Skip to main content

Why guys stop short of intimacy

When asked about what they desire from their friendships, men are just as likely as women to say that they want intimacy. And, just like women, their satisfaction with their friendships is strongly correlated with the level of self-disclosure. Moreover, when asked to describe what they mean by intimacy, men say the same thing as women: emotional support, disclosure and having someone to take care of them.
Men desire the same level and type of intimacy in their friendships as women, but they aren’t getting it.
In an effort to understand why men’s friendships are less intimate than women’s, psychologist Niobe Way interviewed boys about their friendships in each year of high school. She found that younger boys spoke eloquently about their love for and dependence on their male friends. In fact, research shows that boys are just as likely as girls to disclose personal feelings to their same-sex friends and they are just as talented at being able to sense their friends’ emotional states.
But, at about age 15 to 16 — right at the same age that the suicide rate of boys increases to four times the rate of girls — boys start reporting that they don’t have friends and don’t need them. Because Way interviewed young men across each year of high school, she was able to document this shift. One boy, Justin, said this in his first year, when he was 15:
[My best friend and I] love each other… that’s it… you have this thing that is deep, so deep, it’s within you, you can’t explain it. It’s just a thing that you know that person is that person… I guess in life, sometimes two people can really, really understand each other and really have a trust, respect and love for each other.
By his senior year, however, this is what he had to say about friendship:
[My friend and I] we mostly joke around. It’s not like really anything serious or whatever… I don’t talk to nobody about serious stuff… I don’t talk to nobody. I don’t share my feelings really. Not that kind of person or whatever… It’s just something that I don’t do.
What happens?
During these years, young men are learning what it means to be a “real man.” The #1 rule: avoid everything feminine. Notice that a surprising number of insults that we fling at men are actually synonyms for or references to femininity. Calling male athletes “girls,” “women” and “ladies” is a central part of motivation in sports. Consider also slurs like “bitch” and “pussy,” which obviously reference women, but also “fag” (which on the face of it is about sexual orientation, but can also be a derogatory term for men who act feminine) and “cocksucker” (literally a term for people who sexually service men). This, by the way, is where the ubiquitous slur “you suck” comes from; it’s an insult that means you give men blow jobs. (American men’s hidden crisis: they need more friends, Lisa Wade, Salon.com)
- - - - -
Why, though, is there such a pervasive fear of being feminine? There's no logic to it all, even as the sad thing, schizophrenia, is actually a "solution," given impossible double-bind parental requirements, a la R.D. Laing? 
Guys are afraid of being rendered feminine because in their pasts their lonely, depressed, patriarchy-abused mothers, overwhelmed them in their needs and made them feel female-poisoned (sucking cocks is actually considered an antidote to female poisons in some New Guinea tribes). Thereafter they both cherish anything that allows them to be close without being publicly accused of being girly, like staying home sick, and otherwise go nowhere near "intimacy," which reminds them too much of the other stuff that went along with it — being a plaything, incest. 

There can be a dramatic change at the onset of puberty because many mothers more overtly abandon them then. They don’t talk about feelings and emotions, as a kind of autism-defense. They become all shell, so their loneliness infiltrates them, affects them, less.

- - - - -

halb


An interesting sidelight not mentioned in the article is the influence of stress and fear upon male bonding.  Most veterans of war will state that male friendships formed during the times when mortality is threatened, are strong, intimate, and lasting.  The same goes for jobs that expose males to inherent danger.  Perhaps we males need such outside forces to focus our attention on how much we depend on others, rather than the constant call for independence and competition.



Emporium@halb Men at war are part of some righteous cause and are getting prepared to die heroically for their nation, or kill people less worthy than they are (which historically includes an awful lot of innocents).  It may not be fear and stress that does it — or only — but rather a union born out of being similarly enfranchised.


halb@Emporium @halb Quite true.  I have personally met two soldiers who loved war.  One was Special Forces, and the other refused to return to Vietnam as a helicopter gunner when he realized he enjoyed gunning down people.  I met him on the Neuropsychiatric ward on Guam where he had been sent; obviously, he was mentally ill if he did not want to kill people.

- - - - -

GeekMommaRants
This culture does not allow men and boys to be close to anyone.   The strong silent type is still the standard. 

In other parts of the world, men are very intimate with each other.  Male affection is kissing, hugging and holding hands this is the course completely non-sexual.  In these places men and women are very close as they are emotionally, to a point, the same.  No one would call these men feminine.  They are not.


Emporium
Anyone who wants to criticize British chilliness always looks to some place like rural Greece or Italy to show what men ought to be like. They say all their touching just shows how much more open and honest they are. 

The rest of the chilly world kind of just nods at this, because it seems like you're just nodding acknowledgment at people who haven't realized the world leader status that comes out of stoic Northern distance and restraint — the self-compliment it provides, the reminder of their own ostensible strength, is the only reason they temporarily accede to the argument that some other people in the world don't just possess a different culture but an ideal one.

But if you mention further that this intimacy extends to children in their parents' bed, that the children will sleep with their parents near into adulthood, and that this too is of course not sexual but a wonderful thing, they're going to retreat before they risk hearing any further—they’re invested in thinking of the South in a certain kind of way, and this would have them calling “crock!” on the whole thing and leave them fishing for some other kind of support.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

"Life" as political analogy, coming to you via Breitbart News

Immediately after seeing the film, I worked over whether or not the movie works as something the alt-right would produce to alienate us from the left. Mostly the film does work this way  -- as a sort of, de facto, Breitbart production -- I decided, though it's not entirely slam-dunk. There is no disparagement evident for the crew of the space station being a multicultural mix, for instance. Race is not invisible in the film; it feels conspicuous at times, like when the Japanese crew member is shown looking at his black wife on video conference; but the film maker, wherever he was actually raised, seems like someone who was a longtime habitat of a multicultural milieu, some place like London, and likes things that way. But the film cannot convince only as macabre relating to our current fascination with the possibility of life on Mars -- what it no doubt pretends to be doing -- because the idea of “threat” does not permeate this interest at all, whereas it absolutely saturates our …