Abstract
Masculinity varies across social and cultural contexts. Although hegemonic masculinity is often considered the dominant form, contemporary studies highlight the existence of multiple masculinities. This study examines princess masculinity/boys, men criticized for displaying sensitivity, sharing expenses, or expecting care in romantic relationships, inspired by TikTok trend In This Generation Men Wanna Be Treated Like a Princess. Using content analysis of TikTok videos, the findings show that men who don’t align with traditional masculine ideals are labeled and disparaged as princesses. However, these behaviors also reflect a desire for emotional reciprocity and mutual support. To avoid stigmatizing labels, this study proposes conceptualizing princess boys as sharing masculinity, highlighting their potential to challenge hegemonic norms and expand understandings of masculine identities.
Keywords
Early childhood is a critical developmental period for the internalization of gender roles and the formation of gender-based behavioral patterns (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Preschool-and kindergarten-aged girls, especially through media, learn what it means to be a princess or to receive princess treatment, and the internalization of these ideals over time leads to the reinforcement of stereotypical behaviors associated with the female gender (Coyne et al., 2016, 2021; Dinella, 2013; Wohlwend, 2009). Adult women who identify themselves as princesses or who internalize princess treatment often hold more traditional views about the division of domestic labor, express less interest in participating in corporate life (Dinella, 2013), and tend to expect men to perform traditional gender roles. The concept of princess treatment determines the division of roles in male–female relationships. Within this context, while men are expected to uphold hegemonic and real man behaviors, women are expected to adopt submissive and domesticated social roles (Eagly, 1987). Although the concept of princess treatment and hegemonic masculinity are ingrained in individuals’ minds from childhood through culture, social norms, and media, contemporary masculinity studies have emerged as a result of changing circumstances, leading to the questioning of hegemonic roles, particularly under the influence of social media. A notable example is the 2024 trend on the TikTok platform known as In This Generation, Men Wanna Be Treated Like a Princess (TikTok, n.d.), which reflects shifting gender dynamics and societal perceptions.
TikTok is a rapidly growing social media platform known for its short-form, engaging video content (Dixon, 2025). As of 2025, the United States has the largest user base, with approximately 148 million active users (World Population Review, 2025). The majority of TikTok users are adolescents and young adults. Through features such as lip-syncing, imitation, filters, music, and viral trends, TikTok enhances user interaction and engagement (Rejeb et al., 2024), enabling users to produce videos on a wide variety of topics. The proliferation of TikTok has provided a foundation for the emergence of diverse academic research on masculinity. Foster and Baker (2022) observed that male content creators simultaneously challenge and reinforce traditional notions of masculinity. Chen (2025) highlighted that while counter-hegemonic discourses exist on TikTok, narratives supporting hegemonic masculinity are also maintained on the platform.
Tanner and Gillardin (2025) demonstrated that the toxic communication styles of so-called sigma males on TikTok vary from subtle humor to overt aggression, thereby perpetuating traditional patterns of male dominance. Luo (2023) similarly argued that male portrayals in K-pop content on TikTok represent an alternative form of masculinity that challenges traditional norms. However, it has been emphasized that the majority of fans regard soft masculinity as a performative act, highlighting the continued dominance of hegemonic masculinity in real-life gender dynamics.
Scarcelli and Farci (2024) discovered that platforms like TikTok tend to reinforce and perpetuate gender norms. Similarly, Carlsson (2023) emphasized that male content creators often disseminate hegemonic and toxic masculinities, contributing to the persistence of patriarchy. In contrast, Steains (2025) described TikTok as a heterotopic space for different cultures where young men can reshape their identities, thereby reinventing traditional masculine values. Similarly, Lolita and Isnaini (2023) argued that TikTok serves as a powerful platform for men to express their gender identities and raise public awareness.
As demonstrated by the aforementioned studies, in recent years, new and diverse responses to masculinity norms have emerged on social media platforms, particularly on TikTok. The In This Generation, Men Wanna Be Treated Like a Princess trend is one such example, focusing on the norms and expectations surrounding masculinity. This study aims to conceptually define the princess boys concept emerging from this TikTok trend and contribute to future scholarship on masculinity.
