I badgered my brother into watching all nine episodes of Sherlock and then over gchat I asked him whether he thought John and Sherlock might be in love and he was like “no it’s just guy love” and I was about to feel exasperated and then he sent me this link and I was like. Oh, I see what you did there.
Haha, this is so spot-on:
JD: Just let it grow more and more each day.
It’s like I’ve married my best friend…
Turk: But in a totally manly way!
So I’m reblogging this again because, in fact, umm, from what I can tell (not having watched the show), the Scrubs guys *are* having a bromance, and therefore are *fundamentally different* from John & Sherlock, all jokes aside.
I remember the recent post on ‘bromance’ by vaginal-diabetus (referring mainly to John’s reactions to Irene and Janine), and I was like… *yeah*. It may seem obvious, but it’s not even about the jealousy, exactly. It’s just… they are not touchy. Not into touching, or declarations of affection— or even friendship. Fundamentally, a deep and meaningful friendship narrative generally has touching moments of bonding, where said friends declare their devotion to each other— in whatever way, more than is ‘currently accepted as masculine’, in case of ‘bromance’. Love gets expressed, in some way, more overtly than the masculine ‘Gold Standard’, so to speak. Whether or not you hand-wave away jealousy, whether or not you’re obsessed with each other and/or get territorial— to be a bromance, you actually need to be bros. You know… mates. That word that John makes a weird face at before he swallows it.
I don’t like the arguments that rely on heteronormative standards, exactly, like a ‘straight’ man has to behave in a certain way to be defined as believably heterosexual; I’ve used this argument in a meta against labeling John and Sherlock necessarily queer in the past. I stand by it, pretty much. I wouldn’t say you *have* to be happy for your friends if they’re about to faff off with some chick and abandon you, just like you don’t *have* to have sex with any woman (even one you’re dating) or look at her in any special way if you’re into women. Just like there are pretty much no rules to anyone’s sexuality.
But. That’s not really the point. What I realized is that patriarchal Western society does create certain expectations about masculinity: and John and Sherlock meet them.
That’s the stronger argument, to me. The fact is, neither ‘acts gay’ or suspiciously ‘romantic’ (or sexual), aside from Sherlock’s drama-queeny moments (in which he always seems childish more than a queen stereotype). I also wouldn’t say Sherlock deducing Molly’s lipstick change (and her mouth seeming ‘too small’) is ‘gay’ as LSIT suggests in her meta on Johnlock in ASiP unless you’re already looking for that, and she admits that all the little body-language and behavioral cues could be pointing to asexuality or disinterest taken at face value, in and of themselves. It’s only in the broader context, if you know what you’re looking for, that you see the behavioral clues.
To me, the bigger note to make about both John and Sherlock is that they don’t express their feelings, neither of them; not about each other, and not about anything (except cases). John’s ‘oh God, yes!’ when Sherlock asks him to come along is one of the most genuinely emotionally ‘loaded’ moments in the whole show. And he showed this passion (superficially) about the Work, not Sherlock. His masculine-straight-man card is never in danger of being revoked. In fact, I would argue— indeed— they are both living examples of the standardized masculinity gender-display behaviors internalized and perfectly performed. Not the ‘dude-bro’ fratboy American culture, but the repressed British 30something man? Oh God yes!
john wants what’s best for sherlock, john wants what’s best for mary
sherlock wants what’s best for john and mary
mary wants what’s best for mary
*makes out with you* haha no homo bro *tenderly kisses your neck* no homo *slides my hand down your pants and breathes on your neck* no homo bro