship, male or female, but the only person he's ever fallen for was a woman.  Take that to mean that he's straight, bi, or asexual if you want- but he was sexually attracted to Adler in a way that he was never attracted to Moriarty (who also plays cerebral games) and definitely never with John.

Fantasy is wonderful and great, but the characters as they are written in this particular show will never be romantically involved with each other because they are not gay.

 
It's not that it upsets me because I want to see Sherlock and John in a romantic relationship. It's just that it has never been definitely stated so far what they are, and I don't like it when "straight" is said as if it's some kind of default setting. Hence the nitpicking. Sorry again, I don't mean to offend or personally attack anyone.

Last edited by QuiteExtraordinary (October 2, 2013 7:02 pm)

Let's say for a moment, just for the hell of it, that they did embark on a romantic relationship on the show. Let's just imagine that for second. How would you guys react? Would you still watch it even though it goes against the canon?

Yep, just what Ian said and I agree.

Swanpride wrote:

To make this clear, I'm not bothered by the Johnlockers, and I even read some slash fanfic from time to time, if they are really well written. Personally I think that those stories would work just as well as gen-stories, but if the writers want to indulge, it's their decision and their fun.

I also have no problem with discussing alternative interpretations...as long as it is clear that the show is pretty clear about where the two characters stand relationshipwise. It is fun to play with the concept, but it disturbs me when people insist that Johnlock is canon, because it really isn't.

Concerning the point that it is rare to see a healthy romantic gay relationship on TV....it is actually rare to see a healthy romantic relationship on TV, period. Too many writers think that the "drama" of a complicated romance adds to the story, when in fact, those stuff regualry ruins shows for me. Honestly, how many really happy relationships, which are not bogged down by contrived problems and didn't take multiple seasons to even come to fruition even exist in the current TV Dramas? I can only think of two, Peter and Elizabeth (White Collar) and Monroe and Rosalee (Grimm).

There is on the other hand a VERY high number of bromances. It is practically a receipt for success. Give the audience two good looking male characters in an epic friendship and everyone will lap it up.

...there are thousands of sitcoms starting from the beginning of tv that have showed heterosexual couples in loving (but imperfect) relationships.  I remember the absolute controversy when Ellen Degeneres' character on her self-titled show came out.  However, while shows are being more accepting of gays and having them in the show...how many shows are built solely around a homosexual relationship like they are built around heterosexual relationships?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.  It's considered to "risqué" to build your show solely around a homosexual relationship, which is what we really need.

NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:

I do think its really clear that sj, bb, swanpride etc are not anti gay.  At times, I feel their argument tends to default on the conservative side, but I have no issue with that.  I enjoy a good argument, and really find it fascinating that they see Johnlock so differently to me.  I would like to point out what I feel are a few holes in the arguments presented:

1.  "The people are born gay argument- so if they were they would have just come out and said it already".  Lots of people know from an early age that they are gay or straight.  It is also really common to only discover you are gay when you meet the right person.  It is likely this is because of the cultural bias towards heterosexuality- people assume they are straight until they find themselves falling in love with someone of the same gender and it shifts their whole view of their sexuality.

2. " The John is clearly straight argument because he is always saying he is not gay and is always going out with women.   "  I think there is quite a lot to suggest that his continual denying that he is gay (often not even called for by the situation) can be seen as a clue that he is not completely comfortable with his sexuality.  Could he be overcompensating with his serial dating?

3. "The writers have said he they are not gay- and Ian's comments" argument:  I think this one has already been defended by others here. The writers for whatever reason have created a show  where they have included speculation about the relationship between John and Sherlock in every episode- obviously, we can not help but speculate as well.

4.  Just on some of the semantics here:  how do we define "bromance"?  Is "bromance" something more than friendship? What is the romance bit of bromance?

1. I said that people repressing their sexuality does happen in real life.  However, my point was not that those people don't exist...my point was that TV should show more LGBT people who are in healthy, open relationships instead of making everything into a "Brokeback Mountain" scenario.

2. So a person who denies being gay when asked a question about their sexuality is hiding something?  Or maybe it could just be John saying "I'm not gay" because he wants to date women and doesn't want people to think that he's already in a relationship with Sherlock.

