Talk:Bromance/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

MTV show

what about an article for the new MTV Show? -Jaardon (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There already is one at Bromance (TV series). Otto4711 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Bromance film" versus "buddy film"

"In fiction, what had once been called buddy films have to a degree been re-branded as bromance films, although critics do still draw a distinction between the two, noting that a buddy film both tends to be more explicitly violent and more open about its latent homosexual content."

I have two issues with this. One, I think the source cited states that bromance films are more open about their homoerotic content, not buddy films. Two, you can't say "critics" if you've only got this one isolated source, an article that isn't even about bromance films in general. 99.231.110.182 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs (TV series)

surely turk and JD from scrubs, who have a song to their bromance, guy love, deserve a mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.146.124 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • This is not intended to capture every example of fictional bromances. I would suggest, if you're interested, starting a list article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it is well worth a mention, i only looked at the discussion on this topic to see if anyone had even thought of it as I was surprised that it was not included in the topic. Anyone else? 86.13.83.35 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Certainly it deserves a mention, as it is one of the defining characteristics of a network TV show that has been on for eight years, and is certainly more notable than "Bronnie". The longevity of the show, and the relationship's centrality to its plots, has likely been a contributing factor to bromances' greater social acceptance (though that claim itself needs a reliable source before being inserted.)oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely the relationship between Turk and JD is the very definition of bromance (and the term is specifically used in the show). "Guy love, That's all it is, Guy love, He's mine, I'm his, There's nothing gay about it in our eyes." Surely the epitome of the term. --90.242.199.226 (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention Scrubs is awesome. The actors were pretty good friends off-set, too: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20227731,00.html MichaelExe (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
However, some more formal sources would probably be best. MichaelExe (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apatow films missing

I noticed that there is a note suggesting that no further fictional bromances be listed, but mention should surely be made of Apatow's movies and tv shows, were close bonds between men are examined in depth. On a somewhat related note - surely "I love you, man" also merits mention.99.240.139.189 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC) 

  I say remove the questionable LotR's reference and add it. Stardude82 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Distinction

I don't think a bromance is the same thing as a man crush, because in a bromance, you have to know the guy. But for most people a man-crush in on a celebrity, or somebody you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.205.97 (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but wouldn't edit it myself before a couple more people weigh in with this distinction. Will someone else please speak up? --Dnavarro (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Find a reference first. Stardude82 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bromance and man-crush are NOT the same thing.

They are totally distinct things. A bromance is mutual. A man-crush is one-sided. Also, people who participate in a bromance are not necessarily crushing on each other, nor do they necessarily even admire each other at all, they're just in a non-sexual pseudo-partnership. Like Jay and Silent Bob.

I move to split the article, or delete it entirely since it's not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.64.81 (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Samwise and Frodo did not have a "Bromance"

These are fictional literary characters pre-1990's. Same thing could be said for similar literary classics like "A Separate Peace" or "On the Road." The film version of the characters I think can be said as such. The Aubrey–Maturin series is boarderline! From the sociology section it should be assumed that this should reference only post 1970's relationships. Stardude82 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, Sherlock Holmes and Watson did not have a "Bromance," but rather a classic "Romantic Friendship." Stardude82 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any meaningful distinction. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pure WP:Synthesis

Living in the UK, I don't hear this term very often, if at all. Unfortunately, the article does not help me to make any sense of the concept described. I think my main problem with the article is that it fails to distinguish the act (feeling? condition?) of "bromance" from any other deep friendship between two men. What exactly is "bromance" and how does it differ from "more general homosocial practices and historic romantic friendships"? It defines the word as "a close, but not sexual relationship between two (or more) men". I have had plenty of those in my time, straight and gay. I have had plenty of similar relationships with women, if it comes to that. Also, why does it exclude non-sexual relationships between two gays? Is it claiming that close relationships between heterosexual men are somehow unusual? I think Jesus and his disciples would disagree as would Laurel and Hardy (who shared a bed and were never apart!), Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed and host of other figures throughout history. There have been plenty of close, non-sexual relationships between men in the past, in fact. The article says "The modern nature and circumstances of bromance are what separate it from more general homosocial practices and historic romantic friendships" but without defining what the "modern nature and circumstances" are. Worst of all, it claims "Aristotle's classical description of friendship is often taken to be the prototype of the bromance" when neither the text following nor the cited source claim any such thing.

