Bromance: queer-baiting of

a different kind

I’ll preface this rant by posting one of my favorite Tumblr posts of all time.

Ehem. Now let us begin.

(An FYI, this post is referencing the Becker and Entertain Weekly articles…somewhat indirectly).

Why is it that men never seem to be able to be comfortable in their own affections? I suppose that’s a bit of a stretch, but I can still vividly remember the days of when shouts of, ‘no homo, bro’ and, 'that’s gay,’ echoed through the 7th grade halls. Whether it was a hug that may have lasted a little bit too longer, or an action that was a bit too effeminate - or honestly, eye contact - guys now and then were quick to call out, 'no homo,’  in order to make their affections of 'brotherly love’ acceptable. As if any and all emotion was unnatural if it wasn’t directed towards a female companion.

On top of their fear of 'being gay’ with other males, the male species had to go and create a term in order to justify when these affections still occur - bromance. A bromance (bru-row-mance), which is not actually a romantic relationship between 'bros’ as the name suggests, actually only connotes an intimate, homosocial relationship that surpasses the boundaries of friendship into a bond that no woman could understand.

In other words, the idea of being 'best friends’, but I’ll let men believe they discovered something new with this one.

Still, it’s been a while since I’ve heard a man utter, “no homo,” to defend his staunch masculinity. It’s been even longer since - as many beleaguered and bitter girlfriends would agree - that I’ve seen a heterosexual male eschew from showing total and complete affection to their 'bromantic’ partner. Could this be a sign that the mental capabilities of heterosexual men are evolving? That the equation of, “emotion = effeminate,” has been proven to be false within a society that defines masculinity as more than impassive interaction?

Maybe, in the real world. In the world of Hollywood, I think it’s more about capitalism.

As a Tumblr (and really, Internet) veteran, I know first-hand how these 'bromantic’ relationships effect the online sphere in terms of consumption and consumerism. Think of some of the most popular American shows on television that star young (or young-ish) male actors - off-hand, I can think of 'Supernatural’, 'Sherlock’, and 'Hannibal.’

Off the top of my mind, there are three things that all of these shows have in common.

1. Two leading male actors, both of whom are white.

2. A show centered both around their respective circumstances and complexity of their relationships.

3. Bromantic-baiting. (And in Supernatural’s case, literally.) 

In my opinion, the most meaningful of these points is the last - the idea of bromantic-baiting. It’s not a secret to anyone who follows a fandom blog (or conversely, to anyone who knows a 13-year old girl), that the popularity of these shows are not only derived from their plot and script writing, but from these 'brOTPS’ that evolve within the show themselves. In the eyes of fans, Sam and Dean are as close as brothers as they are lovers, and John desires Sherlock as much as he vexes him (and everyone else in a 10-mile vicinity as well). And despite the presence of other heteronormative relationships with the program proper, these viewers seem blind to everything but the interactions of the male leads as their friendship is explored on-screen. It allows fans to speculate, to make their own assumptions - “Did you see that look Will gave Hannibal? That was love, dude.” - and come to their own conclusions to the nature of these relationships.

At this point, bromantic bonding is fan-service and the writers are well aware of this. If a show provides bromance, it also provides income. Five, ten, even twenty years ago - this would have been blasphemous. Encouraging ambiguously homosexual relationships on television? Not if the censors wanted Parental Control to rain down upon them like heavens above. Nowadays, I don’t think it’s so much of a media market evolving as much as it’s about television ratings (as ratings = $$$) and to appease fangirls and boys with gratuitous fan-service (of a homosocial nature, of course. No homo). 

I suppose I just find it funny that in a society that defines men as either heterosexual or homosexual with no inbetween, that media capitalists and consumers have latched on to this in-betweeness and turned it into a strange, strange guessing-game phenomenon (thank you, Adam Lambert pre-2007)!

tl;dr –> Bromance is about money. It’s television’s version of the side-boob - you get to see a sneak peek of the romantic relationship you’d like to see, but the whole crux of its nature is hidden underneath the fabric of, “dude, it’s just guy love, get real."