3. The writers have been spoofing the fact that people question their sexuality...the joke's on the audience, not the characters.  Moffat's exact words:

"The writer of the series, Doctor Who scribe Stephen Moffat, agreed that he always wanted to play on the confusion of Holmes and Watson's relationship and never intended to confirm either character's sexuality.

"I don't think there is anything that suggests Sherlock is gay but if he was he wouldn't fancy John [Watson]. 

"It's just that thing of two blokes hanging around together living together - in this nice modern world it leads to people saying, 'Oh, are they a couple?' And that's nice. I thought how the world has changed, there is no disapproval. How much more civilised the world has become."

4. bro·mance
ˈbrōˌmans/
noun
informal1.
a close but nonsexual relationship between two men.

Love it! Personally, if I dated someone who denied being in a relationship with his flat mate as much as John I would run a mile !

Wow I just discovered this thread...how have I missed it?

My personal view is that there is not, nor has there ever been, any overt indication in the ACD canon that their relationship was more than friendship. In the ACD canon there are actually HUGE blocks of time unaccounted for - Watson's diarising is only for the cases, after all. He keeps no records of their day-to-day living. Additionally, we are viewing stories that were written over 100 years ago without taking into account the social and cultural differences that time lapse provides. The Sherlock Holmes stories would no doubt have had ACD hung for a heretic if he'd written them as overtly homosexual at the time. It just wasn't done. This is not, however, proof positive that he only wrote them as platonic due to the social biases of the time; but I think this partly fuelled the 100+ year old debate about what their relationship supposedly was.

When I originally joined the fandom I was emphatically anti-Johnlock; mostly because it offended me that people were apparently unwilling to accept two men being in a close friendship without implying that there must be sexual tension. Because homosexuality is now more widely accepted, but still largely unrepresented in entertainment shows, there seems to be a tendency to 'romanticise' homosexual relationships; when in reality a romantic relationship is a romantic relationship, with all the issues and dramas that brings, regardless of the genders of the participants. Subsequently I discovered fan fiction and it seemed impossible to read good stories without there being some kind of Johnlock relationship eventually and it did definitely grow on me. I love the fan fiction stories; I have even read some PWP or explicitly sexual stories and enjoyed them. However, I enjoy the relationship and case side more and my favourite stories are the ones where they remain platonic. My main criteria, though, for a good Sherlock fan fiction story is that they be in-character. I don’t care what relationships are in it, as long as the characters are true to the BBC adaptation and/or original canon.
Even though I enjoy a well written fan fiction story, if the relationship between Holmes & Watson ever was portrayed as romantic in any serious adaptation I'd be very disappointed. Fan fiction and fantasy is all well and good, but you are well outside the canon if you create a serious adaptation that includes a romantic relationship between them.

Just in terms of a few of the things said here already...
Innuendo – the writers have already said that they included it as a bit of a nod to all the speculation over the canon. Some of the ‘innuendo’ referenced I interpret more as just characters demonstrating their feelings regarding homosexual relationships (eg Mrs Hudson’s two bedrooms comment I read as just her letting the boys know that if that’s the way they are she doesn’t have an issue with it – which is still a relevant thing today; homophobia abounds)

Sherlock’s sexuality – everyone has a different opinion. Ian Hallard believes Sherlock to be asexual; Benedict doesn’t understand where the asexual thing comes from and just thinks he’s too busy to bother; Moffatt has (apparently) said he sees Sherlock interested in women. I’m more inclined to believe he is sapiosexual, given the way he relates to Irene Adler in both the show and the canon.

Regarding the fate of Mary Morstan – in canon it’s explicitly stated that she died – Watson or Holmes make reference to Watson’s “recent bereavement” but no details are given. I don’t have time right now to find the quote or the story but it does exist.

Lastly…

sj4iy wrote:

...how many shows are built solely around a homosexual relationship ...  I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Try “The L Word” – quite a good series which revolves around the lives and relationships of a group of lesbian friends.

ETA Er...that was really long. Sorry ><

Last edited by Wholocked (October 3, 2013 7:27 am)

I've always felt that they feel like brothers.  Both of them have problems with their sibling and find a true brotherly relationship with each other.