When it comes to many great literary same-gender friendships (Holmes and Watson, Frodo and Sam, etc.), a lot of people will respond to any attempt to interpret the relationship as romantic with "God, can't two guys/girls ever just be friends?" And that pisses me off SO much. What I always want to say to them is, "Yes, of course they can. That's one interpretation. But why can't there also be an interpretation where they're in love?"
And what it always comes down to is this: If I told you about two characters who were similar ages, close friends, cherished each other above all others, spent all their time together, got possessive and protective of each other, and exchanged affectionate physical touches, would do literally anything for each other, and then I told you that these characters were a man and a woman, most people would automatically assume that they're in love. In fact, if I tried to then say that their relationship is completely platonic, many people just straight up wouldn't believe me (case in point: how shocked people were that Mako and Raleigh didn't kiss at the end of Pacific Rim). A man and woman who clearly adore each other and are openly affectionate with each other but aren't in love? Surely at least one of them must harbor secret feelings for the other, right?
But if I told you that both characters were men or both were women, then all of a sudden it's obviously a close platonic friendship. To suggest otherwise is to commit the terrible crime of "sexualizing friendship" - to take something pure and wholesome and pervert it into something filthy. But why isn't it sexualizing friendship when we do the same thing to the man and the woman? I mean, obviously it's because of homophobia. Romantic love between men and women is sweet and beautiful, but between two men or two women it's purely sexual. It's fetishized. It's fan service. Inappropriate for kids. But my question goes a bit further than that: if we are sexualizing friendship, what the hell is so wrong with that?
My main point here is that both assumptions - that the man and the woman must be lovers, and that the same-gender friends cannot be - are bad ones to make. The truth that I think many people aren't willing to face is that there isn't actually such a big difference between platonic love and romantic love. Really healthy romantic relationships are, at their core, friendships first. Platonic friendships are not a lesser version of romantic relationships. They're also not a "pure, innocent" version. Adding a sexual component to a relationship doesn't make it dirty. Taking that component away doesn't make it less important. Platonic love can be just as passionate, devoted, and insane as romantic love. Romantic love can be just as mundane, simple, and easy as platonic love. Sometimes people might be friends for many years before becoming romantically involved. Sometimes people are romantically involved first and then split up, but become closer as platonic friends than they ever were as partners.
Love is complicated. Sexuality is complicated. It's not a clear cut dichotomy between romantic/platonic. The dividing lines can be messy and they can change over time. Which is why it drives me nuts when people get so fixated on one interpretation of a relationship and refuse to accept any other versions. This can occasionally happen with queer people too - like when two character express affection for one another and people leave comments saying stuff like, "There's literally no platonic explanation for this." Uh, yeah, actually there is. It's called friendship. idk maybe you should try being vulnerable and affectionate with your friends sometimes.
But ugh, every time someone says "Why can't two male/female characters ever just be friends," I just want to be like, "Why do you think that being friends and being lovers are two mutually exclusive things?" Like idk man, I think maybe that says a lot more about your romantic relationships than you realize!
theartofmadeline
areudirty
pixelskylines
snowghoul
origamiaround
turnnoffyourmind
vaporwave