Basically, I am struggling to see this term as anything more than some tabloid buzzword that has been hyped to the point of uselessness and now has an article on WP that simply throws together parts of sources that say something vague about this "modern phemonenon called bromance". In fact, if you actually read the sources most of them actually belittle the word by placing it in quotes or even by using such words as "so-called bromance". The others are simply lists of or interviews with people who seem, in the opinion of the column writer, to be having or have had "bromances" or they are articles about "Bromance films". One source even seems to invent yet another word, "bromosexual"! Of the sources I can access—I can't get the theses right now and News Tribune and Montreal Gazette both 404, my end—only two come close to making a serious analysis of the term; however, even Katherine Bindley's "Here's to 'bromance' puts the words in quotes (in the title, in fact) and Suzie Philippot's "I love you, man" says "A relationship with a girl can strain a bromantic attachment, often resulting in the dreaded ‘unrequited bromance’ (or Man Crush)..." which proves what the IP directly above was saying about these terms not being synonymous. Philippot's article even calls the Beatles "those original bromancers", whatever that proves. I might also point out that none of the online dictionaries I have consulted actually define the word: Cambridge, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and unfortunately I can't access Collins. (The latter is actually quoted in one of the articles from The Age "A grand bromance" as defining the term in its latest edition.)

After all that, you are probably expecting me to recommend AfD. Far from it: the term is clearly used widely in North America and Australia and "bromance" is clearly seen, even by serious newspapers like NYT, as some important, new, and even influential development. Trouble is, I wouldn't even know where to start in attempting a rewrite that explains the history, usage, cultural influences etc of "bromance" to the rest of the world. Any one willing to sort this article out? Oh: thanks for plowing through my rant! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You could try, oh I don't know, reading the many cited sources that discuss the definition of the term rather than tagging it as "pure synthesis" for no other reason than your lack of familiarity with the concept. Just a thought. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jubilee. The term was coined entirely due to its rhyming in English between "bro" and "ro-" and not due to some real sociological phenomenon that would be noticeably different from any other close male friendships.
In fact the term is almost entirely ironic rather than acute -its original usage was never meant to be suggestive or otherwise containing of homosexual overtones.
Note also that its distinction as a non-sexual concept negates any claimed homosexual context. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mcconaughey and Armstrong

Easily the best known bromance is between Mcconaughey and Armstrong... McConaughey, Armstrong: Ain't Nothin' But a Bro-mance

The TV show "Psych" also comes to mind...‘Psych’ creator talks dream guest star and the show’s ‘bromance’. However, if I had to classify their relationship I'd say "BFF" would be a more appropriate term...given their long history.

Regarding the boundaries between a bromance and a homosexual relationship, by far the best movie on the subject is "Humpday"...Humpday takes bromance love to the next level. Wow. If you have a bromance, then no other movie could come even remotely close to creating the same degree of awkwardness. Not that bromances won't joke around with each other about being gay...but it's always just a joke.

For example...from the "Flight of the Conchords" (A look at 'big bromances' on the small screen)...here's a dialogue that bromances might jokingly reenact...

Bret: Can I please have a look at the lyrics? [Looks at notepad] This is another one of your weird songs, man.
Jemaine: In what way?
Bret: What's that about 'Sometimes I put a wig on you when we're on tour'?
Jemaine: Put a wig on you? No. It didn't say anything like that.
Bret: That's definitely a bit gay.
Jemaine: What is?
Bret: Putting a wig on me while I'm asleep.
Jemaine: I think, sometimes you hear what you wanna hear. It wouldn't be gay to put a wig on a man and pretend they're a woman. How could that be gay if you're pretending they're a woman? Not that I did it.

