Touch isolation is creating an epidemic of sexual scarcity thinking among American men.
—
In American culture, we simply don’t trust male touch. We believe that men always have a sexual agenda. We believe that, given the opportunity, men will collapse into the sexual at a moment’s notice. That men don’t know how to physically connect otherwise. That men can’t control themselves. That men are dogs.
There is no corresponding narrative about women.
This distrust of male touch applies not only in mens’ daily interactions with women, but also with other men and even with children. A stranger at the park is first and foremost a potential predator. A man who touches a woman at work, wedding ring on his finger or not, is seeking sex. A man who puts his arm around another man for longer than a few moments triggers homophobic suspicions. No matter what the context, we sexualize male touch. We do it automatically.
And so, we prove our trustworthiness by foregoing physical touch completely in any context in which even the slightest doubt about our intentions might arise.
|
As a result, it has become every man’s job to prove they can be trusted, in each and every interaction, day by day and case by case. In part, because so many men have behaved poorly. And so, we prove our trustworthiness by foregoing physical touch completely in any context in which even the slightest doubt about our intentions might arise. Which, sadly, is pretty much every context we encounter.
This peculiarly American distrust of male touch results in what I call touch isolation. The lack of gentle platonic touch in men and boy’s lives and the resulting impact of this on their emotional, social, and physical well being is huge.
In an article in Psychology Today Ray B. Williams writes about the central role of touch in living happier, healthier lives:
Daniel Keltner, the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and professor of psychology at University of California, Berkeley, says “in recent years, a wave of studies has documented some incredible emotional and physical health benefits that come from touch. This research is suggesting that touch is truly fundamental to human communication, bonding, and health.” Keltner cites the work of neuroscientist Edmund Ross, who found that physical touch activates the brain’s orbitfrontal cortex, which is linked to feelings of reward and compassion. Keltner contends that “studies show that touch signals safety and trust, it soothes. It activates the body’s vagus nerve, which is intimately involved with our compassion response…”
Yet, if we don’t trust men and touch where does that leave us as a culture? And where do men go for touch and connection?
♦◊♦
In an ironic twist, we think too much gentle platonic touch will ruin our boys. Will make them too needy. Will make them weak.
|
The source of our collective American distrust of male touch is rooted in how we raise our own sons. In an ironic twist, we think too much gentle platonic touch will ruin our boys; will make them too needy; will make them weak. Accordingly, comforting touch is withdrawn from American boys at an early age. While toddlers are held and comforted, boys as young as five and six are encouraged to “shake it off” and “man up” when they are hurt. Young boys find that their options for gentle platonic touch simply fade away. Boys who cry when injured are stigmatized as crybabies; expected to suppress their more fragile emotions.
By the time they are approaching puberty, many boys have learned to touch only in aggressive ways through roughhousing or team sports. When they do seek gentle touch in their lives, it is expected to take place in the exclusive and highly sexualized context of dating. This puts massive amounts of pressure on young girls; young girls who are unlikely to be able to shoulder the emotional burden this represents.
The lifelong lack of platonic touch in boys lives ultimately results in the loss for them of the clear distinction between platonic touch and sexual touch. Young men starving for touch seek it in the sexual realm, often exclusively from their partners. This makes frequency of sex a challenging issue for couples. Men key on sex in an attempt to bridge our way back to the gentle comforting touch of our distant childhoods, the pure first experience of touch in our lives that can never quite be recaptured or recalled. Sex takes on the role of fulfilling both sexual and platonic touch needs.
The result? Men background all other positives in our relationships, judging every interaction against the sexual pleasure metric. And it is here where the true cost of cutting boys off from platonic touch plays out. Having no other conduit to physical comfort but sexualized touch can lead to an obsessive focus on just that. For many men, sex becomes validation, plain and simple. Sexual frequency becomes everything; the metric for defining a good life.
In long term relationships this can be a challenging burden.
“Are we going there? Will I get there? Can we have sex, yet?” Many American men are trapped in an epidemic of sexual scarcity thinking. The moment we have sex, we are on to advocating for the next opportunity.
But many of us are also terribly prone to approaching sex mechanically, staring inward at our own flaring confusion instead of looking outward into the mysterious miracle of our partners. And in that moment, sex becomes another exercise in internalizing our experiences instead of surrendering to emotional interdependence, which we have never learned to engage. In relationship after relationship, romance withers. Sex falls off. But even as these relationships falter, we men remain willing to go to the well of cold mechanical sex, long after our lovers have lost their passion for it, because like everything else in our emotional landscapes, we have confused the mechanics of contact with truly connecting emotionally.
