Sons & Lovers: Same-gender attracted men, their fathers and intimate partner relationships

On 18 September 2024 Kieran O’Loughlin gave an online presentation at the EFT Global LGBTQ+ Network meeting, exploring the impact of negative paternal experiences on the intimate relationships of same-gender attracted men. It featured the case study of a monogamous intimate partner relationship between two men, focusing particularly on the the impact of their respective negative paternal attachment histories on their bond.  The two men, white and cisgender, presented in therapy with a high level of recurring conflict underpinned by a low level of attachment security in both partners. While each of them had apparently positive relationships with their mothers during their respective childhoods and beyond, they reported relatively more negative experiences in their relationships with their respective fathers. The presentation explored their pursuer-withdrawer negative cycle (including the secondary and primary emotions triggering and perpetuating it), and then how they slowly worked over more than twenty sessions towards de-escalation, and subsequently, towards the creation of a more stable and secure bond.  The case suggested that the paternal bond may be a crucial consideration in the early development of insecure attachment strategies or styles for same-gender attracted men and thus a potentially key factor to consider in EFT case conceptualisation for this population.

The influence of insecure paternal attachment on adult intimate relationships appears to have been less theorised and researched than the impact of insecure maternal attachment in the relevant literature. The quality of the paternal bond may be of crucial importance in the attachment histories of both heterosexual women and same-gender attracted men given that both groups develop their intimate adult relationships with men. In the case of the latter group Michael Lasala (2010) suggests that:

 “Sadly, father-son disengagement or strain may have particularly pernicious consequences for gay men’s adult lives and relationships. because a boy’s relationship with his father is his first, most important relationship with a man, it is the primary arena where he learns not only how to interact in close contact with other men but also whether he is lovable in their eyes. If this primary relationship is characterised by fear, distance, and hostility during childhood, as it is for many gay men, this will no doubt interfere with his ability to form and maintain intimate, committed relationships with male partners in his future.”

In other words, the relationship between a same-gender attracted man and his father plays a crucial role in the development of his internal models of self and other.  This was the focus of a case study of the intimate partner relationship between two men presented to the EFT Global LGBTQ+ Network.

The Case Study

Joseph and Wayne met in 2018 in Melbourne and had been in an intimate relationship for three years. Prior to meeting they had both only been in short term intimate relationships with other men which neither described as significant. They moved in together at the end of 2020. They began therapy with me in December 2022, both aged 34. We had 31 therapy sessions together and finished in January 2024.

In the first session Joseph and Wayne indicated that the strengths of their relationship included their capacity to communicate well even when they faced significant challenges together: at these times they were “an effective team” and “well attuned to each other’”. However, they reported that they had begun to have arguments over big and small things since the beginning of their relationship, and that these disputes had become more frequent and volatile over the previous year. They both felt they were “walking on eggshells” at these times.

Their motivation for coming to therapy was to help them deal better with these conflicts. Their stated main challenges were to learn to manage their emotions and to understand more about how they impacted each other when in conflict.

Family of Origin Attachment Histories

Joseph was born and raised in Australia. He has a mother, father, two siblings – an older sister and a younger brother. Joseph indicated that he had had “a good relationship” with his mother during his childhood and that she was usually emotionally available to him.

Joseph described his father as entirely “emotionally absent” to his family. In addition, his father used to easily become very angry, even violent which greatly frightened Joseph as a child. His father would also become verbally abusive towards his mother, himself and/or siblings if they did not meet his domestic needs or expectations.  Joseph can’t remember his father ever comforting him as a child. He also recalled a time in his early teenage years when his father castigated him severely for becoming too upset about something his father deemed to be unimportant. This and other events, during which he was heavily criticised by his father, left Joseph feeling inadequate and unworthy.

Joseph’s parents divorced when he was 27 years of age.  He described himself as being quite close to his mother now but having only had occasional contact with his father. Joseph indicated that he still cares about his father “to a certain extent” but doesn’t proactively seek out his company as he doesn’t know how to relate to him.

 Wayne originally came from Florida in the USA. His mother and father are still alive and he has a younger sister.  He reported having a “healthy” relationship with his mother. Wayne came from a family where everyone was “considerate and reasonable”. However, like Joseph, Wayne’s father was not emotionally present to his mother or children at all. Wayne felt like he and his sister were there “to stroke my father’s ego”. His father was also very critical of him and made him the scapegoat for most things that went wrong in their family. As he grew older Wayne assumed the family role of looking after his mother and sister: thus, he gradually became a parentified child. His parents ended up divorcing when Wayne was 26 after his father announced he had started a relationship with another woman. He reported that, since his father left, he was expected “…to support everyone else (in the family) so my own needs get put aside”.