Bromances can be comfortable enough to joke around with the idea of being gay...but all the typical guy rules still apply...like the urinal rule and the pound hug. That's why, in my opinion, the picture included in this article of guys holding each other is more homosexual than bromantic. I'm sure there are platonic emo guys that might hold each but based on the behavior of documented bromances...emo guys would be the exception rather than the rule. --Xerographica (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference 7

It's not a good idea to use reference 7, namely Dr. Levant's 'A Multicultural Investigation of Masculinity Ideology and Alexithymia.' Dr. Levant is currently being widely criticized for his belief that alexithymia is a norm in American society today, due to the traditional view of masculinity which encourages men to suppress their emotions. Dr. Levant has correctly identified that such men are not able to describe such emotions. However, that does not mean that such men cannot identify and relate to such emotions. The definition of Alexithymia that Dr. Levant uses is 'an inability to put emotions into words.' This definition does not correspond to the definition within this article, 'a difficulty to understand or identify with emotions.'

http://alexithymiaexchange.multiply.com/journal/item/13

https://umdrive.memphis.edu/slease/public/ResearchTeam/ResearchReadings/Levantetal2003b.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlab2001 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Should not be mentioned here, maybe in one sentence... and instead it should be included in another article

Gay-straight bromances,...Should not be mentioned here, maybe in one sentence... and instead it should be included in another article, because this is not the original form of bromance (which doesn t include sexual interaction)--92.203.23.72 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a girl version?

is there a term for a "bromance" between two straight females? or is that just a normal female friendship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.229.88 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most female relationships already fall into that sort of category. -Zeus-u|c 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty sexist thing to say, hope you were joking. Anyway many women, particularly older women, I know have emotionally shallow or non-intimate friendships. It might be rarer with women, but it does happen. Also I have heard the term "girl-crush", which is similar although it apparently has a greater element of adoration/emulation than "bromance."[1]--T. Anthony (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No one has come up with soromance yet? come on... Lue3378 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that is called a "homance" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.245.5 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What about "Womance"(!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.141.146 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Gromance.

And yeah romantic friendships have just been, and still are, more common among women in the traditional sense but I think for it to be a true gromance it has to involve two girls/women who have a deep love and respect for eachother as people, and have it go beyond just bonding over children or shopping or other 'typical' traditional female connections, but everything in life...all sorts of subjects and ways of being. But yet its still not sexual, which I think people jump to more with women. If they're friends and bond in a best-friend/romantic friendship way it becomes lesbian much more easily in society's eyes than two men doing the same thing because society and especially pop culture lends to men bonding together in various situations way more. It would be nice to see this more in pop culture--women bonding in a gromance sort of way. Not just being moms, or wives or girlfriends, etc. But people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.95.150 (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposial

In all honesty this article should be merged with Homosociality. All the citations on this page are great in establishing notability for an entry in a dictionary, but hardly for a distinct encyclopedia article. There's nothing to distinguish it from topics already covered or that should be covered in the Homosociality article other than the current media / pop culture of the term itself. While that should definitly be covered, there's little to actualy distinguish it from nothing more than a new and popular phrase for the older concept.

Or at least rename this article to what it is "Homosociality in popular culture"24.190.34.219 (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge - this is a subtopic of the main topic Homosociality which is sufficient to stand on its own. Under no circumstances should the article be renamed as suggested. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - if anything, this has already become a matter of folk sociology/psychology that has to be acknowledge in its own potential to self-replicate, in opposition to the more neutral, descriptive "homosociality". Dnavarro (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "FOR merge" - this article should appear under homosociality although it should take on its own section within that article. --71.146.13.115 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge as per Otto4711 and Dnavarro. --Muna (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • FOR merge - Agree with user 71.146.13.115, it should simply have its own section within the homosociality article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.95.150 (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Merlin (TV series) stub.

