Friendship dynamics of young men with non-exclusive sexual orientations: Group diversity,physical intimacy and emotionality

Abstract

Non-exclusive sexuality identity labels such as “mostly straight” and “mostly gay” describe distinct sexualities. While research documents their existence and distinctiveness, little focus has been given to friendship dynamics with these groups and research on friendship has a heteronormative bias. In this study, we use data collected with 25 men with non-exclusive sexualities from a university in the northeastern United States to examine their friendship dynamics and intimacy practices in order to advance understanding of friendship beyond binary frameworks of straight and gay friendship groups. We document the friendship practices of men who are mostly straight, “bisexual-leaning,” and mostly gay, and develop understanding of bromance as a term that has extended to cross-sexuality and cross-gender friendships. We call for greater engagement with these sexuality labels and greater recognition of fluidity as a concept that extends beyond sexology and debates about heterosexual privilege to understand the complex dynamics of intimacy and friendship and a broader range of friendship practices among men that such understandings facilitate.

Introduction

Men’s friendships are undergoing profound change in terms of group composition and social dynamics (Gardiner, 2019; Johnston et al., 2021; Robinson & Anderson, 2022). Traditionally characterized as lacking emotional intimacy and regulated by homophobia and misogyny (Holmes, 2015; Way, 2011), men’s friendships are impacted by social trends of liberalizing attitudes toward sex and sexuality (Twenge et al., 2015; 2016) and shifts in contemporary practices of men (Anderson & McCormack, 2018). While such changes are variegated and dependent on social, cultural and regional context, men’s socialization into a rejection of femininity and any aspect of same-sex sexual desire has lessened as acceptance of same-sex sexuality has become increasingly common among heterosexual men (Anderson & Adams, 2011; Savin-Williams, 2017).

Recognition of cross-sexuality friendships is still limited, and research in this area conceptualizes gay and straight sexualities as being exclusively oriented toward one gender (e.g., Davis & Mehta, 2022). This is part of a broader heteronormativity in much relationships research, which focuses on heterosexual friendships and relationships (Junkins et al., 2022; Pollitt et al., 2022). In this study, we address these issues by examining the friendship practices of men with non-exclusive sexualities (from “mostly gay” to “mostly straight”). Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 25 non-exclusive men from an elite university in the northeastern US, we first show that participants maintained heterogeneous friendship groups in relation to sexuality and gender. We then document the prevalence of physical tactility as a form of social bonding, in the form of hugging, cuddling, and kissing, and that these practices occur across the sexuality spectrum. Incorporating these practices, we argue that the term “bromance” can be extended beyond current conceptualizing to also incorporate emotionally intimate cross-sexuality and cross-gender friendships. We conclude by considering the theoretical and methodological implications of this friendship diversity among men with non-exclusive sexualities. The specificity of our sample in terms of young men belonging to an elite educational institution in a relatively progressive city means that generalizations are limited. Still, the study documents the quotidian practices of friendship that are possible in these contexts and provides a clear rationale for adopting more fluid understanding of sexuality and a greater use of qualitative methods in future research on friendship and intimacy with representative samples.

Friendship, masculinity and sexuality

Friendship plays a significant role in the development and consolidation of identity, supporting community engagement and general well-being (Pahl, 2000). Friendships solidify through the process of shared norms and values (e.g., Caldwell & Peplau, 1982), which often leads to homogeneity and lack of social diversity in friendship groups; known as homophily (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954). Homophily is particularly evident in terms of gender, class, race and sexuality (Mehta & Strough, 2009; Moody, 2001; Nardi, 1999). Substantial differences exist in the dynamics of men’s and women’s friendships across the life course (Mehta & Strough, 2009; Thorne & Luria, 1986; Way, 2011). Men’s friendship groups are more emotionally distant compared to women’s (Bank & Hansford, 2000; Williams, 1985). This has been theorized in psychology as developing from gender-segregated friendship groups that occur in childhood, known as the two cultures theory (Maccoby, 1998). Differences in men’s and women’s friendship groups as teenagers and adults trace back to childhood friendship groups and children’s tendency to interact with same-gender peers throughout development, and where different styles of play and social interaction are fostered (Maccoby, 1998; Underwood, 2004).