Wayne feels only disgust towards his father now and doesn’t want to reconcile with him. They are completely estranged. However, Wayne said that he didn’t carry much sense of hurt about the relationship as they were never close.  Wayne’s mother was generally emotionally supportive to him as a child or adolescent. Wayne also noted in our sessions that both rationality and limited or no expression of emotion were highly valued in his family. Early on in our sessions Wayne suggested that the benefit of his family of origin experience was that he was now very “level-headed”. The cost, however, he reflected, is that he could be inflexible and unforgiving in his close relationships.

Their Negative Cycle

In the first couple of sessions we identified their basic negative cycle where Joseph was the blamer/ pursuer and Wayne the defender/withdrawer. Usually, the cycle was enacted after Wayne raised an issue of concern about which Joseph had a different point of view.  Joseph would then become annoyed with Wayne because Joseph didn’t feel that Wayne was listening to him.  Wayne would become confused and ask Joseph why he was irritated. Joseph would then become angry but also ashamed because he couldn’t explain or justify his position. Wayne would then become defensive and told Joseph he (Wayne) was not trying to attack him. Wayne said his defensiveness was linked to his fear of the situation spiralling out of control.  Wayne also reported feeling shut down (“outshouted”) by Joseph in these arguments even though he (Wayne) tried to remain “calm and rational”.  Joseph felt that Wayne didn’t acknowledge or “take enough care of his emotional needs” during these arguments. On several occasions Joseph had become so distressed that he threatened to leave Wayne.

Over the next few sessions the main secondary emotions fueling their negative cycle became clear. Joseph’s main secondary emotions were a) anger about Wayne not listening to him, b) panic about Wayne withholding emotional responsiveness, and c) shame about not being able to adequately respond to and therefore disappointing Wayne. The action tendency of his reactive emotions was a chaotic mixture of flight, freeze and/or fight. Wayne’s main reactive emotions were a) frustration and b) then panic at Joseph becoming so angry. The action tendencies of his secondary emotions were defensiveness and/or withdrawal. The more angry and more distressed Joseph became in the face of Wayne’s differing viewpoint the more defensive and emotionally distant Wayne became, which then only further exacerbated Joseph’s distress. This made it almost impossible for them to co-regulate in the interests of making peace.

The primary emotions underlying this negative cycle began to emerge in subsequent sessions. Joseph’s primary emotions were a deep fear of disappointing Wayne and of being unworthy of his love. His model of self was that he was not loveable or desirable. His model of significant others (including Wayne) was that they were likely to be harsh, critical even judgmental and unsupportive. He longed to be loved unconditionally by Wayne and, as it emerged in later sessions, to make him as happy as Wayne wanted to make him.

Wayne’s primary emotions eventually revealed themselves to be a strong fear of a) not being able to meet Joseph’s emotional needs, and of Joseph ultimately rejecting him, b) resignation and even despair that he might not be able to prevent their relationship from collapsing and c) isolation and loneliness that would be the result. Wayne’s model of self was that he was highly rational but not good at reading his own or other people’s emotions.  His model of significant others (including Joseph) was that they were likely to rely on him to look after their needs but would probably not give him emotional support in return. Wayne longed to meet Joseph’s needs (including his emotional ones), and to feel secure in the relationship and loved by him.

The Course of Therapy

At the start of therapy Joseph reported being easily triggered into a high level of emotional distress and dysregulation during his conflicts with Wayne. He also expected Wayne to take care of his distress at these times. Joseph was so focused on his own emotional needs in these moments that he was unaware that Wayne had any needs of his own that required his (Joseph’s) attention.  For his part, Wayne was emotionally very shut down early on therapy. He said that he “relied on logic and rationality” to resolve any conflict with Joseph and to restore the peace between them. He also avoided engaging on an emotional level with Joseph in their arguments. However, this approach failed to achieve a positive resolution, and he suggested that he was turning more and more defensive as Joseph became increasingly emotionally dysregulated in their arguments.

In each of the Stage 1 sessions they would report another conflict that required our attention and exploration in terms of their underlying emotions (both primary and secondary) and attachment needs. Because of the extremely damaging effects of their respective childhood traumas on their attachment styles and the resulting severe emotional misalignment in their conflicts it took almost twenty sessions to reach the level of de-escalation where they were able to start really listening and engaging with each other’s emotional needs. Session 21 marked the beginning of Stage 2 where Wayne, as the withdrawer, began to engage emotionally with both Joseph the therapist. For his part Joseph, as the blamer, started to become aware that, like him, Wayne had attachment needs that he could be trying to better meet in the relationship.  However, this new awareness was still squashed when they had arguments.

