The Reality of Boys, Shame, and Masculinity

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 the World. However, as they grow up, they will start to experience 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.

Girls Being Girls

We have all witnessed the infectious energy of a group of girls, some holding hands and sharing some exciting secret. 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.

Girls play and engage easily in affectionate, nurturing, intimate bonding activities with other girls. This behavior can continue into adulthood, without fear of these relationships threatening their womanhood.

What is Platonic Same-Sex Intimacy?

The experience of same-sex intimacy is a very unique experience which is the result of the emotional connection with others who share similar experiences of physical development. This experience amongst girls is not only enjoyable but for many girls who identify as females, same-sex intimacy is crucial for consolidating their identity as females and thus providing a strong sense of belonging to the “girl” class.

Although girls’ same-sex intimacy is socially acceptable and seen as part of femininity, some girls do feel censorship of same-sex intimacy coming from their social surroundings.

What about Boys?

Boys start playing in an affectionate, often physically intimate way, including hugging other boys. 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 motivated to have close emotional and/or physical connections with other boys. To do so means a threat to their masculinity and through the eyes of the boy himself, a feeling of shame for not being like the other boys whom he admires because they represent how real boys should behave. What he doesn’t realize, is that these boys know how to play the part of a boy unaffected by the restrictions on his behaviour.

Granted, society has evolved to the point where it is now acceptable for young males to do things like hug or talk about their feelings, but only to a certain extent. We are even starting to see more overt examples of young males demonstrating their need for platonic same-sex intimacy through various social media trends: #homiesexual #bromance. Despite the current popularity of these trends, we can assume 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 as they will feel increasingly inappropriate as they develop sexually.

The vast majority of boys will continue to lose out in the sense that they deny themselves even the most platonic of intimacy with other boys. When this kind of intimacy is censored, some young boys who have a strong need for this type of connection have no other alternative but to assume the “gay” identity, which means potentially renouncing fatherhood and losing full membership in the male class. This is something girls never worry about.

Social perceptions of the gay male identity are not acceptable for most boys who see themselves as part of the male culture, including having girlfriends and experiencing fatherhood. Instead, these boys seek closeness with other boys through socially acceptable competitive activities like playing video games or playing sports. Competition is commonly perceived by boys as a form of intimacy with another boy.

Very rarely will two boys establish the type of emotional closeness that two girls would so commonly have, free of shame for the close connection they feel for each other. Boys need a reason that can justify their need for emotional connection with other boys, such as playing sports together or forming all all-boys club.

The Why, As Explained by Past Scientific Revolutions

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.

 

Where is Behavioral Science on the subject of masculinity? 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 provide a sound understanding of issues related to gender, where confusion abounds.

This inability of Behavioral Science to construct sound theories and paradigms like Physics has done, is something the famous scientist/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 a psychological dimension that affects the acceptance of the new ideas. Kuhn uses the Copernican Revolution to illustrate this concept.

Although the heliocentric system, with 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. 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 people to give up the geocentric system and accept that the sun was at the centre.

If there was a “psychological dimension” strongly influencing the acceptance of ideas in astronomy we can assume that the psychological dimension affecting theories of gender is much more significant, which may account for the confusion that exists with theories of sex and gender.

When Shame Gets in the Way of Explanation

When trying to make sense of behavior that has a strong connection to shame it is important to ensure that shame is not hiding facts and most importantly, that shame is not affecting free speculation. When speculating about high-shame issues it is always best, for the sake of Science, to exaggerate the influence of shame than to ignore it.

Shame is not something most people reflect on or are willing to discuss. Shame hides behind concepts like stigma, feeling offended, low self-esteem, and even humor. In Christianity, shame is something to avoid because it’s a negative emotion caused by wrongdoing and therefore a sign of sinfulness.

The phrase “Shame on you” is commonly used as an insult suggesting that most people unconsciously know how emotionally devastating the feeling of shame is. This is why shame phobia is probably the most common phobia across the World. Issues like homophobia can be clearly explained as phobia of shame.

In reality, shame is just another emotion, that because of its nature, most people do not know how to handle it properly. A book by Donald Nathanson; Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the Birth of the Self (1994) provides an excellent overview of shame, including something he calls; The Compass of Shame, the four ways people behave in reaction to shame:

(1) Wanting to hide (Withdrawal)

(2) Feeling depressed (Attack Self)

(3) Avoiding shame situations altogether. (Avoidance) Avoidance mechanism is possibly the most common reaction, like alcohol consumption

(4) Feeling anger towards the source of the shame (Attack Other)

Also important is the work of Dr. Brené Brown. She focuses on empathy and who claims that shame breeds fear, blame and disconnection. Both Nathanson and Brown provide a good framework that helps in the understanding and the management of shame.

