#and that i literally watched people get arrested from my window on a regular basis

[soupkiddo]

love how my mom heard that I was moving to Oakland to live with a group of close friends and immediately starting going on about the crime rates, but had no problem with me moving ON MY OWN to the STABBING CAPITAL OF CANADA with literally NO FRIENDS OR PERSONAL CONNECTIONS TO SPEAK OF

[serenagaywaterford]

was I the only one who thought tuello was going to mention the 2x10 rape and not the nick thing when he arrested serena??? like, obviously I understand the thing with nick was rape regardless, but she did ask them both and june would've ended up in the colonies had she not gotten pregnant while the 2x10 rape doesn't really have any sustainable justification behind it. I don't see "I was in a mood and wanted the baby to come faster" working in court (1/2)

and I guess you can argue there's no way to prove that that rape happened, but serena got arrested before any paternal test was done so it seems as if fred's word is enough?? I guess they can get the test done later and confirm it, but I don't know, I feel like there's a way out of this for serena whilst I don't think there would've been a way out if they had proof of what happened in 2x10. I just find this flimsy. (2/2)

---

No, you weren’t! I honestly... I thought it was going to be about her actual war crimes, like her blatant terrorism against the US, conspiracy to blow up state capitols, and overthrowing a democratic government via war. But hey, that’s too easy lol. Like, why on earth Fred wouldn’t turn her in for THAT, which are HUGE crimes that the ICC/Americans/etc would actually be interested in is beyond me. Oh wait, no it’s not, cos this is The Handmaid’s Tale and they don’t know shit about law or politics, or at this point common fucking sense. It’s a soap opera now.

I’m just so irritated by that whole “Let’s arrest Serena for rape!” concept because it’s entirely based on a) an individual and singular crime against a single person on foreign (sovereign) soil; not a war crime (so why the ICC would have ANYTHING to do with it is beyond me) and b) FRED WATERFORD’S WORD. Because suddenly they believe everything an admitted war criminal is saying against the woman who literally turned him in???? No, nothing suspect about that at all.

(The American government may have an interest because they do get involved in individual crimes against Americans on foreign soil. But then it gets into whether June is still an American, legally. And whether Serena is. Which is super confusing and murky. I’d say June is, and Serena likely isn’t since she probably renounced her US citizenship, but I’m also not a legal scholar or lawyer. And whether the international community even considers Gilead its own country, or just some type of military occupation on American soil. SO COMPLICATED. This is why the show should have just stayed away from all of this trash.)

I mean, we know Fred’s not lying about what happened to June then but the fact Tuello & Co. just take his word at face value with NO corroboration is absolutely fucking mental. 

Not to mention, how the FUCK does Fred even know about that? All he knows is that June got pregnant with Nick’s baby. Was he secretly listening the entire time to everything Serena has said? Cos, let’s take a step back for a second and think rationally about how the hell Fred would have access to that information lol. Serena, from what we saw, was incredibly discreet about setting it up. Was Fred actually lurking in her bushes when she talked to June about it? Was he around when Serena supposedly spoke to Nick about it? (We don’t know where that was but probably either in Nick’s apartment or in the car.) So, does Fred actually have the whole house bugged? LOLOLOLOL. Even if he saw Serena bringing June out to Nick’s apartment, he has no idea what anybody’s thoughts or feelings were about that. Serena and June could have easily been in on it together, and there was no rape involved at all! He doesn’t know that. Did he sneak up to Nick’s second floor window and watch how fucking WEIRD that whole thing was? LMAO.

To me, the fact Fred knows all that is a fucking big plot hole. He didn’t before. But suddenly he knows Serena set up Offred’s rape by Nick? Did she tell him that? Cos that would be insane of Serena to do and completely OOC. All Serena’s said is that “HA HA! The baby isn’t yours, you manky chode!”

Anyway...

To be frank, I have a post--quite a long one--sitting in my drafts about how incredibly asinine and unrealistic that charge against Serena is as a “war crime”, not to mention how weak it is just from a legal standpoint, even if we would take it as a regular rape charge. (She would literally never be found guilty, lbr. There is no solid legal basis for it (there is a flimsy one) and when you consider her defense--which is way more solid than the charge--the chances of anybody ever prosecuting her for that, let alone convicting her, are so incredibly thin, even if it was just as a regular rape crime, not a war crime.) She’d be more likely charged with something like sex trafficking or procuring (prostitution) or coercion or accessory to rape and/or conspiracy to rape. (And she’s clearly guilty of those things). Not the rape itself. It’s so! fucking! stupid! Sex trafficking would be SO much more solid of a charge cos essentially that is what she did...

