Okay, I’ve seen asks like this one several times, and I have had enough of this utterly illogical bullshit magical thinking.
This is not about the truth or lack thereof of the johnlock conspiracy. I’ve got no bone to pick with people who think that sherlock/john is actually the planned endgame. If you’re one of them, frankly I’m rooting for you. I hope you’re right.
But do you see what you’re doing here, anon? You have completely forgotten the line between ‘what the evidence leads me personally to think is true’ and ‘what I want to be true.’
You know who else thinks this way? Religious fundamentalists. You know, the folks who want us to teach creationism in schools.
Let us review:
- Your belief that something is true or false cannot change whether it is true or false.
- Your desire for a thing to be true cannot change whether it is true.
- I do not know for a fact what the writers are thinking, and neither do you, and our respective beliefs about what they might be thinking does not have the power to change their minds, whether they are in fact angling to get Sherlock and John together in the end or not.
- All a belief is, is a statement of our opinion about what we think the show’s creators are doing. It is not a statement of what we want them to be doing, and it is not magic.
I gather that when I say, “I don’t believe the johnlock conspiracy is true,” what you are hearing is, “I don’t WANT the johnlock conspiracy to be true.” Or perhaps when you hear it, you are struck by a bolt of fear and doubt that perhaps the johnlock conspiracy isn’t true, against which you lash out in a defensive reflex to protect what you want to be true.
None of those things are what I said.
What I said was, “My personal opinion is that while I would love it if such a thing happened, I’ll be shocked if it actually does.”
Or, to break it down into even simpler terms, I do want it to be true. I do not believe it is true.
That is not cognitive dissonance. That is an acknowledgement that frequently the world does not operate in a way that responds to my desires. It is an acknowledgement that the world IS patriarchal and heteronormative regardless of whether I like it that way, and the media in particular is, and that while Gatiss is gay, Moffat is not, and that while the BBC is pretty cool with gay people on TV, Sherlock receives support from US sponsors who might have a bigger problem with it. And it is an acknowledgement that even if the writers would like to write them queer, there are a lot of social and financial pressures still in place that push back against that.
Now, anon, I hope that you are someone who reads my blog, and that you see this and understand where in your logical thought process you went wrong.
Incidentally, I don’t think you’ll find m/m/f threesomes included in 1950s heteronormativity.