May I suggest that the whole section under "Celebrity and fictional bromances" about the characters Arthur and Merlin from TV series Merlin (and their "one of the more epic bromances to ever grace television") be removed as it does not cite any sources and is most definitely written by a troll. 92.32.18.207 (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Bromance be merged into Male bonding. The latter article is small, compared to the content present here. Yet if/when the male bonding article gets fleshed out, I predict these two articles together will have large amounts of overlap and duplication in text, context, and reliable sources. Thus, this is a good candidate for Wikipedia:Merging. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pinto

Now that Zachary Quinto has come out of the closet, perhaps another mention of Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine's bromance should be made in the subcategory of gay-straight bromances! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.198.247.63 (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Really Dumb

"This can include playing video games, playing musical instruments, shopping, smoking pipes, chatting by the fire, watching movies, fishing, camping, and other sporting activities, gambling, social drinking, and engaging in the use of psychedelic substances" Smoking pipes and chatting by the fire sound silly and shouldn't be included in this list. They are too specific, you might as well include "going waterskiing" or "putting on sweater vests and acting out scenes from the movie 'Clue'". This list should be general and widely applicable. 68.147.53.248 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Original Research / Unsourced Material

Article has been tagged for original research since 2010. Please feel free to re-add the below information with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Maurice

That Maurice example as a gay-gay bromance really doesn't work as the two characters were romantically involved; one of them simply refused to have sex with the other.Duesouthfan (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that that entire section had no reliable sourcing and the article's been tagged since 2010, I've moved it here pending citations. Doniago (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The move was probably necessary but Maurice could be the best example possible (albeit controversial), see «Such love affair are taken as friendship at Cambridge as presented in Maurice». --Nemo 19:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

An IP replaced it, apparently after some bad press on citationneeded. --Nemo 19:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it as the new one seems to have produced edit wars among fans of different bands. --Nemo 23:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Funny, the removal and re-adding continues. --Nemo 22:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

SEXUAL ≠ LOVE RELATIONSHIP

it must bechanged from --A bromance is a close non-sexual relationship between two (or more) men, a form of affectional or homosocial intimacy-- to --A bromance is a close non-love relationship between two (or more) men, a form of affectional or homosocial intimacy-- as sex doesnt mean that one is in love . being in love is the only border which defines love and bromance. prison rape doesnt equal love though it involves sex. prostitution doesnt equal love relationship. heterosexual males can have sex with each other without being in love and being in love doesnt equal sexual relationship. siginifying sex as highest intimacy relationship is an oxymoron, as its degree of relationship which tells if its bromance or "what ever english language describes falling in love"

185.3.33.20 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT

Is this really an LGBT article? --Heslopian (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes it is. Articles that deal with aspects of homosociality fall under the umbrella of the LGBT project. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Homosociality? What an amusing word! Anyway, the reason I don't consider this an LGBT article is because the definition of the term Bromance doesn't really apply to gay people. --Heslopian (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As noted in the intro, the term has expanded to include mixed gay-straight bromances, such as "Bronnie" and the pair on Survivor. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right. I just have a bit of a prejudice against all these bizarre slang terms like "bromance" and "homosociality"; people seem intent on labelling each in such unecessary, officous detail. Why can't two men of different orientations simply be friends without a new word having to be invented to define it? Such stultifying categorisation must only lead to segregation. --Heslopian (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"Homosociality" is hardly slang. As for how stultifying the label "bromance" may or may not be, our purpose here is to document it, not pass judgement on it. Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose so. But as bromance is basically just a derivative of homosociality, I don't see why it needs it's own article. --Heslopian (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Because it's substantively covered in multiple reliable sources. Lion is a "derivative" of Felinae but lion has its own article. Different manifestations of the same general phenomenon can warrant separate articles. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Lion and Felinae are two different things, so they would have different articles. Bromance and Homosociality are the same thing. Anyway! I don't want to get into an argument over this. --Heslopian (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article itself appears to open with a focus on what would be modernly labeled "bromance", then descend into just talking about homosocial behaviour throughout the ages, without really differentiating what is meant by "bromance." The header appears to describe a "bromance" as a modern non-sexual homosocial relationship, in that the defining characteristics of the relationship are non-sexual, or not intentionally sexual. By saying that it describes 'modern' relationships, I believe (though I don't have sources) he means to distinguish the form of relationships from the way it would have taken shape in previous centuries. I would describe this difference as more 'self-conscious' than previous forms of male-to-male relationships. In previous years (as cited many times in the article and the discussion), men having close friendships and emotional ties to men were seen as relatively normal. But at some point, heterosexual (and, at times, I assume, homosexual) men became wary of the way they interact with other men, fearing it would be perceived as homosexual. A bromance, then, is a relationship between two men which is just as intimate as it may have been in previous years, but is self-consciously non-sexual. It is a modern term, to distinguish forms of male-to-male interaction. That's not to say that some sexual attraction or interaction can't exist, but such interaction would be a different kind of a relationship.