While such approaches can explain the mechanisms by which gender differences occur, they also downplay other significant issues that impact on the gendered nature of friendship groups, including how cultural heteronormativity structures these dynamics (Linek, 2021). In her extensive research on friendship among ethnically diverse young men, Niobe Way showed that younger boys maintained intimate and expressive friendships, but they became emotionally and physically distant during and after adolescence (Way, 2011). Connecting with sociological research on the topic (e.g. Jourard, 1971; Plummer, 1999), Way argued that homophobia was central to understanding boys’ and men’s friendship dynamics. Here, the pervasive cultural homophobia of the 1980s and 1990s conflated masculinity and heterosexuality, with the result that an anti-femininity mandate required heterosexual men to distance themselves from anything socially coded as feminine or gay (Herek, 1986; McCreary, 1994); including friendships with gay people (Kurdek, 1988). Men regulated each other’s behaviors and friendships and policed men who transgressed these norms (Nayak & Kehily, 1996). Boys engaged in physical embrace through playfighting, and any potential transgression of masculine gender norms were accompanied by techniques of identity management (McGuffey & Rich, 1999). Men’s friendships were characterized by a lack of emotional disclosure alongside conformity to strictures of masculinities—bounded by sexuality, not least because of homophobia that was present across men’s friendships groups (Thorne & Luria, 1986; Walker, 1994). For this reason, gay men tended to have friends who were either gay men or heterosexual women (Berger & Mallon, 1993; Nardi, 1999), and their friendships were often organized through LGBT social networks (Levine, 1998; Savin-Williams, 1998).

Sexual minorities are more likely to report cross-orientation friendships than heterosexuals, and gay men have been found to have more cross-gender friendships than lesbians (Baiocco et al., 2014; Galupo, 2007; Gorman-Murray, 2013). Cross-sexuality friendships thrive in many workplaces (Rumens, 2012), although these tend to be both cross-sexuality and cross-gender (i.e., gay men being friends with straight women). When friendships exist between gay and straight men, distinct emotional strategies are sometimes used to negotiate tensions that may exist related to gender and sexuality (Cornstock, 1996; Price, 1999). These tensions can also be countered by the nuanced use of humor and play which simultaneously consolidate cross-sexuality friendships and binary notions of sexual identity (Barrett, 2016; McCormack, 2012). Before considering recent trends related to men’s friendships, including the growth of same-gender, cross-sexuality friendships (e.g., Davis & Mehta, 2022; Gillespie et al., 2015), it is important to consider how sexuality is conceptualized in these contexts.

Non-exclusive sexualities – “mostly gay” and “mostly straight”

The influential work of Alfred Kinsey et al. (1948) argued for a continuum or spectrum approach to sexuality, yet sexuality was frequently bifurcated into mutually exclusive categories of straight and gay for much of the 20th century, with bisexuality erased or delegitimized as a transitional state (Eliason, 1997). Bisexuality is increasingly recognized as a legitimate sexual identity (Anderson & McCormack, 2016), even as stigma and bias persist, resulting in a tripartite model of sexuality (straight, bi and gay). However, this conceptualization still groups people together by identity category despite significant within-group differences pertaining to sexual and romantic desire (Galupo, et al., 2017; Savin-Williams, 2014). While most people’s experiences of sexual desire and romance fit this categorical model, this is not the case for a substantial minority. Labels such as “pansexual” and “asexual” refer to people who reject the gender-focused definitions of the tripartite model of sexuality, while terms such as “mostly straight” and “heteroflexible” are used by people who reject “exclusive” sexual orientation labels and recognize some level of sexual desire to their non-preferred gender (Carillo & Hoffman, 2018; Savin-Williams, 2017; 2018). These factors point to sexuality being more of a continuum than a tripartite model (Savin-Williams, 2014).

Mostly straights outnumber other sexual minority identity categories combined (Savin-Williams et al., 2012), and have unique physiological, behavioral, and self-report characteristics (Vrangalova & Savin-Williams, 2012), distinct from both heterosexuals and bisexuals. One study estimated that 52.4% of American men aged 15–44 who report some level of same-sex sexuality identify as straight (Silva & Whaley, 2018). Men report using the “mostly” label for sexual reasons (they have a preferred gender and some sexual attraction to their non-preferred gender), romantic reasons (they have romantic attachments or “crushes” to their non-preferred gender) and internalized homophobia (where the mostly label is a way of retaining a heterosexual identity and/or privilege) (McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018); with similar rationales evident for women (Wignall & Driscoll, 2020). As Savin-Williams and Vrangalova (2013, p. 59) argue, there is increasing evidence that “this tri-category system has outgrown its usefulness and that more groups are necessary to accurately describe the sexuality of current cohorts of adolescents and young adults” (see also Savin-Williams, 2014).

