Off-Topic: Ain’t Saying He’s A Gold Digger: Looking At Bromance & I Love You, Man
By Special Correspondent Arturo R. García
Editor’s Note – While checking out tips from readers, evaluating episodes of Daddy’s Little Girls, and checking up on The Real World, something kept grating on my nerves. The heavily promoted Bromance dances into decidedly homo-erotic territory – but the wink and nudge protestations from the cast members (complete with “Dude, that’s so gay” remarks to keep people in check) I started to wonder what was up. I asked Arturo to take a quick peek at the show. – LDP
The question of male friendship and how “gay” it may or may not be is getting a little extra scrutiny these days, with new projects from Brody Jenner and Paul Rudd.
In the wake of Prop. 8’s passage in California, Jenner’s Bromance is taking MTV’s new approach to dating shows: same-sex humiliation. Produced by Momma’s Boy’s mastermind Ryan “I was Metro when that was still another word for subway” Seacrest, the show is Entourage by way of The Bachelor, with several dim-witted if sort-of-well-intentioned young men competing for a spot at Brody’s side. And really, who wouldn’t want to hang out with a professional do-nothing and his friend Sleazy T and Frankie Delgado — especially after their “initiation” involved getting dragged out of their beds wearing nothing but their boxers (or less) and a black bag over their head? My buddies and I play Gitmo Gotcha all the time!
The show’s challenges answer that question: money, and random women. Each of the show’s skill challenges features two or three random white female ornaments. The lone exception, of course, was the “Dating Game”-style game which cross-promoted Lauren Conrad – she’s random enough on her own. The contestants’ first task, in fact, was to bring “hot chicks” to a lingerie party. (It also should be noted that seemingly 75 percent of the women who were convinced to go were Caucasian blondes.)
Interestingly enough, one self-identified gay man, Michael, was selected to compete on the show. But though he’s treated (surprisingly?) well, based on the footage we were allowed to see, Michael bows out on his own, saying, “I thought it was gonna be like an episode of The Hills.” Man, seeing the boys pal around with LC later in the season had to have hurt.
As the show continues, we’re treated to disturbing images of several of the young men crying during conversations with Jenner, or after various blow-ups around the house. These instances aren’t weird because it’s “unmanly” or whatever, but because it just doesn’t make sense for people who seemingly barely know each other to be reduced to tears at the first hint of crisis. Then again, this is “reality” television.
The show’s not over as of this writing, but it’s already become clear that the posh apartment the winner receives will be worth more than any “friendship” he receives with Jenner. Whichever one wins is almost going certainly going to be low-man in Jenner’s “posse,” Turtle to Brody’s Vinnie Chase. Judging by Jenner’s other friends, it’s clear that Brody, who appeared on the national radar by riding on LC’s own coattails, is looking for his own band of sycophants. That transcends sexuality – it’s just sad.
********
Whereas Bromance is cloying about the question about male sexuality vis-a-vis friendships, scheduling group talks in hot tubs and such, the trailer for the upcoming I Love You, Man goes the rom-com route. Paul Rudd and Jason Segel have a meet-cute. Rudd’s character, Peter, is immediately coded as being “not as manly” as Segel’s character, Sydney; Peter has no male friends (named on Bromance as a gay characteristic) and “loved” The Devil Wears Prada. He has a white-collar job and dresses well, though not “Metro”-well. In fact, after dinner with similarly clean-cut Doug (Thomas Lennon), Doug kisses Peter – after all, since they dress “alike,” it’s only right for Doug to assume Pete’s gay. Hilar! Meanwhile, Sydney dresses down and is kind of a dolt, reassuring the viewer that he’s “a bro.” One can only presume that hilarity will ensue.
It’s all rather innocuous, but the mention of the term “man-date” by Rashida Jones’ character, Zooey, threw me, in its’ teasing manner, as did the pressure for Sydney to immediately ascend to the rank of best man at Peter and Zooey’s wedding. If Peter’s best friend were a woman, or a gay man, would that “cheapen” the nuptials? Couldn’t Peter’s father or brother perform the same function? One can only presume such questions will be glossed over, if addressed at all.
In a post-Brokeback world, it seems the latest addition to the Battle of the Sexes tropes is the need to reassure audiences that depth in male friendships is strictly accidental – unless, of course, it’s forged while pursuing interests like military action or athletic competition. Then you can use phrases like “trust your life to another man” and not worry about, as the Ghostbusters might have put it, “crossing the streams.”
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Eva wrote:
Ugh, I’m glad you looked at this show, so I don’t have to. Between this show and the drek that is “The City,” MTV’s hit an all time low (if it could do that). Both of those shows are just boring.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 12:55 pm ¶
UGLY DEAF MUSLIM PUNK GURL! wrote:
I don’t understand why American males have such a phobia of same sex affection and same-sex friendship. in India, many men and boys are always holding hands as a sign of friendship and nobody raises their eyebrow at it.
a message to the males of America: get the fuck over yourself.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 1:08 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
MTV: Your source for new lows in offensive television.