She didn’t rape June in that instance much more than she murdered those kids Fred shot in the woods. She’s a shitty fucking person for putting that idea in his head, and basically saying, “Go do this for me, you pathetic little man” but she didn’t actually say the words, nor did she commit the actual crime herself. (Heyyyyaaa Lady Macbeth!) Both Fred and Nick were acting of their own free will. 

(Honestly, I will go on forever about how Nick is NOT some innocent, helpless creature. He’s a MAN (aka automatic superiority over any woman), and an EYE (AN EYE, YOU GUYS!!!! The most elite of the Gilead intelligence forces!!!), and to refuse Serena’s request would be EXPLICITLY FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF GILEAD and there is NO WAY he would ever, ever be punished by Gilead for that lmao--for following the law. If he reported Serena to Fred or even Pryce, Serena would be fucking punished--probably with death or Colonies (which is just prolonged death). And he’d have June’s supporting testimony too! What part of this misogynistic fascist state are you people missing? A lowly woman trying to make a man break the law and defile another man’s property?! HAHAHAHA. As if they’d take Serena’s side. Nick is a fucking Eye. There are instances where they do take a woman’s side, like with Janine’s random accusation--but significantly: Warren was BREAKING the law, not upholding it as Nick refusing to rape Offred and turning Serena in would have been following the law. To me, it never ever made sense that the men would just turn on their own like that over a literally mentally-ill Handmaid’s suicidal admission. I think, when it comes down to it, Naomi’s contribution made it “two witnesses” to the crime. Like, if you look at most religious texts or cult texts, they generally require more than just the victim. Some require at least 2, some 3 individuals. So for Gilead to require nothing but victim outcry is bonkers and not consistent with the type of society they claim they’ve built in the series. BUT ANYWAY, that’s a big digression...

Like miss me with that complete utter rape-apologist bullshit. He literally took advantage of the situation to put his dick inside a woman who did not essentially consent to it in that particular situation. Or, if you’re going to argue she did cos she wuvs Nick and wanted to anyway, then your case against Serena falls apart too.)

The only thing I don’t see as being up for debate is that June was raped. That’s it. That is clear and certain. It’s fact. June was raped in that apartment. (She’s raped a lot, obviously, but this was also rape. Nothing else.)

And the creepy part is by doing that she actually did save June’s life. Which is all shades of massively fucked up, and probably not her intention, but here we are. And it seems to be a big part of why June went along with the plan. If Serena hadn’t set up a rapey fuck session for Nick (which he LITERALLY COULD HAVE SAID NO TO AT ANY TIME WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES and they could have fucked completely consentually another time), June never would have started sleeping with Nick (they had almost 2 years and never made a move on each other lbr), never would have become pregnant, and in a few months would have been sent off to the Colonies to rot. Serena is just going around saving June’s life and not even trying to lmao. Stupid gross idiot. Yes, June agreed under threat of death otherwise. So, that is NOT consent in any universe. If you must do it for survival, it’s rape. If you’re gonna die or agree to sex, that’s rape. Would she have agreed to get raped by Nick if the threat of the Colonies was not hanging over her head? No. Probably not. And Serena used that for her own ends. There is no way Serena is not a shitty criminal person for what she set up. But it’s also not a fucking crime against humanity, by definition.

So, anyway, without going into all the complexities and bullshit about Nick’s role any further, Serena’s role, etc in all this, it’s just absolutely motherfucking insane that any international law enforcement agency would charge Serena with THAT based on the word of a scorned husband who is also a massive rapist, liar, abuser, and war criminal himself. Like, give me a fucking break already.