Theoretical Framework
Since the 1980s, masculinity studies have emerged as an academic field, bringing numerous norms associated with being male into focus within the contexts of different societies and historical periods (Connell, 1987; Gutmann, 1996; Hearn, 1992; Herdt, 1981; Kimmel, 1987; Lemon, 1992). Gender is a fluid and contested area of study. Despite masculinity being a social construct rather than a purely biological fact, and despite the existence of multiple masculinities, discussions around this diversity were ignored for a long time. Early studies of masculinity often aligned with gender role theory, portraying masculinity as a set of stable, normative behaviors (Reeser, 2020). Any deviation from the prescribed hegemonic roles was labeled as “unmanly or effeminate”. Accordingly, there was only one valid form of masculinity—men felt more masculine the closer they aligned with it and less masculine the farther they strayed (Griffin, 2018, p. 2).
The concept of hegemonic masculinity, developed by Connell (1987) and later expanded by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), has been used to describe the most accepted and powerful form of masculinity in society. While hegemonic masculinity can take on different forms across time and space, it is consistently linked to strength, authority, and control. Hegemonic men, therefore, project power over both women and non-hegemonic men. For example, in Western and Westernized societies, hegemonic masculinity is often equated with being macho—assertive, aggressive, fearless, dominant, and emotionally restrained. It rejects behaviors perceived as weak, such as showing emotion, accepting failure, or asking for help (Durfee, 2011; McVittie et al., 2017; Oliffe et al., 2017). White, middle-class, heterosexual men often set the standard for masculinity. Non-heterosexual relationships are frequently stigmatized as deviant, reinforcing a heteronormative order (Kimmel, 1997; Marsh, 2010).
In everyday life, social interactions play a key role in reproducing socially constructed norms of masculinity. Connell (1995) work emphasizes that gendered behaviors are produced and reproduced through social interaction. Connell argues that masculinity is not innate but socially acquired, and that there is no single form of masculinity. Connell (1995) and Messerschmidt (2018) introduced a framework of multiple masculinities, including hegemonic, complicit, subordinate, and marginalized masculinities. Subordinate masculinities, which is situated at the lowest level of the masculinity hierarchy, represent men who are physically weak, emotional in public, averse to fighting, victims of bullying, or perceived as homosexual. Complicit masculinities refer to men who do not directly benefit from patriarchy but still support it passively. Marginalized masculinities describe men who, due to race, class, or disability, fall outside of the dominant ideals—such as Black men or working-class factory workers (Connell, 1995).
Hegemonic masculinity inherently upholds gender-based power imbalances. The endurance of patriarchy is directly tied to the structural reproduction of gender practices (Connell, 1995). Many men, however, lack the psychological profile required to fully embody hegemonic masculinity, resulting in a crisis of masculinity and depression (Courtenay, 2000; Lemon, 1992). As a result of socially constructed gender norms that associate masculinity with strength, men—especially those embodying hegemonic masculinity—often deny having psychological disorders such as depression, resist seeking professional help, or overlook symptoms of mental illness (Emslie et al., 2006). Men often reject the existence of depression as a way to affirm their masculinity and avoid being positioned as lower in status compared to women or other men (Courtenay, 2000). When the status of real manhood is threatened, masculinity becomes fragile. Fragile masculinity arises when a man fails to meet masculine expectations, leading to social exclusion, loss of respect among peers, and revocation of membership in high-status masculine groups. In order to preserve their privileged position associated with hegemonic masculinity and to avoid being labeled as fragile, men must continuously perform socially constructed masculine behaviors; deviation from these norms may lead to a loss of masculine status (DiMuccio & Knowles, 2020; Stanaland et al., 2023).
