Introduction

The ways queer and straight cis-men think, feel, and connect with others often differ, even though they belong to the same gender group. These differences likely stem from variations in social experiences, sense of safety, priorities, and pressures during development. For queer men, these processes may be more complex, as navigating identity-related challenges (such as assessing how safe it is to express their sexuality) requires additional awareness and reflection. Sexuality can also encourage or compel queer men to understand and process their feelings in ways that straight men may not experience.

Similarly, neurodivergence can influence thought, feeling, and connection, as variations in brain processes and perception affect how individuals engage with the world and with others.

However, men’s thought, emotional and social processes are not determined solely by sexuality or neurodivergence. Environmental factors, social conditions, and natural variations in personality and identity also play significant roles. The extent to which these factors shape thinking, feeling, and connection, relative to sexuality, is unclear, making it important not to prioritize sexuality over other influences. As for neurodivergence, because each person’s experience of neurodivergence is unique, this study focuses less on diagnostic categories and more on how it shapes individual thinking, feeling, and connection.

Recognizing this complexity allows for a nuanced understanding of how sexuality and neurodivergence may shape thinking, feeling, and connection, while leaving room for other lived experiences to contribute. Therefore, this study will approach male experiences as individually unique and original, while paying attention to the potential impact of sexuality and neurodivergence. 

As such, this study will explore how men’s ways of thinking, feeling, and connecting vary, and examines how sexuality and neurodivergence may influence these processes. It asks, “How do men of different sexualities and neurodivergence describe their ways of thinking, feeling, and connecting with others?”.

On a personal note, I acknowledge that the goal of this study is to understand the various social and emotional dynamics that exist among men, and that I have my own dynamic that is not necessarily similar to others which can make it more difficult for me to relate to other men. This study allows me to understand men better, such as my mates, through the ability to ask questions that I might have about the way that men think, feel, and connect in a way that supports exploration and observation. As a queer person, I also acknowledge that my focus on sexuality is a result of my reflection on how my sexuality has impacted my thoughts, feelings, and connections.

Method

To conduct this study, a purposive sampling method is used, selecting specific mates of various sexualities and neurodiversity that identify as male, to allow for a greater understanding of my mates and how they think, feel, and connect with others. There are 3 participants, one who is straight and neurotypical, one who is queer aromantic and ADHD, and one who is gay and autistic. This study is therefore a small, exploratory, qualitative project that values depth over breadth. A semi-structured interview will be used as the method to explore this topic in a casual environment, where there will be starting questions for the 3 areas of focus to guide the conversation while also allowing participants to express their unique perspectives in their own terms.

Results

From the interview with the straight and neurotypical participant, key themes such as normality and mainstream masculinity alignment stood out. This participant sees his identity as normal and average, grounded in values and mainstream hobbies. His sexuality is backgrounded and not identity-defining. He thinks practically, but with a vivid imaginative and visual world. He has strong internal emotions but restrains outward expression and shares only if asked, and sees emotions as situational. He also has a passive, casual connection style, letting others initiate first, and friendships are circumstantial or activity-based. This participant aligns comfortably with mainstream Aussie masculinity, such as being modest, forgettable, and restrained. Overall, his heterosexuality and neurotypicalness are factors that do not consciously impact this participant, which allows him to feel typical.

As for the interview with the queer aromantic and ADHD participant, key themes such as curiosity, and originality surfaced. This participant defines his identity around interests, curiosity, and being distinctively nerdy. His sexuality is acknowledged but not central. He is hyper-reflective and analytical, with strong self-awareness that allows for the checking of personal biases. He is emotionally steady, uses reappraisal, rarely overwhelmed, and amplifies positives intentionally. This participant values reciprocity and intentional effort, dislikes superficial ties, and prefers in-person interactions over online. In terms of culture, he adapts to tall poppy culture by not over-investing or seeking validation. Overall, his aromanticism and queerness does not tie into his connection style, with neurodivergence being a bigger focus.

Finally, for the interview with the gay and autistic participant, key themes such as curiosity, mental health, and tall poppy syndrome arose. This participant’s identity is deeply tied to being both gay and autistic, and sees these as core to who he is. He thinks in a way that is word-based, inner-monologue-heavy, scattered but curiosity-driven, which is shaped by autism and hyperfixations. Historically, he has had intense emotions (depression, anxiety), but is now muted by medication, avoiding conflicts, with occasional mood dips but stabilizing quickly. This participant wants depth and avoids small talk, but is hesitant to initiate, with friendships growing through shared contexts. Culturally, he feels excluded from blokey or homophobic spaces, and shares passions cautiously to avoid standing out. Overall, his queerness and neurodivergence are central to his identity and experiences of difference, exclusion, and belonging.

