The Johnlock Conspiracy

[Van Buren Supernova]

Regarding Sue's,

 

Since you mentioned that it's filtered and probably not the full version, there is possibility that those certain quotes are chosen to support the author's view.

 

Maybe she actually care to be more careful and said a lot more things around those chosen quotes?

 

It's very common that only selective quotes are chosen to support whatever concept the author believes, while dismissing the actual content in overall that could go opposite direction.

So imo, filtered quotes shouldn't be too reliable without the actual overall source.

[Inge l-w]

Dear fellow members, if you think that was a 'non-kill' shot, you had better read the whole analysis of it by cookies-will-crumble on Ao3 and see what happens when one shoots someone near the vicinity of the liver and the vena cava! Mary, through omission or commission wanted Sherlock dead, even if she didn't go for a headshot.

[J.P.]

Two articles highlighting some reasons why I find the "necessity" of JL so annoying.

 

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/03/amatonormativity-everybody-should-be-coupled-up.html

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/04/amatonormativity-expectations/#.WcD06U1PqXY.tumblr

[T.o.b.y]

Two articles highlighting some reasons why I find the "necessity" of JL so annoying.

 

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/03/amatonormativity-everybody-should-be-coupled-up.html

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/04/amatonormativity-expectations/#.WcD06U1PqXY.tumblr

Mhm, interesting... What do you think of Sherlock / Irene in this context? Better? I mean, they aren't exclusive, don't seem to be headed towards marriage, neither is the other's primary relationship in day to day life and nobody save the two of them knows what exactly it is they do when they get together.

[Arcadia]

Which is as it should be. Imo, as a society we've become far too inquisitive about people's sex lives (or lack thereof). I'm amazed at some of the questions people -- strangers, even -- think it's okay to ask me about my personal life. I really need to develop better answers than the startled sputtering I usually do. Some variation of "F*ck off", I think.
 
I find the "necessity of JL" annoying too, but not, I think, for the reasons described in those articles. What bugs me about it is the fuzzy logic ... the "they look into each other's eyes, so they must be in love" kind of thinking. That's not based in any kind of reality that I'm aware of. Every time I read something like that, my knee-jerk reaction is to think whoever wrote it has never been in a real relationship and only knows what they read in romance novels. Which probably isn't fair either, but ... yeah, that's how I tend to react when I'm annoyed. Unfairly.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Well, it isn't so very unreasonable to apply the common rules of fictional romances to another work of fiction. I get where people are coming from, they have gotten used to certain interactions meaning certain things in movies / TV drama and form expectations accordingly. It's more problematic when Hollywood romance gets projected onto real life.

[Boton]

I like this line from the second article:

 

 

 

No other relationship in your life gets the recognition, legal, social, and emotional support than a romantic one.

 

We seem to be living in an era when societal approval is the end goal for a lot of our behaviors. Of course you can look at this in terms of marriage, and the expansion of the legal and social definition of marriage to include non-M/F couples.  But there is also the fact that everyone seems to want social approval for every facet of their lives: their child-rearing choices (or lack thereof), their sexuality, their gender identity, their politics, their mental health status, etc.

 

Part of this is good. Learning to accept that other people may be living perfectly wonderful lives that are not similar to your own is a good lesson.

 

But part of it trains us to expect a societal stamp of approval before something is "real," and I think that is where the JL connection comes in. It isn't enough that Sherlock and John are best friends, soul mates, and an inseparable pair. They have to be something that society recognizes as a pair so that they can have the societal approval. And that almost by definition means that they have to be in a romantic relationship.

[Carol the Dabbler]

We seem to be living in an era when societal approval is the end goal for a lot of our behaviors. Of course you can look at this in terms of marriage, and the expansion of the legal and social definition of marriage to include non-M/F couples.  But there is also the fact that everyone seems to want social approval for every facet of their lives: their child-rearing choices (or lack thereof), their sexuality, their gender identity, their politics, their mental health status, etc.

 

Part of this is good. Learning to accept that other people may be living perfectly wonderful lives that are not similar to your own is a good lesson.

 

But part of it trains us to expect a societal stamp of approval before something is "real"....

