mjhjmtu

One of the four forms of love Greek philosophy recognised, Philia is usually translated as "brotherly love". It is the love between true friends. It was considered a "higher form" of love than Eros - the romantic, sexual love. Philia is what Kirk and Spock shared, for example.

And the reason I chose Kirk and Spock as my example is of course the incredible amount of slash-fic that pairs those two together.

How can I indicate that a particular relationship is all Philia, no Eros involved? The tricky thing is, it is love, not "just" friendship. I've written two characters who share a very strong emotional bond, they are more devoted to each other than they are to their wives. It's just not an "Eros" bond. I would have thought that the fact they both have wives would be enough, but for all that Kirk is known for ogling (to say the least) every female human or alien around, and never does he show any similar attraction towards men, he's still getting paired with Spock.

(To clarify, it's not that I have anything against LGBT characters. I've got several LGBT characters. It's just that sometimes two characters do not have Eros for each other. They have Philia. They share a strong emotional bond, in which sexual attraction plays no part. That's what my question is about. Nor am I implying that only men can experience Philia. But for some reason, a strong bond between female friends is accepted, whereas whenever men are involved, sexual overtones get added in.)

Philia is different from Platonic love, to which this question relates: platonic love implies that physical attraction is at least possible, but decided against (see Wikipedia source). Philia is deeper than platonic love, or Eros, and has no Eros component even potentially. In a way, contrary to the other question, this is a love story - just not the romantic kind of love.

Shippers will always mistake close friendships as homosexual, because of all the natural chemistry that comes with written close friendships. Folks will have 'shipping goggles' on no matter what, and open affection between guys (who in fiction and real life alike are expected to be cold, distant and aloof to anyone that isn't their romantic interest) is often just the fuel shippers need.

In terms of how to deal with the phenomenon that is shipping goggles, I'd recommend lampshading it from time to time; accept that it's going to happen and that you can't mind-control readers prone to that sort of thing.

I have a pair of vitriolic best buds in my story, one being a naturally gentle, intellectual and paternal man who's thrust into a leadership position and the other a confrontational, callous, extremely talented archer who can't teach archery to save his life because his skill's largely innate. They argue all the time, but underneath it all, they both like each other and uncompromisingly act in each other's best interests.

When they have a particularly bad argument at one point in the story, they hug it out after making up. Here is where I lay the acknowledgement of the shippers; the callous, brusque one puts on fake machismo saying 'this is so inverted' (the in-universe term for homoexuality; 'this is pretty gay' is the modern equivalent), and the gentle, paternal one then saying 'you don't have to dismiss friendship as inverted, just accept the hug and move on'.

Essentially I both acknowledge the shipping goggles present and roundly mock the idea of it being canon in one fell swoop, while also having a thematic exploration in-universe (namely, deconstructing the idea that all men have to be unfeeling to their friends).

But for some reason, a strong bond between female friends is accepted,
whereas whenever men are involved, sexual overtones get added in

I hear this a lot. ‘Let men just be friends!’ And I’m all for it. Men should be free to show affection, vulnerability, and closeness in their friendships just the way women are. It is so uncommon (in western society, at least), that some people find it jarring and immediately jump to the idea that the relationship must be romantic/sexual, because men are only supposed to act that way with their romantic/sexual partners.

On the other hand, have you ever heard a queer woman tell a story of the many times her partner was determinedly referred to as her friend in various scenarios, at a dinner date, holding hands walking down the street, shopping for a bed in IKEA? It’s funny isn’t it? If you want readers to believe your two female characters are falling in love, you better beat them over the head with it. But the lines between friendship and romance may be more blurry than we realise.

So let’s try an exercise. Imagine one of your characters is a woman, the other still a man, and no other aspect of the relationship has changed. Do you think readers would be able to discern the platonic nature? Might the reader still expect this friendship to evolve into romance later, because that’s just what happens in stories?

The common perception of shippers is that they’re squealing schoolgirls who just want to see boys kiss. But there is a significant audience of LGBT folk who simply ship because it feels natural and normal for two same sex characters with a strong bond to fall in love, just as it will feel natural and normal to a straight audience for a male-female friendship to tend that way. The difference is, we don't get to see a whole lot of it in media. Shipping is our representation. Sometimes it's the representation all we have.

The other difference is in the reaction to that assumption. If someone was to ask a man and woman with a close friendship if they are a couple, they will probably just deny it while laughing it off. When it’s two men with a close friendship, there’s discomfort. There’s offense. There’s this whole ‘Let men just be friends without it being gay!’ thing. Well, what's wrong if it had been gay? It’s so subtly homophobic, but significant nonetheless. You can deconstruct the toxic masculinity of denying men close friendships without throwing queer men under the bus.

So my advice is to look at this similar question and do exactly what you would do if your philia pair was a guy and a girl. Don’t make jokes to brush it off. Don't worry about shippers. People are still going to ship them no matter what, and that’s valid. There’s no need to be put off by it.

I don't know if this helps, but I think war movies do this very well. The Deer Hunter, Saving Private Ryan, some movies involving gangs, or cops on a mission. The series Vikings has elements of this brotherly love too. Many police movies and series show the same thing amongst fellow cops without making it sexual; on NCIS we don't think the main character Jethro Gibbs is in romantic love with any of the several men he has had close relationships with, or even lived with. But he is stoic, doesn't like to talk, and all these men have been in the trenches with him, in either war or police work. When they hang out, they do male things, eat steak and watch football (a metaphor for war).