Discussion 

Some interesting patterns were observed from the responses of the participants, particularly regarding differences in sexuality and normalcy and emotional expression, neurodiversity and expressions of curiosity, as well as similarities in internal reflection and culture.

Regarding sexuality, feelings of normalcy stood out as one of the key indicators of where someone is on the sexuality spectrum. With the interviewed participants, the straight participant felt the most normal, the queer and aromantic participant felt different in a way that was not quite central to identity, and the gay participant felt different in a way that was core to his identity and left him feeling isolated. This suggests that the closer to heterosexuality someone is, the more likely they are to feel normal and that they fit in. Of course, it is difficult to say if the feelings of normalcy or exclusion are more likely naturally occurring or pre-meditated (ie being told that gay people feel more isolated therefore develop feelings of isolation or straight people being accepted without question, self-fulfilling prophesy). It is likely that both processes play a role, with cultural masculine norms almost certainly shaping these perceptions in some way.

Additionally, a similar pattern can be observed when looking at sexuality and emotional focus. With the interviewed participants, the straight participant emphasizes a conscious restraint in emotional expression (only sharing when asked) and does not typically think about his emotions. The queer and aromantic participant does not consciously suppress emotional expression, focusing on emotions in terms of regulation. The gay participant has the widest emotional landscape and as such a need to focus on emotions, though feelings of intense emotions that have been mellowed through the use of anti-depressants. This suggests that the closer to heterosexuality someone is, the less likely they are to be focused on emotions. This could be due to how likely a person is to align with masculine ideals. The straight participant, for example, noted that while masculinity today is becoming more accepting of male emotions, emotional sharing remains uncommon unless prompted by special circumstances. It is also important to note that this is more likely to be how sexuality intersects with masculinity norms and personal experience, rather than sexuality causing differences in emotional focus. It may therefore be more accurate to think of the pattern as two connected relationships. First, the closer someone is to heterosexuality, the more likely they are to align with current masculine ideals. And second, the more strongly someone aligns with these masculine ideals, the less likely they are to emphasize or focus on emotions.

Regarding neurodivergence, the trait of curiosity stands out as a key identifier of neurodivergent people. Both neurodivergent participants considered curiosity as a core trait because it shaped daily experience, with the ADHD participant showing interest in a wide range of self-described nerdy topics (intellectual/analytical curiosity), and the autistic participant showing interest in specific hyperfixated topics and self-understanding due to sexuality (verbal/associative curiosity). This does not mean that the neurotypical participant was not curious, in fact the way he described his imaginative and photographic way of thinking and the examples he used (such as visualizing fight scenes in books) suggests imaginative and visual curiosity. The main difference between him and the neurodivergent participants, was that the neurotypical participant did not treat curiosity as a defining part of his identity. This suggests that curiosity is not simply a universal trait, but one that is experienced and valued differently depending on neurodivergence. 

While the differences observed were not entirely unexpected, what stood out was how participants generally aligned with expectations linked to their identities, particularly around sexuality and neurodivergence. As noted in the introduction, queer men are often thought to think, feel, and connect in more complex ways due to identity-related challenges that demand greater awareness and reflection. The findings of this study support that view, with queer participants highlighting their differences from societal and masculine norms and demonstrating a stronger focus on emotions. A similar pattern emerged for neurodivergence. Although each participant’s experience was distinct, both neurodivergent participants identified curiosity as a defining trait, while the neurotypical participant did not. Both show that people tend to notice and value traits that are most important in shaping their experience or social navigation. In other words, identity is not just who someone is, but also what matters in daily life. 

Despite differences in identity, however, all 3 participants showed a high level of internal reflective engagement with and understanding of themselves. Each participant demonstrated awareness of their own thought patterns, emotional responses, and social behaviors, even if the traits they focused on differed. This shared reflective capacity suggests that introspection is a common thread across diverse identities, allowing individuals to navigate their experiences intentionally and understand how personal traits shape daily life. In this sense, internal reflection emerges as a unifying feature, highlighting that self-awareness can be present regardless of variations in sexuality, neurodivergence, or alignment with cultural norms. This also connects well with the personal purposes of this study, to understand my mates. This similarity across all 3 participants suggests a personal preference for reflective people, and indicates a natural or subconscious interest in forming meaningful connections with those who are attentive to their own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors regardless of identity. This suggests that I gauge the quality of my friendships by the degree of reflective engagement they afford, highlighting that introspection and conscious engagement are central to my way of relating to others.