Also, it seems to expect, even insist, that society can put its stamp on only one of many possibilities.  So if my lifestyle is currently "in," then yours must perforce be "out."  Which is surely some sort of nonsense.

 

Maybe the term "significant other" is more appropriate than I ever realized.  As many older married couples reportedly confirm, it doesn't have to be all about the sex.  I'm thinking of a scene near the end of Love Actually where Bill Nighy's character unexpectedly leaves the celebrity party he's been invited to, preferring to spend New Year's Eve with the grumpy old manager who has stuck with him through thick and thin.  Even he is bewildered by his own choice, but ends up referring to his old friend as "the love of my life" even though there's pretty clearly no physical attraction between them.

 

I've already said (somewhere on this forum) that since "marriage" is a religious concept (just consider the phrase "the sanctity of marriage"), government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether, leave that to the religions, and legally recognize only "civil unions" for straights as well as gays.  Maybe I should rethink even that a bit, and say that government should allow people to register as "significant others," and leave it at that.

[J.P.]

 

But part of it trains us to expect a societal stamp of approval before something is "real," and I think that is where the JL connection comes in. It isn't enough that Sherlock and John are best friends, soul mates, and an inseparable pair. They have to be something that society recognizes as a pair so that they can have the societal approval. And that almost by definition means that they have to be in a romantic relationship.

This!

 

If you look around 90% of everything is about being or aiming at a romantic relationship with sex seen as a necessary part of it. Fashion, cosmetics, part of sports, all the things that keep you young and healthy and most of all attractive. All people do is about finding a romantic partner. It's a measurement of someone's value. With rare exception of monks and nuns sacrificing it for no one less than God. The humanity seems to get stuck in a perpetual mating season and for an outsider it gets annoying sometimes. :P

[Boton]

 

 

I've already said (somewhere on this forum) that since "marriage" is a religious concept (just consider the phrase "the sanctity of marriage"), government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether, leave that to the religions, and legally recognize only "civil unions" for straights as well as gays. Maybe I should rethink even that a bit, and say that government should allow people to register as "significant others," and leave it at that.

I agree. I actually think you should be able to go to the government only for a declaration of "significant other." Your SO might be your spouse, your lover, your best friend, your parent, whatever, but that person would receive all the rights and responsibilities a spouse is currently given. You could only have one at a time, and dissolving that designation would involve the same paperwork as a divorce. The government would not be in the position of sanctioning sexual relations between consenting adults, since there is no longer any (even tenuous) reason for it to do so.

Then the term "marriage" would be governed by people's religious or ethical beliefs, and to be married in a particular religion would include the restrictions or rights offered by that particular religion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pseudonym]

Hm, all very interesting ideas. I hadn't thought about it in that much depth, but it would make a lot more sense. Getting 'married' when you're not remotely religious has always seemed a bit odd to me, a different term would make much more sense. 

[Pseudonym]

 

 

But part of it trains us to expect a societal stamp of approval before something is "real," and I think that is where the JL connection comes in. It isn't enough that Sherlock and John are best friends, soul mates, and an inseparable pair. They have to be something that society recognizes as a pair so that they can have the societal approval. And that almost by definition means that they have to be in a romantic relationship.

This!

 

If you look around 90% of everything is about being or aiming at a romantic relationship with sex seen as a necessary part of it. Fashion, cosmetics, part of sports, all the things that keep you young and healthy and most of all attractive. All people do is about finding a romantic partner. It's a measurement of someone's value. With rare exception of monks and nuns sacrificing it for no one less than God. The humanity seems to get stuck in a perpetual mating season and for an outsider it gets annoying sometimes. :P

 

 

Er, this is a bit personal, but here it goes. What annoys me is that I feel like I should be looking for a partner because it's been conditioned into me, because, to quote the great philosopher J. Moriarty 'that's what people DO.' Theoretically I like the idea, but the reality of it, not so much. I can't say I really like being in a relationship and having to deal with someone else's expectations - I'm a very guarded person, and someone getting a say in incredibly personal things is not something I like. The usual reaction to this is 'you just haven't met the right person.' Possibly. But I suspect that's not the issue. 