Concealing fragility may lead to the emergence of toxic masculinity (Kupers, 2005). In situations where masculine identity is questioned or perceived to be under threat, men often respond by reasserting their masculinity through aggressive thoughts and harmful, toxic behaviors (Kouchaki et al., 2023). Toxic masculinity, shaped within the framework of hegemonic masculinity, perpetuates similar patterns of behavior and promotes patriarchal dominance, homophobia, misogyny, and violence (Parent et al., 2019). Its most defining characteristics include anger, desire for dominance, aggression, violence, negative attitudes toward women, and emotional dysfunction (Whitehead, 2021). This form of masculinity is described as toxic due to its socially destructive qualities (Sculos, 2017). From a postfeminist perspective, toxic masculinity reveals that the gendered, patriarchal order has not been entirely dismantled and that traces of male dominance and gender inequality persist (Harrington, 2021).
Although popular culture and media have long legitimized and spread traditional male stereotypes, postmodern thought has emphasized the importance of alternative understandings of masculinity (Chodorow, 2005). Critical studies on men and masculinities demonstrates that the concept of masculinity continues to evolve globally. Contemporary shifts in masculinity have led to the rise of “new male” identities that challenge restrictive traditional stereotypes (Connor et al., 2021, p. 2). Contemporary masculinities emerged in response to the traditional and hegemonic male roles. In contrast to the macho attitude of hegemonic masculinity, contemporary masculinities are depicted as warm and humanized (Lemon, 1992). Examples of these contemporary masculinities include hybrid masculinity (Demetriou, 2001), inclusive masculinity (Anderson, 2010), flexible masculinity (Jung, 2024), queer masculinity (Heasley, 2005), and caring masculinity (Elliott, 2016). What unites these types of masculinity is their opposition to and rejection of hegemonic masculinity. Hybrid masculinity, which challenges hegemonic masculinity, refers to the process through which men selectively adopt behaviors and identity traits associated with marginalized or subordinated masculinities and femininities (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Although the transformation of masculinities is not a new phenomenon, the integration of traits coded as feminine, gay, or Black into heterosexual, White masculine identities and performances may represent a recent development (Bridges, 2014). The concept of flexible masculinities, closely related to hybrid masculinities (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014), emphasizes the adoption of diverse masculine identities. While the concept of hybrid masculinity needs to be examined within a global context, flexible masculinities focus more on the transnational context, where culturally specific hegemonic masculinities coexist, compete, and contradict one another (Jung, 2024). This form of masculinity represents a novel identity configuration that accommodates both dominant male stereotypes and alternative versions of masculinity (Gee, 2014).
Inclusive masculinity promotes egalitarian values and reduces social exclusion. From the perspective of inclusive masculinity theory, heterosexual men are increasingly distancing themselves from traditional hegemonic norms by actively rejecting homophobia, acknowledging bisexuality as a valid sexual orientation, and forming close, emotionally expressive friendships with gay peers. This shift also includes the acceptance of behaviors and activities traditionally coded as feminine, the engagement in tactile forms of affection with other men, and a clear disavowal of violence and bullying as markers of masculinity (Anderson & McCormack, 2018). Queer masculinity is defined as expressions of masculinity that subvert traditional heteronormative masculine ideals or exist outside their logic (Heasley, 2005). Whereas masculinity is predominantly framed through hegemonic and heterosexual norms, queer masculinity challenges, denaturalizes and destabilizes the very logic of what is conventionally understood as masculine and heterosexual (Heasley, 2005; Kjaran & Jóhannesson, 2016). Another concept examined in the study of masculinity is caring masculinity, which, in contrast to hegemonic masculinity, emphasizes egalitarian roles and caregiving responsibilities for men (Kluczyńska, 2021). Within this form of masculinity, men are encouraged to perform care work such as childcare and self-care as part of a gender-equal society (Roberts & Prattes, 2024).