And... I’m not gonna lie... if this was even remotely based on history/reality, they would turn a blind eye to anything Serena has done, especially if it was on such a small scale as one instance of sex trafficking. Sounds terrible to put it that way, but that is how these things roll. She’s a small little fish, comparatively. In the grand scheme of things, she’s FAR more valuable as a witness/asset against the Big Fish (Fred) and as a tool for their anti-Gileadean use. Unless they had significant evidence about ALL her crimes. She’s so much more useful as someone who has direct experience and witness to the entire rise of Gilead, including all the massive fucking terrorist crimes against an entire government and mass murders, that Fred et al. committed. To go after Serena so soon is just kneecapping their own damn case against Fred/Gilead lmao.

[This is where the rumours about Rita come in, but here’s the thing, Serena was already granted immunity for what she did under the guise of being a “Wife”. And seriously, what does Rita really know anyway? Serena’s smacked some people around. She’s locked June in her room. She makes June cry and drink gross smoothies. She helps with the Ceremony. She--with the entire system--forced surrogacy and basically kidnapped a baby. Those things, from what I can tell, are perfectly legal in Gilead for a Wife to do, just like it’s perfectly legal for Fred to whip the shit out of Serena--and Serena has been granted immunity for that shit (which is sorta funny in a way cos she basically used the Nuremberg defense, but it’s layered because she was actually a victim of Gilead too. Tricky shit). 

Now, that 2x10 rape is pretty fucking awful (and likely NOT Gilead-legal) and I’m almost certain Rita would have known about that in some way--but she also wasn’t a direct witness. But maybe she doesn’t? It would be fucking stupid of the Waterfords to be like, “Hurr durr let’s illegally pregnancy rape the Handmaid with a Martha an/or Guardian around even tho it comes with a punishment of DEATH!” But I suppose they are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed either... 

Maybe she knows about the Rapey Sex Date Serena set up for Nick, maybe not, also not a witness to it. We can make assumptions about what Rita knows and doesn’t know, but also... like, none of that matters? (Yet.) Those are just regular fucking crimes on foreign soil and the American and Canadian governments have no jurisdiction to prosecuting them. War crimes require different criteria and Serena smacking Rita in the face isn’t a war crime. It’s shitty assault, but not something any international body would EVER go after.]

Anyway, the show is stupid af for suggesting they’d go after Serena for that singular instance of rape as a war crime. Crimes against humanity--of which YES sexual slavery (sex trafficking in this way) is--require widespread and/or systematic implementation. Serena was NOT going around making all Guardians rape Handmaids for her to get a baby. (Gilead however, and FRED WATERFORD specifically, were directly responsible for the SYSTEM of massive sexual slavery that they created AND maintained. Serena didn’t even come up with the Handmaid idea--THAT WAS THE MEN IN THAT DAMN CAR (Hi Nick, you were there too!).) 

Like... ugh. Stick with what you know, THT. Cos clearly it isn’t anything remotely in the legal realm.

But hey, they had to make up some way to either put Serena on trial for an entire season (YAWNNNNN), or send her back to Gilead. If it’s for the latter reason, and it means we’ll revisit the June/Serena dynamic as the core component of the show, then I’ll let it slide but if it’s to set up the Miller Wet Dream Trial Season and keep Fred/Serena forced together, then I’m livid.

Not that I should care at all considering how many times I’ve said I’m not even watching it anymore, heh.

[sometimesrosy]

Do you think octavia is a "white savior"? Or that Pike and Bellamy were "demonized males of color"? Not trying to offend anyone, I've just seen those types of posts, and while I can see their validity, I also see how those situations could be circumstantial. I never thought this show really had race as an issue, so I was wondering your thoughts.

No I don’t think that Octavia is a white savior. I think the closest we get to white savior is Clarke in seasons 3 and 4, but I also think that’s the princess in the tower trope. I think it’s related to the white savior. 

Octavia wasn’t actually the savior of anyone but her own people until she won their dumb leadership game and said they were allowed to live. And she never tried to erase their heritage or say they were dumb (shame, because, yo, the grounders are a DUMB society and maybe if she didn’t worship them so much she could have managed something more sensible in the bunker.) Octavia has assimilated into Grounder culture. Assimilation is not racism. Assimilation is not appropriation. Assimilation is what happens when you are an immigrant, and join the dominant culture. Octavia rejects her own culture and joins the grounders, as much as she can.