Despite research in developmental psychology showing clear evidence for sexual and romantic rationales, only limited research has explored the social and personal relationships of men with non-exclusive sexual orientations, and this has tended to focus on the “mostly straight” end of the sexuality spectrum (e.g., Savin-Williams, 2017; Scoats et al., 2018). Sociological research has focused instead on internalized homophobia and perceived desire to retain male privilege (Carrillo & Hoffman, 2018; Silva & Whaley, 2018; Ward, 2015), marginalizing issues such as how men who maintain sexual or romantic desires for their non-preferred gender navigate their sexualities (McCormack, 2018), with scant research considering how friendships are negotiated in this context (Anderson, 2014; Robinson & Anderson, 2022; Savin-Williams, 2021).

The changing dynamics of men’s friendships

In order to understand men’s contemporary friendship dynamics, it is necessary to consider social trends related to sexuality. Attitudes toward non-marital sex, divorce, and same-sex sexuality have become more accepting in the US over the past 30 years (Twenge et al., 2015; 2016), including “sweeping change in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men” (Keleher & Smith, 2012, p. 1324). 79% of the US population believe gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal (Gallup, 2022), and General Social Survey data shows 58.3% of Americans stating that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender are “not wrong at all” (Kranjac & Wagmiller, 2022). While this still shows a sizable minority against both statements, both datasets document an increase of almost 50 percentage points from three decades ago. Alongside attitudinal change, discriminatory laws have been challenged, increasing numbers of sexual minorities are disclosing their sexual identities publicly (Dunlap, 2016), and sexual identity is becoming less central to social identities than in the late 20th century (Ghaziani, 2011; Savin-Williams, 2005). There has also been an expansion of gender and sexual identity labels in recent years (Hammack et al., 2022; Greaves et al., 2017).

These progressive trends are not universal, and can often be dependent on social context, geographical location and other sociological and psychological variables (Hammack, 2018; Jaspal, 2019); profound differences exist within the US as its polarized politics extends into gender displays and friendship dynamics (Zucker et al., 2019). Heterosexism persists so that sexual minorities’ experiences of the social world remain distinct from heterosexuals, including continued feelings of difference and distinct patterns of sexual orientation in the workplace, community venues and personal life (Ghaziani, 2014; Grossman, 2016). As such, these changes may be better understood as “normalization” rather than liberalization, given the prevalence of attitudes and behaviors that go against liberal norms (McCormack et al., 2021), such as the sexual double standard and prevalence of sexual violence.

In this context of liberalizing attitudes toward gay people and normalization of leisure sex practices, significant changes related to masculinity and straight men’s friendships have occurred. Heterosexual male college students in England have been found to engage in regular cuddling and bed-sharing behaviors and celebrated these in their friendship groups (Anderson & McCormack, 2015; Robinson & Anderson, 2022). They also engage in public displays of platonic affection such as kissing: One study found that 89% of 145 male students had kissed another male on the lips, while 37% also frequently engaged in sustained kissing with male friends (Anderson et al., 2012). In a comparative study of colleges across the US, similar behaviors were found but at lower rates: 40% of heterosexual men reported being kissed by a male friend on the check, with 10% kissing on the lips (Anderson et al., 2019).

These physical displays of affection are closely related to meaningful emotional bonds and have been characterized as “bromances.” In their research on 30 straight male college students in England, Robinson et al. (2018) show that all of them had shared at least one bromance, with key characteristics including shared interests, emotional support, and physical tactility. This led them to “push the cultural margins of traditional masculinity toward more intimate and expressive behaviors than previously occurred between male friends” (Robinson et al., 2018, p. 101), and were even seen as more valuable than romantic relationships with women. Social class and race impact upon the development of these intimate friendships (Becker & Weiner, 2016; McCormack, 2014; Roberts, 2018), as does organizational and religious context (Magrath, 2017; Roberts et al., 2016). Research on bisexual men’s friendships is scant, with the preponderance of research on bisexuality and friendship focusing on women (see Galupo, 2006).

