Imagine a girl and a boy, born on the same day, in the same city and of similar cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. They grow and experience the world in much the same way, unencumbered by any conscious restrictions. Both are able to eat, play and explore the world around them and they both derive joy from experiencing it. However, as they grow up, they will start to perceive life in very different ways. Their bodies, and the way they relate to them, will begin to dictate how they interact with others, specifically, with members of the same sex.
We have all witnessed the infectious energy of a group of girls, some holding hands and sharing secrets. Often we hear their excited chatter before we can even identify where it is coming from! Their exhilarating satisfaction of being part of a physically and emotionally connected group is palatable, even to a stranger just passing by. This is the epitome of same-sex intimacy among children.
Girls play and engage easily in affectionate, nurturing, intimate bonding activities with other girls. This behavior can continue into adulthood, generally without fear that these relationships will threaten their womanhood.
The experience of girls’ same-sex intimacy is a unique experience which is the result of the emotional connection with other girls who share similar experiences of physical development. This special emotional bond is not only a powerful one, but for many girls this deep connection is crucial for consolidating their identity as females and thus providing a strong sense of belonging to the “girl” class.
Boys start off playing in an affectionate way, including hugging and rough-housing with each other. However, at a very young age, things start to change and it is no longer acceptable for boys to behave in this way. Boys are no longer encouraged to have close emotional and/or physical connections with other boys because to do so means a threat to their masculinity.
Granted, some societies have demonstrated a capacity for change to the point where it is now acceptable for young males to do things like hug or talk about their feelings. We are even starting to see more overt examples of young men demonstrating their need for emotional intimacy with other young men through various social media trends, such as #homiesexual, #bromance and many others. Despite the current popularity of these trends, it is most likely that this type of intimacy won’t become the norm for males. Boys that are currently willing to participate in these “stunts of intimacy” will out-grow these behaviors. These will because they will feel increasingly inappropriate as they develop and adapt to their social environment.
The vast majority of boys will continue to deprive themselves of authentic emotional connections with other boys. But those young boys who have a particularly strong need for that kind of emotional connection will be forced by their social environment to assume the “gay identity”. This is a stressful process because it potentially means renouncing fatherhood and losing a part of the masculine identity. Forcing boys with legitimate emotional needs into an identity that they perceive as a loss of their masculinity is adding stress into the lives of these boys.
The gay male identity is not appealing for most boys who see themselves as part of the conventional male culture, including having girlfriends and in the future experiencing fatherhood. To accommodate social norms and avoid the gay identity, many boys seek closeness with other boys through socially acceptable activities like playing video games or participating in competitive sports. Competition is quite often perceived by boys as a form of intimacy with other boys.
Very rarely will two boys establish the type of emotional closeness that two girls would so commonly have, free of scorn for the close connection they feel witheach other.
Where is Science on the subject of gender differences with respect to same-sex intimacy? As a society we rely on Behavioral Science and its various fields of study to inform us on human actions, their origins, consequences and solutions to behaviour based problems.
Behavioral Science has recently recognized the dangers of not allowing boys to safely express their feelings and that this repression may be connected to what is now called “toxic masculinity”. However, what Behavioral Science has not done, is to successfully reach a clear understanding of issues related to gender, where confusion still abounds.
This inability of Behavioral Science to construct sound theories and paradigms like Physics and other Natural Sciences have done, is something the scientist and philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn recognized in his celebrated book; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
In his book Kuhn reminds readers that a successful theory or paradigm depends not only on its validity but also on what he calls Psychological Dimension that strongly affects the acceptance of new ideas. The author uses the Copernican Revolution to illustrate this concept.
Although the heliocentric system, which places the Sun at the centre and the planets rotating around it, provided the key to understanding the movement of the planets, Copernicus had to deal with the Psychological Dimension of the new paradigm. The belief that the earth was at the centre of the universe was motivated by the people’s need to believe in the writings of the Bible. This belief gave existential comfort to people, which is why it took a long time for the heliocentric system to be accepted as a valid paradigm.