I see what they’re saying, but they’re picking the wrong leader, and also ignoring the other issues involved in it, like that Clarke stared doing the princess in the tower, I make the rules for you thing because she accepted L’s way of leadership as correct. Combining Jaha’s sacrificing the expendables for the greater good, Dante’s I bear it so they don’t have to and L’s I am in charge I make the decisions. She doesn’t really go all the way with any of those leadership philosophies, but she really teetered on the edge with that stealing the bunker thing. So I think the white savior thing is something to look at with Clarke but not the only issue.

As for the “Demonizing the MOC” thing, I got to say, that theory not only pisses me off, it offends me. It came up in season 3. When we followed the Arkadia story. There were two main stories in Arkadia, the political one and the COL/pain one. The COL story line consisted of Jaha, Abby, Raven, Jasper, and Jackson. 

The political story line consisted of Bellamy, Kane, Pike, Monty, Miller, Hannah, Harper, Bryan, Lincoln, and Octavia.

Find me the straight white man in that story. 

Trick question. There are none.

First off, if the narrative is demonizing the  MOC, then where’s the white dude who is the angel in the story? Kane?

Ah. Why are you whitewashing a half Peruvian man, born in Peru? That, my friends, is a LATINO.

Some POC do indeed have lighter skin, and that does not make them white, even if they do have european heritage. A lot of us POC have european heritage. This is the result of COLONIZATION and SLAVERY, especially with latinos, who are already a mestizo ethnicity and come in all colors. 

One of the things we need to do to combat racism is to recognize that being a POC is not a narrow definition. And we look and act a lot different than the racist stereotypes say we do. There is a huge amount of diversity within the POC community and we cannot be represented by only one type of people. 

The political narrative in arkadia was a story which was MOC taking the dominant role in the WHOLE story. IF you want to say that this storyline was about demonizing one side of that story, then the MOC played the angel (Kane) they played the devil (Pike) and the played the soul that the angel and devil were fighting for. (Bellamy.) I like that storyline. It puts a focus on Bellamy’s moral dilemma and his character development and his character development and points out how EXTREMELY important he is to the narrative. Nothing is fixed until Bellamy steps up and takes positive, decisive action and it is the moment that takes him from being a follower to an actual leader and hero.

He was tested. He could have become Pike as a leader. He passed the test. This is a story line run entirely without straight white men and the center of the story was a MOC. It’s ABOUT him. 

And then there’s another way you could read the storyline. You could read the Arkadia/Pike/Bellamy story about perspective. About who’s getting to tell he story. About how you decide what truth is. About how people lead you to think what they want you to think. About how people deceive themselves so that their beliefs won’t be challenged.

The Arkadia storyline was presented as if “peace” with the grounders was dependent upon doing what they wanted, bending the knee. Both Clarke and Kane bent the knee to L, they gave her dominion over Arkadia. Gave her their resources and their obedience and control over them. They agreed to stay within their boundaries and not use the resources of the mountain and not farm or travel or trade. But the truth was that this was not a REAL peace, and Kane said so in 3.01. They were afraid that ANYTHING they did would jeopardize their peace and lead to attack by the grounders. People going out of bounds. The scouting party shooting grounders. Taking too many supplies from MW. Moving into MW.  Showing medical supplies from MW in polis. SIMPLY SHOWING that they had medical supplies was a risk to their peace. THIS WAS PART OF THE STORY. Y’all. OMG. I keep getting people telling me that they didn’t show how the grounders were oppressing Arkadia. OMG they did. Why did you miss it?

Maybe the question is about if Peace is really worth it if you have to submit and give up your freedom and independence to get it. Bellamy thought not. Pike’s platform was NOT. He SAID it. He said that Kane had been branded. Like Cattle. The Arkadians were like Cattle to Polis. The Arkadians voted for Pike. By a landslide because they didn’t like where Kane had taken them. They hadn’t been killed for 3 months, but bending the knee didn’t stop them from being blown up again. This wasn’t about Bellamy at all although people keep trying to blame him for it. He was a follower, and he agreed with Pike.