I mean, this stuff is just silly and sad. So I suppose it isn’t as crassly offensive to me as Sweet Sixteen, but still, I worry that an alien race will see MTV transmissions a century from now and decide to destroy humanity for the sake of every other intelligent species.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶
Mace Elaine wrote:
I Love You, Man: I have such an inner struggle with this, as the theme of the movie seems boderline offensive, and mostly not funny, but I ADORE both Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, and want to believe that they wouldn’t sign up for something so horrible.
As for Bromance, pass. I won’t even watch an entire commercial for it, let alone an episode.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
@ Jess, … “but still, I worry that an alien race will see MTV transmissions a century from now and decide to destroy humanity for the sake of every other intelligent species.” ROFLMAO. So on point. I also co-sign with UDMPG, American men really do need to get over themselves!
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 3:53 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:
Viacom is a source of everything that’s wrong in the world. Horrible!
I have to admit, I’m going to see “I Love You, Man” when it comes out, because I have a free ticket. And a crush on Paul Rudd.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 4:06 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@UDMPG
Yeah, you are mostly right. Except I think this is a cultural/ethnic thing that is really different even within America. My Arab family and my friends from other various “ethnic” cultural groups (i.e. Greek, Jewish, Italian, Sicilian, Armenian, African etc.) have no particular issue with this. In my experience white (i.e. Northern European) and–ironically enough–black (American born) guys are the most paranoid about expressing affection among their male friends and family members. These are the kinds of guys who are the most likely to either a) rigidly police the behavior of the men around them because they are super-vigilant about “seeming gay” (really a fear of seeming like a woman, which is the worst possible thing to be), b) get shit-faced and tell you how much they love you or, c) both.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 4:30 pm ¶
Natalie wrote:
My incredibly shocking reality show moment came watching Tool Academy (not shockingly, the men are tools).
The men were discussing how one guy’s girlfriend hadn’t had sex with him yet although they had been dating for seven months, and she had had sex before, but, the boyfriend mournfully intoned, “Only with black guys.”
Pan over to the one (or at least the only memorable) black guy in the house. For the entire rest of the episode they kept talking about how much trouble this guy was in because his girlfriend would never be satisfied by a white guy.
It really surprised me that the editors left in such blatant racist stereotyping. I mean, yes, the guys are supposed to be tools, but still.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 4:55 pm ¶
Luis wrote:
Arturo kills it again. Great work.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 5:01 pm ¶
Arturo wrote:
Natalie,
I *did* catch that first comment, but not the ensuing discussion.
Luis, thanks much for the kind words
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 5:25 pm ¶
LaurynX wrote:
“One can only presume that hilarity will ensue.”
I’m laughing already…
::sarcasm::
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 6:50 pm ¶
InJM wrote:
@Joseph (#7)
(B) happens a lot in Japan too.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 7:33 pm ¶
Myles wrote:
I think a lot of this speaks to an underlying issue of men feeling alienated from themselves and other men, largely brought on from the increased cultural awareness of gay men.
I mean, in the US men used to be pretty touchy-feely with each other, back in the days of black and white photography men often took pictures with their male friends with large amounts of physical contact going on (arm over the shoulder to sitting in the other dudes lap).
I think as gay men became more visible, it became more important for heterosexual men to show that they weren’t gay by focusing on being a player and further divorcing themselves from their feelings.
A lot of theses things that are going on now in the realm of Guydom (a magical realm were you can fart with minor ridicule) is a return to the older ways in which men used to treat each other.
Because this has become such a foreign thing for so many men, i.e. we didn’t see our dads and other men doing this stuff, we have to come up for clever names for it like “Man Date” and “Bromance.”
It’s a way to say:
“I know this could totally be seen as me being gay, but I’m not and I just like having guy friends.”
It acknowledges how unacceptable male-male relationships have become, while saying: “no, no, no, this is cool.”
I think things like this can potentially have a positive effect on men’s lives, at least I hope it does. I think U.S. culture has become far too comfortable with men being divorced from their emotions and having to rely on their relationships with women in order to express their feelings.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 8:59 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
The problem with Bromance isn’t that it’s gay. The problem is that it’s stupid. Ridiculously stupid. Amazingly stupid. Astronomically stupid. Incomprehensibly stupid. Sign of the Apocalypse stupid. Your-15-minutes-can-not-be-up-fast-enough stupid.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 9:01 pm ¶
MelMel wrote:
@Myles: YES! Awesome point. One that shows how homophobia harms straight people too. If we were more accepting of gay people, this is how the dialogue would go between “bros” Tom, Mike, and their acquaintance, Matt:
(Matt sees them being affectionate all the time, so he has to ask:)
Matt: Are you guys a couple?
Tom: No, we’re just buddies.
Mike: Yep.
Matt: Oh ok. See ya later.
