Are Men Designed to Love Each Other?

Source: Rdikeman Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

We know a lot about male-male aggression but little about the opposite: male-male bonding. Across multiple human and nonhuman primate species, the social and behavioral sciences have documented what separates men, but seldom what unites them. The rare exceptions are based on data from males in the military, prisons, and, especially, private boarding schools and collegiate fraternities. In these settings, masculine bonding is usually enforced through established customs that include homoerotic and sexual encounters between members. For gender and sexuality studies professor Jane Ward, “dude-sex” occurring within these ceremonies is less about sex and more about creating rituals among fellow brothers intended to produce commitment and connection, all within “the broader culture’s imagination of what it means for ‘boys to be boys.’” The adolescent boys and young adult men are essentially saying they can have sex with each other without it having any meaning whatsoever for their straight sexual orientation. Building on the anticipated sense of camaraderie, bonding within the organization is to last a lifetime. Fraternity hazing rituals are perhaps the most well-known example of this fortifying genre.

Crisis of Connection

Although Ward’s views are more speculative than established empirical fact, they point to the crisis of connection that developmental psychologist Niobe Way argued plagues newly minted adolescent boys as they pass through adolescence and beyond. Talking with adolescent boys, Way discovered that by nature, boys express and pursue deeply fulfilling emotional connections with each other as boys; however, as they grow into manhood, they realize bonding with other boys looks gay and thus is to be avoided.

One alternative to alleviate their loneliness is to develop pathways that create friendships with other boys based on joint, acceptable gender activities offered by team sports and collegiate fraternities. Because the intimate, interpersonal emotions allowed in these undertakings are limited to manly expressions such as pride, loyalty, and trust, the cultural message is clear: Lose particular intimacy needs with male friends because this is the time to “man up.” The liabilities of toxic masculinity thus encourage independence and aggressiveness. As a result, when with each other, boys can become stoic, lonely, and isolated—especially if they fail to measure up to traditional notions of masculinity and cannot join or are repulsed by conventional male-bonding opportunities.

Males Are Built to Bond

Without denying the impact Western society has on its male members, it certainly is not a necessary or inevitable outcome that boys will not bond with each other. Many of these cultural mandates—such as being independent—contradict the basic DNA of males. This perspective, which does not challenge the effects of socialization processes per se, is too seldom acknowledged by social scientists, especially those from sociology and gender studies.

By contrast, evolutionary theory posits that prehistoric males improved their chances of passing along their genes to future generations if they possessed an inclination to bond with each other. It would have been advantageous for them to form emotional bonds with each other because by becoming emotionally attached with peers they enhanced cooperation, voyaging, hunting skills, and, ultimately, success (more protein)—plus the pleasure of having (possible) sexual intimacy in the absence of females. Thus, while heterosexual bonds directly heighten mating opportunities, same-sex bonds can also create procreative advantages by improving personal survival as well as the survival of one’s mate.

Consistent with this view, clinical psychologist Michael Kauth argued in The Evolution of Human Pair-Bonding, Friendship, and Sexual Attraction: Love Bonds that from a biological and evolutionary perspective, intimate same-sex friendships served as an adaptive trait because they “harnessed love, affection, and sexual pleasure to navigate same-sex environments for both men and women, ultimately benefiting their reproductive success and promoting the inheritance of traits for friendship.” That is, we are born with the capacity for loving and erotic relationships with both sexes. Neuroethologist Andrew Barron added that same-sex social bonds were critical aspects for individuals living within a social group. They conferred a selective advantage by “facilitating engagement in sociosexual behavior with the associated benefits of social reinforcement, affiliation, play, appeasement, and conflict resolution.”

Conclusion

Human evolutionary biologist Joyce Benenson recently summarized the problem confronting males in many cultures: “Men engage in conspicuous public contests for status and directly interfere with others’ success. Despite frequent and intense contests which occasionally turn lethal, men typically employ ritualized tactics and accept status differentials within a group.” I believe we can do better by emphasizing that males of all ages and sexualities are also created to bond with each other—not just in terms of sex or the pursuit of physical activities but also in terms of emotional and intimate relationships. It is in male nature to do so, as demonstrated across nonhuman primate species and across human history and cultures. The impediment is rooted in cultural messages to act, look, and behave as a man—to contest each other. Are we surprised by the mental health disturbances among boys and men, especially in terms of loneliness, depression, anxiety, and emptiness? Sounds like a bum deal to me.