Why? Because the grounders have been killing them since the dropship. Because they betrayed and abandoned him and the delinquents in the mountain. Because they have kept them penned in Arkadia for 3 months. Because they blew up MW. Because they kidnapped and are holding Clarke prisoner. Because a grounder army outside their gates puts them at risk for being slaughtered whenever Lxa changes her mind about them (which is about every 3 days in s 3 tbh.) BECAUSE HE DOESN’T TRUST THEM. For good reasons that we’ve been watching and have been shown for three seasons. You honestly shouldn’t even NEED to have seen Farm Station getting massacred to believe it. Or feel it. We’ve seen ENOUGH of grounders ready to massacre sky people. Or doing it. 

Demonizing? The grounders killed something like 350 out of 400 of Pike’s people. THEY HUNTED THEM. And even after he came under this peace treaty of the Arkadians, the grounders, part of this coalition, killed another 30. He was JUSTIFIED to think of the grounders as his enemy and to think of this as a war. BECAUSE IT WAS. 

The narrative, the story, did not demonize Pike or Bellamy. That was THE FANDOM. 

I am really going to have to throw this back to the fandom’s own racism. You treated the white girls as having the noble goals. OH, you thought Lxa was going to take care of the Arkadians now because she got the cute girl to bow to her? Based on what evidence? The way she’s been trying to wipe out sky people since the beginning? The way she already betrayed Clarke once and left them all to die? Oh but they’re her people now? Right. And she didn’t let a bomb drop on TonDC to reach her aims, or send her warriors to die for her on a regular basis? Or torture Gustus to death. Or hamstring the dude in the woods who didn’t obey her. Or kick her ambassador out the damn window. 

But she’s a pretty white girl, so she must mean it when she says she’ll take care of Clarke and Clarke’s people as if they were her own. Arkadia is safe now. (LOL even Clarke didn’t believe that.) The NARRATIVE proved that not to be true. She still went back and put them all under a kill order.

BUT

A BLACK man and an ASIAN woman tell the story of how their people died horribly at the hands of the Azgeda (who we’ve already seen are violent and fierce) and the FANDOM thinks they are lying. Even though we witnessed for TWO seasons the way TRIKRU attacked and tried to massacre the dropship and Camp Jaha. There must be some other reason for why that happened. Pike must have done something evil to deserve it. (This reminds me of a twitter story I heard yesterday about black men being arrested in starbucks for waiting for their friend, without doing anything and white people in the comments were like ‘but no they must have done something there’s more to the story they couldn’t possibly have been treated unfairly just for existing.)

I mean. We have plenty of narrative evidence of Pike and Bellamy being right in treating this like a war and the grounders as their dishonorable enemies. Because the grounders have been killing them and betraying them and terrorizing them AS WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE SHOW.

And the FANDOM treats Bellamy and Pike like criminals, like scary MOC, who are the villains of the story. 

Pretty white girls:  No don’t hurt the vicious armies who have been killing you since you landed. They are innocent. They’re good now. They have the word “Peace” in their title. 

MOC: They just did it again and if they stay there, armed, they’re going to attack Arkadia we can’t take that risk. 

Pretty white girls: OH NO HOW COULD YOU KILL THEM THEY WERE INNOCENT SLEEPING BABIES WHO WOULD NEVER HURT A FLY

MOC: they were LITERALLY the trikru army who killed us at the drop ship. That was them. The ACTUAL people who killed the kids. 

Pretty white girls: BUT LXA WANTS PEACE.

MOC: LXA JUST CALLED FOR THE DEATH OF EVERY SKYCREW MAN WOMAN AND CHILD

The fandom: OMG BELLAMY AND PIKE ARE SUCH VILLAINS. DEMONS DEMONS!

BITCH?

You think because someone TELLS you “they think this is real peace,” THAT ITS ACTUALLY REAL PEACE?

DID you not SEE them killing people left and right? Did you not NOTICE how afraid the sky people were? Did you not SEE how much the grounder coalition members (almost all of them) hated sky crew?

No. Lxa said “Bow to me and I will protect your people.” AND YOU BELIEVE HER?

SHE LEFT THEM AT THE MOUNTAIN!!!

what the HELL is with you guys

Oh right. 

We live in a racist society that says black men are dangerous and pretty white girls are innocent. So when we see a black man afraid and terrorized, we imagine he is the monster, and when we see a pretty white girl being a monster, we look for all the damn excuses we can find to make her innocent.

GTFO.

The show didn’t do it. The fandom did. 