I'm analyzing off the top of my head, so your own interpretation is as valid as mine, but I think the lethal consequences of conflict can plausibly offset any Eros in the relationship and the risks taken together or for each other prove the "love" aspect you are looking for.

Any form of tenderness (holding hands, kissing, banging it out) is just not in the cards in such situations; and the male characters never have any "tender moments" with each other, they aren't gazing into each other's eyes. Typically when relating any emotional back story, men are not looking at each other, and if one gets emotional the other responds more stoically, and briefly without elaboration. "That sucks, dude." That's it.

The love between them is seldom stated, it is proven by heroic action when the other is in trouble. From memory, I believe they most commonly refer to each other as brothers, not friends, to emphasize the greater commitment. It's a handy tool, because it also reduces any expectation of homosexuality and most people are more ready to accept brothers (or a father and son if the age difference is great enough) can have a deeper non-sexual relationship. You can see this in the film Four Brothers, with Mark Wahlberg: four men (two black, two white), all adopted by the same woman, come together for her funeral ... and to kill the man that murdered her. A war movie of sorts, but you never feel like these men were ever lovers. For one they are all too callous (playing against common gay stereotypes) and secondly the story gives us a very good reason for them to love each other, they grew up together in a rough neighborhood and despite their lethal toughness, they all loved the same kind mother.

IN general I'd say you need a good reason for this philial friendship to exist, and to be plausible, it likely needs to involve mutual protection and co-dependence in response to a dangerous environment. Either one in the past which they both survived, or one in the present where they need each other to survive.

Also, "dangerous" could be metaphorical; entailing political or financial or social survival. In the original premise of "Suits", the friendship of Mike and Harvey is philial, but they share a lie that can cost them a fortune and their careers. (The risk taken by Harvey in not exposing Mike's lie proves his philial love for Mike.)

There are three frames of reference here: The author's intention, the way the audience receives the characters, and, arguably (but controversially) whatever reality the characters take on in themselves.

Of the three, you're really only responsible for (and fully in control of) the first. Write the characters in whatever way makes sense to you, and seems most true to their own reality as you perceive it, and the story you want to tell. Fans who want to see a relationship between ANY two characters can always build a case to support that, no matter what you do. Part of the issue is that many of the aspects of a strong platonic relationship are similar to that of a romantic relationship, and the ones that are not are the same ones that would be repressed or hidden in a clandestine relationship, or in the case of unwanted feelings. The more you, or your characters, try to deny a romantic side to this relationship, the more convinced people are that it exists. Ironically, the best real-life signal that a relationship is genuinely platonic is a lack of tension or conflict around the topic. When two friends aren't worried or bothered at all by being perceived as a couple, it usually means they aren't one. You can even lampshade this a bit by having the friends joke about how everyone thinks they're secretly involved.

A lot also depends on context. A historical novel, or one placed in a setting where relationships are more often homosocial than homosexual will have less of a challenge in justifying the kind of relationship you want to present.

Have them act like male philos friends and not eros lovers.

For example, if they call each other "Fatso" and "Bullet-head", readers will tend to think of them as friends. If they call each other "Darling" and "Honey-buns", readers will think of them as lovers.

Maybe that's obvious, but I can think of many more subtle examples. If they have an argument and then make up and they hug, that will be a possible sign that they're lovers. If they have an argument and then make up and they say, "Hey, sorry Fred" and "I get it. We're good.", that's more like friends. Could two philos friends hug? Of course? Could too lovers say "sorry" and "that's ok"? Sure. But it's the sort of thing that adds up. If I read a book -- or saw two real men -- who did one "maybe lover" thing and ten "probably friend" things, I'd likely conclude they're friends, not lovers. And vice versa.

I've read plenty of books, seen plenty of movies, etc, where two men are friends and it never occurred to me to think they might be gay lovers, because they never act romantic towards each other.

I think that to the average heterosexual, the idea that two men might be in a gay relationship is out of the ordinary enough that they won't tend to think of it unless you hit them over the head with it. Homosexuals are like 3% of the population, after all. Like, if a story is set in the United States, I'll generally assume that all the characters are American citizens unless you tell me otherwise or give me strong clues. Not because I am prejudiced against non-Americans, but because the statistical reality is that most people in the US are US citizens. I assume that all characters are of roughly average height unless told otherwise, even though I am well aware of the existence of dwarfs. Etc.

Homosexual readers appear to be more likely to see or imagine homosexual relationships. To an extent I can see this: it's presumably part of their daily lives. (Still: I'm white. But if I read a story set in Nigeria, I think I'd assume the characters are black unless otherwise specified. I wouldn't assume they are white just because I'm white. Whatever.)

Another famous fictional pair with this philia bond was Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, protagonists of stories that added up to a half dozen books by Fritz Leiber. He explicitly explored the distinction in one of his later stories, collected in Swords and Ice Magic (I think it was either "The Curse of the Smalls and the Stars" or "The Mouser goes Under", but I don't have my books where I can reach them at present).

An examination of how Leiber wrote this pair of heroes over four decades ought to give a fine example of how to write philia between two men.