To my knowledge, Nick has never flirted with Greg. He's called him weird, and joked with him in a brotherly way, but no never flirting.
Of course that theory only holds up because you won't consider any of those interactions as anything, but brotherly. The problem I have with that is; they're not brothers. There is no ethical or genetic boundary between them keeping them from crossing a line between fraternal and romantic interest.
And to say the lines never cross at that intersection between gay, or bisexual men is to suggest that gay and bisexual men don't share any brotherly camaraderie with one another and generally see other men the way heterosexual men see women. Which just isn't the case. They're still men, and they're all aware of that, regardless of orientation. Fraternal relationships between gay men frequently do evolve into romantic ones.
I can see why that's a hard pill to swallow, especially for self proclaimed straight men with close male friends, but also for anyone who holds too tightly to hetero-centric values. A good way to put it is: "Problematizing routinized behavior" which is saying that slash and homosexual subtext is a problem for many because it makes us consider the homosexual implications of behaviors and attitudes that we had not previously considered, which may reflect on our own social behaviors. And God knows how many straight men don't want that.
In Nick's case I think it's very easy to see him as a self repressed gay man, or at least bisexual man. Sure, he's dated women and flirts with girls, but a lot of gay men have and do. In my work place alone there's a gay man with a monogamous partner who's fathered a child from a previous marriage, let's call him "Brad" and another gay man who just knows how bloody pretty he is and how much girls love to feel flattered when he openly flirts with them. He concedes it makes him feel pretty good too, despite the fact he has little interest beyond flirting, either way that debunks the notion that gay men only flirt with other men. Not to be marginalizing or anything but they really are just a generally flirty bunch. Maybe Nick is a straight man who knows how pretty he is and flirting with boys is just as much fun as flirting with girls. Maybe he's a gay man who feels conversely. Maybe he's bisexual and likes all the attention. We're never going to get an explicit answer and defining his sexuality based on his relationship track record is no more sound than pulling answers out of our hats. By that logic my co-worker Brad, is more a straight than gay man. I think his partner of 10 years would take issue with that.
I still don't think he is simply because I'm sure the writers would have made it more clear.
In not making these things particularly clear the writers manage a very hushed balancing act: How to reach a wider audience without offending the conservative policies of their particular network. This may seem like a leap of a comparison at first, but hear me out. Have you ever read Anne of Green Gables? It's the kind of lit our mothers/grandmothers might recommend. It's also been studied closely for having a very prominent lesbian subtext. Now my grandmother isn't about to concede that, but I see it. My mother sees it. So while Grandma might be offended by the suggestion that these characters she so identified with in her youth could have just as easily been repressed homosexuals, she certainly can't begin to deny the existence of said homosexual themes. The interesting thing about subtext is that it cannot be solely defined by the author. Sure a lot of writers can claim they did or did not mean any such implications in their writing but the audience are really the ones who define subtext and while you don't subscribe to the subtexts I do, don't negate their very existence.
Getting back to Nick, specifically, he's set up as the kind of character who's made to repress things, so it's hardly a leap that he's repressing his sexuality as well. He represses his feelings a lot, despite how they do get the better of him, and he oft winds up in tears. He repressed his traumatic experiences with an untrustworthy babysitter until it blew up in his professional life. In fact the only thing that he doesn't go out of his way to repress is his anger and generally testosterone driven reactions. You can say that's either typical of a heterosexual man, or you can say thats typical of a man who's practiced heterosexual behavior. Both are sound theories. American police departments don't have a tendency to be too fond of openly gay officers. Texas is not the most liberal state when it comes to sexuality. Football is not a sport that is synonymous with positive attitudes towards sexual exploration. It's a series of situations that make it extra easy for a lot of people to see how if Nick were gay, he wouldn't be too quick to be sharing that news with the world. It's got less to do with bravery and more to do with self-preservation. Sure, the ideal is that you can be yourself and be in any profession you want. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way just yet. Maybe in time. In the mean time a lot of gay people decide they're better off keeping their sexual preferences very quiet in order to succeed in other social spheres.
Greg on the other hand embodies a lot of things Nick doesn't. He's a little more flamboyant and not the jock type. He's a bookworm and a pop culture junkie and wears his sexual vices on his sleeve. It's Greg's openness with thoughts and feelings that some might consider to be embarrassing or taboo (IE. kinks, fetishes, sexual histories) that I see a more repressed individual like Nick having a curious admiration for, even if he habitually keeps that under wraps too, by calling Greg "weird".
All of that combined makes for a rather common romantic set up. The kind of "odd couple" scenario that ultimately drives two people together for their own happily ever after. It's more commonly seen in hetero fairly tales, but then again hetero fairy tales are just more common altogether.
I don't think anyone is trying to sway anyone else's point of view in here since we're all pretty set in our ways, but issues are going to spring up if people keep losing sight of the fact that however adamant you are in your point of view about subtext, that doesn't make it a fact. Much more importantly though I'd personally like to ask that, out of respect, if you're going to debate the validity of fictional homosexuality you take caution in what you say about GLBT people in general. Thanks.
