Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres

Memòria del Treball de Fi de Grau

Representation of New Masculinities in the Netflix

TV series “Sex Education” (2019)

Julia Lagar Crespi

Grau d’Estudis Anglesos

Any acadèmic 2019-20

DNI de l’alumne: 43476399M

Treball tutelat per Dra. Katarzyna Beata Paszkiewicz

Departament de Filología Espanyola, Moderna y Clàssica

Autor Tutor
S'autoritza la Universitat a incloure aquest treball en el Repositori
Institucional per a la seva consulta en accés obert i difusió en línia, Sí No Sí No
amb finalitats exclusivament acadèmiques i d'investigació

Paraules clau del treball: Sex Education, masculinities, gender, performativity, intersectionality
2
Abstract
This dissertation examines the representation of new masculinities in the Netflix TV series Sex
Education (2019). The main concepts related to gender and performativity, defined by Judith
Butler, and the concept of hegemonic masculinity outlined by Raewyn Connell, are highly
relevant, as the intention is to identify and analyze how the main characters embody different
masculinities. Specifically, the performance of Adam Groff's toxic masculinity, Otis Milburn's
fragile masculinity and Eric Effiong's queer masculinity, will be paid special attention by
exploring each scene of the series. Articles about gender studies, as well as relevant books
related to sexuality and gender will be taken into consideration to analyze each character’s
attitude and their portrayal of different masculinities. Therefore, this paper will be original in
that those masculinities performed by the core characters have not been analyzed yet, and thus,
they have not received enough scholarly attention. Consequently, the effects of culture in the
development of various masculinities will be considered in relation to the different characters
of the series.

Keywords:
Sex Education, masculinities, gender, performativity, intersectionality

3
Table of Contents

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….5
2. Toxic Masculinity: Adam’s Groff performance…………………………………….....7
3. Fragile Masculinity embodied by Otis Milburn……………………………………….9
4. Eric’s Queer Masculinity: an intersectional approach……………………………......11
5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………13
6. Works cited…………………………………………………………………………...15

4
1. Introduction
It is assumed that “TV shows and commercials often lampoon men with hyper-masculine
stereotypes, depicting them as coarse, rugged, unemotional, and afraid of nothing” (Vandello
and Bosson 2013, 101). That is why Sex Education (2019), created by Laurie Nunn, supposes
an enormous shift as far as former TV series are concerned, mainly on account of the depiction
of different masculinities that had not been portrayed in the public sphere with such originality.
This Netflix TV series promotes diversity and “breaks down toxic stereotypes” (Sadijanova
2019) regarding masculinity and the representation of gender. The portrayal of dissimilar
masculinities, especially those performed by Otis Milburn (Asa Butterfield), Eric Effiong
(Ncuti Gatwa) and Adam Groff (Connor Swindells), are crucial to understand different types
of masculinities that exist and have been existing for a long time in our society.
“Understandings of what it is to be a man […], as well as ideals of manliness and
masculinity differ across time, across societies and even vary within different contexts” (Jordan
2019, 14). In the 1960s in America, the only “complete” male was “a young, married, white,
urban, northern, heterosexual, Protestant, father, of college education, fully employed, of good
complexion, weight and height, and a recent record in sports” (Goffman 1963, 128). However,
this assumption was challenged around the 1970s by the gay and men’s liberation movements
(Connell 2000, 201). As several feminist women were fighting for their rights, many young
boys were raised with that emotional consciousness and were thus called “Sensitive New Age
Guys” (204) by society, as they tried “to develop a politics in support of feminism” (204) by
rejecting certain sexist attitudes and the traditional male role. Being part of a sexist and
patriarchal society, they were perceived as “absurdly mimicking women” (McMahon 1998,
151) as they showed more sensitivity than previous male generations. Around that time, many
important philosophers and researchers set out to provide definitions of gender. King, drawing
on Foucault, describes gender as a “discursive production” where “certain characteristics are
taken as evidence of a male and female essence and an ineluctable difference between them”
(King 2004, 33). In the late 1980s, Judith Butler pointed out that gender must be understood as
a “performative accomplishment” (1988, 520) in which “bodily gestures, movements and
enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self” (519), meaning
that a person’s biology and reproductive system are not correlated with his or her gender. Butler
considered gender as a corporal style that is both intentional and performative (521). As a
consequence, many definitions of manliness started to appear. Some scholars introduced the
concept of “hegemonic masculinity”, defining it as “the pattern of practice that allowed men’s