So I feel I should be on the lookout for a partner, but don't know that I really want one. Last time I went on a date it completely freaked me out, everything in me was screaming 'WRONG!!!' when he tried to make a move. Sometimes when I go somewhere where there are a lot of single people, or where people are clearly 'on the pull' I feel like I'm watching a nature documentary. The overt body language, the posturing and preening - on New Years Eve was the most obvious when everyone on the dance floor was doing a mating dance in the hope of a kiss at midnight. I was sitting on a speaker, bored to death and removed from it all. 

 

I would like someone to go places with though and to have for company. Maybe I need a platonic SO, so how the hell do I go about finding one of those? 

[T.o.b.y]

According to Sherlock, one option apparently is to get a flat share and deduce the shit out of the first possible candidate, then take him to view a corpse before he has even properly moved in. Good luck! :-P

[Arcadia]

That'll do it. I was about to suggest joining a group you share interests with (in my case, e.g., I found some friends by joining an art group.) But Toby's idea sounds far more interesting, if perhaps less risk free.

[Pseudonym]

Ah, if only I could deduce. I shall be alone forever!  :'(  Where is the John to my Sherlock? Or, indeed, the Sherlock to my John?

[Arcadia]

Well, if you're John, you don't do anything, you just wait until your SO scoops you up, apparently.

 

I still wonder how he and Mary met.

[Pseudonym]

Don't they work together?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree. I actually think you should be able to go to the government only for a declaration of "significant other." Your SO might be your spouse, your lover, your best friend, your parent, whatever, but that person would receive all the rights and responsibilities a spouse is currently given. You could only have one at a time, and dissolving that designation would involve the same paperwork as a divorce. The government would not be in the position of sanctioning sexual relations between consenting adults, since there is no longer any (even tenuous) reason for it to do so.

This would clearly need to be consensual -- but do you see this as necessarily reciprocal?

 

I've heard of gay couples legally adopting each other in cases where neither marriage nor gay union was an option.  If only one adopts the other, this could be used to form something like Heinlein's line marriages.  However it seems to me that the adoption model, unless reciprocal (i.e., each adopts the other), is not particularly suitable for adults, if only because it's hard to know which of them might predecease the other and/or which might first need long-term care.

 

Assuming reciprocity, though, I think what you're proposing is fairly close to the adoption model.  Am I overlooking something?

 

What would you see as valid grounds for divorce in such a system?

 

[T.o.b.y]

I think that's the sadness of The Sign of Three in my interpretation, that Sherlock for various reasons isn't cut out for a traditional romantic relationship but the person who was for a short but significant time his preferred version of a SO is (or at least thinks he is). So there's John getting married, expecting a child and happy as a clam doing the usual thing and Sherlock is devastated, not because he would like to be in Mary's place but because the kind of relationship he can offer just isn't "enough". And he is realizing that while maybe he could find a woman himself (Janine clearly seems interested), it wouldn't help and his part of the deal would be little more than a hollow performance.

 

A similar situation occurs in The Lying Detective when John urges him to go out with Irene. I think Sherlock is attracted to her and all but he knows that neither he nor she is the marrying type and they can't and won't ever have what John and Mary did. It would be perfectly sufficient for Sherlock to just have his friend back, who is going on and on about the beauty of romance while Sherlock is sitting there wondering how to address his obvious hurt and anger and finally move on to the days of companionable crime solving and adventure.

 

John is so caught up in his traditional view of how people work that he never quite realizes what he means to his friend, I think.

[Arcadia]

Don't they work together?

 

Well, we saw them working together after they were ... er, together. But that's not necessarily how they met.

 

I'm off, no time to think about Carol's question but it sounds interesting!

[Pseudonym]

Oh that TLD 'grab romance whilst you can' speech still infuriates me now as much as it did when I first saw it. I suspect how strongly you view it depends on the lens you view it through and what you think Sherlock is. I hate it.

 

Definitely agree with you about TSoT. There's a melancholy to it and to Sherlock's reaction, and the fact John doesn't seem to get it. Which is weird really because in the first two seasons I would have said John reciprocated and Sherlock was his SO too. Sure he went on dates, was looking for the more typical connection, but it was Sherlock with whom he shared a true connection. Would Mary have even got a foot in the door, so to speak, if Sherlock had been around to distract John? It's been a while since I saw TSoT, is there some melancholy in John too? Does he says things won't change, or have I just been reading too much fic? 