A large quantitative analysis of men’s same-gender and cross-gender friendships in the US showed the continued role of homophily in friendship groups (Gillespie et al., 2015), but this was more related to gender than sexuality. Significantly, marked change was evident among young adult gay and bisexual men, who showed no evidence of homophily related to sexuality and did not conform to gendered expectations of same-gender friendships. Gillespie et al. (2015) point to the importance of social change, writing:

The greater reliance on friends among gay men, lesbians, and bisexual men and women has been true of past cohorts due to historical contexts and more prevalent homophobia—however, because of the shift toward acceptance of GLB individuals, these trends may not persist in present and future cohorts.

As such, the social dynamics of men’s friendships needs to be contextualized within a more fluid framework of sexuality beyond the tripartite model that also recognizes social change as it relates to norms of sexual attitudes, sexual practice and sexual identity labels. This study draws on a data set where such behaviors are prevalent to consider diverse friendship practices beyond those traditionally documented in academic literature that focuses mostly on heterosexual relationships, with a much narrower understanding of sexual minorities’ friendship practices (Junkins et al., 2022; Pollitt et al., 2022).

Method

Participants

This research is part of a broader project examining the experiences of young men with non-exclusive sexual orientations from an elite university in the northeastern US (see McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018; McCormack & Wignall, 2017). Eligibility criteria were that participants had to self-identify as male, report having a non-exclusive sexuality, and be enrolled at the university where data collection occurred. Sexual orientation was measured via a Kinsey-type nine-point scale of sexuality, with each end of the scale being exclusively attracted to the same or different gender, and the points in-between being various degrees of attraction to each gender. Data collection occurred in the city in which the university is located.

In total, 25 participants participated in this research. All participants identified as cisgender men and were aged between 18 and 33 (mean = 21, median = 20, standard deviation = 3.52, range = 15). Of the sample, almost two-thirds were White (64%, n = 16), while the remainder were African American (4%, n = 1), Asian American (12%, n = 3), and multiracial (20%, n = 5) individuals. Participants also reported a variety of sexual orientations, including mostly gay (64%, n = 16), mostly straight (28%, n = 7), bisexual-leaning gay (4%, n = 1), and bisexual-leaning straight (4%, n = 1). Participants studied on a variety of majors across the university, with no bias toward any one degree. While the university is elite, with students having high educational capital, the system of grant support in the state means that participants had a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. More specific questions about social class were not asked, nor were questions about disability.

Participant recruitment occurred across the university campus, where various posters and flyers were disseminated to communal areas such as cafés, residence halls, and other social venues. Further dissemination also occurred through email lists and various social media outlets, such as Facebook groups. The title of the advert read: “Mostly Straight, Bi or Mostly Gay?” and provided information about the aims and objectives of the research. It also contained the contact details for the lead researcher. Participants did not receive course credit but were remunerated $10 for their participation.

The campus climate was broadly progressive, with a strong presence of LGBTQ+ groups across the campus including in several fraternities, as well as resource centers for LGTBQ+ people. While the broader region is quite conservative, the city in which the university is based is known as progressive, often called the state’s most liberal city and regularly featuring in lists of liberal American small cities. The city is also well-known for being inclusive of LGBTQ+ people.

We did not seek to recruit participants from beyond the elite institution. While this limits generalizability, given the qualitative nature of the sample and the need to expand the diversity of samples on intimate relationships (Pollitt et al., 2022; Williamson et al., 2022), we wanted to limit potentially confounding factors and focus on the experiences of university and young adult men with non-exclusive sexual orientations. The intention is not to produce generalizable findings but, by focusing on this sample, draw attention to how scholarly consideration of friendship diversity can be expanded through broader conceptualizations of sexuality.

Procedures

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were undertaken, lasting between 55 and 95 minutes and averaging approximately 65 minutes. Participants were asked questions on a range of topics, including sexual desires and identity; awareness of first sexual desires; disclosure of sexual identity to family and friends; the dynamics of friendships; and physical tactility, among other topics. Because of the semi-structured nature of the interviews, the range of follow-up questions varied between interviews. The term “bromance” was used first by the interviewer in some interviews but was not part of the interview schedule.