5
dominance over women to continue” (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, 832). Nonetheless,
when the attitude of a man includes traits such as “hyper-competitiveness, individualistic self-
sufficiency […], tendency towards or glorification of violence, chauvinism, sexism, misogyny,
rigid conceptions of sexual/gender identity and roles, heteronormativity […]” (Sculos 2017, 3),
his masculinity is not defined as hegemonic, but toxic.
Then, what are the different masculinities portrayed in the series? The aim of this
dissertation is to analyze the different types of masculinities that are represented in Sex
Education (2019) and to demonstrate that Otis’ masculinity is coded as fragile, Adam’s
masculinity is represented as toxic and Eric’s masculinity can be considered queer. Drawing on
gender studies, in particular masculinity studies, Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity
and Butler’s concept of performativity, this paper will analyze different key scenes in the series
paying special attention to those performed by the characters mentioned before.
For the lack of space, the main focus will be in the First Season. Sex Education has not
received proper scholarly attention yet, in that the only academic paper published to date is a
recent thesis entitled “Love through the ages: redefining Romance in Sex Education,
Wanderlust and Grace and Frankie” (2019), written by Kimberley Schut. Its main contribution
is how the discourse on romance and sex has changed and transformed through the years. In
contrast, the present paper offers a different contribution to the field, analyzing masculinities
of the core male characters: Otis, Adam and Eric.
This paper will thus examine “toxic masculinity”, embodied by Adam, which can be
understood as a “constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination,
[…] homophobia, and wanton violence” (Kupers 2005, 714). Yet, men do not always follow
these patterns and sometimes prefer to perform other kinds of masculinity. Otis Milburn, for
instance, performs “fragile masculinity” as he suffers anxiety when trying to embody the male
stereotypes supported by society (DiMuccio and Knowles 2019, 25). Eric, in turn, one of the
few black characters of the series, performs “queer masculinity” as he rejects the traditional
discourse about binaries, gender and sexuality and resists hegemonic heterosexuality (Piantato
2016, 3). That is why the term intersectionality, understood as the theory that proposes and
examines how different socially and culturally constructed categories of discrimination (such
as race, gender, class, sexuality) interact between each other to oppress those individuals who
have marginalized identities (Battle and Ashley 2008, 3), will play a significant role when
describing this character.
Structurally, the first section of this paper will be devoted to Adam’s toxic masculinity
in terms of violence and its patriarchal influence. Then, it will move on to analyze Otis’ fragile

6
masculinity in terms of his complicated environment and his failed attempt at performing a
hegemonic and ‘accepted’ masculinity. Lastly, Eric’s queer masculinity and its intersectionality
conflict will be analyzed in terms of racialization, dress-code and sexuality.
2. Toxic Masculinity: Adam Groff’s performance
Adam Groff is the first character to be analyzed in the TV series. It is worth emphasizing that
Adam’s masculinity is toxic in terms of the violence and bullying that afflicts Eric Effiong. To
understand what it concerns, it is important to highlight that “toxic masculinity is used to refer
to a loosely interrelated collection of norms, beliefs, and behaviors associated with masculinity,
which are harmful to women, men, children, and society more broadly” (Sculos 2017, 3). This
is evidenced from the first episode of the series, when Adam finds Eric in the high-school
corridor and violently threatens him pronouncing words such as “shut the fuck up” (Nunn 2019,
10:40, episode 1) and refers to him as “tromboner”1 (10:41). Thereupon, Adam intimidates and
forces Eric to give him everything he has including his money, breakfast, and “curly wurly”2
(10:45). The “glorification of violence” (Sculos 2017, 3) is one of the most reiterative
characteristics of men who display toxic masculinity. The violence towards Eric is not only
physical but also verbal. In other words, Adam systematically refers to Eric as a “faggot” (Nunn
2019, 31:06, episode 1) or “gay” (20:25, episode 4). The self-assured and aggressive tone that
he uses leaves Eric fearful, with a passive attitude and uncertain. Despite this, Adam does not
consider himself as guilty or responsible, which denotes once more that he performs toxic
masculinity, as it includes “extreme competition and greed, insensitivity to or lack of
consideration the experiences and feelings of others, a strong need to dominate and control
others, […] a readiness to resort to violence, and the stigmatization and subjugation of women,
gays, and men who exhibit feminine characteristics” (Kupers 2005, 717). At one point of the
series, Eric's family car appears to be covered in dog excrement (Nunn 2019, 39:40, episode 4).
The audience gets to know that the responsible of it was Adam because few minutes later, in
high school, Adam tells Eric “can you smell […] dog shit?” (40:51). However, it is important
to highlight that even though Adam bullies Eric, he actually has feelings for him. At the end of
the first season, Adam and Eric kiss each other and have oral sex (Nunn 2019, 25:36, episode