In light of this (which, in my reading, is the point of the first 5 sentences of the article), I think the main text does a disservice to the description of the term, by using old examples to describe a more modern phenomena. 'Bro's may look to these relationships as models of uncomplicated friendship, but these relationships didn't have the dynamic of a modern culture which is very quick to label male-to-male interaction as homosexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegeniusboy05 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The definition is either plagiarized from Urban Dictionary or vice-versa. (Kbrewer36 (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Where did the idea that modern men are less homophobic and will enter into a "bromance" more readily then before? I have the opposite belief - when I was growing up and LGBT was not as prominent as today - showing simple affections to another guy did not get misconstrued as being gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.174 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Is 'Bromance' a Matter of Time?

I know the term didn't come into use until relatively recently, and both the article and talk page gives examples of known or supposed 'bromances.' It seems to me, however, that any number of male-male relationships in the distant past are now more likely to be suspected as homosexual. Arguments for Jesus being probably gay include (1) he was never married, (2) the New Testament has references to men he loved (Mark, Lazarus and John) but none to any women, (3) and of course he constantly hung around with 12 MEN.

Now,this is not a discussion about Jesus and his multiple lovers (there's another Wikipedia article about that)--rather, I use him to make these points: First, there was no such concept as 'bromance' (or close, intimate male friendships) in his day; therefore, in our day, many people don't think any relationship Jesus had with men could be anything less than homosexual. Second, should the word or idea of 'bromance' become extinct, who knows but that long after our time, close male friendships now considered 'bromances' will be believed to have been, in fact, gay.

JWMcCalvin (talk)

Neutrality Violation

Under the characteristics heading there is a sentence that says "Straight men are less homophobic than in times past, and less concerned about being labelled as gay, so they are more comfortable exploring deeper friendships with other men". Is this really a neutral statement to make? It sounds like an opinion.2602:306:CEAE:5FB0:1C2E:F28F:61BC:4F97 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

xkcd

GET READY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsDrewMiller (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect article?

You all might want to make it harder to edit this article, in light of this recent xkcd comic, which suggests certain modifications. The first few "revisions" have already started to come in. 2601:F:400:5F53:6DDA:9D42:31CF:BD62 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The discussion is here:

.Gronky (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

xkcd

Vandalism of this article was the subject of the comic xkcd on February 11 2015. Possible need for temporary semi-protection? Addisnog (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm sure many will agree with the comic's general implication that this article shouldn't exist in its current form, I would suggest that we should follow the protection guidelines, which wisely prohibit semi-protecting pages unless vandalism or warring has actually and repeatedly occurred. Wikipedia is built on trust, and there's no reason to believe that a mention by a comic will lead to a flood of actual vandalism. I would, however, gear up for a lot of skepticism about the current article (probably a good thing given that it's multiply flagged). Gerweck (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Gerweck. Until an actual problem arises there is no need for proactive semi-protection. If need be, rollback is always available. The community should probably just keep an eye on the situation, since anything "feminist" related seems volatile these days. A while ago Randall Munroe linked Olbers' paradox, which got a little vandalism out of it, but I don't remember anything serious happening.
Maybe some good can come of raising awareness about the article's problems (and articles like it), as XKCD seems to be attempting to do. The article's body text is somewhat fluffy, with a number of references I'd consider sub-standard. Still, for better or worse, I'd rather defer to the community's judgement on how to improve the article in the long run.
Anyway, I'm with Gerweck, we should just play it by ear and see what happens. 99.224.244.197 (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that mentions of WIkipedia "changes" in XKCD have reliably produced terrible edits and outright vandalism in articles mentioned there in the past. So in a sense, we already have a ton of evidence of CAUSE=>EFFECT in this case, so it's not really necessary to wait for vandalism to this article to happen. We have plenty of grounds to assume that a mention of a "clever" vandalism in the comic will result in many of their readers coming to the article in question - and a small percentage of them acting in the way suggested in the comic. Each comic only stays on the XKCD front page for two days, so we're only looking for the very briefest of semi-protections.
I don't blame Mr Monroe for doing this - I believe that the gains we get from increased visibility of Wikipedia more than outweigh the small amount of grief they cause. But we can be smart about preparing for it. Bear in mind that semi-protection is all that's needed here - and XKCD readers such as myself who wish to use the opportunity of the mention to spot articles that really could use some cleanup will almost always either have accounts or be prepared to wait a couple of days for the storm to abate before attempting to improve the article. SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bromance = definitely non-sexual?

Can that be proved? Wouldn't it be better to say it's "not necessarily sexual" rather than explicitly nonsexual? Also what is and isn't sexual is kind of subjective, varying according to cultural and societal standards. I'm sure in some counties men hug and kiss, but I'm also sure that in other countries that is considered sexual. Furthermore, I get the idea that male-male relationships do have physical elements and desires such as proximity and touch and there are of course things like circle-jerks. But regardless of that, wouldn't it be more correct to describe a bromance as a deep brotherly bond between two men rather than a "nonsexual" one? I'm just saying this because I'm a gay man and I have gay friends and there is a sexual element, but I still consider it "bromantic". I think it has more to do with close peer bonding than being specifically sexual or nonsexual. --SykoSilver (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually bromances are non-sexual, and may be seen as a borderline romantic relationship. However the line between love and friendship is blurred at best, and sometimes a bromance can grow into something more, at which point it should be treated as a romance. 194.230.95.82 (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Move to wiktionary, this is nonsense

"Bromance" isn't a concept. It's an ephemeral buzzword used by celeb mags.

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and should be deleted. Or if anyone could be bothered, then move the few relevant parts to Wiktionary. (If someone opens a deletion vote, please copy this comment there with a "support" logo for deletion.) Gronky (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with this.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So you're essentially saying the article is "caught in a bad bromance"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What's it mean?

I read the article. Then I read the AfD DR page for it. Then I read the Talk page. But if you asked me "Hey, what does 'bromance' mean?" I still wouldn't be able to tell you. The article does not differentiate bromance from friendship adequately, if at all. What's a bromance? Well, it's when two males are friends. Other than that, I have no idea. What are the criteria? Two males, and what else? E.g. for a relationship to be a romance two people must love one another romantically. For it to be a work relationship they must work together, even if not for the same employer. For it to be a bromance, the relationship must be between two males, and a friendship, and...? 146.255.159.26 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just Bros hanging out doing bro stuff. Just guys being dudes. The exceptionally tight bond between two males that exceeds that of just friendship. Just casual guy chilling, No homo. Slightly more than casual but also not. No homo but can occasionally contain a bit of homo depending on the level of bromance. Not actual homo but in some cases they have a pretend homosexual relationship. Benjamin (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
So like a brojob? Weedwacker (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It's like the difference between large and huge. Huge is just large but moreso. Bromance, from my reading of the sources and use in daily life is male friendship but a very close one. I don't think it can be defined as more than that. It's a bit of a you know it when you see it deal. SPACKlick (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it also has to do with how the relationship is perceived by others. Would the members of the bromance describe it as such themselves? Benjamin (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bromance/Archive_1&oldid=1078932136"