Another similarity that surfaced across all 3 participants is the impact of Australian cultural norms, particularly tall poppy syndrome. Tall poppy syndrome reflects the social tendency to resent, criticise, or cut down individuals who stand out due to their perceived success, achievements, or ambition. This was unexpected as the study did not focus on culture, yet one participant highlighted tall poppy tendencies, which appeared to explain similarities in all 3 participants’ initiation and connection styles. For context, all 3 participants grew up in Victoria (inner Melbourne, outer Melbourne, and regional Victoria), suggesting that shared cultural norms have influenced their social behaviors in similar ways. 

While often discussed in professional or achievement contexts, tall poppy syndrome can subtly influence social behavior as well and shows up in 4 ways. Firstly, people try to avoid attention as standing out feels socially risky. Initiating contact or asserting closeness could feel like overstepping or being too forward. Secondly, people try to be modest to align with social norms. Culturally, Australians often value egalitarianism and modesty. In friendships, this can translate to a preference for letting others initiate, keeping relationships low-key, and avoiding behaviors that might seem self-promoting. Thirdly, tall poppy syndrome causes people to be more socially vigilant, being more sensitive to the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. People might restrain actions until they are confident that it is socially safe, leading to circumstantial or passive connection styles. Finally, there is cultural reinforcement from growing up in an environment that repeatedly reinforces these norms. Even without consciously thinking about tall poppy syndrome, people may adopt passive styles as a default to fit in and avoid conflict. 

These impacts can be observed in all 3 participants. For the straight and neurotypical participant, tall poppy syndrome shows up in the way he prefers passive, circumstantial friendships where others initiate, avoids drawing attention to himself to be modest, and shows restraint in emotional expression unless prompted, reflecting social caution. For the queer aromantic and ADHD participant, it shows up in the way he maintains his perceived uniqueness in a way that does not stand out or seek validations and shares only when safe to do so, and the way that he mainly matches effort in friendships to prevent over-investing in friendships with occasional efforts to initiate when opportunities arise. As for the gay and autistic participant, it shows up as a hesitancy to initiate friendships with a preference to wait for shared contexts to emerge naturally, a cautious approach to sharing interests to avoid standing out or overstepping, and experiencing a sense of exclusion in certain social spaces that reflects sensitivity to social hierarchies and norms.

What this means for friendships is that they may develop slowly or not at all as people wait for others to initiate or for a clear, safe opportunity to connect. Additionally, connections may feel circumstantial or low-key since everyone is moderating attention and effort, causing friendships to remain surface-level unless both parties consciously invest. Furthermore, emotional restraint impacts closeness as people may hesitate to share or express emotions unless prompted, which can limit depth unless the friendship is intentional. This suggests that friendships in this cultural context are shaped as much by social caution as by personal interest. It also implies that closeness is not automatic, emerging only when both parties navigate social norms thoughtfully, express themselves carefully, and actively choose to engage rather than relying on spontaneity.

What this means personally is that my natural approach to friendships (taking initiative, expressing interest, and investing effort), my social style and emotional needs, are often at odds with the effects of tall poppy syndrome. While the participants here are my mates, I do sometimes struggle with these friendships because the passive, restrained style encouraged by tall poppy norms can make connections feel slow, surface-level, or one-sided. Meaningful friendships require consciously navigating or compensating for these tendencies, which can feel more difficult and exhausting than anticipated and leave me feeling isolated when my social needs are unmet. Ultimately, I conclude that remaining in a culture structured around these norms long-term would severely negatively impact my social wellbeing and mental health, suggesting that I would eventually need to leave Australia to meet my social needs sufficiently.

Overall, this provides a cultural explanation for why these dynamics consistently appeared across all 3 participants, even when their personal identities differed. Additionally, the insights brought forth by the analysis of tall poppy syndrome and the way it impacts social connections has resulted in personal implications for where I choose to live in the future.