1
Tromboner: The term “tromboner” makes reference to Eric’s intimate parts. It is an offensive irony that refers
to an incident that happened four years ago. Eric had an erection on stage in front of the entire school when he
was playing the trombone. Adam uses it to make him feel unworthy and inferior.
2
Curly Wurly: The term “curly wurly” refers to the chocolate bar manufactured by Cadbury (UK) and
distributed to many English-speaking countries.

7
8). Nevertheless, a few seconds after having had that sexual experience, Eric tells Adam that
they should have a talk about it (29:04), to what Adam, with a threatening voice answers: “if
you ever tell anyone about this, I’ll fuckin’ end you, do you understand?” (29:10). Adam's
behavior is far from adequate, as all his actions are accompanied by threats and insults to others.
Both verbal and physical violence are the main characteristics of his toxic masculinity. Scared
of portraying a different type of masculinity that is not positively recognized by society, and in
particular, by his father, Adam suppresses his emotions and feelings towards Eric and continues
performing a toxic masculinity.
Although Adam is the first to blame for his actions, it must be emphasized that to some
extent his toxic masculinity is promoted and influenced by his father's patriarchal values.
Patriarchy can be defined as “a social and ideological construct which considers men (who are
the patriarchs) as superior to women” (Rawat 2014, 44). However, it is a very broad term that
can be defined in many ways. Walby defined it as a “system of social structures and practices
in which men dominate and oppress” (1990, 20), which basically refers to a system of male
dominance. Mr.Groff, Adam’s father and the headmaster of Moordale’s High School, intends
to take over his son and suppress him under the strictness of demand and fear. He resorts to any
excuse to underestimate Adam and compares him several times to his sibling, remembering that
she is “diligent, reliable, resilient” (Nunn 2019, 43:49, episode 2) and that he should be better
than her as he is a male. Repeatedly, his father reminds him of the unsuccessful person he is
and threatens him. In the fourth episode, Mr.Groff reiterates that Adam would end up throwing
himself off a motorway bridge at a young age as he would become a failure in life (06:00,
episode 4). Not only does the audience realize what Adam's father actually is, but every
character in the series knows that he is a bully. In episode 8, Eric Effiong answers to Adam’s
insults saying: “were you born a bully or are you one because your dad’s one?” (23:43) which
leaves Adam speechless and pensive. The pressure Adam is under because of his father is
extremely high, as his father menaces to send him to “Mountview Military” (43:40, episode 2),
a “very impressive institution” (43:46), so that he can become a ‘proper man’. As Connell points
out, these agencies are “gendered” (2000, 223) in a patriarchal way and involve a “patriarchal
process, carried out by bands of armed men who have been duly trained as fighters in their
home countries” (223). Despite this, at the end of the first season, Mr. Groff decides to send
Adam to the military service. Sending Adam to a military academy will not bring about any
positive change in his reproduction of toxic masculinity, yet it will bring about a change in
mentality for both him and his father that will be reflected in future episodes.