The Avoidance Pole of the Compass of Shame is the main aspect of the Psychological Dimension of Behavioral Paradigms. Many facts and speculative ideas are easily ignored in reaction to the shame associated with those same facts and ideas. Shame can be paralyzing for people who are unable to handle it, as it has the incredible power to both motivate and discourage behavior. Bad management of shame leads to a poor quality of emotional life.

Managing Shame

The odd thing about shame is that although experiences of the emotion are very uncomfortable, dealing with the discomfort is relatively simple. All it takes is to identify the experience of shame and reflect on what is causing it. On the other hand, dealing with guilt can be a very difficult experience because the person has done something that is triggering the guilt. But in the words of Shakespeare, shame is usually a “Much Ado About Nothing”.

It’s important to keep in mind that worrying about other people’s perception of one’s shame makes no sense because most people are too concerned about their own experience of shame as to be worrying about others’.

The use of the term phobia has become popular to describe current social issues, such as homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia. Yet, the most common and universal phobia is of shame expressed as fear of shame, sometimes called shame-o-phobia.

If you are still not convinced that feeling shame is a devastating experience, search in your favorite web-browser “shame the most difficult emotion to deal with” or “phobia of shame”, and check some of the results.

Socialization is Never Root Cause of Anything

With shame in mind, let’s focus again on the main topic, platonic same-sex intimacy.

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 is the root cause of the censorship of expression of emotions and intimacy among boys. By doing so, we are in a way supporting some arbitrary rule, established at some point in history, by some powerful person who decided that, worldwide, only girls and women could enjoy same-sex, platonic intimacy.

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, The creation of these rules are motivated by both internal/personal and external factors, with shame playing an important role. Socialization works well for perpetuating behavior and ideas but it can never be the root cause of anything

Speculation. A Necessary Step in Understanding

Before proceeding with the argument of this essay it must be clearly understood that the ideas presented are purely speculative and none have been proven in a scientific way, as we are not at that stage yet. It is our hope that any shame the reader may have regarding the topic will not affect their ability to speculate, which is the purpose of this essay.

The first step of any new endeavor involving reason and logic starts with speculation. Just as it was with the Copernican Revolution, these speculative ideas can then be used to form a thesis which eventually becomes a theory, which can be proven scientifically.

Nature vs. Nurture? How about Circumstantiality?

We all know that because of biology, a boy can experience an erection for reasons that are unrelated to sex and beyond his control. The question is now whether or not this affects male behavior.

The problematic of the Nature/Nurture debate 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 determine spontaneous erections, but the awareness of that particular circumstance, male-shame, opens the door for change.

What most people are unaware of is that this lack of control has important implications in the lives of boys. In 1988 the Glasshouse Institute published an audio-cassette recording where the 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)

 

In the late 1980’s there was no Internet, making it very difficult to spread any type of information, especially if the information elicited shame. Shame was not  included in the audio-cassette; The Reality of Men because shame had not yet been identified as an important part. The focus of the audio-cassette was on self-help for men to cope with the “anxiety about the visibility of male sexuality”, as referred to in the 1988 recording. What precipitated the interest in shame was as an attempt to understand why such a simple idea, that the “visibility of male sexual arousal” influences masculinity. This is an idea that many people fear, the fear of shame. Shame was first introduced into the theory in 1990 in a paper presented at the "Child and Adolescent Mental Health" conference, Royal Ottawa Hospital, May 10, 1990. The paper Homosexual imagery in the pubertal and adolescent male is available online. The information for boys in this essay is based on the 1988 and 1990 information with some adjustments.

The TV screen analogy provides an idea of the anxiety that some boys have to experience before they are old enough to learn how to deal with that reality. Part of the anxiety some boys feel has to do with feeling that they are alone and maybe “different” from other boys who seem so confident with life. Because of biology, young boys feel their most intimate feelings can be exposed. Most boys eventually adapt and learn to manage the stress of feeling exposed. Other boys, however, never manage this stress very well.

The greatest impact of the erection is on the development of relationships where platonic and physical same-sex intimacy is involved. Boys more than girls, are susceptible to feeling shame when experiencing closeness with other boys. The possibility that one of them while undressing may get an erection causes a fear of shame in both boys and in any witnesses. Few young boys are able to cope with this kind of shame.

The possibility that the fear of having an erection or if the boy is really young, the parent’s fear of their son being “gay”, could discourage two boys from pursuing these powerful encounters, something that two girls would face no barriers.

Suggesting that biology shapes the behavior of boys and also that of men later in life 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 masculinity, it is better to assume that shame is present and if shame plays no role, then nothing is lost. However, assuming a priori that shame is irrelevant is to risk losing out on a clearer perspective of masculinity.