All interviews were undertaken by the second author and took place in a private room at the university in question. The author is a gay man who is open about his sexual identity in his professional life and disclosed his sexuality to participants early in interviews, as a way to foster rapport. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. All interviewees provided written consent immediately prior to the interview taking place. Ethical approval was sought and gained from the second author’s university at the time, which was accepted by the university where the data was collected. Ethical procedures included confidentiality and anonymity via use of pseudonyms. Participants had the option to withdraw from the study at any time.

A modified form of grounded theory was employed in this research (Charmaz, 2014). Both authors coded all interview transcripts independently, frequently discussing and comparing emergent codes. Once complete, both authors confirmed the theoretical and conceptual themes in the data, thus assuring the overall rigor of the results.

Diversity in friendship group composition

Supporting recent quantitative research which found young sexual minorities to have same-gender, cross-sexuality friendships (Davis & Mehta, 2022; Gillespie et al., 2015), mostly gay participants in this study reported friendship diversity, including friendships with straight men with whom they were open about their sexuality. For example, James, a 22-year-old mostly gay student from California, said, “My best friend, David, is 100% straight…Frat guys have much more of an open and liberating perspective on male sexuality… They’re very tolerant [of gay guys].” Similarly, Matthew, a 19-year-old mostly gay student who plays for his university’s football team, said, “I have a few close [straight] friends, mainly Mason and Joey, and there is no homophobia from them. They are super cool about it.” And Luis, a 20-year-old mostly gay student, said, “I have mainly three or four straight guy friends who are really close to me…They all support and love me for who I am.” These positive experiences were commonplace among most of the men who identified as mostly gay.

Sexuality remained significant in friendship groups, with participants on the gay end of the sexuality spectrum pleased to have other sexual minority friends. Jack, a 21-year-old mostly gay student from New York, said that his friendship groups had evolved, and now included “a really good mix of queer and straight friends…who are supportive of me.” Similarly, Eddie, a 21-year-old mostly gay student originally from Maryland, said that his friendship group had recently extended with more queer friends. He also added: “I’ve been pleasantly surprised about how open all my friends have been to my sexuality. It’s been really good, and they’ve always told me they accept me.” Other mostly gay participants spoke about the value of having primarily LGB friends, in that they often provide greater emotional support. For example, Alan, a 19-year-old mostly gay student of Filipino heritage, relied primarily on “friends who are gay and bisexual.” He added: “I don’t have many straight friends.” The same was also true for Michael, a 20-year-old mostly gay student from Arkansas.

The two bisexual-leaning participants also had cross-sexuality friendships. Jimmy, an 18-year-old bisexual-leaning gay student originally from New York, said that all his friends are straight. And Fabian, a 23-year-old bisexual-leaning straight (BLS) student, said that he has both straight and gay friends, and that he is “pretty much open about everything [with them].”

Among the mostly straight participants in this research, disclosure about their non-exclusive identity was also primarily positive. Marcus, for example, a 21-year-old mostly straight student, said after he had told peers about his limited same-sex desires, “It seems like the people in my school were better than most schools. We are all close to each other.” This routine acceptance was also evident for Karl, a mostly straight 19-year-old multiracial student, and Luke, a mostly straight 20-year-old student from New York. Despite this acceptance, friendship diversity was less evident among the mostly straight participants. Indeed, of these seven men, all but two had only straight friendship groups. Zach, a 19-year-old mostly straight student from South Carolina, said, “Out of my closest group of friends, all of them are straight, currently.” Similarly, Karl said, “My friends are straight…We are a very tight group, and all hang out constantly.” Straight friendship groups were also true for Steve, a mostly straight 18-year-old student, and Frazer, a mostly straight student originally from California. Conversely, Luke, talked of having close friendships with straight and queer friends: “I have some really good friends…Some are straight, and some are bisexual. I’m close with them all.” Marcus also spoke of the sexual diversity in his friendship group.