[home-is-where-the-tardis-takes-u]

Sherrinford as the Subconscious, Eurus as the It and Sexuality; or: John is not the only one who has repressed his sexuality Sherlock did it, too but for Holmes reasons. Quite literally, for science (and thinking).

I’ve just finished rewatching (no idea how many times I did. I’ve lost count) The Final Problem.

While I still most definitely adhere to the EMP theory (I mean, come ON!), I’d like to add my two cents about it all. 

It’s not orderly because they’re just my thoughts as I was watching the episode.  But I imagine anyone who’ll read them is suffiently acquainted with the episode to know to which moments correspond this or that particular thought.

'the man you are today is your memory of Eurus'... Memory... Something to do with the brain, then. SUBCONSCIOUS

'after that he was different (...) they took her away'... Heteronormative stuck up society made Sherlock get rid of 'Eurus'

East Wind. EAST. Exotic. What is 'exotic'? Anything that does not adhere to societal norms. Stuffed his homosexuality down in a prison 'since early childhood'.

'shot John during a session' Interesting. VERY interesting.

Could be a metaphorical bloodstain at John’s therapist’s office. That of John's heterosexuality.

'Six. Six. Six. The number of the beast' ... Homosexuality is still considered sinful...

The flat exploding.... Both Sherlock and John coming out as partners to Mycroft who did NOT realise they were. John's previous Not Gay stance literally thrown out the window.

Sherlock and John storming a pirate boat... Well, to be together some homosexuals had to use devious methods. Schemes. Pretend (hello again, Oscar.)

'headed for the rocks' the captain says....there's danger if we're caught.

'this man stole my boat'... // 'whatever shakes your boat' (ASiP)

'I don't even know who he is' ; John looks, surprised, at Mycroft. He REALLY was not expecting John to play in that team.

And pirates were all cool with crewmates being couples, captains often married them.

John is not... At ease. His hands are... Moving. Fingers twitching (in the scene after Mycroft’s reveal of his fisherman disguise)

'did you bring my hairband' Hairband, accessory to change one's appearance.

And we all know that John's hand twitches (reaching for his gun) when he's upset/emotional.

(or to keep things 'in check'? Use a hairband to put around your attraction?)

'I never know if it's beautiful only that it's right' (talking about music)...often they're the same thing - if they're not always the same thing what's the point in beauty? //poetry or truth - many would say they're the same thing.

The look on Eurus' face when Sherlock starts playing 'him'...... Remember. She said. 'no, not Bach clearly you don't understand him. Play you.' not 'yourself' but 'you' there's something at work, here. So, Sherlock's acknowledged and embraced his sexuality which he kept repressed because they're dangerous/sinful what have you hence Eurus having been able to escape. Why not before.....

'one of the nurses got careless' /John is a doctor.

And her Christmas present....... Moriarty is clearly the embodiment of Sherlock's sexuality in the outside world. Eurus (psychological representation) and Moriarty (physical representation) together..... Collided. At LAST.

The tender smile at the end of the scene. She's proud of him. Happy to see him after so long. As she is. Not in a disguise. (next scene) John's worried of the storm breaking outside/worried over others' reaction? Over how Sherlock feels about them knowing? Symbol of Sherlock's inner agitation?

'She was never the same after that Christmas' //'after that he was different' HALF AN HOUR after. They're repeating themselves. Tut-tut.

'touch the glass and I'll tell you the truth' The glass is supposedly keeping her in - but the truth is she's not really. Like Moriarty in TRF she's there because she chose to.

Right. She chose to go back.

Because Sherlock chose to put her  Because all of their friends don't... Quite agree? But still visit now and then (and there's nothing that says that she comes for a visit). The meeting with the whole family... Sherlock's coming out - they have to be exposed on a regular basis to understand and accept?

He's being 'the adult one'. By sacrificing himself again. He does not reject that part of himself (his visits... To stay sane, too and not go on a sociopathic murderous spree as Moriarty did? Remember, Moriarty was an actor pretending to be an actor. First time he 'accidentally' met Sherlock he was disguised as a gay man. And 'a disguise is always a self portrait') but he chose to put it back until it was 100% safe

'You're a celebrity these days Sherlock you can't afford a drug habit' (TEH)... You're a celebrity Sherlock, you can't afford being gay? That's not as frowned upon but...... But prejudiced people who would have come to him for help would not have done so had had he not been in the closet. (thinking of the US ambassador in TRF)

Also... The time line.

