"Rise of the ‘bromance’ threatens heterosexual relationships, warn social scientists"

[primalmatter]

Social "scientists"

I am guessing underwater basket weaving was full when these guys choose a education path.

[d00mGuArD]

Bros before hoes

[Kithelle]

Then fix this whole WOMEN ARE EVIL BS/MEN ARE SEXIST PIGS BS

Honestly the amount of men and women that blame the opposite sex for stupid shit is absurd

Ehh what can I do? You can't change stupid...

[Martymark]

Men finding happiness without women controlling it? THIS MUST BE DESTROYED!

[mizeri]

if 2 dudes are having sex or cuddling thats not bromance that would be a gay relationship, but good on them for taking the drama out of relationships

[Mehrunes]

First of all, lol at the sample size. Secondly, wat. I mean, I don't really see an issue here to begin with, but sexism? The most sexist bit there was the thing about Taylor Swift and how the guy hides that because he feels like he has to be manly around his girlfriend, which could be caused by sexism of either party. And oh noes, male friendship may not be liberating for women? Are female friendships liberating for men? Should anyone give a fuck?

I mean, how does the topic of female liberation even enter the picture here? Hell, if it's related to liberation of women and is not liberating, chances have it it's actually oppressive. Since if it was liberating-neutral, the point of bringing up the liberation tangent out of nowhere is kinda lost on me. And if it's oppressive to women, it begs multiple questions of moral and ethical nature about bromances.

Apart from the researcher saying it could be "significant and worrying" for women; there isn't a bit where they explicitly say this is a bad thing, right?

Never mind the part about culture of sexism and disdain towards women, do you worry about positive things a lot? Also, something something, women don't exist for men. I mean, the other way around.

When sex bots become readily available not only will we drift apart we will start living on different continents!!

On behalf of men I call dibs on Afro-Eurasia.

This is a thread for frustrated and impotent men to rage about how unfair women are. I think you're in the wrong place.

Which is why most of the thread consists of people mocking the study and its authors. Which is three men. ITT: inane projection.

[Spectral]

You could also stop using half-assed tabloid links and directly link to the paper: https://sci-hub.io/http://journals.s...97184X17730386

If you skim through it, you will notice they are fully honest of the possible shortcomings and inaccuracies in their research (predominantly aimed at the size, distribution and source of the samples, but also their used methods)...

They titled it "Privileging the Bromance: A Critical Appraisal of Romantic and Bromantic Relationships" and published it with keywords like "homohysteria". Being well aware that their own work is completely useless due to the sample size and selective sample doesn't rescue the fact that it's an obvious waste of resources that adds absolutely zero to world.

[DrMcNinja]

Upon reading this article I decided to change my lifestyle to be completely similar to Barney Stinson. I now read a full copy of "The Bro Code" every night before going to bed to remind myself: Bros before hoes.

That'll teach those scientists

[AeneasBK]

Never mind the part about culture of sexism and disdain towards women, do you worry about positive things a lot? Also, something something, women don't exist for men. I mean, the other way around.
.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I read the part of the article in the OP and in it said a bunch of stuff and everyone went full HAM "OMG its so evil to have male friends is it?!" or "Women losing an aspect of control over men they have, what a real shame bwaha" and I didn't spot the bit in the article which said "This is bad nad must be reversed" or anything of the like, the nearest I could find is "women might wanna be concerned that men aren't gonna be as interested in them emotinoally" which is hardly doomsaying for men or telling them they shouldn't be forming these "bromantic" relationships.

Then again I could have been totally baked and missed one key line or phrase that totally recasts the original article. The second thing I wrote was mostly just bourne of frustration that nobody had responded to my earlier question

[Will]

These 'social scientists' seem to be about as useful to society as nipples on a breastplate...

[Mistame]

I mean, how does the topic of female liberation even enter the picture here? Hell, if it's related to liberation of women and is not liberating, chances have it it's actually oppressive. Since if it was liberating-neutral, the point of bringing up the liberation tangent out of nowhere is kinda lost on me. And if it's oppressive to women, it begs multiple questions of moral and ethical nature about bromances.

It's still funny that some people think that what doesn't include women is somehow still the business of women.

[hrugner]

Then fix this whole WOMEN ARE EVIL BS/MEN ARE SEXIST PIGS BS

Honestly the amount of men and women that blame the opposite sex for stupid shit is absurd

If it helps, this is mostly just an internet thing. People too unappealing and awkward to make it in real life come up with these outlandish theories about relationships in order to explain why they personally are neglected sexually and socially. They then swap them through blogs, magazines, and other cheap venues. Occasionally they'll ensnare some well meaning but naive child and wreck a few years of their life, but for the most part it's just the benign narcissism of hermits.