In Session 22 Wayne reported their most recent conflict where he felt Joseph was not interested in what Wayne was feeling, i.e. he felt dismissed and rejected by Joseph. This was very triggering for Joseph and he had told Wayne angrily that his feelings were his (Wayne’s) “problem” and not his own. Joseph’s response felt catastrophic for Wayne and he managed to express his disappointment in Joseph’s response. Joseph hated the idea he had hurt Wayne. He said that he (Joseph) was “a horrible person” and this time expressed the fear that Wayne might leave him. Joseph needed reassurance from Wayne that this would not happen but Wayne was processing his own fears and was unable to respond to Joseph. They had not re-visited the conflict since then. In this therapy session, with encouragement and support from the therapist, Wayne then accessed his primary fear of being abandoned by Joseph. Accessing this emotion led him to other feelings of resignation and helplessness in the face of the possibility that Joseph might leave him. Joseph was shocked to hear this and told Wayne how sad he was to hear about his emotional experience. This was a powerful moment of withdrawer engagement on the part of Wayne and the beginning of blamer softening on the part of Joseph.

In subsequent sessions Wayne was able to more fully access his primary fears of not being able to meet Joseph’s emotional needs and of Joseph ultimately rejecting him. He was also able to express his longings to meet those needs, and to feel secure in the relationship and loved by him. In a similar vein, Joseph also began to connect more deeply with his primary fears of disappointing Wayne and of being unworthy of his love. He also managed to articulate his longings not only to be loved unconditionally by Wayne but also to make him (Wayne) fulfilled in the relationship.

Trauma Lens

Both Joseph and Wayne had suffered from a violation of their connection with their respective fathers. As noted previously, Joseph’s father was not only emotionally absent but highly critical and could become very angry, even violent at times. For Joseph his father was therefore “scary” and “unpredictable”. The effect of his father’s outbursts and tirades on him might well explain the panic he experienced when he felt he was disappointing Wayne when they argued. His panic often spiralled out of control when he perceived Wayne to be opposed to or even critical of him. In the same way, Joseph’s primary fear of being unworthy of Wayne’s love was likely to have stemmed from experiencing himself as unworthy in his father’s eyes. With little emotional support from his father (and notwithstanding his mother’s greater emotional presence in his early life), Joseph developed a deeply anxious attachment style.  He responded to perceived threats in his relationship with Wayne, with different and often chaotic combinations of flight, fight and freeze responses depending on the issue concerned and whether Wayne defended or withdrew.

Wayne was also a trauma survivor although perhaps less obviously so than Joseph. Like Joseph’s father, Wayne’s father was emotionally unavailable to his family. Although he appears to have been much less overtly angry than Joseph’s father and certainly not violent, his lack of emotional presence combined with his critical and blaming attitude towards Wayne weighed just as heavily on him as Joseph. With no support from his father (even though his mother was more emotionally available) Wayne developed an avoidant attachment style which expressed itself as emotional withdrawal or defensiveness in the face of conflict with Joseph.

Conclusion

This case study illustrates that, for same-gendered attracted men, poor relationships with their father can be a major obstacle in achieving a secure intimate relationship with other men. The fathers of both Joseph and Wayne failed to create a safe, loving connection with their sons and therefore were unable to model a stable and secure attachment bond between two men. Interestingly, neither father reacted negatively to their sons coming out. However, nor did either of them engaged meaningfully with the challenges their sons faced during this crucial developmental process. Wayne was able to make peer connections in the gay community during and after his coming out. This helped to compensate for the lack of paternal support he experienced at the time and enabled him to get support from the gay community for his emerging sexual identity. Joseph, on the other hand, tried unsuccessfully to build friendships with gay peers. He indicated that he didn’t have the confidence to fit into the gay world. Unlike Wayne, therefore, he had to manage his coming out process on his own which would only have made more anxious later when he started to date and become romantically involved with other men.

Another issue warrants comment here. As in many other same-gender attracted men relationships, their level of conflict was often exacerbated by effects of competitiveness between men which is strongly encouraged throughout boys’ development in western countries. The disputes between Joseph and Wayne were fueled and maintained by this competitiveness as well as by their attachment histories and current styles. Both the will to win and the fear of not just losing the argument but also losing face permeated these conflicts. It was abundantly clear that neither of their fathers was able to model this emotional closeness for them. The challenge of moving out of competitiveness into emotional intimacy between men cannot be underestimated.

Written by Dr Kieran O’Loughlin 

REFERENCE

Lasala, M. (2010) Gay Men and Their Fathers: Hurt and Healing. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201009/gay-men-and-their-fathers-hurt-and-healing.