If there was a “psychological dimension” that prevented the acceptance of new ideas in astronomy for several centuries we can certainly assume that the psychological dimension affecting theories of sex and gender, such as same-sex intimacy, is much more significant.
Shame is a very unpleasant emotional experience even for academics and intellectuals. In this essay, shame refers to the entire spectrum from mild embarrassment to deep shame and humiliation.
When trying to make sense of behavior that has a strong connection to shame, such as the main topic of this essay, same-sex intimacy, it is important to ensure that shame is not hiding facts and most importantly, that shame is not affecting the process of free speculation. When speculating about high-shame issues it is always best to overestimate the influence of this powerful emotion than to ignore it.
Shame is not something most people reflect on or are willing to discuss. It hides in concepts like stigma, feeling offended, low self-esteem, and even humor, which is many times triggered by shame. In Christianity, shame is something to avoid because it’s seen as a negative emotion caused by wrongdoing and therefore a sign of sinfulness.
The phrase “Shame on you.” is commonly used for wishing with rage, shame and anguish to others. This suggests that most people unconsciously know how emotionally devastating the feeling of shame is.
For most people, the experience is so uncomfortable that the best protection against shame is to avoid it at all costs. The fear of this emotion is probably the most common phobia. For example, homophobia can be explained in terms of fear of the potential shame that any association to homosexuality may trigger.
Shame is just another emotion that needs to be properly understood. An important book on the subject is Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the Birth of the Self (1994) where Donald Nathanson provides an excellent overview, including the physiology of the affect shame, which is the building block of the emotion with the same name.
According to Nathanson emotions use nine Affects which are the biological foundation of Emotions, independent of social influences. One of these Affects is Shame. Emotions are constructed using these Affects adapting to the social surroundings.
Each Affect has its own characteristics and purpose. The affect Shame is triggered when an enjoyable and exciting experience is suddenly interrupted. For example, when a toddler is excited by the possibility of touching a shiny fragile object and someone intercedes yelling “No!”, the sudden interruption of that exciting experience is what, according to Nathanson, triggers the Affect of Shame. When possible, it’s always best to avoid the triggering of shame by distracting the toddler with another exciting activity.
The experience of shame is very distressing but it does not persist, and in its place it morphs into other emotional experiences. In his book, Nathanson also describes something he calls; The Poles of the Compass of Shame, the four ways in which people behave in anticipation of or reaction to it: Avoidance, Attack Others, Attack Self, and Withdrawal. In reality the reaction is a combination of the four reactions.
The most common protection against shame is the Pole of Avoidance, which in anticipation of shame it consists in avoiding shameful situations. Religious texts, for example, specify censored sexual behaviors to avoid sinning and therefore avoid shame. Homophobia is not a fear of homosexuality, but instead it’s a behaviour intended to avoid shameful situations associated to homosexuality. Furthermore, the Avoidance Pole of the Compass is the main force behind Psychological Dimension of the Paradigms of behaviour.
The most common reaction in men is the Attack Other Pole of the Compass. Men, more than women, respond to shame with violence. It is why it’s important to consider the possibility that aggressive boys and teens could be responding to episodes related to shame. On the other hand, women more than men respond to shame with the Pole of Attack Self and become depressed.
The last Pole of the Compass of Shame is Withdrawal, which is the way shame is best known, a need to hide and disappear. This reaction makes the emotion of Shame the opposite of Pride.
A different perspective on shame is provided by the work of Dr. Brené Brown. She focuses on empathy and claims that shame breeds fear, blame and disconnection. Both Nathanson and Brown provide a good framework that helps in the understanding of shame.
Shame can be paralysing and it also has the incredible power to both encourage and discourage behaviour. Because of fear of the shame experience, few know how to properly manage it.
The odd thing about shame is that although experiences are very uncomfortable, dealing with the discomfort is in fact, relatively simple. All it takes is to identify the discomfort as shame and reflect on what may be causing it. Most likely what triggered the shame was a personal event irrelevant to others. An important part of dealing with shame is to avoid the paranoia that “The entire world knows”, and recognize it as an overreaction. For instance, many avoid speaking in public for fear of making a mistake and being embarrassed for not being perfect.