 

For the adoption question - is it even possible for two people to adopt each other? It doesn't seem like it should be. 

 

I know one of you mentioned before that people have a 'person' or a platonic 'soulmate' whilst being married to someone else - I believe there was an example given about some characters in Grey's Anatomy. But I can't see how that would work in real life - if I was the wife, or the SO, of a person who had both I'd hate it. Unless the SO was related I'd be super jealous, same if I was the SO and they were married I would hate it. I suppose if both of you were married (to other people) it would be more possible, but I'd see that relationship as being more like super close best friends. How can you possibly be classed as a significant other if they already have a wife/husband. Isn't that person the real significant other?

[J.P.]

I think that's the sadness of The Sign of Three in my interpretation, that Sherlock for various reasons isn't cut out for a traditional romantic relationship but the person who was for a short but significant time his preferred version of a SO is (or at least thinks he is). So there's John getting married, expecting a child and happy as a clam doing the usual thing and Sherlock is devastated, not because he would like to be in Mary's place but because the kind of relationship he can offer just isn't "enough". And he is realizing that while maybe he could find a woman himself (Janine clearly seems interested), it wouldn't help and his part of the deal would be little more than a hollow performance.

 

Amen!

 

Er, this is a bit personal, but here it goes. What annoys me is that I feel like I should be looking for a partner because it's been conditioned into me, because, to quote the great philosopher J. Moriarty 'that's what people DO.

So I feel I should be on the lookout for a partner, but don't know that I really want one. Last time I went on a date it completely freaked me out, everything in me was screaming 'WRONG!!!' when he tried to make a move.

 

What I found worst looking back is that all therapists I met tried to convince me I should do that too. And that me refusing even to want it was caused by some trauma I deleted from my memory. Shortly before seeing Sherlock for the first time I came upon some AVEN websites, and I think that's the reason why my response to the series was so emotional.

If only I would know what I know now, like 20 years ago, it would spare me lot of energy lost on investigating what the hell is wrong with me.

 

 

Sometimes when I go somewhere where there are a lot of single people, or where people are clearly 'on the pull' I feel like I'm watching a nature documentary. The overt body language, the posturing and preening - on New Years Eve was the most obvious when everyone on the dance floor was doing a mating dance in the hope of a kiss at midnight. I was sitting on a speaker, bored to death and removed from it all.

 

Sometimes it's like Discovery Channel. Actually, almost all the time. :P

 

And the annoying part about JL is that it's so focused on the erotic aspect, as if it was the only valid and valuable kind of love. It's like anything else about the series was unworthy. Which is a loss on viewers' side and an insult to the makers.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think that's the sadness of The Sign of Three in my interpretation, that Sherlock for various reasons isn't cut out for a traditional romantic relationship but the person who was for a short but significant time his preferred version of a SO is (or at least thinks he is). So there's John getting married, expecting a child and happy as a clam doing the usual thing and Sherlock is devastated, not because he would like to be in Mary's place but because the kind of relationship he can offer just isn't "enough"

 

A similar situation occurs in The Lying Detective when John urges him to go out with Irene. I think Sherlock is attracted to her and all but he knows that neither he nor she is the marrying type and they can't and won't ever have what John and Mary did. It would be perfectly sufficient for Sherlock to just have his friend back, who is going on and on about the beauty of romance while Sherlock is sitting there wondering how to address his obvious hurt and anger and finally move on to the days of companionable crime solving and adventure.

 

John is so caught up in his traditional view of how people work that he never quite realizes what he means to his friend, I think.

 

Oh that TLD 'grab romance whilst you can' speech still infuriates me now as much as it did when I first saw it. I suspect how strongly you view it depends on the lens you view it through and what you think Sherlock is. I hate it.

Both of you might like the post-S4 short story I linked to recently on the Fanfic thread, "Very Much Love" by Charlotte McGonagal.

 

For the adoption question - is it even possible for two people to adopt each other? It doesn't seem like it should be.

