Pro-cuddling

It was the first day of Eid al-Fitr, the festival celebrating the end of the holy month of Ramadan. It seemed like everyone else in Amman was spending time with their families, so a friend temporarily adopted me and introduced me to his folks. His uncle embraced me in the customary holiday greeting, and swooped in for the Jordanian-style triple-kiss on the cheek. I instinctively and awkwardly ducked away. He didn’t say anything, but I could imagine what he was thinking—“Oh, an American.”

I cannot remember the first time I hugged a male who wasn’t my dad. I am positive that I never cuddled with a guy until college. I am still trying to understand why that is. It doesn’t take an anthropologist to realize that our culture is less homosocially intimate than other cultures. Homosocial intimacy involves platonic friendship between individuals of the same sex with public shows of affection—it is explicitly non-sexual. My cousin in Pakistan will walk arm-in-arm with other men and think nothing of it, yet In the United States, linking arms with a friend of the same sex generally presupposes some sort of LGBTQ behavior. It’s strange that the US is more LGBTQ-friendly on paper than many of these other countries for complex socio-political reasons, but Americans are quicker to stereotype relationships as LGBTQ romances.

My reductive reasoning as to why that is, at least for men—Our society is still hyper-masculine and this masculinity is largely associated with aggressiveness or emotional aloofness. Any display of perceived femininity, i.e. caring behavior, emotional sensitivity, etc., suggests that a male is LGBTQ in society’s generalizing eyes. It follows that individuals who do not consider themselves LGBTQ and do not want others to think that they are LGBTQ will participate in hyper-masculine behavior. Thus contact between men who are friends often replicates this mandatory aggressiveness. This is exemplified by the bro-punch greeting and random bouts of wrestling. Heterosexual men may avoid more intimate contact and may refrain from engaging in emotional sharing. Intimate physical contact between females is somewhat more normative but it is still deemed strange for non-LGBTQ women to hold hands with each other. Many other cultures have a different history in regards to LGBTQ movements which precludes the west’s dichotomous thinking between the oversimplified “gay” and “straight”. Essentially, prior to modernity these cultures did not define LGBTQ in terms of identity. A person would not call themselves gay even if they were sexually attracted towards the same sex. This means that even when these societies were hyper-masculine, non-sexual behavioral actions were not associated with an identity, and homosocial intimacy was fostered.

Our society could use more homosocial intimacy. Studies show that cuddling increases happiness. Accordingly, homosocial, like heterosexual cuddling, can induce happiness. Homosocial intimacy also challenges many hyper-masculine modes of being by normalizing male emotional expression and vulnerability. A good cry or a few confessionals with close friends are extremely cathartic and can prevent serious anger issues and other psychological problems. Homosocial intimacy blurs the lines between appropriate masculine and feminine behavior. Furthermore, it promotes greater body-positivity through caring and emotive physical interactions—the touch of another individual could reinforce a person’s confidence in their own physique.

Feminism and LGBTQ movements resulted in a crisis in American masculinity. This crisis facilitated some English linguistic productivity and thereby produced the wonderful portmanteau bromance (bro + romance). This term describes more intimate relationships between men who are not sexually involved with one another including relationships between hetereosexual and GBTQ individuals. These relationships have been glorified in various films and have become increasingly common in college environments. This does seem like a move towards a more homosocially intimate society, but it’s still not the same as the Jordanian triple-kiss. Intimacy between males in a bromance is still conceived of in, well, romantic terms. It’s written in the word itself. Bromances, or equivalent womances—this word has not caught on in this same way—are even confirmed through mock relationship statuses on Facebook.

Maybe the romantic undertones of our new homosocial relationships are really just individuals not admitting their sexual attachment to one another. Certainly much of the internet believes this- a picture on HONY shows two women talking lovingly about their friendship, and numerous commenters ask why they don’t commit to a romantic relationship. This sort of creeping suspicion is, of course, stereotyping close homosocial relationships as LGBTQ. This stereotyping, unlike the stereotyping feared in our hyper-masculine culture, views LGBTQ positively. If intimate homosocial relations are to truly become the norm, even positive stereotyping of the nature of a relationship should be done with caution. Otherwise, it will be more difficult to define non-sexual intimate relationships on their own terms. At the same time, if homosocial intimacy is to become commonplace, individuals need to collectively rid society and themselves of the fear of being perceived as LGBTQ. Alternatively, a decreased pressure to define a sexual or gender identity could increase homosocial intimacy, but this change is unlikely. The false romance motif could be trivializing LGBTQ, perpetuating stereotyping and reducing the range of possible homosocial relationships.

Abdul Latif is a Trinity junior. This is his first column of the semester.