Sex speaks to the wounded little boy and his endless appetite for me, me, me. And drowned out by our relentless emphasis on sex, every other gesture of caring in all the other parts of our relationships are not marked; are not valued. Instead, the only marker of a happy relationship for us is frequency of sex. Which, because we avoid emotional intimacy, is fueled by the cartoon daydreams of porn instead of the deeper resonance of love.
It ain’t a pretty picture. And men and women share in what has been created.
Change is happening. There is a huge cultural shift taking place. Ten or twenty years into adulthood men are learning gentle platonic touch and they’re learning it from their own children.
|
Because when men and women raise boys and then, at some point, cut them off from comforting touch and connection, we sever their connection to the security they need to develop emotionally. This is what is behind the attachment parenting movement. This is why consistent physical contact; hugs and touch are so central to the healthy development of children. And this is why we have to make space for physical and emotional connection with our boys in the same way we do with our daughters because the fallout of failing to do so can be catastrophic.
But there is good news. Change is happening. There is a huge cultural shift taking place. Ten or twenty years into adulthood, men are learning gentle platonic touch and they’re learning it from their own children. This is why this generation of full-time stay at home dads, and more fully engaged working dads are proving to be such a transformative force in American culture. As dads, we are presented with the absolute necessity to hold our own wonderful children. We are learning about loving platonic touch in the most powerful and life affirming way; in ways that previous generations of men simply were not immersed in. Once you have held your sleeping child night after night or walked for years with their hand in yours, you are a changed person. You gain a fluency and confidence in touch that you will never loose. It is a gift to us men from our children that literally has the capacity to transform American culture.
—
Click here to like Mark Greene’s Facebook page.
This article is based in part on longer articles found in Mark Greene’s new book Remaking Manhood.
Photo by: Gavin Schaefer
Follow Mark Greene on Twitter:
Get a powerful collection of Mark Greene’s articles, in his book, REMAKING MANHOOD–Available now in print and on Kindle Reader for Windows, Macs, Android, iPhones and iPads
Remaking Manhood is a collection of Mark Greene’s most widely shared articles on American culture, relationships, family and parenting. It is a timely and balanced look at the issues at the heart of the modern masculinity movement. Mark’s articles on masculinity and manhood have received over 100,000 FB shares and 10 million page views. Get Remaking Manhood IN PRINT or on the free Kindle Reader app for any Mac, Windows or Android device here.
Read more by Mark Greene:
A Manifesto: Relational Intelligence For Our Children
The Ugly and Violent Death of Gender Conformity
When “Check Your Male Privilege” Becomes a Bludgeon
Why Are Death Rates Rising for Middle Aged White Americans?
When Men Keep Demanding Sex From Their Partners Over and Over
How the Man Box Can Kill Our Sons Now or Decades from Now
Why Traditional Manhood is Killing Us
Why Do We Murder the Beautiful Friendships of Boys?
How America’s Culture of Shame is a Killer for Boys
The Culture of Shame: Men, Love, and Emotional Self-Amputation
The Man Box: Why Men Police and Punish Others
The Man Box: The Link Between Emotional Suppression and Male Violence
The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer
Touch Isolation: How Homophobia Has Robbed All Men of Touch
Boys and Self-Loathing: The Conversations That Never Took Place
The Dark Side of Women’s Requests of Progressive Men
—
Absolutely valid point. Please don’t put the whole job of fixing it on female partners–the article certainly seems to suggest that the whole weight of this should fall on romantic relationships. The patriarchy has rules, some of which you noted in the article–and one of those rules is that men for the most part can’t touch each other. It’s not like this in other countries. There’s much more touch between males. Men need more touch, and they don’t just need it from romantic partners. Healthy touch in a society isn’t just from one person alone. No individual can possibly meet… Read more »
Brilliant article.
