I just read that post on queerbaiting and I’m actually laughing. Sorry, I’m really trying not to be rude but that post was (to me) beyond ludicrous. Holmes & Watson have a very strong male friendship, often to referred to in writings about the canon as a romantic friendship. I’m a gay man. I have a straight male friend who people often think I’m in a relationship with, we’re not. I think it’s more homophobic to claim a male friendship is queerbaiting as it feels very “backs to the walls”.

My post wasn’t about queerbaiting.  For that, read rivai-lution‘s awesome and passionate rebuttal to my post, here: http://rivai-lution.tumblr.com/post/72535925804/johnlock-its-not-just-for-fans-anymore-sherlock

What I wrote was a post about the relationship as shown in the text.

It’s downright offensive when people act like gay people can’t have platonic friends of their own gender!  The world isn’t made up of nothing but sex and romance, and god, I can only imagine how obnoxious that gets.  

But my point was that platonic friendship probably isn’t what we’re being shown on-screen when character 1 is making a comment about character 2’s sexuality (“Whatever you are”) while the camera is cutting to the object of character 2’s affections in the background.  There’s a very deliberate, planned, camera-positioned and edited context there.

Though you are, of course, free to assume that “whatever you are” was a reference to Sherlock’s personality rather than his sexuality, and that the cut to John was a simple attempt to make the moment more dynamic and that he just happened to turn up in the background at that moment. There’s always another possible interpretation.