Although multiple forms of masculinity exist, both men and women predominantly adhere to traditional norms and hegemonic masculinity when it comes to heteronormative relationships. Consequently, specific behavioral patterns and emotional norms arise within these relationships. Individuals are positioned to conform to heteronormative gendered stereotypes, and beliefs, which significantly contribute to the reproduction of interpersonal inequalities (Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013; Samardzic et al., 2023). Typically, men are expected to initiate relationships, plan dates, cover expenses, advance the relationship, and ultimately lead it toward marriage. When men conform to traditional norms, they tend to experience heightened self-confidence and self-esteem (Reilly et al., 2014; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2021). Conversely, when men experience emotional hurt, they often suppress these feelings (Hooks, 2004; Malonda-Vidal et al., 2021).
Studies examining women’s expectations and attitudes within heteronormative relationships similarly indicate a tendency to prioritize traditional norms. In a study exploring how women perceive the attractiveness of hegemonic and non-hegemonic men, Tsuda (2020, p. 680) found that women considered non-hegemonic men as not fitting the stereotype of a “sexy, desirable man”. Women described these men as socially awkward, lacking personality, unable to maintain conversations, and generally incompetent. In another study, coercive behaviors associated with hegemonic masculinity—such as violence, control, and intimidation—were often legitimized by women as stemming from their partners’ jealousy (Abbott et al., 2021). Post-feminist studies emphasize that women no longer depend on relationships or the presence of a man for economic security (Gill, 2007). While women may demand equality in the professional and public spheres, their attitudes toward romantic relationships often reflect personal preferences. Women who seek equality in professional life may still prefer relationships that adhere to traditional gender roles in their private lives (England, 2010; Lamont, 2021). Additionally, a recent study by Samardzic et al. (2023) shows that women do not necessarily conform to traditional gender norms in their relationships—such as being obedient, passive, or excessively nurturing. In sum, while certain perspectives on gender have evolved, heteronormative relationships continue to resist significant transformation (Lamont, 2020, 2021).
Research Method
Research Questions
The study aims to explore how the concept of princess boys, which gained popularity through the trend In This Generation Man Wanna Be Treated Like a Princess, is represented in digital culture. The main research questions are stated below:
Who are those princess boys and what can be their defining features?
Does the concept of princess boys overlap more with the hegemonic masculinity or the contemporary masculinity studies?
Does the concept of princess boys have the potential to be a new type of masculinity?
Data Collection
All data used in this research were obtained from videos shared on public TikTok accounts. To protect user privacy, direct identifying elements in the videos such as usernames or visual identities were excluded. For these reasons, the study does not require ethics committee approval. Additionally, since TikTok provides a personalized video feed based on algorithmic preferences (Bhandari & Bimo, 2022), the researchers created a new account to minimize algorithmic bias. Videos associated with the princess boys trend were scanned over a one-month period in March 2025.
To ensure the relevance of the content, videos using the hashtags #princessboy, #princessboys, #princessman, and #princessmen were included in the analysis. A total of 635 videos were initially examined, with 275, 22, 159, and 179 videos corresponding to each hashtag, respectively. Videos that were unrelated to the princess boys trend were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 229 videos for analysis.
Research Limitations
The main limitations of the research are that the concept of princess boys was analyzed only on publicly available TikTok videos shot in English for a 1-month period. Additionally, the videos interpreted based on their primary meanings.
Research Method and Data Analysis
Videos manually collected through hashtag scanning were analyzed using content analysis in MAXQDA. Since content analysis inherently involves researchers’ judgments, concerns may arise regarding the quality, and particularly the reliability of the data. To ensure reliability, data must be repeatable and testable. The effectiveness of the coding tool is assessed to determine whether researchers, following shared instructions, can generate the same data within an acceptable margin of error (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). To ensure the reliability of the data in this study, videos were coded in accordance with their most dominant themes by the two authors and an independent coder separately. Intercoder reliability was measured using Krippendorff’s Alpha coefficient. Agreement between researchers is expressed on a scale from 0 to 1, with a value of 0.80 or above considered reliable (Krippendorff, 1995, 2011). The analysis revealed an excellent level of agreement, with a Krippendorff’s Alpha value of α = 0.936.