In this essay we will suggest that there is a logical explanation for the difficulties boys and men have with same-sex intimacy where shame plays an important role. But first, a few words about Socialization which is commonly accepted as an explanation for human behavior.
Many boys perceive their social environment as very hostile to their expression of emotions and expressions of same-sex intimacy. It then makes sense to assume that socialization is responsible for training boys to control their emotions and to fear same-sex intimacy.
What doesn’t make sense is to assume that socialization explains the censorship of expression of emotions and intimacy among boys. By doing so, we are implicitly accepting the strange idea that worldwide at some point in the history of humanity the arbitrary social rule that only girls could experience no-shame, same-sex intimacy was established,.
The socialization argument is reminiscent of the 1970’s Men’s Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement), when men first realized they needed to get in touch with feelings and abandon the macho posture. The Men’s Movement faded and was replaced by the Gay Movement.
Socialization assumes that boys and men are trained into toxic masculinity without any attempt to understand what’s going on in the minds of boys and men. It makes more sense to think of social rules as a reflection of the individuals in the social group and that the rules are engineered to meet the emotional needs of the social group. It could be argued that the creation of these rules is motivated by both personal and external factors, with shame playing an important role. Socialization works well for perpetuating behavior and ideas but it can never be a root cause.
There has been an attempt to explain male behavior in terms of biology. In About Men, a book published in 1978, Phyllis Chesler, an American writer, psychotherapist, and professor emerita of psychology and women's studies, suggests that the compulsive male behavior of wanting to create machines is rooted in what she calls Uterus Envy, the inability to generate life. It is an interesting observation that can help motivate the search for other explanations of masculinity.
Before proceeding with the argument of this essay it must be understood that the ideas presented are purely speculative and none have been proven in a scientific way, as we are not yet at that stage. The hope is that any shame the reader may feel while regarding this essay will not affect their ability to speculate, which is in part the purpose of this essay.
The problem with using the Nature vs. Nurture argument as a way of understanding human behavior is that it portrays human beings as either victims of their own biology or as puppets who are easily manipulated by the environment.
From the point of view of Circumstantiality, biology may affect behavior, but the awareness of that particular behavior or circumstance that may be generated, opens the door for change and social adjustments. For instance, fertility may affect female sexual behaviour but social awareness has encouraged developments such as the pill, so that now women can have the opportunity to explore sexuality more freely.
With respect to the attitude towards male same-sex intimacy, Circumstantiality suggests that although biology determines the lack of control that young boys have over their erections, awareness of that vulnerability can help attenuate the effects of biology.
“The alarm clock goes off early in the morning. A mother walks into her 8 year-old son’s bedroom to wake him up as he’s late for school. The boy is half-asleep with his arms under the covers, lying on his back looking at the ceiling. As the mother tries pulling the covers to force her son to get up, the boy with an expression of anguish on his face says: Mom, it’s hard…Leave me alone!”
We generally ignore the difficulties young boys experience around the issue of erection control. It is a skill that is eventually learned through a process that for most boys is tense and anxious.
Men may not remember many of their childhood incidents or the way they felt as boys, but the fear of exposing an erection, especially in the presence of other males is still a sensitive issue for the majority of men. In fact, the fear is not that of getting an erection, but instead is the fear of feeling the inevitable shame that follows.
It is well known that a boy can have an erection for reasons that are unrelated to sex and beyond his control. In 1988, the Glasshouse Institute published an audio-cassette recording where a similar issue is discussed:
Let’s consider an analogy. Imagine if we had a small TV screen in the back of our heads that would expose our every thought. Our experience of thinking would be very different. We would always be on guard, paying close attention to every thought we had, afraid that people could see our most inner, private ideas on the screen. We would eventually get used to it, and after a while we would know exactly where and when to think. (The Reality of men, 1988)
One thing is clear and indisputable. We all like to choose when we want to expose our thoughts and our feelings. So even in the most positive surroundings a boy will have some degree of discomfort at the thought that others may see his erection and know something about what he is feeling. Because of this, boys grow up with some degree of shame about their penis and the erection. This special experience of shame specific to men, we will call; male-shame.
