theemeraldarcher replied to your post: does anybody else get tired of the term “bromance”
yeahhhhh i feel liek there’s a fine line there, but people tend to TRY to use the term when they are not comfortable admitting the the characters ARE TOTALLY GAY hahahahaha
YEP like some relationships are actually platonically “bromance”-y and some are just QUEER and trying to pretend that it’s two TOTALLY STRAIGHT MEN in a TOTALLY STRAIGHT FRIENDSHIP just rubs me the wrong way
iambickilometer replied to your post: does anybody else get tired of the term “bromance”
I like ‘bromance’ when it’s totally platonic. case in point: Dick and Donna for me. THE BEST BROMANCE. Dick and Roy, on the other hand? QUEEREST QUEERS.
i agree fervently, especially with those examples! i notice that a lot of people tend to use “bromance” in a way that’s dismissive of queer readings, which may just be me being oversensitive? like, they’ll say “oh they’re ~bros~ look how close their friendship is” instead of acknowledging that maybe they’re just really queer.
jesic replied to your post: does anybody else get tired of the term “bromance”
my dislike of it is increasing every fucking day. it’s exactly the same thought process behind ‘no homo’. relationships between men apparently need to be specifically clarified as Not Gay in order to be valid.
^^ yes yes yes basically this is what i was trying to say!
abstract-dreams replied to your post: does anybody else get tired of the term “bromance”
dun have any opinions on jude law but this always reminds me of how right he is re: lgbtlaughs.tumblr.com/p… . Call it like it is, a ROMANCE*~ u kno it’s true
oh man i remember this quote and i remember thinking THIS IS SO TRUE okay sherlock holmes is a love story no one can convince me otherwise