Building on this reliability-focused coding process, the next step involved developing and refining the coding categories and themes through an inductive approach. Initially, the authors and the independent coder conducted an overview of the videos and based on this preliminary review, initial codes were developed. As a further step, these preliminary codes were re-examined and gathered to achieve final logical categories which would be used during the content analysis. Subsequently, these categories were re-gathered with respect to their underlying meanings to form the themes. While the category expresses the explicit content and meaning of the coded data, the theme, formed by gathering related categories, represent a more implicit and abstract level that requires interpretation (Vaismoradi et al., 2016). In terms of re-gathering procedure, an inductive approach was used since specific codes and categories were developed first and then generalized into broader themes. Within this bottom-up approach, no predefined keywords were used; instead, the full content of each video was examined. Additionally, it is essential to express that during categorization, group titles were determined mostly with respect to common meanings.
As a result of the analysis, five main themes were identified: (a) communication dynamics, (b) emotional reflection, (c) interests, and preferences, (d) role reversal, and (e) exclusion from masculinity (See Figure 1). All themes except for exclusion from masculinity consist of categories (See Figure 2 and Table 1). Themes visualized through MAXQDA Themes and categories visualized through MAXQDA Themes and Categories
Research Findings
Contents of the Videos
Frequency of the Themes
Frequency of the Categories of the Theme Role Reversal
Frequency of the Categories of the Theme Communication Dynamics
Frequency of the Categories of the Theme Interests, and Preferences
Frequency of the Categories of the Theme Emotional Reflection
The Theme Role Reversal
As a result of the analysis of the theme Role Reversal, the main behaviors that led to men being criticized and subsequently labeled as princesses were identified as follows: waiting for women to take the first step in initiating and maintaining the relationship (25.57%); expecting their partner(s) to perform gentlemanly behaviors—such as picking them up from home—rather than enacting these behaviors themselves (19.46%); expecting their partner(s) to cover or at least share expenses, in contrast to traditional gender roles (13.36%); expecting to receive flowers or gifts from their partner(s) (8.78%); seeking attention and affection without reciprocating (6.11%); and transferring decision-making responsibility to their partner(s) rather than taking the lead; which deviates from behaviors traditionally associated with hegemonic masculinity (6.11%). While these behaviors challenge the principle of equality advocated by feminist discourse, the findings reveal a paradox: women simultaneously express a preference for men who perform hegemonic masculinity, as conceptualized by Connell (1995). The fact that more than half of the analyzed content is under the theme of role reversal—although there are 5 different themes—suggests that, despite advocating for equality, many women still expect hegemonic masculine performances that make them feel like princesses. Men who do not conform to hegemonic masculinity were perceived as inferior and thus were labeled as princesses. Another noteworthy finding under this theme is that some women complained about an emergent sense of self-masculinization, as they had to handle tasks requiring physical strength on their own since men are becoming princesses. Displaying behaviors in this theme often results in men being labeled as princesses. This reaction reflects a broader social anxiety surrounding shifting gender roles and the destabilization of traditional masculine authority.
The Theme Communication Dynamics
According to the videos in the sample, the primary reason for men being labeled as princesses is Role Reversal (51.27%), followed by the theme Communication Dynamics (19.18%.) Within this theme, men who display avoidant behaviors stereotypically associated with femininity—such as sulking, getting upset with others, refusing to apologize, responding late to messages or not responding at all, blocking their partner(s) on WhatsApp or other social media platforms, underestimating women’s anger and resentment (61.23%)—are labeled as princesses. Additionally, men who initially show excessive attention to women and then suddenly withdraw it (11.23%); avoid taking responsibility in the relationship, avoiding marriage, or stringing women along without any intention of commitment (9.18%); and display inconsistent behavior or not know exactly what to want (7.14%) are also categorized under this label. Behaviors such as ghosting, refusing to take responsibility, engaging in avoidant communication, or acting inconsistently, can disrupt relational stability. When sustained unilaterally or mutually, such behaviors may evolve into toxic relationship dynamics.
