Without question, the relational dynamic experienced by menwithin the father-son dyad is a source of significant and long-lasting influence on a host of important psychosocial and developmen-tal issues in the lives of men.

For example, the father-sonrelationship reportedly is an important predictor of sons' future com-munication behaviors (Buerkel-Rothfuss & Yerby, 1981; Fink, 1993)

their attitudes toward sexuality (Fisher,1987)

Rugby, which Dunning (1986, p. 81) identified as a combat sport that has traditionally embodied “the expression of macho values in a relatively unbridled form”, has long been associated with masculinity and violence

In their research into collegiate rugby, Muir and Seitz (2004) found that a desire to play or associate with rugby often stemmed from a wish to link themselves to the exaggerated form of masculinity that is found in rugby. Given these conditions, it is unsurprising to find that rugby has been recognized as enabling a culture that is pervasive with homophobia and misogyny (Muir & Seitz, 2004; Price & Parker, 2003)

It has epitomized hegemonic masculine characteristics such as aggressive competitiveness and toughness (Wright & Clarke, 1999) and has traditionally been described as “a leading definer of masculinity among both youth and university-aged English men” (Anderson & McGuire, 2010, p. 249).

Morgan argues that feminist studies established the framework for what emerged as studies on men and masculinity whereby, ‘feminism provided the context, the overall set of assumptions within which the current studies of men and masculinities are being conducted’ (Morgan, 1992: 6).

Jeff Hearn (1999) argued that some male masculinity theory may lack critical awareness because in a gender hierarchy in which men are favoured it is antithetical for men to attack the system which supports their superior position. Victor Seidler, another pro-feminist masculinity theorist also argued that masculinity studies may have an anti-feminist agenda and be a forum for, and example of, the ‘oppressors organising themselves’ (Seidler, 1991: 23).

Toxic masculinity is characterized as “always available for men to enact”

Toxic masculinity emerges during the course of socialinteraction, although it is typically only recognized by those in lower statuspositions, such as women or men with contextually devalued masculinities

Toxic masculinity aligns with hegemonic masculinity in terms of dominatinganything relating to femininity. Kupers (2005) addresses toxic masculinity inprison, defining it as a “constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve tofoster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wantonviolence”(Kupers, 2005, p. 714). Rather than aligning toxic masculinity withhegemonic masculinity, Kupers distinguishes between positive and negativeaspects of hegemonic masculinity; between its socially destructive traits, such as“misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination; and those that areculturally accepted and valued”(Kupers, 2005, p. 716)

As Weeks (2007Weeks, J. 2007. The world we have won: The remaking of erotic and intimate life, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.  [Crossref], [Google Scholar]) argued, ‘without the idea of full citizenship we cannot measure how far we have come; and without the ideal of equal citizenship we have no measure of how far we still have to go’ (11–12).

Becker’s (1997) life disruption theory suggests after an unexpected life event people experience disruption when they cannot fulfill culturally valued life course expectations.

Even after living with HIV for 6–25 years, many participants described HIV as enduring disruption and restraint to one’s sexuality and intimate relationships

Our research on older African Americans’ experiences of living with HIV/AIDS supports notions that sexuality and intimacy are important expectations throughout adulthood and key features of human development ( Levy, 1994 ).

Societal attitudes towards disability and sexuality mean people with disabilities are often perceived as eternal children, unsuitable romantic partners and devoid of sexuality - including sexual agency, choice, desires or drives (Hunt et al. 2017Hunt, X., L. Swartz, M. Carew, S. H. Braathen, M. Chiwaula, and P. Rohleder. 2017. “The Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Benefit Derived from Sexual and Reproductive Health Services of People with Physical Disabilities in South Africa: Beliefs of Non-Disabled People.” Reproductive Health Matters 25 (50): 66–79.10.1080/09688080.2017.1332949 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; McKenzie 2013McKenzie, Judith A. 2013. “Disabled People in Rural South Africa talk about Sexuality.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 15 (3): 372–386. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar])

Additionally, women with disabilities aspiring to a heterosexual relationship may fall victim to dominating masculinities because their passivity, subordination, physical weakness and dependence are exaggerated by impairments.

may prevent women with disabilities from engaging in or having healthy, safe and lasting intimate partnerships.

Loss of intimacy

a sense of belonging to a commu-nity such as school involves feeling more than just that one fits in; there isan emotional attachment to and security in the setting that comes fromfeeling valued by and valuing of the community

School-based peer relations, such as peer acceptance and friendship, area key source of experiences that support students’ sense of belonging inschool (Osterman, 2000). Peer acceptance refers to children’s relationshipswith classmates and the consensual liking or disliking that is directed by thegroup toward the individual. Friendship is a distinctly different relationship,dyadic and intimate in nature. In Osterman’s review (2000), acceptancerather than friendship played the stronger role in sense of school belonging

A sense of school belonging is asocially grounded experience, derived from interpersonal relationships withmembers of the school community (Goodenow, 1993; Osterman, 2000). Itrefers to students’ perceptions that they are liked, respected, and valued byothers in the school. Sense of school belonging is critical to adolescents’adjustment because it meets their developmental need for relatedness.