Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KayLone2022 t1_j6bk8o6 wrote

Reply to comment by Thornescape in Dickens' David Copperfield: Were men more affectionate with each other in the 18th century? by angelojann

I think I missed homosexuality in War and Peace... where was it? Unless we are talking about Nicolai's 'love' for the emperor, which I thought was of platonic nature..

−5

Thornescape t1_j6burpf wrote

I wasn't talking about homosexuality. That wasn't the topic of this post. It was about men being able to hug or show affection towards one another, which has absolutely nothing at all to do about homosexuality.

That's the problem. If you have two male friends, they talk about it being a "bromance". As if "romance" is a factor. Bloody hell, how stupid is that. There's no wonder to many are so toxic.

It's not about sex. It's about affection and emotion. Not homosexuality.

14

Merle8888 t1_j6bvlca wrote

Yeah I agree, I think our problem is that in our culture (by which I mean modern American) we read all physical affection as sexual, therefore people tend to avoid physical affection in relationships that aren’t sexual. That’s actually not great for psychological health though, and not the norm globally/historically.

Although, I’ve always understood “bromance” as platonic, just a shorthand for “male friendship story,” and so to me the coinage is a positive thing because it recognizes that these relationships have value and are worth depicting in media. (I wish we had a similar word for women.) If it was actually meant as gay I think it would just be called a “gay romance” rather than suggesting that they are each other’s bro.

4

Thornescape t1_j6bw7q1 wrote

The problem is that it hints at romance, which colours everything, especially when there is so much toxicity. It makes many men self conscious about it rather than just be natural.

It technically, officially is supposed to mean platonic, probably. The problem is the undertones. Many men avoid a "bromance" because of the label. It makes them uncomfortable because there are certain groups that obsess about homosexuality or anything vaguely resembling it.

For example, in Britain having actors in casual drag (eg Monty Python) is completely no big deal, while in America you'll get lynched in some places.

4

mittenknittin t1_j6bzj0k wrote

The whole panic about drag is seriously new in America too, like within the last 10-20 years. Used to be way more common. I mean people still love the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. There was an entire sitcom starring Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari called Bosom Buddies about two dudes who dressed in drag so they could live in an apartment building that was for women only (which is an interesting artifact itself.) Can’t say it tanked their careers; on the contrary it was extremely popular.

In my lifetime I’ve watched certain groups of people get WAAYY more skittish about drag, as if there MUST be a sexual connotation to it, and it’s not a good thing.

5

Mkwdr t1_j6cdhtt wrote

Reminds me of Some like it Hot!

It’s also interesting to consider the very mainstream annual pantomimes which are generally shows for children (and a regular Christmas school trip) in the U.K. in which the ‘dame’ is always a man in drag and the principle boy a girl. Of course it’s well known that in Shakespeare’s day women weren’t even allowed on the stage ( so plays that had men pretending to be women who in the play are pretending to be men and so on?) so I’m guessing plenty of actors that specialised in dressing up as women.

2