Most Helpful Opinions
I'd be willing to be their friend, but I'm not going to call it a "bromance." Having a best friend is fine. But when you bring "physical" into it though (even "kinda physical") ... Yeah nigga, dat's gay.11
What Guys Said
I used to have a link to an article I found somewhere on the internet (lost in a hard drive crash; I really dislike this tendency for modern browsers to store bookmark data in proprietary file formats) displaying dozens of pictures (from the dawn of photography up through the early 1950's, of pairs or small groups of men openly displaying physical affection for one another- starting out with what today would be considered VERY blatant signs of romantic connection- hand-holding, sitting in one another's laps, and so on, then moving on to hugging and placing arms around shoulders. It noted that some of these pairs of men may very well HAVE been gay, but most of them were just getting a keepsake of their love and loyalty to one another.
As the patholigizing of homosexuality became more intense, the barriers of social sex segregation broke down, and by the 1930's, it was far more common to have groups be co-workers; men posing with those they worked beside, as tokens of comradeship and fondness, if not (or not usually) the same close friendships that were common before. Then came the rise of white-collar work in massive numbers, and the brutal competition that brought with it. The fondness evaporated as coworkers became rivals to more and more men, and more and more of society sought to emulate the ways of the rich.
Many men today are SEVERELY touch-starved, and lacking the psychological reassurance that kind of communing provides (conduct or research an anonymous survey, asking men how long it's been since someone who wasn't a romantic partner or family member hugged them; you'll be depressed in no time flat), have a nasty tendency to put ALL of those emotional needs on their wife or girlfriend, which blurs the line between "significant other" and "therapist". That's not good for ANYONE involved, and it's also a big part of why so many men put so much stock in not having a girlfriend; it's not just a lack of sex, it's a lack of an outlet for their very real emotional needs.10
That’s just friendship. The term “bromance” was invented in order to make a mockery of men who are comfortable being a good friend and having good friends. Ever notice there’s no special word for women who are very close but not lovers? Stop perpetuating sexism, and drop the words born of misandry.20
If a bromance develops over time and it comes naturally because we click and we can have fun since we talk about anything without feeling awkward. I like that but it´s nothing that could be planned right away or that could be asked to develop.11
I have close male friends without us gettin' jiggy.
They could be called bromances according to my and most of the world's definition of the term.
Yeah, sure. As long as he doesn't make it weird.
... Wait- you said "physical"? Then NO. I don't want any dudes touching me. Ew. I don't roll like that.14
Yeah absolutely and I'd *maybe* even consider something romantic if our connection is strong enough 😅 it would take a whole lot tho10
I'd be good friends with them, but I wouldn't call it a bromance.10
Nope, no Bromance, But in my teen years I went through a Bisexual relationship.14
Sure, why not? Bros before hoes or something.0
That is just regular friendship tho10
Most Helpful Opinions
I do have friends, close friends... and they are dudes
but, there is absolutely no need to get close and physical, we are just not into that... lmfao, never had to
we do not paint it is a "bromance" either... we're just great friends, that's all
Excellent, and yes their nothing more great than close guys friends who act like brothers.