Interesting post and valid points raised. I think there are things to consider and will relate my own experience as a woman travelling around the world. Men in countries that have a high degree of male to male platonic touch are not in anyway exempt from machismo and perpetuating the sexual harassment of women. Travelling in Latin America as well as parts of the Middle East and Africa, I found men are happy to share platonic and very affectionate touch with other men; however, I experienced far more sexual harassment than in North America where men enjoy less platonic touch… Read more »
Given the mention of studies by folks at the Greater Good Science Center, I figure I should pipe in and mention that several of the folks involved (which includes Daniel Keltner aka Dacher) are offering a free (with paid option) MOOC entitled The Science of Happiness over at EdX. I finished the course last year and found it enlightening. Note that it is self-paced with the (I still think it does at least) option of professional credit.
Timely article. My wife and I were just discussing this topic 2 nights ago. We have sex once a week and its always awesome, but its always her call when we have it and where. We touch alot throughout the day. hand holding when driving or just hanging out, we cuddle or rest against each other for a movie, a touch during dinner prep etc. For me it does not feel like a big leap to take things further. For her, she thinks about so much stuff,(as if I don’t) she cannot seem to find the mental space for sex.… Read more »
Thanks Mark, this is an interesting article.
You mention this is an American men problem. Why do you think this issue is specifically American?
Also, it feels like this generalizes. I’m sure this is an issue for plenty but definitely not all.
Hi Larry,
Men in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East are much more prone to public displays of physical affection. I’m linking male touch isolation with an over emphasis on sex. If that seems like generalizing, then I’m willing to take that risk.
Southern Europe possibly, I don’t know. Middle/Nothern Europe, no way. I would have noticed.
Agreed. Southern Europe it is.
I agree that male persons in Southern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East are “much more prone to public displays of physical affection.” But as another generalization, those regions may also have a stronger and more strident culture of “traditional” masculinity and “machismo,” with all the attendant problems that you might ascribe to them. Male persons being more publicly affectionate does not necessarily correlate with other progressive male gender behaviors.
Megalodon,
Touch is not some metaphor for progressive gender behaviors. It is a health issue for men, who, when isolated from touch, live more stressful and challenging lives.
Touch is not some metaphor for progressive gender behaviors. In itself, of course not. However, I think that is how you and many authors on these site try to sell it. Men being averse to touching each other is portrayed as insecure, inhibited, restrictive, and homophobic, while men being “more prone to public displays of physical affection” is portrayed as a progressive, kinder, gentler, and open masculinity. Perhaps men in Southern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East who are “more prone to public displays of physical affection” are in fact healthier and happier than physically-deprived Western men. However, since… Read more »
Given what Mark wrote, I suspect that their needs for platonic touch are being met in a variety of ways, through non-sexual contact with men as well as sex with women. (Excluding same-sex sexual relationships, which I think you would agree in such macho societies is highly closeted.) The ingrained sexism of these societies allows them to feel unafraid of touching men, and of compartmentalizing sex with women as unrelated to touching men. It’s us here in the US who fear male touch so peculiarly that any touching is suspected as sexual. That’s not healthy for anyone. And I think… Read more »
Because we brainwash about being like John Wayne when it comes to being stoic. In addition, we are brainwash with the concept of American individualism particularly living in the Old West where you had to depend upon yourself. The only time we stress American teamwork.is in sports and the military but not in corporations since it is the boss that gets everything and the workers get the shaft. Of course, even in sports and the military, teamwork has been eroding for years because in the military, you have to get promoted within a certain time period; otherwise, you will not… Read more »
“Encouraging our boys to spread gentle platonic touch….” Very important points…! I so agree….! After my procedure, I saw my doctor for followup…I was well medicated and feeling as good as I could be at that stage….(I think I was just grateful to be alive and had come through a difficult and frightening process with flying colors)….I heard a knock on the examination room door and said “Come in…!” When my doctor popped his head in wearing a handsome grey suit, I smiled and held my hand out (which was not an easy thing at the time)…I meant to just… Read more »
I agree with Spencer. American men have been totally disconnected with their ability to laugh, cry, and other feelings because American society doesn’t tolerate such things.
Emotions are for hipsters and women.
Reading the title and then article left me confused. I don’t see the connection.
I can’t believe I’m the only married person reading this who’s been so wounded by rejection that far from demanding sex, I rarely even ask for it these days.
Touch is nice. Platonic or otherwise, but I have a hard time buying into the idea that they are interchangeable.
I agree with you, even though I hate it…(I’m female by the way) its easier to not expect, ask or chase someone for sex.
I can’t even explain it at this point.
You are perfectly right! Can any man be such a klutz as to be rejected over and over and never get the hint and never feel the sting of disappointment and being made a fool enough as to stop this ultimately self-harming behaviour?