In most male change rooms at public swimming pools with shared showers it’s common to see boys between the ages of 12 and 15 take a shower with a bathing suit on. Could it be that boys at that age have not yet developed the necessary skills to control their erection? Men may not remember many of their childhood incidents or the way they felt as a boy, but the fear of exposing an erection, especially in the presence of other males, even when dressed, is still present for the majority of men. In fact, the fear is not of getting an erection, but the fear of feeling the inevitable shame that may follow.

Things Can Change, if We Allow Them to

Some may argue that boys are not interested in participating in more intimate relationships with other boys. If we look to history, we can see that this type of assumption is erroneous and can prevent potential, necessary changes.

Decades ago, many assumed 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 freedom of choice and can choose their vocation more freely. The same freedom of choice could belong 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. .

Currently, there are many men who would welcome a society in which censorship of male same-sex intimacy didn’t exist. Instead of shaming these relationships, society would allow these relationships to be part of the development of the male identity, just as it is for girls and women. In fact, this is an important aspect of gender equality because it recognizes a female privilege that should also be available to men.

Where Do We Go From Here?

“The alarm clock goes off early in the morning. A mother walks into her 11 year-old son’s bedroom to wake him up as he’s late for school. The boy is half-asleep in his bed as the mother pulls the covers to force her son to get up. The boy with an expression of fear in his face says: Mom, my penis. 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.

When experiencing an erection, some boys may have received very negative responses from parents or caregivers; some may have been good naturedly humoured. Others yet may have experienced an obvious pretending-not-to-notice response.

                         CLICK AUDIO

Genitals can be seen, touched, and experienced. In other words, the young brain registers, through various senses, the presence of the penis and testicles. This experience however is not corroborated by parents and/or caregivers. The experience that a child has of his genitals does not match with the information or the response that people around the child give to him about his penis. This response or information is more an avoidance or a reluctance on the part of parents to acknowledge a child's genitals.

A child sees and touches his toes and his parents and caregivers all agree by seeing, touching and talking to him about his toes. Thus the child's own experience of his toes matches the external response. Then there is no conflict. In the case of the penis however, conflict results because the external acknowledgement of the child's penis, does not match his own internal experience of it.

One thing is clear and can be said to be true for everyone. We all like to choose when we want to expose 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 a great deal of shame about their erections and consequently their penis. This special experience of shame specific to men we will call it male-shame.

We have to keep in mind that for a boy the penis and the erection are not sexual expressions. Any anxiety boys may have about erections has to do with feeling vulnerable and exposed. Adults associate erections with sex but boys don’t.

Preventing young boys from experiencing the penis and the erection as shameful is crucial. This begins very early, perhaps when parents first start changing diapers. Many times baby boys have erections. And many parents react by getting a diaper back on as fast as possible. Rather than letting the penis be free and erect. The baby is just experiencing and testing his body.

There is sometimes the fear that a libertine attitude towards boys’ erections may create future men without morals. We already have a sexually restrictive society full of men with bizarre sexual practices and it may be time to try somethings else. Children, both boys and girls, are able to understand that there are things you can do with your body, such as picking your nose, that are done in private, within the family, or in front of people with whom one has close relationships.

It seems difficult to imagine how same-sex intimacy between boys would look like if society was capable of handling male-shame. But in fact all we need to do is to look at the way girls deal with same-sex intimacy and copy the approach with boys, but never forgetting the shame. Allowing boys to freely experience same-sex intimacy without having to give up a full male identity is a gender equality issue. Girls can freely feel emotional closeness with other girls without societal scorn; boys have the right to the same experiences without having to give up any part of the male identity.

As it has been discussed before, many boys grow up with a great deal of apprehension about their penis and the erection but who are unable to share that anxiety with other boys who may be going through similar experiences. Two girls holding hands seem normal which cannot be said about two boys holding hands. This creates in boys the spectre of homosexuality, the idea that arousal is biologically directed and that they may be gay. Usually this doesn’t happen to girls.

Dreams are mysterious unconscious processes that can be quite surprising. Anything from unmet needs to tormenting thoughts can surface in dreams. Sometimes, because of unmet needs for intimacy or curiosity of other boys’ bodies, these needs may surface in dreams. Because dreams cannot be controlled, dreams are sometimes a scary experience for boys that often threaten their masculinity. Boys can avoid thoughts and fantasies, but not dreams.

It is a common mistake to want to assign sexual identities based on behavior. Just because two boys like spending a lot of time together it does not mean that those boys should have to suffer humiliation of being forced into an identity that they are not interested in. It would not make sense to force the identity of lesbian to two girls who spend too much time together.