Moreover, men who talk, complain or nag excessively (6.12%), and those who frequently use affectionate nicknames for their partners such as babe, love, baby, honey, dear, cutie, etc. (5.1%) are also labeled as princesses. It is a flawed perspective to describe these behaviors as feminine. Thus, the women who label nagging men as princesses, to some extent, humiliating themselves by reinforcing stereotype that women nag.
The Theme Exclusion From Masculinity
The theme Exclusion from Masculinity, which was not divided into categories, accounted for 11.55% of the total thematic distribution. Within the scope of this theme, men who exhibit behaviors perceived as feminine, or who lack hegemonic masculine traits were criticized and labeled as gay due to their so-called high feminine energy. As a result, several sample videos featured sarcastic celebrations of a so-called Women’s Day for men labeled as princesses, illustrating a symbolic exclusion from hegemonic masculinity.
The Theme Interests, and Preferences
Within the scope of the Interests and Preferences theme, it is seen that certain behavioral patterns are perceived as incompatible with masculinity; for this reason, these behavioral patterns or preferences are defined as feminine and men who engage in these are labeled as princesses. These behavioral patterns and preferences were codes as follows: (a) paying excessive attention to grooming and styling, wearing no-show socks, and choosing tight-fitting clothing (29.17%); (b) frequently posting photos on social media accounts, creating photo dumps, and using platforms like TikTok and Snapchat (20.83%); (c) enjoying desserts, sweetened drinks, dieting, and cooking (12.5%); (d) being interested in horoscopes, and making plans according to astrological predictions (10.42%); (e) practicing yoga or meditation, being uninterested in football or football clubs (10.42%); (f) being uninterested in cars, not knowing how to drive, or not having a driver’s license (8.33%); and (g) enjoying being photographed or frequently taking selfies (8.33%). These interests and preferences diverge from hegemonic norms.
In the sample videos, men’s attention to their appearance and personal grooming, as well as their taste preferences, are associated with metro-sexuality—which has been defined as a challenge to hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore, excessive use of social media or participation in social media trends were interpreted as a sign of having too much leisure time, which is then linked to assumptions about unemployment or a lack of responsibility.
The Theme Emotional Reflection
According to the Emotional Reflection theme, the main behaviors that triggered criticism and led to men being labeled as princesses were identified as follows: emotional detachment, such as lack of emotional connection or absence of jealousy and possessiveness (18.18%); being a mama’s boy and expecting maternal treatment from their partner(s) (18.18%); clearly expressing emotions (15.91%); being sensitive or touchy (13.64%); being capricious and whiny in a relationship (13.64%); acting like a cry-baby (11.36%); and showing cowardice or a lack of courage (13.64%). Labeling emotionally expressive men as princesses highlights the persistence of gender norms that discourage male vulnerability. Moreover, the association of such emotions and behaviors with princess-like traits reveals a paradox: while advocating for gender equality in public and professional spheres, women may—perhaps unintentionally—reinforce hegemonic masculine norms by penalizing emotional expression in men within romantic relationships.
Discussion and Conclusion
TikTok is often perceived as an inclusive and egalitarian platform, particularly by young men, where they can express multiple gender identities and transcend the normative and prescriptive boundaries of gender (Foster & Baker, 2022). Although male self-expression on social media may suggest that traditional norms of masculinity are evolving (Lolita & Isnaini, 2023), numerous academic studies indicate the opposite (Carlsson, 2023; Chen, 2025; Foster & Baker, 2022). Individuals still struggle to internalize contemporary gender roles of men and continue to disseminate hegemonic masculinity through social media (Scarcelli & Farci, 2024). It was revealed that the TikTok videos analyzed in this study reinforced and attempted to maintain hegemonic masculinity. Men who conform to hegemonic masculinity are perceived as real and ideal men, whereas those who fall outside of this typology are labeled as princess boys. It was observed that women were the dominant group in advocating for the preservation of hegemonic norms among men. As highlighted in Tsuda (2020) work, women tend to value men who exhibit hegemonic behaviors in emotional relationships, while assigning lower value to those who do not display masculine traits. This mindset is rooted in the princess concept internalized by girls from an early age, which frames femininity as naive, emotional, and vulnerable (Coyne et al., 2016, 2021). Since women internalize the role of the princess, they expect men to behave according to the traditional prince role. Men who deviate from the traditional prince role or these stereotypical masculine behaviors are labeled as princesses by their peers and are subject to societal pressure for nonconformity.