Potential Limitations and Future Direction

This study has several limitations worth noting. Firstly, while the study explored sexuality and neurodivergence affected male thinking, feeling, and connecting, it did not directly address how maleness or gendered expectations impacted participants. Aside from the area of emotional focus, most of the interviews naturally drifted away from the effects of gender on their cognitive processes. This could be due to insufficient guiding questions surrounding masculinity, and as a result some patterns that may be related to shared gendered expectations, such as emotional restraint or conformity to masculine norms, may not have been fully captured. This leaves open the question of how shared experiences of masculinity may have influenced their perspectives. A future iteration of this study could investigate more directly how maleness and gendered expectations shape social and emotional processes among men.

Secondly, as a researcher who is also embedded in the friendships studied, there is a risk of confirmation bias in how patterns were identified and interpreted, particularly in relation to themes that resonated with personal experiences. This is because I already had pre-existing knowledge, preferences, and assumptions about participants’ personalities, ways of thinking, and how they connect. For instance, my general interest towards friends who are reflective or curious could have influenced the sample I chose to naturally emphasize those traits. Additionally, the observations made could have unconsciously highlighted patterns that fit personal expectations (like introspection or alignment with tall poppy culture). This does not invalidate the findings of this study, especially in a reflective study, but it limits generalizability. A future iteration of this study could use strangers or acquaintances to combat this issue, however this would be counterintuitive if generalization was not the goal, such as in this study where understanding my mates was the focus.

Thirdly, on a similar note to confirmation bias, the limited sample size of this study means that any findings here cannot be generalized. In the introduction, it was acknowledged that the study would approach male experiences as individually unique and original given that the impact of sexuality and neurodivergence was complex. This allowed for a small sample size as the goal was depth rather than breadth, focusing on rich, exploratory insights rather than representative conclusions. However, a larger and more diverse participant pool in future studies would allow for broader patterns to emerge and strengthen the reliability of the findings. Future research with a larger and more diverse sample could explore these themes in greater depth to allow for clearer patterns to surface.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study aimed to explore the question: “How do men of different sexualities and neurodivergence describe their ways of thinking, feeling, and connecting with others?”. The findings show that sexuality and neurodivergence can shape emotional focus, curiosity, and connection styles, but they do not solely determine these experiences. All participants displayed strong self-reflection, highlighting introspection as a unifying trait across diverse identities. Additionally, Australian cultural norms, particularly tall poppy syndrome, influenced passive and cautious approaches to friendships, affecting how connections develop. Personally, these insights reveal that I best connect with intentional and reflective people, that my approach to friendships clashes with cultural tendencies in Australia, and the impact this has on wellbeing.

Interview Guiding Questions

1. General (Identity)

• “When do you feel most seen or understood by others?” 

• “What makes you feel invisible or overlooked?” 

• “Can you tell me about a time you felt really connected to someone?” 

• “What’s something you wish other people understood about you?” 

• “Do you think people in your life really ‘get’ you? Why or why not?” 

2. Thinking (General Cognitive Styles)

• “Do you think or do things intentionally?”

• “How do you usually make decisions: logically, emotionally, or a mix?” 

• “Do you find yourself reflecting a lot on the past/future, or more living in the moment?”

• “Do you tend to notice your own thoughts a lot, or just act without thinking much about it?”

• “When you face a problem, what’s your first instinct? Do you talk it out, think it through alone, or something else?”

• “When you disagree with someone, what’s your internal process? Do you reason through it, avoid conflict, or try to understand their side first?”

3. Feeling (Emotional Styles)

• “When you feel upset, what do you usually do with those feelings?”

• “Do you find it easy or hard to name your emotions?”

• “What usually makes you feel the most calm or safe?”

• “Do you share emotions openly with others, or keep them private?” 

• “When you feel happy or excited, how do you show it?”

• “How do you usually recover after something emotionally difficult?”

4. Connecting (Social/Relational Styles)

• “How do you usually show interest in someone: friendship or otherwise?”

• “What makes you feel closest to someone?”

• “How do you usually meet or form new connections?”

• “Do you prefer a few close friends or a wide circle of acquaintances?”

• “How do you usually show someone you care?”

• “What do you think makes male friendships different from female friendships (straight/queer)?”

• “When someone doesn’t respond, or isn’t as engaged as you hoped, how do you usually think or feel about it?”

• “What makes you feel that a connection is balanced or that both people are putting in effort?”