8
3. Fragile Masculinity embodied by Otis Milburn
Otis, Eric Effiong’s best friend, is also worth analyzing. Despite living in an open atmosphere
and having a mother that works as a sex-therapist, Otis’ masculinity is perceived as fragile by
the other students of his high school. Masculinity is often portrayed “as inherently toxic,
powerful and damaging to both women and men”, but frequently is claimed to be “fragile, under
siege, and in urgent need of reclamation” (Jordan 2019, 1). Recent research done by some
scholars from the University of New York, shows that “the precariousness of manhood can
create anxiety among males who feel that they are failing to meet cultural standards of
masculinity” (DiMuccio and Knowles 2019, 25), and in particular, those who are not fulfilling
the male stereotypes claimed by society. Moreover, “the emergence of heterosexual
masculinities that appear to move away from hegemonic practices might be seen as a response
to new expectations that men be more sensitive and aware of their feelings” (Allen 2007, 139).
Dr. Jean Milburn, Otis’ mother, is a well-known “sex and relationship therapist” (Nunn 2019,
04:29, episode 1) and performs a controlling and persuasive attitude towards sex, causing
discomfort in many situations. Although Otis’ best friend Eric envies him for having such an
open-minded mother, Otis still claims that he “would not3 like” (5:07) to have a mother like
that as he has no privacy at all.
At some point, Otis struggles to masturbate and his mother finds it out when she checks
his room and discovers several magazines and hand-cream. Gently, she suggests having a talk
about it. Otis’ reaction is one of outrage and exasperation as he answers: “you need to stop
analyzing everything I do” (Nunn 2019, 26:58, episode 1). In fact, he is trying to masturbate
because he wants to fulfill the expectations of a “real man” (DiMuccio and Knowles 2019, 25)
in society. Conscious that he is performing a non-hegemonic and subordinated masculinity, he
tries to find a way to perform the “currently accepted” hegemonic masculinity (Connell 2005,
77), which is the “most honored way of being a man” (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, 832).
Hanke, drawing on Connell, explains that hegemonic masculinity includes “assumptions or
beliefs about masculinity that have become common sense, that may be uncritically absorbed
or spontaneously consented to, but that are presumed to have an imperative character in shaping
consciousness, norms of conduct, or desire” (2006, 181) which includes being able to
masturbate, flirt with girls and having an active sexual lifestyle. Hence, Otis' personality as an
adult and a man is not developing normally because his mother keeps on controlling him. Jean
even follows him around and guards him when he goes to parties with his friends for her own

3
My emphasis

9
fear that something might happen to him (Nunn 2019, 27:01, episode 2). She is really aware
that her son is performing a fragile and subordinated masculinity and she does not take the right
path to help him, but encourages him to keep reproducing that kind of masculinity. Otis
considers his mom a “stalker” and a “spy” (37:05) and does not really understand why he is the
only teenager whose mom is so controlling, repeatedly telling her to “stay out of [his] life”
(42:22).
Moreover, Otis’ fragile masculinity can also be connected to the fact of “feel[ing]
uncomfortable around women, unattractive to women, and rejected by women in the sexual
market- place” (Joseph and Black 2012, 488). This is what he experiments in several episodes
with Maeve Wiley, the beautiful, sarcastic and intelligent girl from Moordale’s high school.
Otis’ seems to be attracted to her both physically and mentally, admitting having had sex dreams
about her (Nunn 2019, 14:11, episode 3). Every time he sees Maeve, he just “turns into smiley,
happy cupcake” (2:22, episode 4) as he has sincere feelings towards her. Even when she has to
go to hospital to have an abortion, Otis accompanies her so that she does not go alone, comforts
her and even presents her with flowers. Maeve, in turn, keeps rejecting and placing him in the
friendzone as Otis is not ‘enough man’ to be with her and “really inexperienced” in the field of
love and sex (29:12, episode 7).
Even though Otis would like to perform a hegemonic masculinity, there are many
aspects of his personality that go against those principles. As Connell points out, “hegemonic
masculinity refers to the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently
accepted answer to the problem of legitimacy of patriarchy which guarantees (or is taken to
guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (Connell 2005, 77).
However, Otis does not accept that women should be subordinated to men. In several episodes
and specifically in episode 4, Jackson Marchetti, the most popular and attractive boy at
Moordale High School, seeks Otis' help to get Maeve as his girlfriend. When they start having
a conversation about Maeve, Jackson pronounces some sentences such as “Maeve is such a
head-fuck […], she is like a Rubik’s cube” (Nunn 2019, 10:57, episode 4), “she says one thing
and does something else […] but we have crazy amazing sex” (11:02). Right after these
sentences, Otis gets nervous and shouts at him claiming that “she is not an object!” (11:15) and
that even though he keeps describing her as an inanimate object, she is actually a person (11:19).
The high-school students who surround them, which are Jason’s friends, are shocked and look
at Otis as he is mentally ill by saying those statements. This, once more, demonstrates that Otis
is not perceived as performing a hegemonic and thus, an ‘accepted’ masculinity, but a fragile
masculinity, and as a consequence, he is excluded from society.