The TV screen analogy provides an idea of the anxiety that some boys may experience before they are old enough to manage erection control. Part of the anxiety is motivated by a sense of loneliness, and an unproven belief of being “different” from other boys who seem so confident with masculinity. Most boys eventually adapt and as adults learn to manage male-shame. Other boys, however, never manage this stress.
The association that Heterosexuality has with reproduction, which is supported by nature, helps neutralize any shame being triggered by sex in general. For this reason many boys are able to successfully incorporate Heterosexuality into their intimacy needs. On the other hand, the lack of any obvious biological purpose of same-sex relationships makes it harder for this kind of relationship to gain social acceptance.
Suggesting that biology shapes the behavior of boys and of adult men is not a far-fetched hypothesis, especially when we consider the effects of shame. To ignore the role of biology would mean also ignoring the intense vulnerability and scrutiny boys may feel when experiencing an erection.
Putting things in perspective, if the aim is to understand the shameful aspects of masculinity, it is better to assume that it is present and if it indeed plays no important role, then nothing is lost. However, assuming a priori that shame is irrelevant is to risk losing out on a clearer perspective of masculinity.
Decades ago, it was common to assume that girls would not be interested in a career outside the home and that equal rights for men and women in the workplace were unnecessary and of no consequence. Naturally this ideology rang true for some women but not for others. Today, depending on their demographic, women have more options to choose from in life. The same freedom to choose could be given to those boys who feel a stronger need to have an intimate relationship with other boys. Not every boy will make this choice, but what’s important is to have a choice and not be shunned for selecting either option.
Currently, there are many boys who would welcome a society with no censorship of male same-sex intimacy. Rather than shaming boys who feel a need for these relationships, society should consider them to be part of the development of the male identity, just as it is for girls and women. In fact, this is an example of what could be called balanced gender equality, where a female privilege is made available to men.
Preventing young boys from experiencing the penis and the erection as shameful is crucial to their healthy development. This begins very early, when parents first start changing diapers. Baby boys often discover their penis and many parents react by getting a diaper back on as fast as possible, rather than letting the boy play with his penis. The baby is just exploring and testing his body.
Parents sometimes fear that a libertine attitude towards boys’ penises may create future men without morals. We already have a sexually restrictive society with plenty of men with bizarre sexual practices. It may be time to try something else.
It seems difficult to imagine what same-sex intimacy between boys would look like if society was capable of handling male-shame. In fact, all we need to do is to look at the way girls deal with same-sex intimacy and adapt the approach to boys’ needs, never forgetting the issue of shame.
As discussed before, many boys grow up with a great deal of apprehension about their penis and the erection. This anxiety is made worse by the inability to share with other boys who may be going through similar experiences. Any kind of intimacy very quickly triggers the spectre of homosexuality, fueled by the social notion that any arousal directed at boys is an indication of gayness.
It is a common mistake to want to assign sexual identities based on behavior. Just because two boys enjoy spending time together, sharing emotional and/or physical intimacy, it does not mean that those boys should have to suffer humiliation of being forced into an identity that they are not interested in or prepared for. It would be like forcing two girls who spend time together to identify as lesbians.
The best way to help young boys with the anxieties of masculinity is to inform them about the reality of having a penis and the inevitability of erections. This help must be provided with care and by paying close attention to shame, especially the shame experienced by the adults.
“DIK” is an Australian short film (2011) with many awards attached to its name. A concerned father of a six year old suffers a misunderstanding after his son brings home a piece of schoolwork which provokes his parents to question his sexual orientation, and their own, generating a hilarious situation but with disastrous consequences for the marriage. This short film is an example of how the confusion of the parents caused by their own anxious childhood is projected onto their child. The movie is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqWt7pgFYls
Girls benefit from knowing what will be happening with their bodies with the advent of menstruation. Boys would also benefit from being reassured that having an erection and sometimes feeling shame about it is normal. Boys also need to be reminded that an erection is triggered by a number of situations, and that none of them is reprehensible or a reason for feeling shame.