Dear huh?! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The question for me is pretty clear. How do we men get into traps in our relationships in which we are asking for sex over and over and not satisfied with what we are receiving? Could it be we go too many times to the well without nurturing and growing all the other aspects of our relationships? I’m not suggesting I know what happened in your case, I’m just posing some questions. We men often prioritize sex to such a degree that we track the absence of it in every aspect of our… Read more »
I hug my kids everyday. My wife too. I wouldn’t say I’m starved for platonic touch. But, understimulated, certainly. I think it does a disservice those men and women who are left wanting to conflate sexual and platonic touch. Like enough of one makes up for a lack of the other. I think there is a similar problem in presenting it as a “physical pleasure metric.” I can give myself plenty of physical pleasure. Why are we so quick to point out–at least in the case of women–that the mind is the most important sex organ while being so quick… Read more »
Thanks “huh!?”
Good points. Different kinds of “stimuli” aren’t interchangeable.
Dear huh!?
I have never said that platonic touch is the same as sexual touch. What I am saying is that men live lives devoid of wide ranging and regular platonic touch and are left having to rely on one person, their partner, to provide enough physical stimulation to meet a lifetime of touch isolation. These two issues, platonic touch and sexual touch inform and impact each other. The total absence of either can be problematic. In no way am I saying they are interchangeable. They are two sides of the larger coin of human touch.
Mark Greene,
“Could it be we go too many times to the well without nurturing and growing all the other aspects of our relationships?”
Well, obviously the easy answer to that question is “Yes”.
But then again, bottom line is who has the privilege to define what is “too many”, in relation to everything else we do?
when the wells dries up FlyingKal. That should be in indicator 🙂
And demands for sex is a turn off.,
Some men say they need sex…..and never realize that women are not aroused by needy men.
Dear FlyingKai,
You ask, “…bottom line is who has the privilege to define what is “too many”, in relation to everything else we do?”
That’s an easy one. The person you are in a relationship with. Whether you like their opinion is another thing entirely, but they get to decide. You get to stay, leave or change your approach to them.
Whether you like their opinion is another thing entirely, but they get to decide. Certainly every and any person should have the unilateral right to decide how much he/she is willing to copulate or do any other kind of sexual activity. But if a relationship deteriorates or ends because of mismatched carnal impulses, then our impression or judgment of who was being unreasonable or is culpable for destroying the relationship may change based upon what quantity or frequency of sexual activity was requested or permitted between the parties. If a person demanded multiple sexual episodes from the beleaguered partner each… Read more »
True enough. The challenging part of it all is, that BOTH parties in any relationship share in what is being created. Too, often we see it as separate actions leading to outcomes. But sexual interactions are playing out in relation to each other, and as such, are playing out in relationship to every other interaction taking place. It is a web of complexity. Difficult to manage except via compassionate intention.
The challenging part of it all is, that BOTH parties in any relationship share in what is being created. Too, often we see it as separate actions leading to outcomes. Well, as long as individual persons within a relationship still have their separate minds, interests, and rights, there probably always will be at least some “separate actions” as well as “separate” desires and desires which can lead to disagreement and conflict. Nor should we underestimate the important, influence, or inflexibility that those separate things can have. As long as parties continue to associate, they will both probably “share” in the… Read more »
Mark: I agree that the relative lack of non- sexual touch has an impact on boys/men but I’m wondering about it leading to excessive demands on our partners. They may be unrelated. “Men heckle their partners about frequency of sex because we key on it as one of our only authentic moments of contact in lives otherwise starved of contact by touch isolation.” I haven’t read your book so it may be answered there. What’s missing here is the cultural anthropological confirmation of your thesis. In Central and South America and some parts of Europe, namely Italy and Greece, men… Read more »
Good stuff to consider, Spencer. I suspect different men have different levels of sexual appetite as do women.
When you’re teenaged, sure, and… on thinking about it, I think you’re right, but there’s environmental causes for that, rather than entirely innate ones. I think women have a higher set of consequences imposed on them from sex- unwanted pregnancy, perception of sluttiness, et al- that it’s hard to shake even when you’re married and/or on birth control. There’s very little negative consequence culturally for men for successful sexual contact. So if one party has underlying shame about sex, and the other party sees it as just reward all the way down, you’ll wind up with- well, what you said,… Read more »
Hi Spencer
What is your definition of NEED?