We will end the essay by discussing the “elephant in the room”. What about homosexuality? Isn’t a young boy who has homoerotic dreams or falls in-love with another boy just gay? The problem with that assumption is that not all girls who have homoerotic dreams or have fallen in-love with another girl self-identify as lesbians, which means that the same may be true with boys. The great majority of boys, due to male-shame, are unable to accept homoeroticism in quite the same way girls do and who even incorporate into their femininity.

There is a widespread association of homosexuality with shame. This shame could be explained as motivated by the apparent lack of purpose of a homosexual relationship. Although all forms of sex are potentially shameful, the procreation aspect of heterosexuality makes it more socially acceptable.

Helping Young Boys Handle Shame

The best way to help young boys with their changing bodies is to tell them the truth about their body. This help must be provided with care and paying close attention to shame, especially the shame from caregivers and teachers.

Girls benefit from knowing what will be happening with their bodies and the advent of menstruation. Boys would also benefit from, for instance, being reassured that having an erection and sometimes feeling shame about it is normal. Boys also need to be reassured that an erection is triggered by a number of situations, and that none of them is reprehensible or a reason for feeling shame.

 “DIK” is an Australian short film (2011) with many awards. A concerned father of a six year old takes it the wrong way after his son brings home a piece of schoolwork that provokes his parents to question his sexual orientation, and their own, with disastrous and hilarious results. This short film is an example of the confusion that adults have about children’s. The movie is available at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1811351/

Here are three specific areas where adults can help young boys.

1.    Minimize Conflict with the Penis

2.    Preparing boys for manhood

3.    Avoid sexual orientation identities

1.       Minimize Conflict with the Penis

Mostly because of shame, caregivers tend to ignore the boy’s penis which creates a conflict: “I feel my penis but nobody acknowledges it”.

Boys have 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 know that playing with any part of their body, including their penis, is normal but that it’s best to do it in private. Just like when boys pick their noses.

Sex education curricula should contain specific information for boys regarding the biology of the penis, the erection and related issues such as male-shame. Although important, sexual reproduction is not of much interest to boys who are more concerned about their bodies and comparing their body to those of other boys.

2.       Preparing boys for manhood

The same way girls are told about menstruation we should manage the social shame and talk to boys of the great event that will eventually arrive, their first orgasm. This kind of information should be part of the sexual education curricula for boys.

Most parents like to wait for the “right time” to speak to their children about sex. The best time is when they ask questions about important topics. What most parents don’t realize is that it’s much easier to talk about the male orgasm with a 10 year old who’s never had the experience, than with a 15 year old who has already made associations of shame with his orgasmic experiences.

3.       Avoid sexual orientation identities

No matter how enamoured teenagers and adults are of “sexual identities” and “labels” assigning these to boys based on their behavior is destructive. If two boys hold hands, the common assumption is that they are gay but they may not know it yet. A more rational assumption, more congruent with girls’ behaviour, is that the boys may like each other and would also enjoy holding hands, with no shame.

It is unreasonable to expect boys under the age of 12 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.

Sex Education curricula should explain that same-sex intimacy is important to some boys. Rather than suggesting that the young boy may be gay and that he should give up fatherhood and his male identity, it makes more sense to assume that the young boy needs the intimacy with another boy, just like girls do.

That need for intimacy with another boy has to be accepted the same way we accept intimacy between girls. This is “balanced gender equality” where not only the male privileges are accepted for women, but that women’s privileges also be accepted for men.

Difficulties Ahead

Things are always easier said than done. 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 the adults may carry from their own childhood.

This is an important dilemma that requires attention and cannot be ignored because solving this dilemma may hold the key to the possibility of concrete changes. The most difficult moment to implement changes is during the transition period when the older generation is in charge of shaping the new generation.

Even if future research supported the idea that boys (up to age 11) would benefit from interactions where boys can be free from the fear of shame over their bodies and of other boys, there is the transition period to deal 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?

Some Final Remarks

What would masculinity look like if boys were raised in an environment that understands their needs so they never feel betrayed by their penis and are able to manage male-shame?

The most obvious example that shows the fragility of masculinity is the obsession many grown men have with the “phallus”. The Conflict with the Penis and Male-Shame are both responsible for the obsession that boys carry on into adulthood. It would be safe to predict that if boys were helped in their journey into manhood, society would benefit from a better quality of men, partners, and fathers.

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. Similarly, rejecting the idea that boys’ biology affects masculinity as a simplistic analysis is another justification for dismissing the power of shame. The scientist Sir Ernest Rutherford (1872-1937), the master of simplicity, suggested that in science to first look at simple solutions before any complex solutions. We end with two quotes from Sir Ernest Rutherford:

"A theory that you can’t explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."

"I am a great believer in the simplicity of things and as you probably know I am inclined to hang on to broad & simple ideas like grim death until evidence is too strong for my tenacity."

— Sir Ernest Rutherford