John and Sherlock's relationship is as interesting as it is ambiguous. Can you define it? Post your definitions. These can be pretty long cuz I don't really think there are words for what these guys are. They're either redefining friendship or in a whole other league.

Here's an essay I wrote trying to figure out the answer. (WARNING, PG-13 terms ahead) I wrote this while reading a fanfic that I thought was platonic but actually wasn't in the end. So I was able to dissect my reactions in real time. Ahah.. also, a note, I call homosexuality flawed at some point. This isn't what it sounds like, I don't think heterosexuality or homosexuality is better than the other. Im talking from the point of veiw of natural selection, which, historically, does select for heterosexuality. I don't like either! I swear! I mean I don't prefer either one.

They have humanity. (Individuality, Identity)
They have intimacy. (Partnership, relationship)
But these two characteristics place limitations on each other. The best approach to capture John and Sherlock is to maximize both without sacraficing the other, or better yet work it out so they don't conflict at all.

This relationship is counter intuitive culturally and biologically. It’s incomprehensible to show this level of devotion to someone who doesn’t provide an evolutionary advantage, rather provides a disadvantage, being a constant hazard to your survival (ahem, Sherlock is constantly getting John in danger, but hell, John likes it). In this way, it is flawed in its design like homosexuality, but more so in that it is in fact detrimental, not just neutral- a deleterious mutation. At least homosexuality incorperates reproductive, sexual feelings, so it is comprehensible to heteros, homos, and a world that typically associates romantic relationships with sexual feelings. This platonic romantic relationship doesn’t make sense- the emotional responses they reflect to each other are engineered for the purposes of reproduction, that is what makes John and Sherlock capable of the emotion "love", that is the mechanism of the relationship, but these emotions are driven to a different destination, one that is not justified by survival or reproduction- or how these motivators manifest as “bodily needs”. It is justified by appreciation and reverence, and therefore unique to the upper strata of the human mind. There is no compromise in the balance between the cold and the beautiful. There is powerful but not irrational intimacy. humanity is preserved.
This is what would make it not okay for either of them to die. They are not machines programmed by evolutionary design, they are capable of acting against this current out of devotion for one another. They are capable of forming and acting upon their individual purposes, not just roaming along predefined and conventional evolutionary geodesics. This makes them human, conscious, and soulful. It'd be a shame to kill something like that.

This platonic relationship would be much harder for a man and a woman to accomplish together because they have societal pressures to have a conventional relationship if they love each other, while Sherlock and John do not, well sometimes, with Mrs. Hudson’s urgings and so on. Nevertheless, pressures exist that keep them seperate rather than together ie the expectation men aren't always supposed to be sexually attacted to each other, the fit Sir Conan Doyle would have if Moffat actually made them gay, etc. at least John seems determined not to cross that line, because he doesn’t see himself that way- this may be cultural, he has justified behaviors in the past because he’s a “british man”...getting off topic.

Typically perceived sexually intimate actions are acceptable if the motive behind is to express humanity, intelligence, and emotion. “Passion” or anything blood/body related, does not fit this definition. Not that by the academic definition of the word, John and Sherlock have no passion. They have pathos-saturated passion, it’s just not bestial. The best term i've seen for this is "chemistry".

They can look soulfully into each others eyes, but it has to be without being despicable or unrespectable in that its forced. All affectionate actions are justified 1000 times over. This kind of action is the highest tribute, not candy, not to be sold-out/overplayed while trying to capture these characters. 

They can kiss each other, but not for biochemical profit. There is no ulterior purpose for them to kiss, other than to say "i like you as a person". It’s intellectual, with complete respect and continuous consciousness of the other’s identity. The humanity of the individual is not replaced by a body for sexual services in the perspective of the other person. This realization is latent, not present in the decision making of a kiss, which can be cursory, accidental, and not premeditated. But the justification is subconsciously there in the superior region of the mind. Given their characters, if it ever did happen, it probably would be accidental, or in some deranged, convoluted way based on a protective/emotional reason. 

Sherlock and John’s love is backed by rationality 100% of the time. Interactions are not based on greed(sexual or any other kind), they are based on selflessness.

...After going in spirals trying to define their relationship, I usually just give up and say "they just love each other, ok? God why is having a geniuine human bond like that so weird it has to be psychoanalyzed?" Anyway, what are your definitions?

Last edited by Lue4028 (April 8, 2014 3:53 am)