Imagine the same dialogue in today’s homophobic society. I think it would be fairly different.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 7:51 am ¶
SayNay wrote:
Bromance MAJOR pass!! I stopped watching MTV 5 or 6 years ago.
I might check out I Love You, Man on the bootleg tip. While I don’t think it’s going to be remotely ground-breaking *read non-offensive*, it looks somewhat interesting.
On a side note can we talk about Rashida Jones playing the “white” girlfriend. Was there previously a post a while back on here about her and movie roles or am I thinking of another blog?
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 9:35 am ¶
Carolina wrote:
Great Copy Arturo, “sei veramente chicoso”, it’s very tongue in chic and much more. I stopped watching television years ago, and as I live in Italy – one can understand why. Consequentially, I have NO idea who these people are that you are talking about, but I love the way you reported it. I read Italian Vanity Fair for much the same reason, great political and popular culture satire without having to watch a minute of mindless TV. as for MTV, Very Victoria on the Italian MTV franchise is definitely worth watching on V-pod cast, Laura Pausini and all.
A word or two in defense of N. American maleness; based on a personally conducted survey, they are much more evolved than than their Italian counterparts vis. a vis. opposite sex relations, so I can deal with the conspicuous obnoxious passage of gas as well as the awkward same sex behavioral rituals.
Ti adoro Arturo, ma lascia stare noi povere bionde bianche, non e colpa nostra che siamo fato così: e una condizione genetica
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 10:18 am ¶
Arturo wrote:
Ha! Grazie, Carolina, grazie!
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 2:31 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
I’m not defending these particular shows or movies (I’m not very familiar with either), but it does seem puzzling to me that there is seemingly no appropriate way for mainstream entertainment, or even individuals, to explore or express male-male admiration without being deemed offensive. I am not playing the “over-sensitive card”, but I do remember a similar post a while back about Judd Apatow movies and it just leaves me confused. I have some very close male friends (bromances?) and we do make jokes about how “gay” our relationships are. But, for me at least, this is no different than when I make jokes with close female friends about how we’re practically married or other things that demonstrate our relationship is closer than most other peoples’. For years it was taboo for guys to admit to having mutual admiration for one another, lest they ACTUALLY be considered gay. Now that it has become somewhat acceptable for men to do this, to admit they care about each other and that it doesn’t make them gay and that this isn’t a uniquely gay characteristic, it is still offensive? Obviously, there is a lot of this that depends on HOW it is done, and I get that. It seems as if these examples (particularly the movie) play on stereotypes. But, in a larger context, what is the appropriate way for two male, heterosexual friends to talk about and define their relationship? Ten years ago, telling a buddy you loved him would get you socked. Now, for many guys, it’s totally fine. Yet it’s offensive to others? I’m confused…
Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:45 am ¶
Carolina wrote:
Prego Arturo, sei mitico! Dovresti scrivere per Vanity Fair Italia!!!!
BSK, I’d say don’t sweat it so much, it sounds like you are an evolved male, which in my book is a huge compliment. I think that a man today should be able to feel confident of his sexuality while openly expressing heterosexual affection for another man. Why does that have to be considered, “gay”, for me it’s just being comfortable in one’s skin. I have to say that I know a fair amount of gay friends who aren’t comfortable expressing emotion, so why do we have to use stereotypes at all? People are people and every single being is uniquely different, why should sexual orientation be a barometer of acceptable behavior at all? Give yourself more credit and “al diavolo” to what other people think!
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 8:29 am ¶
CMyers wrote:
@ Joseph
Black men are especially prone to want to protect their masculinity because it’s been cut down so much throughout history. I’ve talked to several of my black male friends and they’re all against homosexuality–unless it’s two women. My take is that it’s because the idea of two men being together threatens their masculinity. A man that has sex with another man can’t be masculine.
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
#2 (UDMPG):
This might sound strange, but a lot of American men don’t like showing affection to other men because it’s a fear of others thinking they’re gay. I know, that’s absolutely the worst thing in the world, right? *shakes head* I would have to say that it’s mostly not their fault, and that most of these men were raised by their fathers saying that being gay means being disowned, and it’s because their fathers did it to them. I’ve noticed that the thought of being gay for a lot of guys in our country is the worst thing in the world, simply because they want their fathers’ approval, and when they were little boys their fathers stressed that they need to marry a woman, have kids, etc, and then in high school “You better not be a fag!” My boyfriend explained to me that he was taught to never show any emotions as a kid, and that was bad, and that if he was gay, that basically he would be disowned, which is really messed up in my opinion.
I think this current generation is going to be a million times more accepting of the gay community and of our gay children than in previous generations. There are more and more positive influences on pop culture that the gay community has. And with Prop 8 coming so close to passing in California, I have hope.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
Bagelsan wrote:
Reminds me of the “guy love” song in Scrubs. In the middle of talking about how very very close they are, they have to throw in disclaimers to the other people around them that they love each other totally only as friends.
Posted 07 Feb 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
Whoops, I meant Prop 8 coming so close to *not* passing. My bad.
Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 5:30 pm ¶