That’s right. Just as our brothers before us, we totally dig it when two boys dig each other, and by we, I am including myself. I’m not sure why this seems to be such a revelation to people. Why should straight girls not like what straight guys like? If straight guys think two is better than one, is it so weird to think that girls might agree with this logic?
It’s not a sexual thing about getting my rocks off (not that I possess rocks to hypothetically get off for anatomical reasons, but whatever). Well, not for me, anyways. For some girls, it is. But for me, since I am the type of person that covers their eyes and blushes if something on television is going past first base, it’s because there’s some hardwired, deep-down part of me that swoons and sighs over a guy when he’s helplessly enamored and utterly adorable about it. If he’s with a girl, that’s obviously nice (as I have demonstrated by falling in love with Ned from Pushing Daisies, Jim Halpert, and Marshall Eriksen). But if you take a dude and have him in love with another dude who is simiarly afflicted, it sort of creates this strange multiplying feedback loop of inexplicable joy in me that can only be expressed by flailing my hands and making the same noise I make when I get a Land’s End catalog with puppies on the cover.
For years, television has been mocking me. There have been the bromances, such as Psych‘s Shawn and Gus (to a smaller extent), Boston Legal‘s Alan and Denny, or the ever-famous House and Wilson, that get so very close and yet tantalizingly out of reach. There are also the literal bromances, for when you need two guys to be all over each other but don’t want them to be gay, like Supernatural‘s Sam and Dean Winchester or Peter and Nathan Petrelli from Heroes. (They’re not gay! They’re just brothers! That explains the lingering glances and too-long hugging and life sacrificing and stuff! Clearly, anyone who says otherwise is some sort of pervert.)
In fact, I think the only gay couple on primetime television is Kevin and Scotty of Brothers and Sisters. And while they certainly haven’t hurt ratings, they’ve been around a long time and no other show in America seems willing to follow suit. So I feel that maybe, just maybe, we should once again look to our buddies across the pond for some television inspiration.
In part, I am referring to Torchwood. Not only is its headline actor (John Barrowman) fantastically out of the closet, but his character, Jack Harkness, appeared first on an episode of Dr. Who to lock lips with the iconic character of the Doctor in Britain’s first primetime dude-on-dude kiss. So when they took that character and made him the focus of his own show, it wasn’t a question of “will the show he heads be gay or not,” it was “exactly how gay are we going to get, here?” And the answer was: super, super, super gay.
There has been, of course, a great deal of heterosexual romance, but both girl-on-girl and guy-on-guy action happens nearly every week. Though Jack is a swinger and a flirt, his main romance is with Ianto, his secretary/butler/tea boy/live-in cutie. And fan on both sides of the pond absolutely love it. Torchwood consistantly brings in high ratings in Britain, and also does extremely well airing on BBC America, not to mention how fast it gets sent around the world and pirated thanks to the Internet.
The next show that (I think, I hope, I pray) is just as gay as Torchwood is Merlin. You may have heard of it because it was big enough to be shipped to America (NBC is running the first season as a summer series on Sundays). Granted, the show isn’t doing terribly well. In part, I blame this on the time slot (Sunday night is where shows go to die), in part on the low advertising, partially I think that it’s because magic is a hard sell on network TV, and probably also due to the fact that America thinks it’s kinda weird that Prince Arthur and Merlin are totally getting it on. (Gay website AfterElton.com totally called that this would happen, by the way.)
Now, I don’t think the creators sat down and went “gee, how on earth can we make Camelot camp?” The premise is mostly that Merlin is not old, but in fact the same age as Arthur, magic is illegal (and of course, Merlin is brimming with it), and they’re sort of friends. And by friends, I mean lingering glances, saving each other’s lives, moaning each other’s names in their sleep, and exchanging some of the gayest dialog outside of the Logo channel. (Take the first episode, where Arthur repeatedly asks Merlin how good he is at walking on his knees and then tells him he “could take him apart with a single blow” to which Merlin smiles and replies “oh, I could take you apart with less than that”.)