Defining and outlining the boundaries of princess boys is crucial to better understand the findings of this study (RQ1). Princess boys are those who step outside of masculine gender norms in heteronormative relationships by exhibiting behavior patterns that are traditionally coded as feminine. These men are characterized by emotional expressiveness, financial expectations such as taking gifts or splitting the bills, passive communication styles, relational dependency, and alternative consumer preferences—ultimately representing a non-traditional relational dynamic. According to the research findings princess boys can be defined by the following dimensions:
Communication Dynamics: In terms of communication, princess boys tend to adopt avoidant strategies such as giving the silent treatment, sulking, refusing to apologize, or blocking their partner. They resist compromise, often avoid emotional responsibility, and display inconsistent relational behaviors.
Emotional Reflection: In this dimension, men display emotional vulnerability through behaviors such as hypersensitivity, emotional intensity, taking offense easily, and crying in romantic relationships. These expressions challenge the conventional norm of emotional stoicism expected from men. Moreover, such men are often perceived as capricious, overly dependent, and lacking courage—traits that are culturally stigmatized and typically feminized within hegemonic masculinity.
Interests and Preferences: Princess boys prioritize self-care and personal image, engage actively with social media trends, share a high volume of personal photos or selfies, and show interest in activities like yoga, meditation, and cooking. Conversely, they tend to lack interest in traditionally masculine-coded areas such as football or automobiles.
Role Reversal: This dimension includes expectations for women to initiate key relational actions—such as sending the first message, making the first apology, or proposing marriage. Princess boys prefer to be pursued, and also express comfort-related expectations like being picked up from home by their partner. Additionally, they emphasize financial equality, often advocating for splitting the bill or sharing expenses.
Exclusion from Masculinity: Due to their deviation from traditional masculine norms, princess boys are often perceived as feminine or are accused of being homosexual. Their behaviors are seen as incompatible with hegemonic masculinity and therefore subject to social marginalization and gender-based stereotyping.
The traits and behavioral patterns of princess boys, defined above, contradict traditional gender roles, hegemonic masculine behaviors, and heteronormative relationship dynamics. In patriarchal systems, men are taught that to be considered real and ideal men, they must hardly ever express feelings, love and emotions. When emotionally hurt, men are expected to suppress and forget their feelings (Hooks, 2004; Malonda-Vidal et al., 2021). However, the princess boys display the opposite pattern of behaviors: they openly express their emotional side, expect attention from their partner(s), occasionally act capriciously, and sometimes even cry. This stands in contrast to the behaviors deemed acceptable for hegemonic masculinity and the socially sanctioned model of being a real man (Moss-Racusin, 2014).
In traditional dating scenarios, men are expected to take the first step and take the initiative in progressing the relationship toward marriage (Lamont, 2020, 2021). However, princess boys oppose these expectations and challenge these roles. They do not feel obligated to take the first step, to propose, nor do they necessarily view marriage as the end goal. Also, the patriarchal expectation that men should take responsibility and assume a leading role in relationships is actively challenged by princess boys. Similarly, organizing dates or covering expenses has traditionally been the man’s duty in heteronormative contexts (Lamont, 2020, 2021). While women may contribute financially, men are still positioned as the primary providers in relationships (Fry et al., 2023; Parker & Stepler, 2017). In contrast, princess boys seek shared financial and emotional responsibility in their relationships. They prefer mutual arrangements for transportation and advocate for splitting bills or even having the woman pay on occasion. Love tokens like flowers and gifts—traditionally given by men—are also expected by princess boys.