Here are three specific areas where adults can help boys.
1. Minimize conflict with the penis
2. Prepare boys for manhood
3. Avoid sexual orientation identities
Boys need to grow up with the clear message that their penis, which defines them as a boy, is nothing to feel ashamed of. Boys need to be reassured that playing with any part of their body, including their penis, is normal but that it’s best to do it in private, as when they pick their noses.
Sex education curricula should contain specific information for boys focusing on what is happening to their bodies and to remind them that curiosity for other boys’ bodies is normal.
More specifically, topics should include (1) Information about the penis, the erection, and male-shame, (2) Information to prepare boys for their first orgasm and sexual development, (3) Information about women’s perception of reproduction that can help boys discover new ways of sharing erotic experiences with girls without penetration being the goal.
When pubertal and adolescent boys begin sexual experimentation it would make more sense for the experimentation to first happen among boys and use those experiences to resolve issues that only other boys can help them resolve. Sexual experimentation between boys does not carry the consequences of pregnancy, making it a very safe activity.
The same way girls are given information about menstruation and their transition to womanhood, boys should be given information about their first orgasm and their transition to manhood. Furthermore, both are situations with potential for triggering shame.
Most parents like to wait for the “right time” to speak to their boys about sex. The best time is when they start asking questions about their important topics. What most parents don’t realize is that it’s much easier to talk about something very sensitive (i.e. shameful) like the orgasm with a curious10 year old who’s never had the experience, than with a 15 year old who has already made associations of shame with these experiences.
No matter how tempting it is for teenagers and adults to use “sexual identities” and “labels”, assigning these to children based on their conduct is not a good idea. These labels leave no room for same-sex intimacy which has the purpose for boys to share the experience of being a boy. The need for intimacy is transformed into a shameful label which is not necessarily welcome by many boys.
If two boys enjoy spending time together and seem to be “special friends”, the usual assumption is that they are both gay. A more rational approach and more congruent with girls’ same-sex behaviour, is that the two boys just like each other and may be enjoying emotional closeness and sharing the experience of being a boy.
It is unreasonable to expect young boys to commit to any particular sexual identity. If a young boy seems concerned that he may be gay because he wants emotional closeness with a classmate, that boy should be reminded that it’s OK to feel close to another boy and to enjoy the experience. Boys should be reassured that intimacy with other boys is important for their development as a boy and in no way is a proof of gayness.
Sex Education curricula should present same-sex intimacy as a right that boys have and not as a shameful need. The model should be based on the way girls handle intimacy among girls but adapted to the needs of boys.
Implementing changes to the way boys are raised and how their masculinity is shaped relies on the adults’ capacity to make those changes in spite of any psychological baggage they may carry from their own childhood. These will include both caregivers and teachers.
There is an important dilemma that requires attention and cannot be ignored because solving this dilemma may hold the key to the possibility of making concrete changes. This transition period, where the adults in charge, who did not receive the appropriate sex education and have a series of unmet needs, is a crucial moment that requires special attention.
Even if future research supported the idea that boys would benefit from interactions where boys can be free from the fear of shame, there is the transition period to be concerned with. Is it possible to find adults who are emotionally capable of implementing such interactions between boys and who can ignore their own unmet needs from childhood?
What would masculinity look like if boys were raised in an environment that understood their needs so they never felt afraid of their bodies? Corporeal Epistemology would predict that if boys accepted same-sex intimate relationships and thought of them as part of masculinity, society would be capable of preventing toxic masculinity, men would be better partners for women, more committed fathers, and able to live a rich emotional life.
There is no rational reason to support the idea that male-shame is irrelevant or that it has no effect on the development of masculinity. Rejecting the idea that boys’ biology affects masculinity as a simplistic analysis with no merit and is a justification for dismissing the power of shame. The scientist Sir Ernest Rutherford (1872-1937), the master of simplicity, suggested that in science, one must first look at simple solutions before any complex solutions.
"A theory that you can’t explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."
— Sir Ernest Rutherford