J* retweeted
It also pressures us into having narratives where men cannot be soft, gentle and loving with each other without it being interpreted as a "bait". It turns the act of shipping, which is an exercize of imagination that extrapolates canon, into an act of investigation.
while i can discourse about masculinity forever, i think that’s enough about MEN for the day or year.
part of what makes bromance interesting to me is specifically that it does this subversion of male intimacy while also making us question the normative aspects of romance itself.
is it friendship? are they soulmates? who knows! how very fun and very queer.
deep affection, even homoeroticism, is often more “accepted” as part of female relationships outside of romance, bc emotional intimacy is already expected of women.
so let’s question why there’s such resistance and demand that it *must* be romance when it is male bodies doing it
when we relegate deep emotional intimacy between men exclusively to homosexuality we align ourselves with the patriarchal demand that a man’s capacity for care is determined by sexual attraction.
taking away the derogatory framing (ie calling men “gay” for expressing feelings) does not remove the misogyny at the heart. men’s care is still a transactional reward for “sex”, while the feminine qualities of *mutual* care and reciprocity are still subjugated.
J* retweeted
Another food for thought : Are so many people offended by bromance shows because they have internalised the idea that male friendships are only allowed to manifest within certain boundaries? That there is an acceptable degree of affection, intimacy and emotional vulnerability between two men, and anything that goes beyond it must automatically be labelled as either “gay” or “queerbaiting”?
Isn’t this, in itself, a reflection of the toxic masculinity perpetuated by a patriarchal society? One that has conditioned people to associate emotional intimacy, physical affection and genuine tenderness between men with homosexuality, as though these qualities somehow undermine their masculinity?
I’m not a man, so I can’t speak from a male perspective. However, as a woman who has a platonic soulmate, I can tell you that the affection, closeness and behaviours portrayed in these bromance shows are very much part of my own platonic friendships.
Why are we so quick to question the nature of a friendship simply because it doesn’t conform to the narrow boundaries society has imposed on it? And, more importantly, why are we so uncomfortable with the idea that two men can love, cherish and be deeply affectionate towards each other without that affection having to be romantic or sexual?
actually this is so fucked up that you would say this? you need to take a step back and reflect on your actions.
muted bc actually i do not care, ppl can get over themselves, expand their horizons, learn from others, and stop demanding that queerness fit one singular understanding.
unmuted bc holy shit i needed to argue. ppl really don’t take the time to imagine any queer experience that doesn’t fit neatly into their western label box. identity politics has y’all by the throat.
okay back to sleep emibonnie will act on my screen again it’s too bad they took a year off and didn’t have any gl at all this year
don’t really feel like weighing into the bromance discourse but since i’m here… too many of y’all’s conceptualization of queerness is limited to “lgbtq+ identity” and explicit sex.