Apparently, in some jurisdictions, or at least used to be.  All I know is some anecdotes I read back several decades ago.

 

I know one of you mentioned before that people have a 'person' or a platonic 'soulmate' whilst being married to someone else - I believe there was an example given about some characters in Grey's Anatomy. But I can't see how that would work in real life - if I was the wife, or the SO, of a person who had both I'd hate it. Unless the SO was related I'd be super jealous, same if I was the SO and they were married I would hate it. I suppose if both of you were married (to other people) it would be more possible, but I'd see that relationship as being more like super close best friends. How can you possibly be classed as a significant other if they already have a wife/husband. Isn't that person the real significant other?

 

The SO registration that Boton and I are talking about would replace legal marriage.  It *might* still be possible for someone to be religiously married to one person and legally SO'd with another -- that would depend on the religion's rules.  And as to what all of that might mean to the individuals involved, your guess is as good as mine.  I suspect that sort of thing would continue to be fairly unusual.

 

I can certainly imagine, for example, that if two straight women were SO's, they might still like to have sexual relationships with men.  Considering that many men aren't really into commitment, that might work out just fine, possibly even as two religious marriages and a legal SO registration.

[Boton]

 

I agree. I actually think you should be able to go to the government only for a declaration of "significant other." Your SO might be your spouse, your lover, your best friend, your parent, whatever, but that person would receive all the rights and responsibilities a spouse is currently given. You could only have one at a time, and dissolving that designation would involve the same paperwork as a divorce. The government would not be in the position of sanctioning sexual relations between consenting adults, since there is no longer any (even tenuous) reason for it to do so.

This would clearly need to be consensual -- but do you see this as necessarily reciprocal?

 

I've heard of gay couples legally adopting each other in cases where neither marriage nor gay union was an option. If only one adopts the other, this could be used to form something like Heinlein's line marriages. However it seems to me that the adoption model, unless reciprocal (i.e., each adopts the other), is not particularly suitable for adults, if only because it's hard to know which of them might predecease the other and/or which might first need long-term care.

 

Assuming reciprocity, though, I think what you're proposing is fairly close to the adoption model. Am I overlooking something?

 

What would you see as valid grounds for divorce in such a system?

I think it would have to be reciprocal, and both parties would sign an "SO license" that gave them identical rights as they would get in a marriage. It's not a lot different than the adoption model except that it's designed to be a civil marriage that eliminates the presumption of the state assuming or condoning sexual relations.

 

Presumably, divorce would be no harder or easier than it is right now. We've gotten rid of a lot of the threshold allowable reasons for divorce (like abuse, abandonment, and infidelity) in favor of a no fault model; this would be the same. Yes, you could have a series of SOs through your life, but the key is only one person at a time can be on your health insurance (other than your children), be the automatic call if you are unconscious in the ER, or inherit your stuff absent a will. The necessary paperwork and filing fees should be enough to keep people from changing SOs every month, to say nothing of the lawyers and the finalization delays.

 

Ironically, this idea first came to me a couple of decades ago, when my university allowed gay couples as well as married couples to share the university apartments that were given as part of some graduate assistantships and allowed the domestic partner of the GA to be on the GA's health insurance. At the time, my best friend and I were both struggling to pay for graduate school, and we joked that we should become a couple, first for a couple of years at my university and then for a couple of years at hers. What were they going to do, check and see if we were having sex?

 

Obviously, that was flippant, but the idea never left me that a person should be able to designate another person as their primary - their SO - without any strings. One could even be religiously and functionally married to another person and still keep the original legal SO, although I expect most people would make their spouse their SO.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree that if both parties want out, then it's no business of the government's to deny them a divorce (from either today's legal marriage or a future SO registration).  But what if only one party wants out?  You'd still need rules, though they'd need to be different from what we've had recently, assuming that their sexual activities (or lack thereof) were recognized to be none of the government's business.

 

There's a movie about two straight guys in roughly the same situation as you and your college friend, called I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.  It's one of Adam Sandler's comedies-that-make-a-point, and I generally like those quite a lot, but I think this one is too much point and too little comedy.  Toward the end, it turns downright preachy.  You might find it interesting to compare notes, though.