‘5 years ago.’ Sherlock might not have fallen for John immediately after meeting him (even though it certainly rattled something inside him) but...

18 months for series 1+2 

Two years gap, Sherlock being dead and John grieving him.

 Series 3 seems to span over a little less than a year (November-May/the wedding then Christmas and New Year/HLV) 

TAB Sherlock's auto analysis and Mary's pregnant as an elephant (in the room). something like a year for series 4. Also, Sherlock and John met on 29th January. Not exactly Christmas date-wise but close enough.  Besides it doesn't even say Christmas day. It says '5 years ago'

‘I want to break free’ That one does not even need any analysis, self explanatory.

Doesn't add up. 'so am I under arrest again?' er, that was 5 years ago. Assuming there's been a two years gap between TLD and TFP... Doesn't add up.

Moriarty has been under arrest as in Sherlock put him behind bars because he was starting to get promiscuous.

('am I under arrest again' references on an obvious level THB... But they've taught us to read between the lines haven't they...)

I mean 'she's noted your interest in the activities of my little brother' Said little brother thinks metaphorical and exterior sexuality and feelings should meet because things with John... Upset him and he doesn't understand (you're falling for him and you want him, you complete moron)

An event in Sherlock's childhood that made him aware that he liked boys? While not conscious it's far from being unlikely that a genius would not become mature earlier than his peers.

He might have rejected it because 'Ew, involves feelings. Messy. I'd rather stay focussed and logical.' Not homosexuality, but sexuality as a whole.

Noticed that Eurus meeting with Moriarty shifts into John opening his eyes.

Sherlock telling Mycroft to 'shut up, dear' shows how serious he is. Doesn't want to engage in banter. With his family. This is a serious matter.

He's 'met his sister', after all.

About the trials... 'it has to be your brother or your friend'... 'focus on moral conflicts'.... Deciding?

What if the time line in Sherrinford is skewed as well? Most of it happens 'five years ago' and in the end he does choose for Eurus to get back to the prison - but he will visit her and not forget his complete identity until time proves to be right.

'today we have to be soldiers' Important sentence, Sherlock looks up to watch John say it. Coming out even to oneself is a battle hence the soldier part.

The Garridebs is about sight. That's the most important clue. Sherlock's turning an inner eye on himself.

The coffin is about feelings of love. Save love. Don't let it die

'It's not a game. I need you to help me.' //'for God's sake Sherlock, it's not a game!' (TLD)

Molly not only is a John mirror she also (here) is the representation of Love. (Mike Stamford is the representation of Cupid)

And Eurus is emotional over it. 'look what you did to yourself'.

Kinda killed Love without having it really utterly die.

He's not ready (let's assume it's all 5 years ago. Would have been hard for the make up department to unage them all after all)

He refuses to make a choice - John or Mycroft.

'You shame the family name'......

‘Connection, connection, connection, there must be a connection.’

Well... John/sexuality/emotions vs Mycroft/reason/not- heteronormativity-but- close Holmes don't do these things. Because sex is base (as in ‘interferes with thinking’) And Holmes who pride themselves in their brain will hold that as the most important of all. Hence the 'you shame the family name' and Holmes reaction when Watson told him 'you are flesh and bones you have - you must have impulses' -  Not because it was Watson but because he does have impulses that interfere with thinking

'Just turbulence'....... Coming to a conclusion....? Or starting to.

'I am lost without your live save me soul seek my room' // I want to break free... And I want you to acknowledge me.

So by TSOT Sherlock's deduced himself in love with John but series 4 is about him and John coming to terms with their sexuality.

'locked him in her old cell (...) not as strong as he thinks he is' // Mycroft's repressing his own sexuality, too (also, back to the film he was watching at the beginning of the episode) 'I'm not lonely, Sherlock. - how would you know?'

(that film was a guilty pleasure. Because indulging in er, sensations. Couldn't show porn, could they.)

Sherlock and john rebuilding 221b. Phoenix rises from its ashes. (I know Ash!)

'who you really are, it doesn't matter. It's all about the adventures'

It doesn't matter, shouldn't matter to society because its YOU who come first. You and your adventures. It is YOUR life.