Considering the points discussed above, it becomes clearer whether the concept of princess boys featured in TikTok videos shared under the determined hashtags aligns more closely with the ideology of hegemonic masculinity or with contemporary masculinity studies (RQ2). The analysis suggests that the concept of princess boys stands in opposition to hegemonic masculinity in terms of Emotional Reflection, Interests and Preferences, Communication Dynamics, and Role Reversal, rejects the dominant masculine roles that has been imposed on men for decades. Therefore, men labeled as ‘princess’ are marginalized and excluded from hegemonic masculinity, often being characterized as feminine or homosexual by both men and women. Since they perform behaviors traditionally coded as feminine, princess boys are harshly criticized, mocked, and bullied by both men and women. While women may seek gender equality in professional and public spheres, they often revert to traditional gender roles in romantic relationships (England, 2010; Lamont, 2021). This can be linked to deeply internalized gender norms developed during childhood (Coyne et al., 2016). The findings of this study support this understanding, revealing women’s preference for sustaining patriarchal norms. These conclusions are also consistent with existing literature, indicating that hegemonic masculinity is still perpetuated by both men and women on TikTok (Carlsson, 2023; Chen, 2025; Foster & Baker, 2022).
In summary, the RQ2—Does the concept of princess boys overlap more with hegemonic masculinity or contemporary masculinity studies?—can be answered by stating that the concept of princess boys does not align with hegemonic masculinity but rather corresponds more closely to contemporary masculinity. Some of the behavioral patterns defined in RQ1 resemble elements of inclusive, hybrid, and flexible masculinities described in contemporary masculinity literature. Due to its embrace of emotional intimacy, non-exclusivity, and feminine-coded behaviors (Anderson, 2010; Anderson & McCormack, 2018), the concept of princess boys shares similarities with inclusive masculinity. The questioning and reshaping of symbolic boundaries between masculinity and femininity also align it with inclusive masculinity (Eisen & Yamashita, 2019). Furthermore, the performance of marginalized or feminized gender expressions (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014) links princess boys to hybrid masculinity. They also reflect some aspects of flexible masculinity through their embrace of fashionable, emotionally expressive, and well-groomed male identities (Gee, 2014). Nonetheless, the concept of princess boys does not fully align with any of these categories. Moreover, since the concept still functions within the framework of heteronormative relationships, it stands apart from broader categories of alternative masculinities. For this reason, it is more appropriate to conceptualize princess boys as a new type of masculinity (RQ3). However, given that the term princess is often used in a derogatory manner to belittle or undermine men, this study proposes introducing the concept of princess boys into masculinity studies as sharing masculinity rather than princess masculinity.
One of the reasons for preferring the term sharing is that these men reject traditional and hegemonic masculine roles such as paying the bill, covering expenses, or picking up and dropping off their partners. Instead of bearing the burden and responsibility of such gendered expectations, they prefer to share these roles with women—seeking a more egalitarian dynamic. A second reason for this conceptual choice is that these men adopt a sharing attitude not only in terms of social roles but also in their emotional lives. These princess boys openly express their emotions to their partners and display behaviors culturally associated with femininity—such as sulking, crying, or acting emotionally withdrawn. Furthermore, these men prefer to share responsibility in initiating the relationship, sending the first message, proposing marriage, or taking the first step. They do not wish to bear the pressure of these early-stage responsibilities alone, which are often expected of men in heteronormative relationships. Based on all these factors, this study argues that the presence and demands of princess boys should not be overlooked. We propose that these men be included in the field of masculinity studies under the concept of sharing masculinity.
Suggestions for Future Research
This study is limited to the TikTok platform; future research should include other social media platforms. Since this study did not analyze comments on the videos, future studies should explore how these videos are perceived by users. In-depth interviews with individuals who identify with or recognize the princess boys concept could also help reveal their motivations and perspectives. Future studies might also explore how men perceive societal pressure to be the ideal man, and how this pressure affects their self-esteem. Finally, since this study focuses on romantic relationships, future research should examine how princess boys manifests in other types of social interactions.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which helped improve the quality of this manuscript.
Ethical Considerations
This study does not require ethical approval.
Author Contributions
All authors are equally responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing original draft preparation, review and editing.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.