It is in fact so gay that not only has the British press commented on it (repeatedly), but even Entertainment Weekly noticed it (and Entertainment Weekly never notices the rampant homoerotic tension in anything). Creator Johnny Capps as well as Colin Morgan and Bradley James, who play Merlin and Arthur, respectively, have all admitted to being both pleased by all the attention they’ve gotten from gay fans and to their intention to, while maybe not going all the way with Merlin and Arthur’s relationship, tease the audience. A lot. (But oh, how ardently I hope they go there. As both a massive Arthurian legend geek and as a girl who likes dudes in love, I beg of you to totally go there.)
Now dammit, America, could you take a hint from these shows? Look, England went and made one of their cultural icons gay. That’s like someone deciding that Paul Bunyan and Johnny Appleseed were getting it on on the regular. And both of these shows do really well. Is it so much to ask that maybe we follow suit where braver feet have already trend?
I mean, this is America. Which I guess is part of the problem.
Clacked by Julia Hass 
on Jun 30, 2009 @ 13:00 EST5EDT
){kind=link}
As I do Cultural Studies, I feel I have to disagree with your statement that “female sexuality tends to be far more fluid than male sexuality,” despite the HH link (which isn’t the best of sites), particularly considering the number of bi-sexual and homosexual men in the US. But, I agree that the media portrays W-W relationships more often which makes Americans find affection amongst women more culturally acceptable.’
However, I utterly agree with the homoerotic subtext in Merlin. I love the show and the acting. Initially, I thought it was odd that Merlin shrugged off Guinivere’s advances and Arthur ignored Morgana. While the writers probably prevented straight-up heterosexual pairings to incorporate lingering candle glance scenes, I’ll pretend they didn’t want to disrupt the bromantic tension. Although the writers spend time building friendships between Merlin and his guardian, Gaius; Merlin and fellow servant, Guinevere, as well as king’s ward and possible magic user, Morgana, they don’t really build the relationship between Merlin and Arthur outside their occasional fraternal/master-servant verbal spars. So, I tend to characterize the passionate declarations about Arthur-Merlin’s relationship as homoerotic, as they seem to come out of nowhere. Merlin is almost like a romcom. You know the two leads will get together, but the show never shows them overtly confiding in each other. Instead, they use other characters to talk about the relationship. Merlin’s mother, the dragon, and his guardian all intimate the deep bond by stating “Arthur’s here for you,” “he’s helpless without you,” and “You’re two sides of the same coin.” Plus, Merlin’s random dialogue “It’s my destiny to protect him,” “how can I protect someone who hates me,” and “what’ll I do without him,” reflecting his relationship frustration, adds to it. Plus, the episode featuring irrational jealousy from Merlin’s old friend over his connection with Arthur on top of Merlin’s midnight dreams about Arthur tend to slip into the blatantly homoerotic realm.
So, while I am all for televised M-M action (either in the eroticized way TV portrays F-F relationships or in a more realistic stance), I really hope CC will review Merlin (individual eps or the series) and not just for the homoerotic tension ;) .
*POST AUTHOR*
Hah! I tried to do it, I really did, but I’ve watched it so long ago that it seems weird to me to review it now. This already happened, people! Get with the program!
Also, I’m just crappy at episode reviews in general.
Julia, you may want to turn on DAYTIME television this summer, which boasts four same-sex romances, or relationships. ATWT’s Nuke, GL’s Otalia, OLTL’s Kish, and Y&R’s Rafe & Adam are blazing the trail for same sex relationships.
Why I hate “gay” stories on television, generally, is that they take a wedge issue (coming out, gay marriage, political affiliation, etc.) and that is the character’s development. There’s a muted, or stunted, sexuality to the gay characters on TV and they are defined by major life decisions (or plot points aka sweeps stunts).
Until gay is no longer contentious, in much the same way race still is, there will never be a fully-fleshed out male leading man.
I brought this up on a soap board the other day. Someone said that the producer “ruined” the gay storyline with murder, jealousy, etc. Um…it’s a soap. If you want gay representation on soaps, the end result will most likely be they will be unhappy, constantly question their relationship and will not have a problem wanting to kill or be killed for any number of reasons, one of which just MAY be being gay in the first place. Rape, murder, adultery, switching partners, babies and who the hell knows what else, is always present in a soap. If I got mad every time a hetero couple was screwed with, I’d quit watching, because on soaps there is no happy ending.