10
4. Eric’s Queer Masculinity: an intersectional approach
Eric Effiong’s masculinity is the last to be analyzed, and one of the most complex in the TV
series as he is a gay, queer and black character. In order to understand better his masculinity, it
is relevant to define the difference between sex, gender and sexual orientation. Sex, has to do
with the “biological base” (Connell 2005, 71) of a person and its reproductive system. In turn,
gender is defined as an “act” or performance that creates our identity (Butler 1990, 468). Thus,
“gender exists precisely to the extent that biology does not determine the social” (Connell
2005,71). As Butler explains, “when we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve
taken on a role […] we’re acting in some way, and […] our acting or our role-playing is crucial
to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world” (Butler 2011). However,
that performance has nothing to do with our sexual orientation which expresses our sexual
desire. Eric is “openly gay” (Schut 2019, 35), meaning that he is attracted to people of his same
sex. For instance, when he meets with Lily Iglehart (the awkward girl from high school who
draws erotic comics) to practice for the Swing Band (Nunn 2019, 27:43, episode 3), she tries to
have sex with him and he immediately shouts at her “I am gay!” (31:05). Another instance in
which this idea can be easily perceived is when he shows his sexual attraction towards the “hot”
Jackson Marchetti (4:11, episode 4).
Connell, described “gayness” as the “repository of whatever is symbolically expelled
from hegemonic masculinity […] and easily assimilated to femininity” (Connell 2005, 78). For
other scholars, “a conscious rejection of hegemonic masculine styles and an affinity with a more
feminine or effeminate expression and style of dress has offered a means of expressing a gay,
or perhaps ‘queer’” (Cole 2015, 205) masculinity. However, “gay” and “queer” are not
synonyms. As Hennessy explains in her work, “queer theory calls into question obvious
categories (man, woman, latina, jew, butch, femme), oppositions (man vs. woman, heterosexual
vs. homosexual), or equations (gender = sex) upon which conventional notions of sexuality and
identity rely” (1993, 964), meaning that boys performing a ‘queer’ masculinity, will be also
characterized by being against gender binaries. Additionally, the term “queer” can sometimes
“exclude lesbians and gay men whose identification with community and identity marks a
relatively recent legitimacy, but include all those whose sexual identifications are not
considered normal or sanctioned” (Jagose 1996, 98).
In fact, Eric's queer masculinity is mostly evidenced by the way he dresses and wears
make-up. As Jagose stated, performing a queer masculinity includes traits such as “cross-
dressing, hermaphroditism, gender ambiguity and gender-corrective surgery” (Jagose 1996, 3).

