Only in our emotionally-stilted, heterosexist culture of hypermasculinity would we need to invent a special word to describe intimate male friendships as if they are rare unicorns. See also: the concept of a “man-crush” and the fan name “bronies”. Men don’t need special masculinity-reaffirming names for liking shows aimed at girls, for having relationships with other men that are emotionally open or for idolizing another guy.
Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. Which, also - romance is not necessarily sexual, which is why there is a difference between platonic and romantic but also between both of those things and sexual. Romantic but not necessarily sexual relationships between people of the same gender have been widely common/acceptable/whatever at various points in time in history and nobody freaked out about. Part of the whole ‘bromance’ bullshit is that now that queer sexuality is out and based around an identity etc. the existence of romantic relationships between two men ostensibly calls into question their sexuality and so straight-identified men now can’t be physically affectionate or emotionally open, except they can now but only if we use silly words like ‘metrosexual’ and ‘bromance’. It’s not a bromance. It’s a romance. And if you think a dude is sexually attractive or otherwise have a crush on them, it’s not a ‘man-crush’, it’s a crush. And that’s TOTALLY FINE.
And if we can get to that place then mostly or totally straight guys can continue to romance each other and have crushes on hot celebrities and nobody will care and the world will keep turning and they will still like to have sex mostly with women except maybe we will all be a little less insane about stuff.
And I mean, I’m not saying ‘won’t somebody think of the poor straight men’ but seriously, they live in such a tiny window of possibility that sometimes i just want to let them know that nobody cares about the blurry lines of their homosocial bonding activities.