Cross-sexuality physical closeness

While previous research on men’s friendships has documented restrictions on tactile touch between men (e.g., (Pleck, 1981)), the closeness of friendships among non-exclusive men in this research was expressed, in many cases, through physical tactility (Robinson & Anderson, 2022). This was largely evident through participants’ current cuddling practices (Anderson & McCormack, 2015), which were commonplace for around half of the mostly gay participants. Speaking of the other men in his fraternity, James (MG) said, “I cuddle with a lot of them…I’ve experienced bed-sharing, cuddling, spooning…It’s completely platonic.” Similarly, Frank, a 29-year-old mostly gay student, said, “Yes, absolutely, I cuddle with my friends all the time.” These forms of homosocial tactility were not framed as extraordinary, but rather as standard parts of friendship. As Luis (MG) said: “When we’re watching a movie, we lean on each other’s shoulder, and we cuddle.” For Matthew (MG), disclosure of his sexuality did not stop such practices, but enhanced them: “Coming out enabled me to cuddle more, even with my straight friends…I feel like this [cuddling] is a non-issue.”

Similar levels of physical tactility were also evident among the mostly straight participants. Marcus said, “Even when I have a girlfriend, it’s normal for me to go and sleep in my friend’s bed [with him]…All the men on the [running] team cuddle with each other.” Similarly, Steve, a mostly straight 18-year-old student, said that he had one friend with whom he “shares a bed, cuddle with at parties.” Luke discussed his cuddling practices with straight, gay, and bisexual friends. Fabian (BLS) also spoke of occasionally cuddling with his friends. The mostly straight participants spoke of tactility with other straight men, as fits with their friendship groups more broadly.

As well as cuddling, a minority of participants also engaged in kissing practices with male friends. Luis (MG) said that kissing with his friends is a sign of friendship: “It’s just like a brother showing friendship…I get kissed a few times by friends.” Similarly, Fabian (BLS) said, “I think it [kissing] is a sign of…I feel close to you right now, I want to kiss you.” Consistent with other research (Anderson et al., 2019), these practices were often facilitated by alcohol consumption. Marcus (MS), for example, said, “I have one friend who, when he’s really drunk, kisses my cheek and slaps my ass. It’s fun but he needs to the alcohol to do it.” For other participants, alcohol consumption was prevalent in their other forms of physical tactility. James (MG) said, “I’ve spooned with lots of guys in the frat. Usually there is a lot of alcohol involved…We both pass out and snuggle together.” And Jimmy (BLG) said, “When I’m drunk, we [him and a close friend] often spoon in the bed.” Accordingly, intoxication also impacts the physical expression of non-exclusive men’s friendships, much in the same way as documented in research on heterosexual men in England (Anderson et al., 2012).

While several participants spoke of only cuddling at college, some participants experienced cuddling and physical tactility with straight friends at high school. Eddie (MG) said, “I don’t have any straight male friends that I hug here [at college]…Back home I cuddle with my gay male friend. It’s not sexual, just cuddling…It’s completely platonic.” And Frank (MG) spoke of how his cuddling practices were not restricted to college friends: “My close [straight] friend and I grew up together and were always very huggy…We might watch a movie and put our arms around each other…Looking back, it was just us being tactile.” Accordingly, while physical tactility typically emerges more in the university setting, there is also some evidence that it occurs earlier than this, too.

Emotional closeness in friendships

Similar to research with heterosexual men (e.g., Robinson & Anderson, 2022), the non-exclusive men in this research enjoyed emotionally intimate friendships. Among the seven men who identified as mostly straight, all said that they had enjoyed a “bromance” with a straight male friend. Sometimes this term was used by participants without prompting, and others agreed with the term when asked if it was relevant by the interviewer. Marcus (MS) talked about how much he enjoyed his close friendship with a straight male friend: “I think a bromance is the strong brotherly friendship. You try to include each other in your lives and [make] little gestures…things you wouldn’t do with a non-bromance partner.” Similarly, Zach (MS) said, “I have a close group of [straight] high school friends…I’m such good friends with one of them and we want to live together after university. We definitely have a bromance.” And Steve (MS) outlined how he has enjoyed multiple bromances, describing them as “helping each other out with relationships, activities outside of school…that kind of thing.”

While bromance narratives featured less strongly among the mostly gay men interviewed, seven of the 16 mostly gay participants had enjoyed a bromance with at least one other man. Congruent with recent research (e.g., Johnston et al., 2021), many of these were also cross-sexuality friendships. Frank (MG), for example, said, “I have a very close connection to a close friend of mine…I will travel to see him, and we’ll hang out, watch a movie, talk about the mysteries of the universe…We’re very close friends, more like family than bros.” Similarly, Luis (MG) described his intimate friendship as “two boys who can say anything and it doesn’t matter. It’s like a connection that’s not threatened…There’s no barrier, we share everything.” And Matthew (MG) said that he had enjoyed “bromances with all of my [straight] football friends. There was one guy in particular – our families were friends – who I have been close with for ages.” Notably, these friendships had the intensity and depth that Way (2011) documented in the friendship of adolescent boys without the dropping off she found as they aged.