11
At first, the audience may believe that Eric is an openly and proudly gay who has no insecurities
performing queer masculinity in high school. However, this assumption is questioned
throughout the series. When Lily comes to his place and finds women’s clothes in his closet,
she is surprised and asks him: “do you dress up like a lady?”, to what he answers: “No, I like
dressing up but I am not a ladyboy or anything!” (Nunn 2019, 32:04, episode 3). He seems to
be embarrassed and nervous after the question, but unexpectedly, Lily's reaction is positive.
What is more, she empathizes with it and offers to put on make-up and dress up with him, which
he happily accepts. Eric puts on a leopard dress, a pink hairy scarf and long gold earrings (36:35)
which can be related to what some scholars have argued throughout the last century, affirming
that in order to express the “inner essence and […] be recognized as queer”, many gays
manipulate their appearance (Clarke and Turner 2007, 274).
Moreover, Eric is constantly in danger, discriminated and bullied as a consequence of
performing queer masculinity. Concretely, in episode five, he is victim to a homophobic attack
when he is walking alone at night dressed up like a woman (Nunn 2019, 31:26, episode 5). This
day he was supposed to meet with Otis but the latter could not get there in time, and for this
reason, Eric started to walk home alone when two men who were following him in a car started
harassing him, uttering comments like: “Where are you going?” (31:35), “excuse me, miss”
(31,37), “[do you] want a lift?” (31:40), to what Eric, scared, answered “Um, no, thank you”
(31:41). Despite noticing that Eric was very frightened, they kept on pestering him by asking
questions such as “Have you got a penis, Miss?” (31:44). A few seconds later, they stopped the
car and started punching him, to which Eric, shaking, replied “This isn’t me, it’s just a costume
[…] I was going to see a film with a friend” (32:05). This fact sparks a turning point in the
series because from this scene onwards, Eric is scared to display queer masculinity, at least the
next two episodes. He completely changes and starts to wear ‘normal’ clothes as it is expected
from teenage ‘normative’ boys, because being queer and thus, “different or out of what has
traditionally or ordinarily been expected” (Poole 2013, 280) becomes an obstacle for him.
Eric’s queer masculinity is also represented by his rejection towards binaries. Even
though Eric’s sex is masculine, his gender can be perceived as non-binary since he does not
define himself as either a man or a woman. Gender and sexuality, as the queer theorist Eve
Sedgwick explains, are “inextricable […] in that each can be expressed only in terms of the
other […], in […] Western culture gender and sexuality represent two analytic axes that may
productively be imagined as being as distinct from one another as, say, gender and class, or
class and race” (Sedgwick 1990, 30). Eric is not only judged for his performance of queer
masculinity, but also discriminated for his skin color or sexual orientation. All these categories

12
intersect with each other and lead him to feel excluded, disempowered and unsure of who he
really is. However, many queer theorists have failed “to deal adequately with how sexuality and
gender intersect with other facets of our identities: race, ethnicity, nationality, (dis)ability, age,
class and religious affiliation” (Giffney and O’Rourke 2009, 3). For this reason,
intersectionality plays a significant role in the development and portrayal of Eric’s masculinity
throughout the series.
Еric’s traditional family, of West African descendant and members of the Black Church,
do not support his gender and sexual orientation. His father is confused about the performativity
of his son’s masculinity and several times suggests him to change and “grow up”, to “find a
job” and “take responsibility” to “see what the real world is all about”, as if his son were living
in an unreal world (Nunn 2019, 37:56, episode 3). In addition, his father tends to object to the
way Eric dresses as he believes it is “not safe” (09:00, episode 5). The most remarkable moment
of Eric’s development as a queer character is when his father drives him to the high school’s
ceremony and tells him: “Eric, wait, are you sure you want to go in like this?” (33:35, episode
7) , “When I first came to this country […] I had to do so much to fit in, […] I never wanted
the same for my children, […] I wanted you to be proud and strong […] but you are so
different[…] it makes me feel scared for you” (33:46), to what Eric answers: “Your fear doesn’t
help me, Dad. It makes me feel weak” (34:06). Eric claims his queer masculinity telling him
“This is me, […] I’ll be hurt either way, isn’t it better to be who I am?” (34:21). Finally, Eric’s
father tells him that maybe he is learning from his son’s bravery (34:42), which shows that
actually he is not homophobic, but he just worries for his son’s safety. It has been proven that
“black gay men not only face racism within the gay community but also face homophobia
within the Black community” (Brown 2008, 2), however, in Eric’s case, he has not faced
homophobia within the black community. The only obstacle he had to go through was that his
family, and specifically his father, were concerned about his safety and well-being since they
found it very hard to be respected in the country and were afraid for their son, since he, besides
suffering racial discrimination, could also suffer other types of discrimination by being gay and
queer.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, it could be argued that Sex Education (2019) reflects and questions the portrayal
of different types of masculinities that previous TV shows had not addressed as common in our
current society, such as Adam’s toxic masculinity, Otis’ fragile masculinity and Eric’s queer
masculinity. The series portrays Adam’s toxic masculinity through the physical and verbal