[Tenjen]

Everything theyve been talking about has been happening since forever. Much like everything else put on them, this is not exclusive to "dah millionials" just because you're using a new catchphrase. Its not due to women's liberation because its been a thing with and without it. Hell its a thing with women too because people like having goos friends! Sometimes these are deeper than the married relationship.

This is based off such a narrow and limited sample population, frame of time, culture and geographic area that its laughable.

There are many types of relationships out there which need to be treated differently. But one commonality is that treating it with the general average you will damage your relationship. These things are a case by case basis.

Cue thw other studies about havinf close friends being healthy for your relationship

[Every Pwny]

What really is a social scientist? Also they only interviewed 30 undergraduates at that college, that's hardly anything significant and you shouldn't really take your, very tiny, samples from such a small area either to get a general picture, maybe most of them didn't even have girlfriends or new relationships where they aren't completely open yet, or gay or they've had bad experiences with women on that campus. Not to mention women and men have found non-sexual emotional satisfaction from their close friends forever. This "study" just basically amounts to "guys talking to guys? ew that's gay".

[dextersmith]

They need to diversify and increase their subjects.

[Mehrunes]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I read the part of the article in the OP and in it said a bunch of stuff and everyone went full HAM "OMG its so evil to have male friends is it?!" or "Women losing an aspect of control over men they have, what a real shame bwaha" and I didn't spot the bit in the article which said "This is bad nad must be reversed" or anything of the like, the nearest I could find is "women might wanna be concerned that men aren't gonna be as interested in them emotinoally" which is hardly doomsaying for men or telling them they shouldn't be forming these "bromantic" relationships.

Then again I could have been totally baked and missed one key line or phrase that totally recasts the original article. The second thing I wrote was mostly just bourne of frustration that nobody had responded to my earlier question

I mean the fact of calling something worrying likely indicates it to be a negative thing because people don't feel worry from something that affects them positively (they may feel worried about losing it and the like, but that's not feeling worried about the positive thing, it's feeling worried about hypothetical bad scenarios regarding the positive thing). So you quoting that specific part while saying in the very same sentence you don't see the article calling it bad is somewhat self-defeating. Now, it may not be pure evil bad (which I didn't really see, but I skipped two pages in the middle) and more likely "to be explored further", but somewhat bad nonetheless.

It's still funny that some people think that what doesn't include women is somehow still the business of women.

I could understand some female perspective on the topic actually. Things like allowing them to understand their partners better, or hell, even "toxic masculinity" tangents in relation to the part where some men chose not to express feelings to their partner because they were afraid of being perceived as not manly enough. But framing it in the constrains of social justice (or in this case, more likely injustice) in regards to women even though the whole thing, like you said, doesn't even include them is rather weird.

[Mistame]

I could understand some female perspective on the topic actually. Things like allowing them to understand their partners better, or hell, even "toxic masculinity" tangents in relation to the part where some men chose not to express feelings to their partner because they were afraid of being perceived as not manly enough. But framing it in the constrains of social justice (or in this case, more likely injustice) in regards to women even though the whole thing, like you said, doesn't even include them is rather weird.

Meh. I've never seen an expression of emotion as "unmanly". I just think it's easier to talk to someone who's empathetic, rather than just sympathetic. That said, I generally don't do emotion to that degree so it's not really a problem. A lot of women do get pissy if you spend too much time with anyone else, even a family member, but at that point, it's time for them to kick pavement anyhow.

[Theodarzna]

Rise of the ‘bromance’ threatens heterosexual relationships, warn social scientists

Looks like confiding in your bro and leaving women to their own devices makes you a sexist...

Time to ban male friendship.

So, to recap, after third wave Feminism made all heterosexual relationships into toxic messes and forcefully argued that men were toxic monsters that are the problem, men now might just seek all the benefits of a relationship from another man except for the sex bit and just use women for sex and that's it and now THAT is a problem.

It seems to me men are just not allowed to do anything in their lives that isn't oriented around women.

[AeneasBK]

I mean the fact of calling something worrying likely indicates it to be a negative thing because people don't feel worry from something that affects them positively (they may feel worried about losing it and the like, but that's not feeling worried about the positive thing, it's feeling worried about hypothetical bad scenarios regarding the positive thing). So you quoting that specific part while saying in the very same sentence you don't see the article calling it bad is somewhat self-defeating. Now, it may not be pure evil bad (which I didn't really see, but I skipped two pages in the middle) and more likely "to be explored further", but somewhat bad nonetheless.

Fair enough, maybe I'm just not giving it enough thought but certainly most of the early replies seemed a little overblown.

[I Push Buttons]

Fair enough, maybe I'm just not giving it enough thought but certainly most of the early replies seemed a little overblown.

Yeah its called hyperbole and its a staple of this forum.