Almost half of the mostly gay men interviewed for this research said that they also enjoyed close emotional friendships with women. For five of these participants, these were termed a “bromance.” Brian, a 24-year-old mostly gay student, simply referred to a bromance as a “key emotional relationship” with another person, before then commenting, “I had a really close friendship with a girl I lived with. She was my bromance for that year. Then I had another female friend who was my other bromance, but she’s not here anymore.” Luis (MG) said that he had enjoyed bromances with both men and women, but that it was easier with women because of the reduced risk of romantic awkwardness. However, other mostly gay participants, such as Eddie, enjoyed close friendships with women (and men), but did not label them as bromances. As such, while the term is used in a broader way for some participants, it still has gendered connotations for others.

The close friendships and bromances enjoyed by participants were largely characterized by emotional disclosure and support. Evidencing this closeness, Frazer (MS) said that his best friends were “like a family…[and] always there for each other.” Similarly, Marcus (MS) referred to his bromance as “a strong brotherly friendship…You are key in each other’s lives.” Unpacking this closeness in more detail, Steve (MS) outlined the nature of support evident in his friendships: “[We] help each other with relationships, activities outside of school, debating in high school, that kind of thing.” Zach (MS) discussed a similar level of support with his bromance: “We would talk for hours. His parents had some issues, we cried about our friend [who had passed away]…We’d just comfort each other about stuff.” Jack (MG) commented on gendered dynamics, and how this further impacted the closeness of his friendship groups. He said, “I talk about my dating or sex life with my friends, and I feel like they can relate to it a bit more because they are girls.”

Discussion

Heterosexual men’s friendships have traditionally been framed as lacking emotional depth and segregated by gender, class, race and sexuality (e.g., Bank & Hansford, 2000; Berger & Mallon, 1993). While quantitative research is increasingly finding cross-sexuality friendships and diversity in group composition (e.g., Davis & Mehta, 2022; Gillespie et al., 2015), scant qualitative work on this phenomenon exists. Drawing on interviews with 25 young men with non-exclusive sexual orientations from an elite university, this study advances our understanding of the contemporary dynamics of men’s friendships. Participants were open about their non-exclusive sexual identities and were supported by their friendship groups which had notable gender and sexual diversity—with men across the sexuality spectrum reporting friendships that were a mix of cross-gender, cross-sexuality and both combined. This was especially pronounced among the mostly gay and two bisexual-leaning participants, who enjoyed an eclectic mix of friendship groups, with heterosexual and LGB friends commonplace. Consistent with research on patterns of friendship diversity among exclusively straight men (Baiocco et al., 2014), the majority of the mostly straight participants in this research reported having straight-only friendship groups, although a notable minority reported important cross-sexuality friendship groups.

The differing rates of friendship diversity between mostly gay and mostly straight participants in the study are not easily explained. One possible reason is that it is the result of continued homophobia limiting mostly straight men’s networks, but this does not fit with the data in the study and evidence of generational change related to sexuality. An alternative explanation is that it is in the expected range of outcomes given that straight people significantly outnumber sexual minorities in the general population, so it is far more likely for mostly gay men to meet straight people they can befriend than it is for mostly straight men to meet sexual minorities. However, this explanation assumes that people of different sexualities are spread evenly across the population, and it also does not engage with how sexual minority friendships are formed—not just through venues such as work and college but also though “gayborhoods” and LGBT-focused venues and networks (Ghaziani, 2014; Nardi, 1999). A further issue that complicates the simple proposition of expected outcomes is the greater prevalence of young people who report elements of same-sex sexual desire, meaning that mostly straight men might be expected to meet other mostly straight men (Savin-Williams, 2017). It is not possible to satisfactorily answer this question in the current study and further research is needed to address it.