Expectation of homosexual relationships seem to be different than heterosexual, and because it is still fairly new to deal with it in our entertainment, people spend too much time being pissed off (in my opinion) at how the characters are treated (when all characters are treated like crap).
Modwild, you’d probably do best watching GL right now, considering it’s going to be cancelled in three months, there’s going to be some finite ending (happy or not!)
*POST AUTHOR*
I’m certainly not trying to make a statement on all women’s sexuality or all men’s. My point was more that the “hot” factor of girl-on-girl also pertains to guy-on-guy, and American television should get with the times.
I agree with that statement, but most M-M action takes place off-camera or is relegated to shows such as Queer as Folk.
*POST AUTHOR*
I do keep up with the gay storylines on soaps, but I similarly find that American soaps (ie: Nuke) have similar problems (they don’t have sex for over a year, the omg am I gay drama/bouts of heterosexuality, the constant gay bashing and mortal peril/injury/drinking problems, etc, etc, stereotypes galore. I tend to be sensitive of how gay characters are treated because usually the powers that be use them as a punching bag that instigates drama, which comes from a long history of portraying gay characters only as deeply depressed and troubled individuals/crazy people who will never find the happiness a straight/deserving person would). I’ve found that the German soaps are the only ones I really like. The British soaps were, for soaps, well-written, they’re just not my cup of tea.
But then again, soaps =/= primetime. You can get away with tons on soap operas that the general viewing audience of a network show would never tolerate. Regulating gay storylines to supporting roles on what amounts to visual pulp fiction is not exactly what I would consider “progress”.
Actually i have a soft spot for antagonist bromance like Logan/Weevil (smoking chemistry really) from Veronica Mars and Cappie/Evan from Greek, and it’s not in a gay kind of vibe but i don’t know the actors work together…
Thank you for this post. Girls have been digging same sex relationships between dudes (whether overt or subtextual) for a while, but nobody ever talks about it. Especially here in America. It’s partly like you say; men in America are always portrayed as super macho (straight) or ridiculously fey (gay). But I also think it’s a holdover from sexism; it’s just not ladylike for a woman to get turned on by anything other than plain vanilla hetero sex.
My opinion is this – I like two women together more than two men because it means I can be part of the equation. I’m a woman! Two men means I cannot play, and I, personally, am not happy with that (unless they are bisexual, and then we can talk). Plus, I like my gay men manly and my gay women womanly. I don’t get why I, as a woman, would want a girl trying to be a guy, nor do I get why a guy would want to be with a guy who is acting like a girl. Seems to defeat the purpose (TO ME – THIS IS A STATEMENT ABOUT ME, so please don’t bash me for saying it). So, there ya have it.
As you mention that Merlin is just starting on NBC (and I read this post because of that picture), if you would remember that some of us are watching it for the first time as it airs domestically, and mark any important plot spoilers appropriately, I would be most grateful.
For Dean and Sam in Supernatural, there is an entire sub-genre named Wincest.
For those who want other stuff than coming out angst and so on (which bores the hell out of me) and you don’t mind crackhumour, weird aliens etc. you might want to look in on Torchwood as well. As it’s hitting S3 on Monday in Britain, and on the 20th of July (I think it is) in the US.
It’s got a cannon m-m pairing now and is generally good fun (and it’s got on screen m-m makeout sessions). Writing’s occasionally crap, but then so is the case with most tv shows – no matter the origin.
And hear-hear on the need for more gay content for everyone.
With Russell T Davies (Doctor Who & Torchwood showrunner) apparently relocating to LA, better gay characters and relationships might be making it to US telly. RTD was, of course, the creator of the original Queer as Folk, so he has plenty of form.
Watching two men have sex means getting to finally see a man in the role of giving pure pleasure. When a man is with a woman, on some level the sex is “functional,” about conception or power over a woman. Does that sound like a good explanation for why women want to see two men together?