13
violence towards Eric Effiong, as the latter does not match with the accepted stereotypes of
hegemonic masculinity. In fact, the patriarchal attitude of Adam’s father enhances his
aggressive behavior and promotes his toxic masculinity. In doing so, Adam feels the need to
correspond to his father’s accepted vision of a ‘normal man’, and, therefore oppresses his sexual
desire towards Eric. By contrast, Otis’ masculinity is considered to be fragile as he suffers
anxiety when unsuccessfully tries to fulfill the standards of the currently accepted hegemonic
masculinity. Despite the fact that his mother is a sex therapist, he hates seeking for her help
when he has trouble experiencing and performing masculinity as he feels ashamed. Eric, in turn,
represents a more complex conflict when performing queer masculinity as his sexual
orientation, race and gender intersect, inducing him to suffer consequences such as bullying,
harassment and constant discrimination. Not only his classmate Adam bullies him, but he is
also attacked by men on the street because of his dress-code. Moreover, at first, his father does
not accept his queerness because he worries for his safety and suggests him to dress more decent
in order not to be a target of harassment. Nevertheless, in the end, his father accepts and admires
him for his bravery. This dissertation proves that in society all those individuals who reproduce
a masculinity different from the hegemonic one, and therefore, do not meet the accepted male
stereotypes, are going to be considered outsiders and, in many cases, may feel excluded.
Nonetheless, the fight for women's rights and the LGTBIQ collective, as well as the fight
against racism, has led to a change in society's point of view and as a result, many people are
willing to tolerate new masculinities that have emerged in the twenty-first century.

14
 6. Works cited
Allen, Louisa. 2007. “Sensitive and Real Macho All at The Same Time.” Men and
Masculinities 10 (2):137-152. Accessed July 3, 2020.
doi:10.1177/1097184x05284221.
Battle, Juan, and Colin Ashley. 2008. “Intersectionality, Heteronormativity, and Black
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Families.” Black Women,
Gender Families 2 (1):1-24. Accessed March 29, 2020.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/blacwomegendfami.2.1.0001.
Butler, Judith. 1988. “Performative Acts And Gender Constitution: An Essay In
Phenomenology And Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40 (4):519-531. Accessed
March 10, 2020. doi:10.2307/3207893.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism And The Subversion Of Identity. 1st ed.
London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 2011. “Your Behaviour Creates Your Gender.” Bigthink. Directed by Jonathan
Fowler, aired January 13. Published June 11, 2011. YouTube. Accessed August 27,
2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7o2LYATDc
Brown, Clarence Ezra. 2008. “Racism in the Gay Community and Homophobia in the Black
Community: Negotiating the Gay Black Male Experience.” Thesis. University of
Virginia http://hdl.handle.net/10919/33121
Clarke, Victoria, and Kevin Turner. 2007. “V. Clothes Maketh The Queer? Dress, Appearance
And The Construction Of Lesbian, Gay And Bisexual Identities.” Feminism &
Psychology 17 (2):267-276. Accessed July 29, 2020. doi:10.1177/0959353507076561.
Cole, Shaun. 2015. “Looking Queer? Gay Men’s Negotiations Between Masculinity And
Femininity In Style And Dress In The Twenty-First Century.” Clothing Cultures 2
(2):193-208. Accessed July 8, 2020. doi:10.1386/cc.2.2.193_1.
Connell, Raewyn W. 2000. “The Politics of Change in Masculinity.” In The Men And The Boys,
edited by Allen & Unwin, 199-208. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Connell, Raewyn W. 2000. “Arms and The Man: The Question of Peace.” In The Men And The
Boys, edited by Allen & Unwin, 212-223. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Connell, Raewyn W. 2005. “The Social Organization of Masculinity.” In Masculinities. 2nd
ed., 67-81. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking

15
 The Concept.” Gender & Society 19 (6):829-859. Accessed August 16, 2020.
doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.
DiMuccio, Sarah H, and Eric D Knowles. 2019. “The Political Significance Of Fragile
Masculinity.” Current Opinion In Behavioral Sciences 34:25-28.
doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.010.
Giffney, Noreen, and Michael O'Rourke. 2009. Introduction to The Ashgate Research
Companion To Queer Theory, 1-17. Ireland: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. “The Self and Its Other.” In Stigma: Notes On The Management Of
Spoiled Identity. 1st ed. United States of America: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Hanke, Robert. 2006. “Theorizing Masculinity With/In The Media”. Communication Theory 8
(2):183-201. Accessed April 3, 2020. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00217.x.
Hennessy, Rosemary. 1993. “Queer Theory: A Review Of The ‘Differences’ Special Issue And
Wittig's ‘The Straight Mind’.” Signs: Journal Of Women In Culture And Society 18
(4):964-973. Accessed August 10, 2020. doi:10.1086/494854.
Jagose, Annamarie. 1996. Queer Theory: An Introduction. Melbourne: Melbourne University
Publishing.
Jordan, Ana. 2019. Introduction to The New Politics Of Fatherhood: Men’s movements and
masculinities, 1-25. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Joseph, Lauren J., and Pamela Black. 2012. “Who's The Man? Fragile Masculinities, Consumer
Masculinities, And The Profiles Of Sex Work Clients.” Men and Masculinities 15
(5):486-506. Accessed July 25, 2020. doi:10.1177/1097184x12458591.
King, Angela. 2004. “The Prisoner Of Gender: Foucault And The Disciplining Of The Female
Body.” Journal Of International Women's Studies 5(2): 29-39. Accessed March 25,
2020. http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol5/iss2/4.
Kupers, Terry A. 2005. “Toxic Masculinity As A Barrier To Mental Health Treatment In
Prison.” Journal Of Clinical Psychology 61 (6):713-724. Accessed April 3, 2020.
doi:10.1002/jclp.20105.
McMahon, Anthony. 1998. “Blokus Domesticus: The Sensitive New Age Guy In Australia.”
Journal Of Australian Studies 22 (56):147-157. Accessed April 5, 2020.
doi:10.1080/14443059809387369.
Nunn, Laurie. 2019. Sex Education, season 1. United Kingdom: Eleven Film. Netflix. Accessed
August 30, 2020.
Piantato, G. 2016. “How Has Queer Theory Influenced The Ways We Think About Gender?.”
Working Paper Of Public Health 5 (1):1-11. Accessed March 28, 2020.

16
 doi:10.4081/wpph.2016.6948.
Poole, Jay. 2013. “Queer Representations of Gay Males And Masculinities In The
Media.” Sexuality & Culture 18 (2):279-290. Accessed August 1, 2020.
doi:10.1007/s12119-013-9197-y.
Rawat, Preeti S. 2014. “Patriarchal Beliefs, Women's Empowerment, And General Well-
Being.” Vikalpa: The Journal For Decision Makers 39 (2):43-56. Accessed April 11,
2020. doi:10.1177/0256090920140206.
Schut, Kimberley. 2019. “Love Through the Ages: Redefining Romance in Sex Education,
Wanderlust and Grace and Frankie.” Thesis., University of Leiden.
Sculos, Bryant W. 2017. “Who’s Afraid Of ‘Toxic Masculinity’?.” Class Race Corporate
Power 5 (3):1-5. Accessed April 20, 2020. doi:10.25148/crcp.5.3.006517.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Introduction to Epistemology of The Closet, 1-67. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Shadijanova, Diyora. 2019. “Sex Education’s Unapologetic Diversity Is What Makes It So
Powerful”. Last modified January 17. Accessed March 16, 2020.
https://thetab.com/uk/2019/01/17/sex-education-netflix-diversity-89932
Vandello, Joseph A., and Jennifer K. Bosson. 2013. “Hard Won And Easily Lost: A Review
And Synthesis Of Theory And Research On Precarious Manhood.” Psychology Of Men
& Masculinity 14 (2):101-113. Accessed March 2, 2020. doi:10.1037/a0029826.
Walby, Sylvia. 1990. Introduction to Theorizing Patriarchy, 1-24. Oxford: Blackwell.

17