Practices of tactility and intimacy were present and valued for participants, largely in the form cuddling, spooning, and kissing (see also Anderson & McCormack, 2015; Anderson et al., 2019). An important finding is that these practices exist in men’s friendship groups beyond heterosexual sporting men (e.g., Anderson, 2014), and were commonplace in friendship not just between men of different sexualities, but also between men and women. Furthermore, in many cases the tactility discussed by these men was not restricted to the university setting, also occurring in spaces “back home” before these men attended university. These findings also fit with recent quantitative research on sexual minority men, which documents cross-gender and sexuality connections (Gillespie et al., 2015). Scant research exists on bisexual men’s friendships, and recent qualitative research on gay men’s friendships focuses on work dynamics (e.g. Rumens, 2012). As such, this study fits with other recent research on sexual minorities and extends it by examining tactility, emotionality, and other dynamics of friendship.

This research has also discussed the emotional intimacy present in the friendships of men with non-exclusive sexual orientations, extending the nascent literature on bromances as a result (e.g., Robinson & Anderson, 2022). Most participants discussed emotionally open, same-gender friendships and many called these bromances, although this labelling was more present among the mostly straight participants. And while some participants labelled particularly close friendships with women as “bromances,” most bromances were between men—suggesting that the term continues to have gendered connotations even as it is used by sexual minorities. As such, our study shows that cross-sexuality and cross-gender bromances occur, which may be an extension or relabeling of close friendships between gay men and heterosexual women (e.g., Berger & Mallon, 1993; Nardi, 1999)—even if these are more emotionally open than previous generations of men.

This study has significant implications for future research on friendships. Methodologically, conceptualizing sexuality beyond the tripartite model enabled a focus on sexualities that have been marginalized in friendship and relationships literature, as well as a more nuanced discussion of friendship dynamics in this context. Furthermore, the study shows the value of qualitative research in understanding the intersections of sexuality and friendship. Quantitative approaches tend to dominate the literature through use of standardized measures of friendship, which can be particularly problematic for sexualities research given that quantitative measures of sexual desire often take precedence over qualitative data about how such desire is contextualized within a social identity (Jaspal, 2019; McCormack & Savin-Williams, 2018). In this context, a spectrum framework of sexuality combined with greater use of qualitative methods in friendship research can provide a more holistic account of men’s friendships, including the intersections of gender, sexuality and identity.

Theoretically, this study troubles the argument that is present in much masculinities research that non-exclusive sexualities and displays of same-gender tactility are about retaining heterosexual privilege and perpetuating homophobia (e.g., Diefendorf & Bridges, 2020; Ward, 2015; c. f. McCormack, 2020). The findings in this study are clear evidence that these forms of intimacy speak to genuine change in the quotidian friendship practices of young adult men in this sample, rather than a strategy related to masculinity and heterosexuality. This is evidenced both by the core empirical findings of group diversity, physical intimacy and emotionality and by the similarities in friendship dynamics between mostly gay and mostly straight participants. While we have focused on friendship dynamics in this study, the findings align with masculinities research that adopts the framework of inclusive masculinity (Anderson & McCormack, 2018; McCormack, 2020), and applies this theory to a new demographic.

This study has extended research on friendships in significant ways, but it is still bound by important factors—particularly with respect to educational status given the elite university participants attended. Furthermore, while the study draws attention to the experiences of men with non-exclusive sexual orientations, only small numbers of men identified as bisexual-leaning and all participants were cisgender. Further research is needed to examine the friendship dynamics of individuals who identify with different gender and sexuality labels, as well as those that reject them altogether—groups that are growing in Western societies (see Hammack et al., 2022). Future research should also examine disability status, as well as more precise questions on social class. Our study also does not adopt a critical race lens to understand friendship dynamics—initial analysis of race did not yield findings of interest, but we attribute this to insufficient questions regarding race during data collection alongside the elite nature of the institution essentially being a “white space” (Anderson, 2015). Further research is required on how this may impact the friendships of black and global majority men—as well as how the findings can be generalized to different groups.

In summary, by drawing on in-depth interviews with 25 young adult men with non-exclusive sexual orientations who do not use the term bisexuality, we have extended research on friendship to understand the gender and sexuality dynamics of this group, finding cross-gender and cross-sexuality friendships which include physical and emotional intimacy. Given that research on personal and social relationships is overly focused on heterosexual participants, with a binary or tripartite understanding of sexuality among research on sexual minorities (Junkins et al., 2022), this qualitative study has documented diverse, inclusive and heterogenous friendship practices that demonstrate the value of broad understandings of sexuality in research on personal and social relationships.